How do you reconcile homosexuality and Christianity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:God, and Jesus, both spoke directly to Paul. I do not think even the disciples ever spoke directly to God. Acts 18:9, Acts 22, Acts 23:11.

Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit too. Acts 13:9, 19:6, 19:21,

So, clearly Paul's words have MAJOR cred.

Paul said homosexuality is a sin - I Corinthians 6:9.

however, Jesus said judge not lest you be judged.

Paul said those who receive the body and blood of christ should examine their own worthiness to partake, I Corinthians 11:28, and even Jesus allowed Judas to partake at the Last Supper.

so, my take is that homosexuals should not be banned from any christian faith or partaking in communion. I do not, however, believe they can be married in a true Christian sense.

THis is your interpretation of Christian thinking, which is all well and good. We go by civl law in the US, where Gay marriage is acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God, and Jesus, both spoke directly to Paul. I do not think even the disciples ever spoke directly to God. Acts 18:9, Acts 22, Acts 23:11.

Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit too. Acts 13:9, 19:6, 19:21,

So, clearly Paul's words have MAJOR cred.

Paul said homosexuality is a sin - I Corinthians 6:9.

however, Jesus said judge not lest you be judged.

Paul said those who receive the body and blood of christ should examine their own worthiness to partake, I Corinthians 11:28, and even Jesus allowed Judas to partake at the Last Supper.

so, my take is that homosexuals should not be banned from any christian faith or partaking in communion. I do not, however, believe they can be married in a true Christian sense.

THis is your interpretation of Christian thinking, which is all well and good. We go by civl law in the US, where Gay marriage is acceptable.

+1. It's also a literalist interpretation of Paul, which many Christians do not share and think Paul himself did not intend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Again, He didn't do away with those laws. Read the bible quote where he states "I did not come to abolish the law". He came to fulfill those laws that the Israelites had to follow to be "right" with God; Christ's coming made such laws not needed because He is the embodiment of such laws, ie, to be right with God. meant.

Of course Jesus did away with those laws. Does your pastor/minister/priest tell you not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fibers? I really think you need to ask him about this directly, so that he (assuming it's not a she) can clear this up for you. You are simply wrong. This is one point on which there's zero difference among the denominations.

Were you the one who pointed out that Jesus never answered a question from the Pharisees directly (a Bible literalist was the one who said that in this thread). Well, that was correct. As we all know, the Temple priests and lawyers thought he WAS doing away with their laws, so they tested him. In Matthew 22:35-40, Jesus answers that, basically, all the law and prophets can be boiled down to two commandments, love God and love your neighbor. It was a clever answer, because they couldn't get him (yet), but he's clearly saying that his message of love beats out all the rules.

"Fulfill" doesn't mean here what you'd like it to mean.

Anonymous wrote:
You also have no idea if He didn't mean homosexuality was sexually immoral either. Again, the absence of Him stating something doesn't make it not true. I am simply going by what He was recorded as saying in Matthew. meant.

Please, please, please. Stop already with the line of argument that goes, "I know Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, but I think I know he disapproved." You know no such thing. You've been chided by multiple posters for making this assumption. In fact, don't you think it's a little insulting to Jesus to say that you know what he forgot to mention?

Anonymous wrote: You have never addressed what did He mean by "sexual immorality" in that passage. If your answer is "I don't know", then again, you are saying that because He didn't specifically state something, you assume it must not be true. I use the analogy of my 8 yr old hitting the back of my seat in the car. When he kicked the chair, I told him to stop kicking. Then he punched the chair, and I told him I had already asked him to stop. His response: well, you didn't say I couldn't punch the chair. But, c'mon, he knew what I meant. You are doing something similar: because Christ didn't explicitly state that homosexuality was a sin, it must not be. But, He did state that sexual immorality is a sin. You know what He meant. If you don't, then you should read the Bible, commentaries, talk to theologians to find out what he really meant. Based on my reading of the Bible, I know what He meant.

OK, I've noticed this before. You write that I can't say "Jesus didn't say anything but I assume he doesn't object." But you've posted multiple times that "Jesus didn't say anything but I know what he meant." Please explain how that works, because it really looks like double-dealing on your part, doesn't it?

