[quote=Justin]define like then.


[/quote]

Like? As in I like a guy?

Or was that a trick question?

Oh Shahin! Sorry I mispelt your name. I wasn't wearing my glasses.

[/quote]


but there are varying degrees of liking someone, are there not?

I know Algebra when i was 12 too.


Did you guys know that the each color on a candy cane resemble god's existence. White means, invisible or cannot be seen. Red stands for blood and green stands for gay.

Leonardo da Vinci was gay not Jesus.

[quote=sadolakced acid,Sep 17 2005, 6:04 PM]
[quote=Justin]define like then.


[/quote]

Like? As in I like a guy?

Or was that a trick question?

Oh Shahin! Sorry I mispelt your name. I wasn't wearing my glasses.

[/quote]
but there are varying degrees of liking someone, are there not?

[/quote]


Well. There's like. Like like. Love. Deep love. and...

yeah anyways.

I dont get this topic anymore.

But yes, Davinci was gay. That fdiaf;ndafd

[spam]kristina you got a new username! now i have to too!

and davinci was gay. but the guy who wrote the book isnt...at least i dont think he is. with all the girls that robert langdon has sex with, i doubt it.[/spam]

[quote=Kristinaa,Sep 19 2005, 8:48 PM]
[quote]Like? As in I like a guy?

Or was that a trick question?

Oh Shahin! Sorry I mispelt your name. I wasn't wearing my glasses.

[/quote]
but there are varying degrees of liking someone, are there not?

[/quote]
Well. There's like. Like like. Love. Deep love. and...

yeah anyways.

I dont get this topic anymore.

But yes, Davinci was gay. That fdiaf;ndafd

[/quote]

yea, so there are varying degrees of like.

how much to you have to like a guy to be gay?

Dan Brown? He's married...to a woman.

the bible condemns homosexuality. so jesus could not have been homosexual.

jesus never followed the bible.

^
Thats true. Some infomations are made by people. They're fooling us.

Condemnation of homosexuality is in the OLD testament. Many biblical contradictions stem from the old testament/new testament argument. For the most part, they're two different religious doctrine for the same religious practice. Of course they're going to contradict one another. The old testament also says that failing to fear God will result in cow dung falling from the sky.

Jesus is from the new. He could've been gay, but even then its irrelevant to the religion. Christian culture pushes the 'anit-gay' envelope. For all we know, Jesus was also turnin' trick with Mary Magdeline, but you don't see every televangelist preaching about saving the hookers.

End of story.

Jesus is not homosexual.
We are "sons" and "daughters" of God the Father. And since Jesus is the Son of God, the love he shares, therefore, would be incest with his brothers and sisters rather than homosexuality, if any thing at all. Any form of homosexuality however, can not be assumed since he did not have a "sexual" relationship with the fisherman or his disciples or anyone for that matter that can be varified.

sorry to disappoint you all. but just to clear things up and kinda put a conclusion on to it....Jesus is NOT gay. cuz nowhere in the bible does he mention that he is gay. plus like shown in the bible quotes above...he calls it an abomination.

Jesus was sinless throughout his whole life, cuz that's the only way he could've sacrificed himself on the cross. If he was sinless, how could he go against God's will by being gay? cuz always remember...god created adam and eve. not adam and steve.

even though homosexuality is accepted in some areas, do you honestly believe that homosexuality is normal? if everyone was homosexual then there would be no future generation, no children. and let me argue against evolutionists for this one....if you guys all believe that we evolved for the benefit for our bodies, then explain why our bodies evolved in a way where sexual intercourse is made to be performed between man and women, not man and man , or women and women. it's cuz between man and women is the normal, right way, cuz that's the way god created us and how he wants us to be

And ALSO he had no affair with mary m. nowhere in the bible does it say that jesus had an affair. the da vinci code is complete bull. plus the christian faith comes from the bible. not a fiction novel. other books that contradict the bible have nothing to do with the bible, therefore cannot describe what jesus was like.

just to let you all know...not all...but christians with good understanding of the bible and its history laughs at the davinci code. it's cause almost every accusation it makes is completely false with fake, lack of, or no evidence at all. if you don't believe me research the facts yourself. there's plenty of books that crack it and you can fully research yourself about the accusations.

no where in the bible does it mention cars.

cars must not exist.

