Was Jesus Gay?

[okinrus]

what760 is not quoting from canonical scripture but from the twelve holy apostles, a forgery with anchronisms and remarkable similarity to the KJV.

 

[Tiassa]

Re-read what I said. I did not say the relationship between the couple is stunted. I said their ability to give of themselves FULLY (to a maximal degree, in every possible way) is stunted, because there are ways in which they cannot give of themselves to one another.

So your original point is irrelevant entirely to any discussion of homosexuality? If a couple cannot give unto one another fully, then I would say that's a diminishing of the relationship compared to what's possible.

Furthermore, as your initial point referred to conception and therefore reproduction, we have to consider what that diminished relationship means.

Would you assert that the relationship between the parents has no effect on a child? I would be relieved to learn so, but I don't expect that reality to come about anytime soon.

The bond you assert is meaningless unless someone chooses to give it meaning.

I have said nothing about statistical deviation. If I had meant that a statistical deviation resulted in unnaturality, then a person in a population consisting mostly of blondes would then be considered unnatural.

Horsepucky. I raised the issue of statistically deviant: e.g.--

Is it not true that a couple who cannot bear children lack a natural ability that exists between heterosexual couples? Therefore, their state of being unable to bear children is also unnatural, and cannot be considered a fault of their own (as is the case with homosexuals).

What you assert as "unnatural" is merely a statistical deviation. "Cannot be considered a fault of their own", and yet still a fault?

Hardly. Infertility occurs in nature. Homosexuality occurs in nature. They are mere statistical deviations, like eye color or body shape or the names on the plaques on the wall of the Main Street Station in Las Vegas commemorating "golden arm" craps throws. Unnatural? A hefty garbage bag is unnatural. Round-Up Ready grain is unnatural. Trying to fly with plastic wings glued to your back is unnatural.

The construct of our bodies and behaviors is such that reproduction is a natural function.

Is overpopulation a natural function? Is reproduction in the face of a lack of resources to support additional life a natural function?

Actually, they are. But humans have the natural function of choosing overpopulation. Statistically deviant, but not unnatural.

To be UNABLE to carry out this function simply means that the given area is damaged or somehow underdeveloped.

Damaged or underdeveloped is a far cry from unnatural. Barren due to naturally-occurring but statistically-deviant cysts? Natural. Barren due to having the uterus shredded by a shotgun blast in a robbery downtown? Unnatural.

Relevant to a relationship? Only if she or they choose it to be.

Such damage, while it now occurs in what we call "nature," should not be considered natural (conforming to functional and structural parameters).

So ... what occurs in nature should not be considered natural if it is statistically deviant?

I'm arguing from the point of perfect (that is, complete, lacking in nothing according to functional construct of designated specie) activity.

A pointless argument, I think: almost everything about the human species is unnatural.

Superiority comes with nearness to perfection (don't confuse perfection with absolute perfection).

Superiority is generally an arbitrary measurement.

Anytime there is a lacking, there is a furthering from perfection. Therefore, to lack is a given natural quality means to lose a degree of superiority. If the bond between a couple lacks a given quality that another couple has, then the bond of the former couple is inferior to the bond of the latter couple.

So if a couple lacks a natural quality that is detrimental to another couple, the lacking couple is inferior?

Or, more simply: Compared to what?!

The bond you're asserting is mere bigotry.

This is not to say that the heterosexual couple necessarily has a superior bond to the homosexual couple, since the heterosexual couple may be lacking in other areas. However, given a perfect situation, the heterosexual bond is naturally superior, since it includes what bond the homosexual couple may have, and more.

Whether that "more" actually constitutes "more" is something you've failed to establish.

I have said nothing about the couple's capability to parent. I do not know where you get the idea that I do

It has to do with your assertion of the capability of biological parentage as contributing to a superior relationship between mates. As the relationship between parents has a significant effect on the condition of the child, their superior relationship allows for superior parentage.

At which point the adopted child, rejected by the biological parentage for whatever reasons, chuckles at the notion of the bond that failed.

I have witnessed this myself, as my younger brother was adopted. My parents had the most difficulty raising him because much of his personality they did not understand in the same way that they understood their own biological children.

