Quick question: did Jesus ever specifically denounce homosexuality?

[_Jumper_]

n/t

[Solomon]

1. No.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I don't think so

But I think some lunatics try to construe some Bible passages to mean that.

[Mecil]

18. Yes and no

The bible condemns homosexuals to death. The fundies have the bible on their side, and this is one of the cases of why one should not take that book so seriously.

Here is a passage from the new testament (Romans 1:27-32) which says homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death" and should be killed.

Romans
1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1:29
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
1:30
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
1:31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

---

Moreover the commandments in Leviticus (there where a lot more then ten) expressively forbids homosexuality.

Lev.18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

More from Lev.20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

---


If you need to find things in the bible a great site is http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Thanks for the info

I'll look to see if there's anything New Testament, as that seems to be taken far more seriously by fundies.

[mike1963]

26. It is not "yes and no", it's NO. Romans is from Saul, the Terrorist of

Tarsus and never met Jesus...they were not contemporaries. Neither he nor anything from the OT have any connection to JC.
:eyes:

[Mecil]

36. It's Paul not Saul...

[mike1963]

38. He changed his name. You haven't studied the subject very much, I see.

...

[Mecil]

42. Here

Here come the character assassination attempt...

[CityZen-X]

56. No Change

His name was always Yashua, only the Greek language made the change to Jesus!

Life is nothing more than a sexually transmitted incureable disease! (keep transmitting)

[comsymp]

27. Except the Letters to the Romans were written by Paul, not Jesus

Huge difference to folks who draw a distinction between Christians and Paulists.

And, of course, JC wasn't featured in Leviticus either.

ON EDIT: GMTA, Mike

[Mecil]

39. ...

There is nothing in the bible written by Jesus (referring to your post subject)

Yes he is quoted in several places, but that's all.


What i mean by yes and no is that, no Jesus isn't quoted for it, but yes the bible is full of condemnation for homosexuals. If you believe in the holy Trinity, then Jesus has condemned homosexuals as God (another part of that Trinity) is quoted to expressively condemn homosexuality.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, if you like me think that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, then you should not at the same time defend the bible. The bible is the most homophobic book ever.

[comsymp]

48. But the question was

whether Jesus ever specifically condemned it... and I'll go one further and include God, who also never did. Admittedly, the nice men who wrote, rewrote, edited and revised the OT over the past couple thousand years certainly seemed to have some objections to it, just like they did to football, poly blends, Red Lobster and menstruation.

Second, I'd throw Catcher in the Rye and many other great works into the running for homophobic lierature but that's neither here nor there.

Now, the degree to which you and I agree "that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality" is clearly open to debate :think: , although my avatar should give an indication of my feelings about the matter...

And finally, whether or not I agree with the frequently revised compilation of the ignorance and political apple polishing of two millennia which is the current version of the Bible, I don't accept the characterization of giving an accurate response as "defending" it.

Oh, and I don't know Mike particularly well but I'm guessing that the exchange above wasn't an attempted attack, but rather a reference to the fact that Saul's/Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus is one of the more commonly known stories of the NT.

[Misinformed01]

51. Hey Comp!

Interestingly...whenever this question comes up on DU, people run to quote either the King James or the NIV Bible.

If you want to seriously entertain yourself, Google "King James was a homosexual," or something to that tune.

I think, I might be wrong...had this test shortly after I got married, and was too excited to think straight....that the references to homosexuality were added BACK to the KJ's sometime in the past 100 years.

Go figure.

People are so weird on this subject...have you noticed that not one person has questioned WHY Paul was so against MEN practicing homosexuality?

Looks like the churches have done well over the past oh....2,000 years or so. Nobody wants to freaking THINK for themselves.

OK...back to packing. Michael and I picked a brilliant weekend to move, I think. The snowy landscape will be beautiful in the headlights of a U-Haul.

Stephanie

[comsymp]

52. {{{{{Steph!!!!}}}}}

Yeah, ain't it just farkin' beautiful out!? :eyes:
Asheboro's gotten about 8" and now it's sleeting. We're stuck inside and nearly out of cigs- how's that for planning?

