What Would Jesus Do?

[Domenic]

JoStories,
You , as all humans have free will. It's not a matter of how well a person can tap dance...the difference is those who try, from those who don't. You are not alone; there are millions who following the same path as you...it's called the broad path.

 

[roger1440]

You work in a cake shop. It is the family business, and has been so for two generations. Your entire family has been Christian for as long as anyone can remember and, you too, are Christian.

One day, two homosexuals walk into your cake shop to order a cake for their Civil Partnership or Marriage. You refuse them service on religious grounds: homosexuality offends your religious beliefs.

But let's look at it another way: What Would Jesus Do?

Jesus was not a Christian. Nor had he ever read the Bible. Neither concepts existed as they do now when he was giving the Sermon on the Mount, or healing the Leper, or speaking with the Prostitute.

But the office of a Christian should not only be to believe in Jesus Christ, but also to aspire to be as much like him as it's possible to be (short of being able to turn water into wine).

This being the case, what would Jesus have done in that same situation?

WWJD? It used to be a popular Christian Meme set out as a poignant and relevant reminder of what the job of a Christian is.

Why did so many Christians forget? And is it about time they remembered?

What kind of cake we talking about here? A Devil's Food Cake. They are sinfully rich, watch out.

 

[metis]

We are all born with a basic feeling of right, and wrong...some feel it is okay to do wrong because that wrong was done to them...that is what a child does. When adults do it, it is called sin.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has a take on this you might find interesting. He says that as a young child, we learn that if we are treated fairly and with compassion, that feels "good"; but if we're not, we feel "bad". We also learn very quickly that if we cooperate with others, they'll likely cooperate with us, although this lesson usually takes a bit longer to set it.

Unfortunately, as adults, we often forget that basic lesson or water it down because other things may attract our attention, such as wealth, fame, power, etc. However, the joys of these are fleeting, as we never have enough wealth, fame, power, etc.

 

[Sleeppy]

Source please? Scholarly opinion only of course. Making a statement such as you did requires substantiation.

Your initial statement required substantiation.

Although there is no unambiguous evidence for the literacy of Jesus,10 there is considerable contextual and circumstantial evidence that suggests that in all probability he was literate. At the outset, we should keep in mind the nature of Jewish faith itself. It is centered on Scripture, which narrates Israel’ssacred story, a story that the Jewish people are admonished to know and to teach their children. According to the Shema‘, which all Torahobservant Jews were expected to recite daily, parents were to teach their children Torah (cf. Deut 4:9; 6:7; 11:19; 31:12-13; 2 Chr 17:7-9; Eccl 12:9), even to adorn their doorposts with the Shema‘ (Deut 6:9 “you shall write [ketavka/gra,yete] them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates”; cf. 11:20).11 One should suppose that scriptural commandments such as these, which stand at the heart of Jewish faith (cf. Mark 12:28-33; James 2:19), would have encouraged literacy among the Jewish people.12 According to Philo and Josephus, approximate contemporaries of Jesus, Jewish parents taught their children Torah and how to read it. Philo claims: “All men guard their own customs, but this is especially true of the Jewish nation. Holding that the laws are oracles vouchsafed by God and having been trained in this doctrine from their earliest years [tou/to evk prw,thj h`liki,aj to. ma,qhma paideuqe,ntej], they carry the likenesses of the commandments enshrined in their souls” (De Legatione 31 §210). It is improbable that the training of which he speaks here did not include basic literacy. Josephus, however, is more explicit: “Above all we pride ourselves on the education of our children [paidotrofi,an], and regard as the most essential task in life the observance of our laws and of the pious practices, based thereupon, which we have inherited” (Ag. Ap. 1.12 §60). He says later: “(The Law) orders that (children) shall be taught to read [gra,mmata paideu,ein], and shall learn both the laws and the deeds of their forefathers. . .” (Ag. Ap. 2.25 §204). The claim that the Law “orders” children to be taught to read derives from Deut 6:9 and 11:20 (cited above). Josephus goes so far as to say that “most men, so far from living in accordance with their own laws, hardly know what they are. . . . But, should anyone of our nation be questioned about the laws, he would repeat them all more readily than his own name. The result, then, of our thorough grounding in the laws from the first dawn of intelligence is that we have them, as it were, engraved on our souls” (Ag. Ap. 2.18 §176, §178). This may not be too wide of the truth, for Augustine claims that Seneca made a similar remark: “The Jews, however, are aware of the origin and meaning of their rites. The greater part of (other) people go through a ritual not knowing why they do so” (De Civitate Dei 6.11).13

 

[Sleeppy]

A carpenter would not have been literate, according to actual historical evidence and not 'what I'd like to believe' evidence.

You're quite sure.. Who gave you that information?

 

[Sleeppy]

Nope. Only homosexual acts outside of committed relationships were mentioned, which are repeatedly said to be immoral, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Nothing at all in the old testament about committed homosexual relationships.

The text is more clear than that.

 

[Sleeppy]

The Old Testament was never called the 'Bible".



