It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would Jesus have hated on gays?

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rex282

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
Did he hate on Mary Magdalene?? Or did he hold out his hand to her as the people were screaming for blood, and ask that he who is without sin to cast the first stone??

I think that pretty much answers the question.

He hated no one. Not even those that were sent to kill him. That says a lot I think.



The woman that was caught in the act of fornication WAS NOT Mary Magdalene.


Which is why I am not, nor claim to be a biblical scholar. He did however say... (Regardless of who was present at the time) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. As far as I know, it's the same now as it was then... Nobody was/is able to cast that first stone.
edit on 7/3/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Okay. Again, fair enough.

My counter. . .

Marriage was an institution designed primarily for children.

Now would Jesus object to two men wanting to love each other and spend their lives together?



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

There you make the mistake so many others do of conflating love and sex. Do I think Christ would have a problem with two men who love each other living together? No. We are talking about one man who pretty much lived with 12 others for quite some time. However, do I think he had sex with any of them? Again, no.

Today's society is one where me too often mistake sexual desire for actual love. I know you have a family. Ask yourself, would you love your wife any less if you could never have sex with her? I know you have children. Do you love them any less because you don't ever want to have sex with them? Did your parents love you any less if they never had sex with you?

I am in no way discounting the importance intimacy can have on relationships, but it is not the relationship. Nor is it love.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

originally posted by: Rex282

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
Did he hate on Mary Magdalene?? Or did he hold out his hand to her as the people were screaming for blood, and ask that he who is without sin to cast the first stone??

I think that pretty much answers the question.

He hated no one. Not even those that were sent to kill him. That says a lot I think.



The woman that was caught in the act of fornication WAS NOT Mary Magdalene.


Which is why I am not, nor claim to be a biblical scholar. He did however say... (Regardless of who was present at the time) Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. As far as I know, it's the same now as it was then... Nobody was/is able to cast that first stone.


Actually, He could have, and in a sense, He did verbally by telling her sin no more.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Oh... I was supposed to consider Jesus in that?? I thought everyone pretty much knew He was without sin? I also didn't think He was talking to Himself about casting the first stone, but to the crowd of people that were present.

My apologies for anyone who was not aware that Jesus was the one person in the crowd able to cast the first stone. I ASSumed most people were quite aware of that fact.
edit on 7/3/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I did not read the thread. But it is easy. He would have lovingly reproved them addressing their individual iniquities and sent them off telling them to sin no more. The same he did with all the other examples we have like the adultress, the rich man, etc... He would not have singled them out as more sinful than adulterers or fornicators, liars or thieves.a reply to: beezzer



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Now would Jesus object to two men wanting to love each other and spend their lives together?


No. He wouldn't. Jesus wasn't about judging, he made that point. He also made points out of NOT listening to the religious leaders. Who probably had a thoughts on this.

Hey, wait a minute. Didn't Jesus say the Peter loved him?



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
He wouldn't hate on them, He would bless them, then instruct them to go and sin no more.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: ketsuko



Okay. Again, fair enough.



My counter. . .



Marriage was an institution designed primarily for children.



Now would Jesus object to two men wanting to love each other and spend their lives together?
GOD cursed adam and eve to bring about children and crops and marriage is a bond that helps complete the curse. living outside that curse is unforfilling. So in essance two same sex people marring would be dooming themselves to not being able to forfill the curse in this life. Nice to see you here debating in this forum.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
Oh... I was supposed to consider Jesus in that?? I thought everyone pretty much knew He was without sin? I also didn't think He was talking to Himself about casting the first stone, but to the crowd of people that were present.

My apologies for anyone who was not aware that Jesus was the one person in the crowd able to cast the first stone. I ASSumed most people were quite aware of that fact.


Well, I figured you knew that too, but you used absolutes.

Also, the context of the incident is important, too. Jesus was in the temple teaching. The Pharisees brought the woman to Him as a trap. They were all being dishonest which is, itself, a sin.

