Crosswords1 min ago
Homosexuality and your faith.
40 Answers
I'm interested to get your views on homosexuality and how these views tie in with your faith or spiritual life. I know that this has been a very difficult and controversial issue in the Church, and I myself have found it hard to form an opinion about it.
I think what scripture tells us on the subject is very subjective, and can be interpreted in any number of ways. I do consider homosexuality very unnatural and do find it difficult to fit the idea of homosexuality into my understanding of God's creation. On the ther hand I believe that people are born gay and probably always have been.
I know some Christians who literally have more sympathy for murders or rapists than they do towards homosexuals, I have also heard Christians say that God does not embrace gays. These type of attitudes make me cringe because I believe that God embraces everyone and if homosexuality is a sin then surely it can only be put into the same type of category as adultery or sex before marriage. There is also the argument that Jesus did not mention homosexuality amongst his many teachings and that if it had been such a serious issue why did he not mention it?
Anyway these are my random thoughts, what are your opinions?
I think what scripture tells us on the subject is very subjective, and can be interpreted in any number of ways. I do consider homosexuality very unnatural and do find it difficult to fit the idea of homosexuality into my understanding of God's creation. On the ther hand I believe that people are born gay and probably always have been.
I know some Christians who literally have more sympathy for murders or rapists than they do towards homosexuals, I have also heard Christians say that God does not embrace gays. These type of attitudes make me cringe because I believe that God embraces everyone and if homosexuality is a sin then surely it can only be put into the same type of category as adultery or sex before marriage. There is also the argument that Jesus did not mention homosexuality amongst his many teachings and that if it had been such a serious issue why did he not mention it?
Anyway these are my random thoughts, what are your opinions?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Fingerprint. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Given these basic facts.
Jesus had access to the complete Old Testament.
He denied none of it.
He used the example of Noah and the Ark to show people that they SHOULD take notice. Matthew 24; 36-39
He taught his disciples what to teach people.
He was aware of rampant homosexuality in the Roman gods temples, involving temple prostitutes, male and female.
He was aware of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah,
destroyed because of homosexuality.
Sop when the apostle Paul states in the Bible it is WRONG,, he is expressing Jesus' thoughts on the matter.
And Jesus' standards are the same as his Father in heaven, Jehovah God.
At no stage has the Bible EVER approved of the practice.
But false religion HAS.
(1 Corinthians 6:9) What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God�s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men,
(1 Timothy 1:10) fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching
IN OPPOSITION TO HEALTHFUL TEACHING...
Jesus had access to the complete Old Testament.
He denied none of it.
He used the example of Noah and the Ark to show people that they SHOULD take notice. Matthew 24; 36-39
He taught his disciples what to teach people.
He was aware of rampant homosexuality in the Roman gods temples, involving temple prostitutes, male and female.
He was aware of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah,
destroyed because of homosexuality.
Sop when the apostle Paul states in the Bible it is WRONG,, he is expressing Jesus' thoughts on the matter.
And Jesus' standards are the same as his Father in heaven, Jehovah God.
At no stage has the Bible EVER approved of the practice.
But false religion HAS.
(1 Corinthians 6:9) What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God�s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men,
(1 Timothy 1:10) fornicators, men who lie with males, kidnappers, liars, false swearers, and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching
IN OPPOSITION TO HEALTHFUL TEACHING...
Hello Fingerprint, I know there are many heterosexual people who flaunt their sexuality, but they're not trying to fight prejudice. The blatant displays that some gays enter into do their cause no good at all. Such behaviour invites prejudice.
Going back to your question, I am not a member of the church, but I cannot put homosexuality into the same category as adultery or sex before marriage as you suggest. Everyone must, of course, choose their own way in life, but my personal view is that homosexuality is unnatural, and if I had such leanings, I would remain celebate.
Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, but that doesn't mean he condoned it.
Going back to your question, I am not a member of the church, but I cannot put homosexuality into the same category as adultery or sex before marriage as you suggest. Everyone must, of course, choose their own way in life, but my personal view is that homosexuality is unnatural, and if I had such leanings, I would remain celebate.
Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, but that doesn't mean he condoned it.
I am always fascinated, Theland, when you religious people claim to be all sinners. It prompts me to ask the following: were you a sinner to begin with and took up religion in the hope of curing yourself of it? Or did becoming religious cause you to be a sinner? Either way, the obvious thing, surely, is to give up religion and become a normal decent person like the rest of us.
Chakka is entirely sensible when he(?) points out that the homosexuality ruling comes from a long line of other rules.
From reading them, we can deduce that someone like Theland, who believes that the Bible is infalible and is the literal word of God (and we'll come back to the word 'literal' in a minute) also does not cut (excuse my ignorance on your gender here) his or her hair (and beard if of appropriate gender), or eat fruit from trees under three years old and a whole host of other things.
Theland, I trust you will be able to assure us that this is indeed correct?
And er... this thing of "homosexuals flaunting their sexuality, in fact, literally stuffing it down our throats at times"...
That is clearly a matter of serious sexual assault and you should report it to the authorities, not least in case these depraved pople do it to anyone else.
From reading them, we can deduce that someone like Theland, who believes that the Bible is infalible and is the literal word of God (and we'll come back to the word 'literal' in a minute) also does not cut (excuse my ignorance on your gender here) his or her hair (and beard if of appropriate gender), or eat fruit from trees under three years old and a whole host of other things.
Theland, I trust you will be able to assure us that this is indeed correct?
And er... this thing of "homosexuals flaunting their sexuality, in fact, literally stuffing it down our throats at times"...
That is clearly a matter of serious sexual assault and you should report it to the authorities, not least in case these depraved pople do it to anyone else.
Absolutely,
You mean figuratively stuffing it down our throats. And I don't see much of that down my local high street.
Doing a bit of research about slavery I found Matt: 24 45-51.
Basically jesus is ranting about unruly slaves. Apparently, if a head slave doesn't manage to get the other slave's dinner on time it is perfectly ok for their master to:
Well, kill the head slave. literally cut the slave in two. And then the slave will go to hell with the hypocrites (jews?). Is this right? is this what Jesus wants you to do to an unruly slave? I know its not specifically about homosexuality but it is condoning oppression. I'd be interested in how the literalists amongst you read Matt. 24: 45-51?
You mean figuratively stuffing it down our throats. And I don't see much of that down my local high street.
Doing a bit of research about slavery I found Matt: 24 45-51.
Basically jesus is ranting about unruly slaves. Apparently, if a head slave doesn't manage to get the other slave's dinner on time it is perfectly ok for their master to:
Well, kill the head slave. literally cut the slave in two. And then the slave will go to hell with the hypocrites (jews?). Is this right? is this what Jesus wants you to do to an unruly slave? I know its not specifically about homosexuality but it is condoning oppression. I'd be interested in how the literalists amongst you read Matt. 24: 45-51?
Jesus did not come to be a social engineer or social reformer, neither did He come to liberate the occupied people from the occupiers.
He came to point people to God, wherever they were, and at whatever point they were at, whether master or slave, employer or employee, parent or child, neighbour or stranger.
Jesus was and is interested in YOUR relationship with God. All other relationships, and all other societal organisation would follow on from this.
He came to point people to God, wherever they were, and at whatever point they were at, whether master or slave, employer or employee, parent or child, neighbour or stranger.
Jesus was and is interested in YOUR relationship with God. All other relationships, and all other societal organisation would follow on from this.
I cut my hair (?)
Jesus did not approve of anything that stood in the way of a right relationship with God.
If a "master" accepted Christs teachings, then his "slaves" would be far better off than the pagan masters' slaves next door!
To get into the master / slave terminology is pointless, as we have slavery today. Look at agency workers who put up with the most intolerable of conditions on occasions, for the privelege of occasional work for minimum wage. No freedom there!
I imagine Jesus would not condone agencies like this either.
Jesus did not approve of anything that stood in the way of a right relationship with God.
If a "master" accepted Christs teachings, then his "slaves" would be far better off than the pagan masters' slaves next door!
