Question for Christians: What did Jesus do about Abortion & Homosexuality?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

What did Jesus spend most of his time on? Did he even spend much time lecturing against homesexuality or against women who had abortions? (They did have them back then). What causes were the most important to him?

I’m no expert but I have the feeling he just didn't spend much time on abortion or homosexuality. He didn’t make much of an effort to stop it or go after the people who had or did abortions. It seems that his attitude was more of acceptance of people - whether they were deemed as "sinners" by people or not.

One of the things that annoys me about the right wing Christians is that they are sort of "Christians on the Cheap." They don't spend much time or money caring for the poor or disadvantaged - or getting "dirty." All they seem to do is go around and lecture people or make statements AGAINST things. It's EASY to go around and say "I'm against abortions, gays, sodomy, etc." It's like they think they're "good" Christians and "covered" just because of that.

It seems that Jesus spent most of his time caring for the poor and sick. AND also speaking out against tyranny. Also – going after the powerful and corrupt. The rich who took advantage of the poor. The “money changers.”

We should get that message out.

Where I lived - several churches got together and put out a full page ad against the war in Iraq and also stated that religion is not about being anti-gay or anti-choice. We had a Presbyterian church that was very liberal and let our anti-Bush protest group meet there. The minister would speak out on political issues all of the time. I live in an area that is 60% Republican - so he's pretty brave for doing that IMO.

[bullimiami]

1. didnt jesus say to kill them?

[wryter2000]

6. Nope

That's Old Testament. Jesus was pretty clear that he came to change all of that.

The story of the good Samaritan is an example. We hear it as a command to be kind to others. It's also a command to disobey earlier religious law. Dead bodies were considered unclean, which is why the other folks crossed the road (they thought the man might have been dead and therefore unclean). The Samaritan disobeyed earlier scripture with Jesus obvious approval.

[wryter2000]

2. Nothing

I'm no biblical scholar, but I don't think Jesus ever said anything on those subjects.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. He did not. At all. nt

[LynneSin]

3. I dont' think there is any scripture in the Gospels

that showed Jesus had any concern about these issues

[kerry-is-my-prez]

7. I can picture him going into Falwell's church and condemning him.

Or railing against Bush for THAT matter.

[LynneSin]

13. Well that he did in the Gospel

He was pretty downright nasty a couple of times with organized religion, preferring the company of what the church might deem as 'undesirables'

I find the whole story about Jesus healing the lepers as the one reason why we must reach out and do something about the AIDs epidemic. Leprosy was like the AIDs of biblical times by the concept that those who had the disease were ostracized from the community and treated very poorly. Jesus had no problem walking amongst the lepers and even healing some of them. So why Christians aren't doing that today is beyond me.

Also - that who thing about turning water into wine makes me question any Christian who thinks drinking is a horrible sin!

[Rocknrule]

17. Actually, I think back then, wine was grape juice, not an alcoholic drink

[kerry-is-my-prez]

18. Wine is fermented grapejuice. They used to get "drunk" back then.

n/t

[LynneSin]

19. HEY! Don't mess with my religious beliefs

It's wine and that's why I justify drinking it

:eyes:

[Benhurst]

22. I found this on a Roman Catholic site:

ISSUE: Some Christians claim that the wine spoken of in Scripture was really grape juice, because the fermentation processes in ancient times were not very good. Is this true? Does Scripture really forbid the drinking of alcohol?

RESPONSE: Scripture forbids drunkenness, i.e., the drinking of alcohol to excess (e.g., Ephesians 5:18).<1> However, it is clearly impossible to get drunk unless one drinks alcohol. Thus, the numerous descriptions of drunkenness in Scripture would be inaccurate, and the scriptural prohibition on drunkenness would be senseless, unless alcohol was available. Because wine is specifically mentioned as the substance upon which people get drunk, one can reasonably conclude that the wine of Scripture, when abused, contained sufficient quantities of alcohol to do cause drunkenness.

