Was Jesus gay?

[carmen510]

I find it rather sad that the fact that Jesus was a caring and loving man, that he was able to feel and express a wide range of tender emotions, that he was able to bond with other men, that he could respond to beauty, and that he could display compassionate tenderness in the fact of suffering; that all these worthwhile traits are associated with homosexuality and that Jesus must necessarily be gay.

Men can have strong bonds with other men, and that doesn't mean they are necessarily sexually or romantically attracted to them. The view that strong bonds = homosexual seems to be a rather outdated view to take.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Can you explain why the appreciation of art isn't a result of a much further evolved brain?

Clearly you need an evolved mental capacity to appreciate art. It is one of the senses inner being uses for its manifestation. But how can you say something is more beautiful and harmonious then something else? If everything was mechanicaly pre-defined by genes war and torture would be just the same act of some mechanical dynamic life-force just as love and empathy without any need to differentiate. But since we can see in art and hear in music some reflection of higher/subtler reality not permanently in the grasp of our every day life we can deduce existence of some "place or consciousness" which it can be more native to it or where it may actually originate.

 

[peter grimes]

Can you explain why the appreciation of art isn't a result of a much further evolved brain?

I really hate the term "further evolved," of "higher evolved". Every year living organism alive today can trace its ancestry back to the last most recent common ancestor, some 3ish billion years ago. Every stupid Pigeon, goldfish, wasp, person, mushroom, yeast cell, *everything* has been evolving for the same length of time.

That said, there are definitely differences between organisms when we consider how many generations a evolutionary line has seen. Humans have seen far fewer generations than insects, which have seen far fewer than algae, which has seen far fewer than archaea.

I find it rather sad that the fact that Jesus was a caring and loving man, that he was able to feel and express a wide range of tender emotions, that he was able to bond with other men, that he could respond to beauty, and that he could display compassionate tenderness in the fact of suffering; that all these worthwhile traits are associated with homosexuality and that Jesus must necessarily be gay.

Men can have strong bonds with other men, and that doesn't mean they are necessarily sexually or romantically attracted to them. The view that strong bonds = homosexual seems to be a rather outdated view to take.

No, those traits are only associated with homosexuality by people (usually men) who aren't comfortable with the full range if human emotions, connections, and experiences.

I don't associate those things with homosexuality, so you can't make a blanket statement like that.

 

[timtofly]

The complexity of the genome is not an indicator of the complexity of the being.

Many plants have more complex genomes than us.

Can you explain why the appreciation of art isn't a result of a much further evolved brain?

It could be that the ability was always there, but humans did not have time in their busy schedules to pursue art. As humans became specialized in their day to day jobs it opened up the opportunity for others to specialize in the activities that were not demanded for mere existence.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I really hate the term "further evolved," of "higher evolved". Every year living organism alive today can trace its ancestry back to the last most recent common ancestor, some 3ish billion years ago. Every stupid Pigeon, goldfish, wasp, person, mushroom, yeast cell, *everything* has been evolving for the same length of time.

That said, there are definitely differences between organisms when we consider how many generations a evolutionary line has seen. Humans have seen far fewer generations than insects, which have seen far fewer than algae, which has seen far fewer than archaea.

But I specifically mentioned Ze Brain. Which is our most evolved gimmick.

On the flip side, we can't smell or see for skit.

 

[Aroddo]

I find it rather sad that the fact that Jesus was a caring and loving man, that he was able to feel and express a wide range of tender emotions, that he was able to bond with other men, that he could respond to beauty, and that he could display compassionate tenderness in the fact of suffering; that all these worthwhile traits are associated with homosexuality and that Jesus must necessarily be gay.

Men can have strong bonds with other men, and that doesn't mean they are necessarily sexually or romantically attracted to them. The view that strong bonds = homosexual seems to be a rather outdated view to take.

Why do you find the thought that Jesus was gay sad?
Shouldn't you be happy about it, gay even?

 

[Glassfan]

I hear he was Jewish, too.

 

[Rashiminos]

Sex in general certaintly didn't seem to be an important topic for Jesus to talk about. Maybe it was because some things were better left unspoken, maybe he had some rather more important topics on his mind.
I mean, why would anyone care which sex someone else prefers?

Perhaps it was because sex for pleasure wasn't considered to be virtuous in the context of the gospel (on the contrary, it was considered wasteful). Anyways, if he existed, he probably had descendants, so...

but thats clearly a sign of necrophilia.

The dark side of God - Stalin?

Some of Rasputin's organs are preserved, allegedly.

