The Christian Response to Homosexuality

[micatala]

Many Christians consider homosexual practices to be immoral. The forum has multiple threads which include arguments as to whether or not homosexuality should be considered immoral, and even whether this position is supported Biblically.

In this thread, we will take it is a given that homosexuality is immoral.

Under this assumption, what should the response of Christians be to the existence of homosexuality? How should we interact with or treat persons who are homosexuals?

In terms of political society, what sort of laws should Christians support with respect to homosexuality? If there is to be unequal treatment of homosexuals under the law, what is the Biblical basis for this?


Again, arguments concerning the morality of homosexuality are not relevant to the thread. What is relevant is discussion of the possible Christian responses to homosexuality, and what valid rationale there are for these responses.

[harvey1]

In terms of political society, what sort of laws should Christians support with respect to homosexuality? If there is to be unequal treatment of homosexuals under the law, what is the Biblical basis for this?

I don't believe I would ask for many changes other than equal medical/inheritance benefits for homosexual partners as there is for hetrosexual married partners. I don't prefer to see homosexual marriages, so I would ask that civil unions be required for any partner claim for benefits.

I would also ask that homosexuals are protected against felonious behavior which I would classify as a hate crime. Hate crimes would include discriminatory actions unless--by not committing those discriminatory acts--the rights of organizations and individuals can be shown to be compromised. For example, the religious right to assemble would be violated if the government required that religious groups do not descriminate based on religious beliefs, and therefore this could be shown as a reason to prevent hiring of a homosexual. This criteria would apply to religious freedom of expression, and obviously would not affect a company engaged in profit or a public school system.

I think there would need to be some "don't ask, don't tell" rights assigned to some organizations where the introduction of homosexuals into that setting would be disruptive (e.g., the military), and other rights to individuals such as landlords. I think people have the right to avoid working with culturally displeasing circumstances in a small group setting.

[Joe Blackbird]

I understand what you're saying, but they can't have it both ways, Joe. If Jesus is God then gay sex is a sin. But if they wan't to argue that Jesus is not God and never condemned homosexual behavior, then we can certainly argue back according to the same logic, that Jesus never said to stone gays. Which argument / logic do they want to use today?

Some Christians are trying to have it both ways by saying that Jesus didn't say these things, but that he was God, and that God wrote the Bible. If Jesus was not God, then what is written in the law can't be attributed to him. If Jesus IS God, then God is also Jesus. And my logic is selective?

[Joe Blackbird]

Easyrider,
Jesus is quoted in Matthew as saying, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."(Matthew 5:18-20).

If the Law isn't meant to be followed anymore, like some Christians believe, then what did Jesus mean here? Why is it that so many Christians quote the Law to condemn homosexuals when they don't follow the rest of it? This is utterly hypocritical. Either follow it or don't. You can't just take the parts you like from it and ignore the rest if you believe that the Bible is written by Jesus/God.

[Joe Blackbird]

Here is another thought. If, as some Christians here suggest, they would not apply capitol punishment to homosexuals, would these same Christians try to legally (or even physically) prevent other, more radical Christians like Pat Robertson, from stoning homosexuals to death?

Also, do Christians honestly think that, in 50 years, things won't degenerate into a situation not unlike the rule of law in many parts of the Middle-East, where religious law IS the government? After all, according to the premise of the o.p.- we are supposed to imagine a world where everyone KNOWS that homosexuality is 'morally' wrong. This whole scenario is preposterous!

[Easyrider]

Easyrider,
Jesus is quoted in Matthew as saying, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."(Matthew 5:18-20).

If the Law isn't meant to be followed anymore, like some Christians believe, then what did Jesus mean here? Why is it that so many Christians quote the Law to condemn homosexuals when they don't follow the rest of it? This is utterly hypocritical. Either follow it or don't. You can't just take the parts you like from it and ignore the rest if you believe that the Bible is written by Jesus/God.

Well first, Joe, do you agree that God's moral laws have not changed from the Tanakh? For instance, adultery is a sin in Exodus and Jesus told the adulteress, "Go and sin no more." Jesus also talked in other places about adultery (Sermon on the Mount), and likewise, Paul. So, can we safely say that moral sins were considered sin in both the Old and New Testaments?

Okay, then what's left is who punishes that sin - God or man. In the New Testament God dispenses the kind of justice that takes people off the earth (note Annanias and Sapphira, and King Herod - Acts 12, etc.) Do you see anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus or anyone else said to stone people for their moral sins? No. Instead, he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Now the New Testament says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So Joe, according to that is there any Christian alive who qualifies to cast that first stone? And if not, then how can we be expected to stone sinners?

Also, in Jesus' New Covenant, is there any teaching about stoning people? We are under a New Covenant, aren't we?

So why then do people keep up with that ridiculous chant about Christians stoning gays? Are they just being hateful, or ill-informed?

[Joe Blackbird]

So why then do people keep up with that ridiculous chant about Christians stoning gays? Are they just being hateful, or ill-informed?

Did you miss my last 4 posts, or are you deliberately avoiding my questions? I already answered that. It seems that a Christian can both agree with Jesus and disagree with God.

