How do you reconcile homosexuality and Christianity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

He stated: "I dd not come to abolish the laws". What does that mean to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sodomy, masterbation, pre marital and extramarital sex are all sins. I suggest if you are a Christian you ask for forgiveness for these specific sins before you die . Jesus said the road to heaven is narrow and the road to hell is wide and many there are that go that way. It doesn't matter what public opinion is or feelings are God will take one person who knows him and cares about what pleases him and let everyone else choose and feeling their way to hell.

It's possible that God could consider approval of homosexual weddings as open rebellion against him with the reasoning behind it much like satans reasoning in rebelling in heaven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He stated: "I dd not come to abolish the laws". What does that mean to you?

Hit send too soon.

I keep stating that we don't need to follow Levitical laws because He came to fulfill those laws, ie, be right with God. No where do I state that we should follow all Levitical laws. But, He is also stating here that He didn't come to negate those laws, just that they are no longer necessary to follow to be right with God.

It also doesn't mean the entire OT should be disregarded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He stated: "I dd not come to abolish the laws". What does that mean to you?

The laws stand but he is the sacrifice that washes away the consequences .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He stated: "I dd not come to abolish the laws". What does that mean to you?

Hit send too soon.

I keep stating that we don't need to follow Levitical laws because He came to fulfill those laws, ie, be right with God. No where do I state that we should follow all Levitical laws. But, He is also stating here that He didn't come to negate those laws, just that they are no longer necessary to follow to be right with God.

It also doesn't mean the entire OT should be disregarded.

What you're saying is inconsistent. You're saying that *some* Levitical and other Old Testament laws were rendered obsolete by Jesus. But you say that others--re homosexuality--weren't. Even if this is true, there are so many OT laws that Jesus didn't specifically address, so why are you so sure which ones are obsolete and which still stand? Also, your use of "fulfill/be right with God" is strange in this context, doesn't logically address the issue you claim it does, and certainly not the traditional understanding of this passage.

Please, please, please talk to your pastor/minister about Levitical laws and Jesus' sayings re "I came to fulfill" and "on these to commandments hang all the law..." passages. Obviously you're not going to be convinced by strangers on DCUM. But for your own understanding, you need somebody you trust to clear this up for you.

[Anonymous]

But it's not just Leviticus talking about homosexuality... Paul does too.

I don't know any pastors that would dismiss Paul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Sodomy, masterbation, pre marital and extramarital sex are all sins. I suggest if you are a Christian you ask for forgiveness for these specific sins before you die . Jesus said the road to heaven is narrow and the road to hell is wide and many there are that go that way. It doesn't matter what public opinion is or feelings are God will take one person who knows him and cares about what pleases him and let everyone else choose and feeling their way to hell.

It's possible that God could consider approval of homosexual weddings as open rebellion against him with the reasoning behind it much like satans reasoning in rebelling in heaven.

What is masterbation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He stated: "I dd not come to abolish the laws". What does that mean to you?

Hit send too soon.

I keep stating that we don't need to follow Levitical laws because He came to fulfill those laws, ie, be right with God. No where do I state that we should follow all Levitical laws. But, He is also stating here that He didn't come to negate those laws, just that they are no longer necessary to follow to be right with God.

It also doesn't mean the entire OT should be disregarded.

What you're saying is inconsistent. You're saying that *some* Levitical and other Old Testament laws were rendered obsolete by Jesus. But you say that others--re homosexuality--weren't. Even if this is true, there are so many OT laws that Jesus didn't specifically address, so why are you so sure which ones are obsolete and which still stand? Also, your use of "fulfill/be right with God" is strange in this context, doesn't logically address the issue you claim it does, and certainly not the traditional understanding of this passage.

Please, please, please talk to your pastor/minister about Levitical laws and Jesus' sayings re "I came to fulfill" and "on these to commandments hang all the law..." passages. Obviously you're not going to be convinced by strangers on DCUM. But for your own understanding, you need somebody you trust to clear this up for you.

And why are you so sure that it doesn't include homosexuality? I am sure, yes, because of Paul's teachings, because main stream Christians read all of the NT, which is mostly written by Paul. And as a PP mentioned, no mainstream Pastor would dismiss Paul.