So, when Jesus said what He said He basically caught them out. They knew the woman was adulterous, everyone did, but Christ also caught them in their dishonesty, and it was for that shame that they slunk away, not for other faults, not because they were an angry crowed who felt themselves to be in the right.

So, basically, this incident gets used mostly for deceptive reasons today.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick



Nice to see you here debating in this forum.


I am soooo out of my league here.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I don't think Jesus really existed, but that's neither here or there.

Based on his time period he probably would have disliked women who engaged in same sex, sexual acts or ignored them altogether as women were primarily chattel for breeding purposes in those days. He probably would have also supported to some degree some homosexual acts between men, namely pederasty since that tended to be the more accepted form of same sex relationships in ancient times based on most documents.

It was never mentioned by the books of the bible that include his words to my understanding, so pretty much any and everything is conjecture. Unless someone remembers something I'm forgetting. Our ideas are just fiction as there's nothing to go off of beside research into various cultures throughout history and their views on sexuality.

At least based on the bible writings sexuality by those authors was rigid but also showed some potential acceptance at least of male courtship. Most notable example would be Jonathan and David where there was at least some allusion to a semi-marriage type relation between the two.

Either way in writing at least, people writing bible were not open in explaining sexual acts outside marriage documentation(written like deeds of sale most of time) and births. Compared to even the drama of Roman and Greek writings it was very sterile in that sense but that's the bible for ya.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: charles1952


There is no way to find Jesus saying that "homosexuality is a fine and natural thing to do, I don't have any problems with it."

Telling a homosexual that God doesn't like their behavior shouldn't be an act of hate, ideally it should be a loving warning.


Too bad he didn't come down and have a word with the WBC about that. And every other bigoted idiot capable of waving a sign and pointing a finger.


I agree. I guess He figured that He left them a book and they ignored that...


Religion is a lot like IKEA.

No-one reads the instructions.


And there's always a few nuts laying around when you're done.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Talking with missus beez abut this topic.

(she chewed me up and spit me out!)

Her final words were very key.

She said, "You can't take the moral high ground when everyone has their feet in quicksand."

(yes, I married up)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Jesus loves all of us, but, He hates sin.

People need to remember that Christ was God the flesh. He is The Word and The Word was there in the beginning. God abhorred all sin. It seems that many Christians think because He died for our sins we are free by the Grace of God, no matter what we do nowadays. Grace is an undeserved favor. To receive Grace from God we need to walk the narrow path.

If we sin we still need to repent. And, yes, according to The Word (Living and Written) homosexuality is a sin, as all other sins.

It doesn't mean He hates the sinner. But, He expects the sinner to repent and come out of the sin. Fact.

I have read comments that Jesus was in the company of men (I know what is being implied). I too work with men, only men, and I have no sexual thoughts about them. It is a ludicrous argument. People's minds fall to lust of the flesh (sickening), whereas Christ have Agape love. A love where one will lay down his life for his worst enemy, not just a brother.

Fact is fact. Truth is truth. Homosexuality is a sin for the Christian. Like it or not.

Even when they are in sin, I will always love them. I will always pray for them. On a daily basis, I do. Because I love and care for them. A true Christian love and pray for those in sin, everyday. I too sin. I may not even know some of my sins, but God help me by pointing them out to me. One sin is not greater than another. Eg: In flesh (in mans view) murder is an awful sin, and to sleep around ain't such a big deal. Both of these counts the same in God's view. Truth hurts, but saves.

edit on 09/02/2012 by KaelemJames because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: KaelemJames

I'm of the understanding the God created all of us.

And He doesn't make mistakes.

Therefore, being born gay isn't a mistake.


(too simplistic again?)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: KaelemJames

Fact is fact. Truth is truth. Homosexuality is a sin for the Christian. Like it or not.



But that leaves a Christian with only two options.

