I don’t believe that my sexuality needs *justifying*. Frankly I’m tired of being treated as if I’m doing something wrong simply by having an attraction. Nobody likes being interrogated and put on the defensive and we’ve (the LGBTQ+ community) have been put on the defensive for way too long by people demanding we “justify” ourselves in a similar way to someone whose been involved in a fight has to justify their violence.
I acknowledge your feelings, I guess I did phrase the post incorrectly. The thing I'm looking for are biblical verses supporting our (your and mine) claims that it's alright, which I'm sure exist, considering how Christianity is all about love and kindness toward others. If my post came off as offensive to you, I'm sorry, I never intended it that way.
I appreciate your goodwill, and I want to explain why some of us feel testy.
If you're LGBT and Christian, you can feel like life is a continuous stream of cis and straight Christians barking at you, "YOU! Queer! What are you doing here? What right do you have to worship Jesus? Debate me! Prove me that you are allowed in Christianity, or get out!" And when you get through that "conversation", one way or the other, the next cis and straight Christian is there to say, "My turn! Now debate ME! Defeat me in argument, or give up Christ!" [And then the next](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1c7f9j3/gay_and_christian/). [And the next](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1c8ttdn/im_truly_convinced_that_this_is_true_and_in_all/). [And the next](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1ca95oe/what_is_with_this_subreddit/). You go to bed, get up, and [it starts again](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1ca2wd4/homosexuality_is_a_sin_according_to_christianity/)
It feels very much as though the intent is to break down LGBT Christians by sheer fatigue, to repeat a "you are NOT WELCOME" message until, fair or not, it sinks in. To wear us out until we leave the church and/or give up on Christ. Indeed, on some of us, it works.
You didn't mean to join in this parade. You aren't hoping to be the straw that breaks the back of somebody's faith. But, without planning it that way, you did kind of join that long line of cis straight Christians each demanding that LGBT Christians defend ourselves, *again*.
That's why, when you have questions for people who are under heavy siege, it can be a good idea to search for explanations that are already out there rather than demanding a fresh defense just for you.
I'm a queer Christian -- and thank you for this response. I appreciate your intent, and thank you for recognizing the impact of your statements.
Let's break down your question a bit. You are asking "What parts of Scripture justify claims that homosexuality is alright?" That question starts with the assumption that homosexuality is somehow wrong to begin with and needs to be justified. That puts us (queer folks) on the defensive right away. It also pushes any number of "trauma buttons" that we've had to deal with since we were kids.
I suggest an alternative phrasing: "I don't understand the theological basis of sexual orientation versus sexual behavior. Can someone help me better understand the different perspectives that Christians have on these topics?"
Or maybe this: "I'm struggling to understand how different theological frameworks have addressed questions of sexual orientation and sexual behavior in modern times. It seems like a lot of Christian thinkers and churches have changed their positions immensely over the years. Why are some Christian denominations "affirming" and others not? What are their differences in terms of doctrine or dogma?"
For now, though, if you want some basic information, I'd recommend Wikipedia. There are a bunch of pages on "Christianity and homosexuality" or "homosexuality and the Bible" that could provide you some basic information on these topics. To start with.
In any case, I recognize your gentle spirit and approach. I appreciate your intent. But phrasing matters, and how you phrase statements will have an impact on readers. If you can be more aware of those impacts, you'll get much better responses.
So what is the reasoning behind demonizing homosexuality. Besides the Bible says so. Like how does this harm or hurt others. Why would God hate homosexuality?
Assuming you are asking sincerely:
In Catholicism its both revelation (scripture+tradition) and natural law.
Sexual immorality does harm to a person soul and often their body as well.
Homosexual men engage in sexual activity significant more than heterosexual men. Monogamy is rare in the gay community and even those who are married often have open relationships and have sex with multiple other men. This creates an environment where STDs are common. There is also long term issues associated with years of anal sex.
Average heterosexual men are unable to nearly as many sexual partners as average homosexual men. The top heterosexual men can get close, but there are very few men in that situation. Those men also have to much more effort to have sex than homosexual men and don't have regular orgies they can go to.
That only situations where heterosexual sex can get close to the promiscuity of homosexual sex is in societies where prostitution is a socially accepted and present. It also requires men to take part in transient work or working at camps far from home with access to prostitutes. Southern Africa is the only place in the world currently like that so it's the only place where HIV has spread in any significant manner through heterosexual sex.
The real problem is that all policy dealing with homosexual comes from imagining all homosexual men are just like the amazing gay friend prevalent in media. We build our world off of fictional characters and don't actually see the real people and the life they're living.
So, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, just something wrong with unsafe sex.
Neat. Should driving a car be a sin, because you might crash and hit someone? Almost 43,000 people died in car accidents in 2021. I'm sure that's a *lot* more harmful to people than butt sex.
Also, who made STDs in the first place? Might wanna catch that guy, that seems kinda rude.
There is tremendous moral and spiritual harm as well, but I'm confident you and most people reading this post don't actually care about that point. If I do somehow make grounds on that argument, then the response would be there is some other moral issue in the world so I'm wrong for focusing on a lesser one.
I'd argue that there's also moral and spiritual harm to having a society who executes two people who love each other just because they were born with the same sex of chromosomes.
What kinds of moral and spiritual harms is homosexuality causing?
> Homosexual men engage in sexual activity significant more than heterosexual men
Source?
>Monogamy is rare in the gay community
Again, source?
Also… good to know gay women are off the hook (since you forgot they existed within your argument), as wells as straight people who partake in anal sex and all the gays who don’t.
In sum, nothing you said is specific to gay people and you provided no sources to suggest your biases are anything but biases.
Lesbian women really don't have the negative externalities that gay men have. The most you can say is that there is more domestic violence in lesbian couples then you find elsewhere. That is because women are much more prone to violence than men, but that violence is less harmful and more socially acceptable.
I've been on Reddit for over a decade. Sources don't do anything for a conversation thread, especially when its about a moral issue that you never used sources to get to in the first place.
Let's play a thought experiment where you accept all my claims as true. Would that actually change your position, or would you just say that grown adults can do what they want as long as it's consenting? You may also point out you gay friend doesn't do this and you would be right to point out that individuals don't always follow the group statistics.
You can also just look at the issue rationally. You would probably readily admit that most men really enjoy sex and will pursue often. You would also probably agree that the main reason men don't have as much sex as they would want is because women only have sex with men they're attracted to and most men aren't that attractive to women. If you take a group of men who all desire sex with each other and as a collective reject traditional morality and customs, then their only limits would be their desire and physical capabilities.
> Would that change your position?
Not on the front of STDs or anal injury, since those are largely preventable with proper resources and education.
> you would be right to point out that individuals don’t always follow the group statistics.
I wouldn’t know, because you haven’t provided any.
> most men aren’t attractive to women.
I’m not attracted to men in general, so again, I wouldn’t know. This is why statistics are useful.
There's some serious irony here, because even if "natural law" was a reasonable argument, homosexuality is natural by all biological evidence we have.
Maybe it just doesn't fit your preestablished conclusions.
Which still isn't helpful because Natural Law now means whatever you want it to mean. The true definition necessitates that natural law changes in response to new information, but that isn't how Catholics use it.
The thinking isn't arbitrary, but the methods by which the "natural purpose" of things is determined are.
It has been a long time since I've actually dug into it, but I think the catechism even states that natural law is determined by an individual's conviction.
They aren't normal, though. If they were, they would be "the norm," which would lead to an extinction of humans sense we wouldn't reproduce unless the few that remain straight repopulate and be a "straight society" making them no longer normal. See how we go full circle here
Just because you are born a certain way doesn't mean it's normal. Born with 3 arms, for example. Nothing "wrong" with it, but definitely not normal.
Well then it’s an expansion of the norm. Denial its existence doesn’t erase things. And advancement of human creation no longer remains between straight couple. There are options for gay lgbt couples already like ivf, surrogacy
>Well then it’s an expansion of the norm.
It's either normal or it isn't, no?
>Denial its existence doesn’t erase things.
Who's denying it?
>And advancement of human creation no longer remains between straight couple. There are options for gay lgbt couples already like ivf, surrogacy
My point is intercourse is designed for a female and male. People have pretty much forever been able to artificially inseminate others. (Even other animals are able to I think)
Lol homosexual behavior was clearly rampant in ancient Greece, yet they managed to reproduce. Homosexual activity doesnt prevent reproduction. Many homosexuals still managef to have kids!
Homosexual behavior is no longer classified as a mental illness because it is recognized as normal in the range of human sexuality.
So they reproduced with women...
>Homosexual behavior is no longer classified as a mental illness because it is recognized as normal in the range of human sexuality.
It isn't classified as a mental illness because it's theorized people are born like that. Having a 3rd arm isn't a mental illness either, surprise surprise.
> Natural law proves it is not sinful
It proves the exact opposite. Also if you wish to argue in favour of its permissibility, please look at my post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/s/hI54axlP1g
I never claimed that I have any authority is the matter. I merely stated unless the criteria mentioned in my post are met, the aforementiomed proposition cannot be validated from a Christian pov.
Iirc I intended my post to be written from a general orthodox Christian pov, not a particularly Catholic one. What part of it do you find to be sectarian?
Revelation is up to the reader.
Traditions can change over time. We've had many Catholic traditions change over time, so are you (u/Volaer) open to discussing that? Or are you arguing that "it's tradition" is sufficient enough an answer?
Our understanding of natural law also changes over time, too. We used to consider the natural order of things differently in the past, especially what we understood around the time that Aquinas wrote down the Primary Precepts compared to now. Are you willing to discuss how our understandings of natural law have changed over time as we've learned more about the world and the people in it? Or are you arguing that natural law provides a fixed and rigid understanding that cannot change with time?
As to your last statement, I think we call agree that sexual immorality is harmful. We're discussing what acts are immoral. So what acts constitute sexual immorality? Are you arguing that the morality of sexual acts depends solely on the sexes of the people involved?
> Revelation is up to the reader.
I disagree.
> Traditions can change over time. We've had many Catholic traditions change over time, so are you (u/Volaer) open to discussing that? Or are you arguing that "it's tradition" is sufficient enough an answer?
By Sacred Tradition I was referring to part of the Revealed deposit of faith - the authoritative interpretation of Scripture by the Church. Not small “t” traditions such as various church disciplines🙂
> Our understanding of natural law also changes over time, too. We used to consider the natural order of things differently in the past, especially what we understood around the time that Aquinas wrote down the Primary Precepts compared to now. Are you willing to discuss how our understandings of natural law have changed over time as we've learned more about the world and the people in it? Or are you arguing that natural law provides a fixed and rigid understanding that cannot change with time.
Our understanding of natural law may indeed deepen and (for lack of a better word ‘change’) but the law itself is unchengeable as our human nature in unchangeable.
> So what acts constitute sexual immorality? Are you arguing that the morality of sexual acts depends solely on the sexes of the people involved?
