abt
- 20
- quaker
- theology student
- bisexual and transgender
- disabled
we’re gonna be ok btw
it’s ok if you’re scared. or tired. or unsure. or one million billion other complicated emotions at once. but i’ve decided things are going to be ok anyway. and i will hold that belief close to my heart no matter how scared or tired or lonely or depressed or one million billion other things i am. i will hold onto that. and if you’re scared, you can hold onto me. we can carry each other through
im a bad transsexual because when people try to imply im a freak of nature im like amen to that brother. not in a self hating way just in a i love being a thing way.
What is theology and why does it matter? Theology is thinking about God who escapes our comprehension. What does it mean to reflect on an ultimate reality that can't be grasped? Why does it matter to think about that? ...Theology is paradoxical language with no easy answers to ultimate questions, and that we need imagination to think about transcendent reality. What we call "God talk" is imaginative language, like poetry — not rational language, even though Western theologians, following Greek philosophy, define theology as "rational thinking about God," or what the eleventh-century philosopher-theologian Anselm called "faith seeking understanding." But seeking to understand the God of Jesus by means of Greek ideas has always been difficult. Jesus was a Jew from Nazareth, born to an impoverished unwed woman, who preached in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, declaring divine solidarity with the poor and weak. His language was not philosophical or rational like that of Plato and Plotinus, but prophetic and apocalyptic, like the language of Isaiah and John the Baptist.
- James Cone in his final book, Said I Wasn't Gonna Tell Nobody: The Making of a Black Theologian (2018)
Parrish, Maxfield (USA 1870-1966) - Hilltop 1926 oil on panel 91x56.5
Does Christianity Condemn Homosexuality?
Yes, and here’s why (with counterarguments to common statements).
This will be a bit of a harder read for some people, so please feel free to skip past if this is a topic that makes you uncomfortable. This is a post aimed at people who are already Christian, although secular peeps may benefit as well. My intention is only to educate, never to hurt–I believe two people with opposite opinions can coexist and accept each other for who they are without hostility. BIG FAT TW for: religion, me being blunt, meaty theology discussion, discussion of sin relating to sexual orientation.
i actually skipped over this post originally, but something about it compelled me to respond to it. there is some gross misinformation in here which needs to be accurately corrected.
1. Firstly, there needs to be a clear delineation between homosexual sexual activity and homosexual love. Every passage relating to homosexuality in the bible refers to the former, and not the latter.
2. The issue with this stems not only from the translation, but from the context surrounding the bible. Firstly, the translation of the word ‘arsenikoiten’ into ‘homosexuality’ is incorrect - this term was only invented in 1946. the term is more accurately translated as ‘men who lay with men’. Whilst this may seem like a nitpick, I will now go into detail on why the difference is important. The context of homosexual activity in biblical times is vastly different to today. Today, homosexuality is typically used in reference to adult, consensual, sexual activity. Back then, homosexuality was exclusively used in reference to pederasty. There is a massive amount of historical evidence to back this up, namely St. John of Chrysostom’s writings, which speak of the wide-scale sexual abuse of young men by older men. Anyone familiar with Roman military history will also know how widespread the problem of male rape was in this era. The idea that there is any reference in the bible to homosexual adult, consensual relationships, is blatantly incorrect and ahistorical.
3. This is also incorrect, and stems from a misunderstanding of the New Covenant. The only laws from the OT Jesus directly affirms are the Ten Commandments - and the behaviours which fall under these. He specifically does not mention homosexuality at any point.
4. This is also objectively incorrect, as there is no amount of closeness to God which will prevent suffering - even the most pious of individuals suffer from grief, illness, tiredness, etc. To suggest that suffering is exclusively a result of a lack of faith is ridiculous and frankly offensive.
5. In terms of sides A vs B, you are again conflating homosexual sex with homosexual love. This is a very common misconception, and stems from homophobia - the idea that being gay is inherently sexual, whilst being straight is not. If you believe in intelligent design, and that God created all, yet cannot make mistakes, do you believe things like fatal birth defects were intentional?
6. This completely disregards the fact that intersex people exist, people who are neither male nor female. In fact, in Rabbinical Literature, 6 sexes are recognised in recognition of this fact of life. You are also seemingly of the opinion that being gay is a mutation, which is disgustingly homophobic. Scientific study has shown that the range of human sexuality is in fact a part of our biology, and that homosexuality is NOT a mutation, mental illness, etc. You state not to insult LGBT people, yet do so here by comparing someone’s sexuality to a mutations, which is both scientifically and morally wrong.