^ sheep.

jesus loves you. and so does michael jackson.

sorry...but no offense. with that kind of argument, then i can easily argue that you are also a fag, just like jesus. your argument is that even though it wasn't mentioned in the bible...that doesn't matter cuz the bible doesn't have recordings of everything..right? cuz it obviously doesn't have recordings of cars. but how the crap does that even consider jesus being a fag? the bible has only enough evidence that jesus is a fag just as much as you are a fag, or that abraham lincoln is a fag.

just cuz the bible doesn't mention that jesus wasn't a fag doesn't mean he's a fag.
in fact, the bible mentions that jesus was sinless and it also mentions that homosexuality is wrong and is sin. you put the two and two togther...jesus must not have sinned and been a homosexual cuz he was sinless.

i'm sorry if you mistook that as an argument.

that was an ad hominem attack and an attack on jesus, neither of which supported by any logic.

that'scus i don'thave time right now to do a full repsonse. i'll do it later, don't worry.

aight....i feel like an idiot now

Thank you for regirgitating a generic answer.

Being a son or daughter of God the Father is metaphor for saying we're connect through him by spirit.

Not everyone's a Christian but you aren't doing the religion justice by presenting an unsupoorted argument.

NEEEXT!

Can you honestly say the accusation of Jesus being gay is a supported topic? You say, being the son or daughter of God the Father is a metaphor. If that is so, then I can also easily say that is the same to be said about His homosexuality.

Your rebuttal implicated that I support the 'Jesus Iz Gay, d00d' argument. I could care less whether or not he as gay, I still think its irrelevant to the religion itself.

Not everyone believes in creation because at this point, evolution is the scientific presence when it comes to the history of human existence.

Ellaborate on Jesus' sexual orientation being a metaphor, plz! KTHXBYE

If you support neither side of this argument, then what are you debating? I have already stated my views on the lunacy of this topic. If you are arguing about religion itself against scientology, make a new topic to serve your ranting needs.

first we must note that must the new testament was written decades after jesus's death.

then we must remember that it was not written by jesus.

and we must take note of the lack of mention of jesus's sexuality.

which leaves a few possiblities:

- god doesn't have sex, and isn't attacted to humans, so jesus didn't.

- jesus was gay, and therefore didn't have any public relationships, or they were expunged from the records.

- jesus was involved with someone, say, mary magdlene, who the later church did not approve of and she was expunged from the records (or it was never public).


first we will look at the first one:


- god doesn't have sex, and isn't attacted to humans, so jesus didn't.

now, the obvious thing that contradicts this is that god impregnated mary. Which means that god got his sperm into mary. which means sex.
so we either get that god had sex with mary,

OR

that jesus isn't genetically mary's son, and was implanted (all alien style) to grow in mary.

now, looking at the later, we can see that jesus appeared to be a normal human. he was born normally, the pregnacy was normal, etc. We know jesus was a male. we know what jesus tells people about adultry.

what we don't know is whether jesus was attracted at any human, so it's definatly a possiblitiy that jesus wasn't attracted to humans at all.

then let's look at the next possibility.


- jesus was gay, and therefore didn't have any public relationships, or they were expunged from the records.

this would certainly be possible. Many people don't do as they preach, and it is certainly possible that jesus could have done so. However, if jesus was to maintain is god status, he would need to do as he preached.

therefore, if jesus was gay, it was either not public, or the writers of the bible ommitted it in order to help the religion make sense.

so none of these possiblities are removed.

finally; - jesus was involved with someone, say, mary magdlene, who the later church did not approve of and she was expunged from the records (or it was never public).

it is certainly possible, yet doubtful. The church has no problems with prostitutes as long as they have 'repented'. of course, people do crazy things for love, so it's possible jesus still had a relationship with someone who didn't follow his teachings, but then it would have been expunged.


so we have all options as viable, expect for the one about god actually having sex with mary, which would mean that jesus, being an extention of god, would be straight.

the divinity of jesus cannot be disproven, so i will assume that it was not true for the purposes of the debate. i am well aware that this is very much a possibility, but then it'd make the debate pointless, so i'm ignoring it.

