How do you reconcile homosexuality and Christianity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
TL; DR, but it sounds like you are trying really hard to justify homophobia even though you know in your heart that it's okay to be gay. Good luck with that. I recommend visiting an Episcopalian or Presbyterian church and talking with their priest or pastor. They are usually more highly educated in theology than conservative evangelical ministers, too.

I think it is really sad that you threw in homophobia in what has otherwise been a completely civil discussion. I made clear I have absolutely no animus towards gay people, what makes me homophobic? Deal with your bugaboos before you call other people names.

If you try to convince yourself and other people that being gay is a sin, that's homophobia. If that word makes you react, maybe you want to reconsider trying so hard to justify your church's position.

What exactly does homophobia mean in this context? I think you are just angry at what I wrote so you just call me a name. If you randomly called me a racist, and I said "Hey guy I am not a racist," does that mean that I need to reconsider whether or not I am a racist? That makes no sense.

I am not talking about my church's position, but whether the Bible calls homosexuality a sin. Based on a plain reading, it appears that it does. Your problem is with the Bible, not with me. I am just interesting in finding out how other people think about this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus talks about homosexuality indirectly:

Matthew 19:4–6
"4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Matthew 15:19–20:
"19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

Notice that "adultery" and "sexual immorality" are separated. In this case, what does "sexual immorality" refer to? Who was Jesus addressing at the time?
In Matthew 15, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, and to them homosexuality was immoral. So, one can conclude that "sexual immorality" here does include homosexuality.

Again, folks, you have to read the Bible versus within its context, who He was addressing.

"Sexual immorality" could easily be pre-marital sex or pedophelia. The Pharisees thought these were immoral too. It would be a big leap to conclude that that passage is only or even partially about homosexuality.

Or bestiality. Some Christian denominations don't tolerate masturbation.

yes, the OT does talk about beastiality as sexual immorality, like it talks about homosexuality. I don't think beastiality is talked about in the NT, does that mean it's no longer a sin?

Again, just because it is not explicitly talked about by Jesus in the NT, it doesn't mean it's no longer a sin. It doesn't make it all a free for all so long as you just follow his NT teachings. He didn't come to negate the OT laws. He came to fulfill all the Levitical laws that Jews had to follow in order to be "right" with God.

Actually, he came to fulfill the prophecies, but he DID negate most of the Old Testament laws. Go to the passage where he's being interrogated at the Temple and they ask him, basically, "are you negating our laws?" His response is incredibly clever: he says that on just two laws (love God, love your neighbor) "hang all the law and the prophets."

Again, we can't insert our assumptions about how God might view homosexuality into a vacuum and call it the truth. This is another reason to let God judge, instead of us calling it "wrong".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus talks about homosexuality indirectly:

Matthew 19:4–6
"4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Matthew 15:19–20:
"19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

Notice that "adultery" and "sexual immorality" are separated. In this case, what does "sexual immorality" refer to? Who was Jesus addressing at the time?
In Matthew 15, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, and to them homosexuality was immoral. So, one can conclude that "sexual immorality" here does include homosexuality.

Again, folks, you have to read the Bible versus within its context, who He was addressing.

"Sexual immorality" could easily be pre-marital sex or pedophelia. The Pharisees thought these were immoral too. It would be a big leap to conclude that that passage is only or even partially about homosexuality.

It's not a leap. I stated it includes homosexuality, not that "sexual immorality" only = homosexuality. Pharisees were Jews, and they knew that homosexuality was condemned, just as yes, beastiality was condemned, too.

Yes, you "stated" this, but your reading of this passage is very different from how others read it. You can "state" what you think about this set of words, but others of us don't see much there about homosexuality. For one thing, why didn't the author just say the word "homosexuality" if that's what he really meant?

because he was including all kinds of sexual immorality, like beastiality. Why didn't the author state "beastiality" separately, then. Because it was lumped together.

You simply can't insert words where they don't exist. Whether its bestiality or homosexuality, in a debate this would be labeled a logical fallacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Or bestiality. Some Christian denominations don't tolerate masturbation.

yes, the OT does talk about beastiality as sexual immorality, like it talks about homosexuality. I don't think beastiality is talked about in the NT, does that mean it's no longer a sin?

Again, just because it is not explicitly talked about by Jesus in the NT, it doesn't mean it's no longer a sin. It doesn't make it all a free for all so long as you just follow his NT teachings. He didn't come to negate the OT laws. He came to fulfill all the Levitical laws that Jews had to follow in order to be "right" with God.

Actually, he came to fulfill the prophecies, but he DID negate most of the Old Testament laws. Go to the passage where he's being interrogated at the Temple and they ask him, basically, "are you negating our laws?" His response is incredibly clever: he says that on just two laws (love God, love your neighbor) "hang all the law and the prophets."

Again, we can't insert our assumptions about how God might view homosexuality into a vacuum and call it the truth. This is another reason to let God judge, instead of us calling it "wrong".

But some things ARE wrong, and we should at least know what is wrong. Pedophilia is not mentioned directly in the bible, but we know it is wrong. Bestiality is wrong. We wouldn't just let those things go if we knew they were happening. And it's not a matter of whether the people committing the sin are consenting adults- two heterosexual people having sex before marriage is a sin as well, not because it does any visible harm, but because it does spiritual harm. So why wouldn't homosexuality, which Paul alludes to specifically, be considered a sin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't go to church or call myself a Christian if I were expected to believe that being gay is a sin. How can you read what Jesus (not Paul) said about loving our neighbors and still think that He would want us to judge and condemn something that is (1) inborn and (2) harmless?

You can love your neighbor without loving their sin. If we were to only love people that don't sin, regardless of what kind of sin, we would love nobody on this earth.

Right, but I don't think it's a sin so that's not an issue for me. I believe God made people gay and it's just as okay to be gay as it is to be left-handed.

I agree

PP, I hate to tell you this, but 'what you think" is hardly relevant to truth.

I believe it's snowing right now in Miami, despite what weather reports say. Does that make me a voice of truth, just because I believe it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your quotes are from Paul again. Some think Paul was divinely inspired. But he most definitely was not Jesus, in fact he's not even counted as a "prophet" (he called himself a disciple). Taking his every word literally is elevating him to a status that he didn't claim for himself.

PS, 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.

OP here. I don't know, a casual dismissal of the apostle Paul strikes me as more like exploiting some sort of Biblical loophole. Paul wrote half the New Testament and is largely responsible for Christianity in all of its forms. Paul is elevated, at least in my church, as equal to the disciples. Paul is a big deal.

Further, I'm not engaging in bean counting or being judgmental. I don't personally feel strongly about homosexuality, which is why I posted. But I do believe that is it is a serious matter to accept something that has been unaccepted by the church for 2000 years. A sin is something that misses the mark, that pulls you farther away from God. Christians are not supposed to condemn others, but they also cannot accept sin in their midst. You can love a person and accept that person but you cannot accept sin. For example, if homosexual behavior is a sin, then the church cannot legitimize it by having gay weddings, or a gay pastor/priest who is not celibate. No, Jesus did not mention homosexuality, but he also did not condone it, or any other sexual behavior that is considered "impure" by the church. It is not like homosexuality was a completely foreign concept to people at that time, the Romans engaged in homosexual acts in their society. So... yeah, this is where I struggle. I don't really think it is right to dismiss Paul or be like "aw everybody sins but Jesus is about acceptance." Yes, of course we love and accept people as they are, but we cannot accept sins.

TL; DR, but it sounds like you are trying really hard to justify homophobia even though you know in your heart that it's okay to be gay. Good luck with that. I recommend visiting an Episcopalian or Presbyterian church and talking with their priest or pastor. They are usually more highly educated in theology than conservative evangelical ministers, too.

I think it is really sad that you threw in homophobia in what has otherwise been a completely civil discussion. I made clear I have absolutely no animus towards gay people, what makes me homophobic? Deal with your bugaboos before you call other people names.

If you try to convince yourself and other people that being gay is a sin, that's homophobia. If that word makes you react, maybe you want to reconsider trying so hard to justify your church's position.

I disagree. Homophobia is when you are afraid of and hate gay people, hence the term "phobia" in homophobia.

As a christian, you know that being an alcoholic and drug abuser is a sin, that's not called something-phobia.

In all cases, you can still love and care about the person.

What do you think homophobia is based on? The whole reason homophobia exists is because people call it a sin. Gay children kill themselves because they hear that they are sinners. That how they're made is wrong. That they should deny their true selves because to do otherwise is sinful. This is homophobia and it is dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus talks about homosexuality indirectly:

Matthew 19:4–6
"4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Matthew 15:19–20:
"19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

Notice that "adultery" and "sexual immorality" are separated. In this case, what does "sexual immorality" refer to? Who was Jesus addressing at the time?
In Matthew 15, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, and to them homosexuality was immoral. So, one can conclude that "sexual immorality" here does include homosexuality.

Again, folks, you have to read the Bible versus within its context, who He was addressing.

Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees about almost everything. Are you claiming that on this one issue, the definition of "sexual immorality," he was in complete agreement with them? On what basis do you make this claim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus talks about homosexuality indirectly:

Matthew 19:4–6
"4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Matthew 15:19–20:
"19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

Notice that "adultery" and "sexual immorality" are separated. In this case, what does "sexual immorality" refer to? Who was Jesus addressing at the time?
In Matthew 15, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, and to them homosexuality was immoral. So, one can conclude that "sexual immorality" here does include homosexuality.

