Jesus would have supported gay marriage

[mopaul]

in my opinion. he railed against the establishment. he associated with the misfits and social outcasts, robbers, beggers, prostitutes, and the least among us. i suspect that he would even have officiated at a gay marriage. he was a liberal, and he was for love, and people coming together.

Jesus never said anything at all about homosexuals, and said that ALL are welcome in the Lord's house. he excluded no one, instead of stoning, he called for compassion.

of course, it's just a fantasy, but i'll just bet, that Christ himself, would've supported gay marriage. strange to think that many of his followers, two millenia later, see the idea of gay marriage as unholy, and sinful. how little some of the modern day Christians understand their own diety, and his message of tolerance and acceptence and forgiveness.

[Dookus]

1. I distrust

anyone who claims to know what jesus would or wouldn't do.

And until we become a christian theocracy, it's irrelevant. Let's not use religion to make our arguments FOR or AGAINST anything.

[bigwillq]

2. Right On

Great post. Totally agree. This is why I do not go to chuch but still believe in God and consider myself spiritual.

The establishment, i.e. churches and the like, have stressed all these man-made laws which I do not agree with.

If "Christian" people really believe in their faith, they will accept and love and respect all people.

[wuushew]

5. That is actually the Scotsman fallacy

No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking. It refers to an argument which takes this form:


Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory to the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

Some behaviours are actually contradictory to the label; "no true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian".

In particular, Christians are often charged with employing this fallacy when they say that no true Christian would do something. Christian is used by such a widely disparate set of people that it has very little meaning when it comes to behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the initial argument should be accepted as the definition for the discussion at hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[RichV]

3. I think this might be considered

speculative. ;-)

[bigwillq]

6. I agree too

but I think the intent is justified. Jesus (as we're told) did support and accept all people. Why wouldn't he accept gays? No need to answer this question but I think that's what the thread starter is trying to say.

[kalian]

4. Jesus

Jesus taught LOVE. Jesus taught compassion and the classical "turning
the other cheek".
I personally believe that Jesus would have been ostracized in
so-called "modern society". He was a very tolerant individual.
Discussing Jesus with modern conotations is just plain wrong...

I also believe that Jesus would have accepted me...an atheist.
I think he simply would have smiled.

Of the three "cousin religions", I think that the core Christian
belief, the Jesus cathechism, is the closest to humanity. To bad that
modern humans can't comprehend the message...

[mopaul]

7. i too am an atheist

and i don't believe that christ was anything other than a great man, like ghandi, or martin luther king. but i can't argue with his philosophy of peace and enlightenment and tolerence.

i just feel that christ would've probably not given too much of a damn about two men, or two women publicly declaring their love and commitment, and i'm sure he would've married couples, gay or not, like any other rabbi

[mopaul]

14. theme for a contemporary bunkshooter, by carl sandburg

http://www.carl-sandburg.com/to_a_contemporary_bunkshooter.htm

[kalian]

23. Brother...

Christ WAS a great man. There's not doubt in my mind.
He realized what humans were...there nothing evil in being human.
There's really nothing evil in our actions or thoughts. Christ
accepted us for what WE WERE and what WE DID. That was his message.

Hatred and intolerance is what is evil...the not accepting ourselves
for what we are...

Again, we're ALL brothers and sisters...

[rfkrocks]

13. good post

i am a Christian but at the heart of my belief is humility-it is comforting that you do not judge us by whats on TV as "Christianity".so much hubris-not at all the point. the commandment is "love one another" not "loathe one another". the same media that portrays us Dem's is also portraying Christianity as it sees it. Christianity for me from reading Christ's words is compassion, love (esp for the poor sick and imprisoned) love for justice. this much harder to do than the "god in the box" theory that the fundies preach-

[kalian]

21. Thank you...

To be honest, I am a "fallen catholic". I love my fellow human
being, after all...we're all in this together, no?

Time is so short...

[HiramAbiff]

8. I don't understand why any Christian would have a problem with

Gay marriage. Christ was concerned with Agape not morality except in the highest sense. One thing that would do know is that Jesus was not in the business of making more moral laws.

