What's the deal with Jesus loving homosexuals?

[Sava]

IMO, I think the "homo-bible-thumpers", as so elequently coined, tend to respect the whole "love your neighbor" approach to Jesus's teachings. I suspect many of them were raised Christian anyways.

I think this discussion is irrelevant because there are good and bad people in all religions... i.e. bad people who are Christians promote bigotry and persecution... good people don't.

I really think you guys are putting too much thought into this.

[Wtiberon]

I agree with Sava...besides the bible is full of little tidbits of things we should or shouldn't do most of which ALL of us ignore now adays except the most fundamentalist religious.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Now, it does appear that Paul did condemn homosexual acts (between men at least) so if you consider Paul a spokesman for Jesus, then it would be logical to believe Jesus did too.

Pauls' most famous reference to homosexuality, his letters to the Romans, actually had little to do with condemning homosexuality, but was instead a plea for christian jews and gentiles to get along. He alludes to homosexuality primarily for shock value. He starts his argument by making a nauseating description of homosexual sex, then quickly points out that the jewish bible equally condemns a variety of other less salacious behaviors like gossiping, boasting, vanity and etc. He delivers his coup de grace by pointing out that any jewish christian who brags about how meticulously he conforms to Levitican law is guilty of boasting and is therefore no better then you know whats...

But that creates a BIG problem for me because Paul also condoned slavery and no amount of spin from his apologists can change that fact, and that would mean Jesus condoned slavery.

If you read many of these sections carefully it appears that often Paul is referring to "slavery to sin", i.e., the human condition. It also appears that he considered a Christian's duty to groom his own soul more important to the individual Christian than fight for personal justice. This is not an approval of slavery, but a statement of essential Christian values, one of which was and is pacifism. When Paul returned Onysmius, the slave of Philemon, back to his owner proclaiming that he had received the man as a slave, but was returning him as a brother it is very evident that Paul was placing on the slaver the onus of "doing the right thing".

[Jon Miller]

well said Dr Strangelove

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Jesus loving homosexuals and Jesus-loving homosexuals means two very different things. Grammar can be your freind if you let it.

[DarthVeda]

Jesus always did hang out with the sinners and those most in need of his message.

[Berzerker]

Dr Strangelove -

If you read many of these sections carefully it appears that often Paul is referring to "slavery to sin", i.e., the human condition.

I have read them carefully, just what do you think Paul meant when he told slaves to be good slaves and slavemasters to be good to their slaves? What did Paul mean when he told slaves to be happy with their lot in life?

It also appears that he considered a Christian's duty to groom his own soul more important to the individual Christian than fight for personal justice.

Yeah, justice is not high on Paul's list. If that's Christianity, no thanks. Hey folks, I'm starting a new religion, the true religion of God; and btw, go right ahead and practice your slavery, just be nice to your slaves - blah, blah, blah. You don't see a problem with Jesus telling his followers to treat others the way they want to be treated and Paul telling slaves to be good at their "job" and slaveowners to treat their slaves well?

This is not an approval of slavery, but a statement of essential Christian values, one of which was and is pacifism.

I didn't say it was an approval, I said it was condoning an evil practice. And one can be a pacifist and still call for an end to an evil practice rather than condone it. Btw, Christians began showing how much they value pacifism the moment Constantine declared it the official religion of the Roman empire. They almost immediately began slaughtering each other in the subsequent power grab. Paul gave Christians a loophole to practice slavery, and many did for almost 2 thousand years.

When Paul returned Onysmius, the slave of Philemon, back to his owner proclaiming that he had received the man as a slave, but was returning him as a brother it is very evident that Paul was placing on the slaver the onus of "doing the right thing".

Obiwan and I already had this debate, both these men were personal friends of Paul and he merely asked one friend to free another. This is what I meant by spin from Paul's apologists, deny what he clearly said to a general population by claiming a personal plea to a friend negates it.

[Dis]

yes a hyphen would have made more sense . I screwed it up. I am suprised this thread wasn't deleted.

This proves my theory that I can make any kind of outrageous thread I want as long as it is not about Iraq

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Dr Strangelove -

I didn't say it was an approval, I said it was condoning an evil practice. And one can be a pacifist and still call for an end to an evil practice rather than condone it. Btw, Christians began showing how much they value pacifism the moment Constantine declared it the official religion of the Roman empire. They almost immediately began slaughtering each other in the subsequent power grab. Paul gave Christians a loophole to practice slavery, and many did for almost 2 thousand years.

The Christianized (western) empire abolished slavery in the 5th century at the behest of one of the bishops of Rome. I don't know about the eastern empire. The introduction of serfdom into Europe was a Germanic practice. Its spread essentially follows the gradual takeover of various sections of the empire by Germanic tribes.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

The Bible being against homosexuality is mainly derived on interpretation. Some people feel that what happened at Sodom was due to the people engaging in homosexual acts, but it never states right out that they are...those people assume that since it states that the Sodomites wanted to "know" the men/angels who were put up in the house of the non-sinner and not to "know" the daughters that were offered, that that has sexual connotations. Seems to me that THEY are the ones with the dirty minds.

Also, the quote in leviticus about not lying with man...in the Ancient Hebrew, when directly translated and not over a period of thousands of years, it actually infers that you are not to lie with man IF you also lie with woman...kinda against hypocrisy if anything

[Zero]

Originally posted by Wittlich
Dissident, as fellow Vox PBEM member and a gay man...please don't go down this road...I know you can find more creative subjects to talk about.

Wittlich you're gay? I had no idea. I thought you had a wife and everything. A heterosexually married homosexual?

