Skip to main content

View Diary: Gays V. Christ (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually... (8+ / 0-)
    There is nothing in the New Testament about homosexuality.  It comes from the Original.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    I think you're confused.

    There's nothing in the Gospels about homosexuality.  Jesus, as seen in the Gospels, seems to not think homosexuality is a problem he needs to talk about.

    On the other hand...

    Paul appears to loath Tuh Gayz just as much as he Hates Women.  Hence the citations in works that are associated with him.

    My general thought has always been Baby & Bathwater.  Jesus is the Baby.  Paul is the Bathwater... a pretty cold and putrid and dirty batch of bathwater when one thinks about it.  I've always felt comfortable tossing the Bathwater that is Paul, and instead giving thought to the philosophy of Jesus.

    Anyway...

    You might want to correct the piece before scholars of the bible far more knowledgeable than me shred it.

    •  you did a good enough job (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass

      no need for me to step in

      signed, TBM, Bible Scholar   :-D

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Thu May 02, 2013 at 06:40:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which philosophy of Jesus? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooserock

      Assuming there was a Jesus, we have four objectively contradictory accounts of who he was, what he did, and what he preached.

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Thu May 02, 2013 at 06:54:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The First 3 Disagree Mainly in Editing; The (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alain2112, raincrow

        teacher was consistent in a number of ways across all three books and their underlying sources.

        Soft evidence of one historical figure. No evidence for the magic.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Thu May 02, 2013 at 07:17:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What am I missing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      If Christians follow the teachings of Christ, and Christ said nothing about Homosexuality, and the Gospels say nothing about Homosexuality- then what was inaccurate about my post?

      Someone who was not Jesus said something Jesus never said and Christians need to follow it why?

      •  You seem to have confused the Gospels (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        koNko, allergywoman, Wee Mama

        with the New Testament in your post.  There's nothing on homosexuality in the Gospels.  There is definitely stuff on homosexuality in the New Testament.

        This is one of the pet peeves of our side's arguments against conservative Christians, by the way: the jokes about shellfish and stoning adulterers in Leviticus.  Yeah, that's stuff's in Leviticus, and yeah, the fundamentalists really like the strong language there ("abomination"), but it's that bastard Paul who's the reason so many Christians consider homosexuality antithetical to their faith, not Leviticus.  It's particularly evident in his letter to the Romans, and shellfish isn't on the menu.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Thu May 02, 2013 at 08:41:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There is no Christ vs Gays (0+ / 0-)

        You are conflating Christ with Christians.  Jesus of Nazareth never used the word Christ and may never even have heard it in his life.  It is the Greek term given to him by the Roman citizen Paul who believed that, in a vision, he had been given the commission to carry the son of God's message to the gentiles.  He didn't drop anything since gentiles were never required to follow the kosher laws.  He also didn't drop the circumcision requirements for Jews.  The Jewish followers of Peter and the original disciples continued to be circumcised and considered Jesus to be the messiah of the Jews. Paul was not a favorite of the Jesus' original followers. There are still Jews for Jesus by the way and I presume they are circumcised and may choose to keep kosher I suppose.  

        But I digress.  Jesus, who wasn't a Christian, said nothing about Gays.   The gay stuff in the New Testament was inserted by Paul who was a Christian.  Got it?  Since Jesus, who may or may not have been the Christ, said nothing about Gays then there is no Christ vs Gays.  However there are Christians who follow the teachings of Paul as their basis for opposing gays.  Paul didn't say that the Christ told him to oppose homosexuality.  If you actually read the New Testament you will see that the statements are made on his own authority.

        Your last statement is a grammatical nightmare and is just silly.  

        If Christ were called before the Supreme Court to defend against gay, my bet is he would deliberately not show up.
             

        A bad idea isn't responsible for those who believe it. ---Stephen Cannell

        by YellerDog on Thu May 02, 2013 at 11:03:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How nice for you. (0+ / 0-)

      Tired of bigotry being hid behind 'real' xristianity

      Democracy, if done properly, is rude, messy, and loud

      by allensl on Thu May 02, 2013 at 09:22:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which Paul? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama

      The real Paul, the Paul of Acts -- after he got over Christian killin and tax collectin and hit the road proselytizin -- seemed from his writings to be remarkably egalitarian, as was the early church. Women figured prominently and participated at every level, and there are more than a few suggestions in early Christian writings that gay men were among the early faithful. Later authors who wrote in Paul's name became increasingly socially conservative, judgmental, and proscriptive.

      Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

      by raincrow on Thu May 02, 2013 at 11:32:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  By the way, it's not really clear what Paul was (0+ / 0-)

      talking about. The word that is now translated as "homosexuals" by some in the Greek is androkoiti, which etymologically is something like man bedders. But etymology is not meaning (check out "understand") and the frustrating fact is that Paul is the first use of this word and most subsequent ones are quoting him or included in long lists of Bad Stuff.

      Going by context it seems to mean something that combines violence and injustice, so some speculate it means something like "seller of male sex slaves." What we can't say with confidence is that it means homosexuals.

      Paul had plenty of words to talk about homosexual relationships and participants - Greek is rift with them. He didn't use any of them.



      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Fri May 03, 2013 at 07:41:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (133)
  • Community (55)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (26)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Elections (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Politics (16)
  • Rescued (16)
  • Media (15)
  • Texas (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Barack Obama (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site