http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm
This is very interesting and funny if Jesus was indeed a fag.
This is very interesting and funny if Jesus was indeed a fag.
Was Jesus Gay?
- Thread starter Joeman
- Start date
Nah - the Gay movement only started a few years ago. 
But really the Jesus myth doesn't say anything about his sexual orientation, sex life, and virtually nothing about his childhood years, because the myth-makers never saw those aspects as important enough to create appropriate stories.
Kat
But really the Jesus myth doesn't say anything about his sexual orientation, sex life, and virtually nothing about his childhood years, because the myth-makers never saw those aspects as important enough to create appropriate stories.
Kat
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
No, he had sexual relations with Mary Magdalene.
What fascinates me most about Jesus are -- pictures of him.
Of course, at the time of his life, there were no portraits done, neither photographs. The images we have of him are those made by later artists.
How come that on most of these pictures he is such a good-looking fella?
Apparently, the patriarchic organisation of the church had to do something to attract the women -- so a good-looking man is the obvious choice. A lot of bias is probably due to that. Duh.
***
I don't mean to insult anyone -- but what if Jesus was androgyn? This would explain his asexuality, and due to it, an undefined social position -- which makes it easy to understand why someone would go and do something nobody else did, and preach the Word.
Of course, at the time of his life, there were no portraits done, neither photographs. The images we have of him are those made by later artists.
How come that on most of these pictures he is such a good-looking fella?
Apparently, the patriarchic organisation of the church had to do something to attract the women -- so a good-looking man is the obvious choice. A lot of bias is probably due to that. Duh.
***
I don't mean to insult anyone -- but what if Jesus was androgyn? This would explain his asexuality, and due to it, an undefined social position -- which makes it easy to understand why someone would go and do something nobody else did, and preach the Word.
Wow, if this were proven, it would shake the foundation of the Christian religion.
Now if this were true, this would create inconsistencies in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 6:10 states that homosexuals (among other groups of people) have no place in Heaven. 1 Timothy 1:10 says they are immoral and impure.
A very interesting time it will be, indeed.
Now if this were true, this would create inconsistencies in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 6:10 states that homosexuals (among other groups of people) have no place in Heaven. 1 Timothy 1:10 says they are immoral and impure.
A very interesting time it will be, indeed.
Men in Middle Eastern cultures have been historically "close." So, from the culture of the time, Jesus would have been friendly with his friends. Jesus loved everyone, too, which could be interpreted as being gay, or possibly messianic, whichever floats your boat.
However, there is much said about the political elements in the Testaments. For instance, Revelations is criticized as being a warning to Caeser.
This I find interesting:
However, there is much said about the political elements in the Testaments. For instance, Revelations is criticized as being a warning to Caeser.
This I find interesting:
I doubt very much that it would shake the foundation of the Catholic Church, since it would make little difference whether Jesus was homosexual or not. What would matter is whether Jesus performed any homosexual acts. What evidence is given, is not nearly substantive enough to show that He did. Remember that Judas betrayed Jesus to the Sanhedrin. If Jesus had had sexual relations with the beloved disciple, then Judas would have been aware of it (since the gesture indicated as evidence occurred at the last supper). He would have reported this to the Sanhedrin. Furthermore, when He was captured in the Garden of Gethsemane, another instant that is indicated to show homosexual activities (the young man with the linen cloth), the soldiers would have also been aware of it. However, during Jesus' trial, this accusation was never brought against Him. Surely, a crime punishable by death according to the Levitical Law would be enough of an accusation? You may argue that it might have been one of the accusations, but that it was never written down, or that it was censured. If this were the case, that such things were purposefully left out, then why allow those "evidences" to be placed in the text to begin with, as they can easily be interpreted as homosexual activities? Why include, "the apostle whom He loved" so many times in the Gospels? Why include the passage of the naked young man in the Garden? The idea that it was left out or removed because of its "supposed wrongness" just doesn't add up.
