Would Jesus speak out against homosexuality today?

[Aaron]

Jesus did not go around speaking out against all the prostitues and other lowly sinners of his day, why aren't you following his example? I keep hearing this. It seems I should be tolerant just like Jesus was. I have to disagree with this 100 percent. Yes Jesus would mingle with people such as those but they knew, everyone knew, what they were doing was wrong. He was showing all that his gift was not just for the "religious" it was for everyone. His goal was never to make thier sin seem less like sin, it was to reveal it completely for what it was and then offer the incredible gift of forgiveness. Still not convinced? Take a look at Jesus' reaction in the temple. He knew what they were doing was wrong, but they thought it was okay. Notice he didn't show them the same comforting shoulder he showed all those horrible sinners. He made it very clear that what they were doing was wrong, he left no room for uncertainty. I think Jesus would do the same in our generation. It always seems that Jesus stands for the exact opposite of what the world stands for. Yeah I think he would be at the forefront making sure people understood homosexuality was wrong, along with adultery, stealing music, not lying, not putting people ahead of material things, porn and many other things. Yet I suspect he would be the first to forgive a terrorist, a rapist, a child molester or a wife beater.

[NH Baritone]

Jesus did not go around speaking out against all the prostitues and other lowly sinners of his day, why aren't you following his example? I keep hearing this. It seems I should be tolerant just like Jesus was. I have to disagree with this 100 percent. Yes Jesus would mingle with people such as those but they knew, everyone knew, what they were doing was wrong. He was showing all that his gift was not just for the "religious" it was for everyone. His goal was never to make thier sin seem less like sin, it was to reveal it completely for what it was and then offer the incredible gift of forgiveness. Still not convinced? Take a look at Jesus' reaction in the temple. He knew what they were doing was wrong, but they thought it was okay. Notice he didn't show them the same comforting shoulder he showed all those horrible sinners. He made it very clear that what they were doing was wrong, he left no room for uncertainty. I think Jesus would do the same in our generation. It always seems that Jesus stands for the exact opposite of what the world stands for. Yeah I think he would be at the forefront making sure people understood homosexuality was wrong, along with adultery, stealing music, not lying, not putting people ahead of material things, porn and many other things. Yet I suspect he would be the first to forgive a terrorist, a rapist, a child molester or a wife beater.

Believe whatever you want. It's your right, and I will defend it mightily.

But would you then require the rest of the world to follow the tenets your religion? Would your religion require the government to relegate gay relationships to criminal status? Based on a faith that they do NOT share, would you forbid gay people from forming loving families?

If you approach your religion with such authoritarian tendencies, then I will oppose you mightily.

[Aaron]

I don't want to force a person to do or believe anything. I do however want to make it very clear that I think certain things are wrong. I don't want the everybody is right in thier own way view forced on me. My intent is not to force change but I wonder how can I expect people to change if I never let them know something is wrong? I think there is a difference between being forceful and repectfully spreading my faith.

[NH Baritone]

I don't want to force a person to do or believe anything. I do however want to make it very clear that I think certain things are wrong. I don't want the everybody is right in thier own way view forced on me. My intent is not to force change but I wonder how can I expect people to change if I never let them know something is wrong? I think there is a difference between being forceful and repectfully spreading my faith.

Then respect me and leave me alone when I walk away.

[darkumbra]

I don't want to force a person to do or believe anything. I do however want to make it very clear that I think certain things are wrong. I don't want the everybody is right in thier own way view forced on me. My intent is not to force change but I wonder how can I expect people to change if I never let them know something is wrong? I think there is a difference between being forceful and repectfully spreading my faith.

You know something? If you changed the phrasing above from 'something IS wrong" to "I THINK/IN MY OPINION that something is wrong" then there would be more room for discourse.

But that's NOT what Christians tend to do. They tend to speak in unprovable unsupported moral absolutes - based on a collection of ancient writings. Forgive me if I reject totally your self assumed right to tell the rest of the world what is and is not correct, fitting and proper.

As to 'respectfully spreading your faith'? That's almost an oxymoron. To spread your faith you must, as an initial starting point, assume that the other faith is incorrect/false and you do that without knowing very much about other faiths. AND by 'very much' I mean being as well versed in the tenets of their faith as you are in the tenets of your faith. How else can you compare the validity of one to the other. You can't. You don't. So much for 'respectfully spreading your faith'

While you're reading this? I posted a long response to an earlier post of yours. You've chosen not to respond as yet. I'm particularly interested in your response to my assertion that positive mutations are far from being rare. I did provide several examples. Comments?

