When Jesus Healed A Gay Man

“No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be true.” —Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

In A Nutshell

Thanks to events like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, most of us assume the Bible is a pretty homophobic book. And reading through a modern translation, you’d be forgiven for thinking that was the case. Go back to the New Testament’s original Greek though, and you get a whole different story—such as the moment in both Matthew and Luke when Jesus heals a Roman centurion’s “pais.” Traditionally, “pais” has been translated as “servant.” However, a more accurate translation would be “young gay lover.”

The Whole Bushel

We’re used to thinking of the Bible as a book, but it really has more in common with a library. There are literally hundreds of different viewpoints crammed in there, many of which flatly contradict one another. That’s how you get books like Leviticus—which unequivocally condemns homosexuality—sitting alongside things like the New Testament scene where Jesus heals a gay man.

It’s true: In the “faith of the centurion” passages of both Matthew and Luke, Jesus is called upon to heal a centurion’s dying servant. However, the original Greek uses the word “pais” for “servant”—a word which can also mean “young gay lover.” And, in the context of a teenage boy and a powerful, older man, this is almost certainly what it does mean. In his book on Greek homosexuality, the world’s top scholar on Ancient Greek, Kenneth Dover, gave hundreds of ancient examples of “pais” being used in an erotic context—almost always featuring a man and a young boy. And there’s more to back him up than a single archaic word.

The Bible pretty explicitly states that the centurion begs on behalf of his “pais.” No matter how good or diligent the servant, this simply wouldn’t happen in the ancient world, for the exact same reason that none of the British aristocracy ever really ran off with their gardeners. Class simply forbids it. At the same time, we know for a fact that Roman soldiers had homoerotic relationships with adolescent boys—it’s a central plot point in Satyricon (one of only two partially surviving Roman novels).

So, if the “pais” is the centurion’s lover, then that means Jesus almost certainly healed a gay man. This, in turn, would mean that God’s not actually the homophobic hate-monger Fred Phelps and his ilk want you to think he is. In fact, this would be a pretty solid argument for Biblical-based tolerance . . . oh well. Still, it’s nice to dream, right?

Show Me The Proof

When Jesus Healed a Same-Sex Partner
Greek Homosexuality, Kenneth James Dover

  • Phil_42

    I’m not terribly religious, but you could argue that Jesus love us all, regardless of the sins we have committed. (And I am NOT saying that I believe its wrong to be gay)

    • edzyl blane

      It’s alright to be gay, but being homosexual for me is the thing bible forbids. Vote down if you want, I’m standing my point.

      • looklook

        It’s okay if you want to think that homosexuality is wrong. It’s not going to stop the gays from liking dicks and lesbians from liking pussies anyway. Have a nice day. 🙂

  • Arjan Hut

    I read the title and the writers name and assumed this was about corrective rape and the dark side of Jesus. Boy, was I in for a surprise. Jesus is just alright.

  • Eric

    People need to stop thinking that Jesus hated gays simply because it was written that homosexuality is an abomination. All sin is abomination but Jesus has nothing but love and compassion for the sinner. If your going to attack Jesus, at least avoid your one sided ignorance. Attacking Jesus based off of our own ignorance is getting too mainstream. Hop off the bandwagon and think things through for yourself sometimes instead of agreeing with someone simply because they’re also a Jesus hater.

    • Engelbert

      what i have observed so far on this site is that you put in ur theories and investigative analysis on the bible. May i know why dont you also spend time investigating other religious books too. especially the Koran / quran. are you too scared to find out the discrepancies in that book???

      • Eric

        As a christian, I have never criticized another “holy” book. It would be foolish for me to say that the christian bible is the only credible book and everything else is false. Although I am a believer in the christian bible, I have never gone to the extent to insult another religion. If I wanted to convert someone into christianity, my job is to show love to them and pray for them, not argue theology with my feeble mind. Just because many christians don’t live according to their text doesn’t take away from the character and teachings of Jesus. Every religion has their share of bad examples

        • Eric

          and im speaking as someone who is fully aware of the discrepancies in the quran, torah, zoroastrianism or whatever you’re going to throw into this.

        • Bailey Lawrence

          When the whole point of religion is to save your soul and other’s souls from eternal damnation, it’s pretty selfish to say “Eh, I’m not feeling like converting anyone today.”

