It’s the time of year to make the claim that Jesus is gay. It seems to happen semi-annually.  A few years back, a Queensland academic made the claim that Jesus had sex with his male disciples and a special relationship with ‘the beloved’ disciple, John.

I remember when God was young, me and Susie had so much much fun…

This year it was the turn of another John, Elton John, to raise the topic of Jesus’ sexuality, adding the new element that Jesus was a “super-intelligent” gay man.

The famous singer’s admiration of Jesus extends beyond his claim that Jesus was gay and smart: Elton admires Jesus’ compassion, naming the forgiveness of sins that Christ achieved on the cross as a key element of the Christian message, and something worthy of emulation.

This is encouraging news for those who understand that Christianity is first and foremost about forgiveness of sins, turning back to God and attempting to live in the manner that Christ exemplified.

However, the claim that Jesus was gay stretches the biblical and historical data too far. Unless we rely on the conspiracy-style argument (which runs: Jesus’ gayness is suggested by the Gospels’ suppression of any mention that he was gay), we just have to accept that a first-century Jewish teacher who spoke against porneia, the catch-all biblical term for all sexual acts proscribed by the Jewish law, could not have accepted homosexuality as a moral good. We might disagree with Jesus, but we should at least deal with what the man actually said rather than what we’d like him to say (the church, as much as anyone else, needs to remember this).

Christians do feel the pressure to adopt the emerging majority view on this—who wants to be the nay-sayer?—but they cannot bring themselves to reject 2000 years of utterly consistent Christian tradition going all the way back to Jesus for the sake of this particular cultural moment.

However, it’s blindingly obvious that the Church overall, and many Christians individually, have made a complete mess of their relationships with gay people. Let’s say it more constructively: Christians have a lot to apologise for to the gay community. Too often, Christians have hidden behind biblical texts about homosexuality in order to express their own personal homophobia and hatred. They have allowed their biblically informed views to promote unbiblical rhetoric and behaviour.

In all honesty, Christians rarely relate to gay people with anything like love, kindness, gentleness, patience and peace—the very things that are considered ‘spiritual’ in the Christian faith.

Surely it is possible for a mainstream, orthodox Christian to hold his or her view that homosexual behaviour is not encouraged in the Christian way of thinking, while at the same time being loving, kind and peaceful towards those who identify as gay. We are not talking about condescension — “Oh, I’ll be nice to you even though I think you are of the devil” — but genuine human connection with someone who lives differently from the way you yourself support.

It was the genius of Jesus that he could flex two mental muscles at the same time: he could have deep convictions about right and wrong yet extend love and friendship to all regardless. This is a lost art. Nowadays, we either stop loving those we disagree with, or in the name of love, adjust our own moral convictions.

The approach of biblical scholar Professor Robert Gagnon is the sort of thing we would like to see more often. In his landmark book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press, 2001), Gagnon summarised his 500-page study, saying, “The church should reject the notion that the only alternatives are to affirm homosexual behaviour or to hate and harass homosexuals” (p.485).

It will be a sad day for pluralistic democracies when a Christian has to claim to support homosexual behaviour in order to be thought of as loving; likewise, a Christian should hear the criticisms of the gay community in a spirit of friendship.

Gay and lesbian people are often so hurt by churches or Christians that it may take a very long time before any agreeable dialogue on the matter is possible. Elton John’s claim that Jesus is gay may not cope with much historical scrutiny, but that might be irrelevant at present, until we can find a way to acknowledge the damage that has been done and recover the art of friendly disagreement. 

- Dr Greg Clarke and Dr John Dickson are the directors of www.publicchristianity.org

50 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • T.Chong says:

      05:08am | 27/02/10

      Well, the three men I admire most,
      are the father,son and the holy ghost…,

    • OldGirl says:

      06:59am | 27/02/10

      Gay or straight doesn’t bother me, I think the bible is a 2,000 year old story that is well past its use by date.

    • Seano says:

      07:04am | 27/02/10

      I have no opinion on whether Elton is correct in his contention that Jesus was gay. But I think it is more believeable than the idea that he had supernatural powers, which is plainly ridiculous.

