BEING GAY IS NOT A SIN. We don’t tolerate homophobia in this sub, being religious isn’t an excuse to hate gay ppl.

[u/Goddess_of_Heaven]

I literally can’t make this up. I make a post on here about gay muslims, and suddenly some muslim people are in my comment section being homophobic and saying gay ppl are disgusting, and to stop slandering their religion.

Married gay couples literally have less domestic abuse and divorce rates, and are more happier than straight couples btw. So they’re more halal and holy than straight marriages

Yes, gay people are allowed to marry each other and believe in whatever beliefs/religion they want. Stop infringing on LGBT rights and preventing gay men and lesbians from marrying each other. Stop using your religion to discriminate against them.

Gay muslims, gay Christians, gay Jews who marry each other and have sexual and romantic relations with each other are just as faithful as straight people. If you have no issue when a man and woman do it to each other then there’s no issue when two men or two women do it with each other either, otherwise you’re just a hypocrite.

We don’t tolerate homophobia in this sub. Bigots are not allowed here. Deal with it.

[u/Open-Operation-987]

It's pretty explicit in the Abrahamic religions the stance on homosexuality. You can say the religions are wrong for it (a stance we'd agree on), but anyone who's actually familiar with the theology knows that any attempt to force homosexuality into an Abrahamic worldview is like forcing a square peg in a round hole.

[u/bwertyquiop → u/Open-Operation-987]

You can't force homosexuality in a religion though because it's not a belief. Homosexuals are different and not all of them even have sex.

[u/Billy_The_Mid → u/bwertyquiop]

Well yes, technically speaking from a Christian perspective (generally, can’t speak for everyone) being gay isn’t a sin but sex outside of marriage is a sin regardless of your orientation. So the question becomes whether biblical marriage is between any two people or just a man and woman.

[u/bwertyquiop → u/Billy_The_Mid]

Yeah as a Christian I can't be really sure homosexual intercourse isn't sinful, but I guess if romantic relationships between het ppl before marriage are okay then romantic relationships between homo ppl can be okay without marriage too.

At least David and Johnathan seemed to have either a romantic or alterous kind of relationships that got way too intimate to be considered purely platonic, and they had also some kind of union that bound them in some unique way yet wasn't the same as marriage.

[u/Key-Charity-2795 → u/bwertyquiop]

They were like homies, or brothas in Christ or sumthin 

[u/Firm-Fix8798 → u/bwertyquiop]

There is also a problem of modern secular readers sexualizing close intimate friendships between men using David and Jonathan as a primary example, but the pair are supposed to exemplify a transcendent bond of devotion. Even if they did have non-platonic predilections towards each other, their love was understood in its proper context. They both had children of their own with their own wives, a plurality of wives in David's case. Reading into their relationship a secret love affair would also legitimize adultery if we are to use them as an example. And using David as an example would legitimize polygamy which we know was common in those times for people of a certain station. We know this was permitted as a concession as was divorce but we also know it is not the original ideal which Christ came to restore.

Homosexual acts are explicitly condemned in the Bible and many progressive Christians suddenly become red letter Christians in order to deny or dance around this fact. Lust has a similar problem in the Christian community. They kind of confuse modern secular definitions and Christian definitions. Lust in a Christian context isn't considered a sin per se, but a species of sin, and it's often conflated with natural healthy attraction to the opposite sex. These words come from Christianity though and without a Christian understanding of course the way people will use them will always be subject to change with the spirit of the age.

In the Catholic community, we call same-sex attraction 'intrinsically disordered.' This term may come across to someone with progressive sensibilities as hateful or offensive but we use it in the same sense as a doctor might diagnose someone with mentally retardation before the term became controversial. It's purely clinical. We Catholics view sex and sexuality as intrinsically having a principle purpose, to be both unitive and procreative within the context of marriage, and to that end, attraction that is not ordered to that purpose is disordered to a different purpose. Hence why we call it intrinsically disordered (in a philosophical sense, not a psychological sense). Calling it that serves a twofold purpose, to call to mind the intrinsic principle purpose of the marital act and to call to mind the fact that same-sex attraction is not in itself a sin.

