Apollo Celestio
Deal with it.
- Jul 11, 2007
- 20,734
- 1,429
- 36
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Green
Upvote
0
Does, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' mean homosexual sex is okay with Jesus?
- Thread starter Autumnleaf
- Start date
- Status
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
But how would having sex with someone who freely consents be contrary to "looking out for them and being kind to them"?
Upvote
0
Apollo Celestio
Deal with it.
- Jul 11, 2007
- 20,734
- 1,429
- 36
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Green
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Giving anyone an STD would be contrary to the "Love thy Neighbour" bit, certainly if you did so without disclosing you had one first! Whats that got to do with homosexuality though? Heterosexuals can transmit STDs too. Indeed, homosexuals are far less likely to transmit STDs than heterosexuals.
Upvote
0
Apollo Celestio
Deal with it.
- Jul 11, 2007
- 20,734
- 1,429
- 36
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Green
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
AMEN
Love God first, then love ones neighbour, one cant know how to love ones neighbour unless one knows God.
The big mistake people make is they forget that when Christ said love your neighbour to His disciples He was telling people who alreaday loved God, so they werent seeking to do things contrary to what God created them for, that God finds detestable
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
EnemyPartyII,
Abstinence of course would not result in any STD’s, any sex at all increases th chances of STD.
The point made was about having sex with someone, the participants were not defined. The generalisation made was wrong, if the sex resulted in an STD it would not be loving.
Abstinence of course would not result in any STD’s, any sex at all increases th chances of STD.
Upvote
0
AMEN
Love God first, then love ones neighbour, one cant know how to love ones neighbour unless one knows God.
The big mistake people make is they forget that when Christ said love your neighbour to His disciples He was telling people who alreaday loved God, so they werent seeking to do things contrary to what God created them for, that God finds detestable
One of your best responses.
Upvote
0
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Okay, for several days I've been getting 503 Server Errors when I attempt to access active threads, so my apologies if anything I say duplicates points already made.
First and foremost, in my view Jesus meant exactly what He said when he identified the commandments to love God with one's whole self and one's neighbor as ourselves, and the Golden Rule, as encapsulating all the Law and Prophets. Indeed, in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats he equates the two: anything done to another is done as to Him.
By the "Sabbath was made for man" teaching, we see the proper application of these two commandments: they are the principles by which the other commandments are to be applied. "Thou shalt not kill" does not mean "Never ever kill anyone for any reason whatsoever"; rather, it means "Do not take the life of another into your own hands, to do murder unto him." If a just war calls for the killing of your country's enemy, or defense of self of those depending on you calls for killing the person menacing your/their lives, then you are complying with the commandment as applied through those principles.
"Judge not, lest you be judged" is not a prohibition but a monition, a warning of a severe moral choice. It ranks with "I have put before you today life and death, a blessing and a curse; therefore, choose life." It means avoid judging if at all possible, and if you judge, judge in like manner as you yourself would wish to be judged -- because that is indeed the measure by which you will be judged if you do so. Judge with brotherly love, compassion, forgiveness, a true understanding of the circumstances of another, just as you would wish to be judged. The first dozen verses of Philippians 2 give us our touchstone -- emulate Jesus, who was humble and, though worthy of all things, thought Himself not above others but humbled Himself even to death on a cross. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant underscores the fate in store for those who fail to extend mercy even as they have been extended it.
It is also instructive to look at Peter's encounter with Cornelius. Under the Law it was a sin for a Jew to take a meal with Gentiles, making him or her unclean. The Holy Spirit gives Peter the famous vision of the sheet coming down from Heaven filled with foods clean and unclean. Many understand this to mean the abolition of the dietary Law, the abolition of clean and unclean food. But Peter himself says it's more than that: "God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean." It's not a freedom from dietary Law; it's a freedom from judging others as less righteous than ourselves.
Now, how does this apply to homosexuality? Well, first, let us note that the so-called "clobber passages" (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-27, I Cor. 6:9, and the rest) do in fact condemn real and execrable sins. For many of us, reading them in the context of the passages in which they are found and of the culture of the authors and hearers/readers leads us to believe that they are not, as first impressions might suggest, a blanket condemnation of same-sex sex, but rather condemnations of sinful acts committed through same-sex sexual acts. Compare the seduction of a teenage girl with the joyful sexual union of husband and wife, to get a good parallel -- it is not the acts themselves, malum in se, but the sinful reason for them, that is the sin condemned.
