Community > General Religion Chat

Topic: Was Jesus Gay?
Rapunzel Joined Tue 08/22/06 Posts: 16246	Sat 05/24/08 10:44 AM Edited by Rapunzel on Sat 05/24/08 10:46 AM
"There is NOTHING from without a man, that entering into him can defile him" >quote> Yes, Jesus did say that... My Dear Belushi But HE was referring to food.... not anything else

Belushi Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 2995	Sat 05/24/08 10:46 AM
Anyway, back to marriage and same-sex unions, biblically speaking.... 1Corinthians 7:29-40. It is long and wish rather that you read it and I not need to write it. ONLYIN THE LORD, we are reminded, as Christians, though we may be married, to be as though we weren't, minding the things of God, and not the tings of the world. OK? All of 1Corinthians 7 is about marriage, towards the Church of Jesus Christ, specifically. So, 1Cor7:2, Paul writes this to the Church, Nevertheless, to avoid FORNICATION, l3et every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. It doesn't say, to tops and bottoms, it says, to men and women. Homosexual marriage does not fit in the Church of Jesus Christ. Why bother to try to fit it in, then, when in other scriptures there is a clear path to follow for all others that will be found as either welcome or not in eternity as Jesus depicts his judgement? (Matthew 25:31-46. is what all others may have faith in if they choose to remain in their predilections) See what I mean? peace Ok for a start I dont agree with same-sex marriage. In fact I dont agree with marriage at all! So, Im not going to argue that point with you. Get married only for the papers and for the sanity of the kids. But we are not talking about same-sex unions. We are debating whether Jesus was gay. The debate has moved onto whether homosexuality is sin. There are three major parts to Mark 7. The first (Mark 7:1-13) is the accusation of the Pharisees that the Apostles do not follow the traditions of the elders, which set the stage for the words of Jesus. In that segment, Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees were wrong, gave examples, and expanded the context to far beyond the original incident. The second (Mark 7:14-16) are the words of Jesus to EVERYONE, where Jesus provides a test which can be used for ALL of the traditions which match -- and the anti-gay traditions are a perfect match. In the 3rd part, Jesus speaks to the Apostles, who apparently do not want to believe that the words of Jesus were as all-inclusive as they actually were. Jesus makes it quite clear that he did not misspeak in his original comment So, the application of Mark is a true test that Jesus condones homosexuality. Which could, by definition, mean that he was a homosexual.

Serenity1971 Joined Sat 05/24/08 Posts: 78	Sat 05/24/08 10:56 AM Edited by Serenity1971 on Sat 05/24/08 10:57 AM
Anyway, back to marriage and same-sex unions, biblically speaking.... 1Corinthians 7:29-40. It is long and wish rather that you read it and I not need to write it. ONLYIN THE LORD, we are reminded, as Christians, though we may be married, to be as though we weren't, minding the things of God, and not the tings of the world. OK? All of 1Corinthians 7 is about marriage, towards the Church of Jesus Christ, specifically. So, 1Cor7:2, Paul writes this to the Church, Nevertheless, to avoid FORNICATION, l3et every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. It doesn't say, to tops and bottoms, it says, to men and women. Homosexual marriage does not fit in the Church of Jesus Christ. Why bother to try to fit it in, then, when in other scriptures there is a clear path to follow for all others that will be found as either welcome or not in eternity as Jesus depicts his judgement? (Matthew 25:31-46. is what all others may have faith in if they choose to remain in their predilections) See what I mean? peace Ok for a start I dont agree with same-sex marriage. In fact I dont agree with marriage at all! So, Im not going to argue that point with you. Get married only for the papers and for the sanity of the kids. But we are not talking about same-sex unions. We are debating whether Jesus was gay. The debate has moved onto whether homosexuality is sin. There are three major parts to Mark 7. The first (Mark 7:1-13) is the accusation of the Pharisees that the Apostles do not follow the traditions of the elders, which set the stage for the words of Jesus. In that segment, Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees were wrong, gave examples, and expanded the context to far beyond the original incident. The second (Mark 7:14-16) are the words of Jesus to EVERYONE, where Jesus provides a test which can be used for ALL of the traditions which match -- and the anti-gay traditions are a perfect match. In the 3rd part, Jesus speaks to the Apostles, who apparently do not want to believe that the words of Jesus were as all-inclusive as they actually were. Jesus makes it quite clear that he did not misspeak in his original comment So, the application of Mark is a true test that Jesus condones homosexuality. Which could, by definition, mean that he was a homosexual. You're going to make me start spouting aren't you!?! You and I have gone round and round many a time on this book of tales, fables and rewritten farces. (in my opinion of course) There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality and it's a shame that we being in the 21st century that there are some that can't accept others for who they are. So what if Jesus was a homosexual...And basing it on the biases that people have in this day and age if he was a homosexual it's not surprising that he was crucified.

