Christianity and Homosexuality

[RINO Tom]

Yes.

No.

[Enduro]

May I just say, Christians sin worse than gays, because we are followers of God, and we know to love everyone. Yet, we reject homosexuals based on a couple verses.

Speaking of those verses; that I've found, two verses talk about homosexuality. If there are others, please let me know.
One of them is in Leviticus, as a part of a law Jesus died to free us from. Also, the Leviticus law was created so God's people could thrive. It doesn't say so in the Bible, I just looked at the context, and came up with a conclusion. A conclusion that can, and should, be argued.

The other one is Romans 1:27, "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
Yet, in Galatians, Paul lists sin that will prevent people from inheriting His kingdom. Homosexuality is not in that list, but hatred is, and guess what, Christians are acting with hatred towards gays.

There are always exceptions, I know that there are many Christians who don't treat gays wrongly.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

My church decided to allow gays as ministers in 2009 and 70% of the congregation left.

[muon2]

As a side note, I want to share my recollections of the 1960's church. I was attending Sunday school then in a "liberal" mainline denomination. The sexual revolution was in its infancy. The church taught that any sex outside of marriage was considered sinful. That included sex between a man and a woman as well as between same-sex couples. It was all in the category of the sin of lust. Based on conversations with friends in public school and portrayals in the media, that seemed to be a nearly universal Christian teaching then.

Over the last 50 years I have observed different churches react differently to the effects of the sexual revolution. The social upheaval brought change and some churches have adapted their teachings to recognize the change. That has led to a wide range in teachings about sex outside of marriage and homosexuality within the Christian faith, a range I didn't see 50 years ago.

[Young Conservative]

Anyway, to answer the questions in the OP, (1) yes, you can be a gay Christian (I'm not a Christian, but I'm pretty sure heterosexuality is not considered a prerequisite to being one), and (2) you're making the assumption that people are leaving the liberal churches because they're liberal. I think this is a very bad assumption to make. I could be wrong, but I suspect most people are leaving liberal churches because they're either dying, or leaving religion altogether.

You are wrong. Just last year the PCUSA lost hundreds of congregation memberships (as in entire  churches not individuals) because o their new position on homosexuality

[Rockefeller GOP]

My church decided to allow gays as ministers in 2009 and 70% of the congregation left.

What a sh^tty congregation.

[RINO Tom]

My church decided to allow gays as ministers in 2009 and 70% of the congregation left.

What a sh^tty congregation.

What's "sh*tty" about believing the Bible?  Christians consider it the word of God, you know.  And the Bible is clear that no practicing homosexual will enter the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).  If one takes the Bible seriously, then allowing gays as ministers is a sign of a church that does not take the full counsel of God seriously. 

Many people believe that the Bible - a collection of books that are THOUSANDS of years old - might be divinely inspired (i.e., "the word of God" is not a literal meaning) but also contains some stuff that was written as allegory and specifically messages/rules for the PEOPLE OF THOSE TIMES (therefore, it's foolish to apply those laws to the 21st Century).  You don't have to agree with them, but they're Christians just like you.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Oh goodness, Tom, everyday I get pushed a little closer to your wing of the party sadly (and judging from your AAD comments, perhaps you're getting closer to mine). Amazing how quickly this Party has deteriorated to force us into becoming ideological allies, hm. Common sense should prevail in the end I hope.

[TJ in Oregon]

One thing about modern American Protestantism is that denominational lines often have little to do with beliefs at this point, so you get orphaned congregations and institutional leadership with wildly different views. Non sola scriptura (or High Church Anglicanism) Protestantism seems vague to the point of lukewarmness. If the denomination's teachings don't come from Tradition, scripture, or a magisterium, then where do they come from?

I can be quite certain that if my pastor came out of the closet and announced he had a male lover, he'd be sacked immediately (maybe other dioceses would be too incompetent to do anything, but I have no doubt about the Diocese of Madison ). Undoubtedly there would be people who are angry, but the Church should follow its own teachings. It almost seems too obvious to be said.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Hmm, well by some counts a majority of Catholic priests are gay, so....practicing any kind of sex would be improper for them to begin with.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And the Bible is clear that no practicing homosexual will enter the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).  If one takes the Bible seriously, then allowing gays as ministers is a sign of a church that does not take the full counsel of God seriously. 