Anyway, I have addressed the "sexual immorality" issue, and I've addressed it several times here. I said that it could include a range of things, like pre-marital sex, pedophelia, bestiality, or even kissing someone you're not married to. Others have also said this. Someone also pointed out the relevant fact that bestiality and pedophiia involve non-consenting victims, whereas homosexuality does not. I and others have refuted your (startling) claim that Jesus always followed Jewish tradition, so there's no reason to assume he included homosexuality in this.

Please also stop with the analogy of your right-year-old. It doesn't work. The problem is, you KNOW FOR A FACT what your eight-year old was doing, because you felt it as you were driving. You DON'T KNOW what Jesus intended about homosexuality. And if it needs to be repeated: your guesses about Jesus are not equivalent to feeling your son kicking your car seat.

I think I'm done for the night. You don't seem to read what I and others write (the "sexual immorality" issue). And your ad hominems are tiring. I need to get back to my own family.

Again, you are missing the point of what Jesus said about "I did not come to abolish the law... I came to fulfill the laws". You say that "of course Jesus abolished the laws", but that goes directly against that Biblical quote. I don't understand how you not see that. What does it mean to you when He states "I did not come to abolish the laws but to fulfill the laws"?

The laws were about being right with God, so yes, we no longer have to follow those laws which were meant to have man reconcile with God. How do *you* know those laws included homosexuality?

You think homosexuality is not included in what is considered "sexual immorally" because it doesn't hurt another person, but pedophilia does and so that is why pedophilia would be considered sexually immorally. How does sex between an unmarried man and unmarried woman hurt another person, yet that is considered adultery, and Jesus called that out as something that defiles a person.

Not every sin is about hurting another person. There are sins that we commit that have nothing to do with other people. Worshipping an idol doesn't hurt another person, yet that is one of the gravest of sins under the 10 commandments.

You accuse me of assuming to know what Jesus meant, but you are doing the same by stating that he doesn't include homosexuality as sexually immoral though he never explicitly stated this. You assume that because he is about love and compassion that he would accept homosexuality as not sinful. You are making leaps here, too.

We make inferences from things stated in the Bible all the time, and we don't always take things literally because much of what happened and was stated were applicable to the times. But, we take the lessons that can be learned from what happened then because most of those lessons involve knowing how to behave in a Christ like manner. But, somethings we do take literally, like "do not commit adultery", and paraphrasing here, "do not be sexually immoral".

And as stated, there are references to homosexuality in the NT as others have noted. Just because it was not Jesus who stated them doesn't make it untrue. Most of the NT is about what the Apostles stated, not what Jesus stated, and yet, Christians follow what the Apostles taught. If you don't believe or follow what the Apostles stated, then I don't know why you would believe what they wrote about Jesus in the Gospels. You either believe what the Apostles wrote in all the NT or not, otherwise, it's called cherry picking to fit your narrative.

[Anonymous]

It's impossible to understand why you continue to argue that Jesus insisted on keeping the Levitical laws. Have you read them? Do you, yourself, do any of that? You need to talk to a knowledgeable priest or theologian because you are 100% wrong on this. No denomination insists on this as you're doing.

To me and to many others, the verb "to fulfill" means "to perfect". That is very different from keeping something in its original form, like the Levitical laws. It's also much more consistent with Jesus' attitude towards the OT rules and rituals. As several here have mentioned, Jesus when talking to the Pharisees was very careful with language. There's a subtlety in "to fulfill" that you're refusing to acknowledge.

[Anonymous]

The same way you reconcile any sin with Christianity you ask Christ for forgiveness and try to turn from your sinful deeds.
Homosexuality isn't a sin , homosexual acts are. You are so much more than acts of sodomy in Gods eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You accuse me of assuming to know what Jesus meant, but you are doing the same by stating that he doesn't include homosexuality as sexually immoral though he never explicitly stated this. You assume that because he is about love and compassion that he would accept homosexuality as not sinful. You are making leaps here, too.

We make inferences from things stated in the Bible all the time, and we don't always take things literally because much of what happened and was stated were applicable to the times. But, we take the lessons that can be learned from what happened then because most of those lessons involve knowing how to behave in a Christ like manner. But, somethings we do take literally, like "do not commit adultery", and paraphrasing here, "do not be sexually immoral".

