Jesus... gay?? Options

[Olive]

lmao..well put...i recant my statement....well you can make whatever judgements you wan't about me. i could honestly care less. unlike your so called savior....I am still around...and to tell you the truth. people don't even have enough rational evidence to prove that jesus even exsisted except by word of mouth and a ludcris book on fairy tales called the "bible"(which is based on faith and not fact). which would render this topic completely erreivant. so screw the if he's gay part. how can you prove he even exsisted.

I'm glad you understand. And if I was to explain about Jesus' existence and the realibility of the bible, that would be completely Off-topic. But there is plenty archeological evidence you can search for yourself, I can assure you.

[ryfitaDF]

people like to believe he's white when he wasn't. meybe they also like to believe that he was heterosexual.

[Mulder]

people like to believe he's white when he wasn't. meybe they also like to believe that he was heterosexual.

you have proof that he was an African-american homosexual? please share.

im not trying to be rude..you've just peaked my curiousity.

[*RiC3xBoy*]

you have proof that he was an African-american homosexual? please share.

im not trying to be rude..you've just peaked my curiousity.

Uhm, Jesus died before there was America.....

And when did he ever say anything about being African? I personally think that he is Middle Eastern.

[Spirited Away]

"Some theologians believe that the Gospel of Mark had been circulated in two versions: the edited version that we have today, and a full , "secret" version which was reserved for those who "had attained a higher degree of initiation in to the church than the common crowd." 1 The latter describes Jesus spending the night with a young man who was naked except for a linen cloth. Needless to say, this passage has not been accepted as legitimate by all scholars" [religious tolerance]

^thought that was interesting.

content edited.

[Olive]

[religious tolerance]

^thought that was interesting.

Yes interesting that the site was a contridiction to the entire Christian faith. Easy to claim something when it is "secret" isn't it?

[Spirited Away]

Yes interesting that the site was a contridiction to the entire Christian faith. Easy to claim something when it is "secret" isn't it?

Yes, in the same manner of ease that believers claim something untrue when it doesn't coincide with their faith.


Question though, the site contradicts the entire Christian faith how?

[ryfitaDF]

you have proof that he was an African-american homosexual? please share.

im not trying to be rude..you've just peaked my curiousity.

well he was born in the middle east, so he couldn't have been white. and i have no proof that he was or wasn't heterosexual. i was just saying that he could have been. the bible has been changed so many times throughout history it's hard to believe anything in it actually happend.

[Olive]

Yes, in the same manner of ease that believers claim something untrue when it  doesn't coincide with their faith. 
Question though, the site contradicts the entire Christian faith how?

heh, the site accuses the entire foundation of the bible to be untrue. In the face real Christians, this isn't valid as evidence that Jesus (which it suggests didn't even exist) was homosexual.

[sadolakced acid]

fact aren't about faith.

you can have faith all you want, but don't use faith as a fact.

most of christianity is based on faith, but there have been facts discovered.

can not those be used?

[Spirited Away]

heh, the site accuses the entire foundation of the bible to be untrue. In the face real Christians, this isn't valid as evidence that Jesus (which it suggests didn't even exist) was homosexual.

... this is going to get tiring soon I'm sure, but again, how does this site accuses the entire foundation of the bible to be untrue? I mean to ask because to me, the site presents two sides of this debate rather well.

[Olive]

... this is going to get tiring soon I'm sure, but again, how does this site accuses the entire foundation of the bible to be untrue? I mean to ask because to me, the site presents two sides of this debate rather well.

If you properly read what the site's writer argued, you'll see he believes Jesus doesn't exist based on appearance. On the other hand, it says Jesus is homosexual. Do you see something wrong here? And judging on face value isnt fact, that is opinon.

[Spirited Away]

If you properly read what the site's writer argued, you'll see he believes Jesus doesn't exist based on appearance. On the other hand, it says Jesus is homosexual. Do you see something wrong here? And judging on face value isnt fact, that is opinon.

... where does it say Jesus is homosexual without contesting that there are those who believe otherwise? If you had actually read the context properly yourself, and followed link to "Was Jesus gay", the site has pretty good arguments for Jesus being heterosexual to counter claims that Jesus was homosexual. Also on that same page I linked to, saying that "there are skeptics" of Jesus' existence is hardly saying that the author himself believes Jesus doesn't exist based on appearance. If that's the case, if I were to tell you that there are people who do not believe in ghosts, will you automatically think that I am among those people when I'm simply presenting a fact?

