Question for Christians about homosexuality

Hi,

Does this verse from the Bible mean that homosexuality is OK in Christianity?:

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

If there is not male and female, then there is no such thing as "male" lying with "male" and "female" lying with "female," right?...

 

This idea is represented much better in other non - Abrahamic religions / philosophies.

 

I guess I didn't give an answer to your question. I didn't really pay attention in Sunday School so i'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that most christian sects are against homosexuality.

There are many other verses that can be used/twisted to counter the verse you posted.

 

i do not think that verse is speaking of sexuality specifically, to me it speaks of equality of mankind

 

Then why not just say:

"Everyone is equal." Why say, "...there is neither male nor female...?" Which one is less confusing?

Peace,
nunnies

 

idk, maybe cuz its less poetic?

 

All my Gay Christian friends say that Jesus never spoke a word about Homosexuality.

 

:2thumbsup:Love this!

 

Biblically speaking, homosexuality is a sin. Where most Christians go wrong is when they attribute a higher value to that sin than any others. They hold the old testament close when it comes to the gays, but disregard it when convenient for their own moral high ground.

So if you follow the bible then yes, homosexuality is a sin. But all of mankind are sinners, and no sin is greater than another. Jesus taught us to look beyond the particular sins of your brothers and sisters, and to love them as fellow human beings without judgment.

Seems as though most Christians however, have forgotten about that part of Christianity.

 

Well, it's the indifference on has before the sex that makes it a sin. The absolution by love from Sin is available to the homosexual too. Perhaps Christians just abhor the act of such sex. Divine speech will go further than the mere words of the bible. As well, being a man or woman of few or many words is not really from the bible. How come? And maybe St. Peter was a homosexual.:2thumbsup:

 

Homos go to hell, but pederasts have a long history in the Church proper, and lets not forget those cute little castratos - the original altar boys.

 

"Losing My Religion"; now it won't be a joke. I thought I heard you laughing.

 

Wrong. It would only be right if a head of church declared that.

Or at least a priest.

And the bible is full of verses saying homosexuality is "an abomination".

 

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” By Pope Francis

 

Seeking validation in scripture is pretty fucked in the head IMO

 

Trouble is if you look at the actual world, there are Jews, Greeks, men and women.

Also if there's no male or female, how can you have Christian marriage?

So to take this literally would clearly be rather silly. It must have a figurative meaning. What that might be I leave for you to decide.

 

Peace TheGhost,

Well the Old Testament is different from the New Testament. The New Testament says somewhere that "all things are lawful..."

And if God's Spirit dwells in all of us I don't see why a priest has to say it.

Peace & Love,
nunnies

 

So God only reveals things to (writes Scriptures for) the intelligent? Why can't the Scriptures be written for everyone to understand? I don't think that's fair lol.

Peace.

 

Personally, I don't take any of it as being of much relevance. Elsewhere, St. Paul says slaves should obey their masters, and women be subordinated. So he's pretty inconsistent about whether there are slaves and masters or men and women. Seems in the final analysis he really thought these differences do matter.

 

Give me a break!!
the "meaning" of the verse in question is pretty self-evident, it is saying that there are NO divisions or superficial differences in Christ's church/people. He used obvious polar opposites to illustrate the point, Jew<> Gentile (at the time it held MUCH greater import than it does now) slaves <> free, male <> female, all of those are/were very clear and simple illustrations of the type of dichotomies that are NOT relevant in the Christian Church.

Why the fuck is it so hard for people to read this stuff without trying to interpret, find hidden meaning or even justification when much of it is pretty simple and plain language.

@ BlackBill,
concerning Paul's reference to slaves, subordinate women, and similar shit, you need to consider such things within the cultural context that they occurred, not the modern context.
Within Paul's cultural mileu, slavery and patriarchal society was the norm, therefore his comments really shouldn't be causing you any type of issue or confusion.