SO; if jesus was not divinly immune to being attracted to humans, then we see that either jesus had a gay relationship or jesus had a straight one.

however, there does not seem to be a reason for jesus's straight relationship (if there was one) to be excluded from the bible, expecailly if it were public. slight mention of the savior's humanity would make him more contactable to worshippers. it would certainly benefit the church to mention if jesus had a relationship.

therefore, it is unlikely that jesus had a straight relationship that was known about by any of the writers of the bible.


which leaves that jesus was gay.

Jesus is and was not homosexual. In the bible it condemns homosexuality. As people have already stated, Jesus was perfect, pure, holy, without sin. Homosexuality was condemned and Jesus being pure as he was, would not and could not be homosexual. Jesus did not have relations with any human, woman or man, because that is not why he was here. His purpose was not to procreate. Jesus' love, agape, is how he loved everyone, he never had romantic feelings or anything of the sort. There is no way that Jesus was mistakenly killed; that it was the wrong peron. Everyone knew who Jesus was. He traveled much and performed miracles and made claims that he was the Son of God which led him to be widely known. He was persecuted all of his life. His sole purpose was to die on the cross for our sins and because of that there is no way someone else could have accidentally been killed because they claimed they were Jesus. Who would want to do such a thing in the first place? They would get persecuted. People wanted Jesus dead. Why would someone claim to be him? That's not logical. People didn't even want to associate themselves with Jesus for the fear of getting persecuted. Just like Ellen stated, Judas is the one who basically sold Jesus out which is further evidence for the fact that it was not a mistaken death. Also like she said, Jesus did not put up a fight but went willingly. Any other man could not have taken such torture and would not have done so willingly either. There is no reason for Judas to sell out another random person and state that he is Jesus so that that person would die instead. Why? Because again, Jesus' purpose was to die on the cross. About God not having sex and Mary becoming pregnant deal, well, God is all powerful. He made Adam out of dust. God is also not human. Thus, no sperm. Jesus is the "human form" of God. If he was able to make a complete human being, Adam, out of dust and Eve out of one of his ribs I'm positive he could have impregnated a virgin. And this so called "alien style" does not mean that Jesus would have to be deformed or anything of the sort. Once again because God is all powerful Jesus did look human, that was the point. There is no reason for anything to be excluded or expunged from the bible. The bible is all truth, all facts. Of course that's coming from me, a believer, and others will think otherwise. Prostitutes were talked about in the bible. The only ones spoken of were not just those that repented. The bible talked of sinners and talked of those who never once repented, not just of those who repented. Furthermore, of course Jesus did as he preached. Of course. He was perfect, holy, pure, without sin. And removing something to make the religion make more sense is stupid. Sorry, but it is. No religion makes complete sense. That's not the point of it either. It's supposed to be about faith, "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) which to me connotes that we must also have faith in the bible while we might not entirely understand it. That's why it would be quite pointless to attempt to make the bible make more sense by changing stories. The bible is what it is.

Uhm, I had more to write and address but I'll do that at a later time.

two things.

paragraphs

propoganda.

you say jesus is pure, holy, etc. support it with somethign other than the bible.

In all fairness, that's a bit hard to do; Jesus isn't mentioned in great detail many other places other than the Bible--or, at least, not in places that don't also reference the Bible to support their claims.

The question can also be raised that, since Christianity is based on the Bible, what's the point of even referencing something other than the Bible? Christians don't require the Bible to be supported, so it doesn't really matter that much whether claims are supported elsewhere or not; the religion is based on a single book, the Bible.

I'm not saying it makes a lot of sense or is a good argument necessarily; I'm just playing Devil's advocate for a second.