Homophobia is un-Christian

[Rick O'Shez]

As I've observed here before, Christ didn't say "Love your neighbour as yourself, but only if they're straight".
I'm pretty sure that Christ wouldn't have discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, or have been concerned about peoples' sex lives.

Clearly the Bible texts were written by men, and clearly there was cultural homophobia present back in those times. Ancient religious texts always need to be considered in their cultural context, and the principles need to be properly understood so that they can be applied in a modern context.

It saddens me that modern Christians cannot separate the wheat from the chaff on this issue. It saddens me that they often seem to miss the core message of Christ's teaching, that of unconditional love and acceptance.

 

[The Hammer]

As I've observed here before, Christ didn't say "Love your neighbour as yourself, but only if they're straight".
I'm pretty sure that Christ wouldn't have discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, or have been concerned about peoples' sex lives.

Clearly the Bible texts were written by men, and clearly there was cultural homophobia present back in those times. Ancient religious texts always need to be considered in their cultural context, and the principles need to be properly understood so that they can be applied in a modern context.

It saddens me that modern Christians cannot separate the wheat from the chaff on this issue. It saddens me that they often seem to miss the core message of Christ's teaching, that of unconditional love and acceptance.

I agree, which is why I am glad that there are a few denominations that do teach it correctly. Like the denomination that my girlfriend is a part of.

I just think it is funny how other Christians think this "progressive, liberal" christian view is hypocritical, when in reality the hypocritical thing is to deny Jesus' teachings of love and respect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I've observed here before, Christ didn't say "Love your neighbour as yourself, but only if they're straight".
I'm pretty sure that Christ wouldn't have discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, or have been concerned about peoples' sex lives.

Clearly the Bible texts were written by men, and clearly there was cultural homophobia present back in those times. Ancient religious texts always need to be considered in their cultural context, and the principles need to be properly understood so that they can be applied in a modern context.

It saddens me that modern Christians cannot separate the wheat from the chaff on this issue. It saddens me that they often seem to miss the core message of Christ's teaching, that of unconditional love and acceptance.

When I read the Gospels, I don't see Jesus' message as one of unconditional love and acceptance.

 

[Robert.Evans]

As I've observed here before, Christ didn't say "Love your neighbour as yourself, but only if they're straight".
I'm pretty sure that Christ wouldn't have discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, or have been concerned about peoples' sex lives.

Clearly the Bible texts were written by men, and clearly there was cultural homophobia present back in those times. Ancient religious texts always need to be considered in their cultural context, and the principles need to be properly understood so that they can be applied in a modern context.

It saddens me that modern Christians cannot separate the wheat from the chaff on this issue. It saddens me that they often seem to miss the core message of Christ's teaching, that of unconditional love and acceptance.

First of all I would not call myself Christian, the reason is it is too vague a title. It tends to belong with the Church.

The Mashiyach was keeping the law, and as such, would not have tolerated a man with a man. That is fact. It is certainly biblical. I say we live apart, then we don't bother them and they don't bother us.... that way we 'love our neighbour as ourself' but also see the 'clean and unclean' or 'wheat and chaff.'

Cats and dogs don't get on... once you see that, it is easy. (now I await for someone to say, I have a cat and dog that get on)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First of all I would not call myself Christian, the reason is it is too vague a title. It tends to belong with the Church.

The Mashiyach was keeping the law, and as such, would not have tolerated a man with a man. That is fact.

Did he tell you this himself or something? Your pronouncements about Jesus' opinions are just as off-base as Spiny Norman's.

The Gospels (which themselves are only hearsay accounts of questionable authorship written decades after the fact) paint Jesus as a rather inconsistent character who interpreted Jewish law in surprising ways, so I think it's completely unreasonable to infer that he held some position only because it's consistent with what you think is a normal interpretation of Jewish law.

Jesus gets used as a mouthpiece for opinions on both sides of just about any debate. The truth is that what we know of him isn't really that much, and what we do have shows him to be uunpredictable to those around him.

