Jesus would have loved homosexuals?

He was benevolent to a point, then you have to remember that he continually warned us to heed his warnings or spend an eternity in hell. Such benevolence.

Is that so. How may I acquire "the ability to have an open mind to God's teachings"?

@Boddicker: He blessed a gay couple. I don't think there's anything more clear than that

Can you find the exact scripture where he blessed a gay couple? I have no memory of that.

You are so whiny.

Watch the video, he explains it there

Prefer actual scripture dude....not someone's video. I doubt the middle east back then had ANY openly gay couple. Hell..not even today.

That's a good philosophy in general, but branding somebody a sinner because of their sexual orientation has a stigmatizing effect that is not very loving at all. When you categorize homosexuality as a sin, it becomes easier for some people to bully homosexuals. If that kind of stigma is going to be applied to homosexuals, the kind that makes life harder for them, there should be a damn good reason for it and there's simply isn't.

In the religion sense whether you want to brand something a sin or not....you aren't supposed to bully anyone.

Yet that doesn't seem to stop religious people from bullying.

Would you be willing to listen to what religion has to offer? Gain a clearer understanding of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and how they can influence you in your daily life for the better?

It's quite ironic for you to ask that of other people.

My point is not that bullying is excused by religion, but that people rationalize treating others badly when they are stigmatized. Branding someone's orientation as "sin" has exactly that effect.

*some....Don't generalize.

why would you assume I meant all religious people? Don't make assumptions.

I'm not seeing the irony, but okay

Yeah probably. Besides, I can totally imagine Jesus having the hots for some young stable boys in Jerusalem. Would make sense why he wasn't married.

@toast_burner: Your words are exactly that. Next time clean up your language then.

Sure, already have and don't like what they are selling. But there is always a new sales pitch around the corner.

That's perfectly acceptable. Perhaps you just haven't found the right religion yet or the person/s that tried to "sell it to you" weren't that good a salesmen. :)

well based on what you say here you don't listen to the teachings of Jesus. Maybe you're different in reality but surely you should follow his teachings all the time, not just switch on and off like you seem to do.

Nobody's perfect and I never claimed to be. We all have our faults. What matters is that I'm trying to be a better person everyday by removing the negativity and focusing on the positivity. It's a struggle at times, but doesn't stop me from working towards that goal.

If you look back at older times, it was reverse. Look at ancient Greece for example. Being gay was not something that was looked down upon or even considered a sin... So it's been there for a long ass time, it's not before the church started burning people and not allowing people being gay that that it was looked down upon.

I'm not even sure the man existed, but if he were alive today, I bet you every christian alive would call him the antichrist.

Nonetheless it was never a part of the culture we are talking about here. I take it then you have nothing substantive to post.

I'm sure his miracles would make their way onto youtube before long. The comment section would be a cesspool.

As for the topic: There's no way to know for sure. All we know about Jesus is what is in the Gospels; he never mentions homosexuality. While Jesus does claim to uphold and follow Jewish law, he modifies the law in multiples areas. Thus, there is simply no way to know his views on homosexuality.

As modern views on homosexuality change in our society Christians will empathizes certain verses over others so that it falls in line with these views. The Bible is the most "living" text in human history.

I'm not sure why some atheists (assuming you are) turn into fundamentalists: it's either all or nothing!

The Bible means different things to different people. There are countless interpretation and there never has been a correct way to read the book. Even Jesus picks and chooses which verse/teachings he likes from Jewish texts (ex: he reinterpret God's orders on divorce) while at the same time claiming that he follows the law.

Do you ever have anything coherent to say?

Why either all or nothing? Perhaps because we're talking about the will of an omnipotent 'Perfect' being. If the Bible is indeed the inherent word of an inherently perfect being one should expect there to be little to NO wiggle room for interpretation. But like you said, we don't find that. Thousands of denominations exist, leading to the most likely conclusion: The Bible is merely a man made construct. The product of bronze age thinking and customs.

If however followers come out and admit that their god is far from perfect and capable of making HUGE mistakes (which seems to be the case considering the tantrums he throw's all through out), then this all or nothing attitude could be brushed aside. The fact that people insist there isn't a correct way to interpret the manuscript to the ONLY means of salvation is a scary revelation.

So Christians is god perfect or not?

Yes.

Interesting, so the Bible is the inherent word of a perfect God.

So is every passage in the Bible worthy of following?

Not in a literal sense, no...at least, not ALL Biblical passages.

Why not? If god is perfect it would mean he makes no mistakes. All passages should be worthy of following.

Unless you're telling me the Bible isn't perfect and isn't the inherent word of god front to back.

Nope, wasn't even going in that direction.

What I mean is, it all depends on the intent of the passage. Some things are to be taken literally like Jesus saying to his apostles to go forth and spread the gospel as in Mark 16:15: "And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

There are also parables that Jesus used to convey a particular message, so that should be taken symbolically.

Studying the history of the Bible and its authors usually helps to determine how the passages should be taken. But again, such a thing comes with reading the Bible and gaining the understanding of its content.

Where did I say it's all or nothing? l

Considering every bit of the Bible was written (and re-written, and re-written, and re-written) by a human, there's no way this book isn't a mish-mash of deception.

Just answer it. Is the Bible perfect? Ooooh parable this, symbolic that! I wasn't asking if its symbolic or not. You outright admitted that passages in the Bible aren't worthy of following which lead me to ask you that question.

I'm asking a flat out easy question to answer, is the Bible perfect just as you claimed God is? Wouldn't it follow that the Bible, being the inherent word of God, is perfect just as he is?

Again, if we're to take this approach the outcome leads to thousands of interpretations by thousands of individuals. This method of delivering the ONLY means of salvation to God's most beloved creation seems lazy and incompetent.

Why would God resort to using symbolism and the need to interpret passages with historical context? I would expect an omnipotent being to be capable of creating a timeless classic being incapable of misinterpretation and perversion by man.

@HoolaHoopMan: I'm asking a flat out asking an easy question to answer, is the Bible perfect just as you claimed God is? Wouldn't it follow that the Bible, being the inherent word of God, is perfect just as he is?

I don't think my answer will do much to change your position on the matter, will it?

I wouldn't waste my time, HoolaHoopMan. You're never going to get a straight answer on this.

not to mention the contents of it were decided by committee and a lot of it was thrown out.

In other words you don't want to answer it. Oh well.

Correct. Because I choose not to engage in apologetics on the matter, as I've said before. It's a moot point.

I can see you're not into aplogetics as you refuse to critically analyze the tenets and implications of your faith. Critical thinking is a healthy part of this discussion. If you wish to sidestep it then so be it. Seems intellectually lazy.

Yes, because a thread that was created to poke fun at Jesus Christ is just full of intellect. Right on!

How is it poking fun at Jesus?

Like I said, lazy.

If you're a true Christian, and not just a Dogma worshipping CINO, then the Pope said all that needs to be said on the matter.

If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem ... they're our brothers."