Jesus and Morality
by Gott
Jesus said (Matthew 19:11-12):  " . . .  Not all men can receive this saying, but
only those to whom it is given . . . there are eunuchs who have been so from
birth . . . eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others . . . eunuchs who
have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.  Let
anyone accept this who can."  

Virtually all biblical scholars agree that "eunuchs who have made
themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" referred to
celibacy, a practice adopted by the Catholic Church. Few argue these were
men who castrated themselves. "Eunuchs made eunuchs by others" were
male slaves who were castrated by their owners to protect their women
from unwanted suitors who might father a child.

But that leaves the third group:  " . . . eunuchs who have been so from
birth." Ancient Egyptian creation myths describe three genders:  
reproducing males, reproducing females, and a third gender, both males
and females: "eunuchs" who did not reproduce. The third gender is
identified today as "gays" and "lesbians."

Homosexuality has existed in all of recorded history. But most ancient
cultures predating the Old Testament did not persecute nor discriminate
against this third gender. They believed homosexuals were born that way,
as much a product of the Creator as heterosexuals.  

It seems that Jesus agreed. He did not condemn "eunuchs who have been
so from birth." Jesus accepted any and all, including sinners. He certainly
wouldn't have condemned people who were simply "different," especially
those who were different from birth. They would not have been considered
"sinners," they were simply "different" from the majority.  

Acts 8.27:  " . . . there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the . . .
Queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury." It isn't possible
to know if this Ethiopian eunuch was born one, made one, or chose to
become one. But it didn't seem to matter to the disciple Philip: Acts 8:38:  ". .
. they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized
him." No ifs, ands, or buts, nor even any words of repenting or sinning no
more. Sometimes, it's what isn't said that reveals the message.  Why say "sin
no more" if there was no sin?

To argue that anyone consciously chooses homosexuality over
heterosexuality is irrational. Who would choose to face the discrimination
and ridicule? Jesus knew the Old Testament's words on  homosexuality, but
he always avoided outwardly declaring the Old Testament obsolete. Philip's
baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch demonstrated the Nazarenes' attitude
toward eunuchs: "Welcome. God loves you and Jesus accepts you as you
are."

What was it Jesus said? "Let anyone accept this who can." Sometimes it isn't
what is said but what isn't said that carries the important message. "Let
those with ears hear." He knew most would not understand, but he also
knew his disciples would.
JESUS and HOMOSEXUALITY
by Gott
The debate about "the Bible and homosexuality" comes down to just one
important question:  "What did Jesus say?"  

One side claims, "He said nothing," the other, "He didn't have to; Paul said it
for him."

However, there is a third possibility: Jesus did address it. When asked which
commandments were most important, Jesus replied:  "Love the Creator and
love your neighbor." For today's Christians, "neighbor" surely includes
anyone who could be harmed by their actions.

Jesus didn't have to speak specifically about homosexuality because he
taught "The Nazarene Way of Life." It was simple in concept but sometimes
difficult in action: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." To
paraphrase, "If your act causes harm, don't do it. If you can be certain that it
causes no harm, you may do it." Pedophiles harm children. An unfaithful
spouse may hurt the other. Consenting adults harm no one.

Those who love Paul will want to ignore Jesus and quote the founder of
their faith on this and many other issues. But Paul's doctrine became the
peoples' choice for several reasons: First, "The Nazorean Way" was just too
difficult for most people to live by. They didn't want to give up their personal
possessions, relinquish their power, or change the way they treated others.
The burnt offerings and scapegoats had always taken the burden of their
sins from them. Paul's doctrine allowed them to keep their scapegoat; he
just replaced it with the "blood of Jesus."

But, perhaps the biggest reason people choose Paul over Jesus is because
they want it made simple: "Yes or No?" "Right or Wrong?" "Can I or can't I?"
"Don't make me think." And above all, "Don't make me responsible for the
consequences of my own acts." But why would Paulians worry anyway? Even
if they do something specifically prohibited or harmful to others, there's still
the scapegoat.

Jesus said, "What you do to others will be done to you." It sounds similar to
Newton's Law of Cause and Effect: "For every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction." However, who would want to suffer the consequences
of their own actions if there was a way around it? Paul said there is a way
around it, and those who believe in him have taken it. They have chosen
Paul's doctrine over Jesus and The Nazorean Way of Life.

The oldest Greek texts referred to Jesus as "the Nazarene" or "Nazorean"
fifteen times. One of the early translators changed "Jesus the Nazorean " to
"Jesus of Nazareth" in every case. Why? Why did they make this effort to
separate Jesus from the Nazoreans, inferring that he simply came from
Nazareth? Why don't we know more about the "sect of the Nazoreans" which
only Luke mentioned and only in reference to Paul?

That is a question everyone who professes to "Love Jesus" must eventually
demand an answer to. Until we know what Jesus believed, and what he
taught, how can we possibly know how to show our love for him?  

JESUS CONDEMNED NO ONE
by Gott
The definition of morality seems to have changed in recent years. Perhaps it
started with Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" movement which identified
certain political issues, claiming they were synonymous with "morality." He
was so successful that today's definition seems linked to just three issues:
homosexuality, abortion, and religion in public places, including schools.

These three issues, in fact, have determined the direction and course of
America. All three branches of government: the executive, the judicial, and
the legislative, are now controlled by people who agree on this new
definition of morality.

However, placing these issues under the heading, "morality," is an insult to
persons who strive to live morally, but who believe in the value and
rightness of providing certain social freedoms, rights, and protections for
all Americans. To many, such a narrow definition and focus is a rejection of
everything Jesus taught. To them, these three issues represent "religious
intolerance," a label worn with pride by those whom it describes. But it has
nothing to do with "morality" as defined by Jesus.

An example of what Jesus taught about morality can be found in Luke
Chapter Six: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless
those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To him who strikes you  
on the cheek, offer the other; and from him who takes away your coat do not
withhold even your shirt. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him
who takes away your goods do not ask them again. And as you wish that men
would do to you, do so to them."

Jesus singled out widows and orphans, the poor, the oppressed, and the
imprisoned as the focus of his movement. When asked the specific
question, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?", he replied (Luke
18:18-24): "You know the commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery . . .
murder . . . steal . . . bear false witness; Honor your Father and Mother . . .
sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When the wealthy questioner
was saddened by these words, Jesus added: "How hard it is for those who
have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!"

How much easier it is to single out certain items to identify with "morality"
and ignore Jesus' clear instructions which demonstrated his definition of
morality.

"Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be
condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven." (Luke 6:37)

"He who hears (my words) and does not do them is like a man who built a
house on the ground without a foundation; against which the stream broke,
and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great." (Luke 6:49)

Although abortion was practiced in Jesus' time and place, He did not
mention it in his response. Although homosexuals lived in Jesus' time and
place, He did not mention them in his response. He didn't even instruct His
disciples to take His message into the schools of the pagans or
unbelievers. When asked "What must I do to be saved?" He defined
morality: "Take care of those less fortunate than you and live as I live, even
though it requires you to give up your financial wealth."

How can those who are the most judgmental and the least willing to help
others possibly claim to be "Christians" who support "morality"? Surely
Jesus would be horrified! Our government leaders take money from
programs for the poor so the rich might be enriched even more by the tax
cuts designed for the wealthiest Americans; most of the lawmakers are
included in the short list of beneficiaries. Surely He would be saddened that
more children die of starvation and poverty-related illnesses than from
early-term abortion, yet abortion is one of the words on which "morality"
now hangs it's shingle.

America was founded on "Christian values," but not the values many
Christians now embrace.