Jesus did speak of homosexuality and divorce

(no condemnation made)


but on the subject of divorce:


Now, which one will cut into the church's fundraising the most if they chose to actually live by the book they claim is the literal truth of God?

As always, follow the money.

33 Whoever seeks to save his life loses it, but whoever loses his life preserves it.

34 I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed. The one will be taken, and the other will be left.

35 There will be two grinding grain together. One will be taken, and the other will be left."





And in context with the following verse it is obvious that this is not about homosexuality.
Unless you take "grinding grain" as a metaphor for :).

from Jesus saying that it was an abomination or anything similar) He states it just as 'everyday happening' as everything else in that section - like it was no big deal.

But every translation calls divorce and taking another adultery - no ifs, ands or buts. But if you didn't let all those sinning adulterers into your church, you sure would have alot of income to replace.

If, in fact, I'm taking the verse out of context - then I'm no more guilty than the rest of these people who sure pick and choose what they do and don't want to apply to their lives (or anyone elses)

as does the Wycliffe and English Standard. It is only when one gets to the modern translations that the editors have changed the text so that sick perverted people like us DUers won't use it to say that Jay-Zeus was gay-friendly.

"And had you known what this means - I desire mercy, not sacrifice - you would not have condemned the guiltless."


Mercy: kindness, compassion, clemency, forgiveness, leniency, blessing, empathy, relief, rescue, generosity

Sacrifice: offering, immolation, destruction, slaughter, surrender, forfeit, renunciation, loss

the chapter and verse you are referring to and I would be happy to translate it.

two men--or two people--to share a bed is to have sex. In this case, they could be sleeping or resting, they could be sick, or they might just be eating. Because Greek custom was that you reclined for meals, and the word is just 'the thing you lay on', not necessarily the thing you sleep in.

On the other hand, the Greek just says "I say to you (plural), in that night there shall be two in one bed, the one (masc.) shall be left and the other (masc.) taken away" (I'm fudging the translation for 'left', since I don't recall having seen the word before).

Greek grammar makes the word 'man' unnecessary, and the gender of the resulting 'one left, one taken' masculine by default. It wasn't specified before that one of the two was female; such specification is unnecessary. But having failed to be specific earlier, the speaker is bound to consider both masculine. It's a common limitation in languages with agreement classes.

BTW, it's Luke 17:34.

Edited to insert the other '(masc.)'.

I think the "duo" in the verse 34 is modified by masculine "mias" and "eteros" so it is appropriate to refer to them as men while in the other v35 we are talking about "duo" who are feminine modified by "mia" and "etera". I am also in agreement with your characterization of "klines" as a couch, a small bed, a place for reclining, a tent, a seat, and even a company of persons reclining at a meal. So the context in my opinion is more suitable to a meal or a discussion and not to rest or sexual in nature.

month and a half of first-year Attic Greek back in 1996 didn't fail me.

On the other hand, after Slavic languages, Greek has no great terror for me. :-)

The Hittite I learned, however ... long gone.

Seriously, the GOP would have to back away from all the gay marriage brouhaha if we link it to outlawing divorce. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning such a thing, but it would certainly expose the right wing hypocrisy.

is one of those people who uses religion when it suits her purpose, but ignores it at all other times.
She used to tell their kids (after the divorce) that she and their father would always be married in the eyes of God, because divorce was not allowed.
Then, when he remarried (to another woman who had been divorced) the ex told the kids that their father was an adulterer and his new wife was a whore.

A few years later the ex got married, and of course it was perfectly allright.

According to her logic though, SHE would also be a whore.
AND, she met her new hubby at church. HE was married at the time, they had an affair, etc...etc...etc...

I really hate her....she fucked up those kids but good.