If Jesus Could Heal the Sick and Raise the Dead

Great Debates
321

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

I was using it in the choice of SS marriage.
I believe that I don’t know, I also believe that no one really knows why, they make guesses and speculate. I think it’s very possible to have gender misidentification where you have a someone biologically one gender and mentally the other but this is not how most people would define ‘gay’.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry for the delay here. I actually wanted to comment further but got distracted.

Not to hijack, but the “choice” of SS marriage seems prompted by the same, love and desire as hetero unions. Personally I’ve yet to see any information to indicate that SS marriage is in any way detrimental to society in general and the people involved. Either emotionally or physically. An interpretation of couple of passages written 2000 years ago seems like a poor justification to deny a substantial number of people the same rights as others.

Assuming God sees the inner person rather than the physical act. As we said before, the true intent of the heart, then the physical act of sex cannot be a sin. If two men or two women have true love in their heart for one another, the same as any hetero couple might, then it seems that is what God sees when he looks in their heart. This is quite a tangent and I don’t intend to hijack the thread. Just wanted to express my opinion since the subject was brought up.

322

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Not to hijack,
[/QUOTE]

Don’t worry this thread has been to Cuba and back many times, and still has fuel.

Perhaps but unproven, and I’m not even sure if it’s possible to prove.

Technically no one is denied any right, everyone has the right to marry a consenting member of the opposite gender, legally love is not required. OK this is getting to far off point.

OK there are a lot of things that are legal that are sinful, such as premarital sex, why such a hangup on this one issue. I can answer this 2 fold, one that the Bible stresses that the act of gay sex is very distasteful to God, it is stressed, and for one that takes the Bible as from God, in one form or another, there must be a really good reason for stressing it. THe second, which is related to the first is that the man-woman relationship is the core ‘unit’ of society, and messing with that seems to be a very bad idea.

Some other things that come to mind, I am a firm believer that men and women are far different then just some plumbing. They think differently and they have complementary abilities. The man-woman union is much stronger because of that relationship, and I feel it is strongest when neither one oppresses the other. By having 2 of the same sex you get a supplemental relationship instead of a complementary one, which is not the same.

I think you are mixing love vs. lust.

323

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Assuming God sees the inner person rather than the physical act. As we said before, the true intent of the heart, then the physical act of sex cannot be a sin. If two men or two women have true love in their heart for one another
[/QUOTE]

After rereading this I want to point out that it seems like you think if you love someone you are required to have sex with them. Perhaps in a perfect world we are to love everyone, I’m sure if we humans managed that somehow God doesn’t want us having sex with everyone all the time.

I’m sure that God is very happy when people love each other, no matter what gender they are.

324

I think K’bird is the biggest ally I have in this thread. He keeps on proving my point, even though he does not realize it. Look at the differences of opinion of K’bird and other Christians on this board on SS marriage. It is just hilarious. And yet, they are all being “inspired” by the same “message”. Either one of you is crazy, or the message is not clear, because it is nothing but a collection of old Hebrew myths pluis the deluded writings of a cult formed around a rabbi crucified by the Romans around 33 AD whose folowers later claimed was divine.

As for you, K’bird: I have lived with and loved my partner for 31 years now. We were married legalloy here in Canada last year. You can have any opinion you want of us. You don’t even know us. Oh, wait, I know the answer to that one. YOU have nothing against gays, but you have to follow what the Bible says. De Bible made me do it, yowsuh! :smiley:

Frankly, Christians are funny.

325

Why should all Christians think alike? Do all members of a family think alike? Do all homosexuals think alike? Do all Presbyterians think alike? Do all men think alike? All Dopers? All Americans?

Even identical twins don’t think exactly alike.

[quote]
Voyager: As for me, the smaller the core a religionist accepts, and the greater the willingness to admit that beliefs are uninspired, the more likely he will be to tolerate other beliefs.

What if different people are inspired to follow different paths?