          • Eric

            It is true that an attempt in converting someone is a sign of care whether you like it or not. But the fact that you think the point of religion is to “save your soul and other’s souls” already shows a lot about your knowledge.. haha

    • inconspicuous detective

      it’s an example of people not living by the book. what i don’t understand is, why so many people would claim jesus is the savior and then go and act on the same book that he completely disobeyed on multiple occasions. wouldn’t you think it’s more…i dunno sensible to try to live like jesus supposedly did (forgiving, kind, honest, helpful, and wise) as opposed to following some laws altered by man and passed down several thousand years? just saying, i’d think the messiah would know better than a bunch of guys writing a book.

      • DerpyGuitarman

        More people need to be like you. I have seen a lot of your posts, and wanted to say you seem like a nice and open minded person. I myself am christian, and I still fucking hate “christians” who are hateful to others. Jesus teaches to love all, and that is what I live by. Not some idiot preacher condemning everyone, and telling people that they are destined for hell. And it sucks as well because because I am Christian, they automatically think I am a judgmental prick, who hates homosexuals. Nice post 😛

        • inconspicuous detective

          thanks and i think that a more forgiving church and approach could do the church some good. i really didn’t like it as it was and left it, but kept my belief in a god (deism). i see no reason why the catholic church can’t come around and accept alittle more than it has while still maintaining its own beliefs.

          • DerpyGuitarman

            Exactly. Being Christian does not mean you have to be close minded of others beliefs. The bible says, once you are kinda saved, so you know you are gonna get to heaven, go convert others. But being a huge asshole about other peoples beliefs isn’t going to convert anyone. First off, I okay with pretty much everything other Christians condemn. You gay or bi or whatever? That’s fine with me. You have a different religion? Fine with me. You hate me? Fine with me. I still care about everyone, even people I kinda hate or people who hate me. We should all just he accepting, and love one another. And that is what christianity means to me. Nice talking with you, and hopefully people who read this won’t stereotype Christians to all be arrogant whale farts. :3

          • inconspicuous detective

            nice talking to you as well friend. peace be with you 😉

          • Bailey Lawrence

            Believing that you are going to heaven because of your beliefs and that it is your duty to save the rest of the population is the definition of arrogance.

          • DerpyGuitarman

            Kinda what our entire religion is based on, there. Did you read my comment about being tolerant towards others beliefs? Let me believe what I want. You can believe otherwise, I can respect your opinion. Think I am arrogant all I want, but considering I just posted two comments about how everyone else’s beliefs are okay, I do not consider myself arrogant. I do not think I will single handedly ‘save civilazation’ or somthing stupid like that. But hey, if a friend at school or someone I know becomes a Christian because of me, I feel like I have done my duty. I am not going to push anyone into it, I am gonna give them info and let them analyze it and act as they will, and whatever decision they chose is fine with me. Think I am ‘the definition of arrogance’ all you want. Don’t have a problem with that. Everyone has opinions. Nice talking.

          • inconspicuous detective

            i don’t see how it’s a problem that he would like to see people converted. as long as he isn’t forcing the issue, there is nothing wrong with attempting to persuade.

        • Bailey Lawrence

          So why are you even labeling yourself as Christian in the first place? You believe in Jesus, yet you disregard every other biblical “moral” and story for the sake of being a good person when you could just be a good person in the first place without a fictional character telling how to live.

          • DerpyGuitarman

            I think Jesus knew more about what he was preaching than the bible writers did, if that makes sense. Jesus taught love everyone, even your enemies, and that is what I live by. See what I am trying to say? That is for me, and MANY other people’s view on Christianity.

          • DerpyGuitarman

            It’s honestly just how I think. It sounds wired, but it’s what I believe. That is a really good question, by the way. Good to not be rude about it. Hope my answer suffices 😛

      • Magmar

        Not understanding this post. “act on {the Bible} that he completely disobeyed on multiple occasions”
        How could Jesus disobey a book written about him after his death?

        • inconspicuous detective

          he is in the book, and cited as a model christian who lived by the book that was written based on the word of his father, himself, and his actions. he routinely broke the actions that would later come to define christianity. he didn’t “follow the rules”, he didn’t act like a christian (old testament christian, anyway), and one can break rules they’re supposed to be the inspiration for. the point here is that one doesn’t have to live “by the book” (literally as described in the bible) to be a model christian and some rule breaking is allowed.