There was more I had to say, but can't remember now. I think what I've said is sufficient though.
There was more I had to say, but can't remember now. I think what I've said is sufficient though.
Oh, now I remember. Hehe. Ok.
Since there is hardly sufficient evidence to show that Jesus was homosexually active, I doubt that could ever be a problem for Christians. However, that Jesus could have been homosexual would also not be a problem, since the Catholic Church recognizes that there is nothing wicked about a homosexual.
Those parts of the Bible that speak of the wrongness of homosexuality do not speak about the orientation of the person, but rather the activity. Homosexuals who have sex with one another, do not fulfill the entire purpose of the sexual act. This we consider to be a wrong action. If the sexual act is not fulfilled by no fault of the sexual partners' own, then they cannot be culpable for such actions, since they did not intend for the act to be incomplete. Just as a person who says a falsehood is not considered to be a liar, but rather a fool. That person left out a truth, but not by his intent, and so cannot be to blame (except for his own ignorance). However, a person who deliberately leaves a truth from a statement, speaks and incomplete statement, and thereby tells a lie, commit a wrong for which he is culpable. A person who kills by no intention of his own is not guilty of murder, but rather of severe lack of care (attention). Such is also the case with the homosexual act. Since those involved deliberately remove a good from the given action (that is, the natural function of conception, or pleasure, or love), they are guilty of the removal of that good. Depending on the value of the good removed, the greater or lesser the crime. The Jews who wrote the Levitical Law considered the misplacement of the sperm (that is, masturbation, or sex in which the sperm was not injected into its intended place) a very serious crime, a crime severe enough to warrant death. This is due to the value they held in the continuance of life, as well as descendency. To waste any "seed" was terrible.
We, however, would not say that the extremity of death should be awarded to those who perform such actions, but we recognize the seriousness of the crime. The homosexual act, whether considered in religious view, philosophical view, or scientific view can be shown to be an unnatural act. It is this unnaturality of it that makes it wrong. Since what is unnatural removes from the natural order of things.
But I stray. That Jesus may have been a homosexual would be no great things, since He did not act on those impulses (as we are aware). It is said that in the hour of His death, He became sin itself. That is, he resembled the ugliness of sin so much because of the amount of sin that He bore for the sake of humanity. He wanted to know sin in its extremities, by feeling its effects (not by sinning). It would be no great surprise that He would have been a homosexual, taking on that inordinate form so as to have a fuller understanding of evil.
No doubt many will be offended by this. That is not my intent. My words here do not reflect any form of anger or hatred, or bigotry toward homosexuals. I consider myself the worst sinner that I know, and would be loathe to judge anyone but myself. I simply speak what makes sense to me. I recognize those unnatural, and immoral areas of myself, and do not consider them any different than the difficulties that anyone has to face, nor different than the unnaturalness of homosexuality. If I were to condemn a homosexual, then I would have to condemn myself, because my sins are much worse (as I know them to be, given that it is true that I hold truth). Yet whether I hold truth or not is irrelivant. Since I believe what I do, that is enough to make my sins worse than any other, because in believing them to be wrong, I commit a greater evil by them, then if I believed otherwise.
Since there is hardly sufficient evidence to show that Jesus was homosexually active, I doubt that could ever be a problem for Christians. However, that Jesus could have been homosexual would also not be a problem, since the Catholic Church recognizes that there is nothing wicked about a homosexual.