326

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Why should all Christians think alike? Do all members of a family think alike? Do all homosexuals think alike? Do all Presbyterians think alike? Do all men think alike? All Dopers? All Americans?

Even identical twins don’t think exactly alike.

I realize that different people think differently. You keep saying that and you keep missing my point.

(By the way, Zoe, I guess you are one of those people who would not say “gay” if you were paid to, right? Probably always call them “hum’sexwals” when discussing them with your prayer group, and taking pity on them?)

Anyhow, the point I have been making is this. Is the Bible a message from God or is it not? And if it is, why is it so badly written and nebulous that it has spawned over 500 Christian denominations? Everybody thinks the message is clear, because they think THEIR interpretation must be right. And all the interpretations taken together prove that the message is clear as mud!

327

I was taught that God inspired the men who wrote it, but that it was not written by God. The more that I have learned about the Council at Nicea, the more I have wondered what sets this text apart from some other texts that were excluded. And I take note that there were no women on the Council. I don’t know exactly what I think of the Bible in its entirety anymore.

If you would read the words of the Christians who post here more carefully, you would know that in contrast to what you say, there are a great many Christians who do not think that the message is clear. I myself have admitted in these discussions that my interpretation may not be right. It’s certainly changed over the years and I try to remain open.

I prefer to use the word homosexual these days rather than gay because I find that it is more inclusive. When the term gay is used, I often hear or see the term lesbian used separately as in “gays and lesbians.” I want to make it clear that I am including females.

Have I given you reason to think that I have a problem with pronunciation?

Does the word homosexual bother you?

My only “prayer group” was a seven member Sunday School group of Protestants studying a book on contemplative prayer written by a Catholic monk.

Do you have a need to label or stereotype me? Why?

328

[QUOTE=kanicbird]

Perhaps but unproven, and I’m not even sure if it’s possible to prove.
[/QUOTE]

It doesn’t need to be provable. Do you think people’s emotions and motivations are drastically different than other people simply because they are sexually attracted to their own gender? Don’t you suppose they want the same time of emotional connection and intimacy most people do?

The right is to marry someone you are emotionally and physically attracted to, and who feels the same about you. Consenting adults and all that. People are actively campaigning to deny the basic civil rights, that they take for granted, to others, based, not on any facts, or even solid statistical data, sociological studies, but solely on their own religious beliefs and their personal interpretation of a few passages in an ancient book that they revere.
It seems to me that those beliefs should be provisional enough to allow some room for the “what if we’re wrong?” question. IMO the response could be to allow human beings to have the same rights legally and let the God you believe in be the sole judge of which matrimony is holy and which isn’t.

There seems to be some question about whether the few verses that even reference gay sex were speaking of any and all same gender sex or not. Most people that believe the Bible is the word of God also acknowledge that the character of the human authors also came through. That accounts for a lot of the differences in style and what is stressed from author to author. Yes? Would you say we see some influences of the society of that era coming through?
Again, I reiterate, since God sees the inner person I can’t see how the physical act of sex can be a sin.
Of course the largest number of people are hetero. Reproduction is assured. Human beings being true to who they are as sexual beings isn’t messing with any social structure. Considering that the divorce rate is higher than average among among Christians than other groups, I’d say the concern for the core unit was slightly misplaced.

Interesting theory. I’m afraid it has nothing to do with the problem of basic human rights.

Am I? Does sex have nothing to do with expressing love?

329

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
After rereading this I want to point out that it seems like you think if you love someone you are required to have sex with them. Perhaps in a perfect world we are to love everyone, I’m sure if we humans managed that somehow God doesn’t want us having sex with everyone all the time.
[/quote]

There’s love and there’s love. You’re trying to conflate romantic love with platonic love. Don’t confuse the two. Physical expressions of love through sex are a normal human impulse and arguably an emotionally necessary component of a love relationship. It’s bonding and fulfilling and healthy.

And no matter what hole they stick it in.

330

Actually, I think you are.

