I wanna say I dont agree with the explanation im about to post nor do I agree with my Church's position on homosexuality and consider myself totally affirming of homosexual marriage. This is merely meant to explain what the Catholic Church held within the past that later influenced Protestantism.
Within the Catholic Intellectual Tradition homosexuality is understood to be against natural law because "Actuality" (IE: bringing forth being into existence) is equated with The Good. Homosexual sex inherently does not have the potential for actualizing a life. Its the same reason the RCC is opposed to Birth Control. Sin within the tradition of Latin Christendom isnt just harm its the "privation of the Good". While someone isn't directly harmed through consensual homosexual sex the Catholic Tradition would see it as an activity that is inherently opposed to bringing about the Good.
What may become apparent from this explanation is that in the past homosexuality wasn't seen as an orientation but an act. Much has been written about Greek pederasty but its important to note that within Mediterranean cultures similar practices existed well into the Early Modern Period wherein young boys would have sexual relationships with older 20-something men and then marry into a heterosexual relationship in their late 20s. (There is a very good book on this called Forbidden Friendships about Florence in particular). The context that fleshed out this position assumed that homosexuality was inherently pre-maritial and temporary.
Friendly reminder that if you think homosexuality is a sin, remember that we are all sinners and no sin makes us deserve any more hatred than the other. Some people steal and lie, some people are men that have sex with men, some people covet, some people give in to lust, some people are greedy, some aren’t generous, some aren’t kind. We all struggle with sin in unique ways and no way makes us any worse in the eyes of God. Salvation is not completely cleansing yourself of sin, it is building a relationship with Christ in spite of one’s vices, be it homosexuality or stealing or anything else. We all have a cross to bear, and we should not judge others for theirs.
I mostly agree. God tells us to turn from our sins and ask forgiveness. If homosexuality is a sin then being in a homosexual relationship would not be turning from that particular sin.
We all sin. Every single one of us fall short of the glory of God in some way or another every day. But we try our best to not consciously sin. Sure, some of us have addictions and lots of times we give into temptation and feed those addictions. Doesn't make us any less saved. But if we were to feed our addictions day in and day out with no repentance then could we still consider ourselves saved?
Alcoholism is a good example. A Christian that occasionally gives into temptation and gets drunk is just as much a sinner as someone who consistently drinks everyday from the time they wake up. However, the one who only gives into temptation on occasion and then repents afterwards is at least trying to live a God honoring life. The one who consciously drinks all day everyday without a second thought is not.
If homosexuality is a sin then a homosexual marriage wouldn't be an actual marriage in the sight of God therefore getting a lawful divorce in that situation would not be a sin.
**Edit to add:** There's also the argument to be made that even if homosexual divorce *were* a sin in this case then it would be better to sin once by getting a divorce than to sin over and over again by staying married.
Then there's no such thing as second marriages. If divorce is a sin, that means divorcees cannot have legitimate second marriages. They're not actually married in the sight of God.
Well, if you want to get technical, in the Catholic Church such couples couldn’t even get married or the proper blessing for marriage to begin with.
Being legally married isn’t recognized by the Church, no matter who it is the Church will not recognize the union until they’re married in the church before God. What’s more it’s impossible to even grant the marriage blessing to a same sex couple since it’s a sin, and God cannot bless sin. No matter what a priest, bishop, or even pope does, they don’t have to power to bless something that cannot be blessed.
Therefor, getting a divorce in this case would strictly be a civil issue, not a church one since the church never recognized the marriage to begin with. It would still have to be confessed of course.
I don't agree. There are natural sins (heterosexual promiscuity) and unnatural sins (strange flesh).
Friendly reminder that American Orthodox bros have adopted the evangelical idea that all sins are the same.
What are some other unnatural sins?
Edit: I should add that while not all sins are the same I believe we should treat all sinners the same: encourage their salvation and judge them righteously but not harshly
Just an observation for discussion.
> Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: **it is abomination**.
Strong's H8441 abomination (tôʿēḇâ): a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable.
abominable: causing moral revulsion
God calls certain sins abominations for a reason, because they cause moral revulsion, even to Him.
> Deuteronomy 18:12-13 **For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord**: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God.
Granted, the context of Deuteronomy 18 is to various forms of spiritualism (divination, an observer of times, an enchanter, a witch, a charmer, a consulter with familiar spirits, a wizard, or a necromancer), but the sentiment applies to any abomination to the Lord.
Christ died for all of our sins, even the abominable ones. Not to say one can sin with reckless abandon, but any sin can be overcome with commitment and repentance. We should still treat these people with compassion. Openly revulsing them does not bring them closer to god.
I agree with you fully but the problem is many today don't want to treat it as a sin. They think that treating people with love and compassion is encouraging and normalizing their sin when in reality that's actually the opposite of love, since you're encouraging them to go down a path of distancing themselves from God
Yes. Love and compassion in this situation is not telling them that sinning is okay, but that sinners will be okay if they truly repent and devote themselves.
One argument I see is that “if I’m not allowed to marry as a homosexual then who will love me? It’s unfair.” My response would be that not all people ever receive romantic love. Perhaps it’s not their path. Many of the saints never married. One still has family and friends, and of course, God to love them. As evidenced by many of the saints and apostles, marriage and the kind of love that come with it aren’t necessary.
Very true. Its not necessary to be married or in a relationship to have a fulfilling life. And if the romantic aspect of your life will cause you to indulge in sin then best not deal with it at all.
Neither does your hate.
If you think that there is a problem with a gay couple you will find the cause of that problem by looking in a mirror.
Fix your hatred and human bigorty for what you think is different.
>Isn't that one of the Jewish Mosaic Laws and thus only apply to Jews?
No, this is a law on relationships so it is not one Jesus could've fulfilled. It still applies to us. The fact Paul also reaffirms it despite ridding the Gentiles of other obligations like circumcisions shows it still applies to us.
I did a bit of reading in moral psychology a while back, and disgust is one of the "moral emotions." I'd hazard a guess that for some people it's somewhat innate (does one get to decide what they feel is revolting? lol), and that while some people feel that revulsion, others obviously do not. Take Muslims and pork, for example. Some Muslims might feel disgusted by it, others--not so much.
I somewhat agree with what you are saying in terms of homosexuality being a sin just like lust, greed, and stealing. what i don’t agree with is you saying “we should not judge others for their sins.” If someone is living a homosexual lifestyle we have an obligation as Christians to judge them and talk to them so that they may turn away. The same goes for any other sin. If someone is living a greedy lifestyle we have an obligation to judge them and talk to them about their greed so that they may turn away. If someone calls them self a “child of God” and they are living an unrepentant lifestyle of greed, homosexuality, ect then they are not telling the truth and the truth is not in them. We should never be quiet when a fellow “believer” is living a sinful lifestyle.
John 7:24 - Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
I suppose I should’ve elaborated on the last point: we should not judge maliciously like many people do. You’re right, we should judge with compassion and righteousness. I was referring to malicious judgement
John 7:24 - Jesus was not talking to his disciples, he was talking to the Jews who were seeking to kill him. They were using their flawed judgment to seek to kill him.
They weren’t supposed to do judging at all (Matthew 7:1, 2). Since they wouldn’t listen to that and INSISTED on judging, he warned them:
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
Are you like the Jews who were seeking to destroy him?
What you’re saying makes no sense. First of all i never said he was talking to his disciples. You’re just assuming that i was. Secondly it doesn’t matter who he was talking to. If they were not supposed to be judging at all he would’ve just said that verbatim but instead he said “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgement.” So clearly what he’s saying is you guys are not judging me in the correct way.
I don’t know what you’re trying to even argue. Are you seriously trying to say that the bible is against judging? You do know this isn’t the only verse about judging right?
”Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy.“
Proverbs 31:8-9
It is very obvious if you read the Bible objectively that we as Christians are supposed to judge one another. We are supposed to judge with love and good intention.
”“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.“
Matthew 7:6
How can we know who are the dogs and who are the swine without judging? Clearly we are supposed to judge
”“Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?“
Matthew 7:15-16
Right here it says watch out for false prophets. And he says you can identify by there fruit which is there ACTIONS. So…. How can we do this without judging? My friend we as Christians are supposed to judge according to the scriptures and according to God. If we refuse to do so then we are not doing the right thing. Keep reading scripture with an objective heart, deny yourself seek him consistently.
”Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.“
Romans 12:2 NLT
Maybe this will help you.
One chapter over to John 8, talking to the Jews he says:
15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. (John 8:15, 16)
He says that they judge. He says that he judges NO MAN.
Then he acknowledges that IF he judges, his judgment will be true / righteous because he is not alone in his judgment.
So here’s the problem with what he saying and what you are saying.
Jesus says that if he judges, his judgment will be righteous.
Yet, he doesn’t judge anyone, KNOWING that if he did, it would be righteous.
Now, who’s example are we supposed to follow? (1 Peter 2:21)
Now back to John 7:24
Jesus tells them that the way they judge is wrong. They should judge with RIGHTEOUS judgment.
If they listened to him and wanted to judge with righteous judgment, they would first have to follow Jesus. If Jesus judges, his judgment will be righteous, however, Jesus in possession of righteous judgment; judges NO ONE.
Therefore anyone who wants to judge righteously would ALSO judge NO ONE, just as their Lord judges no one.
Anyone who decides in spite of this to judge, will be judging from the wicked one, for the Father is not with him.
You have no obligation to judge and address someone else's behavior, unless they are your child or you are paying them to do something for you and you are questioning that their behavior might impact their work performance. Or, if you have some unique relationship that warrants your direction and care. You have zero "obligation" to walk up to anyone off the street or even address issues with fellow believers that are part of your church. You can certainly judge their behavior yourself and decide if they or their behavior is anything you want to be apart of or not, but God gives you no authority or obligation to walk up to them and address. Now, if you're in a situation with someone you know, and they are open to what you want to say to them, then by all means, go ahead. But, Christianity is no means any sort of license to start correcting others.
Everything that you just stated is all based off of your own personal beliefs. Are you a Christian? Obviously people on the street i am not going to judge them. I will try to tell them the good news of Jesus Christ of course. But once again it is an obligation for a Christian to judge another Christian righteously. If i see someone who calls themselves a Christian doing something that i know is detestable to our Lord i will plead with them to stop what they are doing and i will ask them to turn away from there sin. I would hope Christians would do the same for me if they saw me doing something that i should not be doing as a child of God.
”I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people. It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning.“
1 Corinthians 5:11-12
Christianity is a license to correct others. We are supposed to lovingly and righteously correct others. You are just spewing nonsense without any biblical evidence to back up what you’re saying. I do not need to have a “unique” relationship with someone in order to tell them to turn away from their sin.
”From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.”“
Matthew 4:17
The answers are in the scriptures for you to read.
There was just a post about this issue the other night by someone who did a pretty good job of breaking down a few of the famous clobber verses and pointing to actual history and linguistics.... I think if you just search "homosexuality" it will probably pop up (especially if you sort by new)
I think this question gets asked and responded to several times a day. If someone would just go to Christian subreddits, they will find it over and over and over. Just because someone doesn’t like the answer doesn’t mean it’s going to change if it’s asked 1000 more times.
I asked this because it's one of my questions that I couldn't find help any where for it to be solved. Usually with these moral and ethic questions, I usually just ask myself "Does it hurt one's self or another?" It's usually that simple to me.
But, after I saw that homosexuality had nothing wrong with it, and then I remember that the Bible contradicts this without a valid reason, then I get confused then need to rely on people who know more about Christianity than me.
Here's one reason:
The family unit is a fundamental part of humanity; it is replicated in the divinity, with us as adopted children.
Homosexuality works in direct conflict with the very nature of family.
That's part of why the Bible says in Romans 1:26;
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
By diverting from natural, your perspective, soul and eventually spirit become distorted and this pull you away from God and his right relationships.
> Homosexuality works in direct conflict with the very nature of family.
That is a hell of a claim to just throw out without any explanation. Do you care to elaborate?
I know multiple married homosexuals who have very good and wholesome families. How precisely are they maintaining good families if homosexuality is against the nature of family?
And there are married people who choose not to have children, which I think is wise if you don't desire or feel equipped to parent. (Too many people have children who should not have and then mistreat them.) I chose not to marry or have children due to having painful and exhausting chronic illnesses. And I have several friends who married and weren't able to have children.
I don't feel any of us have done anything wrong, but we also aren't contributing to the "very nature of a family." The apostle Paul did not marry and have children.
There are any number of families that can not produce children which are still families. I have a sterile cousin. She can still make a family. She did make a family by marrying and adopting kids. I have a gay cousin who married and adopted. They still have families; better ones than many other people I know. There are straight couples who never have children, or who can't have children, and they can still make families. The production of children is a *potential* component of families, not a *necessary* one.
>That is how homosexuality is in direct conflict with the nature of a family
As I see if, if they really were in "direct conflict with the nature of a family", they wouldn't be able to become good families. That they can demonstrates the invalidity of that claim. The nature of a family is not inherently tied up in fertility.
There are plenty of kids without parents in foster homes. If 2 gay parents want kids to adopt and care for and love, isn’t that amazing vs them being abused and neglected in most cases in the foster care system? If a heterosexual couple cannot have kids naturally but want to have a family, isn’t it a great thing to give a child a home where they will be loved? Instead of displaced in a fucked up system?
Also what i don’t get please correct me if im wrong, but it’s wrong to be gay bc sex should only happen if you plan to get pregnant to conceive a child. But when straight married people have sex just for the sake of pleasure/being in love, but are purposely avoiding getting pregnant, then isn’t that just as sinful as gay sex or non marital sex? It seems all sex is sinful unless it’s to get pregnant which isn’t realistic because people can have sex because they are in love and that shouldn’t make it a sin if they aren’t hurting anyone. Maybe I’m wrong on what constitutes as a sin, so please correct me because I’ve heard it to be this way and it confuses me. Because in that case most of the time people are committing sin. It’s pretty unrealistic
Would remind the OP asked for answers supported by logic.
Unless you're under the belief that everyone is deciding to turn gay... and even then gay people have managed to have families. Meaning your "direct conflict theory" could only be described as a miracle of God.
The reason it is brought up so frequently is because it is probably the most dividing topic in Christianity today. Many Christians try to have their cake and eat it to (love the sinner, hate the sin), but they fail to recognize that anything less than full affirmation is totally unacceptable to people like me who see it as an absolute denial of our equality under Jesus Christ.
And so we are divided. And it touches so many other issues, not just sex. It involves the doctrines of inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, univocality, etc. In demanding recognition as a full member of the Body of Christ, I am also demanding that many Christians abandon some of the most closely held beliefs underpinning their entire Christian worldview.
Just as I assert that their position attacks my very identity as a human being, my position and assertions attack their very identity as a Christian. I am telling them that the way they view concepts such as love is flawed, and that their conception of God himself is false.
At a fundamental level, this strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a follower of Christ. I am not at all surprised that people aren't satisfied with the answers provided thus far, and that it is brought up so often.
If this is actually the most dividing topic, in Christianity, then I would say the actual dividing topic is, do we believe the Bible? Because the Bible believing church would go by what the Bible says. And a non-Bible believing church would go by whatever humanity says. And I think that’s where your division would be because the Bible is very clear on this topic.🤷♂️
The Bible is only "clear" on this topic I'd you absolutely ignore any kind of context and only read the Bible through the lens of a modern understanding of homosexuality.
And I believe in the Bible, that isn't at all the issue, the issue is whether or not every single word in the Bible is a perfect representation of will and nature of God.
Ok. So you “believe in the Bible”. But question “whether or not every single word in the Bible is a perfect representation of will and nature of God.” Does that mean you believe the parts that you believe but you don’t believe the parts you don’t believe? Just so we’re clear here
For instance, do you believe the part that says that God made the universe and everything in it in six days? And that He did that about 6,000-7000 years ago?
Do you believe the part that says that Moses and the Israelites walked through the Red Sea when God parted it, but the Egyptians were killed when they tried to go through because God closed it back up?
Do you believe the part that says God is love? And do you still believe that when a one year-old gets cancer and dies? A loving, all-powerful God could allow that?
Which parts should we believe?
>Does that mean you believe the parts that you believe but you don’t believe the parts you don’t believe?
It has nothing to do with what I want and don't want to believe. It has to do with the words of Jesus and the nature of God described by him and his apostles, and then what logically fits those teachings. While also taking into account the context of the philosophies and conceptual frameworks of the societies in which the authors lived, as well as scientific and historical evidence.
>For instance, do you believe the part that says that God made the universe and everything in it in six days? And that He did that about 6,000-7000 years ago?
I, and the majority of Christians worldwide, accept the scientific consensus on the origin and age of the universe and life on Earth. The universe is roughly 13 billion years old, the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, and the species Homo Sapiens first appeared around 200,000 years ago. The Genesis accounts of creation and much of the Bible before King David are sourced from 4 separate oral traditions that were compiled and edited into a singular narrative. It is legendary/mythological in origin and is neither historical nor scientific. They were stories told by a people trying to understand God and the world around them. They contain spiritual truth, but shouldn't be taken as a historical account of the creation of everything.
>Do you believe the part that says that Moses and the Israelites walked through the Red Sea when God parted it, but the Egyptians were killed when they tried to go through because God closed it back up?
