Debating Christianity and Religion

Jesus apparently had a specific disciple, presumably a guy, whom he loved,he never condemned homosexuality, of course there is nothing wrong with being in a relationship with someone of the same sex, so I wonder if he was gay? If it could be proved he was, I wonder how those Christians who are anti-gay bigots would react?

[Replying to post 1 by JJ50]

Well, obviously not, that would have violated the Biblical principle of "male and female He created them."
It would have also alienated Judaic followers, as per the now somewhat ironically named Leviticus.
In foresight, it would have also alienated modern followers up until about the 1980's, until Gayness was more catholically accepted.

Two bad puns, one reply.

I imaging his apologists would say he had no preference... but then one might wonder if he had a male issue, or if it were important then.

Neat question - theoretical religion!

[Replying to post 2 by Willum]

There is no obviously not about it! Leviticus is a very nasty book, which any decent person should ignore.

JJ50 wrote: Jesus apparently had a specific disciple, presumably a guy, whom he loved,he never condemned homosexuality, of course there is nothing wrong with being in a relationship with someone of the same sex, so I wonder if he was gay? If it could be proved he was, I wonder how those Christians who are anti-gay bigots would react?

Love in Bible is not same as homosexual act, which is not good and reasonable move. Jesus told he didn’t come to destroy the law, so when the law says homosexual act is not good, that is still valid saying.

Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19

I don’t believe Jesus was homosexual, because if he would have been, he would probably have tried to destroy the law.

The Secret Book of Mark had a couple of verses that strongly suggested that he was. This is why they were dropped when the church co-opted the book. l have found this on the internet so you should be able to do also.

[Replying to post 4 by 1213]

Love can be gay or straight, whatever that no so good book has to say on the topic.

Willum wrote:

Well, obviously not, that would have violated the Biblical principle of "male and female He created them."
It would have also alienated Judaic followers, as per the now somewhat ironically named Leviticus.

I don't think there is a choice of being gay, Willum. Compare him with Muhammad and the difference is startling. Muhammad could not get enough female interaction whereas it is almost verboten to imagine Jesus involved amorously.

Since there would be severe taboos, it would be prudent of him to say nothing. EM Forster did not have his novel Maurice published until after his death. There are incidents that suggest homosexual feelings in the mysterious Jesus. He famously wept over Lazarus. In Mark 14:51 we have the curious reference:
"And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body;"

As his companions he chose exclusively men. We know there was a disciple "whom Jesus loved." But this is couched in intriguing silence. Smoke and fire springs to mind.

[Replying to post 1 by JJ50]

If he had been, in 1st century Jewish culture he would have been discreet if not entirely celibate, and his own disciples probably wouldn't have known. And if they did know, they certainly would not have told anyone else, let alone dropping titillating hints in widespread promotional material. Attempts to read something significant into the flimsiest details of the gospel stories are feeble, at best* (he appointed male apostles in a patriarchal society - must've been gay!). I suppose Judas might have let the secret out if he'd known one, but according to the stories he apparently had nothing to report on that score.

Based on modern prevalence there's basically a ~5% chance that he was a gay person who may or may not have been sexually active.



* 'Secret Mark' (mentioned by Studentgary) provides more fertile grounds for speculation:
"And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

However this
A> would still be far from conclusive to begin with,
B> would be of dubious historical value even if the 'manuscript' were authentic (information about it being attributed to Clement of Alexandria around 200CE) and
C> could well have been a forgery (the letter of Clement and quotes from 'secret Mark' having allegedly been discovered by one scholar in the 1950s copied into the endpapers of a 17th century book, not examined by any other scholars for 18 years, and with the ink and pages never scientifically tested before disappearing in the 1990s).

Mithrae wrote:

Based on modern prevalence there's basically a ~5% chance that he was a gay person who may or may not have been sexually active.

Of course this is a rather useless statistics to apply here, given that we are not simply looking at a random individual in society. There are factors in the biographies of Jesus that would lead us to alter the a priori probability, whatever that might be. Aside from this it is rather meaningless to apply a numerical value to an unmarried, Middle Eastern preacher who did not apparently speak of girlfriends and died, as far as we can gather, a virgin.

JJ50 wrote: [Replying to post 4 by 1213]

Love can be gay or straight, whatever that no so good book has to say on the topic.

It can also be neither. Love does not have to be related to sex.