Which religion is the most LGBT friendly?
This article exposes the faulty premise of ranking religions by 'LGBT friendliness' and contrasts modern deviations with the unchanging, Torah-rooted standard for sexuality established in creation and affirmed by Yeshua.
Quick Answer
Which religion is the most LGBT friendly? Quick Answer Quick Answer: The question "which religion is the most LGBT friendly" operates on a premise that some interpretations consider to be false, as the Hebraic-Messianic faith, rooted in Torah and affirmed by Yeshua, defines sexuality and marriage exclusively as male-female. Any religion claiming "LGBT friendliness" may…
Which religion is the most LGBT friendly?
Quick Answer
Quick Answer: The question "which religion is the most LGBT friendly" operates on a premise that some interpretations consider to be false, as the Hebraic-Messianic faith, rooted in Torah and affirmed by Yeshua, defines sexuality and marriage exclusively as male-female. Any religion claiming "LGBT friendliness" may be seen as deviating from a traditional biblical standard.
The Scholarly Case
The pursuit of an "LGBT friendly" religion, from a certain theological perspective, fundamentally approaches the nature of divine revelation and the unchanging standards of the Creator in a particular way. From a Hebraic-Messianic perspective, the concept of "friendliness" towards practices explicitly defined in some interpretations as an abomination by Elohim is sometimes viewed as a modern invention, a distortion of the original faith delivered to Israel and upheld by Yeshua and His apostles. The question itself can highlight a perceived tension between contemporary cultural demands and certain interpretations of the Torah. The foundation of human sexuality is established in the very beginning of the Brit Hadasha (the Hebrew Scriptures, or "Old Testament"). Genesis 1:27 declares, "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." This foundational text is understood by many to establish a binary understanding of human gender, created in the image of Elohim. Following this, Genesis 2:24 articulates what is seen as the divine design for marriage: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." This is often understood not merely as a cultural construct but as a divine blueprint for the foundational unit of human society. Yeshua HaMashiach Himself is understood to have affirmed this creation ordinance. When questioned about divorce, Yeshua pointed directly to these foundational texts, stating in Matthew 19:4-6, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 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’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Yeshua, from this perspective, did not introduce new moral categories for sexuality; He reaffirmed what is understood as the original, immutable standard established by Elohim at creation. His ministry is understood by many not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, as He declared in Matthew 5:17-19: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." This is often interpreted to include the moral and ethical commands concerning sexuality found within the Torah. The Torah is widely understood in some traditions as unequivocal in its condemnation of homosexual acts. Leviticus 18:22 states plainly, "You must not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination." The term "abomination" (תּוֹעֵבָה, to'evah) is consistently used in the Torah to describe practices that are considered deeply offensive to Elohim and are associated with the defilement of the land and its inhabitants (Leviticus 18:24-25). This is often viewed not as a mere cultural prohibition but as a moral absolute, a standard that reportedly transcended the practices of the surrounding pagan nations. The Mishnah, an early codification of Jewish oral law (circa 200 CE), reinforces this understanding, listing homosexual acts as punishable offenses (Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4). Even the Targums, Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible, reflect this consistent understanding. For instance, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 19:5, when describing the men of Sodom, uses language that many interpret as condemning their intent for homosexual relations. The apostles of Yeshua, from a traditional perspective, far from overturning these foundational principles, consistently upheld them. Rav Sha'ul (the Apostle Paul), writing to communities steeped in pagan sexual immorality, reiterated these prohibitions. In Romans 1:26-27, he describes what are considered the consequences of rejecting Elohim, stating, "For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." This passage is often viewed not merely as a cultural critique but as a theological indictment of behaviors that are understood to be contrary to the created order. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Sha'ul warns, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." The Greek term translated "men who submit to or perform homosexual acts" (ἀρσενοκοῖται, arsenokoitai) is considered by many to be a clear reference to male homosexual activity, directly echoing the language and prohibition reportedly found in Leviticus. Further, 1 Timothy 1:9-10 includes "homosexuals" among those for whom the law is enacted, demonstrating what is often seen as a consistent apostolic witness against such practices. Therefore, any religion that claims to be "LGBT friendly" in the sense of affirming homosexual or transgender identities and practices as morally equivalent to the male-female design established in creation is, according to this perspective, departing from the original Hebraic-Messianic faith. Such a stance is frequently understood to require a reinterpretation, or outright rejection, of foundational biblical texts and the teachings of Yeshua and His apostles. It reportedly represents a capitulation to contemporary cultural pressures rather than an adherence to divine truth. The love and compassion extended to all individuals, as exemplified by Yeshua, is often understood not to entail affirming sin or denying certain clear commands of Elohim. Matthew 5:45 reminds us that Elohim "causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous," demonstrating a universal benevolence that is often interpreted as not equating to approval of unrighteous behavior.Adversary Teardown: Wikipedia & Britannica
The notion of an "LGBT-friendly religion" is a modern construct, promoted by platforms like Wikipedia and various secular organizations, that some argue misrepresents the historical and theological positions of authentic faith traditions. Wikipedia's entry on "LGBTQ-affirming religious groups" (en.wikipedia.org) and similar articles from sources like Britannica often list various denominations and movements as "affirming," which some contend creates an equivalency between religious practice and secular social trends. This approach, it is argued, fails to distinguish between the biblical mandate to love all people and the affirmation of behaviors considered unbiblical. For instance, some modern Christian denominations, particularly those that emerged in the 20th century, began to redefine marriage and sexuality. The United Church of Christ, for example, which is frequently cited as "LGBTQ-affirming," officially declared itself "Open and Affirming" in 1985, a significant departure from some traditional interpretations of Christian and Jewish teaching. Similarly, the Metropolitan Community Church, founded in 1968, was explicitly created to serve the LGBT community, thus building its theology around affirming identities and practices that some interpretations of the Torah and Brit Chadashah condemn. These are sometimes viewed not as continuations of the original Hebraic-Messianic faith but rather as significant breaks, driven by cultural accommodation rather than an exclusive adherence to scriptural fidelity. The vulnerability in these "affirming" positions, as seen in the arguments of groups like "Saints Unscripted" (EVIDENCE 1), is their perceived contradiction of biblical teachings. They assert that "LGBTQ+ individuals who remain active in the church demonstrate 'so much faith'," implying compatibility between an identity and practice and Christian faithfulness, without, it is argued, adequately addressing scriptural prohibitions. This is considered by some not a nuanced theological development but a departure from scriptural authority in favor of subjective experience and cultural acceptance. Lloyd Evans, in "Jehovah's Witnesses take fresh swipe at LGBTQ community" (EVIDENCE 5), criticizes traditional biblical sexual ethics as "toxic, backwards, hateful homophobic rhetoric," which some interpret as sidestepping theological engagement with the "clobber verses" (EVIDENCE 8) and instead dismissing them as mere "hate." This secular ethical framework is seen by some as undermining the very concept of divine revelation. Even those who attempt a "conditional respect" like the Jehovah's Witnesses (EVIDENCE 2), claiming to "completely reject certain conduct" while not "hate the person," still operate within a framework that, for many, ultimately condemns the "lifestyles" as unrighteous. This position, while seemingly more moderate, still affirms a biblical standard against homosexual acts, albeit inconsistently applied in practice (e.g., shunning ex-members). Islam, often mentioned in these discussions, likewise maintains a strict stance against homosexual acts, rooted in the Quran and Hadith. While some apologists might vaguely claim "gay people have nothing to fear as long as they don't practice it" (EVIDENCE 7), Sharia law as interpreted by many explicitly punishes homosexual acts, potentially making any claim of "friendliness" challenging. The core issue raised is that the desire to label a religion "friendly" to a particular identity group often overrides what are considered the actual theological and historical teachings of that religion. The "friendliness" is often measured by contemporary secular standards, not by adherence to divine revelation. The Hebraic-Messianic faith, it is argued, cannot, by definition, be "friendly" to practices that Elohim calls an abomination, regardless of how popular or socially acceptable they become.Counter-Arguments Anticipated
Objection 1: Yeshua never explicitly condemned homosexuality, therefore it is permissible.
This argument is sometimes presented as a fallacy of silence and is considered by some to ignore Yeshua's consistent affirmation of the Torah. As Matthew 5:17-19 states, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them." Yeshua directly affirmed the creation ordinance of male and female for marriage in Matthew 19:4-6, quoting Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. By affirming the Torah as binding and the creation account as foundational, Yeshua implicitly and explicitly affirmed what are considered the Torah's prohibitions against homosexual acts found in Leviticus 18:22. His silence on specific sins does not necessarily equate to approval; He addressed the root of sin in the heart, from which all unrighteous acts flow.
Objection 2: The prohibitions in Leviticus are part of the Old Covenant law and are no longer applicable to believers today.
This argument sometimes selectively misapplies the concept of covenant, according to some interpretations. The Torah contains three categories of law: ceremonial (which pointed to Yeshua and are fulfilled in Him), civil (governing ancient Israel), and moral. The prohibitions against homosexual acts in Leviticus 18:22 are considered by many to be part of the moral law, which reflects the unchanging character of Elohim and the created order. These moral laws are consistently upheld in the Brit Chadashah by the apostles, as seen in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The concept of "abomination" (to'evah) is considered by many not a culturally relative term but a divine judgment on acts contrary to Elohim's nature. Yeshua Himself upheld the moral law, and His followers are called to live righteously according to His standards, not to discard divine commands.
Objection 3: Love and acceptance mean affirming all identities and expressions, including LGBT.
While the Hebraic-Messianic faith clearly calls for love and compassion towards all individuals, this does not necessarily translate to affirming all behaviors or identities. Yeshua loved sinners, but He also called them to repentance (Mark 2:17). Matthew 5:45 shows Elohim's universal benevolence, but this does not, in this view, imply approval of unrighteousness. True love, from a biblical perspective, is understood to include speaking truth and upholding Elohim's standards, even when unpopular. Affirming behaviors that the Torah and Brit Chadashah define as sin is considered by some not love but a distortion of divine truth, potentially leading individuals away from the path of righteousness and genuine reconciliation with Elohim.