    • TimT says:

      07:39am | 27/02/10

      No, they’ve got it the wrong way around.

      Jesus was not a super-intelligent gay man.

      Jesus was a gay intelligent superman!

    • Eric says:

      08:19am | 27/02/10

      On the topic of gay activism, this week someone lodged a complaint against two sportcasters for some very mild comments during the Winter Olympics.

      http://bit.ly/aA9y6A

      The fact that this sort of thing can result in legal complications is a disgrace. It also shows that gays have more rights than straights in some areas, since heterosexual people can’t lodge similar complaints. The law specifically protects gays and not non-gays.

    • AL says:

      02:24pm | 27/02/10

      To Eric, 

      Mr. or Ms Burns is jealous that he hasn’t been asked to be a part of the commendation.  As they say ‘jealousy is a curse’.  Burns just wants what Molly has.

    • Andrew Goff says:

      03:39pm | 27/02/10

      Hi Eric,

      You’re wrong, you can. If you see anyone on TV making “heterophobic” remarks, you can indeed complain under exactly the same piece of legislation that this nut job has.

      Contrary to what you have said, the law specifically DOES protect gay and straight people equalliy.

    • Eric says:

      05:52pm | 27/02/10

      Really, Andrew? I might have to take a look at some feminist textbooks. *evil grin*

    • Greg says:

      12:53am | 01/03/10

      I went to the local soccer club to see if I could get a game.Fine they said, so we went out to practice and a guy kicked the ball to me and I caught it. “cant do that” they said ” Why not thats how I like to play soccer” “No our rules have been in place for a hundred years and they clearly state no hands. Its against our rules”. Well im going to protest and go to equal opportunities untill you change your rules to suite me”
      We’d never stand for such nonsense.
      Why do gays seek to change the thousands years old structure of the catholic church? Why do they get tacid media support on this? Wether you like catholics, or any religious people,or not why should they have to change to suite a few people who are against the teachings?
      As to people like Tim and old girl:  is insult all that you can offer to the debate? If its an irrelevent old book why are you commenting on it?
      Feel free to believe or disbelieve what ever you want but what purpose is served by insulting others beliefs. You look very insecure.

    • nic says:

      10:05am | 27/02/10

      I don’t understand, Elton John saying Jesus was gay is relevant in what way to problems between the church and gay people?  Would you say such comments are helpful in improving dialogue?

      Oh, as to “until we can find a way to acknowledge the damage that has been done and recover the art of friendly disagreement” it would seem to many followers that John’s comments were insulting. What has the reaction of the church been? Burnings? Beheadings? Mass protests? not really, more agreeing to disagree. Imagine if old Elton had made similar comments about another leader of a world faith. Let’s see how much ‘friendly disagreement’ would have gone on.

    • chris says:

      11:45am | 27/02/10

      To me this thread helps to highlight the differences between News Limited’s “The Punch” and the ABC’s so-called open forum “the Drum”. The above point of view would not even have got a run. To me, “the Drum’ is yet another way to control the Corporation’s world view, not to allow diverse opinion. I wrote this to the ABC online Editor this morning, I bet I don’t get a response:

      “ABC’s agenda is showing again, and now News Limited’s “the Punch” is in action… what a world of contrasts! “Punch” has almost no limitations (or bias), “the Drum” allows us to comment “most days” (that you choose) on “several stories”(that you choose) and “a selection of comments” (that you choose) will be reposted. You even limit this email comment to you to 200 words! Free speech? Typical ABC social engineering. People aren’t stupid, the comparisons are hitting home fast.”

    • formersnag says:

      01:15pm | 27/02/10

      I can’t see Jesus, as ever having been, a “poofter basher”. But i equally can’t see him, leading the “gay/lesbian mardi gras”, or promoting it as normal, healthy, positive behaviour which should be emulated wherever possible.