In fact, as will be discussed, John uses the same word for wine regarding Jesus’ miracle at the wedding at Cana (Jn. 2:1-11) as the author of Genesis does to describe the substance on which does Noah became drunk (Gen. 9:24). Indeed, Scripture endorses the prudent use of wine and, by implication, other alcoholic beverages (Jn. 2:1-11 and 1 Tim. 5:23). ... (more at link)

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=138

I'm a lapsed-Presbyterian agnostic; but the reasoning presented on the site makes sense to me.

[Phx_Dem]

21. jesus had a fever

And the only prescription...is more cowbell!

[ForFuxakes]

4. I totally agree...

Last year during the days following hirrican Katrina, I was so moved by the images on TV that I had to do something. (Joe Scarborough actually inspried me on this one)

So I called my "pastor" and asked what we were doing (in the Dallas/FT Worth area) and he said he doid not know, but that the Nazarene Church was organizing something. So after a few more calls I found out where we to get our supplies to in Baton Rouge. To make a long story short, I made two supply runs to Baton Rouge and brought back one family. Then a few days later, I had to go to Houston to pick up a family and take them further north to a home in Ducatur (about an hour north of Dallas). Being that I had done so much in a short time (two trip to LA, and two to Houston) I asked a 5 different "leaders" in the church to meet be at the church and continue the one hour trip north to Decatur. The following are the responses given (by church board members):

1. My truck is almost out of warranty and I don't want to drive that far.
2. My son has soccer practice.
3. I have to go to my son's school for a meeting.
4. I don't have time.
5. If no one else will do it let me know.

Needless to say, I no longer attend church servies, but rather live my life the best that I can.

I could go on a lot longer about these "christians" and the personal attacks on me, bhut oh well...

[wryter2000]

11. Heck

Some of the mega-churches were closed last year on Christmas. I guess they can't be bothered to celebrate Christmas on a national holiday.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. He spent NO time on abortion or homosexuality

There is no record of his ever having mentioned either topic.

Paul mentions homosexuality in a reference that probably refers to older men sexually exploiting boys, not to a relationship between equals.

Paul doesn't mention abortion at all, as I recall.

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. As I understand it, the Catholic Church allowed abortions up to the

quickening. I think that's when a woman feels the flutters from a moving fetus? Anybody want to correct me on that?

Oh, and by the way, though I'm pro-choice, I believe a fetus becomes a baby at the second trimester, or at the point the mother accepts full responsibility for its care, whichever comes first.

[patcox2]

9. No mention of them, no reference to them.

Not even by implication. Not much mention of sex at all, though he deals with prostitution and divorce (he's against them.)

[Bill McBlueState]

32. that's a good point about divorce

If we're going to use what Jesus said to inform our opinions about the issues, we need to oppose laws that make divorce easier.

[Hidden Stillness]

10. There are no Statements Either Way

Jesus made no statements on abortion, (as you mentioned, they had herbally-induced abortions), or homosexuality. Women were accepted as disciples and students, and people of all economic classes were equal; all were told to sell what they had and live communally. These issues were of no importance, as God loves and receives the inner soul of you. There are no pronouncements at all. The important things were justice and mercy, and seeking God; you keep your self.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

12. I had heard that there are THOUSANDS of mentions of caring for the poor

but NONE on abortion.

[Midlodemocrat]

14. The only 'moral issues' that Jesus spoke out against were

divorce and adultery. And, obviously, poverty, illness, etc. but I don't think that is what you are asking.

There isn't a reference in the New Testament to abortion because historically, I don't believe it existed as it is known today, nor is there a reference to homosexuals. That is Old Testament stuff.

[BootinUp]

15. My take...

I don't recall any direct teachings on those issues in the New Testament, there may be some reference to homosexuality that I can't recall. But in general I have always felt that Jesus was about teaching, not controlling. And seems to me there was a big separation between spiritual rules and government laws from his perspective.

[Rocknrule]

16. They think Jesus was racist, sexist, homophobic, and loved war

and that he just came to earth, said "gay people bad!" and went back to heaven

[maxsolomon]

20. there were no abortions or homosexuals back then

then "liberalism" was created during the Enlightenment & all the world's problems began.