However, even if this essay into Biblical moral analysis is in error, the basic principle of the Great Commandments and the Golden Rule still holds. Even if same-sex sexual acts were always sinful, the proper behavior for a Christian is not to judge and condemn his fellow man, but to encourage right behavior and repentance comassionately and with understanding of the other.
The so-called "homosexual lifestyle" as it seems to be envisioned by those condemning it is one of hedonistic promiscuous sex, a complete rejection of Christian values. In this regard, it is much like "the singles scene" for heterosexuals, where one picks up a different one-night stand at a bar each night. But what is the heterosexual to repent of, here? He is not called on to be celibate, necessarily, but to eschew promiscuity and casual sex with another seen totally as sex object, instead substituting for it the idea of loving sex only within the bounds of a lifelong exclusive commitment -- marriage, in fact.
This is, I believe, the standard to which a homosexual Christian should hold himself or herself. Eschew promiscuity and hedonism; restrict one's sex to marriage. And in this regard, what God views as marriage is the commitment made between the two members of the couple, the 'ministers of the sacrament' in Catholic parlance. Not whether the state or some third party's church recognizes that marriage as valid, but whether the couple themselves mean the vows the made to each other and keep them, is the core of what a marriage truly is.
This is the pont at which the common comparison to paedophilia, inappropriate behavior with animals, etc., falls flat on its face. A child or adolescent is likely to be misled by the adult and in any case cannot by his/her very nature as child or adolescent make a mature lifelong commitment. A beast cannot make a commitment as an equal. While a child, a teen, a dog, a cat, can and does love, that love is not the committed erotic love of a mature adult entering into marriage. This is why such comparisons are blatant insults to the gay person.
It is possible that I may be wrong in thinking any of this. But I will stake my self on the idea that I am in fact following Christ's commandments, the ones He Himself said were most important and the summary of all the others, in pursuing this view. "Hier ich stehe; ich kannst nein ander."
First and foremost, in my view Jesus meant exactly what He said when he identified the commandments to love God with one's whole self and one's neighbor as ourselves, and the Golden Rule, as encapsulating all the Law and Prophets. Indeed, in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats he equates the two: anything done to another is done as to Him.
By the "Sabbath was made for man" teaching, we see the proper application of these two commandments: they are the principles by which the other commandments are to be applied. "Thou shalt not kill" does not mean "Never ever kill anyone for any reason whatsoever"; rather, it means "Do not take the life of another into your own hands, to do murder unto him." If a just war calls for the killing of your country's enemy, or defense of self of those depending on you calls for killing the person menacing your/their lives, then you are complying with the commandment as applied through those principles.
"Judge not, lest you be judged" is not a prohibition but a monition, a warning of a severe moral choice. It ranks with "I have put before you today life and death, a blessing and a curse; therefore, choose life." It means avoid judging if at all possible, and if you judge, judge in like manner as you yourself would wish to be judged -- because that is indeed the measure by which you will be judged if you do so. Judge with brotherly love, compassion, forgiveness, a true understanding of the circumstances of another, just as you would wish to be judged. The first dozen verses of Philippians 2 give us our touchstone -- emulate Jesus, who was humble and, though worthy of all things, thought Himself not above others but humbled Himself even to death on a cross. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant underscores the fate in store for those who fail to extend mercy even as they have been extended it.
It is also instructive to look at Peter's encounter with Cornelius. Under the Law it was a sin for a Jew to take a meal with Gentiles, making him or her unclean. The Holy Spirit gives Peter the famous vision of the sheet coming down from Heaven filled with foods clean and unclean. Many understand this to mean the abolition of the dietary Law, the abolition of clean and unclean food. But Peter himself says it's more than that: "God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean." It's not a freedom from dietary Law; it's a freedom from judging others as less righteous than ourselves.
Now, how does this apply to homosexuality? Well, first, let us note that the so-called "clobber passages" (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-27, I Cor. 6:9, and the rest) do in fact condemn real and execrable sins. For many of us, reading them in the context of the passages in which they are found and of the culture of the authors and hearers/readers leads us to believe that they are not, as first impressions might suggest, a blanket condemnation of same-sex sex, but rather condemnations of sinful acts committed through same-sex sexual acts. Compare the seduction of a teenage girl with the joyful sexual union of husband and wife, to get a good parallel -- it is not the acts themselves, malum in se, but the sinful reason for them, that is the sin condemned.