Again, folks, you have to read the Bible versus within its context, who He was addressing.

"Sexual immorality" could easily be pre-marital sex or pedophelia. The Pharisees thought these were immoral too. It would be a big leap to conclude that that passage is only or even partially about homosexuality.

It's not a leap. I stated it includes homosexuality, not that "sexual immorality" only = homosexuality. Pharisees were Jews, and they knew that homosexuality was condemned, just as yes, beastiality was condemned, too.

Yes, you "stated" this, but your reading of this passage is very different from how others read it. You can "state" what you think about this set of words, but others of us don't see much there about homosexuality. For one thing, why didn't the author just say the word "homosexuality" if that's what he really meant?

because he was including all kinds of sexual immorality, like beastiality. Why didn't the author state "beastiality" separately, then. Because it was lumped together.

You simply can't insert words where they don't exist. Whether its bestiality or homosexuality, in a debate this would be labeled a logical fallacy.

I see, so in this case what does "sexual immorality" refer to? If the person whom this statement was addressed to believed that homosexuality and beastiality were immoral, then when the person hears the term "sexual immorality", the person will assume it refers to every single sexual immoral act, including homosexuality. That's pretty simple logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't go to church or call myself a Christian if I were expected to believe that being gay is a sin. How can you read what Jesus (not Paul) said about loving our neighbors and still think that He would want us to judge and condemn something that is (1) inborn and (2) harmless?

You can love your neighbor without loving their sin. If we were to only love people that don't sin, regardless of what kind of sin, we would love nobody on this earth.

Right, but I don't think it's a sin so that's not an issue for me. I believe God made people gay and it's just as okay to be gay as it is to be left-handed.

I agree

PP, I hate to tell you this, but 'what you think" is hardly relevant to truth.

I believe it's snowing right now in Miami, despite what weather reports say. Does that make me a voice of truth, just because I believe it?

Is this the OP? If so, A+ trolling. Your original post made it seem like a genuine inquiry, but you've made it clear five pages in that you just want to convince people that being gay is a sin and that homophobia is a-ok as long as you trot out the old "love the sinner, hate the sin" excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your quotes are from Paul again. Some think Paul was divinely inspired. But he most definitely was not Jesus, in fact he's not even counted as a "prophet" (he called himself a disciple). Taking his every word literally is elevating him to a status that he didn't claim for himself.

PS, 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.

OP here. I don't know, a casual dismissal of the apostle Paul strikes me as more like exploiting some sort of Biblical loophole. Paul wrote half the New Testament and is largely responsible for Christianity in all of its forms. Paul is elevated, at least in my church, as equal to the disciples. Paul is a big deal.

Further, I'm not engaging in bean counting or being judgmental. I don't personally feel strongly about homosexuality, which is why I posted. But I do believe that is it is a serious matter to accept something that has been unaccepted by the church for 2000 years. A sin is something that misses the mark, that pulls you farther away from God. Christians are not supposed to condemn others, but they also cannot accept sin in their midst. You can love a person and accept that person but you cannot accept sin. For example, if homosexual behavior is a sin, then the church cannot legitimize it by having gay weddings, or a gay pastor/priest who is not celibate. No, Jesus did not mention homosexuality, but he also did not condone it, or any other sexual behavior that is considered "impure" by the church. It is not like homosexuality was a completely foreign concept to people at that time, the Romans engaged in homosexual acts in their society. So... yeah, this is where I struggle. I don't really think it is right to dismiss Paul or be like "aw everybody sins but Jesus is about acceptance." Yes, of course we love and accept people as they are, but we cannot accept sins.

TL; DR, but it sounds like you are trying really hard to justify homophobia even though you know in your heart that it's okay to be gay. Good luck with that. I recommend visiting an Episcopalian or Presbyterian church and talking with their priest or pastor. They are usually more highly educated in theology than conservative evangelical ministers, too.

I think it is really sad that you threw in homophobia in what has otherwise been a completely civil discussion. I made clear I have absolutely no animus towards gay people, what makes me homophobic? Deal with your bugaboos before you call other people names.

If you try to convince yourself and other people that being gay is a sin, that's homophobia. If that word makes you react, maybe you want to reconsider trying so hard to justify your church's position.

I disagree. Homophobia is when you are afraid of and hate gay people, hence the term "phobia" in homophobia.

As a christian, you know that being an alcoholic and drug abuser is a sin, that's not called something-phobia.

In all cases, you can still love and care about the person.