331

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
After rereading this I want to point out that it seems like you think if you love someone you are required to have sex with them. Perhaps in a perfect world we are to love everyone, I’m sure if we humans managed that somehow God doesn’t want us having sex with everyone all the time.

I’m sure that God is very happy when people love each other, no matter what gender they are.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know why it seems that way. I certainly don’t think that. You can love people of different genders and of the same gender very deeply without feeling physical desire for them or wanting any sexual intimacy. In a mature loving relationship you can still recognize the physical beauty of someone else without being overcome with lust.

I’m talking about consenting adults who feel strong love for one another and also a desire for a committed monogamous sexual relationship. Many of those consenting adults are being denied the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those self evident truths and unalienable rights all people are endowed with by their creator. Remember?

332

Mostly I’m staying out of this trainwreck because, well, no one is discussing issues of particular significance to me anymore. That’s okay. But, I would like to comment on Valteron’s assertion at Post #317 that the Gospels have to be divinely inspired to have meaning. To which my response is “of course not.” (Bear in mind that I’m an atheist.) All that has to be true is that they record to a useful level of historical accuracy some remarkable events in Palestine two millennia ago. If Christ was the Son of God, was crucified and resurrected, and is the Way, the Truth and the Life, there could be any number of errors in transmission from historical events to oral tradition to written Gospels and the fundamental truth of Christianity would not be affected. Heck, as far as I’m concerned, the physical resurrection is dispensible.

So, it is perfectly plausible to have the events happen; a period of time when descriptions of the events are transmitted verbally and subject to mutation; a further period when they are written down, edited and subject to further mutation; and a yet a further period post-canonization in which they are interpreted, sometimes (even often) incorrectly. All of these except the first could be purely human and error-prone exercises without denying Christ’s divinity. By way of comparison, to pick only one example, the Revolutionary War happened, even though all the histories of it were written by men and even though all those men, to some exent, massaged the story to suit various ends. IOW, I base my atheism on grounds other than playing “gotcha” with a man-written book. FWIW, I considered it a man-written book when I was a Christian too.

333

cosmosdan and others who responded to my posts re: homosexuality. Too bad we have no record of Jesus encountering a homosexual couple. I can only speculate and suspect that He would cast out demons from the couple - remember that in the modern time homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and some believe that it was only de-listed only because of political pressure, and that many people believe that demons were used to explain mental disorders back then. When He encountered someone in a sinful way, after forgiving that person it seems like He left them with ‘and sin no more’. Either way, it appears like the SSM of that couple would be over.

But perhaps Jesus would have flat out allowed that, such as violating the sabbath eating rules - but those violations seem very limited in scope, and more of a exception to His aposials .

So I ask you, what do you think Jesus would say/do to a gay couple during His ministry? On what scriptural basis do you say that? What would Jesus want His followers to do?

334

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
cosmosdan and others who responded to my posts re: homosexuality. Too bad we have no record of Jesus encountering a homosexual couple. I can only speculate and suspect that He would cast out demons from the couple - remember that in the modern time homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and some believe that it was only de-listed only because of political pressure, and that many people believe that demons were used to explain mental disorders back then. When He encountered someone in a sinful way, after forgiving that person it seems like He left them with ‘and sin no more’. Either way, it appears like the SSM of that couple would be over.

But perhaps Jesus would have flat out allowed that, such as violating the sabbath eating rules - but those violations seem very limited in scope, and more of a exception to His aposials .

So I ask you, what do you think Jesus would say/do to a gay couple during His ministry? On what scriptural basis do you say that? What would Jesus want His followers to do?
[/QUOTE]

Of course, that’s automatically assuming that a) his forgiveness is conditioned on repentance, and b) gay sex = sin, under any and all circumstances. (Nor do I think the gay Dopers will feel a whole lot happier at having their sexuality attributed to diabolical possession rather than arrant willfulness to sin.

But turn it around. Other than the highly debatable case of the centurion whose “boy” (usually translated “servant”) was dying, you’re correct that no gospel account points out Jesus’s encounter with a gay couple.