Those parts of the Bible that speak of the wrongness of homosexuality do not speak about the orientation of the person, but rather the activity. Homosexuals who have sex with one another, do not fulfill the entire purpose of the sexual act. This we consider to be a wrong action. If the sexual act is not fulfilled by no fault of the sexual partners' own, then they cannot be culpable for such actions, since they did not intend for the act to be incomplete. Just as a person who says a falsehood is not considered to be a liar, but rather a fool. That person left out a truth, but not by his intent, and so cannot be to blame (except for his own ignorance). However, a person who deliberately leaves a truth from a statement, speaks and incomplete statement, and thereby tells a lie, commit a wrong for which he is culpable. A person who kills by no intention of his own is not guilty of murder, but rather of severe lack of care (attention). Such is also the case with the homosexual act. Since those involved deliberately remove a good from the given action (that is, the natural function of conception, or pleasure, or love), they are guilty of the removal of that good. Depending on the value of the good removed, the greater or lesser the crime. The Jews who wrote the Levitical Law considered the misplacement of the sperm (that is, masturbation, or sex in which the sperm was not injected into its intended place) a very serious crime, a crime severe enough to warrant death. This is due to the value they held in the continuance of life, as well as descendency. To waste any "seed" was terrible.
We, however, would not say that the extremity of death should be awarded to those who perform such actions, but we recognize the seriousness of the crime. The homosexual act, whether considered in religious view, philosophical view, or scientific view can be shown to be an unnatural act. It is this unnaturality of it that makes it wrong. Since what is unnatural removes from the natural order of things.
But I stray. That Jesus may have been a homosexual would be no great things, since He did not act on those impulses (as we are aware). It is said that in the hour of His death, He became sin itself. That is, he resembled the ugliness of sin so much because of the amount of sin that He bore for the sake of humanity. He wanted to know sin in its extremities, by feeling its effects (not by sinning). It would be no great surprise that He would have been a homosexual, taking on that inordinate form so as to have a fuller understanding of evil.
No doubt many will be offended by this. That is not my intent. My words here do not reflect any form of anger or hatred, or bigotry toward homosexuals. I consider myself the worst sinner that I know, and would be loathe to judge anyone but myself. I simply speak what makes sense to me. I recognize those unnatural, and immoral areas of myself, and do not consider them any different than the difficulties that anyone has to face, nor different than the unnaturalness of homosexuality. If I were to condemn a homosexual, then I would have to condemn myself, because my sins are much worse (as I know them to be, given that it is true that I hold truth). Yet whether I hold truth or not is irrelivant. Since I believe what I do, that is enough to make my sins worse than any other, because in believing them to be wrong, I commit a greater evil by them, then if I believed otherwise.
If Jesus died for all our sins did he not then die for the sin of homosexuality?
beyondtimeandspace, there is willful ignorance and the garden variety. If someone willfully remains ignorant, then they may be found guilty of the sins commited under their haze of ignorance. Further, if someone purposely gets drunk in order to commit a crime or gets drunk with probable cause that they will do something sinful, they have commited the sins that goes along with getting drunk along with the sin they committed during that state. There is, however, be some leeway in whether a given person has committed a mortal sin.
Last edited:
onewiththeuniverse said:
He died so that men could have the opportunity to be forgiven their sins and be saved. His gift was salvation from eternal damnation. BUT to receive that gift one must accept it. One must accept Jesus as Messiah and accept His teachings. Now If one accepts Jesus, One is accepting that they are sinners needing salvation. Therefore the accepting of Jesus is in itself an act of repentance. So yes Jesus did die so that sinners may be saved, but one must acknowledge one is a sinner that needs saving and that is what a lot of people refuse to do.
All praise The Ancient Of Days
Okrinus, you are very correct. Adstar, you also are very correct, but I would like to add only one thing. Once someone recognizes that they are a sinner, and regret their sinfullnes, then they must commit themselves to the avoidance of their previous since, and all sin, with every energy they are able.
onewiththeuniverse: If Jesus died for all our sins did he not then die for the sin of homosexuality?
*************
M*W: If homosexuality were a sin, and Jesus died for ALL sins, that would include homosexuality, but that would only happen if Jesus was more than the Messiah, Jesus would need to be god.
But . . .
Homosexuality isn't a sin, Jesus didn't die for anyone's sins, nor was he the messiah, nor was he god. Everyone is responsible for their own sins. No one dies for another's sins. That would defy the laws of Karma.
The greatest sin of all is believing Jesus died for one's sins.
