Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[starlite]

I have difficulty understanding how human beings feel they can put their own desires and standards above God's....as has already been stated....God put in writing how he wants us to conduct ourselves....who are we to change it?

 

[McBell]

who are we to change it?

Since we are the ones doing the regulating, enforcement, etc. of the rules, we every right to change them.

Now if god wants to actually show up and enforce his rules....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have difficulty understanding how human beings feel they can put their own desires and standards above God's....as has already been stated....God put in writing how he wants us to conduct ourselves....who are we to change it?

My first thought: since you showed in the other thread how you have no problem with twisting the meaning of Biblical passages to allow what *you* want to do, I don't see why you say you can't understand it. You do it yourself, IMO, so I would think you have an intimate understanding of how it works.

Second, there's a difference between a code we impose on ourselves and one we impose on others. Nobody's stopping any gay person from living a celibate life if they're so inclined. Where gay rights come into play is in situations where the person decides not to do this, but others decide for him to either stop him altogether or make life difficult for him.

I can't understand why so many so-called Christians get involved in these sorts of issues, considering how often their holy book tells them not to judge others and attend to their own "sins" instead. IMO, the Bible-thumpers are engaging in just as much selective interpretation as anyone else here.

 

[sojourner]

I have difficulty understanding how human beings feel they can put their own desires and standards above God's....as has already been stated....God put in writing how he wants us to conduct ourselves....who are we to change it?

I have difficulty understanding how you, as a Christian person, feel you can put your own desires and standards above those of your fellow human beings? God didn't write anything. We wrote how we feel God wants us to conduct ourselves -- and it doesn't have anything to do with how others conduct themselves.

 

[Maya3]

I have difficulty understanding how you, as a Christian person, feel you can put your own desires and standards above those of your fellow human beings? God didn't write anything. We wrote how we feel God wants us to conduct ourselves -- and it doesn't have anything to do with how others conduct themselves.

Exactly!

Maya

 

[Onkara]

I have difficulty understanding how you, as a Christian person, feel you can put your own desires and standards above those of your fellow human beings? God didn't write anything. We wrote how we feel God wants us to conduct ourselves -- and it doesn't have anything to do with how others conduct themselves.

How can the Bible be the "word of God" revealed to man, in that case? Surely that means it isn't?

 

[Father Heathen]

I have difficulty understanding how human beings feel they can put their own desires and standards above God's..

Or pressume that our desires and standards are god's (those those who wrote the bible did).

..as has already been stated....God put in writing how he wants us to conduct ourselves....who are we to change it?

Because what was "put in writing" was irrational, unsubstantiated, unjust and written by primitive savages who appointed themselves god's spokes people. Who are we? People who think that reason and compassion supersede superstitions. If there is/was a god, such a being would have nothing to do with such a disgusting tome.

 

[sojourner]

How can the Bible be the "word of God" revealed to man, in that case? Surely that means it isn't?

It isn't. It's "God-inspired," but that's not the same thing. At all.

 

[Me Myself]

I can't understand why so many so-called Christians get involved in these sorts of issues, considering how often their holy book tells them not to judge others and attend to their own "sins" instead. IMO, the Bible-thumpers are engaging in just as much selective interpretation as anyone else here.

To be very fair, it says we must judge ourselves first SO that we can correctly judge others afterwards.

Not that I believe it is relevant to the point of homosexuality, but I had to clarify that so often misunderstood passage.

 

[somethingNiftyhere]

I am a Christian and I don't hate gays.

But if you were to ask a Christian who believes homosexuality to be a sin, they will they "hate the sin, love the sinner"...

If a Christian were to say that they'd be reciting the words of Gandhi. Not Bible scripture.


About the only place Jesus speaks to homosexuality is in Matthew.

Matthew 19:11-12

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

​

Eunuchs were traditionally used to protect brothels or harems. However, Jesus in his ministry always spoke in parables. (a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.)

So his admonition that some were born that way and that those who can accept it should accept it, speaks to Jesus not levying judgment upon Eunuchs or those who were made that way or who were emasculated. As Eunuch could also just as easily refer to Gay men. Men who had no carnal desires to sex women.

Also, it helps to remember that when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane, he was found in the company of a young man who was naked save for a sheet he'd grabbed and wrapped around him. A sheet that fell from him and revealed his nakedness as he fled the area where Jesus was with the Temple guard who had come to take him into custody.
That and Jesus traveling in his ministry with 12 men as constant companions can lend it's own inferences in answer to Jesus point of view on the Gay question.

 

[Me Myself]

There is no reason to believe that means homosexuality.

It looks way more like asexuality to me.

 

[idav]

If a Christian were to say that they'd be reciting the words of Gandhi. Not Bible scripture.


About the only place Jesus speaks to homosexuality is in Matthew.

Matthew 19:11-12

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

​

Eunuchs were traditionally used to protect brothels or harems. However, Jesus in his ministry always spoke in parables. (a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.)

So his admonition that some were born that way and that those who can accept it should accept it, speaks to Jesus not levying judgment upon Eunuchs or those who were made that way or who were emasculated. As Eunuch could also just as easily refer to Gay men. Men who had no carnal desires to sex women.

Also, it helps to remember that when Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane, he was found in the company of a young man who was naked save for a sheet he'd grabbed and wrapped around him. A sheet that fell from him and revealed his nakedness as he fled the area where Jesus was with the Temple guard who had come to take him into custody.
That and Jesus traveling in his ministry with 12 men as constant companions can lend it's own inferences in answer to Jesus point of view on the Gay question.

Interesting verses.

The following verses may be speaking about the possibility of someone being saved regardless of sexual orientation.

I tell you, in that night,
there shall be two men in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34-35, KJV)​

 

[somethingNiftyhere]

There is no reason to believe that means homosexuality.

