for once, i'm pleased to read a post by runner. he wishes to distinguish levitical law with the teachings of jesus. that at least seems a good framework for discussion: there's jesus, and then there's all the other stuff.

on this basis, i have an honest question: did jesus ever say a word against homosexuality?

Bushbasher wrote "did jesus ever say a word against homosexuality?"

Not that I've ever read, mate. He did hang around with twelve unattached guys for quite a long time, though, and then there's this stuff about being rather partial to John, the beloved one. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

What difference would it make if it turned out that jesus was a gay man?

Jesus addressed the spiritual aspirations of mankind. Homosexuality is a human condition that is only physical and psychological and nothing to do with the spirituality of human beings.
I cannot understand why people who want to be recognised as authorities on religion wantto confuse these issues.The louder one protests and the more one gets hysterical about homosexual issues tends to conceal their own covert propensities. Religious tyrants use the issue to whip up anger and support their claims for control and management. It has always been a matter of manipulation of the masses...either as suppliers of visas for eternal happiness in Paradise and a supply of virgins thrown in for good measure (nothing for women,sad to say) or a means of creating fear of death and manipulating guilt by creating it using it to gain obedience.

You can see its application in Christianity and Islam.

socratease

Actually Runner, I think comparative religion should be taught in schools rather than Christianity in schools. After all, Christianity is already taught in plenty of schools. And parents can send their children to those schools - that is their right. And it is also the right of parents are not religious to send their children to secular schools and have a religious-free zone. Taxpayers choice.

But comparative religion, - which should include the history of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Indigenous religions etc plus the differences between their beliefs and what sort of doctrines they promulgate - would be useful and interesting given the influence of religion in human history.

But if you are to teach Christianity in schools what type do you propose? Quakerism? Jensen-style Anglicanism? Catholicism? Or maybe Pentecostalism? These demoninations have fundamental differences as we've already seen within Anglicanism alone. A Catholic mother or father wouldn't be too happy having Baptism taught to the exclusion of their preferred religion.

Did Jesus ever say anything against homosexuality?

Not directly, but he didn't say anything against bestiality, incest or drunk driving. He did say that he came to fulfil the law, which means, amongst other things, that the basis of the law, God's relationship, with humanity was not dissolved.

He also spoke against adultery: that is, against sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and a woman: Remember the Samaritan woman at the well, and the woman caught in adultery. The woman caught in adultery was about to be stoned to death, he prevented this execution, but also told the woman to go and sin no more.

This is the attitude that is probably healthiest for modern Christians: be against the sin, but do not seek to impose punishment. (that is for God).

Homosexual sex is adultery by its very nature, as it is sexual contact outside the situation of a marriage between a man and a woman. So Jesus, IMHO, would say, 'Go and sin no more'. At the same time, it is no different than any other sexual sin. All humans are inclined to seek sex outside of marriage, or to steal, or to break our relationship with God in many ways. To single out homosexuality as a particular sin is wrong.

But so is to declare that it is not a sin.

hamlet, thank-you. a few comments.

1) it is reasonable to believe that jesus supported certain laws and moral codes of the time even though there's no evidence of him discussing them. but

a) what jesus talked about is presumably a guide to what he thought was important.

b) it seems silly to consider jesus's sayings, much less his speculative implicit beliefs, as simply a checklist of do's and don't's, rather than as a guide to moral and social principle. the former would shackle jesus to a certain cultural age, and means you get into absurd debates, not just what jesus thought about homosexuality, but what he thought about shellfish and slavery.

2) homosexual sex is not "adultery by its very nature". it is adultery by a narrow-minded and self-fulfilling legal terminology. the nature of homosexual relationships is that they can be as meaningful and as loving and as loyal as heterosexual relationships.

you have not convinced me that jesus of 2000 years ago was concerned about homosexuality. and you have most definitely not convinced me that a current jesus would bat an eyelid. that is, you have not pointed to any principle in jesus's writings, any principle in how we should care for each other and love each other, which proscribes homosexuality.

in brief, you have not convinced me that homosexuality is a sin in any meaningful sense of the word. if you want to talk about, and be bound by, religious law, that's your choice. churches may do as they wish. but please do not equate an antiquated legalism with morality.