RRC Archives

Huggybone wrote:...If you belive in the new testament, the answer is: God does, and his son jesus does. ...

(This whole thread is nothing but flame bait, so I can't resist adding a bit more...)

Funny, last time I checked, the Gospels have zero specific references to homosexuality and countless references to love for repressed minorities and avoiding judgement of others.

As for the rest of the New Testament, there are several passages that are interpreted to be condemnations of homosexuality, but when the original Greek texts are examined, are less than clear. If you can prove that "malakoi" or "arsenokoitai" unambiguously mean 'homosexual', then you've done better than most serious Bible scholars.

(But then, the Koran makes it clear that slaughtering unarmed civilians is contrary to God's will, so religious adherents will read whatever the hell they want into scriptures - just like 'natural law' arguments represent nothing more than what the speaker wishes were true.)

Besides, wouldn't it seem a little odd for an unmarried Middle-Eastern guy in his thirties, who hangs out with sailors, has a close relationship with is mother, and where all his all-male friends get together in back rooms and 'speak in tounges', to be critical of homosexuality?

I dont think I like the implications of that last paragraph.

Hell Yeah! I love Revelations:

"9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast."

King James Version, Chapter 17

Anyone here ever had a 'conversation' with a paranoid schizophrenic? Sound familiar? By the way, Revelations seems to have its fair share of references to fornication, but I don't know of any references to homosexuality. (Just to get back on the thread of anti-gay propoganda)

Spraydog, don't lash out at others just becuase you are insecure in you sexuality. We will love you no matter how you are. Well, I take that back. Your mom will love you no matter how you are. I, however, will never love you even if you do come out of the closet.

ynot wrote:I dont think I like the implications of that last paragraph.

What's not to like? What if Jesus never criticized homosexuality because he was gay? No one who has read the Gospels can make a valid claim one way or another without imposing their own presuppositions - there just isn't evidence there to determine his sexual orientation. The 'what if' situation of Jesus being gay is only a problem for homophobes.

I mean this as a cautionary tale for people who would 'throw stones' at homosexuals (sometimes literally) based on their assumptions about the meaning of a particular scriptural text. It's meaning may be more complicated than what someone told you it means.

tomdarch, I'm with Pigsteak on this one....well said!

ok, time to get back on topic....just curious why the vote count stands with zero logging in as gay or bi...where are all the "experts" at to give this conversation some balance?

ok Tom, I can't stand aside on this one...first, correct me if I am wrong, but you are twisting scriptures....the "sailors" did not speak in tongues. that episode did not come until later in the bible, after jesus was dead...so to throw out suppostions, at least get the facts straight.

and your innuendos and stereotypical language is your own shrouded homophobia...let me see, close relationship with mother, hide in back rooms, single middle eastern man,...what did you leave out..the limp wrist?

yes, it is a stretch to assume that jesus were gay. he didn't mention affirmative action either..can we assume he was in a wheel chair or used crutches? how dare we assume that hanging out with all male friends was a cultural thing of the times, when the sexes didn't mingle...

let's try to be enlightned here, but not plain stupid. jesus didn't mention smoking weed either..was he a stoner too, an advocate of the wacky weed?

I do agree on several points...jesus brought a message of love for all, period. no one was too scuzzy to too mighty to be his friend. the people he detested the most seemed to be the religous hypocrites. those he seemed to adore were those who understood their foibles, but wanted a better life. his message was very clear to those engaged in "sinful" behavior...I love you no matter what, and I wish you could grasp the immensity of that.

Damn piggie, you are reading my mind, I swear.

pigsteak wrote:ok Tom, I can't stand aside on this one...first, correct me if I am wrong, but you are twisting scriptures....the "sailors" did not speak in tongues. that episode did not come until later in the bible, after jesus was dead...so to throw out suppostions, at least get the facts straight.

I would have used a 'tongue in cheek' smiley if there was one. So, yes, I am twisting things to make the rhetorical point. (My comment about sailors was derived from the apostles who were fishermen, and thus 'sailors'. And you'll note the disjointed construction that I had to use to wedge that in to avoid the impression that 'speaking in tongues' happened all the time) But to be picky, if you go with the text, Jesus was only recently departed (the assumption) when the speaking in tongues happened (pentecost), and he was 'there in spirit'.

and your innuendos and stereotypical language is your own shrouded homophobia...let me see, close relationship with mother, hide in back rooms, single middle eastern man,...what did you leave out..the limp wrist?

That's exactly the twisting I'm doing. I'm using the homophobic stereotypes to pose a problem. (and 'pull their chains') It's all about that 'what if' scenario. None of us knows either way with any reasonable certainty. Non-homophobes couldn't care less wether Jesus was gay, straight, whatever. But there is a whole group of homophobic Christians who propagandize, slander, exploit and even murder, sometimes in Jesus' very name or at least with some 'Biblical justification'. My point is to undercut their 'certainty' by pointing out the possibility (or uncertainty) of Jesus' sexual orientation. Blasphemy is useful.

yes, it is a stretch to assume that jesus were gay. he didn't mention affirmative action either..can we assume he was in a wheel chair or used crutches? how dare we assume that hanging out with all male friends was a cultural thing of the times, when the sexes didn't mingle...

You put it well, "how dare we assume ... a cultural thing of the times..." In my view, there are lots of things that are in the Bible that are functions of cultures within which the text was written, edited, translated and interpreted.

Again, I am not assuming one way or the other. I am pointing out the possibility because it goes a long way to undercut the assumed justifications for Christian-based homophobia.