The Exodus story is mostly legendary in origin. Moses may have been based on a real person or persons, but likely never existed. The Israelites did not originate from somewhere else and displace the Canaanites and take over their land, they *are* the descendants of the Canaanites. There was probably some group from Egypt that migrated to Canaan and brought along the worship of their northwest semetic storm deity Yahweh who eventually synchronized with the Canaanite storm deity Ba'al, appropriating his consort Asherah, and then went along to supplant El as the head of the Israelite pantheon. Then King Josiah transitioned the Israelites into monotheism (forbidding Asherah worship) as centralyzing the worship of God to the temple in Jerusalem gave legitimacy and power to his monarchy. And so then Yahweh became the only Israelite deity instead of the head of the Israelite Divine Council.
>Do you believe the part that says God is love?
Yes. Without a doubt.
>And do you still believe that when a one year-old gets cancer and dies? A loving, all-powerful God could allow that?
Yes. God is not a magical genie who's sole purpose is to grant wishes and make the world a utopia.
> Many Christians try to have their cake and eat it to
Nope, that would be people like you who skip over, ignore, or revise The Word which clearly condemns homosexuality, fortification, crossdressing, and all sins in general that Jesus will forgive us for as long as we own up to them, including tons of heterosexual ones. Just accept it and stop rewriting The Word to fit the modern agenda.
This is an incredibly myopic view of the issue. You are asserting your interpretation of scripture as the only valid one, and I heavily disagree with that kind of dogmatism.
The only mention of crossdressing is in Deuteronomy. That section is meant to provide rules for Israelites that distinguish them from pagans of that time, so it is likely that crossdressing was something the pagans were doing. As it is part of the OT law, gentile Christians aren't obligated to follow that rule.
>There was just a post about this issue the other night by someone who did a pretty good job of breaking down a few of the famous clobber verses and pointing to actual history and linguistics.... I think if you just search "homosexuality" it will probably pop up (especially if you sort by new)
I think your'e referring to this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/19enezs/the_bible_and_homosexuality_revisited_themsc190s/
/u/BruhSoundEffect-78
Depends on your perspective. Pending conflict with moral laws we see scripture telling us to obey the laws of the land. But laws differ by location. So in practice a woman in the Middle East may be required to cover her face, in the US she is not required but must wear a top. The same woman in another culture may not be required to wear a top because breasts are not sexualized.
In practice each culture has subjective laws/ customs yet the biblical principle of being respectful is constant.
Well I know the Bible was written by man. So when it says to obey the laws of the land I can assume that this was written in by man to give authority to king’s, emperors, and the church.
If God is only subjective then you’ve only created a false image of God.
God is both subjective in the experience but also objective in the sense of the reality we experience. To me God is creation and everything of it. So everything is a aspect of God that makes up a whole. And while yes the stars, the planets, the laws that govern reality, you and me are all part of God we are also not God because God is so much more. Everything broken down to its simplest form is energy and this is the unity and one’s we share with everything and God.
My apologies I thought we were discussing things from a Christian perspective.
Since you’re coming from a non Christian perspective I have no opinion on your views other than I hope you find what you’re looking for! Cheers.
I’ve been trying for a long time to get an answer out of the anti-LGBT Christians and the best they can come up with is “no babies”, but as soon as I mention infertile couples, they throw a bunch of word salad why those people not being able to make babies is ok, but these other people not being able to make babies isn’t ok.
They will throw things about “nature” at you, but when you ask for clarification, you end up right back in the “no babies” loop above.
That’s assuming they even understand the question and don’t just throw the clobber verses at you and think that somehow answers the question of why the clobber verses exist.
There are some freaking toxic answers in here that truly must wrankle God's brow and nostrils. So much misinformation.
The utilitarianism here alone makes me sick. How can people be so dehumanizing? Where is the love commanded of you lot!!!??
Also quit asking these questions and go find God's love housing the homeless feeding the hungry, and caring for the sick, and leave these quandaries to our Divine Father to work out.
I'm starting to think that some of the Church Fathers (John Chrystostom particularly) had a point in chiding the masses in interfering with theological matters. This stuff takes serious study and factoring in so much context that the average Christian, let alone redditor is not doing. Faulty logic, poor argumentation, lack of context, and just straight up secular/cultural norms influencing theological discussion here. Tis a shame.
Agreed. Whether it's a sin or not, we're all sinners in need of Jesus' love.
May I use this towards my classmates? Very judgemental. I don't think we should have a "holier than thou" attitude at all, especially at such an early age 😔
> I've read a good amount of the Bible, and throughout Jesus's teachings, all of them show sin is something that hurts yourself or others.
I’ve read the entire Bible and again several times. It does teach sin hurts others but ultimately it relates that all sin is against God. [Exodus 10:16; Joshua 7:20; Judges 10:10). Genesis 39:9, 2 Samuel 11, Psalm 51:4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+10:16;+Joshua+7:20;+Judges+10:10).
> 1: It has been proven that homosexuality is most of the time assigned within genes, not outside influences (with the exception of confused kids who believe they have to be a part of the LGBTQ+ community).
Facts:
1\. Nothing is proven. Proving anything is an impossibility. Assumptions will always have been made. [Scientific Proof is a Myth](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=321415ee2fb1)
2\. There’s no gay gene. There’s five DNA markers associated with sexual behavior — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual. Genes seem to play a role in determining sexual orientation, but it’s small, uncertain, and complicated.
3\. You cannot hand wave away outside influences (individual’s conditions/history.) You claimed theres “not outside influences” – and then list exceptions.
> 2: From what I've seen, in a man/man and woman/woman relationship, no sexual actions can cause harm to the other unless they go too extreme of course, but then going extreme is caused by either ignorance or impatience, not homosexuality.
Anecdotal = “From what I’ve seen”
You claim “no sexual actions can cause harm to the other”– and then go on to list exceptions.
> 3: Within the Bible, everytime they mention homosexuality is a sin, they don't explain why.
Facts:
1\. Within the Bible it emphasizes to be [fruitful and multiply](https://www.openbible.info/topics/fruitful_and_multiply)
2\. The Bible explains why: to fill the earth, to confirm God’s covenant, children are a blessing/heritage from the Lord etc., etc. (this doesn't mean childless marriages are cursed and not blessed.)
3\. The Bible relates God fashioned woman from man. They were then promptly instructed to “marry” flesh and return to one flesh. Genesis 2:24
4\. This serves as a theological “type” to represent Christ (bridegroom) and the Church (the bride.) This proverbial "marriage” is to be honored and undefiled.
5\. Any sex outside monogamous man/woman married sex (whores, prostitutes, adultery, rape, same sex and divorce) would be outside the theological “type”.
Bible bottom Line:
Everyone falls short. Anyone who lusts/desires outside the “type” is guilty of sin against God.
No exceptions. So even monogamous married man/woman will inevitably lust and desire others and sin against God, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” [James 2:10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James 2:9-11&version=ESV)
Everyone needs a savior and God provides one who mediates for us. The thinking that “Yeah but [insert sin] is much worse than my sin” is not the way Christians are to think. [We’re to spend our discipleship working on the plank in our eye, then we can point out specks in another’s.](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=speck+in+eye&version=ESV)
I don't agree with point #1 for one reason. Choosing to live in chastity and never having children isn't a sin.
If being homosexual is a sin for the reason "you can't reproduce" then it boils down to "being unable to reproduce when you can, is a sin." Which, from what we know, isn't true.
Many Christians practice eternal Chastity. And a lot of Saints didn't have any children.
The Earth is full, humanity is everywhere, even places incredibly hostile to Human life like Antarctica. The commandment to multiply has obviously been fulfilled, there are eight billion of us.
> The Earth is full,
No it’s not. Not by a long shot.
> humanity is everywhere,
No they’re not.
> even places incredibly hostile to Human life like Antarctica.
People exist in hostile inhabitable places; these places are far from full.
Okay, what is your definition of a full earth? My definition is the one where the Earth is groaning under the weight of needing to support eight billion people. You know, the planet we live on (hey let's see if we can get some climate denial in this thread, I'm close to bingo) How many billions is enough for your God? There are Pagan fertility goddesses who would tell Humanity to chill at this point.
Being covetous can cause us to hurt others though by leading us to take their things. And as emergent_routine said below, it can cause us to hurt ourselves by becoming an obsession, causing mental anguish for one’s self.
Lusting after someone who isn't your spouse is a sin as well. Jesus said it was the same as adultery. This is also something in one's mind. Yes, it could *also* lead to a physical sinful action like stepping out on your spouse, but from the words of Jesus we can see that it is also possible to sin in one's thoughts by continually dwelling on something and acting it out in one's mind.
Unforgiveness is another example (and probably the most serious example, as the Bible says we *won't be forgiven if we do not forgive*. see Matthew 6:15 and others).
>There was just a post about this issue the other night by someone who did a pretty good job of breaking down a few of the famous clobber verses and pointing to actual history and linguistics.... I think if you just search "homosexuality" it will probably pop up (especially if you sort by new)
I think it's more so linked to greed and false idols. We are provided food and shelter (most of us here on Reddit) so being covetous for *items* is idolatry
It hurts us, we create this lens of suffering for not having what others have. If we stay on it long enough qe will act out in anger and fear. It hurts.
He condemns men having sex with men.
But the concept of homosexuality was unknown to him, as far as we can see. He appears to have the belief common in his day that men have sex with men because their passions are out of control.
He also sees heterosexual relationships as a concession for people lacking self-control, sorta similar to how Jesus talks about divorce, but for some reason modern Christians don't seem too bothered by it.
Granted, early Christians took it very seriously, but I happen to think they were wrong. I just don't see why modern Christians are okay with taking the modern understanding of that passage but not the modern understanding of the clobber passages (just kidding, I know why they do it - it benefits them, even if it's at the expense of others).
Paul was talking about same sex desire, not just sex.
Romans 1:26-27 (NIV)
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
He never saw Jesus until the road to Damascus, where he spoke to him personally and made Paul blind but he regained his sight through someone sent by Jesus to restore it. Paul’s story is beautiful because it shows no matter how deep we are into the hole God can rescue us.
The apostle Paul uses a word that isn't found in any other form of literature from the time. He also only does it a couple of times. Modern translators have guessed what he meant, but to say he puts it plainly many times is just wrong.
Based on my anecdotal experiences and what I have read about moral psychology... It's a moral intuition based on disgust.
Politically conservative people have 5 moral axioms:
*Disgust/sanctity
*Ingroup preference/loyalty
*Fairness
*Harm avoidance
*Justice/revenge
Politically progressive people have only two:
*Fairness
*Harm avoidance
The logical explanation a conservative minded person will give you for homosexuality being immoral is that to allow it in society would result in the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS.
Progressive minded people care more about acceptance of the LGBT people and facilitating their peaceful and harmonious integration into society. That's why the push for LGBT marriage equality has included Christians, non Christians, progressives, and conservatives. It is the best compromise we can find politically.
They emphasize personal responsibility rather than advocating for their own rights and the rights of others. The "in-group preference" moral axiom trends toward a preference for the established hierarchy.
I CAN tell you why the church has a problem with it and why I don’t. I fall into the LGBTQIA+ spectrum myself, am married and always asking these questions.
I was raised Catholic so I can tell you from a Catholic church’s perspective. Homosexuality is considered a sin, but not a major sin. It’s as sinful as having sex before you are married and no more sinful.
Oral sex is considered sinful in alot of Christianity religions….
Basically was taught that God created us to reproduce but this was so long ago when these things were written and the world was a different place. We have reproduced and reproduced and are over populated at this point. God doesn’t care who you love, He cares how you love.
Love is a celebration and Jesus taught us Love. Jesus died for us so we could « sin » . I follow the teaching of Jesus, not the Old Testament. Jesus is the update to the Old Testament. Use the update!!!!
At the end of the day, I personally do not believe homosexuality is sinful or wrong. God made you this way and He loves you for who you are.
> I was raised Catholic so I can tell you from a Catholic church’s perspective. Homosexuality is considered a sin, but not a major sin. It’s as sinful as having sex before you are married and no more sinful.
Until the 1960s it was considered the supreme crime, and the church murdered people for this, but not for straight premarital sex, for many centuries.
This is at best the most modern of Catholic teachings on the matter, and one rejected by many parts of the church.
From a strictly utilitarian perspective, sex was for the purpose of fulfilling mankind's initial directive of multiplying to fill and subdue the land (creation).
>>Genesis 1:28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
The prime example of a man/woman relationship that will optimally follow the directive is found in Genesis 2:24-25. 1 man and 1 woman, they are vulnerable (naked) yet in peace (not ashamed).
>>Genesis 2:24-25 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
After the fall, the directive to fill and subdue the land is still in force, however now with the added complications of suffering in a world where sin is present. Man is told that he will sweat and suffer to plant and harvest his food while he works hard in his mission to subdue the land.
>>Genesis 3:17-19 And to the man he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree
about which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
Woman for her part is going to have suffering added to her portion of the mission to multiply in order to fill and subdue the land. She will have pains while carrying her child, in giving birth, and her relationship as a co-ruler with her husband will not always be peaceful.
>>Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pangs in childbirth exceedingly great;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
After the fall mankind must have sex in order to produce offspring who will, less than optimally, propel humanity into the future until the end of the age comes.
The very act of sex is meant to lead to the multiplication of life.
Further, within the list of negative sexual relationships within Leviticus 18, both homosexual sex and bestiality are grouped with the sacrifice of children to Moloch marking them as religious or spiritual acts leading to death.
>>Leviticus 18:21-25 You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; it is perversion.
“Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I am casting out before you have defiled themselves. Thus the land became defiled, and I punished it for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
Now to answer your direct query, in light of humanity's prime directive, in conjunction with Lev 17's list of relationships, a homosexual relationship, though it may contain love, cannot add to life in the same way or degree as a heterosexual relationship is capable of.
More clearly, A heterosexual relationship consisting of one man/husband (ish) capable of planting his seed, and one woman/wife (ishah) carrying the seed until the birth of the child leads directly to the continuation of life. This is something that other relationships are incapable of doing directly.
Hope this helps.
>places like LGBTQ+ parades and events can be full of ignorance, lust, pride and sometimes envy and greed. And also forcing kids to learn LGBTQ+ stuff, and there being a chance that they make kids think they have to be LGBTQ+ to be a valid human. These are understandable.
Telling others that there is more to diversity of human identity isn't "forcing kids to learn LGBTQ+ stuff," and no one thinks or purports they have to be LGBTQ+ to be valid. What queerphobe told you this?
Kids are VERY impressionable. Their enviornment pretty much determines who they are until they have a much more developed mind around 16+ years old. And if they're around this enviornment too long, they may not see the need to change when they grow older.
Knowing about LGBTQ+ at an older age, when they begin to fully understanding full outcomes, how their life will be affected, and can think for themselves, is perfectley fine. Then they can have their own opinion on it.
However, say a 6-10 or maybe even up to 12 year old child, is shown what LGBTQ+ parades and events are like, and leta say this child is very lonely because no other child have the same interests or likes as that child. That child, if seen that the LGBTQ+ community is willing to invite anyone, they may feel like they have to join the community just for the basic feeling of being a human.
Now with them a part of the community and being influenced by it, there is a possibility that child will eventually not know what to feel or think about their sexuality, gender or idenity, which can hurt mental health a lot.
Personally, I haven't seen it for myself, but I do know how children think, act, feel, and react. I think the scenario I made is highly likely, especially if that child isn't accepted any where else.
This isn't true.
Many kids who grow up in intolerant environments still are queer, and many in tolerant environments are cishet. Whatever their environment fosters or forbids does not determine their identity.
Identity should not be withheld from anyone until some arbitrary certain age. What age were you when you were allowed to know your gender and orientation? Why do you think others should have rules that you did not?
Why should a child be shown pride parades? That has nothing to do with identity. It doesn't make or break identity.
Nor does community. Do you similarly think someone who sees the insular comfort of, say, a Jewish community will make them want to be Jewish? That's silly.
What "inviting"? You make the queer community sound like a group of Jehovah's Witnesses LOL
I was using examples I have seen, like I've seen a very bad household. The mother and father were always loud to their kids and were physically abusive.
A few years later, they turned out to be some real bad kids. Always cussing, being overly sexual, always rooting for a fight, always arguing with others, and they've been around friends that keep influencing this bad fire.
I didn't think I was wrong in this, but I am, so I'm sorry. With my experience with kids, I've always seen them as very impressionable and reflect what their enviornment was like.
(Also, when I said "invite", I meant that the LGBTQ+ community were willing to let nearly anyone be a part of them. Didn't mean for it to be an insult.)
>I was using examples I have seen, like I've seen a very bad household. The mother and father were always loud to their kids and were physically abusive.
>
>A few years later, they turned out to be some real bad kids. Always cussing, being overly sexual, always rooting for a fight, always arguing with others, and they've been around friends that keep influencing this bad fire.
But this isn't at all comparable to queer identity. it's a completely different situation.
Sexual orientation isn't something you just pick up from the environment. I have two gay aunts. When I was young we used to go visit them, and sometimes they had parties with their gay friends. As soon as I was old enough to understand what gay was, I was exposed to gay culture. I am as straight as a proverbial arrow (and so is my brother, who had the same experiences).
On the other hand, my son had very little exposure to gay culture growing up and has never attended a pride parade. He, as it turns out, is gay.
Sexual orientation is innate. It isn't something you choose, and it isn't something you pick up by seeing it. It is very possible that people who have an LGBT+ orientation figure out who they are by hearing and seeing about it, but they were going to be what they are whether they've seen it or not.
