Is Christianity homophobic?

[AgnosticBoy]

Christians are often accused of being homophobic. So then I question why do people call themselves Christians in this day and age. I've searched the internet for a response. Of course, there are those Christians that try to make a case that homosexuality is not condemned by the Bible. But in this thread, I want to focus on those Christians that believe that being homosexual or engaging in same-sex behavior is wrong.

Here's one perspective I've found:

By Oxford Languages’ definition, homophobia can be as simple as a dislike for or as strong as a prejudice toward LGBT+ community members. While the word “phobia” implies a fear, homophobia has been used to describe everything from refusing to make a cake for a homosexual wedding to death penalties for homosexuals.

Christians are often accused of homophobia, often specifically because we stand for God’s holy design of sexual relations: one man and one woman united in marriage. It is never wrong for Christians to make a stand for biblical principle

However, true homophobia––prejudice against or hatred of homosexuals––is also sin. Prejudice is never biblical. We are never called to hatred but to love others as Christ loved us. Christians should not condone the homosexual lifestyle, but they should also not hate, degrade or condescend to those who identify as homosexual.

Source: https://www.collegianonline.com/2021/03 ... omophobic/

If I'm understanding correctly, it seems the author is trying to make a distinction between disagreeing with homosexuality and "prejudice and hatred of homosexuals". In another place, the author also refers to homophobia as a "fear".

For debate:
1. Is the author's distinction correct? Does 'homophobia' involve any type of belief or action (e.g. simply saying that it is wrong) that goes against homosexuality? Or does it just involve "hatred and prejudice"?

2. Is it even possible to believe that homosexuality is wrong but not to hate it or be prejudiced towards it?

[boatsnguitars]

Firstly, it is important to recognize that love is a universal human experience that is not limited to any particular religion or belief system. Love can be found in many forms, including romantic, familial, and platonic, and is expressed and experienced by people of all faiths and cultures.

I don't think that is the definition of love. Love is a promise. So yes, I think uniquely God is love because he makes and keeps promises.

Regarding the statement about homosexuality, it is not accurate to view it as a dishonoring of one's ancestors. Homosexuality has been observed in many animal species, and it is likely that it has existed in human societies throughout history. Moreover, science has shown that sexual orientation is not a choice and is influenced by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors.

Given at least my knowledge of the wretched history of the world and the struggles of those in the past to survive and reproduce I don't see how you have argued against that point.

I also don't think arguments that 'humans are like animals' help your case.

Finally, it is like the horns of the euthyphro dilemma. Do homosexuals (or any of us) choose and so are responsible or is it genetic and so it might be curable?

It is important to recognize and challenge such beliefs and attitudes in order to create a more inclusive and accepting society for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

No doubt you will do so. I fear all good people who are justified in doing what they think are good things. Come, Lord Jesus.

Since you offered your personal opinion on gay people, I will offer mine on Homophobes: I think homophobic bigots are horrible human beings, mentally ill, sinful, should be ashamed of themselves, and I would not shed a millisecond of remorse if they were burned at the stake.

I will offer a quote from the holocaust museum.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... socialists

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller

What I mean is the revolutionaries often get surprised when the revolution turns against them and they find themselves on the wall by those more radical.

I know you think you are the good guy in this.

edit: I would also ask that you try to perceive that I might be the better friend of the homosexual. Often affirming another person in what they believe is the worst thing we can do for them.

Regarding your first point about the definition of love, while promises can be a part of love, it is not the only aspect of it. Love can also be described as a feeling of strong affection and care towards someone, as well as a willingness to put their needs above your own. It is a complex emotion that cannot be reduced to a single definition.

In response to your second point, I did not argue against the idea that homosexuality does not dishonor one's ancestors. Instead, I pointed out that the belief that it does is based on cultural and societal norms, not on any inherent truth or objective fact.

As for your third point, the idea that humans are like animals is not meant to justify any behavior, but rather to highlight the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice and is present in many other species besides humans.