To get into the master / slave terminology is pointless, as we have slavery today. Look at agency workers who put up with the most intolerable of conditions on occasions, for the privelege of occasional work for minimum wage. No freedom there!
I imagine Jesus would not condone agencies like this either.
Theland
Had jesus said nothing about slaves you may of had an argument. It would have been a bit strange that the saviour of humanity didn't mention that keeping slaves might be wrong but an argument could have been made. However, jesus didn't keep quiet about slavery, he specifically gave the thumbs up to decapitating slaves who fail to prepare dinner on time and promised they would go to hell. That sounds like social engineering to me.
So we have a situation where homosexuality and cutting one's hair are so abhorrent that god feels he must deal with them but slavery; nah, lets not mess about with that, people have enough to worry about without us messing in their affairs.
Had jesus said nothing about slaves you may of had an argument. It would have been a bit strange that the saviour of humanity didn't mention that keeping slaves might be wrong but an argument could have been made. However, jesus didn't keep quiet about slavery, he specifically gave the thumbs up to decapitating slaves who fail to prepare dinner on time and promised they would go to hell. That sounds like social engineering to me.
So we have a situation where homosexuality and cutting one's hair are so abhorrent that god feels he must deal with them but slavery; nah, lets not mess about with that, people have enough to worry about without us messing in their affairs.
Cutting your hair, Theland? But God has commanded you not to!
Lev 19:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
19:2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
[...]
19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
A classic example of picking and choosing which bits of God's laws you're going to obey.
For some reason the bits in Leviticus on homosexuals, namely:
18:22 Homosexual acts are an abomination to God.
is true and must be obeyed, but the bit about the beard cutting and hair trimming, well, apparently you can choose to ignore that bit.
Oh, and you also ignore:
Lev 20:13 If a man has sex with another man, kill them both.
What manner of criteria is being used to determine which bits of this inerant book apply and which don't?
I bet you eat fruit from trees less than three years old too.
Lev 19:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
19:2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
[...]
19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
A classic example of picking and choosing which bits of God's laws you're going to obey.
For some reason the bits in Leviticus on homosexuals, namely:
18:22 Homosexual acts are an abomination to God.
is true and must be obeyed, but the bit about the beard cutting and hair trimming, well, apparently you can choose to ignore that bit.
Oh, and you also ignore:
Lev 20:13 If a man has sex with another man, kill them both.
What manner of criteria is being used to determine which bits of this inerant book apply and which don't?
I bet you eat fruit from trees less than three years old too.
Theland, Its interesting how you recoil from a literal interpretation of the bible when the message is unpleasant to you and yet if it reinforces some prejudice that you may have you readily embrace it. Can you not see the inconsistency in your position? The bible is either the inerrent word of god, or it isn't. I don't think you can opt in and out as it suits.
Just some comments on verses a few of you seem to be misquoting.
Lev 19:26 -29 In these verses God gives commands to the Jews not to mimic the rituals and practices of the idolatrous nations around them, such as drinking blood with their offerings, using enchantments, cutting themselves in respect of the dead, and that mentioned in v 27 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard". This 'hair cutting', in the context of the rest of the passage, was to do with marring your appearance as an act of idolatrous worship.
It is nothing to do with the normal act of cutting one's hair.
Matt 24:45-51, firstly I don't know what Bible you're looking at, but in mine it is the word 'servant' not 'slave', the same word used when the apostles later call themselves 'servants of the Lord'.
As for decapitation??
If you read the prefacing verse to this passage, you'll see it is about the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
"Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." Matt 24:44
It's nothing to do about 'rules for slaves' but rather contrasts the latter end of good and evil servants when the Lord returns. The good, who look for their Lord's return being rewarded, the bad who abuse others and don't believe Christ will ever return, being cast into Hell.
The message being the Lord Jesus Christ will return in a day ye think not, so be ready!
Lev 19:26 -29 In these verses God gives commands to the Jews not to mimic the rituals and practices of the idolatrous nations around them, such as drinking blood with their offerings, using enchantments, cutting themselves in respect of the dead, and that mentioned in v 27 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard". This 'hair cutting', in the context of the rest of the passage, was to do with marring your appearance as an act of idolatrous worship.
