Two or Three (.net)

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. - Jesus

4.05.2005

Was Jesus gay?

by Aaron Earls [+/-] show/hide

It was only a matter of time. The first openly gay Anglican bishop, Gene Robinson, insinuated that Jesus may have been gay.

You can go and read the story (which is surprisingly balanced, except for their choice of photos) for yourself, but here is the set up and the Robinson quote:
In answer to a question from the congregation about how the acceptance of homosexuality could be squared with the scriptural emphasis on redemption for sins, the Bishop replied: "Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values, this man that we follow was single, as far as we know, travelled with a bunch of men, had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved' and said my family is not my mother and father, my family is those who do the will of God. None of us likes those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was at heart, in his earthly life.


Now here is his Clintonian vague denial by his spokesperson:
"Jesus was a non-traditional person who broke all the rules and hung out with all the wrong people. Anything else that people infer from the Bishop's comments is all speculation."


Maybe he has a future as a politician.

Hat Tip: Blogotional

25 Comments:

  • Oh, Aaron, I'm sorry this is new to you! Sadly, I've heard this drivel for quite some time. My brain 'bout exploded when I first came in contact with a self-professed "queer apologist" who went on at length that the Bible really doesn't say anything against homosexuality & it's just our misconceptions based on bad translations! Their circlular arguements based on the Greek & Hebrew texts are astonishing! Your eyes will bug out. Wait'll you hear them expound on David & Johnathan! Their use of these *twisted Scripture* fallacies to promote same-sex relations, especially between men & boys, are very good examples of those "other gospels" Jesus warned us about.

    By Anonymous Gene Branaman, at 4/05/2005 12:34 PM  

  • As far as I can tell, Jesus had no discernable sex life at all, and expressed no preference as far as sexual orientation. It just didn't seem to be important to his mission (or to the people who documented it decades later).

    That being said, I can't see what difference it would make whether he was "gay" or not, especially if he wasn't a "practicing" gay (as xtians like to put it). If we were to find a lost testament that proved he was gay, would that negate his mission? Would Christians become apostate en masse? Would his death and resurrection suddenly become null and void? This seems to be the implication behind the horror with which this suggestion has been greeted in some quarters (and yet more evidence that most, if not all, xtians hate gays despite their protestations to the contrary).

    By Blogger Louis, at 4/05/2005 3:42 PM  

  • Since Jesus came to "fulfill the law, not abolish it", and since homosexuality was a sin according to OT law (unless we want to discuss what he meant by "law"), I'd say he could not have been gay and fulfill the OT mandates for purity.

    By Blogger papa, at 4/05/2005 4:19 PM  

  • hmmm...I guess Jesus' comments about the law being made for man and not man for the law are meaningless then. And I also find very interesting (if not revealing) your demand that Jesus had to adhere to OT purity codes. Wasn't that one of (if not THE) bone of contention between him and the scribes and pharisees?

    And since, according to you, homosexuality itself is a "sin" (and not just its practice) then even celibate and chaste homosexuals are automatically "sinners" with no hope of salvation - so much for "love the sinner, hate the sin" (a bitter joke). Thus, even a celibate and chaste gay Jesus would be rejected as saviour and his death on the cross and resurrection would be null and void.

    Of course, what could I expect from someone who thinks gays are, at the very least, mentally ill, if not evil?

    By Blogger Louis, at 4/05/2005 4:44 PM  

  • Louis said I guess Jesus' comments about the law being made for man and not man for the law are meaningless then.

    No, but they should be taken into the immediate context of what he was discussing, as well as the entire context of the bible.

    And actually, I think he said "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" - not "the law".

    I am not trying to quibble, but this is an important distinction because it shows that he was referring to a specific commandment and how the Pharisees applied it - he is not advocating a loose approach to the law.

    You make an interesting argument that Jesus' obedience to the law seems incomplete here, but I note:
    - it was his *disciples* who broke the sabbath (but he "broke" the sabbath by healing on other occaisions)
    - Jesus often indicated that his breaking of the Sabbath by healing and such was not violating the laws of Moses, but the Pharisaical interpretations of that law. Hence his question to the Pharisees "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?"

    So, I still contend that Jesus did not disobey the law, and was found perfect according to OT law.

