It was meant as a joke.
And some do. Why is one belief a fallacy and not the other? (FWIW, it’s all myth to me)
Nomenclature is irrelevant to the question.
What’s makes you think I think that way? I was asking what others think.
Yes, just another day at the office.
Jesus surrounded himself with people that others looked down upon (e.g. prostitutes)
I doubt he would be any different with gay people
I think he would have given gays his business if say a gay Roman soldier stopped by his fathers shop and needed something repaired.
Personally, as a Christian, I’d welcome a gay persons business because it would give me a chance to be a witness to them. I mean its just a cake.
This is an issue debated quite often in my Christian circles about working with businesses or people who you disagree with. For example should a Christian work in a bar? I can tell you a Christian actor friend of mine has turned down a couple of roles doing commercials when he objected to the product. Ex. a high alcohol content whiskey. Some Christian musicians I know wont play certain music if it glorifies sex, violence, or satanism.
How has no one pitted you yet?
[QUOTE=Matthew 18:6]
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Matthew 23:13-15]
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
[/QUOTE]
And then, of course, there’s the famous incident of Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple.
In my reading, the people who made Jesus really mad were those who came between people and God, often by persecuting or taking advantage of them in the name of religion.
Which makes me think that, today, Jesus would be none too happy with those whose condemnation of gay people in his name turns them off to God or to Christianity.
I think if there was an overtly gay coule at the time, they would have been stoned to death long before they needed custom furniture.
So, no.
hup didn’t say Miller was “correct” about the third claim: he was incorrect in asserting that it would be “different” since it “already would not be forced upon any church.”
So should your second sentence read
[ul][li] “And, as you say, he’s incorrect that the third would be different.” or[/li][li] “But your wrong, he’s correct that the third would be different.”[/li][/ul]
?
And at that time there entered his family’s shop two men, who asked that they be made a bed most wide, for to lie down on together. And Jesus replied, ‘Fags.’
That was in Thespian 6:9, right?
I thought that was Gaylations.
In all of these threads, anyone else get the sense that devout Christians see Jesus as being more judgmental and critical towards sinners than those are not particularly devout?
There’s something intriguing about this. In some sense, you’d think this would be the other way around.
When they ask “what would Jesus do?” the answer they get is 'Jesus would say ‘Fuck you faggot!’ and kick 'em to the curb! Then invent AIDS 2000 years early!"
Actually it was common among Greeks and Romans of the time.
IMO…
Jesus would take business from anyone. Jesus would not reject a person outright. But Jesus would not participate in what he regarded as sinful activity, and if confronted by the person on their sin, would confront right back.
Thus, He would make a table & chairs for a gay customer.
He would not make a wedding altar or canopy. Nor would he change water into wine for a gay wedding. If the Jewish authorities had brought a gay person before him to be stoned, he would have acted exactly as he’d done with adulteress. He commissioned Paul to be His envoy to the Gentiles & by His Spirit, inspired Paul what to say on the subject.
The sense that I get is that the people who are rather keen on gay rights and somewhat inclined to regard Christianity as a load of horsefeathers are the ones who are insisting that Jesus would not be “judgmental” and “critical” towards homosexuals – and reluctant to class gays as sinners at all – and I don’t find this at all intriguing or hard to explain. They’re largely uninterested in following even this Jesus that they have remade in their own image, only in 'splaining to actual Christians why they are wrong.
Why did Jesus eat with tax collectors and prostitutes? Not because he was cool with what they were doing, but because they needed to hear from him most – and, repeatedly throughout the story of his life, because they were the ones who were most likely to admit that they needed to turn their lives around, and take actual steps to do it. Again, I don’t understand that to be what we’re talking about here.
Nah, my theory is a lot simpler. People who take no particular pleasure in judging others and enumerating their flaws will tend to see Jesus as being like them, if they were raised Christian. At the same time, they will find the fire and brimstone aspects of the Bible chafing, unreasonable, and contradictory with Jesus’ message of compassion. This dissonance will either cause them to reject Christianity altogether (which is my case) or fanwank the parts that bother them (which I believe many liberal Christians do).
People who derive some kind of psychological benefit by putting others in boxes and cataloging their sins will tend to see Jesus as being like them. The fire and brimstone aspects of the Bible won’t trouble them at all, and in fact, only reinforces their devotion.
And yet none of that precludes Jesus from providing services to a gay couple. Even if you think these sinners “need to hear from him most”, you don’t know for a fact that he would have had a problem with a man exchanging wedding vows with another man. The Bible is completely silent on that, and it requires an act of hubris to declare same-sex love an offense to God.
And what’s funny is that we’re talking about tax collectors as if their jobs makes them sinners even to this day! So I suppose Jesus would want mechanics to deny service to IRS employees when their cars break down, because otherwise they’d be forced to aid and abet the commission of sinful tax audits.
And here you thought there was only a coincidental overlap between “areas where people don’t believe in that there fancy 'volution nonsense” and “areas where Revenuers get shot on sight”.
No. I see non-Christians claiming Jesus would be less judgemental. Jesus was never OK with sin, even if he was forgiving of sinners. But you had to repent and sin no more in order to be forgiven. You don’t get to be forgiven when you are in a state of sin. This is so basic that the only way you can not understand it is to try especially hard not to.