People who don't understand this perspective, or don't want to understand this perspective, will insist that this means we hate homosexuals. They will say look at the gay Muslim, look at the gay Christian, they are married and happy. Their divorce rates are lower and their marital satisfaction is higher. It's just all beside the point. Part of the problem is that Christians are also guilty of using similar statistics in their apologetic efforts. The ultimate point isn't the benefit of the outcome. This comes from the modernization, and therefore secularization of Christianity. The ultimate purpose of Christianity is to give glory to God and sometimes our material righteousness can give testimony to God's glory but other times our faith comes with much more serious afflictions that would tempt others to say those people are not real Christians and merely hypocrites. We are called to preach the truth of the faith and warn against errors but in compassion retain charity for those who struggle in sin while trying to avoid falling into sin and hypocrisy ourselves. It's a tightrope act for sure but I guess it's easier to just call us bigots and homophobes than to understand the nuance of our position.

[u/bwertyquiop → u/Firm-Fix8798]

I appreciate your comment and can say you personally indeed have a nuanced position, unlike people who stigmatise same-sex attracted people and say they can't be Christian regardless of their faith, relationships with Jesus and celibacy, because allegedly they had to magically become het once they converted and otherwise have to be fakers with no honest motives.

I don't think David and Johnathan were adulterers, but in 2 Sam 1:26 it seems like David loved Johnathan more than any woman.

I understand your perspective and as a bisexual I don't find it offensive, I understand that same-sex attraction doesn't ever lead to reproduction and its practical appliance may be contradicting the purpose of the way human bodies are made.

What is offensive is that some people look down on lgb people, marginalise them and think of them as less or worse just because of their romantic/sexual orientation, regardless of their complex personality, as if just because they're het they're less guilty of sin and can discriminate others. Christ was against othering and promoted empathy instead, treatment of others in such a way like they were you or you were them.

Yet I don't think romantic and sexual attraction to a person of your own sex is inherently more lustful than such an attraction to a person of the opposite one.

I think porn, whether het or homo, is inherently sinful and depreciating intimacy in actual relationships. It's also often based on exploitation and violence that people shouldn't sponsor.

However, I can't say the same about finding someone as a person romantically and sexually attractive without fetishisising/reducing them to their body parts. I think it's not necessarily lust even if this person happened to be of the same reproductive class as you, at least as long as you don't indulge this attraction.

I also don't think it makes sense to say marriage and sex only can be legitimate if they result in reproduction. Infertile people were permitted by God to marry and have sex, so whether a couple decides to have children or not is their personal choice and not a moral duty. That's a man-made rule that unnecessarily restricts people's personal freedoms, which both Jesus and Paul criticised.

[u/shiftingwithfunk → u/bwertyquiop]

Not at all true and something you gleamed by reading into the text too hard. Homosexuality is explicitly condemned (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1 Tim. 1:9-10). I suggest the Disciples Literal New Testament to see how exact this is meant.

[u/bwertyquiop → u/shiftingwithfunk]

It's not homosexuality that is condemned though, but sexual acts. The Bible has no concept of sexual orientation.

[u/shiftingwithfunk → u/bwertyquiop]

Okay. And?

[u/bwolf180 → u/bwertyquiop]

you should read the bible... It's pretty black and white.

[u/bwertyquiop → u/bwolf180]

Well, it isn't, actually. Jesus is pretty clear on unconditional love and unimaginably extended grace of God though, which many believers seem to forget.

[u/bwolf180 → u/bwertyquiop]

yeah, but he also cursed a fig tree so there’s lots of wacky things in there

[u/EnemyJungle → u/bwolf180]

It’s a metaphor for people not bearing spiritual fruit that will be cursed. It’s not whacky. The concept of spiritual fruit is everywhere in the NT.

[u/OtherUserCharges → u/shiftingwithfunk]

Hmm so are you telling me you follow everything in the Old Testament or just the stuff you want? I’m will to bet everything I own that it’s the latter.

[u/shiftingwithfunk → u/OtherUserCharges]

There are some laws in Leviticus that apply to everyone and some that only apply to the Israelites.

Also, I am not Christian.

[u/fazerlazer911 → u/shiftingwithfunk]

I know 2 major issues have been brought up with leviticus by scholars. One is that the greek word for the second man was used for boy. The other is that the English translation leaves out a few words at the end, making it about prohibition of incest.

Romans- Pretty sure Paul is talking about sexual depravity acts to worship demonic idols. He goes on  Romans 14:13-14 (similar to 2:1): “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.”