There's no doubt in my mind that ol' Paul was a twisted individual- hell, you're undoubtedly familiar with his views on sex between husband and wife~

Would be interesting to get more info on the KJ/gay issue; that's something I'm not familiar with although nothing would surprise me.

xoxo (and best to M)-
moi

[Solomon]

29. What do you mean yes and no? The question was, did Jesus say

anything about homosexuality, not the Bible. Two different things.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

32. NO Jesus NEVER spoke any words about "homesexuality"

[FlaGranny]

57. Well, how do you know, ElsewheresDaughter?

:-) The bible doesn't quote every word Jesus ever said. The man lived to his 30's. If everything he ever said was in the New Testament, it would be many times longer. Assuming that Jesus was a real person, he must have said many things. The handful of men who wrote the New Testament did not write every word Jesus said. They wrote the things Jesus probably said that THEY wanted to report. One might wonder what they left out.

[Vagabond]

3. No.

and he was long dead when the fools wrote the 'good book'

[calimary]

10. Welcome to DU!

However, I believe He was quoted as saying "judge not lest ye be judged" – Matthew 7:1

[_Jumper_]

4. Thanks!

:yourock:

[Loonman]

5. Nope, never

n/t

[Misinformed01]

6. No

Most of the antihomosexual stuff in the NT is in Paul's letters to the Romans.

[underpants]

7. Thread yesterday on the line from Leviticus

about men not laying down with other men (somehting like that) but specifically that Jesus never commented on it. The thread was in the lounge.

[DarkSim]

8. Not Jesus nor God. At least not that i can reacall... nt

[atreides1]

9. Not That I've Read

There was something that was said by Paul, and you can find mention of the subject in Leviticus. But I don't think that Jesus ever
specifically denounced it.

[supernova]

11. Nope

not one word, nada, zilch.

That's just in the bible, I don't know about the other books. But I would assume it's much the same.

[kayell]

12. No

Paul said some things that could be taken that way, but Paul wasn't exactly the best spokesman for what Jesus* appeared to have in mind.

*Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, but raised in that tradition, so familiar with Christianity. I do think that Jesus was probably a real historical person, a rabbi, whose teachings were perverted by later followers. Paul being a prime example.

[reprehensor]

13. Not specifically...

That's more of an Old Testament thing.

[ewagner]

14. Wouldn't it have been great

If Jesus had actually written something himself?

I've always been bothered by that.

[blondeatlast]

64. He walked among the lowest of the low; commoners all.

I suspect He wouldn't be capable of writing...

[Plaid Adder]

15. No.

He had nothing to say on the subject one way or the other, being a lot more concerned with things like, say, economic justice.

This is one of the Bible's dirty little secrets. As far as the Gospels go, Jesus is a LOT more concerned with money than he is with sex. The fundamentalists have got that one reversed pretty good.

The Biblical prohibitions on homosexuality come from Leviticus and Romans, and you can find plenty on them at DignityUSA's website:

http://www.dignityusa.org

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Mecil]

23. See my earlier post in this thread

In my earlier post in this thread (before everyone rushed to say no) i showed just two of many examples where the bible condemns homosexuals (which again is why one shouldn't take the bible to litteraly IMO)

Here is a more complete list:

Gen.13:13
Gen.19:4-5, 24-25
Lev.18:22
Lev.20:13
Dt.22:5
Dt.23:17-18
1 Sam.18:1-4, 19:1-7, 20:30-42,
2 Sam.1:26
1 Kg.14:24
2 Kg.23:7
Is.3:9
Jl.3:3
Rom.1:26-32
1 Tim.1:10
1 Cor.6:9-10
Jude 7
Rev.22:15

(the http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com is a great place for those seeking to find passages in the bible dealing with one thing or another)

[Plaid Adder]

62. The point is

None of those are from the Gospels. They're all the Old Testament, Paul's letters, or Revelations, which, you know, is loopy from start to finish.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[blondeatlast]

65. Very few Christians actually take the Bible as Jesus word--*

(I don't, it isn't even good mythology--but that's another thread) and all indications are that Jesus NEVER said a thing about homosexuality. Even if one looks into the various ways it might be worded, the Bible barely deals with it and there is NOTHING to indicate that Jesus gave it a moment's thought.

