Right, that is quite enough, stop all this nonsense. Jesus supports homosexuals in Scripture.

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

The scripture implicitly supports them, not everything is a matter of literalism - look what happened to the Garden of Eden allegory..

Let God Judge. You just love your neighbor.

Gospel of Matthew

And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
— Matthew 22:35-40

Gospel of Mark

In the Gospel of Mark, the Shema is included:

And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
— Mark 12:28-31

Gospel of Luke

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.
— Luke 10:25-28

Gospel of John

When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once. Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.' A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
— John 13:31-35

a reply to: ketsuko

...but instead Jesus preached counter to those social beliefs.

What beliefs exactly? When/where does Jesus ever condemn homosexuals and/or homosexuality?

a reply to: trollz

You're demonstrating a need for literalism & you're missing the core point of what I was getting at. I understand that people will hae a hard time with this, because it goes against everything we have been taught for two thousand years, in some ways. However, I do maintain that sexuality is at the core of human life, and therefore should be understood with maturity & wisdom. I feel like the church has reached maturity at the intersection between it & the modern world, and therefore it's time to act & think with maturity about what constitutes perversion. If oral sex is immoral, is it only immoral between two men, or is it immoral for heterosexuals too? What happens in the bedroom needn't have any impact on what happens in the church. It's not like homosexuals are so naturally deviant that they will drop to the floor while the band is playing. Come on. Are you really claiming that a long-term, monogamous relationship between two men who love each other is so distorted & polluted that they can't stay in love & be saved? Do you think they're so ravenous that they will naturally seek to corrupt young men in the church? The only mandated sexual control which has negative consequences within the church is repression, vis a vis the Catholic scandals. If two men are in a loving relationship & they are or become Christian, yes they may need careful discipling, perhaps having a shepherd assigned to walk closely with them as they come to understand their faith & their relationship in the context of holiness & devotion to God - they should NOT be thrown out & told that they can't be together & still remain saved by grace. Careful discipleship & a loving atmosphere - all people should be welcome. Sin, in the context of sexual sin, can apply to both heterosexual & homosexual people, because purity & monogamy are the only way that people can remain in Christ. Demanding that someone who has no natural inclinations towards women, and yet possessing natural inclination towards men, should be forced to utterly forsake any sexual union between himself & another, seems to be straying into territory that we are not equipped to judge. Surely the correct path would be to disciple them & counsel them on the need for monogamy & sexual purity ("So make sure you stop your raping & abusing please") ,just like everyone else they would check their sexual feelings at the door. NOBODY has sexual thoughts or conduct within the church walls, and so EVERYBODY who is committed to the ideals I've described should be welcome to hear of God, to worship God, and to maintain positive fellowship with others who believe in the same God.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

The scripture implicitly supports them, not everything is a matter of literalism - look what happened to the Garden of Eden allegory..

No it doesn’t
The scripture explicitly supports everyone

I’m not in anyway religious so while I’m aware of the garden of eden story I have no idea what it has to do with this topic.

Your thread title is a lie, if you wanted to say “Jesus supports everyone” or “Jesus doesn’t condemn homosexuals” I would have just moseyed on by without giving my 2c worth

I will just add that it is a lack of spiritual maturity which has led to the disconnect between naturally homosexual people & the church, and Christians. As noted sexual feelings are always checked at the door, meaning everyone should act with maturity, decency & reverence within the bounds of the church, whether within its walls on a Sunday, or within the sphere of its wider activities in service to others. We should no longer ostracise the 160,000,000 citizens of the world who grow up feeling that God hates them & is just itching to throw them into the fires of hell when they die, because of feelings which arose naturally & outside of any ordinary measure of self-control when they were 12 or 13 years old. God does not hate these people, and He does not expect them to be dedicated to a life of personal misery & a lack of warmth in human contact, having forsaken relationships because of our attitude towards their natural feelings: "[B]ecause God will hate you the minute you reach out for that personal contact with a consenting & available adult who feels the same way" It's utter nonsense, and it's time we grew up in this regard.

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

I’m not in anyway religious so while I’m aware of the garden of eden story I have no idea what it has to do with this topic.

If you are not in any way religious, how the heck can you have any valuable opinions on a topic which plainly deals with complex theological matters?! It's utterly ridiculous that you feel you have anything of any general worth to add to this conversation if you don't even practice the religion in question. Utterly remarkable. You really should not be muddying the waters with your unediucated comments (referring to education in the sense of knowing the subject from the inside out, as a praticing & thoughtful Christian). If you are neither or both practicing or thoughtful as a Christian, then take your cookie cutter 'opinions' elsewhere. Unbelievable.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

I’m not in anyway religious so while I’m aware of the garden of eden story I have no idea what it has to do with this topic.

If you are not in any way religious, how the heck can you have any valuable opinions on a topic which plainly deals with complex theological matters?! It's utterly ridiculous that you feel you have anything of any general worth to add to this conversation if you don't even practice the religion in question. Utterly remarkable. You really should not be muddying the waters with your unediucated comments (referring to education in the sense of knowing the subject from the inside out, as a praticing & thoughtful Christian). If you are neither or both practicing or thoughtful as a Christian, then take your cookie cutter 'opinions' elsewhere. Unbelievable.

And you as a Christian should not be putting words in Jesus mouth when he blatantly didn’t say them.
Just because I’m not Christian doesn’t mean I can’t read a bible or understand scripture.
You are the one muddying the waters by falsifying the words of your saviour, I’m almost certain that’s a fairly big no no in your circles

Thread title “Jesus supports homosexuals in scripture”
No he freakin doesn’t!!!

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

And also to note that if you personally are gay, and are therefore angry at what the church has done towards the homosexual community over the past two thousand years, then why are you angered when someone deeply knowledgable about that tradition, who 'walks in the Spirit', is trying to stand up for gay rights within the wider body of the Anglican/Protestant communion? Either way you slice it, you're striking out with the wrong foot by condemning what I'm explainaing, while simultaneously admitting you have no special knowledge on the topic at hand.

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

And you as a Christian should not be putting words in Jesus mouth when he blatantly didn’t say them.

MINISTERS HAVE BEEN INTERPRETING JESUS' WORDS FOR 2,000 YEARS.

Why is my ability to interpret the English language, in the context of having specialist knowledge of the church & of Christian theology in general, somehow a cause for concern, when I am in fact trying to stand up for the human right of a gay person to practice their religion without persecution or prejdice?!

I am interpreting an implicit statement made obvious by the use of an allegory, by the use of a euphemism which would have been openly understood by everyman during the time in history when it was spoke - that a Eunuch is a possible title for someone of homosexual persuasion. This was clearly explained in the OP. Is English your second language? Because if so, I can see how you misunderstood. But if you are a natural English speaker, you just demonstrated another reason why you are not qualified to argue a position in this debate - inability to properly interpret the English language, given the context being elucidated from the knowledge of the speaker.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

You are literally trying to cherry pick and reimagine your own religion to make it seem like it is not so horrible as everyone (including most christians) believes it to be. Then you get mad when people try to point out the very obvious points that show you why you are wrong in your very new interpretation of “what Jesus meant”.

Just accept that your religion is horrible and it says horrible things. If you don’t like what your religion says, drop it. If you don’t like what people say about your religion, too bad!! It plainly states that you are supposed to treat certain people in certain ways. If you disagree with your own religion, maybe you are not really a christian. Maybe you are a decent person who disagrees with an ancient book that clearly states that you are supposed to hate and kill certain people.

You sure don’t get to pretend that your cult accepts and allows those people to live their lives as they want. It clearly lays out what sins are and it clearly says, sin no more.

I have been reading the bible since before kindergarten, and i saw waaaayyyy back then that this was a book written by men, to control other men. It is a terrible book full of petty rules made up by people who didn’t understand modern concepts of anything.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ketsuko

...but instead Jesus preached counter to those social beliefs.

What beliefs exactly? When/where does Jesus ever condemn homosexuals and/or homosexuality?

Jesus did condemn homosexuality. In Matthew 19 the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus by questioning Him on the issue of divorce and remarriage. Jesus answered by going back to God’s original plan for human sexuality, which is this: sex is reserved for a marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Yes, it’s true that Jesus never mentioned the word “homosexuality.” He never said, “You shall not commit homosexuality.” But guess what? Jesus never said, “You shall not commit incest.” Jesus never said, “You shall not commit bestiality or pedophilia or necrophilia.” Was he pro-necrophilia and pedophilia? Of course not. By upholding God’s pattern for sexuality–a man and a woman in a marriage relationship–Jesus automatically condemned any deviation from that pattern.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
Not that the bible has any social or moral relevance, but biblically speaking, "Saris" the Jewish word for eunuch does include homosexuals, or "those who are born that way". Nevertheless, eunuchs could not be married to one another, and acting upon their sexual desires was considered abominable by the biblical God. Only eunuchs who were obedient to god and abstained from sex could be redeemed.

Marriage for eunuchs is not a biblical concept. The very word eunuch carried with it the connotation they were a group of people who could never be married. There is no way biblically to get around this.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

And also to note that if you personally are gay, and are therefore angry at what the church has done towards the homosexual community over the past two thousand years, then why are you angered when someone deeply knowledgable about that tradition, who 'walks in the Spirit', is trying to stand up for gay rights within the wider body of the Anglican/Protestant communion? Either way you slice it, you're striking out with the wrong foot by condemning what I'm explainaing, while simultaneously admitting you have no special knowledge on the topic at hand.

So you know more than all the theologians and biblical scholars throughout history who have condemned homosexuality based on the word of god?
Was it Jesus who said “pride cometh before the fall”?

You do nothing for gay rights by spouting falsehoods and in fact probably are doing it harm.
Jesus does not condemn homosexuals like some biblical scholars claim, that is a truth that a gay person could take comfort in.
Jesus supports homosexuals in scripture is a lie that at the very best will lead to disappointment in gay people who may have been expecting to see a biblical verse along the lines of “and blessed are the sodomites for they will not be bothered by the question of to abort or not to abort”
or even “let one not judge 2 men who lieth together if it is done with the love of the lord in mind”

Scripture In your own highly educated words supports everyone and not once does it single out homosexuals with any kind of support.
Show me the line that supports homosexuals exclusively and explicitly and I will apologise for my ignorance
Until then you are twisting the words of god to suit your own agenda whatever that may be

And no where that I can see, other than this thread does the word eunuch mean gay.
It may have once been an office or title, it may have meant celibate men or men suffering from erectile dysfunction but no where other than in your interpretation did it mean gay

There is no such thing as a homosexual...there is homosexual behaviour but that's it contextually anything else is a flat out construct of someones imagination.

Homosexual behaviour is what heterosexuals exhibit....its a normal behaviour one of a vast constellation of human heterosexual behaviours....when it is in balance....when one disconnects from the natural universal template of being heterosexual then one departs normalcy....if your behaviour is so one dimensional that you exclude yourself from normalcy and then try to build on that and support that...well it is exactly how it looks.If you are a heterosexual which we are all by birth and you freely choose to exhibit homosexual behaviour predominantly....you are still a heterosexual human being who is choosing to exhibit only one dimensional behaviour...which is you free will choice as a heterosexual....but there is no such thing as a homosexual and there never can be for it is simply an exhibited heterosexual behaviour.Who in their right mind would try to make up a word or empower a word to hijack a normal heterosexual behaviour?...to in some strange way justify their individual choice of personal expression which fall under the category of NORMAL until you remove all checks and balances and choose to behave exclusively this way...in which case you are simply a heterosexual choosing to exhibit full time homosexual behaviour....so you see you are still hetrosexual and must still support and embrace heterosexual reality....of course you can live your life any way you choose...but you cannot invent and actuate words and language which exempts you from humanitarian responsibility.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
OK, if we are going to get all Christian on this issue, then maybe one of the faithful can tell me this. Why is the supposed Biblical diktat against homosexuality so ambiguous...but it's real serious...and adultery makes the big 10, but is casually disregarded?

Personally, I'm just happy to live in a country that celebrates gay rights enough to put it on a postage stamp!

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Leviticus 20:13

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 18:22

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Jesus does not contradict God. Jesus is God.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Just my opinion on the topic. . . . .

Love should never be considered a sin.


If two consenting adults love each other, then I think Jesus would be cool with that.


*steps back from the thread*

a reply to: Deetermined
You do realize you are going to be accused of using the old testament when it suits you, and saying it doesn't apply to Christians when it is inconvenient, right? Quoting Romans chapter 1 would have helped to circumvent that debate. Just a thought.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
it's time to act & think with maturity about what constitutes perversion. If oral sex is immoral, is it only immoral between two men, or is it immoral for heterosexuals too?

Perversion in regards to sexual activity would be sexual activity that doesn't allow for reproduction to occur - particularly sexual activity with someone you can't sexually reproduce with, like a man with another man, a woman with another woman, a man with a pre-pubescent child, etc. The purpose of sexual activity is to sexually reproduce - we all know what the male and female bodies do in the process of sexual activity. A man cannot impregnate another man and a woman cannot impregnate another woman. I'm inclined to say that, yes, oral sex would be considered a "perversion" in that it's sexual activity that doesn't lead to reproduction. Honestly I've always found it strange that people find such a thing appealing.
Now, I'm not saying people CAN'T do it - do whatever the hell you want. But don't act like putting someone else's genitals in your mouth or engaging in same-sex sexual activity has some natural biological function.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
What happens in the bedroom needn't have any impact on what happens in the church.

That's true. Everyone should be accepted in a proper Christian church regardless of what they do in their bedrooms.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Are you really claiming that a long-term, monogamous relationship between two men who love each other is so distorted & polluted that they can't stay in love & be saved?

No. I'm saying two men having sex with each other is an entirely different concept than two men feeling love for one another. Christianity advocates love, not sex acts.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
If two men are in a loving relationship & they are or become Christian... ...they should NOT be thrown out & told that they can't be together & still remain saved by grace. Careful discipleship & a loving atmosphere - all people should be welcome.

I agree again, nobody should be thrown out of a church because of things they do in their personal lives. Christianity teaches that all sin is equal in the eyes of God - but this doesn't mean we should go and engage in sinful behavior just because everyone has at some point. And again, I'd point out that love and sexual attraction are two different things.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Demanding that someone who has no natural inclinations towards women, and yet possessing natural inclination towards men, should be forced to utterly forsake any sexual union between himself & another, seems to be straying into territory that we are not equipped to judge.

I never demanded anyone refrain from anything. I'm just pointing out that sexual attraction is not love, and homosexuality is a perversion. I could care less what people do. Go have all the gay sex you want, just don't act like it's biologically normal or equate it with love.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
NOBODY has sexual thoughts or conduct within the church walls, and so EVERYBODY who is committed to the ideals I've described should be welcome to hear of God, to worship God, and to maintain positive fellowship with others who believe in the same God.

I have no idea what you mean here - Christians aren't some magical group of people that don't commit sins or have sexual thoughts. They're human like anyone else. If a Christian church is an actual Christian church, then everybody on the Earth is welcome to worship God within it no matter what kind of things they've done.