"Would Jesus OK same-sex marriage?"

Would Jesus OK same-sex marriage?
http://us.cnn.com/2014/10/03/opinion/parini-would-jesus-be-ok-with-gay-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

---------------------------------------------------
One must understand that for all the talk and innuendo that bigotry brings out from the right the fact remains that Jesus Christ said not one word against same-sex oriented individuals. But then how could He? God created them so He obviously knew all about them and the fact that they did not choose that orientation anymore than a person chooses the color of their skin or eyes. God also did not make an Eleventh Commandment against homosexuality. If it was as great a sin as man tries to make it appear to be, God would have surely had something to say about it in His Commandments only He did not. Inappropriate Scripture has however been freely used by anti-Gay bigots who seek to demean and denigrate these otherwise fine citizens who deserve better. But America is fast waking up to that fact and now a majority of Americans as well as so many Evangelicals approve of same-sex marriage. So do the Federal Courts and Appellate Courts. Those who are still in denial about LGBT Marriage are seeing their position and stance spiraling downward as more and more citizens accept same-sex marriage in this country.

 

Considering the fact (if you believe the bible stories) that Jesus never married and wondered around with 12 other dudes telling others how to behave, I would assume he was gay. So yes I'd say Jesus lead by example and was more than OK with it and would support it today!

 

Yeah I always wondered why he didn't have 12 hot bisexual female disciples instead of dudes.

 

Jesus said that it was best to be an eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matthew 19:11-12). Why would anyone ask his advice about marriage and sexual issues? He said to cut body parts off to keep from sinning. Is that something a rational person should do?

 

It's what Dave would do

 

I am not Religious as I am AGNOSTIC but a person would have to ask themselves....Since we know a person who is Genetically Disposed to be Homosexual...is born this way....if there was a GOD...and if Jesus was the SON OF GOD....and supposedly a part of this GOD....would any of us really want a GOD who condemned people who were born Gay and Genetically disposed to being Homosexual?

I know not everyone who engages in Homosexual activity is Gay...but even still even a person who does not have the same level of Genetic Disposition to be Gay as other Gays.....that still engages in Homosexual activities...STILL....has to be born with the propensity to do so.

Homosexuality is vastly apparent in NATURE.

So....if Jesus was an actual SON of a GOD...something I have great doubts about...but let's say he was....if such a GOD was truly LOVING....such a GOD could never possibly condemn a person who has the DNA to exist a certain way.

If such a GOD did condemn such people....that is no GOD I would want any part of.

AboveAlpha

 

If life has a point could it be that humans are supposed to become more than their limitations? Some people are stingy by nature. Should they make a conscious effort to be more sharing and generous because those behaviors are considered "better" than being stingy. And so it is with all of the behaviors that people consider to be undesirable. Aren't we driven to become more "perfect" and to give up the behaviors that limit us and maybe even bring shame upon us? While we were born naked all humans are expected to wear some type of clothing. So why not wear clothes that indicate status and put the wearer in the best light among his peers?

Sure, people may wish to engage in all types of behaviors but humans are social animals. Conformity to group norms is expected and usually demanded. A person has to be mentally and emotionally tough to deviate because he will pay a price, and it may be his life.

As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:12 (CEB) = "I have the freedom to do anything, but not everything is helpful. I have the freedom to do anything, but I won’t be controlled by anything."

 

I don't fit into that mold.

As were my Mother and Father before me...I was born an Alpha...and I have a deep seated need to help those who cannot help themselves....and I am extremely protective of women....just what I am.

I try to stay outside the pack and I only get involved when necessary....but when I do get involved people listen.

I can't exactly explain why....but as some of my former girlfriends have explained it....it is a combination of my physical presence....logic based actions and ability to SHAME those who are simply just looking out for themselves with no concern for others.

I have no need of Religion or a GOD or a BOOK....to teach me or tell me what is right....it is self apparent and obvious.

I abhor violence but I am capable of violence upon levels that most people could never understand or be apart of.

I look at such rare actions as in the service of the greater good.

AboveAlpha

 

I hear the operation is expensive to turn a male organ into a vagina.

 

As to your apparent question about why Jesus had only males as His Apostles, here's your answer.

Why Were All the Apostles Male?
http://www.gci.org/church/ministry/women6c

 

I did not question it I simply observed it. I can read and have read the bible and I am well aware of what it says.

The most fascinating thing I have discovered about this particular book is how many different interpretations are applied to it. To me it seems more like an inkblot, revealing more to me about the interpreter than the book it's self.

