Bingowings said:
Some Christians give Paul a great deal of importance as a Saint and tent pole of the early church, others just see him as anything from an early Christian commentator/leader to a misogynist embarrassment.
Either way he commented on Christians having sex outside of matrimony (including same gender sex). Not everyone is a Christian.
I agree, he is lesser than Christ. We have musical instruments in our church, and our women do lots of speaking. Not everything he said is 100% accepted. I was just pointing out that it was not only in Leviticus. Sex outside of marriage is definitely wrong, but Paul was clearly speaking against homosexual sex as well, particularly in Romans 1. And I know not everyone is Christian. I am especially less inclined to judge someone for sin if they do not hold the same beliefs as I do. But that doesn't mean I won't try to teach them what I believe is true either.
Paul isn't God the Father he is a man (and presumably a sinner). Jesus according to most Christians is God incarnate and he doesn't mention the topic at all and yet a lot of Christians just can't get enough of talking about it and campaigning against it outside the Christian sphere while not really making so much of a noise about idolatry for example.
I agree, there is much hypocrisy in Christian circles. I hate it. It shouldn't raise such a big stink. I feel it is wrong, but I feel there are many other things that are wrong that don't get nearly enough attention, especially from televangelists and the like, as you mention later.
Perhaps they don't want to upset Hindus, who didn't really have a big stance against homosexuality until the British introduced their Christian attitudes into the region where it is most practiced.
I wish to point out that it was a Hindu that originated the sinner of "Hate the sin, love the sinner."
Jesus never endorsed the actions of the woman caught in adultery. he didn't admonish her either (he forgave her and told her not to do it again) he did admonish the men with rocks about to painfully execute her when they were all guilty of something themselves.
You are correct except that he never stated that he forgave her. He said that he didn't condemn her. In other words, while the rest of the Jewish world had already consigned her to hell, he was encouraging her to repent. And yes, we are all guilty, and thus not in a position to determine the judgment of others, at least to some extent.
Now if only the blameless can throw stones and the only blameless adult being chose not to, where does that leave the sanctions in Leviticus?
And yet Christians keep referring to Leviticus to justify their judgement on and lobbying against others including people who don't share their beliefs.
The new message wasn't love the sinner hate the sin. It was love your neighbour and repent your sin.
Interestingly, you will note that the commandments of Jesus were often stricter, not looser. Not only should one not kill, he should not even hate. Not only should one never commit adultery, he shouldn't even lust. That said, Jesus also did emphasize the importance of the spirit of the law over the letter. And really, Jesus' message wasn't new, it was simply a reminder of what was really not being practiced, as the Jews of the time were so caught up in the letter and missing the spirit. The Old Testament teaches to love your neighbor (in Leviticus no less). The two primary sects were hating the sin and the sinner.
I feel like I'm rambling. Let's get back to the point. Let's forget homosexuality for a sec and speak of sin in general. How are we supposed to feel about it? Like it? Love it? Feel indifferent towards it? No, clearly Jesus taught us to abhor sin, to lead clean lives, to encourage others to lead clean lives, but to love our neightbors. Jesus went after the lost sheep, leaving 99. The prodigal son got a party while the good son was encouraged to care less about his own righteousness and more about the repentance of the sinful brother. Clearly those who sin the most might actually be among those God cares most about, and whom he wants us to care most about. Clearly we are meant to be concerned with their wellbeing, even so far as going after to help them. Don't embrace sin (which implies accepting sinful behaviors without any worry). But embrace the sinner.
Now amazingly, we are all sinners. We are not in a position to judge harshly. But we are to judge righteously. If when my kids are 16 and wnat to go out with friends to drink and cruise the streets, or if they want to spend time with girls with lower standards, I'm sorry but I'm going to judge those friends. I will judge righteously and tell my sons not to spend that kind of time with those individuals. But I will tell them to continue loving those individuals, even if they do not embrace their behavior.
About homosexuality you make good points. Let's say that you are even correct. My points are not to say you are not because I know we won't ever agree theologically on that. My point is merely that it is not a prejudiced or horrible thing to say "love the sinner, hate the sin." I can be best friends with a serious sinner and still not approve of what he or she does. Heck, all my friends are sinners, and I love them anyway. I hope they feel the same about me, and I hope they feel the same about my sin.
The loudest Christian voices seem to be saying to get the outsider to be repentant we need your cash.
I won't argue with you there.