The Biblical Jesus Christ never condemned homosexuality

I know this subject is a little outside the scope of liberal Constitutional theory, but we hear it all the time. The Bible God, Christian fundamentalists say, condemns homosexuality. The religious conservative's favorite anti-gay hammer verses include such perennial stand-bys as Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Leviticus 20:13. When read alone, these verses sound convincing and unequivocal.

However, there is another approach to the Bible that sheds a very different light on today's gay issues. Perhaps the biblical Jesus isn't as mean and nasty as some Christians seem to want him to be.

The Old Testament "anti-gay" dictates, such as in Leviticus, make up part of Mosaic Law, which was intended for the Israelites and those living with them. Mosaic Law also contains other odd dictates, such as death for rebellious teens and other (sometimes minor) offenses. Exodus chapters 21-24 and Leviticus chapters 20-22 lists many of these.

Today, however, many fundamentalist Christians, when asked why they no longer follow all of Mosaic Law, will respond "Well, Jesus fulfilled the Law!" "We are no longer under the Law!" Yet, when asked about gay issues, they generally revert to a law-like argument, proclaiming that "homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Some Christians attempt to separate "ceremonial law", done away with after the crucifixion, from "moral law," which they claim is still in effect. Others argue that some or much of the law remains in effect, but without the mandated punishments. These Christians often quote Matthew 5:17, claiming that Jesus did not "abolish" the Law, but merely "fulfilled" it.

What follows is a new and different angle, one which very seldom makes it to the airwaves or to the press.

First and foremost, Jesus did abolish the literal Mosaic Law. Ephesians 2:13-17 makes this perfectly clear. What Jesus properly fulfilled was not "the Law," but the prophecies of him, some of which were written in the Law (Luke 24:44, John 15:25). Read Matthew 5:17-18 to the very end - nothing shall disappear from the Law "until everything is accomplished" - and this will become obvious. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Jesus "fulfilled the law" in the modern Christian fundamentalist sense that God still requires adherence to useless and baseless taboos.

When the rich young man asked Jesus how he might obtain eternal life, Jesus replied, "obey the commandments" (Matt 19:17). That's a loose answer for a supposedly strict Savior, don't you think?

Apparently the man thought so, too. In verse 18, the man asked Jesus, "which ones?" In verses 18-19 (and Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20), Jesus replies with only five of the ten commandments. And, in Matthew's rendition Jesus gives a commandment that is not even one of the ten. In verse 19, Jesus lists "love your neighbor as yourself." Evidently Jesus was not overly concerned with strict literalism.

Interestingly, Jesus never did mention homosexuality. In Matthew 22:38-39, Jesus summarizes the thrust, the spirit of the law: Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Romans 13:9-10 reinforces this, as does James 2:8, which reads, "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right." Homosexuals are entirely capable of complying with this commandment, perhaps more capable than some of the heterosexual Christians I have known.

If you dig deep enough, you find a new, universal moral law that is good anywhere on earth: Try to help people, and do not harm anyone, including yourself. Simple, but forever valid.

Leviticus 20 is gone with the rest of Mosaic Law. The objects of the Romans and Corinthians passages seem not to be homosexuals in and of themselves. The mental picture that forms when reading these passages is a vision of irresponsible, senseless, and destructive behavior, which bears no resemblance to that of responsible gays and lesbians entering into lasting commitments.

Moreover, Paul's letters had specific intended recipients. Paul sounds prohibitive in dealing with the Corinthians because they were the early church group with the most troubles. But when Paul wrote the Galatians, who were especially uptight about matters of "law," Paul sounds like a civil libertarian. Some of the most beautiful Scriptures are found in Galatians.

An argument can thus be made that likens God to a physician treating different patients with various illnesses. God, through Paul, wrote one type of prescription to treat the wayward Corinthians, a different prescription to treat the uptight Galatians, etc. Each of God's prescriptions would be "true" for its intended patient.

Therefore, when Jesus died on the cross for all mankind, do you really think that God wanted to "change the rules" for distant cultures such as the Aborigines and Lakota to fit what Paul wrote to Romans? Or did Jesus merely summarize the essence of all moral customs, no matter how these may manifest themselves at any given place or time?

James 2:25 - "In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?" Hmmm

3 John 1:11 - "Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God." Interesting.

Romans 14:5 - "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Whatever happened to the Ten Commandments and keeping the Sabbath day holy??

Extra credit points go to anyone who takes the time to peruse Colossians 2:20-23.

