Jesus... gay?? Options

[mai_z]

^^ use the edit button.

Assuming I agree with you saying that Jesus never lusted for anyone. Are you saying that gays only lust and do not love?

[NoSex]

Jesus WAS real. They had so many witness to His wonderful works; they even had witnesses to see Him alive after He had died.

Might you have read my my previous post on the historicity of Jesus Christ? There is alot of room for skepticism. The whole thing seems increasingly inconclusive.

How can you be so confident that he "WAS" real? Who are these witnesses, how are their accounts documented, and why are they reliable?

[*disco infiltrator*]

I can go around saying I saw a flower actually uproot itself and play on a mini flower version of DDR, saying I'm a witness. I can get a lot of people to go along with it, I'm sure. Does that make it true, or mean I'm right? Does that mean it happened?

The number of people saying something is true has no bearing on what is actually true. Remember when Galileo said the Earth was round and no one would believe him? They said it was wrong. They punished him for saying that it was round. But look at that - one person saying something is right, and it turned out to be.

[*kryogenix*]

How is this still a topic?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Because people keep saying the same things over and over, as in other topics...

[vash1530]

^instead of agreeing with what other people say, how about you come up with your own points.

actually he made the same point making, he just did it better than I did.

[saintruthanne]

Assuming I agree with you saying that Jesus never lusted for anyone. Are you saying that gays only lust and do not love?

umm....so ASSUMING you agree with me, I never said that homosexuals don't love. even if I did, its irrelevant. Lusting if you're homo or straight is sinful.

How can you be so confident that he "WAS" real? Who are these witnesses, how are their accounts documented, and why are they reliable?

well what is reliable to you? can you believe that Helen of Troy was real? Why? Because a history book says so? Because your history teacher said so? Anyways, Christians arent the only people who put trust into an outdated document. Oh sure, we have documents that say Helen of Troy existed, and we even have paintings and such. But according to you, these should be false. The documents that say she existed are just as old if not older than the documents that say Jesus the Christ was real.
I say that you should question general history before you start questioning Bible history. Besides, ask any teacher or professor and they will tell you that the existence of Jesus is not disputed. The only thing they dispute is 'was he the Christ?' and you say 'why are they reliable?' you are so willing to believe basic history but would sooner throw out anything religious. what i'm trying to say is, what makes a document or witness reliable? date? author? religion? contemporaries? because all the history that we have that dates back to the Romans could be just as easily thrown out.

[vash1530]

umm....so ASSUMING you agree with me, I never said that homosexuals don't love. even if I did, its irrelevant. Lusting if you're homo or straight is sinful.
well what is reliable to you? can you believe that Helen of Troy was real? Why? Because a history book says so? Because your history teacher said so? Anyways, Christians arent the only people who put trust into an outdated document. Oh sure, we have documents that say Helen of Troy existed, and we even have paintings and such. But according to you, these should be false. The documents that say she existed are just as old if not older than the documents that say Jesus the Christ was real.
I say that you should question general history before you start questioning Bible history. Besides, ask any teacher or professor and they will tell you that the existence of Jesus is not disputed. The only thing they dispute is 'was he the Christ?' and you say 'why are they reliable?' you are so willing to believe basic history but would sooner throw out anything religious. what i'm trying to say is, what makes a document or witness reliable? date? author? religion? contemporaries? because all the history that we have that dates back to the Romans could be just as easily thrown out.

they dont dispute it becuz no matter what they or anyone says, there is no use arguing with ppl about their beliefs, even when all (or at least most) of the evidence points to these opinions being wrong.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Where is this large amount of evidence you keep saying disproves Jesus's existence alone? I have yet to see you provide a source, while others provide sources against your point.

And if you really think what you just said, why are you arguing?

YOU are also being just as stubborn as you say other people are being. Stop accusing people of being oh-so-wrong and close-minded when you're doing the same yourself. YOU'RE not even considering others' points of view. YOU'RE not listening to what other people say, just simply disregarding anything relevant to the discussion and outright saying it's wrong.