And judging with staunchly preconceived notions of wrongness isn't cool either.

[Olive]

... where does it say Jesus is homosexual without contesting that there are those who believe otherwise? If you had actually read the context properly yourself, and followed link to "Was Jesus gay", the site has pretty good arguments for Jesus being heterosexual to counter claims that Jesus was homosexual. Also on that same page I linked to, saying that "there are skeptics" of Jesus' existence is hardly saying that the author himself believes Jesus doesn't exist based on appearance. If that's the case, if I were to tell you that there are people who do not believe in ghosts, will you automatically think that I am among those people when I'm simply presenting a fact?

And judging with staunchly preconceived notions of wrongness isn't cool either.

and presenting two sides of the argument makes the site not the slightest biased and completely reliable... no signs of mockery whatsoever. please stab out my eyeballs and roll them in sand for my gullibility.

[Spirited Away]

and presenting two sides of the argument makes the site not the slightest biased and completely reliable... no signs of mockery whatsoever. please stab out my eyeballs and roll them in sand for my gullibility.

resorting to irrelevant sarcasm when one cannot disprove another's point or answer pertinent questions asked is noted.

i said the link was interesting and if you think reliability and biases have everything to do with the word "interesting", i'll stand corrected *shrug*. at any rate, i think you should check out those arguments against Jesus' supposed homosexuality a second time. a few of them were well thought out and you may even agree with them... just a suggestion.

[Olive]

resorting to irrelevant sarcasm when one cannot disprove another's point or answer pertinent questions asked is noted.

no, it was extremely relevant. look at it again.
Mind you, resorting to random sites claiming secret information is also noted.

i'll stand corrected *shrug*. 

I'll take that into mind. **yawn

[Spirited Away]

no, it was extremely relevant. look at it again.
Mind you, resorting to random sites claiming secret information is also noted.
I'll take that into mind. **yawn

relevant in that you haven't even tried to open your minds to random sites that offer arguments in your favor? relevant in that you danced around answering my questions and never address any of my objections? what's your definition of relevance, i'd like to know since it's sorely lacking. okay, how's this, could you at least try to refute the argument on the site, prove it false somehow instead of just saying that it's false? i mean, this is a debate forum for goodness sakes, and i'm pretty sure you know what debate means.

Oh, please don't quote me out of context for your own gain. that's extremely immature . but then, maybe you need to do a little reading rather than just looking.

seriously, i had a really good feeling about you at first. i love and respect most of your arguments in the other threads... what happened in this one? you scanned through a site and flipped out on me without actually reading through all the arguments presented on the site. i'm not saying that's it's reliable or that it's not biased, i'm saying that the controversy is laid out pretty well and tha many point of views are there. if you don't agree with one side of the argument (the "secret text"), i can understsand, but you don't have to get all silly on me when you haven't read the whole thing yet.

Sheesh don't have a cow, man.

[Olive]

relevant in that you haven't even tried to open your minds to random sites that offer arguments in your favor? relevant in that you danced around answering my questions and never address any of my objections? what's your definition of relevance, i'd like to know since it's sorely lacking. okay, how's this, could you at least try to refute the argument on the site, prove it false somehow instead of just saying that it's false? i mean, this is a debate forum for goodness sakes, and i'm pretty sure you know what debate means.

Oh, please don't quote me out of context for your own gain. that's extremely immature . but then, maybe you need to do a little reading rather than just looking.

seriously, i had a really good feeling about you at first. i love and respect most of your arguments in the other threads... what happened in this one? you scanned through a site and flipped out on me without actually reading through all the arguments presented on the site. i'm not saying that's it's reliable or that it's not biased, i'm saying that the controversy is laid out pretty well and tha many point of views are there. if you don't agree with one side of the argument (the "secret text"), i can understsand, but you don't have to get all silly on me when you haven't read the whole thing yet.

Sheesh don't have a cow, man.

