What do christians have against gay people

[Edwardo Piet]

I just use SAB, SAB's fun.

[Watson]

To the OP: I don't have anything against homosexuals or the act of homosexuality or being homosexual at all. I do not believe it is a sin in any way, shape, or form.

*points at religious views*

[Justtristo]

My 12 year old sister's friends think she is evil because she is okay with homosexuality. They also hit here when she says "oh my god" or swears. WTF? I want to teach them a lesson about how life works. Anyways, Jesus himself, as far as I know, said nothing about homosexuality. But Leviticus GREATLY detests it.

Leviticus 18:20 is actually about outlawing sexual practices associated with the worship of gods other than Yahweh, which involved men having sex with male temple prostitutes. Hence the use of the term lie down as opposed to uncover the nakedness which is the term for sex used in the verses before which outlaw various forms of incest. It does make sense, considering King David and Jonathan are portrayed being in a homosexual relationship in 1 Samuel.

Itsthesuperfly did a fantastic video talking about the apparent homophobic passages in the bible and offers the real meaning of these verses. Which are more about condemning things like idolatry or self mutilation.

It is noteworthy Jesus said nothing about homosexual sexual relations is strange. Because he talked a fair bit about adultery and divorce.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRKyTwLAirg

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB31tTfQCig

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbTCwTFru3I

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCMNg1MGGRw

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrMKctppOGA

[KichigaiNeko]

Quite frankly it would appear that xtianity is "against homosexuality" because they don't pro-create and so 'strengthen' their little cuddly group mentality.

Let's face the facts....the bible is just a pro-political document that is over 2000 years out of date with the current thinking. meh

[DeistPaladin]

There are a lot of reasons. For one thing, I notice that modern christianity hates on gay people more than adulterers even though Jesus supposedly reiterated that 'God hates divorce' yet did not mention homosexuality at all. Why is that?

Because many of the Christian leaders and "family values" politicians who rail against gay rights are themselves either divorced and/or have a history of adultery.

---

I think somewhere Jesus gives the impression that he's against the Old Testament laws.

But, I know that Jesus says somewhere else that he hasn't come to change the Old Testament laws he's came to carry them out.

Bart Ehrman in "Lost Christianities" wrote that different Gospels promoted different religious agendas. The Marcionites, who rejected all things Jewish, used a Gospel which is a variant of the Luke we know today. The Ebionites, who were the most Jewish of the early Christians, had a variant of Matthew.

Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels. It references the OT (incorrectly quite often) and tries to fabricate fulfillment of prophecy regarding the Messiah. It also insists on adherence to OT laws. Other Gospels speak more to Jesus "fulfilling" OT laws and thereby making them obsolete. Were it not for Paul bringing the taboo against same-gender affections into the NT, the admonishments against homosexuality might be counted among the "fulfilled" laws.

[Strappado]

It also insists on adherence to OT laws. Other Gospels speak more to Jesus "fulfilling" OT laws and thereby making them obsolete.

As far as I know only Matthew and Luke (of the gospels) deal with this and both appear to defend the law.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

Luke seems to contradict himself(16:16 vs 16:17), but the last word is: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

More here:

Luke And The Law - S. G. Wilson, p 30
At this point an influential interpretation of Lk. 16:16-17, which would place it firmly in this category, deserves mention. H. Conzelmann, for whom 16:16 is an essential clue to Lucan theology, not unreasonably interprets the reference to the law in 16:16a in terms of the verse which immediately follows: while it might seem that 'the preaching of the kingdom' has superseded 'the law and the prophets', in view of 16:17 this cannot have been Luke's meaning. 'To the traditional verse Lk. 16:16 there is immediately added the obviously editorial statement of v. 17. Thus even if the original sense of this verse pointed to a break, to the supersession of the old aeon by the new, Luke makes it point at the same time to a continuity: until now there was "only" the law and the prophets, but from now on there is "also" the preaching of the kingdom.'43
[...]
the law, understood in a particular way, continues to be valid in the Christian era; but in addition there is now the message of the kingdom preached by Jesus and his followers. The law is affirmed, but also supplemented.

In my opinion it's hard to say what Jesus said because he may as well have been used as a mouthpiece for the law abiding writers Matthew and Luke. But if we are going to take the gospels' word for it, then he supported the law.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

In my opinion it's hard to say what Jesus said because he may as well have been used as a mouthpiece for the law abiding writers Matthew and Luke.

As far as I'm aware,the identities of the Gospel writers are unknown. There is even some doubt about Saul*,who actually de-jewified Christianity by almost entirely abandoning the law,leaving only 10 of 613 commandments.

As far as I can tell,the gospels are myth,with little if any relationship to an historical Jesus,who mayor may not have existed.

*in recent years there have been claims by scholars that Saul's letters show evidence of having been written by at least two different people.

[OnlyNatural]

Reading the paper today, I came across a letter-to-the-editor in which the Catholic writer says homosexuality is wrong because it is 'abnormal, immoral, and anti-life.'

I would argue that it is not abnormal, since homosexual behaviour appears quite regularly in nature, among many other animals, including of course humans. It even appears frequently in the Catholic priesthood, therefore your pious little group is no exception.

It is also not immoral. I agree with Greg Epstein (author of 'Good without God') that morality is concerned with human happiness and suffering. Being gay has nothing to do with causing suffering, limiting happiness, or restricting the rights of others. They just want to live and love and be accepted for who they are, like all the rest of us.

And as for anti-life? Since when is procreation so critically important for all humans, especially these days when the global population is already exploding? What about childless or infertile couples? What about celibate priests? There are plenty of gay people, I'm sure, that oppose abortion and would love to have a family. Being gay has nothing to do with one's appreciation for life.

That's all the ranting I'll do for now

[DeistPaladin]

the Catholic writer says homosexuality is wrong because it is 'abnormal, immoral, and anti-life.'

An ironic charge from Catholicism.

[Dotard]

...Catholic writer says homosexuality is wrong because it is 'abnormal, immoral, and anti-life.'

I would argue that it is not abnormal, since homosexual behaviour appears quite regularly in nature, among many other animals, including of course humans.

I would argue that in nature quite regularly the normal behavior of animals is males and females are attracted to each other. I would argue the number of 'heterosexual' animals far outweighs the number of 'homosexual' animals therefore supporting the idea hetrosexuality, the desire to mate with a member of the opposite sex, is normal behavior.

"Abnormal" is an appropriate discriptor.

It is also not immoral. I agree with Greg Epstein (author of 'Good without God') that morality is concerned with .....blah blah blah...

Morality is subjective. My subjective morality, which is no more or less valid than yours, says it is immoral.

Anti-life? I don't believe the boy even knew what he meant by that. I just can't equate 'not breeding' with 'anti-life'.

That's all the ranting I'll do for now

Thank you.