That's sad, if true, but only points out what we atheists already know, among humans, unfortunately, all too often, "different" is bad.
What about ignoring them the same way they ignore the rest of the Levitical proclamations about mixed fibers and shellfish and so forth? All of that is plainly stated, but only the homosexuality thing is harped on in the year of our Lord 2013.
"(atheist) eyes are on them."
As far as I'm concerned, the more conservative the Pope the better. The larger the droves rushing for the exit.
Oh please, Angela! Where exactly did Jesus say, "Love the person but hate the act"? Furthermore, where did he condemn homosexuality? If you want to pull up old testament shit then explain why Catholics eat pork or wear clothing made of mixed fabric.
In the end, he's the head honcho of the longest running, continuous game of make believe.
Ah, Heather... makes me want to 'friend' you all over again :)
And over and over and over? Sounds kinky, :D
Jesus said a lot of shit. Matthew 5: 17-48 seems to condemn homosexuality implicitly, yet also commands his followers to love their enemies. I don't think 'enemies' was meant as 'sinners', but you'd have to figure the same principle would apply. Then again, I'm sure I am wrong and there is some clever interpretation whereby Jesus was really just telling us to eat liquorice and scratch behind cats' ears.
Then somewhere in Acts some other dudes were all like, "Naw man, the gentiles can't handle all that. Let's cut 'em some slack on some of this stuff." 'Fornication' was one of the items which remained taboo, but exactly what is meant by 'fornication' in context, I know not.
[edited to insert chapter no.]
Do you mean verses 17-48 of chapter 5? Those are the most common verses used to support old testament law - but nothing specific about homosexuality is stated.
Yes, I missed a digit. Like I said, it is implicit. Explain how it can not be.
The general party line amongst Christians is that he was not here to abolish the law but fulfill the law -> meaning he was not absolving any who came before but was, rather, fulfilling the prophecy that a messiah would deliver a new covenant. Don't ask me where that new covenant is referenced because it's been 20 years since I studied that bullshit.
In any event, Christianity, almost in its entirety, believes that the prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus died (even though he didn't) and therefore the new covenant came into effect at that point. They then go on to define that new covenant by denomination -> essentially freelancing their own covenant but none of them conforming to old testament law anymore.
Problematically, his command in those lines was for his followers to follow a very rigid version of the law of Moses. What Christianity says is good and fine, but the question asked was what Jesus said.
To be clear, it's not my intent to debate the finer points of what Christians should or should not do in accordance with their faith when neither of us advocate Christianity -- personally, I'll sex up as many dudes as I feel like regardless of Christ or Christians --, but the topic of what Jesus said is, from my perspective, a delightfully bizarre thing in itself.