Was Jesus gay?

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're wrong

No I'm not.

, there is nothing to guide our morals because we are just a product of our genes and we just act on what we do.

We act on what we do? What an amazing insight.

And we're not just a product of our genes. We're an amazing product of our genes.

 

[timtofly]

There is a need if you wish to live in a succesful society.

Your point is moot, since God either does not exist nor did it put any man in any condition. Man invented the conditions by natural selection of societies. Those who's conditions made it succesful where the ones we adopted and use now. Those which weren't did not make it, so we're not abiding by those conditions.

There is no need for a superior being dictating rules.

So if God does exist, it would not be the God that has influenced the history of the Jews and Christians?

I agree that God does not need to dictate rules. I would also agree that humans don't need God if he existed to figure out the need for laws. The need for laws is found naturally whether God exist or not.

If it takes humans to form conditions, then why have not humans figured out how to get past harmful conditions, without harming other humans who are of a different mindset?

Christ.

Just never mind. If you need to missrepresent me to score points, go ahead. But go ahead without me.

In an exchange of ideas, I have no clue who is keeping score. Neither is it my point to correct you if I think that you are wrong. However I am human and that may be a condition that is in my subconscious that comes out naturally.

I would like to understand how I misrepresented you.

I am just not understanding how man's invention is the same as natural selection. How did humans invent how they naturally evolved?

I am under the impression that man invented a way to get past natural tendencies, but for what reason? Is it not just easier to act naturally instead of inventing ways to act? I can see humans inventing laws and religion. But inventing human nature does not make sense.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

To be honest the instinctive part in man is being forced by morality and society into empathy. The fact is that the instinct are so strong that you need something else to force you to abandon them. Its not just matter of choice exclusively but most man agrees to make that choice on the realisation that its better to subdue their instintcts at least in part in other to achieve their goal in higher way. Its a great conflict and any time the lower gets upper hand the society and subtle laws in it start to deteriorate.

Wow.

I fail to agree. I fail to view humanity in such a depressing light and I am usually rather harsh on humanity. The furtest I would go is that empathy enables us to realise that if you're allowed to steal from anyone it would mean anyone could steal from us.

But anyway, I made my argument. I see a counterclaim, but not a counter argument that addresses mine, so I concluse this now stopped being a discussion. I do wonder why you pushed me answering your question and then completely ignoring the bulk of the answer in favour of a soapbox post.

 

[Zack]

Is this one of the Christian scripts?

I was expecting a trailer for The Da Vinci Code.

 

[warpus]

No, the part where he claimed to be Jesus was fine, too.

A movie about a guy coming out at a dinner party as Jesus is ridiculous, at least IMO. As soon as we realized what was happening, we couldn't take the rest of the thing seriously at all. And yet, it continued digging in its heels and continuing down the same path, upping up the ante until the over the top heart attack.

I can see the idea working, but it just wasn't done right. "Oh btw I'm Jesus, pass the salt" is just something we couldn't take seriously.

 

[classical_hero]

No I'm not.
We act on what we do? What an amazing insight.

And we're not just a product of our genes. We're an amazing product of our genes.

This is the exact same attitude the Nazis had when they were doing their "moral duty" to rid the world of those who are undesirable. After all Dawkins does say in his book, River out of Eden: that there is,"no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

 

[Kyriakos]

Dawkins is not a significant scientist by any stretch of the imagination. And anyway organisms like humans do seem in general prone to be 'ethical' in the way which is natural to them (not to be confused with forced ethics as in largely judeo-christian or related, or other laws which often don't mix well with humanity).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This is the exact same attitude the Nazis had when they were doing their "moral duty" to rid the world of those who are undesirable. After all Dawkins does say in his book, River out of Eden: that there is,"no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

Are you out of your mind?

 

[El_Machinae]

Er, no, he's a significant scientist. He's just not a significant theologian or philosopher.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Never mind

 

[Kyriakos]

Er, no, he's a significant scientist. He's just not a significant theologian or philosopher.

What?

Scientist=Philosopher.

Or are you up to your nepotism display again? (ok, enough of this kind of come-back i suppose).

I know of how popular his main book was/is (the selfish gene), but is he actually deemed significant as a scientist? Cause i thought that book (and others by him) were mostly about making wild philosophical claims based on some biological info and background (he is tied to Biology afterall), but not that they contain actual work of his in biology which is studied in that scientific order. (?).