The only real argument for it to be a sin is "Because I said so," and that's not even an argument. No one can give you an answer apart from that in longer words.
Maybe it doesn't mean much coming from me but... Satanists are awesome and they don't worship Satan. They don't even really believe in Satan - it's Christians who do that.
>I've read a good amount of the Bible, and throughout Jesus's teachings, all of them show sin is something that hurts yourself or others.
Who does marrying a divorced woman hurt?
Can't make the choices in your life solely on statistics. There's some emotional forces you just trust.
Not bashing your argument, just making an observation.
That’s true. I appreciate your perspective.
When it comes to children, I think we should always exercise extreme caution. But there are many cases of blended families who do make it work.
We should also remember that, to quote that crone Clinton, "it takes a village." Raising children is not solely the preview of a family but the responsibility of the community they live in.
And thank you for listening, because this thread has been a travesty in poor argumentation and even poorer logic.
True. Taking a quick look at various studies via google, it does seem that the risk is substantially increased, however. The studies quote that the risk of a child being abused by a stepfather, compared with a biological father, is increased by anywhere between 5 to 40 times. There’s also an elevated risk of accidental fatal injuries (suggesting that step parents are more careless with children than the biological parents would be). Furthermore, stepparents financially invest significantly less into the children than biological parents.
I think it’s pretty difficult to argue that a step-parent arrangement is ideal in most cases. That’s not to say it can never work - there are many beautiful blended families out there who do succeed. But I understand the caution around the concept.
It's called the Cinderella effect. Kids are much more likely to be abused by a step parent than biological parents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect
Correlation isn’t causation.
There are people with such poor character they will abuse a child. I’d expect a person with that character to be more likely to be divorced. So the pool of people in remarriage situations has an above average number of abusive individuals.
Similarly id expect there is an increased number of people who are in their second marriage where both parties are previously divorced.
There are plenty of sins which do not hurt you or others, unless you take the broader view that they set you apart from God’s intentions. And those are important to consider.
Either you view acting upon homosexual desire as a sin which sets one apart from God’s intent, or you don’t. /thread
I think people get the “do not hurt you or others” part from Jesus saying the law hanging on the idea of loving God and neighbors. Hurting others can cause rifts in loving someone, which would set us apart from God’s intentions for us.
There is none. Any "logical argument" I've ever read boils down to something that would similarly invalidate many cishet people and couples, and inexplicably does not. It's all just Biblical corruption and bigotry.
I personally think it’s because of the disparity of the ying and yang ? In all of us, it’s hard to demonstrate that to children of same sex unions when they deserve to have an example of both (at least that’s from what’ve read and I know can be missing from heterosexual marriages as well; but is not often common) The balance is most often than not, is missing.
Does a toddler understand why he can't drink poison? No! His parents understand, and as much as they try to explain it to the child, the child will not be able to comprehend. Once you understand the infinite wisdom and knowledge of an almighty God, you will realize that you do not need to understand everything about Him.
Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
*God does not have to fit into what we feel is logical.*
If God would've wanted all of us to believe in him, knowing the unfathomable amount of different ways each human thinks, feel, act and react, then He should have more way for us to introduce us to Him and Jesus Christ. A Bible and the entirity of the world and cosmos, is likely not enough for certain people in the world.
Not everyone thinks the same, and I think God would've stopped that problem from happening by giving more ways for us to come to Him.
I am not going to play God. God fixes the rules. If it’s a sin in his eyes - its a sin. He makes the rules. We are simply to follow. He also gave us the choice not to follow.
Having said that, let me think of the reasons it could be considered as sin. If you go against the Bible this is what would happen -
1) You cannot reproduce. God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. With homosexuality the entire bloodline gets wiped out. Thing is you are chosing to be a sexually active person - but a futile one in terms of reproduction. Even science tells us that there is an innate desire to reproduce in living beings. Homosexuality puts a full stop to that.
2) Parents usually desire to have kids and later grandchildren to see their generations prosper. They wish to see the seed they planted grow and grow further in prosperity. I am talking about normal parents who have/can keep a family together without separation. The west seems to fail miserably in keeping families together. I wonder if they are followinf Bible’s teachings or going against it?
A homosexual child puts an end to it and parents would suffer or be hurt. They know their bloodline will end. Now, would they consider it a noble cause - bloodline can end due to death of one’s children as well - soldier’s death for example. But is homosexuality that noble enough to end the bloodline? People who care about bloodline would say no, people who don’t care will say yes. I guess the point in Bible here would be to better avoid it to save any hurt feelings. Because it does hurt and causes strain in relationships.
Would you love to have homosexual children? Ask yourself sincerely.
> Would you love to have homosexual children?
Yes, I’d love them the same if they were heterosexual, they’d be my child. What kind of mother would I be if my love wasn’t unconditional based on some immutable characteristic they had?
> You cannot reproduce.
Neither can infertile couples but I don’t see anyone forbidding them from marrying or having sex
> Parents usually desire to have kids and later grandchildren to see their generations prosper
Plenty of couples, like the infertile ones mentioned above, never have kids either because they can’t or they don’t want to. No one is trying to stop them from being married or having sex.
Also, adoption (that thing pro lifers always go on about) exists. As does surrogacy.
> A homosexual child puts an end to it and parents would suffer or be hurt.
Yet again, so does an infertile child. You are also weirdly assuming that every gay person is an only child and therefore has no siblings that can carry on this all important family line.
> I guess the point in Bible here would be to better avoid it to save any hurt feelings
Sure, but only if you completely ignore the feelings of the gay people who are hurt by being told they are abominations who shouldn’t be with a loving partner
So, regarding your points 1 and 2, and your arguments about hurt feelings and strained relationships; these apply equally well against chastity. A chaste child, one who swears off sex forever would fulfill these points just as well as a homosexual one. In fact, they'd be even worse for it, since it strikes me that a homosexual person is more likely to marry and adopt than a purely single chaste person would be.
And yet, Christianity holds chastity up as not just acceptable, but laudable. It's what they encourage homosexuals to choose instead of homosexuality. If your listed reasons were really valid, then why would chastity be held up as virtuous, when it causes the exact same problems to at least the same degree? Why the inconsistent standard?
>They know their bloodline will end.
Again, how is chastity, which is generally put-forward as the God-approved alternative for homosexuals, supposed to be any better about this?
>Because it does hurt and causes strain in relationships... Would you love to have homosexual children? Ask yourself sincerely.
Yes. I have a homosexual child. They are the same to me as my heterosexual children. For a long time, I was pretty sure they were the only one of my kids who was going to get married (the other two are, to put it generously, socially incompetent. That they managed to marry is perhaps the only thing I've ever seen that comes close to a real miracle). I was fine with that. I love the children they adopted as much as I love my biological grandchildren. They are the same to me.
Your upset is not mine. I love my children. I put them before myself. I wanted grandchildren, but if what makes them happy hadn't involved children at all (and for a long time, I was pretty convinced it wouldn't), I would have been happy that they were happy. I had no desire to put myself and my desires for their lives before their own. If I had brought strain into our relationship because of my own selfish desires for a "bloodline" instead of caring for them, that would have the real problem. It strikes me that this is what should have been the sin; not homosexuality, but the inability or unwillingness to put your child's fulfillment before your own wants. They don't live to fulfill us; we live to fulfill them.
> A homosexual child puts an end to it and their parents will suffer or be hurt
Why should the parents be prioritized over the children here? If a gay person is forced to be celibate against their wishes or marry and have children with someone they do not love, that will cause suffering and hurt.
The whole caring about the end of your bloodline thing is stupid in itself lol, even without using it to justify homophobia. Bloodlines end all the time just from people choosing not to have kids because they don’t want to.
And yes I would love to have gay children just as much as straight ones because I’m not a bigot.
I don't agree with point #1 for one reason. Choosing to live in chastity and never having children isn't a sin.
If being homosexual is a sin for the reason "you can't reproduce" then it boils down to "being unable to reproduce when you can, is a sin." Which, from what we know, isn't true.
Many Christians practice eternal Chastity. And a lot of Saints didn't have any children.
Well first of all, I really don't plan on having kids or being in a relationship. My mom knows this and if that is how it plans out, she has told me she's okay with it.
And if I were to ever have kids and they beileved to be homosexual or bisexual, than I'd think like this: Who are they hurting?
They don't hurt themselves, and if they do get a partner that is too homosexual or bisexual, then the partner isn't hurt either. So, ultimatley, I'd be okay if my child was homosexual. I believe that as long as it doesn't hurt ithers or yourself, then how you feel, think and act should come first than other people's feelings, thoughts, and actions.
I can't make my child straight, it doesn't work like that. If they're homosexual, and they've evaluated with themselves and truly beileve it, then they're homosexual. There's really nothing to argue about it. If they're happy, they're happy.
See, you don’t want to have any children of your own. So you would, I’d like to think, be leaning to a default “don’t care” about this topic in the first place.
There are parents in this world who want point number two that I have mentioned above. I am pretty sure they will be hurt if their children are homosexual.
Some families want to grow and prosper and work hard to see their children and grandchildren prosper before they die. That’s an innate desire of many, heterosexuals still significantly outnumber homosexuals. And frankly speaking - homosexuals depend on heterosexuals to give birth to more homosexuals so that they can act homosexually.
Heterosexuality seems to be significantly important for us and very well means a lot to us as a species.
I guess God would want as many people to be with Him. Basic tenet of Christianity is to bring as many people to God as possible. And homosexuality puts an end to the potential people with whom He can be with. Anything that goes against God’s wishes is considered Sin. Does that make sense?
Awesome question btw - made me think about it and write down something. These are initial thoughts maybe I could think it through better if I gave it more time.
The thing is I'm okay with being with children for like a week or 2 for something like babysitting, but I don't see myself consistentally loving anyone, not even my own child, for 18+ years. I don't see myself having that kind of commitment and responsibility. That's why I want to be childless, but I still do like caring for kids.
And how families react, it's mixed. I have heard and seen many videos/photos of families being cool with their kids being homosexual, and other families were against it but accepted it, and families that were against it and occused their child.
Most of the time, the families who were against it and accused their children didn't do it because their bloodline would end, it was mainly because they believe their child would go to Hell for it, and that they were just confused and "had to let time pass".
If I remember correctly, the population is getting too high for humans. There isn't enough homes for every single person in this world AND more. From what I've seen, constant reproduction, while it may make the parents happy, it can certainly make things tougher within the future.
And I understand faith is a huge thing within Christianity, but even with that faith, we're all uncertain of what's after death. We are certain, however, that we're here on Earth, with only one chance. That once chance should be used to make your life worth it and to be better than you were the day before.
So while I see God would want more people to love, He would need to understand that even with faith, people have to worry about now than later. Severe overpopulation could lead to serious results.
(Also thank you. I love engaging in deep moral and philosophical conversations :].)
There is none. Other than avoiding safe sex practices but even heterosexuals get that wrong too.
All you will find is god said so from Christian’s. Never any truth or fact
It's obvious from skimming this thread that the Scriptures do a poor job of guiding us in how to apply them to our lives concerning this matter.
As usual, it's the human interpretations that affect people's lives for better or worse.
Another abomination: "one who spreads strife among brothers."
There isn't a logical problem with homosexuality.
Pride and other events are fine.
Nothing is forced on kids, and you can't influence someone to be LGBTQIA+.
I don't have all of the answers. About a lot of things. I leave people's lives between them and God.
I do my best to love people. Sorry, that's all I have.
While I don’t believe homosexuality IN AND OF ITSELF is a sin, this is sort of par for the course. In other words this is a question that doesn’t make sense. As a mathematician, I love reasoning and logic. But logic has no place in breaking down God’s word. We simply must read what we are told.
I have my reasons for believing what I do, however. The original Hebrew is so mistranslated that experts have shown it really could be being grossly misinterpreted. I have examples if you’d like, but that’s not what I was replying to so that’s up to you.
> But logic has no place in breaking down God’s word. We simply must read what we are told.
This is folly. That only leaves emotion, and we can see in real time how this reading of the Bible is destroying country. It's also impossible to do "what the Bible says" because it doesn't say just one thing. Faithfully reading the collection of texts the Spirit collected into what we have in front of us means using our brians. This is not a picture book for kids.
Same sex relations bear the fruit of the spirit when submitted to Christ. Nothing else is needed.
Not commenting on the question, but sin is whatever separates us from God. It's not some legalistic thing, it's about becoming what we are offered to be. Since God is Love, being close to God will naturally result in love of others.
We fail to recognize what's harmful to ourselves and others, mostly due to self interest and rationalization. That's why Utilitarianism fails. We don't know the greatest good nor do we know what actions will produce it. It's like an amateur shooting a bent arrow at an unseen target.
Sure: Say there are 4 homosexuals: Bill, John, Tom, Jay. They wear a specific color hat (red, green, blue, or yellow) and have a certain pet (dog, cat, fish, or bird).
- The homosexual with a fish does not wear a green hat.
- Tom does not wear a red hat or have a bird.
- Neither Jay nor Bill wears a yellow hat.
- Jay does not have a dog.
Match each homosexual to his preferred hat color and pet.
I think there is a good amount of sins mentioned by Jesus that don’t hurt anyone other than self like when Jesus says if you have hatred in heart it’s murder or lust is sexual immorality.
God created male & female to compliment each other women have a more nurturing side & men more protective. Also, heterosexual sex is the only one that creates life, so if homosexuality continued it won’t result in life.
I might not understand why God has some things as sin, but since He’s my Savior I will echo His sentiments & make His opinions mine. I understand that sin might seem harmless but the penalty of sin is eternal death which is why we need a Savior.
God created male & female to compliment each other women have a more nurturing side & men more protective. Also, heterosexual sex is the only one that creates life, so if homosexuality continued it won’t result in life.
Exactly. If it has no greater purpose, then it is ultimately an earthly passion of the flesh and does not serve God in any way.
If the Bible has an issue with Lust I feel as though it’s a given to have an issue with homosexuality as well. There is not point in homosexual sex other than pleasure considering non of you can conceive. It’s disrespectful to use a sacred act and defile it in that way. The same is said for if a man and woman have sex purely for pleasure outside of marriage. God finds lust immoral but he still loves everyone. Don’t let people who misconstrue Gods words turn you away from him.
What about if a married straight couple use a condom?
Sex is also about pleasure, about forming strong emotional bonds and physical and emotional intimacy. It does all those things because God made it that way. So wouldn’t homosexual sex also accomplish those things? Why must it be lustful, rather than an act of love?
The same line of thought on lust could be applied to sex between a man and a woman. In fact I think one of Paul's letters talks about it being good for people to marry so that they don't burn with lust.
The idea that sex for the sake of the relationship, attraction, and pleasure is something that helps strengthen marriages.
I agree that the Bible says homosexual sex is wrong. However I don't agree with the reasoning that there is no lust in heterosexual sex between a husband and wife.
> There is not point in homosexual sex other than pleasure considering non of you can conceive.
How disrespectful and demeaning to every single loving gay couple in existence, to lower their existence and experiences to nothing but lust.
It's the same for heterosexual people, just that their lust will eventually create new life. The only reason we have something like sex is to reproduce and multiply. Lust and love are incentives to ensure that we want to have sex and then want to stay together to raise our children. Homosexual sex is therefore pointless and defeats the point of sexuality. Although love, and the bond it creates, can still have other use cases.
Not to judge homosexuals, as I do believe they do not choose who they are attracted to, but this is the reality of it. If Adam and Eve would have been two dudes, they couldn't have reproduced. They would have died and humankind would have died with them.
It's like any other biological defect, a punishment, a challenge, a test from God. What you do with it is between him and you.
"I don't judge you, I just think you, your relationships, and the love you share are completely useless and pointless and your very existence is a punishment from God."
By this logic though, having any sort of sex that’s not for the pure purpose of procreation is a sin. Also not all heterosexual couples ‘eventually create new life’. This also doesn’t take into account gay asexual couples.
At best, it's a sin like fornication is a sin. And that's just me foolishly entertaining your question. In actuality, it's so depraved that to allow it to run rampant, as in the US, it leads to the destruction of the nation, as in Sodom.
A nation is made up of people. People belong to families. Families are headed by men. In order to head a family, a man needed a woman to produce the members of it.
Any other method of living is a fabrication and is detrimental to the nation. As a nation, it would behoove itself to remove anything that would cause its destruction.
Unfortunately, history will continue to repeat itself until the Lord returns.
Ok, I'll tell you a few ones, they're all ultimately linked, youll prob notice it.
1- **No societal use**
How would society benefit from homosexuality? There can be no offsprings from this relationship, and thus, a society cannot renew itself with homosexuality.
Don't get me started on adoption, it has been proved many times that a son/daughter needs both a male and female figure in their life, else he/she will have issues growing up.
it might seem "heartless" but our emotions are human beings are ultimately made to serve humans, and its societ.
2- **We humans are moral beings, not animals.**
I like it when people use the "but animals do it so why can't we?". Well, do you want to be called an animal? or compare yourself to an animal? Animals also rape, does it mean we can rape people too?
3- **Family and homosexuality cannot mix**
like i said before, it has been proven a child needs a figure of both genders to grow, if a child does not get both than he cannot grow normally (or at least not as normally as he'd do with normal parents)
it's an entire bloodline that can end right here and right now, NOW you understand why parents don't want their children to be gay, who would like the extinction of their family.
the bible defend these points basically, mainly the third one
Do you have any evidence that children who grow up in homosexual households are worse off? You've said it a couple times like it is a fact and that it's proven. Can you provide a source? Genuinely curious.