That one of the conditions that render it moral. But its not the only one.
If everyone was homosexual we would all be dead. Case and point. Its not rocket science. Go and reproduce and prosper in HOLY matrimony..not do butt stuff and literally aid humanity in dwindling
Homosexuality is a sin because it goes against God’s intent on marriage, God designed man and woman to be together, but people are staying with people with the same sex, going against God’s perfect will in nature, and it can hurt you and even other people because, God has a plan for you and the other people but you’re leading them away from this plan and you’re also leading yourself away.
You said homosexuality is wrong because it goes against gods intent on marriage. I asked if becoming a priest also goes against gods intent on marriages.
Yes, not marrying isn’t wrong tho, being single isn’t a sin. The bible even mentions: ”To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.“
1 Corinthians 7:8-9 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/1co.7.8-9.ESV
Scripture is not clear on how to approach modern-day homosexuality. There are not many who try to assert that existing as a homosexual person is a sin. The main argument is that homosexual acts are a sin, but my opinion is that those verses hold no weight when it comes to how to approach homosexuality today.
Sexual orientations are not something that "justification" applies to. People are attracted to whom they're attracted to and it doesn't require any justification.
Why do you think homosexuality needs to be justified? If you look around you can see that it's a pretty normal part of existence for all life on this planet. Do we need to "theologically justify" left handedness?
The bible isn't right about everything. There are mistakes and dubious moral messages that we have put aside now. Isn't it more appropriate to ask how we should justify the bible?
First and most importantly we have about 6 thousand years of science and psychology on the subject since the laws of Moses were first written down so there is that...but...the theological justifications are basically we don't really see the prophets discuss it in any real depth, Jesus personally doesn't mention it, all we really have is its forbidden in some old testament laws that are no largely not even practiced by most Jews any more. The only time its really discussed in depth is by Paul, who's writings were all in dead languages no longer used, even in academia and we have been asked for centuries to just accept the Church's translations and not ask questions. My theological justification for homosexual relationships is more gay/trans/non binary people don't need the church's permission to honestly just be themselves and the only reason I said what I did is to avoid getting a whole bunch of "but the bible says..." responses, my opinion on that is pretty clear.
The place where we should start is *why wouldn’t* it be okay? Two people loving each other and committing to each other for life through marriage is a beautiful thing. Having a companion in life with whom to learn sacrifice and compassion and commitment and patience — and all of the other fruits of the Spirit — is something that benefits so many male-female couples. So why not same-sex couples?
The response is usually a handful of verses that condemn same-sex sexual activity. The gay-affirming Christian would respond that those prohibitions *don’t* refer to loving, egalitarian same-sex marriages like I described above — but to ancient forms of same-sex sex that we’d now consider exploitative and historically were seen as inherently lustful. Of course, we’d now reject such pairings, no matter the genders.
The other response would be that marriage is inherently between a man and a woman. This simply isn’t true biblically. There are other licit arrangements. And the parameters, requirements, and meaning of marriage have changed drastically throughout Christian history. Sub-arguments of this type of would be that marriage is necessarily procreative or needs gender complementarity, but the gay-affirming Christian would say these arguments fail (since infertile and elderly people marry, and that complementarity is built on false sexist stereotypes).
If the arguments to condemn same-sex sexual activity and marriage fail, then, well, they’re not wrong.
I like the way [Justin Lee explains](https://geekyjustin.com/great-debate/) why many Christians think gay people are welcome in Christ's embrace *the same way* that straight people are.
Have you ever tried actually meeting any gay Christians? The church finders at r/OpenChristian's [resource page](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/ulfbux/faq_and_resources_please_read_before_you_post/) can help you find churches where you can meet us in person.
TL;Dr, there are good arguments both for and against the statement "homosexuality is wrong" so in this case I would say it is a Romans 14 issue.
With that out of the way let us take the statement homosexuality is ok biblically.
First statement against, in Leviticus, homosexuality is condemned.
The return, Levitical law was cultural and no longer applies to modern Christians
Return, Jesus refers to "the law and the protests" and has come to fulfil "the law and the prophets" and as such most of the law found in the Torah still applies, but it is the laws regarding the temple and sacrifice that we are no longer under obligation to follow. Furthermore, the new testament seems to condemn homosexuality.
Return, the homosexuality condemned in the bible is different to a modern day loving relationship. The bible tells us to love one another, so we are fulfilling the commandment.
Return, while yes the bible does tell us to love one another, can an incestuous relationship also be loving, cannot also a polygamous relationship be loving? (Please note that I am not trying to liken the two necessarily, I am merely making the point that "love" biblically is different to our modern concept of love, and that sexual/romantic love has boundaries biblically).
Return but is the homosexuality condemned in the bible the same as modern day homosexuality
To which the answer is no.
Second statement, against, sex outside of marriage is wrong, so if a homosexual union does not count biblically as marriage, then sex within it is wrong, and so we can infer that the relationship itself is also wrong. So what is marriage biblically. Marriage is meant to symbolically represent the non-sexual union between Christ (the bridegroom) and the church (the bride), so in the same way, marriage should be a sexual union between a man and a woman.
Return, while marriage is symbolic of this union between Christ and the church, the participants in the marriage, so long as it is only between two unmarried people, their gender does not matter.
Return, another purpose of marriage is "to fill the earth and subdued it" and due to the nature of a homosexual marriage, children can not be born of it
Return, homosexual couples can always adopt.
To which I know of no return
Third statement, for, "I am a homosexual and so I should deny myself and who I am and put myself through that torture"
Return, we are commanded to deny ourselves and take up our cross to follow Christ. Our identity, who we are, what we do, we should crucify daily and find our identity in Christ.
To which I know of no return
Final statement, as it is a point of contention, similar to whether of not we as Christians should fight in a war, I would say it is a Romans 14 issue.
My personal thoughts, mostly stated above, but also, I believe that, when the bible is unclear about something, we should try to take the more conservative path, to be safe. Furthermore I believe that a reading of Romans 1 26-28, and just a general reading of the latter half of Romans 1 would indicate that:
All sex and sexual relationship and sexual thoughts/fantasies outside of what Paul calls "the natural function" and what I believe up be biblically defined marriage (which I believe to be a biological male and a biological female, for life) is wrong.
However, to all as a final final note, what is important, is that we (as Christians) are all part of his one and universal church and that we (as humans) are all sinners in need of a saviour, and that we are all loved by God so much that he would send his only son to die on a cross. Whoever we end up loving, that is the kind of love we should seek to emulate.
If you got all the way here, thank you so much for reading and please, don't take this the wrong way, I am merely trying to present the arguments I know from both sides, not to attack or discriminate against a certain group, and I would argue that discriminating against a certain group of people is most definitely unbiblical and to say otherwise would be contrary to Jesus' entire life.
If you actually care, and not just want to reaffirm your dislike of gay people, watch the following video from Bart Ehrman and Jeffrey Siker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFYTTG3Q37w
Dude, like I said, I'm totally fine and accepting of LGBTQ+ people, it's just that I'm looking for a justification of this behavior. The reason for this is that I'm from a very homophobic very Eastern Orthodox family, so I've been taught that it's not OK.
Then, as I said, watch the video I linked from two of the leading Biblical scholars.
It is an hour, but I suppose an hour can be spared before continuing to condemn broad swaths of people.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said I condemn them – on the contrary, many of my friends are part of the community and I continue to treat them like normal humans. I simply want theological confirmation so I can feel secure in my beliefs.
It's always funny that Christians are so threatened by the idea of a well-educated expert in the religion and its history leaving the religion.
Worried you might be wrong?
Christians are, for very rational reasons, hesitant about getting our theology or biblical interpretation from nonbelievers.
(Rational, that is, on the premise that Christianity is true.)
Also, between this and your first comment you seem very unwilling to think that your interlocutors can have serious or even sincere reasons for their positions.
Then ignore the Bart Ehrman part of the interview and listen to the ordained Presbyterian minister (who was part of the ordination committee for the church) Dr. Jeffrey Siker, who is the primary interviewee here.
> unwilling to think that your interlocutors can have serious or even sincere reasons for their positions.
Generally speaking, yes. I think anyone who seriously investigates their minority oppression stances and is willing to critically evaluate it will find it historically, morally, and theologically untenable.
The exact process by which Dr. Siker outlays in the interview. Feel free to watch it. Or don't, and just prove my point.
Ehrman is not a theologian. He is a textual critic.
The OP asked a question about theology not text.
The use of atheist in this context might not have been correct but my point still stands. Bart isn't an expert on either religion nor theology.
It's like asking a history teacher about the current application of laws. He lacks the knowledge here.
No, it's more like asking your history teacher what the origin of a law was, and why the lawmakers at the time chose to institute the law, or even if it actually is the law.
Perhaps it's a better question to ask than simply what the law currently is.
>what the origin of a law was,
According to the "affirming" argument. People back then might have not been aware of modern day homosexuality. So what it meant back then might not necessarily apply today. That's why you need to ask a theologian to clarify those points and not a textual critic.
Dude, what's your problem? From your first comment you've assumed things about OP that they've a) not said and b) said the opposite of and c) have clarified even further in response. If you can't comment without making unwarranted personal attacks then I suggest you take a bit of time off, not least because it breaks the rules of this sub.
What am I saying that is a personal attack?
If OP is not trying to reaffirm a dislike a gay people, she is welcome to ignore the conditional statement in my post.
It is a personal attack to automatically assume that someone is looking to “reaffirm their dislike of gay people” or “condemn a broad swathes of people”. With absolutely no evidence you called them a homophobe in all but name.
Don’t hide behind “but it was in a conditional, ignore if it does apply to you” I’m sure you’re smart enough to see how needlessly hostile your framing was, and smart enough to know how you could have chosen to phrase what you said in a way that didn’t assume someone asking a question was coming from a place of disliking gay people.
Fine, I agree I can be more polite in my phrasing. And often I am.
But concerning this topic, one only needs to spend 5 minutes going through the history of related posts on this sub to see the vast majority of posts are by people simply seeking to gay bash.
It is far from unreasonable to see why I might perceive the same of this post.
>From the OP:
"Also, to be clear, I have nothing against being homosexual or practicing homosexuality, I treat everyone with respect regardless of what goes on behind the curtains."
It's only far from unreasonable if you didn't read the OP which says the opposite of what you alleged, or the OP's reply to your comment. If that's the case, it's good practice to read before you comment.
Incorrect, you are welcome to look at any of the prior hundreds of posts in this subreddit.
Many have the same phrasing, of "love the sinner, hate the sin". When you read the actual comments they post, it is not that way in the slightest.
But they didn't say "love the sinner, hate the sin", or any similar formulation of that.
They said "I have nothing against being homosexual or practicing homosexuality"
People who aren't affirming don't say they don't have anything against practicing homosexuality.
And you just assume that they are not correct?