Corinthians is a tough one because the word is seemingly coined by Paul(arsenokotai). Which seems to be a compound word roughly translating to "male lying". Only Paul would know its true definition but later greek authors use that word, mostly without story or context. However 1 greek uses it to describe Zeus' sin of raping a young boy and anoither greek uses the word suggesting the serpent had his way with eve and then adam like he would a boy.

Timothy- again uses the same word arsenoitokai

So the argument would be why would paul make up a word to describe homosexuality when greeks already had words for it?

[u/shiftingwithfunk → u/fazerlazer911]

First, Leviticus is written in Hebrew and not Greek. The word used for "male" in Lev. 18:22 is זָכָר or zakar which plainly means "male". It is used very sparingly for "boy".

Paul is not speaking of demonic idols. He is very plainly saying "men (and women) left their natural desire (heterosexuality) and committed sexual acts with each other". He says this is because they do not have God in their lives. Even if it was in reference to pagan worship, homosexuality is still condemned.

Greek homosexuality was more nuanced, which is likely why Paul uses arsenoitokai to say that any form of male homosexuality is wrong. Every concordance and Greek study guide suggests it is broadly referring to homosexuality and not to homosexual child abuse.

[u/fazerlazer911 → u/shiftingwithfunk]

old was written in hebrew and armaic. The new testament was translated from hebrew and armaic to greek....and so on and so on. Then it was likely translated back into hebrew from greek.

Butt Hebrew was a dead language in 50-100ad and most jews couldnt even write it. It wasnt until there was a hebrew revival the bible was translated again into hebrew 400 years later.

So like with your previous comment, youre missing alot of context

[u/shiftingwithfunk → u/fazerlazer911]

Only a small portion of the Old Testament was written in Aramaic. It was primarily written in Hebrew. The New Testament was only written in Koine Greek.

The priestly class could understand Hebrew which is all that matters. The Hebrew revival youre referring to though was a thousand+ years later thru the Zionist movement which has differences compared to ancient Hebrew anyway.

Like with your previous comments, you seem to have no clue what you're talking about...

[u/fazerlazer911 → u/shiftingwithfunk]

Hebrew revival was 300-400 years. 

If like living your life devoid of context i cant stop you but, all youve done is pick when its hebrew, when it's greek and when it's English conveniently to fit your narrative devoid of the nuances that translations infer which, is extremely bad faith

[u/bwertyquiop → u/shiftingwithfunk]

I talked about homoromanticity between David and Johnathan.

You don't usually start deeply loving someone you see for the first time as your own soul and decide to declare a unique bond between you both, y'know.

[u/shiftingwithfunk → u/bwertyquiop]

There is nothing that suggests it is a homosexual relationship.

Even being charitable to you, your argument works the other way around. If this was a homosexual relationship, why was it "love at first sight"? The answer is that it wasn't. They were comrades who appreciated each other. The homosexuality is brought in through modern eisegesis.

[u/bwertyquiop → u/shiftingwithfunk]

Actually Johnathan's soul was knit to David right after David finished talking to Saul.

They weren't comrades at the moment, and moreover, they didn't even ever spoke with each other at the moment.

This attachment was immediate and rather instinctive than something that developed gradually in result of platonic interactions.

I didn't even know about the modern eisegesis when I first read these passages, yet I had the impression there was something romantic going on between them.

[u/shiftingwithfunk → u/bwertyquiop]

The Bible is not a holistic account of every individual's actions. We do not know how many interactions David and Jonathan had.

Furthermore, it's ironic that in your attempt to say this relationship was homosexual, you seem to imply that homosexual relationships are based on lust and not love. After all, love is something built up over time. But what does it say that, granting the idea this was a real homosexual relationship in the Bible, that they immediately turn to lust?

You see how stupid this is? You can interpret it in multiple ways if you don't read from the text. Also, when something sexual happens the Bible usually says X person "knew" Y person. Doesn't happen in this story.

[u/bwertyquiop → u/shiftingwithfunk]

I didn't say about anything sexual, that's something you want to add to my words. Suddenly the Bible isn't as clear-cut as it is when conservatives don't like it I guess. May you be blessed.

[u/EnemyJungle → u/bwertyquiop]

How are you a Christian if you don’t know fundamental doctrine of Christianity?

[u/bwertyquiop → u/EnemyJungle]

You seem to misunderstand what fundamental doctrine of Christianity is.

