A challenge to any homophobe/Freeper lurkers.. Why didn't Jesus condemn gays?

I'm a gay male. I'm one of those 'fags' that the Rev Fred Phelps talks about when his drones chant 'God Hates Fags'.

So let's put that slogan of HATE to the test.

My challenge to any homohobe..

Show me 1 bible verse from the New Testament that quotes Jesus as condemning homosexuality.

Not some obscure passage that you try to twist into claiming that due to your own hateful interpretation, that's it's an actual condemnation.

Around the time of Jesus, (if he actually existed) homosexuality was nearly as common as straight sexuality. It was very common for men at that time to have sexual relations with other men.

Gay sex was everywhere.

So if Jesus really were anti-gay, given the fact that gay sex happened all around him, wouldn't Jesus have been very outspoken against gay sex?

Wouldn't there be sermons from Jesus condemning gays?

Wouldn't the bible be filled with these sermons?

The New Testament is filled with quotes and sermons from Jesus.

Not a peep from Jesus condemning gays.

If we were to listen to the loudspeakers of hate today..

James Dobson
Pat Robertson
Fred Phelps
Oxyrush
Billo
Hannity
Beck
Rick Warren
Haggee

According to these wingnuts, based on what they say one would think the New Testament would be full of quotes from Jesus condemning gays.

Where the fuck are these quotes?

I, a proud faggot, am denied basic fundamental human rights based on this perpetuated lie that god hates fags.

I'm a second class citizen because of this lie.

Is it too much to ask that if the forces of hate want to deny my and my gay brothers and sisters humanity, that they at least show us some proof that god really hates fags?

Again, my challenge..

Show me specific proof that Jesus condemned gays.

If you try some obscure bullshit passage that you twist around to attempt to create 'proof', I'll be waiting to slice and dice that 'argument'.

This OP is NOT directed at DU'ers. I'm not picking a fight with DU'ers here.

DU has been one of the few safe places for LGBT people to express there views and raise awareness for our struggle for tolerance, acceptance, and equal treatment.
I'll soon be writing an OP thanking DU for being that safe place.

And I'll soon be writing an OP on the Old Testament. OT, written at the behest of kings, under the watchful eye and iron fist of kings. An Authoritarian law-of-the-land book of laws that kings ordered written. A great way to control the populace.

You can write bibles when you rule the land with an iron fist.

Gays couldn't reproduce soldiers for their kings and were hence condemned by kings.

King James needed soldiers. Hence Leviticus 18:22.

Remember, gay sex was almost as common as straight sex around the time of Jesus. Impossible for Jesus to not know and see it happening. So if god hates fags with the fervor that Phelps claims, why didn't Jesus preach out against homosexuality when it was happening all around him.

Mark 14:51 might be able to answer that question. I'll be soon writing an OP on that subject as well. If any think this OP is controversial then wait for that OP.

But, for the Freeper, I wrote this OP to pick a fight with you.

Post your weak ass arguments here. I'll be waiting with my slap-chop.

Bring it on!

Challenge issued.

And please, don't start or frame your arguments behind the old 'bible says' meme. The bible isn't some magical tome that speaks.

It doesn't 'SAY' things. You read from the book. It doesn't say things to you.

Instead..
The bible 'reads'..



PS I posted this in GD because this is a gay rights issue.

he was a Christian....

...he was Jewish.

/not religious, but interested in philosophy

...and no women. Who never got married, and likes his men shorn of their foreskins.

...just saying:evilgrin:

He was an observant, practicing Jew that wanted very much to see his faith reformed, that's why he ran the moneychangers from the temple. Christianity didn't spring forth until later, I believe the first time any reference to it appears is in the book of Acts. Christianity is a construct of Paul and his followers.

"Christians" are followers of Christ. Jesus was Jewish....

Jesus didn't go to Sunday School, either... :evilgrin:

and he was the first christ, well, I just don't know.

I'd also like to know why "christians" don't stone to death people who work on the sabbath.