If you must know, the question isn't about open minded-ness. It is Jesus' homosexuality. True or False. You cannot base an entire argument on an unknown source you found on the internet then tell me to refute them for you. Obviously a lot of rubbish is written on the internet, so argue your point to the entire Christian public without the aid of a generic source no one even knows about.

Obviously maturity comes into your vacabulary.. I am simply writing out what I believe is in the context of the topic. PATHETICALLY RIDICULOUS. Don't take my opinions as a personal attack. I just find this topic similar to asking "I have five fingers,... but now I have SIX. Prove me wrong without looking."

[Spirited Away]

Obviously maturity comes into your vacabulary.. I am simply writing out what I believe is in the context of the topic. PATHETICALLY RIDICULOUS. Don't take my opinions as a personal attack. I just find this topic similar to asking "I have five fingers,... but now I have SIX. Prove me wrong without looking."

Of course it would come into my vocabulary. How could you doubt it after you quoted me out of context, not answer any of my very much relevant concerns about your points against the source and think the worst of everything I've conversed with you thus far? I am little consoled that you're not 'personally' attacking me because I rather you do and answer my questions then nothing throw mean spirited sarcasms my way.

This topic may be ridiculous and you may be rightly upset with everything said in this thread just as I would be if someone demeans an important belief that is the basis of my ideals. However, if you're not here to discredit what's being said, why say anything at all? By "discredit", I do mean arguing logically and refuting things you deem illogical. If you think the source is not reliable, tell me why it wouldn't be with actually explanation instead of throwing random sarcasms and expect me to believe you're not attacking me at a personal level.

If you must know, the question isn't about open minded-ness. It is Jesus' homosexuality. True or False. You cannot base an entire argument on an unknown source you found on the internet then tell me to refute them for you. Obviously a lot of rubbish is written on the internet, so argue your point to the entire Christian public without the aid of a generic source no one even knows about. 

The site is not saying that Jesus is definitely Homosexual. It is saying that here are what people disagree about... That's all. Why would it be considered as an unknown source? I don't understand. Is the Bible the only "known" source credible in everyone's eyes? No, it's credible by Christians' standards. True, the site inherently argues that there is no absolute truths, which may be why it is against the foundations of Christianity as you've said, but it never said Christianity is false or have tried to prove the religion false without presenting the contesting side.

What you're asking me to do, to argue to the Christian mass without using any sources I want, is the same as asking a Christian to not use the Bible when making his/her argument. But as we both know, the Bible has been mentioned many times in this thread, so why should I be restrained from my sources? If you think the Bible is the only credible source, this has very much to do with open mindedness.

If we were talk about why I believe Christianity isn't for me, I'll gladly forgo any secondary sources. I have done so many, many, many times in the past because I am the only source I need. The point being that this debate requires other sources. If you don't think the source is good enough, fine, but explain why. Arguing that a source is not reliable by saying that it's not reliable, period, is just... not good enough.

[Olive]

Of course it would come into my vocabulary. How could you doubt it after you quoted me out of context, not answer any of my very much relevant concerns about your points against the source and think the worst of everything I've conversed with you thus far? I am little consoled that you're not 'personally' attacking me because I rather you do and answer my questions then nothing throw mean spirited sarcasms my way.

This topic may be ridiculous and you may be rightly upset with everything said in this thread just as I would be if someone demeans an important belief that is the basis of my ideals. However, if you're not here to discredit what's being said, why say anything at all? By "discredit", I do mean arguing logically and refuting things you deem illogical. If you think the source is not reliable, tell me why it wouldn't be with actually explanation instead of throwing random sarcasms and expect me to believe you're not attacking me at a personal level.
The site is not saying that Jesus is definitely Homosexual. It is saying that here are what people disagree about... That's all. Why would it be considered as an unknown source? I don't understand. Is the Bible the only "known" source credible in everyone's eyes? No, it's credible by Christians' standards.  True, the site inherently argues that there is no absolute truths, which may be why it is against the foundations of Christianity as you've said, but it never said Christianity is false or have tried to prove the religion false without presenting the contesting side.

What you're asking me to do, to argue to the Christian mass without using any sources I want, is the same as asking a Christian to not use the Bible when making his/her argument. But as we both know, the Bible has been mentioned many times in this thread, so why should I be restrained from my sources? If you think the Bible is the only credible source, this has very much to do with open mindedness.