This condition is not inherent to any given adoption. It is dependent on circumstance, including age at adoption and quality of receiving parents, among other things.

I did not say that the number of people who are infertile is negligible, I said that the INABILITY to reproduce is negligible. That is, those who are said to be infertile are not 100% infertile. What I mean by this is that though one is said to be infertile, it simply means that their chances of reproduction is greatly (greatly) reduced. However, this is not to say that everyone can reproduce. I simply mean that the inability (100%) to do so is negligible.

So drugs, surgeries, and in vitro fertilization are natural?

Furthermore, in response to your two unhappy tales, I am not saying don't adopt.

Cool enough. I was mostly aiming to convey the damage the bigotry of this asserted bond can do.

My point here is simply to show that homosexual relations inherently lack a natural quality that is possessed in heterosexual relationships.

The nature of that quality is yet to be established.

Compared to what nature allows, we live in a thoroughly inefficient human society. From Christ to Communism, the dirty secret is known: the nuclear family is not the most efficient way to raise children to become members of an organized society. Compared to perfection according tot he natural construct of a designated species, the nuclear family is unnatural, and hence the bond you refer to, if not unnatural in itself, leads to a human divorce from nature.

As a result, it cannot be considered natural, for it does not meet the developed structural functionality of the act in the given specie.

(chortle!)

I will reiterate: "Statistical deviation" does not equal "unnatural".

I agree that you have a point according to your careful definition of terms, but those definitions are, in themselves, unnatural.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

The problem taking place here is not with the argument itself (as you agree), but rather, as you say, with defined terms. In your perspective, my terms may seem unnatural, but this is simply because you don't know the reasoning backing them. I don't consider any topic, or question separate from any other. Since this seems to be true, there will be many things that cannot be worked out until the first premise is worked out and agreed upon. The first premise being, is there a God? If so, what is God, and what does that mean about our reality? Once these questions are answered (and from my perspective I have found a sufficient solution which accounts for the problems that arise in this world) and agreed upon, then and only then can solutions be found. I have built my entire philosophy and code of ethics and morality upon the notion of God as an actual infinite, the only necessary (in philosophical terminology) being. I am not a bigot. Part of that code of ethics means to love unconditionally. It also means to be otherwise than judgemental. You may consider me judgemental, but this is probably because of a difference of understanding of the term. While I may judge actions to be right or wrong, I do not judge people. I am no less (and may in fact be greater) a sinner than anyone I know. To condemn anyone would be to condemn myself.

Another part of my philosophy is recognizing evil for what it is, and understanding that any evil, no matter how slight, causes destruction to a degree. If, by my reasoning, I find certain actions to contain any form of evil, then for the sake of people around me, I would try to reveal this evil, and hope that they would come to the same realization as me. Homosexuality is a difficult issue, because there is a tension that takes place within the person concerning nature. This is the nature of the individual versus the nature of the species. The nature of the individual is such that he is attracted to persons of the same sex, while the nature of the species is attraction to the opposite sex. In any action the most important aspect is the person's conscience. A person has a conscience developed such that he or she would feel guilty for performing a given action. Such an action, then, should be avoided. So, if a homosexual would feel guilty for carrying on a romantic/sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex, then I would not advise that person to do so. If that person would feel guilty for not having a romantic/sexual relationship with a member of the same sex, then I would advise against it. This is because guilt is the first step in the path of the state of Hell. However, this does not change the nature of the action itself. Good actions will always be good actions and bad actions will always be bad actions. While it one cannot be guilty of committing a bad action while his conscience demands that it be done, it may be said that such a person is still responsible for an improperly formed conscience (given that he or she understood that such actions are bad before the formation of the conscience). However, if a person did not have the opportunity to properly form conscience, then that person also cannot be guilty of this. In such a case, the person may be guilty of not pursuing truth to the fullest of his or her capacity. However, if such a person did in fact pursue truth as far as capable, then the blame cannot be laid to rest on them, but rather on the people around him/her, or on his/her ancestors.

