Exactly, why is this like the one end all be all ''sin'' that so many Christians get hung up on? Ugh, Idk.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Christianity move beyond its inherent homophobia?
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Just to clarify a bit:
The fact that some have been able to move beyond the homophobia does not mean the whole will. It does suggest the possibility, which is what the inquiry of the OP is about. I know some of you feel the need to ride in on a white horse to defend Christianity, but such religions are very much a hot spot for homophobia, likely because of their teachings and the question is: Can Christianity move beyond this limitation?
The fact that some have been able to move beyond the homophobia does not mean the whole will. It does suggest the possibility, which is what the inquiry of the OP is about. I know some of you feel the need to ride in on a white horse to defend Christianity, but such religions are very much a hot spot for homophobia, likely because of their teachings and the question is: Can Christianity move beyond this limitation?
Last edited:
To many cultures, it was considered dishonorable for a male to be penetrated by another man. It was considered "unmaly" and "womanly". Even the pagan Greeks, Romans and Norse thought so and looked down on males who took the "passive" role in sex with other males. It was a common belief in patriarchal, sexist cultures in Europe and in the Middle East. That thinking is reflected in verses such as that.
Besides, Christians aren't Jews and aren't even supposed to be following the Levitical Code.
For more: A gay passages in the Bible: Leviticus 20:13 in the Old Testament
You can believe in universal reconciliation and be a Christian. It's nothing new.
Read Galatians 3. Christ also stopped the woman caught in adultery from being stoned, which was part of the Law.
Last edited:
There is too much diversity within Christian traditions for me to interpret things in this fashion. It is unfortunate that the traditions lacking this allegedly "inherent" prejudice do not receive much coverage by the media.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
To be honest, until Christians largely abandon this notion that homosexuality is a sin I don't see how they can move beyond this homophobia that exist so strongly in their followers. I also think is absolutely cruel to teach a gay youth that homosexuality is a sin; I mean that is one of heck of mind screw on someone too naive to recognize it as the BS it is.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Are you gay? Have Christians been telling you how evil you are your whole life?
I would not think it is difficult. People are, after all, individuals.
Help me to find the part where it says Christians, but not Jews, are exempt from the law.
Jews were expected to convert and follow Christ.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I would not think it is difficult. People are, after all, individuals.
That is an interesting phrase, "People are, after all, individuals." That is like saying, "We are individuals."
Okay, but you still haven't pointed out where Christians aren't supposed to follow Levitical code.
Do you have reading comprehension issues? I gave you the chapter were St. Paul talks about it.
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
Why is homophobia inherent in it? I know even orthodox Christians who do not subscribe to such prejudices. There is plenty of theology that has been done to interpret scripture in a different context in this regard. And though this was not specifically mentioned it is probably apt to point out that the vast majority of Christian traditions do not regard the Bible as without any sort of error whatsoever, nor do they necessarily believe it to be a straightforward text or only open to a single or literal interpretation.
As an Anglican, albeit an unconventional one in some ways, I often feel the way these discussions are framed assumes that fundamentalist and evangelical understandings of scripture are somehow dominant or traditional. They are not. They are quite new to the scene in terms of Christianity's history. As an Episcopalian it is not enough to discuss the Bible alone as if it is self-evident in all of its meanings or interpretations. There is also tradition to consider, reason, personal and collective experience, new developments in theology, science, and philosophy, and the emerging consensus (or lack thereof) within and across Christian communities.
The way the OP is framed seems to address a totally different kind of animal than modern day Anglicanism. Questions like this are too broad to take into account the different traditions that exist in Christianity. We are not all the same.
As an Anglican, albeit an unconventional one in some ways, I often feel the way these discussions are framed assumes that fundamentalist and evangelical understandings of scripture are somehow dominant or traditional. They are not. They are quite new to the scene in terms of Christianity's history. As an Episcopalian it is not enough to discuss the Bible alone as if it is self-evident in all of its meanings or interpretations. There is also tradition to consider, reason, personal and collective experience, new developments in theology, science, and philosophy, and the emerging consensus (or lack thereof) within and across Christian communities.
The way the OP is framed seems to address a totally different kind of animal than modern day Anglicanism. Questions like this are too broad to take into account the different traditions that exist in Christianity. We are not all the same.
If you're suggesting that I would develop prejudice against Christians because some individuals who happen to be Christians are $#@% hats towards me for some reason, that's not how I roll.
Let's pretend for a moment that I do. Show me where it specifically states that Christians aren't supposed to follow the Levitical code. Because I certainly don't see that phrasing in the chapter you referenced.
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
The Jewish law aside from the Noahide laws was only ever for the Jews!
Wow. I can't help you since you obviously can't see what's plainly right in front of your place.