[RONSATRON]

Hi Aaron,

Why is it homosexuality in particular you want to spread 'the word' about? I am pretty sure it does not get much coverage in the bible, but this seems to be an issue that you feel strongly about? Is it purely down to the preaching in the bible or is it a personal issue?
I would imagine that theft, for example, is something that would be higher on your list, or coveting your neighbours goods (unless you can interpret some sort of homosexual undertones there). Homosexuality does not even get into the Top Ten list of commandments, so surely there are other things to concentrate on, especially when these things like stealing actually affect other people, where as homosexuality is not hurting anyone at all? (maybe except God)

I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

[Penguin]

Take a look at Jesus' reaction in the temple. He knew what they were doing was wrong, but they thought it was okay. Notice he didn't show them the same comforting shoulder he showed all those horrible sinners. He made it very clear that what they were doing was wrong, he left no room for uncertainty.

Indeed. He reacted to most sinners with kindness and compassion, but he reacted to religious hypocrites with violent rage. His strongest words were reserved for those who falsely puffed themselves up as religious authorities, and for religious leaders who taught cold doctrines that were devoid of love.

IMO, he didn't really spend much time preaching about people's individual sins. If you look at the Gospels, it seems that he spent most of his time:

- comforting the afflicted
- afflicting the comfortable
- railing against religious leaders with false or uncompassionate teachings

The vast majority of Jesus' message was about how we treat others. There wasn't a whole lot in it (at least in the Gospels we have now, anyhow) about rules to govern our own actions, except when our actions impact on other people.

[StillSearching]

Well said Penguin. I also agree with Rons that you're priorities are out of whack.

Aaron, the reason you have to ask the question in this thread is that Jesus does not explicitly condemn homosexuality a single time in the NT. Respond with the usual scriptural gymnastics that fundies use to try to make it appear so, but you can't show me a single red letter passage that does. Rather than sticking your nose into your roommate's business (and that of others within the gay community) and offering a unilateral, unwelcome lecture and judgement, why don't you try to get to know him. As in the latest podcast, you may discover that two people who hold vastly different beliefs can get along just fine, and even be friends. Think of how Jesus would treat your roommate if they were to meet. Shouldn't you consider treating him that way as well?

[ScottBarger]

[my $.02]
Jesus didn't speak out against it in his day, and homosexuality was prevalent...at least in Hellenistic society. So that leads me to conclude that either A) it wasn't a big deal to Jesus; or B) everyone just "knew" it was wrong, so there was no need to talk about it.
[/my $.02]

[Salwinder]

Aaron....

Jesus was a man who spent his whole life in the close company of other men without ever taking a wife despite the social expectation of the time to do so. Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus's sexual orientation mentioned. You should think about that before you start making assumptions about the morality or otherwise of homosexual relationships....

[OzAnt]

Hi Aaron,

Asking homosexual people to be straight is exactly the same as asking heterosexual people to be gay. In other words, it's not going to happen. We are born how we are born. Just imagine for a moment how you'd feel if you were told that your heterosexual feelings were wrong and that you should, if you want to enter the kingdom of God, marry another man. Could you do it and mean it? Your honest answer would have to be no. Well, that's exactly what you're asking a gay man to do when you tell him he should marry a woman. It wouldn't be real, it wouldn't be love and it wouldn't be fair on the gay man or the straight woman. It's that simple.

If Jesus really was God in the flesh, he'd know this and as such would not demand the impossible.

Ant

[Mr. Sluagh]

Hi Aaron,

Asking homosexual people to be straight is exactly the same as asking heterosexual people to be gay. In other words, it's not going to happen. We are born how we are born. Just imagine for a moment how you'd feel if you were told that your heterosexual feelings were wrong and that you should, if you want to enter the kingdom of God, marry another man. Could you do it and mean it? Your honest answer would have to be no. Well, that's exactly what you're asking a gay man to do when you tell him he should marry a woman. It wouldn't be real, it wouldn't be love and it wouldn't be fair on the gay man or the straight woman. It's that simple.

If Jesus really was God in the flesh, he'd know this and as such would not demand the impossible.

Ant

No, I'm sorry, nature vs. nurture is a red herring in the homosexuality debate. On the one hand, if it is genetic, Christians can just chalk it up to original sin. If it isn't, no reasonable person should care any more than they should care if someone likes redheads.

[OzAnt]

Hi Mr Sluagh,

No, I'm sorry, nature vs. nurture is a red herring in the homosexuality debate.

I just don't see it that way. When approximately 10% of the animal kingdom turns out gay (of what we've studied closely of it so far), it's really hard to argue that nurture has a hand in the matter. When you see a gay person (a good friend of my sister's, as it turns out) go through 10 years of trying to be straight - which included marrying a woman and having two children with her - and then deciding it was too difficult to live the lie, I don't see nurture at work. All I see is a bunch of hurt people and children.

On the one hand, if it is genetic, Christians can just chalk it up to original sin.