He focus was on "changing ones heart". In my humble opinion, anyone who has had their heart changed is not going to go around spouting off moral platitudes and damning people to hell. What is the big deal with Gay marriage anyway? I don't understand it.

[tobius]

17. I don't know, ask Kerry, Edwards or Dean. nt

[HiramAbiff]

19. We all know that they are politicians

I would be willing to bet that they all think Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States. Unfortunately, it would be political suicide to admit such.

Give it 5 years. Gay Marriage will be legally protected against Christian bigots.

[RoeBear]

18. I believe that...

...Jesus loved the sinner not the sin. When he stepped in to protect the prostitute/adulteress he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". This didn't mean he approved of her actions but could be interpreted to mean he was against the death penalty.

He certainly wouldn't have hated gay people but I don't know of any writings supporting the belief that he supported gay 'activities'.
Certainly saying that he would have been OK with gay marriage is a stretch.

[HiramAbiff]

20. Gay Marriage isn't a sin.

Anymore than Straight Marriage is a sin.

[Cleita]

9. Christopher Marlowe, who was gay, got himself into trouble with

the Church of England by saying that John the Evangelist was Jesus's bedfellow. It may not be that farfetched because in the world of the first century, homosexuality wasn't regarded sinful or depraved, just another expression of sexuality. John, his beloved, really could have been. There is no mention in the gospels of Jesus being celibate even though unmarried. His forgiveness and compassion for sinners and harlots speaks volumes for what he didn't consider sinful.

[pinto]

10. I didn't realize Jesus was running for president.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mlawson]

12. Many years ago in "Sunday school", we were assured that

"Jesus is your perfect example of a perfect life. You must imitate him to the best of your abilities!". Okay...

I asked the teacher about the idea that Jesus never got married. "If He didn't get married, then none of us should either?" After a silence that lasted for several days (or so it seemed), the teacher stammered that, "Um, Jesus was married to the church!" (Yeah that's the ticket). But I would not be put off: "Well, WE can't marry a CHURCH!" and I asked my question again. This time, he quickly changed the subject. :o

[Imajika]

15. I'm sorry..

based on my reading of the Bible, and assuming Jesus Christ really existed and spoke for the lessons and commands in it, I would say Jesus would absolutely not have supported gay marriage.

I simply can not see how a reasonable reading of the relevent verses in the Bible could lead one to believe that "Jesus would have supported gay marriage". Neither however, would Jesus support adultery and a whole host of other "sins" every man and woman commit daily.

I believe arguing that Jesus would have actually supported gay marriage is way over the line, however, it is also completely irrelvent. We should not be creating moral laws in this country based on what Jesus might or might not do.

Jesus supposedly died for all of our sins, and all of us are surely sinners in some way if the Bible is to be believed. Gay people should be allowed to marry, and they will pay whatever penalties might exist in the afterlife just like all the rest of us. I suspect, if we are all judged the way the Bible describes, an awful lot of people who seem so eager to hurt, demean and otherwise discriminate against gay people may just find that they pay a far higher penalty for their own trespasses.

Imajika

[AmyStrange]

16. well said...

although I believe he would have. No where in any of his words does he say anything against homosexuality, but he does say that his words "theoretically supersceded" the old testament.

What if he had said things in favor of homosexuality and his apostles were so uncomfortable with those ideas that they never wrote about them or if they did were removed later when their works were published,

d

(EDIT: bad grammar)

[kalian]

24. Wait a minute....

you're practically staing that Christ would have been an extremely
intolerant individual.
Just WHERE does it state that Christ...or God for that matter, was
against homosexual love?! Please...do enlighten us.

Christ was COMPASSINATE. He was therefore TOLERANT. Tolerant, IMHO,
meant LIBERAL...INDIVIDUALISM.

Love has no sex...it has no boundaries. Love is ASEXUAL.

[Imajika]

25. No, I think what I said was pretty clear

"you're practically staing that Christ would have been an extremely intolerant individual."

