Homosexuality, is it Biblical, or not.

[Soldiers]

Yes, it's me again, posting another thread that may or may not spark some conversation. But here I wanted to bring both cases for and against homosexuality as unbiasedly as I can, and present the evidence, where each side falters and whatever conclusion you make is for you to make. I'm pro-information, then let the people decide. (I know people get intimidated at long readings, so I'll make it short as possible,)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pro-Homosexuality:

A quick synopsis of this arrives from the Biblical perspective (while there are social & emotional & ethical arguments, this is based on any current societies trend which can change quickly from pro to anti and vice versa, so these aren't as reliable as a society can change its mind in the next 20 years or be different just 3,000 miles away).

Let's start with biblical.

There are 6 direct Scriptures that seemingly condemn homosexuality: Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Judges 19, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10 (well 7 actually).

Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13: The argument against the English reading of this verse is that it's a mistranslation or a misrepresentation of the original Hebrew words. Also, looking back at the ancient times, homosexuality was practice in abuse idol worship & sacrifices. The main consensus is that "thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, for it is an abomination", in the original language truly means "thou shall not lay with a mankind relative as with a womankind relative (incest), for it is an abomination". Therefore these verses don't condemn homosexuality, but incest.

1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10: The argument against the readings is again, original language & context. For context, in Paul's days, homosexuality was wildly rampant, including in pedophilia and abusive idol worship. Paul was referring to men committing sexual actions with young boys rather than loving, consensual gay marriage between two legal adults. Also, since homosexuality is a word newly created, Paul couldn't have possibly been referring to the meaning of homosexuality since the word homosexuality didn't exist back then. Previously it was sodomite, abusers of men, etc. Ultimately the original translation of arsenakotai is a pedophiler, not a homosexual.

Romans 1: Again same as the above with context, but more specifically honed in on the pedophilia practices that were rampant among men back in those days. Paul was not condemning loving, consensual sexual relations between two legal adults.

Genesis 19 & Judges 19: Similar to the above, but with a slight twist. The angels had the appearance of men, then worthless men came and demanding sexual relationships with them. A ruling that this condemns homosexuality does an injustice to the broader context. These men were violently demanding intercourse, and thus violating consent. This does not condemn loving, consensual same-sex unions, but violent, abusive, and nonconsensual same-sex actions.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Against homosexuality

Romans 1: Paul clearly condemns same-sex actions as "against nature", and "did what ought not to be done" in Romans 1. This results from idolatry against the Creator and worshipping what's created. Paul also says this action affects women (v 26) and men (v 27).

Genesis 19 & Judges 19 & 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10: These verses outlaw homosexuality as things against the kingdom of God and those who practice these will not inherit it. This includes all form of sexual sin, pre-martial sex, extramarital infidelity, homosexuality, and bestiality, and sexual violation.

Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13: As above, those who did this deserve death.

Now the reason this is much shorter is because most against homosexuality due to Biblical interpretation usually just take the Word at face value, arguments for homosexuality are based on refuting what our current Bible's say today.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Problems with both views

Starting with against homosexuality:
- This view does not adequately hold the original contextual references of Scripture nor the original Greek & Hebrew languages they were written in, as whole true.
- This view does not clearly address the ancient occult practices using sexual violation among men (at least that I'm not aware of), and how that could have played into Leviticus 18 & 20.
- Primarily on Leviticus 18 & 20, English translations have been based off of copies of copies of copies, thus slightly deluding the original fluency of Scripture
- God does not want us to be alone (Genesis 1 & 2), and Jesus also mentioned about eunuchs who will not marry for the Kingdom of God. (Matthew 19)
- Those against homosexuality are straight homophobes.
- Jesus never explicitly said anything about gay marriage being a sin
- Homosexuals are born the way they are, and cannot just change it, its innate, like race, eye color, skin color, etc.