          • Magmar

            Nope, sorry still not getting you. I’m aware that Jesus was in the Bible. Thanks. He is not however, cited as a model Christian- Who would have the right to say that the God made flesh did a good job? Furthermore he identified as a Jew. And there’s no such thing as “Old testament Christian”.
            When people act on the Bible, they act on the word of God- he gave instructions, after all. So you can’t really be a Christian who doesn’t base their beliefs in the Bible, it just makes no sense. You also call in the integrity of the Bible, I assure you it has been changed very little. The earliest known Bible was written around 350 AD and there are many thousands of copies in different languages from that time, they are routinely compared to today’s bible.

          • inconspicuous detective

            alright, i can’t help you understand it. this one comes down to “hate to be a jerk, but i’m gonna argue for the sake of it”. not cited as a model christian? uh, i take it you don’t live in an era with christians around. or you live under a really, really, big rock. he is the christian who came first, though he was born a jew. i mean if that needs explaining i don’t expect much from you in terms of getting my point here, just that the rules and restrictions in the bible today, then, or tomorrow weren’t the ones jesus himself lived by, and therefore are totally breakable. i suppose that, if you’re not just arguing to argue then you wanna believe that any christian who isn’t stoning adulterous wives or trying to convert the world is “not being a good christian” and you can make future arguments around that or mock those people, but frankly you’re wrong. the model christian didn’t follow the book based on him, and nobody really *has* to to be a good christian either. good day.

          • Magmar

            There’s no need to get ratty, it’s as simple as this: You can’t say Jesus was a model Christian. Christian, obviously means follower of Christ- the terminology is all wrong. Christians emulate Jesus and the only way to do that is by trying to understand him through the Bible.
            The concept of Christianity Came AFTER Jesus, It was with his death that the religion started. So please, you can’t say that God was a model Christian.
            I’m not arguing for the sake of it, I’m arguing because what you’ve said in this thread doesn’t make sense. Nine times out of ten your comments are insightful and interesting, not that this time.

          • inconspicuous detective

            eh. if you model a religion off a guy and said guy didn’t even follow half of the rules you put in place (based off of his teaching mind you) then you have a pretty strong case to say you can cherrypick your rules from that religion. i mean…you’re right it doesn’t make sense. not entirely. but you can see the point i’m trying to make, no? that christ was the basis of the new religion of the time, and yet had he lived after it’s invention he would have been a horrible christian. so it begs the question, do we really need to follow the bible’s teaching to the letter to be good christians? i’d wager no, not at all. jesus could pull off breaking his own rules, so can we. the new testament is all about being forgiven like that. the old one is hellfire and brimstone.

            at this point i’m not trying to prove anything by the by, i’m trying to explain my logic in coming to the conclusion that christ broke the rules of the bible. it’s odd to me to say that because it didn’t exist then, we can’t take what we have now and apply it to the time he supposedly lived and see that his actions didn’t match up to what he should’ve done being that he was a christian (i would say he is, despite the jewish birth and all). i mean it has to start somewhere so i’m going with him, and once you have the bible here you can see he didn’t follow it (not that he would have had to as it didn’t exist, but he clearly violated teachings. for instance “he who has not sinned shall cast the first stone”, i think that’s also a jewish law but he broke the biblical law before it existed.). the concept is hard to warp your mind around but the opposite (the concept your presenting to me) is equally difficult to comprehend.

          • Magmar

            Yes, I see your point even though it jarrs with me.
            We’ll leave it at loggerheads, I look forward to more ‘arguments’ with you in the future 🙂

          • TheTimmynator

            Indeed. A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ (hence the name).

          • Don_cos

            There are no Old Testament Christians. Christianity is based on the New Testament.

        • michael hourigan

          Old testament back then.

          • inconspicuous detective

            not sure what you’re trying to prove with this, but if it is intended to discredit or make fun of what i’m saying it would be best you didn’t involved yourself in this

      • WhiteExodus

        Also Christian here, good post . I myself also believe in God and in Jesus teachings and beliefs. But if Jesus taught hate and intolerance instead I wouldn’t believe in him anymore, it goes against my values of tolerance and understanding in an age were society is increasingly become multicultural and varied. (and yes I do support gay marriage 🙂 You should seriously write for Listverse and knowledgeKnuts inconspicuous detective.

