was jesus gay?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
here Jesus is saying that he did not come to destroy the law and the prophets and you are telling me he did, isn't that interesting? who am i to believe?

It has nothing to do with either believing Jesus or believing me. In the passages I quoted Jesus clearly contradicts Levitical Law.

So the real question is how to reconcile the passage ...[text shortened]... omophobic position by selecting only those passages that deal with homosexuality.[/b]

i am sorry id rather listen to Jesus, your argument is based on nothing but a misconstrued desire to invalidate the law, in a ludicrous attempt to try to establish that Christ did not keep it, please do not insult our intelligence any further.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I won't defend the claim that Jesus was gay, but you now know why some people entertain the idea.

Actually i knew that already however they have no scriptural basis, their whole argument rests on a purely speculative assumption of what is not written rather than what is. They cannot handle the fact that God condemns homosexuality, time and again, so, in a vain effort to try to establish something else, they must isolate the teachings of Christ purely because he does not mention homosexuality per se, although quite clearly he held that it was lawful for a man and a women to be one, and cook up these non existent arguments based on nothing more than their iniquitous desire to establish their own thoughts. God condemns homosexuality, they cannot get over it!

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]no its not false, not in this context, for i was wondering not about the matter itself, but what you thought of the matter, which has nothing to do with me, for my thoughts are not yours, but that is a side point.
In my view it is false, because your wondering and its manner are to do with you. But as y ...[text shortened]... ]
Then surely you agree with me that to speculate on Jesus' heterosexuality is equally absurd?[/b]

i firmly believe that Christ as a Jew would have kept the mosaic law, making the practice of homosexuality, out of the question, thus its resolved for me.
What has that to do with the question of whether Jesus was gay? Nothing at all.

what are you talking about, its perfectly logical. the Law condemns homosexuality, Christ kept the law, he therefore could not have committed a homosexual act, he therefore could not be homosexual! what is difficult to understand?

yes i agree with you, its purely futile.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I knew you were wrong, i've done a little research on this. The Bible states nowhere that masturbation is a sin, yet it is frequently stated that it is so. Why do you think that is?

Onan was put to death for not following Gods orders, and what peculiar orders they were?

So i can take by your failure to display any scriptural evidence with reagrds t How can you decide to be neutral on this issue, yet not so with regards to homosexuality?!

The Bible states nowhere that masturbation is a sin, yet it is frequently stated that it is so.

the bible also does not mention smoking but it is also considered a sin. why? because there are principles as opposed to laws which are applicable. in the case of masturbation, i provided one principle, why do you not mention that? here it is again,

The Scriptures counsel: “Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness.” (Colossians 3:5) Is one who practices masturbation ‘deadening his body members as respects sexual appetite’? On the contrary, he is stimulating the sexual appetite. The Bible urges that one avoid the thinking and conduct that lead to such problems, replacing them with wholesome activity, and that one cultivate self-control. (Philippians 4:8; Galatians 5:22, 23)

i have already provided the basis for Onans condemnation, if you would like to go back and read the text, you may do so again. you can take nothing for there is not a failure to display a scriptural basis, quite the contrary, everything we state has a scriptural basis. whether you accept that basis, is of course entirely up to you 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i firmly believe that Christ as a Jew would have kept the mosaic law, making the practice of homosexuality, out of the question, thus its resolved for me.
What has that to do with the question of whether Jesus was gay? Nothing at all.

what are you talking about, its perfectly logical. the Law condemns homosexuality, Christ kept the law, he ther ...[text shortened]... not be homosexual! what is difficult to understand?

yes i agree with you, its purely futile.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what are you talking about, its perfectly logical. the Law condemns homosexuality, Christ kept the law, he therefore could not have committed a homosexual act, he therefore could not be homosexual! what is difficult to understand?
Mainly how you can type that with a straight face 🙂

I think you are perfectly aware that:

1) The Law does not condemn homosexuality, it condemns homosexual acts.

2) Being gay or homosexual is an orientation or predisposition. Therefore Jesus could have been gay and yet kept the law by being celibate.

So I'm afraid your logic was faulty this time.

yes i agree with you, its purely futile.
See, that wasn't so bad was it? 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The Bible states nowhere that masturbation is a sin, yet it is frequently stated that it is so.

the bible also does not mention smoking but it is also considered a sin. why? because there are principles as opposed to laws which are applicable. in the case of masturbation, i provided one principle, why do you not mention that? here it is agai ...[text shortened]... state has a scriptural basis. whether you accept that basis, is of course entirely up to you 🙂

On the contrary, he is stimulating the sexual appetite

So the stimulating of sexual appetite is considered sinful?

How are people suppossed to be 'fruitful and multiply' if the stimulating of sexual appetite is sinful? It's like telling someone to go for a swim, but don't get wet!!

You also didn't answer my point about caiptal punishment.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]what are you talking about, its perfectly logical. the Law condemns homosexuality, Christ kept the law, he therefore could not have committed a homosexual act, he therefore could not be homosexual! what is difficult to understand?
Mainly how you can type that with a straight face 🙂

I think you are s time.

yes i agree with you, its purely futile.
See, that wasn't so bad was it? 🙂[/b]

1. sorry i knew that one in accuracy may lead to confusion, yes the scriptures condemn homosexual acts.