Ending with for homosexuality:
- God did not want man to be alone, so what did he do due to that? He made the isha (woman), for the ish (man).
- Those making arguments for homosexuality are largely homosexual, so there is a natural bias to protect their sexual preferences
- Heterosexuals aren't the only ones who denounce homosexuality, (and they wouldn't be biased because homosexuality doesn't directly threaten heterosexuality, we can keep being straight if we're right or wrong, but homosexuals can't be homosexual if they're wrong. That argument that we are biased would only work if we had something to directly lose, like for example Israel vs Palestine, news from both sides are biased, both have skin in the game). Now one may wonder, "who can possibly be straight heterosexual who isn't an ally and agree with our view? Answer is, anyone. Plenty of verses in the Bible I personally don't like according to my flesh, (Matthew 5:28-29), that verse torments me everytime I'm tempted, does it mean I find a way to come to a conclusion that it isn't really Scripture, just because I don't like it?
- In Romans 1, it first addresses women as the product of homosexual desires then men, so it can't possibly be referring to "men committing pedophilia with boys".
- The Bible never mentions anything about "loving, consensual, same-sex relationships", that's way more "not from the original language" than translating arsenakotai to homosexual. Neither are there any affirming examples or verses of homosexuality. All affirming sexual references talk about heterosexual marriage between a man & a woman. Jesus referred to marriage as between a man & a woman. All Scripture talks about marriage as a default heterosexual relationship.
- Homosexual didn't exist back then, but the concept of men having sex with men, and women with women did, just because the word didn't exist in English vocabulary doesn't mean it didn't happen, we just now have a better word to describe it
- Homosexuality existed in many large past civilizations, all of which didn't survive the 2nd generation after turning to sexual deviance.
- All sin is innate to our nature, none of us can help wanting evil, especially sexually. I am deeply attracted to the opposite sex, does that mean I indulge in my desire? The LGBTQ community largely calls for you to accept your desire as normal (accept the sin nature as your own), indulge in your desire (practice feeding your carnal flesh, and make a habit/lifestyle of doing it), and demand acceptance & tolerance from all around you (demand compromise). We are all born sinners (including with the desire and demons of sexual deviance), but we don't have to feed, accept, indulge, and demand allegiance with our sin nature, we must crucify the flesh and its desires. Temptation is not sin, indulging in it is.

 

[Soldiers]

(continued)
- Technically speaking, "Gay Marriage" is nowhere in God's definition of marriage in Genesis 2, which Jesus redictates in Matthew 19.
(" 5 and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Matthew 19:5-6)
- With "Jesus never saying being gay was a sin" (actually should be rephrased as committing homosexual acts, not being homosexual), Jesus never said anything about pedophilia, does it make it right?
Secondly, this belief relies on, "because he didn't say anything, therefore the answer is whatever I want it to be, whether yes or no".
Thirdly, Jesus inadvertently excluded homosexuality in Matthew 19:5-6, and since Jesus is a part of the Trinity, He is equally just as God as God the Father is and just as the Spirit as the Spirit is, God is just as Jesus as Jesus is and just as the Spirit as the Spirit is, the Spirit is just as God as God the Father is, and the Spirit is just as Jesus as Jesus is. They are one and the same, and are in perfect alignment with each other
(John 10:30, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4-6, James 2:19, Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 3:22, Isaiah 6:8, Isaiah 7:14, Romans 8:11,16-17, Romans 5:5-6, 2 Corinthians 13:14, John 1:1-2, Hebrews 1:8, John 1:18, Philippians 2:10-11, Colossians 2:6-9, Matthew 3:17, John 8:58 are a few Scriptures to back this up). Therefore, whatever God says is as if Jesus or the Spirit said it, whatever the Spirit says is as if Jesus or God said it, and whatever Jesus says is as if God and the Spirit said it. They never disagree, they are one and the same, three in one and one in three.
To attempt to separate them to justify homosexuality is to destroy the entirety of the very basis of Christianity, which is trust in and salvation from the Triune God, therefore destroys Christianity if it were valid, because there is conflict with the Spirit of God who condemned it (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy) and God who condemned it (Leviticus 18 & 20, Judges 19, Genesis 19) and Jesus (whom the gay community says nonverbal communication dictated an ok to the act).
- The view of Leviticus being of incest is not a biblical scholarly-wide accepted translation by general theologians, exclusive to the LGBTQ community & its supporters. Even if it was some sort of incest, the connection to homosexuality is this:

The definition of incest is: "sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other." What's the "classed as being too closely related to marry each other"? Same gender.
- There are other verses in the Bible, like 1 Corinthians 7:1-6, that directly exclude homosexuality, as said here in verse 2: "But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." Men with women & women with men.

