The Bible and Love and Christians

[frogboy4]

If you were suggesting that Jesus was gay, I would have to say that would be blasphemous, but you are certainly welcome to your opinion.

I *do* believe (if he really did exist) that Jesus was married with children. For a man of his age not to have procreated would have been widely seen as blasphemy at the time and would have been cited just as if he'd disrespected the Sabbath. I feel that portion of his life was likely left out of the Bible because it confuses his basic message because procreation emphasizes his humanity in a way some people of faith cannot digest. He may have been here for other reasons, but he would not have ignored God's calling to be fruitful and multiply because he observed the spirit of the rest of "God's laws".

So you're saying it's okay for me to believe that The Bible says that being gay is bad, but you don't appreciate it being compared to sins that you would consider to be on a much deeper level wicked? I can understand that position and I apologize that it comes across that way. This goes back to the issue of relativity and measuring morality. How does one determine what is worse than anything else? It seems most people agree that murder is the most heinous act someone can do since it robs a person of the second most precious gift they have on this Earth- their physical life. (I say second because I believe a person's eternal soul is the most precious thing they have and the salvation offered through Jesus for everyone's soul is the most precious gift ever.) But whether a robber steals thousands of dollars from a bank or a kid steals a candy bar from a grocery store, it's still stealing and both are equally wrong. They won't get the same jail time obviously- but they will both get some form of punishment when caught.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I do know that the Bible views all sin as equal sin (even though I don't), but if that is the case then I think you should have peppered your listing of sins with a few less heinous acts as well.

God doesn't view either person here as more righteous than the other- but most are equally wrong in this sin and equally culpable. The problem is that we judge our lives and our standards of morality based in comparison to other people and our ideas of what those standards should be- whether from we've grown up with, what we've been taught, etc.
Man looks at the outward appearance, but The Lord looks at the heart. And God describes the human heart as desperately wicked. He judges us based on His standards and not our own. Thus we all fail when compared to His absolute perfection. This is why we need Jesus who paid the penalty for us.
Now I know you may have heard all this before and obviously you've rejected The Bible as your basis for living and I understand that. However, I point it out to show why I made the comparisons earlier- because God makes them.
I can't say that I'm any better than Fred Phelps at Westboro Baptist Church or Adolf Hitler or John Wayne Gacy, Jr. (as Sufjan Stevens pointed out in one of my favorite songs from him- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otx49Ko3fxw) In God's eyes, all the wrongs I've done are just as bad as the wrongs they did.
I wasn't trying to cast gay people as just a "heinous" group of people- I was saying that everyone on Earth is equally heinous and myself most heinous of all before I would lay blame on anyone else. Sometimes I feel like I'm fighting Paul for the title of "chief of sinners". And it's those times when I am so glad for the wonderful grace of Jesus that is greater than all my sins.To this I would say that all of The Bible is Jesus' Word because He wrote it all- and thus, He did speak about homosexuality. As far as whether The Gospels record Jesus specifically speaking about this, I would point to Matthew 19 where Jesus was questioned about divorce. He quoted Genesis 2:24 here and explained that God's pattern for sexuality is one man and one woman joined in holy matrimony who then become one flesh. Jesus also said in Matthew 5:17 that He didn't come to abolish The Law or The Prophets, but to fulfill them. Jesus is the Only One who ever perfectly fulfilled The Law because He's God. In some places, He spoke to what the heart of The Law was getting to- see Matthew 5-8 for that in the Sermon on the Mount. And of course, The Law points out that there's a problem in our hearts. And that's what Jesus came to fix.

Those are the type of convenient answers that I find unsatisfactory and contrived. I know the Bible means a lot to you and others, but it's precisely this sort of logic that caused me to hurl the entirety of biblical theology out of my life. The process of dissecting the text, comparing translations and further studying the meaning doesn't speak to me. In my eyes it's like a clever child stuck talking himself out of a sticky situation. That's not meant to be offensive. It's just how I see it and that's at the heart of why I am not, nor ever will be, a Christian.

I apologize for that- you have stated your objection to that word and I didn't intentionally use that just to rile you. That was an honest slip- sorry about that. I will try to be more careful with the use of that word since you have said that it focuses solely on the sexual aspect of gay relationships and you don't appreciate that characterization. I don't think most Christians who might glibly use the word "homosexual" are necessarily thinking that- I think it's more meant as a distinction between "homosexual" and "heterosexual" without trying to make it a loaded word- but especially given the literal meaning of both words, I can understand your point.

Thanks. I have a hard time with the overuse of the term "homosexual" by the religious community just as I disapprove of overuse of the term "queer" by the gay community. It's easy to say that the choice of words doesn't matter, but it really does.

By the way, did anyone see the recent homophobic rants of SNL veteran Victoria Jackson? She noted her disapproval with Glee's gay kiss in such a mocking way by calling it disgusting. It's one thing to hold beliefs that aren't politically correct by community standards. The bigotry occurs when you mock those who believe differently and Victoria Jackson is a bigot because of the horrible way she characterizes other people. I agree that the program still doesn't have the best track record in its portrayal of Christians and it would be great if the producers could address that, but gays haven't had a sweet television storyline like this either until now. I think the program, even with all of the hamming-it up, helps instill confidence in all sorts of high school misfits and that's a great thing.

 

[CensoredAlso]

The process of dissecting the text, comparing translations and further studying the meaning doesn't speak to me. In my eyes it's like a clever child stuck talking himself out of a sticky situation.

Yeah but how is that different from any other form of acceptable research and study? How else can one learn about something? If a scientist never dissecting and compared things where would we be?

 

[frogboy4]

Yeah but how is that different from any other form of acceptable research and study? How else can one learn about something? If a scientist never dissecting and compared things where would we be?

I get where you're coming from, but the Bible can't really be measured or proved. Scientific data relies upon other scientific data. Different theories from different sources can prove the same theory. There is something solid at its core, yet it's still allowed to change with new evidence. The Bible requires a leap of faith to accept it in all of its strangeness before study begins. It requires itself to prove itself and that is what I ultimately cannot accept.

It's a whole lot of bother to go through for something I don't like much in the first place. That's the bigger picture. The whole thing, from the first book to the last, is offensive to me on many levels other than the view on gay people. I only like the few times when Jesus is allowed to talk directly, but he also says some odd things too.

 

[RedPiggy]

I personally don't think God is into labeling people as blasphemous.

Well, the thing is, whether Jesus was or not is beside the point. I don't care. All I was trying to get across was that it seems apparent to me that the RUMORS about Him having a girlfriend/wife were to counter RUMORS of Him being gay, most likely brought about by Jesus hanging out with 12 men all day long and having nothing kind to say about families. The amusing thing is that orthodoxy loves to get riled up if you even suggest Jesus was gay, yet it's also blasphemous to suggest He had a hetero relationship. People should make up their minds.

I will say though that speculating about Jesus being gay is the same as speculating that Bert & Ernie or all the The Hobbits are gay.

Indeed. I feel there is a difference between suggesting characters are, especially if the authors just sort of glossed over the subject altogether (meaning the PORTRAYAL of those characters don't really nail the issue down), and calling Jesus Himself gay. I mean, Christianity says that God is loving. To do that, it has to ignore all the times the CHARACTER does something far from loving. I believe God is loving. The LITERARY CHARACTER, however, frequently has His underwear all bunched up in a twist.

To clarify, I was saying that the suggestion or statement as such itself would be blasphemy and God certainly addresses that in The Bible.

I feel a lot of how the bible deals with God can be blasphemous, such as making Him kill God-knows-how many people just for being on the wrong team. Like another poster mentioned ... the bible loves to characterize us women as vile temptresses. However, the fact remains there are good women in the bible. Thus, I feel that the idea God has it out for us women is blasphemous. I feel God is loving in general. Thus, I feel all characterizations of God going postal and committing overkill just because He's a little miffed that day blasphemous. I feel Jesus' ministry is based on peace and compassion. Thus, I find the End Times Jesus, who comes back only to destroy lives, blasphemous.

I do know that the Bible views all sin as equal sin (even though I don't), but if that is the case then I think you should have peppered your listing of sins with a few less heinous acts as well.

A few people in the bible SAY such things (that all sinning is equal) ... but ... well ... the thing is, nowhere in the bible are all the sins actually treated the same way. The idea you could get stoned for some things and pay fines for other things prove beyond doubt a sense that not everything is considered the exact same.

Man looks at the outward appearance, but The Lord looks at the heart. And God describes the human heart as desperately wicked.

That is what SOME authors in the bible say. It calls the other authors who describe "godly" or "righteous" people liars. I am not spiritually masochistic, thus I disagree with the authors who have nothing good to say about humanity.

 

[CensoredAlso]

All I was trying to get across was that it seems apparent to me that the RUMORS about Him having a girlfriend/wife were to counter RUMORS of Him being gay, most likely brought about by Jesus hanging out with 12 men all day long and having nothing kind to say about families.

So they had tabloid logic even back then!

I get what you're saying but I also want to point out that even married men back then probably mostly hung out with tons of guys rather than women. In the New Testament, women didn't even eat with the men I believe.

Like another poster mentioned ... the bible loves to characterize us women as vile temptresses. However, the fact remains there are good women in the bible. Thus, I feel that the idea God has it out for us women is blasphemous.

That was brilliant, thank you!

 

[RedPiggy]

So they had tabloid logic even back then!

Well, it's not like politics is a modern invention. Image was important then too. You could argue even more so, since when is the last time people claimed to be divine descendants nowadays (besides the usual crackpots)? However, just about every ruler tended to claim it in the ancient world.

I get what you're saying but I also want to point out that even married men back then probably mostly hung out with tons of guys rather than women. In the New Testament, women didn't even eat with the men I believe.

Yes, but societal issues are irrelevant. Jesus shares with Socrates a willingness to hang out with women. They both had female followers. They both visited households to talk to females. This is, as I recall, what tends to set them apart from other spiritual gurus of the day. However, once people started flamewars about Jesus-shipping, His sexuality was certain to be brought up. The church fought the idea of inherited authority since the beginning, I think. Not only could Jesus NOT have a girlfriend/wife (as that would argue that any resulting offspring would have a stronger place within the religion instead of Jesus' deputies), but we see this also with priests. The celibacy thing was done precisely to keep authority within the bureaucracy, not passed down genetically. However, by shunning a hetero mate, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to start suggesting Jesus wasn't getting any because He was otherwise distracted. So, really, the church just set themselves up for the flamewar -- all because it didn't want to share power with anyone who, in that day and age, would have had a stronger power position.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Not only could Jesus NOT have a girlfriend/wife (as that would argue that any resulting offspring would have a stronger place within the religion instead of Jesus' deputies), but we see this also with priests. The celibacy thing was done precisely to keep authority within the bureaucracy, not passed down genetically. However, by shunning a hetero mate, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to start suggesting Jesus wasn't getting any because He was otherwise distracted.

Hmm, I'm with you on the bureaucracy and authority theory. But I'm still not entirely sold on the idea of them speculating on Jesus' sexuality.

 

[GonzoLeaper]

Like another poster mentioned ... the bible loves to characterize us women as vile temptresses. However, the fact remains there are good women in the bible. Thus, I feel that the idea God has it out for us women is blasphemous.

That was brilliant, thank you!

I agree totally- God doesn't have it out for anyone. There are a lot of misinterpretations of The Bible that might say such things- but when I read The Bible, it says that God loves ALL people- men and women alike. I can honestly think of about 2 main characterizations of women as "vile temptresses"- Delilah and Jezebel. (I suppose some might count Eve- but that gets to be a tired argument in my opinion. I wonder if Adam had been the first to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree- would men have the same characterization women seem to get about being the "evil temptress"?) But there are tons of other women in The Bible who were certainly not in that category- Ruth, Esther, Sarah, Rachel, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of Jesus, Priscilla, Dorcas, Mary sister of Lazarus, Rahab, Joanna, Elizabeth, and still others.
Anyway, I think it's rather stupid to try to pin blame on any particular gender- the point is that we're all evil at heart and we all need the forgiveness of God- which He provided through Christ's death and Resurrection.

 

[GonzoLeaper]

But as far as Jesus' sexuality, I would say He wasn't gay and He wasn't married.
The problem with thinking that He must have wanted to get married like any other man is that He wasn't any other man. He was, is and always will be God. He came for one purpose only- to live a perfect life, die a perfect death making our perfect sacrifice, and have a perfect Resurrection- in order for God's standard of perfection to be met. We can never reach that standard of absolute perfection and holiness in every aspect. Jesus took care of it for us- and because of Him we can know God and have a personal relationship with Him and in that relationship we have forgiveness of sins and assurance of eternity in Heaven as well as abundant life on Earth in the meantime.

 

[CensoredAlso]

Anyway, I think it's rather stupid to try to pin blame on any particular gender- the point is that we're all evil at heart and we all need the forgiveness of God- which He provided through Christ's death and Resurrection.

Well I think we're evil at heart and also good at heart. We have free will and we make choices; it's our choices that help define the kind of person we are.