WWJM? Who Would Jesus Marry?

WWJM? Who Would Jesus Marry?

There are 18 comments on the newsweek.washingtonpost.com story from Dec 11, 2008, titled WWJM? Who Would Jesus Marry?. In it, newsweek.washingtonpost.com reports that:

Would Jesus have been willing to officiate at gay weddings? There is nothing in the Gospels that would indicate that he would not. Indeed, the Gospel writers do not record one word Jesus ever said condemning homosexuality.

But Jesus does say, "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give and it will be given to you...For the measure you give will be the measure you receive." (Luke 6:37, 38b)

What kind of hard heart does it take to see people weep with joy at being permitted to marry and respond with schemes to take their marriages away from them? Some of these gay couples have lived together in loving support and faithfulness for 20, 30 even 40 or 50 years. And yet, there are some who would change the law to take away their marriages and others who would make laws to prevent them from marrying in the first place. Whom does Jesus teach us will be condemned for these judgments? Those homosexual couples who marry for love or the hard-hearted heterosexuals who would try to prevent them?

Join the discussion below, or Read more at newsweek.washingtonpost.com.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1 Dec 11, 2008
Another interesting article from the same site:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/ma...

Daniel P from Long Island

“Protestant, Gay, Libertarian”

Since: Apr 08

Long Island, NY

#2 Dec 11, 2008
Who would Jesus marry ? This is easy. He would've married a nice Protestant girl. Probably a Lutheran or a Methodist.

This religion stuff is easy !

:)
MandM

Montgomery, AL

#3 Dec 11, 2008
Wow, simply, Wow! Please pray for Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite that God would open her eyes to His truth.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4 Dec 11, 2008
MandM wrote:
Wow, simply, Wow! Please pray for Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite that God would open her eyes to His truth.
I'd say that he already has and that it is people such as yourself who remain blinded to the love for all to be found in God's word.
MandM

Montgomery, AL

#5 Dec 11, 2008
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I'd say that he already has and that it is people such as yourself who remain blinded to the love for all to be found in God's word.
What do you base your statement on?

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#6 Dec 11, 2008
Daniel P from Long Island wrote:
Who would Jesus marry ? This is easy. He would've married a nice Protestant girl. Probably a Lutheran or a Methodist.
This religion stuff is easy !
:)
What makes you so sure he'd bring home a shiksa to Mary?

Daniel P from Long Island

“Protestant, Gay, Libertarian”

Since: Apr 08

Long Island, NY

#7 Dec 11, 2008
John in Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you so sure he'd bring home a shiksa to Mary?
cuz Jesus was a Lutheran. EVERYBODY knows that !

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8 Dec 11, 2008
MandM wrote:
Wow, simply, Wow! Please pray for Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite that God would open her eyes to His truth.
I will hope that you, too, open your eyes to truth.

I am sure that there are many truths about which Professor Thistlewaite is not yet enlightened. But she seems to me to be on a loving and inclusive path. I think the Lamb of God would approve.
MandM

Montgomery, AL

#9 Dec 11, 2008
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I will hope that you, too, open your eyes to truth.
I am sure that there are many truths about which Professor Thistlewaite is not yet enlightened. But she seems to me to be on a loving and inclusive path. I think the Lamb of God would approve.
But, see, you hit the main point. Based upon His Word, Jesus was not inclusive, but exclusive to those who turned (repented) from their sins and was made born-again through His Holy Spirit. Out of curiosity, why would you say that the "Lamb of God" would approve of an inclusive path?
MandM

Montgomery, AL

#10 Dec 11, 2008
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I will hope that you, too, open your eyes to truth.
I am sure that there are many truths about which Professor Thistlewaite is not yet enlightened. But she seems to me to be on a loving and inclusive path. I think the Lamb of God would approve.
Gotta bolt, but will read your response later. Thx.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#11 Dec 11, 2008
MandM wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of curiosity, why would you say that the "Lamb of God" would approve of an inclusive path?
How about because Jesus sought and welcomed society's cast-offs into his fold?
Mighty Mouse

Portland, OR

#12 Dec 11, 2008
MandM wrote:
<quoted text>
But, see, you hit the main point. Based upon His Word, Jesus was not inclusive, but exclusive to those who turned (repented) from their sins and was made born-again through His Holy Spirit. Out of curiosity, why would you say that the "Lamb of God" would approve of an inclusive path?
The fact is that most Christians pick and choose the points of their faith that they wish to believe and follow (I'm sure that this includes youself whether you admit it or not), For example:
You choose to believe that homosexuality is sinful however do you to choose acknowledge the surrounding verses and chapter of Leviticus as well? More specifically I know no Christian that would stone their wife or sell their daughters as slaves, furthermore Shellfish and cloven-hoofed animals are forbidden as food sources, yet most of us choose to consume both types of animals without regard to sinning.
For the sake of argument I won't say that Jesus wasn't exclusive to those that repented for their sins(though I don't entirely agree). The question really comes down to what is sin and how do you define it.

SIMPLE YOU SAY? IT'S DEFINED IN THE BIBLE? Well actually no it's not!(at least not in modern context)
1. Abomination for example is taken to mean sin to most of the Christian community, but in the dictionary it simply means 'greatly disliked'.

