So murder is not important enough to condemn either, then? =:o}
The author's point was that there are an awful lot of things Jesus could have quite rightly condemned - including murder - but didn't. I think a better answer as to why he didn't is that he didn't *need* to condemn those things: There were already prohibitions in place against them. Jesus only gave time to condemning the things that specifically needed *him* to condemn them - chiefly, the practice of people in positions of privilege and authority condemning the less fortunate/educated/pious around them.
I think the guy's quite right that Jesus' focus - and his intention for *our* focus - was on promoting the good things people can do in future, rather than condemning the bad they happen to have done. Unfortunately, the piece then ties that with a set of assumptions about sexuality and gender that don't strike me as the least bit biblically supported (though the are very much a part of several mainstream church traditions).
(He's also quite wrong, IMHO, that the point about Jesus not specifically condemning homosexuality is "the usual argument"; I've always seen it more as the obligatory first bullet point: "let's just get this silly little red herring out of the way, before we get onto more serious discussion of the issues".)
no subject
The author's point was that there are an awful lot of things Jesus could have quite rightly condemned - including murder - but didn't. I think a better answer as to why he didn't is that he didn't *need* to condemn those things: There were already prohibitions in place against them. Jesus only gave time to condemning the things that specifically needed *him* to condemn them - chiefly, the practice of people in positions of privilege and authority condemning the less fortunate/educated/pious around them.
I think the guy's quite right that Jesus' focus - and his intention for *our* focus - was on promoting the good things people can do in future, rather than condemning the bad they happen to have done. Unfortunately, the piece then ties that with a set of assumptions about sexuality and gender that don't strike me as the least bit biblically supported (though the are very much a part of several mainstream church traditions).
(He's also quite wrong, IMHO, that the point about Jesus not specifically condemning homosexuality is "the usual argument"; I've always seen it more as the obligatory first bullet point: "let's just get this silly little red herring out of the way, before we get onto more serious discussion of the issues".)