But Jesus consistently encountered actual and would-be followers of Himself, and also the 1st Century equivalent of Great Debaters, who kept tossing trick questions at him. What did He tell them to do? How should they act? What rules should govern their interactions with others? Why?

335

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
cosmosdan and others who responded to my posts re: homosexuality. Too bad we have no record of Jesus encountering a homosexual couple. I can only speculate and suspect that He would cast out demons from the couple - remember that in the modern time homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and some believe that it was only de-listed only because of political pressure, and that many people believe that demons were used to explain mental disorders back then. When He encountered someone in a sinful way, after forgiving that person it seems like He left them with ‘and sin no more’. Either way, it appears like the SSM of that couple would be over.

But perhaps Jesus would have flat out allowed that, such as violating the sabbath eating rules - but those violations seem very limited in scope, and more of a exception to His aposials .

So I ask you, what do you think Jesus would say/do to a gay couple during His ministry? On what scriptural basis do you say that? What would Jesus want His followers to do?
[/QUOTE]

His exceptions seem to stress the spirit of the law repeatedly over the letter of the law. He stresses the inner person and personal transformation rather than traditional obedience to a set of rules that was only superficial. It’s what comes out of a man {the true intent of his heart that moves his actions} rather than what goes in.

It’s good that you can entertain the notion that Jesus may have accepted a gay couple. AS I said, IMHO the fact that you can entertain that, and rightly so, means that we as a society should extend the same humans rights to all and let God be the judge as the Bible directs. People may have strong feelings about what God thinks on the subject but if they can admit they don’t really know then denying the rights of others out of that uncertainty seems like judging others pretty harshly and completely against what Jesus taught.

Jesus stressed the inner journey knowing that true freedom, love, and joy was within. We are asked to worship in spirit and in truth. To me, the essence of God is love and truth and it is the continued pursuit and discovery of the fullness of these two things that constitutes the spiritual journey we are all on. It is knowing the mind of God, which Jesus called life eternal and an inner transformation that continues throughout our lifetime.

We may not have an encounter between Jesus and a gay couple but we know what Jesus said about the judgment of others.
We have Mat 7:12 - “Treat other people exactly as you would like to be treated by them - this is the essence of all true religion.” and
7:21 - "It is not everyone who keeps saying to me ‘Lord, Lord’ who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the man who actually does my Heavenly Father’s will.

Doing God’s will is much more than an attempt to fathom and obey a set of rules set forth in a a book or preached in a sermon but a true honest act of love and compassion that springs from within.

Jesus gives us a simple way to measure the spirit within a person. By their fruits. If they act with love and compassion toward others then we know the spirit of God truly lives within them.
Organized religion must be cautious to not replace the simple truths with their own tradition.
Mat 15:9 ‘These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’."

336

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
cosmosdan and others who responded to my posts re: homosexuality. Too bad we have no record of Jesus encountering a homosexual couple. I can only speculate and suspect that He would cast out demons from the couple - remember that in the modern time homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and some believe that it was only de-listed only because of political pressure, and that many people believe that demons were used to explain mental disorders back then. When He encountered someone in a sinful way, after forgiving that person it seems like He left them with ‘and sin no more’. Either way, it appears like the SSM of that couple would be over.

But perhaps Jesus would have flat out allowed that, such as violating the sabbath eating rules - but those violations seem very limited in scope, and more of a exception to His apostles .

So I ask you, what do you think Jesus would say/do to a gay couple during His ministry? On what scriptural basis do you say that? What would Jesus want His followers to do?
[/QUOTE]

I forgot the summation

Based on my own studies of what Jesus taught I think he would look into the heart of the person, gay or straight, and judge accordingly. Loving compassion for others, or hateful and fearful. Their sexual preference wouldn’t matter at all if they dealt with it lovingly and truthfully.