The greatest divider among people that I have come accross is misunderstanding. I see that you are an increibly intelligent person tiassa, yet by my own convictions and understandings, I am forced to disagree with you. I neither hold your beliefs against you, nor do I hold anything against homosexuals. I would be loathe to think that you believe me to be a bigot, and if you would like to discuss other issues in private (so as not to congest this thread, since we seem to have come to an utmost conclusion of disagreement on this topic for the time being), then I would be happy to.

 

[okinrus]

When Christians, especially Catholics, speak of "natural" and "unnatural" in the context of religion they do so with respect to the natural law. But the natural law has nothing to do with statistical frequencies, nor anything to do with the animal kingdom. Rather, it is a law that God placed within each man's heart.

 

[James R]

beyondtimeandspace:

Genes from the male and female exist in the child conceived. Blood from the child is pumped through the mother's body, and pass through the brain. The molecules from the child's blood attach themselves to the mother's brain, thus genes from the male attach themselves to the famale through the infant. As a result, the woman becomes slightly more like the male. It also means that the more children a couple have together, the more alike they become.

You are incorrect. The child's blood and the mother's blood are separate, and do not intermingle. That is why a child can have a different blood group than its mother. There is no transmission of any DNA from child to mother, either, and no transfer from father to mother. Couples do not become any more biologically alike through having more children.

 

[Gravity]

All of you know what is right according to the Divine Law. Do not hesitate to do right thing. Also read the divine books and take what is good in them. Discard everything that is evil

Actually, what is "right'' is pretty vague in that book. And different people in different cultures and times will interpret it differently - so discard the ''evil'' from the book? Here are some nice parts of the ''divine books'':

Who You Should Kill

--Unruly or rebellious child. Deut 21:20-21
--Those who curse or hit their parents. Lev 20:9,
Ex 21:15
--Worshipers of other gods. Deut 13:6-11
--psychics, witches. Lev 20:27, Deut 13:6-11,
Ex 22:18.
--Those who do not believe in Jesus (parable).
Luke 19:27.
--Those who work on the Sabbath. Ex 35:2
Moses kills a gentile for this. Num 15:32-36.
--Those who are accused by at least two people
of wickedness. Deut 17:6.
--The children and babies of enemies. Num 31:17,
Deut 20:13, Psalm 137:9, Lev 26:29.
--Adulterers. Lev 20:10.
--Homosexuals. Lev 20:13.
--A woman who is not a virgin when married.
Deut 22:13-21.
--Those who are careless with murderous livestock.
Exodus 21:29.

Who You Should Hate

--Those who eat crab or shrimp. Lev 11:10.
--Those who sacrifice an animal to God that
has a blemish. Deut 17:1.
--Those who remarry the same person after
divorce. Deut 24:4.
--Homosexuals. Lev 18:22.
--Those who are proud. Prov 16:5.
--A woman who wears pants. Deut 22:5.
--A man with long hair (Jesus?). 1Cor 11:14
contradicts Num 6:5, 1Sam 1:11, Jug 13:5.
--those who call others fools Mat 5:22

Should we still do this stuff?

--All OT laws still apply in NT. Matt 5:17-19
Contradicted in part by Mat 5:38-39
Doomsday Cult
--Jesus/Bible claims the end is near + in our past
Mark9:1 Mat16:27-28 Luke 9:26-27 Luke 21:32
Mat 24:34 John 5:25-29 James 5:8 1John 2:18
1Pet 4:7 Mal 4

Family and Political Values

-- Jesus says to hate/abandon your family
Luke 14:26, Mat 10:35-36, Mat 19:29.
--Jesus says to call no man on earth your father.
Mat 23:9
--Jesus says to honor your parents. Mat 19:19.
--No families in heaven. Mark 12:25.
--Don't marry 1cor7:1,8,27, Remarry Mat 5:32
--Jesus/NT says to pay taxes and obey the
government. Rom 13:1-7, 2Peter 2:10,
Mat 22:17-21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25.
--Jesus is against public prayer. Mat 6:5-6.
--Rich can't be Christian. Matt 19:24.
--Give all to poor. Luke 18:22.
--Lot impregnates his daughters after God kills
his wife, then honored. Gen 19. 2Peter 2:7
--a thing is not alive until breathing. Gen 2:7.
--Punishment for killing fetus is fine Ex 21,22-25.
--Women are worth less and should submit Eph
5:22-24, Col 3:18, 1Cor 11:5-10, 14:34-35.
--Become eunuchs (castrated) Mat 19:12
--Sodom not destroyed for homosexuality, not
listening to Jesus=greater sin than Sodom's.
Ez16:49-5, Luke 10:10-12.
--Gay David?1Sam18:1-4,20:3-4,7,41, 2Sam1:25-26
--God makes people gay. Rom 1:26-28.