I'll point out in passing that the meaning of arsenokoites as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians and Deutero-Paul in 1 Timothy is questionable, and has historically has not always been interpreted as a generic homosexual.  I say in passing because frankly, if one holds that the Bible is inerrant and that its teachings are immutable, then Leviticus alone provides a fairly clear place to decide upon it.  That said, I'm not one of those who treat the Bible as a fourth member of the Trinity.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I really don't understand the "We don't know what God did regarding homosexuality, so it might or might not be okay, but the Bible says don't marry or have sex or you'll go to hell" thing.

If we don't know what God says about homosexuality in and of itself, it makes no sense that God would create LGBT people and then deny them intimacy and commitment, unless you think homosexuality is some kind of ultimate test in self-denial.

[RFayette]

I really don't understand the "We don't know what God did regarding homosexuality, so it might or might not be okay, but the Bible says don't marry or have sex or you'll go to hell" thing.

If we don't know what God says about homosexuality in and of itself, it makes no sense that God would create LGBT people and then deny them intimacy and commitment, unless you think homosexuality is some kind of ultimate test in self-denial.

Plenty of gay people throughout history have been in straight marriages, and in pagan societies like ancient Greece, many men indulged in pedophilia with younger boys before getting married to a woman.  I don't buy that orientation is innately fixed and that the individual has no agency in the matter, but assuming that were the case, it doesn't matter, because when the Bible talks about homosexuality in the Old and New Testament, it's always referring to the actions that are sinful.

[afleitch]

And the Bible is clear that no practicing homosexual will enter the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).  If one takes the Bible seriously, then allowing gays as ministers is a sign of a church that does not take the full counsel of God seriously. 

I'll point out in passing that the meaning of arsenokoites as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians and Deutero-Paul in 1 Timothy is questionable, and has historically has not always been interpreted as a generic homosexual.  I say in passing because frankly, if one holds that the Bible is inerrant and that its teachings are immutable, then Leviticus alone provides a fairly clear place to decide upon it.  That said, I'm not one of those who treat the Bible as a fourth member of the Trinity.

There's still Jude 1:5-8 and Romans 1:26-28.  And I'll go with what the vast majority of Bible translations go by. Also, even of arsenokoiteswasn't historically interpreted as a generic homosexual, there was a virtual consensus that homosexual sex was sinful until very recently.  I see this issue as similar to women's submission in marriage......it only became "controversial" when the culture changed  and suddenly, scholars began to re-interpret the Bible because of it. 

Should women be submissive in marriage?

[RFayette]

And the Bible is clear that no practicing homosexual will enter the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).  If one takes the Bible seriously, then allowing gays as ministers is a sign of a church that does not take the full counsel of God seriously. 

I'll point out in passing that the meaning of arsenokoites as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians and Deutero-Paul in 1 Timothy is questionable, and has historically has not always been interpreted as a generic homosexual.  I say in passing because frankly, if one holds that the Bible is inerrant and that its teachings are immutable, then Leviticus alone provides a fairly clear place to decide upon it.  That said, I'm not one of those who treat the Bible as a fourth member of the Trinity.

There's still Jude 1:5-8 and Romans 1:26-28.  And I'll go with what the vast majority of Bible translations go by. Also, even of arsenokoiteswasn't historically interpreted as a generic homosexual, there was a virtual consensus that homosexual sex was sinful until very recently.  I see this issue as similar to women's submission in marriage......it only became "controversial" when the culture changed  and suddenly, scholars began to re-interpret the Bible because of it. 

Should women be submissive in marriage?

Yes.  My point was that the issue is similar in that scholars re-interpreted "submission" as just meaning "mutual respect" when the culture changed.

[afleitch]

And the Bible is clear that no practicing homosexual will enter the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).  If one takes the Bible seriously, then allowing gays as ministers is a sign of a church that does not take the full counsel of God seriously. 

I'll point out in passing that the meaning of arsenokoites as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians and Deutero-Paul in 1 Timothy is questionable, and has historically has not always been interpreted as a generic homosexual.  I say in passing because frankly, if one holds that the Bible is inerrant and that its teachings are immutable, then Leviticus alone provides a fairly clear place to decide upon it.  That said, I'm not one of those who treat the Bible as a fourth member of the Trinity.

There's still Jude 1:5-8 and Romans 1:26-28.  And I'll go with what the vast majority of Bible translations go by. Also, even of arsenokoiteswasn't historically interpreted as a generic homosexual, there was a virtual consensus that homosexual sex was sinful until very recently.  I see this issue as similar to women's submission in marriage......it only became "controversial" when the culture changed  and suddenly, scholars began to re-interpret the Bible because of it. 