The title of this thread was that Jesus Christ would have "supported" gay marriage. I am arguing that Christ, if he exists as many believe, would not have "supported" anything that the Bible teaches against.

"Just WHERE does it state that Christ...or God for that matter, was
against homosexual love?! Please...do enlighten us"

Oh come on, there are lots of relevent verses in the Bible that appear, at least to me, to be fairly clear on this issue. I am pretty sure there is a line in Leviticus, as well as versus elsewhere that do address this issue, and they don't tend to lend themselves to support for homosexuality.

"Christ was COMPASSINATE. He was therefore TOLERANT. Tolerant, IMHO,
meant LIBERAL...INDIVIDUALISM."

Sorry, I don't buy it. Compassionate and tolerant does not mean acceptance or "support".

I do not believe Jesus Christ would have "supported" gay marriage if the relevent teachings and versus in the Bible are to be believed.

My point is, the Bible condemns all sorts of behavior each and every one of engage in each day. Just look at the 10 commandments - laws that everyone has violated, often on a regular basis.

It is not our function to judge people here on earth unless they do something to directly harm others or society. Moral laws are ridiculous. Gay marriage should be legalized. God can sort all us sinners out in the afterlife - if such a thing actually exists.

That is just my opinion ofcourse,

Imajika

[JasonDeter]

22. Then why exactly did Christ die on the cross?

According to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. Both in the Old Testament and New Testament. To say that God condones something He Himself called sin is to say He sent His Son to die for a lie. But you have your opinion and I have mine on what the Bible says. We'll all find out in the end. I'm not worried. In fact, I don't know why its such a big deal to so many pro homosexual people? This issue will not be resolved in the Churches. It will be resolved in the courts. To continue to go over the same arguments and the same speculations and the same anti-Christian propaganda is not furthering any cause, only polorizing the sides. Over 60% of American's are against homosexual marriage but ok with the idea of civil unions. So it does not benefit the homosexual community to keep this in the forefront of the media. Each side has their minds made up and I doubt the 60% are going to change their minds. And those 60% are not just the Christian community. I overheard 3 people talking the other day in a warehouse, making a joke about a homosexual person and I can tell you they weren't Christians. This is a polorizing issue that only the courts can resolve or if pushed the Congress. I'm betting it goes all the way to a constitutional amendment, unfortunately.

[Trillo]

26. The majority killed a minority?

[alcuno]

27. Arguing Jesus' support for gay marriage is really a stretch..

You are much better off arguing it as an issue of government fairness because there is clear language in the Bible that Jesus would NOT have supported gay marriage. That's not to say that Jesus is not loving and compassionate; he taught tolerance and forgiveness. However, Jesus was not someone who said anything goes. His idea of "marriage" was pretty clear.

In Luke 19:4, Jesus said,
"Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

[mopaul]

30. walking on water is a bit of a stretch too

and raising folks from the dead and other miraculous things that jesus was purported to have done. 2000 years of re-writes and a thing called a legend and now it's a stretch to think that he may have supported 2 men or 2 women getting hitched.

if you can believe that jesus is coming back soon after being dead for 2000 years, why can't you believe that he might have supported gay marriage. where's the stretch?

[Gman]

28. I don't think that He would have supported gay marriage

as much as I think he would have preached tolerance for it.

[arikara]

29. From what I've read about Jesus

He was a transcendent soul who was nothing but loving, tolerant, kind and compassionate towards those who were poor, sick, abused, downtrodden. He would not have practised bigotry in any form and personally I think that he would support gay marriage if he were here today.

I also think that if he were around today, he would be out protesting and preaching against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the current administration would probably toss him into Guantanamo.

The bible has been translated many times and with each translation it has unavoidably been flavored with the biases of the translators; and therefore has to be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe that is why there are so many contradictions in the good book.

[anti-NAFTA]

31. Nope sorry. Jesus would not have supported same-sex marriages

It is widely thought that Jesus himself was raped by Roman homosexuals. Not only that, but the New Testament condemns homosexuality.

I STRONGLY support homosexual marriage, but let's not bring Jesus into this. That's what the fundies do.