Is this a justifiable reason to support LGBT normality as a Christian?

[libertpaulian]

This is the way I look at it:

The New Testament condemns homosexual behavior.  This was never controversial among Christians until the rapidly secularizing culture began to accept such behavior.  Increased tolerance of homosexual sex is correlated strongly with increased secularism.  This is not controversial among Christians who live in countries where there isn't cultural tolerance for homosexuality.  In Africa and Asia, Christians continue to believe what the Bible has always taught on the subject.  This leads me to believe that pro-SSM Christians are compromising with the culture.

Here's another thing to consider:

Christianity was born into the Roman Empire, an empire that mostly tolerated homosexuality and a whole host of other sins (abortion, infanticide, gladiatorial games just to name a few).  By AD 400 these things were no longer tolerated.  Early Christians understood all these things to be immoral.  Now that the West is becoming less and less religious, abortion and homosexuality (and in some cases, euthanasia of infants) are becoming more and more tolerated. 

I think Kingpoleon gave a pretty good analysis above.

[Enduro]

I haven't studied the passages in depth, but you'd certainly have some verses in Romans and 1 Corinthians to contend with.  If you don't consider those books of the Bible as inspired, then it's very reasonable to support LGBT normality in the church as a Christian, but it's a trickier proposition if you do.

Again:

As far as Romans goes, the Bible makes it very clear that the sin there was lust. This is the sin - they were having homosexual relations not because of their sexuality, but because of their lust. Desire is the root of all our sin, as James makes clear repeatedly. As far as being unnatural, that’s also a phrase Paul uses for men with long hair - that most Christians say is a synonym for “unconvential.” Overall, though, I must note that the love in a marriage, gay or straight, is very different from (im)pure, unadulterated lust.


Let me quote Matthe Vines on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10,
“In this text, Paul uses two Greek words—malakoi and arsenokoitai—that likely refer to some forms of male same-sex behavior, but not the modern concept of homosexuality. The predominant forms of same-sex behavior in the ancient world were sex between masters and slaves, sex between adult men and adolescent boys, and prostitution. In all those cases, men used sex to express power, dominance and lustfulness, not self-giving love and mutuality. Committed same-sex unions between social equals represent very different values than the types of same-sex behavior Paul would have had in view in 1 Corinthians 6.”

The German word for homosexual there is “Kinderschänder” - literally, boy-molester. The NRSV, the most accurate version of the Bible according to many, uses the term “male prostitutes.”

That makes sense actually. Very good points.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

This is the way I look at it:

The New Testament condemns homosexual behavior.  This was never controversial among Christians until the rapidly secularizing culture began to accept such behavior.  Increased tolerance of homosexual sex is correlated strongly with increased secularism.  This is not controversial among Christians who live in countries where there isn't cultural tolerance for homosexuality.  In Africa and Asia, Christians continue to believe what the Bible has always taught on the subject.  This leads me to believe that pro-SSM Christians are compromising with the culture.

Here's another thing to consider:

Christianity was born into the Roman Empire, an empire that mostly tolerated homosexuality and a whole host of other sins (abortion, infanticide, gladiatorial games just to name a few).  By AD 400 these things were no longer tolerated.  Early Christians understood all these things to be immoral.  Now that the West is becoming less and less religious, abortion and homosexuality (and in some cases, euthanasia of infants) are becoming more and more tolerated. 

I think Kingpoleon gave a pretty good analysis above.

It is also incredibly disingenuous to single out pro-SSM Christians for "compromising with the culture" given, well, all of church history.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Arsenokoitai means something along the lines of men sleeping together (its a compound of men and bed).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romans 1:27

This passage seems to be talking about men and women abandoning marriage in order to pursue homosexual relations.  I can't get anything else out of it.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

This is the way I look at it:

The New Testament condemns homosexual behavior.  This was never controversial among Christians until the rapidly secularizing culture began to accept such behavior.  Increased tolerance of homosexual sex is correlated strongly with increased secularism.  This is not controversial among Christians who live in countries where there isn't cultural tolerance for homosexuality.  In Africa and Asia, Christians continue to believe what the Bible has always taught on the subject.  This leads me to believe that pro-SSM Christians are compromising with the culture.

