Christ Never Condemned Gays

[Fonkey]

There is no evidence this jesus ever existed so how can they claim what he did or did not say? None of the authors of the NT ever met the guy so they have no idea what he said.

You're missing the point. No-one goes to lecture on Shakespeare and pipes up, "hey, Hamlet never existed,.....

No one is claiming that Hamlet existed. No one is basing their life on what Hamlet is reported to have said. No one is trying to force the belief of a real Hamlet on me. No one is trying to force the belief of a real Hamlet into our school system. No one is trying to run my government on what Hamlet is claimed to have said or wanted.

Okay, you have a point. I was just worried about this thread derailing into a "historical Jesus" debate, which it really isn't about.

 

The NT mentions slavery 96 times. Not one of them negative.

We're talking about the words of Jesus, not those of Paul (or someone writing under his name), or anyone else.You do not have any words of jesus. All you have is what people, that never met the dude, claimed he said.

Alright then, let me rephrase, so we can get this out of the way: I'm talking about words ATTRIBUTED to Jesus, or the words spoken by the CHARACTER Jesus as he appears in the NT. Nowhere in the Bible (that I can think of) does Jesus (the literary character, whether historical or not) talk about slavery.

[Taphophilia]

When we see paintings of Jesus, we know he would not have looked like that, if he did exist. They made up an image according to their own cultural norms. I believe this is the same thing that happened with Jesus actions and words. They believed that Jesus did exist. They believed he was divine/from god and would act and speak according to what they perceived a man/god would.

The problem when we read the gospels is that many of us do not have an understanding of what first century culture or, most importantly what the other religions, at that time, were like. Jesus is nothing more than a copy and paste of the other first century god/men of antiquity. Nothing he did or said was new to them. This is why Christianity was a small, insignificant cult until Constantine, in the third century, used it as a vehicle to conquer the world.

Jesus was a first century god/man. No one would go to a doctor who practiced first century medicine, so why try to examine the writings of a first century spirituality? Both are archaic, primitive, and harmful.

[Dave]

Okay, you have a point. I was just worried about this thread derailing into a "historical Jesus" debate, which it really isn't about.

As I see it, that should be the FIRST debate. If you can't prove the guy existed then how can you argue about what he said?

 

Alright then, let me rephrase, so we can get this out of the way: I'm talking about words ATTRIBUTED to Jesus, or the words spoken by the CHARACTER Jesus as he appears in the NT. Nowhere in the Bible (that I can think of) does Jesus (the literary character, whether historical or not) talk about slavery.

For what purpose? Intellectual pursuits? All it's doing is giving credibility to the christians.

[Dave]

.... Jesus is nothing more than a copy and paste of the other first century god/men of antiquity.....

Or was it an even later interpretation of what they thought 1st century society was like?

 

I'm not arguing, being rude, an asshole, or anything like that. Just asking a question. It doesn't even have to be answered or agreed with. It's just a question.

[Fonkey]

I would agree that the historicity of Jesus is tangential only if people agreed that Christianity was a fiction like Hamlet. However, when talking to someone who believes that Hamlet really existed (as the original poster did with Jesus), then the historicity of that fiction is important to the discussion with that person because their assumption of historical accuracy is used to argue the importance of what was said and used for other things. If this topic came up as an argument between two or more non-Christians for intellectual research, then I would agree that the historicity of Jesus is off topic. I do not think that this is the case with this topic considering the original post.

Arguing over the nuances of the claims of what a mythological character said just lends credence to the believers. To me discussing this is no different than discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It skips one very important point - angels don't exist.

 

In my experience, you can't have a meaningful discussion with a Christian if you just slam a "Jesus never existed!" in their face. If I was a Christian, I would have thrown out anything you had to say a long time ago. You have to meet people at their own level. Show them the inconsistencies of their beliefs before you challenge their fundamental assumptions. To do otherwise is to deny the existence of a playing field, and you end up losing by default.

 

If a Christian is behaving on the assumption that THE JESUS OF THE BIBLE = ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, you can bet you're going to have a damn easier time convincing them that "in the Bible, Jesus never says X" than "Jesus never existed."

[Dave]

In my experience, you can't have a meaningful discussion with a Christian if you just slam a "Jesus never existed!" in their face.

You can't have a meaningful discussion with them if you go along with their belief jesus existed. I just start the discussion one step earlier than they want to.

