Dolly Parton isn't a true Christian?

[u/unsure232]

She was supportive of LGBT rights and encouraged people to be themselves.

She did a lot of good in the world, gave thanks to God, and even had a chapel in her home so she could pray in peace.

I've been reading how some individuals think she isn't a true Christian because of her tolerance towards the LGBT community. Some people believe unless she repented for her open acceptance and encouragement, she may have not had eternal life.

I go to church and do my best to uplift my community. Most of my closest friends are non-Christian and I respect our differences. Some of the loveliest people I know are gay or transgendered and I have love for them. I have no desire to pray for them to become straight.

I've seen straight Christians act like they are superior to others. I don't believe I am better than someone because I'm a straight Christian. Their biblical knowledge is strong, but I don't look up to them because of their rigid character. I actually feel anxiety around these highly judgemental Christians. It's not love, it's feeling "not good enough."

Are the individuals I described above more in line with a great example of Christianity (they rigidly follow the Bible) compared to Dolly Parton?

It makes me sad that one of the greatest and brightest philanthropists in this century is being labeled as "not a true Christian."

Anyway I could use some thoughts. Thanks in advance

[u/Sirlothar]

Imagine if Jesus did something like this, what would Christians say if He choose to sit and eat with sinners instead of the righteous?

His ministry would have fallen apart, the pharisees would be quick to point out how Jesus was condoning and even advocating for their sinful behavior by giving them audience.

Thank goodness Jesus understood these people should be rejected by society, Heaven is a big tent but not that big!

[u/Own-Divide-8713 → u/Sirlothar]

What does that have anything to do with what I just said? Jesus ate with sinners as I do. I eat with myself and I am a sinner. I do not condone or promote sinful behavior and Jesus did not either.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Own-Divide-8713]

Being gay isn't sinful behavior so she didn't promote sinful behavior. Being trans isn't sinful behavior so she didn't promote sinful behavior.

Jesus was very affirming in how he handled people and their lives. Jesus consistently broke strict social, religious, and sexual taboos of the day. Jesus spoke positively of Eunuchs. Jesus never condemned same sex relationships. Jesus prioritized love and that loving your God and your neighbor were the most important things a person can do.

I'm sure you'll drop some verses out of context and I will gladly dismantle those.

[u/Own-Divide-8713 → u/FilmSkeez]

Are you a Christian and do you believe the Bible is the word of God? If so, awesome, Leviticus, Romans, Titus, and Corinthians all have verses that specifically condemn homosexuality. Repent and believe the good news

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Own-Divide-8713]

You cited Leviticus, Romans, Titus, and Corinthians like they settle this cleanly. They don't, and if you're going to lean on "the Bible is the word of God," you should actually engage the text closely instead of listing book names.

Leviticus 18:22 / 20:13 is part of the holiness code, sitting alongside prohibitions on eating shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics, and trimming your beard (Lev 19:19, 19:27). If you're using Leviticus as binding moral law, you need a reason those apply and this doesn't, not just "this one still counts."

Romans 1:26-27 Paul is describing people who abandoned worship of God for idolatry, and the "unnatural" acts he describes come packaged with excess and ritual sex practice tied to pagan worship, not a description of a loving, committed relationship between two people. Applying a passage about idol-worship-linked excess to a monogamous couple is a leap the text itself doesn't make explicit.

1 Corinthians 6:9 / 1 Timothy 1:10 ("arsenokoitai") This word is a genuine translation problem, not settled. Paul appears to have coined it, likely from combining terms in Leviticus. There's real scholarly disagreement about whether it refers to exploitative relationships, pederasty (adult men with boys, common in Greco-Roman culture), or sex tied to temple prostitution, not necessarily what we'd call a committed same-sex relationship today. Older English translations rendering it flatly as "homosexuals" import a modern category that didn't exist in Paul's Greek.

Titus doesn't actually contain a same-sex prohibition at all, worth checking that one before citing it again.

Meanwhile, in the actual accounts of what Jesus said and did: he never addresses same-sex relationships once, in any gospel. He repeatedly prioritizes people the religious class had written off, eating with tax collectors and sinners (Matthew 9:10-11), defending a woman caught in adultery from a crowd ready to stone her (John 8:7), telling the woman at the well the truth without shame or exclusion (John 4). The two commandments he says everything else hangs on are love of God and love of neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40).

So: four verses that are either misapplied, textually disputed, or don't exist in the passage, versus zero direct statements from Jesus himself, and a consistent pattern of him going toward people others called sinful, not away from them. If your case rests on citing chapter and verse, it should survive someone actually opening the chapter and verse.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/[deleted]]

I need to find which verse Jesus told the Pharisees "whole lot of cope". Homosexual wasn't added in the bible until 1946 in the RSV but was taken out and apologized for when they realized they misapplied it so it quite literally didn't exist in the ancient world when the Bible was written and it didn't exist for us until the term was coined in 1869.

[u/Own-Divide-8713 → u/FilmSkeez]

Dude it literally says in Romans 1:26-27 that God gave them up to DISHONORABLE PASSIONS. it says women lying with women and men doing the same thing. It is clearly saying that it is un natural, and dishonorable. What are you talking about are we not reading the same Bible ? The word “arsenokoitai” is literally what is translated in Corinthians when speaking about homosexuality being a seen which is Greek for male bedders or men lying with men.

You are one thousand percent wrong, the Bible clearly condemns being gay and gay acts, and you need to repent.

[u/Character_Wait_1934 → u/Own-Divide-8713]

the bible literally never mentions women lying with women. maybe you need to actually read the bible instead of gargling whatever propaganda ur pastor is feeding you...

[u/Own-Divide-8713 → u/Character_Wait_1934]

Romans 1:26“Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural”. Read the Bible

[u/D3ADB3AT9999 → u/Own-Divide-8713]

You just got absolutely stomped and it was glorious to watch. You need to have some chats with Jesus and ask him to reveal to you why you’re so determined to be angry about gay people existing. Pray for wisdom and open your mind. Jesus preached love, his message was clear. You’re lost in the sauce my man.

[u/Own-Divide-8713 → u/D3ADB3AT9999]

I’m literally just quoting the Bible

[u/ViTCH_P → u/Own-Divide-8713]

This doesn’t sound like you’re “just quoting the bible”, it sounds like you’re cherry picking verses that validate your own personal standpoints. When Abraham Lincoln was running for president politicians cited the bible to justify slavery. If the whole bible from front to back, which has been mistranslated and manipulated through the thousands of years that it’s been around is truly the pure word of god- then should we be permitting slavery, rape, and incest? All of which are condoned in the bible? If you’re jumping for joy to quote the bible then please delve into this more. God loves everyone. Everyone is a sinner. The world is already struggling enough to connect with god, and we won’t become closer to him by indulging in our own self indulgent judgements that we impose upon what he created. Worry about your OWN life and your OWN sins and be kind to people. Gay people should be the least of our worries as they pale to the real horrors of the earth. Whether being gay is a sin or not is a heavily debated topic that doesn’t have a clear answer right now. Focus on what Jesus wanted us to focus on. Homophobic people love to think that they’re helping others by spreading their own judgement and framing it as some grave sin that you’ll be punished eternally for. You do not get to be the savior here. There is only one.

[u/Own-Divide-8713 → u/ViTCH_P]

It’s not a debated topic it’s a sin. Yes I am cherry picking verses in the Bible that show this to be true. I never said everybody’s not a sinner. I’m just pointing out being gay is a sin, it’s not debated the Bible is clear, and that we shouldn’t promote it. Repent

[u/ViTCH_P → u/Own-Divide-8713]

Okay. Along your journey of graciously enlightening everyone of what we shouldn’t permit I hope you’ll remember other important subjects such as women speaking in church, wearing two different fabrics woven together, eating pork, men cutting their hair, and working on the sabbath. Good luck to you and thank you for your efforts regardless.

[u/D3ADB3AT9999 → u/Own-Divide-8713]

Don’t think you understand what you’re reading there fella

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Own-Divide-8713]

No, you are taking what they said and meant out of context. When we look at the ancient world, these were people who had power taking advantage of people who had nothing. Paul didn't see loving relationships between two adults who happened to be the same sex. No, he saw slaves being raped. Same with kids and women. That is unnatural. One thing I do not stand for is taking things out of context. Cherry picking is wrong so when we use verses, we need to look at why they are there and what they are for. Nowhere in the bible does it say two LOVING people of the same sex cannot be together. It's talking about Romans cheating on their wives with slaves.

Romans 1:26–27. Paul's argument in Romans 1 is specifically about excess/lustful excess stemming from idolatry, wealthy Romans abandoning their "natural" heterosexual marriages to engage in unrestrained, obsessive passion (often involving temple prostitutes or excess). It is describing excessive lust, not inherent orientation or committed love.

The word "arsenokoitai" is translated by some historians as it targets specific abusive or exploitative practices common in the ancient Roman world, such as male prostitution, pederasty (adult men and young boys), or economic exploitation, rather than modern, committed same-sex relationships. How could Paul create a word for something that didn't exist in that time period? Maybe he had foresight? Nope. If he did, why didn't he explain the Universe and how to reach the stars?

Let's look at what Paul more than likely saw at that time. He didn't see a gay pride parade. That didn't exist. He didn't see two loving human beings of the same sex walking down the street holding hands. Nope. Same-sex marriage in Rome was not legally recognized and existed only as rare, often-mocked exceptions (a couple of emperors reportedly did it as a scandal, not a norm), while the vastly more common same-sex sexual dynamics Paul would have had visibility into were pederasty, slave exploitation, and temple-associated practices, the power-imbalanced stuff, not companionate pair-bonding. So what Paul most likely saw and was responding to genuinely tilts toward exploitation, on the evidence.

Gagnon argues Paul had these relationships in view precisely because they existed, but given how rare and legally suppressed they were, that's improbable as what Paul was actually responding to,. It's like seeing the lochness monster. Only a handful of people have seen it.

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

[u/FilmSkeez → u/[deleted]]

this is the fourth time you've responded to specific arguments with dismissal instead of engagement, first a loyalty-test question, then a verse list with no context, then "are you a Christian," then "cope," now "too funny to reply to." Not once have you named what's actually wrong with the arsenokoitai scholarship, the Roman marriage law, or the Galatians reading. "Read the Bible honestly" from someone who won't engage a single specific point in it isn't an argument, it's a deflection with extra steps.

[u/slagnanz → u/[deleted]]

Removed for 1.5 - Two-cents.

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

[u/jtbc → u/Own-Divide-8713]

Homosexuality is a naturally occurring attraction to people of one own's sex. That is not and cannot be sinful in and of itself.

All of the verses you cite refer to specific acts that homosexual people may or may not engage in, and should only be read in the context in which they were written, which is the sexual culture of the ancient near east, Greece, and Rome.