So, How did JESUS Himself Perceive Homosexuality

No matter where you go, religion has a pretty firm belief against the acts of homosexuality. This is a known fact, due to the wonderful Biblical exhibits...

While I am not a Bible scholar, being a Christian, I have a general idea towards the issue of homosexuality in the Bible.
The Old Testament contains several passages where homosexuality is a forbidable action towards the human lifestyle, considering that God has made man and woman under His image and likeness to become united and bear the fruits of generations.
One such passage was God revealing to Moses the various commandments towards relationships, brining up homosexuality as an issue to be avoided.

HOWEVER, the New testament centrally focuses around Jesus' works. And indeed, His work are far more better and idealistic than the works of God in the Old Testament, whereas the Old Testament focuses sin as a ruthless punishment, rather than focusing sin as an option towards forgiveness as the Old Testament portrays.

As far as the issue of homosexuality is concerned, it is barely mentioned from what I have read in the New Testament. In fact, I don't believe it is mentioned at all.

However, there is ONE passage in the New Testament that caught my eye, possibly pointing out Jesus' perspectives towards homosexuality.

I'd like to share this with you.
The following verses are from Matthew, Chapter 19 (Marriage and Divorce), verses 11-12:

"He answered, 'Not all can accept this word (assuming to those not being able to marry) but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they are born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept it ought to accept it."

Very Interesting...
Now, the following passage could be referring to a variety of suggestions. In the footnote, the Bible stresses that those who are incapable of marrying are eunuchs, meaning, they have no access to their genitals, such as castration, due to a certain custom, tradition, or religious belief in their life.

However, this suggestion may be true, but in my opinion, it is NOT the only valid excuse. This suggestion of being a eunuch is especially disbelieving towards the bolded section in the passage.
When you are saying they are incapable of marriage because they are born so, genital disfunctions is NOT the only reason. As far as castration goes, castration is usually NOT a condition you are born under. Rather, it is a condition performed WHEN you are born for whatever the circumstance offers.

In this case, it is with my best intentions to believe that Jesus is not only referring to those who are born with genital problems as being incapable to marry, but those who are born as homosexuals as well.

Now, this sparks another querilous confusion.
"Well, who says homosexuals can't marry?"
This is true, but you also need to think back 2,000 years ago, where marriage was considered to be a universal and spiritual tradition to cherish between a man and a women who were willing to share a bond and establish a family.
Back then, homosexuality was considered either
A) Merely a leisure activity in some cases, as to those who have interests in playing baseball for leisure (Since homosexuality/bisexuality was a widespread form of entertainment to the Greeks and Romans back then) or
B) In religious terms, it was an action considered to be feared towards society, in order to avoid losing acceptance and respect.
In that case, marriage between homosexuals wasn't such a debateable issue as it is now, 2,000 years later.

Does Jesus accept homosexuality, and furthermore, does he accept same-sex marriages?
Personally, I firmly believe He accepts and loves homosexuals as He does towards anyone, without considering homosexuality as a "sin."
As far as mnarriage goes, it is difficult to determine, if you analyze the standards towards homosexuality 2,000 years ago.
Nevertheless, that one small and irrevelant quote to the passage says a lot, especially towards the standards of marriage and the human lifestyle.

It is also important to realize the creators of the Bible as well. What the footnotes say are undoubtedly the analysis and thoughts of the Bible makers themselves, responding towards Jesus' teachings and actions.
In terms of Jesus and homosexuality, perhaps it was an issue that was ignored or avoided by the Scripture writers, in order to avoid any disfuntion or disorganization towards the Bible (And let us also realize the nonstop controversy that cease to exist in the world, due to a clash of constant philosophical ideas).

It is ALSO VERY IMPORTANT to realize that the Old Testament is based on mythological and philosophical writings, which leads to inaccuracy, while the New testament has a better record of historical accuracy towards the life of Christ.

It is in this case to analyze and interpret some of the more insignificant passages Jesus expresses to a more significant level in complete simplicity, yet using logic and common sense, as well...

Some are incapable of marriage because they are born so;

Maybe this is Jesus simply emphasizing the fact that we are who were are, and it is our duty to to live our life accepting eachother in love and forgiveness in order to achieve a universal standard of happiness, which is the greatest accomplishment of all...