        • inconspicuous detective

          i will consider it, right now though i’m backed up with three jobs (a revolving door like schedule) and the semester at college is underway (we’re nearing the halfway point and the workload is going up). after though i might do it. any suggestions on what to make a list about?

          • WhiteExodus

            Probably an article arguing for and against the existence of a God, it will cause a heated debate in the comments section, but hey it will probably invite more people atheist or religious into the factual site of listverse and KnowledgeNuts.

      • aussieshepherd

        How much did Jesus say about homosexuality? Exactly nothing. The only part of the New Testament that mentions it is one of Paul’s Pastoral Letters (can’t remember which now). It’s funny as well that a bible study guide I have that speaks of this, Zondervan I believe, even goes so far to explain that it isn’t, necessarily homosexuality that is problematic; what is a problem is when it is practiced for worshiping other gods. It’s the idiotic, uneducated Christians that cause all the problems. I’m a Christian but don’t attend church due to intolerant people as well as the money-grubbing clergy.

        • LolaLoves

          wow have you read the bible? Did Jesus not say “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
          effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor
          revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God”. the fact that you insult your brothers and sisters in Christ and call them intolerant says a lot about you. Let’s see the definition of intolerance – “not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own.” do you not see that you yourself is intolerant because you don’t tolerate a Christian’s view, do you not realize you talk about the bible as if you ‘educated’ yourself on it yet you talk falsely about it. i agree that there are Christians out there who choose to hate homosexuals even though that is not what the bible tells us to do, but to generalize and insult shows how intolerant you are. The message that Jesus was trying to get through is to LOVE the sinner but not the sin. Educate yourself on Christianity.

          • Inanimate Nomad

            It was Paul the Apostle who said “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor…” so on and so forth.

      • LolaLoves

        so what your basically saying is to follow one part of the bible and completely ignore the rest. if you knew anything about the bible you would know that GOD used man to write the bible through his holy spirit meaning that the bible is HIS word and not man’s. Jesus did teach us to love and forgive and OBEY God’s commands. God (including Jesus) was clear on homosexuality no matter how how much you try nit-pick out of the bible to make people think otherwise. at the same time i do NOT hate gays because homosexuality is another form of sinful nature (which we all have) so hating someone for being a sinner would be pure hypocrisy, in fact i try to love all humans because i know it’s what my God wants me to do but at the same time i don’t support the sin.

        • inconspicuous detective

          on a daily basis you’re picking what parts to follow. we already do it, there is no reason not to.

          • LolaLoves

            that’s not true, we all make mistakes but it doesn’t mean i am picking parts to follow. how are you telling me what i do on a daily basis when you don’t know me? your argument is flawed and you know it.

          • inconspicuous detective

            because i’m a deist (or nonpracticing catholic) and i know the good book and its many, many laws. you can’t follow all of them and if you did, you’d break other ones. so here’s the thing — you don’t. you choose which ones truly matter most. don’t play stupid with me, i already know how it works. deny it all you want, if you’re than insecure about it the church doesn’t want or need you.

    • Exiled Phoenix

      Religion is idiotic. God was created by the fantasy of humanity.

      • Derek

        Yes, when no one knew shit about how the world works and viewed sea creatures as legitimate threats. Religion is synonymous with the suspension of critical thinking.

      • Errkism

        So very much this!

      • LolaLoves

        I find this so sad. it’s come to a point where Christianity is constantly attacked (especially in the media whether it’s noticeable or not) yet when someone merely disagrees with homosexuality than it’s not OK and is deemed as controversial or as hateful, what has the world come to.

        • Exiled Phoenix

          I respect the gays more than religious freaks because the gays were born that way, basically like a person being born white, black, whatever because it is genetics.
          Religion is indoctrination into the parents belief and searching other religions or scientific research is frowned upon because it may draw you away from god.
          To be fair, all religion should be debunked as myths they all are.

    • Derek

      Loving the Bible based off your own ignorance of science and logic is getting too mainstream… actually.

      • Ian Moone

        He has the right to believe whatever he wants. You may think his belief is wrong (so do I actually) but, as long as he’s not forcing it on other people, he can have it.

      • Ian Moone

        He has the right to believe whatever he wants. You may think his belief is wrong (so do I actually) but, as long as he’s not forcing it on other people, he can have it.