The Euthyphro dilemma is a philosophical problem that asks whether something is good because God commands it, or if God commands it because it is good. Ultimately, the issue of homosexuality is complex and multi-faceted, and it cannot be reduced to a simple dilemma like the Euthyphro problem. It is important to recognize that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality, and that individuals should be free to express their sexuality in ways that are consensual and do not harm others.

While you have used the Niemoller quote to express concern over the potential consequences of intolerance, it is important to note that your expressed view that gay people are an abomination according to your Christian beliefs undermines the very sentiment of the quote. By holding such views, you yourself are contributing to the oppression of a group of people, and as such cannot claim to be an ally in the fight against intolerance. It is crucial to call out such hypocrisy and challenge discriminatory beliefs in order to create a more inclusive and accepting society for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. I have no problem burning Nazi's at the stake when they came for them.

In regards to your final point, it is important to listen to and respect the experiences and perspectives of LGBTQ+ individuals themselves, rather than assuming that we know what is best for them. Affirming someone's identity and experiences is not harmful, but rather shows them that they are valued and respected for who they are.

[brunumb]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #21]

I agree with everything you have so eloquently and succinctly stated with regard to LGB people. On the other hand, I feel that QT+ is a different set of issues and I am not totally on board with what is happening in that regard today. It would be interesting to hear how transgenderism is considered from a Christian perspective.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #21]

I agree with everything you have so eloquently and succinctly stated with regard to LGB people. On the other hand, I feel that QT+ is a different set of issues and I am not totally on board with what is happening in that regard today. It would be interesting to hear how transgenderism is considered from a Christian perspective.

I agree that it is a difficult question.

My starting point is: What possible harm could it be to me, and, conversely, what harm would I be imposing on others if my beliefs about the matter were enforced?

So, first, I look at it: It's the person's one life - who am I to tell them how they want to live it? Especially since it is not harming me one bit.

When we get to the few areas of contention, like transwomen in sports, there is a tough call to make that we'd like to protect women's sports from "men" (for the sake of argument, I am noting the physical advantages of some men over some women) intruding into their sphere.

However, (and I might start a thread), I have come to a conclusion that the idea that we as a society has said, "We want to see a person with your body parts compete against a person with the same body parts" is a totally arbitrary and only for entertainment.

Usain Bolt, with all his prowess as a runner, did nothing to further humanity. We didn't use his speed to get life-saving drugs to orphans in the mountains. we watched him run, clapped with joy and paid him handsomely. Sports is just entertainment and the rules of every sports, including gender, are arbitrary. Sport is no different than theater, music, dance, etc., in terms of entertainment, and it would be absurd to say that Trans people can't participate in those forms of entertainment.

The ideal solution would be to create games that allow everyone to compete. But, of course, since sex changes are new to humanity, we have been caught flat-footed in dealing with it at a cultural level.

Conservatives, as is their nature, will clearly be angered by change. Liberals will try to find an equitable solution. In the end, Liberals will win. We always do. (The clear arc of humanity skews towards Liberal ideals: anti-slavery, pro-women, etc. which were all contrary to Conservative views - until they weren't).

So, yes, this is a new one, and it will take some time to work through, but two throughts:

1. Let's not destroy lives in the process
2. It's not our world, it's our children's and grandchildren's and they have the final say. Let's let them speak, not tell them how to do things - since, let's be honest - the world isn't such a great place now. We 40-110 years olds haven't done much to improve things. Climate Change, Wars, corruption, etc. is still thriving under our watch. If they want to ask people's pronouns, let them, IMO.

[AgnosticBoy]

Regarding your first point about the definition of love, while promises can be a part of love, it is not the only aspect of it. Love can also be described as a feeling of strong affection and care towards someone, as well as a willingness to put their needs above your own. It is a complex emotion that cannot be reduced to a single definition.

In response to your second point, I did not argue against the idea that homosexuality does not dishonor one's ancestors. Instead, I pointed out that the belief that it does is based on cultural and societal norms, not on any inherent truth or objective fact.

As for your third point, the idea that humans are like animals is not meant to justify any behavior, but rather to highlight the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice and is present in many other species besides humans.