7. N/A.
8. I agree with the second half of this.
9. Yes it is - Jonathan and David. Love between two men is shown to ‘[be] wonderful, more wonderful than the love of any woman’. They are also described as having their souls ‘knitted together’, which is the same language used to describe marriage in corinthians. And no, there are different kinds of love described in the bible, and familial, romantic and sexual are all separate.
10. Loving another person is not inherently harmful. And again, sex vs love. Even if you think homosexual sex is wrong, to think homosexual love is wrong is to go against the core tenets of Christianity. I agree that current LGBT culture can be self indulgent, however this is more a result of a community seeking to compensate for the immense feelings of pain and suffering they experience in everyday life.
11. Correct, it’s not a human right.
12. No, it isn’t. Marriage has existed for thousands of years, before even Judaism existed. This is an incredibly historically ignorant view. And the Bible also states that married couples will have children (‘become one in flesh’), therefore if you are to exclude gay couples from marriage you also must exclude all infertile couples. Also, a pastor is under no obligation to perform a ceremony they disagree with. The hypocrisy of claiming that gay people wanting to be married is a stumbling block for others, whilst claiming someone’s love is sinful is palpable.
13. Again, this comes from a lack of understanding of historical context and the idea of sex vs love.
14. No, sin is always a choice. Is someone with tourettes committing a sin if they call someone a fool because of a tic? No, of course not. Intent is required to sin.
15. And yes, sexuality and relationships are important. God specifically states that sexual immorality is a sin. However, love is not. If a relationship meets the criteria of love laid out in the bible, that is honouring God.
16. The response to the question is a bit silly, that’s not what that means. If a part of your love, which God gave you, must be suppressed, yes, you will be miserable. Living in misery because you cannot love is hellish.
17. Our authentic selves are the characteristics we inherently possess, all of which are gifts. For example, someone who is gifted mathematically is being authentic to themselves if they choose to study mathematics. Also, doesn’t bring Christian require us to look inside of ourselves for an identity?
18. Again, love vs sex.
to conclude, these viewpoints stem from a theology founded in the preservation of the status quo, not in any genuine attempt to deepen your understanding of God. most of these arguments lie in a literalist interpretation of scripture, without any reference to biblical context or other biblical era sources.
i have no issue with you being against gay sex. that’s fine with me. but to see the God-given love a person has for another, and to condemn it, is an error of the highest order.
Hey there! I wrote this post quite a while ago, so I was surprised to see that someone responded to it. Honestly, I think that some of the things I said probably come across as a bit tone deaf, and if I wrote this again now, I would say a lot of thing quite differently. Thank you for going in depth and engaging with each thing instead of simply insulting me. That being said, with the understanding of this topic I have now, I would like to respond to each of your points as I think you have brought up some valid information. 1. So firstly, the issue here is that sexuality in the bible is not separated between romantic attraction/love and sexual love. It is illustrated that one thing always leads to another—so therefore, relationships do exist with solely romantic love, but that is not the way that God intended for human couples to exist, as illustrated in Genesis! Not that our sole purpose is to recreate—but rather, the separation of the two loves as you have illustrated here is an interpretation that does not actually exist in Scripture. With all that in mind though, I would love to hear more of what you mean when you say that every passage relating to sexuality is separated /genuine
2. So there are more than a few issues with this statement—firstly, homosexuality in consenting and non consenting forms has existed for centuries, so there would have been words to describe it in a non offensive way at some point—humans will not let something go undescribed for that long. The second part to this is that there is an assumption that there were not very many consensual, loving mlm and wlw relationships in Roman History, which is homophobic in and of itself. There were sapphic writings that dictated some of how lesbianism is viewed today, and I highly doubt that all of the relationships/relations referred in the New Testament, within the church, were viewed in this way or were toxic in nature. It simply is not possible, because to assume they were all harmful would leave out the minority that were not, which would be discriminatory
3. I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying here—I’m speaking specifically to people who believe that to follow one rule, you have to follow them all, which is not correct. Jesus indeed does not mention homosexuality, whether or not He mentions sexual immorality as a whole is something I need to do more research in myself, I would love to see if you have any verses talking about this! /genuine
4. I am so sorry that this came across that way, but I definitely DID NOT mean to imply that suffering is the result of a lack of faith. What i meant to say is that suffering can get worse when you follow God, but it is not His fault, and it is not always ours either—it is simply the way the world is, and God does not WANT us to suffer, but at the same time, our suffering is a symptom of the worlds brokenness. Does that make a bit more sense?