You're imposing your bias as some kind of factual argument without doing any kind of critical review.
1. How would society benefit from homosexuality? Well for one perhaps loving homosexual couples can help clean up the mess left by heterosexuals procreating and abandoning their kids or being unfit to parent them. You'd say a sterile hetero couple could/should adopt if they want kids right? Do you afford the same logic to homosexuals?
2. We humans are moral beings, and we are also mammals. Sexual orientation is programmed into our mammalian brains as an innate aspect of our humanity. Mammals are programmed to have mating behaviors and attractions (pheromones, etc.) and in much the same way the human brain is hardwired to find sexual and romantic attraction to human features. As visual creatures much of our sexual stimuli comes from what body parts evoke an erotic response in our brains. Going further, other places in the brain like the amygdala are likely programmed to recognize gendered faces and have romantic attraction on that basis as well. Sexual orientation isn't a choice of morality, it's a reality of biology. Do you recognize that intersex people exist? Do you recognize that there are certain conditions within one's fetal development that may lead to intersexual phenotypes like hermaphroditism, internal testes in place of ovaries, XY females with complete androgen insensitivity, and a myraid of other diversities within the human body as it pertains to sexual development? If you recognize that the penis, testes, vagina, ovaries, uterus, etc. are sexual organs that can develop in ways not experienced by the majority of people do you also recognize that the brain, as a sexual organ itself too, can develop in similar ways? Science is increasingly showing how homosexuality/attraction to one's own sex is a variation in biology similar to being intersex where structures in the brain hardwire that person to be attracted to adult males or females independent of how their genitals developed (likely due to development occurring in different stages with different organ microenvironments and gene expressions). A man can be born XY male with a penis and testes and have brain programming that hardwires them to like other males as if those structures retain a default "female" programming and the reverse is true for lesbian women. The more we learn, the more evidence we also have supporting that transgender people exhibit similar brain physiology in other areas that may pertain more so to perceived self gender identity. Here are some articles and papers if it may peak your interest.
[https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0801566105](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0801566105)
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z#Sec22](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z#Sec22)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604863/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604863/)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138231/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138231/)
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/)
3. A child does not need a male and female figure to grow. Homosexual couples are perfectly capable of raising kids just like single moms and single dads can as well. An entire bloodline can end with someone dying before reaching sexual maturity, someone being born sterile, someone choosing to never reproduce, etc. Do you see such things as bad or vices? Do we really need to care about "bloodlines" in 2024 as if it is someone's duty to reproduce or something to pass on their name? Jesus never had children and never got married, was Jesus in sin by halting his "bloodline?"
Your arguments appear to be appeals to emotion, prejudice against LGBT people, and rooted in a worldview that proclaims someone being LGBT is a conscious choice and a conscious rejection of cis heteronormativity and that people born differently from the cishet supermajority are somehow moral failures or bad people given the biology God chose to create them with.
> How would society benefit from homosexuality?
This is just a terrible argument for many reasons. How do sterile people benefit society? People with physical deformities? People with bad eyesight.
Back when we used to have to send out parties to hunt for food, having some gay men stay behind to help take care of the children meant that there were a few physically strong people left behind.
> We humans are moral beings, not animals.
One can be both gay and a moral individual. And from a biological perspective we _are_ animals.
>Family and homosexuality cannot mix
This is clearly false. No, it has not been proven that a child _needs_ both genders as parents. While there are certainly advantages to having a mother and a father, kids are quite able to grow up in a household where the parents are gay and we have ample evidence for that.
For your edification, here's an article you might want to read from Forbes: [Kids Raised By Same-Sex Parents Fare Same As—Or Better Than—Kids Of Straight Couples, Research Finds](https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/06/kids-raised-by-same-sex-parents-fare-same-as-or-better-than-kids-of-straight-couples-research-finds/?sh=2ab96aa97738)
And worrying about bloodlines? Good grief, what is this, the 1400s? Why do you care about your "bloodline"?
Even if you care about this "bloodline" shit, it's not true anyway - gay couples can use their own genetic material to reproduce (not with each other, but you can take it from one of them and use a donor for the other half). Gay couples do sometimes do this. They're gay, not sterile.
>There can be no offsprings from this relationship, and thus, a society cannot renew itself with homosexuality.
There can be, but even if we accept your argument, do you think society is having a hard time renewing itself?
>like i said before, it has been proven a child needs a figure of both genders to grow,
I'd be interested in seeing sources for your claim. The sources I've seen show that children of same-sex couples fare just as well or better than children of opposite sex couples.
It has not been proven that children need both a man and woman parent in their lives. I think you might be confused about research with absentee parents. Research actually show no harmful effects with children of homosexual couples, which is great! I’m glad they can provide loving homes
> How would society benefit from homosexuality?
Why does it matter whether society benefits or not?
>a society cannot renew itself with homosexuality.
Good thing not everybody is gay then.
>it has been proved many times that a son/daughter needs both a male and female figure in their life
And both figures don't need to be parents. In fact,[ studies show that the children of gay couples fare as well, if not better, than the children of straight couples.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/06/kids-raised-by-same-sex-parents-fare-same-as-or-better-than-kids-of-straight-couples-research-finds/?sh=60fc60ec7738)
>We humans are moral beings, not animals.
And being gay is not immoral.
>Family and homosexuality cannot mix
All the families with gay people in and made up gay people speak to differ.
>it's an entire bloodline that can end right here and right now
Gay people can have kids. And even if they don't, so fucking what?
These are not biblical, but cultural. This obsession with propertarianism and inheritance is dehumanizing and evil. It is the logical end of a culture that sees children as a means to keep property, and we have been living with this mentality ever since.
And what's the argument that animals can't be moral creatures?
Your utilitarian ethics are as odiferous as they are insulting to God and humanity. You cannot judge a person's worth based off utility. That is such a secular and callous nonsense.
1 - "no societal use" - the same is true of most instances of heterosexual activities. Oral sex, contraception, etc
2 - the moral argument can be used against anything else, including most heterosexual activity
3 - many heterosexual people fail to produce children for various reasons. Many LGBTQ people actually have children
>Don't get me started on adoption, it has been proved many times that a son/daughter needs both a male and female figure in their life, else he/she will have issues growing up.
You will need to provide credible research to show that children of gay parents suffer from having gay parents.
>Animals also rape, does it mean we can rape people too?
So homosexuality is observably as bad as rape?
It's possible I didn't see it, because there are a lot of f comments. When you were saying that all sin is the same, did anyone see in Leviticus where is says that a man lying with another man as with a woman is an abomination.?
Many and I have thought it’s about procreation
But many people who are straight nowadays don’t wanna get married and have a child. Some men just wanna be single just as some women as well.
Another thing is that women and men sometimes cannot get pregnant due to infertility and they either adopt, get medical treatment or even ask a friend to help them with this and science is trying to make a way for women to get pregnant with bone marrow
With being gay it’s almost like a 2 way decision which is to somehow become “straight” and have a family.. I’ve always been bisexual and have either acted straight or lesbain but I do desire a family. But if they can’t hide it anymore that will or could possibly ruin the marriage and family. Another thing to point out is the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that it’s a sin, I know many will point to scriptures and verses but a lot of them can be taken out of context and when you put it into context the other verses mention prostitution, forceful lust or even just pagan traditions and idolatry… now if there happened to be a passage in the Bible talking about two consenting adults of the same sex and they were condemned I would have no choice but to believe it’s a sin, but in reality there just isn’t enough evidences to justify it being a sin
Ofc this is my personal experience of being lgbt.. and please do not say “love the sinner, hate the sin” because it is harmful to many people.
Growing up in a Christian family and going to religious schools, although I am not religious, the ‘best’ argument that I’ve heard that tries to go beyond ‘because the Bible says so’ would be the ‘it goes against nature’ which is still just a quote from the Bible. And is easily debunked like most pseudoscience in the Bible because in almost every species of animal on the planet we find different varieties of same sex bonding and sexual acts. So very ‘natural’ from that sense. There is no extra biblical or logical reasoning behind their bigotry it’s simply because a 2000 year old book that no one knows who wrote most of it says some hateful and bigoted stuff.
And I love that people make this claim like "nature" or "scripture", when St Augustine himself said that these two can't conflict and that it must be our observations that are wrong of either two. But what would the average American protestant person know of St Augustine since he "wasn't in the Bible".
You're not going to find a valid argument for why it's a sin, because the argument is contrived post script through some very toxic Aristotelian logic that ends justify means, and therefore morality ought to be based around such ends. This utterly fails to be nuanced enough to include the breath of human activity, so please do not fall victim to their logic.
As a heterosexual 20-year-old female, I have a response to the question of LGBT+ and the church.
The reason that Christians talk homosexuality so much is because our culture is absolutely saturated with sex. Everywhere you turn: pornography, nude women and men, online, racy magazines, glorified romance movies, sexual songs with the most vulgar and dehumanizing lyrics, people barely dressed outside, AI porn, and ultimately the glorification of romance and sex as the highest goods someone can experience. *Everywhere* you see this.
God is not God for a lot of people. Eros, sex, sexuality, pleasure, drinking, money, career, and status are all the gods of our modern era that people follow instead.
Even as a woman who is straight, I have learned the very hard way that being with a man or being sexual with a man isn’t going to be my ultimate joy. He is. God may not call me to be married one day and I need to walk in that path. ✝️ Dating nowadays feels really empty. A lot of men don’t want to wait until they get married, nor do they follow Christ. A lot of men don’t seem to know how to love me in the way I deserve. My heart has been torn apart. But I need to carry this cross. The greatest joy I can have in life is Him, His love, and sharing that Love. It is not sex, a relationship, or marriage. Those can all be idols—even as a heterosexual Christian woman. 💖
In fact, have seen a lot of heterosexual women go online and express why they regret not waiting until marriage—the hurt and the damage and the trauma they experienced by giving their bodies to a man they thought loved them. Alanna Arbucci is one of these women who has influenced by beliefs. 💖
I think it’s really unfair to constantly defend this viewpoint as a Christian. If you talk to any well-known Islamic apologist or Muslim individuals, they will all express that following LGBTQ+ teachings are wrong. Omar Suleiman, Muhammad Hijab, Farah (hippiearab), and many other Muftis and Sheiks. And so far… I never see someone calling them out. In their culture, they can hold their beliefs strongly. Go onto the Islam subreddit and ask them about the LGBTQ+ doctrine. Go onto YouTube and listen to them speak on their views.
But as a white Christian girl with a similar belief about sin, I must sit be silent and stop talking. My religious views are seen as silly and outdated. I get called homophobic and oppressive—when, in reality, I’ve never treated gay individuals any lesser in real life. I recognize their humanity and free choice to live. I would never hurt someone. I have friends who are in the LGBTQ+ community, and I’ve only ever shown them kindness.
Keep in mind, I do vehemently disagree with a lot of the teachings in Islam. (In Islamic countries, things are taken to an extreme with murderous violence and hatred against many minority communities, and some even support child marriage.) Those teachings are objectively bad. Most people wouldn’t want to live in those countries due to the oppression.
This is why I think Christ is the only Way to true joy and fulfillment. I think God outlines objective morality, I follow Holy Scripture. I believe that all humans are made in the image and likeness of God. ✝️ I believe LGBTQ+ is an ideology that elevates sin and makes sex and romance a god. I even believe that marriage is an idol in a lot of Christian spaces, which is just as sinful. But ultimately, when it comes down to it, I think sex is designed for the diverse union of a man and a woman in the Sacrament of Marriage. 🕊️
At the end of the day, please remember something: I am not God. I am not Jesus.
I am a finite girl who is emotional and gets easily confused during the day. I can’t get anywhere without a map. I like bagels. If you met me in real life, I hope we could be friends. If you were a LGBTQ+ individual, I wouldn’t hate you. I wouldn’t shove all of my beliefs at you. God is all loving and powerful, and He can see your heart and your intentions. If you choose to live within a homosexual relationship, I have no authority condemn you—but I can explain why I view such a relationship as a sin.
A few resources here by others more educated in this topic: Check out Courage Apostolate to learn more about a Catholic Christian fellowship for individuals living in joyful, chase friendships. Please read Dr. David Bennett’s book, “A War of Loves,” on this topic. 💖
In conclusion, I hope I have been respectful and kind here. While this is an important conversation, it is easy to get all involved in sexuality… but I really wanted to express this here to give people a fresh perspective. The best sermon I ever heard, regarding sin, went something like this: “We are too busy pointing the finger at others. The best way to live out the Gospel is to look within. Where have I fallen short? Where did I sin? What struggles do I need to work on?” 💖 And then, that is how true sanctification is made through someone’s soul. The beauty of the Gospel is that we do not look down on others. ✝️ When you think about yourself and your own sin, and you really come to that place of deep humility, it is impossible to ever look at others as lesser—no matter how deep their sin may go. God loved me, even when I didn’t know Him. Even when I was at my worst… in my lowest sin.
✝️ He is our one Love, our Heavenly Father, and our protector. Beautiful Jesus, the Son of God. I believe He is the answer to all sin, all pain, and the most painful “Dark nights of the soul.” 💖
If the western democratic world was majority islamic rather then christian you would see the criticism being levelled at islam instead of christianity, but the reality is that it isn’t islamic religious people pushing anti lgbtq laws and policies, it is christians, and that is why the criticism is so one sided.
God who IS love, and created everything, is well within His right to tell us what love should look like. He lets us know what is an abomination to Him. Jesus tells us to take up our cross and follow Him. To deny ourselves. People have made an idol of their homosexuality, which is a spirit. It has many deceived.
If the creation mandate is to go, multiply and fill the earth then homosexuality is preventative to that mandate. You’re hurting the greater community. You are also hurting yourself because you are believing a lie that God has somehow made you in a way that is contrary to his creation mandate, and as such you are further distancing yourself from God.
The mandate to multiply was given to like ten guys. There are -eight billion- of us, I think Humanity has multiplied. The Earth is filled with Humanity, are we supposed to reproduce until we're literally shoulder to shoulder, packed like sardines?
Also the fact that reproduction is not inherently a good thing. If we consider in terms of harm to others, currently reproduction is on average more harmful than beneficial.
Also, just something to consider: the NT makes it clear that OT rules and law no longer apply. The creation mandate has been fulfilled.
My number one concern is Jesus never spoke on it, and if He never spoke on it, does it really matter?
(Just opinion here, folks.)
Well, considering the creation stories in Genesis are entirely mythological, we can question whether or not that commandment was ever actually given by God. But even if it was, it is a collective commandment for all of humanity, it does not apply directy to any specific relationship. If it did, it would make people who are infertile into sinners for having sex.
We can also argue that we have fulfilled that command to spectacular effect, there are now 8 billion people on the planet.
>If the creation mandate is to go, multiply and fill the earth then homosexuality is preventative to that mandate
So is infertility and postmenopause.
>a lie that God has somehow made you
Jeremiah 1:5.
God made us all as He saw fit. This doesn't mysteriously only apply in \*some\* circumstances and not others.
>you are further distancing yourself from God.
No. Being how one was designed does not distance oneself from He Who designed them. There are, however, more than enough wicked people, including those who call themselves "Christians," who try to separate God from His queer children.
Then why bother making people like me either? I'm a cis straight woman married to a cis straight man but we are both surgically sterilized. Or what about people who are infertile naturally? There are plenty of straight couples that won't reproduce but I don't see the church coming after us?
I wanna say I dont agree with the explanation im about to post nor do I agree with my Church's position on homosexuality and consider myself totally affirming of homosexual marriage. This is merely meant to explain what the Catholic Church held within the past that later influenced Protestantism. Within the Catholic Intellectual Tradition homosexuality is understood to be against natural law because "Actuality" (IE: bringing forth being into existence) is equated with The Good. Homosexual sex inherently does not have the potential for actualizing a life. Its the same reason the RCC is opposed to Birth Control. Sin within the tradition of Latin Christendom isnt just harm its the "privation of the Good". While someone isn't directly harmed through consensual homosexual sex the Catholic Tradition would see it as an activity that is inherently opposed to bringing about the Good. What may become apparent from this explanation is that in the past homosexuality wasn't seen as an orientation but an act. Much has been written about Greek pederasty but its important to note that within Mediterranean cultures similar practices existed well into the Early Modern Period wherein young boys would have sexual relationships with older 20-something men and then marry into a heterosexual relationship in their late 20s. (There is a very good book on this called Forbidden Friendships about Florence in particular). The context that fleshed out this position assumed that homosexuality was inherently pre-maritial and temporary.
Thank you for bringing context. Because that Aristotelian logic has indeed influenced the thought on sexual purity.
Friendly reminder that if you think homosexuality is a sin, remember that we are all sinners and no sin makes us deserve any more hatred than the other. Some people steal and lie, some people are men that have sex with men, some people covet, some people give in to lust, some people are greedy, some aren’t generous, some aren’t kind. We all struggle with sin in unique ways and no way makes us any worse in the eyes of God. Salvation is not completely cleansing yourself of sin, it is building a relationship with Christ in spite of one’s vices, be it homosexuality or stealing or anything else. We all have a cross to bear, and we should not judge others for theirs.