However, even if this essay into Biblical moral analysis is in error, the basic principle of the Great Commandments and the Golden Rule still holds. Even if same-sex sexual acts were always sinful, the proper behavior for a Christian is not to judge and condemn his fellow man, but to encourage right behavior and repentance comassionately and with understanding of the other.
The so-called "homosexual lifestyle" as it seems to be envisioned by those condemning it is one of hedonistic promiscuous sex, a complete rejection of Christian values. In this regard, it is much like "the singles scene" for heterosexuals, where one picks up a different one-night stand at a bar each night. But what is the heterosexual to repent of, here? He is not called on to be celibate, necessarily, but to eschew promiscuity and casual sex with another seen totally as sex object, instead substituting for it the idea of loving sex only within the bounds of a lifelong exclusive commitment -- marriage, in fact.
This is, I believe, the standard to which a homosexual Christian should hold himself or herself. Eschew promiscuity and hedonism; restrict one's sex to marriage. And in this regard, what God views as marriage is the commitment made between the two members of the couple, the 'ministers of the sacrament' in Catholic parlance. Not whether the state or some third party's church recognizes that marriage as valid, but whether the couple themselves mean the vows the made to each other and keep them, is the core of what a marriage truly is.
This is the pont at which the common comparison to paedophilia, inappropriate behavior with animals, etc., falls flat on its face. A child or adolescent is likely to be misled by the adult and in any case cannot by his/her very nature as child or adolescent make a mature lifelong commitment. A beast cannot make a commitment as an equal. While a child, a teen, a dog, a cat, can and does love, that love is not the committed erotic love of a mature adult entering into marriage. This is why such comparisons are blatant insults to the gay person.
It is possible that I may be wrong in thinking any of this. But I will stake my self on the idea that I am in fact following Christ's commandments, the ones He Himself said were most important and the summary of all the others, in pursuing this view. "Hier ich stehe; ich kannst nein ander."
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The goats and the sheep represent believers and non believers. Seperated by Jesus. If anything defines the gay lifestyle as we see it today it is hedonism and wantoness, selfishness and licentiousness and perversion being endorsed and celebrated by "the world." It is cheered on by the most decadent and anti Christian aspects in our society.
There are far more than just five or a few clobber passages. There is no support at all for gay anything in the new testament. Except repentance of gay behavior.
No it doesn't. Actually your position is supporting wanton sin and sinning. What Christian wants that for themself?
When does supporting sin become part of the Golden Ruule? Jesus teaches it exactly opposite to the way you do.
Gay marriage is a complete rejection of Christian values. The entire new testament is a clobber passage about gay behavior. "LGBT" belongs to the world and not the church.
Not true. Preaching against the straight bar seen is not called a phobia, bigotry and hate. LGBT's demand that their behaviors be supported. And they threaten legal action if a Christian dares to oppose them.
Which Jesus defines as a man and a woman. In a history of mankind long defintion.
Not in the religious views set forth by Jesus and the Apostles. There is no such thing as same gender marriage.
There is the "anything goes" of liberalism defined perfectly. "If it feels good, do it." That belief system has killed tens of millions of people.
But a child or young person CAN BE talked into homosexual encounters by a cunning adult. THAT is why the comparison.
NOT according to PETA. What if they take over the legislative process?
Once the "anything goes" box has been opened, anything can go according to the way a person feels AND the support group they garner to help them win their ways.
Keep that identified in your own liberal churches and your own liberal political endeavors and you stand identified for all time. Though, please stop identifying with those that mean we Christians (that cannot and will not ever agree with your liberal interpretations) harm by opposing your (and their) personal opinions.
Upvote
0
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
They do? That's not what Jesus said. As between your opinion of what He meant in His parables and His own, I prefer His, thanks.
"If anything defines the evangelical Christian lifestyle today, it is the desire to replace American democracy with a vaguely defined theocracy in which they alone get to say what people may and may not do, all the while performing the actsthey publicly condemn in secret hypocritically."
Two can play at that game. If that doesn't define you and your Christian friends, consider that maybe what you have to say doesn't define all gay people either.
Yeah. According to you. Including grace or forgiveness or mercy. May He who is our Judge judge you as you judge others.
You must have posted this in the wrong place. Because I specifically said I was opposed to wanton sin and sinning, in another post, and spelled out the idea that the "clobber passages" condemn abominable sins in this one. Or is it that this would not fit your desire to twist my words to fit your own lies?
No, DRD4him teaches it exactly opposite the way Jesus and I do.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. And I am not even going to bother to refute them. Except to note that a church that shuts out "LGBT" people is also shutting out their Creator and Redeemer.
Nice bunch of generalizations. Let's see, there are several gay and Lesbian people posting in this thread. Please name which of thehave threatened legal action against you or Phinehas or anyone else who has posted in opposition to them.
Listen, I can recommend a good remedial Reading for Content class; you apparently need one.
This is true. Now, would you be aware of the percentage of 'out' gay people who engage in seducing children and youth, compared to the number of 'good Christians' with a secret letch for kids who do? I think you'll be very surprised at the numbers.
First, this has been soundly refuted, demonstrated to be a slippery slope fallacy, more times even than arsenokoites has been parsed for meaning here. Second, I can give you a concrete refutation: all the major pro-gay lobbying groups and Pride parade organizers have universally denied NAMBLA the right to participate. Why do you think that is?
The next time you identify "we Christians" in a way that implies liberal Christians are not Christians, expect to be reported, with a request for an infraction to be imposed if not a ban.
Upvote
0
AMEN
Love God first, then love ones neighbour, one cant know how to love ones neighbour unless one knows God.
T
That's not biblical.
In the story of the Sheep and the Goats, the people didn't understand why they did or did not feed, clothe, or care for Jesus. He said that as one has or hasn't done so for the least of these, so have they done or not done for Christ.
In other words, you can't say, "I love Jesus and God" and then not act in love by denying the hungry food, ignoring the naked whom you could clothe, or caring for the sick.
1John 4:20,21 Anyone who says, ‘ I love God,’ and hates his brother, is a liar, since a man who does not love the brother that he can see cannot love God, whom he has never seen.
And again:
1 John 4:7-8
7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
So, you have it backwards, according to scripture.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Which is a cop out defence of prejudice, and utterly circular.
Because... and follow me here... how are we to keep the "love God" part of the new commandment? Easy... by keeping the "love one another as yourself" bit. Hence all the stuff later on about Christ welcoming those to heaven who cloth the naked, feed the hungry, treat the sick, etc... "when you did this for the least of these, this you also did for me".
Keeping a bunch of arbitrary legalist laws, without any genuine understanding or intention to love one's fellow man, is totally OT, and NOT what God wants from us.
If blind literalism were what Christ wanted from us, he'd have told everyone the pharisees were right, and its the letter of the law that is important, not the intent.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Irrelevant to the discussion then. Committed homosexual relationships don't involve STDs, so this is an utter red herring.
I ask again, how is homosexual intimacy a violation of "looking after others" or whatever other phrasing of the "love one another as you would love youself" commandment you like.
Upvote
0
Even committed homosexual relationships don't tend to be monogamous from the people I've talked to. Mostly men.
Hence, STD's are often involved. You can't make believe AIDS isn't on the rampage among gay men and expect to be taken seriously.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
I'll try to remember how hedonistic, wanton, selfish and licentious our lifestyle is this evening when my partner and I do our big fabulous gay friday night debauch... we get a pizza and a couple of new release DVDs, and sit around in tracksuits and ughboots and vege out. Does our evil know no bounds?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Not amongst the monogomous ones, its not. And I have never, not once, endorsed or suggested homosexuals should be anything other than monogomous.
So if you want to rail against people who aren't in MONOGOMOUS relationships, be my guest. So long as you do so to hetero and homosexual fairly, you won't hear a word of dissent from me. However, singling homosexuals out, when heterosexuals are just as likely to be non monogomous, is a double standard.
I also said, pretty plainly, that exposing someone to an STD without their informed consent would be a breach of the love eac other as yourself commandment (would I want someone to have sex with me without informing me of the risk of an STD if they had one? No? Then its wrong for me to do it to others). But again, this is wrong for ANYONE not just homosexuals.
Once again, I have yet to see any logically coherent reason to consider homosexuality a sin.
Non-monogamy? Sure. STD transmission? Sure. But neither of these are synonymous with homosexuality, and I'd appreciate it if you and all others would stop acting as if they were.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Apollo Celestio
Deal with it.
- Jul 11, 2007
- 20,734
- 1,429
- 36
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Green
Essentially, the moral branch of atheists can love God too is what you're saying. What some people define as sexual immorality is what others define as loving other people.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