Bible=one thing.
Jesus=a completely separate entity from the Bible.

*Wingnut "Christians" notwithstanding... (edit)

[loftycity]

16. No....n/t

[daveskilt]

17. No...but the old testament does

Other things outlawed in the old testament...walking too many steps on sabbath, using more than one hand to untie your donkeys pack if you return home on a friday night, tongue kissing, sausages, taking a dump within 50 paces of the camp (sensible rule).

Things allowed (nay even commanded) in the old testament - genocide (god commands them to kill all the people of a couple of places and even kill their animals etc), polygamy, stoning women for adultery (men get a stern talking to), incest (as long as it with your dad the prophet to give him a son).

[EV1Ltimm]

19. i'm surprised the human race got past 2000 BC...

with all the sons that were being begotten.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Love the Buddy Jesus (nt)

[kayell]

24. Leviticus also comes out strongly against shellfish and fiber blends

Always made me wonder about the after church crowds at Red Lobster in their cotton/poly church dresses. I believe that most of the women usually have on make up and big hair too, violating a number of Pauls pronouncements.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

33. Leviticus also says it's acceptable to sell your daughter and

if you have a crooked back or nose or wear glasses you can NOT appraoch the alter of God you are unacceptable

[truthspeaker]

20. we don't really know what Jesus said about anything

But as far as what he is alleged to have said, no, I don't think there's any record of him addressing homosexuality at all.

[graelent]

25. The answer is "Not specifically"

Jesus never specifically denounced Homosexuality, although interestingly, he did specifically denounce divorce. The only mention of homosexuality is the New Testement came from Paul, who was the only disciple never to hear Jesus preach (He had a vision on the road to Damascus that converted him).

And the original writings of Paul have a lot more ambiguity to them that the English translations suggest. A lot of scholars think that Paul was talking about male prostitutes, and the excess of sex outside of marriage, not about homosexuality in general.

Of course, there are plenty of other biblical scholars who say Paul was absolutely talking about homosexuality in general, so there you go.

The closest Jesus comes to anything against Homosexuality is an endorsement of man/woman marriage.

From Mark 10

But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

[mike1963]

30. Interestingly, those comments were immediately followed by the

observation that divorce and re-marrying is adultery. I don't see any fundies pushing for an amendment forbidding divorce.
:eyes:

[truthspeaker]

31. Actually they'd like to ban no-fault divorce

[supernova]

49. Paul and gays

I am one of those who happen to think Paul was talking about prostitution in the temples, not gay individuals in private relationships.

He was also more concerned with how the newly minted xtains related to the rest of the community at large. And we still suffer from this stricture even today. :grr: Sometimes, I'd just like to slap Paul. He's as much a hinderance as help.

[Gringo]

28. It doesn't matter what Jesus, Moses, Buddha or Shiva said.

Nobody should have the right to impose their religious superstition on others. It's not MY bible. I am not in the least obligated to study or follow it's teachings.

[kayell]

34. The bible (old testament) does give two excellent examples of same-sex

love relationships - David & Jonathan and Naomi & Ruth. While rw christians would no doubt argue that there is no evidence that those were sexual relationships, their evidence that the bible prohibits homosexual love relationships is no better.

And as Gringo said, all of this matters not a bit to the politics of the situation. It's more of historical interest. We are NOT a christian nation. Our country is secular, and we better all hope and work for it's remaining so.

[foreigncorrespondent]

46. Thanks, Kayell, for mentioning these two fine examples.

I was just thinking about them as I was reading this thread.

Sapph and I were only talking about Naomi and Ruth a few days ago. :)

[starroute]

55. 2 Samuel 25-26

How are the men of war fallen, fallen on the field!
O Jonathan, laid low in death!

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
dear and delightful you were to me;
your love for me was wonderful,
surpassing the love of women.

[jor_mama]

35. No, I just watched "Passion" and there's nothing there

So that means he didn't say anything about it.

[Solomon]

44. LOL. Priceless!

Good one jormama.

[DennisReveni]

37. Really no one knows

The books of the bible are not contemporary with the life of Jesus. I think the closest is fifty years later. Which by modern standards is nearly three generations.
The best we have are hand me down interpretations.
We still have not cleared up if there even was a historical Jesus.
Which makes any statement merely what the writer had in mind.

