How do you reconcile homosexuality and Christianity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Satan totally says homosexual sex is not a sin .

If so, with that kind of power, then Satan (Shaytan in Islam) are gods, and none of the Abrahamic religions are monotheistic. And yes I know the whole "fallen angel" thing, but it's still a power that God gave to another sort of god, and God wants to see play out for his own amusement, which is not very compassionate at all. God can stop Satan/Shaytan - otherwise, they're not omnipotent. It's all sort of gross and disturbing.

Uhh... what are you talking about?

The concept of Satan/Shaytan/Devil in general. If you think about it, it's basically one face of God.

I've always thought it was interesting too. I don't think it is exactly clear what Satan even is. It's not really mentioned that many times in the Bible, and then in some parts, like Job, it seems like Satan is some sort of examiner or something. I personally do not really ever think of Satan as that important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?

I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.

But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.

Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?

+1000

The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.

Being predisposed to a certain sin does not mean that you are going to hell. We are all predisposed to sin. People who are tempted to have sex outside of marriage are predisposed to the exact same type of sin.

Again, so what you're saying is that god created a certain class of people who happen to love others of their own sex and then tells them sorry, you have to suppress your nature for your entire life.

What kind of cruel god would do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we don't have to worry about sin then why did Jesus have to be crucified? We are all sinners. Homosexual acts are sin as are premarital sex and extramarital sex... Selfishness ... Lying...stealing, gossiping, swearing with Gods name . We all probably sin at least 10 times a day. Having a homosexual wedding ceremony probably takes it to outright rebellion levels against God similar to having a satanic wedding ceremony , but I'm sure those people probably don't care .

See... as someone who wasn't raised Christian, I never understood why Jesus has to be crucified in the first place. How does Jesus dying translate to forgiveness of sins? Couldn't God just forgive your sins himself? Why the son/middleman? What about all the thousands of other human beings who were crucified on a cross? Why did they have to die? What was the value in their suffering? Was their suffering less than Jesus, even though they underwent the same horrendous torture?

Ok, this is a theologically complex question, but my understanding is that "sin" has a cost. It is like gravity in that it is part of the reality that God created us in. God could just magically erase sin, I guess, and God could also let us zoom around like Superman but that is not the reality we live in. God could also just make us love him and be perfect, but that is also not the reality we live in- we would just be robots in that case. We have free will, and one of the results of that is sin, and the cost of that sin is death and judgment. Jesus took on that penalty for us. Suffering is the cost of free will and sin. The world we live in is imperfect, which is why there can be great suffering all around us. But our suffering is trivial in the larger scheme of things- that eventually we will live in Heaven with God forever, if we believe in Jesus.

I get that. From a raised-Muslim person like myself it's still strange, as Muslims are taught that it's us against ourselves - we are always judged, and we answer to God fully for everything we did in our lives, no middleman needed. [fwiw I don't believe that either, but it is a little easier to digest].

But so what was the point of Joe Schmoe suffering on the cross, alongside Jesus, and undergoing the same exact amount of pain and torment?

Jesus is God incarnate, there is no middleman. God became human, and experienced everything a regular person experiences- feeling cold, hungry, suffering, friendship, etc. He was not rich or powerful or anything like that, just a regular person. There is no point to any suffering. Not of children in Syria or people on the cross or people in concentration camps or anyone else. We suffer because we live in a broken world. The point is not to make the world perfect, or to be perfect ourselves. We will never completely fix the world or be perfect. The point is to know and love Jesus, and to grow closer to him. Growing closer to Jesus and becoming a better person are two things that feed into each other- as we know God we want to be better, as we become better we want to know God more.

Thanks for completely, repeatedly ignoring my question.

Huh? I thought I did.

The thousands of other people crucified by the Romans in the exact same manner, undergoing the exact same suffering as Jesus... what was their gift? Why is their (equal, possibly even elevated) torment ignored? What was the point of them dying on the cross, those thousands of other people who were brutally crucified? Is their suffering less? And if so, why?