wouldee Joined Sun 10/07/07 Posts: 5335	Sat 05/24/08 11:02 AM Edited by wouldee on Sat 05/24/08 11:05 AM
Jesus DID speak of homosexual acts. Specifically he said: "There is NOTHING from without a man, that entering into him can defile him" Those are the words of Jesus Christ, from Mark 7. The simplest thing to do is just to compare homosexual acts to that statement. Do homosexual acts involve something entering onto a man from without? Why yes, they do. So we know they do not defile a man -- they are not sinful. That is simple, direct, and accurate. All that is required is to believe that Jesus Christ knew what he was talking about, meant what he said, and did not lie. If anyone thinks they have something else in the Bible that contradicts that, then they are wrong. Jesus Christ himself says they are wrong, and he should know. Homophobic God-Squadders consistently tear pieces of verses out of context to try and promote their anti-gay message. While they don't particularly care if their interpretations hold up, pro-gay passages are held to a very different standard. They not only must show that there is nothing is wrong with homosexual acts, but they also must show that it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a valid interpretation that excludes the pro-gay message. Therefore it is necessary to review the entire chapter, in the full context of the Old Testament and the traditions of the times. D'OH!!!! Mark 7:18-21. And he says to them, Are you so without the understanding also? Do you not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without enters into the man, it cannot defile him? Because it ENTERS NOT INTO HIS HEART, but into his belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murdders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness : ALL THESE EVIL THINGS COME FROM WITHIN, AND DEFILE THE MAN. Apparently, you have a faulty publication with which you selectively reference partiality from. This chapter of Mark has absolutely nothing to do with food or physical exchanges of body fluids. Jesus only says what he says in verse 19 to make certain that physical entrances to the BELLY are absolutely NOT what is at the heart of rite and ritual. Traditions are not the center of life, but the heart is. But, hey, if you want it to say that then it does and that is precisely your prerogrative, but it is an extremely unintelligible stretch of the imagination to categorically ignore the context given by the one giving the context. Nothing imperically vague and obtuse nullifies what is held in contempt through strife and contentions, diengenuously obsessed over with imaginary distractions But, your cartoonish sarcasm is duly noted. learn, grow and be at peace.

Dragoness Joined Wed 10/17/07 Posts: 23320	Sat 05/24/08 11:06 AM
Mark 7; 18-23. And he says unto them, " Are you so without understanding also? Do you not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without enters into the man, it cannot defile him ; Because it enters not INTO HIS HEART, but into the belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. Form within, OUT OF THE HEART OF MEN, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications (that would include homosexuality), murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit (HMMMMM), lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness( ) : All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. oops Fornication only applies because they cannot marry, if they marry their sex is not fornication so then it would not fit this definition. Again I will say, does the message of Jesus change because he could have had sex with men or women or both? Not necessarily. In part, marriage is about children, but there is an interesting scripture found that could be used to rebuke homosexuality's efficacy as proper in marriage. I am not throwing stones,but showing rather that efforts to make the lifestyle wiggle its way into Christianity is an uphill battle, one of which I do not understand the need for. Christianity is not the whole of heaven, or the whole of God's grace and mercy in exclusivity, despite what most claim. Elsewhere, I have addressed that in clarifying Jesus' parable about those that DO NOT KNOW HIM and are yet found alive and well in his presence in eternity by their righteous works of benevolence.(Mattehw 25:31-46. Please notice that Jesus identifies himself with ALL that are found entering his embrace by their works as depicted in verses 37-40)Not all found in heaven are the Church of Jesus Christ. Most, do not even know Jesus. May have heard of him, but do not know him. Anyway, back to marriage and same-sex unions, biblically speaking.... 1Corinthians 7:29-40. It is long and wish rather that you read it and I not need to write it. ONLYIN THE LORD, we are reminded, as Christians, though we may be married, to be as though we weren't, minding the things of God, and not the tings of the world. OK? All of 1Corinthians 7 is about marriage, towards the Church of Jesus Christ, specifically. So, 1Cor7:2, Paul writes this to the Church, Nevertheless, to avoid FORNICATION, l3et every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. It doesn't say, to tops and bottoms, it says, to men and women. Homosexual marriage does not fit in the Church of Jesus Christ. Why bother to try to fit it in, then, when in other scriptures there is a clear path to follow for all others that will be found as either welcome or not in eternity as Jesus depicts his judgement? (Matthew 25:31-46. is what all others may have faith in if they choose to remain in their predilections) See what I mean? peace Wouldee You know personally speaking for me the bible is nothing but a book of stories written of old. I have no value to it other than that. So whether homosexual activity would or should be allowed as part of the christian faith is neither here nor there for me. I just brought up the technicalitie of that one passage. I do not agree with any faith that ostrisized others. If they sit in judgement of others they are placing themselves in the place of a god as though they are better than others and I abor that in religious folks. But again, I will say, if Jesus has sex with anyone, does it change his message?