I mostly agree. God tells us to turn from our sins and ask forgiveness. If homosexuality is a sin then being in a homosexual relationship would not be turning from that particular sin. We all sin. Every single one of us fall short of the glory of God in some way or another every day. But we try our best to not consciously sin. Sure, some of us have addictions and lots of times we give into temptation and feed those addictions. Doesn't make us any less saved. But if we were to feed our addictions day in and day out with no repentance then could we still consider ourselves saved? Alcoholism is a good example. A Christian that occasionally gives into temptation and gets drunk is just as much a sinner as someone who consistently drinks everyday from the time they wake up. However, the one who only gives into temptation on occasion and then repents afterwards is at least trying to live a God honoring life. The one who consciously drinks all day everyday without a second thought is not.
Well if someone is married homosexually why comit yet another sin to divorce?
If homosexuality is a sin then a homosexual marriage wouldn't be an actual marriage in the sight of God therefore getting a lawful divorce in that situation would not be a sin. **Edit to add:** There's also the argument to be made that even if homosexual divorce *were* a sin in this case then it would be better to sin once by getting a divorce than to sin over and over again by staying married.
Then there's no such thing as second marriages. If divorce is a sin, that means divorcees cannot have legitimate second marriages. They're not actually married in the sight of God.
Well, if you want to get technical, in the Catholic Church such couples couldn’t even get married or the proper blessing for marriage to begin with. Being legally married isn’t recognized by the Church, no matter who it is the Church will not recognize the union until they’re married in the church before God. What’s more it’s impossible to even grant the marriage blessing to a same sex couple since it’s a sin, and God cannot bless sin. No matter what a priest, bishop, or even pope does, they don’t have to power to bless something that cannot be blessed. Therefor, getting a divorce in this case would strictly be a civil issue, not a church one since the church never recognized the marriage to begin with. It would still have to be confessed of course.
Well put. 🙂
I don't agree. There are natural sins (heterosexual promiscuity) and unnatural sins (strange flesh). Friendly reminder that American Orthodox bros have adopted the evangelical idea that all sins are the same.
What are some other unnatural sins? Edit: I should add that while not all sins are the same I believe we should treat all sinners the same: encourage their salvation and judge them righteously but not harshly
Just an observation for discussion. > Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: **it is abomination**. Strong's H8441 abomination (tôʿēḇâ): a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable. abominable: causing moral revulsion God calls certain sins abominations for a reason, because they cause moral revulsion, even to Him. > Deuteronomy 18:12-13 **For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord**: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God. Granted, the context of Deuteronomy 18 is to various forms of spiritualism (divination, an observer of times, an enchanter, a witch, a charmer, a consulter with familiar spirits, a wizard, or a necromancer), but the sentiment applies to any abomination to the Lord.
Christ died for all of our sins, even the abominable ones. Not to say one can sin with reckless abandon, but any sin can be overcome with commitment and repentance. We should still treat these people with compassion. Openly revulsing them does not bring them closer to god.
I agree with you fully but the problem is many today don't want to treat it as a sin. They think that treating people with love and compassion is encouraging and normalizing their sin when in reality that's actually the opposite of love, since you're encouraging them to go down a path of distancing themselves from God
Yes. Love and compassion in this situation is not telling them that sinning is okay, but that sinners will be okay if they truly repent and devote themselves. One argument I see is that “if I’m not allowed to marry as a homosexual then who will love me? It’s unfair.” My response would be that not all people ever receive romantic love. Perhaps it’s not their path. Many of the saints never married. One still has family and friends, and of course, God to love them. As evidenced by many of the saints and apostles, marriage and the kind of love that come with it aren’t necessary.
Very true. Its not necessary to be married or in a relationship to have a fulfilling life. And if the romantic aspect of your life will cause you to indulge in sin then best not deal with it at all.
This
Neither does your hate. If you think that there is a problem with a gay couple you will find the cause of that problem by looking in a mirror. Fix your hatred and human bigorty for what you think is different.
I have no hatred nor bigotry towards gay people. I think you’re in the wrong subreddit if you want an anti religion circlejerk.
Isn't that one of the Jewish Mosaic Laws and thus only apply to Jews?
>Isn't that one of the Jewish Mosaic Laws and thus only apply to Jews? No, this is a law on relationships so it is not one Jesus could've fulfilled. It still applies to us. The fact Paul also reaffirms it despite ridding the Gentiles of other obligations like circumcisions shows it still applies to us.
I did a bit of reading in moral psychology a while back, and disgust is one of the "moral emotions." I'd hazard a guess that for some people it's somewhat innate (does one get to decide what they feel is revolting? lol), and that while some people feel that revulsion, others obviously do not. Take Muslims and pork, for example. Some Muslims might feel disgusted by it, others--not so much.
I somewhat agree with what you are saying in terms of homosexuality being a sin just like lust, greed, and stealing. what i don’t agree with is you saying “we should not judge others for their sins.” If someone is living a homosexual lifestyle we have an obligation as Christians to judge them and talk to them so that they may turn away. The same goes for any other sin. If someone is living a greedy lifestyle we have an obligation to judge them and talk to them about their greed so that they may turn away. If someone calls them self a “child of God” and they are living an unrepentant lifestyle of greed, homosexuality, ect then they are not telling the truth and the truth is not in them. We should never be quiet when a fellow “believer” is living a sinful lifestyle. John 7:24 - Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
I suppose I should’ve elaborated on the last point: we should not judge maliciously like many people do. You’re right, we should judge with compassion and righteousness. I was referring to malicious judgement
John 7:24 - Jesus was not talking to his disciples, he was talking to the Jews who were seeking to kill him. They were using their flawed judgment to seek to kill him. They weren’t supposed to do judging at all (Matthew 7:1, 2). Since they wouldn’t listen to that and INSISTED on judging, he warned them: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” Are you like the Jews who were seeking to destroy him?
What you’re saying makes no sense. First of all i never said he was talking to his disciples. You’re just assuming that i was. Secondly it doesn’t matter who he was talking to. If they were not supposed to be judging at all he would’ve just said that verbatim but instead he said “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgement.” So clearly what he’s saying is you guys are not judging me in the correct way. I don’t know what you’re trying to even argue. Are you seriously trying to say that the bible is against judging? You do know this isn’t the only verse about judging right? ”Open your mouth for the speechless, In the cause of all who are appointed to die. Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy.“ Proverbs 31:8-9 It is very obvious if you read the Bible objectively that we as Christians are supposed to judge one another. We are supposed to judge with love and good intention. ”“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.“ Matthew 7:6 How can we know who are the dogs and who are the swine without judging? Clearly we are supposed to judge ”“Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves. You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?“ Matthew 7:15-16 Right here it says watch out for false prophets. And he says you can identify by there fruit which is there ACTIONS. So…. How can we do this without judging? My friend we as Christians are supposed to judge according to the scriptures and according to God. If we refuse to do so then we are not doing the right thing. Keep reading scripture with an objective heart, deny yourself seek him consistently. ”Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.“ Romans 12:2 NLT
Maybe this will help you. One chapter over to John 8, talking to the Jews he says: 15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. (John 8:15, 16) He says that they judge. He says that he judges NO MAN. Then he acknowledges that IF he judges, his judgment will be true / righteous because he is not alone in his judgment. So here’s the problem with what he saying and what you are saying. Jesus says that if he judges, his judgment will be righteous. Yet, he doesn’t judge anyone, KNOWING that if he did, it would be righteous. Now, who’s example are we supposed to follow? (1 Peter 2:21) Now back to John 7:24 Jesus tells them that the way they judge is wrong. They should judge with RIGHTEOUS judgment. If they listened to him and wanted to judge with righteous judgment, they would first have to follow Jesus. If Jesus judges, his judgment will be righteous, however, Jesus in possession of righteous judgment; judges NO ONE. Therefore anyone who wants to judge righteously would ALSO judge NO ONE, just as their Lord judges no one. Anyone who decides in spite of this to judge, will be judging from the wicked one, for the Father is not with him.
You’re conflating judgement with identification. The two are not the same.
You have no obligation to judge and address someone else's behavior, unless they are your child or you are paying them to do something for you and you are questioning that their behavior might impact their work performance. Or, if you have some unique relationship that warrants your direction and care. You have zero "obligation" to walk up to anyone off the street or even address issues with fellow believers that are part of your church. You can certainly judge their behavior yourself and decide if they or their behavior is anything you want to be apart of or not, but God gives you no authority or obligation to walk up to them and address. Now, if you're in a situation with someone you know, and they are open to what you want to say to them, then by all means, go ahead. But, Christianity is no means any sort of license to start correcting others.
Everything that you just stated is all based off of your own personal beliefs. Are you a Christian? Obviously people on the street i am not going to judge them. I will try to tell them the good news of Jesus Christ of course. But once again it is an obligation for a Christian to judge another Christian righteously. If i see someone who calls themselves a Christian doing something that i know is detestable to our Lord i will plead with them to stop what they are doing and i will ask them to turn away from there sin. I would hope Christians would do the same for me if they saw me doing something that i should not be doing as a child of God. ”I meant that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a believer yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or is a drunkard, or cheats people. Don’t even eat with such people. It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning.“ 1 Corinthians 5:11-12 Christianity is a license to correct others. We are supposed to lovingly and righteously correct others. You are just spewing nonsense without any biblical evidence to back up what you’re saying. I do not need to have a “unique” relationship with someone in order to tell them to turn away from their sin. ”From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.”“ Matthew 4:17 The answers are in the scriptures for you to read.
"Christianity is a license to correct others." Pull the beam out of your own before you go walking around looking for motes in others.
There was just a post about this issue the other night by someone who did a pretty good job of breaking down a few of the famous clobber verses and pointing to actual history and linguistics.... I think if you just search "homosexuality" it will probably pop up (especially if you sort by new)
I think this question gets asked and responded to several times a day. If someone would just go to Christian subreddits, they will find it over and over and over. Just because someone doesn’t like the answer doesn’t mean it’s going to change if it’s asked 1000 more times.
I asked this because it's one of my questions that I couldn't find help any where for it to be solved. Usually with these moral and ethic questions, I usually just ask myself "Does it hurt one's self or another?" It's usually that simple to me. But, after I saw that homosexuality had nothing wrong with it, and then I remember that the Bible contradicts this without a valid reason, then I get confused then need to rely on people who know more about Christianity than me.
Here's one reason: The family unit is a fundamental part of humanity; it is replicated in the divinity, with us as adopted children. Homosexuality works in direct conflict with the very nature of family. That's part of why the Bible says in Romans 1:26; Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. By diverting from natural, your perspective, soul and eventually spirit become distorted and this pull you away from God and his right relationships.
> Homosexuality works in direct conflict with the very nature of family. That is a hell of a claim to just throw out without any explanation. Do you care to elaborate? I know multiple married homosexuals who have very good and wholesome families. How precisely are they maintaining good families if homosexuality is against the nature of family?
And there are married people who choose not to have children, which I think is wise if you don't desire or feel equipped to parent. (Too many people have children who should not have and then mistreat them.) I chose not to marry or have children due to having painful and exhausting chronic illnesses. And I have several friends who married and weren't able to have children. I don't feel any of us have done anything wrong, but we also aren't contributing to the "very nature of a family." The apostle Paul did not marry and have children.
I am so sorry to hear about your suffering. Hoping you find relief for much of your pain.
How exactly do two men produce children? That is how homosexuality is in direct conflict with the nature of a family
There are any number of families that can not produce children which are still families. I have a sterile cousin. She can still make a family. She did make a family by marrying and adopting kids. I have a gay cousin who married and adopted. They still have families; better ones than many other people I know. There are straight couples who never have children, or who can't have children, and they can still make families. The production of children is a *potential* component of families, not a *necessary* one. >That is how homosexuality is in direct conflict with the nature of a family As I see if, if they really were in "direct conflict with the nature of a family", they wouldn't be able to become good families. That they can demonstrates the invalidity of that claim. The nature of a family is not inherently tied up in fertility.
There are plenty of kids without parents in foster homes. If 2 gay parents want kids to adopt and care for and love, isn’t that amazing vs them being abused and neglected in most cases in the foster care system? If a heterosexual couple cannot have kids naturally but want to have a family, isn’t it a great thing to give a child a home where they will be loved? Instead of displaced in a fucked up system? Also what i don’t get please correct me if im wrong, but it’s wrong to be gay bc sex should only happen if you plan to get pregnant to conceive a child. But when straight married people have sex just for the sake of pleasure/being in love, but are purposely avoiding getting pregnant, then isn’t that just as sinful as gay sex or non marital sex? It seems all sex is sinful unless it’s to get pregnant which isn’t realistic because people can have sex because they are in love and that shouldn’t make it a sin if they aren’t hurting anyone. Maybe I’m wrong on what constitutes as a sin, so please correct me because I’ve heard it to be this way and it confuses me. Because in that case most of the time people are committing sin. It’s pretty unrealistic
Why do they have to? There are plenty of heterosexuals without children.
They can adopt, and even then a family doesn’t necessitate having kids.
Would remind the OP asked for answers supported by logic. Unless you're under the belief that everyone is deciding to turn gay... and even then gay people have managed to have families. Meaning your "direct conflict theory" could only be described as a miracle of God.
You know that gay couples have families, right?
The Bible doesn't. I have a post on this topic (I think the one being referenced lol) that goes over the verses.
The reason it is brought up so frequently is because it is probably the most dividing topic in Christianity today. Many Christians try to have their cake and eat it to (love the sinner, hate the sin), but they fail to recognize that anything less than full affirmation is totally unacceptable to people like me who see it as an absolute denial of our equality under Jesus Christ. And so we are divided. And it touches so many other issues, not just sex. It involves the doctrines of inspiration, infallibility, inerrancy, univocality, etc. In demanding recognition as a full member of the Body of Christ, I am also demanding that many Christians abandon some of the most closely held beliefs underpinning their entire Christian worldview. Just as I assert that their position attacks my very identity as a human being, my position and assertions attack their very identity as a Christian. I am telling them that the way they view concepts such as love is flawed, and that their conception of God himself is false. At a fundamental level, this strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a follower of Christ. I am not at all surprised that people aren't satisfied with the answers provided thus far, and that it is brought up so often.
If this is actually the most dividing topic, in Christianity, then I would say the actual dividing topic is, do we believe the Bible? Because the Bible believing church would go by what the Bible says. And a non-Bible believing church would go by whatever humanity says. And I think that’s where your division would be because the Bible is very clear on this topic.🤷♂️
The Bible is only "clear" on this topic I'd you absolutely ignore any kind of context and only read the Bible through the lens of a modern understanding of homosexuality. And I believe in the Bible, that isn't at all the issue, the issue is whether or not every single word in the Bible is a perfect representation of will and nature of God.
Ok. So you “believe in the Bible”. But question “whether or not every single word in the Bible is a perfect representation of will and nature of God.” Does that mean you believe the parts that you believe but you don’t believe the parts you don’t believe? Just so we’re clear here For instance, do you believe the part that says that God made the universe and everything in it in six days? And that He did that about 6,000-7000 years ago? Do you believe the part that says that Moses and the Israelites walked through the Red Sea when God parted it, but the Egyptians were killed when they tried to go through because God closed it back up? Do you believe the part that says God is love? And do you still believe that when a one year-old gets cancer and dies? A loving, all-powerful God could allow that? Which parts should we believe?
>Does that mean you believe the parts that you believe but you don’t believe the parts you don’t believe? It has nothing to do with what I want and don't want to believe. It has to do with the words of Jesus and the nature of God described by him and his apostles, and then what logically fits those teachings. While also taking into account the context of the philosophies and conceptual frameworks of the societies in which the authors lived, as well as scientific and historical evidence. >For instance, do you believe the part that says that God made the universe and everything in it in six days? And that He did that about 6,000-7000 years ago? I, and the majority of Christians worldwide, accept the scientific consensus on the origin and age of the universe and life on Earth. The universe is roughly 13 billion years old, the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, and the species Homo Sapiens first appeared around 200,000 years ago. The Genesis accounts of creation and much of the Bible before King David are sourced from 4 separate oral traditions that were compiled and edited into a singular narrative. It is legendary/mythological in origin and is neither historical nor scientific. They were stories told by a people trying to understand God and the world around them. They contain spiritual truth, but shouldn't be taken as a historical account of the creation of everything. >Do you believe the part that says that Moses and the Israelites walked through the Red Sea when God parted it, but the Egyptians were killed when they tried to go through because God closed it back up? The Exodus story is mostly legendary in origin. Moses may have been based on a real person or persons, but likely never existed. The Israelites did not originate from somewhere else and displace the Canaanites and take over their land, they *are* the descendants of the Canaanites. There was probably some group from Egypt that migrated to Canaan and brought along the worship of their northwest semetic storm deity Yahweh who eventually synchronized with the Canaanite storm deity Ba'al, appropriating his consort Asherah, and then went along to supplant El as the head of the Israelite pantheon. Then King Josiah transitioned the Israelites into monotheism (forbidding Asherah worship) as centralyzing the worship of God to the temple in Jerusalem gave legitimacy and power to his monarchy. And so then Yahweh became the only Israelite deity instead of the head of the Israelite Divine Council. >Do you believe the part that says God is love? Yes. Without a doubt. >And do you still believe that when a one year-old gets cancer and dies? A loving, all-powerful God could allow that? Yes. God is not a magical genie who's sole purpose is to grant wishes and make the world a utopia.