[Robin Hood]

40. Was Jesus gay?

In his time, It was pretty unusual for a man to be his age and not have a family. And what about all of the apostles?

[daveskilt]

53. actually he was probably married

The account of him being in the temple at age 12 would have been his barmitzvah which at that time among his sect included betrothal to a future spouse in an arrangemed marriage.

He begins his ministry at age 30 which is the time when he could first have become a rabbi - in fact he is called rabbi many times, at that time he could not have been a rabbi without being married.

He calls out lazarus daughter when she is in mourning. women at that time were required to stay in mourning until their husband or family patriarch called them from the home.

The responsibility to provide wine at a wedding resided solely with the bridegroom - when his mother asked him where the wine was at cana it would have been highly inappropriate if he were not the bridegroom.

He is annointed with oil prior to burial by mary and martha. This ritual was only permissable by either the wife of the deceased or his trusted male companions. If Jesus were not married - peter james and john would have done this.

Josephus hints that one of the reasons he was persecuted was his belief in polygamy (josephus says marriage like david and solomon)

It is a pretty safe bet that he was married, but along with a lot of other things was taken out of the collection of writings that became the bible through many translations and transcriptions over the centuries. (like all the references to female prophets that started to dissappear in Paul's time and really got ripped out in the time of Elizabeth the first when the idea of female religious power became pretty noxious to a male pope threatened by the first protestant church in England now headed by - a woman)

Now there is far less credible evidence that at least one of his apostles was gay ...possible but not so likely

[Killarney]

41. The Bible...

I don't know about Jesus, but the Bible does have that statement that man shall not lie down with man, blah blah blah. But that is in Leviticus. Leviticus also has many passages which are pro-slavery. Christians overlook those passages now saying that Leviticus is Old Testament. Why they don't also overlook the homosexuality statement in Leviticus is beyond me. They just pick and choose.

[dwckabal]

43. No, and according to Peter McWilliams

in his book, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do, Jesus didn't care one way or the other:

(the entire book is available freely online at http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm)


http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/309.htm

"As to Jesus' relationship with those who vary from today's sexual norms, the incident of Jesus and the centurion is telling:

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help, "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."

Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him." (Matthew 8:5–7)

"Matthew uses the Greek word pais, which means "boy," and Luke (7:1–10) uses Doulas, or "slave." That a Roman officer would seek out a Jewish healer for his servant shows a deeper relationship than simply master-servant. We also know the depth of the relationship was not based on the amount of time the servant had spent with him: being a "boy," he would not be, say, the slave who raised the centurion from birth.

"The boy-slave was what was often referred to as a body slave, a young man who would wash, groom, and take care of the personal needs of his master—including sexual ones. Body slaves were common among Roman officers—especially while on a campaign or stationed outside Rome. Only the highest officers were allowed to bring their wife (or wives), and, even then, many found a male body slave a more practical traveling companion. Bisexuality was commonplace in Rome, as it had been in Greece. Even Julius Caesar was said to be "every man's wife and every women's husband" by Curio the Elder. He was not being pejorative, but merely mentioning one of Caesar's many accomplishments.

"When the centurion arrived (or, in Luke's account, sent emissaries) and expressed concern over the slave-boy, the centurion's relationship with the boy was obvious. It made no difference to Jesus. He agreed to heal the boy. This was remarkable in that Jesus was addressing his teachings to the Jews, not the Gentiles, and the centurion and the boy would clearly be of the Gentile/pagan category. According to Luke, the centurion had helped build a synagogue and was a friend of the Jewish people, but it's doubtful that would have influenced Jesus very much. Jesus was a pushover for faith.

The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go' and he goes; and that one, 'Come', and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith." Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour. (Matthew 8:8–10, 13)

"Similarly, Jesus had no condemnation for effeminate men or eunuchs. After all, he described himself metaphorically as a eunuch when referring to his own sexuality. Within the Jewish culture, however, eunuchs and effeminate men were outcasts.