*************
M*W: If homosexuality were a sin, and Jesus died for ALL sins, that would include homosexuality, but that would only happen if Jesus was more than the Messiah, Jesus would need to be god.
But . . .
Homosexuality isn't a sin, Jesus didn't die for anyone's sins, nor was he the messiah, nor was he god. Everyone is responsible for their own sins. No one dies for another's sins. That would defy the laws of Karma.
The greatest sin of all is believing Jesus died for one's sins.
Yes, Medicine Woman, you are correct, everyone is responsible for their own sins. The dying of Christ for our sins was not to eradicate all responsibility. Rather, it was to allow those who attached themselves to His act so that all of humanity could join in the act of salvation, that is, the ability to once more enter heaven. Yes, Jesus would have had to be God.
Homosexuality is not a sin, no. Homosexual sex, however, is a different matter.
A belief cannot be a sin. So, believing Jesus dies for us cannot be sinful.
Homosexuality is not a sin, no. Homosexual sex, however, is a different matter.
A belief cannot be a sin. So, believing Jesus dies for us cannot be sinful.
beyondtimeandspace: Yes, Medicine Woman, you are correct, everyone is responsible for their own sins. The dying of Christ for our sins was not to eradicate all responsibility. Rather, it was to allow those who attached themselves to His act so that all of humanity could join in the act of salvation, that is, the ability to once more enter heaven. Yes, Jesus would have had to be God.
Homosexuality is not a sin, no. Homosexual sex, however, is a different matter.
A belief cannot be a sin. So, believing Jesus dies for us cannot be sinful.
*************
M*W: I don't believe Jesus was the Christ, and I don't believe Jesus died. There is no salvation but what we have right here and now. No one needed to die for that! Heaven is what we make of it here and now. There is no 'place' that can be called heaven nor is there a place that is called 'hell.' Heaven and hell are within our soul. Human's created the concepts of heaven and hell -- not God, not Jesus.
Homosexuality is not a sin and neither is homosexual sex. I don't believe in your god, but your god created us as we are, along with the help of our parents, and our mother's hormones during pregnancy, and the sex hormones that are toxic in our food. God gave us our genitals to use as we wish. If he had done it right in the first place, there wouldn't be two sexes, their would be only one androgynous human being.
I see many homosexuals in my practice, and I counsel gay people on a spiritual level. I don't recommend them to approach Christianity, because Christianity is more evil than homosexualilty!
Homosexuals cannot be blamed for their affinity. They were born that way, and that doesn't make it wrong. It's only Christians with a corn cob stuck up their asses that are evil. God's spirit dwells in everyone.
Then, the question arises, what is God? I can tell you that God is not a being, an entity or any other kind of judgmental creature. God is an unbiased form of pure positive energy. God or El is nothing but electricity which awed and caused the early Hebrews to have fear of God. Today, we are able to control God. All I have to say about god is that god comes to my house at the same time every month and expects for me to pay for him, so I can see the light, just like you xians think you can see the light -- so do I. I don't go to church, I pay my light bill.
Homosexuality is not a sin, no. Homosexual sex, however, is a different matter.
A belief cannot be a sin. So, believing Jesus dies for us cannot be sinful.
*************
M*W: I don't believe Jesus was the Christ, and I don't believe Jesus died. There is no salvation but what we have right here and now. No one needed to die for that! Heaven is what we make of it here and now. There is no 'place' that can be called heaven nor is there a place that is called 'hell.' Heaven and hell are within our soul. Human's created the concepts of heaven and hell -- not God, not Jesus.
Homosexuality is not a sin and neither is homosexual sex. I don't believe in your god, but your god created us as we are, along with the help of our parents, and our mother's hormones during pregnancy, and the sex hormones that are toxic in our food. God gave us our genitals to use as we wish. If he had done it right in the first place, there wouldn't be two sexes, their would be only one androgynous human being.
I see many homosexuals in my practice, and I counsel gay people on a spiritual level. I don't recommend them to approach Christianity, because Christianity is more evil than homosexualilty!
