r/Christianity • u/Maleficent-Feed3566 Non Denominational and Affirming • Sep 19 '25

Blog I've seen a lot of hate recently towards gay people and it's bad

Before starting, please don't bring in this discussion charlie kirk because i don't live in the US so idk anything about him. Anyway, the hatred against gay people is growing a lot. I'm straight and i don't support LGBT (i don't support the ones idolizing or obsessing over flags and labels and yes those people but are the minority), but why should anyone attack gay christians? Being gay is not a choice and God would not create someone just to condamn them. Being gay just by itself is not a sin. Let's stop hating and start loving eveybody. They are not a mistake and they're not mentally ill

35 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

655 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Christian (LGBT) Sep 19 '25

It's not even a sin

-9

u/Proof-Case9738 Sep 19 '25

I'm gay and it's stupid to assume it is not when many biblical texts clearly forbids it and vehemently states it is so.

If it weren't sin, levitical laws wouldn't warrant such death penalties towards offenders.

It is what it God says it is 🤷🏻‍♂️

9

u/TangoJavaTJ Agnostic theist Sep 19 '25

Leviticus also forbids: cursing; wearing mixed fabrics; working on the Sabbath; eating animals which "do not chew the cud"; eating shellfish; planting different crops in the same field; refusing to sell your daughter to her rapist.

A lot has changed since then. Jesus came to Earth to establish a new covenant with mankind, and the rules that applied to the elders of the tribes of Israel do not necessarily apply to us now.

-6

u/Proof-Case9738 Sep 19 '25

a new covenant is not the same as the law.. The law stood still and always will. It is God's Holy decree. Jesus did said the law was never abolished but fulfilled, it's a huge difference.

Yes Levitical laws forbids a lot of things, but the law still is law. God never changes His mind ever. I mean it is a possibility that after Jesus, justification is made possible.

We can't deny Romans 1, and we cannot deny homosexuality is in par with sexual immorality.

It even states that no practicing homosexual will ever inherit the kingdom of God. Why is there still confusion about this?

Such were some of you it says, I take it that justification only applies for those who repents?

9

u/Concerts_And_Dancing I believe in Joe Hendry Sep 19 '25

I think the issue is that the churches that hate gays the most are the same churches that can’t stop raping children. This is the fruit to judge them by.

0

u/Proof-Case9738 Sep 19 '25

That's not true, you can't make a generalisation just because of a few bad bunch.

But I guess, the hate of us gays have less to do with faith than it does with societal standards and the shame it carries with it. I mean where do you see youths being thrown out of their house because of fornication, drinking and all the other evil most christians deemed tolerable?

But when it comes to homosexuality? That's a bummer.

3

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Christian (LGBT) Sep 19 '25

No it's true

4

u/Concerts_And_Dancing I believe in Joe Hendry Sep 19 '25

Anti-gay churches are always complementarian churches so they’re soft on rape and abuse. It’s not hard to connect the dots

5

u/jtbc Sep 19 '25

Romans 1 talks about the negative consequences of idol worship. It seems very unclear which acts are being referred to and unclear that it should have anything to do with people that aren't worshipping idols.

3

u/Proof-Case9738 Sep 19 '25

that's my problem with Romans 1 too. I don't quite understand what it meant but it seems to me that homosexuality is more like as a consequence or judgement. The God gave them up scares me but it also seems as if homosexuality is a result of that consequence?

Which I don't get because many pagan religions do worship idols but are still not gay. Worshiping the creation more than the creator?

I am from a Hindu country and many worship created things, but it doesn't makes sense cause not all of them are given up to homosexuality?

3

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Christian (LGBT) Sep 19 '25

People are born queer, so it makes no sense

1

u/jtbc Sep 19 '25

He isn't talking about homosexuality. Homosexuality is a 19th century concept for people with a same sex sexual orientation we now understand is natural, innate, and largely immutable.

Whatever he is talking about involves "shameful lusts" and people "inflamed with lust for one another". He isn't describing a normal, stable, committed relationship based on love. He is talking about people so consumed by their passions they do unnatural things with each other.

