Could someone please present a Biblically based case FOR homosexuality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Feedmysheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Feedmysheep

Guest
I am looking for a Biblically-based defense of homosexuality. I’m not looking for a debate, I’m not interested in people’s POV on the matter. I am trying to figure out how what I assume are devout Christians (particularly from sola scriptura Protestant denominations) reconcile homosexual actions and homosexual marriage to Scripture.

I am not going to debate you on this matter, and I ask that no one else does, either. I am honestly trying to hear what “the other half” has to say.

Thank you in advance for trying very hard to keep the debate out of this thread.
 
I am not sure I could answer your question or even if I understand your question. However I would struggle if asked:

If we dismiss much of the book of Leviticus how can we accept this passage from Leviticus as worth to be separated from the rest of the law as written in the book of Leviticus?

Maybe we will both get answers?
 
When you say “homosexuality” what do you mean - for example, a man could love another man but not have physical sex with him, therefor he’s a homosexual but not a ‘practising’ homosexual. I believe the bible and Catholic church in general would regard people like that as normal, like everyone else. A priest could be gay, but stay celibate. Again, no problem. There is nothing I know of that supports homosexual acts.
 
I think I know what you are attempting to do, with so many mainstream protestant denominations appointing homosexuals to postions of authority and allowing same sex unions you are trying to reconcile where they are getting the idea from. Well there is nothing in Scriptures to support their postions direclty. But I think they may be taking certain passages and twisting them to fit there twisted logic. Such as the “Golden Rule” “Let he who be with out sin cast first stone” etc… I wish I could be of more help.
 
Feedmysheep said:
I am trying to figure out how what I assume are devout Christians (particularly from sola scriptura Protestant denominations) reconcile homosexual actions and homosexual marriage to Scripture.
Click to expand...
Lacking a Magesterium, they can make the bible say whatever they want under the guise of “personal interpretation”-- basically they take the position that the bible doesn’t really say what it says when it comes to homosexual acts.

That’s how.
 
They justify it to themselves by redefining terms (St. Paul meant that we should not attempt to change our sexual programming; he was not aware that some people are born with same sex attraction, and so of course he thought homosexual acts were “perverse” but it is not “perverse” to follow your inborn instincts - it would be perverse for a heterosexual person to do that of course, since it goes against his instincts, but not for a homosexual person to do that, since it follows his instincts) and by saying that the Book of Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians - it is part of the Old Covenant but not part of the New Covenant.

There ya have it.

Of course, I think their interpretation is incorrect.
 
Here part of the statement on sexuality given by the Ecumenical Catholic Church. I’ve linked to the whole statement. Of course they are not in commuion with Rome, but the statement probably reflects the reasoning behind all the different Churchs that accept homosexual behavior as “normal” and not immoral.

ecumenical-catholic-communion.org/html/pl_sexuality.html
The community of faith continues to develop its understanding of the truth that the love of God is present in all creation and therefore in every human being irrespective of race, gender or sexual orientation. Love is measured by the fruit of the Spirit which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5: 22-23). The moral issue for Christians is not whether love is homosexual or heterosexual, or on a continuum between these two. The moral issue is the extent to which love is characterized by the fruits of the Spirit. This applies to all people, whatever their sexual orientation, and is the standard by which Christian behavior is evaluated.
Click to expand...
 
Bennie_P said:
Here part of the statement on sexuality given by the Ecumenical Catholic Church. I’ve linked to the whole statement. Of course they are not in commuion with Rome, but the statement probably reflects the reasoning behind all the different Churchs that accept homosexual behavior as “normal” and not immoral.

ecumenical-catholic-communion.org/html/pl_sexuality.html
Click to expand...
These people have clearly confused the sex act with the kind of loving friendship that we as Christians are required to show to one another and to the world.

(Do they also suppose that Jesus was commanding people to have sex with their enemies? :confused: )
 
jmcrae said:
These people have clearly confused the sex act with the kind of loving friendship that we as Christians are required to show to one another and to the world.

(Do they also suppose that Jesus was commanding people to have sex with their enemies? :confused: )
Click to expand...
I not here to debate it on this thread, I just gave the information the OP ask for…🤷
 
How about 1 Corinthians 6:12? That could be twisted to try to justify a plethora(sic?) of sins.
 