Mythical Creatures.

--Giants. Gen 6:4, 1Sam. 17:4, Num 13:33.
--Ghosts 1Sam 28:8:20
--Demons. Luke 11:14.
-- Leviathans. Isaiah 27:1, Job 41:1.
-- Dragons. (Revelations).
-- Angels. Mat 28:2, Gen 19.
--Unicorns. Isaiah 34:7.-
--Witches/Mediums Ex22:18 Mic5:12 1Sam28:8-20
--Sorcerers. Ex 7:22, Ex 8:7, Ex 8:18.
--Talking Donkeys. Num 23:23-30
-- UFOs. Gen 6:4, 2Kings 2:11, Ezek 10

Super Powers and Magic

--A true Christian should be baptized, have faith,
cast out demons, speak in tongues, take up serpents,
be able to heal the sick, and be completely immune
to any poison. Mark 16:16-18.
--A true Christian can perform greater miracles than
Jesus. John 14:12.
--Christians can move mountains and trees by
command. Mat 17:20, 21:21 Mark 11:23 Luke 17:6
--Whatever a man asks of God he will receive Mat 7:7
--all things are possible with God. Mat 19:26.
--God has trouble overcoming iron chariots.
Judges 1:19.
--Jesus uses magic spells. Mark 6:4-5, 7:33-35,
Mark 8:23-25.
--Jesus had limited powers. Mark 6:5
--Sorcerers can do the same magic stuff God does.
Ex 7:22, Ex 8:7.
--Apollonius is just like a Jesus.

Science.

--7 days, firmament, plant (before the sun), sea
creatures, birds, land animals, man and woman
together, Gen 1.
--1 day, man, plants, all other creatures, woman,
knowledge of good and evil given only to a tree at
first, flaming sword Gen 2.
--7,000 year old earth.
--The earth is flat. Mat 4:5-8, Luke 4:5,
Isaiah 11:12, Rev 7:1, Dan 4:10-11
--The sun moves around a stationary Earth and the
moon has its own light. Isaiah 13:10,
Psalm 19:4-5, 1Sam 2:8, 1Chr 16:30,
Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5.
-- Pi = 3. 2Chron 4:2, 1King7:23.
--Flood--rainbow Gen9:13, 7 (Gen 7:2) or
2 (Gen 6:19 7:8,9,15) of each animal, lasted 40
(Gen 7:17) or 150 (7:24, 8:3) days, salinity+fish,
Australia's animals,deadly parasites, dinosaurs,
size+time+feed problem.
-- Tower of Bable Linguistics Gen 11.

Jesus' Birth

--Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit and was a
product of virgin birth. Mat 1:18-21
--Jesus was conceived by the seed of David
according to the flesh. Rom 1:3
--Heli was the paternal grandfather of Jesus Luke 3:23
--Jacob was the paternal grandfather of Jesus.
Mat 1:16, John 4:5.

Jesus on a Good Day

--love your enemies. Mat 5:43-44.
--golden rule Mat 7:12 Luke 6:31
--Judge not. Mat 7:1
--Consider the lilies Luke 12:27, Mat 6:28
--be like children Mat 18:3.
--give anything asked of you by anyone. Luke 6:30
--turn other cheek Luke 6:29.
--not against me is with me Mark 9:40 Luke 9:50

Jesus on a Bad Day

--not with me is against me Mat 12:30, Luke 11:23
--accommodate the wicked and do not resist
evil. Mat 5:39-45.
--Kill disbeliveers (parable) Luke 19:27.
--wicked get eternal torture of Hell. Mark 9:43-48.
--Fig tree hatred. Mark 11:13-14,20.
contradicts Mat 21:19-20
--Jesus came to cause strife. Luke 12:51-53,
Mat 10:34.
-- Jesus says to hate/abandon your family
Luke 14:26, Mat 10:35-36, Mat 19:29.
--Jesus threatens to kill children Rev 2:23

