Jesus view on homosexuality and civil law

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Jesus only taught Christians one message
Love
Not judgement
Not civil unrest, not anti homosexuality
Jesus and the apostles never fought against civil law, never fought slavery, never fought against Rome.
Christians are not moralisers, not the oppressors, not judges.
Christ taught Christians to love, even those we disagree with us.

If someone chooses to live a life contrary to christianity then that's their choice, free will, a gift from God

On marriage, it's not a christians buisness to decide for another individual what is right or wrong
Jesus taught us to love others, irrespective

For God so loved the world

Well that's a perverted view of biblical Christianity...

a reply to: Iscool

Well that's a perverted view of biblical Christianity

So the view is to hate?

I believe that the efficacy of the cross applies to everyone unconditionally (whether they believe or not).

However the gift of eternal life to be received and opened, requires faith and for the gift of God's love in Jesus to be transformative, word of it must spread, but it's not to save people from hell, only to share the Good News.

I cannot be presented or well received under threat and a wagging finger of should and shouldn't.

It's not a morality play or a duality - transcends that.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Raggedyman

I think the problem between christians and skeptics of christianity is that christians try to disconnect jesus from the old testament books. Either jesus is god or he is just some guy who got some credit for being nice and spreading budhist ideologies to barbaric jews.

If he is god, then he is the same guy who tells people to kill gays and unruly children. If he was just some guy, then he still supported the killing of people because he clearly states that he is not here to change the old laws. Which were mostly to kill people.

Excellent argument but I do wonder if some OT rules were inspired by GOD or by someone that had just lost a scuffle with a countryman and his wife...

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 .... "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."

a reply to: ketsuko

I am going on a different topic? You sure?

Jesus taught love not judgement
Yes, Jesus can judge because He is God, we are not

I am not discussing sin and marriage, I am discussing loving those opposed to Christianity and those who choose a different lifestyle
Irrespective what they do, Jesus taught Christians to love them
That's my topic

Go read the op again

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Raggedyman


This isnt true. I cant understand where these ideas come from. Even an objective neutral observer can see that Jesus taught a lot of judgment and made comments that did not support a moral relativism.

Where do you get moral relativism in what I said
It has nothing to do with moral relativism

Jesus said we are to love not condemn

a reply to: Raggedyman

You are going STRAIGHT to hell. Stop trying to be a deceiver like SATAN!

God Blass Yeshiahassahauhauhuhu.

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: Raggedyman

You are going STRAIGHT to hell. Stop trying to be a deceiver like SATAN!

God Blass Yeshiahassahauhauhuhu.

You know what, Christ call Christians to love even whiny atheists as well
Funny how you guys just love to preach all your religion at others and then say you are atheist, how does that work

a reply to: Raggedyman

He was definitely into bukkake too:

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Don't hate me Jesus, it's just a joke, you have my respect.

Interesting thread. I'm a former Catholic. I'm not a fan of organized religion. Indoctrination methods akin to brainwashing, discrimination, hatred, violence and death over centuries because of Religion. I do believe in a loving God, but I can understand why there are non believers. It's not easy to believe in an intangible concept, especially with all the suffering in the world. George Carlin said it best in this skit:

It's true as Christians we cannot judge our fellowman, in fact there are former homosexuals in heaven as angels right now.
Do you really think they were practicing that sin until their death ? Repentance is key, with actions backing that up.

To think a person can practice major sin of any type until they day of their death, and still go to heaven is cognitive dissonance. However since death absolves a person of all sin they don't go to "hell" either, they do get a second chance, but it will be like Jesus said to the criminal that died with him, back to an earthly paradise, that the bible describes.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Raggedyman

If someone is living in sin, is it not love that commands you to tell them as much?

Did Jesus ever condemn anyone?
But you do?

Sorry, telling someone something is wrong is not condemning, ...

Definition of Condemn by Merriam-Webster:

1: to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation

synonyms: denounce, dissapprove, judge, reprove, (in symbolic form or emoticon language, internet lingo)
antonyms: approve, praise
source: thesaurus.com (on page 3 the following synonym is also listed under "penalize, verb. punish":
"discipline"/"judge", I'll come back to that later, if you check out this source on page 1 you'll get my innuendo with the thumbsdown emoticon)

Here's a comment I recently made:

Proverbs 26:
3 A whip is for the horse, a bridle is for the donkey,
And the rod is for the back of stupid people.
4 Do not answer the stupid one according to his foolishness,
So that you do not put yourself on his level.* [Or “So that you do not make yourself his equal.”]
5 Answer the stupid one according to his foolishness,
So that he does not think he is wise.

There's a right way of doing things such as replying to someone "according to his foolishness", and there's a wrong way of replying to someone. I hope I picked the right way with no offense intended, just a heads-up.

Do you think that might be the case for reproving/judging/denouncing/condemning as well? Such as not judging in the way the overly judgmental and self-righteous religious leaders that Jesus was addressing that were hypocritically not adhering to their own interpretations of the Mosaic Law that they judged the people on were judging, but in other situations...and with other motivations...and in a different style...in a manner that produces another effect (compare ""so that he does not think he is wise") than trying to come off as more righteous than the one being judged or reproved? Notice the same style of phrasing things and a particular effect of a particular style of judging being emphasized in Jesus' words.