You know those wacky "christians" sometimes read the bible upside down and backwards and it talks to them. And there are thousands of gays serving in the military today ensuring their freedom to do so.

So true!

:fistbump:

:hi:

"gay sex was almost as common as straight sex around the time of Jesus" -- how do you know this? Or, as a freeper might put it, prove it.

where homosexuality was not only common, but yawned at.

and aren't those people illegals anyway?

LOL

When people know next to nothing about history itself, when they believe the world is only 5,000 years old, when they believe that "Rome fell when it turned from God", when they believe that God 'saved' this continent for Americans, when they believe that Noah saved every species on the planet all on his nifty boat, then it's pretty much a futile endeavor to explain anything to them that doesn't fit their preconceived boxed thinking.

But they are proud of it.:puke:

not underground in any way?

Check out the Book of Ruth.

maybe because women were excluded from literacy in many places and for a long time? One of my friends wrote her dissertation on disappearing lesbians. lol :hi:

You can continue with Jesus' own comments about eunuchism. The "opposite sex couple" paring as the only socially sanctioned expression of desire is pretty recent.

...trust me, they're rewriting the Bible so much these days a new version will come out and put those words in his mouth. But you're right, Jesus said nothing about it, but facts don't make much difference with the lunatics.

He was too busy condemning the poor as lazy, and screaming at the proponents of peace that they were terrorist-loving cowards!

Don't you know history?

seem to have this great attachment to the OT, especially when the NT doesn't speak directly on point.

Newsflash for these folks: Jesus' death (and blood) consecrated a NEW covenant between God and Man and that included the "destruction" of the Abrahamic laws set forth in Leviticus (18 - gays; 11 - kosher) and Deuteronomy (12 - also Kosher).

I've argued this for ages. The NEW Testament is a NEW contract with god. New contracts supersede old contracts, fer crissakes. Even if GOD (OT) did hate teh gays (and I'm not saying he did), it seems pretty clear that Jesus did not, and that his bargain with us allows us to ignore the DATED beliefs of the OT.

Contract and Covenant being used interchangeably in this context I would think.

Which is a good thing, since they all go to Hell :evilgrin:

I like your reasoning!

:fistbump:

accepted the outcasts of society far more than He accepted the "mainstream" members of society.

To truly "get" Christianity, one only has to look at the Sermon on the Mount. it clearly defines the teachings/philosophy of Christ and is, IMO, one of the most influential speeches on the Western world throughout history. It's because it is written in the Christian scriptures that it is not truly discussed in most schools. If you strip it down and look at the philosophy and thought process behind it (especially the Beatitudes: Matthew 5:1-11), whether you are religious, spiritual or nonreligious, you will see that it has a deep impact and influence upon progressive thoughts and ideals.

I've just had to simplify my Christian faith to this: Luke 10:27. That is the extent of my Christian faith these days and I am finding it hard to relate to God right now the way I see Him. If I can stick to this simple piece of scripture then I think I'll be OK for now.

But you're right. Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality. Nothing at all.

also for the record The "Reverend" Fred Phelps in my opinion acts in a most unChristlike way. I'm glad the UK government have banned him from entering the country.

Since Jesus condemned divorce not once but several times according to the New Testament, just as he condemned the hoarding of wealth and earthly possessions.

...and typically don't consider divorced people to be 'right with God'.

Love should not be restricted to "body parts!"
Homosexuality is not unnatural, and love anywhere should be respected.
All human beings should have equal rights.

Good luck for the future of Gay rights! I'm 100% on your side!

:hi:

Love should not be restricted to "body parts!"
Homosexuality is not unnatural, and love anywhere should be respected.
All human beings should have equal rights.

Good luck for the future of Gay rights! I'm 100% on your side!

:hug: :grouphug:

It's impossible to make accurate generalizations of things like this across large diverse regions and time periods.

For instance, it was fairly common at that time in Rome and among people of Greek and Roman culture, but much less so in "eastern" (what we today think of as Middle Eastern) cultures, which was one of the things about the Romans that were used to decry their "wickedness." (Though most of the hate-on for the Romans was simply the fact that they kept kicking asses and taking names.)

