Simple version:
Jesus is pro-gays and anti-religionists
by Fernando 19 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Fernando
Detailed version: http://www.biblehouseofgrace.com/Same_sex_relationships.htm
-
mP
Jesus was not nice, thats utter bullshit. Just take a look at his attitudes to Samaritians and gentiles. He wouldnt even talk to them let alone preach to them.
-
still thinking
but I thought he did talk to a Samaritin mP...I don't know if he talked to any gay Samaritins though...
-
tec
He never said anything at all about being homose x ual. Love God, love others, do unto others as you would have them do unto you; forgive, show mercy... these were the behaviors He taught and lived. And yes, of course He spoke to Samaritans. Even to a gentile woman as well. He was simply first sent to Israel on the promise made to the patriarchs, and the covenant God had with them. But He made it clear that faith brings anyone into that covenant.
Funny, because I talk to Designs... and Jesus is anti-semitist... talk to mP, and He is racist to all but the Jews. I think that saying 'haters gonna hate' applies here.
Peace,
tammy
-
Christ Alone
Jesus was very accepting of everyone. He was not racist. He was sent to help God's chosen people (the Jews) first. He himself said that there were other sheep that would come in. After leaving the Watchtower you will learn that he was not speaking of another "class" of people (i.e people that would live on earth), but he was talking about the gentiles that would be accepted in as God's chosen people.
As far as homosexuality, I have seen the bible speak against it. But it also speaks against lying, theft, anger at brothers, etc... They are all sins, and many of them are sins that we practice everyday. So to single out homosexuals and say that they are worse than any of us, is wrong.Look at how Jesus treated the woman caught in adultry and was about to be stoned by the religious leaders of that time. (John 8:1-11). He said that he who was sinless was to cast the first stone. So we are not to cast stones at those that are gay either. And in my opinion, their sin may be far less sinfull than many of ours. Many are born the way that they are and while the Bible does not say anything about this, I truly believe that God takes that into account and is forgiving.
-
matt2414
Looking closely at the example of Jesus in the scriptures, I find that he treated women better than the men of his time, he treated Samaritans better than their Jewish rivals, by speaking to them and not acknowledging the Samaritan insults others often used at that time, and he treated lepers much better than was customary at the time. As for homosexuals, neither Jesus nor the rest of the scriptures make mention of them. Most of the biases toward these groups came from others, not Christ. Oftentimes, also, readers insert their own biases in the scriptures where none existed, for example, using the Bible to disparage blacks.
-
still thinking
As far as homosexuality, I have seen the bible speak against it. But it also speaks against lying, theft, anger at brothers, etc... They are all sins, and many of them are sins that we practice everyday.
Really??????? And your ok with that idea?
-
OldGenerationDude
Actually to say that Jesus was pro- or anti-gay and anti-religionist is a paradox.
First of all, the concept of sexual orientation as being separate from the physical gender was never taught in Scripture or even a part of human language until relatively modern ages.
Because of this it makes it difficult to next to impossible to define texts that talk about things such as the same sex intercourse of the Gentile men in Romans chapter 1 as restricted to or inclusive of the modern concept. The current theology understanding is now very mixed, even in traditional religions (see the footnotes to such texts, such as 2 Corinthians 6:9,10 --others not listed here for brevity sake--in the New American Catholic Bible Revised Edition).
The fact that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality is also circular reasoning, the same type of paradox. Again except for the Mosaic Law and its restriction on same-sex intercourse (directed in literal language by some to "men," as the prohibition in the Law never mentions or even suggests women in any context), and an understanding of the Jews' first-century views regarding Sodom and Gomorrah (which may or may not have been as focused on homosexual activity as it has been in the early 20th century), nothing can be deduced from nothing. The absence of a direct statement could also mean he did not disagree with the Mosaic Law (he likely agreed with it) or it (logically) is missing because, again, such a concept of an innate sexual orientation that was in disagreement with one's physical gender had no word or was even thought of in the past. One cannot say nothing means something, because it doesn't mean anything. Zero is zero, forward or backwards.
According to many scholars, Jesus belonged to the same Jewish denomination that the apostle Paul came from. That's right, kids, Jesus was likely a Pharisee.
"But he condemns them so much in Scripture!" you say. Exactly.
Jesus of Nazareth lived what he taught too. He said:
"Why do you see the splinter that’s in your brother’s or sister’s eye, but don’t notice the log in your own eye? How can you say to your brother or sister, ‘Let me take the splinter out of your eye,’ when there’s a log in your eye? You deceive yourself! First take the log out of your eye, and then you’ll see clearly to take the splinter out of your brother’s or sister’s eye." --Matthew 7:3-5.
This is seen as more directed to who Jesus was constantly correcting or condemning (in the eyes of some). Because the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and the Essenes, while possibly holding some connection with John the Baptists in the eyes of some scholars, did not live out their faith to fit the practices Jesus is seen to engage in (Jesus' accepting the liturgical practice of reading in the synagogue and later foretelling the destruction of the Temple would also not fit into any other type of tradition of his time), the Nazarene preacher was likely like Saul of Tarsus once was, a Pharisee.
He knew their teachings very, very well. He described them in detail and then harped on them and those practicing them more than any other of the Jewish traditions of the time. But when the Temple fell in 70, what did the Jews who survived and were scattered among the nations hold on to? Which tradition survived? Ask any Jew, and they will tell you: we're Pharisees--literally speaking (I'm Jewish, I know these things).
Jesus was "preaching to the choir," the Pharisees, because he was one of them too. They were the Jews who were going to survive the Temple's destruction, and through them the physical Jews, to whom the Promises and Oracles of HaShem belonged, would survive. Unlike the Watchtower, modern Christians believe that salvation will come to the physical Jews too, but they do not know how. This body of Jews today and tomorrow and at that future time--you guessed it, they will be the descendants of the Pharisees.
Jesus was being hardest with his own group, the group that was to survive. So if Jesus was anti-religionist, this wouldn't make sense. Even if he wasn't a Pharisee, why spend so much time not only telling them where they were wrong, but spending the equal amount of time telling them what they needed to change. If he only wanted to condemn them, why tell them how to survive? Why give religionists instruction on how to practice their religion better if you didn't want them around?
Believe what you want to, but simplifying these complexities just so you can walk away and live with a cute answer is also another one of those JW traits we have to get rid of. Religious or atheist or agnostic--whatever we become when we leave the Watchtower, outside of the JWs all these others share one thing in common....They all embrace the idea that there aren't always easy answers, and sometimes there are no answers, period.
"Since Jesus didn't say anything about NAMBLA, it's okay for me to be a pederast--especially since I was born with these desires! If Jesus was against man-boy love he would have said something. The fact he doesn't means he's for it, and pansexual marriages too! Yea!"
Yeah, right!
-
Christ Alone
Really??????? And your ok with that idea?
The idea that sin exists? Yeah, I am. I view murder as a sin. As I am sure most people do (Christian, Atheist, or otherwise). These are negative traights.
I re-read what I wrote and I was not trying to mix homosexuality in with these other "sins". In fact I was trying to say that most people that are gay were born that way and they have a reason for their actions.