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.

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).

Christ responded to issues that he was confronted with. When the prostitute was brought to Him he forgave her and said, "Go and sin no more". Christ remains quiet on the issue of homosexuality simply because it was not a problem that He was confronted with. However, when we read the rest of the NT we can discover how the apostles dealth with the issue when it confronted them. In each and every case they very clearly equated it with sin, with something that believers did before they accepted Christ. It is very clearly associated with the "old man", or "the flesh". This is something the Christian leaves behind when they accept Christ as their saviour. Yes, there will be temptations and struggles for those with this problem, but, the implication is very clear, it is a lifestyle that is repented of and left behind.

Apparently, you haven't read the Bible at all...

Jesus was crucified for being too nice. He was hated and stated that those that stood for the truth -- rather than those that enable and tolerate sin and never rebuke it -- would be "hated by all nations for My name's sake."

Jesus said that He was the Rock and on whom the Rock "fall, it will grind them into powder." (Math. 21:44, Luke 20:18).

Jesus told the pharisees that were "of their father, the devil" (John 8:44) and made a whip to clear the temple of "thieves." (Math. 21:12-13).

Jesus called men fools on numerous occassions (Math. 23:17, 19, 25:2-8; Luke 11:40, 12:20).

He confused the wicked with insulting parables as well.

Christians today know a few liberal cliches that are used to enable sin, but not much about what the Bible actually says.

Jesus only let the women caught in adutltery go with condemnation because the pharisees were trying to push him into a premature conflict with the Roman government. Jesus supported the death penalty for adultery -- as prescribed by the Mosiac Law -- but if He had stated that, we would have been in conflict with the Roman government, which had repealed such laws.

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.

If Christianity has been around for about 2000 years, it's strange to think it
has only now mustered the strength to really go on the war-path against gays.

Let's be real, now that any type of real moral atmosphere has been
driven from the public schools (and the public forum as well) over the past 50 years...
what has arisen is a generation of people without the moral conscience to restrain
themselves from bashing gays or other minorities.

Maybe I've been derelict, but the guys who killed Matthew Shepard and the ones
who dragged James Byrd to death didn't look like they were graduates from a seminary.

Instead, what we have here are people who have gotten the green light from the PC society
that they can do what they want to do, that there will be no higher power that
will condemn them here or in the afterlife.

Please note what happens though when these miscreants are belatedly brought to civil justice:
a system of laws derived from biblical injunctions, percolated through the medieval church
and modified as English common law is what even the ACLU/GLAAD depends on to punish the
wicked and exact justice.

I could be corrected on this, but I don't recall any high-profile case of gay-bashing
or assault/murder of minorities in which the perp is a homeschooler that also
is a stout adherent of the Christian faith.

As Dubya noted when asked about protections of gays and minorities, I would ask
"we're executing or giving life sentences to the guys who do these things...
what more can you do than execute a murderer?".

I believe Yakboy/ravingnutter have the right of it. Romans 1, Mt. 19:4 - 5 and a few more passages.

It's so easy to change, twist and distort things, even e-mails, in today's modern high tech world isn't it. Add a litle here...change a little there...take that out completely 'cause that isn't good...and Wallah! A whole new thing created in the semblance thereof.
Context, context, context!

Shame on somebody.

Jesus wasn't a wimp and someone that went around handing out smiley faces. Jesus was often harsh, angered by the wicked and, even, insulting. He had no tolerance toward wickedness and immorality.

If Jesus were alive today, he'd be hanging out with prostitutes, and frequenting bars and other places of "sin." Jesus went where the sin was. He didn't seek out only those that knew of him, or loved him already.

Look at the types of people Jesus forgave in his lifetime. He forgave the prostitute who washed his feet. He forgave her much, and as a result, she loved him much. He forgave the thief on the cross next to him, who lived a sinful life but near his end repented.

Likewise, Jesus knew when to deal harshly. Jesus brought down a temple because of the "moneychangers" had taken over his Father's church. He despised hypocrites.

