Did Jesus say anything about gay folk?.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DarknStormy

Nonsense. The United Nations has established global human rights that outlaw many of the marriage laws that were enforced during the 1st century, laws that Jesus supposedly supported. Today, in countries that don't honor UN Human Rights, those women, if they can reach it, all entitled to asylum.

Yeah, that's a secular version of Marriage, so what? What does Woman's human rights have to do with the Bible version of Marriage? There isn't a violation of Woman's rights in the first place. If the 1st century version of Marriage is immoral, why are the divorce rates so high in the Western world? Something has broken down somewhere and it isn't religions fault.

Most of the global communities see 1st century marriage laws as irrelevant and immoral.

Depends what your definition of Immoral is I guess.. Because I see most of the Global community as Immoral, hypocrites and liars...

a reply to: DarknStormy

There isn't a violation of Woman's rights in the first place.

Most Christians in civilized countries don't force women to marry men they've never met, upon the orders of their fathers.

If the 1st century version of Marriage is immoral, why are the divorce rates so high in the Western world?

You mean in countries where women can't ask for divorce, or where their divorce isn't recognized by the authorities? Gee, I wonder?????

Depends what your definition of Immoral is I guess.. Because I see most of the Global community as Immoral, hypocrites and liars...

Oh please!

It is generally agreed that marriage practice in the OT did not differ very much from the rest of the ancient Near East, and legal collections like the laws of Hammurabi or Eshnunna as well as marriage contracts give us a picture that applies to the OT as well. Marriages were usually arranged by the parents of the couple, partly because of their age, and partly because of the large sums of money and goods that changed hands. These transfers greatly stabilised marriage.

When a marriage was agreed, the groom or his family gave a large marriage present to the bride’s family, typically 10 – 30 shekels,
equivalent to several years’ pay. Remember Jacob, without parental backing had to find the money himself, by working 7 years for each of his 2 wives. But this was not the only payment on marriage. The bride’s father gave her on her wedding a large present of clothing, furniture, and
cash. This was called the dowry. Leah and Rachel’s dowries each included a slave girl.

Total fidelity was demanded of the wife in marriage. If she was caught with another man, both could be put to death. But note the husband was
not so tightly bound: if he had an affair with a single woman, that was not adultery, though it could prove expensive.

This double standard on adultery went along with a tolerance of polygamy but not polyandry.
www.wisereaction.org...

Don't talk to me about secular hypocrisy when religion is rich with it!

a reply to: windword

Is there a quote from Jesus about Homosexuals in the UN Human rights charter? The UN is irrelevant in this thread... So can you show me where Jesus didn't say anything about Marriage being a Male/Female thing? Or where Homosexuality was promoted?

a reply to: DarknStormy

You are either willingly being obtuse, or there's no hope for a conversation between the two of us. My point is, "Marriage" is in no way, shape or form the same institution today as the "Marriage" that Jesus advised on. We're talking apples and oranges. Two completely different institution altogether.

Marriage was the institution of the legal selling of women, while slavery was the legal selling of men or women. We don't condone either in a secular society.

Jesus hung out and was very close to Mary Magdalene, who was supposedly a prostitute, so I would think that if he was okay with that then he would be okay with homosexuality too.

originally posted by: windwaker
Jesus hung out and was very close to Mary Magdalene, who was supposedly a prostitute, so I would think that if he was okay with that then he would be okay with homosexuality too.

Past tense, she changed, and it was all good to Jesus.

a reply to: DarknStormy

I see. If that were the case, I'd have to then be clear with Jesus that I'd rather burn in hell that follow his teaching, because sex is great.

It's so great.

Luckily, this is how i feel about it: Jesus either was, or was not cool with homosexuality. If he knew it was all fine, he's a chill dude and worth my smiles. If he wasn't, I'm left with the thought that there was something really not right about Jesus. Unless, the words attributed to him were either incorrectly recorded or misinterpreted.

In all these pages, in all the wise discussion across the globe in this subject - that is the best my camp will ever be able to give you.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: DarknStormy

If it were an important thing in the new testament, surely it would have been more specific though?

It get pretty specific...

Rom_1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom_1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom_1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

a reply to: windword

Most Christians in civilized countries don't force women to marry men they've never met, upon the orders of their fathers.

Windword,

This is an example of public school thinking...a television and movie education here people are "Entitled" to the choicest cuts off the table.