Seeing God/Jesus

--no one has seen God. John 1:18.
--Jacob saw God's face. Gen 32:30.
--Moses saw his backside. Ex 33:23.
--God has dinner with Abraham. Gen 18.
--Paul never met Jesus 2Cor 12, Gal 1:11-12
Hopeful Plagiarisms
--Jesus + Elijah do the same thing in the same
words. 1Kings 17, Luke 7.
--Luke + Elijah do the same thing in same
words. Ezek 1:1,4:9,4:14, Acts10:11-14

Miscellaneous Contradictions

--God will punish son for father's crimes Ex 20:5
--God won't punish son for father's crimes.
Ezek 18:20.
--Jesus' last words all different. Mat 27:46,
Luke 23:46, John 19:30.
--Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James
go to tomb, find guards and boulder which move
after earthquake. One flying angel on boulder tells
what happened. Mat 28
--Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James,
and Salome go to tomb, find no guards or boulder
and one young man in tomb tell what happened.
But women told no one. Mark 16
--Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna,
and some other women go to tomb, and two men
in the tomb tell what happened. Luke 24
--Mary goes to the tomb to find nothing, she
tells the disciples someone stole body so they go
back and again find nothing. The disciples then
leave and Jesus appears to tell Mary what
happened. John 20
----older versions of Mark end at Mark 16:8
without anyone seeing the risen Christ.
-- Earth will exist forever Eccl 1:4.
--Earth will end in Armageddon 2Pet 3:10
--Judas fell and burst open. Act 1:18-19.
--Judas hung himself. Mat 27-3:10.
--Jesus carries his own cross. John 19:17.
--Simon carries Jesus' cross. Mark 15:21-22.
--Wisdom is good Prov 3:13, 4:7
--Wisdom is bad 1Cor 1:19 Eccl 1:18
--God had one son 1John 4:9
--God had many sons Gen 6:2,4 Job 1:6, 2:1

Miscellaneous Contradictions Continued

--No author was at Jesus' trial yet narrative
fabricated to fit OT. Mark 14:50.
--Jesus crucified at 9:00am (3rd hour Rom) on
Passover. Mark 15:1,25 14:1
--Jesus crucified noon (6th hour Rom) day before
Passover. John 19:14.
--Virgin birth and the baptism.
God and Evil
--God admits He created evil. Isaiah 45:7 Amos 3:6
--God sends Satan to ruin Job's life. Job 2:1-7.
--God hardens Pharaoh's heart. Ex 9:12,
10:1,20,27, 11:10, 14:8.
--God commands/supports slavery. Lev 25:44-46,
Ex 21:2-8, Eph 6:5, Col 3:22, Gen 9:25.
--Anti women. 1Cor 14:34, 1Tim 2:9-14, Gen 5:16.
--rape rules: Deut 22:23-29, in city man+woman die;
in country only man dies; if woman not married
then man pays 50 shekels, and they wed.
--Anti Jew. 1Thes 2:14,15, Titus 1:10
--Anti gay. Lev 18:22, Rom 1:26-28, 1Cor 6:9-11,
1Tim 1:10, Jude 7, Gen 19.
--God favors neither good nor evil. Mat 5:45.
--God created some people predestined to go to
hell Rom 8:29-30, Jude 1:4, Mat 7:13-14.
--God admits to deceit. 1Kings 22:23. Is 6:10.
--Jesus admits to deceit (reason for parables).
2Thess 2:11-12, Mark 4:10-12, Mat 13:10-11
--God sends bears to kill children. 2Kings 2:24.
--God commands the killing of babies Num 31:17,
Deut 20:13, Psalm 137:9, Lev 26:29, Num 31:17.
--Jesus threatens to kill children for mother's
crime Rev 2:23
--God/Jesus hate. Rom 9:13, Rev 2:6, Psalm 5:5
--don't associate with people who have different
opinions. 2John 1:10-11. 2Cor 6:14-17
--Incestuous Lot revered. 2Peter 2:7
(bribes and threats--heaven and hell)

