For the Torah, Qur'an, and Bible tells me so

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Geoff

Well, there are lots of things written down today that claim to represent what he talked about. Perhaps these are limited to the things that mattered to the apostle authors?

Well, true too -- there was a definitely a filter in place between the tangible acts/words of Jesus and the record we currently have of it, and that has to be accounted for as well in terms of figuring out how to understand the information that got to us.

[Geoff]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Well, true too -- there was a definitely a filter in place between the tangible acts/words of Jesus and the record we currently have of it, and that has to be accounted for as well in terms of figuring out how to understand the information that got to us.

Imagine this scenario. Jesus is pro homosexuality, but an influential apostle is not. Wonder how his words might be recorded...

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Geoff

Jesus is pro homosexuality,

The Beatitudes might have been far longer:
"Blessed are the Gay..."

... but an influential apostle is not. Wonder how his words might be recorded...

Especially if he had a crush on the messiah and had been shunned for a lesser disciple?

TOTAL! DRAMA! GOSPEL!

[Kiddo]

Oh please forgive me for posting this video but I couldn't resist.

Warning: Language and Sexual Content

YouTube - Jesus Can Make You Gay says Leviticus International

[TrueHeart]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

I think the point is simply that it's an annoying irony, if you'd comb through all the public commentary by followers of Jesus nowadays, to see what percentage of attention is focused on two issues that weren't really part of the talking points of the guy that everyone is claiming to represent. There's lots of things he DID consistently talk about and intently stress that seem to be less represented/prioritized among the most vocal followers.

Both of these phenomena might very well be responses to current cultural situations. Jesus didn't need to condemn homosexuality because those who heard him already thought homosexuality was wrong. It need hardly be said that the situation nowadays is different. I'm having trouble understanding why it should not be expected that a different situation calls for a different emphasis in discussion.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by TrueHeart

...It need hardly be said that the situation nowadays is different. I'm having trouble understanding why it should not be expected that a different situation calls for a different emphasis in discussion.

So you're of the opinion that the current emphasis on controlling abortion rights and gay marriage is a more dire need in this country than the wide gulf inherent in the economic system as well as the fracturing of society into tribal groups based partly on religious "us vs. them" demarcation?

My basic assess is that what is masquerading as religious objection is actually more a fear of a loss of one's way of life in the face of a culture that is becoming increasingly diversified from an ideological stance; and these sort of culture wars are meant to try to preserve the subculture one feels comfortable within, rather than truly being some visionary manifestation of an inclusive kingdom of God.

What's going on is that people are fighting for their rights and positing others as threats, rather than seeking connection, and using religious tenets as a cover. Which I don't think is what Jesus was about when he proclaimed the Kingdom of God... which, of course, he then got killed for by the religious establishment, using the political system as a patsy.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Originally Posted by TrueHeart

Both of these phenomena might very well be responses to current cultural situations. Jesus didn't need to condemn homosexuality because those who heard him already thought homosexuality was wrong. It need hardly be said that the situation nowadays is different. I'm having trouble understanding why it should not be expected that a different situation calls for a different emphasis in discussion.

I can't speak about first century homosexuality, but I do know that first century Christians were opposed to abortion and (more commonly) infanticide. Sometimes people in the first century would leave their babies out in the wilderness to die, and the Christians would find these babies and raise them as their own children. That is a rather big commitment, and yet neither abortion nor infanticide are mentioned in the New Testament. These issues were important, but not so important that they are ever mentioned in scripture.

[lowtech redneck]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

abortion rights and gay marriage

Those are two seperate issues with entirely different factors and consequences involved; most notably, the existence of gay marriage would not violate the rights of others, while abortion (arguably) violates the most fundamental of rights of a third party. Coupling the two only confuses the issue and adds increased division to what is already a highly divisive debate.

[01011010]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

The Beatitudes might have been far longer:
"Blessed are the Gay..."

Especially if he had a crush on the messiah and had been shunned for a lesser disciple?

TOTAL! DRAMA! GOSPEL!

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by Anja

Well, my female cat fell in love with the neighbor's female dachshund last summer but the dawg wasn't having any of it. Obviously on a higher moral plane than my kitty.

So is bestiality next? With all this "evidence" and such; plus the fact that people "love" their pets, I do not see where there would be any more argument against bestiality than against homosexuality. We apparently just haven't gotten around to that issue yet.