Was Jesus A Homophobe? (Should We Care?)

[Jingthing]

Considering how many so called Christians have persecuted and demonized gays over the centuries, maybe it is worth noting these details:

Never in the Bible does Jesus himself offer an explicit prohibition of homosexuality.

http://www.slate.com...sexuality_.html

Edited April 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

No, the New Testament's main homophobe is apparently Paul. There are many references which, taken from a certain context, could indicate that Jesus was gay- including his constant socialising with close groups of male friends, his caring and empathetic personality, and there's that one reference in one of the gospels where when Jesus is caught by the guards a 'naked man' runs out of the garden.

But that's not quite on the same evidential order as David and Jonathan....

[transam]

Hmmmmmm, but all that stuff was written by a bloke. Just look at the stuff written by newspaper journalists of today, weeeeeell, the ''books'' were written by journalists of their day eh.

[Payboy]

Hmmmmmm, but all that stuff was written by a bloke. Just look at the stuff written by newspaper journalists of today, weeeeeell, the ''books'' were written by journalists of their day eh.

And don't forget he had a powerful father who probably bankrolled all the cover-ups.

[Cornichon88]

Some people posting on this forum should get a life.

Never thought I had to see such a stupid thread in a forum.

[transam]

Some people posting on this forum should get a life.

Never thought I had to see such a stupid thread in a forum.

Why ?

[endure]

Some people posting on this forum should get a life.

Never thought I had to see such a stupid thread in a forum.

Don't let the door bang your arse on the way out...

[tombkk]

Some people posting on this forum should get a life.

Never thought I had to see such a stupid thread in a forum.

Don't let the door bang your arse on the way out...

Don't be so negative. Cornichon88 (probably born in 1988, calling himself cucumber) has probably just discovered that homosexuality is something that has to do with him. Otherwise he wouldn't even care to post here.

He has made the first step and is connecting with gay people. Let's welcome him, so he can see that it is OK, he does not need to be afraid.

[endure]

Some people posting on this forum should get a life.

Never thought I had to see such a stupid thread in a forum.

Don't let the door bang your arse on the way out...

Don't be so negative. Cornichon88 (probably born in 1988, calling himself cucumber) has probably just discovered that homosexuality is something that has to do with him. Otherwise he wouldn't even care to post here.

Strange username that - cucumber. Is there a bit of wishful thinking going on?

[Ijustwannateach]

I'm afraid that Cornichon will be meditating for awhile on the subforum guidelines as well as his potential homosexuality...

[isanbirder]

I must say that I thought it was a pretty stupid thread. There isn't much evidence of Jesus' sexuality, but what there is (his relationship with John) suggests sympathy at least.

[transam]

Some people posting on this forum should get a life.

Never thought I had to see such a stupid thread in a forum.

Don't let the door bang your arse on the way out...

Don't be so negative. Cornichon88 (probably born in 1988, calling himself cucumber) has probably just discovered that homosexuality is something that has to do with him. Otherwise he wouldn't even care to post here.

Strange username that - cucumber. Is there a bit of wishful thinking going on?

Sounds better than Gherkin.

[Jingthing]

I must say that I thought it was a pretty stupid thread. There isn't much evidence of Jesus' sexuality, but what there is (his relationship with John) suggests sympathy at least.

So stupid that you post to it to say it's stupid. Interesting. Edited April 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[transam]

I must say that I thought it was a pretty stupid thread. There isn't much evidence of Jesus' sexuality, but what there is (his relationship with John) suggests sympathy at least.

My best buddy of 35 years name is John, but we're not gay.

[Jingthing]

In case this topic wasn't "gay enough" for ya, here's some red meat!

Who knew carrying around planks of wood and a faux band of thorns could be, well, hot?

"Hunky Jesus" (annual event since 2000) contest in San Francisco's Dolores Park:

http://www.sfweekly....park-4281463/#1

Edited April 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

In case this topic wasn't "gay enough" for ya, here's some red meat!

Who knew carrying around planks of wood and a faux band of thorns could be, well, hot?