    • What is the answer? says:

      01:24pm | 27/02/10

      The years prior to 1066, catholic priest were allowed to marry as they did.  This is a fact.  However this created a problem.  The priest of that time hand down their entire estates (their entire goods and chattels curtailed their church/monastery - of the like)  down from father to son and so it went down from father to son and father to son.  This practice infuriated the churches congregation and put a total stop to married priest being a catholic priest. 

      History now tells us that those (small minority) who have found their way into the church by covering up their true identity and serving as a catholic priest have been exposed with the full force of the law.  Thank-God we have moved on.
      What is the answer to all of this?  I can’t tell you.  One thing I am confident about is that we can only move forward from now.

    • Phill says:

      01:27pm | 27/02/10

      I’m personally not really surprised that Elton John thinks that Jesus is gay. When people talk about Jesus they are often talking about themselves. It’s the same with Reg Mombassa and his Aussie Jesus. From what I’ve found people often like to think Jesus is just like they are. Whether he’s a super-intelligent gay man, a laid back Aussie who’s all for social justice or a self-righteous, judgmental critic of all things different as the church sometimes like to think Jesus is. We all like a domesticated Jesus who is pretty similar to us.

      Maybe we’re scared of who the real Jesus is or what he says about us? That’s why we use him to confirm our pre-formed ideas about ourselves then project them on to him. But it’s not fair to Jesus and we’ll never learn anything from him if we just go to him to confirm what we already think. I’d really like to encourage you all to put aside your preconceptions and come to Jesus on his terms. Have look at what he says and does in the most accurate accounts of his life. He did and said some pretty unique stuff. So much so we still talk about him now.

      At worst you’ll just confirm your preconceptions and at best you’ll meet probably the most influential and striking person in history.

    • Radical Chick says:

      01:34pm | 27/02/10

      Christians are non-aggressive but I ask It is okay for Elton to say that of Jesus??Of course it isn’t. It is dismissive , offensive and unacceptable to Christians.
      He certainly would not offend Muslims in such fashion….as he would have to live like Salman Rushdie lives.
      But all of that is irrelevant and that is because Jesus Christ is unlikely to bother about what old Elton John says….and as for religious issues most people would not listen to what an overweight, overpriced and over the top mediocre singer has to say.  Much like they wouldn’t care what he has to say about brain surgery. You know ...people are smart. On issues they are likely to hear from people who actually matters in their respective areas…
      Bring on a good song instead Elton….it’s been quite a while you haven’t made anything remotely good.
      PS- If people want to find great material on religion and other issues associated with it I suggest the Vatican Library.  It is a great resource and it carries a great and diverse array of available documents in areas such as philology, law and science…especially if you read Italian or Latin.

    • 6clegs says:

      12:00am | 28/02/10

      Oh, you’re just soooo ‘‘radical’‘, aren’t-cha?

      You, “radical chick” may be “non-agressive”, but have you ever heard the terms; passive agressive, or, snarky ? coz you seem to have the snarky thing right down pat, wink

      Are you sure that you and “Saskia” who also posts on Punch are not one-of-the-same?

      And Churches, i think, invented the need for the term “passive agressive”

    • 6clegs says:

      01:35pm | 27/02/10

      Maybe if more churches cared less about what people do in the privacy of their home, and extended a truely welcoming and inclusive arm, and, included people they, the ex-cluded people might start to be less suspicious of any words from “churches”. Actions might heal.

      The churches are the ones with the “power” in this ‘argument’, so it’s up to the churches to make this whole mess right, with actions .

      Poisonally i don’t understand why gay people would want to be part of organised religion anyway. It has me stumped - I thought only pedos wanted, and got in…

      (yeah, i know, that last comment wasn’t “helpful”. Sorry. I couldn’t help meself, i was speaking for the thousands of the [internet] voiceless victims of church sanctioned child abuse)

    • Bwian says:

      06:03pm | 27/02/10

      This is just so much disingenuous spin.  Why don’t you tell us the whole story about your conservative Christian views on gay sex, Greg and John? 

      Isn’t this Jesus - the one you paint all sweet and light - the same one who is sending all sexually active gays to hell for an eternity of fiery torture? 