(I am fully aware that all of you here aren't believers in God...However, being a gay Christian, and being that religion is one of the biggest obstacles towards accepting homosexxuality as a lifestyle, I found this arguement to be a hopeful idea towards the sake and acceptance of our lifestyle in religion.

 

I don't have a problem with the possibility of the existence of God, but nothing's going to convince me that the Bible is a reliable source.

 

I think Jesus enjoyed having gay sex when he wasn't helping the poor :H

 

OH OH OH And just to back up your text... marriage is synonymous with sex. Back then there were three ways to get married. 1) have sex (bang bang you're married) 2) exchange something for the girl (give us 10 bucks, mate) and 3) Vows (do you? yeah. Do you? yeah. Bang, you're married). (I studied this this year)

SO... if sex (as defined by the whole "knowing someone carnally" thing (ie between a man and a woman)) equals marriage, then somene who doesn't have sex with a member of the opposite sex cannot be married ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE'S DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
Well, fuck that definition of marriage. When I get married, there are only two reasons I will go through that. One is to show my committment to that person (easily done in a committment ceremony) and the other is so that our union is protected by law and they have the rights of a spouse. And thats got nothing to do with the bible definition of marriage. SO... somehow, methinks jesus wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

quote:
I think Jesus enjoyed having gay sex when he wasn't helping the poor :H.

I can 100% garuntee u that Jesus did not have gay sex, because Jesus was sinless and if he did have gay sex it would be sex b4 marriage. And this is the 1 reason i know Gays dont go to hell for being gay: Jesus never spoke bad about homosexuality. It is commonly believed that Jesus condemned it, but only saint Paul condimed it.

 

The Bible was only compiled into a single text in the 14th Century (I think) by the Venerable Bede. There's bound to be inconsistencies. My great-grandma used to joke that the Bible was a great book, because there's something in there to prove and disprove everything. Fuck knows how she held onto her faith.

I've never really "got" gay Christians. I mean, even if it doesn't say it in the Bible, there's so much animosity against gay people within the faith that I can't help but wonder why you'd want to be part of that.

 

well actually the reason we say the "Book of..." is because in those days each book in the bible was composed in its own little book. when the printing press came around they made all the books of the bible into 1 book (excluding some of the extremely old gospols, which were burnt at the time of Rome).

 

Self Control, I believe in God, and I have faith in Him...

Its not about the condemning the Church inflicts, nor the criticizing the Church and her people present against gays...

Its more about spirituality...Its about analyzing and interpreting your religion with your own mind, rather than the influence of the Church...That has me to think for myself on my religion, yet continue to cherish basic commandments that are really applied to society as a whole, such as loving oneanother...It has led me to develop my own relationship with God, strengthening my faith and love for Him and others. Truly, I have seend a tremendous improvement in myself because I have found myself, and have seeked to be myself with God's help, and He has.

So, when it comes to what the Chuech thinks, its not completely ignoring the Church, but understanding that the Church was formed under the influence of human minds as well, whether or not it was "divine inspiration." But you know what? Just because they were claimed to be inspired doesn't mean they understood the message clearly, either. Otherwise, there wouldn't be conflicts existing in the Church.

So, as far as animosity goes towards gay people in our faith, we pray for our offenders, and treat them with kindness and forgiveness back to them...Thats how love spreads...Showing that action even to your offenders may influence others to be awed of your love and kindness, and react likely...

 

I disagree with this, I think you've rather got it the wrong way round, all copies of the bible being burnt in the great fire, and re-written from memory circa 300AD..anyway. I'm a bit rusty on this next bit, I didn't get much of a chance to study it, but the initial word, now interpreted as homosexual, in the old testament (in hebrew) actually means something like homosexual prostitute, ie paid for sex with the same gender, NOT simply homosexual. It was something like that, anyway. The initial word does not cover homosexuality in general (from memory). It covers something pretty damn close though. My point is, don't read the bible and think that that's the actual meanings of the words. People are far too fond of quoting ambiguous and misinterpreted passages, and if we follow the actual base beliefs in the old testament or the new, we should not discriminate or hate anyway.

 

Amen, LoS!!!!

I love tormenting my christian friends about the inconsistencies of their views on homosexuality. Jesus never said jack on the subject. The old Testament did, but Jesus said his mission was to replace teh old testament. (I mean come on, the old testament approves of slavery and selling your daughter as a prostitute.)