I case you do not know the history...Christians and even non Christians...have options today..because of economic affluence of the social structure. This was not possible in Olde Testament times ..both among the Hebrews and also among the Pagan nations.

It is only Economic affluence which affords people the beliefs you are trying to default through here on your debate positions.

If the economy turns south..and it will under destructive inflationary money policies..particularly in the Western Nations...all bets are off. Marriages will once again be arranged..if people want to survive.

The sad truth is that today even many Ministers to do not teach this truth to their flocks and keep them ignorant of many things about today as well as yester years. It ought not to be so.

You mean in countries where women can't ask for divorce, or where their divorce isn't recognized by the authorities? Gee, I wonder?????

Once again you use time warp strategies..today as well as yesteryears. If a woman divorced in the olde times...it was often a death sentence as no one wanted anything to do with her.

This happens today ..because it can be afforded by the economic affluence of this nation. It does not happen in nations without this economic affluence which so many take for granted as normal.

But it has made a wreck of families and the family group or system to the benefit of the political structure. It has made much about this nation disposable and expendable...for political lucre....ie..votes.

Don't talk to me about secular hypocrisy when religion is rich with it!

By your posts...I can easily deduce that "Secularism" is a devout and zealous religion among many people. Very emotional...and zealous in your belief system.

I am in agreement with DarknStormy here..

If the 1st century version of Marriage is immoral, why are the divorce rates so high in the Western world? Something has broken down somewhere and it isn't religions fault.

Some of us ..however few ..can see beyond the flesh here...




My point about no one defining themselves by their sex and sexuality is aptly illustrated by the post of BasementWarriorKryptonite. For that is exactly the best this individual has.

Some of us just think that people should be more than sex and sexuality.

a reply to: DarknStormy

I see. If that were the case, I'd have to then be clear with Jesus that I'd rather burn in hell that follow his teaching, because sex is great.

It's so great.

Luckily, this is how i feel about it: Jesus either was, or was not cool with homosexuality. If he knew it was all fine, he's a chill dude and worth my smiles. If he wasn't, I'm left with the thought that there was something really not right about Jesus. Unless, the words attributed to him were either incorrectly recorded or misinterpreted.

In all these pages, in all the wise discussion across the globe in this subject - that is the best my camp will ever be able to give you.

Hope this helps some of the readers to see the pattern of what is going on out here without many even being aware of it or how it affects peoples thinking..or non thinking.

Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

If the economy turns south..and it will under destructive inflationary money policies..particularly in the Western Nations...all bets are off. Marriages will once again be arranged..if people want to survive.

This is a perfect example of the knuckle dragging, backward thinking that the Abrahamic religions have had on their religious folk. When the SHTF all bets are off and women will be again sold in business terms, based on their wide feet and hips.

Some of us just think that people should be more than sex and sexuality.

There's a load of religious hypocrisy. We all know the role of women and what they were used for in Biblical times.

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another

In the Bible, women were meant to be used to keep a husband from sinning when he got hard over watching teenage boys! Women were not allowed to be anything beyond what their cultural leaders, fathers and husbands allowed them to be.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: orangetom1999

If the economy turns south..and it will under destructive inflationary money policies..particularly in the Western Nations...all bets are off. Marriages will once again be arranged..if people want to survive.

This is a perfect example of the knuckle dragging, backward thinking that the Abrahamic religions have had on their religious folk. When the SHTF all bets are off and women will be again sold in business terms, based on their wide feet and hips.

Wow!! Did you get a public school education based on emotions...thinking with your emotions???

Do you have any idea what the lifespan was of men and women back in those days??? The men often lived not as long as the women. And more women perished in Childbirth...and even as short as 100 years ago. You can see this in graveyards in areas of this country where there are such graveyards going back some 300+ years...women next to their newly born children. You can also see where the men perished sooner than their women.


Your point you are trying to make is feeble next to this simple historical truth. Men even today perish at a much younger age than most women.

I do not understand your dedication to the "Victim Dictum " thinking so prevalent today.

It was not a cake walk for the men back then as well as the women. Women back then also worked very very hard to keep a family going. Harder than many men today.

I cannot understand what you are trying to get at..outside of your drug dedicated attachment to Victimization thinking.

Some of us just think that people should be more than sex and sexuality.


There's a load of religious hypocrisy. We all know the role of women and what they were used for in Biblical times.

