Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The former President Jimmy Carter said that there is not a single " Bible Verse " or ....Scripture dealing with Same Sex Marrriage. Therefore Jesus doesn't approve of Same Sex Marriage , but on the other hand I strongly believe that he does approve of Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions. Marriages were always Male and Female Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve , or Eve and Evelyn.
The subject is what Jesus thinks, not some group. Scripturally, Jesus would love the sinner and encourage them to leave their life of sin.
If you are saying Jesus condemns homosexuality--which He NEVER, EVER said, then you are talking about four percent of the population worldwide. Are they not a "group?" Do you not lump them into a "group?"
I guess when you talk about Jesus, you don't talk about "groups" of people that are Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Jewish. Or "groups" of people who attend church or do not. Or "groups" of people who are liberal or fundamentalist.
Jesus DID think about groups as well as individuals. As a GROUP, He condemned Pharisees who were every bit as "fundamental" in their religious beliefs as you are.
As individuals He forgave and healed basically every person He met. Mark 5 points out how He forgave Gentiles (the Gadarene man possessed of demons, healed even the daughter of a Pharisee leader (Jairus) who had come pleading for his daughter's life, UNWITTINGLY healed a woman with a blood issue which by Jewish law should have gotten her stoned for even entering the town, let alone touching a Jewish holy man.
If you had any knowledge of history and cultural context you would know that Jesus healed the servant, pais, of a Roman centurion who was most probably the sexual outlet of the Roman soldier. Yes, that is a very real possibility. In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of servant — one who was “his master’s male lover.”
Imagine how it may have happened. While stationed in Palestine, the centurion’s pais becomes ill — experiencing some type of life-threatening paralysis. The centurion will stop at nothing to save him. Perhaps a friend tells him of rumors of Jesus’ healing powers. Perhaps this friend also tells him Jesus is unusually open to foreigners, teaching his followers that they should love their enemies, even Roman soldiers. So the centurion decides to take a chance. Jesus was his only hope.
It's not necessarily so, but it is entirely POSSIBLE that it was so. And it would be in keeping with everything else we know of Jesus from Scripture.
You just choose to pick the most awful choices that Jesus always makes--instead of the ones that make sense based on healing of Gentiles, excluded women with issues of blood, idiotic Pharisees who are desperate for help, a Samaritan prostitute (Samaritans had their "own" bible, not the Jewish bible), and He even gave a story about a hated Samaritan whom a lawyer had to admit was the neighbor to the one who had been waylaid by thieves. Healing a homosexual Centurion's pais fits right in.
But, of course, the story would be entirely misleading if the boy were NOT the Centurion's sex object. Jesus KNEW didn't He, how people might "misunderstand" the story if it were the Centurion was not using the boy sexually? He KNEW that alternate interpretations would come along and all us ugly liberals would attribute to Him an open and receiving heart--and He WOULD NOT want us to mistake Him for approving of homosexuality, now would He?
It's so very easy to use a fundamentalist's view of Scripture to upset his own beliefs.
The former President Jimmy Carter said that there is not a single " Bible Verse " or ....Scripture dealing with Same Sex Marrriage. Therefore Jesus doesn't approve of Same Sex Marriage , but on the other hand I strongly believe that he does approve of Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions. Marriages were always Male and Female Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve , or Eve and Evelyn.
Up until the last couple of hundred years marriages always included polygamy, too. It's in the bible. God, Himself, GAVE David multiple wives.
Yet we do not practice that now. Not because the Bible changed, but because WE have.
No, Jesus was saying that divorce should not be allowed. It was a normative statement. Certainly divorce happens, and that is unfortunate, but it is not an argument for homosexual "marriage". His language made it clear that the only valid marriages are between a man and woman. Life is a lot easier if you take things at face value instead of reading a bunch of non-existent things into words that have timeless value and application.
Why do you expect divorce to accepted but not homosexual marriages? There is far more of that sin in this country, in our churches, and in our daily lives than there are homosexuals.
Your plea for us to be against "sin" is quite hypocritical if you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
If you are saying Jesus condemns homosexuality--which He NEVER, EVER said, then you are talking about four percent of the population worldwide. Are they not a "group?" Do you not lump them into a "group?"
I guess when you talk about Jesus, you don't talk about "groups" of people that are Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Jewish. Or "groups" of people who attend church or do not. Or "groups" of people who are liberal or fundamentalist.
Jesus DID think about groups as well as individuals. As a GROUP, He condemned Pharisees who were every bit as "fundamental" in their religious beliefs as you are.
As individuals He forgave and healed basically every person He met. Mark 5 points out how He forgave Gentiles (the Gadarene man possessed of demons, healed even the daughter of a Pharisee leader (Jairus) who had come pleading for his daughter's life, UNWITTINGLY healed a woman with a blood issue which by Jewish law should have gotten her stoned for even entering the town, let alone touching a Jewish holy man.
If you had any knowledge of history and cultural context you would know that Jesus healed the servant, pais, of a Roman centurion who was most probably the sexual outlet of the Roman soldier. Yes, that is a very real possibility. In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of servant — one who was “his master’s male lover.”
Imagine how it may have happened. While stationed in Palestine, the centurion’s pais becomes ill — experiencing some type of life-threatening paralysis. The centurion will stop at nothing to save him. Perhaps a friend tells him of rumors of Jesus’ healing powers. Perhaps this friend also tells him Jesus is unusually open to foreigners, teaching his followers that they should love their enemies, even Roman soldiers. So the centurion decides to take a chance. Jesus was his only hope.
It's not necessarily so, but it is entirely POSSIBLE that it was so. And it would be in keeping with everything else we know of Jesus from Scripture.
You just choose to pick the most awful choices that Jesus always makes--instead of the ones that make sense based on healing of Gentiles, excluded women with issues of blood, idiotic Pharisees who are desperate for help, a Samaritan prostitute (Samaritans had their "own" bible, not the Jewish bible), and He even gave a story about a hated Samaritan whom a lawyer had to admit was the neighbor to the one who had been waylaid by thieves. Healing a homosexual Centurion's pais fits right in.
But, of course, the story would be entirely misleading if the boy were NOT the Centurion's sex object. Jesus KNEW didn't He, how people might "misunderstand" the story if it were the Centurion was not using the boy sexually? He KNEW that alternate interpretations would come along and all us ugly liberals would attribute to Him an open and receiving heart--and He WOULD NOT want us to mistake Him for approving of homosexuality, now would He?
It's so very easy to use a fundamentalist's view of Scripture to upset his own beliefs.
Any evidence of the existence of Jesus and his miracles?
irrefutable evidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
