How can Christians not condemn homosexual behavior?

[waitasec]

What, specifically, is a "legitimate question"?

the OP's question.

 

[waitasec]

That must be it. You are so bent on proving your point that you are overlooking the fact many Christians not only support gay rights as you and I do, but do so in accordance with their beliefs and understandings of the Gospels.

the question is, by what moral compass would a christian support gay rights?
it's certainly not found in the bible but by their sense of what right is, which has nothing to do with the bible.

Your intentions seem geared more to refuting Christianity (by using the Old Testament!!!!) than to supporting gay rights. Don't you know that spitting in the face of a friend won't help you fight an enemy?

this is a religious debating forum friend

 

[Nakosis]

the question is, by what moral compass would a christian support gay rights?
it's certainly not found in the bible but by their sense of what right is, which has nothing to do with the bible.

How about this passage?

Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

 

[Skwim]

I love ya, Skwim, but ya gotta get offa the bath salts, m'kay?

I understand your position and am sorry about your lack of defense, but come on, ad hominems! They should be beneath you.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What parts of the New Testament condemn homosexuality?

Homophobes cherry-pick the OT by picking the parts that support their hate and by completely disregarding the parts they don't like such as being able to eat Baby Back Ribs, a Shrimp Cocktail or even a Hot Dog.

I agree.....:yes:

 

[4consideration]

1Timothy 1:8-10 (NIV) says

"8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine "

​

To use the law properly, as verse 8 directs, one must necessarily judge others. Now I recognize this as contrary to the dictum not to judge others, but such is the contradictory nature of the Bible. It DOES allow one to pick and choose which of two opposite ways to go. Convenient? Absolutely. Commendable? Hardly.

I don't think so. This really looks to me like a case of "cherry picking" in favor of using (or continuing to use) that verse against homosexuals. (My bible does not use the word "homosexual," but "sexual perverts.") I can see a person using this verse as an indication of Paul's attitude about the intention of the law, but there is no interpretation that I can come up with in reading the whole chapter that indicates one should take those words as justification for any action.

Here's my take on this one:

This is a letter from Paul to Timothy. It established no doctrine. It was about a concern with keeping the doctrine sound. The Chapter is: On Holding Fast to Sound Doctrine. It is about the concern that Paul has that there are people that are wanting to teach the law, without understanding it -- I guess they were just winging it, and he objected to that. It looks to me like he is talking about people wanting to talk about the principles rather than understand and live them. It's intended purpose is pretty clearly stated in the paragraph preceeding the above quote. (I am using a different edition, so there is some difference in wording.)

1 Timothy 1:5-7

5 What we are aiming at in this warning is the love that springs from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith. 6 Some people have neglected these and instead have turned to meaningless talk, 7 wanting to be teachers of the law but not actually understanding the words they are using, much less the matters they discuss with such assurance.
​

I would not accept 1 Timothy 1:8-11 as any justification for taking action against a group of people, or even as a doctrinal instruction that we ought to judge them. He is disgussing the subject of the law and his opposition to people making things up or wanting to teach what they don't even understand. He is not telling people to run around applying their judgement to anyone -- for any reason.

I not see any support for a position that this chapter includes instructions for individuals to employ at all. And, I certainly don't see why I ought to let this passage over-ride a more loving directive for my actions that I can take directly from the teachings of Jesus. The instruction to "judge not" does not require me to do anything. It simply requires me to refrain from issuing a personal verdict of "guilty" against someone else.

Again, in my own Bible, the words "homosexual" or "homosexuality" are not used. The term "sexual pervert" is used. To me that term cannot be applied to two adults of the same sex that are in a relationship based upon Love -- because Love comes from God.

Perhaps it's not really Christianity that is presenting the problem you are seeing. Perhaps it is the version of the Bible that you are using.

 

[waitasec]

How about this passage?

read the following line
13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

the line in vs 12 was not something that was to be applied to everyone, but rather to those that belong to the jesus club of colossians for the purpose of instilling a sense of solidarity.

also consider the previous chapter you will find this...
18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.

that isn''t such a humble stance towards those that do not belong in the jesus club of colossians

and isn't paul doing/saying exactly what he is criticizing?
talk about being a hypocrite.

 

[Road Warrior]

the question is, by what moral compass would a christian support gay rights?
it's certainly not found in the bible but by their sense of what right is, which has nothing to do with the bible.

Wrong again. Which of these Bible quotes are exclusively for straights and exclude gays as you attest?

“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else?" (Matthew 5:43-47 )

“Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

“‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40)

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:16-17)

this is a religious debating forum friend

Your point? Other than trying to dodge my point through patronizing?

 

[Jove]

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?

