Jesus preached tolerence. Does that mean

[chicagojoe]

he was part of a homosexual brainwashing plot like SpongeBob?

[liberalhistorian]

1. LOL!

Hell, NO! And, as a Christian, I can tell you that Jesus wasn't anywhere near as obsessed over gays and homosexuality as these fundie freaks are.

[chicagojoe]

2. My theory on fundie resistance to gay marriage.

They say that "homosexual marriage" is an abomination, will destroy the family, blah, blah, blah. Here's the real deal.
These folks see same sex couples as inferior to themselves. If gays
were allowed to be married, everyone would then be on the same level.
The regressive Christian Right can't deal with this, so they oppose gay marriage.

[pansypoo53219]

4. nope

for fundies, sex is ONLY for procreation i guess. so if you can't do that.......

[jobycom]

3. Probably, actually. There's a good argument that the Good Samaratan

parable was in part about homosexuality. The Samaritans were a group of Hellenizing Jews, meaning they were Jews who had abandoned the Hebrew culture and were living like Greeks. Jesus may have been choosing a group who was specifically thought of as gay, just as during the 70s and 80s saying someone was from San Francisco was implying they were gay.

There was a medieval bishop who advised his priests to not give sermons on the words of Jesus, because Jesus's words were too often subversive, and therefore the priests should focus on Paul, whose message was more Christian. No joke. Sound like any fundies you know?

[chicagojoe]

5. The ones I know CONSTANTLY quote Paul.

[liberalhistorian]

6. I've known many ministers

who have a real problem with Paul, and who prefer to focus on the sayings and teachings of Jesus. And that's the way it should be.

[jobycom]

8. No

I don't remember his name, or his city, or where I saw him quoted, nor even whether he was a bishop or archbishop. You know how it is reading for oral exams, you read four books a week, and ten years later they all blend together. It was a book about the religious climate of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, I'm sure, probably a book on dissension (maybe The Origins of European Dissent, now that I think about it), and it was a passing citation of him. It wasn't an official church decree or anything, it was the bishop's advice to his clergy, so it wasn't an earthshaking proclamation. Just an interesting one.

I saw your other quote about people citing Jesus and skipping over Paul. I think that's the difference between a liberal and a conservative Christian. Conservatives have a lot more trouble with the actual Jesus part of Christianity than liberals do.

Then there is the issue of which Pauline letters were true, and which forged, and whether half of the Gospels are true or are just legends that grew up around Jesus and were finally written down. You always have to worry about the bias and intention of the author, but when a historical text becomes sacred, people stop analyzing it.

I'm in a rambling mood today. I'll stop now.

[liberalhistorian]

7. No kidding?

That's interesting, do you know what the bishop's name was?