Some of Jesus' followers, including Paul, write against homosexuality, but they were playing to a homophobic Hebrew audience. Notice there is no condemnation against homosexuality in the letters to Roman followers!

Too often the biggest Christian churches put their hatred of gays ahead of Jesus' injunction to love your neighbor. This has to stop,

 

hate the sin; love the sinner

 

You really can't guarantee anything.

 

The Old Testament IS less accurate than the new!

Come on, thats like comon sense, here...

Its stories are mostly myths, with a moral lesson at the end.
For example, The Tower of Babel...They built a tower to be as high as or higher than God...So the punishement was to speak in different tongues...
What was the lesson?
No one is higher than God.

You could compare that story to a Greek myth...

Thats basically how most of the Old Testament revolves around, and like someone said, the New Testament is supposed to fulfill the Old Testament. Obviously, Jesus knew that something was really fucked up in the Old Testament that He needed to come down to clear a few things.
We KNOW that Jesus existed, divine or not. We KNOW he established Christianity, as historians record that Confucius established his, or Muhammad with Islam.

Did Jesus perform miracles, or was He the Son of God? Well, that can't be proven, since faith is a powerful thing...
But, miracles and divine intervention DO exist...And what counts is the good works Jesus performed in order to SPREAD love.

 

You my want to look into the writings of Sister Joan Chittister. She is a Benedictine nun who served as a prioress of her order for 12 years.

She's a social psychologist, she leads a worldwide network of women for peace and runs a spiritual Web site. Sister Joan has a Ph.D., 11 honorary degrees and was the recipient of the Distinguished Alumni Award from Penn State. And that's not all.

She is the author of 30 books, including CALLED TO QUESTION: A SPIRITUAL MEMOIR, SCARRED BY STRUGGLE; TRANSFORMED BY HOPE, and this classic in contemporary spirituality, WISDOM DISTILLED FROM THE DAILY.

Sister Joan is also a regular columnist for the independent Catholic newspaper, THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER. She is also an ally to GLBT.

I saw her on Bill Moyer's show on PBS called Now.Now Transcript

It was so refreshing. The day after I talked with an old friend who is currently at odds with the Lutheran religion because she came out as a lesbian. She is a minister.

I was just at an event though that a pastor of The Church of Christ talked. HE stated plainly that they embrace GLBT people. You may also want to look at religious tolerance They have tons of information.

 

well about the old testiment being less accurate than the New, u r right and wrong at the same time. ur right because some things in there are just for paribles and morals. it is actually the book of Genises that is really debatable, and i beleive that everything b4 abraham might be pure nonsence. I do belive that there was a flood, but not 1 where it flooded the earth. another flood also happened around the exact same time and it was the flood of atlantis, 10000 years ago. now i think that the flood happened in the mediterainien (sp) because there are many ruins in the depthes of it so i think it rose above the gap of Portugal and morraco causing a great flood. cause lets face facts, an enormous flood would be recorded in history, even b4 writting.

as for u being wrong, the New Testiment was translatted from greek instead of hebrew, which is not a dabatable lanuage. so 1 word could mean many words, which makes the new more debated than the old.

 

maybe jeseus was bi.....you never know.

 

I don't think language should be based as an obstacle from preventing inaccuracy towards the Bible...

People back then were able to speak more than one language, or be familiar with more than one.

And if the Bible has its doubts because of language, then just look at the original Bible and compare it to other languages...

 

the original bible? there is only 1 gospel left in its original form, and that is the book of Phillip (which is not in the final book of the bible). We don't have the originals, and if they did they would be worth hundreds of millions of dollars a piece. Original sacred books no longer exist (except for the Book of Mormon, which is 100% BS)

 

The Torah (most of the books from the "Old Testiment") is full of metophors and a lot of the time, the lessons learned from the stories are more important than the debate on whether or not it's actually true. The questions of complete accuracy are irrelevent, the question is, what have you learned? People take different lessons from different passages, some more educated than others, but the fact is that that's what it's for. That's why I have issues with people who are blindly faithful of any religion, or are blindly opposed to any religion.

I haven't read the Christian Bible. I can't say whether or not it's the same thing. I can say that we can debate what the Bible and what the Torah and what the Koran and what the Book of the Mormons and etc. actually say and mean, but when it comes down to it, none of that matters. What matters is how the people of this religion interprite it, because that is what is effecting us. The book alone is not, it's the people who are.