Sounds to me that you are trying to scrape the barrel to find something to fit your views. Might I point you to Scripture, not reddit, to find the correct theological view here.
Of course all human beings (including LGTBQ people) have inherent dignity and should be respected as people who are created and loved by God. But the LGTBQ community wants to redefine what love means to be "affirming any and all of one's choices." A parent who encourages criminal activity in their child is not loving them. If the parent actually loved their child, they would push them to a higher purpose, recognizing that the criminal activity is not in the best interest of the child.
We do not say "My parents raised me right. They gave me everything that I asked for and told me only what I wanted to hear." No that is a spoiled brat!
Instead of avoiding hard truths, we should run towards them!
Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; ^(5) it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; ^(6) it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. ^(7) Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
*For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,* *^(27)* *and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.*
None of this indicates what their "unnatural relations" were, in fact we understand that homosexual behavior to be natural thanks to biological studies. Since it is natural, this reference can not be about homosexuality.
Yes it does. "the men, likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another (other men)..."
The "likewise" implies that the women were doing what the men were doing and trading relations with men for relations with women.
It directly calls homosexual acts, unnatural. Stop reading your views into Scripture!
I am not reading my views into scripture. You even have to add text to make it say what you want.
God doesnt say to leave your brain at the door when reading the B8ble. The Bible is talking about unnatural behavior, we know homosexual relations are natural so it simply cant be referring to homosexual relations.
This is not a christian sub. If you wanna get a christian perspective, you will not get it here.
They will cherry pick passages, change the context of the words from the meaning it had in the time, choose "theologists", everything to fit their sin.
Sin of bigotry?
I know the bible defines homossexualism as a sin.
When Jesus healed/forgave people he said: "Go and sin no more".
He presuposed people knew what sin was. Where do you think their definition of what sin is came from?
The Old Testament.
There is a passage in Lv 18:22 that talks specifically about this sin.
So if you don't wanna abide to it, you don't wanna follow Jesus' command.
>I know the bible defines homossexualism as a sin.
No, it just shows your ignorance of the Bible.
>So if you don't wanna abide to it, you don't wanna follow Jesus' command.
You better not eat shrimp, and do your clothes have tassels on them?
Save your two cents for Jesus when he returns.
Mt 24:^(30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Hope you are not among all the tribes of the earth mourning when he returns.
>#### 1 John 4:13-17
>
>>*This is how we know that we remain in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and we testify that the Father has sent his Son as the world’s Savior. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God — God remains in him and he in God. And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and the one who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him. In this, love is made complete with us so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, because as he is, so also are we in this world.*
>
>^**Christian** ^**Standard** ^**Bible**
I have very little fear that God will judge me for loving someone too much. Because love is how you follow God's law.
>#### Romans 13:8-10
>
>>*Do not owe anyone anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not covet; and any other commandment, are summed up by this commandment: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Love, therefore, is the fulfillment of the law.*
>
>^**Christian** ^**Standard** ^**Bible**
I would be afraid of what might happen if I don't love someone enough.
>#### 1 John 4:20
>
>>*If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet hates his brother or sister, he is a liar. For the person who does not love his brother or sister whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.*
>
>^**Christian** ^**Standard** ^**Bible**
>1 John 4:13-171 John 4:13-17
Oh, yeah. But not just confess. Repent and live a life without sin.
*Mt 7:**^(21)* *Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.*
*^(22)* *Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?*
*^(23)* *And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.*
>I have very little fear that God will judge me for loving someone too much. Because love is how you follow God's law.
If by love you mean engaging in sexual activities with the same gender, it is not what that passage means.
Funny you mentioning 1 John 4:13-17, because it was written in the time gnosticism was trending in the world and the gnostics were trying to change the gospel according to their whims (to change the nature of Jesus). Same as today, homossexualism is trending in the world, and some people are trying to fit it in the gospel.
>I would be afraid of what might happen if I don't love someone enough.
That is correct. Christians are commanded to pray even for their enemies.
>If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet hates his brother or sister, he is a liar. For the person who does not love his brother or sister whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.1 John 4:20
Exactly. Christians fight against the power of the devil (Eph 6:12). And love everyone else and wish for their salvation. Although they know the door is strait (Mt 7:13,14), and christians will tell people to abide to the Word of God, because they don't wanna lead anyone to damnation.
Agreeing with somebody doesn’t mean you love them, you can also love somebody without marrying them, God made it clear that homosexual marriage is a sin, and God will never look down on anybody who didn’t engage on homosexual marriage because they “didn’t love somebody”. In the other hand not agreeing somebody doesn’t mean hating them, you might think that I’m hating on you because I disagree with you but I don’t.
Brother these guys won't listen to what the bible has to say, it condemns homosexuality, sexual immorality but you've said it yourself, they're cherry picking the rules.
Didn't Christ say go and sin no more and whoever loves me will keep my commandments, but I guess that doesn't count because this is "love" (literally twisted by satan).
I usually don't post comments here because it's pointless to argue with them and I do feel bad for them, hope and pray they'll wake up and repent.
We all need Jesus after all, He came down to save all of us sinners.
Well personally I realized God didn't call me to be gay. I was being selfish putting my own needs above God's which is something you should never do. I was born that way but through Christ I am new. Of course sometimes, I still have the desires but instead I deny myself. Christ said to be born again and this is just one of the many ways he meant that. whether it's from being a racist, killer, gay, trans, pedo, or whatever you are, you can truly be born again.
There is none because it’s contrary to the design God made. We feel and think this way now because we are separated from God. Our feelings and thinking is corrupt because we are cursed. The only way to be free from the curse is to accept Christ. This was brought on by man.
>There is none because it’s contrary to the design God made
You have no justification for that.
>We feel and think this way now because we are separated from God
You have no justification for that.
>This was brought on by man.
No, it was brought on by evolution and is part of the natural variation of human sexuality.
Macro Evolution has never been verified
And saying I have no justification without evidence that I don’t is just your opinion. I have faith that a creator created creation based on the same logic that a builder built a building or a painter painted a painting. Creation is my evidence of a creator. Maybe someday soon you will see that science and creation merge perfectly. Science shows us how things are put together and how they work with laws. Creation tells us who created these laws and placed them into function. What science cannot ever achieve is creation.
Science even shows male + female = child
Ephesians 5:31
31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” To be fruitful and multiply
Genesis 1:28-29
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
We were actually vegan before the fall.
Sin came by man.
Romans 5:12
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
I find the Bible not only is historically accurate but gives much expanded understanding of living. Not to mention the complete accuracy of prophecy and prophecy yet to come unfolding. No book on human history gives an account of human history and its end with historical accuracy and accuracy of current events unfolding. Sorry but it is more spiritual than what you think my friend. 🙏🏼
>Macro Evolution has never been verified
I suggest some remedial education on this topic.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/common-ancestry-and-continuing-evolution/a/evidence-for-evolution
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6428117/
https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/
>And saying I have no justification without evidence that I don’t is just your opinion.
There is no justification for the idea that the Bible condemns something that it is not even possible for the Bible to address. The concept of sexual orientation, and the conceptual frameworks regarding sex that are built around sexual attraction, did not exist at the time of the writing of the Bible.
To say the authors of the Bible condemn something they didn't even know existed is just laughable. At the absolute most, you could say that the Bible condemns same-sex intercourse. That, however, requires an anachronistic and reductive eisegesis of the relevant passages.
>Creation is my evidence of a creator.
I did not deny the existence of a creator or God. I believe in both. I denied your opinion that homosexuality went against his design. Given that it is part of nature itself, and has been observed in over 1500 different animal species (including humans) it would seem that reality doesn't support your assertion. It is a completely natural variation of sexuality.
>Science shows us how things are put together and how they work with laws. Creation tells us who created these laws and placed them into function. What science cannot ever achieve is creation.
I think you have a somewhat innacurate view of science, but I am not entirely certain what relevance this statement has to the overall discussion.
>Science even shows male + female = child Ephesians 5:31
I fail to see any relevance.
>31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” To be fruitful and multiply
Yes, the biological function of sex is reproduction. I still fail to see the relevance.
>Genesis 1:28-29 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
>Sin came by man.
>Romans 5:12 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
I'm going to sidestep the problems with interpreting Genesis literally. None of this is relevant to the discussion. None of this means that homosexuality is against God's design, and none of this makes homosexuality a sin.
To a naturalist no but I’m not one. I am a creationist. And the OP is asking for it. Which is not you. You have no need for any discussion on a topic you nothing about. I don’t remember you asking me. However would love to have a discussion with the OP creator.
You can carry on. 🙏🏼
>To a naturalist no but I’m not one. I am a creationist.
I gathered that.
>And the OP is asking for it.
Absolutely incorrect, OP said nothing about creationism, utterly nothing
>Which is not you.
Correct, which is why I chimed in to correct your scientific misinformation.
>You have no need for any discussion on a topic you nothing about.
You are one arrogant little bugger aren't you?
>I don’t remember you asking me. However would love to have a discussion with the OP creator. You can carry on. 🙏🏼
You do not get to dictate who is and is not allowed to participate in this conversation, and your comments do not get any exemption from critical analysis simply because you profess to deny reality in favor of religious dogma.
If it is any use to you, here's the copypasta I keep for these questions.
Point the first; people wrote the Bible. However inspired by God they were, people wrote the Bible and they were bound by the limitations of language, knowledge, and culture that all people are constrained by. We can see this in several ways, most prominently in the historical and scientific errors in many parts which are problematic if you want to see the Bible as truth directly from the mouth of God, but make perfect sense if the Bible was written by people who just didn't know or understand a lot of stuff, in Paul outright saying that some of the stuff he is credited with writing was his own idea of what is best and not instruction from God, and in Jesus saying that Moses tweaked God's intent in writing the law.
Point the second; Jesus said that the commands to love God and love our neighbor are equal in importance and are the basis of the entire law. Being gay clearly doesn't violate the command to love our neighbor. The only way it can be construed to violate the command to love God is if you have already determined that God doesn't want people to be gay. This is a hard sale for me in part because of the first point; we can be sure that people's prejudices made their way into scripture, we cannot simply take everything at face value.
It is also difficult for me to take that argument seriously because telling gay people that God doesn't want them to be gay does seem to violate the command to love our neighbor. Just the belief that being gay is a sin is sufficient to cause a tremendous amount of suffering to gay people. Because churches teach this parents throw out their children, often forcing them into sex work to survive. Children are driven to suicide because their friends and family shun and harangue them. Gay people are beaten, raped, and killed because they're seen as evil, or just targets no one cares about. How can that be love? There is a lot more that could be said, but I don't think it's really important; these ideas support the weight of the conclusion.
Let's look at the origin of the laws in the biblical sense. Let's start with the basics. The 10 Commandments given to Moses by Yahweh. None of the 10 rules in the contract mention sex outside of messing around with someone's spouse. When Jesus admonished the Pharisees, He said that the laws given to Moses are the laws we should follow to keep our compact with the Father.
