in thinking jesus can NOT cure homosexuality as it is NOT an illness

[thefinerthingsinlife]

christian lady has written a book claiming jesus can cure homosexuality

I'm not getting into the debate of wether there is a God/Jesus etc. It just this has really mad me angry, how can you cure something that is NOT an illness. I find this extremely insulting and judgemental.

Great post LesbianMum - showing something of the context behind some of the biblical passages on this issue.

Agree with most of the other Christians on this thread. I think Jesus is far more worried about whether we reflect God's justice, mercy and love. 'Christians' have traditionally spent too long oppressing others and not long enough promoting Christ's freedom. Agree with PP who said the name 'christian' doesn't describe one certain belief. I more and more prefer to be defined as a follower of Christ.

Jesus definitely existed GoArt. It is well documented in Roman records even if you are sceptical of the bible.

madhairday I hate one sided arguements just trying to give an alternative view

alemci: "Jesus definitely existed GoArt. It is well documented in Roman records even if you are sceptical of the bible."

Er no it isn't!

Johanna could you expand on your rebuttal?

Jesus is not mentioned by any Roman writer. Jesus is the Greek for Yeshua/Joshua. The word Christus/Chrestus is used by Tacitus and Suetonius but Christus is a politico/religious title and not a surname.

Tacitus (c.55-120 CE) makes reference to "Christus," which is the Latin form of the Greek translation of the Jewish politico-religious title Messiah. Furthermore, he was less than complimentary in describing this recently formed religious group. He refers to Christianity as "exitiabilis superstitio" (i.e. deadly superstition) not as "religio" (religion). The inherent difference between these two Latin terms had important contemporary legal and social significance.

Suetonius writing during the reign of Hadrian (117-138 CE) mentions in his biography of Claudius (41-54 CE), the expulsion of the Jews from Rome (c.52 CE) because of disturbances instigated by "Chrestus") If this in fact an error for "Christus" it could simply be a reference to some form of localised messianic agitation.

This has turned out to be one of the most interesting threads I have read for a long while.

For far too long religions have been guilty of bullying others (ironic when Jesus was very clear about not judging others).

I am Catholic and am totally ashamed of the attitudes perpetrated by some clergy.

To whoever asked "Catholic clergy cannot reproduce, are they not of God? either"

Well I do wonder sometimes (not because they don't reproduce though).

We have 2 close family members who are gay, including DD's Godmother, both have faced discrimination from the Church.

While clearly not proven, I don't think you have given reasons for assuming that Christus does not refer to Jesus, as is generally assumed. Why introduce the idea of another leader, isn't the simplest answer usually the best?

Because it's a politico/religious title, not a person.

If we assume that the man, Jesus of Nazareth, lived somewhere between 4 BCE and 36 CE there is not a single contemporary reference to him, anywhere.

which can be said about many characters from history who no-one has any problem believing in!
Nothing contemporary about William Wallace, for example, and that is from much more recent history.

Contemporary record of William Wallace's trial.

it's just that iirc there were a great many people claiming to be the messiah

but mostly they were very naughty boys.

(sorry, someone had to)

Haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to pick up on the "did Jesus exist" issue. Have read a fair bit to suggest that he did. Have read nothing to convince me that he was the son of God or, indeed, that God exists.

WRT the OP - fundamentalist Christianity is judgemental. It is stuck in a time warp while the rest of the world has moved on and is, imo, sorely lacking in, ironically, Christianity. IYSWIM.

The poster stated "Jesus definitely existed GoArt. It is well documented in Roman record" and it isn't.

Scholars generally accept that a man such as Jesus of Nazareth did exist, given the political and social situation in early first century Judaea but to claim that Jesus is "well documented in the Roman record" is incorrect. He isn't.

at grimma

"No I'm Spartacus!"

Oh hang on. Wrong dead made-up guy.

JohannaM " there is not a single contemporary reference to him, anywhere." That's what I thought but can't seem to find the reference to the piece I saw on it.

Thank you OldLadyKnowsNothing (clearly an inaccurate name!) I had it in my head that Blind Harry was the first source on Wallace.

PZ Myers covers the Jesus existence thing a lot but I can't find anything apart from this interesting discussion thread.

Surely you can't prove a negative anyway. The onus should be on the people who assert he exists to provide the evidence.

Of course everyone knows Jesus was actually a time-traveller from 1970.

Behold the Man

TondelayoSchwarzkopf: Spartacus wasn't a "dead made-up guy".

What needs to be remembered is that the real man Jesus of Nazareth had little to do with the soteriological character of Pauline Christianity.

Sorry Johanna M - it was late. And I was tired.

Just so we are all clear - I'm NOT Spartacus.