      Doesn’t sound very loving or friendly to me!

    • Greg (another one) says:

      01:21am | 01/03/10

      Bwian, I can tell you mine: No probs with gays, have many friends who are(work in the arts) We get along very well contsantly partying and performing. Great people. That does not give gays the right to dictate terms to others, to change things to suite them. If it doesnt suite their belifes why dont they set up something that does? No one has a problem with that.
      Mabey you should have a look at a bible. You get forgiven if you ask for it in true contrition. If not you go to hell. Loving so long as you dont spit on him, then a vengeful, wrathful God. Could you blame him?
      Now if you dont have a belief in God, (as a great gay celebrity mate of mine says “I feel sorry for them”) thats your business. But why are you here?
      Ive found gays to be a very erudite and well mannered group. I consider a few to be some of the best mates I have,but Ive never met one who would post crass insults about someone elses beliefs. Unlike many here.

    • Lee from WA says:

      01:17pm | 01/03/10

      A God who takes seriously how his creation treats each others will judge and condemn evil, even though he is loving. People often have love and judgment at odds with each other, which might be true of humans, but isn’t true of God. He loves us so he takes our actions seriously and doesn’t tolerate our selfishness. If he takes our actions seriously, he will judge and condemn fairly.

      So when it comes to homosexuality, if God’s design for sex in the creation of humans is for monogamous, heterosexual marriage, then homosexuality will be damaging to people, even if they themselves don’t recognise the damage being done. If God cares for us, then he will condemn that behaviour and those who do that behaviour.

    • sofer please I say says:

      08:10pm | 27/02/10

      Your comment:

        be softer says:

        12:09pm | 27/02/10

        It would be far more effective approach if the gay society would changed their tactics and be quiet about their life goals that they are trying to achieve.  For instance, take our home turf, Sydney.  It has been said that Sydney is a city of sin, called ‘sin-city’ for a multitude of reasons.  In addition in has also been reckonised as a city for guys.  So you see folks, it is far better to take on the policy of ‘don’t shout out your wants and needs’ and we won’t scrutinize you’.  Be softer at your approach.

    • Daddio D says:

      08:46pm | 27/02/10

      What happened to my post? One of the first posts under this article if not D first. Ok, I’ll forgive and try again. .... Eminent people that Greg and John may be I find it incredible that they (and Elton John) missed and failed to mention in their article a hugely important thing: Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of God in the womb of a woman called Marryem (Virgin Mary to Christians and Muslims) . That might appear to make Jesus half-man, half-God but since he is of God, He is therefore God, personified in human form (the Son of God). God is sinless. Homosexuality is a sin. Therefore Jesus was not a homosexual. Elton John, like Greg and John and like me, is smaller than a grain of sand in the immensity of God’s creation. Elton’s views are nothing to write about. I post under this article only because I want to point out that it is worthless and should never have been written by two people smaller than particles of dust who claim to be religious expert doctors. You know the saying “The more you think you know, the less you know.” Maybe Greg and John should try writing an article about Hell. Let us all then see how much they know.

    • Heather says:

      06:58pm | 01/03/10

      “Homosexuality is a sin.”

      Chapter and verse (original, please, not misinformed 16th century translations).

      Sodomy is not encouraged in scripture (between men and men OR women and men), but is not specifically mentioned as a “sin”. “Sodomites will not inherit the kingdom of God” is the NT verse most often quoted. But then, neither will liars, ursurers or gossips.

      No outcry against banks charging interest though, and yet usury has a much longer-reaching effect than what adults do in their own bedroom. Guess everyone who ever bought a Woman’s Day or No Idea is pretty much done for as well, eh.

      Funny how a gay man will be beaten for what he was made to be or given hatred for “Biblical” reasons whereas we don’t see the same rage meted out to bank managers (I’m not suggesting anyone should, either, btw).