I am sure it does condemn this behavior, it also condemns women from office, unmarried women without the virginity, as well as condemning Jews, Blacks, Non-believers, disobedient children, the idea of anything other than a flat world and splitting off from the original Church…. Let’s face it…god seems to hate everybody! 1127 biblical mentions of what evil to commit against thy neighbor and only 112 mentions of acts of love…and even some of those seem wrong.

 

[sojourner]

the question is, by what moral compass would a christian support gay rights?
it's certainly not found in the bible but by their sense of what right is, which has nothing to do with the bible.

It is found in the Bible -- not explicitly, but at least implicitly. Jesus' whole message and ministry was to include the outcast, empower the powerless, authorize the disenfranchised, to release captives, set free prisoners, love the unlovable, and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. he was quoting Isaia when he said this. Homosexuals (as evidenced by several Biblical injunctions) have been systematically outcast, beat down, disenfranchised, oppressed, unloved and dehumanized, all because the powers-that-be refuse to recognize sexual orientation as both real and normal. They, just like other groups that have been systematically screwed over, are exactly the ones Jesus is talking about.

 

[sojourner]

I understand your position and am sorry about your lack of defense, but come on, ad hominems! They should be beneath you.

I don't understand your position. Why are you arguing so ardently against fair treatment of homosexuals as a moral thing to do?

I've already stated my defense. According to several eminent social scholars, the ancients had no concept for sexual orientation. Men loved women and women loved men. Period. Therefore, homoerotic acts were "unnatural." That's how that crap got in the bible. Why do you have a problem with that?

You seem to not be thinking clearly about this, which was the humorous reference to drug influence.

 

[Nakosis]

read the following line
13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

the line in vs 12 was not something that was to be applied to everyone, but rather to those that belong to the jesus club of colossians for the purpose of instilling a sense of solidarity.

Your opinion. Not to say you're wrong but we provide the context necessary to support our position don't we?

It's the problem when debating with Christians. Any point raised against the Bible is a result of the non-believer taking the passage out of context.

also consider the previous chapter you will find this...
18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.

that isn''t such a humble stance towards those that do not belong in the jesus club of colossians

and isn't paul doing/saying exactly what he is criticizing?
talk about being a hypocrite.

Perhaps it's foolish to debate the Word of God when about 50% of the meaning/context of what is written is supplied by the individual supporting the position. But, we still do.

I think it is foolish to try and judge people by something written thousands of years ago. If you are a decent respectful person that's good enough. I don't think any additional "Godly" standards are necessary.

 

[Skwim]

I don't understand your position. Why are you arguing so ardently against fair treatment of homosexuals as a moral thing to do?

I'm not. I'm only pointing out that the Bible does. And I am wondering how the "good" Christian can reconcile their fair treatment of homosexuals with the Bible's condemnation of them.

I've already stated my defense. According to several eminent social scholars, the ancients had no concept for sexual orientation.

Care to share your sources? And keep in mind that while homosexual attraction may not have been socially significant enough to garner notice in some ancient cultures (in many cases it was an accepted form of sexual expression) it still did exist. Just because we don't have a common term describing foot sex, doesn't mean it isn't practiced.

Men loved women and women loved men. Period. Therefore, homoerotic acts were "unnatural." That's how that crap got in the bible. Why do you have a problem with that?

Yes I do because it isn't true. See HERE, HERE, and HERE

 

[ChristineES]

1Timothy 1:8-10 (NIV) says

"8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine "

​

To use the law properly, as verse 8 directs, one must necessarily judge others. Now I recognize this as contrary to the dictum not to judge others, but such is the contradictory nature of the Bible. It DOES allow one to pick and choose which of two opposite ways to go. Convenient? Absolutely. Commendable? Hardly.

Scholars aren't even sure that Paul even wrote 1 Timothy. I go by Jesus' teachings and I take Paul's Epistles with a grain of salt. I am not 100% sure that they should have been added as scriptures- but that kind of talk always gets me in trouble with Christians.
Don't get me wrong, I still read Paul's letters- But I can't help notice some direct contradictions between some of what Paul wrote to what Jesus said in the Gospels. Which is why I am careful with them.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not. I'm only pointing out that the Bible does.

and I'm telling you that the bible doesn't. To read it that way is to give it a summary, cursory glance, without asking why it says what it appears to say.

And I am wondering how the "good" Christian can reconcile their fair treatment of homosexuals with the Bible's condemnation of them.

Because good Christians know that we don't stand in condemnation of others. That tenet is very well laid out textually.

Care to share your sources?

Dr. B. Brandon Scott
Dr. Dennis Smith
Dr. Rick Lowery
(among others)
The fact is well-attested, whether you've heard about it, or not.
It really wasn't until the 20th century that homosexuality was widely recognized as even a "lifestyle," let alone an "orientation." Why should you think it was otherwise in the ancient Near-East?

Yes I do because it isn't true.

Of course it's not true! The bible is patently wrong on that point.

