How can Christians not condemn homosexual behavior?

[beerisit]

Spoken like a true Crane, Fraiser or Niles. Take your pick.

Which one is the hundred tonner?

 

[Nakosis]

In both the Old and New Testaments homosexuality is clearly condemned. So, if a Christian believes in the correctness of the the Bible I fail to see how they can condone or support homosexual behavior, even if they believe the homosexual disposition arises as naturally as the heterosexual disposition. Not that I'm not thankful for those who renounce or simply ignore these Biblical positions, but this picking and choosing in the Bible appears to be less than honest. So while I appreciate the many Christians who don't adhere to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, I have to wonder how they explain/rationalize it away.

Anyone care to take a stab at answering?

Any Christians around that actually believe in the inerrancy of the and Homosexual rights?

 

[Road Warrior]

I support the rights of all citizens IAW the Constitution of the United States of America. I think the recent law passed in North Carolina and other states is a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and, therefore, will eventually be shot down.

 

[4consideration]

In both the Old and New Testaments homosexuality is clearly condemned. So, if a Christian believes in the correctness of the the Bible I fail to see how they can condone or support homosexual behavior, even if they believe the homosexual disposition arises as naturally as the heterosexual disposition.

(I am having a Concise-Communication challenged day. I know this is long. If the length bothers you, please just ignore the post. )

IMO here is my generic response that could apply to just about any Christian. A Christian can simply not judge someone else and be done with it. If a person really believes homosexuality to be wrong because they believe it to be "unnatural" or because "the Bible says so," then the only actual thing that person would be required to do is to simply refrain from homosexual behavior. There is no biblical requirement (that I am aware of) that we must set ourselves up as the judge of another person. Quite the contrary. A person may be completely consistant with applying their own beliefs to their own life and simply not attempt to apply those beliefs in the form of judgement upon another person.

Here's my personal take on it. I have a sister that is homosexual. I am not homosexual. (I have had 30 years to contemplate this issue and it is actually part of what prompted me to develop my understanding of God as necessarily connected with my understanding of Love.) I recognize that what is natural for me (sex with a man) would be completely unnatural to her. What is natural for me would be appalling and disgusting -- to her. I do not believe that God would set as a requirement, that we must live in misery, without our natural expression of Love, or attempt to counterfeit Love. I believe that Love should be honored.

Back when I was contemplating this issue in relation to God and what I thought God thought about it, I came upon a place that required a decision: at a point of conflict, what is the higher authority? Do I consider God (as Love and Truth) to be the highest authority? Or, do I consider my interpretation, or someone else's interpretation, of some isolated passage of the Bible to be the highest authority? (May upbringing was in the Catholic church, so I never had a literal or "to the letter" interpretation of the Bible.)

At that time, I chose to follow my understanding of Love and Truth and to compare every belief to that standard and to reconcile everything according to that understanding. Otherwise, I was faced with trying to minimize everything in life to fit within the confines of my understanding of that book, or my church's teachings.

That does not mean that I must reject the book or the teachings of Jesus. It only means that I do not consider what someone says about the subject to trump my honest assessment of what are the most loving, honest, and workable beliefs to hold as I go through this life.

(I think that the biblical references most often cited are relative to lustful behavior, not relationships based upon Love. Lust can exist in many arenas of life -- not just sex.)

To me -- Love comes from God. If the Love in my life comes to me from God, then the Love in my sister's life also comes to her from God. It would be a transgression against Love IMO for me to call her Love (from God) and her expression of her Love in her own life as something "bad" -- something that ought not be so.

I had to really ask myself if I consider that my opinion about what God thinks ought to trump her relationship with God/Love in her own life? No. How do I justify that? 1st Commandment.

My opinion, or interpretation of text, does not get to take precedence over her relationship with God/Love in her own life. On the issue of Love, if I were to establish my opinion or belief as the highest authority for my sister, I would in effect be establishing my opinion as a false god. If I believe that she ought to defer to my beliefs, over and above, her own understanding of Love, I have entered forbidden territory. I have no authority to do that. There is no justification for doing that. It is completely between her and God. (And, I no longer have an opinion about it, even theoretically, provided we are talking about consenting adults.)