 

[Soldiers]

There's another question out there: What about our gay marriage hurts you so badly?

Answer is, personally, as a straight person, it doesn't affect me directly as much, it's not like I have to stop being straight or anything, however as a Christian, and other nondirect affects:

1. Gay marriage prohibits procreation, which is our first commandment
2. If everyone were straight, life would continue as normal, if everyone were gay, in 120 years life would cease to exist, (you can get vetro, but it's still a heterosexual action of a sperm fermenting the egg).
3. Gay marriage attempts to redefine what's exclusively Divinely Defined, (which humanity has no authority to do), and introduce a foreign concept into what only God introduced & produced in humanity. Thus blaspheming Him and His created order.
4. Statistically, gay marriage has been proven to have higher drug abuse, higher suicide rates, higher alcoholism rates, usually are polygamist, and have more conflict & breakups.

Here's a good website(s) & video that has credible resources and explanations for why, that explain it far better than I can:

Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex Marriage

A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In

www.frc.org

Homosexuality and Bad Arguments

Historically, the modern liberal position has lacked a robust philosophical argument in favor of homosexual activity. A new book by Chris Meyers attempts to provide one.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com

Revisionist Gay Theology: Did God Really Say…?

Revisionist gay theology questions 5000 years of Judeo-Christian teaching. How do Christians explain what the Bible says about homosexuality?

www.focusonthefamily.com

Redeemer Report

www.redeemer.com

Is the Gospel Inclusive?

Is the gospel really inclusive for all people? What does the Bible really say about LGBTQ relationships? In this discussion, which can also be watched on Biola's YouTube channel, Sean and Scott discuss a recent book that makes an affirming case for same-sex unions. The book is The Gospel...

www.biola.edu

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? | GotQuestions.org

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin according to the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org

And please, before you comment on approval of what I said or disapproval, actually read, fact check, and look at my sources without bias. Automatically agreeing with me or disagreeing with without actually seeing what I have to say grossly undercuts the ability for true understanding and discourse. No hate please.

God bless

May you go with God, and God go with you!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

There is absolutely nothing "pro-homosexuality", only compromise to the social pressure. And there's no such thing as "gay marriage", that's an oxymoron. Traditionally real homosexuals acknowledged marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman, and they also understood that marriage is your commitment to your partner for the rest of your life, physically, emotionally and financially, you don't just live for yourself any more, you now have the responsibility to take care of your partner, to tend to their needs before your own, and you'll have to raise children, that's a gigantic burden not everyone can take, and not to mention your partner's family, don't get me started on that. They knew what marriage entails, and they didn't want any of that. In comparison, homosexuality is a much easier way of living, you know, most homosexuals are polyamorous, changing partner is as frequent as changing clothes, so not only did they not see marriage as a "civil right" issue, they loathed it and eschewed it. It became a civil right issue because it was weaponzied for political gain, homosexuality was elevated from a lifestyle into an identity, and then an oppressed, victimized "focus group", that's a political agenda to redefine marriage and upend traditional marriage institution.

 

[evenifigoalone]

There is absolutely nothing "pro-homosexuality", only compromise to the social pressure.

On the contrary, as a gay person who was previously "anti-homosexual" (for lack of less explanation-involved terminology), we could argue that my being anti-homosexual was a compromise I made to gain the praise of my Christian peers. Studying the Bible in its original language and arriving at affirming theology gets me no love whatsoever from other Christians, whom I primarily associate with. I have long had little interest in gaining favor from non-Christians.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Soldiers Are you familiar with the terms "side A", "side B", and "side X"? These were coined by the founder of Gay Christian Network, currently known as Q Christian Fellowship.