The Gospels, such as they are, are almost a chronicle of Jesus having to correct the apostles over and over when they assumed wrongly about how he'd feel on various issues. Do you really think you know his mind better than those who, according to the story, were closest to him and knew him best?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Did he tell you this himself or something? Your pronouncements about Jesus' opinions are just as off-base as Spiny Norman's.

In a kinda way I suppose he did

The Gospels (which themselves are only hearsay accounts of questionable authorship written decades after the fact)

Which were written when he was still alive, not a well known fact..... but carry on nevertheless..

paint Jesus as a rather inconsistent character who interpreted Jewish law in surprising ways, so I think it's completely unreasonable to infer that he held some position only because it's consistent with what you think is a normal interpretation of Jewish law.

His views were in line with Jewish thinking of the time, he just clarified it... mad e clear what they should have been doing.

Jesus gets used as a mouthpiece for opinions on both sides of just about any debate. The truth is that what we know of him isn't really that much, and what we do have shows him to be uunpredictable to those around him.

Some of us know a lot. I don't know your position however. It does not sound that good.

The Gospels, such as they are, are almost a chronicle of Jesus having to correct the apostles over and over when they assumed wrongly about how he'd feel on various issues. Do you really think you know his mind better than those who, according to the story, were closest to him and knew him best?

Long story.
But the OT and the NT are clear. Now I might add that perhaps some of the translations are not that good, but once you understand how it all reflects through, you don't have to know it all or rather, it does not all have to be written.
But we must also remember that the Bible itself is still scripture, even if not exactly as the original. So if it says it is wrong, it is wrong.
If you say the Bible is wrong, then you have nothing left, and God is not powerful. And then what have you got? You have to believe what is written as it is eye witness accounts of what happened.

There is a fundamental difference in our perspective of scripture I think, which means we will never then be able to agree on this subject or any other come to that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In a kinda way I suppose he did

Which were written when he was still alive, not a well known fact..... but carry on nevertheless..

His views were in line with Jewish thinking of the time, he just clarified it... mad e clear what they should have been doing.

Some of us know a lot. I don't know your position however. It does not sound that good.

Long story.
But the OT and the NT are clear. Now I might add that perhaps some of the translations are not that good, but once you understand how it all reflects through, you don't have to know it all or rather, it does not all have to be written.
But we must also remember that the Bible itself is still scripture, even if not exactly as the original. So if it says it is wrong, it is wrong.
If you say the Bible is wrong, then you have nothing left, and God is not powerful. And then what have you got? You have to believe what is written as it is eye witness accounts of what happened.

There is a fundamental difference in our perspective of scripture I think, which means we will never then be able to agree on this subject or any other come to that.

Hopefully you agree with me on one point: the Gospels give several stories where the apostles said or did something based on how they thought Jesus believed, only to have Jesus say (paraphrasing, of course) "no, no, no! You've got it all wrong! Do the OPPOSITE of what you're doing."

Do you think you know Jesus' mind better than the apostles did?

 

[metis]

"Sin" is an action, not a person. Get my drift?

 

[leibowde84]

In a kinda way I suppose he did

Which were written when he was still alive, not a well known fact..... but carry on nevertheless..

His views were in line with Jewish thinking of the time, he just clarified it... mad e clear what they should have been doing.

Some of us know a lot. I don't know your position however. It does not sound that good.

Long story.
But the OT and the NT are clear. Now I might add that perhaps some of the translations are not that good, but once you understand how it all reflects through, you don't have to know it all or rather, it does not all have to be written.
But we must also remember that the Bible itself is still scripture, even if not exactly as the original. So if it says it is wrong, it is wrong.
If you say the Bible is wrong, then you have nothing left, and God is not powerful. And then what have you got? You have to believe what is written as it is eye witness accounts of what happened.

There is a fundamental difference in our perspective of scripture I think, which means we will never then be able to agree on this subject or any other come to that.