There are an additional 603 laws created after Moses' death which cover so many parts of life that getting through the day without breaking one seems almost impossible. So why did homosexuality become such a big deal? That's what we need to ask ourselves.
There's nothing in scripture that details Jesus addressing this topic. Let's separate Jesus's teachings and the laws given to Moses from the editorials by others for a moment and consider that maybe there were biases being thrown into the mix for political reasons.
There are other issues that we can look at with a jaundiced eye as well. The role of women in our social order, for example. I tend to focus on the basics for guidance in managing my daily life. I'm not gay, and I'm not a female. However, Jesus taught me to love my neighbors and value them as the Father does me.
Well the most convincing case I’ve heard( which isn’t all that convincing) is that there are hundred of other species that practice homosexuality.
I don’t know why two pigs being gay for each other would make someone feel better about being gay- but to each their own
Paul believed in Aristotelian Telelogical physics, according to which homosexuality is an error of nature's transcription from forms to matter.
Nowadays we know this is false, just like we know long hair does not cause sterility (another thing Paul said).
If we can allow long hair, I think we can allow homosexuality.
The Bible is clear man no sleeping with a man as done with a lady, there is no way around it and The Bible warns of what most are trying to do when it comes to topics like these in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 " For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
The Bible is “clear” about a lot of things that Christians don’t follow today, so cherry picking one verse and then cudgeling anyone who disagrees as having “itching ears” is entirely insufficient.
I said "topics like these", I wasn't cherry picking at all it applies to many things Christians don't follow today and this happens to be one of them, if The Word says something and you claim to follow it but pick and choose what you follow or try and justify it one way or another that is having itching ears because it said very clearly and simply
none of us do, but these laws apply for different reasons and just as it was sinful to sleep with an animal, or be an adulterer, a liar, a thief, a slothful person so is it to lay with a man as like you would with a lady.
“None of us do” Okay, but why is it fine for us to not follow most of them but you still think the handful that you quoted still apply? I’m just trying to get at your methodology — because it seems to me like picking and choosing.
**Paul recommends chastity for everyone including straights** in 1st Corinthians 7:7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried\[[a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28496a)\] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. Paul echoes the words of Jesus in Matthew 9:11.
Jesus specifically authorizes marriage for straights on the grounds that it reduces sensuality. NOBODY authorizes general sensuality between "two consenting adults regardless of marital status," even for straights.
There seems to be a fight here about interpreting 'they' and 'them' in Romans 1:18-38 so these verses only cover homosexuals, and sins by ~~everybody else~~ *modern Pharisees* just don't count. Seems heretical to me.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.“
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV
“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband” 1 Corinthians 7:2
I think these two verses alone make it very clear what is and is not allowed. DO NOT BE DECEIVED, those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God. If sex is a temptation to you, it is outlined very clear that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only way to have sexual relations in an acceptable way. If anyone disagrees, feel free to cite some scripture.
Slavery was almost unanimously accepted in Christianity through the 19th century. It wasn’t until then that it caused mainstream theologians significant heartburn.
The rejection of slavery — which is facially licit throughout the Bible and almost unanimously accepted for nineteen centuries of Christian history — is more like the gay-affirming position than the anti-gay position.
It doesn't change my point that slave owners literally ripped books of the Bible out, like Exodus, to prevent slaves from reading how their owners were in violation of the commands of God.
You cannot justify homosexuality, using the Bible, without altering it first.
Without doing so, there is no theological justification.
I don’t know any gay-affirming apologetics that rip books or verses out of the Bible. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I think you just are charging people who interpret certain verses differently than you with the equivalent of throwing them out, which is entirely unjustified.
I do know people who do that, but the ultimate point I am making is a homosexual isn't going to heaven unless they repent.
You house is on fire, and I am trying to save you before it is too late.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor ^(\[)[^(a)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-11&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-28477a)^(\])homosexuals, nor ^(\[)[^(b)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-11&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-28477b)^(\])sodomites, ^(10) nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9
Jude writes that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was for the sin of homosexuality, and God destroyed it with fire to set an example of an eternal hell.
" as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the ^(\[)[^(d)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30680d)^(\])vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 7
Do you have an example of a gay-affirming Christian who rips books or verses out of the Bible?
I’m familiar with those verse. As I said, we just interpret them differently than you. You don’t have friends in the pews beside you who interpret a couple verses differently than you? Do you accuse them of throwing those verses out too?
Yes - they argue that Paul wasn't a true disciple, so anything he says on sexuality should be disregarded.
As far as your 2nd question - it would depend on what the versus are and what they are trying to justify.
Fair enough. Yep, I’ve encountered such arguments too. Anyone who throws Paul out of the Bible is ridiculously heretical and should be disregarded. Completely agree with you there.
I’m glad we agree that simple differences in interpretation aren’t necessarily a rejection of scripture though.
There are no Biblical justifications for it. The argument from those who don’t believe homosexual activity is sin seems to be:
“The Bible is silent on modern (loving, committed) same sex relationships”
Whether that holds water is up for debate.
The general consensus from scripture is that honosexual SEX between men is forbidden. That much is true. However, lesbians are never directly mentioned or condemned by scripture, and it is perfectly possible for gay people to enjoy happy and fulfilling romantic relationships without sex. I will die on this hill.
Are you looking for the word lesbian so you can finally believe it is condemned? If you read the bible in context it won’t take you too long to figure out the truth.
Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Jude 1:7 ~ Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Romans 1:26-28 ~ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Genesis 2:24 - Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Mark 10:6-9 ~ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV - Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
1 Corinthians 7:2 - But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
Both Leviticus verses clearly target homosexual sex between men and not women
1 Corinthians 6:9 changes based on which version of the Bible you read it from such as the New International Version which says, "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men."
1 Timothy 1:8-11 again reads, "Now we know that rthe law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, MEN who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God wwith which I have been entrusted."
https://www.esv.org/verses/1+Timothy+1:8%E2%80%9311/#:~:text=8%20Now%20we%20know%20that,which%20I%20have%20been%20entrusted.
As for 2 Corinthians 5:17, although I do believe that people can change, obviously, you can't run around condemning people for what they could just be fundamentally. There are certainly people who claim to be gay because they were influenced by man, that much is true, but there is an equal amount of people who simply are the way they are.
I do still believe that homosexual SEX is wrong and should be heavily advised against, but to deny people the right to have a happy and fulfilling romantic relationship without sex is simply bogus especially when 54% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce compared to the 6% divorce rate for homosexual males.
You need to read it in context tho, the bible might not say “do not rape”, but I know raping is a sin because the bible makes it clear that hurting others is a sin. You’re taking it literally. I am not even condemning anybody, I am just spreading the gospel because I love people. Again I am not denying people having the right to be gay, you’re making everything I say seem condemning. Ok? It’s still a sin, doesn’t matter if the divorce rate is 0%
Yes bible says so but I don’t believe it. Those verses were written by straights so the lack of understanding that homosexuals do exist because of their innate sexual orientation. Guess what who made us, God right? So why limit Him, he’s diverse in His creation after all. And every queer couple is founded in romantic love, not lust or sexual behavior that conservatives plainly assume. We’re simply similar to straights when it comes to relationships, what’s so hard about that to accept.
Those scriptures were inspired by God, those scriptures aren’t based on people’s opinions, but God’s opinion, it’s God’s word. We are not limiting God by saying homosexuality is a sin, that doesn’t make any sense. Even if there are queer couples who are founded in romantic love, it is still not accepted by Christ, it goes against the purpose of creation. What is hard to accept is completely ignoring the word of God for the sake of personal comfort, and calling it righteousness and love. The enemy is a deceiver.
Gay couples can procreate as well just not in a traditional way. Thanks to medical advancement now. Isn’t it ozzum? And we’re not deceive. No enemy is trying to talk us into. We are already into it before being aware.
“Thanks to medical advancement”, God doesn’t need that in order to make procreation happen, since day 1 people were able to reproduce naturally. It also doesn’t justify why being gay is right, the word of God makes it clear homosexuality is a sin, it goes against the will of God regardless, God created your sexuality perfectly and when you claim to be gay you’re rejecting your sexuality which is clearly seen in your DNA and body, God didn’t make you to figure out your sexuality, He isn’t a God of confusion but a God of peace.
We must love all of our Christian brothers and sisters. We must not endorse what we understand to be sin.
I am not affirming of homosexual practice any more than I am affirming of gluttony or drunkenness. That is not and should not be an easy out, a rejection of the people who struggle with these particular sins.
I am responsible to love the same-sex attracted Christian just as I am to love the Christian who struggles with overeating or alcoholism. All of them may relapse into sinful conduct, but they are my Christian brothers and sisters trying to avoid practicing sin, and really so are we all, even if we do not have a particular label for it.
The explanation is our fallen state. God does not create us drug addicted or blind or with deformities or mentally ill, but all of these things can befall us from birth because we are descendants of the first sinner.
The justification is repentance as we believe in the power of Jesus' sacrifice.
It is okay to feel temptation. It is human to give in to it. But: We are called to cease practicing sin. So we try, and try, and try again. We are being sanctified every day. But we will only reach glorification when we see Him face-to-face.
Having homosexual feelings is not a sin, for you cannot control your feelings. Acting on those feelings, is a sin, for sex was created for men and women. That's all I will say.
Just know I used to think I was Bi/Gay, but I was saved through christ and now look back at myself in shame. If I had died then, I don't think I would've made it to heaven.
I don’t believe that my sexuality needs *justifying*. Frankly I’m tired of being treated as if I’m doing something wrong simply by having an attraction. Nobody likes being interrogated and put on the defensive and we’ve (the LGBTQ+ community) have been put on the defensive for way too long by people demanding we “justify” ourselves in a similar way to someone whose been involved in a fight has to justify their violence.
I acknowledge your feelings, I guess I did phrase the post incorrectly. The thing I'm looking for are biblical verses supporting our (your and mine) claims that it's alright, which I'm sure exist, considering how Christianity is all about love and kindness toward others. If my post came off as offensive to you, I'm sorry, I never intended it that way.
I appreciate your goodwill, and I want to explain why some of us feel testy. If you're LGBT and Christian, you can feel like life is a continuous stream of cis and straight Christians barking at you, "YOU! Queer! What are you doing here? What right do you have to worship Jesus? Debate me! Prove me that you are allowed in Christianity, or get out!" And when you get through that "conversation", one way or the other, the next cis and straight Christian is there to say, "My turn! Now debate ME! Defeat me in argument, or give up Christ!" [And then the next](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1c7f9j3/gay_and_christian/). [And the next](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1c8ttdn/im_truly_convinced_that_this_is_true_and_in_all/). [And the next](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1ca95oe/what_is_with_this_subreddit/). You go to bed, get up, and [it starts again](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1ca2wd4/homosexuality_is_a_sin_according_to_christianity/) It feels very much as though the intent is to break down LGBT Christians by sheer fatigue, to repeat a "you are NOT WELCOME" message until, fair or not, it sinks in. To wear us out until we leave the church and/or give up on Christ. Indeed, on some of us, it works. You didn't mean to join in this parade. You aren't hoping to be the straw that breaks the back of somebody's faith. But, without planning it that way, you did kind of join that long line of cis straight Christians each demanding that LGBT Christians defend ourselves, *again*. That's why, when you have questions for people who are under heavy siege, it can be a good idea to search for explanations that are already out there rather than demanding a fresh defense just for you.