337

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
cosmosdan and others who responded to my posts re: homosexuality. Too bad we have no record of Jesus encountering a homosexual couple. I can only speculate and suspect that He would cast out demons from the couple - remember that in the modern time homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and some believe that it was only de-listed only because of political pressure, and that many people believe that demons were used to explain mental disorders back then.
[/quote]

Homosexuality was not considered a mental disorder back then. In fact, it wasn’t really understood as a fixed sexual orientation at all. Of course, if Jesus was God, then he would have understood that it’s a natural human orientation (since God made it that way) and could not logically have had a problem with it.

What makes you think he would have considered it sinful at all?

I don’t pretend to know what he would say. We have no scriptural basis to conclude anything at all. We do know that he never said anything against it. We also know that he valued love and compassion over ritual purity.

Love each other.

338

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Why should all Christians think alike? Do all members of a family think alike? Do all homosexuals think alike? Do all Presbyterians think alike? Do all men think alike? All Dopers? All Americans?

Even identical twins don’t think exactly alike.

[/quote]

The difference is that they are supposedly getting their information from the same book. That they don’t think alike demonstrates that the book is only interpreted using their personal views.

No problem about different paths. I have no issue with a single god inspiring some people to be carpenters and some fishermen and some missionaries. I was talking about tolerance. I can’t accept that a single god would inspire some people to hate Christians and some to hate Moslems.

339

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Of course, that’s automatically assuming that a) his forgiveness is conditioned on repentance,
[/QUOTE]

Well forgiveness is conditioned on faith, which leads to repentance.

Well lets not just include gay sex here, but add many sexual activities except that between a married couple. Yes I know that this forms a catch 22 of sorts, if you allow SSM it seems like SSM sex would no longer be a sin - but we still have the specific text of man sleeping with man in a sexual context is a sin, so I’m not sure you can get around God’s law that way.

I will address this later on in addressing other replies.

Well in short, followers He instructed to sin no more, trickers He usually countered with scripture. What rules, well that would be the most important commandment, love God with everything you have (note that you can do this without having sex with God). Why, because it is right to do so.

cosmosdan I basically agree with much of what you posted or can accept it as a valid point of view, but the following I have some issues with:

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Jesus stressed the inner journey knowing that true freedom, love, and joy was within.
[/QUOTE]

Can you go a bit more into this, and where it is stated scripturally?

Yes I know this. But there is a flip side, that of demonic possession/mental illness If you are possessed what would you like your fellow man to do to you, allow you to live your life with this possession or cast out your demon. Both can be seen as love for fellow man.

[QUOTE=DtC]
Homosexuality was not considered a mental disorder back then. In fact, it wasn’t really understood as a fixed sexual orientation at all.
[/QUOTE]

I would assume that people caught in gay sex acts would be assumes to be caught up in a disgusting lustful moment that displeases God and goes against His plan. They might be though of as possessed, which I pointed out that demonic possession seems to be the old term for what we call in the modern world mental illness.

You are making too many assumptions here. We don’t know what homosexuality really is, If Jesus is God then demons are real, and He would understand their effect.

Jesus does address the sexual immoral a few times IIRC, always as a sin.

Yes, but this is secondary, love of God comes first. Jesus told us how to love God, which is to keep His commandments, which leads us back to stoning them, but we have to wait till the person without sin casts the first stone.

340

Actually, it’s a collections of books by many authors written over a long period of time. Nevertheless, I don’t have any problem with people using their own personal views to interprete these books – especially if they make it a point to have informed viiewpoints. Sometimes their viewpoints might be inspired.

As a teacher of literature, I was never surprised at differing viewpoints on the meaning of a work – even a short poem. Much has to do with what we bring to the reading – our losses, our good times.

I was speaking of religious paths, but I didn’t make that clear. And I agree with you. In my own thinking, my own beliefs, Allah and the God of the Trinity are the same. I believe that God does not teach hate at all. I believe that anyone or any “sacred text” that says differently is a corruption or a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the truth.

I could be wrong though.