    Louis then said And since, according to you, homosexuality itself is a "sin" (and not just its practice) then even celibate and chaste homosexuals are automatically "sinners" with no hope of salvation - so much for "love the sinner, hate the sin" (a bitter joke).

    As far as homosexuals having no hope of salvation, I'd say they have the same hope as the rest of us - if they believe that Jesus died for them, and show the fruits of true repentance (which does not include moral perfection, but rather a change of direction), I'd say they have nothing to fear.

    And as for continuing to sin while saying one is a believer, *all* Christians have sinful attitudes and proclivities that they may not even be aware of in the beginning, and it may be years before they deal with it. Are they saved if they still have sinful things in their life? Yes. But eventually, if they want a deeper walk with the divine, pure God, they will have to abandon it or stop growing spiritually in some way.

    For example, if I have a deep root of insecurity that causes me to be a small-scale kleptomaniac, I may not even consider that to be a sin for many years until God indicates to me that it is time to deal with it.

    As previously discussed, I believe homosexuality to be a developmental disorder, healable by therapy (but I am not a fan of conversion therapy at all - I believe gender identity therapy is really the need).

    So, I believe a homosexual can have deep roots that cause him/her to be oriented that way, and they may be a saved, true Christian for many years before being able to deal with the deep issues involved. In fact, they may go to their grave still believing that the issue is either not an issue, or too deep to be dealt with.

    However, I think promiscuity (of which I was guilty even as a younger Christian), homosexual relations and adultery should always be considered sinful and harmful to the spiritual life of the indvidual. And gay feelings should be examined with the mind that they have roots in pathology.

    And certainly, if someone desires leadership in the church, Paul is quite clear that they should be morally blameless and not involved in any major sins, of which all sexual sins would be included.

    I know that drives you crazy for me to say that homosexuality is a pathology, and "pushes away" anyone from the gay side looking to dialogue, so I really do appreciate you coming back for more abuse. But I don't mean it as abuse, any more than I would count one of my own friends compassionately confronting me on my own sins.

    Regaring "rebuking" others:
    ---------------------------
    If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him. Luke 17:3-4

    Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. Titus 1:13-14

    Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction. 2 Timothy 4:1-2

    These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you. Titus 2:15

    By Blogger papa, at 4/05/2005 5:57 PM  

  • I have nothing more to say to you.

    Ever.

    By Blogger Louis, at 4/06/2005 12:09 AM  

  • At the base, I agree with you Louis. It is silly for anyone to discuss Jesus' sex life, since by all accounts he didn't have one.

    His mission and message were not connected with that aspect of life. He spoke on marriage and those things. He said that if a man looks lustfully, he has committed adultery in his heart, but it is ridiculous to look back from our time period and force our own agenda on to Jesus or for that matter David and Jonathan as Gene has mentioned.

    You know were I stand, so there is no need to get into it, but I would be content with your position of there was no discernable sex life, so why discuss it.

    By Blogger Aaron, at 4/06/2005 8:59 AM  

  • Then why did you bring it up?

    What disturbs me is this attitude of horror at the mere thought that Jesus might have had homosexual desires. Apparently, he never acted upon ANY sexual desires; apparently, he was celibate and chaste his whole life. But he could have had what we think of today as a homosexual orientation which he didn't act upon.

    Christians and their churches keep assuring us that they are not biased or prejudiced against gay people. The "hate the sin, love the sinner." The Catholic church states that a mere homosexual orientation is not, in itself, sinful, only acting upon it. If this is true, what difference does it make if Christ were gay?

    Seeker let the cat out of the bag when he argued from the position that homosexuality itself is a sin and thus Jesus couldn't be homosexual. Just look at branaman's post. Of course, this doesn't surprise me a bit. I've known it all along.

    Evangelical/fundamentalist/conservative christianity obviously is prejudiced against homosexuality. It's sort of the acid test, forcing them to consider a gay Jesus, isn't it?

    It's too bad. Gay people have contributed so much to Christianity. What would you do for church organists without us?

    Anyway, I don't hold the bigotry of his supposed followers against God. He's greater than all of you, after all. He can't be captured in your little churches and your little book.