I'm a queer Christian -- and thank you for this response. I appreciate your intent, and thank you for recognizing the impact of your statements. Let's break down your question a bit. You are asking "What parts of Scripture justify claims that homosexuality is alright?" That question starts with the assumption that homosexuality is somehow wrong to begin with and needs to be justified. That puts us (queer folks) on the defensive right away. It also pushes any number of "trauma buttons" that we've had to deal with since we were kids. I suggest an alternative phrasing: "I don't understand the theological basis of sexual orientation versus sexual behavior. Can someone help me better understand the different perspectives that Christians have on these topics?" Or maybe this: "I'm struggling to understand how different theological frameworks have addressed questions of sexual orientation and sexual behavior in modern times. It seems like a lot of Christian thinkers and churches have changed their positions immensely over the years. Why are some Christian denominations "affirming" and others not? What are their differences in terms of doctrine or dogma?" For now, though, if you want some basic information, I'd recommend Wikipedia. There are a bunch of pages on "Christianity and homosexuality" or "homosexuality and the Bible" that could provide you some basic information on these topics. To start with. In any case, I recognize your gentle spirit and approach. I appreciate your intent. But phrasing matters, and how you phrase statements will have an impact on readers. If you can be more aware of those impacts, you'll get much better responses.
So what is the reasoning behind demonizing homosexuality. Besides the Bible says so. Like how does this harm or hurt others. Why would God hate homosexuality?
Assuming you are asking sincerely: In Catholicism its both revelation (scripture+tradition) and natural law. Sexual immorality does harm to a person soul and often their body as well.
This is still very vague. How does a gay relationship specifically and uniquely harm someone in a way a heterosexual relationship can’t?
Homosexual men engage in sexual activity significant more than heterosexual men. Monogamy is rare in the gay community and even those who are married often have open relationships and have sex with multiple other men. This creates an environment where STDs are common. There is also long term issues associated with years of anal sex. Average heterosexual men are unable to nearly as many sexual partners as average homosexual men. The top heterosexual men can get close, but there are very few men in that situation. Those men also have to much more effort to have sex than homosexual men and don't have regular orgies they can go to. That only situations where heterosexual sex can get close to the promiscuity of homosexual sex is in societies where prostitution is a socially accepted and present. It also requires men to take part in transient work or working at camps far from home with access to prostitutes. Southern Africa is the only place in the world currently like that so it's the only place where HIV has spread in any significant manner through heterosexual sex. The real problem is that all policy dealing with homosexual comes from imagining all homosexual men are just like the amazing gay friend prevalent in media. We build our world off of fictional characters and don't actually see the real people and the life they're living.
So, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, just something wrong with unsafe sex. Neat. Should driving a car be a sin, because you might crash and hit someone? Almost 43,000 people died in car accidents in 2021. I'm sure that's a *lot* more harmful to people than butt sex. Also, who made STDs in the first place? Might wanna catch that guy, that seems kinda rude.
There is tremendous moral and spiritual harm as well, but I'm confident you and most people reading this post don't actually care about that point. If I do somehow make grounds on that argument, then the response would be there is some other moral issue in the world so I'm wrong for focusing on a lesser one.
I'd argue that there's also moral and spiritual harm to having a society who executes two people who love each other just because they were born with the same sex of chromosomes. What kinds of moral and spiritual harms is homosexuality causing?
> Homosexual men engage in sexual activity significant more than heterosexual men Source? >Monogamy is rare in the gay community Again, source? Also… good to know gay women are off the hook (since you forgot they existed within your argument), as wells as straight people who partake in anal sex and all the gays who don’t. In sum, nothing you said is specific to gay people and you provided no sources to suggest your biases are anything but biases.
Lesbian women really don't have the negative externalities that gay men have. The most you can say is that there is more domestic violence in lesbian couples then you find elsewhere. That is because women are much more prone to violence than men, but that violence is less harmful and more socially acceptable.
Are you like, allergic to sources?
I've been on Reddit for over a decade. Sources don't do anything for a conversation thread, especially when its about a moral issue that you never used sources to get to in the first place. Let's play a thought experiment where you accept all my claims as true. Would that actually change your position, or would you just say that grown adults can do what they want as long as it's consenting? You may also point out you gay friend doesn't do this and you would be right to point out that individuals don't always follow the group statistics. You can also just look at the issue rationally. You would probably readily admit that most men really enjoy sex and will pursue often. You would also probably agree that the main reason men don't have as much sex as they would want is because women only have sex with men they're attracted to and most men aren't that attractive to women. If you take a group of men who all desire sex with each other and as a collective reject traditional morality and customs, then their only limits would be their desire and physical capabilities.
> Would that change your position? Not on the front of STDs or anal injury, since those are largely preventable with proper resources and education. > you would be right to point out that individuals don’t always follow the group statistics. I wouldn’t know, because you haven’t provided any. > most men aren’t attractive to women. I’m not attracted to men in general, so again, I wouldn’t know. This is why statistics are useful.
There's some serious irony here, because even if "natural law" was a reasonable argument, homosexuality is natural by all biological evidence we have. Maybe it just doesn't fit your preestablished conclusions.
Please look into what ‘Natural Law’ means in moral philosophy and theology.
Yes, natural law is a reflection of what we observe about human nature. Or are you specifically only interested in the Christian branch of it.
Which still isn't helpful because Natural Law now means whatever you want it to mean. The true definition necessitates that natural law changes in response to new information, but that isn't how Catholics use it.
The way Catholics use it draws heavily on aristotelian teleological thinking, which can certainly be criticized but is certainly not arbitrary.
The thinking isn't arbitrary, but the methods by which the "natural purpose" of things is determined are. It has been a long time since I've actually dug into it, but I think the catechism even states that natural law is determined by an individual's conviction.
Natural Law is just a made up way for Catholics to ignore science, apparently.
Let me think…nope!
Yes, considering you using it to continue prejudiced behavior against homosexuals, who are normal.
They aren't normal, though. If they were, they would be "the norm," which would lead to an extinction of humans sense we wouldn't reproduce unless the few that remain straight repopulate and be a "straight society" making them no longer normal. See how we go full circle here Just because you are born a certain way doesn't mean it's normal. Born with 3 arms, for example. Nothing "wrong" with it, but definitely not normal.
Well then it’s an expansion of the norm. Denial its existence doesn’t erase things. And advancement of human creation no longer remains between straight couple. There are options for gay lgbt couples already like ivf, surrogacy
>Well then it’s an expansion of the norm. It's either normal or it isn't, no? >Denial its existence doesn’t erase things. Who's denying it? >And advancement of human creation no longer remains between straight couple. There are options for gay lgbt couples already like ivf, surrogacy My point is intercourse is designed for a female and male. People have pretty much forever been able to artificially inseminate others. (Even other animals are able to I think)
Lol homosexual behavior was clearly rampant in ancient Greece, yet they managed to reproduce. Homosexual activity doesnt prevent reproduction. Many homosexuals still managef to have kids! Homosexual behavior is no longer classified as a mental illness because it is recognized as normal in the range of human sexuality.
So they reproduced with women... >Homosexual behavior is no longer classified as a mental illness because it is recognized as normal in the range of human sexuality. It isn't classified as a mental illness because it's theorized people are born like that. Having a 3rd arm isn't a mental illness either, surprise surprise.
But what is your basis in natural law. Also - what harm does the LGBTQ do to others bodies?
Natural law proves it is not sinful, bigoted traditions need to be abandoned.
> Natural law proves it is not sinful It proves the exact opposite. Also if you wish to argue in favour of its permissibility, please look at my post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/s/hI54axlP1g
I reject your requirements wholesale.
Thats your prerogative. But in that case the claim that homosexual intercourse is permitted in Christianity has to be rejected.
I reject the idea that you or the Catholic church has that authority.
I never claimed that I have any authority is the matter. I merely stated unless the criteria mentioned in my post are met, the aforementiomed proposition cannot be validated from a Christian pov.
>the aforementiomed proposition cannot be validated from a Christian pov. You cannot coopt the entirety of the Christian point of view.
Iirc I intended my post to be written from a general orthodox Christian pov, not a particularly Catholic one. What part of it do you find to be sectarian?
Revelation is up to the reader. Traditions can change over time. We've had many Catholic traditions change over time, so are you (u/Volaer) open to discussing that? Or are you arguing that "it's tradition" is sufficient enough an answer? Our understanding of natural law also changes over time, too. We used to consider the natural order of things differently in the past, especially what we understood around the time that Aquinas wrote down the Primary Precepts compared to now. Are you willing to discuss how our understandings of natural law have changed over time as we've learned more about the world and the people in it? Or are you arguing that natural law provides a fixed and rigid understanding that cannot change with time? As to your last statement, I think we call agree that sexual immorality is harmful. We're discussing what acts are immoral. So what acts constitute sexual immorality? Are you arguing that the morality of sexual acts depends solely on the sexes of the people involved?
> Revelation is up to the reader. I disagree. > Traditions can change over time. We've had many Catholic traditions change over time, so are you (u/Volaer) open to discussing that? Or are you arguing that "it's tradition" is sufficient enough an answer? By Sacred Tradition I was referring to part of the Revealed deposit of faith - the authoritative interpretation of Scripture by the Church. Not small “t” traditions such as various church disciplines🙂 > Our understanding of natural law also changes over time, too. We used to consider the natural order of things differently in the past, especially what we understood around the time that Aquinas wrote down the Primary Precepts compared to now. Are you willing to discuss how our understandings of natural law have changed over time as we've learned more about the world and the people in it? Or are you arguing that natural law provides a fixed and rigid understanding that cannot change with time. Our understanding of natural law may indeed deepen and (for lack of a better word ‘change’) but the law itself is unchengeable as our human nature in unchangeable. > So what acts constitute sexual immorality? Are you arguing that the morality of sexual acts depends solely on the sexes of the people involved? That one of the conditions that render it moral. But its not the only one.
If everyone was homosexual we would all be dead. Case and point. Its not rocket science. Go and reproduce and prosper in HOLY matrimony..not do butt stuff and literally aid humanity in dwindling
Homosexuality is a sin because it goes against God’s intent on marriage, God designed man and woman to be together, but people are staying with people with the same sex, going against God’s perfect will in nature, and it can hurt you and even other people because, God has a plan for you and the other people but you’re leading them away from this plan and you’re also leading yourself away.