5. see my first point for the first part of this! The second part is an incorrect assumption of my beliefs—both being gay and being straight ARE inherently sexual, but not in the way that that is all that they are. More that romantic love as a whole encompasses all of it. this second part here doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me as a contradiction to my point—i don’t believe that God intentionally makes someone with birth defects, or disabilities. They are a part of our fallen world in the same way that suffering is. For instance, I was born with shallow hip sockets and a genetic connective tissue disorder that causes me tons of pain and other bodily issues. I don’t think God WANTED me to have that and deliberately made me disabled, it just is something that is the way it is.
6. Firstly, a lot of intersex people actually do not want to be included in the LGBTQ community, and find it offensive when they are used as a talking point, an argument, or as evidence of something else. Secondly, most intersex people are actually more one sex than the other, and all intersexuality is caused by genetic mutations (I must state very clearly here that i mean mutation in the scientific term, as in an issue with DNA development). A mutation is inherently a deviation from the norm, whether it becomes beneficial or not. Furthermore, truly ambiguous intersex people are very very rare. What is absolutely wrong, however, is mutilating intersex people at birth to force them into one side or the other. I would like to make it clear that I don’t think that’s ok. But I also don’t think it’s ok to use intersex people as a pawn to push an agenda, because a lot of the time, that is the only time I hear them being spoken about, and that’s not fair. I would like to see the sources you have for scientific study on this! I haven’t seen anything credible myself so it would be neat to see some sources (i swear im not being sarcastic, i would actually love to know this) I am terribly sorry if it was insulting, i will see if there is better language I can use in the future that isn’t offensive.
8. you say you agree with the latter half of this, but not the first. would you say then, that your idea of identity is largely based upon who you love? this is not a biblical concept (that being said, if you have sources for this claim i would love to see them!)
9. This one is a whole can of worms tbh, I don’t see any tangible proof that Jonathan and David were romantically involved, because the bible does not speak of their relationship in the same way that it does of David’s wives. I think to consider them as so is actually highly offensive because it is fetishizing their relationship and diminishing the Bible’s values of deep platonic friendships.
10. I would disagree in that loving someone can actually be harmful, if it is by the world’s definition of love. If you are in a committed relationship, for instance, engaging your desires with someone outside of that, even in a non sexual way, is still very much considered adultery. Even in secular terms, there is this concept called emotional infidelity, i think it’s called? Basically, it covers doing intimate things you would do with a romantic partner that are non sexual with someone who is not your partner. The reason why people get jealous when others do that sort of thing is because it is actually wrong, so the point of sex vs love is again moot because they come as a whole package when it comes to relationships, at least in the way that the Bible describes it 12. Someone pointed out the marriage point on another reblog, and I agree, I was wrong in that claim. Marriage is not a Christian concept. But if we are mentioning marriage from a Christian perspective, then these points still stand. You also make an error in stating that to become one flesh is the same as having children, because sex was not made solely to have children—even biblically! One look at Song of Solomon will tell you more than you want to know about that one LOL
13. I’m curious as to what you mean when you say that my belief in objective truth is a misunderstanding of history/scripture
14. I have to disagree with this one, because the Bible actually mentions unintentional sins—there were entire procedures and sacrifices for them in the Old Testament. Sin is anything that separates us from God, intentionally or unintentionally. Someone with Tourette’s however, or someone like myself with severe OCD, is not sinning by having intrusive thoughts, tics that swear, etc.. Those things are not separating them from God. Basically, to sort of explain what I mean by unintentional sin existing and still having an effect—if you hit someone by accident and didn’t mean to, you still have to apologize and do your best to make things right with the person. Another example is things that we don’t realize are sins but are—we don’t intend to do wrong things by doing them, but that doesn’t make them any less wrong.