From 1988 to 1996, reported hate crimes against gays and lesbians have increased 260 percent, a rise which closely coincides with today's rapidly escalated religious hatred toward gays by the extreme right wing's thousands of mass media outlets.

This begs the question: What do you think "pleases God" more? How kindly and charitably we as humans treat one another? Or how hatefully we abuse people such as gays and lesbians who fail to adhere to baseless religious taboos and "moral laws" that no longer serve any useful, practical purpose toward creating a civil society?

"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:18).

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

So, do you believe Daniel and his associates were wrong to refuse to obey the king, and eat the food the king gave them?

Hank

It doesn't matter. Even if we found an older version of Mark that had Jesus saying, "Verily, verily I say unto you, all fags shall burn in Gehenna", they would just deny its authenticity, or dispute the translation, or whatever.

But for this issue, we don't even need the Bible. Remember that much of the moral law is writen in other books, such as the Book of Nature. So let us open that book, and read therein:

Life expectancy of a 15 year old heterosexual male : 60 years.

Life expectancy of a 15 year old homosexual male: 30 years.

Or, as the Bible so quaintly puts it, The wages of sin is death. Any questions?

Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
14:2 For one believeth that he may eat (5315) all things: another, who is weak, eateth (2068) herbs.
14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
The chapter deals with instances of passing wrongful judgement, thus, verse 13/14.

Taking passages out of context is essentially the same as lying, unless you are unaware that is what you are doing.
I've taken nothing out of context that I'm aware of.
This passage is talking about eating meat (food) sacrificed to idols, and deemed 'unclean" because of its religious use.
Not quite. What you're discussing is expressed explicitly in Acts, the previous book...
15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
There is also 1 Cor.
8:7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

Nothing in Romans speaks of idol offerings while the other books do. Do you not think, perhaps, that Paul was speaking of foods deemed kosher and not kosher as in the similar passages about circumcision and uncircumcision? Pork, for instance, was not kosher. Many things are determined by man not to be kosher against the very precepts of G_d.
I believe you might consider your own warning. You've not taken things out of context, you've taken things out of the wrong books.

You're absolutely right!

No excuse, but it was late and I was thinking of the Corinthians passage, which I happen to believe is describing the same principle. I do not believe this is similar to the kosher not kosher or circumcision and uncircumcision issue, especially the latter, which refers more to the distinction between the letter and external acts (which can be faked) and the spirit and internal state, (which is what a man really is and both he and God know it.) The Romans passage is more general than the Corinthians passage, including any reason one might esteem certain foods or practices "unclean" or "offensive to God." But the passage is certianly not one of license, which is what my point actually was. If anything, this passage is a restriction of Christian practices. It does not say, since some people's beliefs convince them things are unclean which really are not, it is alright to eat anything, but just the opposite, even if you know something is not unclean, but it might harm or weaken a Christian brother who does not have your insight, it is better to abstain.

The view I was countering is the view that whatever a person deems clean is clean. This essentially means, anything a person believes is alright to do, they may do. But this view would allow anything, including, as I said, theft, and murder, and anything else, so long as a person just believes it is alright.

The passage cannot be correctly used to justify what other passages very clearly condemn.

By the way, based on this and other passages, I believe one should always be suspicious of any group or movement that places great emphasis on any aspect of diet (forbidding or requiring certains foods or drink) or observation of particular days, or any ritual.

Hank

the article is typical liberal silliness. even the leaders in the religious, pro-homosexuality movement have given up trying to assert that the bible allows for homosexuality. they have admitted as much and have gone on to claiming that the new testament allows later generations to come us with "new visions" that are not in the canon but are nonetheless "loving."

Homosexuals, as does all life, have sacred value in the eyes of God. That's why those who truly care about them will try to assist them in leaving a lifestyle that is killing them....the average age of death is 43-48.

In the same way we attempt to help alcoholics whose "proclivity" ruins their lives and leads to early death, we should loving tell homosexuals that their lifestyle is killing them and that there is no evidence to indicate homosexuality is genetic AND lots of evidence to indicate it's a choice that can be changed.

Bible says refrain from drunkness. Ministers should not be the lovers of wine. Technically it does not say you and I can not drink, but we should not be drunk. Otherwise there is alot of medication and foods we can not eat or we are sinning. Being that I have said that, my preference is not to drink at all. Reason, it is a higher standard of conduct and it gives you and I a stronger moral position to help a brother or sister who is developing an alcohol problem. Hard to help and advise someone to stop drinking with a beer in your hand.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.