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?

marco wrote:

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.

Smoke and mirrors comes to my mind. First, associating the lack of amorous relationships with women with homosexuality was originally considered a sexist remake by progressives. Now it is considered a significant sign of homosexuality. Both of those views seem to me to be more related to confirmation bias, than confirmation of actual sexual preference. Second, associating weeping in relation to the death of another man is an even more extreme example of that sexist confirmation bias. It is not clear whether that weeping had to do with affection for Lazarus, it could have been out of affection for the women and/or frustration at the lack of belief. Even if it was associated with affection for Lazarus, that does not indicate any sexual attraction. Third, the term used does not mean "loin cloth" the term used means linen cloth, and the term for naked can refer to only a loin cloth. So, the individual could have been wearing thin cloth over a loin cloth. This is not uncommon in tropical and subtropical climates. Fourth, choosing only men as talmudim is standard rabbinic tradition. And Fifth, references to being more loved does not equate with sexuality. Even the passage where he leans on Yeshua's bosom does indicate closeness, but not sexuality.

bluethread wrote:

marco wrote:

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.

First .... Second .... Third ..... Fourth .... And Fifth,

There is of course no confirmation of anything. Your list methodically gives an alternative explanation for each suggestion. That is fair. However, when all five are taken together it does lead to the suggestion of homosexuality. One, or two on their own means nothing, as you rightly point out.

No smoke without fire is probably more to the point than smoke and mirrors. Your defence of the Lord is admirable but if indeed he was more at ease with men than women, as his preferences suggest, then he joins the ranks of many famous people, similarly blessed or handicapped, depending on your view.

marco wrote:
There is of course no confirmation of anything. Your list methodically gives an alternative explanation for each suggestion. That is fair. However, when all five are taken together it does lead to the suggestion of homosexuality. One, or two on their own means nothing, as you rightly point out.

No smoke without fire is probably more to the point than smoke and mirrors. Your defence of the Lord is admirable but if indeed he was more at ease with men than women, as his preferences suggest, then he joins the ranks of many famous people, similarly blessed or handicapped, depending on your view.

It may lead YOU to the suggestion of homosexuality, but five otherwise unrelated observations does not beg the question. Also, those five examples do not indicate that Yeshua was more at ease with men than women. I can't think of one example of Yeshua not being at ease around women. In fact, some of the passages indicate that others were amazed that He was at ease around women. The culture was such that men did not generally interact with women with whom they had no legal relationship. I do admit that Yeshua had close relationships with men. However, the suggestions of homosexuality, caused by the smoke and mirrors that some use in referring to these healthy fraternal relationships, are mere illusion.

I am not sure why I am being quoted.

To insert the "not a choice" argument on the Son of the Lord of the universe is a weird insertion.
Certainly God can choose the orientation of his son.
Unless he was just a man, in which case, my argument is NA.
Unless he was an imaginary person, in which case, he can be any orientation the imaginer wants.

Willum wrote: I am not sure why I am being quoted.

To insert the "not a choice" argument on the Son of the Lord of the universe is a weird insertion.
Certainly God can choose the orientation of his son.
Unless he was just a man, in which case, my argument is NA.
Unless he was an imaginary person, in which case, he can be any orientation the imaginer wants.

I quoted you just to make the point that, when one says obviously Jesus wasn't gay else he would have contravened this or that, the poor guy would have had no choice. I wasn't going into the mechanics of divine family planning, simply taking Jesus as preacher supreme, who may have happened to be gay.

I wasn't seriously disagreeing with you, mon ami.

bluethread wrote:
However, the suggestions of homosexuality, caused by the smoke and mirrors that some use in referring to these healthy fraternal relationships, are mere illusion.

We must read and form an impression. I have long entertained the view that Jesus was homosexual. As I said, one can pick this or that, and make erroneous assumptions. But bachelor Jesus, with the disciple whom he loved, entering the scene and picking a full team of men, does raise (rather than beg) a question. Indignation doesn't make that question go away. It is certainly a possibility.

marco wrote:

bluethread wrote:
However, the suggestions of homosexuality, caused by the smoke and mirrors that some use in referring to these healthy fraternal relationships, are mere illusion.

We must read and form an impression. I have long entertained the view that Jesus was homosexual. As I said, one can pick this or that, and make erroneous assumptions. But bachelor Jesus, with the disciple whom he loved, entering the scene and picking a full team of men, does raise (rather than beg) a question. Indignation doesn't make that question go away. It is certainly a possibility.

Well, it doesn't make the De Vinci code questions go away either. Some of those people even argue that the disciple "whom Jesus loved" was a woman. Would you accept the argument that Yeshua, who supposedly preferred the company of men, indicating that He was homosexual, also had a secret child by a woman, with whom He was not at ease?

People on this site repeatedly state how amazed they are that, according to them, people tie themselves into pretzels to believe in the Scriptures. Yet, those same people, when others come up with speculations like these to support their belief that they can live their preferred life style and still believe in those same Scriptures, have no problems. It seems that the only people that some think are allowed to believe in the Scriptures are those who find all forms of sexuality acceptable, work on any and everyday, and eat pork, while opposing the killing of any other animal. In other words, the only people worthy of The Name are those who take it in vein.

[Replying to post 1 by JJ50]

If it could be proved he was, I wonder how those Christians who are anti-gay bigots would react?

They would find another religion.

William wrote: [Replying to post 1 by JJ50]

If it could be proved he was, I wonder how those Christians who are anti-gay bigots would react?

They would find another religion.

Well, the proper response would be to determine why this was not addressed at the time. If homosexual relationships were acceptable, there would clearly have been social conflicts that would need to be addressed. The fact that such conflicts are not addressed in HaTorah or by Yeshua leads me to the conclusion that such relationships were not things that were even considered. Maimonides and others reinforce this view by stating that there need be no regulation on two men sharing a bed, because sexual relations are just not a consideration when talking about Jews. However, later rabbi's suggested that, given the influence of nonjews, it would be best if two men not meet alone.

[Replying to post 19 by bluethread]

Where the HECK do you get your HaTorah?
You are always making stuff up about it.
If you are going to do things like that, please present your references.

In the meantime, kindly refer to Levitraicus.