2. Between muddling interpretation, and Christians who act in Gods place by deciding what in his word is to be defined as sin and what is not, how can it be said that homosexuals need to repent their "sin" of homosexuality to be in Christ's community, yet shellfish eaters do not?

The best we can go on is to live in Christs example, making assumptions as what to call sin and what not to is (in my opinion) an insult to God. We are not called to judge, and Christ certainly never forced anyone to abide by his laws and scripture.

If you think that homosexuality is wrong, that is indeed your choice and your right as an American. If you are against gay marriage, you are entitled to say so and believe in what you say. But as Christians who are supposed to follow Christs example, the Christian community is doing a poor job by trying to stop gay marriage, for Christ never made the Romans and the Hebrews follow his laws; it was always their choice to come to him.
Reverend ALAN

San Francisco, CA

#13 Dec 11, 2008
Jesus would have married Lazarus his lover. Just like God's favorite person King David married his boyfriend Jonathan.
MandM

Montgomery, AL

#14 Dec 12, 2008
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
How about because Jesus sought and welcomed society's cast-offs into his fold?
If you mean that the salvation of God has come to the Jews as well as the Gentiles (anybody other than Jews) then agreed. That does not mean that you can believe whatever you want to and expect to enter His kingdom. The Word of God is laced with scriptures to refute that type of thinking.

“Fight bigotry.”

Since: Feb 07

Toms River, NJ

#15 Dec 12, 2008
The "Word of God" as you call it was written by men with the singular goal of controlling other people.
MandM wrote:
<quoted text>
If you mean that the salvation of God has come to the Jews as well as the Gentiles (anybody other than Jews) then agreed. That does not mean that you can believe whatever you want to and expect to enter His kingdom. The Word of God is laced with scriptures to refute that type of thinking.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#16 Dec 12, 2008
"Jesus would have married Lazarus his lover. Just like God's favorite person King David married his boyfriend Jonathan."

I always was under the impression that he was shacking up with Mary Magdalene.

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#17 Dec 12, 2008
John in Ottawa wrote:
"Jesus would have married Lazarus his lover. Just like God's favorite person King David married his boyfriend Jonathan."
I always was under the impression that he was shacking up with Mary Magdalene.
Have you read the Gospel of John? It's not too hard to spot the person whom Jesus loved. Mary, IMO, might have been the greatest disciple but John's Gospel portrays John as the one true love of Jesus. The combo of the last supper and crucifixion has emotion between the two like no other.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#18 Dec 13, 2008
MandM wrote:
<quoted text>
If you mean that the salvation of God has come to the Jews as well as the Gentiles (anybody other than Jews) then agreed. That does not mean that you can believe whatever you want to and expect to enter His kingdom. The Word of God is laced with scriptures to refute that type of thinking.
First of all, let me be clear that my spirituality no longer fits into what you would call the "Christian" tradition. One only has to consider the Bible itself to realize how many ways there are to interpret stories and how many contradictory interpretations there are.

Then one can consider the sausage machine known as the Nycean Council and other history to know that it is not the one devinely inspired Word of God, but a mishmash of stories that were selected by powerful people for the sole purpose in increasing their own power.(Consider that any Gospels that were not included in the Bible were subsequently labeled heresy and were destroyed as thoroughly as humans could manage. Evidently, the "one true Word" was not powerful enough on its own for these paranoid megalomaniacs.)

Then one can consider the Bible stories in the context of the universe that we actually live in. Clearly, the Bible can not ALL be taken literally, whether you believe it is the one true Word or not. If it cannot all be taken literally, then how do you choose which passages are literal, which are metaphorical, and which are just descriptions of the way things were?

For instance, the ownership of slaves--which continued beyond the life of Christ--was condoned within the Bible. And practices that we would today call inhumane or torturous were permitted by the Bible. Do we believe that those words apply today? Or do we simply learn that the world was that way then, but those rules do not apply in today's world?

In the Old Testament, powerful heroes had many wives and concubines. They also had forced relations with their domestic servants. Did we learn from that that these practices are good in today's world?

As someone earlier pointed out, you have merely chosen the passages that are convenient for you (because you are not homosexual, in this case). Then you insist that others live by your rules. As was also pointed out to you, Jesus welcomed all who wished to follow his teachings. He did not encourage his political overlords to make his beliefs binding on non-believers.

Jesus also did all he could to love others, whether they were his followers or not. In fact, He said that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord. The second greatest commandment is to love one another. You are not loving of your neighbors when you treat them as inferiors.

In short, you're pretense that you are acting as Christ would have does not make it so. It just makes you a hypocrite.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Theological Seminary Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. returns to Columbus (May '14) Feb '16 Will Dockery 4
News Christian Seminary Distributes 'Second Coming' ... (Aug '15) Aug '15 Fa-Foxy 10
News Theology led minister to atheism (Jul '12) Aug '12 redneck 2
News Freedom through faith, good works (Oct '10) Oct '10 paul shykora ARTs 3
News Rev. Wright at It Again With New Race Rant (Jun '10) Sep '10 Lester 19
News Stem cell decision exposes religious divides (Mar '09) Mar '09 ScienceRules 15
News Rev. Joseph Lowery, The Anti-Warren (Dec '08) Dec '08 Quasi 1
More from around the web