WWJD Re: Gay People.

Ridiculous. Any such laws would get a permanent injunction before they could be implemented.

The better question is whether He would recognize modern-day Christians.

Brings to mind the cleansing of the temple.

Evangelicals better pray Jesus never returns because if he does they are seriously fucked.

Maybe. But where is the injunction stopping Alabama from locking up doctors who perform abortions for up to 99 years?

With several other states moving to implement laws that are equally as restrictive on abortion I don’t find it much of a stretch to see these “Christians” emboldened to pass other laws we would have once found ridiculous.

I kind of assumed Jesus was gay. Not married in his 30’s? Hanging out with 12 other dudes? Leave your family to hang out with him? He was gay or he was Michael Jackson (or both).

We could look at what Jesus actually did. See Matthew 8:5-13, or the similar section in Luke. The story of Jesus and the Roman Centurion. (The only miricle mentioned in the ‘Q’ source, and appearing in 2 (maybe 3) of the 4 gospels.

Jesus was all about comforting the downtrodden. His entire ethos is that the oppressed are actually the most important people. The last shall be first, and all that. He was against legalism, and was really big on saying that “love your neighbor as yourself” was (along with loving God) the entire point of the law.

Homosexuality of today is not the pederasty of the past, nor is it some giant sex cult thing, worshiping a false god. I don’t really see what he would find objectionable about it. He would just see an oppressed class of people who need comfort.

So, as a Christian, I see it as my responsibility to be like Christ in this respect. My fundamentalist brethren are into legalism, which Jesus abhorred.

Um, the law doesn’t go into effect for six months. CNN says the chance of that happening are “next to none.”


Only because the ACLU and other godless commie pinko liberals are, you know, challenging its constitutionality in the courts. Not because the Alabama Christians who voted for such legislation have any objections whatsoever to enacting it.

In today’s news, former LA Rams quarterback and USC Athletic Director Pat Haden is being investigated to see if he had any role in the college admissions cheating scandal. Haden released a statement through his son-in-law, Donnie Dixon Haden.

Son-in-law with the same last name? Had to be a gay relationship, right? I was a fan of Haden’s and the Rams back then (1970s). So I looked it up and sure enough, Haden’s son Ryan is gay. In my searches I found this article, Ryan Haden thanks his dad, USC AD Pat Haden, for loving him and his boyfriend.

Pretty cool, that.

  1. Being unmarried in your thirties was unusual at that time but not unheard of. Some Essenes, for instance, were celibate. Most men were married by age 20 or so. That means, however, that most gay men at the time would have been married (and procreating); therefore NOT being married was not indicative of homosexuality. That doesn’t mean there was no same-sex activity among Jews at the time. There probably was. But being unmarried was not indicative of that.

  2. Hanging out with 12 other dudes seems suspicious? You’re imagining, perhaps, orgies? (And it would have been 13 other apostles before Judas left–14, if you count Mary Magdalene, as some scholars do.) Remember that Jesus and the Apostles stayed in the homes of whoever took them in. Few if any homes would have accommodated that many overnight guests at once.

  3. There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that Jesus was a pedophile. I assume you said this to shock and not because you think every man who isn’t in a relationship with a woman is a pedophile. It wasn’t uncommon at the time for older Greek and Roman men to have sexual relationships with much younger males, including pubescent children. But Judaism forbade such. A frequently misinterpreted and mistranslated line in the Talmud seems to indicate that sex with a female over three years old is permissible, but the line actually refers to virginity (which meant a higher bride-price) and who could be considered a virgin.

That’s not to say Jesus was not gay. He may have been. Or he may have been celibate. Or he may have had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene or other female disciples. We just don’t know, and it’s not really relevant to the OP.

Per the bible I guess the same thing he would do with everyone else who commits an abominable act- including, eating shellfish, talking to a woman on her period, wearing polycotton blends, eating ham, eating leftovers, burning incense, seeing a psychic, as you should know- Revelation: 21:27: Anyone who practices abomination will not enter Heaven. So hell for all of them courtesy of a loving god. But curious why you single out gays here any dont worry about all the others? Why no thread, WWJD do with BLT lovers? The bible doesnt differentiate among any of these.

From my interpretation of Jesus throughout the bible and the quran, It sounds like he’s displayed radical dissidence. He went against the norms, going as far as to claim to be the son of god which only the king should be able to do. In fact I believe it was agustus(?) who was on their currency and it stated he was the son of god, so it was a direct jab at the people in power. So I’d imagine Jesus would side with the gays if not for any other reason than just to stab the status quo and societal norms.

have you forgotten Sodom and gomorro? or Jesus saying “man should leave parents and cling unto his wife”?

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. — Ezekiel 16:49,50

Sodom and Gomorrah was many many years before Jesus. Old Testament history.

Jesus would love the gays, because he loved sinners and taxpayers and women – the social outcasts of his day. And he came to save all.

Pretty sure that’s supposed to be “tax collectors,” no?

:smack: Yes! Thanks. :slight_smile:

Whether deliberately or unwittingly, I do not know–but there is a tremendous amount of obscuring in this thread between the sin and the sinner. It is true that Jesus would love homosexuals. It is equally true that He would condemn their sin.

Many people in this thread don’t seem to understand that Jesus was moralistic and legalistic. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt. 5:17). Many people today focus on God’s love to the exclusion of His other attributes. But He is also just and holy; such a God cannot, by His very nature, cannot let sin go unpunished.

Far from showing the “love” that lets things slide without punishment, He tightened the standards of morality. “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:27, 28).

To the homosexuals who were ready to repent, and give up their wicked lifestyle, Jesus would say, “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” (John 5:14b).

To the “Christian” homosexuals who proudly proclaim and defend their sin, He would say, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matt. 23:33).

Straight Christians just declare themselves forgiven and then go back to sinning. Why is that option not available to gay Christians?