Here's another thing to consider:

Christianity was born into the Roman Empire, an empire that mostly tolerated homosexuality and a whole host of other sins (abortion, infanticide, gladiatorial games just to name a few).  By AD 400 these things were no longer tolerated.  Early Christians understood all these things to be immoral.  Now that the West is becoming less and less religious, abortion and homosexuality (and in some cases, euthanasia of infants) are becoming more and more tolerated. 

I think Kingpoleon gave a pretty good analysis above.

It is also incredibly disingenuous to single out pro-SSM Christians for "compromising with the culture" given, well, all of church history.

Conservative Christians compromise with the culture too, I've called out Conservative Christians for not following "Blessed are the peacemakers."

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Arsenokoitai means something along the lines of men sleeping together (its a compound of men and bed).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romans 1:27

This passage seems to be talking about men and women abandoning marriage in order to pursue homosexual relations.  I can't get anything else out of it.

That passage refers to acts of homosexual sex in temple idol worship, not all gay people as a whole.  This is pretty clear when it's put into context:

Romans 1:22-25 - Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

It was common for male and female shrine prostitutes to be the receiver of seed for the idols, and women were also used as vessels for the idol worshiping men.  And note that they were inflamed with lust for one another, which does not describe loving committed relationships.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Arsenokoitai means something along the lines of men sleeping together (its a compound of men and bed).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romans 1:27

This passage seems to be talking about men and women abandoning marriage in order to pursue homosexual relations.  I can't get anything else out of it.

That passage refers to acts of homosexual sex in temple idol worship, not all gay people as a whole.  This is pretty clear when it's put into context:

Romans 1:22-25 - Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

It was common for male and female shrine prostitutes to be the receiver of seed for the idols, and women were also used as vessels for the idol worshiping men.  And note that they were inflamed with lust for one another, which does not describe loving committed relationships.

I think that's really a stretch.  If this was simply a reference to temple prostitution, then why are men committing shameful acts with other men singled out?  Why doesn't it mention men committing shameful acts with female temple prostitutes?

It seems clear that this means that God gave them over to sinful desires (in this particular case, homosexual behaviors) because they abandoned God.  Today, people in North America and Europe are increasingly turning away from God, and we are seeing increased acceptance of homosexual behavior as a result.

Once Christians became a majority in Europe, homosexuality was unanimously considered immoral until the secularization of society in the 20th century.  Connect the dots.

[libertpaulian]

Arsenokoitai means something along the lines of men sleeping together (its a compound of men and bed).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romans 1:27

This passage seems to be talking about men and women abandoning marriage in order to pursue homosexual relations.  I can't get anything else out of it.

That passage refers to acts of homosexual sex in temple idol worship, not all gay people as a whole.  This is pretty clear when it's put into context:

Romans 1:22-25 - Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

It was common for male and female shrine prostitutes to be the receiver of seed for the idols, and women were also used as vessels for the idol worshiping men.  And note that they were inflamed with lust for one another, which does not describe loving committed relationships.

I think that's really a stretch.  If this was simply a reference to temple prostitution, then why are men committing shameful acts with other men singled out?  Why doesn't it mention men committing shameful acts with female temple prostitutes?

Man/boy "love" was very common in ancient Greece and Rome, and Paul was very well-aware of that.  He wasn't stupid.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Arsenokoitai means something along the lines of men sleeping together (its a compound of men and bed).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romans 1:27

This passage seems to be talking about men and women abandoning marriage in order to pursue homosexual relations.  I can't get anything else out of it.

That passage refers to acts of homosexual sex in temple idol worship, not all gay people as a whole.  This is pretty clear when it's put into context:

Romans 1:22-25 - Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

It was common for male and female shrine prostitutes to be the receiver of seed for the idols, and women were also used as vessels for the idol worshiping men.  And note that they were inflamed with lust for one another, which does not describe loving committed relationships.

I think that's really a stretch.  If this was simply a reference to temple prostitution, then why are men committing shameful acts with other men singled out?  Why doesn't it mention men committing shameful acts with female temple prostitutes?