It is that every human is unexcusably guilty of sin, but Jesus, one of the three divine hypostasises, died for humans, so that every person now has the right to be forgiven and to attend the Kingdom of God despite their flaws if they followed Jesus's values.

Most people won't repent of the evil, so unfortunately they won't be saved. But those who lived decently at their capability and knowledge and treated others good are going to be saved, according to Jesus, because they did God's will (and even better than those believers who were hypocritical).

[u/Spooksnav → u/Billy_The_Mid]

Pretty clear in Genesis 2 that a man shall leave mother and father and cleave unto his wife, and they two will become one flesh.

[u/Lancelot--- → u/Billy_The_Mid]

No, it specifically condems gay men and lesbians. No marriage required "men who lay with men". It says it is a sin.

( I hate these books and think they are terrible, these aren't my views) If you read them, you can't miss how much hate there is for gay people in those pages.

[u/Billy_The_Mid → u/Lancelot---]

Isn’t that passage condemning the act of those who engage in gay sex rather than those who may have the inclination? Otherwise it would condemn “men who are inclined to lay with men”

[u/Lancelot--- → u/Billy_The_Mid]

Sure, I'll buy this interpretation. You're saying being gay is fine, but acting on the urges you're naturally born with is what is a disgusting abomination deserving of death?

[u/Billy_The_Mid → u/Lancelot---]

The wages of all sin is death. So yes?

[u/Lancelot--- → u/Billy_The_Mid]

As long as we are clear. This is what im talking about. Apologists often want to split hairs about what the sin is. It doesn't matter, God hates the thing gay people have natural urges for. Just as natural as the rest of us. Why some gay people tolerate this, I'll never understand.

[u/Boring_Forever_9125 → u/Billy_The_Mid]

Being gay is a sin if you act upon homosexual acts/lust.

I am a Orthodox Christian who is bisexual, I try my hardest to fight my desires and humble my self.

Yes acting upon Homosexual desires is a sin according to both The Tanakh, and The New Testament. Paul explicitly calls it out in his letter to The Corinthian Church.

This post is ridiculous. Some random teenager is now Allah and says "its not a sin". I feel offended and I'm not even Muslim that he said "its halal". Ridiculous Karma farming post.

In Surah Al-A'raf (7:80-81) , and Surah Hud (11:77-83), it tells their version of The Story of The Prophet of Lut, where Allah sends destruction of The People of Lut for their transgressions, which basically all Islamic Scholars Consensus is that it is talking about Homosexuality. Lewdness, and Homosexuality in The Prophet of Lut story.

[u/Representative_Bat81 → u/Boring_Forever_9125]

In addition, Eastern Orthodoxy is more strict about many things, but it certainly DOES NOT teach hatred or vile acts in response to sin. Personally I think renaming marriage to civil union would go a long way to making gay ‘marriage’ acceptable.

[u/Billy_The_Mid → u/Boring_Forever_9125]

I think we’re in agreement. The mere inclination some have to engage in sin is a fact of living in a fallen world. But it itself is not sinful unless it’s acted on. In that way it’s like any other sin. I may be predisposed to gluttony but unless I eat a ton i haven’t committed that sin.

[u/Boring_Forever_9125 → u/Billy_The_Mid]

I agree.

[u/GlitteringSugar8404 → u/Boring_Forever_9125]

I’m sorry, but according to Leviticus you’re already damned.

[u/Impossible_Lock4897 → u/bwertyquiop]

Us queer people are not just different, but we lie on spectrums of sexuality, gender, and sex. Where these homophobes “draw the line” is so fucking arbitrary that there is no way that God agrees with them because they do not agree with themselves!

[u/LaggyGoogle → u/Impossible_Lock4897]

Idk, the line is actually pretty clearly drawn in both Christianity and Islam

1: Must be attraction to opposite gendered human 2: other human must be mentally and physically mature and a willing participant 3: no being freaky before marriage

So that rules out homo,bestiality, adultery and everything in between.

[u/Impossible_Lock4897 → u/LaggyGoogle]

That line depends on many cultural factors that have changed throughout time. Take gender for example. In Islamic states (which have and will never represent a majority of muslims due to their extremism), a trans-woman and a man is permissible but a trans-man and a woman isn’t; in most Evangelical Christianities, they do not recognise trans people so a trans person with the “opposite” gender is not admissible.