      • Eric

        It’s insulting that you call my life experiences “ignorance.” Loving the bible is not ignorance, nor is disregarding the bible. I never called anyone ignorant for not believing in the bible so this already goes to show my point. Stop being so defensive when an attack was never made

    • Bailey Lawrence

      I don’t even know where to begin with that. “Think things through for yourself” coming from a religious person is hilarious.

      • Eric

        A religious person can’t think? That sounds like a cool and “open minded” teaching, can you let me know where you learned that one from?

    • Blue

      People need to stop thinking that there was a Jesus at all other than for two actual historic events that confirm some bloke named Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist and some bloke named Jesus was executed by the Roman Prefect Pilate.

      Neither of these fellows can lay claim to being the actual Jesus as described in the book of Christian fiction but they are the only two actual written evidence of any blokes named Jesus of the time, even though Jesus was a pretty popular name.

      So in response to this flood of ignorance regarding your personal beliefs, the facts actually are that John the Baptist was probably trying to drown a Jew he didn’t really like and Pilate executed Jesus the Chariot Thief, you unfortunately cannot prove any different as the facts actually speak that there are only two confirmed reports of any bloke named Jesus around AD zero to when the first fictions were written about him about 50 years after his supposed death.

      • Eric

        You have to try REALLY hard to believe there is more evidence of John the Baptist drowning a man and Pilate executing Jesus the Chariot thief than Jesus ever existing.. cmon now…

        • Blue

          You do not have to believe anything, you can basically make as much up as you like for these two verified items as they no more mention a messianic figure than they do a chariot thief.

          The reason being there are no specifics within the two mentions of a Jesus, there is no correlation between the mentions and thus no actual evidence of any special Jesus, you can make up what you want to fill in the gaps, Christians did so can you.

          There are many other reasons for casting massive doubt on these two actual verification’s of the name Jesus, not least of which is the infighting between the various Jewish sects of the time which is well documented. There is nothing like oneupmanship and “my messiah is better than yours” as a means of religious fundamentalism.

  • rick

    haha this is such bull! you know NOTHING of the greek language in use at the time. manservant and sex slave aren’t the same thing, hun

    • Garu Derota

      At the opposite, it’s well known that the old greeks had sexual relations with their pupils. this was most true for the well educated, and it’s not strange, as women had almost no access to education. even in war the bonds with comrades was stronger because most were lovers. our culture comes from an homosexual ancient culture.

      • Acheya Wachtel

        And, also, this came from an acclaimed historian on Ancient Greek who has probably dedicated his whole life to studying this culture, while this man barely has the sense the capitalize his first name.

        • rick

          yes, because capitalizing my first name means that I must not know anything about anything ever, right? good call. 1 + 1 = 8, right?

      • WhiteExodus

        Don’t forget the Spartans,they outright tolerated and encouraged homosexual relations among themselves! Which is good in terms of bonding and comradeship I suppose, but I wouldn’t go that far if I was a Spartan soldier….

  • Shivore

    How Is condemning homosexuality and healing a gay man contradictory? You can disagree with someone’s actions and still help them.

    • MakingYouFeelStupid

      To say jesus healed a gay guy. Is to say jesus existed. Jesus never existed nor did he heal a gay guy. Therefore this article is pointless and useless. Only for entertainment reason. Nothing more, much less.

      • Magmar

        I laugh at your narrow mindedness. Jesus DID exist, that’s a historical fact that is easily proven. There are two records written by Jewish historians at the time of Jesus to prove it.

        • MakingYouFeelStupid

          No proof my good man.

          • Magmar

            One of them was called Josephus, I forget the other. look it up if you want to learn something.

      • Errkism

        Jesus is believed to have existed even by people of science. His religious value is the thing that’s debated. Because if there is no value in religion then what would he have mattered.

        • Ian Moone

          Even if Christianity is wrong Jesus still mattered. He founded one of the most popular religions in the world and had some excellent teachings on morality.

          • Errkism

            I never specified religions. Just meant overall.

  • Arjan Hut

    Tolerance is more powerful than war, famine and diseases. Tolerance can wipe out mankind. 🙂

    • Derek

      … What?

      • Arjan Hut

        It’s a theory a Catholic elderly lady told me: If we accept homosexuality, everybody becomes gay, and mankind will not survive. I told her nobody would miss us.