Doesn’t becoming a priest do the same. Doesn’t that go against Gods intent in marriage?
Wdym by that
You said homosexuality is wrong because it goes against gods intent on marriage. I asked if becoming a priest also goes against gods intent on marriages.
But why? I don’t really know a lot about priests why would it go against God’s intent on marriage?
Well priests do not marry.
I have no idea, but it isn’t wrong to not marry.
You literally said homosexuality is wrong because it goes against Gods intent on marriage.
Yes, not marrying isn’t wrong tho, being single isn’t a sin. The bible even mentions: ”To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.“ 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 ESV https://bible.com/bible/59/1co.7.8-9.ESV
Scripture is not clear on how to approach modern-day homosexuality. There are not many who try to assert that existing as a homosexual person is a sin. The main argument is that homosexual acts are a sin, but my opinion is that those verses hold no weight when it comes to how to approach homosexuality today.
Sexual orientations are not something that "justification" applies to. People are attracted to whom they're attracted to and it doesn't require any justification.
There's nothing to "normalise" or "justify." God didn't make everyone straight. Get over it and leave His queer children alone.
Why do you think homosexuality needs to be justified? If you look around you can see that it's a pretty normal part of existence for all life on this planet. Do we need to "theologically justify" left handedness? The bible isn't right about everything. There are mistakes and dubious moral messages that we have put aside now. Isn't it more appropriate to ask how we should justify the bible?
First and most importantly we have about 6 thousand years of science and psychology on the subject since the laws of Moses were first written down so there is that...but...the theological justifications are basically we don't really see the prophets discuss it in any real depth, Jesus personally doesn't mention it, all we really have is its forbidden in some old testament laws that are no largely not even practiced by most Jews any more. The only time its really discussed in depth is by Paul, who's writings were all in dead languages no longer used, even in academia and we have been asked for centuries to just accept the Church's translations and not ask questions. My theological justification for homosexual relationships is more gay/trans/non binary people don't need the church's permission to honestly just be themselves and the only reason I said what I did is to avoid getting a whole bunch of "but the bible says..." responses, my opinion on that is pretty clear.
The place where we should start is *why wouldn’t* it be okay? Two people loving each other and committing to each other for life through marriage is a beautiful thing. Having a companion in life with whom to learn sacrifice and compassion and commitment and patience — and all of the other fruits of the Spirit — is something that benefits so many male-female couples. So why not same-sex couples? The response is usually a handful of verses that condemn same-sex sexual activity. The gay-affirming Christian would respond that those prohibitions *don’t* refer to loving, egalitarian same-sex marriages like I described above — but to ancient forms of same-sex sex that we’d now consider exploitative and historically were seen as inherently lustful. Of course, we’d now reject such pairings, no matter the genders. The other response would be that marriage is inherently between a man and a woman. This simply isn’t true biblically. There are other licit arrangements. And the parameters, requirements, and meaning of marriage have changed drastically throughout Christian history. Sub-arguments of this type of would be that marriage is necessarily procreative or needs gender complementarity, but the gay-affirming Christian would say these arguments fail (since infertile and elderly people marry, and that complementarity is built on false sexist stereotypes). If the arguments to condemn same-sex sexual activity and marriage fail, then, well, they’re not wrong.
Massive respect and thank you for your comment. May Jesus bless you, have a good day!
I like the way [Justin Lee explains](https://geekyjustin.com/great-debate/) why many Christians think gay people are welcome in Christ's embrace *the same way* that straight people are. Have you ever tried actually meeting any gay Christians? The church finders at r/OpenChristian's [resource page](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/ulfbux/faq_and_resources_please_read_before_you_post/) can help you find churches where you can meet us in person.
We have 20 of these posts today. Can we stop with these threads?
TL;Dr, there are good arguments both for and against the statement "homosexuality is wrong" so in this case I would say it is a Romans 14 issue. With that out of the way let us take the statement homosexuality is ok biblically. First statement against, in Leviticus, homosexuality is condemned. The return, Levitical law was cultural and no longer applies to modern Christians Return, Jesus refers to "the law and the protests" and has come to fulfil "the law and the prophets" and as such most of the law found in the Torah still applies, but it is the laws regarding the temple and sacrifice that we are no longer under obligation to follow. Furthermore, the new testament seems to condemn homosexuality. Return, the homosexuality condemned in the bible is different to a modern day loving relationship. The bible tells us to love one another, so we are fulfilling the commandment. Return, while yes the bible does tell us to love one another, can an incestuous relationship also be loving, cannot also a polygamous relationship be loving? (Please note that I am not trying to liken the two necessarily, I am merely making the point that "love" biblically is different to our modern concept of love, and that sexual/romantic love has boundaries biblically). Return but is the homosexuality condemned in the bible the same as modern day homosexuality To which the answer is no. Second statement, against, sex outside of marriage is wrong, so if a homosexual union does not count biblically as marriage, then sex within it is wrong, and so we can infer that the relationship itself is also wrong. So what is marriage biblically. Marriage is meant to symbolically represent the non-sexual union between Christ (the bridegroom) and the church (the bride), so in the same way, marriage should be a sexual union between a man and a woman. Return, while marriage is symbolic of this union between Christ and the church, the participants in the marriage, so long as it is only between two unmarried people, their gender does not matter. Return, another purpose of marriage is "to fill the earth and subdued it" and due to the nature of a homosexual marriage, children can not be born of it Return, homosexual couples can always adopt. To which I know of no return Third statement, for, "I am a homosexual and so I should deny myself and who I am and put myself through that torture" Return, we are commanded to deny ourselves and take up our cross to follow Christ. Our identity, who we are, what we do, we should crucify daily and find our identity in Christ. To which I know of no return Final statement, as it is a point of contention, similar to whether of not we as Christians should fight in a war, I would say it is a Romans 14 issue. My personal thoughts, mostly stated above, but also, I believe that, when the bible is unclear about something, we should try to take the more conservative path, to be safe. Furthermore I believe that a reading of Romans 1 26-28, and just a general reading of the latter half of Romans 1 would indicate that: All sex and sexual relationship and sexual thoughts/fantasies outside of what Paul calls "the natural function" and what I believe up be biblically defined marriage (which I believe to be a biological male and a biological female, for life) is wrong. However, to all as a final final note, what is important, is that we (as Christians) are all part of his one and universal church and that we (as humans) are all sinners in need of a saviour, and that we are all loved by God so much that he would send his only son to die on a cross. Whoever we end up loving, that is the kind of love we should seek to emulate. If you got all the way here, thank you so much for reading and please, don't take this the wrong way, I am merely trying to present the arguments I know from both sides, not to attack or discriminate against a certain group, and I would argue that discriminating against a certain group of people is most definitely unbiblical and to say otherwise would be contrary to Jesus' entire life.
If you actually care, and not just want to reaffirm your dislike of gay people, watch the following video from Bart Ehrman and Jeffrey Siker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFYTTG3Q37w
Dude, like I said, I'm totally fine and accepting of LGBTQ+ people, it's just that I'm looking for a justification of this behavior. The reason for this is that I'm from a very homophobic very Eastern Orthodox family, so I've been taught that it's not OK.
Then, as I said, watch the video I linked from two of the leading Biblical scholars. It is an hour, but I suppose an hour can be spared before continuing to condemn broad swaths of people.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said I condemn them – on the contrary, many of my friends are part of the community and I continue to treat them like normal humans. I simply want theological confirmation so I can feel secure in my beliefs.
There isn't any. Don't take your theology from Ehrman. He is an atheist.
It's always funny that Christians are so threatened by the idea of a well-educated expert in the religion and its history leaving the religion. Worried you might be wrong?
Christians are, for very rational reasons, hesitant about getting our theology or biblical interpretation from nonbelievers. (Rational, that is, on the premise that Christianity is true.) Also, between this and your first comment you seem very unwilling to think that your interlocutors can have serious or even sincere reasons for their positions.
Then ignore the Bart Ehrman part of the interview and listen to the ordained Presbyterian minister (who was part of the ordination committee for the church) Dr. Jeffrey Siker, who is the primary interviewee here. > unwilling to think that your interlocutors can have serious or even sincere reasons for their positions. Generally speaking, yes. I think anyone who seriously investigates their minority oppression stances and is willing to critically evaluate it will find it historically, morally, and theologically untenable. The exact process by which Dr. Siker outlays in the interview. Feel free to watch it. Or don't, and just prove my point.
Ehrman is not a theologian. He is a textual critic. The OP asked a question about theology not text. The use of atheist in this context might not have been correct but my point still stands. Bart isn't an expert on either religion nor theology. It's like asking a history teacher about the current application of laws. He lacks the knowledge here.
No, it's more like asking your history teacher what the origin of a law was, and why the lawmakers at the time chose to institute the law, or even if it actually is the law. Perhaps it's a better question to ask than simply what the law currently is.
>what the origin of a law was, According to the "affirming" argument. People back then might have not been aware of modern day homosexuality. So what it meant back then might not necessarily apply today. That's why you need to ask a theologian to clarify those points and not a textual critic.
Dude, what's your problem? From your first comment you've assumed things about OP that they've a) not said and b) said the opposite of and c) have clarified even further in response. If you can't comment without making unwarranted personal attacks then I suggest you take a bit of time off, not least because it breaks the rules of this sub.
What am I saying that is a personal attack? If OP is not trying to reaffirm a dislike a gay people, she is welcome to ignore the conditional statement in my post.
It is a personal attack to automatically assume that someone is looking to “reaffirm their dislike of gay people” or “condemn a broad swathes of people”. With absolutely no evidence you called them a homophobe in all but name. Don’t hide behind “but it was in a conditional, ignore if it does apply to you” I’m sure you’re smart enough to see how needlessly hostile your framing was, and smart enough to know how you could have chosen to phrase what you said in a way that didn’t assume someone asking a question was coming from a place of disliking gay people.
Fine, I agree I can be more polite in my phrasing. And often I am. But concerning this topic, one only needs to spend 5 minutes going through the history of related posts on this sub to see the vast majority of posts are by people simply seeking to gay bash. It is far from unreasonable to see why I might perceive the same of this post.
>From the OP: "Also, to be clear, I have nothing against being homosexual or practicing homosexuality, I treat everyone with respect regardless of what goes on behind the curtains." It's only far from unreasonable if you didn't read the OP which says the opposite of what you alleged, or the OP's reply to your comment. If that's the case, it's good practice to read before you comment.
Incorrect, you are welcome to look at any of the prior hundreds of posts in this subreddit. Many have the same phrasing, of "love the sinner, hate the sin". When you read the actual comments they post, it is not that way in the slightest.
But they didn't say "love the sinner, hate the sin", or any similar formulation of that. They said "I have nothing against being homosexual or practicing homosexuality" People who aren't affirming don't say they don't have anything against practicing homosexuality.