If we were talk about why I believe Christianity isn't for me, I'll gladly forgo any secondary sources. I have done so many, many, many times in the past because I am the only source I need. The point being that this debate requires other sources. If you don't think the source is good enough, fine, but explain why. Arguing that a source is not reliable by saying that it's not reliable, period, is just... not good enough.

Dont tell me how to refute your debate in your certain ways. You, yourself have not shown me much logical reasoning in your "arguments". Giving a whole explanation defending yourself and your source hardly argues much. As for the reliability of the bible, I will tell you there is archeological proof that certain texts are true. However, I have not used the bible in any of my arguments. Do not assume the entire "Jesus is NOT gay says the bible" debate to be mine. If you choose to argue by means of someone elses view, what proof do you have that they are not lies for the sake of hullabaloo? Presenting two sides of an arguement does not signify reliability, nor accounts for consistently genuine evidence. A decent source in my mind would be the Pope confirming your argument against credence. If you had a link to that, I would consider your argument in more than one light.

[Angelove86]

Okay, first: Jesus being gay doesn't really matter. Would it really matter?
Second: there is no possible way he could have been white. he was from the middle east as were mary n joseph, n god prolly wznted him to blend in, so he was not white, mos likely arabic.

n third: why do you care if he was gay or not? I'm gay n i don't give a damn.

btw, i find the fact that the bible is supposed to be truthful laughable. Most likely just a book of nice stories that give you guidelines to life.

[Spirited Away]

Dont tell me how to refute your debate in your certain ways. You, yourself have not shown me much logical reasoning in your "arguments". Giving a whole explanation defending yourself and your source hardly argues much. As for the reliability of the bible, I will tell you there is archeological proof that certain texts are true. However, I have not used the bible in any of my arguments. Do not assume the entire "Jesus is NOT gay says the bible" debate to be mine. If you choose to argue by means of someone elses view, what proof do you have that they are not lies for the sake of hullabaloo? Presenting two sides of an arguement does not signify reliability, nor accounts for consistently genuine evidence. A decent source in my mind would be the Pope confirming your argument against credence. If you had a link to that, I would consider your argument in more than one light.

I'm not telling you how to refute my arguments, I'm telling you that I want answers for my questions and doubts concerning your claim that the source is not reliable. Which is a fair enough request in a debate. If you think I'm arguing for Jesus' supposed homosexuality or heterosexuality, please find me exactly where I state I support one over the other. I'm not arguing anything, fyi, and that is why I'm surprise at your biting my head off.
As for the reliability of the Bible, there are sarcred texts in other religions which hold historical facts as well. Seeing how such texts are passed on generations to generations, I wouldn't be surprised at some historical correctness. But "some" isn't enough to convince me unicorns, beasts, and one eyed giants existed.
God, for the last time, get this through your head... SAYING THAT SOMETHING IS INTERESTING IS NOT THE SAME AS CLAIMING IT IS THE ONLY FACT IN THE UNIVERSE. You're very blinded to what I'm saying and it's very frustrating.
Also, the Pope is someone who does not have the same beliefs as me. You really expect me to believe what he says about the religions is true? Now you're asking me to be gullible.

[Olive]

SAYING THAT SOMETHING IS INTERESTING IS NOT THE SAME AS CLAIMING IT IS THE ONLY FACT IN THE UNIVERSE.

Exactly, there is no point or purpose in this debate if your "claim" is an opinion that was not even yours to begin with. Simply stirring up the controversy does not provoke the truth.

Also, the Pope is someone who does not have the same beliefs as me. You really expect me to believe what he says about the religions is true? Now you're asking me to be gullible.

If you're not even open-minded to my example of the Pope, what say do you have on open-mindedness?

And this is my favorite bit of your "request"/"claim":

I'm not telling you how to refute my arguments, I'm telling you that I want answers for my questions and doubts concerning your claim that the source is not reliable. Which is a fair enough request in a debate. If you think I'm arguing for Jesus' supposed homosexuality or heterosexuality, please find me exactly where I state I support one over the other. I'm not arguing anything, fyi, and that is why I'm surprise at your biting my head off.