      The 10 Commandments don’t mention homosexuality being up there with murder, adultery or theft. Leviticus (the OT book that talks about “men lying with men as with a woman”) was a book for the OT Levites—ie, the priests of the day, to follow, not everyone else (who were covered by Deuteronomy (whihc doesn’t mention it). The OT Priest Law covered by Leviticus (including all of the clothing rules, sacrificial law, etc), were rendered moot by Jesus’ sacrifice (Jesus effectively ended “The Law”).

      Hell, by the way? Not a Biblical concept, never has been. The Bible never mentions it. Hell, is in fact a medieval construct from and Ancient Roman/Greek ideal and was used to keep “the masses” (pun unintended) in line. The Bible mentions a “lake of fire” ONCE. It speaks of the greatest punishment being “set away from God” and the word we translate “perish” (as in “they will perish if [insert Bible rule here]”) literally translates to “perish, and go on perishing”). I have no idea what that really means, but Purgatory etc is also a meaningless concept, Biblically speaking.

      Oh! No, I lie! There is one verse often tranlsated “Hell”. “You shall beat that child and save his soul from Hell.” (Actually the original means “destruction”, not Hell). Hm. Really?

      I am neither Catholic, or gay, for the record. I do, however, wish that people who purport to be Christians actually knew what Scripture actually said on the subject, in context, not just as a sentence pulled out of a whole and quoted to justify unwarranted hatred and disgust—which, btw, is a learned disgust, not a “natural” one.

      For the longest time, homosexual relations were a part of warrior culture (not always positive, but not negative either). It was the Ancient Romans that had issue with it (same Romans who have determined the “marriage rites” which are also extra-Biblical in inception). There was no pressure, btw, to “come out” either, people weren’t boxed so much (sexuality is not that simple, nor that complicated to throw us in as “gay”, “straight” or “bi”. We are built to love and we should be able to love who we love, and not just “eros” but true “agape” as well). All any of this does is cause people unnecessary angst and harm.

      Why can’t we just live and let live, and follow the whole “judge not lest ye be judged” concept?

    • Daddio D says:

      07:50am | 05/03/10

      I haven’t checked in on this debate in a while, pardon me. Heather might like to look at the links I’ve posted for the answers she asks for. I didn’t produce them btw.

    • IMHO says:

      10:55pm | 27/02/10

      There is a strand of opinion in Christian historicity circles that St. Paul (of the Letters) was an oppressed gay man.

      But back to the article, sorry Doctors Greg and John but the world has moved on from your 2000-odd year old document and centuries of “tradition”. Gay folk are not interested in your pathetic nod to tolerance with your “we love you but we don’t love your actions” line.

      It’s not good enough. You need to abandon your hypocritical, nauseous, ill-informed and unfounded but deeply held revulsion that leads you to the view that gay people are different to the rest of humankind. How dare you pronounce on the sexual behaviour of adult human beings engaged in consensual activity based on your hopelessly out of date doctrine.

      If Jesus truly was a man who could overcome his culturally imprinted fear of those who were different, he’d be ashamed of your doctrine and indeed much of the last 2 millenium of christian behaviour and thinking.

    • Greg says:

      01:37am | 01/03/10

      IMHO: You need to abandon your hyprocritical,nausoeus, ill- informed and unfounded but deeply held revulsion that leads you to the the view religious people are different to the rest of mankind. How dare you pronunce on the sexual behaviour or beliefs of adult human beings. If they dont like it who are you to force it on them, to take away their choice, their make up. I dont see you mentioning Allah here. Bit selective.
      You trully need to abandon your hyprocitcal intolerence of others ways and beliefs.

    • stephen says:

      02:36am | 28/02/10

      Jesus : “bugger the donkey, I’ll take the horse.”

    • Steve says:

      03:10am | 28/02/10

      “Surely it is possible for a mainstream, orthodox Christian to hold his or her view that homosexual behaviour is not encouraged in the Christian way of thinking, while at the same time being loving, kind and peaceful towards those who identify as gay.”