15. Again, see my first point—the bible unites sexuality and romantic love. The idea of them being separate is actually not a biblical concept
16. I believe you may have misunderstood my point here, re. my earlier point about how supressing your feelings is wrong. I do not deny that denying yourself is incredibly, incredibly heartbreaking and hard, especially when someone is forcing you to. However, you make an incorrect assumption here implying that homosexual love is MOST of what lgbtq people feel and most of how they love others. For some it is, and for some it is not, and not everyone suffers massively from denying themselves, some find peace
17. This is incorrect, because it implies that negative inherent traits are also positive gifts, which is a dangerous viewpoint to hold. Yes, I am a dancer, and dancing is true to myself. But also, I am very stubborn, and don’t like to ask for help from others. This has been an inherent trait of mine for years that I cannot get rid of. But it is not a gift, it is not a good thing, and it makes me suffer. To lean into that would be authentic, yes, but it would not be right This second point is also very very dangerous. Nowhere does the Bible say to look inside yourself for your identity—in fact, it advises against such things. Christianity requires us to look to God and Jesus for our identity, because He is what defines it. We do not define ourselves, and that is a major thing that separates Christianity from other religions, because the focus is not on yourself—building your own identity, looking inside yourself to find it, deciding who you are, because God has already done that for us and for us to do that puts us in the place of God (besides the fact that trying to find yourself inside yourself is like diving into a massive black hole—it never ends, is never perfect, and you end up chasing after label after label, none of which fully encompass you). As a Christian, trying to find who I am by studying myself is exhausting and pushes me away from God, because I am not exploring with Him, I am relying solely on myself, which is a sin
I would also like to address this last part, because you make some pretty hefty accusations based on well…not a lot of information. I take offense at the idea that my theology comes from preserving the status quo, because personally, my faith and who God made me to be is entirely the opposite of that. My whole faith MISSION is opposite of that. For instance, I do not look like a Christian. I dress alt, am active in alt communities, and I love things that a lot of conservative Christians hate. I lean more liberal vs. conservative, and I majorly value individuality—I believe that God made people different, and it is important and VITAL that everyone, even Christians, expresses that in healthy ways. I am also disabled, both physically and mentally, and have struggled with my own sexuality and gender multiple times, which is why this topic is so important to me to figure out. Secondly, you say that this is not a genuine attempt to understand God. Forgive me if I come across badly here—but you have to understand that in saying this, you are directly attacking and insulting my journey with God, AS a sibling in Christ. You assume by me making a post like this that I must have a shallow relationship because you personally do not find my statements to be sound, despite knowing nothing about my personal relationship/journey with God. You may view me however you like, but please do not insult, dismiss or invalidate His work in me without knowledge of it, because that is no longer a slight against me, but against Him, and that is the single thing I will absolutely not stand for in this conversation.
You cannot define someone’s desire for God or lack thereof, nor can you know their journey from one or two posts on the internet.
thank you for replying, and i’ll start by apologising. i did not mean to insult your faith, or your journey in Christ, and it was indeed wrong of me to do so. i am very sorry, and hope that you can forgive me.
as an LGBT person myself, this topic is quite personal to me, so i tend to get a little heated when discussing it. this isn’t an excuse for what i said, but it may help you to understand where i am coming from. my choice of language came more from frustration than genuine malice, but again, it wasn’t acceptable.
1. so, i’d say that there is a distinct difference between our sexuality and our romantic love - and that it is illustrated in the bible. sexuality is viewed as of the world, and is noted as being the gateway to many sins - rape, sexual assault, etc. when you have sex with someone, it is not an inherently loving act - that love is brought in from the outside. it CAN be a loving act, but it is not loving in and of itself. love, on the other hand, is never seen as anything but good. it doesn’t lead to sin, it only leads to virtue. when homosexuality is discussed in the bible, only people’s sexual acts are described - them laying with each other. loving acts are not described. for example, if Paul had stated that two women kissing, hugging, holding hands was a sin, then i would think differently. but he speaks only of sexuality - and i think this is an important distinction. the LGBT community has seen how being too open and relaxed about sex can lead to bad consequences - disease, sexual abuse, violence, etc. there’s also a rather discriminatory attitude towards body image in many gay male communities, which has a nasty racial undertone. i don’t think these are ‘punishments’ or anything, as many religious conservatives like to crow, but i do think they illustrate how sex can be damaging. on the other hand, love is not. we are told time and time again how it will only help us. the problem in modern christianity is that people look at the verses relating to this sexual activity, and assume that anything even vaguely same-sex is wrong - so for example, a celibate gay couple is seen as ‘sinning’, even though they are doing nothing wrong. the only thing they are doing is being loving. as for us being created to reproduce, i agree somewhat. yes, we have to reproduce to keep our species alive. but even then, not everyone should give birth or be a parent - they’re simply not cut out to do so. this is, in my opinion, God’s purpose for LGBT people. to be the ones who don’t take on the burden of parenthood, but can help from the outside. if all our eggs are in one basket, (pardon the pun), that is a dangerous place to be. compare this to Christ talking about eunuchs in Matthew - He says that those who can accept it, should. these people were never meant to have children, and Christ affirms them.