Actually it has everything to do with the thread. Most of the self-righteous, it seems, pick and choose their self-righteousness.

1) I didn't suggest that the Old Testament was called "Bible", by Jews. If I'm not mistaken, I referred to the Old Testament as "the Tanakh."
2) Nothing to do with the thread. The thread is about what Jesus, a Jew, would have believed and done.
3) Everyone picks and chooses their self-righteousness. Let's not pretend it only exists outside of ourselves.

 

[sojourner]

Male homosexuality is called an abomination in Leviticus.

No it isn't. male/male sex is called an abomination, but we're really not sure of the context. It's probably more like battlefield rape than it is a context of erotic love.

 

[Sleeppy]

Male/male sex is called an abomination, but we're really not sure of the context. It's probably more like battlefield rape than it is a context of erotic love.

So then you add your own supposition, what that context might be? The problem with that supposition is in the text.

And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman...

 

[sojourner]

So then you add your own supposition, what that context might be? The problem with that supposition is in the text.

Really? How is that any more of a problem than your own supposition that the bible writers are against something they don't even realize exists?

 

[Sleeppy]

Really? How is that any more of a problem than your own supposition that the bible writers are against something they don't even realize exists?

That's fairly ridiculous. They did know it existed, as evidenced in that same quote. If we're talking about something that's an abnormal, nevertheless natural reoccurring phenomenon, how are you imagining an entire population not knowing homosexuality existed. -- I remember you saying this before, but refresh me on your logic.

 

[sojourner]

That's fairly ridiculous. They did know it existed, as evidenced in that same quote.

The text gives absolutely no evidence that it's about homosexuality. It gives every indication that it's about some kind of male/male sex.

If we're talking about something that's an abnormal, nevertheless natural reoccurring thing, how are you imagining an entire population not knowing homosexuality existed.

They didn't think in terms of sexual orientation. They just didn't. It was beyond their scientific knowledge and outside their sphere of cultural reason. The idea of sexuality as a certain orientation is very recent. To them, the act wasn't part of an orientation.

 

[Sleeppy]

The text gives absolutely no evidence that it's about homosexuality. It gives every indication that it's about some kind of male/male sex.

They didn't think in terms of sexual orientation. They just didn't. It was beyond their scientific knowledge and outside their sphere of cultural reason. The idea of sexuality as a certain orientation is very recent. To them, the act wasn't part of an orientation.

OK. You're claiming that they weren't aware of those with inclinations toward the same sex? And/or that they hadn't legitimized it as something proper, by giving it a name indicative of it being an alternate sexual orientation?

In any case, the text does say that male/male sex is an abomination. Anything more or less than that is adding a context which isn't there.

 

[sojourner]

OK. You're claiming that they weren't aware of those with inclinations toward the same sex? And/or that they hadn't legitimized it as something proper, by giving it a name indicative of it being an alternate sexual orientation?

In any case, the text does say that male/male sex is an abomination. Anything more or less than that is adding a context which isn't there.

I'm claiming that they were unaware that there was such a thing as orientation. Remember: these are people who believe that the human seed was completely within the male, and that people thought with their heart.

Yes, the text does say that male/male sex is an abomination. It also states that the sky is a rigid dome covering a disc-shaped earth, yet we're perfectly comfortable throwing out that bit of misinformation...

 

[BSM1]

I'm claiming that they were unaware that there was such a thing as orientation. Remember: these are people who believe that the human seed was completely within the male, and that people thought with their heart.

Yes, the text does say that male/male sex is an abomination. It also states that the sky is a rigid dome covering a disc-shaped earth, yet we're perfectly comfortable throwing out that bit of misinformation...

Could you cite a source where the Bible states that the earth is disc-shaped?

 

[leibowde84]

The text is more clear than that.

How so?

 

[sojourner]

Could you cite a source where the Bible states that the earth is disc-shaped?

Genesis 1. The Hebrew word for sky is raqiya. It means, "a hammered-out bowl." The ancients believed the sky was a dome -- rigid (because it had been hammered out), upon which the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies were affixed. That dome separated the air from the heavens. In order for the dome to cover the earth, the earth would have to be disc-shaped.

 

[roger1440]

Could you cite a source where the Bible states that the earth is disc-shaped?

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." (Isaiah 40:22)

 

[roger1440]

Could you cite a source where the Bible states that the earth is disc-shaped?

During ancient times it was believed the Earth was shaped like a disk because the horizon has no corners. On the outskirts of the world was water. This water separated the world from the heavens.

Of the many English translations for Job 26:10, the ones that use the word circle is best because it reflects the world view of the ancients.

“He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.” New International Version

“He has drawn a circle on the waters at the boundary where the day and night come together.” King James 2000 Bible

 

[Sleeppy]

Remember: these are people who believed that the human seed was completely within the male, and that people thought with their hearts.

It also states that the sky is a rigid dome covering a disc-shaped earth...

I disagree on these points.. But they're irrelevant. We can agree to disagree.