      Let’s put that another way. Surely it is possible for a mainstream, orthodox Christian to hold his or her view that homosexual behaviour is not encouraged in the Christian way of thinking, without being branded as bigoted, redneck or homophobic. That seems to be the normal response if you dare to suggest that homosexuality is not cononed by the bible or is anything other than a good thing.

    • Uncle Buck says:

      10:15am | 28/02/10

      Ok I get it. Christians will now say “we won’t say nasty things about you”, and you did stop all that purification by pain stuff, but our god will torture for ever and ever in a nasty burning pool of fire.
      For the love of god…or the lack of it!

    • Virgo says:

      10:43am | 28/02/10

      I watched The Gay Madigra on tv last night, I thought it was fantastic. I am hetrosexual and old old old, but if I was younger I might seriouly think of turning gay for just one day so I could have just as much fun as they had. Well done Sydney it was a joy to watch. I don’t think it matters if Jesus was gay or straight hes been dead a long time now

    • Sam Chowder says:

      03:08pm | 28/02/10

      @Virgo - as a hetro I have always been jealous of all the fun gays seem to have and their lively social lives that are not always dominated by alcohol.  I may just tighten up my abs and devise a natty minimalist costume in time for next year, but I don’t think a hetro wannabe gay would be accepted.

    • Steve says:

      07:38pm | 28/02/10

      I can’t understand the madi gras myself. I don’t object to it but can’t see the appeal.
      I have a gay friend who hates it. As far as he’s concerned, having a parade full of drag queens etc accomplishes nothing more than reinforce sterotypes he’d rather see discouraged. If I was gay I think I’d be inclined to feel the same way.

    • Greg says:

      01:43am | 01/03/10

      Steve all my gay mates feel the same, they dont like “Queens” it makes life harder for them cause of the sterotypes it reinforces, the ones they are trying to break.

    • Nicki says:

      01:43pm | 28/02/10

      I think it was very likely that he was gay. Just look at his lifestyle.Many man around,he kiss most of them,not married at the age of 33,have some “girlfriends” ,very strong radical views.  His fashion sense was standing out form other Jews.Just imagine to keep those tunics snow white.
      So 99% I think he was good gay man who like to help people and be famous.

    • Nickk says:

      04:40pm | 01/03/10

      You best be trolling.

      1. Most guys (straight or gay) hang out with “many men.”
      2. This was a cultural occurrence. It still occurs today in many places, such as the Mediterranean region, but the large majority of those men are straight.
      3. He rejected having a settled personal life so he could travel to spread his message.
      4. Having “very strong and radical” views says nothing about being gay. Can’t believe I’m going to compare Jesus to Hitler, but Hitler had “very strong and radical” views, one of which included the persecution of gays.
      5. Outstanding fashion sense? The Bible says he looked like just a common man, nothing remarkable about his appearance. Snow white tunics? That’s purely from paintings you have seen, all of which use that colour for artistic purposes (usually indicating his pure/holy spirit)

    • Karen says:

      03:06pm | 28/02/10

      Well said Greg and John.  It’s time for Christians to stop hiding behind belief as an excuse for hatred.  I don’t agree with Gay and Lesbian lifestyle but that doesn’t stop me being friends with many of them.  - They don’t agree with things I do but we move on.  I don’t think Christians, Muslims etc need to change their beliefs but where is the love???

    • cats says:

      05:18pm | 28/02/10

      How can you possibly take what Elton John says so seriously? Don’t you have anything better to write about? Anyone getting worked up over this is truely a halfwit.

    • Goose says:

      05:38pm | 28/02/10

      I have never oppressed anyone who identifies as being gay, never spoken a word against these people nor cast an opinion, however I have been roundly condemmned for being a bible believing christian and therefore / ergo a homophobe. So who exactly is showing the intolerance in that regard?