        • Derek

          Did you stop to consider that maybe people are born gay? Rather, sexuality is a continuum, not just the three options of “gay, bisexual, and homosexual” but everything in between. Thus, if you’re being “turned gay”, you were never fully straight to begin with, and if you’re being “turned straight”, you were never fully gay. That’s where the term “bi-curious” comes from and why bisexuals often prefer one gender to the other.
          Regardless, even if your premise was true, your conclusion would be false. Gays and lesbians can have kids via surrogate mothers.

  • Jamie farter

    So when will Gospel of Morris m get published??

  • uglyman2000

    This has been debunked.

    I’m sure Jesus would certainly heal a gay person but since he was a Torah-observent Jew, which prohibits the practise of homosexuality, he wouldn’t tolerate the lifestyle. He saved the prostitute from being stoned but also told her to sin no more, meaning to quit being a prostitute. Also, the Greek word pais is used 24 times in the New Testament and has a range of meanings that include “adolescent”, “child” and “servant”. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament it appears numerous times and always refers to a “servant”.

    Lastly, why is it that whenever a slave and master became close that it automatically translates into homosexuality? Why do people assume that just because he actually cared about his servant, suddenly he’s a love interest?

    Anyway, the reason that story is in the Bible is because Jesus was pointing out that the centurion’s faith was greater than all found in Israel, not because Jesus was affirming homosexuality.

    Sorry, but that lifestyle is still considered a sin in the Bible, even by Jesus.

    • inconspicuous detective

      minor correction: it was an adulterous wife, not a prostitute. but yea anyway. good point.

  • John W.

    There are a few problems with this article. The biggest of which is that Dover, the scholar cited, was a well-known Classical Greek scholar. But the Bible was not written in Classical Greek, but in Koine Greek.

    Classical Greek was the Greek spoken in Greece during the Hellenistic period, 300 years before Christ. It was more formal and spoken by educated Greeks. Koine Greek was a much more common form of the Greek language spoken 300-600 years later. It was less formal, and spoken by the less educated living outside of Greece throughout the early and middle Roman period prior to the spread of Latin. Classical Greek stressed beauty and eloquence, Koine Greek was more practical and simplified.

    Any first year Greek student can tell you there are some major differences between Classical and Koine Greek. There are significant differences in vocabulary, spelling, syntax, grammar, and pronunciation of the alphabet.

    This particular argument for the word “pais” first cropped up in the 1970s. Seriously, try to find a scholar making this argument prior to 1975! And even then, the first scholarly journals to provide this argument also came with refutation of this argument on historical and grammatical grounds.

    Another glaring issue is the haphazard use of Kenneth Dover’s works. I believe he is being taken out of context. The only source cited is a wordsearch of the term “pais” in one of his books on Google. If you’ll look at the larger scholarly work on the word “pais” you’ll find that the argument is that the term refers to pedophilia.

    So the argument is sketch at best, and I’m not sure it’s really the argument the LGBT crowd is going for. There are plenty of good arguments to be made for homosexuality. Let’s not overshadow them with fallacious arguments.

    • Spartacross

      Well said.
      The word “pais” means both child and servant, the same way the word “boy” did up to some years ago in American English. That is why it is insulting and derogatory to call someone “boy” today, especially a person of colour.

      Also, it is notable that either this is the second time the same empty argument is made at Knowledgenuts or a Listverse article got recycled.

  • Arjan Hut

    I wish Jesus would finally return and help us out here.

  • Eoghan-Tony Dwyer

    When Jesus was either a fraud or didn’t exist

  • Alex

    Large explosion heard at Westboro Baptist Church.

    Police suspect it is due to their heads exploding when members read this KnowledgeNut simultaneously.

    • Arjan Hut

      They read?

      • Alex

        Haha. Good point.

  • Engelbert

    what i have observed so far on this site is that you put in ur theories and investigative analysis on the bible. May i know why dont you also spend time investigating other religious books too. especially the Koran / quran. are you too scared to find out the discrepancies in that book???

  • philipmarie

    WHen Jesus healed a pagan. You could replace the title of this stupid article with the same thing. Just old rehashed tripe that was once featured on Listverse recycled as another crappy Morris M article.