Should women be submissive in marriage?

Yes.  My point was that the issue is similar in that scholars re-interpreted "submission" as just meaning "mutual respect" when the culture changed.

How submissive should women be?

[Virginiá]

Plenty of gay people throughout history have been in straight marriages, and in pagan societies like ancient Greece, many men indulged in pedophilia with younger boys before getting married to a woman.  I don't buy that orientation is innately fixed and that the individual has no agency in the matter, but assuming that were the case, it doesn't matter, because when the Bible talks about homosexuality in the Old and New Testament, it's always referring to the actions that are sinful.

Come on RFayette, are you saying people choose who to be attracted to?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

So your God wants people to be unhappy for the duration of their stay on earth and wants them to inflict unhappiness on others by deceiving them. Gotcha.

[afleitch]

So your God wants people to be unhappy for the duration of their stay on earth and wants them to inflict unhappiness on others by deceiving them. Gotcha.

And bringing children into the mix.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

So your God wants people to be unhappy for the duration of their stay on earth and wants them to inflict unhappiness on others by deceiving them. Gotcha.

Do you believe what the apostle Paul wrote that is canonized in the Bible?  I do, hence my position.  Deceiving them?  What are you saying?  I'm being perfectly clear.

You want gays to deceive straight women into marrying them.

[afleitch]

So your God wants people to be unhappy for the duration of their stay on earth and wants them to inflict unhappiness on others by deceiving them. Gotcha.

Do you believe what the apostle Paul wrote that is canonized in the Bible?  I do, hence my position.  Deceiving them?  What are you saying?  I'm being perfectly clear.

You want gays to deceive straight women into marrying them.

If the gay person loves the straight woman, then it's not deception.  The false assumption is that "gays" (or people who identify as such in the 21st century) are unable to be in a straight relationship.

If a gay person loves (with ALL that entails) the straight woman he is not gay. Should I stop loving my husband?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

If the gay person loves the straight woman, then it's not deception.  The false assumption is that "gays" (or people who identify as such in the 21st century) are unable to be in a straight relationship.

That's not how homosexuality generally works.

[TJ in Oregon]

Some gay people do end up in happy, loving heterosexual marriages; I know some. For others, celibacy may be better. Love is a complicated and many dimensional thing that cannot simply be reduced to sexual attraction. All of them whom I know discussed the matter with their fiance before marriage. Many women may not react well to that discussion. Marry a saint, even if you are sexually attracted to her. Better yet, be a saint, as every Christian is called to be.

[DC Al Fine]

I really don't understand the "We don't know what God did regarding homosexuality, so it might or might not be okay, but the Bible says don't marry or have sex or you'll go to hell" thing.

If we don't know what God says about homosexuality in and of itself, it makes no sense that God would create LGBT people and then deny them intimacy and commitment, unless you think homosexuality is some kind of ultimate test in self-denial.

I'm not really sure where you're getting your first point from. Most people quoting scripture against homosexuality would think that the Bible is inspired by God and that we most certainly do know "what God did regarding homosexuality".

Regarding your second point, I think this sort of question only addresses a relatively modern view of intimacy and marriage that unfortunately both liberals and conservatives have embraced to some extent. That is, many people on both left and right think Christianity places or should place family and marriage as the best way to live one's life, while St. Paul suggested celibacy and prayer instead.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And the Bible is clear that no practicing homosexual will enter the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).  If one takes the Bible seriously, then allowing gays as ministers is a sign of a church that does not take the full counsel of God seriously. 

I'll point out in passing that the meaning of arsenokoites as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians and Deutero-Paul in 1 Timothy is questionable, and has historically has not always been interpreted as a generic homosexual.  I say in passing because frankly, if one holds that the Bible is inerrant and that its teachings are immutable, then Leviticus alone provides a fairly clear place to decide upon it.  That said, I'm not one of those who treat the Bible as a fourth member of the Trinity.

There's still Jude 1:5-8 and Romans 1:26-28.

Jude 1?  You've got to be kidding me.  You do realize that linking Sodom exclusively to homosexuality was not something that happened in the 1st century.  Indeed, for a number of languages today the primary meaning of "sodomy" is bestiality. All one can infer from the text alone is don't engage in unnatural sex, but it leaves the interpretation of unnatural very much in the air.  Romans 1 suffers from the same problem as its presumed blanket condemnation of homosexuality hinges upon the presumption that procreative heterosexual sex is the only "natural use".  The only solid prescription of homosexuality to be found in the Bible is in Leviticus.