Come to think about it... San francisco. <--- (I'm being sarcastic but I cant keep thinking about how appropriate that is.. )

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
The Bible being against homosexuality is mainly derived on interpretation. Some people feel that what happened at Sodom was due to the people engaging in homosexual acts, but it never states right out that they are...those people assume that since it states that the Sodomites wanted to "know" the men/angels who were put up in the house of the non-sinner and not to "know" the daughters that were offered, that that has sexual connotations. Seems to me that THEY are the ones with the dirty minds.

Also, the quote in leviticus about not lying with man...in the Ancient Hebrew, when directly translated and not over a period of thousands of years, it actually infers that you are not to lie with man IF you also lie with woman...kinda against hypocrisy if anything

The angels who were visiting Lot had been running around town asking questions in order to ascertain how many good and worthy people lived in Sodom. The locals were offended by the questions and evidently it was a local social custom to reward people who offended the citizenry by taking them out and "getting to know" the offending persons (in a biblical way). Lot offered his daughters instead, but that did not mollify the crowd. Maybe the folks of Sodom really did prefer guys, but just as likely they intended to punish the offending outsiders. You got to admit that there is something about a town that treats strangers to a gang raping that just says "Heck, let's just torch the place and be done with it."

[Ben Kenobi]

Dissident:

The answer to your question is in the quote, love the sinner, hate the sin. We can do this by seperating sexual practice from the actual person, ie, who you are is not necessarily what you do.

There is no reason to presuppose that homosexuality is an inherited trait that one cannot overcome. Christianity can tolerate homosexual people, people who have homosexual tendencies, so long as they do not act on these impulses. This is no different from someone who has killed people, both are different forms of the same problem, sin.

Now, here's where we get all the fun of the thread, does Christianity teach that homosexuality is sinful? I can see two different thrusts at this question in the negative, that Christianity does not teach the sinfulness of homosexuality, one from Bezerker, and a more oblique assertion from Dr. Strangelove.

Dr. Stranglove:

There are many more better passages referring to homosexuality than the one in Romans. I've listed them below.

In response to Berzerker:

First off, how do we define what Christianity teaches? You assume that what Jesus says is the be all and end all of Christianity. However, there are many things that the bible does not record him explicitly attacking, one of these is homosexuality.

Working with your assumption, for now, that the OT and Pauline letters are inadmissible:

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality wrt the Bible nor did anything he say imply disapproval.

False. Look at Christ's example of marriage during the debate with divorce, Christ insists that the ideal relationship sanctioned by God is a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman. All other forms of sexual relationships, even in the case of divorce, fall short of this ideal.

Matthew 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[1] 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'[2] ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Clearly this one flesh relationship between a man and a woman flatly rejects homosexual relationships.

However, if we examine your assumptions, and your justifications, we see that there are no good reasons for Christians to reject the teachings of the OT and Pauline Letters on homosexuality.

When Jesus referred to fulfilling the law, he was talking about fulfilling the essence or goal of the law, the 2 "commandments" he gave - love God and love others.

If this is true, then please explain why Jesus says this in Matthew 5:18:

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Unless you have a better rationale, the OT must be accepted as authoritative; except where Jesus makes extensions, as in the case of divorce. Jesus even explains why the law is insufficient, in that men's hearts were hard, so God temporarily accomodated their sinfulness.

That's hardly an act of love for thy neighbor and Jesus was condemned for "laboring" on the Sabbath as well

By the Pharisees! Do you believe that the Pharisees know the Law better than Christ?

Now, it does appear that Paul did condemn homosexual acts (between men at least)

Very tentative language, Berzerker:

Galatians 5:19

"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality,"

Ephesians 5:3

"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people."

Colossians 3:5

"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality,"

1 Thessalonians 4:3-4

"It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body[1] in a way that is holy and honorable."

1 Corinthians 10:6

"Now these things occurred as examples[1] to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry."[2] We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did--and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died."


Now, this all begs the question, what does Paul consider sexual immorality?

As we see from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

No distinction is made between female and male homosexual offenders, so that refutes your earlier statement that Paul does not chasten lesbians.

Finally, I want to rebut your statement that Paul strays from Jesus' teachings on the matter of homosexuality.

This lovely passage from 1 Cor 6:12-20:

"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!

Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[2]

But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.


Note that Paul makes explicit reference to the exact quote of Christ as to the nature of sexual relationships, 'where the two become one flesh.'
This demonstrates Paul's concern with following the words of Christ.

Secondly, Paul refutes the notion of autonomy embraced by today's culture, in his concluding statement. Our own bodies are not ours to do with as we wish, because they are a gift from God.

[Zero]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
The Bible being against homosexuality is mainly derived on interpretation.

Obiwan's post is a great example! Interpretation!

Some people feel that what happened at Sodom was due to the people engaging in homosexual acts, but it never states right out that they are...those people assume that since it states that the Sodomites wanted to "know" the men/angels who were put up in the house of the non-sinner and not to "know" the daughters that were offered, that that has sexual connotations. Seems to me that THEY are the ones with the dirty minds.

Also, the quote in leviticus about not lying with man...in the Ancient Hebrew, when directly translated and not over a period of thousands of years, it actually infers that you are not to lie with man IF you also lie with woman...kinda against hypocrisy if anything

I heard some alternatives about sodmoites being stingy and not being altruistic enough. In fact, some would go as far as to that sodom and gomorah didnt exist and its basically a folklore that serves as a warning yadayada ya etc etc.

[Berzerker]

Strangelove -

The Christianized (western) empire abolished slavery in the 5th century at the behest of one of the bishops of Rome. I don't know about the eastern empire. The introduction of serfdom into Europe was a Germanic practice. Its spread essentially follows the gradual takeover of various sections of the empire by Germanic tribes.

Who do you think brought Africans to the New World? And why? Because the Spanish and Portuguese and other European powers concluded Indians made poor slaves. C'mon, what some 5th century bishop said and what was done are two different things.