I was thinking about using the title, Jesus and the Homosexuals, or Jesus cures a gay man but I didn't want to draw the wrong kind of attention. This morning I had my Bible out and was researching parables to illustrate how sinful you people are, no just kidding, I'm sure most of you already know how sinful you are! The story I was looking for is Jesus heals the Centurion's servant. I am not sure if you are familiar with this story but there's a buzz in the gay community that the men in the parable are lovers.
You can find a version of the story if you Google Luke 7, the book of Matthew also has the parable. Basically a Roman official pleads with Jesus to save his dying male servant, some say slave, it's indicated that the servant is very special to him. The surprise here is that a Roman official would even think about asking Jesus, Romans had their own belief system, and were considered enemies of the Jewish people. Readers wonder what would make a Centurion be so desperate to save a servant, that he would lower himself to ask for help from a man that was considered a radical even by his own people. In those days life was worth nothing, a rich Roman official could just buy another slave. Some people claim that the original words used, translate into a servant that was also taken on as a lover. That certainly could be one explanation for his actions, people will try almost anything to save a loved one!
Typical for Christians, instead of using this to connect with the gay community, they are having a meltdown. I have been reading arguments pro and con regarding this as a story featuring a gay couple. The thing that makes them squirm is the thought that Jesus didn't step back, laugh and say, "you guys are feeling God's wrath for living as a gay couple".
There was no pointing a finger, or disapproving shake of his head, he just agrees to help and the man is saved.
It's interesting to see the scramble to clean this story up. Many of the newer translations are saying that they actually meant to say his son and not servant/slave, that's convenient. I know personally I can't tell you how many times I've confused a family member for a servant boy. There is also mention that the Centurion may be spiritual and was kind to the people. It's possible that he formed a friendship with this man and just wanted to help. It's hard to figure out, we would have to rely on the earlier copies. Religious people lie, even worse if they feel their dogma is being challenged. I wish true historians would dissect this and give us their conclusions. I don't trust either side, the gay positive side is also selective, picking and choosing the words and cultural quirks that make their version seem to be the true version.
There are passionate arguments for both versions; however I have noticed there has always been a strong push to cover up anything about the gay community. For example, for years we were told that homosexuality didn't exist in animals. That turned out to be completely false, the information was being suppressed, nobody wanted to upset the heterosexuals, proving that the truth is not always important to people with an ideology. I just want the truth about this parable and nothing more, as it probably won't change the belief system I have anyway. However there are a lot of gay Christians and I would love to be able to tell them, why let some foaming at the mouth minister judge you for being gay, when Jesus didn't.
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I think we have to get to a place. Where the characters sexuality means nothing
The Walking Dead Does this very well........me thinks....
I wasn't aware of the buzz about this parable. Thanks for the heads-up.
I've read the parable, and countless books that reference the passage when addressing gay men in the Bible. If you want a more explicit story of men loving each other, try the story of David and Jonathan in the Old Testament. When Jonathan dies, David says, "Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women." You can imagine how the Church has been trying to unscramble that for years! The Church has a history of writing, rewriting, and whitewashing the stories in the Bible to suit its needs. When it comes to Jesus and the Church, as I wrote recently, I believe the two had very different views, and those views do no see eye to eye. J was a rebel with a message that did not sit well with the Pharisees. Guess what, the Pharisees are back, and they are trouncing Jesus, and his message, all over again.
I love your blog, I came here from Spo's blog. You make me think.
Where are the Bible passages that positively address heterosexual love? Romantic love in general? Even love for family members is frowned upon in some verses. There is only one love that is totally acceptable, and it better be for the right god.
I have had some experience with gay Christians and Christian gays. The more thoughtful ones don't try to persuade with Bible verses, instead they emphasize a vague faith. I can say the same thing about straight Christians. One lies in bed dying and unresponsive, my heart is broken, I can't stop crying. Although he often brought up his faith, I spoke of my atheism only once and I never tried to separate him from his beliefs. Whatever gets you through the night...
I would like to ask them all, gay and straight, about the doctrine of original sin. Why did your perfect god create only imperfect beings? Why did he even bother?