    By Blogger Louis, at 4/06/2005 10:27 AM  

  • I agree that God is indeed greater than me or anyone other Christian or the church, hence the fact that we worship Him and not ourselves.

    I think the book (Bible) is His revealed Word, so it gives us the picture we have of Him and the church is the organization that Christ established so regardless of how much we may dislike what is going on within it, we cannot abandon it.

    I brought this up because I find it odd that Robinson had to say something like this. Why did he bring it up? It's not neccesary.

    As hard as it may be for you to believe, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is the truth, but it is a hard balance to find and many (including myself) struggle with the right amount of each. Too many times we go to far to one side or the other, never accomplishing the balance that Jesus had and displayed to those he came in contact with.

    Thanks for the church organist joke that made me laugh!

    By Blogger Aaron, at 4/06/2005 11:07 AM  

  • I suppose I have adopted the bible's "prejudice against homosexuality," but I haven't done so just on Jerry Falwell's exposition of the bible, but also upon my own graduate study of psychology, as well as my own experience with gender identity work and friends who are now ex-gay.

    Also, I have listened to and observed my gay friends and family - believe it or not, I do have them, and I don't offend them with my opinions unless they ask. Otherwise, I don't bring it up. And since I present myself in a matter of fact, non-condescending way, they usually just raise their eyebrows, maybe disagree, and we leave it at that. I guess I'm not so gracious online ;)

    By calling homosexuality a sin, I suppose I let "the cat out of the bag" as to my own view, but since I purport to represent the Xian (biblical) view, who would be surprised? I am not revealing any secrets here. The real issue is, how do we treat gays - with derision and disgust, or with "love and truth"?

    Calling homosexuality a sin may not be our first and best approach to the issue, but eventually, the Christian view of sin must be adopted if one is to be called a Christian at all - a view which calls for the spiritual "rebirth" and growth of a new person who leaves *all* sins behind in a quest for God, rather than justifying sins as normative.

    As it is well said,

    "Love without truth is hypocrisy,
    Truth without love is brutality."

    By Blogger papa, at 4/06/2005 4:40 PM  

  • "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves…
    Therefore by their fruits shall you know them. Not everyone who says to
    me "Lord, Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to
    me in that day 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy by your name and by your
    name cast out demons, and by your name do many mighty works?' And I will
    profess to them, 'I never knew you, Go away from me who work evil.'”
    Matt 7:15, 22-23

    By Blogger Louis, at 4/07/2005 4:52 PM  

  • I am not sure how the above scripture is meant as a defense of homosexuality or an accusation of those who call it sin, but *I* would use it to warn those who preach that we can continue in justifying homosexuality and call ourselves servants of God.

    I am sorry that this thread has degenerated to throwing scriptures over the wall, without any real context.

    By Blogger papa, at 4/08/2005 2:31 PM  

  • A few scattered points:

    1) The reason it bothers me when people suggest Jesus was gay is not some latent homophobia. It's simply a love for truth. It bothers me when people suggest things that are blatantly false, based on no evidence whatsoever, and then stand by them. I get similarly annoyed when people suggest Jesus married Mary Magdalene, not because I'm some sort of prude who thinks sex is a sin (see The Marriage Bed forums if you care to question this), but because it's a falsehood. Furthermore, it's a lie based on an agenda -- nobody is suggesting Jesus might have been gay because independent study led them to believe it; they're suggesting it because they want to support their own political position on homosexuality. Lies are bad, and agenda-based lies are worse.

    2) What would it mean if Jesus was gay, but not practicing or even lusting after other men? We know He loved everybody (men and women) but that doesn't make him any more gay than I am (I love my dad...) So is the claim that Jesus might have had a purely biological sexual attraction to other males that He never acted on and never thought about? If a lost testament was found that proved Jesus was "gay" by that definition, I sure wouldn't care (though I'd be fascinated that some disciple found reason to write about it!) Proving that Jesus' body sometimes physically reacted to other males wouldn't be very impressive -- heck, I sometimes physically react to the smell of beef (mmmmm, beef)... If you found that Jesus actually had sex with other men, or fantasized about it, everything would be thrown into confusion and we'd have to re-evaluate from scratch, but if you found Jesus just had physical reactions to men, who cares?