Not that I'm not thankful for those who renounce or simply ignore these Biblical positions, but this picking and choosing in the Bible appears to be less than honest. So while I appreciate the many Christians who don't adhere to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, I have to wonder how they explain/rationalize it away.

Anyone care to take a stab at answering?

Let's talk about cherry picking in depth. It's a good topic, and one I have seen brought up a lot on this forum.

I think that cherry picking is only dishonest when it involves willfully disregarding some parts of the facts or evidence in an attempt to create a false impression -- a much different picture than would be presented with the inclusion of the left out data. This is often done to injure someone, or their position. In this context cherry picking is to some degree -- harmful. It is a form of deception. It can also be used for self-deception.

However, it is not always bad or intellectually dishonest. I think that as we go through life, and seek honest and intelligent answers to the questions that arise, cherry picking can actually be a good and intelligent thing to do. This is a HUGE universe, and we cannot focus on and consider ALL information in all contexts -- at once. We select what we understand to be valuable and relevent information, knowing that we are leaving out more than we are considering. So, from this perspective NOT cherry picking when referring to the Bible, involves the discussion of approx. 2,152 pages of text (in the version I have.) That's a lot to include in the discussion of one topic. I think cherry picking is a valid approach here. (We could also call the same exercise "selecting pearls of wisdom.")

If we consider that we are on a quest for dealing with reality/life based upon an honest assessment of what we understand about life, including the many aspects and many perspectives from which to view those aspects, then "cherry picking" can represent simply saying -- I will select and apply in my life what I consider to actually represent truth and to be of value to myself and others. I will disgard, disregard, or suspend all that I do not see as reconcilable with truth.

In a similar way, I can look to the Bible and take what I can reconcile with my understanding of Truth and Love and simply suspend involvement with other information that I either do not understand as relevent at the time or cannot be reconciled with what I understand to be true and valuable -- in reality. I think that if I remain dedicated to truth, even though I will be wrong sometimes, eventually truth will reveal itself (or I will see it) in a way and at a time that I can understand and apply it.

Cherry picking from the Bible is only harmful if I want to shove them down your throat -- especially if I picked the rotten ones or the ones with worms. But, I could select only the best I could find and say, "Hey, look I've got some cool cherries -- would you like some?" If yes, share. If no, or you are allergic to them, I wouldn't even want to try and convince you to take them. Simple.

 

[Skwim]

Homosexuality is in no way "clearly condemned." The biblical authors had no concept of sexual orientation.

If calling an act "detestable" or an "abomination" isn't a condemnation:

Leviticus 18:22 - (NIV)
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

(ESV)
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 man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)

​

I don't know what would be.

Christians can comfortably not condemn homosexuality, since it is not addressed in the bible, and since, in our culture, shame and honor are not sexually embodied.

Leviticus 18:22

English Standard Version (ESV)
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Revised Standard Version (RSV)
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

American Standard Version (ASV)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

King James Version (KJV)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

New International Version (NIV)
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Holman Christian Standard (CSB)
22 You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable.
​

So, what do you think
​

"lie with a man as one lies with a woman,"

"lie with mankind, as with womankind,"

"sleep with a man as with a woman"
​

means? Just lying next to or going to sleep next to a guy? If so, why would it be detestable or an abomination? After all, soldiers had to do it in the field all the time.

And the New Living Translation Bible comes right out and says it:

22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
​

Sorry, but if you look around you'll find that most, if not all, interpreters of these passages agree that it refers to homosexuality.

 

[beerisit]

I support the rights of all citizens IAW the Constitution of the United States of America. I think the recent law passed in North Carolina and other states is a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and, therefore, will eventually be shot down.

So people in Baluchistan can go **** 'emselves?

 

[Road Warrior]

So people in Baluchistan can go **** 'emselves?