The following is taken from a FAQ which is posted on the website of Dignity USA, a pro-gay organization for Catholics.
Code: 
*   The story of Sodom in Genesis 19 is about offense against the sacred duty of hospitality. That is how Ezekiel 16:48-49 and Wisdom 9:13-14 interpret this text. The attempted male rape only heightens the atrocity of this offense.
Click to expand...
Code: 
* Leviticus 18:22 does forbid male-male sex as an "abomination." But the word simply means an impurity or a religious taboo — like eating pork. As in the case of Catholics who used to be forbidden under pain of mortal sin to eat meat on Friday, the offense was not in the act itself but in the betrayal of one's religion. The ancient Jews were to avoid practices common among the unclean Gentiles.
Click to expand...
Code: 
* Romans 1:27 mentions men having relations with men. But the terms used to describe them are "dishonorable" and "shameless." These refer deliberately to social disapproval, not to ethical condemnation. Moreover, according to Paul's usage, different from the prevalent Stoic philosophy of the day, para physin ("unnatural") would best be translated "atypical" or "beyond the ordinary." So it bears no reference to natural law. And it can imply no ethical condemnation because in Romans 11:24 God is said to act para physin. Paul sees gay sex as an impurity (see Rm. 1:24), just like uncircumcision or eating forbidden foods. He mentions it to make the main point of his letter, that purity requirements of the Jewish Law are not relevant in Christ Jesus. See L. William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex.
Click to expand...
Code: 
* 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10 list arsenokoitai among those who will be excluded from the Reign of God. This obscure term has been translated "homosexuals" but its exact meaning is debated. It certainly does not include women but only some kind of male sexual offenders. If it does refer to men having sex with men — which is dubious — it must be interpreted in light of the abuse and licentiousness commonly associated with male-male sex in the Roman Empire. See Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Code: 
* Finally, Genesis 1-3 shows Adam and Eve created for mutual companionship and procreation. These accounts use the most standard of human relationships to teach a religious lesson. The point is the love and wisdom of God, who made all things good and wills us no evil. Nothing suggests the biblical authors intended a lesson on sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
dignityusa.org/faq.html#5
 
jmcrae said:
They justify it to themselves by redefining terms (**St. Paul meant **that we should not attempt to change our sexual programming; he was not aware that some people are born with same sex attraction, and so of course he thought homosexual acts were “perverse” but it is not “perverse” to follow your inborn instincts - it would be perverse for a heterosexual person to do that of course, since it goes against his instincts, but not for a homosexual person to do that, since it follows his instincts) and by saying that the Book of Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians - it is part of the Old Covenant but not part of the New Covenant.

There ya have it.

Of course, I think their interpretation is incorrect.
Click to expand...
jmcrae said:
**These people have **clearly confused the sex act with the kind of loving friendship that we as Christians are required to show to one another and to the world.

(Do they also suppose that Jesus was commanding people to have sex with their enemies? :confused: )
Click to expand...
May I ask how you know these things?
 
Thanks for the Dignity website. I’ll check out their arguments.
 
jmcrae said:
They justify it to themselves by redefining terms (St. Paul meant that we should not attempt to change our sexual programming; he was not aware that some people are born with same sex attraction, and so of course he thought homosexual acts were “perverse” but it is not “perverse” to follow your inborn instincts - it would be perverse for a heterosexual person to do that of course, since it goes against his instincts, but not for a homosexual person to do that, since it follows his instincts) and by saying that the Book of Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians - it is part of the Old Covenant but not part of the New Covenant.

There ya have it.

Of course, I think their interpretation is incorrect.
Click to expand...
’

Wrong, this would seem to falsify the word of God. homosexuality is an objective disorder, while the homosexual person is not condemned, the homosexual ACT itself is sinful. That’s why it’s an objective disorder, it’s disordered in terms of natural law. The very object in a homosexual mind pertaining to attractiveness is that of the same sex.

Homosexuals are called to live a life of celibacy. It is part of the new covenant, Jesus said very clearly about the Old Law, and how it is meant to be man and woman.

Do not twist scripture for your own agenda.
 
JFonseka said:
’

Wrong, this would seem to falsify the word of God. homosexuality is an objective disorder, while the homosexual person is not condemned, the homosexual ACT itself is sinful. That’s why it’s an objective disorder, it’s disordered in terms of natural law. The very object in a homosexual mind pertaining to attractiveness is that of the same sex.

Homosexuals are called to live a life of celibacy. It is part of the new covenant, Jesus said very clearly about the Old Law, and how it is meant to be man and woman.

Do not twist scripture for your own agenda.
Click to expand...
Please do not start debating on this thread. If you would re-read the OP, it clearly states that I’m looking for HOW people use the Bible for support of homosexual acts and “marriage”. I’m not asking for us to weigh in here on whether it’s right or not.

Thank you for keeping this thread debate-free.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
If we dismiss much of the book of Leviticus how can we accept this passage from Leviticus as worth to be separated from the rest of the law as written in the book of Leviticus?

Maybe we will both get answers?
Click to expand...
I’ve heard it explained that the New Covenant didn’t change any of God’s moral law (which is why we’re still to follow the OT 10 Commandments). I can’t explain it very well. Maybe another thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top