2. This is a non scriptural argument and i shall not comment upon it, other than to state scripturally homosexuality is considered as unnatural, and therefore any basis as to predisposition is clearly erroneous. The science is scant, simply stating that a preponderance of one type of hormone necessitates homosexuality is ludicrous and has been waved like a huge banner by those who wish to substantiate a basis for nothing more than a preference. i do not accept it for a number of reasons, primarily the fact that there are so called reformed homosexuals and those who 'choose', homosexuality after being heterosexual for a number of years. you may believe what you want, i am not convinced and i will say nothing further, keeping my arguments to a scriptural basis.

i am afraid that well, rather than being illogical, it is a simple statement of fact.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]On the contrary, he is stimulating the sexual appetite

So the stimulating of sexual appetite is considered sinful?

How are people suppossed to be 'fruitful and multiply' if the stimulating of sexual appetite is sinful? It's like telling someone to go for a swim, but don't get wet!!

You also didn't answer my point about caiptal punishment.[/b]

yes he is, however the bible clearly councils against stimulating a sexual appetite, does it not , in the scripture that i showed you. This is not the same as a proper desire for someone to whom we are married, to whom we make engage in 'love' making', which is an act of giving and leads to happiness and contentment. Those who fantasise about someone to whom they shall never even give a peck on the cheek, are torturing themselves and thus it becomes a mode of self abuse, kind of like looking at a Les Paul Deluxe in the guitar shop window knowing you shall never obtain it. Is licking the window a good alternative? hardly, thus it leads to frustration and unhappiness, that is why it is counselled against.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1. sorry i knew that one in accuracy may lead to confusion, yes the scriptures condemn homosexual acts.

2. This is a non scriptural argument and i shall not comment upon it, other than to state scripturally homosexuality is considered as unnatural, and therefore any basis as to predisposition is clearly erroneous. The science is scant, simply sta ...[text shortened]... asis.

i am afraid that well, rather than being illogical, it is a simple statement of fact.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
other than to state scripturally homosexuality is considered as unnatural, and therefore any basis as to predisposition is clearly erroneous.
I prefer to base my beliefs on reason and evidence. I have recently read an overview of the current state of scientific knowledge on homosexual orientation and it is clear you are mistaken on this. Perhaps we'll have to agree to differ though, since I suspect no amount of evidence will persuade you from this particular agenda of yours.

The science is scant, simply stating that a preponderance of one type of hormone necessitates homosexuality is ludicrous
You are out of date, the science isn't as scant as you make out, nor does it say the above.

i do not accept it for a number of reasons, primarily the fact that there are so called reformed homosexuals and those who 'choose', homosexuality after being heterosexual for a number of years. you may believe what you want, i am not convinced and i will say nothing further, keeping my arguments to a scriptural basis.
The evidence for people who change sexuality is speculative at best. The evidence I have read was certainly flawed.

But supposing I conceded for the sake of argument notion that homosexuality is a preference. It wouldn't change my argument on this thread one jot or jittle. We agree on the main point: speculation on this question is absurd.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]other than to state scripturally homosexuality is considered as unnatural, and therefore any basis as to predisposition is clearly erroneous.
I prefer to base my beliefs on reason and evidence. I have recently read an overview of the current state of scientific knowledge on homosexual orientation and it ...[text shortened]... read one jot or jittle. We agree on the main point: speculation on this question is absurd.[/b]

as its stands oh great and illustrious lord of the sharks, you are correct, i do not deny, scripture supersedes all else, for me. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am sorry id rather listen to Jesus, your argument is based on nothing but a misconstrued desire to invalidate the law, in a ludicrous attempt to try to establish that Christ did not keep it, please do not insult our intelligence any further.

Your position is completely irrational and not based on scripture or reason.

Jesus clearly and explicitly contradicts Levitical Law in the Sermon on the Mount.

leviticus 24:19-24:21
19Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: 20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered. 21One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.

matthew 5:38-39
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Jesus clearly and explicitly contradicts the passage from Leviticus.

To keep denying this is dishonest.

Instead of facing it and embracing the teachings of Jesus, you embrace the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The JW's are YOUR "Lord".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Instead of facing it and embracing the teachings of Jesus, you embrace the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The JW's are YOUR "Lord".

If robbie says that Jesus is a full flown Jehowas witness, then it is of course so, and robbie can surly prove it by looking it up in his bible somewhere.

Jesus clearly and explicitly contradicts Levitical Law in the Sermon on the Mount.

[quote]leviticus 24:19-24:21
19Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: 20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the i gs of Jesus, you embrace the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The JW's are YOUR "Lord".

i am sorry, you have not explained the scripture, for while the law was in force, at the point of giving the sermon on the mount, and as Christ stated, not one particle OF THE LAW would fall away and all things not be accomplished, it therefore cannot be a contradiction. what is in fact a contradiction is your words and Christ's words. i shall continue to believe the Christ if you dont mind, you may continue to assert what you want. This has nothing to do with Jehovahs Witnesses although , you, in your vain attempt to grasp at something keep asserting that it has. It is both childish and indicative at the emptiness of your argument.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the i gs of Jesus, you embrace the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The JW's are YOUR "Lord".

Does it really say so in any standard English bible?
Or is it a translation only to use within the JW cult?
It doesn't say so in my bible anyway.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am sorry, you have not explained the scripture, for while the law was in force, at the point of giving the sermon on the mount, and as Christ stated, not one particle OF THE LAW would fall away and all things not be accomplished, it therefore cannot be a contradiction. what is in fact a contradiction is your words and Christ's words. i shall con ...[text shortened]... p asserting that it has. It is both childish and indicative at the emptiness of your argument.

What is childish is your steadfast denial.

In the passage from Matthew Jesus clearly quotes part of the passage from Leviticus and says that the true Law is " do not resist an evil person" instead of "the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered."

To keep denying this is dishonest. Open your eyes so that you may see.

leviticus 24:19-24:21
19Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return: 20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered. 21One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.

matthew 5:38-39
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.