It looks way more like asexuality to me.

Given the ministry of Jesus was through parables alone, I take it to refer to people who are born as sexual beings. If eunuchs were made, through surgery, or are emasculated why would Jesus refer to those who were 'born that way'?
I think he was referring to those who had their male sex drive removed or who were emasculated, not attracted to women but rather were effeminate or as men attracted to other men and thereby assuming the traditional women's role.

As in the Leviticus scriptures that speaks to men who lie with other men as they do women.
The terminology and phrasing we use today wasn't employed in Jesus time. And with his ministry being allegorical the emasculated male reference would have had multiple meanings I think.

 

[somethingNiftyhere]

Interesting verses.

The following verses may be speaking about the possibility of someone being saved regardless of sexual orientation.

I tell you, in that night,
there shall be two men in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34-35, KJV)​

That's an excellent verse to share on this subject.

 

[Me Myself]

Given the ministry of Jesus was through parables alone, I take it to refer to people who are born as sexual beings. If eunuchs were made, through surgery, or are emasculated why would Jesus refer to those who were 'born that way'?
I think he was referring to those who had their male sex drive removed or who were emasculated, not attracted to women but rather were effeminate or as men attracted to other men and thereby assuming the traditional women's role.

As in the Leviticus scriptures that speaks to men who lie with other men as they do women.
The terminology and phrasing we use today wasn't employed in Jesus time. And with his ministry being allegorical the emasculated male reference would have had multiple meanings I think.

Sure, I know they don't say "homosexual" or "asexual", but they may say "those that have depraved feelings towards other men" and "those that are made eunuch by heavens" (don´t care for sex at all)

While I don´t find it completely impossible he may be referring to gays, I do think it is not "obviously" doing so, so one cannot assume it definitely refers to gays. I always read that line as referring to people that don´t have a sex drive at all. Maybe you are right about the interpretation, but we simply cannot know, so it wouldn´t be intellectually honest to just assume it means gays.

 

[Me Myself]

Interesting verses.

The following verses may be speaking about the possibility of someone being saved regardless of sexual orientation.

I tell you, in that night,
there shall be two men in one bed;
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34-35, KJV)​

I would need to hear jewish customs of the time about "two men in bed" before being sure of that, but it does seem like that verse has more of a point than the eunuch one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To be very fair, it says we must judge ourselves first SO that we can correctly judge others afterwards.

Not that I believe it is relevant to the point of homosexuality, but I had to clarify that so often misunderstood passage.

I wasn't referring to only one passage. There are some in the Gospels that say, effectively, "don't judge or you'll be judged" and "don't judge someone when you're guilty yourself", but there are also verses in the Epistles that effectively say "don't judge other people - that's reserved for God."

 

[Me Myself]

I wasn't referring to only one passage. There are some in the Gospels that say, effectively, "don't judge or you'll be judged" and "don't judge someone when you're guilty yourself", but there are also verses in the Epistles that effectively say "don't judge other people - that's reserved for God."

That´s part of the contradictory nature of putting so many different books together .

You still see Jesus saying "Judge" even when Paul says "don´t judge". Although I think somewhere Jesus also said "dont judge".

Problematic when one wants to get too literal on the bible, but at least you can say it is not really clear cut.

 

[somethingNiftyhere]

Sure, I know they don't say "homosexual" or "asexual", but they may say "those that have depraved feelings towards other men" and "those that are made eunuch by heavens" (don´t care for sex at all)

While I don´t find it completely impossible he may be referring to gays, I do think it is not "obviously" doing so, so one cannot assume it definitely refers to gays. I always read that line as referring to people that don´t have a sex drive at all. Maybe you are right about the interpretation, but we simply cannot know, so it wouldn´t be intellectually honest to just assume it means gays.

"Gay" wasn't a term that was known in Jesus time. So if he was to speak in allegory or symbolically so as to communicate a message about homosexuals, he'd use terms that would be known or easily inferred by those hearing his message at the time.

If it's a matter of intellectual honesty with regard to Jesus teachings, we'd be at a loss to discuss it at all. There were no scribes in the company of Jesus. No one wrote down what he said or did while he was preaching and working miracles.

Christianity began as an oral tradition and was only written down decades after Jesus death. And in all the new testament, that was written in Greek, there isn't one "Book of Jesus". While 2/3rds of the NT is attributed to the writings of Paul, who never knew Jesus while he was alive.
The one book that was the closest to what Jesus had said is the Gospel of Thomas. However, that was relegated to the Apocrypha.
Which is interesting considering the new testament is suppose to be about Jesus ministry and his bringing the new covenant, the new testament of God's law and will for all people. But first the Jews. And only later the Gentiles.
So that The Gospel of Thomas was deemed unfit to be included in the Canon for whatever reason, while 2/3rds of the NT canon attributed to Paul was deemed worthy is curious.
While the rest of the scriptures are attributed to apostles that may or may not have had a hand in what is related in those books about Jesus ministry. As some of the books bear conflicting accounts one to the other.

 

[Me Myself]

"Gay" wasn't a term that was known in Jesus time. So if he was to speak in allegory or symbolically so as to communicate a message about homosexuals, he'd use terms that would be known or easily inferred by those hearing his message at the time.

I don´t understand why you are saying this. I say I don´t understand because I already said this too in my post. We are not debating whether or not he used parables, we are debating whether or not it is certain that that parable meant what you are saying it meant when it can mean other things.

As I already explained you, there was no word for "asexual" either and it would be far more fitting that that quote was referring to asexuals, not gays or homosexuals.

Notice that you say IF he was talking allegorically so as to communicate a message about homosexuals. That is one big IF. We don´t know if he was. How do you know he was not talking allegorically to convey a message about asexuals?