Nice straw man...but since you brought it up, are you willing to pick up a gun and go over to fight for the rights of all Baluchistanians? What have you personally done to protect the rights of people in Baluchistan? Substantially, I mean. Something other than write nasty posts.

 

[Nakosis]

I support the rights of all citizens IAW the Constitution of the United States of America. I think the recent law passed in North Carolina and other states is a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and, therefore, will eventually be shot down.

I don't think it is a violation of the constitution. Perhaps against the spirit of equality though.

My objection is against the institution of marriage. I think it is a religious thing that probably shouldn't have any legal standing.

However I've also come to the conclusion that any objection to Gay marriage is simply a matter of bigotry. If they are going to use marriage as a legal vehicle, there is no legitimate, rational argument to prevent access based on gender.

The US is a secular nation. (separation of church and state) Religious ideology shouldn't have legal standing.

Christian ideology, belief shouldn't be a matter of civic law. One is free to follow whatever religious morality they feel necessary. A church shouldn't be forced to marry homosexual couples. They shouldn't force anyone else to recognize their specific religious morality.

 

[Road Warrior]

I don't think it is a violation of the constitution.

Equal protection | LII / Legal Information Institute
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

Regarding marriage, there is a lot of mixing of terms in this debate. Marriage can be either religious or secular. A man and a woman can get married in a church or down at the courthouse in a civil ceremony without one mention of God, Christ or any other religious trappings. Atheists can get married and I doubt any of them are having those ceremonies in church. Either way, the government treats each marriage as a legally binding commitment with legal obligations and rights. Gays can't become legally married in many places and, therefore, are deprived of these same rights. That's a violation of the Constitution.

Agreed our government should remain secular, but there is a difference between a secular government and a government which acts to eradicate religion. If "We, the People" want religious marriage, that is our right. However, denying others their rights is anti-American IMO and definitely anti-Constitutional.

 

[bobhikes]

In my family christianity is about teaching not condeming. Even though they are catholics, its my families biggest disagreement with the church. Catholics should teach the word of god and not enforce it. If people do not wish to be christian that is fine, not everyone has to be.

This is my family, almost all are ocassional-practicing catholics now.

 

[Skwim]

A Christian can simply not judge someone else and be done with it.

At least not with homosexuality.

If a person really believes homosexuality to be wrong because they believe it to be "unnatural" or because "the Bible says so," then the only actual thing that person would be required to do is to simply refrain from homosexual behavior.

There is no biblical requirement (that I am aware of) that we must set ourselves up as the judge of another person. Quite the contrary. A person may be completely consistant with applying their own beliefs to their own life and simply not attempt to apply those beliefs in the form of judgement upon another person.

But according to the Bible one IS required to do something else with a homosexual, a determination that necessarily involves making a judgment; put the homosexual to death. (Although the Bible says something to the effect, Judge not lest ye be judged, it then goes on to ask the reader to do just the opposite by telling the Christian how to treat people if they happen to be X, Y, or Z, Determinations that can only be made by judgments.) And, In Leviticus we have just such a scenario, wherein judgment and requirement are set forth..

Judge who is committing a homosexual act.
Require that they be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13 (NLT)

“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

(ESV)
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.

(NKJV)
13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
​

 

[Skwim]

Any Christians around that actually believe in the inerrancy of the and Homosexual rights?

I assume you meant to say:

"Any Christians around that actually believe in the inerrancy of the [Bible] and Homosexual rights?"
​

 

[sojourner]

If calling an act "detestable" or an "abomination" isn't a condemnation:

Leviticus 18:22 - (NIV)
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

(ESV)
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 man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.
They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)

​

I don't know what would be.

Leviticus 18:22

English Standard Version (ESV)
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Revised Standard Version (RSV)
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

American Standard Version (ASV)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

King James Version (KJV)
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

New International Version (NIV)
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Holman Christian Standard (CSB)
22 You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable.
​

So, what do you think
​

"lie with a man as one lies with a woman,"

"lie with mankind, as with womankind,"

"sleep with a man as with a woman"
​

means? Just lying next to or going to sleep next to a guy? If so, why would it be detestable or an abomination? After all, soldiers had to do it in the field all the time.