 

[gay_Aleks]

To be fair, we really have no idea what happened with Jesus until his 30s, apart from that he was into a debate with some Jewish clergy.

At least, if we stick to the Evangelists. Beyond that, well, you've got lots and lots of material, most of it was made up on spot.

In the period of 7 to 30, well, things happen. As many of the members in CFC can vouch for. So, it is plausible he was for a brief period gay.

Or it could be all speculation.

 

[Rashiminos]

Plutarch records that Olympias and Phillip both had prophetic dreams around the time they conceived Alexander the Great and that one possible interpretation was that Alexander was the son of Zeus. Does this mean Alexander was not a real person?

The dreamers add context to the dream when they interpret it, so "son of Zeus" can work metaphorically.

It's funny how quickly this turned from "Was Jesus Gay?" to "Is there Jesus, Anyway?". The only logical conclusion is "Did all those people in the Bible existed?", to the inevitable antisemitic "Did the Jews exist, in the end?"

A fictive Jesus's orientation would be backed by the strongest Word of God trope in existence.

It is impossible that we are controlled by genes just to a certain extent.

So control cannot be conferred?

 

[timtofly]

Perhaps it was because sex for pleasure wasn't considered to be virtuous in the context of the gospel (on the contrary, it was considered wasteful). Anyways, if he existed, he probably had descendants, so...

Seeing as how he stressed leaving all behind and following him, who in turn left all behind to follow God, when did he have time to leave descendants?

 

[Traitorfish]

That would seem to be a claim of how to avoid hell. It just takes away the ability of a person to choose.

By that reckoning, "inherit a billion dollars" should be considered a business plan.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Depends. Is the inheriting done forcefully or you're waiting for it?

 

[Rashiminos]

Seeing as how he stressed leaving all behind and following him, who in turn left all behind to follow God, when did he have time to leave descendants?

I think you were in another thread where I discussed the Bible being an errant document. To that I would add "not what was meant" and 'kingdom of God' being code for some other existence.

 

[timtofly]

By that reckoning, "inherit a billion dollars" should be considered a business plan.

There are a couple of schools of thought on that topic.

I think you were in another thread where I discussed the Bible being an errant document. To that I would add "not what was meant" and 'kingdom of God' being code for some other existence.

Seeing as how we are using this errant document as the basis for the thread, why single my statement out for adjustment?

Are we now saying Jesus was not an itinerant with a band of followers roaming the country side?

 

[Rashiminos]

So if I'm having sex with someone, I am ceasing to love that person.

Would the mere possibility of this being the case disturb you?

Seeing as how we are using this errant document as the basis for the thread, why single my statement out for adjustment?

It may have had something to do with you quoting me and then asking a question as if you wanted further discussion with me. I don't think everyone is using the document(s) in the same way, or even as their preferred source(s).

Are we now saying Jesus was not an itinerant with a band of followers roaming the country side?

Not at this time.

 

[Hygro]

Would the mere possibility of this being the case disturb you?

No, because I generally don't get disturbed by academic exercises that are pure hypothesy and divorced from reality.

 

[Rashiminos]

divorced from reality.

(Takes a cue from another thread.) Yep.

 

[Hygro]

(Takes a cue from another thread.) Yep.

Well, you would be telling me that my own personal subjective experience and emotions weren't what they were because .... something. So I'm not disturbed thinking that someone could find a way to redefine everything to fit some perspective agenda to prove something different.

 

[Rashiminos]

One of my favorite movies.

But since no one will watch 90 minutes with at least a small explanation:

The plot focuses on John Oldman, a departing university professor who claims to be a Cro-Magnon (or Magdalenian caveman) who has somehow survived for more than 14,000 years. The entire movie is set in and around Oldman's house during his farewell party, and the plot advances through intellectual arguments between Oldman and his fellow faculty members, in which Oldman invites hist colleagues to disprove his wild claim. The movie is composed almost entirely of dialogue.

The part that bears relevance to this thread is of course the scene where he describes how he has witnessed the events surrounding Jesus and his merry band.

I guess I'll have to find some time to watch that.

Well, you would be telling me that my own personal subjective experience and emotions weren't what they were because .... something. So I'm not disturbed thinking that someone could find a way to redefine everything to fit some perspective agenda to prove something different.

I would be saying something about how your personal subjective experience isn't true for everyone, even if it was the case that you were arguing strictly about yourself (having sex and with someone else). If I erred in assuming you have a broader perspective in mind when responding to CH, or that you've been with someone, uh , excuse me.