Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?

An answer to a blog post on Theo Geek:

http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/02/homosexuals-shall-not-inherit-kingdom.html

It is only in recent times that "western" culture has considered the idea that homosexual attraction is normal and homosexual activity does not have at least some taint on it.  In our day, those who are afflicted with same sex attraction are trying to answer the Scripture's prohibition of homosexual activity by such efforts as are represented in the above-linked article, to wit, to take some of the Scripture's statements regarding homosexuality and question whether they are truly addressing the subject of homosexuality at all. It is never wrong to question our understanding of Scripture any more than it would be wrong to question our understanding of any area of knowledge; it is always possible that our understanding is wrong or at least capable of improvement.  But when doing so, we must make a full and honest investigation of it.

In the materials I have read, the questioning of the traditional Christian view of homosexuality centers on two things:  First, it is stated that the Old Testament prohibitions of homosexual activity are included with such laws as a prohibition on trimming the boundaries of one's beard, therefore, we need feel no more conscience-stricken over homosexual activity than we would over shaving. If that were the only Scripture dealing with homosexuality, then Christians would have a difficult time making a case against homosexuality.

The second challenge to the standard Christian prohibition comes from articles like the one I have linked. They question whether the words in the New Testament often translated "effeminate" or "homosexual" actually mean homosexual.  Again, there is nothing wrong with questioning our understanding of the words of the New Testament, but we must always do so honestly.  Moreover, we must be careful that we have taken into account all the Scriptures which address homosexuality.

Even if we dismiss the Old Testament texts and the New Testament texts containing the disputed words,  there are at least two condemnations of homosexual activity remaining which cannot be honestly disputed.  The first is Romans 1.26, 27.  Beginning in verse 18, Paul begins to teach how that God's judgment often takes the form of removing the natural restraints of conscience so that they begin to approve of things that a proper conscience would condemn.  Among the sinful things from which God removes natural restraints is one described in vv. 26, 27 as giving people over to "dishonorable passions" which are described as women changing the natural use of the man into one "contrary to nature."  In verse 27, Paul describes the same activity among men as "having left the natural use of the female, they were inflamed with desire for one another, male with male..."  There is no doubt about the definition of any of the words in this text nor can there be any question that he is talking about sexual activity. Nor can one confuse the issue by claiming the text address only rapacious homosexuality. It is simple homosexual attraction/activity that is described. Furthermore, there can be no question that Paul is teaching that homosexuality is against nature and to be given over to it is evidence of God removing His restraining hand of conscience so that men and women descend ever further into depravity gaining for themselves a just condemnation.

The other passage is the 7th verse of the book of Jude. This passage not only describes homosexual conduct without using words whose meaning can be questioned, it completely discounts the argument of some that the sin of those in Sodom and Gomorrah was actually the sin of in-hospitality.  James refers to their sin as sexual immorality, using the word which has been brought into our language in the word pornography.  And if any wish to argue that "porn" in Greek can refer to any sort of immorality, Jude's next phrase makes it specific: the men of Sodom were “going away after strange flesh.”  This echoes Paul’s words about leaving the natural pattern of human sexuality (going away) and going for something unnatural (strange flesh). 

There is an irony in the text.  The word translated “strange” is the Greek word “heteros” from which we get our prefix for “heterosexual.”  In Greek, “homo” means “same” and “heteros” means “other or different.”  So what we refer to as homosexuals,” Jude calls “heterosexuals” or more strictly “hetero-fleshists.”  The difference in our use of the terms as contrasted with Jude’s is that when we use homo or hetero to describe a person’s sexual orientation and/or activity, we are comparing a person’s own sex to the sex to which he/she is attracted.  So homosexual means one who is attracted to and/or sexually engages with his/her own sex.  But Jude is using the word heteros as a contrast between what sex a person SHOULD be attracted to and/or engage with and the sex to which he/she is actually attracted to and/or engages with.  So, Jude was referring to men who were attracted to and/or sexually engaged with people of the sex “other than” the sex to which they were supposed to be attracted to.  In other words, Jude’s “hetero-fleshists” were homosexuals.  

So, even if everything said in the above-linked article is true (and I am not affirming that it is), there is still content in the Scriptures that undeniably sets forth homosexuality as a deviant form of human sexuality and is condemned by the God of Scripture as sin.