[le_gion]

so if Christ is potentially a hypothetical, why bother adding your on hypothisis to it? heck, i say we stop repeating ourselves and make up our own stories.. il start with two to represent the wrong side >>both.

1.Gay Jesus - by jim
There once was a man/god named Jesus. He was in everyway like the "Jesus" in the Christian Bible, only he liked the sausage. Furthermore, he was gay. In addition to this point, he was a homosexual. ALL THOSE THAT DONT BELIEVE WILL FEAR THE WRATH OF GAY CHRIST!

2.Straight Jesus - also by jim
In addition to every anti-homosexual stance mentioned in the Holy Bible, Straight Jesus was, well, straight. He didn't do anything about it, but for the sake of "knowing" and not "assuming" he was straight. No, no loopholes, this bible has none. If there are any theological content-based questions, they are taken to the writer- moi. And since I wrote it, and you're talking about it, I'm right. Always.

NOTE: Neither of these 'story/bibles/whatev' are actually factual based. Nay, they are pure "i wrote it, caus i said so", and hence followers may never take any stance opposing it- or else they wouldnt be followes. They'd either be all-of-the-time-retarded or some-of-the-time-retarded. Retarded being wrong, and me being right. Always.

[malimars]

WOW OK ..jesus was with mary!!!therefore hes not gay

[Spirited Away]

WOW OK ..jesus was with mary!!!therefore hes not gay

WOW OK... you should be kicked out of the debate forum for not following the most basic rule.

[sadolakced acid]

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN. LYING WITH A MAN AS ONE WOULD A WOMAN, IN SHORT, GAY SEX, IS.

so jesus could have loved a man and not sinned.

moot point about the jesus never sinned thing.

[le_gion]

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A SIN.  LYING WITH A MAN AS ONE WOULD A WOMAN, IN SHORT, GAY SEX, IS. 

did you do your homework on the catechism? Lucky for us Roman Catholics, the catechism states that straight forward (unfortunately many catholics forgot that they are to draw their faith from this handy source). Unlucky protestants (that means you christian but not catholic guys) however, do not have this source. so from a general christian view, that point is (dare i say it?) MOOT

[NoSex]

well what is reliable to you? can you believe that Helen of Troy was real? Why? Because a history book says so? Because your history teacher said so? Anyways, Christians arent the only people who put trust into an outdated document. Oh sure, we have documents that say Helen of Troy existed, and we even have paintings and such. But according to you, these should be false. The documents that say she existed are just as old if not older than the documents that say Jesus the Christ was real.
I say that you should question general history before you start questioning Bible history. Besides, ask any teacher or professor and they will tell you that the existence of Jesus is not disputed. The only thing they dispute is 'was he the Christ?' and you say 'why are they reliable?' you are so willing to believe basic history but would sooner throw out anything religious. what i'm trying to say is, what makes a document or witness reliable? date? author? religion? contemporaries? because all the history that we have that dates back to the Romans could be just as easily thrown out.

You are begging the question. Try answering it.

Who are these witnesses? Where are their accounts documented? Who are the accounts documented by? Why are they reliable?

[sadolakced acid]

did you do your homework on the catechism? Lucky for us Roman Catholics, the catechism states that straight forward (unfortunately many catholics forgot that they are to draw their faith from this handy source).  Unlucky protestants (that means you christian but not catholic guys) however, do not have this source.  so from a general christian view, that point is (dare i say it?) MOOT

so you're telling me the catholic jesus was gay but the protestant jesus wasn't?

you know something? protestant teachings came thousands of years after jesus. jesus didn't follow any protestant form of christianity. so i doubt when the bible says "jesus didn't sin", they were talking abotu the protestant standard for sin.

[*mipadi*]

you know something?  protestant teachings came thousands of years after jesus.

(Hundreds of years after Jesus, but your point, of course, still stands.)

