What you've quoted from the Bible and concluded would be ok if there wasn't specific mention in the Bible against homosexuality. Working from memory only, I believe Deuteronomy says commiting the act of homosexuality should be punished by stoning.
The bible is full of contradictions. You bring up the old testament to counter the new. If the old was good enough, then the new would not be needed, and there would be no Christians, but alas that was/is not the case. Are you sure you don’t mean Leviticus?
So if Jesus was obeying his Father's laws, he would have to condemn homosexuals to death by stoning.
If Joseph was to obey God’s laws he should have stoned Mary as she became pregnant not by him (with Jesus), while they were married. I see this like most things: either you are a letter or the law who takes the bible literally, and uses it like a textbook on life, OR you are a spirit of the law who see’s the bible as a moral and mythological guide that you need to read and interpret for yourself. The old testament is very rule/law based, but filled with prophesy and impossible stories that we have almost no luck in backing up with evidence, and I am surprised you used it to challenge me here. To me not everything is cut and dry, black and white. Jesus was human as well, and understood the gray areas of life. Only he and his mother were perfect, yet it did not disqualify everyone else from his glory.
I would imagine the idea of homosexuals getting married would be unacceptable to him as well.
The design of marriage in the bible is to join a man and a women together to raise a family and follow the God. The marriage of two adults who love each other who cannot produce offspring, is really not a marriage as far as the bible is concerned. As long as the 2nd couple remained faithful and loyal to The God, I do not think that Jesus would have a problem with them at all.
Jesus would see homosexuality as the racist of the South saw interracial unions.
What evidence do you have of this?
I already posted how I think Jesus thought of homosexuals, you can read it above. He classified them as not being bound by having to get married and follow the same path as heterosexuals. The Romans had gay marriage, probably by the time of Jesus so I am sure if it was so abhorrent they would have stated something about it in the new testament.
Jesus loved everyone, and he loves you.
Here is more new testament on homosexuals IMO.
In Matthew 8: 5-13 (a centurion has faith) Jesus blesses and heals a gay couple.
Here is the text from NIV 5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 Lord, he said, my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.
7 Jesus said to him, Shall I come and heal him?
8 The centurion replied, Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.
10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would. And his servant was healed at that moment.
NOTE: this is also recorded in Luke 7
In English it reads servant in the original Greek the word is pais, which can mean boy, son, servant, or a particular kind of servant (a younger male lover). If you are familiar with the ancient Greek pederasty (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece) you will notice the greek word paiderastia (παιδεραστία) [love of boys] which is a compound of pais [child, boy] and erastes [lover].
Of course this is interpretation and it is my own, but I am trying to show why I feel this way. You have to think outside the box a bit. You have to realize that in ancient times the culture was different. Wives were basically purchased, and were owned by the husband, if the husband wanted a male wife then he purchased a Pais, as the centurion in this passage did. It was part of the culture of the time, and was acceptable. I see no reason why if Jesus was against men taking a male-wife, that he did not speak out against it. Also if it was such a horrific thing, then why would he heal the Male-Wife of this centurion based upon his faith alone? To me it is pretty clear, and it says that Jesus was not against men marrying each other as long as they were faithful.
Jesus isn't half as bad as you think he is, I just think that haters are the one that told you about Christ, you saw the hypocrisy of their hate and it turned you away from his love.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