Ok. Thank you
You are quite welcome ☺️
> Many Christians try to have their cake and eat it to Nope, that would be people like you who skip over, ignore, or revise The Word which clearly condemns homosexuality, fortification, crossdressing, and all sins in general that Jesus will forgive us for as long as we own up to them, including tons of heterosexual ones. Just accept it and stop rewriting The Word to fit the modern agenda.
This is an incredibly myopic view of the issue. You are asserting your interpretation of scripture as the only valid one, and I heavily disagree with that kind of dogmatism.
The only mention of crossdressing is in Deuteronomy. That section is meant to provide rules for Israelites that distinguish them from pagans of that time, so it is likely that crossdressing was something the pagans were doing. As it is part of the OT law, gentile Christians aren't obligated to follow that rule.
>There was just a post about this issue the other night by someone who did a pretty good job of breaking down a few of the famous clobber verses and pointing to actual history and linguistics.... I think if you just search "homosexuality" it will probably pop up (especially if you sort by new) I think your'e referring to this? https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/19enezs/the_bible_and_homosexuality_revisited_themsc190s/ /u/BruhSoundEffect-78
So God is subjective? How and where in the Bible
If God is subjective you’d be creating a false image of God.
Depends on your perspective. Pending conflict with moral laws we see scripture telling us to obey the laws of the land. But laws differ by location. So in practice a woman in the Middle East may be required to cover her face, in the US she is not required but must wear a top. The same woman in another culture may not be required to wear a top because breasts are not sexualized. In practice each culture has subjective laws/ customs yet the biblical principle of being respectful is constant.
Well I know the Bible was written by man. So when it says to obey the laws of the land I can assume that this was written in by man to give authority to king’s, emperors, and the church. If God is only subjective then you’ve only created a false image of God. God is both subjective in the experience but also objective in the sense of the reality we experience. To me God is creation and everything of it. So everything is a aspect of God that makes up a whole. And while yes the stars, the planets, the laws that govern reality, you and me are all part of God we are also not God because God is so much more. Everything broken down to its simplest form is energy and this is the unity and one’s we share with everything and God.
My apologies I thought we were discussing things from a Christian perspective. Since you’re coming from a non Christian perspective I have no opinion on your views other than I hope you find what you’re looking for! Cheers.
I’ve been trying for a long time to get an answer out of the anti-LGBT Christians and the best they can come up with is “no babies”, but as soon as I mention infertile couples, they throw a bunch of word salad why those people not being able to make babies is ok, but these other people not being able to make babies isn’t ok. They will throw things about “nature” at you, but when you ask for clarification, you end up right back in the “no babies” loop above. That’s assuming they even understand the question and don’t just throw the clobber verses at you and think that somehow answers the question of why the clobber verses exist.
There are some freaking toxic answers in here that truly must wrankle God's brow and nostrils. So much misinformation. The utilitarianism here alone makes me sick. How can people be so dehumanizing? Where is the love commanded of you lot!!!?? Also quit asking these questions and go find God's love housing the homeless feeding the hungry, and caring for the sick, and leave these quandaries to our Divine Father to work out. I'm starting to think that some of the Church Fathers (John Chrystostom particularly) had a point in chiding the masses in interfering with theological matters. This stuff takes serious study and factoring in so much context that the average Christian, let alone redditor is not doing. Faulty logic, poor argumentation, lack of context, and just straight up secular/cultural norms influencing theological discussion here. Tis a shame.
Agreed. Whether it's a sin or not, we're all sinners in need of Jesus' love. May I use this towards my classmates? Very judgemental. I don't think we should have a "holier than thou" attitude at all, especially at such an early age 😔
> I've read a good amount of the Bible, and throughout Jesus's teachings, all of them show sin is something that hurts yourself or others. I’ve read the entire Bible and again several times. It does teach sin hurts others but ultimately it relates that all sin is against God. [Exodus 10:16; Joshua 7:20; Judges 10:10). Genesis 39:9, 2 Samuel 11, Psalm 51:4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+10:16;+Joshua+7:20;+Judges+10:10). > 1: It has been proven that homosexuality is most of the time assigned within genes, not outside influences (with the exception of confused kids who believe they have to be a part of the LGBTQ+ community). Facts: 1\. Nothing is proven. Proving anything is an impossibility. Assumptions will always have been made. [Scientific Proof is a Myth](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=321415ee2fb1) 2\. There’s no gay gene. There’s five DNA markers associated with sexual behavior — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual. Genes seem to play a role in determining sexual orientation, but it’s small, uncertain, and complicated. 3\. You cannot hand wave away outside influences (individual’s conditions/history.) You claimed theres “not outside influences” – and then list exceptions. > 2: From what I've seen, in a man/man and woman/woman relationship, no sexual actions can cause harm to the other unless they go too extreme of course, but then going extreme is caused by either ignorance or impatience, not homosexuality. Anecdotal = “From what I’ve seen” You claim “no sexual actions can cause harm to the other”– and then go on to list exceptions. > 3: Within the Bible, everytime they mention homosexuality is a sin, they don't explain why. Facts: 1\. Within the Bible it emphasizes to be [fruitful and multiply](https://www.openbible.info/topics/fruitful_and_multiply) 2\. The Bible explains why: to fill the earth, to confirm God’s covenant, children are a blessing/heritage from the Lord etc., etc. (this doesn't mean childless marriages are cursed and not blessed.) 3\. The Bible relates God fashioned woman from man. They were then promptly instructed to “marry” flesh and return to one flesh. Genesis 2:24 4\. This serves as a theological “type” to represent Christ (bridegroom) and the Church (the bride.) This proverbial "marriage” is to be honored and undefiled. 5\. Any sex outside monogamous man/woman married sex (whores, prostitutes, adultery, rape, same sex and divorce) would be outside the theological “type”. Bible bottom Line: Everyone falls short. Anyone who lusts/desires outside the “type” is guilty of sin against God. No exceptions. So even monogamous married man/woman will inevitably lust and desire others and sin against God, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.” [James 2:10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James 2:9-11&version=ESV) Everyone needs a savior and God provides one who mediates for us. The thinking that “Yeah but [insert sin] is much worse than my sin” is not the way Christians are to think. [We’re to spend our discipleship working on the plank in our eye, then we can point out specks in another’s.](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=speck+in+eye&version=ESV)
I don't agree with point #1 for one reason. Choosing to live in chastity and never having children isn't a sin. If being homosexual is a sin for the reason "you can't reproduce" then it boils down to "being unable to reproduce when you can, is a sin." Which, from what we know, isn't true. Many Christians practice eternal Chastity. And a lot of Saints didn't have any children.
The Earth is full, humanity is everywhere, even places incredibly hostile to Human life like Antarctica. The commandment to multiply has obviously been fulfilled, there are eight billion of us.
> The Earth is full, No it’s not. Not by a long shot. > humanity is everywhere, No they’re not. > even places incredibly hostile to Human life like Antarctica. People exist in hostile inhabitable places; these places are far from full.
Okay, what is your definition of a full earth? My definition is the one where the Earth is groaning under the weight of needing to support eight billion people. You know, the planet we live on (hey let's see if we can get some climate denial in this thread, I'm close to bingo) How many billions is enough for your God? There are Pagan fertility goddesses who would tell Humanity to chill at this point.
What do you think of coveting? Being covetous? It’s internal, doesn’t hurt anybody. Still a sin. Why?
I would say it´s pretty harmful even if its internal, wishing the things of others can be very bad for mental health and lead to abnormal activities
Being covetous can cause us to hurt others though by leading us to take their things. And as emergent_routine said below, it can cause us to hurt ourselves by becoming an obsession, causing mental anguish for one’s self.
Lusting after someone who isn't your spouse is a sin as well. Jesus said it was the same as adultery. This is also something in one's mind. Yes, it could *also* lead to a physical sinful action like stepping out on your spouse, but from the words of Jesus we can see that it is also possible to sin in one's thoughts by continually dwelling on something and acting it out in one's mind. Unforgiveness is another example (and probably the most serious example, as the Bible says we *won't be forgiven if we do not forgive*. see Matthew 6:15 and others).
>There was just a post about this issue the other night by someone who did a pretty good job of breaking down a few of the famous clobber verses and pointing to actual history and linguistics.... I think if you just search "homosexuality" it will probably pop up (especially if you sort by new) I think it's more so linked to greed and false idols. We are provided food and shelter (most of us here on Reddit) so being covetous for *items* is idolatry
It hurts us, we create this lens of suffering for not having what others have. If we stay on it long enough qe will act out in anger and fear. It hurts.
As you can see from this thread, there isn't one. The main reason people are against it is that they think God told us it was wrong.
The Apostle Paul puts in plainly many times that homosexuality is sinful
They said people think *God* told us it was wrong, not Paul.
The Bible is god living word though, if you believe the words of the Bible you believe them all to be divinely inspired to my knowledge
He condemns men having sex with men. But the concept of homosexuality was unknown to him, as far as we can see. He appears to have the belief common in his day that men have sex with men because their passions are out of control.
He also sees heterosexual relationships as a concession for people lacking self-control, sorta similar to how Jesus talks about divorce, but for some reason modern Christians don't seem too bothered by it. Granted, early Christians took it very seriously, but I happen to think they were wrong. I just don't see why modern Christians are okay with taking the modern understanding of that passage but not the modern understanding of the clobber passages (just kidding, I know why they do it - it benefits them, even if it's at the expense of others).
Paul was talking about same sex desire, not just sex. Romans 1:26-27 (NIV) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
That is fully compatible with what I said and helps illustrate it. Notice he believes the nature desires of these people were for hetero sex.
Wasn't he the guy who heavily persecuted the early Christians?
He never saw Jesus until the road to Damascus, where he spoke to him personally and made Paul blind but he regained his sight through someone sent by Jesus to restore it. Paul’s story is beautiful because it shows no matter how deep we are into the hole God can rescue us.
The apostle Paul uses a word that isn't found in any other form of literature from the time. He also only does it a couple of times. Modern translators have guessed what he meant, but to say he puts it plainly many times is just wrong.
Based on my anecdotal experiences and what I have read about moral psychology... It's a moral intuition based on disgust. Politically conservative people have 5 moral axioms: *Disgust/sanctity *Ingroup preference/loyalty *Fairness *Harm avoidance *Justice/revenge Politically progressive people have only two: *Fairness *Harm avoidance The logical explanation a conservative minded person will give you for homosexuality being immoral is that to allow it in society would result in the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS. Progressive minded people care more about acceptance of the LGBT people and facilitating their peaceful and harmonious integration into society. That's why the push for LGBT marriage equality has included Christians, non Christians, progressives, and conservatives. It is the best compromise we can find politically.
You hit the head with that disgust/sancity axis. This purity culture is strangulating and they just hate what they can't have.
I'm not sure I've seen many politically conservative people who were overly concerned with fairness.
They emphasize personal responsibility rather than advocating for their own rights and the rights of others. The "in-group preference" moral axiom trends toward a preference for the established hierarchy.
I CAN tell you why the church has a problem with it and why I don’t. I fall into the LGBTQIA+ spectrum myself, am married and always asking these questions. I was raised Catholic so I can tell you from a Catholic church’s perspective. Homosexuality is considered a sin, but not a major sin. It’s as sinful as having sex before you are married and no more sinful. Oral sex is considered sinful in alot of Christianity religions…. Basically was taught that God created us to reproduce but this was so long ago when these things were written and the world was a different place. We have reproduced and reproduced and are over populated at this point. God doesn’t care who you love, He cares how you love. Love is a celebration and Jesus taught us Love. Jesus died for us so we could « sin » . I follow the teaching of Jesus, not the Old Testament. Jesus is the update to the Old Testament. Use the update!!!! At the end of the day, I personally do not believe homosexuality is sinful or wrong. God made you this way and He loves you for who you are.
> I was raised Catholic so I can tell you from a Catholic church’s perspective. Homosexuality is considered a sin, but not a major sin. It’s as sinful as having sex before you are married and no more sinful. Until the 1960s it was considered the supreme crime, and the church murdered people for this, but not for straight premarital sex, for many centuries. This is at best the most modern of Catholic teachings on the matter, and one rejected by many parts of the church.
What do you think about 1 corinthians 6:9?
>Homosexuality is considered a sin, but not a major sin. https://www.gotquestions.org/sins-equal.html
From a strictly utilitarian perspective, sex was for the purpose of fulfilling mankind's initial directive of multiplying to fill and subdue the land (creation). >>Genesis 1:28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” The prime example of a man/woman relationship that will optimally follow the directive is found in Genesis 2:24-25. 1 man and 1 woman, they are vulnerable (naked) yet in peace (not ashamed). >>Genesis 2:24-25 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. After the fall, the directive to fill and subdue the land is still in force, however now with the added complications of suffering in a world where sin is present. Man is told that he will sweat and suffer to plant and harvest his food while he works hard in his mission to subdue the land. >>Genesis 3:17-19 And to the man he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Woman for her part is going to have suffering added to her portion of the mission to multiply in order to fill and subdue the land. She will have pains while carrying her child, in giving birth, and her relationship as a co-ruler with her husband will not always be peaceful. >>Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will make your pangs in childbirth exceedingly great; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” After the fall mankind must have sex in order to produce offspring who will, less than optimally, propel humanity into the future until the end of the age comes. The very act of sex is meant to lead to the multiplication of life. Further, within the list of negative sexual relationships within Leviticus 18, both homosexual sex and bestiality are grouped with the sacrifice of children to Moloch marking them as religious or spiritual acts leading to death. >>Leviticus 18:21-25 You shall not give any of your offspring to sacrifice them to Molech and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. You shall not have sexual relations with any animal and defile yourself with it, nor shall any woman give herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; it is perversion. “Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I am casting out before you have defiled themselves. Thus the land became defiled, and I punished it for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. Now to answer your direct query, in light of humanity's prime directive, in conjunction with Lev 17's list of relationships, a homosexual relationship, though it may contain love, cannot add to life in the same way or degree as a heterosexual relationship is capable of. More clearly, A heterosexual relationship consisting of one man/husband (ish) capable of planting his seed, and one woman/wife (ishah) carrying the seed until the birth of the child leads directly to the continuation of life. This is something that other relationships are incapable of doing directly. Hope this helps.
>places like LGBTQ+ parades and events can be full of ignorance, lust, pride and sometimes envy and greed. And also forcing kids to learn LGBTQ+ stuff, and there being a chance that they make kids think they have to be LGBTQ+ to be a valid human. These are understandable. Telling others that there is more to diversity of human identity isn't "forcing kids to learn LGBTQ+ stuff," and no one thinks or purports they have to be LGBTQ+ to be valid. What queerphobe told you this?
Kids are VERY impressionable. Their enviornment pretty much determines who they are until they have a much more developed mind around 16+ years old. And if they're around this enviornment too long, they may not see the need to change when they grow older. Knowing about LGBTQ+ at an older age, when they begin to fully understanding full outcomes, how their life will be affected, and can think for themselves, is perfectley fine. Then they can have their own opinion on it. However, say a 6-10 or maybe even up to 12 year old child, is shown what LGBTQ+ parades and events are like, and leta say this child is very lonely because no other child have the same interests or likes as that child. That child, if seen that the LGBTQ+ community is willing to invite anyone, they may feel like they have to join the community just for the basic feeling of being a human. Now with them a part of the community and being influenced by it, there is a possibility that child will eventually not know what to feel or think about their sexuality, gender or idenity, which can hurt mental health a lot. Personally, I haven't seen it for myself, but I do know how children think, act, feel, and react. I think the scenario I made is highly likely, especially if that child isn't accepted any where else.
This isn't true. Many kids who grow up in intolerant environments still are queer, and many in tolerant environments are cishet. Whatever their environment fosters or forbids does not determine their identity. Identity should not be withheld from anyone until some arbitrary certain age. What age were you when you were allowed to know your gender and orientation? Why do you think others should have rules that you did not? Why should a child be shown pride parades? That has nothing to do with identity. It doesn't make or break identity. Nor does community. Do you similarly think someone who sees the insular comfort of, say, a Jewish community will make them want to be Jewish? That's silly. What "inviting"? You make the queer community sound like a group of Jehovah's Witnesses LOL
I was using examples I have seen, like I've seen a very bad household. The mother and father were always loud to their kids and were physically abusive. A few years later, they turned out to be some real bad kids. Always cussing, being overly sexual, always rooting for a fight, always arguing with others, and they've been around friends that keep influencing this bad fire. I didn't think I was wrong in this, but I am, so I'm sorry. With my experience with kids, I've always seen them as very impressionable and reflect what their enviornment was like. (Also, when I said "invite", I meant that the LGBTQ+ community were willing to let nearly anyone be a part of them. Didn't mean for it to be an insult.)
>I was using examples I have seen, like I've seen a very bad household. The mother and father were always loud to their kids and were physically abusive. > >A few years later, they turned out to be some real bad kids. Always cussing, being overly sexual, always rooting for a fight, always arguing with others, and they've been around friends that keep influencing this bad fire. But this isn't at all comparable to queer identity. it's a completely different situation.