What do you think homophobia is based on? The whole reason homophobia exists is because people call it a sin. Gay children kill themselves because they hear that they are sinners. That how they're made is wrong. That they should deny their true selves because to do otherwise is sinful. This is homophobia and it is dangerous.

I'm sorry, but most Christians believe that everyone is a sinner, including alcoholics, drug abusers. Should we be afraid to call anyone a sinner for fear they may kill themselves? I tell my kids we are all sinners in the eyes of God, that none of us are perfect. I am not afraid we they are going to kill themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus talks about homosexuality indirectly:

Matthew 19:4–6
"4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Matthew 15:19–20:
"19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

Notice that "adultery" and "sexual immorality" are separated. In this case, what does "sexual immorality" refer to? Who was Jesus addressing at the time?
In Matthew 15, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, and to them homosexuality was immoral. So, one can conclude that "sexual immorality" here does include homosexuality.

Again, folks, you have to read the Bible versus within its context, who He was addressing.

Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees about almost everything. Are you claiming that on this one issue, the definition of "sexual immorality," he was in complete agreement with them? On what basis do you make this claim?

Oh, please, just because Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees numerous times, it doesn't mean he would disagree with them on this particular issue. Good grief. You're reaching.

[Anonymous]

Whether you think homosexuality is a sin, why does the church ban gay marriage? If they were consistent then they would ban adulterers from marrying and thieves and pederasts from marrying and all other sinners from marrying. And frankly, it would include all people whether gay or straight who have committed sodomy, which is basically anything other than male to female genital sex. Those who commit oral sex or anal sex whether heterosexual or homosexual, should also be included in the ban, but for some reason, the church has singled out this one sin to be a ban against marriage, but not others.

That's the bigotry there, the segregation of one sin beyond others to be excluded from matrimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus talks about homosexuality indirectly:

Matthew 19:4–6
"4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

Matthew 15:19–20:
"19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

Notice that "adultery" and "sexual immorality" are separated. In this case, what does "sexual immorality" refer to? Who was Jesus addressing at the time?
In Matthew 15, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, and to them homosexuality was immoral. So, one can conclude that "sexual immorality" here does include homosexuality.

Again, folks, you have to read the Bible versus within its context, who He was addressing.

Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees about almost everything. Are you claiming that on this one issue, the definition of "sexual immorality," he was in complete agreement with them? On what basis do you make this claim?

Oh, please, just because Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees numerous times, it doesn't mean he would disagree with them on this particular issue. Good grief. You're reaching.

PP here.. and to add, if Jesus did disagree with the Pharisees on what "sexual immorality" meant, He would've called it out, like he always does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whether you think homosexuality is a sin, why does the church ban gay marriage? If they were consistent then they would ban adulterers from marrying and thieves and pederasts from marrying and all other sinners from marrying. And frankly, it would include all people whether gay or straight who have committed sodomy, which is basically anything other than male to female genital sex. Those who commit oral sex or anal sex whether heterosexual or homosexual, should also be included in the ban, but for some reason, the church has singled out this one sin to be a ban against marriage, but not others.

That's the bigotry there, the segregation of one sin beyond others to be excluded from matrimony.

because they believe marriage was meant between a man and a woman as the Bible verse states, not "a virgin man" and "virgin woman". Just plainly, man and woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't go to church or call myself a Christian if I were expected to believe that being gay is a sin. How can you read what Jesus (not Paul) said about loving our neighbors and still think that He would want us to judge and condemn something that is (1) inborn and (2) harmless?

You can love your neighbor without loving their sin. If we were to only love people that don't sin, regardless of what kind of sin, we would love nobody on this earth.

Right, but I don't think it's a sin so that's not an issue for me. I believe God made people gay and it's just as okay to be gay as it is to be left-handed.

I agree

PP, I hate to tell you this, but 'what you think" is hardly relevant to truth.

I believe it's snowing right now in Miami, despite what weather reports say. Does that make me a voice of truth, just because I believe it?

Is this the OP? If so, A+ trolling. Your original post made it seem like a genuine inquiry, but you've made it clear five pages in that you just want to convince people that being gay is a sin and that homophobia is a-ok as long as you trot out the old "love the sinner, hate the sin" excuse.

OP here- no, that wasn't me! That was another person, although I don't think that post is homophobic either, just... not a very good analogy for this case.

Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them "homophobic," ok?

It is a genuine inquiry but the responses I have gotten are

Paul is not that important (I disagree!);
Jesus is all about acceptance (Yes, but of PEOPLE not of sins);
You can eat shrimp and wear rayon now, so homosexuality is ok too (not the issue!!).

These are just not the strongest arguments. I could argue it either way, but more people are arguing the one side than the other, so I am just mentioning the other side. I am trying to use the Bible as my basis, not my own point of view.