John, seriously... you have to keep this walking dead obsession in check!!! Lol! I have never watched a single episode, I have no clue what you are talking about. John this would be a key stepping stone to actually getting to a place where your sexuality wouldn't matter, if people could show that Jesus didn't care about two men as lovers, he only cared about them as two men, that would be ground breaking on the road to equal treatment. On another note, Jesus brought people back from the dead, so he invented walking dead, only they were nice and didn't eat people's brains!
RJ, so typical for religious people to try and change a story to suit their agenda. I think when a gay person reads that parable, our gaydar starts to beep. I'm not religious, too many years of hearing from the church that I chose being gay to cause trouble. I wonder what I would be like if I grew up hearing that Jesus accepts people gay, straight or bisexual.
Walter, I think you would be such an interesting person to sit down with and talk about spirituality. Yes I have read about David and Jonathan. I feel if there wasn't some sort of bisexual relationship, he would have said the love of a brother or something like that, instead of the love of women. However it's hard to place today's meanings onto the meanings of past cultures. I accidentally found another one yesterday that I will mention later in another Sunday post. I saw there are discussions on line about this new one as well. I absolutely agree with your last part, I heard an interview with modern evangelical Christians, they were accused of being soft and not following the bible. They said if Jesus were alive today, he would be fighting for social justice, he would be in the "Me too" and equality marches, not supporting corporations and gun manufacturing like many so called Christians do these days.
Anonymous, thank you. I think in the early days most marriages were arranged, it was more about family partnerships and never about love. Some people were probably lucky and fell in love after but some were not lucky. Again it's hard to place today's cultural norms onto past cultures. I never bait people about their faith, unless they keep pushing and pushing then the gloves come off. I am never mean but I do something much worse, I use logic, sometimes it's interesting to see that deer in the headlights look they get when they realize for the first time that something doesn't make sense. I just think with all of today's knowledge, if we are going to believe in God, he should be elevated beyond some old man with a beard who lives in the sky above the middle east.
Thank you for the sermon, Pastor Steven. You will be a big hit on Christian Mingle.
As for our sin, I can only speak for myself, but it is pretty clear that I am a lost cause.
I am skeptical about trying to argue against Christianity based on Biblical verses. Let's pretend that Jesus really was against homosexuality. Would that mean it would be okay for Christians to persecute homosexuals? That does not seem to be a strong argument against divorce (but feel free to tell Michael54 that he should have stayed married because Jesus said so).
Mr Lurker, my point is not to argue against Christianity because I am done with that, my point is I would like to know the intention of the story, was it altered to be more acceptable to the masses. I am only interested for the sake of gay Christians, it would be huge for them. It's along the lines where Jesus was never hostile or misogynistic towards women and yet the church burned strong women as witches because they felt threatened. I'm not sure where you are pulling in divorce here, that's off topic and I'm not comfortable bringing in M54 as a point in an argument that's not fair to him.
It was uncouth to bring in Michael54. But I do not think that divorce is off-topic.
If the argument structure is that: "Jesus did not oppose this thing so persecuted people should take heart", then what do you do when Jesus did oppose a thing? Jesus very much opposed divorce. So how are divorced people supposed to feel? This was very much an issue in earlier times.
Thus I argue that we should be wary about saying that things are okay just because Jesus had an opinion about them (which is why I am not a Christian).
Mr Lurker, thanks for the clarification on your divorce comment. I always found that to be hypocritical of the churches, gay people are never allowed to have a partner and must be celibate because God says so. However even though he said no second partner and straight people have to be celibate after divorce, the churches were saying that God didn't really mean it this time, he only meant it for those gay people! I understand what you are saying but for people who are Christians the context does matter and for myself I am curious.
But I am turning this into an Internet Argument when it is not necessary. I agree that analysing old Biblical passages is a good exercise. I agree that religions whitewash passages of their holy texts that are inconvenient, and I agree that pointing out the ways in which these arguments have been used to oppress people is a good exercise.
Sorry for being disagreeable.
Mr Lurker, debate is fun, this blog is a safe place for opinions and I absolutely never feel that people have to agree with me, I'm not that weak. Disagreeable is part of who you are! Hahaha! I would never want you to be anyone else other than Mr Lurker. You had me cracking up on Dr Spo's blog with the slight hippopotamus comments, I swear I nearly wet myself, I think I get your personality so we're good, don't worry. I only wouldn't like it if someone was being mean or offensive.
Post a Comment