  • Edward La Guardia

    I don’t know if homosexuality is a sin or not…I’m a strong Bible believing Christian, but I’m not for attacking others’ way of life because of a way they were born. If it is a sin or not is God’s business as far as I’m concerned. My job is to love everyone and show compassion and kindness to as many people as possible while I’m here on Earth. I do know one thing though…you will never reach anyone through hate…thus, the people who are so angry at gay people and yell and scream to change them are “pissing in the wind” (i.e. wasting their time). If change is to come (which like I said, I’m not sure either way if it’s a sin) it will only come through love.

    • Efigee

      With all due respect, Mr. LaGuardia, how can you believe in the Bible and still not be convinced of what God thinks of homosexuality? Homosexuals, if they are born that way (and it is arguable), are showing forth the results of the Fall through their inborn sinfulness. Yet, even so, they can be saved, if they ask for the work of Christ’s sacrifice to be applied to them. It works the same way for all sin.

  • nikki

    Really, in all actuality, Jesus loves everyone, he’s a merciful, yet holy God that hates sin, not people, and it’s sin that will separate us from Him forever and condemn us to a lake of fire, not God, he’s given us a way of escape, obeying Acts 2:38, Jesus takes care of the rest, He’s such a gentleman.

  • Derek

    How is liking your own gender a sin? I mean I could understand bestiality because then you’re fucking animals who have no ability to give consent. But there’s no harm in getting all up and gay with another gay. You don’t have to watch.

  • Efigee

    I never read such mixed-up nonsense. Because Jesus MIGHT have healed a
    homosexual man, this indicates that He thought homosexuality was OK?
    Please. This whole entry is a gross misconception by a person ignorant of the whole body of Scripture.

    Jesus healed all sorts of sinners. “While we
    were yet sinners, Christ died for us”. All this indicates is that He
    healed a man of an illness, not that He blessed an (allegedly, but not
    certainly) illicit relationship. The Scripture tells us that “The rain
    falls on the righteous and the unrighteous” That means that good things
    can and do happen to unrepentant sinners and to repentant ones. He is
    showing His mercy to us so that in time we might repent, and ask His
    forgiveness for our sins.

    Homosexuality is
    abhorrent to God, as is every other lack of adherence to the standard He
    has set. That means that we are all doomed, unless an adequate
    sacrifice can be found and applied. You might be a homosexual. I might
    be (all right…I AM) a glutton. Another has a problem with unrighteous
    anger, and another a problem with narcissism.

    The point is, only Christ can heal and give eternal life.. And so He will, if we put our trust in Him.

  • 4ox

    The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality. It was their treatment of foreigners and outsiders. The gender of the servants of the Lord aren’t given and with Lot’s reaction it could have been that one of them was a woman.

    • Efigee

      That is pure twaddle. Other passages regarding homosexuality in the Scriptures make it clear that homosexuality was a major part of this scene. Don’t be ridiculous.

      • OZ_in_OK

        Really? Like what, exactly? There are, in fact, multiple verses in Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Isaiah which describe *why* God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah… and homosexuality is not listed at all.

        • Efigee

          You have not taken into account the *whole* of Scripture. God does not in one place condemn homosexuality, and in another say that it is acceptable. Because He does not mention homosexuality specifically, that does not mean that He thinks it is OK. In Isaiah, He is comparing the evil of Israel to the evil of Sodom: they are in trouble, and shouldn’t think that the rituals they observe are going to overrule the unrepentance of their hearts.

          You critics of the Scripture show your complete ignorance of its interpretation by failing to understand that God does not say one thing here without tying it to the rest of the Body of Scripture. Get with the picture. If you are going to mess around with Scripture, do it in accordance with the manner in which is meant to be understood.

      • 4ox
        • Efigee

          Not a biased article there, is it? I’ve never understood the word “homophobia”.

        • Efigee

          And incidentally, the passage in Leviticus is not the most important Scripture regarding the view of homosexuality. Probably the best known would be the passage in Romans 1, but the other passages and contexts in both Old and New Testaments never contradict themselves on it. To the contrary, an abhorrence of homosexual practice is only underscored. But alongside any sin is God’s desire that mankind would abandon this sin and all others, and live the way he was meant to live: in accordance with the way God created him.

          It would be well if you actually tried to understand the other side of this argument, rather than using silly, spurious articles that can be easily disproved.