Let me see if I have this straight;
God is one... and yet he is three.
The law is to be followed... and yet it's no longer relevant.
We are supposed to honor our parents...
yet we cannot be Jesus' followers unless we hate them.
Blessed are the peacemakers...
yet Jesus came NOT to bring peace, but a sword (division).
No one is to work on the Sabbath, ever...
Unless, of course, you have something to do.
Abortion is an abomination to God...
Yet spontaneous abortions occur all the time and no Christians accuse God of having a double standard.
God is love...
so he commanded in the 'Law of righteousness'- the very order he gave Moses was that male homosexuals are to be put to death.
We are to love our enemies...
Yet Jesus condemned his own enemies, the Pharisees, numerous times in, I believe, all 4 Gospels.
Jesus was God...
Yet the law HE supposedly wrote HIMSELF for all generations to follow and teach "Until heaven and earth pass away" was... more of a guideline.

I just looked out my window... heaven and earth BOTH still appear to exist, so If I am to take Jesus at his word- Christians should still be teaching other Christians to follow the law per the passage I quoted two posts ago which you have said absolutely nothing about.

[Joe Blackbird]

Well first, Joe, do you agree that God's moral laws have not changed from the Tanakh? For instance, adultery is a sin in Exodus and Jesus told the adulteress, "Go and sin no more."...

Are you really going to stake your whole argument on a portion of the Bible that was never part of any of the original four Gospels until after it was later added by scribes? Why not just quote one of the various fabricated endings of Mark to prove Christians can pick up deadly snakes and not be killed.

[Easyrider]

Did you miss my last 4 posts, or are you deliberately avoiding my questions? I already answered that. It seems that a Christian can both agree with Jesus and disagree with God.

Did you answer the question about if a moral sin like adultery is considered sin in both the Old and New Testaments? Yes or no?

Anyway, let's take a look at your first three examples:

God is one... and yet he is three.

One God manifested in three persons. No problem.

The law is to be followed... and yet it's no longer relevant.

Here's a very brief recap on that:

http://www.carmical.net/articles/moses.html

We are supposed to honor our parents...
yet we cannot be Jesus' followers unless we hate them.

That's an unfortunate rendition.

We know that in biblical idiom to hate can mean to love less. When, for example, regulations are laid down in the Old Testament law for a man who has two wives, "one beloved and the other hated" (Deut. 21:15), it is not necessary to suppose that he positively hates the latter wife; all that need be meant is that he loves her less than the other and must be prevented from showing favouritism to the other's son when he allocates his property among his heirs. The RSV indicates that positive hatred is not intended by speaking of the one wife as "the loved" and the other as "the disliked," but the Hebrew word used is that which regularly means "hated," and it is so rendered in the AV.

That 'hating' in this saying of Jesus means loving less is shown by the parallel saying in Matthew 10:37: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." In Matthew's Gospel these words are followed by the saying about taking up the cross and following Jesus: the implication of this sequence is that giving one's family second place to the kingdom of God is one way of taking up the cross."

No church that I know of interprets Jesus' saying the way you believe Joe. Call twenty pastors and see what they all tell you.

Cheers...

[Joe Blackbird]

Did you miss my last 4 posts, or are you deliberately avoiding my questions? I already answered that. It seems that a Christian can both agree with Jesus and disagree with God.

Did you answer the question about if a moral sin like adultery is considered sin in both the Old and New Testaments? Yes or no?

Yes. It absolutely is. Don't you take the Bible to be the literal word of God? The passage I quoted has Jesus saying that the Law should be followed until 'heaven and earth pass away'. The Law condemns homosexuals to death. Jesus is quoted in Matthew as having endorsed the Law, even though he didn't seem to follow it very closely himself. What the law condemns, Jesus apparently condemns, but only if you believe what is atually written in the Bible. Would you like to explain how this verse has been 'mistranslated' as well?

God is one... and yet he is three.

One God manifested in three persons. No problem.

Oh I see... and my father, my mother and I are the same person.

The law is to be followed... and yet it's no longer relevant.

Here's a very brief recap on that:

http://www.carmical.net/articles/moses.html

Who needs a 'recap', when I have what is actually written in the Bible?

We are supposed to honor our parents...
yet we cannot be Jesus' followers unless we hate them.

That's an unfortunate rendition.

...that happens to be found in the;
KJV,
NKJV,
ASV,
NASB,
RSV,
NRSV,
NIV,
TNIV,
NJB,
NAB,
NEB,
REB.

Two of which, the NIV and the KJV, are the best selling Bibles in the United States. Collectively, I would estimate about 500-600 biblical scholars were involved in all of these translations together over a period of about 400 years, yet none of them translate the passage as you suggest it 'should' be translated. Maybe you should translate your own version that eliminates all of the obvious discrepancies. It seemed to work for the Jehovah's Witnesses.

No church that I know of interprets Jesus' saying the way you believe Joe. Call twenty pastors and see what they all tell you.

Well, I know what they will not tell me... the truth.

[1John2_26]

Are we to homosexualize Christianity, or, Christianize homosexuality?

Let's start with the basics.

It appears that homosexuals are Christianizing (marriage and family values).

What does that say to the secular/atheists urging them to fight to Christians?

PS: Am I to continue to take the personal insults from "Scrotum" in this thread "too" without you "moderator" doing anything about it?

I have never once said to harm anyone for any reason.

Why the need to Christian-bash from the leftist crowd? Just debate the thread topic and be done with it.