If God had an issue with homosexuality, where is divine intervention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Catholic teachings homosexuality is not a sin, homosexual sex is a sin. In fact all sex acts outside marriage are considered sins as well (adultery, fornication etc).

Damn, that means alot of straight folks are going to hell...especially alot of so-called Christians. Funny how that works.

Being sinless is not what leads to Christian heaven. The only sinless person was Jesus.

It is amazing how many people just have no idea what Christianity is on the most basic level.

You mean like Catholic priests who sexually abuse children? Apparently, they have no idea what Christianity is on the most basic level.

Way to change direction in another disengenuous way that once again reflects your misunderstanding of theology. Who here said s/he was confident the abusive priests are going to heaven? Nobody at all. “But the Catholic priests!” seems to be the go-to for some posters here, just like “But Hillary and Bill!” is the go-to for Fox readers.

Have Bill and Hillary been proven to molest children? I hadn't heard about it -- except for that crazy Comet Pizza story

Whooooosh!

[Anonymous]

I'm a Christian who doesn't believe that God has an issue with homosexuality.

But I'm a little confused by the logic that if God had an issue with something he'd have gotten rid of it.

I'm sure that God has an issue with the way we destroy our environment, or child abuse, or terrorism. I'm sure he had an issue with the Holocaust. So, it's hard for me to believe that "he lets it happen" is an indication that he's happy about something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Christian who doesn't believe that God has an issue with homosexuality.

But I'm a little confused by the logic that if God had an issue with something he'd have gotten rid of it.

I'm sure that God has an issue with the way we destroy our environment, or child abuse, or terrorism. I'm sure he had an issue with the Holocaust. So, it's hard for me to believe that "he lets it happen" is an indication that he's happy about something.

So what do you make of the Bible verses that condemn sexual immorality and homosexual acts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Christian who doesn't believe that God has an issue with homosexuality.

But I'm a little confused by the logic that if God had an issue with something he'd have gotten rid of it.

I'm sure that God has an issue with the way we destroy our environment, or child abuse, or terrorism. I'm sure he had an issue with the Holocaust. So, it's hard for me to believe that "he lets it happen" is an indication that he's happy about something.

So what do you make of the Bible verses that condemn sexual immorality and homosexual acts?

I believe that the New Testament replaced the Old, and that the few verses in the New Testament that seem to condemn homosexuality are written by authors who are products of their time, and are difficult to translate. On the other hand, in the Gospels we have many verses that come from Jesus himself and demonstrate radical love and acceptance for everyone. When there are conflicts like this, I think we have to go with what Jesus himself said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Christian who doesn't believe that God has an issue with homosexuality.

But I'm a little confused by the logic that if God had an issue with something he'd have gotten rid of it.

I'm sure that God has an issue with the way we destroy our environment, or child abuse, or terrorism. I'm sure he had an issue with the Holocaust. So, it's hard for me to believe that "he lets it happen" is an indication that he's happy about something.

So what do you make of the Bible verses that condemn sexual immorality and homosexual acts?

I believe that the New Testament replaced the Old, and that the few verses in the New Testament that seem to condemn homosexuality are written by authors who are products of their time, and are difficult to translate. On the other hand, in the Gospels we have many verses that come from Jesus himself and demonstrate radical love and acceptance for everyone. When there are conflicts like this, I think we have to go with what Jesus himself said.

Yeah, this is overly dismissive of Paul and his importance. Paul is most likely THE reason you are a Christian today. If he was a “product of his time,” then perhaps so was the rest of Christianity. Maybe it is all just stories, no? Do you simply ignore all the verses you disagree with? Do you think this buffet-style Christianity is ultimately fulfilling?

And the New Testament is about accepting people, not behavior. It is definitely not about “acceptance” as this general “I accept everything everyone does” sort of thing. There are many actions Jesus himself forbid, including divorce itself unless there is adultery. Now I believe that the modern church fixated on homosexual behavior while ignoring other clear issues of sexual immorality, which only furthers the sense of hypocrisy non-Christians sense. But just throwing out Paul’s words as a product of his time is just as bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Christian who doesn't believe that God has an issue with homosexuality.