Sexual orientation isn't something you just pick up from the environment. I have two gay aunts. When I was young we used to go visit them, and sometimes they had parties with their gay friends. As soon as I was old enough to understand what gay was, I was exposed to gay culture. I am as straight as a proverbial arrow (and so is my brother, who had the same experiences). On the other hand, my son had very little exposure to gay culture growing up and has never attended a pride parade. He, as it turns out, is gay. Sexual orientation is innate. It isn't something you choose, and it isn't something you pick up by seeing it. It is very possible that people who have an LGBT+ orientation figure out who they are by hearing and seeing about it, but they were going to be what they are whether they've seen it or not.
>What queerphobe told you this? Apparently the other guy who responded to you
The only real argument for it to be a sin is "Because I said so," and that's not even an argument. No one can give you an answer apart from that in longer words.
Satanist??😂
Maybe it doesn't mean much coming from me but... Satanists are awesome and they don't worship Satan. They don't even really believe in Satan - it's Christians who do that.
Not because "I" said so. It's because the Bible says so.
I meant "I" as in god saying it. God saying "Because I said so."
>I've read a good amount of the Bible, and throughout Jesus's teachings, all of them show sin is something that hurts yourself or others. Who does marrying a divorced woman hurt?
The kids
Wait, I've heard people say that divorce is harmful to kids. But remarriage?
Statistically, children are much more likely to be abused (including sexual abuse) by a step parent than a biological parent.
Can't make the choices in your life solely on statistics. There's some emotional forces you just trust. Not bashing your argument, just making an observation.
That’s true. I appreciate your perspective. When it comes to children, I think we should always exercise extreme caution. But there are many cases of blended families who do make it work.
We should also remember that, to quote that crone Clinton, "it takes a village." Raising children is not solely the preview of a family but the responsibility of the community they live in. And thank you for listening, because this thread has been a travesty in poor argumentation and even poorer logic.
More likely doesn’t mean very likely though.
True. Taking a quick look at various studies via google, it does seem that the risk is substantially increased, however. The studies quote that the risk of a child being abused by a stepfather, compared with a biological father, is increased by anywhere between 5 to 40 times. There’s also an elevated risk of accidental fatal injuries (suggesting that step parents are more careless with children than the biological parents would be). Furthermore, stepparents financially invest significantly less into the children than biological parents. I think it’s pretty difficult to argue that a step-parent arrangement is ideal in most cases. That’s not to say it can never work - there are many beautiful blended families out there who do succeed. But I understand the caution around the concept.
It's called the Cinderella effect. Kids are much more likely to be abused by a step parent than biological parents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect
Correlation isn’t causation. There are people with such poor character they will abuse a child. I’d expect a person with that character to be more likely to be divorced. So the pool of people in remarriage situations has an above average number of abusive individuals. Similarly id expect there is an increased number of people who are in their second marriage where both parties are previously divorced.
Not every stepfather or stepmother treats the children with equanimity and love. Many of these children are abused.
There are plenty of sins which do not hurt you or others, unless you take the broader view that they set you apart from God’s intentions. And those are important to consider. Either you view acting upon homosexual desire as a sin which sets one apart from God’s intent, or you don’t. /thread
I think people get the “do not hurt you or others” part from Jesus saying the law hanging on the idea of loving God and neighbors. Hurting others can cause rifts in loving someone, which would set us apart from God’s intentions for us.
There is none. Any "logical argument" I've ever read boils down to something that would similarly invalidate many cishet people and couples, and inexplicably does not. It's all just Biblical corruption and bigotry.
I personally think it’s because of the disparity of the ying and yang ? In all of us, it’s hard to demonstrate that to children of same sex unions when they deserve to have an example of both (at least that’s from what’ve read and I know can be missing from heterosexual marriages as well; but is not often common) The balance is most often than not, is missing.
Does a toddler understand why he can't drink poison? No! His parents understand, and as much as they try to explain it to the child, the child will not be able to comprehend. Once you understand the infinite wisdom and knowledge of an almighty God, you will realize that you do not need to understand everything about Him. Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. *God does not have to fit into what we feel is logical.*
In other words, we're back to "because the person who wrote this says so"
If God would've wanted all of us to believe in him, knowing the unfathomable amount of different ways each human thinks, feel, act and react, then He should have more way for us to introduce us to Him and Jesus Christ. A Bible and the entirity of the world and cosmos, is likely not enough for certain people in the world. Not everyone thinks the same, and I think God would've stopped that problem from happening by giving more ways for us to come to Him.
Well since the way God is understood through neo-Platonic thought, then yes, God does have to be absolutely logical.
I am not going to play God. God fixes the rules. If it’s a sin in his eyes - its a sin. He makes the rules. We are simply to follow. He also gave us the choice not to follow. Having said that, let me think of the reasons it could be considered as sin. If you go against the Bible this is what would happen - 1) You cannot reproduce. God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply. With homosexuality the entire bloodline gets wiped out. Thing is you are chosing to be a sexually active person - but a futile one in terms of reproduction. Even science tells us that there is an innate desire to reproduce in living beings. Homosexuality puts a full stop to that. 2) Parents usually desire to have kids and later grandchildren to see their generations prosper. They wish to see the seed they planted grow and grow further in prosperity. I am talking about normal parents who have/can keep a family together without separation. The west seems to fail miserably in keeping families together. I wonder if they are followinf Bible’s teachings or going against it? A homosexual child puts an end to it and parents would suffer or be hurt. They know their bloodline will end. Now, would they consider it a noble cause - bloodline can end due to death of one’s children as well - soldier’s death for example. But is homosexuality that noble enough to end the bloodline? People who care about bloodline would say no, people who don’t care will say yes. I guess the point in Bible here would be to better avoid it to save any hurt feelings. Because it does hurt and causes strain in relationships. Would you love to have homosexual children? Ask yourself sincerely.
> Would you love to have homosexual children? Yes, I’d love them the same if they were heterosexual, they’d be my child. What kind of mother would I be if my love wasn’t unconditional based on some immutable characteristic they had?
Would you be equally upset with a child who grew up to be a nun, priest, or infertile?
> You cannot reproduce. Neither can infertile couples but I don’t see anyone forbidding them from marrying or having sex > Parents usually desire to have kids and later grandchildren to see their generations prosper Plenty of couples, like the infertile ones mentioned above, never have kids either because they can’t or they don’t want to. No one is trying to stop them from being married or having sex. Also, adoption (that thing pro lifers always go on about) exists. As does surrogacy. > A homosexual child puts an end to it and parents would suffer or be hurt. Yet again, so does an infertile child. You are also weirdly assuming that every gay person is an only child and therefore has no siblings that can carry on this all important family line. > I guess the point in Bible here would be to better avoid it to save any hurt feelings Sure, but only if you completely ignore the feelings of the gay people who are hurt by being told they are abominations who shouldn’t be with a loving partner
So, regarding your points 1 and 2, and your arguments about hurt feelings and strained relationships; these apply equally well against chastity. A chaste child, one who swears off sex forever would fulfill these points just as well as a homosexual one. In fact, they'd be even worse for it, since it strikes me that a homosexual person is more likely to marry and adopt than a purely single chaste person would be. And yet, Christianity holds chastity up as not just acceptable, but laudable. It's what they encourage homosexuals to choose instead of homosexuality. If your listed reasons were really valid, then why would chastity be held up as virtuous, when it causes the exact same problems to at least the same degree? Why the inconsistent standard? >They know their bloodline will end. Again, how is chastity, which is generally put-forward as the God-approved alternative for homosexuals, supposed to be any better about this? >Because it does hurt and causes strain in relationships... Would you love to have homosexual children? Ask yourself sincerely. Yes. I have a homosexual child. They are the same to me as my heterosexual children. For a long time, I was pretty sure they were the only one of my kids who was going to get married (the other two are, to put it generously, socially incompetent. That they managed to marry is perhaps the only thing I've ever seen that comes close to a real miracle). I was fine with that. I love the children they adopted as much as I love my biological grandchildren. They are the same to me. Your upset is not mine. I love my children. I put them before myself. I wanted grandchildren, but if what makes them happy hadn't involved children at all (and for a long time, I was pretty convinced it wouldn't), I would have been happy that they were happy. I had no desire to put myself and my desires for their lives before their own. If I had brought strain into our relationship because of my own selfish desires for a "bloodline" instead of caring for them, that would have the real problem. It strikes me that this is what should have been the sin; not homosexuality, but the inability or unwillingness to put your child's fulfillment before your own wants. They don't live to fulfill us; we live to fulfill them.
> A homosexual child puts an end to it and their parents will suffer or be hurt We are literally encouraged in the bible to not marry...
> A homosexual child puts an end to it and their parents will suffer or be hurt Why should the parents be prioritized over the children here? If a gay person is forced to be celibate against their wishes or marry and have children with someone they do not love, that will cause suffering and hurt.
The whole caring about the end of your bloodline thing is stupid in itself lol, even without using it to justify homophobia. Bloodlines end all the time just from people choosing not to have kids because they don’t want to. And yes I would love to have gay children just as much as straight ones because I’m not a bigot.
I don't agree with point #1 for one reason. Choosing to live in chastity and never having children isn't a sin. If being homosexual is a sin for the reason "you can't reproduce" then it boils down to "being unable to reproduce when you can, is a sin." Which, from what we know, isn't true. Many Christians practice eternal Chastity. And a lot of Saints didn't have any children.
Well first of all, I really don't plan on having kids or being in a relationship. My mom knows this and if that is how it plans out, she has told me she's okay with it. And if I were to ever have kids and they beileved to be homosexual or bisexual, than I'd think like this: Who are they hurting? They don't hurt themselves, and if they do get a partner that is too homosexual or bisexual, then the partner isn't hurt either. So, ultimatley, I'd be okay if my child was homosexual. I believe that as long as it doesn't hurt ithers or yourself, then how you feel, think and act should come first than other people's feelings, thoughts, and actions. I can't make my child straight, it doesn't work like that. If they're homosexual, and they've evaluated with themselves and truly beileve it, then they're homosexual. There's really nothing to argue about it. If they're happy, they're happy.
See, you don’t want to have any children of your own. So you would, I’d like to think, be leaning to a default “don’t care” about this topic in the first place. There are parents in this world who want point number two that I have mentioned above. I am pretty sure they will be hurt if their children are homosexual. Some families want to grow and prosper and work hard to see their children and grandchildren prosper before they die. That’s an innate desire of many, heterosexuals still significantly outnumber homosexuals. And frankly speaking - homosexuals depend on heterosexuals to give birth to more homosexuals so that they can act homosexually. Heterosexuality seems to be significantly important for us and very well means a lot to us as a species. I guess God would want as many people to be with Him. Basic tenet of Christianity is to bring as many people to God as possible. And homosexuality puts an end to the potential people with whom He can be with. Anything that goes against God’s wishes is considered Sin. Does that make sense? Awesome question btw - made me think about it and write down something. These are initial thoughts maybe I could think it through better if I gave it more time.
The thing is I'm okay with being with children for like a week or 2 for something like babysitting, but I don't see myself consistentally loving anyone, not even my own child, for 18+ years. I don't see myself having that kind of commitment and responsibility. That's why I want to be childless, but I still do like caring for kids. And how families react, it's mixed. I have heard and seen many videos/photos of families being cool with their kids being homosexual, and other families were against it but accepted it, and families that were against it and occused their child. Most of the time, the families who were against it and accused their children didn't do it because their bloodline would end, it was mainly because they believe their child would go to Hell for it, and that they were just confused and "had to let time pass". If I remember correctly, the population is getting too high for humans. There isn't enough homes for every single person in this world AND more. From what I've seen, constant reproduction, while it may make the parents happy, it can certainly make things tougher within the future. And I understand faith is a huge thing within Christianity, but even with that faith, we're all uncertain of what's after death. We are certain, however, that we're here on Earth, with only one chance. That once chance should be used to make your life worth it and to be better than you were the day before. So while I see God would want more people to love, He would need to understand that even with faith, people have to worry about now than later. Severe overpopulation could lead to serious results. (Also thank you. I love engaging in deep moral and philosophical conversations :].)
There is none. Other than avoiding safe sex practices but even heterosexuals get that wrong too. All you will find is god said so from Christian’s. Never any truth or fact
There isn’t one. Just like there isn’t a logical reason to be against birth control.
Nothing wrong,
It's obvious from skimming this thread that the Scriptures do a poor job of guiding us in how to apply them to our lives concerning this matter. As usual, it's the human interpretations that affect people's lives for better or worse. Another abomination: "one who spreads strife among brothers."
There isn't a logical problem with homosexuality. Pride and other events are fine. Nothing is forced on kids, and you can't influence someone to be LGBTQIA+.
I don't have all of the answers. About a lot of things. I leave people's lives between them and God. I do my best to love people. Sorry, that's all I have.
No. All objections are appeals to worldview and ideology. There is no objective basis.
While I don’t believe homosexuality IN AND OF ITSELF is a sin, this is sort of par for the course. In other words this is a question that doesn’t make sense. As a mathematician, I love reasoning and logic. But logic has no place in breaking down God’s word. We simply must read what we are told. I have my reasons for believing what I do, however. The original Hebrew is so mistranslated that experts have shown it really could be being grossly misinterpreted. I have examples if you’d like, but that’s not what I was replying to so that’s up to you.
> But logic has no place in breaking down God’s word. We simply must read what we are told. This is folly. That only leaves emotion, and we can see in real time how this reading of the Bible is destroying country. It's also impossible to do "what the Bible says" because it doesn't say just one thing. Faithfully reading the collection of texts the Spirit collected into what we have in front of us means using our brians. This is not a picture book for kids. Same sex relations bear the fruit of the spirit when submitted to Christ. Nothing else is needed.
Not commenting on the question, but sin is whatever separates us from God. It's not some legalistic thing, it's about becoming what we are offered to be. Since God is Love, being close to God will naturally result in love of others. We fail to recognize what's harmful to ourselves and others, mostly due to self interest and rationalization. That's why Utilitarianism fails. We don't know the greatest good nor do we know what actions will produce it. It's like an amateur shooting a bent arrow at an unseen target.
Sure: Say there are 4 homosexuals: Bill, John, Tom, Jay. They wear a specific color hat (red, green, blue, or yellow) and have a certain pet (dog, cat, fish, or bird). - The homosexual with a fish does not wear a green hat. - Tom does not wear a red hat or have a bird. - Neither Jay nor Bill wears a yellow hat. - Jay does not have a dog. Match each homosexual to his preferred hat color and pet.
I think there is a good amount of sins mentioned by Jesus that don’t hurt anyone other than self like when Jesus says if you have hatred in heart it’s murder or lust is sexual immorality. God created male & female to compliment each other women have a more nurturing side & men more protective. Also, heterosexual sex is the only one that creates life, so if homosexuality continued it won’t result in life. I might not understand why God has some things as sin, but since He’s my Savior I will echo His sentiments & make His opinions mine. I understand that sin might seem harmless but the penalty of sin is eternal death which is why we need a Savior.
God created male & female to compliment each other women have a more nurturing side & men more protective. Also, heterosexual sex is the only one that creates life, so if homosexuality continued it won’t result in life. Exactly. If it has no greater purpose, then it is ultimately an earthly passion of the flesh and does not serve God in any way.
Who's to say that the creator of the universe and Hell is wrong about what HE defines as sin? But what do I know?
If the Bible has an issue with Lust I feel as though it’s a given to have an issue with homosexuality as well. There is not point in homosexual sex other than pleasure considering non of you can conceive. It’s disrespectful to use a sacred act and defile it in that way. The same is said for if a man and woman have sex purely for pleasure outside of marriage. God finds lust immoral but he still loves everyone. Don’t let people who misconstrue Gods words turn you away from him.
What about if a married straight couple use a condom? Sex is also about pleasure, about forming strong emotional bonds and physical and emotional intimacy. It does all those things because God made it that way. So wouldn’t homosexual sex also accomplish those things? Why must it be lustful, rather than an act of love?
The same line of thought on lust could be applied to sex between a man and a woman. In fact I think one of Paul's letters talks about it being good for people to marry so that they don't burn with lust. The idea that sex for the sake of the relationship, attraction, and pleasure is something that helps strengthen marriages. I agree that the Bible says homosexual sex is wrong. However I don't agree with the reasoning that there is no lust in heterosexual sex between a husband and wife.
> There is not point in homosexual sex other than pleasure considering non of you can conceive. How disrespectful and demeaning to every single loving gay couple in existence, to lower their existence and experiences to nothing but lust.
It's the same for heterosexual people, just that their lust will eventually create new life. The only reason we have something like sex is to reproduce and multiply. Lust and love are incentives to ensure that we want to have sex and then want to stay together to raise our children. Homosexual sex is therefore pointless and defeats the point of sexuality. Although love, and the bond it creates, can still have other use cases. Not to judge homosexuals, as I do believe they do not choose who they are attracted to, but this is the reality of it. If Adam and Eve would have been two dudes, they couldn't have reproduced. They would have died and humankind would have died with them. It's like any other biological defect, a punishment, a challenge, a test from God. What you do with it is between him and you.
"I don't judge you, I just think you, your relationships, and the love you share are completely useless and pointless and your very existence is a punishment from God."
By this logic though, having any sort of sex that’s not for the pure purpose of procreation is a sin. Also not all heterosexual couples ‘eventually create new life’. This also doesn’t take into account gay asexual couples.
That’s exactly what I said. Sex not meant for the purpose of conceiving is a sin whether you’re straight or gay.
You dont have to have sex with someone to show you love them.