 

[El_Machinae]

No, he's a significant scientist. The selfish gene was a really important book, and was a great theoretical insight. A great deal was built off of it.
It's hard to look at the prominence of his later publications, because he gained such fame with his book that he was given disproportionate respect with the rest of his discoveries.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Nice guys finish first wasn't bad either (docu, not a book).

 

[warpus]

This is the exact same attitude the Nazis had when they were doing their "moral duty" to rid the world of those who are undesirable. After all Dawkins does say in his book, River out of Eden: that there is,"no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

Yes, evolution leads to Nazis. I'm glad you're pointing this out.

 

[Hygro]

You're wrong, there is nothing to guide our morals because we are just a product of our genes and we just act on what we do.

And our genes tell us to be kind and empathetic because that's natural to us.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And our genes tell us to be kind and empathetic because that's natural to us.

Oh that's just what Hitler would say!

Hitler and Dawkins.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Wow.

I fail to agree. I fail to view humanity in such a depressing light and I am usually rather harsh on humanity. The furtest I would go is that empathy enables us to realise that if you're allowed to steal from anyone it would mean anyone could steal from us.

But anyway, I made my argument. I see a counterclaim, but not a counter argument that addresses mine, so I concluse this now stopped being a discussion. I do wonder why you pushed me answering your question and then completely ignoring the bulk of the answer in favour of a soapbox post.

There is nothing depressing about it just like there is nothing depressing about antelope getting eaten by lion or the fact that it took billions of years of evolution for man to appear on earth.

How can empathy be a guide for moral law when empathy itself can be very blind? If I have a sex with my girlfriend out of empathy before marriage I am breaking a moral law...
I may have an empathy with someone stealing out of greed but how does that change/guide moral law?

 

[Aroddo]

A movie about a guy coming out at a dinner party as Jesus is ridiculous, at least IMO. As soon as we realized what was happening, we couldn't take the rest of the thing seriously at all. And yet, it continued digging in its heels and continuing down the same path, upping up the ante until the over the top heart attack.

I can see the idea working, but it just wasn't done right. "Oh btw I'm Jesus, pass the salt" is just something we couldn't take seriously.

Hang on ... a guy claiming to be a 15.000 year old stone age man is fine, but as soon as he claims he was the source of the Jesus myth you go "nah, that defies common sense, we now stop taking this movie seriously because Jesus." ?
I'm guessing it was some cultural defense reflex on your part, right?

Considering that Jesus is sinless and that homosexuality is a sin, it would destroy the whole story, but as I said before Westerners have this strange idea that love equals sex. As Gory explained that loving someone means that you're not thinking sexually but about their welfare and more importantly about their spiritual welfare.

Is "Jesus is sinless" official church doctrine? I don't know, just asking. Never thought of it. Now that I think of it, it probably is. Last temptation and all that.
But isn't the "homosexuality is sin" part not on the same level as “He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death ..." (Lev. 24:16) and other nonsense that forbid people to eat bacon? In other words, just the ramblings of some guys that were intolerant to gays and managed to sneak their bias into the Torah? If you followed the bible literally than all soldiers would have really stupid haircuts.

Ok, it's unfair to mention Leviticus in any polite discussion because that book is really insane. But why is homosexuality a sin when eating oysters is not? Unless it isn't.

However, I totally agree that some people here too readily confuse love with sexual desires - sometimes for comical effect, no doubt, and sometimes for cheap shots. And sometimes they really don't see the difference between love and lust, which is really sad.

That would depend on a strict definition of gay would it not?

I am not going to explain the flowers and bees for you. Or rather the bees and bees.
But for the sake of discussion, a gay Jesus would be attracted to a man in the same way a "normal" man would be attracted to a woman. Wanting to hug, touch, kiss and comfort each other, wishing to share your life with him, maybe even longing for sex. Actual fornification not required. Need pictures?

This is the exact same attitude the Nazis had when they were doing their "moral duty" to rid the world of those who are undesirable. After all Dawkins does say in his book, River out of Eden: that there is,"no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

Who is the better man: He who was designed or commanded to be good, or he who overcame his nature to become good?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

And our genes tell us to be kind and empathetic because that's natural to us.

You must be from planet Xzorb perhaps but here on Earth we fight like dogs and cats and always have been...

 

[Domen]

Man invented the conditions by natural selection of societies. Those who's conditions made it succesful where the ones we adopted and use now. Those which weren't did not make it, so we're not abiding by those conditions.

But this would obviously and naturally imply that some societies have evolved much more than some other ones.

I.e. some societies are still in a stage of evolution before much of the natural selection in question has happened.