If I was a Christian, I would have thrown out anything you had to say a long time ago. You have to meet people at their own level. Show them the inconsistencies of their beliefs before you challenge their fundamental assumptions. To do otherwise is to deny the existence of a playing field, and you end up losing by default.

No, if they cannot prove their god exists then they lose by default. I am not going to go down to their level, they'll have to come up to mine.

If a Christian is behaving on the assumption that THE JESUS OF THE BIBLE = ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, you can bet you're going to have a damn easier time convincing them that "in the Bible, Jesus never says X" than "Jesus never existed."

That's based on the assumption that you could have a meaningful conversation with them on the topic. To me, conceding that jesus existed, or even giving the appearance that he existed, is not going to work.

[Fonkey]

Okay, you have a point. I was just worried about this thread derailing into a "historical Jesus" debate, which it really isn't about.

As I see it, that should be the FIRST debate. If you can't prove the guy existed then how can you argue about what he said?

Why should that be the first debate? You might as well say, if you can't prove the infallibility of reason, how can you argue about anything at all? If I disagree with someone on a scientific matter, I'm not going to convince them by pulling some form of post-modernist trickery like "well, science and logic are just socio-cultural constructs." You claim we have to discuss Jesus' existence before we can argue about what he said, but why stop there? Why not have a discussion about historical method? Because it's unnecessary. It's far easier to accept certain premises for the sake of argument than to just disagree on as many counts as possible. Why argue with "Jesus never existed" (which would be really hard to convince them of) when you can just say "Jesus never talked about homosexuality, and it's really not an important issue in the Bible anyways" (which is a lot easier to pull off).

 

 

For what purpose? Intellectual pursuits? All it's doing is giving credibility to the christians.

For what purpose? Well, to answer the original challenge for one, which was "Go back to the New Testament to see if you can find Christ's words supporting any form of prejudice." [emphasis added]

[Fonkey]

To me, conceding that jesus existed, or even giving the appearance that he existed, is not going to work.

It worked for me, and it worked for my friends as well. I don't personally know anyone who denies the existence of Jesus, but I know several people who support gay rights and/or gay marriage.

 

No, if they cannot prove their god exists then they lose by default.

If you refuse to argue on their level, then they win because you have convinced no-one, and they already have the majority of the popular vote.

 

I am not going to go down to their level, they'll have to come up to mine.

...and that's exactly what the fundies are saying.

 

EDIT: actually, I should correct that. In some cases, that's NOT what the fundies are saying, which is why they can be so hard to beat. The ID movement as the thin end of the creationist wedge is an appropriate example here. It's a well-established psychological principle (often used in sales) that it's easier to get someone to perform a behavior if you first convince them to perform less extreme versions of that behavior.

[Georgia Lass]

So many great arguments...

 

I never read the bible all the way through because when I was a Christian my teacher told me that the Old Testament was for the Jews, so it didn't count. I also only got to the book of acts in the New Testament before my faith came crashing down.

 

recently, I've been toying with Sylvia Browne and the Novus Spiritus Church but my main hang up with that religion is that they believe Jesus Christ to be their "Lord" as well. I asked myself why? because they don't believe in the resurrection..? For me believing Jesus to be a "Lord" when they admit he was just a man is very hard to do.. I did it for a time but that's like bowwing to some guy on the street! No man is greater then any other in my eye's.

 

I mention all this because my friend doesn't believe in the bible or mainstream Christianity but she does believe in Christ and his spoken words. In my ignorance I thought all the hateful stuff in the bible was spoken by Jesus.. She was right though, I can't find one quote from Jesus that would condemn anybody! Let alone the gay community.

 

 

 

 

Forgive me, I can't think straight this early.

[Mr. XC]

To me, conceding that jesus existed, or even giving the appearance that he existed, is not going to work.

It worked for me, and it worked for my friends as well. I don't personally know anyone who denies the existence of Jesus, but I know several people who support gay rights and/or gay marriage.

 

No, if they cannot prove their god exists then they lose by default.

If you refuse to argue on their level, then they win because you have convinced no-one, and they already have the majority of the popular vote.

 

I am not going to go down to their level, they'll have to come up to mine.

...and that's exactly what the fundies are saying.

 

EDIT: actually, I should correct that. In some cases, that's NOT what the fundies are saying, which is why they can be so hard to beat. The ID movement as the thin end of the creationist wedge is an appropriate example here. It's a well-established psychological principle (often used in sales) that it's easier to get someone to perform a behavior if you first convince them to perform less extreme versions of that behavior.