Matthew 7:1, 2:
7 “Stop judging that you may not be judged; 2 for with the judgment you are judging, you will be judged, and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you.

It's a particular style of judging that Jesus doesn't like to see in people, the hypocritical kind, the kind that gets you judged/condemned.

Here's some more commentary I made recently:

For the sake of honesty and accuracy, let's quote Hebrews 12:5,6 as it was really written down and quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures where God's name Jehovah is recorded and still shown in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts before scribes and translators started replacing it with their language variant for "lord" and then translating it to "the LORD" or "the Lord".

Hebrews 12:5,6:

And you have entirely forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons: “My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, nor give up when you are corrected by him; 6 for those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges* [Or “punishes.”] everyone whom he receives as a son.”

The "you" there might as well apply to anyone who misquotes it and leaves out God's name Jehovah from that quotation and replaces it with "the Lord" or uses bible translations that have done that without adding a caveat about it, or merely mentioning that God's name was used there both by Paul and King Solomon who he was quoting and paraphrasing:

Proverbs 3:11,12

11 My son, do not reject the discipline of Jehovah,

And do not loathe his reproof,

12 For those whom Jehovah loves he reproves,

Just as a father does a son in whom he delights.

The manuscriptal evidence for God's name in Proverbs is more obvious.

John 8:42-47

42 Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me,+ for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me.+ 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father.+ That one was a murderer when he began,*+ and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.+ 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God.+ This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.”+

What do you think would be an appropiate word to describe what Jesus is doing above? Would any of the words I've used so far and/or bolded be allright? Or should we just call it 'giving them a good telling to', 'telling them off'? Oh this one is nice: 'giving them a hard time'. If you check the thesaurus I mentioned earlier you'll understand what I'm doing here and the innuendos.

Some of the rest of my commentary can be found here.

Would this be an appropiate time to mention that many people only quote (if they quote at all) or think about the first 2 words of Jesus' sentence: "Stop judging"? Never mind the context let alone even the rest of the sentence? I find this noteworthy behaviour in relation to what I know the bible says about this phenomena. But I'm afraid it's a little too much to get into here. My commentary above touches a bit on it though. In the past I've also made some commentary about the topic of "understanding", the "understanding heart" and a "superficial view of things". But that's longer ago, don't remember which thread, I know I elaborated on what I initially quoted about it in a green thread about "What is knowledge?" (Philosophy and Metaphysics forum).

If only our first parents
Were an Adam and a Steve.

Instead we got straight Adam,
And his good for nothing Eve.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Jesus only taught Christians one message
Love
Not judgement
Not civil unrest, not anti homosexuality

Actually, when I was still a Christian I was told that, although Jesus never mentions sexual relations between people of the same gender, he specifically said that marriage was a divine and unbreakable act between a man and a woman (Matthew 19). He was very clear that marriage originated from God and that it was between a male and female. He never said it was between two husbands or two wives, but between husband and wife.

If Jesus wanted us to know marriage was for any two people who love each other, he wouldn't have mentioned 'male and female-two become one', he would have omitted mentioning gender.

I am an agnostic now and a firm believer that love does not see gender boundary between two consenting adults, and I have to admit I was seriously disappointed that Jesus never made that clear, never taught us that marriage is a divine act between any two adult people, and not just specifically male and female.

(BTW I know you say this thread is for Christians only, but I don't believe in segregation and in separating people in groups of 'us' and 'them', and I believe everybody have the right to discuss the alleged word of God).

all of the complications and confusion stems from the simple fact that they attempted to revamp the OT with more politically correct packaging and a fresh PR blast intended to help people forget the less savory incarnation of the judaic laws and the supernatural tyrant who inspired them, but they just couldnt bury the old edition without sacrificing critical groundwork for the new testament. and now people keep trying to bridge the two versions without compromising either of them, and it has had very mixed results except for those well trained in cognitive dissonance. my advice: become a casual buddhist. problem solved.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
all of the complications and confusion stems from the simple fact that they attempted to revamp the OT with more politically correct packaging and a fresh PR blast intended to help people forget the less savory incarnation of the judaic laws and the supernatural tyrant who inspired them, but they just couldnt bury the old edition without sacrificing critical groundwork for the new testament. and now people keep trying to bridge the two versions without compromising either of them, and it has had very mixed results except for those well trained in cognitive dissonance. my advice: become a casual buddhist. problem solved.

dude where you been

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Do you really think they were practicing that sin until their death ? Repentance is key, with actions backing that up.

To think a person can practice major sin of any type until they day of their death, and still go to heaven is cognitive dissonance. However since death absolves a person of all sin they don't go to "hell" either,

wait...............
death absolves a person of all sin?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Well said

S&F

My buddy, my angel you are all that I've got,
Let's jump in the fire, I don't care if it's hot.

The christian god is such a nice god. He loves and cares sooooooooo much!

Let's have a look at the loving and caring, shall we?

Rape is fine.
Genesis 19:8
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Beating slaves is ok if they live a day or two after the beating.
Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

Actually, slavery is just fine and so are the beatings.
Leviticus 25:44-45
And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have — from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property.

1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.

The christian god doesn't like anyone who has been injured either.
Deuteronomy 23:1
He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.

Leviticus 21:18-19
For any man who has a defect shall not approach: a man blind or lame, who has a marred face or any limb too long, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch.

But I forgot. Your god is such a caring and loving thing.