"Hunky Jesus" (annual event since 2000) contest in San Francisco's Dolores Park:

http://www.sfweekly....park-4281463/#1

You really do have a Jesus obsession, Jingthing. It's not so long since you opened a thread, Was Jesus a Gay man? What's the next one? "Did He have sex with Mary Magdalene?" (That silly book The Da Vinci Code claimed he did) Or have you had that one already?

[TommoPhysicist]

The new testament and the old testament are often at odds with each other.

If you base your Christianity on the Old, then you will view homosexuality as an abomination.

If you base your Christianity on the New, then you will be completely happy with homosexuality (Jesus wasn't bothered).

I don't think the bible comments on lesbians, so it would be an error to talk about 'gays' which encompasses both sexes.

[Jingthing]

In case this topic wasn't "gay enough" for ya, here's some red meat!

Who knew carrying around planks of wood and a faux band of thorns could be, well, hot?

"Hunky Jesus" (annual event since 2000) contest in San Francisco's Dolores Park:

http://www.sfweekly....park-4281463/#1

You really do have a Jesus obsession, Jingthing. It's not so long since you opened a thread, Was Jesus a Gay man? What's the next one? "Did He have sex with Mary Magdalene?" (That silly book The Da Vinci Code claimed he did) Or have you had that one already?

Did I really open a thread called Was Jesus a Gay Man? I don't recall that. In any case, I have no such obsession. I am reality based and don't consider any man divine.

OK, by searching I did find the thread you were talking about. You didn't twist the title ... too much. From 2010. I'm so obsessed!

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__3352415

Dude, I kind of think the obsession going on here is about you ... for me.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

The new testament and the old testament are often at odds with each other.

If you base your Christianity on the Old, then you will view homosexuality as an abomination.

If you base your Christianity on the New, then you will be completely happy with homosexuality (Jesus wasn't bothered).

I don't think the bible comments on lesbians, so it would be an error to talk about 'gays' which encompasses both sexes.

You're right. Generally, the masses don't get their panties in a twist about lesbians. In fact, the idea of two ladies doing it definitely excites the typical straight man. Two guys doing it often disgusts straight people. So straight men control the world, what else is new?

Interesting about the Jewish vs. Christian traditions related to bible texts. While it is true that the Jewish texts are definitely anti-gay, in our modern world you see much less anti-gay rhetoric per capita from Jewish rabbis than from Christian priests/ministers.

The point being, religions can (and should) progress and change over the ages, but the trend isn't always in a good direction.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[transam]

The new testament and the old testament are often at odds with each other.

If you base your Christianity on the Old, then you will view homosexuality as an abomination.

If you base your Christianity on the New, then you will be completely happy with homosexuality (Jesus wasn't bothered).

I don't think the bible comments on lesbians, so it would be an error to talk about 'gays' which encompasses both sexes.

You're right. Generally, the masses don't get their panties in a twist about lesbians. In fact, the idea of two ladies doing it definitely excites the typical straight man. Two guys doing it often disgusts straight people. So straight men control the world, what else is new?

Interesting about the Jewish vs. Christian traditions related to bible texts. While it is true that the Jewish texts are definitely anti-gay, in our modern world you see much less anti-gay rhetoric per capita from Jewish rabbis than from Christian priests/ministers.

The point being, religions can (and should) progress and change over the ages, but the trend isn't always in a good direction.

I disagree, a religion is a religion, cannot be altered, if it is altered it is done so by man, a bloke, NOT by the guy up there who supposedly it is all about.

Henry 8th changed UK religion for his own purpose, which was perhaps because of his own inadequacy.

[Jingthing]

That's not quite what I meant.

For example, Islam Sharia law and whether to take it so literally chopping off hands/stoning women and such is a great example of ancient stuff that can and SHOULD be modernized.

[transam]

That's not quite what I meant.

For example, Islam Sharia law and whether to take it so literally chopping off hands/stoning women and such is a great example of ancient stuff that can and SHOULD be modernized.

So why do Jews still chop off a bit of a blokes todger. ? Who decided this crazy act, hmmm, yep, a bloke. Very strange .

