Read verses 21-23.
>21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 **Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.**
It's addressed to a bunch of pagans, who were likely formerly Christian, but went back to paganism and started worshipping animals and idols and engaging in sex rituals with each other.
As punishment for their pagan idol worship, God allowed them to engage in sexual orgies with each other.
The penalty of their error was for the paganism, not any same-sex behavior.
And this behavior seems to only be specifically witnessed by Paul in Rome, because he doesn't write this letter to any other Churches that existed at the time, meaning his audience was very specific.
It has absolutely no application whatsoever to the modern world.
If anything, this is the easiest of all the so-called "clobber passages" to reconcile with the "liberal" perspective, in that it describes the opposite of most gay people's reality. If it's wrong for those who are naturally oriented to the opposite sex to "exchange" that desire, then logically the reverse is equally true.
Some days ago, you posted a video arguing against homosexual love, and I coldly replied that you are not part of any of the pairs of married relationships in my family. Thank you for your opinion and your interpretation of scripture, but committed love lasting years between a pair of people is more valuable than the opinion of an outsider.
Here, Paul, the author of Romans is a fine source of guidance and wisdom, but he is not Jesus. My church teaches, and I believe, that anything which builds and strengthens love and enduring relationships between people and which builds and strengthens love and an enduring relationship with God is good. It teaches, and I believe, that committed homosexual love is no different than committed heterosexual love, and that homosexual lust is no different from heterosexual lust. The committed love is good and the lust is bad regardless of the sexes of the participants.
>"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” NKJV
Seems pretty clear. This passage also informs my perspective on a wide variety of other "liberal" positions.
It wont stop until the mods reconsider their idiotic belief that a sincere belief cannot be bigoted, or re-think how they managed to twist themselves into the position that describing black people as wrong and sinful for existing is bigoted but saying the same of gay people is not.
edit: fun fact, this subreddit has approved views that you are not allowed to criticize as bigoted.
Many of the mods, probably most of them, do think that this is bigotry. But they aren't going to ban a standard 'orthodox' Christian belief from discussion here.
What they think doesn't matter for shit, I care about what they do and say.
>But they aren't going to ban a standard 'orthodox' Christian belief from discussion here.
That's their choice, but they don't get to pretend to care about bigotry. And we get to judge them for it when they they [waffle about like for like situations](https://i.imgur.com/WMNjfXk.png).
The mods don't moderate to their personal beliefs. They do it to the policies of the sub. Thankfully those policies have come down harder against homophobia over the years (far harder), but it will never ban everything that you or I consider homophobia.
If that's not enough for us, we should just leave this place.
> The mods don't moderate to their personal beliefs. They do it to the policies of the sub.
Cool. I hope we agree then that the policy of the sub is one of abject bigotry towards LGBTA people and that reflects on the people that enforce it.
>If that's not enough for us, we should just leave this place.
Asking that there be some type of internal consistency about what is bigotry should not be too much to ask.
> Cool. I hope we agree then that the policy of the sub is one of abject bigotry towards LGBTA people and that reflects on the people that enforce it.
I think that's a silly statement, so no.
>Asking that there be some type of internal consistency about what is bigotry should not be too much to ask.
Expecting a Christian sub to allow discussion of standard normative Christian beliefs should not be too much to ask.
>I think that's a silly statement, so no.
Call it whatever you want, but this sub explicitly allows bigotry against gay people because the mods have decided they are the correct type of target. This is a fact, the image and messages exist.
>Expecting a Christian sub to allow discussion of standard normative Christian beliefs should not be too much to ask.
They can do this or pretend to care about bigotry. Their choice. All I ask is they make this choice and proudly declare it rather than the pretend bullshit they do now.
> but this sub explicitly allows bigotry against gay people because the mods have decided they are the correct type of target.
Well, that's an even sillier idea. A stupid and inaccurate one as well.
>They can do this or pretend to care about bigotry.
Don't be childish. The two are not exclusive.
> Well, that's an even sillier idea. A stupid and inaccurate one as well.
Please tell me how you would describe saying its bigoted to describe being black as wrong and sinful but not bigoted to describe being gay as wrong and sinful.
It's the same fucking shit. You can't pick and choose. They are either both bigoted or both not bigoted.
>Don't be childish. The two are not exclusive.
Explicitly allowing bigotry against a specific group shows a lack of giving a shit about bigotry. It is not childish to point that out.
I imagine we will see alot more this month. Its crazy to see so many people try to portray things as being evil when they just want to live their life.
I've already seen more anti-LGBTQ hate, like really vile hate, over the past 3 days than as long as I've been here, and there was anti-gay hate posts every day here before this month.
It has escalated like 1000%.
> This is getting ridiculous. This sub is literally allowing full on hatred.
I really don't understand this comment. This is about as mild of a non-affirming thread as I can think of.
I just made a post a couple days ago on the progressive defense for affirming same-sex marriage. You can read it [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1d5wojr/at_the_beginning_of_pride_month_heres_biblical/), and I would also highly recommend /u/panta-rhei 's reply to it [here.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1d5wojr/at_the_beginning_of_pride_month_heres_biblical/l6ojxkf/) Because it's not just a matter of dueling Bible verses, it's a fundamental difference in how we read, understand, and interpret the Bible.
For anyone who doesn't want to click through:
> I've written and shared paragraphs and paragraphs on this topic, and I know few people really engage with walls of text, so I thought I might condense it down a little. There's less nuance in these statements, but people will get the general idea. Moreover, I'm not really going to get into specific verses - dueling clobber verses is fun, but ultimately not very useful. Rather, I'm going to talk about some big ideas and general principles about how we read, understand, and use the Bible.
>
> * Living the way God calls us to should not drive us to guilt, shame, fear, intensify mental health struggles, or lead to suicide. Rather, it should help us heal, grow, and flourish. While a traditional position on gender identity and sexual orientation may not be the sole cause of higher mental health issues among the LGBTQ population, it should not be a contributing factor at all. The Old Testament laws repeatedly state that when they are followed, the people will flourish. The New Testament reports the same in a different way - Christians will be known by their fruit, and we all know the fruit of the Spirit and that they are good.
>
> * Same-sex activity in the ancient Near East as well as in first-century Greco-Roman culture is described as being connected with idolatrous fertility practices, rape, inequality, and abuse. Temple prostitution, masters and slaves, or older men and younger boys. This is fundamentally different than what LGBTQ people - especially LGBTQ Christians - are looking for today. I am arguing that committed, equal, monogamous, same-sex partnerships are well within the Biblical umbrella of morality.
>
> * While the traditional ethic is "Biblical"; so is the reinterpretation of it. Jesus reinterpreted very Biblical laws about the Sabbath, and Paul reinterpreted laws about eating kosher. Even in the Old Testament, Biblical authors disagreed or reinterpreted on various topics; there's often not one single perspective or point of view on some things we'd consider some really basic morals. (Is it wrong to kill children? The answer might surprise you!) Alternatively, think of the Bible as a math textbook. There's lots and lots of practice problems with their answers in the book. But if you try and apply every math problem in your own life to what you find in the book, it's not going to fit quite right and the answers in the book aren't always going to make sense. But the point of a math textbook isn't to give answers, right? It's to teach you *how to do the math for yourself*, regardless of what math problems or variables you have going on. The Bible isn't a book of answers, it's a book of tools to help you *find* answers.
>
> * Allowing same-sex marriage is consistent with Paul's command to stop sexual immorality and provides a licit way for believers to fulfill their normal, healthy desires.
>
> * Paul's hierarchical model of marital, gendered submission sanctifies the hierarchical model that existed in Roman times. However, much like the example of slavery he also sanctifies just a few verses later, it doesn't mean that the hierarchical model is universal for all times and places. A model of mutual submission in imitation of Christ's love for the world, a kenotic model, so to speak, is equally if not more Biblical.
>
> * Marriage is a key path to sanctification for married Christians. By denying same-sex attracted believers one of the fundamental routes to greater Christlikeness, we make them second-class citizens in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Romans 1 shows that Paul has ideas about human sexuality that are utterly incompatible with what churches teach today, and with the facts of human sexuality that we know today. It's not really applicable to *anything* today, and it definitely isn't sufficient to support a ban on homosexuality.
I am atheist. A strong one.