The Euthyphro dilemma is a philosophical problem that asks whether something is good because God commands it, or if God commands it because it is good. Ultimately, the issue of homosexuality is complex and multi-faceted, and it cannot be reduced to a simple dilemma like the Euthyphro problem. It is important to recognize that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality, and that individuals should be free to express their sexuality in ways that are consensual and do not harm others.

While you have used the Niemoller quote to express concern over the potential consequences of intolerance, it is important to note that your expressed view that gay people are an abomination according to your Christian beliefs undermines the very sentiment of the quote. By holding such views, you yourself are contributing to the oppression of a group of people, and as such cannot claim to be an ally in the fight against intolerance. It is crucial to call out such hypocrisy and challenge discriminatory beliefs in order to create a more inclusive and accepting society for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. I have no problem burning Nazi's at the stake when they came for them.

All good points.

In regards to your final point, it is important to listen to and respect the experiences and perspectives of LGBTQ+ individuals themselves, rather than assuming that we know what is best for them. Affirming someone's identity and experiences is not harmful, but rather shows them that they are valued and respected for who they are.

[emphasis added]
I think that a lot of Christians don't take the time to learn about homosexuality. I brought this up to a Christian friend of mine not too long ago, and he basically responded that his obligation is to share the Gospel and not to learn about homosexuality. I thought that was a very naive view.

My thinking is that if a problem needs fixing, then learning about the problem will help you figure out how to fix it. If Christians took the time to learn about homosexuality, then they would be able to better respond to it. Such practices like 'conversion therapy' would have probably never been used if people understood that sexual orientation was not a choice to give up just as someone would give up on drugs. Sexual orientation has proven to be much more enduring or fixed than that.

[brunumb]

My starting point is: What possible harm could it be to me, and, conversely, what harm would I be imposing on others if my beliefs about the matter were enforced?

So, first, I look at it: It's the person's one life - who am I to tell them how they want to live it? Especially since it is not harming me one bit.

I agree completely with that and have no problem with allowing anyone to live the life they have chosen. My big issue is with puberty blockers being administered to young people who are really not mature enough to understand sexuality or the full consequences of their actions. Gender reassignment surgery is far from simple plastic surgery and is irreversible. These young people will be mutilated and scarred for life, not to mention sterile and unable to experience normal sex. I have watched too many stories of young people who regret what they did. The activists pushing the rights to have these procedure, often disregarding parents, seem to be more concerned with the success of their movement than the feelings of individuals. As soon as anyone expresses the desire to detransition, they are thrown to the wolves and mercilessly attacked. So, I am on board with people living as trans, but not with the way transitioning is being forced on society. It is clearly a mental issue and I feel that avenues for helping people along those lines should get greater consideration.

As for sport, there is no question that trans women have a significant advantage over women in many areas. They should not be allowed to compete in the same categories. As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. We all have to make sacrifices sometimes. Spare a thought for non-trans people and consider their needs as well. I'm also astonished that trans women who retain their male genitalia are permitted to confront women and girls in places like dressing rooms and toilets.

Groomers and sexual predators are taking advantage of the slackening of standards of decency and the sexualisation of children. Society has gone too far beyond just acceptance and tolerance. Even the right to free speech is being challenged. Now, if you simply ask questions the militia attacks and you get shut down and cancelled. Social media like TikTok has a lot to answer for.

[AgnosticBoy]

Conservatives, as is their nature, will clearly be angered by change. Liberals will try to find an equitable solution. In the end, Liberals will win. We always do. (The clear arc of humanity skews towards Liberal ideals: anti-slavery, pro-women, etc. which were all contrary to Conservative views - until they weren't).

The picture that you painted is too black-and-white for it to be true all the time. What makes something good or true is logic and evidence. Conservatism or Liberalism should be dependent on that. At times, conservatives may be right, other times liberals might be right, and other times BOTH can be wrong or they may both push unproven views.

I can attack Christianity all day when Christians push beliefs, but we must also be consistent and acknowledge when liberals (or any secular group) try to push beliefs.

[Wootah]

Regarding your first point about the definition of love, while promises can be a part of love, it is not the only aspect of it. Love can also be described as a feeling of strong affection and care towards someone, as well as a willingness to put their needs above your own. It is a complex emotion that cannot be reduced to a single definition.

