I hardly see how relating a historical fact is an attack on the church. Unless it is your church which is not following in the footsteps of it’s founder.

Now I’m in no way condoning the use of little boys as sex slaves.

What I am saying is that the bias of the church agaist homosexuals does not match the tolerance evidenced by the church’s founder.

My take from the Jesus and the Centurion incident is that the Centurion did something almost unheard of in his day among the Romans. He showed love for his slave.

The Jewish laws on slavery were much gentler than those of almost any other nation of the era. Jews were required to treat slaves as fellow humans. Not so the Romans. For them slaves were property. End of story.

I think the world would be a lot better off if Jesus was placed in the context of his day rather than interpreted through 21st Century eyes. He comes off as a much more interesting figure.

In addition it is possible that the Jewish authorities of the day may have been trying to protect Jesus from the Romans rather than rushing to hand him over. They were looking for a way out of the chrisis.

http://www.historicaljesusghost.com/

We need to look at Christianity from a historical point of view without all the clouding and overlays added by subsequent generations of the church founders for political reasons.

Perhaps it is time that Christians got back to the old time religion and started celebrating the Jewish holidays Jesus did (those that can be celebrated without a Temple any way).

It has always amused me that the church has done so much to separate Christiands from the life and rituals of the church’s founder.

Besides, everyone gets mocked around here. I’m an equal opportunity mocker.

Check out Jesus’ encounter with the Centurion.

Then take in this little fact:

Centurions used boy slaves for sex.