Because Paul was specifically addressing the Romans, whose cultural norms were very different from those of the modern West.  "Gay" and "straight" did not really exist at this time; it was expected of Roman citizens to have relations with both genders, and those who were intimate with only one sex were considered odd or abnormal.  That practice began, centuries earlier, as a religious obligation, and had grown into a custom/expectation that eventually became a vehicle for unbridled lust.  In earlier times, people engaging in the custom would undoubtedly have been uncomfortable engaging in sexual relations with someone to whom they had no natural attraction.  Paul basically said that God had just given them over to it, enabling them to completely disregard their natural attractions.

That is the historical context, but I think Romans 1:23 makes quite clear what Paul was referring to.  Today's homosexuals are not "exchang[ing] the glory of the immortal God" for images of mortal beings and animals.  Certainly not any that I know of.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many things in Europe were considered moral or immoral until the modern era.  Scripture has to be interpreted by the time in which it was written.  I would surmise that homosexuality had likely been rejected wholesale for its association with pagan Rome, but this does not imply that God condemns committed relationships between people of the same sex.  Jesus didn't speak a word on it.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Concept of gay and straight didn't exist at the time-exactly, Paul condemns having sex with the same sex and he condemns it for everyone.  The early Christians, who understood the Ancient Greek text better than any of us ever could, universally understood this.  While much of ancient Greek and Roman homosexuality was child molestation, not all of it was.  Same-sex marriages were occasionally performed (Nero was involved in same-sex weddings).  Nero was known to have relationships with men, both adults and children.  Elagabalus played the part of the bride in a marriage to another man.  There is also the story of Hadrian and his male lover.  To say that nothing resembling modern homosexuality existed in ancient times is inaccurate.  To say that God only put a condemnation of homosexual relations in the Bible because such relations were exploitative implies that God couldn't have foreseen modern homosexual relations.

The text says that natural relations for men are with women, and states that the men abandoned relations with women for relations with the same gender.  There is no mention of prostitutes.  There is no mention of young boys.  It refers to men having sex with men, not boys.  It also said that the women were doing the same thing that the men were.  Were women seeking out prostitutes?  It says Even their women, implying that what the women were doing was typically a male vice.  And homosexuality certainly seems to have been more common among men than it was among women in ancient times.

Furthermore, look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ἀρσενοκοῖται means men having sex with men.  In the Greek translation of Leviticus (which Paul almost certainly had access to), the same word is used in the condemnation of homosexual relations.  With all this in mind, I can't come to any other conclusion than that the Bible opposes homosexual relations.

[afleitch]

Paul's a bit...unhinged though.

In Romans for example, the context of the 'condemnation' from 1:18 onwards is entirely bombastic. And that is why it is a problem. Being very much in the tradition of the 'and then and then and then' style of rhetoric often found in Greek narratives, the sexual acts are very much the 'and then' attributed to people who wilfully don't believe in god even though they know it to be true (1:20 suggests that reason alone should be enough to know that god is true which is almost sweet in it's disconnect) To me he’s clearly condemning a certain type of sexual practice (not that any translation actually knows what, though since religion has decided to fight a culture war on same sex relationships since the 1960’s, it seems to be de rigeur to make it about us)

But even if we make that a universal condemnation of all same sex acts after his ‘condemnation’ he really goes for it; the 'and then' continues. Those who do such things are wicked, evil, greedy, depraved, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice etc. That is an extraordinary statement to make and absolutely disconnected from reality.

Murder? Really?

If what he says about same sex acts is a 'truth' then so too are these attributes. No person, acting with reason and rationale and not caught up in his own words, could ever reach that conclusion.

As for Corinthians, the Latin Vulgate translated it as ‘masculorum concubitores’ (abusers). Wycliff had it as ‘synne of Sodom’ (which isn’t a sexual sin at all), KJV ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’. The Jerusalem Bible had those who are ‘immoral with boys’ (doubt anyone would disagree with that being wrong) In fact it only started becoming about ‘homosexuals’ in the late 1950’s (when Christianity began to pre-occupy itself with the issue). Still, the German Jerusalem Bible in 1968 chose ‘child molesters’, the 1971 RSV had ‘sexual perverts.’ Most modern versions have decided it’s about all homosexuals and all expressions of homosexual love because it fits into the narrative they wish  rather than accurately representing what Paul was talking about which more than likely, given his audience, was some form of pederasty or sexual exploitation of the vulnerable. The Sibylline Oracle, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch's ‘Ad Autolycum’ use the word to mean sexual exploitation for economic benefit. It doesn’t really appear as a word elsewhere in Koine Greek to mean homosexuality. Homophilia was a far more fitting word if that is what Paul meant.