    3) Sort of building off of the last point: sexuality is an appetite that builds as you indulge it. It barely even makes sense to talk about the "sexual orientation" of a virgin who doesn't lust after anyone -- if the appetite is never indulged, it never grows to be anything worth paying attention to. (Note: I'm not talking about the appetite for orgasm, or making any claims about Jesus masturbating or not -- I'm talking about specific appetite of the form "I'm attracted to people of this type".) If you made a list of things I was sexually attracted to before I got married (on a scale of 1-10), and things I'm sexually attracted to after 3 years of marriage (on a scale of 1-10), you'd find my preferences before were very weak (even though I thought they were strong at the time) and now they're very strong and focused on my wife. Somebody who's never had sex might *think* their "orientation" or particular desires are strong and unchanging, but they're really quite weak and malleable. How much weaker would one's preferences be if they never lusted in their heart? I contend they would be so weak as to not register on any scale worth measuring. Talking about a lust-free virgin's sexual orientation / preferences is like talking about a newborn baby's career path -- it's not quite a blank slate, but it's pretty darn close.

    4) On the original point of the "nuclear family": Jesus, while on earth, took no bride. But Jesus' actions were for the church, which is His true bride. Marriage is one of the central analogies to all of scripture -- from Genesis 1 (verse 27) to the closing chapters of Revelation, from Hosea to Ephesians 5, we have continual statements about human marriage AND about God's marriage to Israel and Christ's marriage to the church. I suppose if you completely isolate the Gospels and ignore the rest of the Bible, you could come to the conclusion that Jesus didn't particularly support (hetero) marriage, but if you completely isolate the Gospels and ignore everything else, your scholarship leaves something to be desired. (It's a very strange form of scholarship that says a thing should only be considered true if it's explicitly stated in a particular book of the Bible.) The gospels strongly support the idea that Christ did everything possible for His bride, the church -- and God Himself finds reason to strongly link that, by analogy, to human marriage in the man-woman sense. If your form of study doesn't find that to be a ringing endorsement, you're studying wrong.

    By Blogger LotharBot, at 4/10/2005 10:07 AM  

  • I briefly considerd posting an answer to this but then sanity prevailed: it's entirely pointless to argue with evangelical/fundamentalist/conservative xtians as their minds are made up and closed. I'm tired of banging my head against your steel curtain. Believe what you want. Fortunately, in this country (so far at least) you can't force me to agree with you.

    By Blogger Louis, at 4/11/2005 2:44 PM  

  • I'm curious -- it seems like every few days, some non-Christian accuses me of being a closed-minded fundamentalist, while some Christian accuses me of being a post-modern liberal watered-down fake. As you seem to be in the first group: what, in my response, do you take issue with that makes you think I'm a closed-minded fundamentalist?

    I stated my positions and my reasoning for them, and I'm open to discussion and even to changing my beliefs as the evidence warrants. I stated my reasons for disagreeing with specific positions you put forth (and for agreeing with others). But, rather than engaging what I said and entering into honest dialogue, you've instead placed a label of "fundamentalist" on me and ducked out of the conversation, claiming that "sanity prevailed". You've decided that, based on your limited perception of what I believe, I must be somehow unreasonable.

    It seems you're judging me to be closed-minded because of my BELIEF that the "Jesus is gay" hypothesis is incorrect, rather than looking at the REASONS I gave for that belief. But open-mindedness and closed-mindedness should not be used as simple buzzwords for "agrees with me" and "disagrees with me", as you seem to have done. Rather, they should be used in determining whether someone seems to have been honest and reasonable in their evaluation of the evidence.

    Rather than evaluating and engaging the evidence and reasoning I posted, you've declared me to be a closed-minded fundamentalist. At best, this is sloppy scholarship on your part, but taken at face value, you appear to have already made up your mind that it would be reasonable if Jesus was gay and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot. You appear to be guilty of the very thing you accused me of -- having already made your mind up and refusing to consider other possibilities. I'd like you to show me this perception is wrong, though -- if you really are reasonable and open-minded, engage what I said, rather than throwing around labels like "closed-minded" and "fundamentalist" and avoiding dialogue. You've shown yourself to be intelligent, and my hope is that you have the academic honesty to go along with it.

