The essence of Christianity is love. This is from the New Testament, Matthew 22:36-40:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'" All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

There is no asterisk saying, "love your neighbor unless he's gay." My interpretation is that the sin is failure to love.

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why everybody gets hung up on the word "sin". I have sinned about 3 times just this morning. So what.

Not sure what your sins this morning entailed.... But if you're not religious, then maybe a framework that would work for you would involve simply trying to be a better person.

I am not sure why everybody gets hung up on the word "sin". I have sinned about 3 times just this morning. So what.

Anonymous wrote:NP and I want to address one point:

mean-spirited cherry picking: the way some Christians fixate on homosexuality does not seem like cherry picking, it IS mean-spirited cherry picking. Jesus very clearly prohibits divorce except for adultery, but I don't see many Christians on a mission to save the civil institution of marriage from divorce. There are a LOT of things in the United States that don't hold with "Christian values" but Christianity isn't about forcing your view of religion on other people, it's about living your own life using Jesus as a model. Pretty much no one does this.

Exactly. Mind your own house before poking your nose in the business of others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you again. Very thoughtful.

I am an atheist, and I find the teachings of Jesus to have a great deal of value. I just don't see any value in the concept of sin. In fact, I find the concept of sin to be antithetical to his teachings. Everything that is forbidden is redundant, as it is covered in the one positive tenant, to love your neighbor. I wonder if there is hope that modern Christianity will continue to shed the outdated literal interpretations that today only serve to prevent people from loving one another as Jesus taught.

I am intrigued by your choice of words here; would you please elaborate on this?

Surely you agree that sin/ evil/ whatever you want to call it does, objectively, exist in the world? And if so, isn't your statement sort of like saying "I just don't see any value in the concept of the color red, or the number eight." Just because you don't "believe" in them, doesn't mean they don't exist and influence many things around you -- even if you want to state that RED or EIGHT don't exist in your world!

7:45 here. This could be the basis for a great discussion! I'm absolutely serious. We could start with Plato's "forms of the good" and progress onwards to see if we can reach any consensus on what's "objectively" good or bad.

Happy to do so, but please start a s/o thread!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you again. Very thoughtful.

I am an atheist, and I find the teachings of Jesus to have a great deal of value. I just don't see any value in the concept of sin. In fact, I find the concept of sin to be antithetical to his teachings. Everything that is forbidden is redundant, as it is covered in the one positive tenant, to love your neighbor. I wonder if there is hope that modern Christianity will continue to shed the outdated literal interpretations that today only serve to prevent people from loving one another as Jesus taught.

I am intrigued by your choice of words here; would you please elaborate on this?

Surely you agree that sin/ evil/ whatever you want to call it does, objectively, exist in the world? And if so, isn't your statement sort of like saying "I just don't see any value in the concept of the color red, or the number eight." Just because you don't "believe" in them, doesn't mean they don't exist and influence many things around you -- even if you want to state that RED or EIGHT don't exist in your world!

The concept of sin is specific to religion. It's a bad act (one that may or may not harm another person) that puts you in dutch with god, or imperils your soul, or something. Sure, I believe in bad acts, bad behavior. But "sin" can apply to fantasizing about your married co-worker the same as it applies to premeditated murder. Sin isn't anything to do with causing harm. It's about your relationship with god. Christians treat humanity and sinfulness like synonyms. If we are all sinners, all the time, forever, it is redundant to talk about the ways in which we might sin. Hence, no value to the concept outside of a theoretical discussion. The principal tenant of Jesus's teachings is to love. If you are abiding by that one rule, you don't need all the Thou Shalt Nots. Because every one of them is just re-stating a way that you can fail to love.

(In the context of this discussion, why not be homosexual? We're already eating shellfish, and not giving our second coats to people who have no coats, and coveting other people's asses. And even if we did everything right, we'd still be sinful, because all humans are all the time. So... why deny yourself something that harms no one? Why do Christians ask gay people to deny their natures under the heading of "reject sin"? Back to cherry-picking. Further-- thou shalt not judge. Why do anti-gay Christians put their own souls at risk with this hatred, this judgment? I would think that this lack of love for one of God's creatures (a gay person) would be way worse for the soul than loving someone of the same sex. One is love, one is hate.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Surely you agree that sin/ evil/ whatever you want to call it does, objectively, exist in the world? And if so, isn't your statement sort of like saying "I just don't see any value in the concept of the color red, or the number eight." Just because you don't "believe" in them, doesn't mean they don't exist and influence many things around you -- even if you want to state that RED or EIGHT don't exist in your world!

Not PP, but this caught my eye. I completely disagree that good and evil exist objectively. I consider them values assigned to events by humans. Good and evil in the world are the expressions of one thing: human nature.

Same goes for colors. We are not even sure if we all see "red" as the same objective "red." We have no idea of what it is in reality, because we don't see the world as it is. Rather, we see the world as we are. I could go on and on, but I hope this explains why some people may disagree with you.