1 - Embrace the idea of being a Cafeteria Christian and go about cherry-picking their sins.
or
2 - Realize that it is impossible to follow everything in the bible and that you don't even come close to it so it's stupid to think that somebody will go to hell for being born gay while you get off scott free choosing to eat shellfish, eat pork, shave your beard, and not execute your children when they talk back to you.

Any Christian who thinks they are getting into heaven by the same standards they are judging gay people, they are just plain delusional.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Beez, since Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality, your answer lies in what he didn't say.

Jesus was an obedient Jew, the only truly obedient Jew, in fact. That means that he knew the Law, and he would have known about Hebrew condemnation of homosexuality. Now, he was never hesitant to point out errors that the Pharisees and Sadducees were making in their interpretation of the Law, and the revelations of Peter and Paul in Acts of the Apostles make it clear that when something in the Law was incorrect or invalid (like not eating "unclean" food,) a sign would be shown regarding it.

So, where in the Gospels does Jesus say that the traditional Hebrew teaching on homosexuality was wrong? Nowhere. That is an indication that he did not disagree with it. And where in the New Testament is there a revelation to one of the Apostles that the teaching was incorrect or invalid? Nowhere. That is an indication that it is not incorrect or invalid.

Finally, I agree with you and others who have said that Jesus would not be "hating on teh gays." I believe that his perspective would be the same as the Catholic Church, which is "there is nothing sinful about a celibate homosexual, and a fornicating homosexual is no more a sinner than a fornicating heterosexual is." We believe that sex, outside of the sacrament of marriage, is a sin, no matter who's doing it or what they're doing. And we do not marry two men or two women, because of what I laid out above -- Christ never retracted those Levitical Laws.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen


So, where in the Gospels does Jesus say that the traditional Hebrew teaching on homosexuality was wrong? Nowhere. That is an indication that he did not disagree with it.


IF I may interject here...

The traditional teaching was to kill the gay person...

And he did not agree with killing anyone... and since he didn't technically mention homosexuality in any straightforward sense... Theres no reason to say he had an issue with it...

And he wasn't a very observant jew either... I think you know that brother...




posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
Beez, since Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality, your answer lies in what he didn't say.

Jesus was an obedient Jew, the only truly obedient Jew, in fact. That means that he knew the Law, and he would have known about Hebrew condemnation of homosexuality. Now, he was never hesitant to point out errors that the Pharisees and Sadducees were making in their interpretation of the Law, and the revelations of Peter and Paul in Acts of the Apostles make it clear that when something in the Law was incorrect or invalid (like not eating "unclean" food,) a sign would be shown regarding it.


Okay.


So, where in the Gospels does Jesus say that the traditional Hebrew teaching on homosexuality was wrong? Nowhere. That is an indication that he did not disagree with it. And where in the New Testament is there a revelation to one of the Apostles that the teaching was incorrect or invalid? Nowhere. That is an indication that it is not incorrect or invalid.


Just because it isn't in the Gospels or the New Testament, doesn't mean that it is an admission of wrongness.


Finally, I agree with you and others who have said that Jesus would not be "hating on teh gays." I believe that his perspective would be the same as the Catholic Church, which is "there is nothing sinful about a celibate homosexual, and a fornicating homosexual is no more a sinner than a fornicating heterosexual is." We believe that sex, outside of the sacrament of marriage, is a sin, no matter who's doing it or what they're doing. And we do not marry two men or two women, because of what I laid out above -- Christ never retracted those Levitical Laws.



My problem is twofold.

1) God does not create people to be an abomination. God creates people. Ergo, there must be a reason why God created people who are gay.

2) While the bible is clear in it's interpretation of homosexuality, it is in the interpretation and later writings. Now I know the bible is the Word of God. But man is the interpreter of the word. And man is fallible. So couldn't the interpretation be fallible?

I don't mean to be difficult. I don't often enter in the realm of religious debate, I'm not that smart.

But sometimes I think that others interpret too much into it.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join