    • Tim says:

      09:39pm | 28/02/10

      Shouldn’t you be angry at your fellow Christians that hide behind a single line in a book to preach their bigoted views and solidify the stereotype for your problem. 
      Let’s put it this way (and I’m not in any terms saying the plight of the gay community is equal to the following attrocities, though the key points are the same) would you question a Jewish person of their feelings toward neo nazis? How about a black person toward a member of the KKK?  How do you thing a gay person is supposed to respond to posts like those written by Daddio D, or Radical Chick above? What about the constant denegration by the Pope or Cardinal or Cleric or the “religious” members of parliament?
      I’m gay, my best friend is a Christian and I’ve never felt more love from anyone before. But I’ll be damned before I let my guard down to someone who says they’re religious while things are the way they are now.

    • Goose says:

      04:42am | 01/03/10

      I’m not religious Tim, I am a follower of Jesus. I am not decrying anyone that identifies with being gay, I am living my life according to the doctrine of the Bible as best as I can and treating others as I would like to be treated. You would also find the overwhelming majority of christians would be similar to me in that regard.

      The point stands though, even if I love people, gay people, any people, the gay community still loudly and proudly declares me a homophobe. That is straight out intolerance of my position and yet completely justified by the gay community whilst deplored when the shoe is on the other foot.

      I can’t speak for the Pope or Cardinals or Clerics, I speak for my actions and am accountable to Jesus, I don’t follow or worship them, I follow Him. He is my example.

    • Tim says:

      09:48am | 01/03/10

      Oh, ok.  You’re not religious.  Well in that case I’m not gay. I’m just sexually attracted to people of the same sex as me.

      Heard of the term ‘once bitten, twice shy’? Again, if you don’t like it when you identify yourself as relig… I mean “a follower of Jesus” and the gays immediately look you up and down, think about all the homophopic BS that is still being spouted by your fellow Jesus followers.  Maybe then you’ll know who to target your distaste of being labelled and maybe then you’ll be the one who can help heal the wounds and spread some love.

    • Daryl says:

      06:10pm | 28/02/10

      Its an interesting point of view, but to suggest the Koine Greek word Porneia describes homosexuality is blatently false.  There is no word in the New Testament which accurately translates to describe homosexuality.  The word most commonly translated as homosexual is arsenokoites - however this word would more accurately be translated to describe a pedarist.  Of course any Biblical Scholar worth their salt knows thisand they are also aware of this little gem “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” (Ezekiel 16:49 NIV) ... seems to me that if there was any verse in Scripture which would outright condemn homosexuality it would be where the sins of Sodom are listed - yet it doesn’t even rate a mention…  Homosexuality is not condemned by scripture - and to suggest that Jesus would condemn a person as a sinner basedon a sexual orientation over which they have no control is to demonstrate your complete faith in tradition alone rather than in conjunction whith scripture and reason.  You read into scripture what your pre conceived ideas have already established - and that is nothing more than eisegesis, and does not resemble true exegesis.

    • Fren says:

      12:08pm | 01/03/10

      Romans 1 :  26
      Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.


      Pretty clear to me

    • Daryl says:

      03:12pm | 01/03/10

      Fren, the verse of scripture which you have plucked out,  when read in context is referring to the sexual acts that were commonly performed in pagan worship at the time.  Also note that it states that people gave up ‘natural relations’.  Of course you are aware that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomina - it occurs in almost all animal species.  The natural form of relations for a homosexual is to have sex with someone of the same gender - for them to give up ‘natural relations’ they would have to be having heterosexual sex!!

      Put simply the writers of the bible did not know what homosexual orientation was - therefore they did not write about it.  Instead we have some verses which are regularly taken out of context - as you have done - which decry those who go against their ‘natural’ instincts for perverted or pagan worship reasons.

    • Fren says:

      09:34am | 02/03/10

      Daryl,

      Paul is writing to Roman Christians not pagans.
      the Old Testament was written in Arabic not Greek.

      Sorry dude no cigar, but nice smile  try not cutting and pasting directly from the internet next time. Do the reseach yourself it very hard oill to swallow but honestly look.

      try I Timothy 1:10 and Jude 7. NT
      also Leviticus and Deut. have references to homosexuality.

    • Daryl says:

      01:46pm | 02/03/10

      ROFL @ Fren!!

