English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Did He say anything about this?

2007-04-17 18:02:41 · 15 answers · asked by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

15 answers

Homo- sexuality... what is that?

Homo means same.

Sexual is related to secare - to divide. It basically relates to "finding your level" along with others who divide justice issues up in roughly the same way. Even dividing them up according to gender is getting a bit hairy.

So what did Jesus say about figuring out what "level" people belong to when you meet them? (Hetero- means other or different.) Look at Matthew 13:24, 44. The kingdom of heaven is like a man, and it is like a field that a man finds that has a treasure in it. The man is going to have to learn how to get along with a field. It's something "other than" the man. It might be a business proposition. What if two men meet each other for a business proposition? I don't know, but anyway, it's about realising that you are the only one of you that there is.

The question of money is dealt with in Matthew 25:14-30. This means that, even though money might not be part of the kingdom of heaven as a necessity, it is not verboten either. There are ways and means of doing the right thing by others and doing nothing with money is not one of them. Money is essentially a guilt-sharing mechanism, or shame-sharing... I'm still trying to figure it out. Guilt means a sin or offence. Shame means feeling divided from yourself. The embarrassment comes from an unnecessary feeling of having failed to perform a mythologically correct feat. Therefore, shame-based societies where you don't want to lose face, like ancient Greece or Japan, are based on community expectations. Guilt-based societies are ones where you go and confess, I think. You carry your personal burdens around of not being able to be good enough from a justice perspective, rather than an efficiency and entertainment perspective. Neither are necessary. If it's shame-sharing, then you're supposed to find out what the mythology expects of you and do that if you want the money. If it's guilt-sharing, you're supposed to give your money up because having it means that you did something bad to get it. I think shame-sharing might be the hierarchy that finds it morally reprehensible to give their money away, and guilt-sharing is the anarchy that finds it morally reprehensible to keep it.

Anyway, back to Jesus. He didn't like people saying that they hate each other. Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister [ Some manuscripts brother or sister without cause] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca, [An Aramaic term of contempt] ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

The word for "without cause" is definitely in there in www.blueletterbible.com. It is eike. It means: inconsiderably, without purpose, without just cause, in vain, without success or effort. Therefore, exchanging insults just for something to do is something that Jesus got pretty angry about. I don't know if he literally meant that people would burn in hell, though. The disciples might have been gay themselves when they recorded the gospels (gay people are unnecessarily serious about recompensing error, in my experience).

Basically, it's an account of a hetero man being fawned over and possibly killed off in a literary sense by his own disciples (well, actually, whether they were his disciples, or just claimed acquaintanceship with him so that they could get rights to writing the biography, I don't know). Acts 1 doesn't seem to mention Jesus' death. He just disappears off the earthly scene much like Elijah or Enoch.

Dear Aquila, I disagree with you again. Jesus didn't save any prostitutes. They saved themselves. How many prostitutes do you know who spend money on spikenard ointment for a local religious person? That pretty much means they've given it up, I think.

2007-04-17 18:19:34 · answer #1 · answered by Christian person 3 · 0 0

1 Corinthians 6:9, Hebrews 13:4, Revelation 21:8 are some New Testament ones but they began in the Old Testament. God's laws are never refuted because God doesn't change. God made male and female anatomically consistent for the purpose of having seed (children). If everyone were homosexuals, there would be no children and the human race would ultimately die out.

2016-05-17 22:49:54 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

No one will ever truly know the answer to that question. There are some that will say yes but since the bible was translated from many different languages and picked over by humans, no one can truly say. Don't forget that you can take any words and twist them to mean what you want them to mean no matter what they originally meant when they were said.

hugs

2007-04-17 18:09:26 · answer #3 · answered by Mawyemsekhmet 5 · 1 1

You could not have taken the time to read my answer to your question, including the two web sites that deal with this topic, just a few moments ago.

Please go back to you question at:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvIy95chYo_dmOWOpJU2NRTd7BR.?qid=20070417215502AAcRGJ6

And study the content of the referenced web sites I provided.

2007-04-17 18:09:04 · answer #4 · answered by Ask Mr. Religion 6 · 0 0

There is one book in the Old Testament that speaks against intercourse between two men and two women, but Jesus doesn't say anything about either.

2007-04-17 18:08:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

In case the Christians haven’t noticed, Jesus was good at saving prostitutes and ridiculing scripture thumpers. He was an extreme liberal, free-thinker, and liberator. No, Jesus wasn’t a bible-thumping evangelical homo hater. But what did the Christians ever get right?

2007-04-17 18:12:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

Jesus spoke specifically of sexual sin, heterosexual and homosexual sex sin lacks a distinction in His teachings. Promiscuity and sex with any other than ones spouse is overtly sinful, just as sex with animals. Keep trying to find justification for your sinful life, you will die of old age before that happens.

2007-04-17 18:11:17 · answer #7 · answered by Charles V 4 · 3 1

None. He did say, however, that marriage and sex were for men and women only. (Matthew 19,6; Mark 10,8-9)
Peace and every blessing!

2007-04-17 18:13:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

If you believe any of the bible you have to believe it all. Can't pick and choose. If you are trying to justify your corrupted way of living then the world is waiting to help you out and tell you that what you are doing is ok. Getting right with God is necessary to live without that guilty conscious of yours going crazy!

2007-04-17 18:07:04 · answer #9 · answered by *Kimmie* 5 · 1 5

yeah
he said dont judge others
the whole without sin may cast the first stone thing
and how about get the beam outta your eye
instead of worrying about the splinter in someone else's

2007-04-17 18:06:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

fedest.com, questions and answers