    By Blogger LotharBot, at 4/11/2005 4:44 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger papa, at 4/11/2005 5:34 PM  

  • Lothar,

    Louis is probably responding to my posts, in which i continue to affirm that:
    - the bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin
    - homosexuality is a gender identity disorder (at least in some, or many) that can be healed by therapy

    I have also admitted, perhaps not as loudly as I should, that how we use (or abuse) this perspective is important - I don't want gay friends and family to feel that I am antagonistic to them, nor that I judge them on this one issue. As far as I am concerned, they are people who are as valuable and lovable as anyone else, and I treat them so.

    But in the public arena, for the sake of my society and my children, I must resist the "norming" of the gay life because I believe it to be aberrant and even destructive, just like I do other sins (adultery, promiscuity, greed, avarice, etc.). I know that Louis blanches every time I put homosexuality in the same lot with these other sins, and is tired of trying to convince me otherwise.

    The one thing I will say is that, the conservative churches have done a mediocre job in reaching out to gays - but I don't know if any gay would feel welcome if they knew people believed that their lifestyle was sinful, even if the people were genuine and kind, which is usually true.

    By Blogger papa, at 4/11/2005 5:34 PM  

  • I rest my case.

    btw: I don't argue the point anymore. I've tried, over and over, to present my case: from reasoning to weeping and wailing. It's pointless. Conservative xtians - whether one refers to them as fundamentalist or evangelical or pentacostalist or whatever - just maintain it as a matter of faith that homosexuality is some evil aberration and gays are merely defective heterosexuals. We can't even be xtians (cf. lotharbot's first sentence above). I'm just sick and tired of saying the same things over and over again only to meet the same incomprehension and loathing.

    I'm sorry, but I just don't believe your protestations of innocence to the charge of bigotry anymore. You people have no idea of the suffering you have caused. As far as I am concerned, your ideologies are evil and I just don't give a shit whether you like it or not. For my own well-being, I reject you.

    Remember THAT every time you self-righteously preen yourselves on how holy you are and how you "love" gay people. A plague on all your houses.

    By Blogger Louis, at 4/11/2005 10:50 PM  

  • Louis, my statement wasn't meant to say that you're not a Christian -- just to explain that I get that accusation a couple times a week, mostly from non-Christians (though I was a bit careless in saying you "seem to be in the first group"; I should have more carefully identified what I meant by "group". Though, notice, I've been careful to say "seems" and "appears" many times; you can of course correct me if appearances do not match reality.) I had no clue whether or not you personally were a Christian, or whether or not you were gay -- I don't pay enough attention to this blog to have such things memorized, and I didn't pay attention to who'd argued what in this particular thread. Don't take that sentence as evidence of my view of homosexuals and their ability to be Christian; take it as evidence of my general experience in being called a fundamentalist, and my curiousity as to whether you had good reason to make that statement. (It appears you did not; you're just careless in the way you throw around certain labels, not particularly understanding how they differ.)

    I haven't even said what I think about homosexuality, in general. All I've spoken of in this thread is Jesus' sexuality, and I'd hoped you would take the time to respond to those views -- I'd hoped you had the capacity and the desire to honestly engage me and give me something to think about. But instead, you assume I think homosexuality is "some evil aberration" and that homosexuals are "defective heterosexuals" and you ignore everything I've actually said. I suppose it's guilt by association -- because I criticized the original "Jesus was gay" theory (even while agreeing with other points you made), you've made assumptions about my beliefs being the same as those of others who've written here, written me off as having an "evil ideology", and cursed me with "a plague". You've responded to me with anger and in haste and in ignorance, rather than with love and in truth.

    You may choose to reject me, claiming it's for your own well-being. But do not do so out of your current ignorance of me. If you want to reject me for my views of homosexuality, at least learn what they are first, and have the decency and intellectual honesty to discuss them with me before you write me off as closed-minded. Right now, you have no idea who I am, what I believe, why I believe it, or how open I am to change; you only have a cartoon picture of me you've made up in your own head from sloppy inferrences, misinterpretations, and downright bad scholarship. If, after you know me, you still want to treat me with the hatred and vitriol you've shown to me thus far, that's between you and God -- but at least have the decency to hate the real me instead of a straw-man version of me.