2. this is an interesting point, and something i think i didn’t expand enough on originally. so, first, you’re absolutely right - there were many gay people in ancient history, sappho being a very good example. however, let’s remember who is righting these verses. the first is Moses, and the second is Paul. both are Jewish, and in second temple Judaism, all forms of gay relationships would have been prohibited. secondly, when Paul was writing in Romans, it’s unlikely he would have been privy to any genuinely intimate relationships - they would likely have been kept behind closed doors, or waved away as ‘good friends’. the only homosexual behaviour he would have been witness to would have been the violent, abusive kind found in public. unfortunately this likely twisted his perception.
3. sorry for any misinterpretation! i definitely agree that people shouldn’t cherry pick rules to follow. Jesus does talk about sexual immorality, specifically adultery, but He doesn’t mention homosexuality. i personally find this very interesting, as He has every reason to mention it, yet doesn’t. naturally, we’ll never know the reason for this, but i have my theories. the main one is that He knew that homosexual relationships COULD be positive, but wouldn’t have had a way to express that to a primarily Jewish audience in a way they would understand. this is an instance where His silence speaks volumes. unfortunately, that’s not very helpful for us when talking about it.
4. ah okay, gotcha! that does make a lot more sense, ngl.
5. see, i’d disagree there in part. i think romantic love and sexual desire are separate, yet overlap in situations such as relationships. this is mainly because both can exist without the other - sex without love, and love without sex. however, they can be incorporated together when discussing our relationships. but the distinction is important, as some tend to think that when LGBT people talk about their feelings, they are assumed to be simply wanting sex, as opposed to a loving connection with another person.
6. so, fun fact, i actually have an intersex condition myself (polycystic ovarian syndrome, and potential non-classic adrenal hyperplasia, i’m waiting on some test results). it’s a big factor in me being transgender, and definitely plays a part in my views on sex. you’re very correct that intersex people don’t inherently want to be LGBT, my point was more so that they are more than welcome if they would like to be. something i think you’d find very interesting is the concept of sexes in Rabbinical Judaism. they recognise six sexes, all on a spectrum from male to female. i find this concept very progressive and kind, as it ensures no one is left out of discussions of biological sex. i don’t mean to use any other intersex people as ‘pawns’, but i do also want to stress the importance of us moving away from the binary sex system when we discuss these things from a religious perspective - as with a binary there will always be those outside of it. they are also children of God, and we should strive to talk in theological terms that are as wide as possible.
8. yes, i suppose i would say that! in fact, i’d say that about all of our identities. our identities as Christians are about our love of God. my identity as a transgender person is about my love for myself, past, present and future. my identity as a bisexual person is about my love for men, women, and everyone in between. whilst some identities may not fit this pattern, we should always strive to put love at the centre of our lives.
9. okay, so clarification, (and this ties into the whole sex vs love thing), i DO NOT think that Jonathan and David had a sexual relationship. however, i DO think they had a romantic one - here is why. firstly, their love is described as ‘surpassing that of women’. now, i mean, i don’t know what the homo-erotic subtext of ancient israel was like, but i know if that if you said that to someone now, they’d assume you were gay. it’s also worth remembering that their relationships with women (specifically their wives) were romantic ones - this love surpasses that. now, i could see this being waved off as just very intense bro-ship, and i might agree, if not for one extra detail. they are also described as having their ‘souls knitted together’ - this phrase is also used in corinthians to describe marriage. whilst we’ll never know the exact nature of their relationship, i think it’s fair to assume they had a deep, deep love, and most signs point to it being more than friendship.