What??? LOL LOL LOL...what are they being use for today..by merchandizers and social engineers??? LOL LOL>.all I have to do is look at the cover of Cosmopolitan magazine at the check out stands. Then to be sure it is not a hoax..I then take the quizzes. You see..this way the Cosmo girl never has to take responsibility..they just take quizzes!!

LOL LOL LOL...I can do this all day and night if you prefer. Get ahold of yourself and your emotions...You do not default through on The Victim dictum with me.

Good grief...your emotional public education non standards is showing big time. So too with the "Victim Dictum" so popular with social engineers and today crop of politicians...and public school education paid for by the body politic.

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another

In the Bible, women were meant to be used to keep a husband from sinning when he got hard over watching teenage boys! Women were not allowed to be anything beyond what their cultural leaders, fathers and husbands allowed them to be.

You can do better than this pubescent type approach. This is the same thing or pattern of BasementWarriorKryptonite in that they cannot get past the flesh.

If I want that kind of stuff..I go to work and get it on the clock. Or turn on the television or watch movies..it's all over the place.

A thinking person who can think for themselves does not define themselves by their sex or sexuality. I am not saying that people do not have sex or sexuality..but I am saying that people are more...much much more than sex and sexuality.

I have never found it difficult to get women to take off their clothes. I have found it difficult to get women to give me something valuable and long lasting in life...and the commitment to keep it up.

That something is Peace..not Piece.

by your devout and zealous/ religious dedication to secularism..I think this is beyond your reckoning.

All you seem to have is sex,. sexuality and the victim dictum to go along with it.

It does not work with me or others who can think it through. You are going to have to work on it more and better to get over on this one . Not declare others not worth debating or communicating with them...Or putting them back in some time warp philosophy and hope they don't get it. Some of us do get it. You just don't like how we speak. No problem.

But thanks for your post...your position and thinking pattern is noted.

Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

Since you referenced me in your post, I'm going to remind you that since we are all made of 'flesh' and since we are built to enjoy a good humping - I'm going to go with the theory that god wants me to have a bit of fun.

What is your major problem with that? Got a bit of an issue with sex? Fun? What's the big problem?


Edit: I noticed yet another reference to me and my posts - what are you ashamed of? Your body? Your humanity? Perhaps you're ashamed of mine? Allow me to let you in on a little secret. What I do, assuming it hurts nobody, is none of yours or anyone else's business. What you do, assuming it hurts nobody, is non of my or anyone else's business.

Now that we can be adults and agree on all of that, we realise that the only issue is a human one and in two parts - individual problems that people have with what other people do and issues that people as a group can come to a consensus on. The latter is just as much none of anyone's business.

So, I guess we have no issue, no problem. We can all smile and get along well, because we have realised that not only is it futile to tell other people how to live their lives according to another person's view, but it's also quite rude and counter-productive to pretty much every aspect of living our lives.

Live and let live. If I'm to understand correctly, a certain cult believes a person they consider to be their lord and saviour was adamant that this is the case and they can go against him as they please. No skin off my nose.

Let's sit down now and have a smile.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DarknStormy

You are either willingly being obtuse, or there's no hope for a conversation between the two of us. My point is, "Marriage" is in no way, shape or form the same institution today as the "Marriage" that Jesus advised on. We're talking apples and oranges. Two completely different institution altogether.

Marriage was the institution of the legal selling of women, while slavery was the legal selling of men or women. We don't condone either in a secular society.

Can you please quote some verses to back up the claim thanks..

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

a reply to: orangetom1999

Since you referenced me in your post, I'm going to remind you that since we are all made of 'flesh' and since we are built to enjoy a good humping - I'm going to go with the theory that god wants me to have a bit of fun.

What is your major problem with that? Got a bit of an issue with sex? Fun? What's the big problem?

BasementWarriorKryptonite,

Wow!!! You as well as windword are having problems thinking and working outside of the flesh..outside of sex and sexuality.

It is interesting to observe you two at work with a certain kind of predictability. No problem by me ..I merely make note of it to the readers out here who can still think for themselves..who can still reason...outside of a television and movie education..a public education.

In my previous posts..I stated that people are so much more than sex and sexuality.


Now..I did not see or read that in the Bible where Believers are instructed to have fun and sex or to define themselves by fun or sex. I did see where it instructs Believers to Reason Together..not to emote together.