Side A: affirming of same sex marriage & believe these marriages are blessed
Side B: accepting of LGBTQ identity, but believing that same sex sex and same sex marriage are entirely off the table. Most side Bers are celibate for life
Side X: ex-gay, people who believe that both same sex relationships (romantic & sexual) and LGBTQ identity are grave sins. moreover, they believe that you must seek heterosexuality, "change"

Some other terms have also come out from the side B community, for instance "side Y", which is between side B and side X. Not ex-gay, but also rejecting LGBTQ identity and prefers to only use the term "same sex attracted".

I was previously side B, am now side A.

 

[Free]

- The view of Leviticus being of incest is not a biblical scholarly-wide accepted translation by general theologians, exclusive to the LGBTQ community & its supporters. Even if it was some sort of incest, the connection to homosexuality is this:

The definition of incest is: "sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other." What's the "classed as being too closely related to marry each other"? Same gender.

I don't think incest covers homosexuality, but the reason both are prohibited is that there is sameness. I agree with Dr. Robert Gagnon that the sin of homosexuality is worse than that of incest. In incest, the created order is still preserved and procreation could occur, but not so with homosexuality; it is an affront to male and female being made in God's image and the design intent for procreation. That same-sex relations can never produce offspring is an indication of too much sameness.

1Co 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.
1Co 5:2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
1Co 5:3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing.
1Co 5:4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
1Co 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (ESV)

If Paul upholds the prohibition on incest--and even here, "his father's wife" suggests a non-biological relation--then he certainly would uphold the prohibition on same-sex marriage and same-sex relations; which he clearly does in Rom 1.

 

[Soldiers]

Side A: affirming of same sex marriage & believe these marriages are blessed
Side B: accepting of LGBTQ identity, but believing that same sex sex and same sex marriage are entirely off the table. Most side Bers are celibate for life
Side X: ex-gay, people who believe that both same sex relationships (romantic & sexual) and LGBTQ identity are grave sins. moreover, they believe that you must seek heterosexuality, "change"

I was not familiar with those terms, but thank you, (and btw this is very revealing but I am an ex-bisexual, just recently actually).

I know people like Brandon Robertson or Micheal Vines who are side A, and people like Beckett Cook (although he's celibate), Jacky Hill Perry, and others who are side X. I'm just concerned about, what's side Biblical. And not twisting Scripture to appease my desires. That's like twisting all the Scriptures condemning heterosexual sin, because I. JUST. WANNA. HAVE. SEX. And am not willing to crucify the flesh.

As said before, I've heard every popular gay argument for Christianity possible, even read a bit of the Queer Bible, but all arguments I've seen successfully refuted. But to each their own, God is the final say not me. I just wouldn't risk missing Him because I want 15 minutes of temporary sexual pleasure. Part of the reason Paul said it is better not to marry. I know a lot of the motivation is to have gay sex without conviction, but that's dangerous. Practically no one likes murder, so no one is going to start a whole movement to refute that, even murderers will just accept they are wrong. Society also doesn't like violent theft, kidnapping, lying (to some extent), and it likes: love your neighbor as yourself, give to the poor, and the idea of a new heaven & earth. So no one is trying to refute that, everyone likes "cute Christianity". But when it comes in between me & my pleasure, when it's time to mortify the flesh & resist temptation, when it's time to sacrifice, all the refutation and rebellion arises, no one cares about love your neighbor, only me & my pleasure.

Really and truly, we can find a justification for why anything we like that is sin, isn't sin, anyone can. We can even make "logical" inferences about pornography, masturbation, pedophilia, smoking, drugs, drinking, digital addictions, gaming addiction, TV addiction, social media addiction, gambling, partying, and so many other well-lusted-after things in the world, and say the Bible doesn't condemn them. It's really just about having a Spirit that's willing to give up everything to serve Him vs a spirit that wants to get as much pleasure here on earth as possible while still having heaven.

Like I said, I respect your views, and I believe all God's children will come to the knowledge of the truth. Just one more thing, the LGBTQ community may be able to convince every single Christian that homosexuality is not a sin, but just because you convince humans, doesn't change God's standard. Christians aren't the judge God is. And if God said something, no matter how much we don't like it, it's better to not find a loophole or try to convince humans to believe like us, because they don't have a heaven or hell to put us in.