Homosexuals cannot be blamed for their affinity. They were born that way, and that doesn't make it wrong. It's only Christians with a corn cob stuck up their asses that are evil. God's spirit dwells in everyone.
Then, the question arises, what is God? I can tell you that God is not a being, an entity or any other kind of judgmental creature. God is an unbiased form of pure positive energy. God or El is nothing but electricity which awed and caused the early Hebrews to have fear of God. Today, we are able to control God. All I have to say about god is that god comes to my house at the same time every month and expects for me to pay for him, so I can see the light, just like you xians think you can see the light -- so do I. I don't go to church, I pay my light bill.
Yes, heaven IS within the soul. It is a state of being. I agree and understand this. Yes God's spirit dwells in everyone, I agree with this too. No Homosexuals cannot be blamed for their affinity, I know, nor have I said that they are.
Homosexuals are not evil, nor is the homosexual orientation. However, neither can any person be evil. Nothing can "be" evil. Only actions can contain evil, and even that is not an accurate way of describing it. Actions are either perfect or less than perfect. Since no human being is perfect, no human action can be perfect. Therefore all actions are imperfect, and contain a degree of evil. It is simply a matter of what part of that evil we are responsible for, guilty of. What amount of goodness we have left out of any given action.
Whether there is a God or not, the human organs developed to function a certain way. The drive of human DNA is to continue itself, as well as purify itself. This can be shown through science, and evolutionary development both of the physical and of the psychological. Also, such development is reflected in the findings of sociology, and human sexuality. Homosexuality is a denial of that development, as well as a perversion of it. For even though the attraction may be for the same sex, the DNA comprising that person is still driving him toward the continuance of the DNA, that is why that person has any sexual attraction at all. That is why all the functionality of the sexual act remains, except that it does not meet its functional conclusion.
I have put this question to the scientist and evolutionist and all those who would claim that homosexuality is a part of nature, and so cannot be wrong. They have given me no satisfactory answer, none that I could not find fault with.
Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology and Religion all come to the same conclusion, that homosexuality does not meet the design of the human being (either physically, mentally, or spiritually). How could it then be considered natural?
Homosexuals are not evil, nor is the homosexual orientation. However, neither can any person be evil. Nothing can "be" evil. Only actions can contain evil, and even that is not an accurate way of describing it. Actions are either perfect or less than perfect. Since no human being is perfect, no human action can be perfect. Therefore all actions are imperfect, and contain a degree of evil. It is simply a matter of what part of that evil we are responsible for, guilty of. What amount of goodness we have left out of any given action.
Whether there is a God or not, the human organs developed to function a certain way. The drive of human DNA is to continue itself, as well as purify itself. This can be shown through science, and evolutionary development both of the physical and of the psychological. Also, such development is reflected in the findings of sociology, and human sexuality. Homosexuality is a denial of that development, as well as a perversion of it. For even though the attraction may be for the same sex, the DNA comprising that person is still driving him toward the continuance of the DNA, that is why that person has any sexual attraction at all. That is why all the functionality of the sexual act remains, except that it does not meet its functional conclusion.
I have put this question to the scientist and evolutionist and all those who would claim that homosexuality is a part of nature, and so cannot be wrong. They have given me no satisfactory answer, none that I could not find fault with.
Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology and Religion all come to the same conclusion, that homosexuality does not meet the design of the human being (either physically, mentally, or spiritually). How could it then be considered natural?
beyondtimeandspace: Yes, heaven IS within the soul. It is a state of being. I agree and understand this. Yes God's spirit dwells in everyone, I agree with this too. No Homosexuals cannot be blamed for their affinity, I know, nor have I said that they are.
Homosexuals are not evil, nor is the homosexual orientation. However, neither can any person be evil. Nothing can "be" evil. Only actions can contain evil, and even that is not an accurate way of describing it. Actions are either perfect or less than perfect. Since no human being is perfect, no human action can be perfect. Therefore all actions are imperfect, and contain a degree of evil. It is simply a matter of what part of that evil we are responsible for, guilty of. What amount of goodness we have left out of any given action.