As their currently are thousands of variations of christianity stemming from thousands of differing interpretations of this book I'm sure there is room for one more interpretation of it ... mine! When I read about Jesus never marring and always hanging out with dudes and prostitutes it causes me to interpret the story in my own logical and deductive way ... Jesus was gay!

 

Jesus was polyamorous. He loved everyone. One recurring theme in the Gospels is that Jesus liked hang out with those who were looked down upon by the mainstream society such as tax collectors, adulterers, and women. I have no doubt that Jesus hung out with the gay community too.

 

That behavior actually is frowned upon.

1 Corinthians 15:33 (CEV) = "Don’t fool yourselves. Bad friends will destroy you."

 

That sounds legit but the real reason why Jesus only had males as his apostles is because of Paul's commandment in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NIV) =

[SUP]"11 [/SUP]A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. [SUP]12 [/SUP]I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. [SUP]13 [/SUP]For Adam was formed first, then Eve. [SUP]14 [/SUP]And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. [SUP]15 [/SUP]But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."


If Jesus had had any women apostles it would have violated Paul's commandment of keeping women quiet and pregnant and out of the affairs of men.

 

Yeah, I don't think Jesus and Paul would have got along to well.

 

How wrong you are. Jesus was and is the only begotten Son of God who was made flesh and who came to save mankind from their sins. He never engaged in anything that would have been questionable even at that time. Those who misunderstood and opposed Him and His Divine mission were obviously anti-Christ. Jesus never sinned but died for OUR sins so that once we accepted Him as the only way to salvation we too could enter into Heaven at our appointed time to remain with Him for eternity. After His crucifixion Jesus then resurrected on the third day and remained here on Earth for an additional 40 days before ascending into Heaven. Many saw Him and ate with Him during those 40 days and saw the loving kindness that He always exhibited. So, Jesus was only the Son of God, thus, also God Himself in the Holy Trinity and way beyond committing any human sin or succumbing to temptation of any kind.

 

I have a feeling that a guy who spent his time hanging out with a bunch of other guys and avoiding relations with females would have no problem with gay marriage.

 

The wonderful thing about interpretation is that it's impossible to be wrong after all it's simply "INTERPRETATION"... and after reading the book I've interpreted it to indicate that although not flaming Jesus was a homosexual!

Just as you feel my interpretation of this book is incorrect I too feel that yours is incorrect.

 

Jesus would NOT "okay" same sex marriage. Jesus is God in the flesh. He created the universe and all life in it. He created man and woman and stated that a man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife. God gave the law to the Israelites and stated that men should not lay with men that it was an abomination.

 

Since God created homosexuals ... I see no reason why he would not want them to get married !?

 

You have a very good point there. But we must not lose sight of the fact that it is not homosexuals that God is against it is promiscuity but that goes for both sexual orientations, Gay and Straight.

 

God, according to the OT definition of Adultery, was only against certain forms of promiscuity.

In the "Good ol days" of the OT it was perfectly fine for a man to have sex outside of marriage, have concubines, or sell his daughter as a sex slave to a fellow Israelite. All good in the hood.

Women on the other hand were considered property and so were not allowed to do what they pleased and could not have sex with anyone but their husband.

A man could have sex with women outside of marriage in general so long as that woman was not married. Since a married woman was property this would be akin to stealing.

There are certain exceptions such as forcing yourself on a young Israelite virgin. In this case you had to pay the "owner/Father" a price and marry the woman.

Other than that it was pretty much fair game for a man. Prostitutes, Concubines, Sex slaves .... all good in the hood.

 

Bull, and I will just deal with this one issue, because first you need to learn to read, obviously you do not possess the ability to read with comprehension, and that goes for all those who thanked you for the lie:

“25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.”

There are websites dedicated to lies, they conveniently leave out the verses before the one you used. Verse 26 is the important one, such logic would have to apply to a "forced" virgin. What sin would the "forced" virgin have done? None.

 

I believe he would, because we are not under the law of the Old Testament covenant, which the Koran reconstitutes, and Jesus answered a guy who asked what he needed for eternal life and the laws he quoted did not include any of the covenant, but included the Golden Rule. If they are born that way, the logic of marriage still applies to prevent disease, and application of the Golden Rule would take precedent. It is better for them to marry than burn in lust spreading a fruit-loop virus.

 

At the risk of being facetious; you don't by chance have a big "A" on your chest do you? Or wear a cape? (Oh damn, I was being facetious)