:sarcasm:

[noonwitch]

23. Jesus never condemns abortion or homosexuality

I consider the Sermon on the Mountain (Matthew 5-7) to be the definitive example of Jesus' teachings as to how we should live our lives.

There are verses in which Paul condemns homosexuality, but Paul is not Jesus. There are Old Testament verses that condemn male homosexuality, but nothing that condemns lesbians (although Paul makes some comments about that, too). Although with all the Old Testament polygamy, I'm sure it happened frequently.

The verses that those who oppose abortion usually reference come from Psalms, where God makes a comment about having known David in his mother's womb. To them, that means that God believes life begins at conception. The Psalms are not commandments, however, they are poetry written by a number of different contributors like David, and reflect the different moods of mankind's relationships with God and each other. There is no direct commandment that declares women are not to end a pregnancy. There are several situations in which God encourages the ancient Israelis to slaughter entire cities, specifically including women and children. There are even a few places where God approves of ripping babies from their mother's womb, which is hardly condemning abortion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. I'm afraid I think that it's more likely that he didn't mention them

because he didn't think he had to.

Jesus was a religous Jew in the middle east 2000 years ago, and IIRC, which I may well not to, so were most of his audience. That homosexuality and abortion were sins wasn't something he would have thought worth discussing, I suspect.

Paul -the source of most of the biblical condemnation of homosexuality - was known as "the apostle to the gentiles"; he was the driving force behind ensuring that Christianity wasn't limited to Jews. I suspect that's not a coincidence.

It's also worth noting that when we say "Christ didn't condemn homosexuality and abortion", what we actually mean is "The evangelists don't mention Christ condemning homosexuality and abortion", which is a very different claim indeed - their accounts were written a long time afterwards, and are far from firsthand.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

26. but prostitution, working on the Sabbath, drinking...

.. were mentioned by Christ.

By the logic that you're stating (and I've shared over the years), Jesus then did not eat pork.
Decades later, John says that God didn't create unclean things and now we can eat pork.

So there is a bit of flaw in our logic here, that Christ didn't change Jewish law, but he did.

He also left the door open for interpretation on a lot of Jewish law (judge not, do so to the least of these, give unto Caesar, love thy neighbor, faith/hope/charity, good Samaritan, etc) that could signal His understanding of humanity in it's entirety and didn't simply pick/choose which Jewish law to confirm and which to change.

IMHO of course.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. I don't know if Jesus would have eaten pork

If (and it's a very big if) the portrayal of him by the evangelists is accurate then he *wouldn't* have felt any religious compunction against doing so - a big part of his teachings was, apparently, that the old purity codes of which prohibition of pork was a part did not apply, but a) he'd have been raised not to eat pork and dietary habits die hard and b) IIRC Paul, at any rate, made a point about obeying other people's dietary restrictions to avoind upsetting them, even if you don't share the restrictions, and Christ might well have thought the same way.

As I understand it (and I'm far from an expert), a large part of Jesus's teaching as depicted in the Gospels was that the old ritual purity code (e.g. no pork) no longer applied, but that the moral teachings (e.g. the 10 commandments) did.

Christ & everyone else would certainly have regarded abortion as part of the latter; I'm fairly sure he'd also have regarded homosexuality as such, although I think nowadays many Christians might well disagree.

http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/gaybishops.htm is a wonderful essay on this, I think.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

28. You definitely lost me,

I really hate a lot of 'ifs' in a conversation that then ends in a pretty definite determination.
If this and if that and if they, I'm certain that? Sounds like basing a conclusion on faulty information/assumptions.

I'm no socio-political expert of course, nor schooled in religious history & dogma (and actually this whole discussion of what Jesus meant by what He didn't say is quite laughable, especially if anyone takes their ideas to a strong conviction stance!)

I only responded because at one time I said something very similar to what you've said (altho being a good Jew in a Jewish community, he followed Jewish tradition (except marrying?) and didn't eat pork or shellfish and celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday, not Sunday.. so logically He would have been supportive of other Jewish laws that He didn't directly address.