Well, again, I am not some sort of expert, but they are not God. God chose to live as a human, suffer, die (and I guess depending on your interpretation descend into Hell), and pay the cost of death. Because God took on that cost, we do not have to.

I will never claim this makes logical sense. Christianity, when practiced right, is much more compelling in practice. To forgive your enemies, to love others as yourself, to love God, is to show who Jesus really is.

Thank you for this admission - I sincerely appreciate this.

I think this is just why I can never reconcile religion (I'm not claiming that I think Christianity is illogical - I was raised Muslim, and think Islam is equally illogical).

But ethics like loving others as yourself, forgiving enemies, are hardly exclusively Christian values. They pre-date Christianity in other texts and teachings, and are not confined to any one belief system. I know that religion (and mostly the stuff about death) can bring a lot of comfort to a lot of people. But to be a decent, compassionate, kind human being... none of that need be bound to religion and/or belief in a deity.

I don't think any Christian thinks that you literally cannot live an ethical, compassionate life outside of Christianity. There are probably an infinite number of ways to reach an ethical, honorable life. Christianity is not about rules or just living a good life. Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus. Christianity is about finding God's love and getting peace, joy, and comfort from that. That's the whole point, and being ethical just goes hand in hand with it.

Right, but then Jesus wasn't special. His manner of death wasn't special. His teachings weren't special or distinct. Many religions and ideological teach about finding God's love, peace, joy, and comfort. All religions and cultures borrow from those before them. [I don't mean to pick on Christianity, but it is the subject of this thread.]

I have no idea what I'm getting at. I have an appreciation for people who still believe, but also admit that none of it really make sense or is that distinct/special. At least it shows they're thinking about things and engaging in some healthy thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?

I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.

But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.

Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?

+1000

The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.

Being predisposed to a certain sin does not mean that you are going to hell. We are all predisposed to sin. People who are tempted to have sex outside of marriage are predisposed to the exact same type of sin.

Again, so what you're saying is that god created a certain class of people who happen to love others of their own sex and then tells them sorry, you have to suppress your nature for your entire life.

What kind of cruel god would do that?

I guess if you think of it that way, God is cruel no matter what. There are people who are born with all kinds of burdens- disability, blindness, etc. Why would God do that to them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?

I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.

But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.

Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?

+1000

The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.

Being predisposed to a certain sin does not mean that you are going to hell. We are all predisposed to sin. People who are tempted to have sex outside of marriage are predisposed to the exact same type of sin.

Again, so what you're saying is that god created a certain class of people who happen to love others of their own sex and then tells them sorry, you have to suppress your nature for your entire life.

What kind of cruel god would do that?

I guess if you think of it that way, God is cruel no matter what. There are people who are born with all kinds of burdens- disability, blindness, etc. Why would God do that to them?

You're equating loving someone of your own sex with blindness or bodily deformity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think any Christian thinks that you literally cannot live an ethical, compassionate life outside of Christianity. There are probably an infinite number of ways to reach an ethical, honorable life. Christianity is not about rules or just living a good life. Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus. Christianity is about finding God's love and getting peace, joy, and comfort from that. That's the whole point, and being ethical just goes hand in hand with it.

Right, but then Jesus wasn't special. His manner of death wasn't special. His teachings weren't special or distinct. Many religions and ideological teach about finding God's love, peace, joy, and comfort. All religions and cultures borrow from those before them. [I don't mean to pick on Christianity, but it is the subject of this thread.]

I have no idea what I'm getting at. I have an appreciation for people who still believe, but also admit that none of it really make sense or is that distinct/special. At least it shows they're thinking about things and engaging in some healthy thought.

I mean, you have a point. If you study Jesus' teachings, and read the Bible, and try to pray, and try the whole thing out, and then you think "Eh, this doesn't really do anything for me," then... yeah, just go and live your life. Personally, I have tried living my life both as a Christian and not, and I like who I am much better with God. Literally everything is better with God in my life. But if you are sincere, and it does nothing for you, yeah, why force it? I wouldn't advocate for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?

I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.