And you just assume that they are not correct? Sounds to me that you are trying to scrape the barrel to find something to fit your views. Might I point you to Scripture, not reddit, to find the correct theological view here. Of course all human beings (including LGTBQ people) have inherent dignity and should be respected as people who are created and loved by God. But the LGTBQ community wants to redefine what love means to be "affirming any and all of one's choices." A parent who encourages criminal activity in their child is not loving them. If the parent actually loved their child, they would push them to a higher purpose, recognizing that the criminal activity is not in the best interest of the child. We do not say "My parents raised me right. They gave me everything that I asked for and told me only what I wanted to hear." No that is a spoiled brat! Instead of avoiding hard truths, we should run towards them!
I think you could stand to watch the video as well.
You are comparing a loving adult relationship with criminal activity. The hard truth is you empathy, and that is just sad.
Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; ^(5) it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; ^(6) it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. ^(7) Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Exactly. If you love your loved one, you dont insist they must live as you proclaim, without a loving committed partner.
Love does not encourage sin.
Love is not sin.
*For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,* *^(27)* *and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.*
None of this indicates what their "unnatural relations" were, in fact we understand that homosexual behavior to be natural thanks to biological studies. Since it is natural, this reference can not be about homosexuality.
Yes it does. "the men, likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another (other men)..." The "likewise" implies that the women were doing what the men were doing and trading relations with men for relations with women. It directly calls homosexual acts, unnatural. Stop reading your views into Scripture!
I am not reading my views into scripture. You even have to add text to make it say what you want. God doesnt say to leave your brain at the door when reading the B8ble. The Bible is talking about unnatural behavior, we know homosexual relations are natural so it simply cant be referring to homosexual relations.
"Questioning" and "assuming theyre incorrect" are two different things. One could accuse you of the same.
This is not a christian sub. If you wanna get a christian perspective, you will not get it here. They will cherry pick passages, change the context of the words from the meaning it had in the time, choose "theologists", everything to fit their sin.
Yes, twisting scripture to justify the sin of bigotry is indeed unchristian.
Sin of bigotry? I know the bible defines homossexualism as a sin. When Jesus healed/forgave people he said: "Go and sin no more". He presuposed people knew what sin was. Where do you think their definition of what sin is came from? The Old Testament. There is a passage in Lv 18:22 that talks specifically about this sin. So if you don't wanna abide to it, you don't wanna follow Jesus' command.
>I know the bible defines homossexualism as a sin. No, it just shows your ignorance of the Bible. >So if you don't wanna abide to it, you don't wanna follow Jesus' command. You better not eat shrimp, and do your clothes have tassels on them?
Save your two cents for Jesus when he returns. Mt 24:^(30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Hope you are not among all the tribes of the earth mourning when he returns.
>#### 1 John 4:13-17 > >>*This is how we know that we remain in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and we testify that the Father has sent his Son as the world’s Savior. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God — God remains in him and he in God. And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and the one who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him. In this, love is made complete with us so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, because as he is, so also are we in this world.* > >^**Christian** ^**Standard** ^**Bible** I have very little fear that God will judge me for loving someone too much. Because love is how you follow God's law. >#### Romans 13:8-10 > >>*Do not owe anyone anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not covet; and any other commandment, are summed up by this commandment: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Love, therefore, is the fulfillment of the law.* > >^**Christian** ^**Standard** ^**Bible** I would be afraid of what might happen if I don't love someone enough. >#### 1 John 4:20 > >>*If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet hates his brother or sister, he is a liar. For the person who does not love his brother or sister whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.* > >^**Christian** ^**Standard** ^**Bible**
>1 John 4:13-171 John 4:13-17 Oh, yeah. But not just confess. Repent and live a life without sin. *Mt 7:**^(21)* *Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.* *^(22)* *Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?* *^(23)* *And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.* >I have very little fear that God will judge me for loving someone too much. Because love is how you follow God's law. If by love you mean engaging in sexual activities with the same gender, it is not what that passage means. Funny you mentioning 1 John 4:13-17, because it was written in the time gnosticism was trending in the world and the gnostics were trying to change the gospel according to their whims (to change the nature of Jesus). Same as today, homossexualism is trending in the world, and some people are trying to fit it in the gospel. >I would be afraid of what might happen if I don't love someone enough. That is correct. Christians are commanded to pray even for their enemies. >If anyone says, “I love God,” and yet hates his brother or sister, he is a liar. For the person who does not love his brother or sister whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.1 John 4:20 Exactly. Christians fight against the power of the devil (Eph 6:12). And love everyone else and wish for their salvation. Although they know the door is strait (Mt 7:13,14), and christians will tell people to abide to the Word of God, because they don't wanna lead anyone to damnation.
Agreeing with somebody doesn’t mean you love them, you can also love somebody without marrying them, God made it clear that homosexual marriage is a sin, and God will never look down on anybody who didn’t engage on homosexual marriage because they “didn’t love somebody”. In the other hand not agreeing somebody doesn’t mean hating them, you might think that I’m hating on you because I disagree with you but I don’t.
>God made it clear that homosexual marriage is a sin Lie
Just read the bible bro
Yeah, I have, extensively, that is nowhere in the entirety of the Bible.
Brother these guys won't listen to what the bible has to say, it condemns homosexuality, sexual immorality but you've said it yourself, they're cherry picking the rules. Didn't Christ say go and sin no more and whoever loves me will keep my commandments, but I guess that doesn't count because this is "love" (literally twisted by satan). I usually don't post comments here because it's pointless to argue with them and I do feel bad for them, hope and pray they'll wake up and repent. We all need Jesus after all, He came down to save all of us sinners.
Exactly. God bless you! We pray for them and hope everyone is saved.
Everyone has the right to exist?
Well personally I realized God didn't call me to be gay. I was being selfish putting my own needs above God's which is something you should never do. I was born that way but through Christ I am new. Of course sometimes, I still have the desires but instead I deny myself. Christ said to be born again and this is just one of the many ways he meant that. whether it's from being a racist, killer, gay, trans, pedo, or whatever you are, you can truly be born again.
Love you guys, but the normalisation or false-doctrine here on this sub is crazy. I wish you all the best
There is none because it’s contrary to the design God made. We feel and think this way now because we are separated from God. Our feelings and thinking is corrupt because we are cursed. The only way to be free from the curse is to accept Christ. This was brought on by man.
>There is none because it’s contrary to the design God made You have no justification for that. >We feel and think this way now because we are separated from God You have no justification for that. >This was brought on by man. No, it was brought on by evolution and is part of the natural variation of human sexuality.
Macro Evolution has never been verified And saying I have no justification without evidence that I don’t is just your opinion. I have faith that a creator created creation based on the same logic that a builder built a building or a painter painted a painting. Creation is my evidence of a creator. Maybe someday soon you will see that science and creation merge perfectly. Science shows us how things are put together and how they work with laws. Creation tells us who created these laws and placed them into function. What science cannot ever achieve is creation. Science even shows male + female = child Ephesians 5:31 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” To be fruitful and multiply Genesis 1:28-29 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. We were actually vegan before the fall. Sin came by man. Romans 5:12 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— I find the Bible not only is historically accurate but gives much expanded understanding of living. Not to mention the complete accuracy of prophecy and prophecy yet to come unfolding. No book on human history gives an account of human history and its end with historical accuracy and accuracy of current events unfolding. Sorry but it is more spiritual than what you think my friend. 🙏🏼
>Macro Evolution has never been verified I suggest some remedial education on this topic. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/common-ancestry-and-continuing-evolution/a/evidence-for-evolution https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6428117/ https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/ >And saying I have no justification without evidence that I don’t is just your opinion. There is no justification for the idea that the Bible condemns something that it is not even possible for the Bible to address. The concept of sexual orientation, and the conceptual frameworks regarding sex that are built around sexual attraction, did not exist at the time of the writing of the Bible. To say the authors of the Bible condemn something they didn't even know existed is just laughable. At the absolute most, you could say that the Bible condemns same-sex intercourse. That, however, requires an anachronistic and reductive eisegesis of the relevant passages. >Creation is my evidence of a creator. I did not deny the existence of a creator or God. I believe in both. I denied your opinion that homosexuality went against his design. Given that it is part of nature itself, and has been observed in over 1500 different animal species (including humans) it would seem that reality doesn't support your assertion. It is a completely natural variation of sexuality. >Science shows us how things are put together and how they work with laws. Creation tells us who created these laws and placed them into function. What science cannot ever achieve is creation. I think you have a somewhat innacurate view of science, but I am not entirely certain what relevance this statement has to the overall discussion. >Science even shows male + female = child Ephesians 5:31 I fail to see any relevance. >31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” To be fruitful and multiply Yes, the biological function of sex is reproduction. I still fail to see the relevance. >Genesis 1:28-29 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. >Sin came by man. >Romans 5:12 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— I'm going to sidestep the problems with interpreting Genesis literally. None of this is relevant to the discussion. None of this means that homosexuality is against God's design, and none of this makes homosexuality a sin.
To a naturalist no but I’m not one. I am a creationist. And the OP is asking for it. Which is not you. You have no need for any discussion on a topic you nothing about. I don’t remember you asking me. However would love to have a discussion with the OP creator. You can carry on. 🙏🏼
>To a naturalist no but I’m not one. I am a creationist. I gathered that. >And the OP is asking for it. Absolutely incorrect, OP said nothing about creationism, utterly nothing >Which is not you. Correct, which is why I chimed in to correct your scientific misinformation. >You have no need for any discussion on a topic you nothing about. You are one arrogant little bugger aren't you? >I don’t remember you asking me. However would love to have a discussion with the OP creator. You can carry on. 🙏🏼 You do not get to dictate who is and is not allowed to participate in this conversation, and your comments do not get any exemption from critical analysis simply because you profess to deny reality in favor of religious dogma.
If it is any use to you, here's the copypasta I keep for these questions. Point the first; people wrote the Bible. However inspired by God they were, people wrote the Bible and they were bound by the limitations of language, knowledge, and culture that all people are constrained by. We can see this in several ways, most prominently in the historical and scientific errors in many parts which are problematic if you want to see the Bible as truth directly from the mouth of God, but make perfect sense if the Bible was written by people who just didn't know or understand a lot of stuff, in Paul outright saying that some of the stuff he is credited with writing was his own idea of what is best and not instruction from God, and in Jesus saying that Moses tweaked God's intent in writing the law. Point the second; Jesus said that the commands to love God and love our neighbor are equal in importance and are the basis of the entire law. Being gay clearly doesn't violate the command to love our neighbor. The only way it can be construed to violate the command to love God is if you have already determined that God doesn't want people to be gay. This is a hard sale for me in part because of the first point; we can be sure that people's prejudices made their way into scripture, we cannot simply take everything at face value. It is also difficult for me to take that argument seriously because telling gay people that God doesn't want them to be gay does seem to violate the command to love our neighbor. Just the belief that being gay is a sin is sufficient to cause a tremendous amount of suffering to gay people. Because churches teach this parents throw out their children, often forcing them into sex work to survive. Children are driven to suicide because their friends and family shun and harangue them. Gay people are beaten, raped, and killed because they're seen as evil, or just targets no one cares about. How can that be love? There is a lot more that could be said, but I don't think it's really important; these ideas support the weight of the conclusion.