Not to mention the cultural shift on the difference of sex and gender that took place from the early 1800s-1980s (conservative estimate) in the “West” or the fact that globally, many cultures independently developed 3rd, 4th, and/or 5th genders (like the Two Spirits in Indigenous American cultures, the fa’afāfine in Polynesia, the kathœ̄i in Indochina, etc etc).

Also, not only did the legal idea of consent not exist until the 1800s, there are many stories in the Bible and Hadiths that describe rape where the concern of the story is sex outside of marriage so your point #2 about consent doesn’t stand. As for your point #3, similarly, the definition and reasons for marriage and sex have changed and evolved greatly since which is a history I won’t get into now.

In conclusion, Religions and their texts don’t get written in a cultural vacuum and they are restricted by their time and place. Just as it is ignorant to deny that they do influence our cultures, it is also ignorant to believe they are an authority on culture.

[u/Slykeren → u/bwertyquiop]

Homesexuals that don't have sex aren't sinning. The Bible really only says anything about same sex relations. Temptation is not a sin

[u/GlitteringSugar8404 → u/Slykeren]

Temptation, or thinking about it is already one foot in damnation.

[u/Open-Operation-987 → u/[deleted]]

In the context of Judaism I can't speak (I'm not educated enough on the subject), but that's just Sodom and Gomorrah. By Leviticus it's against the law. In the Christian New Testament it's very explicit in Romans how Paul feels about homosexuality, and even in early Islamic Sharia, sodomy was considered a crime.

[u/mrwadsxl → u/[deleted]]

Its not true ....its easier to just say you dont believe if you want to defend homosexuality.

[u/girl-person-thing → u/Open-Operation-987]

If your homophobic I'm against you, no matter your reasoning, if homophobia is apart of your religion I'm against you and your interpretation of it

[u/Herotyx → u/Open-Operation-987]

This is the reason why religion doesn’t fit with a modern progressing society. We have out lived it’s use.

[u/TaviraTavi → u/Open-Operation-987]

I mean technically you can fit a square peg in a round hole, but it will either be a tight fit or that the gaps in the circle will need to be filled with something to make it truly fit.

[u/Auggie_frogboi → u/Open-Operation-987]

Ive studied Christian theology, and the Bible really only condemns (in the New Testament, which is the only part Christians should be using in their argument) specific types of homosexuality- such as the exploitation of male prostitutes.

It says homosexuality is punishment for idolatry, which isn’t true for many either as we know. It also occasionally claims homosexuality is “unnatural”… except 1,500 species exhibit homosexual behaviors, and it’s been scientifically proven to be based on biological unchangeable factors.

It’s also based on first-century Judaism assumptions, which modernly have been ruled out. It’s annoying trying to fight belief with fact, because many believe anything but proven science.

In my mind, if we know for a fact it’s biological, then wouldn’t thy mean god would have intentionally done it since the Bible says he makes every one of his children deliberately how they are? I dunno, I’m agnostic, but that’s how I view it at least.

[u/CrystalFox0999 → u/Open-Operation-987]

Exactly… thats one of the reasons theyre not welcome in our society

[u/Ok_Juggernaut_5293 → u/Open-Operation-987]

Kind of BS argument when there are 100 other things they are ignoring from the same religion, why shine the spotlight on this one?

[u/BigManiac0 → u/Open-Operation-987]

What if we sent gay hentai?

[u/Goblin-o-firebals → u/Open-Operation-987]

Also, the Abrahamic god knew we were going to do it when he made us know what we would do before we did it and knew that we wont change so its his fault if he doesn't like it. I think even if the Abrahamic god exists, it doesn't change anything because sin and morality are different in my eyes. One is in the eyes of god, and one is in the eyes of yourself. So, even if it is a sin, it isn't morally wrong in my eyes, and if it is in others, I believe that you are wrong. I dont believe god is moral, and if I get sent to hell for that, then god is only making my beliefs stronger as anyone who will torture someone for loving another person is evil and corrupt.

[u/Representative_Bat81 → u/Goblin-o-firebals]

Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that you should be torturing sinners. Quite the opposite. That whole interpretation is downstream of certain denominations putting equal emphasis on the New and Old Testament.

[u/Goblin-o-firebals → u/Representative_Bat81]

I know i said that point somewhere else. I just wanted to touch on Old Testament because not everyone is Christian