    If you have actual criticisms of any of my four points above, please, post them. Or, if you have actual questions about the beliefs I've stated or about beliefs I haven't stated, please post those as well. But don't give me this cop-out "you're a fundamentalist and I reject you" stuff. That is of no benefit to either of us.

    By Blogger LotharBot, at 4/12/2005 1:18 AM  

  • "seeker" was correct: my remarks were mainly addressed to him and his ilk. If you agree with him, then they are addressed to you as well.

    My point remains, however. I have no desire to continue any dialog on homosexuality with xtians. I've found, over long and painful experience, that it is ultimately pointless, that I get nowhere in explaining myself and my position. Xtians, for the most part, seem to adhere to the point of fanaticism to a view of homosexuality which is irrational and ignorant and I just don't wish to continue.

    My main contention in this thread was to point out that whether Jesus was gay or not was irrelevant, and that those who recoil in horror at the thought are betraying bigotry. I don't think he was sexually active, but it's irrelevant to me whether he was or not. Was is relevant is his teachings and his mission.

    That being said, when you stated the follwing, I did take umbrage:

    "...nobody is suggesting Jesus might have been gay because independent study led them to believe it; they're suggesting it because they want to support their own political position on homosexuality. Lies are bad, and agenda-based lies are worse."

    You charged me, personally, with being a liar just because I wanted to explore the possibilities of Jesus' sexuality. I don't think it's outrageous to consider that possibility, nor did I do so only to advance a political position on homosexuality. In fact, I could very well charge the same to you and others here. The blank refusal to even consider it speaks volumns to me.

    It's true that the Bible is silent on whether Jesus had a same-sex orientation, but it's silent on whether he was straight as well. The fact remains that he surrounded himself with male companions, had a younger man with whom he felt a special relationship, and generally seemed to be unconcerned with matters domestic. All this proves nothing, but it's suggestive. That's all I'm saying. The fact that you chose to refer to this as a politically-based agenda and a lie is your problem.

    By Blogger Louis, at 4/12/2005 12:30 PM  

  • "You charged me, personally, with being a liar just because I wanted to explore the possibilities of Jesus' sexuality."

    I have accused you of being a poor scholar, but so far, I have not accused you of being a liar, nor do I intend to. You do a less-than-stellar job of evaluating evidence (and it may very well offend you to hear it), but I see no reason to think you're lying to me.

    Again, you have misunderstood me. I don't mean to say that those who suggest we should think about it are liars -- I mean to say that those who claim Jesus actually *was* gay (in any MEANINGFUL sense of the word; see my point #2 for clarification), after looking at the evidence, do so out of an agenda and that they promote a lie. (I suppose I should also include the possibility that they might do so out of flawed reasoning skills. Also note that it's still a lie whether or not you intend it to be.)

    You yourself have presented much of the evidence. The main thing to notice is that Jesus had no discernable sex life, and that Jesus preached against lust and adultery. If He had no sex life (which He would not have, being unmarried), and did not lust for anyone, it doesn't make sense to call Him either "gay" or "straight" (see my point #3.) It's more than "irrelevant" whether He was gay or straight -- it's erroneous to claim He was either. Sexual orientation is not a static thing that you just are; it's something that you build as you indulge in certain appetites, and something you become. (I'm not denying the fact that there are genetic and early-life factors that contribute to the direction you're likely to go, by the way. But that's a whole other discussion.) If Jesus never indulged the appetites, either in body or in mind, He would become neither. To claim that Jesus was either gay or straight is wrong.

    I'm curious as to what you mean when you say the other evidence is "suggestive". Suggestive of what? In light of the above, it clearly isn't suggesting He actually had a sexual relationship with, or lusted for, any of His companions, male or female. Really, it doesn't suggest much of anything beyond the fact that He was a Jewish teacher. But if you think it suggests more, please be explicit about it, instead of just hinting and leaving me to guess.

    For the record: I agree with you that many of those who "recoil in horror" do so out of bigotry. But I disagree with your implication that bigotry is the only reason to recoil in horror at the theory. Like I said above, I recoil in horror because the theory is based on inexcusably bad scholarship.

    By Blogger LotharBot, at 4/12/2005 7:31 PM  

  • Geez, I can't win with you, can I? I make no claims to being a biblical scholar. I just suggested that this topic should be investigated and indicated why. You seem to be intent on grinding me into the dust. As I indicated before, I find this kind of response routine with xtians. Think what you will, I could hardly care less.

    By Blogger Louis, at 4/13/2005 4:28 PM  

  • "I make no claims to being a biblical scholar."

    Nor did I suggest you should be. All I suggested is that you were engaging in poor scholarship -- meaning, poor study habits and poor reasoning (see my next answer for a more thorough explanation.) You need not be an expert on the Bible to investigate this topic; you only need to be honest, reasonable, and thorough in the way you evaluate the evidence (which is what being a "scholar", in the general sense of the word, means.)

    "I just suggested that this topic should be investigated and indicated why."

    Right -- and I investigated the topic. I discussed Jesus' sexual habits or lack thereof. I discussed general human sexuality, appetites, and orientation. I discussed the larger picture of Jesus taking the church as His bride.

    But, instead of interacting with the results of my investigation, you just complained that it's "entirely pointless" to have the discussion and threw around terms like "fundamentalist" and "closed-minded". You suggested it should be investigated, but when I did what investigation I could and presented my findings for discussion, you refused to participate in the discussion. That's why I appear to be "grinding you to dust" over this -- when I presented points for discussion, you started in with the name-calling and you dodged the questions and you refused to actually investigate, discuss, or analyze the issue.

    That's bull. I don't care who you are or what you believe, if you dodge questions, name-call, and refuse to study, I'm going to call you out on it. If you're willing to actually discuss the topic, I'll discuss it with you and reason with you -- but if you pull this intellectually dishonest crap where you declare others closed-minded and duck out of the conversation, I'll grind that to dust because it's a cop-out.

    By Blogger LotharBot, at 4/14/2005 11:37 AM  

  • Okay, asshole, if you want to be a jerk, so be it.

    I'm sick of discussing this topic with you xtians. If you want to believe it's because I'm intellectually honest, a poor scholar, as as big an asshole as you is irrlevent. My current sloppy technique is the result of years of futile debate. It's entirely pointless.

    For the record, I have many criticisms of your statements above, especially your "theories" of sexual orientation ("indulging in desires" etc) which I think are crap. But, in the final analysis, I don't give a shit what you think.

    Finis.

    By Blogger Louis, at 4/14/2005 4:12 PM  

  • You have criticisms of what I say, but you're unwilling to post them... you think the topic should be discussed, but you're unwilling to discuss it... and you think I'm an asshole for pointing this out and pressing you to actually contribute something, while at the same time you've cussed me out, called me such things as "closed-minded", and called a plague on us and "all our houses". And, according to you, all this means that I'm "being a jerk". Utterly amazing...

    By the way, I didn't say you were a poor scholar -- I said you were engaging in poor scholarship, and that your behavior has been intellectually dishonest (that's a technical term -- it doesn't mean you're lying to me; it means you're not doing your best to evaluate the evidence.) I've criticized your bogus arguing techniques and your behavior, not your underlying character (I don't know your character at all -- and I'd appreciate if you'd stop pretending you know mine.) I don't know what sort of scholar or person you are outside this thread or outside this blog; all I know is that in this thread, you've been far from "civil" and far from "scholarly", so I've called you out for it. I don't criticize you because I think poorly of you, but because I think (from things you said earlier) that you can say some things that are worth listening to. If I thought poorly of you, I would not still be here trying to get you to respond.

    If you're not willing to be civil and you're not willing to address anything I've said, then so be it. I was hoping to gain some understanding from this discussion, but it's your decision whether or not to provide your thoughts. If you're willing to let "years of futile debate" with others destroy our ability to discuss the issue like rational human beings, I can't stop you. But I really would like to have a legitimate conversation with you to understand where you're coming from, rather than a one-sided flamewar. So, I'm giving rational discussion one last chance. You can flame me, making it clear you're not interested in rational discussion, and I'll stop wasting my time, or you can address something I've said with a reasonable argument, and we can continue from there. It's your choice.

    By Blogger LotharBot, at 4/14/2005 9:00 PM  

Post a Comment