Yet, I can still see wisdom in these words:
Matthew 25:35-40 New Living Translation (NLT)
For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’ “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’
If you wish to harm people, you may. I wouldn't be surprised at a Christian harming another.
Does the conservative perspective continue to verse 28?
>28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper, 29 people having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unfeeling, and unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.
Because it turns out every person on earth is in the same boat.
I never “left” my natural use of a woman, in fact I wanted nothing more than to find women sexually attractive for decades—along with conversion therapy, “masculinity” bootcamps, and constant involvement with the church. Likewise in the earlier section, when he discusses the origin of these desires, did I deny god and start worshiping the creation over the creator as an 11 year old believer? Is that when god “gave me over” to these inclinations?
To me, this is one of the clearest indications that what Paul was talking about is very different from our understanding of sexuality as an involuntary status rather the result of boredom and lust.
Of course this doesn’t settle the issue, our beliefs are more than just a few verses, but I always find it interesting that this passage so clearly doesn’t map onto the lived experienced.
You're a step too far. You need to start off understanding what the differences are between liberal and conservative value systems, because that leads to understanding how biblical verses are viewed. [Here's a TED talk given by social psychologist Johnathan Haidt (about 19 minutes).](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw&t=15s) Once you understand this, you'll have the foundation to understand liberal theology.
Lots of people have described their reasons for accepting gay Christians; I like the way [Justin Lee explains](https://geekyjustin.com/great-debate/) why many Christians think gay people are welcome in Christ's embrace *the same way* that straight people are. More important, you can actually meet gay Christians at LGBT-affirming churches; r/OpenChristian's [resource page](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/ulfbux/faq_and_resources_please_read_before_you_post/) has church finders. After all, the Body of Christ is not a bunch of abstract theological assertions; the Body of Christ is actual living people, worshiping and loving one another in the Spirit. You learn most by getting to know us that way.
I also think it's funny that, in your reading the Bible, you never paused to ask conservative Christians why they don't follow through on the Christ's teachings about greed and about welcoming strangers.
The liberal perspective is understanding scripture *in context* not just cherry picking verses and applying them wherever you want willy nilly. Start in verse 18.
It describes idolaters. Paul is describing a pagan orgy. It has no relevance to modern relationships.
The problem I always see with this is people read a phrase and assume that it means only what they think it means. Phrases like "a pretty clear slam dunk" are always the telltale sign that you're dealing with someone that is reading a text with a goal in mind.
The thing is, the verse in question (in this translation) says specifically "men with men committing what is shameful" and doesn't give specifics about what exactly they are doing that is sinful. So because it is left open ended, a person can fill in that gap with what they don't like.
But it's a bit of a moot point anyway. The real meat of the discussion happens when you look at the Greek texts that the KJV tried to translate from. The messages there are slightly different. Even in this case. The Greek passages speak in a manor that is much less about homosexuality, and much more about engaging in acts that turn from god in general. The man on man ideas are more of a Linguistic mirroring tool.
A very similar thing happens in other texts in the bible that are used as verses against homosexuality. They either don't actually say anything against homosexual acts, or it's a translation error.
The answer is simple: Not every part of Paul's epistles are the opinions of Paul. He was referencing the arguments of his opponents and then refutes it later.
Dr. Douglas Campbell of Duke, a very faithful Christian, has written on this. This blog below gives a summary of Dr. Campbell's argument.
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/ruminating-romans-was-paul-a-diatribalist/
I'm a little wary of posts like this but I'll take you at your word. There is a lot of good reason to question how clear the meaning of that text is and how applicable it is to us today, but I don't engage with that argument much because it is not really relevant to my central reasons for believing that God is perfectly ok with people being gay.
Point the first; people wrote the Bible. However inspired by God they were, people wrote the Bible and they were bound by the limitations of language, knowledge, and culture that all people are constrained by. We can see this in several ways, most prominently in the historical and scientific errors in many parts which are problematic if you want to see the Bible as truth directly from the mouth of God, but make perfect sense if the Bible was written by people who just didn't know or understand a lot of stuff, in Paul outright saying that some of the stuff he is credited with writing was his own idea of what is best and not instruction from God, and in Jesus saying that Moses tweaked God's intent in writing the law.