[Jingthing]

That's not quite what I meant.

For example, Islam Sharia law and whether to take it so literally chopping off hands/stoning women and such is a great example of ancient stuff that can and SHOULD be modernized.

So why do Jews still chop off a bit of a blokes todger. ? Who decided this crazy act, hmmm, yep, a bloke. Very strange .

Fair point. I didn't suggest change everything all at once. You can't be equating male circumcision to murdering gays for religious reasons, can you?

[transam]

That's not quite what I meant.

For example, Islam Sharia law and whether to take it so literally chopping off hands/stoning women and such is a great example of ancient stuff that can and SHOULD be modernized.

So why do Jews still chop off a bit of a blokes todger. ? Who decided this crazy act, hmmm, yep, a bloke. Very strange .

Fair point. I didn't suggest change everything all at once. You can't be equating male circumcision to murdering gays for religious reasons, can you?

One is more extreme than another, yes, but ALL have been thought up by a bloke, crazy stuff.

[Naam]

That's not quite what I meant.

For example, Islam Sharia law and whether to take it so literally chopping off hands/stoning women and such is a great example of ancient stuff that can and SHOULD be modernized.

So why do Jews still chop off a bit of a blokes todger. ? Who decided this crazy act, hmmm, yep, a bloke. Very strange .

there's a beautiful jewish joke in Yiddish which i'm trying to translate.

Abraham asking the LORD:

"you mean them Ayrabs get all the oil and we have to cut our peckers??? some covenant i dare say!"

[Ijustwannateach]

Ha ha ha! There's also this hilarious (but rather weaselly and bloodthirsty story) recounted in the Bible of the Israelites as they're wandering in the desert. They come across yet another city. They send in a 'diplomatic' mission (really an espionage team- some things never change!)- and convince the king to convert to Judaism, as well as all the city. They do it even though they know they'll all have to be circumcised (as adults!). Then, as they are all lying around in agony after the various ceremonies, God tells the Israelites to strike and kill everyone. What fine fellows!

Anyway, guys, I like a good religious squabble as much as the next non-religious guy- I mean, it's amusing to see people arguing about WHICH invisible magic man in the sky we should be 'listening' to- though a bit disturbing- but I'm going to have to raise a point of order and insist that this thread is NOT going to be a big free-for-all about religion. Please try to stick mostly to the topic or matters that are at least a bit tangentially related. No one's going to get anywhere trying to prove their point about Jesus's sexuality based on an argument about 'which religion is right/more crazy', and that argument isn't going to happen here.

[Jingthing]

Hey, teach, the point I was trying to make is how religious leaders act today does not necessarily need to reflect the most fundamentalist interpretation of their ancient religious texts. Speaking as an atheist who accepts that most people ... are not.

[Ijustwannateach]

Yes, yes, but the topic is 'was Jesus a homophobe'? Let's stick with that. I'm not looking for a wider ranging religious discussion, once again.

[Jingthing]

Yes, yes, but the topic is 'was Jesus a homophobe'? Let's stick with that. I'm not looking for a wider ranging religious discussion, once again.

Understood, but let's say Jesus WAS a homophobe. It wouldn't follow that his modern followers would NEED to be. Given that he clearly was NOT a homophobe, the current reality is even more stupid.

[Ijustwannateach]

I very much doubt that most Christians are really homophobic on the basis of religious evidence alone (if so, they wouldn't wear polyester blends). It's more of a rationalisation for their homophobia so they don't have to be personally responsible. However, I can agree that if you stick to THIS one tangent (as I said above, related tangents are ok), then fine. However, you and other posters have already demonstrated that you would really rather go off on the tangent that proves the tangent that proves the tangent that proves the tangent into a full pro-/anti-/don't care religious wrangle, and what I'm saying here (again, and for the last time, and not expecting any response on the matter), is that that is not going to continue here. That's not a question or a debate, that's a statement of fact. If you guys can keep it contained to a relatively narrow field of discussion, fine. If not, this thread is too much trouble to keep within the purview of the GAY SUBFORUM and it will be closed.