Tell that to the parent of a child who has been murdered by a heinous killer.

NP and I want to address one point:

mean-spirited cherry picking: the way some Christians fixate on homosexuality does not seem like cherry picking, it IS mean-spirited cherry picking. Jesus very clearly prohibits divorce except for adultery, but I don't see many Christians on a mission to save the civil institution of marriage from divorce. There are a LOT of things in the United States that don't hold with "Christian values" but Christianity isn't about forcing your view of religion on other people, it's about living your own life using Jesus as a model. Pretty much no one does this.

Anonymous wrote:
Surely you agree that sin/ evil/ whatever you want to call it does, objectively, exist in the world? And if so, isn't your statement sort of like saying "I just don't see any value in the concept of the color red, or the number eight." Just because you don't "believe" in them, doesn't mean they don't exist and influence many things around you -- even if you want to state that RED or EIGHT don't exist in your world!

Not PP, but this caught my eye. I completely disagree that good and evil exist objectively. I consider them values assigned to events by humans. Good and evil in the world are the expressions of one thing: human nature.

Same goes for colors. We are not even sure if we all see "red" as the same objective "red." We have no idea of what it is in reality, because we don't see the world as it is. Rather, we see the world as we are. I could go on and on, but I hope this explains why some people may disagree with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you again. Very thoughtful.

I am an atheist, and I find the teachings of Jesus to have a great deal of value. I just don't see any value in the concept of sin. In fact, I find the concept of sin to be antithetical to his teachings. Everything that is forbidden is redundant, as it is covered in the one positive tenant, to love your neighbor. I wonder if there is hope that modern Christianity will continue to shed the outdated literal interpretations that today only serve to prevent people from loving one another as Jesus taught.

I am intrigued by your choice of words here; would you please elaborate on this?

Surely you agree that sin/ evil/ whatever you want to call it does, objectively, exist in the world? And if so, isn't your statement sort of like saying "I just don't see any value in the concept of the color red, or the number eight." Just because you don't "believe" in them, doesn't mean they don't exist and influence many things around you -- even if you want to state that RED or EIGHT don't exist in your world!

7:45 here. This could be the basis for a great discussion! I'm absolutely serious. We could start with Plato's "forms of the good" and progress onwards to see if we can reach any consensus on what's "objectively" good or bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dude. Become a Buddhist.

Buddhism is all about balance in life and they do not have their eyes in your bedroom and their minds in the gutter all the time.

Are you kidding? Ever looked at the eyes on a Buhha statute? That big guy is always watching

+1. I find many things to admire in Buddhism - but have you ever heard of Buddhist monks? And why do you think they abstain?

Remember, OP, that most Christians do not take the entire Bible literally these days. The Bible is not like, say, the Koran, which purports to be God's actual words as dictated to a messenger, which means that every single passage has equal weight.

Instead, many Christians regard Paul as a teacher - a dedicated and inspired man, perhaps - but human.

Jesus dismissed Old Testament dietary rules with, "It's not what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean, but what comes out of your mouth." It's probably fair to say that 99% of Christians interpret this to mean that other Old Testament rules about ritual purity, for example rules about wearing 2 fibers, don't apply to them, either.

OP, you also mention adultery, and in the New Testament Jesus extended adultery to include sex with anybody besides your (one) husband or wife. In one passage, Jesus forgives an adulteress who was about to be stoned, with the message that we're all sinners and only God can judge who is a sinner.

This is why many Christians, including several here apparently, focus on the gospels (the sayings of Jesus). And Jesus did not talk about homosexuality.

The bible says eating pork is a sin too, so even if it does say that, i don't really care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm happy to try, with two points made before starting. 1) I am not a fundamentalist Christian and 2) I have read your question several times and still am not completely sure of what you are asking, so apologies if I am off-base or incomplete here.

I think what I'm reading is this: You want to know why Christians say that many Old Testament "bannings" are now irrelevant to society and thus can be ignored in modern context, but homosexuality is not one of them. OT teachings forbidding homosexuality are still considered sin, even in modern age. Is that right?

The Bible is consistent throughout the OT and the NT that homosexuality is sin, even though Jesus Himself never discusses the topic. There are numerous versus in the NT that describe homosexuality as shameful, sinful, immoral, a wrongdoing, etc. The major difference is that the NT offers hope through Jesus Christ for those who are caught up in the bonds of homosexuality, actively practicing or not.

What am I missing from your question?

where in the NT does it say this?

The NT is all about redmention from all sin, through Jesus. If and because homosexuality is a sin, then, by logic, this would be included.

Anonymous wrote:Dude. Become a Buddhist.

Buddhism is all about balance in life and they do not have their eyes in your bedroom and their minds in the gutter all the time.

Are you kidding? Ever looked at the eyes on a Buhha statute? That big guy is always watching