Why do some christians treat homosexuals badly and is it a sin?

[Htom Sirveaux]

Being OK with someone's sin is hating them in the worse way. Jesus dined with the sinners. He did not tell them that their lifestyles were ok.

Neither did he tell them "You're wrong."
It's possible to be okay with someone's sin without condoning it.

Or perhaps it's better phrased as "being okay with someone despite their sin." What we're driving at here is acceptance. It's not our job to go changing people as we see fit.

Like, you can't witness to a nonbeliever who has no interest whatsoever in hearing the gospel. You have to wait until that nonbeliever is receptive enough to openly ask questions on their own.

[Shao Feng-Li]

It's possible to be okay with someone's sin without condoning it. What we're driving at here is acceptance.

Ehhh... I dunno. Like, what exactly are we accepting? That humans sin?

[ShiroiHikari]

Well, we do. That's why we all need Christ. But I really think that making out some sins to be worse than others is a dangerous thing. Obviously, the ill effects that sins have on human beings vary widely, but I think that sin is sin is sin and everyone does it at some point. Saying "Well I commit better sins than you do" is just stupid.

[Cognitive Gear]

Being OK with someone's sin is hating them in the worse way. Jesus dined with the sinners. He did not tell them that their lifestyles were ok.

It's important to remember that He also didn't condemn them for it. Not only did Jesus eat and drink with sinners, but that those sinners wanted to spend time with Jesus. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to hang out with someone who spent all their time condemning me.

Interestingly, I am fairly certain (and everyone is welcome to correct me if I am wrong) that the only people who were rebuked by Jesus were the religious leaders and elites. The most He said was a simple, "Go and sin no more", which was after He had shown them Love that was not offered to them by others.

Essentially, you can befriend and show love for someone who is actively living in sin without condemning them. This should actually be made easier when it comes to loving those that identify as LGBT, since it is widely known and assumed that Christians think that homosexuality is a sin. The burden of informing them of that has already been taken out of our hands.

(note: I don't know if it is a sin or not, but this is why I don't particularly think that it matters too much.)

[Htom Sirveaux]

Ehhh... I dunno. Like, what exactly are we accepting? That humans sin?

All you can do with reality is accept it. Or rather, I could hit myself on the head with a halfbrick and deny that it really, really hurt, but that wouldn't change the fact that it really, really hurt.

[Radical Dreamer]

Ehhh... I dunno. Like, what exactly are we accepting? That humans sin?

We're accepting them, the person, as they are, just as Jesus does. He accepts us as we are, with all of our imperfections and sins. If Jesus can accept us in that way, then we can certainly accept others, regardless of whether they're LGBT, alcoholics, liars, or really prideful people. God will change their hearts if that's how He leads them; judging them and condemning them is not our job.

[Midori]

I think we may be using different definitions of 'accept' here.

I do not condone what I think of as bad, though I believe the reality that it exists. I love people as they are, in a way, but that doesn't mean I don't think they should try to change. I can accept people who disagree with me, without accepting their opinions that disagree with mine. If I never accepted those who disagreed with me, then, well, I'd never accept anyone.

[K. Ayato]

Thought it'd be good to share this bit of food for thought. We're not in a position to judge with the goal to condemn someone. That right belongs only to the Lord. But we are called to use discipline and instruction among our fellow Believers in the spirit of love.

I bring this up because too often Matthew 7:1-2 is misused and quoted out of context. We can't judge the way God does, because we don't know the hearts of others around us. But we can look at our own individual lives and determine whether or not we're being the best example of Christ here on Earth.

[Bobtheduck]

Homosexuality IS a sin. The Bible is not ambiguous about this. Not in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament (I Corinthians and Revelation for example). Not only in things like rape, but even in just men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women.

Where the church has done wrong, as it has with many other things, is trying to clear it away from OUTSIDE the church. That's not our place. Our place isn't to rid the world of sin, it's to bring people to faith in Jesus, and one result is he cleanses them of sin.

However, IN the church... There's no more excuses. Anyone who follows God and isn't repentant about sin in their lives, particularly ones that aren't ambiguous, are to be cast out from fellowship. That's what happened in I Corinthians, when the guy lived with his step-mom (the understanding he did more than live with her, of course) Granted, this wasn't permanent (II Corinthians brings him BACK into fellowship) but he is only brought back after showing penitence for what he did.

It's also not true to say that Jesus didn't condemn people's sin. People love to quote the Beatitudes, but forget the "don't be-attitudes" that came immediately afterward. There's also his treatment of the rich man who was NOT a religious leader, and his admonition to "go and sin no more" to many people. Jesus, however, understood the proper time and place and voice to use with everyone he dealt with. Those three things are common places we fail.

On the main topic, but separate from what I'd said:

Attraction isn't a choice. Acting on it is.
Disagreement != hate.

[Nate]

And this had been such a nice, wonderful thread, full of love and acceptance, too.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Ok, I thought you guys were talking as if we supposed to accept them and they would just continue in their sin. I mean, I only say what I say knowing that we need to encourage and pray for everyone to rise above their sins, including ourselves and thank God homosexuality isn't a struggle I have- not to say I don't have struggles.

And yeah, Jesus accepts all. Christians from from anyone and the point of being in Christ is not being what we once were.

EDIT: And kudos to Bob on the last page.

[Yuki-Anne]

I think Bobtheduck is right.

Believing behavior to be a sin does not equal hating someone and not accepting them.

[K. Ayato]

Acceptance does not necessarily equal turning a blind eye. I will go as far as saying my brother-in-law is gay. I don't agree with his choices, yet I've chosen to love him regardless. I feel too often we forget how much God the Father loves us in spite of all the things we've done that are deserving of His divine justice. In spite of it all, He showed us mercy and offered grace. Should we not strive to do the same in His strength, regardless as to whether or not our fellow man is gay or straight?

[VizSakuretu]

Homosexuality is a sin, it is called an abomination. Read Romans, once you read it, there is no denying that it is a sin. And it isn't just Christians that treat homosexuals badly. The reason a lot of people treat homosexuals badly, is because of pride. People think they are better because they think of that sin as one of the worst. But sin is sin, everyone has done it. The only thing you can do, is show them the love of Jesus Christ the best you can, and not only through your words, through your actions. I hope this helps.

Ryan

[ShiroiHikari]

Not only in things like rape, but even in just men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women.

>implying rape and homosexuality are even remotely the same thing at all with the same repercussions

[Nate]

Believing behavior to be a sin does not equal hating someone and not accepting them.

Agreed. But saying "We should kick them out of the church and treat them as non-believers unless they stop being gay!" does equal not accepting them.

EDIT: Also what Annette said.

[Cognitive Gear]

It's also not true to say that Jesus didn't condemn people's sin. People love to quote the Beatitudes, but forget the "don't be-attitudes" that came immediately afterward. There's also his treatment of the rich man who was NOT a religious leader, and his admonition to "go and sin no more" to many people. Jesus, however, understood the proper time and place and voice to use with everyone he dealt with. Those three things are common places we fail.

I'm pretty certain that I covered all of those in my post, but to clarify what I was saying:

Jesus didn't go around condemning normal people for their sin. The ones that He did rebuke were the religious leaders (like the Sadducees and Pharisees) or elites (like the rich man), but I think that it is noteworthy that these people came to Him with questions, either trying to corner Him or about how to be saved. As far as the average sinners, the most He said to them was "Go and sin no more", which again, was only said after He showed them Love that others had not.

Disagreement != hate.

Indeed. Disagreement is not hate. However, hate can (and often does) grow out of dissagreement. I think we can agree that hate is something that I think we as Christians need to ensure that we avoid.

[K. Ayato]

It's a sneaky one for sure.

[ShiroiHikari]

So, who's going to be the first to explain to me why being gay is a sin without saying "Because God said so"?

[Ella Edric]

So, who's going to be the first to explain to me why being gay is a sin without saying "Because God said so"?

Thats exactly it. Because God said so. If thats what God tells us, then shouldn't that be enough?

[ShiroiHikari]

That doesn't make sense though. There are good reasons why we shouldn't commit other, clear-cut sins besides "God said not to". But with homosexuality, the only reason anyone can ever come up with against it is "because God said not to". I don't think that's good enough. Even the strict laws of Leviticus which seem ridiculous to us now had good reasons when you look at them in context.

[K. Ayato]

That'd be an impossible task. Best I can say is that God views sin as sin, regardless of how it manifests itself in us.

[Nate]

Thats exactly it. Because God said so. If thats what God tells us, then shouldn't that be enough?

God gave us brains and logic so that we might use them. We can look at other commandments and sins and see the logic behind them. For example, murdering others is bad because we do not have the right to deprive another human being of life. Stealing from others is bad because we do not have the right to take whatever we desire that is not ours. Bearing false witness against others is bad because you are perverting the justice system by either trying to get an innocent man convicted or a guilty man freed. Adultery is bad because you are separating two people that God has made one.

Even things that aren't sins anymore that WERE sins, we can see the logic behind. Eating pork was bad because it couldn't be properly cooked to avoid disease. Eating shellfish, same thing. Wearing clothing made of two different kinds of fabrics was bad because it obscured the status of the Israelites as God's holy people, "separate from others." That also goes for why shaving was seen as a sin.

So for many of us, there is only one sin with no logical rhyme or reason behind its status as a sin. To those of us who enjoy the Bible on a deeper level than "Read it at face value," no one has yet to provide a satisfactory, logical answer. And again, if every other sin that exists has a logical underpinning that we can deduce, why would there be one single solitary sin that does not? Even that in and of itself is illogical and should invite question.

There are those of us who find "Because I said so" not a valid answer.

[LadyRushia]

What is important to note is that in Corinthians, the Greek term for "homosexual offender" is written as "Arsenokoites". This, however, does translate to homosexual offender. It translates to "male sexual offender". The proper word in ancient Greek that means "homosexual/gay offender" is "Androkoites", which Paul never wrote. However on the flip side, his condemnation of homosexuality seems to be more blatant in Romans. I also question Paul's validity as the "truth". Of course by the same token then I also have to be suspicious of the gospels too. It's all quite a conundrum of total uncertainty.

But anyways, lots of scholars debate as to what Paul meant and stuff (i.e. why did he use specifically "Arsenokoites"), but I just bring this up to say that things aren't as clear as presented.

I just wanted to point this out to emphasize the fact that translations of the Bible can't always capture the true essence of the words that were originally there. I'll give the common example of the word "love." In English, we use the word "love" to talk about things we really like, people we want to spend the rest of our lives with, family members, romance, etc. In Greek, there's eros (sexual attraction), storge (family love), philla (brotherly love), and agape (unconditional love). [Source: [url]http://www.greeceindex.com/various/greek_love_words.html][/url] In order to understand what the Bible actually means, it's important to look at the words used in the original languages it was written in as well as historical context.

So, who's going to be the first to explain to me why being gay is a sin without saying "Because God said so"?

I'll try this for kicks, but this explanation is the closest I can get. It's a watered down version of something one of my professors talked about in class this semester.

Marriage should be between a man and a woman because marriage is an icon, an indicator of Christ and the Church. The Church is described in the Bible as Christ's bride and just as Christ comes to take up his Bride, so a man comes to join with his bride for life. The marriage union represents the inseparable bond between Christ and the Church. It points to the reality of Christ's coming.

It's watered down because I can't explain it as well as he did, but that's the basic gist. It was one of the more interesting and logical reasons behind it that I've heard.

[Cognitive Gear]

Thats exactly it. Because God said so. If thats what God tells us, then shouldn't that be enough?

This is an important theological point, and one that actually has a whole spectrum of beliefs (though many would misidentify where they actually are on that spectrum). On one end, you have the idea you have expressed here, which when taken to it's extreme results in women being unable to even speak at Church. On the other end, you have people who use God's words as rough guidelines at best. Taken to it's extreme, this idea would lead to an "everything is permissible" lifestyle.

Most people seem to be somewhere in-between those two extremes, using God given reasoning to interpret His word to get at His intentions. At one point, it was a sin to eat with the same hand you wiped yourself with, but now we have advanced to a point where getting sick from such a thing is not longer a concern, so we ignore that particular command.

[FllMtl Novelist]

I am slow, and replying to old posts. XD

Responding to the opening post, of course you should be loving towards gays and lesbians. However, things get hairy when you start defining what exactly being 'loving' means.

But yes, I will strive to treat gays and lesbians the same as I would treat anyone else.

I know quite a few homophobic people(some of them in my own family) who will downright refuse to be around any homosexuals. They won't let their children around them for fear that they will "influence" them. Yet, they will let their kids be around people who have been known to drink a little too much and have extramarital affairs.

Not all 'homophobes' are like that. My uncle is gay, and was asked to not discuss it with us (my brother and I were maybe six and eight at the time?). Though my parents disagreed with my uncle, they allowed him to visit our house with his partner(?) and other relatives a few times. All my parents asked was that he didn't talk about gays with us kids. At that time, my siblings and I didn't hear about anything political or particularly controversial. Then my uncle says something perceived as creepy to my brother (forgive me, I don't remember what exactly it was). I don't remember if my dad asked for an apology, or that my uncle not do something like that again, or what. But it became a big issue, and it turned out that not only did the extended family disagree with my parents on many things (by itself not a crime, of course), they saw no problem with what my uncle did. They wanted to talk to us kids about stuff we didn't even know about, and our parents strongly disagreed with.

My father disagreed with my uncle, but didn't shun him. My father tried to settle things somewhat peacefully, but it didn't happen.

And no, when I was little I was never around prostitutes, drunkards, drug addicts, or anyone like that. My parents were fiercely protective, and --to a lesser degree about me-- still are, and not illogically so.

My point is to say that not everyone who disagrees with you acts as those you mentioned. Which, come to think of it, you probably already knew. XD

However, when you condemn heterosexual lust, often you are condeming yourself since everyone has lusted at one point or another.

...Why is it always assumed that everyone has lusted? Because... I don't think I have. >.> Of course, I don't think that means I'm better than everyone who has.

I'll be watching this thread. Should get interesting.

[Lynna]

I've not said anything yet, because everyone else has been saying everything so well.
I find it hard to understand Christians who don't believe homosexuality is a sin, but if they do, It's between them and God, not me.

I think part of why some Christians hate LGBs is because it's fear of the unknown. They know that homosexuality is wrong, so they decide that anyone who is one must be pure evil, forgetting that they're just ordinary sinners like them. Something like that anyway.

Why do I think homosexuality is a sin? Because in the beginning God made a man and a woman,, so isn't that the natural way things should be?
also, there are several specific passages in the bible which talk about how the desiring of someone who is of the same sex being the result of sin. So if it is the result of sin, how can it not be a sin?
(Is what I said Logical enough for all you thinkers or should I elaborate further?)

[Htom Sirveaux]

Okay, clearly the best we can agree on is that whether or not it's a sin is a matter of personal interpretation. It's not as simple as, say, murder, which is clearly wrong and everyone knows it. Such a lack of unanimity on the subject proves how difficult and ambiguous it apparently is.

But wait, you say, Htom's just stating the obvious here. What is that rakishly handsome idiot's point?
My point is, whatever you think of it, don't go trying to prove everyone else wrong. I only say this because I feel that's what this thread is becoming.

[shooraijin]

I think if we're looking for a logical explanation to justify a moral stance, this thread is going to get in deeper water than it already is.

[Nate]

Marriage should be between a man and a woman because marriage is an icon, an indicator of Christ and the Church. The Church is described in the Bible as Christ's bride and just as Christ comes to take up his Bride, so a man comes to join with his bride for life. The marriage union represents the inseparable bond between Christ and the Church.

A groom has sex with his bride. How does that fit into this analogy?

I may seem like I'm being crude or snarky, but I'm serious. This is why I do not like the "God's relationship as marriage" thing.

Further, I don't see how a groom/bride analogy in any way prohibits a same-sex relationship. So the bride would be a man instead, or the groom a woman. So what? What would that matter?

EDIT:

I think if we're looking for a logical explanation to justify a moral stance, this thread is going to get in deeper water than it already is.

Perhaps, but it does a bit of good, I think, to explain how certain Christians (such as myself) can think the Bible is true and the word of God and still think being LGBT is not a sin. Further, I would hope (and I'm sure Nette was hoping the same when she posted) that perhaps people would stop and examine what they believe. Many people have been misled and harmed by following others unquestioningly. Heaven's Gate, for example, or the whole David Koresh thing. While I'm not saying that believing homosexuality is a sin is on the same level as those, I would hope at least people would stop and examine why they believe it IS a sin, without resorting to "Because the church/God/my parents say so," since that is rarely (if ever) a satisfactory answer.

And as I have said before, much of what Jesus and even God Himself have said are sometimes more than what they appear to be on the surface. As to what's what, that's up to each person to determine for themselves, I think. I'm not going to say who should believe what. But I would hope that by asking for a reason that extends beyond "Because God said so," that even if they can't answer that in the thread, that they would at least give pause to it, and think about it.