And really, it's also a Gospel issue, if something, as clearly stated as homosexuality, cannot be accepted, then the whole Bible's credibility is at stake, because we can't know for sure if anything said to be sin is sin.

 

[WIP]

I was not familiar with those terms, but thank you, (and btw this is very revealing but I am an ex-bisexual, just recently actually).

I know people like Brandon Robertson or Micheal Vines who are side A, and people like Beckett Cook (although he's celibate), Jacky Hill Perry, and others who are side X. I'm just concerned about, what's side Biblical. And not twisting Scripture to appease my desires. That's like twisting all the Scriptures condemning heterosexual sin, because I. JUST. WANNA. HAVE. SEX. And am not willing to crucify the flesh.

As said before, I've heard every popular gay argument for Christianity possible, even read a bit of the Queer Bible, but all arguments I've seen successfully refuted. But to each their own, God is the final say not me. I just wouldn't risk missing Him because I want 15 minutes of temporary sexual pleasure. Part of the reason Paul said it is better not to marry. I know a lot of the motivation is to have gay sex without conviction, but that's dangerous. Practically no one likes murder, so no one is going to start a whole movement to refute that, even murderers will just accept they are wrong. Society also doesn't like violent theft, kidnapping, lying (to some extent), and it likes: love your neighbor as yourself, give to the poor, and the idea of a new heaven & earth. So no one is trying to refute that, everyone likes "cute Christianity". But when it comes in between me & my pleasure, when it's time to mortify the flesh & resist temptation, when it's time to sacrifice, all the refutation and rebellion arises, no one cares about love your neighbor, only me & my pleasure.

Really and truly, we can find a justification for why anything we like that is sin, isn't sin, anyone can. We can even make "logical" inferences about pornography, masturbation, pedophilia, smoking, drugs, drinking, digital addictions, gaming addiction, TV addiction, social media addiction, gambling, partying, and so many other well-lusted-after things in the world, and say the Bible doesn't condemn them. It's really just about having a Spirit that's willing to give up everything to serve Him vs a spirit that wants to get as much pleasure here on earth as possible while still having heaven.

Like I said, I respect your views, and I believe all God's children will come to the knowledge of the truth. Just one more thing, the LGBTQ community may be able to convince every single Christian that homosexuality is not a sin, but just because you convince humans, doesn't change God's standard. Christians aren't the judge God is. And if God said something, no matter how much we don't like it, it's better to not find a loophole or try to convince humans to believe like us, because they don't have a heaven or hell to put us in.

And really, it's also a Gospel issue, if something, as clearly stated as homosexuality, cannot be accepted, then the whole Bible's credibility is at stake, because we can't know for sure if anything said to be sin is sin.

I'm not trying to cause trouble here, but I think it is vitally important to hear the truth from Scripture. It's one thing to deny truth yourself but it's something more to lead others down the wrong path. Remember too that Jesus refers to His followers as "little children" (see John 13:33) so, even though in this passage it was a small child, it applies to all.

2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. 6 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes! 8 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire."
Matthew 18:2-9 NKJV

 

[Soldiers]

I'm not trying to cause trouble here, but I think it is vitally important to hear the truth from Scripture. It's one thing to deny truth yourself but it's something more to lead others down the wrong path. Remember too that Jesus refers to His followers as "little children" (see John 13:33) so, even though in this passage it was a small child, it applies to all.

2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. 6 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes! 8 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire."
Matthew 18:2-9 NKJV

I agree with everything you said WIP.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I know people like Brandon Robertson or Micheal Vines who are side A, and people like Beckett Cook (although he's celibate), Jacky Hill Perry, and others who are side X. I'm just concerned about, what's side Biblical. And not twisting Scripture to appease my desires. That's like twisting all the Scriptures condemning heterosexual sin, because I. JUST. WANNA. HAVE. SEX. And am not willing to crucify the flesh.