However, I again would say the He left us a blue-print, not a sword, of how to continually improve our lives and the lives of our community, based on forgiveness, humbleness, and empathy.

Being God, He would have known the world wasn't flat, that it wasn't the center of the universe and stars are gaseous burning giants billions of miles away that cannot 'fall from heaven'. Also He would have known there were no Witches with magical powers who could conduct spells on others. He would also have known about biological & physiological problems that cause schizophrenia and other mental disorders and would have not been keen on 'demon possession'.

So if we are iffing, this to the IF-degree, why would God not share information that would have saved hundreds of thousands of people in the following centuries from torture & death?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. We're arguing from rather different perspectives.

You say "Being God, He would have known the world wasn't flat...". You're basing your interpretation on the assumption that he was in fact divinely inspired.

I'm trying to guess what Jesus would and wouldn't have thought based on the assumption that there was nothing supernatural about him, and he was just a Jewish (almost surely; we can't say much about him with total certainty) mystic.

Obviously we're going to reach rather different conclusions.

I think there is no answer to your question "why would God not share information that would have saved hundreds of thousands of people"; the only sane conclusion is that he doesn't exist, at least not as posited by Christians.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

30. If we want to discuss the man Christ instead of god Christ,

I'd definitely agree with you there! and then add 'as men and not divinely inspired' we definitely are at a loss to truly know what any intent was. After 2000 years of Man's pride & arrogance reforming/conforming/evaluating Religious text to suit there own needs, then what does anything that man-Christ said or didnt say?

That was 2K years ago, the world is much different and we know too much to turn back the clock. The dogma needed to end a century ago. Christian Philosophy still wonderful (again humility/forgiveness/empathy) that is akin to most of all the other major religions.

[Orthodoxy]

31. Answers

What did Jesus spend most of his time on?


Telling people to "repent" or..... "turn to God". Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Matthew 3:2. He was most concerned about the condition of humanity's soul and restoring humanity to its intended position in the kingdom of God, if one believes there is a god.

There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. He did alot of stuff we are not told about.



Did he even spend much time lecturing against homesexuality or against women who had abortions?


Well He did sanctify the marriage at Cana between man and woman. He also talked about a man and woman being "one" in marriage. He did not speak directly to the issue of homosexuality.

He did say "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

and again "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

and again "But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Jesus thought highly of little children. He did not speak directly to the issue of abortion however being the author of life I personal doubt He thought abortion was "OK". Children typically do not fret nor concern themselves with sex (hetero or homosexuality) or killing things (abortion). One must become "like a child" to enter the Kingdom according to the owner.



(They did have them back then).


Yes. However we have records that say "christians" of that day were "weird" because they would not have abortions. I think Josepheus writes about such things.



What causes were the most important to him?


Life and the kingdom of His Father. Plainly Jesus said those that truely follow Him and will enter the Kingdom give drink to the thristy, feed the hungry, visit the sick and imprisoned, etc. Who do we do this to? When we do this to the least of these we do this to Him. Watch a child. They fret not over these great issues of grown ups. Jesus did not say "become like a grown up" then you will enter My Kingdom.



It seems that his attitude was more of acceptance of people - whether they were deemed as "sinners" by people or not.


Yes, except against those that thought themselves "well" and in no need of "healing" such as the pharisees and Scribes. Surely the prayer of the publican and others of "Lord have mercy on me a sinner" were the ones that went away justified where as those that point at others and say "change them O Lord to be more like me" went away unhealed and condemned.

Thus is the Kingdom of God in which He gives grace to the humble and resists the proud.

the unworthy,

kyril

[trotsky]

33. Welcome to DU.

However we have records that say "christians" of that day were "weird" because they would not have abortions. I think Josepheus writes about such things.

Would you care to document this claim?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

35. From what I understand, it wasn't much of an issue

abortion, if it could be pulled off, was dirty, painful and secretive. Nobody talked about it. And I doubt that any folks admitted to being gay. Something about those stones... Bible folks weren't very flexible in their thinking.