That said, there's no overt references to homosexuality in Jesus' words, though I recall one mention is made of healing a Roman's servant, who from the context would likely have been a young male "body servant." No condemnation or complaints.

:sarcasm: :rofl:

Now I know where my evil intentions come from.:evilgrin:

:fistbump:

:hi:

:kick:

:fistbump:

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Your typical freeper/fundie reads that as "Whatever rules from the OT I think should still be enforced, this quote gives me the justification."

And if Christians could somehow manage to convince other Christians they're wrong, well, you wouldn't have the thousands of sects and divisions you do today.

as their exclusive priest caste. Nor do they avoid shellfish or revile their wives during menstruation, etc.

One has to be very selective indeed to pluck out one rule to enforce out of hundreds of bizarre pronouncments from the trainwreck that is Leviticus.

Several Christian sects, including Seventh Day Adventists (some of whom go farther and become strict vegetarians), still follow those.

And I'm pretty sure you'll find Christians who hide their women during menstruation. Maybe not in America so much but around the world.

One has to be very selective indeed to pluck out one rule to enforce out of hundreds of bizarre pronouncments from the trainwreck that is Leviticus.

Yet Christians of all stripes (including liberal ones) do exactly that.

What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"

Matthew 15:11 (NIV)

"And I'm pretty sure you'll find Christians who hide their women during menstruation"

Leviticus says you may not touch a menstruating woman, iirc.

"Yet Christians of all stripes (including liberal ones) do exactly that."

I know. :(

All Christians have done over the past 2000 years is fight with each other over the "plain words" of Jesus and/or the bible. Splitting, dividing, killing each other, lather, rinse, repeat. Why don't you head over to your nearest 7th Day church and tell them they're plainly wrong? Surely they will see their error and leave their religion - or modify it to allow the consuming of "unclean" foods.

I like the 'trainwreck that is leviticus' comment.

So true, so true!

:fistbump:

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Genesis 1:29 (KJ Version)

*Cough *Cough..

I'm taking that verse literally as we speak! :hippie: :evilgrin: :rofl:

Thanks for posting that pic.

Legalize it now!

It shall be for meat?

And that God don't make mistakes. :hi:

But if you're interested, one of the ways to gain insight is to look at multiple translations. Here's the NIV (New International Version):



If you're interested, this page has the verse with about 20 different translations.

http://bible.cc/genesis/1-29.htm

IN a similar discussion earlier today....couldnt believe it.

He said: "'Love your neighbor as yourself."

:fistbump:

He was a member of a society, the Jewish one, not the Greek and Roman one, that expected men to marry in their late teens or early twenties yet there is no mention of him having a wife like there is of Peter and some of his other apostles. I know some Christians try to associate him and Mary Magdalene as husband and wife but if that were true there would have been descendants and I don't think the Christians would have let the propaganda value of the children of the Son of God to go unmentioned. There was talk in the Bible of the Apostle John, as his beloved. The painting of the Last Supper shows John at his side and still according to the book "The DaVinci Code", they try to say it was really supposed to be Mary Magdalene.

Even in the Middle East today, because women's virtue has to be preserved for her husband, unmarried men have sex with gay male prostitutes and eunuchs until they get a wife, and the unpleasant fact that women prostitutes can still be stoned today as well as in Jesus's time for selling their bodies makes it more likely that there are fewer of the latter to choose from. This could have been true in Jesus's time and as an unmarried man, he could have practiced gay sex with no disapproval at all.

And it was all full of contradictions and rewritten so much that it can't be taken literally.

:hi:

:shrug:

:sarcasm:

just like the dead sea scrolls

:)

and get the one who is trolling there right now.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x155829#155853

The self roighteous rarely feel the need to justify themselves when presented with actual facts.

I consider myself a Christian but I try to stick with what Jesus actually said and did rather than with those idiots' stupid and twisted interpretations of what they think Christianity is.

"Love your neighbor as yourself"... "Do unto others as you would have done to you"... "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".... all good stuff. Is there anything at all that Jesus said or did that anyone here objects to?

I was just having this discussion on another thread. The simple answer: there isn't one because he never addressed it.

Something else that is constantly gleaned over is the fact that a commandment barring homosexuality is blatantly missing from the original 10 commandments as well. People often quote Leviticus and Epistles, but are usually dumbfounded when you point out "If it was so important, why isn't it a commandment and why didn't Jesus address it". In fact the only sexual commandment deals with adultery and (IMHO) that is addressing the promise to your beloved, not necessarily the sexual act itself.

What's even better is something I read recently about one of Jesus's miracles. When approached by a roman centurion who requests that he come and heal his Pais, Jesus asks to be taken to him the centurion responds that only the Lord's word is needed to heal the boy, so Jesus says he is healed and the centurion goes away knowing that the boy has been healed. The VERY interesting thing about this is that the term Pais is frequently used in ancient greek to describe not just a slave but a young, male SEXUAL slave.

I read this a few months ago for the first time (the definition of Pais, not the story about the roman centurian) when the Catholic church threatened to pull its charity contracts form the city of DC if it passed an equality ordinance that would require health benefits be extended to gay couples working for any organization that does business with the city. The irony of Jesus not withholding his health care (miraculous or no) from a gay couple while the church that claims to be his bastion held the poor of an entire city hostage over the RIGHT to deny health coverage to a gay couple was almost too much for me to bear. I guess its a good thing that I am a cafeteria Catholic :)

and might even have been in a relationship with Jesus (suggested by the phrase "The Disciple Jesus Loved"). While even hinting at this would have caused the nuns' heads to explode at my old Catholic school, I neither know nor care whether there is any truth to this. Whether or not he was gay, Jesus was obviously *not* a homophobe.

When I went through RCIA they talked about how John's incessant need to refer to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as being a self reference....there has always been this part of me that thinks he was referring to Mary Magdalane....I could be wrong, but I think is possible.

never existed. As a Christian, it makes me sick.

Peace
UY

:hi:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Things like that. According to some writers of the new testament Jesus did not over ride the Jewish laws. Thus any law in the old testament is fair game as something he believed in unless he specifically corrects it. Other books in the new testament of course (particularly Paul's writings) push the idea that the Jewish law does not have to be followed. Of course Jesus lived some 1800 years before modern Victorian Gender Role concepts were created. So it's no surprise he didn't spend a lot of time talking about them... Arguing the Bible can be a no win concept because each book in the Bible in many ways is it's own stand alone theological work and thus multiple concepts can be supported at once from the same collection of writings.

gay sex. "Don we now our gay apparel".

My gay apparel is leather!

:rofl:

:hi:

Then none of us would be confused about his message of love for people.

Leave it to freepers to screw up the kindest thing anyone has ever wished on humanity.

It does not distinguish. It mentions homosexuality in passing, twice. Like you, I'm not using the Bible's prejudices, but merely its content to show what he really says about the topic.

People who use the Bible to justify their bigotry don't need a Bible. They would be bigots if they'd never heard of it. People choose a religion that allows them to justify their bigotries.

Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality. How can any religion that is supposed to be about Jesus include as a tenet a condemnation Jesus never made? Even better, since Jesus repeatedly said "do not judge others, worry about yourself," how can any religion that is supposed to be about Jesus build its membership around judgmental people?

If Jesus came back today, he wouldn't be showing up at a church with his name on it. He'd be showing up at UU, saying "my peeps!"

I always though in the 80's that had Jesus been around, he would have been organizing Act Up meetings.

I don't have any doubt that if Jesus existed, and if he showed up today, the first thing he'd do is condemn all the haters who try to wear his banner.

So gay sex can be a learned behavior?

I don't think so! I totally understand the point you're trying to make, but you don't have to rewrite history to do so. It detracts from your argument, and gives fodder to the fundies.

You read "gay sex was as common as straight sex" and thought "gee, I don't see anything like that ratio today. Why so much more gay sex in antiquity?"

Instead of thinking that the ancients were "playing gay" ("So gay sex can be a learned behavior?"), flip it around. The question really is: why is there so little homosexual behavior today? I think there is a stronger argument for homosexual desire and actions being repressed by religiously derived cultural norms over centuries than for the current situation being the point against which we should judge antiquity.

I don't think the Greeks and Romans were playing gay.

Of course, the real answer here is to talk about sexuality as a somewhat fluid thing...

Ask them this...

If God hates homosexuality so much, Why does he need all of our foreskins so desperately? What's he do with them?

K&R!

The primary quasi-homosexual relationship in Greek society was pederasty, which in most cases (save from Sparta) was characterized more by a chivalric type (for lack of a better term) romantic affection between the two partners in a way that wasn't necessarily sexual but was certainly open to that sort of expression. This certainly wasn't a flagrantly and exclusively sexual practice, as there was a great degree of difference in each city state in how it was practiced.

There is also some debate as to how prevalent homosexuality itself was in the Greek world, in terms of class penetration. Much of the information we have on the ancient Greeks really describes the upper levels of society and their social conventions, making it hard to ascertain exactly how widespread the practice was. We do know, however, that the Greeks were much more open to the concept than the modern West, but to what extent is also up to debate, I think. Case in point: The Sacred Band of Thebes was famous in -their- day as fine warriors and one of the few groups of soldiers that bested Sparta. They were also a band of 150 homosexual couples. Now, while this formation was certainly accepted and rather famous in addition to having a philosophical and religious basis for its formation, upon their destruction at the hands of Philip II of Macedon he was quoted to having defended their open homosexuality by (we think) the Spartans, who had openly chastized their particular form of pederastic expression. I would venture to say that homosexuality was in the open (mostly), accepted as something that happened, and had nowhere near the stigma attached to it in comparison to the modern world, but it would be reaching to claim it didn't have its critics (in their own way and in their own time) and that it was -everywhere-.

As for the Roman kind of homosexuality, that is a whole different animal. They mostly emphasized the dominant-submissive roles implied in Greek homosexuality, and from some accounts really only that. In this sense you could (half-jokingly) claim it was closer to our "prison gay" and wholly separated from the romantic homosexuality the Greeks practiced. We also have records of a much more adversarial attitude towards homosexuality in the Roman world, not the least of this being the works in Juvenal in which he makes -several- blatantly anti-homosexual comments in reference to the sort practiced by the aristocracy.

As such, the view of homosexuality that was formed by the Christians was derived from their experience with the Roman kind of homosexuality and not the Greek, which had died out by that point.

a crowd stoning a homosexual. He would do what?

A. Ignore the situation and keep walking.

B. Agree with the mob, saying the gay was getting what he deserved.

C. Join in himself, with a few rocks and kicks.

D. Admonish the rabble for their actions and tend to the persons wounds.

I think D.

Haven't we evolved past all that mumbo-jumbo yet? Love who you want to love, make the best contributions you can doing whatever you're good at, and good luck to you.

I call them "Old Testament Christians." Of course, even then they follow the OT selectively, eg they eat shellfish and frown on sleeping with their daughters.

were for a different time, place and society.

Early Jews were smaller nomadic tribes composed of direct and extended family members. Homosexuals threatened the ability of tribe to grow and expend via marriage and procreation. Even having one exclusively gay man or woman could have grave long term implications to the survivability of the tribe.

Ditto for:

- divorce (discord within the tribal unit)
- adultery (again discord within the tribal unit)
- false idols (look at the vehemence of arguments that revolve around religion, it's not too much of a stretch to see that could turn to murderous violence)
- Food/dietary restrictions (everyone shared food from a common source and food-born illness could rip thru a community and significantly threaten the survival of the tribe)

I could go on but I won't.

Suffice it to say that anything that could, any more than "normal", disrupt the harmony or survival of the tribe had to be declared taboo.