In response to your second point, I did not argue against the idea that homosexuality does not dishonor one's ancestors. Instead, I pointed out that the belief that it does is based on cultural and societal norms, not on any inherent truth or objective fact.

As for your third point, the idea that humans are like animals is not meant to justify any behavior, but rather to highlight the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice and is present in many other species besides humans.

The Euthyphro dilemma is a philosophical problem that asks whether something is good because God commands it, or if God commands it because it is good. Ultimately, the issue of homosexuality is complex and multi-faceted, and it cannot be reduced to a simple dilemma like the Euthyphro problem. It is important to recognize that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality, and that individuals should be free to express their sexuality in ways that are consensual and do not harm others.

While you have used the Niemoller quote to express concern over the potential consequences of intolerance, it is important to note that your expressed view that gay people are an abomination according to your Christian beliefs undermines the very sentiment of the quote. By holding such views, you yourself are contributing to the oppression of a group of people, and as such cannot claim to be an ally in the fight against intolerance. It is crucial to call out such hypocrisy and challenge discriminatory beliefs in order to create a more inclusive and accepting society for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. I have no problem burning Nazi's at the stake when they came for them.

In regards to your final point, it is important to listen to and respect the experiences and perspectives of LGBTQ+ individuals themselves, rather than assuming that we know what is best for them. Affirming someone's identity and experiences is not harmful, but rather shows them that they are valued and respected for who they are.

Love is literally not an emotion. It is a promise. I just did a google and Dr Who used this line in a series. Fancy that. I can tell you I can be very angry with my wife and that does not affect my love for her.

^ this is the core different between us.

The threats of violence you are making is common amongst all our wicked hearts.

[boatsnguitars]

The harm caused to gay people is commonly done by those in Abrahamic religions, and shows the wicked hearts that would willingly join such evil and detestable cults.

The idea that gay people can't love, make promises, or get in fights yet still love each other shows a weak brain.

Using a Dr. Who line to defend ones bigotry and ignorance is the sign of an idiot

Look, read through this thread. You have tried to assert that Christianity isn't homophobic, but you as a Christian are a bigot towards homosexuality because of your religious beliefs. You are claiming you are justified in your bigotry because of the Bible.
You simply want to call your homophobia "righteous".
But that's not how it works.

The 9-11 terrorists didn't call it mass murder, they called it "righteous" because of the Koran.

This is the evil that comes from religion, and you are either too bigoted to let it go, or too scared of what your evil god will do if you stop hating gay people.

[Wootah]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #28]

Go in peace.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #28]

Go in peace.

No, I will not be peaceful in the face of bigotry and evil.

I will remind you that you have spent your energy trying to convince us how it's Right and Good to discriminate against people who do nothing to you. Who don't affect your life one iota. Homophobia hurts people. Even what you think is you trying to be righteous is harmful. Even trying to softly suggest that "Hey, it's not me that hates you being gay, it's God!"

I ask you: How many times have you interacted with a gay person and let them know what the Bible says about homosexuality? That little interaction is all they need to confirm that there are people in this world who think of them as abominations, when it is the homophobes that are the true abominations.

I want you to truly understand that what you think you do to gay people is exactly what should be done to you util you feel it in your core and repent.

Don't worry, I'll love you - the sinner - but you are still an abomination. All I ask is that, even if you feel like you have to proclaim your bigoted Faith, that you don't. Keep it to yourself. Don't do it in front of children. Don't do it in front of me. Keep it in the closet.

Like Jesus commanded:
“And when you hate, do not be like the bigots, for they love to hate standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
But when you hate, go into your room, close the door and gripe to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.


edit:
It is fair to say that historically, many Christian denominations have held homophobic beliefs and promoted discriminatory practices against LGBTQ+ individuals. The Bible has been cited as a basis for such beliefs, including passages that are commonly interpreted as condemning same-sex relationships. As a result, many Christian denominations have historically opposed same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, and other forms of LGBTQ+ rights.

Question to you, Wootah:
Why, if Christianity isn't bigoted, or homophobic, why have so many Christians historically opposed same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, and other forms of restricting LGBTQ+ rights?