And as stated, there are references to homosexuality in the NT as others have noted. Just because it was not Jesus who stated them doesn't make it untrue. Most of the NT is about what the Apostles stated, not what Jesus stated, and yet, Christians follow what the Apostles taught. If you don't believe or follow what the Apostles stated, then I don't know why you would believe what they wrote about Jesus in the Gospels. You either believe what the Apostles wrote in all the NT or not, otherwise, it's called cherry picking to fit your narrative.

Again, you're accusing me of interpretation, but then you go on to admit that you're also doing your own interpretation. You even add two whole paras about why it's (1) fair, and (2) correct for you to do all the interpreting.

I first used the word "cherry-picking" here, and I think it still applies as you try to justify your feelings against homosexuality.

I've asked you before to stop distorting my views on Paul, and I'll ask you again to stop and add that you're now distorting my views on the Apostles. As you know, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John follow historical framework of saying, "and then Jesus said X" and "then Jesus said Y." Paul never quotes Jesus directly on the issue of homosexuality, instead he's advising new parishes on a range of issues that Jesus is not recorded as speaking about, like circumcision and Gentiles. Do you agree with Paul's reversal of Jesus' very progressive stance on women's position in the faith? As I've said, I admire Paul for many things, but I don't believe God spoke to him directly with n homosexuality, as you're claiming.

[Anonymous]

OP here.

I don't really care about civil gay marriage. As far as I am concerned you can marry whoever you want in court, that's not really the government's place to decide.

The issue is not judging homosexuals or treating people badly or whatever else. We know that we have to love people. But if I asked you... is stealing a sin? Is murder a sin? Is adultery a sin? We could all answer that straight without waxing poetic about Jesus' love for everybody.

Many great saints and Christian thinkers have written about the importance of sexual purity and morality. None, as far as I know, mentioned that homosexuality is ok. Many have written that it is wrong.

I'm also not understanding why I would not take St. Paul's words literally. Noah's ark- yeah, I can see why we don't take that literally, Adam and Eve, yeah. But St. Paul saying straight out that homosexual activity is wrong and that sexual immorality is wrong- why wouldn't we take that literally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The same way you reconcile any sin with Christianity you ask Christ for forgiveness and try to turn from your sinful deeds.
Homosexuality isn't a sin , homosexual acts are. You are so much more than acts of sodomy in Gods eyes.

That's what you think. The rest of us don't find that in the Bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

I don't really care about civil gay marriage. As far as I am concerned you can marry whoever you want in court, that's not really the government's place to decide.

The issue is not judging homosexuals or treating people badly or whatever else. We know that we have to love people. But if I asked you... is stealing a sin? Is murder a sin? Is adultery a sin? We could all answer that straight without waxing poetic about Jesus' love for everybody.

Many great saints and Christian thinkers have written about the importance of sexual purity and morality. None, as far as I know, mentioned that homosexuality is ok. Many have written that it is wrong.

I'm also not understanding why I would not take St. Paul's words literally. Noah's ark- yeah, I can see why we don't take that literally, Adam and Eve, yeah. But St. Paul saying straight out that homosexual activity is wrong and that sexual immorality is wrong- why wouldn't we take that literally?

And by "homosexuality" I mean homosexual acts, not the state of being attracted to same-sex people.

[Anonymous]

We pray for the gays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We pray for the gays.

Stop posting this and go away, immature person. Nobody thinks you're witty; we think you're immature. The adults are talking. They're disagreeing, but at least they're talking, which seems to be more than you're capable of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We pray for the gays.

Stop posting this and go away, immature person. Nobody thinks you're witty; we think you're immature. The adults are talking. They're disagreeing, but at least they're talking, which seems to be more than you're capable of.

Praying is an activity that many thinking, religious people engage in.

[Anonymous]

Ye who throws the first stone...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate the sin but love the sinner. That's how to reconcile the two.

No, that doesn't work. Jesus said not to judge other people. Who are we to do it, especially if it's based on superficial but convenient readings of Leviticis and Paul.

You're judging the sin, not the person.

[Anonymous]

Homosexuality isn't the sin. Sodomy is . Straight people perform sodomy too. Presumably straight wedding ceremonies infer the holy act of sex. Sodomy isn't sex. Sex creates offspring, sodomy never does.