And God does that. Remember how often Jesus said “You have heard it said that […] but I say […].”
I firmly believe that the Jesus I worship would say “You have heard it said that homosexuality is an abomination to God. But I tell you the truth: God sees the oppressed and will deliver them.”
The Council of Jerusalem ended with them deciding that Gentile Christians did not have to follow Mosaic law, so the Old Testament laws about homosexuality do not matter. And all that is left are poorly translated terms in the New Testament that clearly refer to pederasty, not homosexuality.
Realize that, and the inconsistency of having a God who seems to hate people for who they are goes away. It aligns with there being “neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Why should there not also be “no straight or gay”?
That’s a…very deep interpretation of Acts 10. Peter’s dream consists of God calling all animals fair game, “Do not call impure what God has made clean”. God does, in fact, break down the Jewish/Gentile barrier, as he did regularly, even as Jesus walked the planet. Literally nothing else is said regarding circumcision, sacrifice, or anything else. Just that Gentiles can also be welcomed into the church.
Nothing from God in that decision.
That’s reading a hell of a lot into “Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” In any case, using the old Levitican Law to disprove the reasoning of Levitican Law is…circular, at best.
So…still nothing from God saying, “These laws are for everyone”, “These laws are for Jews”, and “These laws no longer apply because of my Son”? We have a select bit from his followers, but pardon me if I refuse to take my faith from man.
You are correct. Jesus never talked about homosexuality.
Jesus was all about forgiveness, and The Other Waldo Pepper got it right when he said: Upon seeing that a guy was about to hurl a rock at a gay person’s head, Jesus would presumably tell said guy not to hurl said rock;
However, Paul and the OT, dating back several thousand years did mention gay sex as a sin (altho Paul listed it as a sin along the lines of adultery, drunkenness, and so forth, in others words, not that bad).
But it’s not just Judeo-Christianity, the Muslim faith, the Hindu faith and most other old school religions are not tolerant of gay sex. Back in the past, you needed babies and families to raise those babies- so gay sex, adultery and fornication were no-nos.
It is possible that homosexual sex was ‘disallowed’ because heterosexual men did not want to commit adultery by having sex with another woman, and so therefore thought having a homosexual affair was not adultery, per se.
And it is possible that this is the type of homosexual activities that were against the ‘law’ (law in the sense of law vs. gospel).
Except that that was the exact opposite. Jesus was not accommodating people. For instance, He said that “You have heard it said that a man can divorce his wife by giving her a certificate of divorce” (in other words, the human culture of the day was accommodating of divorce)…“but I say” (and then puts in much tighter restrictions, saying that even marrying post-divorce is adultery). He also said that human culture allows “eye for an eye” but then put in an even tighter restriction - that people were not supposed to retaliate even when struck.
Sure, could be. Also there were the equivalent of “gay sex clubs” and gay hookers, and those were repugnant to most. Note that Lesbians were never mentioned or singled out. So, it wasnt being gay.
Even if this is all true, how does it support the idea that JC would consider homosexuality a sin and for what reasons? How does homosexuality affect, for good or otherwise, his purpose of redeeming us all (sorry if I have that wrong, I wasn’t a Christian for long – heck, by the standards of some I probably wasn’t Christian at all – and I’m not remotely one now and the doctrine is increasingly hazy).
I’d like to believe the best of Jesus of Nazareth but if this “homosexuality is sin” bullshit turns out to be true, then count me out. It defies logic and it defies love and humanity.
It wasn’t meant to. IIUC, Velocity was addressing the misconception behind one of BigT’s statements (as I was tempted to do), but that doesn’t mean what he was saying was directly relevant to the main topic of the thread.
When that rather silly lecture hit the point of claiming that the entire point of Judaism was to produce Jesus, I quit watching.
Before I got there, however, I noted that the producer of that particular video put all of the Ten Commandments into Moral Law. Keeping the Sabbath is in the Ten Commandments.
More broadly: yes, I am aware that at various points groups of people got together, declared themselves authorities, and decided which of the rules in the bible they thought ought to apply to themselves; not to mention which scriptures they thought belong in the bible in the first place; and that they came up with various justifications for these decisions. I just don’t think that the fact that people a long time ago decided to pick and choose certain passages and certain entire books to ignore means that people now aren’t doing the same thing.
I’d like to say, if Jesus came back now (ignoring the whole end times thing) and just hung out, He’s not going to be Jesus, son of God but yet can be killed. There’s no need for the die for our sins thing, that’s been done already. it’s still valid.
He’s going to be basically Superman. He’s going to preach and have followers and rage against the false Christians. And He won’t be able to be killed, or arrested. And He’s going to do miracles. The only thing anyone could do to hurt or bother Him is ignore Him.