[ParanoidAndroid]

Have you read The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown?

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/davinci/
read that. See if that makes any sense.
.....I have a feeling this may turn into a discussion about that book...

yeah...it said how Jesus married Mary of Magdalene...but where'd you get the source of Jesus being gay in the bible?

(note: i don't want to read the whole effing thread)

[le_gion]

so you're telling me the catholic jesus was gay but the protestant jesus wasn't?

not at all, i was stating that catholic religion outwardly says what you mentioned in caps, and i quoted you on. protestant christianity does not accept your/that catholic opinion, so although backed by a % of christians- it is opinion when it comes down to the general faith.

and i appriciate that your post has nothing to do with what i said. furthermore the protestant religion is based on the SAME bible, adopts the SAME scriptures- and has only interpretations to differ from it. SO protestant standards of sin comes from the bible, saying that Jesus didnt sin comes from that same bible.

are you trying to say there is a contradiction there? I understand youre used to contradictions- you dropped one huge one in those last two posts.

eitherway, i was only supporting your original all-cap stance. so much for the colaborative effort.

[sadolakced acid]

hold on, you're saying jesus should be judged by modern day standards for sin?

what if years from now, i found a church that says it's sin not to have children? then would jesus still have never sinned?

i don't give a shit about modern interpretations of the bible. interpretations come second- when the bible was written, i doubt they would write something like "it's a sin to have gay sex" when they really meant "it's a sin to be gay"

[le_gion]

hold on, you're saying jesus should be judged by modern day standards for sin?

no, i am saying one's religion has a specific interpretation of sin (old or new, respectvly) and when they read that jesus never sinned, they read that in harmony with their definition of sin (most likely bible-founded anyways).

Within an über-modern religion, with über-modern standards, jesus would be judged by those über-modern governing rules of that über-modern religion.

Within an über-concervative religion, with über-concervative standards, jesus would be judged by those über-concervative governing rules of that über-concervative religion.

^That should be pretty straightforward. "So help me God" if you tell me what i am saying (specifically when you are completely off), i will most likely $hit a turkey head out of my a$$.

And yeah, if you made that religion, than it would be up to you to handle your contridictions. Maybe you'll write your own catechism that years later some guy will quote, another will 2nd him, and the 1st will come back and tell him "SO YOURE SAYING THE PRICE OF TEA IN CHINA IS AN EQUAL RATIO TO THE NUMBER OF GOOD DEEDS DONE BY THE WORLD TODAY TO NUMBER OF ACID HITS I TOOK??" (if you're all wondering, no.2 said nothing about the price of tea in china.. however 2 does believe 1 is on acid.)

ok, so lets call all this "so youre telln me this" crap an interuption- and i'll pick up from where i started..

i don't give a shit about modern interpretations of the bible. interpretations come second- when the bible was written, i doubt they would write something like "it's a sin to have gay sex" when they really meant "it's a sin to be gay"

RIGHT ON!!

[sadolakced acid]

then what exactly was your point?

[JlIaTMK]

I agree. Jesus  never sinned during his time on this earth. He's perfect. So theres no way he could be a homosexual. Becuase homosexuality is a sin. That would be going agaisnt his own word.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm may I mention that no one would know that Jesus would personally say that homosexuality was a sin. Distortions do appear.

[le_gion]

then what exactly was your point?

my point is what i post. nothing hidden therein- just what i posted.
>sigh< ...

if you actually read my post before disagreeing with it, and you are still lost, i'll highlight the main "points"

no, i am saying one's religion has a specific interpretation of sin (old or new, respectvly) and when they read that jesus never sinned, they read that in harmony with their definition of sin (most likely bible-founded anyways).

if that doesnt make sense read on...
if it still doesnt, than shut up and try to comprehend the last point:

RIGHT ON!!

[sadolakced acid]

right... that's what i thought it meant.

to which i must reply:

who cares? it doesn't matter in this debate.