Belushi Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 2995	Sat 05/24/08 11:08 AM Edited by Belushi on Sat 05/24/08 11:11 AM
Mark 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. Obviously his disciples were really missing it. They should have understood that Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said. Instead of recognizing this as a test to be applied to the traditions of the Pharisees, they thought it was a parable, and could not understand it. It clearly went WAY beyond the issue of washing hands, but they were having trouble seeing beyond that point. They could not see how it applied to their specific case, and THAT is what they were worried about. Jesus was not happy with them not catching on: Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Jesus EXPECTED the scribes and Pharisees to be without understanding. He expected that the majority of people would not really think about his words, and so would limit them much more than they should. His disciples SHOULD know better, and he says so: "Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive". He then repeats his all-encompassing statement: "that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him". Then he continues, showing them that this applies to their specific case as well. Incidentally, in the process he also shows that not EVERYTHING that goes out of a man defiles him by providing an example. Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? It does not enter his heart, his soul, but is physical. In the case of the dirty food, it goes in one end and out the other, but does not enter the person's soul to defile him. Some homophobes have latched onto this passage -- carefully avoiding the words of Jesus where he pointed out that NOTHING that enters a man from without can defile him -- to try and pretend that this is all about food and cannot be about homosexual acts. They have not thought it through, but since they have brought it up, it is necessary to discuss some of the details of the sex act itself. In male-male sex, something enters a man from without (and therefore does not defile, because NOTHING that enters from without can defile a person). When that occurs, the semen -- protein -- part of "all meats" -- enters the belly, and is later excreted. Jesus described this process and pointed out that this does NOT defile the person, even though it is coming out of him. This would be semen in this case, so semen coming out of a man does not defile him, any more than semen going INTO a man defiles him. Mark 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. In order to defile the man, it must be evil. Semen is not evil, and does not defile a man, from the earlier example where Jesus discusses it going out in the draught. That example not only shows that there are some things coming out of a man that does not defile him, but the specific example covers homosexual acts in detail. So since semen does not defile a man when going into him OR when going out of him, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexual acts. Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, This shows what should have been obvious to the Apostles. It is the evil intent -- that which proceeds from the heart -- that defiles one. It has been pointed out there that the word "fornications" specifically excludes homosexual acts from consideration. From the Oxford English Dictionary: "FORNICATION: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a man (in restricted use, an unmarried man) and an unmarried woman. In Scripture extended to adultery." Mark 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: This continues the list, which still does not include anything specific to gays. Those things are all nonphysical, come "from the heart", and defile the person because of the evil intent. Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. This final statement finishes up with the idea that it is not what enters a man that defiles him (such as homosexual acts), but rather what a person does to others -- what comes from within, from the heart. Gay bashers are promoting an evil message that results in harm to many people and has no redeeming qualities of any kind. By doing so, they are defiling themselves.

Belushi Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 2995	Sat 05/24/08 11:21 AM
But again, I will say, if Jesus has sex with anyone, does it change his message? I guess it does. I think its great that he could be gay. Maybe if he was it would change the opinions of a whole heap of people, not just the God-Squad on here, but the church