Written when who was still alive? Jesus? That is certainly not a "fact."

 

[Sunstone]

Jesus' message depends on which person you're talking to. As everyone knows, even among Christians, there is great diversity in what they believe to be his message. But what is not always appreciated, is the fact that Jesus' message is not, for at least some Christians, based solely on the Bible. There are interpretive traditions within Christianity. These traditions are usually perceived as accurately corresponding to what the Bible actually teaches, but that's often just a myth, in my opinion. In some traditions, Jesus' message is one of universal love and acceptance. In others, it is more along the lines of judging the quick and the dead to include some and exclude others. And so forth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus' message depends on which person you're talking to. As everyone knows, even among Christians, there is great diversity in what they believe to be his message. But what is not always appreciated, is the fact that Jesus' message is not, for at least some Christians, based solely on the Bible. There are interpretive traditions within Christianity. These traditions are usually perceived as accurately corresponding to what the Bible actually teaches, but that's often just a myth, in my opinion. In some traditions, Jesus' message is one of universal love and acceptance. In others, it is more along the lines of judging the quick and the dead to include some and exclude others. And so forth.

I think for many people, it really just comes down to "I think Jesus is good, and I think (insert opinion) is good, therefore Jesus must support (insert opinion)."

 

[leibowde84]

Jesus' message depends on which person you're talking to. As everyone knows, even among Christians, there is great diversity in what they believe to be his message. But what is not always appreciated, is the fact that Jesus' message is not, for at least some Christians, based solely on the Bible. There are interpretive traditions within Christianity. These traditions are usually perceived as accurately corresponding to what the Bible actually teaches, but that's often just a myth, in my opinion. In some traditions, Jesus' message is one of universal love and acceptance. In others, it is more along the lines of judging the quick and the dead to include some and exclude others. And so forth.

It's crazy to me that there are still Christians who claim to know the true Jesus from simply reading Bible passages. It takes a lot more than that. But, it screams stupidity and stubborness when someone claims to know the mind of a man who is only written about in the 3rd person, most likely by men who never even met him. We have to look at everything in any scripture with a critical eye, or else we won't ever truly understand them.

 

[Sunstone]

I think for many people, it really just comes down to "I think Jesus is good, and I think (insert opinion) is good, therefore Jesus must support (insert opinion)."

Maybe, but at least one scholar I've read (albeit, I read him 40 years ago), has argued that there have been at least seven major interpretations of Jesus over the past 2000 years, and countless minor interpretations. Those interpretations have influenced what people think of Jesus at least as much as any personal whims.

 

[lovemuffin]

I read an article on this topic a while back that I think is worth sharing: Ending the teaching of contempt against the church's sexual minorities

 

[morphesium]

First of all I would not call myself Christian, the reason is it is too vague a title. It tends to belong with the Church.

The Mashiyach was keeping the law, and as such, would not have tolerated a man with a man. That is fact. It is certainly biblical. I say we live apart, then we don't bother them and they don't bother us.... that way we 'love our neighbour as ourself' but also see the 'clean and unclean' or 'wheat and chaff.'

Cats and dogs don't get on... once you see that, it is easy. (now I await for someone to say, I have a cat and dog that get on)

There is all kind of sexual activity in the natural world. There is natural occurrence of oral sex, cross species sex, autoeroticism, oral sex, homo-sex, premature sex, prostitution (here instead for money, it is for food or for some kind of help in building the nest etc), to even sexual imagery viewing - all in the animal world.

Wikipedia link here

It is just - those people who wrote the bible / quran were not keen observers of the natural world.

 

[Baladas]

As I've observed here before, Christ didn't say "Love your neighbour as yourself, but only if they're straight".
I'm pretty sure that Christ wouldn't have discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, or have been concerned about peoples' sex lives.

Clearly the Bible texts were written by men, and clearly there was cultural homophobia present back in those times. Ancient religious texts always need to be considered in their cultural context, and the principles need to be properly understood so that they can be applied in a modern context.