But I'm a little confused by the logic that if God had an issue with something he'd have gotten rid of it.

I'm sure that God has an issue with the way we destroy our environment, or child abuse, or terrorism. I'm sure he had an issue with the Holocaust. So, it's hard for me to believe that "he lets it happen" is an indication that he's happy about something.

So what do you make of the Bible verses that condemn sexual immorality and homosexual acts?

I believe that the New Testament replaced the Old, and that the few verses in the New Testament that seem to condemn homosexuality are written by authors who are products of their time, and are difficult to translate. On the other hand, in the Gospels we have many verses that come from Jesus himself and demonstrate radical love and acceptance for everyone. When there are conflicts like this, I think we have to go with what Jesus himself said.

Yeah, this is overly dismissive of Paul and his importance. Paul is most likely THE reason you are a Christian today. If he was a “product of his time,” then perhaps so was the rest of Christianity. Maybe it is all just stories, no? Do you simply ignore all the verses you disagree with? Do you think this buffet-style Christianity is ultimately fulfilling?

And the New Testament is about accepting people, not behavior. It is definitely not about “acceptance” as this general “I accept everything everyone does” sort of thing. There are many actions Jesus himself forbid, including divorce itself unless there is adultery. Now I believe that the modern church fixated on homosexual behavior while ignoring other clear issues of sexual immorality, which only furthers the sense of hypocrisy non-Christians sense. But just throwing out Paul’s words as a product of his time is just as bad.

Yes, Paul is likely the reason why I've read the Gospel. George Washington might be the reason why I get to live in a democracy. Doesn't mean that they weren't products of their time, or that they couldn't make mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Gods into gay sex.

[Anonymous]

Tons of terrible things happen everyday. You choose not to blame God for those things, but only praise him for the good. Also, terrorism, cancer, porn, child abuse all are much higher on my list of bad things than gay sex. Literally, who cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Christian who doesn't believe that God has an issue with homosexuality.

But I'm a little confused by the logic that if God had an issue with something he'd have gotten rid of it.

I'm sure that God has an issue with the way we destroy our environment, or child abuse, or terrorism. I'm sure he had an issue with the Holocaust. So, it's hard for me to believe that "he lets it happen" is an indication that he's happy about something.

So what do you make of the Bible verses that condemn sexual immorality and homosexual acts?

I believe that the New Testament replaced the Old, and that the few verses in the New Testament that seem to condemn homosexuality are written by authors who are products of their time, and are difficult to translate. On the other hand, in the Gospels we have many verses that come from Jesus himself and demonstrate radical love and acceptance for everyone. When there are conflicts like this, I think we have to go with what Jesus himself said.

Yeah, this is overly dismissive of Paul and his importance. Paul is most likely THE reason you are a Christian today. If he was a “product of his time,” then perhaps so was the rest of Christianity. Maybe it is all just stories, no? Do you simply ignore all the verses you disagree with? Do you think this buffet-style Christianity is ultimately fulfilling?

And the New Testament is about accepting people, not behavior. It is definitely not about “acceptance” as this general “I accept everything everyone does” sort of thing. There are many actions Jesus himself forbid, including divorce itself unless there is adultery. Now I believe that the modern church fixated on homosexual behavior while ignoring other clear issues of sexual immorality, which only furthers the sense of hypocrisy non-Christians sense. But just throwing out Paul’s words as a product of his time is just as bad.

Yes, Paul is likely the reason why I've read the Gospel. George Washington might be the reason why I get to live in a democracy. Doesn't mean that they weren't products of their time, or that they couldn't make mistakes.

Paul made mistakes, but *the things he wrote in the Bible were not mistakes.*

My issue is: if you can dismiss parts of the New Testament, you can dismiss ALL of the New Testament, or at least anything that isn't expedient to your modern, progressive, woke views. I am not trying to be cute or smart-alecky about this, it's something I have struggled with seriously too.