wouldee Joined Sun 10/07/07 Posts: 5335	Sat 05/24/08 11:49 AM Edited by wouldee on Sat 05/24/08 11:50 AM
Mark 7; 18-23. And he says unto them, " Are you so without understanding also? Do you not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without enters into the man, it cannot defile him ; Because it enters not INTO HIS HEART, but into the belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. Form within, OUT OF THE HEART OF MEN, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications (that would include homosexuality), murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit (HMMMMM), lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness( ) : All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. oops Fornication only applies because they cannot marry, if they marry their sex is not fornication so then it would not fit this definition. Again I will say, does the message of Jesus change because he could have had sex with men or women or both? Not necessarily. In part, marriage is about children, but there is an interesting scripture found that could be used to rebuke homosexuality's efficacy as proper in marriage. I am not throwing stones,but showing rather that efforts to make the lifestyle wiggle its way into Christianity is an uphill battle, one of which I do not understand the need for. Christianity is not the whole of heaven, or the whole of God's grace and mercy in exclusivity, despite what most claim. Elsewhere, I have addressed that in clarifying Jesus' parable about those that DO NOT KNOW HIM and are yet found alive and well in his presence in eternity by their righteous works of benevolence.(Mattehw 25:31-46. Please notice that Jesus identifies himself with ALL that are found entering his embrace by their works as depicted in verses 37-40)Not all found in heaven are the Church of Jesus Christ. Most, do not even know Jesus. May have heard of him, but do not know him. Anyway, back to marriage and same-sex unions, biblically speaking.... 1Corinthians 7:29-40. It is long and wish rather that you read it and I not need to write it. ONLYIN THE LORD, we are reminded, as Christians, though we may be married, to be as though we weren't, minding the things of God, and not the tings of the world. OK? All of 1Corinthians 7 is about marriage, towards the Church of Jesus Christ, specifically. So, 1Cor7:2, Paul writes this to the Church, Nevertheless, to avoid FORNICATION, l3et every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. It doesn't say, to tops and bottoms, it says, to men and women. Homosexual marriage does not fit in the Church of Jesus Christ. Why bother to try to fit it in, then, when in other scriptures there is a clear path to follow for all others that will be found as either welcome or not in eternity as Jesus depicts his judgement? (Matthew 25:31-46. is what all others may have faith in if they choose to remain in their predilections) See what I mean? peace Wouldee You know personally speaking for me the bible is nothing but a book of stories written of old. I have no value to it other than that. So whether homosexual activity would or should be allowed as part of the christian faith is neither here nor there for me. I just brought up the technicalitie of that one passage. I do not agree with any faith that ostrisized others. If they sit in judgement of others they are placing themselves in the place of a god as though they are better than others and I abor that in religious folks. But again, I will say, if Jesus has sex with anyone, does it change his message? Dragoness, yes, it does. For Jesus would be hypocritical in the depiction that he was manifest to do what the Father's will is, and not his own. The whole point of being crucified to only be risen again and alive in death would be very much contrary to that which he professed, if he were disposed to carnal selfish pleasures AT ALL! It would also lend credibility to the depiction that women are nothing but preferential toys fro self gratification. Such is an abominable perversion of the righteousness of God. Jesus, as the Living Word of the Father, is not about himself, but about bridging God and man. Depicting him as assumingly wanton and prurient is purposefully espoused as a denial of his message, expecting that he was given to like passions found in temptations common to man. Falling prey to temptations and vaunting himself would make his message incredible and hypocritical and contradictory of his very credibility of being the Holy One only known of and to the Father. Any that resist temptations, successfully or not, can recognize Jesus is clearly above such things and can lead us to victory of such affronts to our conscience, if our conscience is so disposed to resist, successfully or not, by our own device and will, apart from God's help in seeing it for what it is beforehand that it not have power over us to enslave us to it's trickery. Hebrews 2:17-18 is an example of what I am conveying to you, from a Christian perspective. Wherefore in all things(ALL THINGS) it behoved him to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. Temptations and partaking of temptations are two different things. In that he says that we, the world, do not know God apart from what he reveals, then it stands to reason that the world knows the things of itself, and not God. Equating Jesus Christ as being of the world , which is known by all men, is like saying that he is the same in his affinities. That is not the case. That is the case for trying to discredit him through accusations and disengenuous depictions of contemptible hypocrisy. The only thing that is evident is that excuses abound to argue with Jesus' words, when the simple truth is that any and all may refuse them and walk on. Obsessing oneself with trying to rationalize his words into one's own construct is a compulsion that is an excessive waste of contemplation, effort and energy when it is far easier to not dwell on torment. Why such obsessive compulsivity continues throughout every generation is apparent. His words sting and cut the heart and expose itself to itself invasively; an unacceptable intrusion to those harboring secret guilts and not wanting to address them openly. But then, that is nothing new. Don't shoot the messenger. you will waste a BULLET. PEACE.

Serenity1971 Joined Sat 05/24/08 Posts: 78	Sat 05/24/08 12:11 PM
Mark 7; 18-23. And he says unto them, " Are you so without understanding also? Do you not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without enters into the man, it cannot defile him ; Because it enters not INTO HIS HEART, but into the belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. Form within, OUT OF THE HEART OF MEN, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications (that would include homosexuality), murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit (HMMMMM), lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness( ) : All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. oops Fornication only applies because they cannot marry, if they marry their sex is not fornication so then it would not fit this definition. Again I will say, does the message of Jesus change because he could have had sex with men or women or both? Not necessarily. In part, marriage is about children, but there is an interesting scripture found that could be used to rebuke homosexuality's efficacy as proper in marriage. I am not throwing stones,but showing rather that efforts to make the lifestyle wiggle its way into Christianity is an uphill battle, one of which I do not understand the need for. Christianity is not the whole of heaven, or the whole of God's grace and mercy in exclusivity, despite what most claim. Elsewhere, I have addressed that in clarifying Jesus' parable about those that DO NOT KNOW HIM and are yet found alive and well in his presence in eternity by their righteous works of benevolence.(Mattehw 25:31-46. Please notice that Jesus identifies himself with ALL that are found entering his embrace by their works as depicted in verses 37-40)Not all found in heaven are the Church of Jesus Christ. Most, do not even know Jesus. May have heard of him, but do not know him. Anyway, back to marriage and same-sex unions, biblically speaking.... 1Corinthians 7:29-40. It is long and wish rather that you read it and I not need to write it. ONLYIN THE LORD, we are reminded, as Christians, though we may be married, to be as though we weren't, minding the things of God, and not the tings of the world. OK? All of 1Corinthians 7 is about marriage, towards the Church of Jesus Christ, specifically. So, 1Cor7:2, Paul writes this to the Church, Nevertheless, to avoid FORNICATION, l3et every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. It doesn't say, to tops and bottoms, it says, to men and women. Homosexual marriage does not fit in the Church of Jesus Christ. Why bother to try to fit it in, then, when in other scriptures there is a clear path to follow for all others that will be found as either welcome or not in eternity as Jesus depicts his judgement? (Matthew 25:31-46. is what all others may have faith in if they choose to remain in their predilections) See what I mean? peace Wouldee You know personally speaking for me the bible is nothing but a book of stories written of old. I have no value to it other than that. So whether homosexual activity would or should be allowed as part of the christian faith is neither here nor there for me. I just brought up the technicalitie of that one passage. I do not agree with any faith that ostrisized others. If they sit in judgement of others they are placing themselves in the place of a god as though they are better than others and I abor that in religious folks. But again, I will say, if Jesus has sex with anyone, does it change his message? Dragoness, yes, it does. For Jesus would be hypocritical in the depiction that he was manifest to do what the Father's will is, and not his own. The whole point of being crucified to only be risen again and alive in death would be very much contrary to that which he professed, if he were disposed to carnal selfish pleasures AT ALL! It would also lend credibility to the depiction that women are nothing but preferential toys fro self gratification. Such is an abominable perversion of the righteousness of God. Jesus, as the Living Word of the Father, is not about himself, but about bridging God and man. Depicting him as assumingly wanton and prurient is purposefully espoused as a denial of his message, expecting that he was given to like passions found in temptations common to man. Falling prey to temptations and vaunting himself would make his message incredible and hypocritical and contradictory of his very credibility of being the Holy One only known of and to the Father. Any that resist temptations, successfully or not, can recognize Jesus is clearly above such things and can lead us to victory of such affronts to our conscience, if our conscience is so disposed to resist, successfully or not, by our own device and will, apart from God's help in seeing it for what it is beforehand that it not have power over us to enslave us to it's trickery. Hebrews 2:17-18 is an example of what I am conveying to you, from a Christian perspective. Wherefore in all things(ALL THINGS) it behoved him to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted. Temptations and partaking of temptations are two different things. In that he says that we, the world, do not know God apart from what he reveals, then it stands to reason that the world knows the things of itself, and not God. Equating Jesus Christ as being of the world , which is known by all men, is like saying that he is the same in his affinities. That is not the case. That is the case for trying to discredit him through accusations and disengenuous depictions of contemptible hypocrisy. The only thing that is evident is that excuses abound to argue with Jesus' words, when the simple truth is that any and all may refuse them and walk on. Obsessing oneself with trying to rationalize his words into one's own construct is a compulsion that is an excessive waste of contemplation, effort and energy when it is far easier to not dwell on torment. Why such obsessive compulsivity continues throughout every generation is apparent. His words sting and cut the heart and expose itself to itself invasively; an unacceptable intrusion to those harboring secret guilts and not wanting to address them openly. But then, that is nothing new. Don't shoot the messenger. you will waste a BULLET. PEACE. Last I knew we were rightly give "Free Will" in order to have choices and decide upon what we perceived is better for us personally and for the earth as a whole. Everyone seems to put Jesus on this pedestal like he was better than any other person that has walked this earth. He was just a human being and that's all he was. If you really want to get technical we are all the different facets and faces of God(s). We are not judged by our actions, we are here to learn and evolve to a better understanding of ourselves by experiencing life as a human being. Jesus did that just as the rest of us are doing that. Just another messenger

wouldee Joined Sun 10/07/07 Posts: 5335	Sat 05/24/08 03:02 PM
what seems to be, is not always what is. In any case, each makes their own judgements about life and its' treasures. Jesus, taken at the ercord of hiw words alone would dispute your equation. But then, that is your choice. To assess him according to your opinions, or trust the recordd given and seek his presence to know certainly. Again, in any case, that is your choice, but the questiuons asked of me where not about your choices, but about te clarity with which that record alone offers within itself. That written record is what I have addressed. Where I land on that, is another story and not one that I am concerning myself with. peace.

Fanta46 Joined Sat 11/11/06 Posts: 29361	Sat 05/24/08 03:07 PM
Why does everyone ignore this? I see them take passages before it and after it, but they continue to skip this and I think it fits this thread and everything insinuated from pg 1 til now!! From Romans 1:18-32, this passage fits perfectly with this thread! 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. An absolute fit!!

wouldee Joined Sun 10/07/07 Posts: 5335	Sat 05/24/08 03:43 PM Edited by wouldee on Sat 05/24/08 03:48 PM
Mark 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. Obviously his disciples were really missing it. They should have understood that Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said. Instead of recognizing this as a test to be applied to the traditions of the Pharisees, they thought it was a parable, and could not understand it. It clearly went WAY beyond the issue of washing hands, but they were having trouble seeing beyond that point. They could not see how it applied to their specific case, and THAT is what they were worried about. Jesus was not happy with them not catching on: Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Jesus EXPECTED the scribes and Pharisees to be without understanding. He expected that the majority of people would not really think about his words, and so would limit them much more than they should. His disciples SHOULD know better, and he says so: "Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive". He then repeats his all-encompassing statement: "that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him". Then he continues, showing them that this applies to their specific case as well. Incidentally, in the process he also shows that not EVERYTHING that goes out of a man defiles him by providing an example. Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? It does not enter his heart, his soul, but is physical. In the case of the dirty food, it goes in one end and out the other, but does not enter the person's soul to defile him. Some homophobes have latched onto this passage -- carefully avoiding the words of Jesus where he pointed out that NOTHING that enters a man from without can defile him -- to try and pretend that this is all about food and cannot be about homosexual acts. They have not thought it through, but since they have brought it up, it is necessary to discuss some of the details of the sex act itself. In male-male sex, something enters a man from without (and therefore does not defile, because NOTHING that enters from without can defile a person). When that occurs, the semen -- protein -- part of "all meats" -- enters the belly, and is later excreted. Jesus described this process and pointed out that this does NOT defile the person, even though it is coming out of him. This would be semen in this case, so semen coming out of a man does not defile him, any more than semen going INTO a man defiles him. Mark 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. In order to defile the man, it must be evil. Semen is not evil, and does not defile a man, from the earlier example where Jesus discusses it going out in the draught. That example not only shows that there are some things coming out of a man that does not defile him, but the specific example covers homosexual acts in detail. So since semen does not defile a man when going into him OR when going out of him, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexual acts. Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, This shows what should have been obvious to the Apostles. It is the evil intent -- that which proceeds from the heart -- that defiles one. It has been pointed out there that the word "fornications" specifically excludes homosexual acts from consideration. From the Oxford English Dictionary: "FORNICATION: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a man (in restricted use, an unmarried man) and an unmarried woman. In Scripture extended to adultery." Mark 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: This continues the list, which still does not include anything specific to gays. Those things are all nonphysical, come "from the heart", and defile the person because of the evil intent. Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. This final statement finishes up with the idea that it is not what enters a man that defiles him (such as homosexual acts), but rather what a person does to others -- what comes from within, from the heart. Gay bashers are promoting an evil message that results in harm to many people and has no redeeming qualities of any kind. By doing so, they are defiling themselves. Belushi, what is unclear is where you want to take this as a religious topic. two ideas come to mind. One is, what about safe sex? Nothing religious there, and quite appropriate though in consideration of not sharing diseases while seeking selfish pleasures. Any forum will be more appropriate to author such a discussion. Might I suggest sex and dating? Or the general forum? The second is condom use. That could be an interesting muse signifying the backwardness of archaic principles not able to address such concerns as depositing or acquiring foreign body fluids, if that is all your point is concerned with. Another forum would fit that quite well. Pick one. It is not necessarily a religious discussion, exclusively. It could be one of health and well being. In any case, more excuses lead to more questions. Resolving an acceptable consensus may not be your goal, but then, your intentions are murky and unclear. Condoning or rebuking gay bashing is a very disengenuous stance to surmise in light of your efforts to purpose sullying Jesus Christ with your marginal imaginations about his proclivities which are neither clear nor available to suppose of him based in his teachings. What is clear, is your obsession wih the homosexual lifestyle and your promotion of it's licentious agenda to seek special rights specific to its practice and acceptability in civil society. In which case, I see no religious significance to that. I see a political significance that is being transferred upon the religious views of a large portion of society which is not inclined to share your view on the matter, let alone find any merit in your creative license maligning and re-directing misinterpreted scriptures to support your excuseable machinations. It is clear that the relevance of your conclusions only leads to more questions that neither fit your published query, nor your intention of resolving any of its efficacy and consistency with regards to your opinion which is contradicted by the very scriptures you purport to hold in high esteem of your sage and clever contrivations. Homework is in order for furthering your excuses for your unbelief and fearful misunderstandings. Christianity is not holding any in bondage nor depriving any of their liberties. Christanity is, as always, tolerantly aware of all such freedoms and liberties. What is not tolerant, is the attitudes of those offended by the public transparency and praise of Christianity's virtues by its adherents and their faithfulness to its tenets and liberties which just do not coincide with those that hold a dim view of the superficial nature of Christianity's efficacy, which is neither about doctrine alone or about opinionated rhetoric and diatribe. It is about a way of life following the leading of the Holy Spirit which is offered at its core to whosoever will, in the name of the gospel presented in Jesus Christ and furthered by those that have so been apprehended and adorned with the gift of the Holy Spirit, for Christ's sake, not our own. Like Fanta has reminded us all ; the excuses men offer for not choosing to walk in this faithfully is made abundantly apparent in Romans 1. None can argue with that one in their own heart, except to only offhandedly deny it disengenuously while lying to themselves in the process ; A conundrum of a deflied conscience, not a paradox open to licentious interpretation. Choices abound. Make some good ones. learn, grow and be at peace.

cutelildevilsmom Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 8862	Sat 05/24/08 06:09 PM
It doesn't but it sure would give a lot of people egg facials. ... and how do you like your eggs in the morning? scrambled.. as opposed to unfertilised? oh fertlized eggs are fine just not in my womb or on my plate.

Belushi Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 2995	Sat 05/24/08 08:58 PM
Belushi, what is unclear is where you want to take this as a religious topic. The whole idea was to debate the sexual orientation of a man who is revered by a large group of homophobes. To show that even in their religious book, there is ability to bend and alter what has been written to suit my own ends. To prove that the collection of stories, given the right, environment can alter and even destroy lives, and that the Christian ideal of "live and let live" is not as prevalent as the mass of charitable christians think that it is. I have asked in my very first page what difference does it make if Jesus was gay, Dragon continues to ask the same question. But the only answer we get was that because you have to believe he is pure of thought or the whole idea of the Romans crucifying him was a bit of a wasted exercise. You WANT to believe. It is a choice you have. I respect your right to want to. But on the other hand, no one respects my right to try and see that there are other possibilities and outcomes. two ideas come to mind. Again, I see your point and agree that these are also topics for discussion, and could be put into a historical debate, a religious debate or a health debate. Condoning or rebuking gay bashing is a very disengenuous stance to surmise in light of your efforts to purpose sullying Jesus Christ with your marginal imaginations about his proclivities which are neither clear nor available to suppose of him based in his teachings. ... and that is a point. How can you say he is straight, when there is no conclusive proof? All the proof that has been put up can be knocked down by using the same chapters and adapted for use. What is clear, is your obsession wih the homosexual lifestyle and your promotion of it's licentious agenda to seek special rights specific to its practice and acceptability in civil society. Why is it licentious? Here you are beginning to revert to the Christian programming Only by your Christian standards is same sex intercourse licentious. Or is only male/male sex licentious and female/female something for the boys? In which case, I see no religious significance to that. I see a political significance that is being transferred upon the religious views of a large portion of society which is not inclined to share your view on the matter, let alone find any merit in your creative license maligning and re-directing misinterpreted scriptures to support your excuseable machinations. No politics were involved in this. But is being straight a political matter? If Jesus is straight, then why does this not cause christians concern. The whole point is that you dont know. How can you say he is straight when there is nothing the bible to say that he is? It is clear that the relevance of your conclusions only leads to more questions Yes. Exactly. Question everything. Assume nothing. Christianity is not holding any in bondage nor depriving any of their liberties. Christanity is, as always, tolerantly aware of all such freedoms and liberties. Christianity might be, Christians sure arent! Intolerance abounds. Look at this post. I have been accused of being sent to hell, being stupid and a host of other things. Where is the tolerance in my beliefs? I agree, I set myself up for this. I was expecting this and much worse and it is sad that it had to come from the espousers of peace, love and understanding. In reality, the only people I should have been debating this with is the non-Christians, because the Christians should have turned the other cheek and ignored it. But they didnt. They chose to get into the muck with me and then slap me with names and accusations. What is not tolerant, is the attitudes of those offended by the public transparency and praise of Christianity's virtues by its adherents and their faithfulness to its tenets and liberties which just do not coincide with those that hold a dim view of the superficial nature of Christianity's efficacy, which is neither about doctrine alone or about opinionated rhetoric and diatribe. Thats not intolerance. Thats the Christians holding themselves up to be holier than thou and then showing none of the Christian tenets that they say they follow. It is about a way of life following the leading of the Holy Spirit which is offered at its core to whosoever will, in the name of the gospel presented in Jesus Christ and furthered by those that have so been apprehended and adorned with the gift of the Holy Spirit, for Christ's sake, not our own. Fine. No problem with that. Get in touch with your God, but stop trying to tell me that you (not you, but the public at large) are so bloody marvellous and you follow this great belief system, when you fall at the first stage by resorting to anger when someone questions it. Like Fanta has reminded us all ; the excuses men offer for not choosing to walk in this faithfully is made abundantly apparent in Romans 1. and as I have proved and reminded you all, the bible's passages can be bent to your own will as and when you see fit None can argue with that one in their own heart, except to only offhandedly deny it disengenuously while lying to themselves in the process ; A conundrum of a deflied conscience, not a paradox open to licentious interpretation. It was never licentious, it was always going to be an interpretation (very similar to the Jesus is straight line) and my conscience is between me an myself. Choices abound. Make some good ones. I have,(made some crap ones as well, mind you) I choose to question everything. That is how I learn and grow. Before anyone responds accusing me of anger or hatred toward Christians, I would just like to say that the above was not written in anger, it is not with any form of temper, apart from an even and calm one. It was written in response to an intelligent post with good humour and grace. Thank you for joining in the debate without debasing yourself, like so many of your fellows have.

Rapunzel Joined Tue 08/22/06 Posts: 16246	Sat 05/24/08 09:17 PM
Why does everyone ignore this? I see them take passages before it and after it, but they continue to skip this and I think it fits this thread and everything insinuated from pg 1 til now!! From Romans 1:18-32, this passage fits perfectly with this thread! 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. An absolute fit!!

Serenity1971 Joined Sat 05/24/08 Posts: 78	Sat 05/24/08 09:32 PM
So I finished reading the entire thread and have come up with some conclusions as well as questions... Would it be so wrong if Jesus were gay or bi-sexual? Me personally, it doesn't really matter. He was a human being just like you and I. We all have sexual wants and/or needs and depending on our preference will depend upon whom we have fulfill those things with. I find it simply amazing how some people can be so hypocritical. It's ok for a woman to be with another woman or for a man to be with 2 women at the same time, but when it comes to a man being with another man it's just downright wrong. In fact according to most men and NO I'm NOT saying ALL "two women together is beautiful and is erotic". Care to explain? How many paintings from the Pre-Renaissance Era and even into early Renaissance depict orgy's including men with men? I can tell you that there's numerous, and they are considered some of the finest pieces of art. Most of the paintings done in these Eras were done as pictures from biblical verses or interpretations of them. I was told a long time ago to always have an open mind, and I continue to do so to this day. I don't take everything I read as hard proof, I take it all with a grain of salt. I don't take one single book as law, nor do I take one single persons version of something as fact. I take the time to seek out my answers and go with what I feel is right in my heart mind and soul.

Belushi Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 2995	Sat 05/24/08 09:32 PM
Why does everyone ignore this? Its not it they are ignoring ... I responded with a passage of my own after this to prove its easy to bend the bible to your own will.