It saddens me that modern Christians cannot separate the wheat from the chaff on this issue. It saddens me that they often seem to miss the core message of Christ's teaching, that of unconditional love and acceptance.

Sadly, most are too caught up on Paul's teachings, which I find curious. Why honor Paul above Jesus?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

As I've observed here before, Christ didn't say "Love your neighbour as yourself, but only if they're straight".
I'm pretty sure that Christ wouldn't have discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, or have been concerned about peoples' sex lives.

Clearly the Bible texts were written by men, and clearly there was cultural homophobia present back in those times. Ancient religious texts always need to be considered in their cultural context, and the principles need to be properly understood so that they can be applied in a modern context.

It saddens me that modern Christians cannot separate the wheat from the chaff on this issue. It saddens me that they often seem to miss the core message of Christ's teaching, that of unconditional love and acceptance.

Jesus did preach love, yes, but He did not teach to accept someone's sin as okay, in fact out of love we should be trying to help them overcome such temptations if they are fellow Christians. We are to love our neighbours as ourselves, and just as we hate the sin that we commit in our own lives we will naturally urge our neighbours to repent of their own sin and turn to Christ, who is the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Jesus (Yes, in all His love Jesus said no one can come to the Father except by Him).

People often forget the bits when Jesus speaks about Hell, or drives out the money-changers in the temple with a whip. He loves all and yet, in being God He is righteous and holy and does not tolerate sinfulness. Jesus ate with the sinners but not so that they would continue in their sin, but in order to give them eternal life and true freedom from the slavery that sin imposes upon us all. (Yes, Jesus did also say that whoever sins is a slave to sin, and does not dwell in the house forever.)

Separating "the wheat from the chaff" as you say is just us placing a modernistic worldview on the Bible so we can pick out the bits we like and discard the bits we don't like. I find no need to follow the modern world's relativistic sense of morality, but what is established in God's word.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When I read the Gospels, I don't see Jesus' message as one of unconditional love and acceptance.

So what do you see it as?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In some traditions, Jesus' message is one of universal love and acceptance. In others, it is more along the lines of judging the quick and the dead to include some and exclude others

From reading the New Testament I believe the former approach better captures the spirit of Christ's teaching.

 

[Vidarsdottir]

I usually just stare at you guys, but really, how has this been so done to death without Paul's letter to the Romans being brought into play more forcefully? (Unless I missed it some time back)

Imagine you are an early Christian (a Jew who is following Christ, in other words) and your congregation in Rome gets a letter from Paul. Excite!!! The letter is being read aloud to the congregation and it's pretty harsh, railing against all the disgusting, terrible things those dirty Pagans and people who have already bailed on the church do.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

...among many, many other things. So of course you are nodding your head vigorously in agreement when suddenly the man reading the letter stops nodding and railing and quietly says....

"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."

Oh, snap! You all got TOLD. By Paul, no less. A man who himself was a Pharisee until he met Christ on the road to Damascus. That is more than a little significant. Your cheeks burn with shame as you stare at your shoes and quietly listen to the rest of the letter...

The bible tells you repeatedly that judgment belongs to god alone. The bible tells you repeatedly that you don't know Jack and so you should not put your wisdom and understanding above god's. That acknowledgment that he knew nothing at all of god's will or plans - that humbling of his own ego before his god - was when Job's torment finally stopped. That's hwo consistent that message is throughout the bible. There's an entire book devoted to it, and it's horrifying. The message of the bible is clear. You are to put your faith and trust in god and let him do his job in his own time. Whether or not you are happy in the meantime is inconsequential. You. Don't. Know.

Most importantly from a practical standpoint, we are all ambassadors for god. You are the voice of your god/desses or whatever it is you hold dear, just as I am the voice of mine. It would seem to be in the best interests of all then to put forth with our own behavior and words those parts of our respective paths that we would want reflected back to us and on us.