10. very true, emotional cheating is very real. again it ties back to love vs sex - which is why i mentioned bible-defined love, as it is non-sexual. i suppose my counter would be that does your romantic love exist separate from your sexual desires? most couples into their old age lose the desire and/or ability to have sex, yet remain very much in love. i’d also consider asexual relationships as romantically loving, despite never including sex.
12. yeah, biblical marriage is definitely very hetero-oriented, but IMO that is something rooted in the society at the time. having children was extremely important in pre-industrial societies, due to the physical impossibility of the elderly working for themselves. this is a big topic in general, but i tend to take the view that biblical marriage, as it existed in that era, simply does not exist anymore. basically, this is because marriage was intended to create children - yet nearly every church worldwide will marry an infertile couple, an older couple, etc. this wouldn’t have happened in biblical times, and therefore we have changed what marriage means to us. furthermore, even if a church doesn’t want to perform a same sex marriage, i struggle to see why they could not perform a civil partnership or commitment ceremony - both of these can be non-romantic (aka committed by people who aren’t a couple), and exist more as a legal protection and as a public display of commitment than anything else. again, this comes back to my point of us striving for love as the centre of our lives.
13. ah okay, so the comment on lack of historical context was simply about the phrase ‘homosexuality is condemned’ - see like the rest of everything i’ve written lmao. and about objective truth, i’d agree that God’s rules have been laid out, but i’d disagree that we can access to that truth. one of my theology teachers talks about this very well. essentially we all have different lenses through which we read the bible - our language, our gender, our race, our age, etc. all of this give us a slightly different understanding to another person. because of the inherent human bias and subjectivity, we will never be able to fully discern and agree on the OBJECTIVE meaning of any text - especially when parts of the bible are purposefully vague. i do urge people to be cautious of using the term ‘objective truth’, as it ignores our own bias - the text may be objective, but the way we read it sure isn’t.
14. ah yeah, i didn’t explain myself well enough there. i agree, we can commit sin unintentionally, i was going for more of a ‘there are things we truly cannot control which look like sins from the outside’, if that makes sense? and absolutely, we should always apologise for any harm we cause, even if it’s unintentional.
15. see other point.
16. gotcha. it’s interesting how much difference there is when we talk about these subjects, and how much can be misinterpreted. and yes, some people don’t feel the need to be in relationships! (lucky bastards lmao). however, i think if you do feel that need, having to wilfully deny it is very unhealthy and painful. we all walk in life alone - if we feel we’d like someone to walk with, we should all have that.
17. yeah, i meant more our natural positive inclinations, be that who we love, or what we’re good at. people don’t typically use the phrase ‘be authentic to yourself’ when referring to bad habits and negative traits.
i think we do look inside ourselves somewhat as Christians - after all, the kingdom of God is within us. if we want to have good faith and understand others, we must first understand ourselves. of course, that means then going out towards others. now, doesn’t the same thing happen in terms of sexuality? you attempt to understand yourself, to come to terms with it, and then go out towards others. no one realises they’re gay and then puts on a chastity belt and goes and lives in a shack for 30 years - they find others. they experience things with them, and their identity becomes rooted in themselves, but inherently intertwined with others. i think our faith is the same - if we were all alone, would we still be faithful? our faith must include all, and that includes ourselves.
i am truly very sorry for my comments coming off in such a manner, and you’re right that i made several assumptions when initially replying.
my comments about ignorance stem mainly from the fact that most people are not aware of the historical context (pederasty, etc), which warps their view of the texts. in fact, a lot of people have very little understanding of the context of the time bar what we are told in the bible. to me, it’s such an important thing to understanding the text and how it drastically changes traditional meaning that i get quite irate and assume negatively when talking to people who are less aware of it than i am. i am sorry for this, please forgive me. let me explain a bit more.
a lot of my faith is rooted in love, as i mentioned, and when i find something that seems to go against that, i put a lot of effort into digging deeper. the idea that being gay is wrong seems to turn that into furious excavation, and i have developed quite a deep theological pit in this area.
unfortunately, i seem to get blinders whenever i see someone talk about homosexuality in any negative way in regards to Christianity, and i start eagerly dumping all of my freshly-excavated theological dirt all over them - “you don’t know the context, that’s a fundamentalist interpretation, etc, etc.” whilst i realise that it’s definitely not the right way to go about it, i often don’t seem to have the emotional energy to deal with it more reasonably, especially when dealing with people who cannot take criticism and who simply repeat whatever their pastor told them. it breaks my heart to see people deny God’s gift of love because of others who use out of context verses, and mistranslated chapters to enforce a worldview rooted in homophobia. ultimately, i think i misinterpreted your response to being in the latter.
