Jesus the gay fetishist

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:49 am

Even when I was a convinced Christian, I could never digest these odd acts of the Jesus portrayed in the NT. Well, the Gospel of John is pretty awkward by all standards, isn't it?

Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. (Jhn, 12:3)

This hellish, stomach-revolting passage, was always a trouble for me. You'll find some explanations about Hebrew customs and habits, but it's still a nightmare when you relate it to a supposed Saviour and paragon of virtue. Why he allows such a cruel humiliation from a woman, to wipe his feet with her hair? So much he despised women? Just as much as the rest of his contemporaries in that patriarchal community?

He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe [them] with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also [my] hands and [my] head. Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash [his] feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. [...] If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.

He washes the feet of the apostles. For me this always meant a great suspicion of homosexual behaviour in Jesus, but anyway he didn't humiliate himself to the point of wiping their feet with his hair. And that makes a profound difference. He didn't wipe women's feet, and maybe he was stating subtlety that women were way inferior to men and he wouldn't perform humility to that extreme.

Gospels are only fables and lies, of course. But even to this respect, pagans were far superior and more humane. Check Homer and the passage of the return of Odysseus, when the old servant Euriclea washes his feet. Comparisons only would make good hearts blush.

What do you think about the whole thing?

foshizzle · Post by **foshizzle** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:26 pm

I think you are the only Creationist i ever spoken to that have said that.

Oh, add in the following to my previous statement...

"Christianity is not about having a personal relationship with the actual, living Jesus Christ; it's about having a personal relationship with the actual living God."

If you need further explanation, lemme know.

You know, i have a really hard time reading the Bible nowdays, because its such a boring book, full of aLogical statements and so forth. So i prefer not hearing anything more about it.

In certain areas of the Bible, i would agree that it can be boring. Luke, for example, is a physcian, and a fairly boring writer. It's more enjoyable to read Matthew, Mark and John (for me, anyway. Everyone has their personal likes and dislikes).

Quote:
I'm not sure where 'relationship' and 'necrophilia' join. Having a relationship with a person isn't quite the same as having sexual practices with their corpse.

One of them would be. Especially if they really believe him to be Christ.

That has got to be the most incoherant thing i've ever read. One of what would be the same?

Oh Yeah, he resurrected with his Body. Wonder where it went- I mean, all this talk about spirituality, yet, the body is flesh.

Again, I don't think you actually made a point...

Were you saying he isn't flesh? He never ascended? What?

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:32 pm

In certain areas of the Bible, i would agree that it can be boring. Luke, for example, is a physcian, and a fairly boring writer. It's more enjoyable to read Matthew, Mark and John (for me, anyway. Everyone has their personal likes and dislikes).

I like Job.

I'm not sure where 'relationship' and 'necrophilia' join. Having a relationship with a person isn't quite the same as having sexual practices with their corpse.

One of them would be. Especially if they really believe him to be Christ.

Simplified: To have sex with the corpse of Jesus Christ would most likely be marked as a relationship. If these people believe him to be Christ, and they want to have a close relationship with him, sex would be very adequate (as his Dead).

Again, I don't think you actually made a point...

Were you saying he isn't flesh? He never ascende
d? What?

Once again Simplified: Jesus had a Body, = Body Dead. Jesus resurrect, where did the Body go ?

foshizzle · Post by **foshizzle** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:49 pm

Simplified: To have sex with the corpse of Jesus Christ would most likely be marked as a relationship. If these people believe him to be Christ, and they want to have a close relationship with him, sex would be very adequate (as his Dead).

I don't see any reason to believe a dead body is Christ, as anyone who believes in the Bible would understand that Jesus Christ ascended into heaven after his ressurection.

Once again Simplified: Jesus had a Body, = Body Dead. Jesus resurrect, where did the Body go ?

See above answer.

"Mark 16:19 (King James Version)
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."

The Happy Humanist · Post by **The Happy Humanist** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:57 pm

I'm sorry, but this is going a little too far, even for me. Can we get back on a more decent track? Insulting Christians by suggesting their deity is a fetishist is not in the best interest of polite debate. In fact I agree with Overcomer that foot-washing was probably a common sign of hospitality in those days and not to be taken as anything else.

There are plenty of other problems with Christianity; I don't think we need to get down in the sludge like this.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Mon May 02, 2005 1:29 pm

In fact I agree with Overcomer that foot-washing was probably a common sign of hospitality in those days and not to be taken as anything else.

My dear Humanist. I consider this important, because even when I was a Christian, the passage of the woman washing Jesus feet was so disgusting that I never really could accept such degradation coming from a so called "perfect" character.

By the way, can anybody establish the point here? If washing feet was a sign of hospitality in those days, is there any record about this habit practiced on women or was just something applied to men? I never saw such a passage in the Bible and don't remember reading something similar in biblical times. This is important from my point of view, because lately the argument about Jesus favouring women and even championing them has been popping up a lot, and my impression is that he wasn't particularly keen on this subject at all. If he really wanted to make an statement about the equality of men and women, he would have done it. He would appoint women apostles or wouldn't make any differences between washing feet of women and men. But he did!

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:21 am

It seems to be still a subject of controversy...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... _to_women/

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 7:17 am

Found this, from Ken Humphries...

"Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him." Mark 14.45
At dinner parties Jesus has a penchant for washing feet. He also has scantily clad male admirers.
"A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind." Mark 14.51,52
Jesus commented on hundreds of controversial issues but curiously homosexuality was not one of them. Perhaps the "Secret Mark" gospel explains why ...
"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."
Secret Mark Gospel

Certainly, the gay theory has some ground... Jesus attracted women as friends but they didn't see a menace or find any carnal interest in him. Then Jesus never married?, how so in a time when marriage was almost mandatory. He liked to hang on and live with men and he never accepted women apostles. Very strange.