[Kingpoleon]

Concept of gay and straight didn't exist at the time-exactly, Paul condemns having sex with the same sex and he condemns it for everyone.  The early Christians, who understood the Ancient Greek text better than any of us ever could, universally understood this.  While much of ancient Greek and Roman homosexuality was child molestation, not all of it was.  Same-sex marriages were occasionally performed (Nero was involved in same-sex weddings).  Nero was known to have relationships with men, both adults and children.  Elagabalus played the part of the bride in a marriage to another man.  There is also the story of Hadrian and his male lover.  To say that nothing resembling modern homosexuality existed in ancient times is inaccurate.  To say that God only put a condemnation of homosexual relations in the Bible because such relations were exploitative implies that God couldn't have foreseen modern homosexual relations.

The text says that natural relations for men are with women, and states that the men abandoned relations with women for relations with the same gender.  There is no mention of prostitutes.  There is no mention of young boys.  It refers to men having sex with men, not boys.  It also said that the women were doing the same thing that the men were.  Were women seeking out prostitutes?  It says Even their women, implying that what the women were doing was typically a male vice.  And homosexuality certainly seems to have been more common among men than it was among women in ancient times.

Furthermore, look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ἀρσενοκοῖται means men having sex with men.  In the Greek translation of Leviticus (which Paul almost certainly had access to), the same word is used in the condemnation of homosexual relations.  With all this in mind, I can't come to any other conclusion than that the Bible opposes homosexual relations.

In Romans, the sin is lust. How do you not see this?

As for 1 Corinthians 6, let’s look at who he is writing to, as he seems to have made up the word “ἀρσενοκοῖται” as a combination of “men” and “bed”. This would seem to give a variety of meanings, including male prostitution or pederasty. The latter makes the most sense, as pederasty was a Greek practice, and Corinth was in Greece. In context, this makes the most sense as a reference to pederasty. Besides the potential meaning of pederasty or idol/ritual sex, there is also the potential for this to mean same sex rapists.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

Isn't the notion that humans are fallen and will always be tempted by sin foundational to Christianity? It would logically follow that denying their impulses, even if you believe they are predetermined and natural, is part of attempting to live by Christian teachings.

People are far more likely to be gay/lesbian if raised by a gay/lesbian couple. It's likely that nature and nurture both affect sexuality. Sexually abused people are also more likely to themselves become sexually abusive as well as to be gay (especially boys raped by men) or practice incest (especially those whose abusers were family members). I am by no means saying homosexuality is any any way the same as abusing someone, just that it may not be 100% predetermined and unalterable. I have a friend who prayed the gay away for lack of a better wording. She's happier now as a result. Even if it were, nature is full of rape and there's evidence to suggest genetic sexual attraction (being attracted to your own kin) is a real phenomenon. People are expected to control these urges, as well as the urge to cheat on their spouse or partner.

I simply do not see how somebody who actually takes the Bible seriously can openly support homosexuality when it is explicitly condemned, but that's my perspective as an atheist looking in.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Isn't the notion that humans are fallen and will always be tempted by sin foundational to Christianity? It would logically follow that denying their impulses, even if you believe they are predetermined and natural, is part of attempting to live by Christian teachings.

People are far more likely to be gay/lesbian if raised by a gay/lesbian couple. It's likely that nature and nurture both affect sexuality. Sexually abused people are also more likely to themselves become sexually abusive as well as to be gay (especially boys raped by men) or practice incest (especially those whose abusers were family members). I am by no means saying homosexuality is any any way the same as abusing someone, just that it may not be 100% predetermined and unalterable. I have a friend who prayed the gay away for lack of a better wording. She's happier now as a result. Even if it were, nature is full of rape and there's evidence to suggest genetic sexual attraction (being attracted to your own kin) is a real phenomenon. People are expected to control these urges, as well as the urge to cheat on their spouse or partner.