Valid. I am not here to tell people to go date the same sex if they are so inclined, if they are convinced that it's wrong. I think sticking to one's convictions is important. Do not go against your convictions and what you believe is wrong, without some serious prayer, reflection, and God-seeking.

And really, it's also a Gospel issue, if something, as clearly stated as homosexuality, cannot be accepted, then the whole Bible's credibility is at stake, because we can't know for sure if anything said to be sin is sin.

I don't think that's the case. There's a lot in the Bible that is absolutely crystal clear, but there's also areas that are very much subject to translation errors and things that get lost across cultural barriers. Consider the verses about gendered hair length, even many evenaglicals and very theologically conservative people will tell you it's an odd cultural thing and doesn't apply to us today.

I have also went through a similar process in affirming the ordination of women as pastors, turns out the verses on that are not cut and dried. I have affirmed women ordination for probably a decade now.

There is some stuff in the Bible that just gets easily lost the further we are removed from the culture of the time. But there are core beliefs that remain timeless, among these the Trinity and Jesus's divinity.
I realize that some people do deny those things, but I would say that anyone who does deny a core doctrine cannot be Christian, by definition. The acceptance or rejection of homosexuality is not a core doctrine, though, and I believe there is room for disagreement while maintaining fellowship on this and many other matters.

 

[Free]

I don't think that's the case. There's a lot in the Bible that is absolutely crystal clear, but there's also areas that are very much subject to translation errors and things that get lost across cultural barriers. Consider the verses about gendered hair length, even many evenaglicals and very theologically conservative people will tell you it's an odd cultural thing and doesn't apply to us today.

I have also went through a similar process in affirming the ordination of women as pastors, turns out the verses on that are not cut and dried. I have affirmed women ordination for probably a decade now.

There is some stuff in the Bible that just gets easily lost the further we are removed from the culture of the time.

Same-sex sexual relations and marriage are among those things that are crystal clear, though, and they aren't matters of cultural issues. These are deeply theological issues, going right back to the created order--both male and female being created in the image of God, with the female created to be the male's "helper suitable." It's interesting that "suitable" or "fit" (ESV) also has the meaning of "opposite." Regardless, one of the primary reasons for sexual relations is to "be fruitful and multiply;" it is for procreation. That can only happen one way.

But there are core beliefs that remain timeless, among these the Trinity and Jesus's divinity.
I realize that some people do deny those things, but I would say that anyone who does deny a core doctrine cannot be Christian, by definition. The acceptance or rejection of homosexuality is not a core doctrine, though, and I believe there is room for disagreement while maintaining fellowship on this and many other matters.

It depends what you mean by "rejection of homosexuality." If you mean same-sex sexual relations and same-sex marriage, then it becomes a core issue, or at least a secondary issue (still important), which affects salvation. The Bible calls such things sin and one cannot live in wilful, continual sin and be saved (1 John 1:6-10). This isn't a matter of being convinced in one's own mind; that will not be an acceptable answer to God on the day of judgement. It's a matter of what his Word says, and it is clear in what it says on this.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Same-sex sexual relations and marriage are among those things that are crystal clear, though

Only if you study the translations we have and not the original language. The original words used do not match up with our English translations.

 

[Free]

Only if you study the translations we have and not the original language. The original words used do not match up with our English translations.

The translations are based on the original languages. Even in going to the original languages the Bible is clear that homosexual acts and marriages are sin, which is why the translations say that they are. Many scholars have shown this to be the case.

 

[evenifigoalone]

The translations are based on the original languages. Even in going to the original languages the Bible is clear that homosexual acts and marriages are sin, which is why the translations say that they are. Many scholars have shown this to be the case.

And equally capable scholars also disagree with those ones.

 

[Free]

And equally capable scholars also disagree with those ones.

Usually when “scholars” argue to the original languages to make the Bible say something it doesn’t, it’s because they’re twisting what was said to fit their pre-conceived beliefs. It’s a known exegetical fallacy.

Numerous scholars work on each translation and numerous others generally support what is stated. There is never going to be anything that outright contradicts a translation, such as making homosexual acts and marriages good in the sight of God, but there might be things that further clarify a word or phrase over a given translation without contradicting.