But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.

Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?

+1000

The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.

Being predisposed to a certain sin does not mean that you are going to hell. We are all predisposed to sin. People who are tempted to have sex outside of marriage are predisposed to the exact same type of sin.

Again, so what you're saying is that god created a certain class of people who happen to love others of their own sex and then tells them sorry, you have to suppress your nature for your entire life.

What kind of cruel god would do that?

I guess if you think of it that way, God is cruel no matter what. There are people who are born with all kinds of burdens- disability, blindness, etc. Why would God do that to them?

You're equating loving someone of your own sex with blindness or bodily deformity?

Well if I had equated it with pedophilia or bestiality or something, you would have been even more offended!

So yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bible tells you not to do a lot of things that we do every day without thinking about it. Why do you ignore those rules?

Because The Bible isn't meant to be literal. I think the most important aspects of Christianity are about love and helping your neighbor. Giving and putting out love into the world. Accepting people from all walks of life and showing them love. Those stories are the power behind the Christian religion. Any preacher who rallies behind hate and shunning and looking down on is Doing It Wrong. At least in my book.

OP here. Because they are in the Old Testament. But the New Testament condemns, very plainly, sexual deviance and homosexuality. I guess my feeling is, if we start picking and choosing from the New Testament, we are just ignoring what Christianity is. At the same time, I do not see the moral "wrongness" of homosexuality. I am not some sort of expert, but I have read the whole Bible, and... I don't know. I just literally do not know what to think in this situation.

Consider putting the Bible down and using your common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?

I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.

But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.

Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?

+1000

The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.

Being predisposed to a certain sin does not mean that you are going to hell. We are all predisposed to sin. People who are tempted to have sex outside of marriage are predisposed to the exact same type of sin.

So as long as same-sex couples wait till they are married to be sexually intimate, that's ok?

I still don't understand what the sin line is.

Unless you're saying that you can ONLY have sex for procreation, with the total intent of procreation, and no oral/anal/other sex, or sex after childbearing years, then there is no distinction.

Sex was created as a gift to make procreation pleasureable for Gods children. Procreation and the creation of a soul is considered sacred. Perverting the procreation process is considered a sin. Heaven is perfect and perversion is the product of selfishness. Selfishness is a sin that leads to lying, cursing, murder and cheating . The Ten Commandments require perfection in thought and deed. Even sodomy within hetero marriage is a sin . It falls short of the mark. Jesus would procreate but he wouldn't do oral or anal. It's along those lines

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?

I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.

But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.

Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?

+1000

The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.

Being predisposed to a certain sin does not mean that you are going to hell. We are all predisposed to sin. People who are tempted to have sex outside of marriage are predisposed to the exact same type of sin.

So as long as same-sex couples wait till they are married to be sexually intimate, that's ok?

I still don't understand what the sin line is.

Unless you're saying that you can ONLY have sex for procreation, with the total intent of procreation, and no oral/anal/other sex, or sex after childbearing years, then there is no distinction.

Sex was created as a gift to make procreation pleasureable for Gods children. Procreation and the creation of a soul is considered sacred. Perverting the procreation process is considered a sin. Heaven is perfect and perversion is the product of selfishness. Selfishness is a sin that leads to lying, cursing, murder and cheating . The Ten Commandments require perfection in thought and deed. Even sodomy within hetero marriage is a sin . It falls short of the mark. Jesus would procreate but he wouldn't do oral or anal. It's along those lines

So women after menopause aren't allowed to have sex, right? No procreation possible, so no sex from there on out.

And their male spouses too, otherwise it would be infidelity.

I can respect this line of thinking, as long as it's consistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a Christian, but I genuinely do not feel that homosexuality is wrong. I just never have. I do see that homosexual acts are condemned by the Bible. I go to a very conservative church that will never perform gay marriages, for example. But in my heart, in my conscience, I just really do not feel homosexuality is wrong. I do not see anything immoral about it. If you have felt similar and found a way to reconcile this, I would love to know! I have been thinking about it for awhile.