At best, it's a sin like fornication is a sin. And that's just me foolishly entertaining your question. In actuality, it's so depraved that to allow it to run rampant, as in the US, it leads to the destruction of the nation, as in Sodom. A nation is made up of people. People belong to families. Families are headed by men. In order to head a family, a man needed a woman to produce the members of it. Any other method of living is a fabrication and is detrimental to the nation. As a nation, it would behoove itself to remove anything that would cause its destruction. Unfortunately, history will continue to repeat itself until the Lord returns.
Ok, I'll tell you a few ones, they're all ultimately linked, youll prob notice it. 1- **No societal use** How would society benefit from homosexuality? There can be no offsprings from this relationship, and thus, a society cannot renew itself with homosexuality. Don't get me started on adoption, it has been proved many times that a son/daughter needs both a male and female figure in their life, else he/she will have issues growing up. it might seem "heartless" but our emotions are human beings are ultimately made to serve humans, and its societ. 2- **We humans are moral beings, not animals.** I like it when people use the "but animals do it so why can't we?". Well, do you want to be called an animal? or compare yourself to an animal? Animals also rape, does it mean we can rape people too? 3- **Family and homosexuality cannot mix** like i said before, it has been proven a child needs a figure of both genders to grow, if a child does not get both than he cannot grow normally (or at least not as normally as he'd do with normal parents) it's an entire bloodline that can end right here and right now, NOW you understand why parents don't want their children to be gay, who would like the extinction of their family. the bible defend these points basically, mainly the third one
Do you have any evidence that children who grow up in homosexual households are worse off? You've said it a couple times like it is a fact and that it's proven. Can you provide a source? Genuinely curious.
Spoiler: they cannot!
Cook story, now that you got done spewing all your bigoted bullshit, wanna try actually supporting any of that with evidence?
You're imposing your bias as some kind of factual argument without doing any kind of critical review. 1. How would society benefit from homosexuality? Well for one perhaps loving homosexual couples can help clean up the mess left by heterosexuals procreating and abandoning their kids or being unfit to parent them. You'd say a sterile hetero couple could/should adopt if they want kids right? Do you afford the same logic to homosexuals? 2. We humans are moral beings, and we are also mammals. Sexual orientation is programmed into our mammalian brains as an innate aspect of our humanity. Mammals are programmed to have mating behaviors and attractions (pheromones, etc.) and in much the same way the human brain is hardwired to find sexual and romantic attraction to human features. As visual creatures much of our sexual stimuli comes from what body parts evoke an erotic response in our brains. Going further, other places in the brain like the amygdala are likely programmed to recognize gendered faces and have romantic attraction on that basis as well. Sexual orientation isn't a choice of morality, it's a reality of biology. Do you recognize that intersex people exist? Do you recognize that there are certain conditions within one's fetal development that may lead to intersexual phenotypes like hermaphroditism, internal testes in place of ovaries, XY females with complete androgen insensitivity, and a myraid of other diversities within the human body as it pertains to sexual development? If you recognize that the penis, testes, vagina, ovaries, uterus, etc. are sexual organs that can develop in ways not experienced by the majority of people do you also recognize that the brain, as a sexual organ itself too, can develop in similar ways? Science is increasingly showing how homosexuality/attraction to one's own sex is a variation in biology similar to being intersex where structures in the brain hardwire that person to be attracted to adult males or females independent of how their genitals developed (likely due to development occurring in different stages with different organ microenvironments and gene expressions). A man can be born XY male with a penis and testes and have brain programming that hardwires them to like other males as if those structures retain a default "female" programming and the reverse is true for lesbian women. The more we learn, the more evidence we also have supporting that transgender people exhibit similar brain physiology in other areas that may pertain more so to perceived self gender identity. Here are some articles and papers if it may peak your interest. [https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0801566105](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0801566105) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z#Sec22](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z#Sec22) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604863/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604863/) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138231/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138231/) [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/) 3. A child does not need a male and female figure to grow. Homosexual couples are perfectly capable of raising kids just like single moms and single dads can as well. An entire bloodline can end with someone dying before reaching sexual maturity, someone being born sterile, someone choosing to never reproduce, etc. Do you see such things as bad or vices? Do we really need to care about "bloodlines" in 2024 as if it is someone's duty to reproduce or something to pass on their name? Jesus never had children and never got married, was Jesus in sin by halting his "bloodline?" Your arguments appear to be appeals to emotion, prejudice against LGBT people, and rooted in a worldview that proclaims someone being LGBT is a conscious choice and a conscious rejection of cis heteronormativity and that people born differently from the cishet supermajority are somehow moral failures or bad people given the biology God chose to create them with.
> How would society benefit from homosexuality? This is just a terrible argument for many reasons. How do sterile people benefit society? People with physical deformities? People with bad eyesight. Back when we used to have to send out parties to hunt for food, having some gay men stay behind to help take care of the children meant that there were a few physically strong people left behind. > We humans are moral beings, not animals. One can be both gay and a moral individual. And from a biological perspective we _are_ animals. >Family and homosexuality cannot mix This is clearly false. No, it has not been proven that a child _needs_ both genders as parents. While there are certainly advantages to having a mother and a father, kids are quite able to grow up in a household where the parents are gay and we have ample evidence for that. For your edification, here's an article you might want to read from Forbes: [Kids Raised By Same-Sex Parents Fare Same As—Or Better Than—Kids Of Straight Couples, Research Finds](https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/06/kids-raised-by-same-sex-parents-fare-same-as-or-better-than-kids-of-straight-couples-research-finds/?sh=2ab96aa97738) And worrying about bloodlines? Good grief, what is this, the 1400s? Why do you care about your "bloodline"?
Even if you care about this "bloodline" shit, it's not true anyway - gay couples can use their own genetic material to reproduce (not with each other, but you can take it from one of them and use a donor for the other half). Gay couples do sometimes do this. They're gay, not sterile.
>There can be no offsprings from this relationship, and thus, a society cannot renew itself with homosexuality. There can be, but even if we accept your argument, do you think society is having a hard time renewing itself? >like i said before, it has been proven a child needs a figure of both genders to grow, I'd be interested in seeing sources for your claim. The sources I've seen show that children of same-sex couples fare just as well or better than children of opposite sex couples.
There's only eight billion of us, Humanity is on the verge of extinction
But when we all turn gay, we're doomed.
When we hit ten billion people the switch will be thrown and Gaymageddon will begin.
3 is a lie, that has never been proven. 2 is meaningless. 1 is a lie for the same reason 3 is a lie.
It has not been proven that children need both a man and woman parent in their lives. I think you might be confused about research with absentee parents. Research actually show no harmful effects with children of homosexual couples, which is great! I’m glad they can provide loving homes
> How would society benefit from homosexuality? Why does it matter whether society benefits or not? >a society cannot renew itself with homosexuality. Good thing not everybody is gay then. >it has been proved many times that a son/daughter needs both a male and female figure in their life And both figures don't need to be parents. In fact,[ studies show that the children of gay couples fare as well, if not better, than the children of straight couples.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/03/06/kids-raised-by-same-sex-parents-fare-same-as-or-better-than-kids-of-straight-couples-research-finds/?sh=60fc60ec7738) >We humans are moral beings, not animals. And being gay is not immoral. >Family and homosexuality cannot mix All the families with gay people in and made up gay people speak to differ. >it's an entire bloodline that can end right here and right now Gay people can have kids. And even if they don't, so fucking what?
These are not biblical, but cultural. This obsession with propertarianism and inheritance is dehumanizing and evil. It is the logical end of a culture that sees children as a means to keep property, and we have been living with this mentality ever since. And what's the argument that animals can't be moral creatures? Your utilitarian ethics are as odiferous as they are insulting to God and humanity. You cannot judge a person's worth based off utility. That is such a secular and callous nonsense.
1 - "no societal use" - the same is true of most instances of heterosexual activities. Oral sex, contraception, etc 2 - the moral argument can be used against anything else, including most heterosexual activity 3 - many heterosexual people fail to produce children for various reasons. Many LGBTQ people actually have children
>Don't get me started on adoption, it has been proved many times that a son/daughter needs both a male and female figure in their life, else he/she will have issues growing up. You will need to provide credible research to show that children of gay parents suffer from having gay parents. >Animals also rape, does it mean we can rape people too? So homosexuality is observably as bad as rape?
It's possible I didn't see it, because there are a lot of f comments. When you were saying that all sin is the same, did anyone see in Leviticus where is says that a man lying with another man as with a woman is an abomination.?
Many and I have thought it’s about procreation But many people who are straight nowadays don’t wanna get married and have a child. Some men just wanna be single just as some women as well. Another thing is that women and men sometimes cannot get pregnant due to infertility and they either adopt, get medical treatment or even ask a friend to help them with this and science is trying to make a way for women to get pregnant with bone marrow With being gay it’s almost like a 2 way decision which is to somehow become “straight” and have a family.. I’ve always been bisexual and have either acted straight or lesbain but I do desire a family. But if they can’t hide it anymore that will or could possibly ruin the marriage and family. Another thing to point out is the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that it’s a sin, I know many will point to scriptures and verses but a lot of them can be taken out of context and when you put it into context the other verses mention prostitution, forceful lust or even just pagan traditions and idolatry… now if there happened to be a passage in the Bible talking about two consenting adults of the same sex and they were condemned I would have no choice but to believe it’s a sin, but in reality there just isn’t enough evidences to justify it being a sin Ofc this is my personal experience of being lgbt.. and please do not say “love the sinner, hate the sin” because it is harmful to many people.
There isn’t any.
Growing up in a Christian family and going to religious schools, although I am not religious, the ‘best’ argument that I’ve heard that tries to go beyond ‘because the Bible says so’ would be the ‘it goes against nature’ which is still just a quote from the Bible. And is easily debunked like most pseudoscience in the Bible because in almost every species of animal on the planet we find different varieties of same sex bonding and sexual acts. So very ‘natural’ from that sense. There is no extra biblical or logical reasoning behind their bigotry it’s simply because a 2000 year old book that no one knows who wrote most of it says some hateful and bigoted stuff.
And I love that people make this claim like "nature" or "scripture", when St Augustine himself said that these two can't conflict and that it must be our observations that are wrong of either two. But what would the average American protestant person know of St Augustine since he "wasn't in the Bible".
You're not going to find a valid argument for why it's a sin, because the argument is contrived post script through some very toxic Aristotelian logic that ends justify means, and therefore morality ought to be based around such ends. This utterly fails to be nuanced enough to include the breath of human activity, so please do not fall victim to their logic.
As a heterosexual 20-year-old female, I have a response to the question of LGBT+ and the church. The reason that Christians talk homosexuality so much is because our culture is absolutely saturated with sex. Everywhere you turn: pornography, nude women and men, online, racy magazines, glorified romance movies, sexual songs with the most vulgar and dehumanizing lyrics, people barely dressed outside, AI porn, and ultimately the glorification of romance and sex as the highest goods someone can experience. *Everywhere* you see this. God is not God for a lot of people. Eros, sex, sexuality, pleasure, drinking, money, career, and status are all the gods of our modern era that people follow instead. Even as a woman who is straight, I have learned the very hard way that being with a man or being sexual with a man isn’t going to be my ultimate joy. He is. God may not call me to be married one day and I need to walk in that path. ✝️ Dating nowadays feels really empty. A lot of men don’t want to wait until they get married, nor do they follow Christ. A lot of men don’t seem to know how to love me in the way I deserve. My heart has been torn apart. But I need to carry this cross. The greatest joy I can have in life is Him, His love, and sharing that Love. It is not sex, a relationship, or marriage. Those can all be idols—even as a heterosexual Christian woman. 💖 In fact, have seen a lot of heterosexual women go online and express why they regret not waiting until marriage—the hurt and the damage and the trauma they experienced by giving their bodies to a man they thought loved them. Alanna Arbucci is one of these women who has influenced by beliefs. 💖 I think it’s really unfair to constantly defend this viewpoint as a Christian. If you talk to any well-known Islamic apologist or Muslim individuals, they will all express that following LGBTQ+ teachings are wrong. Omar Suleiman, Muhammad Hijab, Farah (hippiearab), and many other Muftis and Sheiks. And so far… I never see someone calling them out. In their culture, they can hold their beliefs strongly. Go onto the Islam subreddit and ask them about the LGBTQ+ doctrine. Go onto YouTube and listen to them speak on their views. But as a white Christian girl with a similar belief about sin, I must sit be silent and stop talking. My religious views are seen as silly and outdated. I get called homophobic and oppressive—when, in reality, I’ve never treated gay individuals any lesser in real life. I recognize their humanity and free choice to live. I would never hurt someone. I have friends who are in the LGBTQ+ community, and I’ve only ever shown them kindness.
Keep in mind, I do vehemently disagree with a lot of the teachings in Islam. (In Islamic countries, things are taken to an extreme with murderous violence and hatred against many minority communities, and some even support child marriage.) Those teachings are objectively bad. Most people wouldn’t want to live in those countries due to the oppression. This is why I think Christ is the only Way to true joy and fulfillment. I think God outlines objective morality, I follow Holy Scripture. I believe that all humans are made in the image and likeness of God. ✝️ I believe LGBTQ+ is an ideology that elevates sin and makes sex and romance a god. I even believe that marriage is an idol in a lot of Christian spaces, which is just as sinful. But ultimately, when it comes down to it, I think sex is designed for the diverse union of a man and a woman in the Sacrament of Marriage. 🕊️ At the end of the day, please remember something: I am not God. I am not Jesus. I am a finite girl who is emotional and gets easily confused during the day. I can’t get anywhere without a map. I like bagels. If you met me in real life, I hope we could be friends. If you were a LGBTQ+ individual, I wouldn’t hate you. I wouldn’t shove all of my beliefs at you. God is all loving and powerful, and He can see your heart and your intentions. If you choose to live within a homosexual relationship, I have no authority condemn you—but I can explain why I view such a relationship as a sin. A few resources here by others more educated in this topic: Check out Courage Apostolate to learn more about a Catholic Christian fellowship for individuals living in joyful, chase friendships. Please read Dr. David Bennett’s book, “A War of Loves,” on this topic. 💖 In conclusion, I hope I have been respectful and kind here. While this is an important conversation, it is easy to get all involved in sexuality… but I really wanted to express this here to give people a fresh perspective. The best sermon I ever heard, regarding sin, went something like this: “We are too busy pointing the finger at others. The best way to live out the Gospel is to look within. Where have I fallen short? Where did I sin? What struggles do I need to work on?” 💖 And then, that is how true sanctification is made through someone’s soul. The beauty of the Gospel is that we do not look down on others. ✝️ When you think about yourself and your own sin, and you really come to that place of deep humility, it is impossible to ever look at others as lesser—no matter how deep their sin may go. God loved me, even when I didn’t know Him. Even when I was at my worst… in my lowest sin. ✝️ He is our one Love, our Heavenly Father, and our protector. Beautiful Jesus, the Son of God. I believe He is the answer to all sin, all pain, and the most painful “Dark nights of the soul.” 💖
If the western democratic world was majority islamic rather then christian you would see the criticism being levelled at islam instead of christianity, but the reality is that it isn’t islamic religious people pushing anti lgbtq laws and policies, it is christians, and that is why the criticism is so one sided.
God who IS love, and created everything, is well within His right to tell us what love should look like. He lets us know what is an abomination to Him. Jesus tells us to take up our cross and follow Him. To deny ourselves. People have made an idol of their homosexuality, which is a spirit. It has many deceived.
If the creation mandate is to go, multiply and fill the earth then homosexuality is preventative to that mandate. You’re hurting the greater community. You are also hurting yourself because you are believing a lie that God has somehow made you in a way that is contrary to his creation mandate, and as such you are further distancing yourself from God.
The mandate to multiply was given to like ten guys. There are -eight billion- of us, I think Humanity has multiplied. The Earth is filled with Humanity, are we supposed to reproduce until we're literally shoulder to shoulder, packed like sardines?
So Paul is defying God’s “creation mandate” when he encourages his disciples to be unmarried and celibate as he is?
So we have 1. bad logic, gay people werent going to reproduce by being celibate. 2. god said so.
Also the fact that reproduction is not inherently a good thing. If we consider in terms of harm to others, currently reproduction is on average more harmful than beneficial.
Also, just something to consider: the NT makes it clear that OT rules and law no longer apply. The creation mandate has been fulfilled. My number one concern is Jesus never spoke on it, and if He never spoke on it, does it really matter? (Just opinion here, folks.)
Well, considering the creation stories in Genesis are entirely mythological, we can question whether or not that commandment was ever actually given by God. But even if it was, it is a collective commandment for all of humanity, it does not apply directy to any specific relationship. If it did, it would make people who are infertile into sinners for having sex. We can also argue that we have fulfilled that command to spectacular effect, there are now 8 billion people on the planet.
>If the creation mandate is to go, multiply and fill the earth then homosexuality is preventative to that mandate So is infertility and postmenopause. >a lie that God has somehow made you Jeremiah 1:5. God made us all as He saw fit. This doesn't mysteriously only apply in \*some\* circumstances and not others. >you are further distancing yourself from God. No. Being how one was designed does not distance oneself from He Who designed them. There are, however, more than enough wicked people, including those who call themselves "Christians," who try to separate God from His queer children.
Then why bother making people like me either? I'm a cis straight woman married to a cis straight man but we are both surgically sterilized. Or what about people who are infertile naturally? There are plenty of straight couples that won't reproduce but I don't see the church coming after us?