Would Jesus love a gay person?

"God" does not judge.

Jesus was in touch with God. Therefore, Jesus would have not prompted anyone to change unless he saw it as a detriment to spiritual progress. This would have been his point of approach. He would not have preached at them or recited "law" from a book.

He would have calmly explained the nature of such desires, and the value they have. The idea of any master is to get people to think on their own, not lay down the riot act.

Once you give them a few flicks of the Bic, they'll stay lit on their own. At least as long as they devote energy to it.

The world has many attractions however.



x

 

what do you consider to be the word of God?

 

geez xexon you have the best metaphors.

 

My world is very visual.

Translating it into words is another matter.


x

 

Jesus loves homosexuals as he loves everybody else but he would expect them to seek help in controlling their sickness.

 

Not sure which Greeks you're referring to here.

 

You appear to be confusing Jesus with the Pentagon.

 

The Greeks were prolific traders in Jesus' world. Jesus himself most likely spoke Greek as a second or third languge. He was a tradesman, and the Greeks had need of services.

It is no stretch if the imagination to say they imported some of their culture with them. The entire Middle East has always been sympathetic to gay relationships. This is true even today, despite whatever religion rules the land.


x

 

i agree he sooo was

 

i dont get this whole thing with the religous sect saying god doesent liek the gays. i thought that god made every one in his image so if he made gay people maby gods a lil gay and after all he did make adam first as his companion and lucifer although a male was gods favorit angel and the "most beutifull" so i think gods kinda gay or atleast bi curious

 

Okie dokie. I was just hoping you weren't referencing "the Ancient Greeks", who came quite a bit earlier than Jesus.

As I understand it, homosexual acts are common enough in Indian Hindu cultures, where boys "practice" on each other as a precursor to getting married to women. Not sure if that's really the same thing though.

Nevertheless, I do think you're misrepresenting this a bit by making it sound like tolerance of homosexuals is something that's exported. I think it's more accurate to say that intolerance is exported. Meaning that nations that aren't told that homosexuality is wrong are not intolerant of it. We can see it in cultural artifacts (such as the Cantebury Tales in the UK, from the 14th century), that there have been periods in the histories of Christian countries when homosexuality was not seen as sinful, certainly not enough to warrant reprisals. And I think if a nation has long periods of tolerance, it takes as long for intolerance to really gain a hold once its introduced.

Basically what I'm saying is that our "natural state" is tolerance (or indifference), which makes me think that Jesus wouldn't give a shit whether someone's gay or not. He tended to be pissed off at criminals, usurers, etc.

 

That's a very interesting perspective. It's debatable though. I would say that our natural state is intolerance, and that tolerance must be learned.


EDIT: are you referring to tolerance regarding homosexuality, or tolerance in general?

 

Jesus loves everyone, no exceptions.

 

I'm talking about fight or flight. If a species reacted in a hostile fashion to every situation, unless there was an obvious reason not to, chances are it'd wear itself out pretty quickly.

OK, tenuous argument. But there aren't many species that I know of that attack unless they see something as either a threat or a food source. Thousands of species co-exist within ecosystems. Top carnivores (such as humans) more often than not tend to tolerate one another's presence, simply because to not do so involves effort.

Bill Bryson, the travel writer, said of London that it is a wonderfully tolerant, culturally diverse city not because it makes much effort to be, but purely because of its indifference. People don't care enough to be intolerant. Which makes sense in a way. Homosexuality doesn't directly threaten anyone who isn't directly involved in it; one has to have a distorted sense of what a threat to one's person is in order to really consider it as such.

 

well, I gotta say, humans aren't like most species.

Simple minds, simple reactions.

Human history is practically build upon human intollerance.

 

Would Jesus love a gay person?

I have know idea, I can't read minds, especialy dead ones.

 

Maybe, but I still think people need a reason to dislike each other, rather than a reason not to.

 

I have a hunch that some of the anti-gay sentiments found in the Bible were a result of the fact that the Greeks were so into homosexuality. Yes, the Greeks were traders and all over the place at the time of Jesus. Befeore the Romean occupation, a Hellinistic government ruled Judea and tried to make the Jews submit to Greek culture by eating pork. Jews who refused were tortured to death, and were revered as national heroes and martyrs by the Jews. Some Jews took over Greek culture to some extent, but many feared and resented this alien "cultural imperialism" as a threat to Jewish identity. There was a lot of mutual dislike and distrust between Greek and Jewish communities, leading at times to violence. So we can't automatically conclude that since the Greeks were around, the Jews must have liked them. As for "the entire Middle East" always being sympathetic to gay relationships, there was, of course, a notable exception--the Jews! (read Leviticus).

 

TBH, Leviticus is nuts, all of it.

I can imagine a simpler explanation: a general distrust of merchants and traders! People need them, but they don't trust them, and that makes them hate them.

 

Nuts or not, Leviticus provided an elaborate set of rules that set Jews apart from other people and helped them preserve their identity during the crisis of their Babylonian exile. In addition to the Greeks, the Babylonians and Egyptians may deserve some credit for the Jewish antipathy to (male)homosexuality, since the Jews were captives of both peoples and it was the custom of both to sodomize their male captives to demonstrate dominance.