What's the deal with Jesus loving homosexuals?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Dissident:
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.

I agree that homosexuality is not perfect

however, I disagre with you otherwise

just as I think that God would want two Divorces who have fallen in love to be married and enjoy eachother

so to I think it is best for two gays to fall in love, get married, and live happy together

while homosexuality might not have been in perfection, it surely is here now, and we should live with it in the manner which is best for the homosexuals and straights

Jon Miller

[Berzerker]

Obiwan -

First off, how do we define what Christianity teaches? You assume that what Jesus says is the be all and end all of Christianity.

The religion is named after him, so yes.

However, there are many things that the bible does not record him explicitly attacking, one of these is homosexuality.

A rather important omission, wouldn't you say? Btw, you'd be surprised (or maybe not) just how much ground is covered by the Golden Rule alone, so I'd have to see your list of many things not addressed by Jesus. But that in itself is a clue, if Jesus didn't address something, then that would imply it's irrelevance...

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.

No, you're taking what he said out of context. The issue was divorce and the OT practices regarding divorce Jesus was challenging, nothing about the ideal relationship. Would you use that verse to claim Jesus condemned celibacy, polygamy, or concubines?

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."

Again, this was about divorce laws. And inspite of this verse, Jesus still allowed divorce, so man could separate what God had joined (which raises another question about the verse). Jesus was confronted with an issue - divorce law - brought to him by others, so why would you conclude he was condemning homosexuality, adultery, rape, or celibacy by what he said about divorce?

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

No it doesn't, he was asked about divorce and that is the context in which we find his response. Does this verse flatly reject celibacy? It doesn't even reject divorce...

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.

Many won't reject those other sources because they can't quote Jesus to support their political agenda.

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."

I did, but with regards to another verse. However, my explanation is still applicable. What did Jesus say the entire law of the prophets was based upon? Love God, and love thy neighbors. Now, does this mean Jesus was endorsing the OT in it's entirety? Of course not, only what he considered the law of the prophets. If you conclude the entire OT IS the law of the prophets, then how do you explain Jesus changing a number of OT laws handed down by various prophets? What was the OT penalty for adultery? Death? Yet Jesus defended an adulteress from this penalty and she walked free. Moses and members of his clan murdered a man for collecting firewood on the Sabbath. Can you picture Jesus doing that and calling it an act of love (the very purpose for the law)? He was himself accused of violating the Sabbath. Then there are all those dietary laws he violated, dining with the unclean, etc... I thought Christians believe Jesus came to free us from the law offering salvation via grace and faith.

Unless you have a better rationale, the OT must be accepted as authoritative; except where Jesus makes extensions, as in the case of divorce.

That wasn't an extension, he changed the divorce laws just as he eliminated the penalty for adultery. How do you explain that given people were executed for adultery?

Jesus even explains why the law is insufficient, in that men's hearts were hard, so God temporarily accomodated their sinfulness.

Exactly! He changed an OT law. His rationale is irrelevant since the fact remains, he changed the law. Therefore, the entire OT is not sancrosanct wrt Jesus...

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

So you tell me, did the OT law against laboring on the Sabbath allow exceptions for certain kinds of labor? No, Jesus was telling us not to get all hung up on the letter of the law. The Pharisees were the keepers of the law (they were the Jewish legal class, the lawyers), and since their interpretation appears in keeping with the OT, you need something to prove them wrong.

Very tentative language, Berzerker:

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

Didn't Paul explicitly refer to men lying with other men?

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.

First, I said "between males at least". That doesn't preclude women, only that my memory of the verse would not allow me to generalise. Second, "homosexuality" is our modern term, not what was used in those days. So, give us Paul's definition of homosexuality...I've seen a verse where he refers to men lying with men and no mention of women. Notice in that verse how Paul refers to male prostitutes? Why not female prostitutes too?

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

Where did I say that? I'd need a statement made by Jesus to reach such a conclusion, just as you need a statement made by Jesus to reach yours. I guess you missed the opening of my post where I said I knew of nothing in the NT from Jesus condemning homosexuality. Therefore, the burden is on you...

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

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.

But what exactly did the OT and Jesus mean by "two becoming one"? The two did not actually become one, but they did procreate resulting in the "one". I interpret that to mean once a couple had a child - the two become the one - then they should not divorce. And yet, even then, divorce was allowed. How else could you interpret that verse?

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.

Today's culture? I think we have a much more moral culture than what existed back then. Again, I reject Paul for reasons I've already stated. You don't, but then it's up to you to prove Paul was a spokesman for Jesus. What Paul said is irrelevant to what Jesus said unless Paul corroborates Jesus, and since we have no record of Jesus condemning homosexuality, we cannot logically conclude he did based upon what Paul said. Furthermore, Jesus was the quintessential libertarian. He left it up to us to decide if we wanted his message, and when he instructed his disciples - his volunteers - how to go about spreading the word, he told them to go to a village and give the message. If they were received, good, if they were not, leave and go to the next village.

I'll end with this:

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.

Now, Paul ties this in with sexual immorality. But what did Jesus say about the body being the temple of God/Holy Spirit? He too was accused of violating this temple when he dined (and associated) with the unclean and without properly washing. Jesus said, "it is not what a man puts in his mouth that defiles him, but what comes from his mouth, this defiles him". So, what was Jesus talking about? Sinful thoughts that come before sinful acts. The desire to commit adultery, a desire that Jesus equated with the act itself. To hate, to intentionally speak wrongly of others, etc... You've taken a passage from Paul and passed it off on Jesus. Jesus spoke of the bodily temple of God and what defiles it, Paul added his own ideas about sexual immorality to what Jesus said... Now, obviously the desire to commit adultery fits in with Jesus' statement about defilement since we have him on record telling the adulteress she had sinned, but we don't have Jesus telling us homosexuality is a sin. Does sex between 2 men or 2 women violate the Golden Rule or the 2 commandments given by Jesus? I don't see how without adding a caveat. Does murdering (executing or a lesser punishment) homosexuals violate the Golden Rule or those 2 commandments? Yes... Quite a paradox created by "Christians" who want laws against "sin".

[DinoDoc]

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."

1) The words "homosexual" and "homosexuality" are not found in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. So this translations gets demerits right off the bat.

2) Let's assume for a moment that Paul actually did write homosexual offenders. How do you draw the conclusion today that it is anything more than a condemnation of gays that commit sexual offenses? If he had said heterosexual offenses would you say that Christianity condemes all straight people?

[monkspider]

Obi-Wan, my friend. I have so much respect for you, as much as I have for any poster here. Don't give any creedence to the anti-gay doctrines that are so predominant in these times.
Homosexuality is no more a sin than heterosexuality (in other words, it's not any sort of a spiritual crime whatsoever). I may not be able to change your mind on this subject this evening, and I accept that and by no means hold it against you. You will understand soon, old friend. The times, they are a-changin. Just continue upon your present course.