CAn you give me chapter and verse from the Bible where the instructions are so have sex and fun together to please God???


I say this because historically..this is the pattern of conduct of the Heathen Nations which surrounded Ancient Israel and to which conduct the Children of Israel were told not to do. They were not to take on the traditions of men.

And one of these conditions or traditions was rampant runaway sexuality of all kinds...

As a matter of fact ..if you do some heavy reading..particularly Ancient Rome...you find that they were having a grand olde time in numerous orgies and particularly at festival times. Not only Rome but many of the other pagan nations under Rome's control...or governorship.

You can also find this kind of thing among the Disobedient Hebrews where they built groves and high places where they worshiped other gods ...in the hills and groves in the daytime and in the valleys at night. These were the bunny clubs of the day..or of ancient times..you know this correct????
However..not many ministers teach this to their flocks..but they should. It is ironic how many Believers are ignorant of this history.



You see..BasementWarriorKryptonite ..a Believer is to come out from amongst them and be ye separate..not wallow in the mud because everyone else thinks it is alright...and a mark of excellence and enlightenment.

Somehow I don't see you making this distinction ..either from History or from intellect. What seems to be the problem??? What is the issue here??

Once again..I make note of it. You are driving your bus...I just make note of the contrast.

The readers here who can think for themselves and are not a Xerox copy of "Pop culture " know of what I speak.

This is also the problem with the Homosexual Commuinity. They define themselves by their sexuality and demand that others go along with it or at least be silent. They think this is normal. It is not normal.
It is not normal hetero nor homo...that a person define who and what they are by their sex or sexuality.

Once again..I am not saying that people do not have sex or sexuality..but that people are so much more than this one item. A human being is so much more than this one item.

I do not get that understanding reading yours or windwords posts on here. All I get is emotions and the flesh.

And when I detect leadership in this nation catering to these groups and also the "Victim Dictum " for votes and power..and by sex and sexuality..I know that they are whoring out all of us to this template for power and control....for votes...and on the public purse. Their investment is in dumbing us all down...to keep us from catching on to the pattern of whordom they are carrying out.

It is not difficult to see the pattern once you know. Pattern recognition. And believers are also taught to see the patterns of things.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: DarknStormy

You are either willingly being obtuse, or there's no hope for a conversation between the two of us. My point is, "Marriage" is in no way, shape or form the same institution today as the "Marriage" that Jesus advised on. We're talking apples and oranges. Two completely different institution altogether.

Marriage was the institution of the legal selling of women, while slavery was the legal selling of men or women. We don't condone either in a secular society.

Windword and DarknStormy,


I just love this kind of one way thinking..and attempt to default through on assumptions...while thinking no one else can see it for what it is. No one else can break out of the blinders or ask the questions no one wants asked. This way they can seem like the high moral ground..passing judgement on all the rest of us non thinkers or non emoters.

LOL LOL LOL...I just can't help myself. This kind of stuff is not enlightenment nor intellectual..but it is drama.

Jerry!!!! Jerry!!!! Jerry!!!!


I reckon this kind of intellectual enlightenment explains why one of the thickest magazines on the stands is in the bridal category.

I keep saying you have to go to public school and get a major in "Group Victimization or the Victim Dictum" or enhanced emotional outrage. You certainly don't have to think for yourself. Just emote and feign outrage..and hope no one catches on to the gaps in thinking or history.

Please try thinking some time..not emoting windword. Do I need to take a DNA or lie detector test on this one???


Thanks to all for their posts.

Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

You seem to think that we are not human beings.

Moreover, you seem completely unable to grasp that what I do with my flesh is none of your business. If I want to cover my gorgeous male body in honey and have 10 sexy male models lick it all off, while chanting satanic hymns - I'll bloody well do it and you can shut up because it isn't your business.

Now, the matter at hand. This thread is about what Jesus said about 'gay folk'. It appears that Jesus did not find homosexuality to be so bothersome to specifically point out anything about it.

I don't give two hoots about pleasing somebody else's deity, because I either don't believe it exists, or don't care what it thinks of me.

This is the mark of someone who is secure within themselves. If you are not and require outside help, all the better for you.

BasementWarriorKryptonite

You seem to think that we are not human beings.

LOL LOL LOL...this is really funny...

I stated that a proper human being is more than sex and sexuality. Much much more. Why do you seem to have difficulty grasping that concept. Is your education incomplete.