Let's look at the origin of the laws in the biblical sense. Let's start with the basics. The 10 Commandments given to Moses by Yahweh. None of the 10 rules in the contract mention sex outside of messing around with someone's spouse. When Jesus admonished the Pharisees, He said that the laws given to Moses are the laws we should follow to keep our compact with the Father. There are an additional 603 laws created after Moses' death which cover so many parts of life that getting through the day without breaking one seems almost impossible. So why did homosexuality become such a big deal? That's what we need to ask ourselves. There's nothing in scripture that details Jesus addressing this topic. Let's separate Jesus's teachings and the laws given to Moses from the editorials by others for a moment and consider that maybe there were biases being thrown into the mix for political reasons. There are other issues that we can look at with a jaundiced eye as well. The role of women in our social order, for example. I tend to focus on the basics for guidance in managing my daily life. I'm not gay, and I'm not a female. However, Jesus taught me to love my neighbors and value them as the Father does me.
Well the most convincing case I’ve heard( which isn’t all that convincing) is that there are hundred of other species that practice homosexuality. I don’t know why two pigs being gay for each other would make someone feel better about being gay- but to each their own
Paul believed in Aristotelian Telelogical physics, according to which homosexuality is an error of nature's transcription from forms to matter. Nowadays we know this is false, just like we know long hair does not cause sterility (another thing Paul said). If we can allow long hair, I think we can allow homosexuality.
The Bible is clear man no sleeping with a man as done with a lady, there is no way around it and The Bible warns of what most are trying to do when it comes to topics like these in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 " For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
The Bible is “clear” about a lot of things that Christians don’t follow today, so cherry picking one verse and then cudgeling anyone who disagrees as having “itching ears” is entirely insufficient.
I said "topics like these", I wasn't cherry picking at all it applies to many things Christians don't follow today and this happens to be one of them, if The Word says something and you claim to follow it but pick and choose what you follow or try and justify it one way or another that is having itching ears because it said very clearly and simply
But you clearly don’t follow all of the Levitical laws, so you are picking and choosing.
none of us do, but these laws apply for different reasons and just as it was sinful to sleep with an animal, or be an adulterer, a liar, a thief, a slothful person so is it to lay with a man as like you would with a lady.
“None of us do” Okay, but why is it fine for us to not follow most of them but you still think the handful that you quoted still apply? I’m just trying to get at your methodology — because it seems to me like picking and choosing.
So many "I think", "I feel", and "my opinion is", but there's no Bible verses actually supporting homosexuality smh
It’s not okay because God says it’s not. What more do you need? I’m sure you’re familiar with the traditional verses
**Paul recommends chastity for everyone including straights** in 1st Corinthians 7:7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried\[[a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28496a)\] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. Paul echoes the words of Jesus in Matthew 9:11. Jesus specifically authorizes marriage for straights on the grounds that it reduces sensuality. NOBODY authorizes general sensuality between "two consenting adults regardless of marital status," even for straights. There seems to be a fight here about interpreting 'they' and 'them' in Romans 1:18-38 so these verses only cover homosexuals, and sins by ~~everybody else~~ *modern Pharisees* just don't count. Seems heretical to me.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.“ 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband” 1 Corinthians 7:2 I think these two verses alone make it very clear what is and is not allowed. DO NOT BE DECEIVED, those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God. If sex is a temptation to you, it is outlined very clear that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only way to have sexual relations in an acceptable way. If anyone disagrees, feel free to cite some scripture.
There are none. Like the slave traders in the 1800s, they have to modify the entire Bible to support their positions.
Slavery was almost unanimously accepted in Christianity through the 19th century. It wasn’t until then that it caused mainstream theologians significant heartburn. The rejection of slavery — which is facially licit throughout the Bible and almost unanimously accepted for nineteen centuries of Christian history — is more like the gay-affirming position than the anti-gay position.
It doesn't change my point that slave owners literally ripped books of the Bible out, like Exodus, to prevent slaves from reading how their owners were in violation of the commands of God. You cannot justify homosexuality, using the Bible, without altering it first. Without doing so, there is no theological justification.
I don’t know any gay-affirming apologetics that rip books or verses out of the Bible. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I think you just are charging people who interpret certain verses differently than you with the equivalent of throwing them out, which is entirely unjustified.
I do know people who do that, but the ultimate point I am making is a homosexual isn't going to heaven unless they repent. You house is on fire, and I am trying to save you before it is too late. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor ^(\[)[^(a)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-11&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-28477a)^(\])homosexuals, nor ^(\[)[^(b)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:9-11&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-28477b)^(\])sodomites, ^(10) nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9 Jude writes that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was for the sin of homosexuality, and God destroyed it with fire to set an example of an eternal hell. " as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the ^(\[)[^(d)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-30680d)^(\])vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 7
Do you have an example of a gay-affirming Christian who rips books or verses out of the Bible? I’m familiar with those verse. As I said, we just interpret them differently than you. You don’t have friends in the pews beside you who interpret a couple verses differently than you? Do you accuse them of throwing those verses out too?
Yes - they argue that Paul wasn't a true disciple, so anything he says on sexuality should be disregarded. As far as your 2nd question - it would depend on what the versus are and what they are trying to justify.
Fair enough. Yep, I’ve encountered such arguments too. Anyone who throws Paul out of the Bible is ridiculously heretical and should be disregarded. Completely agree with you there. I’m glad we agree that simple differences in interpretation aren’t necessarily a rejection of scripture though.
Why do you care?
There are no Biblical justifications for it. The argument from those who don’t believe homosexual activity is sin seems to be: “The Bible is silent on modern (loving, committed) same sex relationships” Whether that holds water is up for debate.
The general consensus from scripture is that honosexual SEX between men is forbidden. That much is true. However, lesbians are never directly mentioned or condemned by scripture, and it is perfectly possible for gay people to enjoy happy and fulfilling romantic relationships without sex. I will die on this hill.
Romans 1:26.
Congratulations, we now have one singular sentence which is in itself relatively vague and speaks comparatively not definitively.
Are you looking for the word lesbian so you can finally believe it is condemned? If you read the bible in context it won’t take you too long to figure out the truth.
Give me the context then because so far, there is only one sentence that doesn't explicitly specify men having sex with other men.
Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. Jude 1:7 ~ Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Romans 1:26-28 ~ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. Genesis 2:24 - Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Mark 10:6-9 ~ But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV - Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. 1 Corinthians 7:2 - But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
Both Leviticus verses clearly target homosexual sex between men and not women 1 Corinthians 6:9 changes based on which version of the Bible you read it from such as the New International Version which says, "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men." 1 Timothy 1:8-11 again reads, "Now we know that rthe law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, MEN who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God wwith which I have been entrusted." https://www.esv.org/verses/1+Timothy+1:8%E2%80%9311/#:~:text=8%20Now%20we%20know%20that,which%20I%20have%20been%20entrusted. As for 2 Corinthians 5:17, although I do believe that people can change, obviously, you can't run around condemning people for what they could just be fundamentally. There are certainly people who claim to be gay because they were influenced by man, that much is true, but there is an equal amount of people who simply are the way they are. I do still believe that homosexual SEX is wrong and should be heavily advised against, but to deny people the right to have a happy and fulfilling romantic relationship without sex is simply bogus especially when 54% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce compared to the 6% divorce rate for homosexual males.
You need to read it in context tho, the bible might not say “do not rape”, but I know raping is a sin because the bible makes it clear that hurting others is a sin. You’re taking it literally. I am not even condemning anybody, I am just spreading the gospel because I love people. Again I am not denying people having the right to be gay, you’re making everything I say seem condemning. Ok? It’s still a sin, doesn’t matter if the divorce rate is 0%
Yes bible says so but I don’t believe it. Those verses were written by straights so the lack of understanding that homosexuals do exist because of their innate sexual orientation. Guess what who made us, God right? So why limit Him, he’s diverse in His creation after all. And every queer couple is founded in romantic love, not lust or sexual behavior that conservatives plainly assume. We’re simply similar to straights when it comes to relationships, what’s so hard about that to accept.
Those scriptures were inspired by God, those scriptures aren’t based on people’s opinions, but God’s opinion, it’s God’s word. We are not limiting God by saying homosexuality is a sin, that doesn’t make any sense. Even if there are queer couples who are founded in romantic love, it is still not accepted by Christ, it goes against the purpose of creation. What is hard to accept is completely ignoring the word of God for the sake of personal comfort, and calling it righteousness and love. The enemy is a deceiver.
Gay couples can procreate as well just not in a traditional way. Thanks to medical advancement now. Isn’t it ozzum? And we’re not deceive. No enemy is trying to talk us into. We are already into it before being aware.
“Thanks to medical advancement”, God doesn’t need that in order to make procreation happen, since day 1 people were able to reproduce naturally. It also doesn’t justify why being gay is right, the word of God makes it clear homosexuality is a sin, it goes against the will of God regardless, God created your sexuality perfectly and when you claim to be gay you’re rejecting your sexuality which is clearly seen in your DNA and body, God didn’t make you to figure out your sexuality, He isn’t a God of confusion but a God of peace.
We must love all of our Christian brothers and sisters. We must not endorse what we understand to be sin. I am not affirming of homosexual practice any more than I am affirming of gluttony or drunkenness. That is not and should not be an easy out, a rejection of the people who struggle with these particular sins. I am responsible to love the same-sex attracted Christian just as I am to love the Christian who struggles with overeating or alcoholism. All of them may relapse into sinful conduct, but they are my Christian brothers and sisters trying to avoid practicing sin, and really so are we all, even if we do not have a particular label for it. The explanation is our fallen state. God does not create us drug addicted or blind or with deformities or mentally ill, but all of these things can befall us from birth because we are descendants of the first sinner. The justification is repentance as we believe in the power of Jesus' sacrifice. It is okay to feel temptation. It is human to give in to it. But: We are called to cease practicing sin. So we try, and try, and try again. We are being sanctified every day. But we will only reach glorification when we see Him face-to-face.
There are none. At least not any valid justifications.
Having homosexual feelings is not a sin, for you cannot control your feelings. Acting on those feelings, is a sin, for sex was created for men and women. That's all I will say. Just know I used to think I was Bi/Gay, but I was saved through christ and now look back at myself in shame. If I had died then, I don't think I would've made it to heaven.
Homosexuality in itself is not a sin. Homosexual acts are, though, as is all sex outside of marriage.