  • Hellsgift2u

    How can one judge another’s actions when you yourself are speaking in selfrighous tones. When it can be proven through natural law alone? Repent and stand firm, for you know that what isn’t natural dies, and what is natural bears the gift to produce life. Which in itself has burdens to survive. Do you not know suffering builds endurance, which builds character which builds hope? Hope that cannot put us to shame.

  • Evita Lovedoreal

    Who says gays can’t be saved?

  • OZ_in_OK

    I *do* so love it when ‘Christians’ say things like ‘Well God loves you, even though He carpet-bombed Sodom and Gomorrah because of people like you… wait, why are you walking away?!?!’

    I also enjoy playing a fun little game with ‘Christians’ who will gleefully trot out Leviticus 18:22 (and sometimes 20:13, though most ‘Christians’ just try to pretend that verse doesn’t exist – saying that Gay men must be rounded up and slaughtered like cattle, thus sayeth the Lord isn’t that popular)… I look one of these ‘Christians’ in the eye and say ‘Do me a favor – quote another verse from Leviticus. ANY verse from Leviticus.’ The looks on their faces as they sputter and fume (because those Gay-bashing verses are the ONLY verses in Leviticus they know) is priceless.

    ‘Christians’ quoting Romans is always fun too. If it’s a man saying this (and his wife is nearby) I always look at her and say ‘So, you keep quiet in church right? With your head covered? Because Paul commands it!’ Of course the wives get all flustered… then they get REALLY angry when I tell them that, because of the letter that Paul wrote to Timothy, she can’t have ANY positions of leadership and must remain silent. Good luck on getting that promotion at work, because God will oppose it!

    Heh… fun times, fun times.

    Equality is coming. I can’t wait!

    • Efigee

      You are saying these things without knowing what you are talking about. Nor are you interested in honestly taking the time to understand Christianity: all you are interested in doing is sniping. What you are really doing is badly embarrassing your self with your lack of knowledge. If you understood anything about the whole scope of Scripture and the meaning of the Old and the New Covenants, these things would be much clearer to you. Bias is so pathetic.

      I actually do belong to a Presbyterian church where women do not hold positions of appointed leadership. And I do cover my head. I consider it an honor to do so because my husband is an admirable man. Nor do you understand the context of the Romans passage, just as you do not understand anything about Biblical narrative and God’s standards. The Scripture makes clear that women in the Scriptures were held in high esteem, well beyond their surrounding cultures. Holding a position of official leadership does not mean a woman cannot do influential and crucial jobs. If she is the right sort, she does necessary things to the life of the church without *needing* a title. She isn’t there for the title, but to serve.

      You have no idea what you are talking about. You just like to spout your ignorance, leaving Christians appalled at your moronics.

  • Paynefully

    Everyone is missing the big picture here. Sorry to point it out but uhh this story shows Jesus not condemning pedophilia. Now I have no problem with him healing the Pais, he was sick and needed help. But at no point does he address the morals of having a young teenage sex servant….

    I’m not religious but I believe Jesus is a great role model however fictional his story may or may not be. But I guess I’ve always held him in such high regard that Id hoped he would acknowledge to the centurion that having a young sex slave, regardless of gender, is plain wrong. I know these things were common practice in those days but I always felt Jesus’s morals were more evolved then most around him.

    That being said I just hope pro pedophile groups don’t use this story to religiously justify their actions.

  • haidynzafer

    Did u all miss the point that I’m not broken and DON’T NEED FIXING THANKS.. WE DON’T NEED JESUS TO HEAL US AND MAKE US STRAIGHT. THANKS.

  • Arjan Hut

    What does The Lord Of The Rings say about homosexuality?

  • fuckyou

    Not to be a Bible thumper, but the word “παις” means about 10 things in Koine Greek, and “male concubine” is, at best, at the very bottom of that list. It is almost always used for the word “child.” The plural is “παιδες,” children. The word in Koine Greek for a male slave concubine is “παλλακίς.” This is not to say that Jesus would not have healed a gay person. The story is quite clear on the point that he healed based on faith. If you had faith in him as the Son of God, he would happily heal you.

  • Funny, but I went attended 13 years of parochial school without ever being taught that God hated gay people…or anyone.

  • JEFF MYERS

    Someday all of the brilliant mockers posting against God and his word will bow down and declare that Jesus Christ is Lord. I love to do it now. “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsen, Babylon’s days are numbered, can any of you read the handwriting on the wall?