Was Jesus gay?

[Hope]

There's also no reference to Jesus going to the toilet but I bet he did.

That is such a lame example, jeremy, as to suggest that you are reaching for examples.

With the evidence we have, there is no way to answer the question of whether he was gay or straight or married or celibate.

to the contrary, I would suggest that we have got a considerable amount of evidence to suggest one of these. I listed them in the post you quoted and no-one has yet produced any evidence to suggest any other conclusion. 

Some Christians seem to have a burning desire for Jesus to be a celibate straight guy but I think that reflects their hang ups about sex and sexuality more than anything else.

There may be some, I suppose, though I've never met any.  Most want to have an interpretation that is honest to the material before us.   As pointed out above, I have listed 4 obvious inferences from the documents we have; the others that have been put forward have to stretch the language and contextual pointers to near-on breaking point.

[Some non Christians seem to have a burning desire for Jesus to be gay, but I think that's because they know it winds up the Christians.

Whereas I'd suggest that it simply highlights their lack of understanding, especially in regards to the linguistic issues.

[Hope]

Which is not only incredibly recent in human history but also extremely rare.

Well, the context of your comment was partly within the present/recent past, so your reference to human history is rather irrelevant.

[Hope]

And I'm quite happy for it to be so, as I didn't use a term such as 'sub-human'.

One doesn't have to use a particular phrase or term, Shakes; all one has to do is give an implication.  You did.

[jeremyp]

That is such a lame example, jeremy, as to suggest that you are reaching for examples.

Your inability to come up with a real response tells me you can't answer the point, which is that a story not mentioning something doesn't mean it never happened.

to the contrary, I would suggest that we have got a considerable amount of evidence to suggest one of these. I listed them in the post you quoted and no-one has yet produced any evidence to suggest any other conclusion.

You didn't provide any evidence, you said one thing that isn't mentioned in the Bible but could still have happened and you made a number of assertions that you have no idea are true or not.

There may be some, I suppose, though I've never met any.  Most want to have an interpretation that is honest to the material before us.

If you did that, it would be a first for you.

[Shaker]

One doesn't have to use a particular phrase or term, Shakes; all one has to do is give an implication.  You did.

Nope. I used the word 'odd,' which is not and never has been a synonym of 'sub-human.' That one's still very much all yours, so own it.

[Red Giant]

You have no idea if that was the case, he might have had a great bonkfest throughout his short life for all you know! Those who claim Jesus was celibate do so because the idea of him having any sort of sex life makes them feel uncomfortable, imo.

But he had to be without sin, or the whole theory falls apart.

[Red Giant]

To use such verb references to suggest anything about a person's sexuality is to make a major error of judgement.

But he's singled out for getting quite cosy at the Last Supper, although there was no need to mention it.  On the face of it, "the disciple who Jesus loved" meant nothing except to an audience who already knew what was being alluded to.

Since northern Palestine was heavily settled by Greeks, I expect there was a lot of it about.  But it was all parcel of what the Jews meant by Greek.  Purists didn't like it, but they were only trying to shoo back the tide, because Hebrew Jews were heavily outnumbered by Greek Jews.

However, if any of the shadowy figures behind the Jesus legend had crossed any lines, I think the rabbis would have used it.

[Hope]

But he had to be without sin, or the whole theory falls apart.

But, of course, sexual intercourse isn't a sin (and nor is celibacy) - its part of human nature.  I think the main concern that Christians have with the idea of Jesus having a wife and children (if they even think about it) is that his ability to love the whole human race could be compromised.  Furthermore, would it have been fair on such a family for him to go off on a 3-year ministry tour as he did?  It certainly isn't uncommon for people, even today, to be so single-minded as to mean that they choose not to partake in every single aspect of their humanity.

[Sriram]

I agree 2Corrie. Some have nothing better to do than suggest things about other people based on the stupidest reasons. I love my buddies, oh, then according to the author of this thread it's got to be sexual. Men in the Middle East still kiss each other, oh, then according to the author of this thread, that's evidence that all those men are gay. Perhaps one should mind their own sex life and quit making stunted suggestions about others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feLCpfGniz8

Yes....many young men even in India hold hands when they walk around or have the hands on each others shoulders. They usually hug when they meet.  That does not mean they are gay.

Gays like to believe that everyone  else (especially the famous ones) is a 'closet gay'.  It makes them feel less insecure and isolated I suppose.

[Hope]

Your inability to come up with a real response tells me you can't answer the point, which is that a story not mentioning something doesn't mean it never happened.

I'd agree, but when a story mentions a number of other things in the same 'league' it suggests some thing quite telling.

You didn't provide any evidence, you said one thing that isn't mentioned in the Bible but could still have happened and you made a number of assertions that you have no idea are true or not.

I made a number of assertions that are based on a reading of the Bible as whole and on the language used within the material being discussed.  So, whilst I can't be definitively sure that they are true or not, I am able to make an educated and rational interpretation.  After all, that is not that different to what scientists do.

If you did that, it would be a first for you.

Well, at least I'm one stage further than you and some others here.   

[Aruntraveller]

Gays like to believe that everyone  else (especially the famous ones) is a 'closet gay'.  It makes them feel less insecure and isolated I suppose.

do you actually believe the bollocks you post?

[floo]

Yes....many young men even in India hold hands when they walk around or have the hands on each others shoulders. They usually hug when they meet.  That does not mean they are gay.

Gays like to believe that everyone  else (especially the famous ones) is a 'closet gay'.  It makes them feel less insecure and isolated I suppose.

Admittedly I don't know many gay people in person, but I have met quite a number on line and I believe that to be a CRAZY bigoted statement!

[Red Giant]

But, of course, sexual intercourse isn't a sin

Fornication adultery sodomy and bestiality were sins.  That would restrict his options in the bonkfest department.

[jeremyp]

Well, at least I'm one stage further than you and some others here.   

No you are not. You have appalling critical thinking skills. You have no clue about the historical period. You can't see evidence that is in front of your nose, if it contradicts your claims and you think that pretending you posted evidence "elsewhere" is enough to fool the rest of us.

[Hope]

No you are not. You have appalling critical thinking skills. You have no clue about the historical period. You can't see evidence that is in front of your nose, if it contradicts your claims and you think that pretending you posted evidence "elsewhere" is enough to fool the rest of us.

Yet, over the history of this forum, it has often been left up to me and a few others like Anchor to point out that folk like you and Floo - to name but two - have judged events that occurred in 1st Palestine  as if they'd happened within the last 100 years and in the West.  It has been up to the same group to highlight inconsistencies in your and others' arguments; and it has been up to that same group to point out that material that has been posted on previous threads (now defunct and in most cases binned through the usual pruning process) was posted there and even responded to, by some who then claim that they'd never seen it.

I wouldn't be fool enough to claim that I've never made a bad judgement or call on any given topic - sometimes I've been wrapped up in an debate and posted something on a different topic thread or misquoted or misinterpreted another poster or another source - something that just about all of us have done at one time or another.

As for 'appalling critical thinking skills' I've generally been told that these skills are higher than average by lecturers at university and colleagues at work (I'm not even going to claim massive such skills), whilst the accusation that I "can't see evidence that is in front of your nose, if it contradicts your claims" can probably be laid at the feet of just about everyone here.  Everyone is guilty of confirmation bias and even survival bias to a degree - and I wouldn't put myself amongst the worst on either side of the debate.  For instance, I have disagreed as much with you and Sassy, as I have with trippy and Nick Marks, ad_o and Shakes.

[floo]

Yet, over the history of this forum, it has often been left up to me and a few others like Anchor to point out that folk like you and Floo - to name but two - have judged events that occurred in 1st Palestine  as if they'd haened within the last 100 years and in the West.  It has been up to the same group to highlight inconsistencies in your and others' arguments; and it has been up to me and others to point out that material that has been posted on previous threads (now defunct and in most cases binned through the usual pruning process) was posted there and even responded to some who often claim that they'd never seen it.

I think it is the inconsistencies in your arguments that have come to the fore, Hope!

[jeremyp]

Yet, over the history of this forum, it has often been left up to me and a few others like Anchor to point out that folk like you and Floo - to name but two - have judged events that occurred in 1st Palestine  as if they'd happened within the last 100 years and in the West.

Nope. I've never done that.

It has been up to the same group to highlight inconsistencies in your and others' arguments;

You need to attend to the inconsistencies in your own arguments first.

and it has been up to that same group to point out that material that has been posted on previous threads

Material that nobody else remembers you posting and that you seem to be reluctant to repost.

As for 'appalling critical thinking skills' I've generally been told that these skills are higher than average by lecturers at university and colleagues at work

Well you don't display them in respect of Christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. I've never done that.
You need to attend to the inconsistencies in your own arguments first.
Material that nobody else remembers you posting and that you seem to be reluctant to repost.

Well you don't display them in respect of Christianity.

Jeremy are you even aware of what critical thinking is. I say that because there is no evidence of it having been applied by many of the antitheists on philosophical materialism.

Wigginhall used to apply it but has largely been seduced by the Bluehill side of the Farce.......Nearly sane is your man though Long may he reign.

[wigginhall]

Vlad, please fuck off, with your gossip about me.   I am my own person, with my own ideas, and I don't relish stupid comments such as yours.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, please fuck off, with your gossip about me.   I am my own person, with my own ideas, and I don't relish stupid comments such as yours.

Hard Fucking luck.

[wigginhall]

Hard Fucking luck.

Hello, Christ must have appeared to you, and through you, given us a heart-warming and seasonal message, hard fucking luck. 

[jeremyp]

Jeremy are you even aware of what critical thinking is.

Yes. Are you aware of what thinking is?

I say that because there is no evidence of it having been applied by many of the antitheists on philosophical materialism.

Ah, you are under the mistaken impression that any of us give a fuck about your obsession with philosophical materialism.

[Shaker]

Vlad, please fuck off, with your gossip about me. I am my own person, with my own ideas, and I don't relish stupid comments such as yours.

You know, that's not the wiggy I remember from other forums more years ago than I care to recall, yet wiggy 2.0 continues to be by far the better and improved version in my opinion. (Not humble, as I don't do humble unless it's Kate).

Don't quite understand wiggy beta, just approve it.

A very merry Christmas wiggy to you and to yours and all good wishes for a happy, healthy, prosperous and peaceful new year.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hello, Christ must have appeared to you, and through you, given us a heart-warming and seasonal message, hard fucking luck.

or we can ponder the providence of your yuletide ''fuck off''......By the way ''Hard fucking luck'' is more philosophical than ''fuck off'' don't you think?

[wigginhall]

You know, that's not the wiggy I remember from other forums more years ago than I care to recall, yet wiggy 2.0 continues to be by far the better and improved version in my opinion. (Not humble, as I don't do humble unless it's Kate).

Don't quite understand wiggy beta, just approve it.

A very merry Christmas wiggy to you and to yours and all good wishes for a happy, healthy, prosperous and peaceful new year.

Cheers, sunshine.  I understand less and less, but it leads to happiness (the Ken Dodd version).