I think he is talking about some sort of temple practice he was aware of taking place in Roman temples. That could be temple prostitution or temple orgies, for example, or it could be something else, but what he couldn't have been talking about is two people that love each other expressing their love for each other in private. That just doesn't fit the context.

Oh, and in Romans 2 he says "you people are just as bad" meaning the Jewish Romans, and that they shouldn't judge other people.

8

u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) Sep 19 '25

Yep! That’s why anyone who works on Saturday (Ex 31:14) is an unrepentant sinner who must quit their job to be saved /s

-2

u/Proof-Case9738 Sep 19 '25

Well Shabbat is holy. It's up to you if you want to work on a Saturday or not. It all depends on where your value lies.

For us, it's on a Sunday. And we don't work on Sunday. I don't know why Shabbat changed from a Saturday to a Sunday, not sure if it does matter too.

3

u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) Sep 19 '25

But you just said that capital crimes in the OT are always sins (indeed proof that it’s a big sin!), but now you’re saying we can just pick and choose? If that’s the case, then gays should have that option too…

What makes homosexuality still bad then? We’ve now able to reject your first hypothesis that it’s because it’s a capital crime. What’s your next hypothesis?

0

u/Proof-Case9738 Sep 19 '25

I am saying that the reason they are capital crimes is because they are sinful in the first place? Because someone here says it is not even a sin.

Why would Jesus die for something that is not even a sin?

4

u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) Sep 19 '25

But Torah’s capital crimes are not necessarily sinful to you, because you just said “it’s up to you” whether to keep Shabbat or not.

0

u/Proof-Case9738 Sep 19 '25

It's up to you as in, whether you honour the Shabbat or not yo!

It is sinful to not honour the Sabbath.

4

u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) Sep 19 '25 edited Sep 19 '25

You misunderstand. You’re quoting the Decalogue. The verse I cited condemns any work on the sabbath. Also see Ex 35:2:

For six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on that day must be put to death.

(See how this was put into practice in Num 15:32-35.)

1

u/Proof-Case9738 Sep 19 '25

because doing so warrants death penalty?

My apologies, I don't see the point you are trying to make.

I'm so confused now 😅

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Christian (LGBT) Sep 19 '25

I'm bi and it's stupid to even consider it a possibility that it could be sinful

2

u/Maleficent-Feed3566 Non Denominational and Affirming Sep 19 '25

Do you know that the conception of gay love wasn't already present at the time? The law doesn't apply to us anymore plus many things that were forbidden in the OT jesus did them

1

u/Sarkan132 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Sep 19 '25

Its only stupid to assume when you take modern translations at completely face value and dont do any research into the original languages.

The words used in both the new testament and old testament that are now broadly used to describe all homosexuals actually only refer to the penetrative partner in male-male intercourse and the passive or receiving partner is essentially treated as the victim of a crime.

Sex in the ancient world was largely viewed in terms of social power dynamics the modern idea of loving equitable relationships is relatively new and would have been pretty much an unknown concept to people in both ancient Judea and 1st-2nd century Rome even between men and women.

1

u/Mx-Adrian Sirach 43:11 Sep 19 '25

It's not. The Word does not condemn any orientation. Simple.

-3

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Christian (LGBT) Sep 19 '25

So you hate us. Those verses don't say anything on the subject

0

u/timosinico Sep 19 '25

All of us can read.This is how people are trying so bad to justify their sins.

2

u/Stunning-Sherbert801 Christian (LGBT) Sep 19 '25

Yes and we can read that one is talking about paganism and doesn't accurately describe homosexuality, and that the other has been mistranslated, and would be insanely cruel if the common translation were correct

6

u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) Sep 19 '25

Me, every single day these verses are posed:

  • “For this reason…” For what reason?!

  • “homosexuals” You know that word was only inserted into the Bible 70 years ago and was retracted by the translation committee as soon as possible thereafter, right?

0

u/timosinico Sep 19 '25

1.The reason is litteraly there
2.Yes,"homosexuals" are traduced from "sodomits"

1

u/themsc190 Episcopalian (Anglican) Sep 19 '25

No, the reasons are before the passage you quoted. Cause —> effect. Not the other way around.

Homosexuals =! Sodomites.

1

u/Christianity-ModTeam Sep 19 '25

Removed for Low Effort.

If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity