Jesus would have loved homosexuals?

According to the bible he did and actually bless a gay couple

To oppose homosexuality is to oppose love. To oppose love is to oppose god.

The love God has for someone and the love one should have for God, is much stronger (and is quite different) than the love people experience with each other. (from a religious perspective)

How can you claim to love god when you hate what god created? Why should god accept you when your heart is full of the most impure of all feelings?

Hate the sin, not the sinner

So love is a sin?

Not only that, Jesus himself was gay.

12 dudes, Judas got jealous. Wanted him all for himself.

He really didn't speak of homosexuality in the writings accepted as canon. I'm not super familiar with the non-canonical scriptures (the Nag Hammadi texts) but he really didn't say much about it there either.

However, if he were a good Jew (which he was) he would have been mildly opposed to it, according to the rules laid down in Leviticus.

I do wonder if the hatred of homosexuality stemmed from the Church's condemnation of Roman/Greek societal behaviour, which included a very acceptable form of not only homosexuality, but pederasty.

Then there is the whole theory that men who "love" and worship a male deity are closeted homosexuals, and this extends to explain why so many Catholic priests molest/rape young boys.

I'm sorry, but that made me chuckle :P. "Canon"

this topic needs more mindstorm.

I don't accept any religion as literal fact. It's all mythology to me, and the various Churches accept different texts as their canon.

i was always taught that jesus surrounded himself by those that were generally shunned by society. with that in mind i don't see why he would not included homosexuals as well.

He also loves pedophiles, rapists, murders, sadists, lairs, thieves, prostitutes, greedy people, and bullies as well. He loves all people equally and everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. To sin is to reject Christ, so does that mean Christ rejects himself? Of course not, to love a person is not the same thing as allowing sin. Parent's love their children and yet they punish them and oppose actions that the child does that they consider wrong. You can love someone and still reject their lifestyles or actions.

So what makes homosexuality a sin?

Each denomination has different reasons for considering homosexuality sinful as I am of the Catholic denomination I can only post what my denomination says about it. And since it's a rather lengthy debate this article can summarize it far more eloquently than I can.

Linky

What's your personal opinion on the matter? Can't you make up your mind for yourself on the matter? Why default to the Church's position?

That article makes lots of baseless assumptions and it's only quotations from scripture are vague interpretations of the old testament. So if you follow the old testament then surely you must believe that slavery is ok and that women shouldn't have equal rights. What you're doing is cherry picking what parts of the bible to believe to fit your own bias. Jesus taught love, but you've decided to go against what he taught in exchange for hate.

Because the Church's position is my personal opinion. I do vary with a some bishops slightly on what legal rights should be given to homosexuals (end of life rights, property ownership etc) but for the most part I hold the same beliefs, especially on a theological level. And to not believe in the Church's position would be completely and utterly illogical. If you believe Christ started a Church and continues to inspire and guide said Church then to disagree with said Church is to disagree with Christ.

What if Christ disagrees with the church?

You are a great guy, and I respect your and your opinions greatly... but I really can't believe you would take such a position.

So no critical thinking on your part then lulz.

Good think you weren't born during the Crusades, would have to go along with the whole 'retaking the Holy Land' thing.

After his opinions on birth control and Plan B, nothing should surprise you.

The Church is Christ and Christ cannot disagree with Himself. You are entering a discussion on faith that boils down to what authority did Christ give the people of His Church and do Christians believe that Christ is still a guiding force is said Church. If Christ founded a Church is does not make sense to have a belief for 2000 years and then suddenly that belief changes. If the Church was indeed founded and guided by Christ then the fundamental beliefs of said Church would not change. Obviously certain practices are going to change and beliefs are going to become better understood and more transparent in time but fundamentally if you believe Christ founded a Church based on certain principles and Christ is all knowing then those principles will not change. Remember no one has a unique opinion. Everyone's opinion comes from someone else. Your opinion is based on the teachings of people around you that you trust and believe to be giving you truth. Just as my opinion is formed from the people around me who I trust and believe is teaching truth. Who has actually has the truth is what is up for debate and I guarantee that debate will not be solved here. If it was we would quite possibly become quite famous.

Yet you admitted you haven't looked into what Christ taught, you just go by what the church says. Wouldn't it make more sense to cut out the middle man and just follow Christ? You don't even know what it is you believe do you? You've probably never put more than 30 seconds of thought into this.

Are you really suggesting that all the stuff Jesus said while on earth should be thrown out and we should just follow the pope instead?

But they aren't his opinions. And he's an intelligent guy no less. It makes my head hurt.

Granted, I know a guy who (claims he) tested at a 187 IQ and adamantly believes in God (but is essentially non-denominational). And not just a pantheistic "god" but God of Christianity.

Maybe the 187 guy is onto something

I would want to be able to disagree with jc and the church though

Bull crap I haven't looked into what Christ taught. I spend 3 1/2 years in seminary. I took classes on the bible, the catechism, other christian denominations, even Islam. I read christian texts on my own, read the bible, took various history course, both religious and non-religious, even got a degree in philosophical studies, and prayed extensively. You seem to know an awful lot about me without having ever met me. I'm one of the few people here who have actually studied Christianity in a professional setting as opposed to what they've read on the internet. If Mindstorm were he still here could probably give me a run for my money though.

Then why do you have to resort to posting links to sub-par articles when asked about what you think? If you are capable of thinking for yourself why not actually use your own words?

Hahaha, he lived in the Middle East... 2000 years ago... I think the answer is no.

Why, because it's far easier. I don't have time to sit around and write up a personal theological dialog on the totality of my Christian beliefs. In fact I've spent to much time in this discussion already. It's much simpler to post an article that presents a small articulation of some of my beliefs in brief points. I'll be the first to agree that it isn't a perfect article, and is lacking in some areas but it serves it's purpose in offering some of the reasons the Church views homosexuality as sinful, which if I remember correctly was your question. How it changed from "why is homosexuality sinful", to "what do you personally believe about homosexuality" I will never know. You asked a question and I gave you an answer in the simplest way I could find.

According to the bible women who are not virgins on their wedding night should be stoned to death. Old words in an older book.

Actually you posted that link as a reply to me asking "what makes homosexuality a sin" not "does the church view it as a sin"

The article was terrible. I doubt you even read it. You just skimmed through it to see if it says being gay is a sin and assumed it would give some answers.

Jesus was a hippie liberal who loved everyone regardless of what they did. He hated the sin, but loved the sinner and wholly discouraged the judging of individuals. 'Those without sin cast the first stone' and whatnot.

He generally seemed to be a pretty swell guy.

Oh, if only Christians could actually emulate their saviour.

And you read it in the 3 min it took from me posting it to you responding to it, yea ok? I've used Catholic Answers many times, and it's not the first time I've read the article, it isn't perfect but it is Nihil Obstat meaning it is in line with the teachings of the Church. It's not written all that well but It does give an answer to why, in the Catholic tradition, homosexual activities are sinful. You got an answer, I'm not asking you to agree with it and I respect that fact that you don't, but it did give an answer to your question.

Jesus taught love within particular reasoning. For example, He taught to give what is due to the ruling government on earth and also give what is due to the Most High. In that context, money is due to the government, and love is due to the Father. The idea of an all loving Son of the Most High is something recent if anything.

About homosexuality, I believe people should pray on the situation and establish a personal connection with the Father beyond being born-again and communion to make an assertive individual decision rather than appointing a leader or leaders of a church denomination to do it for them.

another Rainbow Gestapo, Atheist Bigots, Religious Zealots wrestling each other .... and Moderator enjoying it....

Jesus loved everyone.....is this a revelation?

it might be to some Christians

Sodomy is the sin. Homosexual males can technically only have 'sex' through sodomy, so that's why the two are often mixed in together. The "thou shalt not lie with mankind as one would with womankind" or whatever it is, is just saying don't have sex with another man in the way you'd have sex with a woman.

You can be gay all you want and kiss up on each other, god just says no buttsex.

But if you follow that part of the bible then you must also follow the parts where it says women aren't allowed to talk in church, slavery is ok, you should kill children who swear at their parents, you shouldn't mix fabrics, and you shouldn't cut your hair. What sense does it make to only follow one part of liviticus and then ignore the rest of it?

Of course he would love homosexuals, they would give him fab fashion tips. Because man, those rags he's wearing and that haircut... no honey, just no.

Jesus only love nice homosexuals .... no love for those who behave erratic like bitchy and loud mouth drag queens and divas who occasionally throwing tantrums at other people.

I don't care if Jesus would have loved me or not. He is of no importance to me.

The common argument I hear is that they're metaphors. For what, nobody knows.

@ferrari2001: Apologetics and evangelism, my man. There's no use in engaging in the former with people on this forum; it won't solve anything or change the way they think. Sadly, neither will the latter as they are so set in believing what they feel is right without possessing the ability to have an open mind to God's teachings.

Actually if he wanted to compare Biblical teachings he'd have been better of sticking to sex. No premarital and no adultery.

Many of us have had an open mind to your god's teachings. The difference being that after critical examination we found them to be utter nonsense. The god of Abraham isn't someone I'd like to worship even if they did exist. Nothing more than a megalomaniac and psychopath.

If Jesus was as benevolent as people claim I don't think he would have really cared if you was gay or not.

Contrary to popular belief Jesus never said one word either condemning or condoning homosexuality. You think he would have atleast broached upon the subject.

All the quotes concerning homosexuality are from the Old Testament.