i am grateful for you taking the time to reply, and responding in a polite and earnest manner. frankly, what i said at the end was a bit much, and you have full permission to call me a massive bastard if that makes you feel better lmao.
i can see a lot of the same christ-centred zeal in your replies that i see in myself, and you are obviously very dedicated to your faith, and i hope this is the same impression i have given you. you are absolutely right to stand up to my ill-conceived judgement, it wasn’t on.
if you’d like, i’d be more than happy to talk more about faith with you, you seem to have a very unique viewpoint and a strong sense of faith and love. hopefully we can turn something more negative into a positive.
edit: i didn’t actually look at your profile before now, and i see that you are expressing some gender critical viewpoints - if we are to have a conversation, i would ask that you fully respect my identity as a transgender man and a Christian, and the fact that both profoundly influence each other in my life. i have had several extremely negative interactions with individuals professing similar views, including death threats. if you do not feel you are able to have respect for my identity, i ask that you make that known when replying. thank you in advance.
“To make bread or love, to dig in the earth, to feed an animal or cook for a stranger—these activities require no extensive commentary, no lucid theology. All they require is someone willing to bend, reach, chop, stir. Most of these tasks are so full of pleasure that there is no need to complicate things by calling them holy. And yet these are the same activities that change lives, sometimes all at once and sometimes more slowly, the way dripping water changes stone. In a world where faith is often construed as a way of thinking, bodily practices remind the willing that faith is a way of life.”
— Barbara Brown Taylor
A leucistic moose filmed by municipal councilmember Hans Nilsson in the Värmland region of Sweden (2017) National Geographic
Does Christianity Condemn Homosexuality?
Yes, and here’s why (with counterarguments to common statements).
This will be a bit of a harder read for some people, so please feel free to skip past if this is a topic that makes you uncomfortable. This is a post aimed at people who are already Christian, although secular peeps may benefit as well. My intention is only to educate, never to hurt–I believe two people with opposite opinions can coexist and accept each other for who they are without hostility. BIG FAT TW for: religion, me being blunt, meaty theology discussion, discussion of sin relating to sexual orientation.
i actually skipped over this post originally, but something about it compelled me to respond to it. there is some gross misinformation in here which needs to be accurately corrected.
1. Firstly, there needs to be a clear delineation between homosexual sexual activity and homosexual love. Every passage relating to homosexuality in the bible refers to the former, and not the latter.
2. The issue with this stems not only from the translation, but from the context surrounding the bible. Firstly, the translation of the word ‘arsenikoiten’ into ‘homosexuality’ is incorrect - this term was only invented in 1946. the term is more accurately translated as ‘men who lay with men’. Whilst this may seem like a nitpick, I will now go into detail on why the difference is important. The context of homosexual activity in biblical times is vastly different to today. Today, homosexuality is typically used in reference to adult, consensual, sexual activity. Back then, homosexuality was exclusively used in reference to pederasty. There is a massive amount of historical evidence to back this up, namely St. John of Chrysostom’s writings, which speak of the wide-scale sexual abuse of young men by older men. Anyone familiar with Roman military history will also know how widespread the problem of male rape was in this era. The idea that there is any reference in the bible to homosexual adult, consensual relationships, is blatantly incorrect and ahistorical.
3. This is also incorrect, and stems from a misunderstanding of the New Covenant. The only laws from the OT Jesus directly affirms are the Ten Commandments - and the behaviours which fall under these. He specifically does not mention homosexuality at any point.
4. This is also objectively incorrect, as there is no amount of closeness to God which will prevent suffering - even the most pious of individuals suffer from grief, illness, tiredness, etc. To suggest that suffering is exclusively a result of a lack of faith is ridiculous and frankly offensive.
5. In terms of sides A vs B, you are again conflating homosexual sex with homosexual love. This is a very common misconception, and stems from homophobia - the idea that being gay is inherently sexual, whilst being straight is not. If you believe in intelligent design, and that God created all, yet cannot make mistakes, do you believe things like fatal birth defects were intentional?