I bolded the part where I found immensley amusing. What are you doing exactly if not arguing? Here is where I quote you yet again from a previous post answering yourself.

i mean, this is a debate forum for goodness sakes, and i'm pretty sure you know what debate means.

Well, if you're not interested in debating, then Good Day to you.

[Spirited Away]

Exactly, there is no point or purpose in this debate if your "claim" is an opinion that was not even yours to begin with. Simply stirring up the controversy does not provoke the truth.

So you're saying that bringing random, yet interesting reads to something that is already a controversy is stirring controversy? Dearest, the only one who seems to think that site is a controversy is you. Read back a couple of pages and you'll find that no one else seems to care about what I think is interesting except for you. And if you can kindly share with me exactly what is is I'm "claiming" that is so repulsive to you, I would be much obliged for I am completely at a loss as to why that stick in your ass isn't coming out.

If you're not even open-minded to my example of the Pope, what say do you have on open-mindedness?

And if you're not even open-minded about what the site says or whatever I believe in when I clearly stated that I am not averse to either sides on this topic, then aren't you the pot calling the kettle black? And who was it that said this wasn't about open mindedness, but gullibility? Certainly not I. So, why is it that you speak of open mindedness now, when you're affined to gullibility? But once again, you twirled away from the context of question: "the Pope is someone who does not have the same beliefs as me. You really expect me to believe what he says about the religions is true? Now you're asking me to be gullible." You know, I can almost guess what the Almighty Pope has to say to me about my lack of faith, but I would sit and listen if I am promised the same audience in turn.

And this is my favorite bit of your "request"/"claim":
I bolded the part where I found immensley amusing. What are you doing exactly if not arguing? Here is where I quote you yet again from a previous post answering yourself.

What I am doing if not arguing? Why, I was presenting an 'interesting' thing I found when some inane idiot decided to push that the still very much interesting site is my sole belief, when that isn't the case. Plus, he/she also didn't answer any of my questions and so I had to ask more, in hope to get an answer. As I was saying, this is a debate forum, but when fools find it "immensley amusing" to say that something is not reliable by saying that it's "not reliable" without further ado, and quoting people out of context is rather pointless in any debate.

I was presenting an interesting find, and you were, and still are trying to discredit the site by well... not answering my questions and making merry with thinking I would be gullible enough to believe in the Pope.

You, being irrelevant, is the gist of it.

Well, if you're not interested in debating, then Good Day to you.

I was interested in sharing something interesting, and I did. I dare say you approached me with your silly temper tantrum first.

[sovietski]

People, I have read the entire bible twice. This includes the old testemant and and new testemant. This includes about 800 pages on Christianity/Judaism. I have studied it a lot! I believe the bible, competly therefore I look at the bible as complete truth. Knowing this, I do not look at the bible with my own views, but I open up my heart to the knowledge written in it.

After doing all of this, I can tell you that Jesus was 100% not gay. As a matter of fact, Jesus did speak about homosexuality and sin when he condemned "sexual imorality". He also condemned lust, which is a major factor in homosexuality. But, aside from what homosexuality is....The bible in general is 100% against homosexuality.

The reason Jesus did not speak openly against every group of people who were going against the bible was because Jesus himself said, "I came into the world not to judge it but to save it". Jesus knew that judgement was comming, his purpose was to warn human nature of this, and save them. If you look at what Jesus says, he also dosn't speak much about robbers and murderes and rapist and all the other crimes.....that wasn't his purpose, to judge and condem them.

God, destroyed Sodom and Gommorrah because of its immorality. People would actually force you to have sex with them (homosexual sex) in the city. And because of this God destroyed those two cities. Now this is one of the most evident proofs that in general God is against homosexuality. Jesus is Gods son, who came into the earth to spread the "good news", to fulfill his fathers (God's) word. Being one with God, Jesus could not have been gay, hence unholy and unrightouse in front of God.

As for mary madeline and others, Jesus expelled 7 demons from her! Do you know how happy she must have been to be set free from that bondage? How could you say "they must have had something"......if ur best friend saved you from death, and after that you would both hang out forever...would that mean that you "like her" or would that mean that you actually loved your friend for his deed, and were willing to be at his side always....True love has nothing to do with sex, when you love someone you give to that person. Mary was willing to give her life to service for Jesus. She loved him with a different love than what we usually think of.