The simple believes every word but the prudent
considers well his every step. Prov 14:15

------------------

The 'loving' Jesus paraphrased: "Flatter and praise me or you will be tortured in hell"

 

[what768]

I'm sure you'll find the right way. You don't need to read books, or study to know the truth. In books, written by man, it is pretty vague, but in your own mind it's clear. All wisdom is inside of man, who is the temple of God. He does not need to do anything to receive wisdom and love, just wait and you will have it.

The law that God gave Moses so long ago must not remain dead script for the reverence of unthinking minds. The law itself is alive, and living things are constantly changing. The law of God, of course, is eternal, but as a man changes, so does the law inside him, but still he remains the same man. At last he will know the law completely. But always remember that no one can tell you what right is, you have to find it yourself.

There are also many things which are hidden from man, but for a prophet, they might not be hidden. Just as those things which are hidden from animals, and yet man understands them. So just because you cannot see God now, it does not mean that He does not exist.

 

[Gravity]

I'm sure I've found my right way too, thanks.

And, being a reborn - reborn Christian (I remember just KNOWING that I KNEW the truth, as I'm sure you feel you KNOW you are right) let me point out that just because you CAN see God now, it does not mean that He/She/It/They DOES exist.

 

[what768]

No one has ever seen the face of God, and He is something that can never be proven. Whatever we see, is visible only because it has been separated from its complementary half, and this other side is hidden, invisible within. Whoever sees the face of God, cannot live, because God also is a hidden side of man, and there is already one visible side of man.

Also in a blank surface, there is nothing. Yet everything could be (drawn) there. So this nothing, actually includes everything. In this state they both make a perfect completion, a oneness. Now watch, I'll draw an apple here, with red color. This apple was here already before, but its positive shape and backgrounds negative characteristics yet rested with each other: they were identical. The shape of the apple was yet not separated from "everything", which includes in this nothingness. Because the apple appeared here with a red color, it separated from "everything" and became visible.

God however, is no separated entity fallen from oneness, which could be seen. God is itself One; over all that is separated, and rests in "itself" in its own perfect Self.

 

[Gravity]

Hey, hello What768? Is there anybody in there?

You seem to spout prepackaged stereotypical Christian propaganda -- often not in any obvious way connected to what you responding to!

Stay on track, answer the specific questions/issues raised . . . I dare you!

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

beyondtimeandspace:



You are incorrect. The child's blood and the mother's blood are separate, and do not intermingle. That is why a child can have a different blood group than its mother. There is no transmission of any DNA from child to mother, either, and no transfer from father to mother. Couples do not become any more biologically alike through having more children.

*sigh* Alas, you are right, I am incorrect. I am embarrassed by my lack of proper research. However, here are some links that talk about it.

http://www.stormloader.com/users/newtopian/Nonfiction/infantDNA.html
[ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2378303.stm
http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/512251.html

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Is there any truth to the statement tha Jesus was married to maria magdelena?

(yes, I am reading the Da vinci code)

 

[Medicine*Woman]

spuriousmonkey: Is there any truth to the statement tha Jesus was married to maria magdelena?

(yes, I am reading the Da vinci code)
*************
M*W: I believe so, but The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction based on many other non-fiction works that claim MM was married to JC. I'm not saying that The Da Vinci Code is incorrect. It repeats the referenced works of other researchers. Since there is so much material out there that could have been referenced, I'm not sure why Dan Brown took the fictional approach.

When you're finished reading it, look up The Bloodline of the Holy Grail, by Laurence Gardner. It's the most well-documented text on this subject.

The grandfather of all books about this subject is The Passover Plot, by Hugh Shofield.

The NT discusses the 'wedding at Cana,' where JC and MM were in attendance. Most scholars believe this to be JC's and MM's wedding where the custom is believed to have taken place at the grooms home as is shown when Mary (the mother of the groom) tells JC there is no more wine.

I'm glad you have an interest in this subject. Let me know what your feelings are after you've finished reading it.