      Actually the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with some sections in Aramaic -oops do you feel embarressed? I always feel a little embarressed for people when they try to make someone else look silly, only to re-inforce that they themselves are…

      I never stated the Old Testament was written in Greek - I stated that the Koine Greek word Porneia does not refer to homosexuality - this is the word quoted in the article and used in the NEW Testament.  The New Testament was written in Koine Greek - as I already noted.

      Paul was writing to Roman Christians and warning about non Christian practices and their consequences - perhaps you need to study a little harder hmmm??


      1 Timothy 1:10:  The word translated as ‘homosexual’ or’‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ is Arsenokoites or Arsenokoitai - I referred to it earlier you may recall - it is better translated as pedarist or somone who has sex with young boys.

      Jude 1:7 - not chapter seven which doesn’t exist smile.  Jude refers to perversion - what kind of perversion is not mentioned.

      Leviticus 18:22 the levitical holiness code is not applicable to Christians and there is much debate over the actual meaning of the verse - i.e. scholars have pointed out that it only forbids sex between two males - females are not mentioned, thus it does not refer to homosexuality as a whole.  Also the verse directly preceeding it deals with pagan worship practices, possibly making this refer to a religious practice.

      Deuteronomy: refers to prostitutes not homosexuals.

      Thanks for playing smile and God bless!

    • Fran says:

      09:58am | 01/03/10

      Great stuff, I love the ‘facts’ , this has the same historical cred as a Dan Brown novel. very funny.

    • Jeff says:

      12:55pm | 01/03/10

      Where does this argument even come from? There is zero in the Bible that would suggest this of Jesus. It’s just complete fabrication.
      The great thing about Jesus is that he laid his life down for all people, regardless of what they’ve done or who they are. He made no qualification.
      Check him out yourself (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) and make up your own mind, the Church and Punch columns can’t answer all the big questions for you!

    • omegaman says:

      02:47pm | 02/03/10

      News flash to gays: Not everyone centres their existence around whatever it takes to achieve orgasm.
      Jesus’ message is clear, we are not animals and can transcend our carnal bodies if we use our brains. How do you extrapolate that this means he got off on gay sex?
      Gay people do not accept anyone who chooses of their own free will to live life by what God says so why do they think religious people are bigots?

 

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Watching them do it online, as Labor did it to the nation

Watching them do it online, as Labor did it to the nation

Let’s face it: What Paul McLeay’s done isn’t the worst thing in the world. It isn’t…

Introducing Labor’s new faction – the Greens

Introducing Labor’s new faction – the Greens

The Greens are now officially the far-left faction of the Australian Labor Party.  They have been…

Five ingredients of a good advice column

Five ingredients of a good advice column

Question: A young Man being an apprentice, and having served about half his time, hath a very fair opportunity…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Enough with all the meat eating all ready

Edward James says:

Reducing the consumption of meat and sea food by 15%. What about the world population is it not increasing each year by the same or greater percentage? Those extra people are not all vegatarian they are eating meat and fish too. There is something strange about the maths message in your story. Our world… [read more]

From: The national policy agenda which nobody voted for

thatmosis says:

This whole process has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Here we have a Nation held captive by independants and a so called independant party called the Greens, aka the Raving Looney Party, whilst money is being wasted daily on public servants doing their usual thing, nothing but with bells on.… [read more]

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

Scorchingly good and uncharacteristically sensible piece by @Joe_Hildebrand on the NSW Labor Party http://tinyurl.com/2896syw#ausvotes

Leo Shanahan

Like Shane Warne I can guarantee I haven't had a facelift. Can't speak for @penbo though, we don't call him Sza Sza for nothing.

Lucy Kippist

Five ingredients of a good advice column. New post by me: http://bit.ly/d6bbX3#thepunch

Leo Shanahan

@Alex_Carlton there is no nice way for me to say i want to here that right now.

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Gillard and Abbott get a digital makeover

Gillard and Abbott get a digital makeover

Warning: this has nothing to do with politics. We thought we’d see how the Prime Minister and Opposition… Read more

26 comments

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter