VICE News "Was Jesus Gay?"

[jillian]

Was Jesus Gay? | VICE | United States

" After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people. As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise: Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic. But it's Jesus himself who lights up my gaydar like a Christmas tree. He's a skinny young otter-like guy, flocked by a mess of dudes, telling everyone to love and care about each other, who later gets the shit beaten out of him by a bunch of closed-minded conservatives who are terrified of change.

As it turns out, this is not a unique theory. Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, has written several books on the subject, including Queering Christ and Jesus ACTED UP: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. He holds a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, and he serves on the National Advisory Board of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion. Oh, and he believes that Jesus was gay. I got in touch with Reverend Goss, who laid out the Biblical evidence and explained how his theory plays out. "

rest at link

Since SO many wanna talk about gay stuff, fine, let's talk about gay stuff.

does it matter?

or do we just want to say that it is unlikely that jesus would approve of the loons using his name to defend bigotry??

Matters if the people most hostile to homosexuality are CHristians doing so in the name of the reliigon and the religion's central figure turned out to be gay.

perhaps. but that type of things is pure speculation, anyway. personally? I think it's more likely he was married.

but the better argument, at least to me, is that he never said a word about it, and given his behavior (e.g., saying "let he who is without sin throw the first stone") it would be far more likely that he'd protect gays, not persecute them and would certainly detest his name being used to justify bigotry.

 

[jc456]

Was Jesus Gay? | VICE | United States

" After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people. As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise: Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic. But it's Jesus himself who lights up my gaydar like a Christmas tree. He's a skinny young otter-like guy, flocked by a mess of dudes, telling everyone to love and care about each other, who later gets the shit beaten out of him by a bunch of closed-minded conservatives who are terrified of change.

As it turns out, this is not a unique theory. Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, has written several books on the subject, including Queering Christ and Jesus ACTED UP: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. He holds a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, and he serves on the National Advisory Board of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion. Oh, and he believes that Jesus was gay. I got in touch with Reverend Goss, who laid out the Biblical evidence and explained how his theory plays out. "

rest at link

Since SO many wanna talk about gay stuff, fine, let's talk about gay stuff.

why would jesus hang with Mary Magdalene then? Listen to the words in jesus christ superstar.

 

[jillian]

*your* bible doesn't say word one about gays...

Liar. Liviticus 18.22 (KJV) says Man shall not lay with a Man as with a Woman.

The exact quote:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Leviticus is from *my* bible, nutter. that's the section we're talking about.

do you keep kosher? not mix fibers? stone adulterers?

all from Leviticus.... not your "new testament".

jesus never said word one about gays.

now you know.

you're welcome.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

*your* bible doesn't say word one about gays...

Liar. Liviticus 18.22 (KJV) says Man shall not lay with a Man as with a Woman.

The exact quote:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

She was making the point the NT doesn't, but her BIble, the Tanach does. Though I think even that's wrong. Not my Bible either the NT side of the fence, but hear Christians use something or other can't remember what against homosexuals from the NT.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Was Jesus Gay? | VICE | United States

" After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people. As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise: Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic. But it's Jesus himself who lights up my gaydar like a Christmas tree. He's a skinny young otter-like guy, flocked by a mess of dudes, telling everyone to love and care about each other, who later gets the shit beaten out of him by a bunch of closed-minded conservatives who are terrified of change.

As it turns out, this is not a unique theory. Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, has written several books on the subject, including Queering Christ and Jesus ACTED UP: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. He holds a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, and he serves on the National Advisory Board of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion. Oh, and he believes that Jesus was gay. I got in touch with Reverend Goss, who laid out the Biblical evidence and explained how his theory plays out. "

rest at link

Since SO many wanna talk about gay stuff, fine, let's talk about gay stuff.

why would jesus hang with Mary Magdalene then? Listen to the words in jesus christ superstar.

Urban Dictionary: fag hag

"You Are A True Fag Hag If...

-You are a straight girl who has a best friend who is gay and spends a lot of time together "

heh

 

[Pogo]

Was Jesus Gay? | VICE | United States

" After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people. As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise: Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic. But it's Jesus himself who lights up my gaydar like a Christmas tree. He's a skinny young otter-like guy, flocked by a mess of dudes, telling everyone to love and care about each other, who later gets the shit beaten out of him by a bunch of closed-minded conservatives who are terrified of change.

As it turns out, this is not a unique theory. Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, has written several books on the subject, including Queering Christ and Jesus ACTED UP: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. He holds a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, and he serves on the National Advisory Board of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion. Oh, and he believes that Jesus was gay. I got in touch with Reverend Goss, who laid out the Biblical evidence and explained how his theory plays out. "

rest at link

Since SO many wanna talk about gay stuff, fine, let's talk about gay stuff.

does it matter?

or do we just want to say that it is unlikely that jesus would approve of the loons using his name to defend bigotry??

I think it would be a big deal if Jesus was a homo.. but that's just me lol

About the only thing there is to support that -- as if it matters at all -- would be that he's walking around single in his thirties. In that time and place it would make you at the very least an oddball. Of course, that depends on buying the whole Nicea-sanitized song and dance that he was 'single' in the first place, which requires dismissing Mary Magdalene as some kind of groupie who just happens to get mentioned a lot for no particular reason. Also requires ignoring the existence of Jesus Barabbas, which (bar Abbas) can be translated as "Jesus Junior".

 

[Mad Scientist]

Leviticus is from *my* bible, nutter. that's the section we're talking about.

do you keep kosher? not mix fibers? stone adulterers?

all from Leviticus.... not your "new testament".

jesus never said word one about gays.

now you know.

you're welcome.

Yes I do all of those things. And you have no proof that I don't. My arms are still tired from all those Liberal Adulterers my freinds and I stoned last week. The burial pit permit alone took months to get.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Was Jesus Gay? | VICE | United States

" After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people. As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise: Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic. But it's Jesus himself who lights up my gaydar like a Christmas tree. He's a skinny young otter-like guy, flocked by a mess of dudes, telling everyone to love and care about each other, who later gets the shit beaten out of him by a bunch of closed-minded conservatives who are terrified of change.

As it turns out, this is not a unique theory. Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, has written several books on the subject, including Queering Christ and Jesus ACTED UP: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. He holds a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, and he serves on the National Advisory Board of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion. Oh, and he believes that Jesus was gay. I got in touch with Reverend Goss, who laid out the Biblical evidence and explained how his theory plays out. "

rest at link

Since SO many wanna talk about gay stuff, fine, let's talk about gay stuff.

does it matter?

or do we just want to say that it is unlikely that jesus would approve of the loons using his name to defend bigotry??

I think it would be a big deal if Jesus was a homo.. but that's just me lol

About the only thing there is to support that -- as if it matters at all -- would be that he's walking around single in his thirties. In that time and place it would make you at the very least an oddball. Of course, that depends on buying the whole Nicea-sanitized song and dance that he was 'single' in the first place, which requires dismissing Mary Magdalene as some kind of groupie who just happens to get mentioned a lot for no particular reason.

Jewish men of today are encouraged to get married. Jewish rabbis (orthodox ones at any rate) are REQUIRED to be married. Jewish men of that time who didn't get married are not just suspect but VERY suspect. And since he's addressed as rabbi in various texts it seems at odds with orthodoxy for him to have not been married.

Flipside though is just as sensible. If he'd been gay, to divert suspicion he coulda gotten married.

 

[jillian]

Was Jesus Gay? | VICE | United States

" After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people. As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise: Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic. But it's Jesus himself who lights up my gaydar like a Christmas tree. He's a skinny young otter-like guy, flocked by a mess of dudes, telling everyone to love and care about each other, who later gets the shit beaten out of him by a bunch of closed-minded conservatives who are terrified of change.

As it turns out, this is not a unique theory. Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, has written several books on the subject, including Queering Christ and Jesus ACTED UP: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. He holds a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, and he serves on the National Advisory Board of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion. Oh, and he believes that Jesus was gay. I got in touch with Reverend Goss, who laid out the Biblical evidence and explained how his theory plays out. "

rest at link

Since SO many wanna talk about gay stuff, fine, let's talk about gay stuff.

does it matter?

or do we just want to say that it is unlikely that jesus would approve of the loons using his name to defend bigotry??

I think it would be a big deal if Jesus was a homo.. but that's just me lol

About the only thing there is to support that -- as if it matters at all -- would be that he's walking around single in his thirties. In that time and place it would make you at the very least an oddball. Of course, that depends on buying the whole Nicea-sanitized song and dance that he was 'single' in the first place, which requires dismissing Mary Magdalene as some kind of groupie who just happens to get mentioned a lot for no particular reason. Also requires ignoring the existence of Jesus Barabbas, which (bar Abbas) can be translated as "Jesus Junior".

if jesus hadn't been married at that age in the jewish community, it would have been noteworthy. also, the new testament says that both Mary's attended Jesus' body after he died. under jewish law, the only women who would have been allowed to attend the body of a man would have been his mother and wife.

 

[jc456]

unless of course there was a different future for him. But he was busy saving sinners. Quite the thing back in the day.

 

[jillian]

Was Jesus Gay? | VICE | United States

" After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people. As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise: Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic. But it's Jesus himself who lights up my gaydar like a Christmas tree. He's a skinny young otter-like guy, flocked by a mess of dudes, telling everyone to love and care about each other, who later gets the shit beaten out of him by a bunch of closed-minded conservatives who are terrified of change.

As it turns out, this is not a unique theory. Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, has written several books on the subject, including Queering Christ and Jesus ACTED UP: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. He holds a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, and he serves on the National Advisory Board of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion. Oh, and he believes that Jesus was gay. I got in touch with Reverend Goss, who laid out the Biblical evidence and explained how his theory plays out. "

rest at link

Since SO many wanna talk about gay stuff, fine, let's talk about gay stuff.

does it matter?

or do we just want to say that it is unlikely that jesus would approve of the loons using his name to defend bigotry??

I think it would be a big deal if Jesus was a homo.. but that's just me lol

About the only thing there is to support that -- as if it matters at all -- would be that he's walking around single in his thirties. In that time and place it would make you at the very least an oddball. Of course, that depends on buying the whole Nicea-sanitized song and dance that he was 'single' in the first place, which requires dismissing Mary Magdalene as some kind of groupie who just happens to get mentioned a lot for no particular reason.

Jewish men of today are encouraged to get married. Jewish rabbis (orthodox ones at any rate) are REQUIRED to be married. Jewish men of that time who didn't get married are not just suspect but VERY suspect. And since he's addressed as rabbi in various texts it seems at odds with orthodoxy for him to have not been married.

Flipside though is just as sensible. If he'd been gay, to divert suspicion he coulda gotten married.

but there is no evidence of his being gay. There IS circumstantial evidence of his marriage. It's not that it's impossible. I just think there are better ways to make the point is all....

Just saying...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Was Jesus Gay? | VICE | United States

" After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people. As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise: Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic. But it's Jesus himself who lights up my gaydar like a Christmas tree. He's a skinny young otter-like guy, flocked by a mess of dudes, telling everyone to love and care about each other, who later gets the shit beaten out of him by a bunch of closed-minded conservatives who are terrified of change.

As it turns out, this is not a unique theory. Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, has written several books on the subject, including Queering Christ and Jesus ACTED UP: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. He holds a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, and he serves on the National Advisory Board of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion. Oh, and he believes that Jesus was gay. I got in touch with Reverend Goss, who laid out the Biblical evidence and explained how his theory plays out. "

rest at link

Since SO many wanna talk about gay stuff, fine, let's talk about gay stuff.

does it matter?

or do we just want to say that it is unlikely that jesus would approve of the loons using his name to defend bigotry??

I think it would be a big deal if Jesus was a homo.. but that's just me lol

About the only thing there is to support that -- as if it matters at all -- would be that he's walking around single in his thirties. In that time and place it would make you at the very least an oddball. Of course, that depends on buying the whole Nicea-sanitized song and dance that he was 'single' in the first place, which requires dismissing Mary Magdalene as some kind of groupie who just happens to get mentioned a lot for no particular reason.

Jewish men of today are encouraged to get married. Jewish rabbis (orthodox ones at any rate) are REQUIRED to be married. Jewish men of that time who didn't get married are not just suspect but VERY suspect. And since he's addressed as rabbi in various texts it seems at odds with orthodoxy for him to have not been married.

Flipside though is just as sensible. If he'd been gay, to divert suspicion he coulda gotten married.

but there is no evidence of his being gay. There IS circumstantial evidence of his marriage. It's not that it's impossible. I just think there are better ways to make the point is all....

Just saying...

Being married doesn't mean anything. Rock Hudson was married too

 

[Pogo]

Was Jesus Gay? | VICE | United States

" After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people. As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise: Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic. But it's Jesus himself who lights up my gaydar like a Christmas tree. He's a skinny young otter-like guy, flocked by a mess of dudes, telling everyone to love and care about each other, who later gets the shit beaten out of him by a bunch of closed-minded conservatives who are terrified of change.

As it turns out, this is not a unique theory. Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, has written several books on the subject, including Queering Christ and Jesus ACTED UP: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. He holds a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, and he serves on the National Advisory Board of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion. Oh, and he believes that Jesus was gay. I got in touch with Reverend Goss, who laid out the Biblical evidence and explained how his theory plays out. "

rest at link

Since SO many wanna talk about gay stuff, fine, let's talk about gay stuff.

does it matter?

or do we just want to say that it is unlikely that jesus would approve of the loons using his name to defend bigotry??

I think it would be a big deal if Jesus was a homo.. but that's just me lol

About the only thing there is to support that -- as if it matters at all -- would be that he's walking around single in his thirties. In that time and place it would make you at the very least an oddball. Of course, that depends on buying the whole Nicea-sanitized song and dance that he was 'single' in the first place, which requires dismissing Mary Magdalene as some kind of groupie who just happens to get mentioned a lot for no particular reason.

Jewish men of today are encouraged to get married. Jewish rabbis (orthodox ones at any rate) are REQUIRED to be married. Jewish men of that time who didn't get married are not just suspect but VERY suspect. And since he's addressed as rabbi in various texts it seems at odds with orthodoxy for him to have not been married.

Flipside though is just as sensible. If he'd been gay, to divert suspicion he coulda gotten married.

but there is no evidence of his being gay. There IS circumstantial evidence of his marriage. It's not that it's impossible. I just think there are better ways to make the point is all....

Just saying...

Yeah that post made perfect sense until the last line. Then it took a leap.

 

[jillian]

does it matter?

or do we just want to say that it is unlikely that jesus would approve of the loons using his name to defend bigotry??

I think it would be a big deal if Jesus was a homo.. but that's just me lol

About the only thing there is to support that -- as if it matters at all -- would be that he's walking around single in his thirties. In that time and place it would make you at the very least an oddball. Of course, that depends on buying the whole Nicea-sanitized song and dance that he was 'single' in the first place, which requires dismissing Mary Magdalene as some kind of groupie who just happens to get mentioned a lot for no particular reason.

Jewish men of today are encouraged to get married. Jewish rabbis (orthodox ones at any rate) are REQUIRED to be married. Jewish men of that time who didn't get married are not just suspect but VERY suspect. And since he's addressed as rabbi in various texts it seems at odds with orthodoxy for him to have not been married.

Flipside though is just as sensible. If he'd been gay, to divert suspicion he coulda gotten married.

but there is no evidence of his being gay. There IS circumstantial evidence of his marriage. It's not that it's impossible. I just think there are better ways to make the point is all....

Just saying...

Being married doesn't mean anything. Rock Hudson was married too

its not about whether he was or wasn't.... it's about baseless assertions.

and for the record, if you believe the gospels of mary was legit (which I do), then she outright says she was his wife.

 

[The Professor]

The author proclaims that the Biblical admonition against men sleeping with other men has nothing to do with homosexuality. The author – a gay man – boldly states:

“There was no concept of sexual orientation, but there was a concept of gender. So, in the Bible, when a man sleeps with another man like with a woman, it's an abomination. See, the emphasis is on a man betraying his status: He has feminized himself. So it's a gender violation as opposed to a sexual violation.”

To suggest there was no concept of sexual orientation during the time of Christ is laughable. The concept pf homosexuality was known thousands of years before Christ's appearance, probable around the time of Adam and Eve. Here is the verse that the author claims is about a gender violation not a sexual violation:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13, KJV).

The author is claiming that a gender violation (not acting like a manly man) was worthy of death under Old Testament laws. I don't know how any reasonable person could believe such tripe. And now, dear readers, I am going to place the “disputed” verse in proper context so you can all make up your own minds whether or not the violation is a sexual one. The following is from the KJV with verse numbers eliminated for easier reading. The disputed verse is highlighted.

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus 20:10-16)

It is clear that the verses preceding and proceeding the disputed verse all have to do with sexual violations. It doesn't make sense to interrupt the obvious intent of the narrative to interject a comment about non-sexual manly behavior.

The author also states that the fact that Jesus never married suggests that He was gay. On this one I really have to say the author is either stupid, delusional or simply has an agenda and will say anything to promote it. First, everyone one of you know of straight men and women who prefer the single life. Second, even in Biblical times there were those who lived a single life for various reasons. Paul was single because he believed a single person would be more devoted to God than a married man who would share his devotion with his wife. Third, regardless of how you view the Biblical Christ you have to admit that any man who knew he would die at a very young age might not want to leave a wife and children behind. Fourth, If Christ was the Son of God (some Christians believe He was God Himself) what woman could possibly qualify to be His mate?

One more comment and I am done. The author states: “I would imagine Jesus loved all of his disciples, I mean he told everyone to love their neighbor. So, singling out a particular person as 'beloved' seems significant.” What the author finds to be significant I do not. The command to love everyone does not mean that one must love everyone else equally. It is only natural that some would be loved more than others; some would be beloved (dearly loved) and some loved less. In my lifetime I have heard of children, friends and even pets described as beloved. Only a pervert would find something sexual in these special relationships

Conclusion: What we have here is a gay guy who is doing what he can to show that the Bible is not critical of the gay lifestyle. In my own humble opinion, he failed miserable (OK, I lied about the humble part).

 

[Pop23]

Was Jesus Gay? | VICE | United States

" After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people. As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise: Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic. But it's Jesus himself who lights up my gaydar like a Christmas tree. He's a skinny young otter-like guy, flocked by a mess of dudes, telling everyone to love and care about each other, who later gets the shit beaten out of him by a bunch of closed-minded conservatives who are terrified of change.

As it turns out, this is not a unique theory. Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, has written several books on the subject, including Queering Christ and Jesus ACTED UP: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. He holds a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, and he serves on the National Advisory Board of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion. Oh, and he believes that Jesus was gay. I got in touch with Reverend Goss, who laid out the Biblical evidence and explained how his theory plays out. "

rest at link

Since SO many wanna talk about gay stuff, fine, let's talk about gay stuff.

I've asked people who are alive today to provide proof that are gay. They can't, but somehow this guy can for someone who died 2000 plus years ago?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Was Jesus Gay? | VICE | United States

" After the Supreme Court's historic ruling on gay marriage, it seemed like all the proudly homophobic Christians came out of the woodwork to talk about how much they still hate gay people. As a straight Jew, the homophobia amongst Jesus's followers has always struck me as a bit of a surprise: Worshipping at the feet of a ripped, hung man, seems at least a little homoerotic. But it's Jesus himself who lights up my gaydar like a Christmas tree. He's a skinny young otter-like guy, flocked by a mess of dudes, telling everyone to love and care about each other, who later gets the shit beaten out of him by a bunch of closed-minded conservatives who are terrified of change.

As it turns out, this is not a unique theory. Dr. Reverend Bob Shore-Goss, an openly gay senior pastor, has written several books on the subject, including Queering Christ and Jesus ACTED UP: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto. He holds a doctorate degree in Comparative Religion from Harvard, and he serves on the National Advisory Board of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion. Oh, and he believes that Jesus was gay. I got in touch with Reverend Goss, who laid out the Biblical evidence and explained how his theory plays out. "

rest at link

Since SO many wanna talk about gay stuff, fine, let's talk about gay stuff.

What else would a faggot say?

How about 'dot his in remembrance of me..' now put my body in your mouth...now swallow my bodily fluids...

Adios NAMBLA!

 

[Pogo]

The author proclaims that the Biblical admonition against men sleeping with other men has nothing to do with homosexuality. The author – a gay man – boldly states:

“There was no concept of sexual orientation, but there was a concept of gender. So, in the Bible, when a man sleeps with another man like with a woman, it's an abomination. See, the emphasis is on a man betraying his status: He has feminized himself. So it's a gender violation as opposed to a sexual violation.”

To suggest there was no concept of sexual orientation during the time of Christ is laughable. The concept pf homosexuality was known thousands of years before Christ's appearance, probable around the time of Adam and Eve. Here is the verse that the author claims is about a gender violation not a sexual violation:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13, KJV).

The author is claiming that a gender violation (not acting like a manly man) was worthy of death under Old Testament laws. I don't know how any reasonable person could believe such tripe. And now, dear readers, I am going to place the “disputed” verse in proper context so you can all make up your own minds whether or not the violation is a sexual one. The following is from the KJV with verse numbers eliminated for easier reading. The disputed verse is highlighted.

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus 20:10-16)

It is clear that the verses preceding and proceeding the disputed verse all have to do with sexual violations. It doesn't make sense to interrupt the obvious intent of the narrative to interject a comment about non-sexual manly behavior.

The author also states that the fact that Jesus never married suggests that He was gay. On this one I really have to say the author is either stupid, delusional or simply has an agenda and will say anything to promote it. First, everyone one of you know of straight men and women who prefer the single life. Second, even in Biblical times there were those who lived a single life for various reasons. Paul was single because he believed a single person would be more devoted to God than a married man who would share his devotion with his wife. Third, regardless of how you view the Biblical Christ you have to admit that any man who knew he would die at a very young age might not want to leave a wife and children behind. Fourth, If Christ was the Son of God (some Christians believe He was God Himself) what woman could possibly qualify to be His mate?

One more comment and I am done. The author states: “I would imagine Jesus loved all of his disciples, I mean he told everyone to love their neighbor. So, singling out a particular person as 'beloved' seems significant.” What the author finds to be significant I do not. The command to love everyone does not mean that one must love everyone else equally. It is only natural that some would be loved more than others; some would be beloved (dearly loved) and some loved less. In my lifetime I have heard of children, friends and even pets described as beloved. Only a pervert would find something sexual in these special relationships

Conclusion: What we have here is a gay guy who is doing what he can to show that the Bible is not critical of the gay lifestyle. In my own humble opinion, he failed miserable (OK, I lied about the humble part).

Actually I think the OP article is satire and the OP took it seriously. That the bit about worshiping a "ripped, hung man" was a blatant pun seems to have gone unnoticed.

Still have yet to get an answer about who these conservatives beating the shit out of him are...

 

[The Professor]

The author proclaims that the Biblical admonition against men sleeping with other men has nothing to do with homosexuality. The author – a gay man – boldly states:

“There was no concept of sexual orientation, but there was a concept of gender. So, in the Bible, when a man sleeps with another man like with a woman, it's an abomination. See, the emphasis is on a man betraying his status: He has feminized himself. So it's a gender violation as opposed to a sexual violation.”

To suggest there was no concept of sexual orientation during the time of Christ is laughable. The concept pf homosexuality was known thousands of years before Christ's appearance, probable around the time of Adam and Eve. Here is the verse that the author claims is about a gender violation not a sexual violation:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13, KJV).

The author is claiming that a gender violation (not acting like a manly man) was worthy of death under Old Testament laws. I don't know how any reasonable person could believe such tripe. And now, dear readers, I am going to place the “disputed” verse in proper context so you can all make up your own minds whether or not the violation is a sexual one. The following is from the KJV with verse numbers eliminated for easier reading. The disputed verse is highlighted.

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus 20:10-16)

It is clear that the verses preceding and proceeding the disputed verse all have to do with sexual violations. It doesn't make sense to interrupt the obvious intent of the narrative to interject a comment about non-sexual manly behavior.

The author also states that the fact that Jesus never married suggests that He was gay. On this one I really have to say the author is either stupid, delusional or simply has an agenda and will say anything to promote it. First, everyone one of you know of straight men and women who prefer the single life. Second, even in Biblical times there were those who lived a single life for various reasons. Paul was single because he believed a single person would be more devoted to God than a married man who would share his devotion with his wife. Third, regardless of how you view the Biblical Christ you have to admit that any man who knew he would die at a very young age might not want to leave a wife and children behind. Fourth, If Christ was the Son of God (some Christians believe He was God Himself) what woman could possibly qualify to be His mate?

One more comment and I am done. The author states: “I would imagine Jesus loved all of his disciples, I mean he told everyone to love their neighbor. So, singling out a particular person as 'beloved' seems significant.” What the author finds to be significant I do not. The command to love everyone does not mean that one must love everyone else equally. It is only natural that some would be loved more than others; some would be beloved (dearly loved) and some loved less. In my lifetime I have heard of children, friends and even pets described as beloved. Only a pervert would find something sexual in these special relationships

Conclusion: What we have here is a gay guy who is doing what he can to show that the Bible is not critical of the gay lifestyle. In my own humble opinion, he failed miserable (OK, I lied about the humble part).

Actually I think the OP article is satire and the OP took it seriously. That the bit about worshiping a "ripped, hung man" was a blatant pun seems to have gone unnoticed.

You're probably right; at least I hope you're right. I guess I got caught in the trap too. Many thanks.

 

[Pogo]

The author proclaims that the Biblical admonition against men sleeping with other men has nothing to do with homosexuality. The author – a gay man – boldly states:

“There was no concept of sexual orientation, but there was a concept of gender. So, in the Bible, when a man sleeps with another man like with a woman, it's an abomination. See, the emphasis is on a man betraying his status: He has feminized himself. So it's a gender violation as opposed to a sexual violation.”

To suggest there was no concept of sexual orientation during the time of Christ is laughable. The concept pf homosexuality was known thousands of years before Christ's appearance, probable around the time of Adam and Eve. Here is the verse that the author claims is about a gender violation not a sexual violation:

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13, KJV).

The author is claiming that a gender violation (not acting like a manly man) was worthy of death under Old Testament laws. I don't know how any reasonable person could believe such tripe. And now, dear readers, I am going to place the “disputed” verse in proper context so you can all make up your own minds whether or not the violation is a sexual one. The following is from the KJV with verse numbers eliminated for easier reading. The disputed verse is highlighted.

“And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus 20:10-16)

It is clear that the verses preceding and proceeding the disputed verse all have to do with sexual violations. It doesn't make sense to interrupt the obvious intent of the narrative to interject a comment about non-sexual manly behavior.

The author also states that the fact that Jesus never married suggests that He was gay. On this one I really have to say the author is either stupid, delusional or simply has an agenda and will say anything to promote it. First, everyone one of you know of straight men and women who prefer the single life. Second, even in Biblical times there were those who lived a single life for various reasons. Paul was single because he believed a single person would be more devoted to God than a married man who would share his devotion with his wife. Third, regardless of how you view the Biblical Christ you have to admit that any man who knew he would die at a very young age might not want to leave a wife and children behind. Fourth, If Christ was the Son of God (some Christians believe He was God Himself) what woman could possibly qualify to be His mate?

One more comment and I am done. The author states: “I would imagine Jesus loved all of his disciples, I mean he told everyone to love their neighbor. So, singling out a particular person as 'beloved' seems significant.” What the author finds to be significant I do not. The command to love everyone does not mean that one must love everyone else equally. It is only natural that some would be loved more than others; some would be beloved (dearly loved) and some loved less. In my lifetime I have heard of children, friends and even pets described as beloved. Only a pervert would find something sexual in these special relationships

Conclusion: What we have here is a gay guy who is doing what he can to show that the Bible is not critical of the gay lifestyle. In my own humble opinion, he failed miserable (OK, I lied about the humble part).

Actually I think the OP article is satire and the OP took it seriously. That the bit about worshiping a "ripped, hung man" was a blatant pun seems to have gone unnoticed.

You're probably right; at least I hope you're right. I guess I got caught in the trap too. Many thanks.

Not that it's particularly good satire -- needs work -- but it's hard, no pun intended, to read it as a serious point.