LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

In most reenactments of that scene, he makes that speech while holding one. Basically "I do have the authority to do this, and won't."

edited 9th Apr '13 2:32:25 PM by Pykrete

Alternate Character Interpretation: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was Jesus' way of simultaneously stroking his ego and calling dibs. After all, being the son of God is a pretty good argument for taking center stage at social gatherings.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!" *Jesus immediately casts the first stone.*

Jesus stole a candy bar once.

Which is why he never threw a stone when he said that.

Well, IIRC, in some apocryphal stories he used his God-powers as a kid to summon some dragons (or was it snakes?) at some kids who were bothering him. Man, I take a lot of my knowledge from Cracked.

There's also the whole bear thing, but that was technically not Jesus.

Jesus as a child made clay birds then brought them to life.

He also accidentally killed his friend but he brought him back too.

Jesus Was Way Cool. And by all accounts, probably okay with homosexuality.

Yeah, probably.

Might even have been gay himself, if you believe some people.

Considering he was celibate, I don't really think it was relevant.

He might have even been asexual.

It's relevant here.

edited 9th Apr '13 3:17:05 PM by Elfive

Starship, by any chance was evil Starship transported to our universe? Because that could be, interesting...

That story would have been so much more interesting if "casting stones" was an obscure Aramaic sexual euphemism.

Jesus is riding through jerusalem on his donkey when he sees a large crowd about to stone a woman to death.? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he shouts to the crowd. One large stone is hurled from the crowd and hits the poor woman on the head. Jesus looks over and says "Sometimes mother you piss me off."

And now this conversation reminds me of Life Of Brian

Already made that joke.

You know despite the warning that it is sin I don't think a lot of Christian churches are going to have a problem admitting gay people twenty years from now.

I wouldn't be surprised if by the time the nect pope comes around, things will have changed enough for the church to accept homosexuals.

I know they won't change the book and I can't argue for them to do that but the mainstream churches have a history of becoming more accepting. I know any church in my town would accept divorced people.

I seriously doubt it. We'd have to throw out a lot of firmly-rooted dogma — long-due, certainly, but not likely, because it's the sort that gives them extra authority — just to enable them to change their minds on sexual matters, much less actually do it.

The laity, sure. But the hierarchy has been digging in their heels on anything to do with sex for the last century. I mean, they're not even caving on contraception despite dissent in the mid-90-percent.

edited 9th Apr '13 7:49:37 PM by Pykrete

I'd truly thought of that. But trying to plot this story and actually include everyone missed in the last episode takes a shitton of work, so some storylines I've left alone. ....For now....

re: whether Churches would admit gays - Got news for you, Churches have been admitting gays, divorcees, adulterors, pimps, drug dealers and users, and pretty much everybody since....well, the beginning.

The Church was actually built for that reason.

I'm pretty sure not all of them do.