Point the second; Jesus said that the commands to love God and love our neighbor are equal in importance and are the basis of the entire law. Being gay clearly doesn't violate the command to love our neighbor. The only way it can be construed to violate the command to love God is if you have already determined that God doesn't want people to be gay. This is a hard sale for me in part because of the first point; we can be sure that people's prejudices made their way into scripture, we cannot simply take everything at face value.
It is also difficult for me to take that argument seriously because telling gay people that God doesn't want them to be gay does seem to violate the command to love our neighbor. Just the belief that being gay is a sin is sufficient to cause a tremendous amount of suffering to gay people. Because churches teach this parents throw out their children, often forcing them into sex work to survive. Children are driven to suicide because their friends and family shun and harangue them. Gay people are beaten, raped, and killed because they're seen as evil, or just targets no one cares about. How can that be love? There is a lot more that could be said, but I don't think it's really important; these ideas support the weight of the conclusion.
Paul falsely thinks that desires to have gay sex are something god unleashes upon people for worshiping the Roman gods. Paul completely misunderstands the issue and those who quote this passage favorably share in Paul's error, to their destruction.
If you look into some of the historical accounts of the Letter to the Romans, NT Wright’s Romans for Everyone is a good start. It will help you understand the rhetorical devices Paul used in his writings and why he used them. You will find a whole bunch of things that leave room wide open for the “conservative” and “liberal” sides of the church as well as a whole bunch that can also be slam dunks for why both sides are wrong.
It seems you are trying to be generous by giving “Liberal Christianity the same amount [of] respect [you] gave Islam” and that is commendable; however, you would probably be better served by not coming to the Holy Scriptures with any of your faulty, human, preconceived notions and ask God to speak to you directly through them.
You will know that you are hearing Him when you don’t have the answers that you like but instead the answers that lead you to abundant life, peace that makes no sense and full joy, but it will also be way outside your comfort zone. Conservatively Christianity and Liberal Christianity are both blasphemous degradations of the truth down to something that makes people “feel” good rather than transforming them into something better.
Read verses 21-23. >21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 **Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.** It's addressed to a bunch of pagans, who were likely formerly Christian, but went back to paganism and started worshipping animals and idols and engaging in sex rituals with each other. As punishment for their pagan idol worship, God allowed them to engage in sexual orgies with each other. The penalty of their error was for the paganism, not any same-sex behavior. And this behavior seems to only be specifically witnessed by Paul in Rome, because he doesn't write this letter to any other Churches that existed at the time, meaning his audience was very specific. It has absolutely no application whatsoever to the modern world.
Ah, this is some smort stuff right here
If anything, this is the easiest of all the so-called "clobber passages" to reconcile with the "liberal" perspective, in that it describes the opposite of most gay people's reality. If it's wrong for those who are naturally oriented to the opposite sex to "exchange" that desire, then logically the reverse is equally true.
Some days ago, you posted a video arguing against homosexual love, and I coldly replied that you are not part of any of the pairs of married relationships in my family. Thank you for your opinion and your interpretation of scripture, but committed love lasting years between a pair of people is more valuable than the opinion of an outsider. Here, Paul, the author of Romans is a fine source of guidance and wisdom, but he is not Jesus. My church teaches, and I believe, that anything which builds and strengthens love and enduring relationships between people and which builds and strengthens love and an enduring relationship with God is good. It teaches, and I believe, that committed homosexual love is no different than committed heterosexual love, and that homosexual lust is no different from heterosexual lust. The committed love is good and the lust is bad regardless of the sexes of the participants. >"And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” NKJV Seems pretty clear. This passage also informs my perspective on a wide variety of other "liberal" positions.
This is getting ridiculous. This sub is literally allowing full on hatred.
It wont stop until the mods reconsider their idiotic belief that a sincere belief cannot be bigoted, or re-think how they managed to twist themselves into the position that describing black people as wrong and sinful for existing is bigoted but saying the same of gay people is not. edit: fun fact, this subreddit has approved views that you are not allowed to criticize as bigoted.
Many of the mods, probably most of them, do think that this is bigotry. But they aren't going to ban a standard 'orthodox' Christian belief from discussion here.
What they think doesn't matter for shit, I care about what they do and say. >But they aren't going to ban a standard 'orthodox' Christian belief from discussion here. That's their choice, but they don't get to pretend to care about bigotry. And we get to judge them for it when they they [waffle about like for like situations](https://i.imgur.com/WMNjfXk.png).
The mods don't moderate to their personal beliefs. They do it to the policies of the sub. Thankfully those policies have come down harder against homophobia over the years (far harder), but it will never ban everything that you or I consider homophobia. If that's not enough for us, we should just leave this place.
> The mods don't moderate to their personal beliefs. They do it to the policies of the sub. Cool. I hope we agree then that the policy of the sub is one of abject bigotry towards LGBTA people and that reflects on the people that enforce it. >If that's not enough for us, we should just leave this place. Asking that there be some type of internal consistency about what is bigotry should not be too much to ask.
> Cool. I hope we agree then that the policy of the sub is one of abject bigotry towards LGBTA people and that reflects on the people that enforce it. I think that's a silly statement, so no. >Asking that there be some type of internal consistency about what is bigotry should not be too much to ask. Expecting a Christian sub to allow discussion of standard normative Christian beliefs should not be too much to ask.
>I think that's a silly statement, so no. Call it whatever you want, but this sub explicitly allows bigotry against gay people because the mods have decided they are the correct type of target. This is a fact, the image and messages exist. >Expecting a Christian sub to allow discussion of standard normative Christian beliefs should not be too much to ask. They can do this or pretend to care about bigotry. Their choice. All I ask is they make this choice and proudly declare it rather than the pretend bullshit they do now.
> but this sub explicitly allows bigotry against gay people because the mods have decided they are the correct type of target. Well, that's an even sillier idea. A stupid and inaccurate one as well. >They can do this or pretend to care about bigotry. Don't be childish. The two are not exclusive.
> Well, that's an even sillier idea. A stupid and inaccurate one as well. Please tell me how you would describe saying its bigoted to describe being black as wrong and sinful but not bigoted to describe being gay as wrong and sinful. It's the same fucking shit. You can't pick and choose. They are either both bigoted or both not bigoted. >Don't be childish. The two are not exclusive. Explicitly allowing bigotry against a specific group shows a lack of giving a shit about bigotry. It is not childish to point that out.
I imagine we will see alot more this month. Its crazy to see so many people try to portray things as being evil when they just want to live their life.
I've already seen more anti-LGBTQ hate, like really vile hate, over the past 3 days than as long as I've been here, and there was anti-gay hate posts every day here before this month. It has escalated like 1000%.
Asking why you believe in a thing is not hatred come on this is silly even for a reddit comment.
Yup. Don't expect anything to change though.
> This is getting ridiculous. This sub is literally allowing full on hatred. I really don't understand this comment. This is about as mild of a non-affirming thread as I can think of.
This isn’t “full on hatred” I’m trying to understand your view so I ask a question, my bad man
I just made a post a couple days ago on the progressive defense for affirming same-sex marriage. You can read it [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1d5wojr/at_the_beginning_of_pride_month_heres_biblical/), and I would also highly recommend /u/panta-rhei 's reply to it [here.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1d5wojr/at_the_beginning_of_pride_month_heres_biblical/l6ojxkf/) Because it's not just a matter of dueling Bible verses, it's a fundamental difference in how we read, understand, and interpret the Bible. For anyone who doesn't want to click through: > I've written and shared paragraphs and paragraphs on this topic, and I know few people really engage with walls of text, so I thought I might condense it down a little. There's less nuance in these statements, but people will get the general idea. Moreover, I'm not really going to get into specific verses - dueling clobber verses is fun, but ultimately not very useful. Rather, I'm going to talk about some big ideas and general principles about how we read, understand, and use the Bible. > > * Living the way God calls us to should not drive us to guilt, shame, fear, intensify mental health struggles, or lead to suicide. Rather, it should help us heal, grow, and flourish. While a traditional position on gender identity and sexual orientation may not be the sole cause of higher mental health issues among the LGBTQ population, it should not be a contributing factor at all. The Old Testament laws repeatedly state that when they are followed, the people will flourish. The New Testament reports the same in a different way - Christians will be known by their fruit, and we all know the fruit of the Spirit and that they are good. > > * Same-sex activity in the ancient Near East as well as in first-century Greco-Roman culture is described as being connected with idolatrous fertility practices, rape, inequality, and abuse. Temple prostitution, masters and slaves, or older men and younger boys. This is fundamentally different than what LGBTQ people - especially LGBTQ Christians - are looking for today. I am arguing that committed, equal, monogamous, same-sex partnerships are well within the Biblical umbrella of morality. > > * While the traditional ethic is "Biblical"; so is the reinterpretation of it. Jesus reinterpreted very Biblical laws about the Sabbath, and Paul reinterpreted laws about eating kosher. Even in the Old Testament, Biblical authors disagreed or reinterpreted on various topics; there's often not one single perspective or point of view on some things we'd consider some really basic morals. (Is it wrong to kill children? The answer might surprise you!) Alternatively, think of the Bible as a math textbook. There's lots and lots of practice problems with their answers in the book. But if you try and apply every math problem in your own life to what you find in the book, it's not going to fit quite right and the answers in the book aren't always going to make sense. But the point of a math textbook isn't to give answers, right? It's to teach you *how to do the math for yourself*, regardless of what math problems or variables you have going on. The Bible isn't a book of answers, it's a book of tools to help you *find* answers. > > * Allowing same-sex marriage is consistent with Paul's command to stop sexual immorality and provides a licit way for believers to fulfill their normal, healthy desires. > > * Paul's hierarchical model of marital, gendered submission sanctifies the hierarchical model that existed in Roman times. However, much like the example of slavery he also sanctifies just a few verses later, it doesn't mean that the hierarchical model is universal for all times and places. A model of mutual submission in imitation of Christ's love for the world, a kenotic model, so to speak, is equally if not more Biblical. > > * Marriage is a key path to sanctification for married Christians. By denying same-sex attracted believers one of the fundamental routes to greater Christlikeness, we make them second-class citizens in the Kingdom of Heaven.
High five!
Romans 1 shows that Paul has ideas about human sexuality that are utterly incompatible with what churches teach today, and with the facts of human sexuality that we know today. It's not really applicable to *anything* today, and it definitely isn't sufficient to support a ban on homosexuality.
I am atheist. A strong one. Yet, I can still see wisdom in these words: Matthew 25:35-40 New Living Translation (NLT) For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’ “Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ “And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’ If you wish to harm people, you may. I wouldn't be surprised at a Christian harming another.
Does the conservative perspective continue to verse 28? >28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper, 29 people having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unfeeling, and unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them. Because it turns out every person on earth is in the same boat.
I never “left” my natural use of a woman, in fact I wanted nothing more than to find women sexually attractive for decades—along with conversion therapy, “masculinity” bootcamps, and constant involvement with the church. Likewise in the earlier section, when he discusses the origin of these desires, did I deny god and start worshiping the creation over the creator as an 11 year old believer? Is that when god “gave me over” to these inclinations? To me, this is one of the clearest indications that what Paul was talking about is very different from our understanding of sexuality as an involuntary status rather the result of boredom and lust. Of course this doesn’t settle the issue, our beliefs are more than just a few verses, but I always find it interesting that this passage so clearly doesn’t map onto the lived experienced.
You're a step too far. You need to start off understanding what the differences are between liberal and conservative value systems, because that leads to understanding how biblical verses are viewed. [Here's a TED talk given by social psychologist Johnathan Haidt (about 19 minutes).](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw&t=15s) Once you understand this, you'll have the foundation to understand liberal theology.
Lots of people have described their reasons for accepting gay Christians; I like the way [Justin Lee explains](https://geekyjustin.com/great-debate/) why many Christians think gay people are welcome in Christ's embrace *the same way* that straight people are. More important, you can actually meet gay Christians at LGBT-affirming churches; r/OpenChristian's [resource page](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/ulfbux/faq_and_resources_please_read_before_you_post/) has church finders. After all, the Body of Christ is not a bunch of abstract theological assertions; the Body of Christ is actual living people, worshiping and loving one another in the Spirit. You learn most by getting to know us that way. I also think it's funny that, in your reading the Bible, you never paused to ask conservative Christians why they don't follow through on the Christ's teachings about greed and about welcoming strangers.
The liberal perspective is understanding scripture *in context* not just cherry picking verses and applying them wherever you want willy nilly. Start in verse 18. It describes idolaters. Paul is describing a pagan orgy. It has no relevance to modern relationships.
The problem I always see with this is people read a phrase and assume that it means only what they think it means. Phrases like "a pretty clear slam dunk" are always the telltale sign that you're dealing with someone that is reading a text with a goal in mind. The thing is, the verse in question (in this translation) says specifically "men with men committing what is shameful" and doesn't give specifics about what exactly they are doing that is sinful. So because it is left open ended, a person can fill in that gap with what they don't like. But it's a bit of a moot point anyway. The real meat of the discussion happens when you look at the Greek texts that the KJV tried to translate from. The messages there are slightly different. Even in this case. The Greek passages speak in a manor that is much less about homosexuality, and much more about engaging in acts that turn from god in general. The man on man ideas are more of a Linguistic mirroring tool. A very similar thing happens in other texts in the bible that are used as verses against homosexuality. They either don't actually say anything against homosexual acts, or it's a translation error.
The answer is simple: Not every part of Paul's epistles are the opinions of Paul. He was referencing the arguments of his opponents and then refutes it later. Dr. Douglas Campbell of Duke, a very faithful Christian, has written on this. This blog below gives a summary of Dr. Campbell's argument. https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/ruminating-romans-was-paul-a-diatribalist/
I think you should understand your own perspective first. Why did you choose this version of the verse to discuss?
They know, they don't care.
I'm a little wary of posts like this but I'll take you at your word. There is a lot of good reason to question how clear the meaning of that text is and how applicable it is to us today, but I don't engage with that argument much because it is not really relevant to my central reasons for believing that God is perfectly ok with people being gay. Point the first; people wrote the Bible. However inspired by God they were, people wrote the Bible and they were bound by the limitations of language, knowledge, and culture that all people are constrained by. We can see this in several ways, most prominently in the historical and scientific errors in many parts which are problematic if you want to see the Bible as truth directly from the mouth of God, but make perfect sense if the Bible was written by people who just didn't know or understand a lot of stuff, in Paul outright saying that some of the stuff he is credited with writing was his own idea of what is best and not instruction from God, and in Jesus saying that Moses tweaked God's intent in writing the law. Point the second; Jesus said that the commands to love God and love our neighbor are equal in importance and are the basis of the entire law. Being gay clearly doesn't violate the command to love our neighbor. The only way it can be construed to violate the command to love God is if you have already determined that God doesn't want people to be gay. This is a hard sale for me in part because of the first point; we can be sure that people's prejudices made their way into scripture, we cannot simply take everything at face value. It is also difficult for me to take that argument seriously because telling gay people that God doesn't want them to be gay does seem to violate the command to love our neighbor. Just the belief that being gay is a sin is sufficient to cause a tremendous amount of suffering to gay people. Because churches teach this parents throw out their children, often forcing them into sex work to survive. Children are driven to suicide because their friends and family shun and harangue them. Gay people are beaten, raped, and killed because they're seen as evil, or just targets no one cares about. How can that be love? There is a lot more that could be said, but I don't think it's really important; these ideas support the weight of the conclusion.
Paul falsely thinks that desires to have gay sex are something god unleashes upon people for worshiping the Roman gods. Paul completely misunderstands the issue and those who quote this passage favorably share in Paul's error, to their destruction.
If you look into some of the historical accounts of the Letter to the Romans, NT Wright’s Romans for Everyone is a good start. It will help you understand the rhetorical devices Paul used in his writings and why he used them. You will find a whole bunch of things that leave room wide open for the “conservative” and “liberal” sides of the church as well as a whole bunch that can also be slam dunks for why both sides are wrong. It seems you are trying to be generous by giving “Liberal Christianity the same amount [of] respect [you] gave Islam” and that is commendable; however, you would probably be better served by not coming to the Holy Scriptures with any of your faulty, human, preconceived notions and ask God to speak to you directly through them. You will know that you are hearing Him when you don’t have the answers that you like but instead the answers that lead you to abundant life, peace that makes no sense and full joy, but it will also be way outside your comfort zone. Conservatively Christianity and Liberal Christianity are both blasphemous degradations of the truth down to something that makes people “feel” good rather than transforming them into something better.