A good argument, at least for a practicing “Christian” like me (and I need the practice nowadays)… …and so long as we’re trying to figure out …”what Jesus would or would not do…” …I think maybe we ought to look at where he was when he “did” or “said” anything… All of what can be historically known about the man called Jesus suggests that he was a Jew. A Nazarene Jew, to be precise (which would be the modern-day equivalent of a hippie). Devoutly so, as much of the traditional Christian gospels suggest. He quite probably, while no doubt being fundamentally radical in his reinterpretation and re-imagining of hundreds of years of Judaic tradition and law, had no intention at all of starting a “new” religion, either through his life or his death. Jesus, as portrayed in the New Testament narratives, was often cryptic, citing regularly the hidden nature of the insights he was espousing. But he was never evasive. Any question or query put to him (particularly by his fellow Jews) was often met and answered by Jesus with a rationale that belied the times he lived in. Whether or not his answer was acceptable or understood mattered not at all to him, it seems. I don’t think anybody should have to ask “…what would Jesus have done/said?…” about most things, even given the advances of human knowledge in the 2,000 years or so since he was alive…there is more than enough evidence of Jesus’ inclination toward a societal equity and compassion that does not stand up against a desire to transduce any word or action of his down to the strictest of epochal, codified meaning. Jesus often would say in his back-and-forth with the religious leaders of his day to answer what would be the better act: to conform to the law, or to act as compassionately as God had acted? “…The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath…” Mark 2:27, if I remember my Sunday School teachings… It is also important for me to note that, while Jesus said himself that he had no intention or desire to do away with the traditional of Judaic law writ large, his perspective on it was not gleaned from the codifications found in Leviticus, or the Torah. Often, Jesus would cite the commandments (the ten commandments Moses brought down from Mount Sinai in legend, written by God) as his standard for practical application of spiritual principle. And if we’re holding to legend in all this, it’s interesting to note how little “legislation” God felt was needed to get his point across as to how people on this earth should live and treat one another. Jesus did not bother with the entanglements of tradition that came from trying to codify every aspect of Jewish society that had managed, by the time of his life, to so strangle his fellows (particularly the most socially and economically vulnerable) into actually believing that there was a certain time and a certain place to do what’s right and good. If they could even recognize what that was. One of my favorites among Jesus’ many sparring matches with his learned religious contemporaries involved that whole marriage thing everybody’s so up in the air about. The religious leaders asked Jesus who a woman (who had been married 7 times to 7 brothers, widowed in succession) finally herself dying unmarried, was to be a bride for, when they were all resurrected at judgment, citing as they usually did, the law Moses had given them. I’ll set aside the fact that some of the folks who asked this hypothetical of Jesus didn’t believe in bodily resurrection anyway. And the overall misogynistic tenor of the day toward women in general. Just so things don't get too muddy. Jesus often didn’t involve himself with the tangled mess woven through trying to legislate social morality down to even the most minute and ridiculous detail, especially in terms of preserving some misguided (at best) spiritual status quo. He simply told them that Moses had “codified” such thinking and such mindsets because people weren’t overly interested in anything at all that didn’t serve their own best interests at any given point in time, on average. No, Jesus was never about getting laws changed. He was always much more practical and forthright than that. He simply called a silly law a silly law. And asked repeatedly that people stop blaming God for things that they themselves are complicit in and have every power to change and reconcile. If we could past the fact that we disgust one another, that is….
Just another indicator of how liberal Houston is and how Texas in general is returning to its democratic roots.
Except that isn't an assumption as it is based on a fact that the vast majority of reported abuse is by men. You are making even much greater assumptions based on speculation. I will agree that you may be right but unreported is unreported so you can't really prove your argument. You have no evidence other than your own speculation that that the amount of abuse could be 100 times reported or that female abuse is such a much larger factor that it actually does challenge the prevailing stats that show that abuse is overwhelmingly committed by men. What I find very odd about your whole argument is that you are calling BS on something when you have no actual evidence but speculation to counter it. I don't know if you are just playing devil's advocate or if this is something you actually believe. I will give you some due that that might've played a role early on but Sandusky's abuse had been witnessed and victims had come forward, years before he was final dismissed and decades before he was finally prosecuted.That has nothing to do with stereotyping. That is a horrific story but do you have any evidence other than your own speculation that such a situation is so widespread that women are actually far greater sexual abusers than men? If your argument is that people take reports of abuse regardless of gender or orientation I agree with you but that still doesn't counter that the vast majority of reported abuse is committed by men which is good evidence that men are more likely to be abusers.