 

[Skwim]

Scholars aren't even sure that Paul even wrote 1 Timothy. I go by Jesus' teachings and I take Paul's Epistles with a grain of salt. I am not 100% sure that they should have been added as scriptures- but that kind of talk always gets me in trouble with Christians.
Don't get me wrong, I still read Paul's letters- But I can't help notice some direct contradictions between some of what Paul wrote to what Jesus said in the Gospels. Which is why I am careful with them.

As long as you're satisfied with your criteria for accepting and rejecting certain passages, fine.

 

[waitasec]

I think it is foolish to try and judge people by something written thousands of years ago. If you are a decent respectful person that's good enough. I don't think any additional "Godly" standards are necessary.

i understand that. i just want to understand why would one call their self self a christian if they are not upholding original christian values...why not start a movement called "the new and improved christian movement' and edit out the questionable doctrine

 

[Skwim]

I'm telling you that the bible doesn't [argue against the fair treatment of homosexuals as a moral thing to do]

Evidently then you think that ". . . They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (Leviticus 20:13 NLT) is fair treatment of homosexuals. While not an "argument" per se, orders sometimes do speak louder than words.

The fact is well-attested, whether you've heard about it, or not.
It really wasn't until the 20th century that homosexuality was widely recognized as even a "lifestyle," let alone an "orientation." Why should you think it was otherwise in the ancient Near-East?

Whether it was recognized as a lifestyle or an orientation, both of which are categorical assignations created by the cultural, anthropological, and psychological sciences, is immaterial. Just as oxygen didn't suddenly appear when Schleele and Priestly discovered it and Lavoisier named it, homosexuality was around long before anyone cared to put it in a social/psychological perspective or assign a name to it. And this is why the Bible doesn't use some Greek or Hebrew term for it, but rather describes it: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman," and "You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman." That said, some Bibles, the New Living Translation and New International Version, to name two, do use the term "homosexual." Gotta believe they didn't think much of what doctors Scott, Smith, and Lowery had to say.

That must be it. You are so bent on proving your point that you are overlooking the fact many Christians not only support gay rights as you and I do, but do so in accordance with their beliefs and understandings of the Gospels.

Don't overlook it at all. In fact, this goes to the heart of my OP question: "How can Christians not condemn homosexual behavior?" If they don't then how do they reconcile this stand with their belief in the truth of the Bible?

Your intentions seem geared more to refuting Christianity (by using the Old Testament!!!!) than to supporting gay rights. Don't you know that spitting in the face of a friend won't help you fight an enemy?

I only cited the OT when a member here made no distinction. If they said "The Bible says . . . ." and not "Only the NT is valid. . . ." then I used the OT or both. And I don't think I'm spitting in the face of anyone. If you tell me you're a died-in-the-wool Bible believing Christian who is for gay rights, it raises the question of how you reconcile this position with that of your source for morality, the Bible. Don't want to tell me? Fine. Care to explain? Fine, but then I assume you won't mind if I ask a question or two about your explanation if it doesn't seem to make sense. Sojourner here seems to think homosexuality simply didn't exist back then---to me this doesn't make sense. It goes against the facts. On the other hand, ChristineES chooses which passages to believe and which not to believe---while a somewhat odd approach, it at least makes more sense than Sojurner's notion.

 

[Kathryn]

the question is, by what moral compass would a christian support gay rights?

If you tell me you're a died-in-the-wool Bible believing Christian who is for gay rights, it raises the question of how you reconcile this position with that of your source for morality, the Bible.

I was the first Christian to respond to this thread, and I thought I made my position, as a Christian, pretty clear.

 

[sojourner]

Evidently then you think that ". . . They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (Leviticus 20:13 NLT) is fair treatment of homosexuals. While not an "argument" per se, orders sometimes do speak louder than words.

No. You don't get to twist what I said. The bible may speak out against homosexual behavior (believing it to be immoral), but it does not speak out against homosexuals, for "homosexual" didn't exist then.

Whether it was recognized as a lifestyle or an orientation, both of which are categorical assignations created by the cultural, anthropological, and psychological sciences, is immaterial. Just as oxygen didn't suddenly appear when Schleele and Priestly discovered it and Lavoisier named it, homosexuality was around long before anyone cared to put it in a social/psychological perspective or assign a name to it. And this is why the Bible doesn't use some Greek or Hebrew term for it, but rather describes it: "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman," and "You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman." That said, some Bibles, the New Living Translation and New International Version, to name two, do use the term "homosexual." Gotta believe they didn't think much of what doctors Scott, Smith, and Lowery had to say.

Right! Since they didn't recognize orientation, the acts were thought to be immoral. Had they recognized the orientation (as we do), the content might have been far different. The act is not the same thing as the orientation. Since the orientation was unknown, they could not have been speaking out against people who were oriented that way, i.e., homosexual people. They were speaking out against "unnatural acts." There's a difference.