Also, Jesus did state in the NT "that at 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'?".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He stated: "I dd not come to abolish the laws". What does that mean to you?

Hit send too soon.

I keep stating that we don't need to follow Levitical laws because He came to fulfill those laws, ie, be right with God. No where do I state that we should follow all Levitical laws. But, He is also stating here that He didn't come to negate those laws, just that they are no longer necessary to follow to be right with God.

It also doesn't mean the entire OT should be disregarded.

What you're saying is inconsistent. You're saying that *some* Levitical and other Old Testament laws were rendered obsolete by Jesus. But you say that others--re homosexuality--weren't. Even if this is true, there are so many OT laws that Jesus didn't specifically address, so why are you so sure which ones are obsolete and which still stand? Also, your use of "fulfill/be right with God" is strange in this context, doesn't logically address the issue you claim it does, and certainly not the traditional understanding of this passage.

Please, please, please talk to your pastor/minister about Levitical laws and Jesus' sayings re "I came to fulfill" and "on these to commandments hang all the law..." passages. Obviously you're not going to be convinced by strangers on DCUM. But for your own understanding, you need somebody you trust to clear this up for you.

And why are you so sure that it doesn't include homosexuality? I am sure, yes, because of Paul's teachings, because main stream Christians read all of the NT, which is mostly written by Paul. And as a PP mentioned, no mainstream Pastor would dismiss Paul.

Also, Jesus did state in the NT "that at 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'?".

That was in response to a question about divorce. It makes no reference whatsoever to homosexuality.

Jesus, by the way, didn't leave his parents to go be united with a wife. So clearly heterosexual marriage is not the only approved state of adulthood.

If a creator made male and female to go together to reproduce, but then added in some males who like males and some females who like females, well, what of it? Why would a creator be upset at his own creation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But it's not just Leviticus talking about homosexuality... Paul does too.

I don't know any pastors that would dismiss Paul.

Paul also told women to be quiet. And he told them to wear a veil. Do you follow those rules?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He stated: "I dd not come to abolish the laws". What does that mean to you?

Hit send too soon.

I keep stating that we don't need to follow Levitical laws because He came to fulfill those laws, ie, be right with God. No where do I state that we should follow all Levitical laws. But, He is also stating here that He didn't come to negate those laws, just that they are no longer necessary to follow to be right with God.

It also doesn't mean the entire OT should be disregarded.

What you're saying is inconsistent. You're saying that *some* Levitical and other Old Testament laws were rendered obsolete by Jesus. But you say that others--re homosexuality--weren't. Even if this is true, there are so many OT laws that Jesus didn't specifically address, so why are you so sure which ones are obsolete and which still stand? Also, your use of "fulfill/be right with God" is strange in this context, doesn't logically address the issue you claim it does, and certainly not the traditional understanding of this passage.

Please, please, please talk to your pastor/minister about Levitical laws and Jesus' sayings re "I came to fulfill" and "on these to commandments hang all the law..." passages. Obviously you're not going to be convinced by strangers on DCUM. But for your own understanding, you need somebody you trust to clear this up for you.

And why are you so sure that it doesn't include homosexuality? I am sure, yes, because of Paul's teachings, because main stream Christians read all of the NT, which is mostly written by Paul. And as a PP mentioned, no mainstream Pastor would dismiss Paul.

Also, Jesus did state in the NT "that at 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'?".

That was in response to a question about divorce. It makes no reference whatsoever to homosexuality.

Jesus, by the way, didn't leave his parents to go be united with a wife. So clearly heterosexual marriage is not the only approved state of adulthood.

If a creator made male and female to go together to reproduce, but then added in some males who like males and some females who like females, well, what of it? Why would a creator be upset at his own creation?

Not to "go there" but this could be an argument for a lot of bad actions. Some people like cutting themselves with razors, what of it? Some people like starving themselves, what of it? Some people like watching porn all day, what of it? Some people like overeating and then throwing up all their food, what of it? That's just not an argument. We all have good and bad urges. Arguing that something is a "natural" urge and why would God create you with an urge you can't fulfill... that's just not how reality works. And yes, I know you can argue that most of the above are mental illnesses of some sort, I just didn't think of better examples that weren't outright "destructive." Some things may not seem spiritually damaging, but they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And why are you so sure that it doesn't include homosexuality? I am sure, yes, because of Paul's teachings, because main stream Christians read all of the NT, which is mostly written by Paul. And as a PP mentioned, no mainstream Pastor would dismiss Paul.

Also, Jesus did state in the NT "that at 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'?".

That was in response to a question about divorce. It makes no reference whatsoever to homosexuality.

Jesus, by the way, didn't leave his parents to go be united with a wife. So clearly heterosexual marriage is not the only approved state of adulthood.

If a creator made male and female to go together to reproduce, but then added in some males who like males and some females who like females, well, what of it? Why would a creator be upset at his own creation?

Why would God create such thins as Satan? Answer that and I think it would answer a whole slew of questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it's not just Leviticus talking about homosexuality... Paul does too.

I don't know any pastors that would dismiss Paul.

Paul also told women to be quiet. And he told them to wear a veil. Do you follow those rules?

It's a good question, right? There are a lot of churches currently in existence where women cannot preach or lead, and where they have to cover their heads at certain parts of the service. What is our reason for not listening to Paul?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But it's not just Leviticus talking about homosexuality... Paul does too.

I don't know any pastors that would dismiss Paul.

Paul also told women to be quiet. And he told them to wear a veil. Do you follow those rules?

It's a good question, right? There are a lot of churches currently in existence where women cannot preach or lead, and where they have to cover their heads at certain parts of the service. What is our reason for not listening to Paul?

Because those things were written for a repressive, patriarchal, iron-age society. Because we've learned a lot in the ensuing 2000 years about basic human rights and what women are capable of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

He stated: "I dd not come to abolish the laws". What does that mean to you?

Hit send too soon.

I keep stating that we don't need to follow Levitical laws because He came to fulfill those laws, ie, be right with God. No where do I state that we should follow all Levitical laws. But, He is also stating here that He didn't come to negate those laws, just that they are no longer necessary to follow to be right with God.

It also doesn't mean the entire OT should be disregarded.

What you're saying is inconsistent. You're saying that *some* Levitical and other Old Testament laws were rendered obsolete by Jesus. But you say that others--re homosexuality--weren't. Even if this is true, there are so many OT laws that Jesus didn't specifically address, so why are you so sure which ones are obsolete and which still stand? Also, your use of "fulfill/be right with God" is strange in this context, doesn't logically address the issue you claim it does, and certainly not the traditional understanding of this passage.

Please, please, please talk to your pastor/minister about Levitical laws and Jesus' sayings re "I came to fulfill" and "on these to commandments hang all the law..." passages. Obviously you're not going to be convinced by strangers on DCUM. But for your own understanding, you need somebody you trust to clear this up for you.

And why are you so sure that it doesn't include homosexuality? I am sure, yes, because of Paul's teachings, because main stream Christians read all of the NT, which is mostly written by Paul. And as a PP mentioned, no mainstream Pastor would dismiss Paul.

Also, Jesus did state in the NT "that at 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'?".

That was in response to a question about divorce. It makes no reference whatsoever to homosexuality.

Jesus, by the way, didn't leave his parents to go be united with a wife. So clearly heterosexual marriage is not the only approved state of adulthood.

If a creator made male and female to go together to reproduce, but then added in some males who like males and some females who like females, well, what of it? Why would a creator be upset at his own creation?

Not to "go there" but this could be an argument for a lot of bad actions. Some people like cutting themselves with razors, what of it? Some people like starving themselves, what of it? Some people like watching porn all day, what of it? Some people like overeating and then throwing up all their food, what of it? That's just not an argument. We all have good and bad urges. Arguing that something is a "natural" urge and why would God create you with an urge you can't fulfill... that's just not how reality works. And yes, I know you can argue that most of the above are mental illnesses of some sort, I just didn't think of better examples that weren't outright "destructive." Some things may not seem spiritually damaging, but they are.

Love is not the equivalent of destructive acts. If you can't see that, you are the one who is spiritually damaged. My gay married friends are not damaged by their loving relationships with their partners. They are sustained by them.