I feel the same. I believe that we are all children of God and that we are all loved and accepted exactly as we are. God doesn't discriminate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?

I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.

But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.

Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?

+1000

The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.

Being predisposed to a certain sin does not mean that you are going to hell. We are all predisposed to sin. People who are tempted to have sex outside of marriage are predisposed to the exact same type of sin.

So as long as same-sex couples wait till they are married to be sexually intimate, that's ok?

I still don't understand what the sin line is.

Unless you're saying that you can ONLY have sex for procreation, with the total intent of procreation, and no oral/anal/other sex, or sex after childbearing years, then there is no distinction.

Sex was created as a gift to make procreation pleasureable for Gods children. Procreation and the creation of a soul is considered sacred. Perverting the procreation process is considered a sin. Heaven is perfect and perversion is the product of selfishness. Selfishness is a sin that leads to lying, cursing, murder and cheating . The Ten Commandments require perfection in thought and deed. Even sodomy within hetero marriage is a sin . It falls short of the mark. Jesus would procreate but he wouldn't do oral or anal. It's along those lines

I don't really see the biblical basis for this type of thinking. The Bible never really suggests that sex is ONLY for procreation. Procreation is the ultimate result of sex, but there were a lot of couples in the Bible who were not able to have children. The Bible does not suggest that these couples were living in sin because they could not procreate.

[Anonymous]

^^^Most people don't want the burden of being pure in mind and deed. That's why Jesus offers forgiveness. That said , it's dangerous to say and believe sin is fine. Jesus said the road to heaven is narrow and the road to hell is wide. Most people are probably going to hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being a homosexual isn't a sin. Having homosexual sex is a sin.

So anal sex among a heterosexual married couple is a sin? Oral sex between a heterosexual couple is a sin?

I think the PP meant that two people of the same gender having sex is a sin, not how they do it... but I had a good giggle.

But what exactly is it, that makes it a sin? Is it the non-procreative sex? Is it two people sharing the same chromosomes being in a close, intimate, but non-sexual relationship? If so, lots of close friendships among same-sex friends may be called into question.

Or, the non-procreative sex of heterosexual couples. What exactly is the sin line?

+1000

The idea that a god would create people a certain way and then say, "oh by the way, you must deny your nature or you're going to hell, sorry" is crazy. I can't even imagine wanting to have a relationship with a god like that.

Being predisposed to a certain sin does not mean that you are going to hell. We are all predisposed to sin. People who are tempted to have sex outside of marriage are predisposed to the exact same type of sin.

So as long as same-sex couples wait till they are married to be sexually intimate, that's ok?

I still don't understand what the sin line is.

Unless you're saying that you can ONLY have sex for procreation, with the total intent of procreation, and no oral/anal/other sex, or sex after childbearing years, then there is no distinction.

Sex was created as a gift to make procreation pleasureable for Gods children. Procreation and the creation of a soul is considered sacred. Perverting the procreation process is considered a sin. Heaven is perfect and perversion is the product of selfishness. Selfishness is a sin that leads to lying, cursing, murder and cheating . The Ten Commandments require perfection in thought and deed. Even sodomy within hetero marriage is a sin . It falls short of the mark. Jesus would procreate but he wouldn't do oral or anal. It's along those lines

Giving birth sure as H..l isn't pleasurable. Or, are we women still paying for Eve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think you've missed the point. Jesus lifted most Old Testament bans--yes, including shellfish and blended fabrics. So we're starting over; the ground has totally shifted; and it's not necessarily OK to assume that everything in the Old Testament is still valid. Jesus cared enough about adultery to condemn it, but he never mentioned homosexuality.

Jesus' focus was on peace, loving your enemy, sharing your worldly goods, and so on. That's a focus that's meaningful to me, instead of worrying about who's sleeping with who. As others here have said, Jesus got away from all the bean counting and to a larger message of acceptance and love.

YOu mean we can just throw out the Old testament? Everything God said there no longer holds? WHy do people still quote it in Church? Maybe some parts are still good. How do you know which ones?