If you do not consider Scripture an authority on these types of matters, I don't really know what you consider your source of knowledge on anything in Christianity. Is it the Christian tradition? Then no, homosexual acts are not ok. Is it writings by the Church fathers? Is it the consensus of churches around the world save for a few Western denominations?

I can't find any authority in Christianity that says "this behavior is ok," other than a few denominations in the Western world. And even then, I don't really understand their basis.

I sort of agree with this (gay, Christian) writer's view:

Second, whenever same-sex relations are mentioned, they are prohibited, condemned, or described as sin (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:9-10). I know there’s a massive debate about how to interpret and apply these texts, but I want to stick to the simple observation I just made: whenever same-sex sexual relations are mentioned, they are condemned. There’s no debate about this. I don’t know a single affirming writer who would disagree with this claim. Some of them might say that the type of sexual relations described in these texts aren't the same as adult consenting relationships today. I find these arguments to be built upon sketchy evidence and therefore unconvincing. But without getting into all of that, my basic point still stands. When the Creator addressed same-sex relations head on (if you believe that God had a hand in authoring Scripture), he condemend them.

And let’s put this in perspective. Scripture is uniform on its perspective on same-sex relations as it views them. Do we see such uniformity on other important questions? For instance, what does the Bible say about your enemy: should we kill them or love them? From an observational standpoint, Scripture offers diverse perspectives, whether you’re reading the Psalms (kill them) or the Sermon on the Mount (love them).

What about women in church leadership? Yes or no? Well, there are verses that could support different views. 1 Corinthians 11 assumes that women are prophesying in Church, and Acts 20 mentions female prophets. But Paul says that women shouldn’t teach or exercise authority over men (1 Tim 2) and tells women to keep silent in the church (1 Cor 14). There’s a solution to these tensions, but my simple point is that Scripture presents some level of diversity on the issue.

Same with divorce. Moses says it’s allowed (Deut 24), Ezra even commands it (Ezra 9-10). Jesus says divorce isn’t allowed except in cases of sexual immorality (Matt 5), and Paul offers more footnotes to the divorce question (1 Cor 7).

We could go on and on—the humanity and deity of Christ, one God or three gods or one God in three persons, etc.—but the simple observational point is this: while Scripture presents some level of diversity on virtually every other doctrine, there simply is no diversity on the question of whether same-sex sexual relationships are ever allowed by God.

https://centerforfaith.com/blog/the-debate-about-same-sex-marriage-is-not-a-secondary-issue

[Anonymous]

So how does that gay Christian make sens of his life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Catholic teachings homosexuality is not a sin, homosexual sex is a sin. In fact all sex acts outside marriage are considered sins as well (adultery, fornication etc).

Damn, that means alot of straight folks are going to hell...especially alot of so-called Christians. Funny how that works.

Being sinless is not what leads to Christian heaven. The only sinless person was Jesus.

It is amazing how many people just have no idea what Christianity is on the most basic level.

Yep. Christians have a free pass to sin because “we’re all sinners” and as long as you repent, you get a “get out of Hell free” card.

[Anonymous]

Maybe it is all just stories, no? Do you simply ignore all the verses you disagree with? Do you think this buffet-style Christianity is ultimately fulfilling?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But you just described the essence of Christianity! We pick and choose what to keep from the OT and ignore what we feel like leaving out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it is all just stories, no? Do you simply ignore all the verses you disagree with? Do you think this buffet-style Christianity is ultimately fulfilling?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But you just described the essence of Christianity! We pick and choose what to keep from the OT and ignore what we feel like leaving out.

Have you actually read the entire Bible? At least the New Testament? Again, this is explained pretty well in the New Testament, so you also have missed some really, really basic Christian theology. Once you start dismissing the New Testament too, you might as well throw the whole thing out. That’s all I’m saying.

[Anonymous]

This is a really stupid question. Couldn't you ask the same question about pedophilia? So according to your thinking since some people are inclined to sexual attraction (which according to research I've read, it does seem like an innate attraction) Society should just accept it, since they were born that way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So how does that gay Christian make sens of his life?

His blog is pretty interesting and explains his stance pretty thoroughly.