And the New Living Translation Bible comes right out and says it:

22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
​

Sorry, but if you look around you'll find that most, if not all, interpreters of these passages agree that it refers to homosexuality.

You didn't read my post fully, did you! It adequately refutes everything you've said here.

 

[sojourner]

But according to the Bible one IS required to do something else with a homosexual, a determination that necessarily involves making a judgment; put the homosexual to death.

False, because, as I said, there was no concept of sexual orientation then, so there was no such thing as a homosexual. There were merely "unnatural acts." Since we have since found that homoerotic behavior is neither shameful, nor unnatural, we need not heed the biblical injunction.

 

[4consideration]

At least not with homosexuality.

But according to the Bible one IS required to do something else with a homosexual, a determination that necessarily involves making a judgment; put the homosexual to death. (Although the Bible says something to the effect, Judge not lest ye be judged, it then goes on to ask the reader to do just the opposite by telling the Christian how to treat people if they happen to be X, Y, or Z, Determinations that can only be made by judgments.) And, In Leviticus we have just such a scenario, wherein judgment and requirement are set forth..

Judge who is committing a homosexual act.
Require that they be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13 (NLT)

“If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

(ESV)
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.

(NKJV)
13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
​

No. I do not interpret the Bible as providing an instruction to kill homosexuals.

The way that I view much of the OT is that I view it as specific stories, about a specific culture at a specific period of time. I am not, nor am I inclined to be, a biblical scholar.

Deep down in the depths of my soul, I do not believe that God wants me to kill homosexuals, no matter what is written in the OT, or any other book.

I really like some of the Jewish perspective that I have come across on this forum, which I think is a much more wise and valid perspective than simply pointing to a sentence or two in the OT -- and thinking that one section is about behavior required of us today. I really am not at all qualified to even try to repeat that understanding -- so I won't attempt it. I can't remember what threads I saw them on, but I would really ask you to consider that just maybe some of the interpretations of the OT, especially the literal ones, are way off base in the entire perspective of applying to us today. For that reason, I think that many Christians are right to simply ignore them -- because they are not intended to be instructions for us today.

IMO, sometimes in the progression of human understanding, it will be necessary for us to leave behind some ideas that would exclude others from our Love, in favor of a larger perspective of Love that includes them. That is what I am going for.

Would you point out the specific verses that you are thinking of in the NT?

 

[BobbyisStrange]

I guess if we ask this question we also have to ask how Christians don't support slavery.

 

[ChristineES]

In both the Old and New Testaments homosexuality is clearly condemned. So, if a Christian believes in the correctness of the the Bible I fail to see how they can condone or support homosexual behavior, even if they believe the homosexual disposition arises as naturally as the heterosexual disposition. Not that I'm not thankful for those who renounce or simply ignore these Biblical positions, but this picking and choosing in the Bible appears to be less than honest. So while I appreciate the many Christians who don't adhere to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, I have to wonder how they explain/rationalize it away.

Anyone care to take a stab at answering?

There are many reasons: 1. Jesus told us not to judge or condemn others, to take the "log" out of our eye and forget about the "splinter" out of siblings' eyes. Jesus told us that the greatest commandment from the OT was "Love God" and 2nd was to "Love your neighbor as yourself". 2. If I can't judge my siblings in Jesus and I love everyone else as well, then I can't condone criticizing something- one verse- in the whole OT. I believe we have to 1. Consider the time period 2. And the belief that some of we Christians have that the Law was fulfilled by Jesus' death and resurrection.

 

[ChristineES]

I guess if we ask this question we also have to ask how Christians don't support slavery.

Mostly because there is not a verse in the Bible that says: "You shall have slaves".

 

[sojourner]

I guess if we ask this question we also have to ask how Christians don't support slavery.

Bingo!

 

[Nakosis]

I assume you meant to say:

"Any Christians around that actually believe in the inerrancy of the [Bible] and Homosexual rights?"
​

Thanks,