Did Jesus say anything about gay folk?.

a reply to: flammadraco

And how would you interpret that verse? Seriously? I'm interested..

a reply to: DarknStormy

Matthew 19: 4-5 and 11-12 “Jesus Speaks of Marriage:"
The Scripture:

Verse 4,5: “Jesus answered, 'Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female,' and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate'.”

Verse 11,12: “Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it'.”

In this passage, Jesus Christ list three exceptions to the command for Christians to engage in heterosexual matrimony:

(1) eunuchs born that way;

(2) eunuchs made that way by man;

(3) eunuchs who promise their lives to God.

Castration was a common practice among eunuchs. While many people believed that all these non-virile men were castrated, various biblical dictionaries go into detail on how castration was not the only way to become a eunuch.

Here, Jesus first says “eunuchs born that way” are exempt from heterosexual marriage. Since eunuchs are supposed not have “relations” with female heirs, and these eunuchs were born without attraction to woman, gays, bisexuals, and lesbians should use Jesus Christ’s exemption of “innate eunuchs” from heterosexual matrimony to speak for all gay people. In essence, here, Jesus Christ tells his disciples that people born without the innate attraction to the opposite sex should not marry people of the opposite sex.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

*giggles*
I do, I really do

a reply to: flammadraco

So, Jesus is basically acknowledging that some guys just, like guys?

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: flammadraco

So, Jesus is basically acknowledging that some guys just, like guys?

Exactly
2nd Line

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

When you are treated as your "sexual preference" rather than a person, then that's where the problems come in.

I simply wanted to ask the question and confront the issue that is so prevalent in society today.

a reply to: DarknStormy

We also have the story Matthew 8: 5-13: “Jesus Heals the Roman Soldier's Servant:”

Jesus meets a humbled Roman Soldier; something that was strange, because, at that time, Israel was controlled by Rome, and the soldier would have been in a much more powerful position than a wanderer and simple prophet like Jesus. The Soldier begins to tell Jesus about his sick and dying servant. Roman soldiers typically had a number of servants, just like in this story, but the Soldier keeps explaining to Jesus why this servant, the sick one, is special to him. Servants, like slaves, were like property that could be easily replaced, but this Roman Soldier has a special connection to this servant. He humbled himself before a man that most Romans thought was a loon. out of faith that Jesus could heal him. Jesus, knowing all, decided not only to heal this special servant, but to commend this Soldier on his great faith.

While so many people forget this story, it speak volumes about what Jesus thought about men having special “friendships” or “relationships” with other men. Jesus did not tell this guy that he shouldn't be “getting too close to this male servant, because being gay is wrong;” he commended the man for stepping out of his comfort zone and acting out of faith and love for his fellow man.

a reply to: beezzer

I'm not angry at you for making the thread, or at people for trying to understand it. I'm frustrated that people haven't moved on yet, because we have bigger fish to fry.

It's an issue that doesn't need to be one.

a reply to: FlyersFan

First off I don't believe you can quantify those who are gay, bisexual, or lesbian, simply because so many would not speak up about it if they were. I believe there is a much larger percentage.

Secondly, I believe in a "Garden of Eden" where there was no perversion, so anything that was not apart of the Garden, would be a perversion for today (which is quite a whole lot of things). So to say something is a "natural variant" you would first have to have a baseline... My baseline is the Garden. In other words, God created everything perfectly as it should be, without perversion and maintained it as such until we sinned. After that, you have your "natural variance" if you want to call it that - I call it for what I see it to be, perversion

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: DarknStormy

No, he was talking about marriage. He didn't specifically say anything there about homosexuality.

I will quote it for you again..

“ He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female” [Genesis 1:27], and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” [Genesis 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’

If Homosexuality was condoned he would said something like this..

“ He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female” [Genesis 1:27], and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife or his husband, and the two shall become one flesh” [Genesis 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’

Marriage in this verse if for a Man and a Woman, Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman... If it was, I'm pretty sure he would of mentioned it and we wouldn't be sitting here debating about it. But you cannot join two men or two women together through sex.. They can never become one according to the Bible and cannot conceive through each other to become one either. There is a deeper message being put across.

a reply to: Aedaeum

If there was no sex in the garden of eden then give me perversion any day of the year!

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite

It's an issue that doesn't need to be one.

Truth.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: borntowatch

But the old testament says eating pork and shellfish are also a sin.
Do you believe in those laws of god also?.
Why cherry pick?.

Go read my post again, what was difficult, I will try and elaborate.

I eat pork, I eat crabs, all food. I can work on a sunday and can use broken dishes to eat my food from.
The ritual is not necessary, I dont wait for sundays to worship God.
I can enjoy the pagan festival of Christmas, halloween or whatever.

Its not about ritual, its about what I do to myself. I cant lie, use porn, cant steal, cant commit a sin that violates myself or others.
Christ came to end religion. Religious laws, rituals are now not for Christians. Ritual laws, sin are not ritual laws.

I cant explain it any more simpler.

Ritual laws are no more in effect, the sin (moral) laws still stand


Universal moral obligations from the Mosaic Law are repeated in the New Testament. The things that no longer apply to us are not repeated in the New Testament. It’s exactly like being in a separate state. www.str.org...

originally posted by: DarknStormy

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: DarknStormy

No, he was talking about marriage. He didn't specifically say anything there about homosexuality.

I will quote it for you again..

“ He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female” [Genesis 1:27], and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” [Genesis 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’

If Homosexuality was condoned he would said something like this..

“ He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female” [Genesis 1:27], and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife or his husband, and the two shall become one flesh” [Genesis 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’

Marriage in this verse if for a Man and a Woman, Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman... If it was, I'm pretty sure he would of mentioned it and we wouldn't be sitting here debating about it. But you cannot join two men or two women together through sex.. They can never become one according to the Bible and cannot conceive through each other to become one either. There is a deeper message being put across.

And he went on to say

Verse 11,12: “Jesus replied, 'Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it'.”

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

Believe it or not, there is something much better then sex

a reply to: DarknStormy

If it's God's will, then why do cows display overt lesbian behaviour? Why is there a gay penguin couple in a zoo with a chick?

Animals do not have the power of reasnoning or the level of free will we do and therefore should be free from the bondage of 'sin' due to their lack of knowing what is right and wrong. They simply operate on instinct.

I have given just two of far too many to list in one post examples of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom. Animals were created by God were they not? How come they are gay too then?

a reply to: flammadraco

Men can have special relationships with other men but it doesn't mean you go out and commit Homosexual acts with them.. Are you saying that for one man to have a close friendship with another they must be having sex with each other? Where does that quote say the Roman Soldier is having sexual relations with his favorite slave? I missed it...