Whether there is a God or not, the human organs developed to function a certain way. The drive of human DNA is to continue itself, as well as purify itself. This can be shown through science, and evolutionary development both of the physical and of the psychological. Also, such development is reflected in the findings of sociology, and human sexuality. Homosexuality is a denial of that development, as well as a perversion of it. For even though the attraction may be for the same sex, the DNA comprising that person is still driving him toward the continuance of the DNA, that is why that person has any sexual attraction at all. That is why all the functionality of the sexual act remains, except that it does not meet its functional conclusion.
I have put this question to the scientist and evolutionist and all those who would claim that homosexuality is a part of nature, and so cannot be wrong. They have given me no satisfactory answer, none that I could not find fault with.
Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology and Religion all come to the same conclusion, that homosexuality does not meet the design of the human being (either physically, mentally, or spiritually). How could it then be considered natural?
*************
M*W: Homosexuality is a result of overcrowding. For more than 20 years now, scientists have concluded that overcrowding in the murine populations results in homosexualtity. The larger cities have higher statistics of homosexuality than do smaller towns. Homosexuality is definitely a part of evolution and should not be condemned. Sexual orientation is a developing factor in evolution. The perfect human would then be androgynous. This is the beginning of the perfected human being. There will be no more need for males and females to have sexual relations to beget a child! That's why more children are born with the tendency to be homosexual, and for God's sake, don't try to change them! That's where Christianity and I sever relations! What God creates, humans destroy. Leave them alone, they are a product of their evolution. What's better? To be homosexual and rejected by 'Christianity', or be a Christian and reject everything that nature provides? I vote against Christianity, because it is the most evil thing in this world.
Homosexuals are not evil, nor is the homosexual orientation. However, neither can any person be evil. Nothing can "be" evil. Only actions can contain evil, and even that is not an accurate way of describing it. Actions are either perfect or less than perfect. Since no human being is perfect, no human action can be perfect. Therefore all actions are imperfect, and contain a degree of evil. It is simply a matter of what part of that evil we are responsible for, guilty of. What amount of goodness we have left out of any given action.
Whether there is a God or not, the human organs developed to function a certain way. The drive of human DNA is to continue itself, as well as purify itself. This can be shown through science, and evolutionary development both of the physical and of the psychological. Also, such development is reflected in the findings of sociology, and human sexuality. Homosexuality is a denial of that development, as well as a perversion of it. For even though the attraction may be for the same sex, the DNA comprising that person is still driving him toward the continuance of the DNA, that is why that person has any sexual attraction at all. That is why all the functionality of the sexual act remains, except that it does not meet its functional conclusion.
I have put this question to the scientist and evolutionist and all those who would claim that homosexuality is a part of nature, and so cannot be wrong. They have given me no satisfactory answer, none that I could not find fault with.
Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology and Religion all come to the same conclusion, that homosexuality does not meet the design of the human being (either physically, mentally, or spiritually). How could it then be considered natural?
*************
M*W: Homosexuality is a result of overcrowding. For more than 20 years now, scientists have concluded that overcrowding in the murine populations results in homosexualtity. The larger cities have higher statistics of homosexuality than do smaller towns. Homosexuality is definitely a part of evolution and should not be condemned. Sexual orientation is a developing factor in evolution. The perfect human would then be androgynous. This is the beginning of the perfected human being. There will be no more need for males and females to have sexual relations to beget a child! That's why more children are born with the tendency to be homosexual, and for God's sake, don't try to change them! That's where Christianity and I sever relations! What God creates, humans destroy. Leave them alone, they are a product of their evolution. What's better? To be homosexual and rejected by 'Christianity', or be a Christian and reject everything that nature provides? I vote against Christianity, because it is the most evil thing in this world.