Huh?!? Original sin means that we got to know good and evil. If homosexuality is genetic (as I'm 99% convinced it is), how on earth can this then be a good and evil thing? I mean, it would be just as wrong to a gay bloke for him to marry a woman as it would for a straight bloke for him to marry a man.

If it isn't, no reasonable person should care any more than they should care if someone likes redheads.

I agree with the care factor, but at the same time note that the implication here is that gay men, for instance, could marry [straight] women and experience equally loving and fulfilling relationships as if they married other gay men. I challenge you to find a gay [non Christian*] person to tell you this would be the case.

Ant

*Christian gays don't count. A good example of why I say this, is Ted Haggard. For all his anti-gay teachings as a preacher, at the end of the day, he admitted to indulging in homosexual relations. The focus here isn't the hypocrisy, it's the fact that God didn't (pardon the pun) straighten him out as he claimed should be the case.

[Mr. Sluagh]

Hi Mr Sluagh,

No, I'm sorry, nature vs. nurture is a red herring in the homosexuality debate.

I just don't see it that way. When approximately 10% of the animal kingdom turns out gay (of what we've studied closely of it so far), it's really hard to argue that nurture has a hand in the matter. When you see a gay person (a good friend of my sister's, as it turns out) go through 10 years of trying to be straight - which included marrying a woman and having two children with her - and then deciding it was too difficult to live the lie, I don't see nurture at work. All I see is a bunch of hurt people and children.

Animals do a lot of unsavoury things. That in itself is a very poor argument for homosexuality. And I don't see why the struggles of people like your friend should bother Christians. One of the cornerstones of their psychodrama seems to be about extreme, almost ascetic struggles against natural urges.

On the one hand, if it is genetic, Christians can just chalk it up to original sin.

Huh?!? Original sin means that we got to know good and evil. If homosexuality is genetic (as I'm 99% convinced it is), how on earth can this then be a good and evil thing? I mean, it would be just as wrong to a gay bloke for him to marry a woman as it would for a straight bloke for him to marry a man.[/quote]

I've heard Christians use original sin to explain other sins for which some people may have physiological predispositions, like alcoholism and anger management. You can call it heresy if you want, but I still suspect that if scientists find irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is genetic (or otherwise physiologically hard-wired) that kind of rhetoric will just get more common.

If it isn't, no reasonable person should care any more than they should care if someone likes redheads.

I agree with the care factor, but at the same time note that the implication here is that gay men, for instance, could marry [straight] women and experience equally loving and fulfilling relationships as if they married other gay men. I challenge you to find a gay [non Christian*] person to tell you this would be the case.

Ant

*Christian gays don't count. A good example of why I say this, is Ted Haggard. For all his anti-gay teachings as a preacher, at the end of the day, he admitted to indulging in homosexual relations. The focus here isn't the hypocrisy, it's the fact that God didn't (pardon the pun) straighten him out as he claimed should be the case.[/quote]

Yes, there are strong cases to be made that homosexuality is hard-wired. I just don't understand their centrality in the debate.

[OzAnt]

Hi Mr Sluagh,

Animals do a lot of unsavoury things. That in itself is a very poor argument for homosexuality.

Mmm, but think about this:

So how far can we go in using animals to help us understand human homosexuality? Robin Dunbar is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool, England. "The bottom line is that anything that happens in other primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in humans," he said.

And I don't see why the struggles of people like your friend should bother Christians. One of the cornerstones of their psychodrama seems to be about extreme, almost ascetic struggles against natural urges.

Yeah... I know. Can't argue with you there. However, I was giving examples of what sort of things I've experienced/witnessed in life that cause me to think that homosexuality is hard-wired.

I've heard Christians use original sin to explain other sins for which some people may have physiological predispositions, like alcoholism and anger management. You can call it heresy if you want, but I still suspect that if scientists find irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is genetic (or otherwise physiologically hard-wired) that kind of rhetoric will just get more common.

My take on this is a little different. As I see it, it's still not 100% clear what ratio of nature vs nurture drives people to alcoholism. People don't generally have a predisposition to alcohol, they have a predisposition to escaping reality. Alcohol is just the most common and likely vehicle for such escapism; primarily because it's legal. And when I say predisposition, I mean it's still not entirely clear what causes some people to want to escape reality more than others.

Yes, there are strong cases to be made that homosexuality is hard-wired. I just don't understand their centrality in the debate.

Well, I think I can put up a much better argument for Christians to leave gay folk alone if it can be demonstrated it's genetic (or hard-wired) simply because, to me at least, it becomes obvious that the fruit of the tree of good and evil was faulty. It made my conscience think that sleeping with another male is wrong whilst making a gay male's conscience think that sleeping with a woman is wrong.

Ant