Again, this all goes right back to the created order.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Usually when “scholars” argue to the original languages to make the Bible say something it doesn’t, it’s because they’re twisting what was said to fit their pre-conceived beliefs. It’s a known exegetical fallacy.

Numerous scholars work on each translation and numerous others generally support what is stated. There is never going to be anything that outright contradicts a translation, such as making homosexual acts and marriages good in the sight of God, but there might be things that further clarify a word or phrase over a given translation without contradicting.

Again, this all goes right back to the created order.

Free, just because you take scholars only at their word doesn't mean I do. I did go into the nitty gritty of their arguments and determinations.

Anyways, I know from experience that you are relentless when it comes to debate. Thing is, I'm not. I disagree with you, and will continue to disagree, and I'll leave it at that. I am capable of supporting my statements with research and logic, but don't have the spoons to do so here where I will only be ganged up on.
Blessings.

 

[Free]

Free, just because you take scholars only at their word doesn't mean I do. I did go into the nitty gritty of their arguments and determinations.

And I have done likewise and find their arguments completely lacking.

Anyways, I know from experience that you are relentless when it comes to debate. Thing is, I'm not. I disagree with you, and will continue to disagree, and I'll leave it at that. I am capable of supporting my statements with research and logic, but don't have the spoons to do so here where I will only be ganged up on.
Blessings.

I am relentless because truth really matters, and in a situation such as this, it is a matter of eternity. I can provide logic and research as well, including from Christians who are same-sex attracted and will not only state what I have said, but put it more strongly yet.

The problem is, as has happened throughout Christian history, one can always find scholars or “scholars” who will agree with an interpretation of Scripture that is unwarranted. When they argue to the original languages to the point that translations are “proven” false, it’s pretty much a sure sign that they are wrong.

If homosexual acts were wrong in the OT, and they were, they’re wrong in the NT. If incest was wrong in the OT, and it was, then it is wrong in the NT, and it is. If incest is wrong, then homosexual acts and marriage are certainly wrong.

God never changed his view on sexuality and marriage from the OT to the NT, just as he didn’t with liars, thieves, and idolaters.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I can provide logic and research as well, including from Christians who are same-sex attracted and will not only state what I have said, but put it more strongly yet.

I'm sure you realize I fell into that category until very recently? I am gay/"same sex attracted". Until very recently I fell into the non-affirming camp. I did not make my change lightly, nor do I honestly have any desire for sexual activity with anyone. Or even dating or marriage. My change to affirming theology was not at all motivated by the desire to have gay sex or marriage.
I was even in a whole entire group of gay people in the same vein of thought. I actually lose out on that wonderful community by becoming affirming. I gain very little.

In short, nothing you can say at this point is likely to pull me back. I've heard it all. And I'll be as nice as I can: please stop trying to pull me into further discussion as I don't have the patience and energy ("spoons"). Since I already feel ganged up just from this entire site on this matter, I will likely become very agitated and may say things I don't actually want to say.

Thank you in advance for understanding.

 

[Free]

I'm sure you realize I fell into that category until very recently? I am gay/"same sex attracted". Until very recently I fell into the non-affirming camp. I did not make my change lightly, nor do I honestly have any desire for sexual activity with anyone. Or even dating or marriage. My change to affirming theology was not at all motivated by the desire to have gay sex or marriage.
I was even in a whole entire group of gay people in the same vein of thought. I actually lose out on that wonderful community by becoming affirming. I gain very little.

In short, nothing you can say at this point is likely to pull me back. I've heard it all.

I’m sure you have. Christians, even if they don’t engage in sin, should never affirm sin or a sinful lifestyle in others. In the same way, Christians can’t be pro-abortion.

And I'll be as nice as I can: please stop trying to pull me into further discussion as I don't have the patience and energy ("spoons"). Since I already feel ganged up just from this entire site on this matter, I will likely become very agitated and may say things I don't actually want to say.

Thank you in advance for understanding.

A suggestion then, as gently as I can: maybe stop posting about it publicly here since these are Christian forums. You will receive pushback, and you should; it is the loving thing to do.