Moreover, you seem completely unable to grasp that what I do with my flesh is none of your business. If I want to cover my gorgeous male body in honey and have 10 sexy male models lick it all off, while chanting satanic hymns - I'll bloody well do it and you can shut up because it isn't your business.

LOL LOL LOL!!! Incredible...

It is indeed none of my business. I don't particularly want to know about what you do with your flesh. But you seem to have the very bad manners and incivility to boast about it in writing here and then get insulted when someone else does not agree.

Once again..you have to be publically educated not to understand the difference or the contrast. Only public education in "I'm sitting on the only one in town " can get someone that far down the rabbit hole and not know the difference. You are demonstrating my point with every post you make here..and don't seem to be able to catch on. Hence I deduce that you have mostly a public education ..a movie/television education in group think.

Now, the matter at hand. This thread is about what Jesus said about 'gay folk'. It appears that Jesus did not find homosexuality to be so bothersome to specifically point out anything about it.

I don't give two hoots about pleasing somebody else's deity, because I either don't believe it exists, or don't care what it thinks of me.

This is the mark of someone who is secure within themselves. If you are not and require outside help, all the better for you.

Not quite..BasementWarriorKryptonite...

The Bible teaches from the beginning to the end...to honor God and His Word...to not define ones self by their sex or sexuality..nor by Humanity...but by His word.

One of the traits of His people is that they not do as the nations surrounding them do ..worship the flesh.

I am not telling you how to drive your bus...only showing the contrast and particularly in the two systems at work. This seems to ruffle your feathers. No problem by me. I've got thick skin

But thanks for your post,
Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

If you think it boasting, please yourself. I'll define myself as human, because in this life that is what I am. You seem to be trying to shirk your humanity, with some thought or other that you are an enlightened being, with all the answers.

I'm arrogant, but not so much as to think I know the meaning to life and the answers that you claim to have. You know as much as I do in this chaos.

Nobody asked what the bible says - nobody gives a rats tail, in this case. This is about what Jesus had to say.

Jesus didn't say a darn thing about homosexuality. You can protest, but he didn't. simple pimple.

BasementWarriorKryptonite,

If you think it boasting, please yourself. I'll define myself as human, because in this life that is what I am. You seem to be trying to shirk your humanity, with some thought or other that you are an enlightened being, with all the answers.

Good grief..BasementWarriorKryptonite, I certainly don't have all the answers..but I do know this one of which we are speaking.

I do not define myself by my humanity..nor my sexuality nor sex. I define myself by an attempt to think things through. I am not always correct in this but in this one of which we speak..I do know what the status is..today as well as back in history.

In like manner to DarknStormy..I am not impressed with humanity, the world, or the global community, or the UN, its values or history and think I can make a pretty good case for it.

I'm arrogant, but not so much as to think I know the meaning to life and the answers that you claim to have. You know as much as I do in this chaos.

I did not say I know the meaning of life. I just happen to know that thinking people do not define themselves by their sex or sexuality...simply because a well rounded and knowledgeable person is much much more than sex and sexuality. This does not appear to be the case in your posts..nor in windword's posts.

What is interesting to me, and I am sure some of the other readers out here, is that you seem totally oblivious to this lack of comprehension/understanding ..even proud of it. Once again..no problem by me. I merely make note of it to the readers here who can see and think for themselves and are not Xerox stamped out copies of today's pop culture.

Nobody asked what the bible says - nobody gives a rats tail, in this case.

I do..I give a rats tail. This seems to disturb you at some level. Once again no problem by me. I make note of it again.

This is about what Jesus had to say.

Jesus didn't say a darn thing about homosexuality. You can protest, but he didn't. simple pimple.

This is deep stuff...very deep BasementWarriorKryptonite. You are to be congratulated on your depth of thought.

Once again...please give me chapter and verse where Jesus stated to define and boast of ones self by their sex and sexuality...to please God??? I can do this all day long.

In case you do not follow the very depth, width, and breadth of what I am discussing here...this applies hetero and homo both. Not just one but about sexuality and sex.
Get it now???

For all that matter...please give me chapter and verse from the Olde Testament ..where God stated to do what the other nations were already doing in defining themselves by their sex and sexuality...particularly around festivals and holydays?? To please God of course!!??
Chapter and verse please??

Thanks again,
Orangetom