Jesus knew when it was appropriate to castigate sinners, as well as to love them and set an example. (Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone.) It's important to differentiate between the two. When harsh language or action was called for, he used it. Likewise, when he was setting an example, he did it gently. In the case of the prostitute who washed his feet with her tears and expensive oil and then wiped his feet dry with her hair, Jesus had forgiven her for her sins. She changed her life, and showed her appreciation using the custom of the day. At the same time, he gently castigated Lazarus for not understanding or showing her compassion. Jesus reminded Lazarus that when he entered, Lazarus or his servants had not bothered to wash his feet. That was the custom of the day. The prostitute did it, to show Jesus her love. He cleansed her soul of sin.

God's word is what it is. It isn't all harsh, it isn't all love. But it certainly isn't what the author of this article claims it to be, no matter how hard they try to twist it to fit their Cultural world view.

Yet while hanging out with sinners he committed no sin. He didn't succomb to them.

I don't belive I suggested otherwise. The point is, we are to be salt and light to the world. Jesus was salt and light because he led a perfect life. He led by example.

One cannot be salt and light if one does not lead the life and set the example. Jesus understood this. Why do you think he hung out with sinners? To be salt and light to them. Sadly, many self-professed Christians can only run around pointing out others sins, without recognizing what they themselves are doing is sinful, and not leading the life Jesus wants us to.

We can't simply "scream" at people that they're sinning. Without setting the example for them, and loving them, it's all for naught. Yes, we need to point out the sin but we also need to let them know that God loves them, wants them in his heavenly family, and wants them to lead their lives according to his will. It must be a complete message.

Regards,

Jesus was crucified because He said He was G_d manifested in the flesh. And He will be accepted by the Israelis for who and what He is in the end times according to the Bible.

There are differing interpretations of this. Yours is one, and I've wrestled with this one for awhile now.

Did Jesus claim to be God, did he claim to be the Son of God, or was the Son of Man? Let's examine this.

When John the Baptist baptized Jesus in the River Jordan, he heard God's voice saying "This is my Son with whom I am well pleased."

Likewise, when Jesus was put on trial it was because he claimed to be the Son of God.

The Bible tells us (pardon me, I don't remember the exact scripture for this) that Jesus is God in the form of Man.

Elsewhere in the Bible (and there are several references for this) Jesus says he is the Son of Man. Now, who would the Son of Man (as in all Mankind) be, other than the Son of God?

As Jesus was on the Cross dying for our sins, he cried out "Father, why have you betrayed me?"

Now, I'm no Biblical scholar. I can't quote scripture chapter and verse as some around here can, but I think the Biblical evidence here is pretty clear.

As always, I do reserve the right to be wrong, and in doing so recognize that I might be getting an education in the process. :)

Regards,

Without setting the example for them, and loving them, it's all for naught.
I offer myself as nothing, especially as an example. I am chief amongst sinners.

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

You can be all the example you choose to be.
My example, if it can be called such, is that I'm a sinner in need of grace, unable to lead the life that I'm supposed to. I do not desire to sin, but I will eventually no matter what my desire may be.

Christ did not advocate execution for simply disobeying Biblical laws.

Your assertion that he would have killed the harlot if not for the Roman government is specious and quite silly. He had not appointed himself as a ruler, thus it would be sinful for him to usurp the "power of the State".

Christ was clear that we are to separate ourselves from sinners, not kill them. "Judge not, lest ye be judged".

I offer myself as nothing, especially as an example.

Don't you share your peace with others? Especially if asked? I'll bet you have, you're far too intelligent not to recognize the opportunities that God has put before you to do so. :) Anytime you've put what is morally right ahead of what your own self interest is, you've set a Biblical example.

I am chief amongst sinners.

That's funny, I thought I was. Guess that makes two of us, hope you like the company.

Regards,

"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."

Or, perhaps could the rise in this type of crime be directly tied to.

1. The invention and expansion of these type of thought laws.

2. The in your face and coming out of the closet behavior since the early 80s.

3. The ever prominant homosexual theme based tv shows showcasing the behaviour as normal.

If anything since the early 80s I see that we as a country are more tolerant these days then ever before. But this is a flame piece designed to rile you up.

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.