6. This completely disregards the fact that intersex people exist, people who are neither male nor female. In fact, in Rabbinical Literature, 6 sexes are recognised in recognition of this fact of life. You are also seemingly of the opinion that being gay is a mutation, which is disgustingly homophobic. Scientific study has shown that the range of human sexuality is in fact a part of our biology, and that homosexuality is NOT a mutation, mental illness, etc. You state not to insult LGBT people, yet do so here by comparing someone’s sexuality to a mutations, which is both scientifically and morally wrong.
7. N/A.
8. I agree with the second half of this.
9. Yes it is - Jonathan and David. Love between two men is shown to ‘[be] wonderful, more wonderful than the love of any woman’. They are also described as having their souls ‘knitted together’, which is the same language used to describe marriage in corinthians. And no, there are different kinds of love described in the bible, and familial, romantic and sexual are all separate.
10. Loving another person is not inherently harmful. And again, sex vs love. Even if you think homosexual sex is wrong, to think homosexual love is wrong is to go against the core tenets of Christianity. I agree that current LGBT culture can be self indulgent, however this is more a result of a community seeking to compensate for the immense feelings of pain and suffering they experience in everyday life.
11. Correct, it’s not a human right.
12. No, it isn’t. Marriage has existed for thousands of years, before even Judaism existed. This is an incredibly historically ignorant view. And the Bible also states that married couples will have children (‘become one in flesh’), therefore if you are to exclude gay couples from marriage you also must exclude all infertile couples. Also, a pastor is under no obligation to perform a ceremony they disagree with. The hypocrisy of claiming that gay people wanting to be married is a stumbling block for others, whilst claiming someone’s love is sinful is palpable.
13. Again, this comes from a lack of understanding of historical context and the idea of sex vs love.
14. No, sin is always a choice. Is someone with tourettes committing a sin if they call someone a fool because of a tic? No, of course not. Intent is required to sin.
15. And yes, sexuality and relationships are important. God specifically states that sexual immorality is a sin. However, love is not. If a relationship meets the criteria of love laid out in the bible, that is honouring God.
16. The response to the question is a bit silly, that’s not what that means. If a part of your love, which God gave you, must be suppressed, yes, you will be miserable. Living in misery because you cannot love is hellish.
17. Our authentic selves are the characteristics we inherently possess, all of which are gifts. For example, someone who is gifted mathematically is being authentic to themselves if they choose to study mathematics. Also, doesn’t bring Christian require us to look inside of ourselves for an identity?
18. Again, love vs sex.
to conclude, these viewpoints stem from a theology founded in the preservation of the status quo, not in any genuine attempt to deepen your understanding of God. most of these arguments lie in a literalist interpretation of scripture, without any reference to biblical context or other biblical era sources.
i have no issue with you being against gay sex. that’s fine with me. but to see the God-given love a person has for another, and to condemn it, is an error of the highest order.
"we live in an uncaring universe"
false. i care very deeply. am i not a part of this infinite universe?
A Mule Deer buck in velvet enjoying an afternoon meal, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.
© gifs by riverwindphotography
Source: riverwindphotography
Julian of Norwich calls God “the True Rest” who wants to be known and who finds pleasure in being “our true resting place.” This teaching echoes that of Meister Eckhart who talks of how all creatures seek “repose” and how “God enjoys the divine nature which is repose.” All creatures are born of repose, it is our origin. God seeks love in creatures but also repose in them. How is this done? By offering a “quiet heart” says Eckhart. “Nothing resembles God so much as repose,” he insists. This repose can happen in the midst of activity and is part and parcel of our creativity and co-creation with God.
Naming the Unnameable by Matthew Fox
David Shrigley - I've Never Seen You (2021)
[ID: blue painting of a whale with red handwritten text that says "I've never seen you / but knowing you are there makes me happy" above and below it. End ID]
my fellow lgbt christians (particularly those who might lean more side b), don’t ever pretend that you are immune from the homophobia in our religion. christofascists don’t care how assimilationist you are. they want you dead.
don’t give homophobic & transphobic christians a chance to think that you are “one of the good ones.” be shamelessly a part of our community. speak up about our lgbt siblings’ struggles, and call out our oppression when you see it. our family may be fucked up, but we are stronger together.
idk who needs to hear this rn but suffering is not noble. take the tylenol
‘Portrait of a Man’ painted by Iranian realist painter Iman Maleki (born 1976). He has been putting on exhibitions since 1998, mostly in his own country. Here is his website.