It is nothing to do with the normal act of cutting one's hair.
Matt 24:45-51, firstly I don't know what Bible you're looking at, but in mine it is the word 'servant' not 'slave', the same word used when the apostles later call themselves 'servants of the Lord'.
As for decapitation??
If you read the prefacing verse to this passage, you'll see it is about the return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
"Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." Matt 24:44
It's nothing to do about 'rules for slaves' but rather contrasts the latter end of good and evil servants when the Lord returns. The good, who look for their Lord's return being rewarded, the bad who abuse others and don't believe Christ will ever return, being cast into Hell.
The message being the Lord Jesus Christ will return in a day ye think not, so be ready!
Hi lighter
Actually I believe the original is doulos meaning bondservant which literally means slave; and it does say cut in two, literally executed! The parable christ tells is deliberately harsh because he wants to drive the point home that even if the disciple has faith in jesus it comes to nothing if he takes jesus' sacrifice lightly and does not live by his code (so think on before you tell people it just needs faith in jesus to get into heaven). Its obvious to me that this type of treatment of slaves was a social norm for the time and it is a parable, i.e. not to be taken literally. However, you would probably expect the messiah to be ahead of his time and perhaps mention that slavery is morally wrong.
Actually I believe the original is doulos meaning bondservant which literally means slave; and it does say cut in two, literally executed! The parable christ tells is deliberately harsh because he wants to drive the point home that even if the disciple has faith in jesus it comes to nothing if he takes jesus' sacrifice lightly and does not live by his code (so think on before you tell people it just needs faith in jesus to get into heaven). Its obvious to me that this type of treatment of slaves was a social norm for the time and it is a parable, i.e. not to be taken literally. However, you would probably expect the messiah to be ahead of his time and perhaps mention that slavery is morally wrong.
Hi Dawkins - Yes the word used is 'doulos' which can be used for both slave and servants. From the uses of it I have seen in the New Testament I would say from the context that it was mainly meaning 'servant', for instance we have 'servants' being paid, (slaves are not).
I still believe the passage is a warning regards the Lord's return. The bad servant is shown as having abused others, not believed in the Lord's return and leading a drunken and ungodly life. He is leading a life contray to what he professes, ie he is not a true servant at all.
Many also see this passage as describing those who would teach God's truth. The good servant feeding the saints spiritual food while the bad mistreats them, doesn't see to their essential needs and leads a life in opposition to what should be taught, (i.e a false prophet/teacher). These false teachers having their portion with the hypocrites as v51 says.
"And shall cut him asunder"v51 I think refers more to cutting those bad servants off, removing them from the true servants, rather than the physical act of cutting up their body. If you read the rest of v51 "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth", a body that has been hacked to pieces couldn't sit and weep and gnash their teeth, could they?
I still believe the passage is a warning regards the Lord's return. The bad servant is shown as having abused others, not believed in the Lord's return and leading a drunken and ungodly life. He is leading a life contray to what he professes, ie he is not a true servant at all.
Many also see this passage as describing those who would teach God's truth. The good servant feeding the saints spiritual food while the bad mistreats them, doesn't see to their essential needs and leads a life in opposition to what should be taught, (i.e a false prophet/teacher). These false teachers having their portion with the hypocrites as v51 says.
"And shall cut him asunder"v51 I think refers more to cutting those bad servants off, removing them from the true servants, rather than the physical act of cutting up their body. If you read the rest of v51 "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth", a body that has been hacked to pieces couldn't sit and weep and gnash their teeth, could they?
Well Lighter, I've just read the entire chapter again and you're talking complete bilge. There's absolutely nothing to support your interpretation whatsoever, whereas the traditions of the hassidic jews e.g. payoth and the draining of blood from meat very strongly support the fact that these are general commandments and should be taken seriously indeed.
And pick and choose and pick and choose and rest...
And pick and choose and pick and choose and rest...
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style1 min ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