So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him." (Mark 14:13)

"Carrying water in Israel was "woman's work." Telling his disciples to look for "a man carrying a jar of water" would be the same as saying today, "Look for a man in a dress, high heels, and a bouffant hairdo." That Jesus would have either a eunuch or an effeminate male lead his disciples to the upper room where the Last Supper would be held is one of Jesus' many statements of acceptance, inclusion, and compassion."

[RogueTrooper]

47. That was an excellent post dwckabal n\t

:yourock:

[kayell]

45. If you are interested on reading more about Christianity and homosexuality

from the perspective of a gay supportive church check this link:
http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php

[kayell]

54. Here is an especially interesting part

Episcopal priest, Dr. Tom Horner has written the Gospels imply in two places that Jesus' attitude toward lesbians and gays would not have been hostile. The first is found in the story of Jesus healing the Centurion's servant. The word used for the servant is "pais" which in the Greek culture referred to a younger lover of an older more powerful or educated man. Clearly the story demonstrates an unusually intense love, and Jesus' response was wholly positive.

The other hint of Jesus' attitude is seen in his comments about eunuchs. Jesus opposed divorce in opposition to the abuses experienced by women. It is in the context of marriage which Jesus said that "some eunuchs were born so; others had been made eunuchs and still others choose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom's sake."

Jesus' remarks about celibacy and castration are clear, but a male child being born without testicles is a rare birth defect. It is only in our day that the Kinsey Institute has demonstrated that sexual orientation is likely determined prior to birth. It could well be that those to whom Jesus refers as being "born eunuchs" are the people we call lesbian or gay.

Jesus' attitude toward eunuchs differed greatly from the fundamentalist Pharisees of his day. To them, eunuchs were excluded from the covenant and barred from worship and participating in the community of faith. Jesus' graceful approach to eunuchs is beautifully pictured in the promise of the prophecy of Isaiah 56:4-8, "To the eunuchs...I will give them an everlasting name that will not be taken away."

In Jesus' day there were three types of persons called eunuchs: celibates, those who were slaves and were castrated so that children would not be born to them, and those who were "born eunuchs" or homosexuals. Royal and wealthy households would use castrated slaves to work with and guard the concubines and women slaves. However when assigning slaves to female members of the royal family they would choose homosexual slaves. With female members, the concern was not just unwanted pregnancies, but also rape.

Lots more, interesting read, even if not religiously inclined.

[seventhson]

50. CT Alert " Paul was a Roman agent sent to disrupt Christianity and pervert

it to the needs of Rome.

There is a great book on this which I saw once and do not know the name.

Paul was kinda like Nader in that respect/ Sounds good but with an imperialist agenda. Blackops (Propaganda)

Jesus himself was silent, I believe, on homosexuality.

The old testament, or the Torah, the law and Prophets, had prohibitions which have been interpreted by some as prohibiting same sex sex. But others differ on the interpretation.

And killing folks for stuff like this - and then sanctioning, for example, sex with slaves and slavery itself, is also okay in the Old Testament.

That is why Fundamentalists of all religions are dangerous.

They literally believe killing "sinners" is the will of God. But sinning depends on who wrote the law.

A literal interpretation permits all sorts of abominations and horrors.

[noonwitch]

58. No

And there are no specific prohibitions against lesbianism in the Bible at all.

[LiberalPersona]

59. No

The bible as we know it is mistranslated and modified.

[western mass]

60. Leviticus 20:10

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Ask the next fundie you meet which of his favorite Repub politicians he wants to execute first...

[CBHagman]

61. No words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament...

...specifically had to do with homosexuality. The epistles of Paul are another matter entirely...

[Cleita]

63. Trying to remember from my Bible classes, I can't think of a single

thing he said about it. St. Paul talked about the sting of the flesh, but he was never specific about homosexuality although theologians have tried to interpret it as a sin of homosexuality. I don't remember Jesus saying anything about fornication either in the gospels. There is that passage where he saves a woman adulterer from stoning and he says to her to go and sin no more. So this might be construed as that he thought adultery was a sin but in my memory, that seems to be about it. Maybe someone more up to date on the Bible might have something more enlightening.

[Moderator]

66. Locking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#topics

Posts that are unrelated to politics or public policy belong in the Lounge or the Meeting Room.