Yes, they play by their own rules. If they do not like what the bible says, they "add context" or whatever to make it agree with what they want in their heads. I wasted many hours trying to argue inconsistency after inconsistency and other absurdities in the bible. Christians have websites that they can go to or friends to ask about troublesome ideas/interpretations and they accept whatever defense that makes them happy, regardless of if that defense is just wishful thinking. And trying to call them on said wishful thinking often does not work because they are great at finding yet more wishful thinking. The most effective way to get a Christian to stop using bad defenses / wishful thinking is to show them verifiable facts about their own religions origin. Yes, it is harder for them to listen to, but playing the interpretation game is going to take much longer assuming you still have their attention after they "defeat" your intellectual argument with wishful thinking for the 20th time.

 

Anyway, that is my experience. I would love to hear another solution. (I know...getting off topic).

[Dave]

As I see it, that should be the FIRST debate. If you can't prove the guy existed then how can you argue about what he said?

Why should that be the first debate? .....

Without proving the person in question actually existed and actually said what is claimed, there is nothing to be discussed.

For what purpose? Intellectual pursuits? All it's doing is giving credibility to the christians.

For what purpose? Well, to answer the original challenge for one, which was "Go back to the New Testament to see if you can find Christ's words supporting any form of prejudice." [emphasis added]

The ORIGINAL, yet unstated, challenge is that the guy even existed! You do not have any of his words. All you have are what someone writing years after the events, and writing solely from hearsay, CLAIMED he said.

[Dave]

It worked for me, and it worked for my friends as well. I don't personally know anyone who denies the existence of Jesus, but I know several people who support gay rights and/or gay marriage.

I do not "deny" anything. I've looked at the evidence for the existence of the jesus of the bible and have found it lacking. The only conclusion is that he did not exist. Several others on this forum have said the same thing. I know quite a few people outside this forum that would also say the same thing. "Deny" is almost always used to connote that someone actually knows, or in this case believes, something but is just not admitting it.

EDIT: actually, I should correct that. In some cases, that's NOT what the fundies are saying, which is why they can be so hard to beat. The ID movement as the thin end of the creationist wedge is an appropriate example here. It's a well-established psychological principle (often used in sales) that it's easier to get someone to perform a behavior if you first convince them to perform less extreme versions of that behavior.

Fine, but I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to go through all that. I just start at the beginning and work from there. When they realize they cannot prove their god exists, they go away. Nothing I say could ever get them to change their mind. Being an Atheist, being open about it, and living a moral life as an example will make more converts than any argument.

[Lycorth]

Jesus was a first century god/man. No one would go to a doctor who practiced first century medicine, so why try to examine the writings of a first century spirituality? Both are archaic, primitive, and harmful.

 

Nicely put

[LosingMyReligion]

My opinion is this. True, he did not outright condemn homosexuality. However, he did support the old testament. I don't remember which verse it was, but he stated that he was for the law even though man could not live by it.

Which is why I will never get gay Christians. Well, I can't really judge them because I tried to be one for a hot minute.

[Mike D]

As Varokhar pointed out, Jesus and the father are one

Which only shows to illustrate just how silly the Bible really is. As Jesus reportedly said to himself on the cross as he sacraficed himself to himself to save us from himself: "Myself, myself! Why hast thee forsaken thee?"

 

[riverbank]

As Varokhar pointed out, Jesus and the father are one

Which only shows to illustrate just how silly the Bible really is. As Jesus reportedly said to himself on the cross as he sacraficed himself to himself to save us from himself: "Myself, myself! Why hast thee forsaken thee?"

 

 

hehe like that one! thankyou.

[Dave]

As Varokhar pointed out, Jesus and the father are one

Which only shows to illustrate just how silly the Bible really is. As Jesus reportedly said to himself on the cross as he sacraficed himself to himself to save us from himself: "Myself, myself! Why hast thee forsaken thee?"

 

I thought his last words were; "Hey John. I can see your house from up here."

[Guest fender13]

are we talking about there not being ANY homophobic/homosexual intolerance in the bible or are we talking about whether or not JESUS said anything about homosexuality.

because there are a lot of statements about how homosexuality is bad in the bible but there aren't any of jesus actually being intolerant to homosexuals.

 

Homosexuality in the bible.

[Lycorth]

Again, Jebus teaches that he is one with the father (in John 10:30). Therefore, he is the same god who ordered death to homosexuals in the Old Testament.

 

According to Xian mythology, Jebus did indeed condemn gays.