I simply do not see how somebody who actually takes the Bible seriously can openly support homosexuality when it is explicitly condemned, but that's my perspective as an atheist looking in.

The list of things that the Bible condemns but most mainstream Christians ignore/support is far too long to list here, but this is nothing new. This is partly why anti-LGBT views coming from fundamentalists anger me so much, they choose to latch onto this hateful viewpoint while ignoring and openly breaking other "rules" that are in the Bible. look at all the pastors and evangelists who've had horrible scandals, been married multiple times, or done otherwise ungodly things. Fundamentalists, but especially Fundamentalist Christians, are some of the most hypocritical creatures on this planet.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Isn't the notion that humans are fallen and will always be tempted by sin foundational to Christianity? It would logically follow that denying their impulses, even if you believe they are predetermined and natural, is part of attempting to live by Christian teachings.

People are far more likely to be gay/lesbian if raised by a gay/lesbian couple. It's likely that nature and nurture both affect sexuality. Sexually abused people are also more likely to themselves become sexually abusive as well as to be gay (especially boys raped by men) or practice incest (especially those whose abusers were family members). I am by no means saying homosexuality is any any way the same as abusing someone, just that it may not be 100% predetermined and unalterable. I have a friend who prayed the gay away for lack of a better wording. She's happier now as a result. Even if it were, nature is full of rape and there's evidence to suggest genetic sexual attraction (being attracted to your own kin) is a real phenomenon. People are expected to control these urges, as well as the urge to cheat on their spouse or partner.

I simply do not see how somebody who actually takes the Bible seriously can openly support homosexuality when it is explicitly condemned, but that's my perspective as an atheist looking in.

The list of things that the Bible condemns but most mainstream Christians ignore/support is far too long to list here, but this is nothing new. This is partly why anti-LGBT views coming from fundamentalists anger me so much, they choose to latch onto this hateful viewpoint while ignoring and openly breaking other "rules" that are in the Bible. look at all the pastors and evangelists who've had horrible scandals, been married multiple times, or done otherwise ungodly things. Fundamentalists, but especially Fundamentalist Christians, are some of the most hypocritical creatures on this planet.

As a Christian myself, I agree with what you wrote TexArkana.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Isn't the notion that humans are fallen and will always be tempted by sin foundational to Christianity? It would logically follow that denying their impulses, even if you believe they are predetermined and natural, is part of attempting to live by Christian teachings.

People are far more likely to be gay/lesbian if raised by a gay/lesbian couple. It's likely that nature and nurture both affect sexuality. Sexually abused people are also more likely to themselves become sexually abusive as well as to be gay (especially boys raped by men) or practice incest (especially those whose abusers were family members). I am by no means saying homosexuality is any any way the same as abusing someone, just that it may not be 100% predetermined and unalterable. I have a friend who prayed the gay away for lack of a better wording. She's happier now as a result. Even if it were, nature is full of rape and there's evidence to suggest genetic sexual attraction (being attracted to your own kin) is a real phenomenon. People are expected to control these urges, as well as the urge to cheat on their spouse or partner.

I simply do not see how somebody who actually takes the Bible seriously can openly support homosexuality when it is explicitly condemned, but that's my perspective as an atheist looking in.

The list of things that the Bible condemns but most mainstream Christians ignore/support is far too long to list here, but this is nothing new. This is partly why anti-LGBT views coming from fundamentalists anger me so much, they choose to latch onto this hateful viewpoint while ignoring and openly breaking other "rules" that are in the Bible. look at all the pastors and evangelists who've had horrible scandals, been married multiple times, or done otherwise ungodly things. Fundamentalists, but especially Fundamentalist Christians, are some of the most hypocritical creatures on this planet.

As a Christian myself, I agree with what you wrote TexArkana.

As a fundamentalist myself, I am angry and sad over my fellows failing to uphold the standards they proclaim we should live by. Carpetbagger is right.

On this site I’m no stranger to controversy over my opposition to SSM. My position on this issue has never changed and will never change but my approach in doing life with with them has.

[libertpaulian]

The only thing that irks me about fundamentalists is that they seem to be allergic to ANY form of Biblical scholarship.