Jesus was a Normal Homosexual Man

While there is some scripture, particularly the bit about Lazarus, which can be interpreted as Jesus being gay, there is also the Mary bit where he seems hetero.

But really I would say god would have to be bi and a pedo so he could love all his children equally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what scripture about Lazarus hints at Jesus being gay?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

tiassa,

women can't fuck women. it's impossible. and my response about the whole genderism thing comes from many conversations and observations of one of my very best friends in the world, who is a diehard lesbian. so, i do have a clue. she thinks men are gross (from a sexual standpoint), just like some gay men out here have expressed that they think women are gross. but the truth is tiassa, that neither men nor women are gross, so if you think that, you're believing a lie. i mean, there are some men and women who are gross, but it's not because of their particular gender. gender doesn't make people gross. that's just craziness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, you're stretching again.

"Gross" is subjective. I think women, in a purely sexual aspect, are gross. That's MY opinion. That's what I think. I'm not grossed out by watching women have sex with other women, or other men. I'm grossed out when thinking about ME having sex with them because I'm gay. And that comes with the territory. You'll find that this is the case with most sexualities. For example, straight men usually find it "gross" to imagine themselves having sex with another man, even if they are the most open-minded man.

This isn't hatred anymore than it's "hatred" for a person to like cake or be grossed-out by it. It's about taste, and this simple fact seems to escape you, despite all your unsupported meanderings.

~String

 

we're not talking about cake string. we're talking about a fucking human being! and we're talking about something inherent at birth. and we're not talking about eating, but something much more important and involved which you would think would involve some discriminations that are important and relevant, like what is on the inside, not just the outside. but to discriminate based on some god given physical characteristic is just nonsensical to me and i think it is a form of hatred.

 

So Lori_7 Jesus is a human now I thought he was the Son/Daughter of God.

 

you didn't know that jesus was a human being?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How could he be a Human being if he was the Son/Daughter of God he would be a well God not a human being.

Edit at the very least he would only be Half human but was Mary Human or was she God as she was born without the original sin perhaps she was Gods Sister ... Well that would just be wrong...

 

he was god in human form. immanuel means "god with us". the difference that's made between jesus and other humans, is that he was born without sin. when we are reborn through him, we will be without sin as well and a communion with god and each other will be restored. we will all be as one, even in all our individuality.

 

But if he is human he cannot promise that now can he or it is an empty promise now right. So in order for him to offer said born againness he would infact have to be a God ergo Not human.

 

Same thing.

 

The comparison is apt. Human tastes are in discussion and the point remains that human diversity makes for human differences in tastes. Is this too difficult?

Sexuality is a "taste" and it's inhgerited from birth. Or do you have some information that has escaped most psychological experts on this planet?

You continue with this ultra-idiotic argument about discrimination. Seriously, what should I do, pop a Viagra and force myself to get a hard-on in order to have sex with a woman who doesn't turn me on? Is it really all about what you want?

~String

 

*************
M*W: The church lied about MM being a prostitute, but what did they know? What was the church afraid to reveal? From my study of astro-theology, J & MM were represented by the Sun and the Constellation Aquarias, respectively.

In any event, these mythic characters were just that--myths. These myths were based on ancient nomadic travels by night. They skies were used for navigation and entertainment purposes. This is not to say that astrology is anymore scientifically accurate than is reading tea leaves. It's just been around since about 5,000 BCE.

 

*************
M*W: Just curious, but in your opinion, what does the "Son-of-Man" mean to you? How do you define it?

 

From what I read and understood there is no evidence that Jesus was a homosexual . Furthermore Christianity is against homosexuality as it is a sin .
Just saying things does not make them reality or the truth .
The OP failed miserably to show us any proof about his false accusations .

 

There's no evidence in the bible to say that he didn't speak French either. Or that he wasn't a fan of macramé.
I wonder what the pope thinks of that...

 

no, that's not what i want. i don't want anything; it's just a discussion. i don't know what psychological experts think, but i know that my own sexuality has been shaped by my experience. we're not born with orientations; we're born with genders and hormones and parents and a society.

here's what i don't understand. i don't understand how someone could be put off by a vagina or a penis any more than they would be put off by an arm or a leg or a nose. it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

if i had to take a guess, i would say that the son of man refers to his humanity, while the son of god refers to his purity (deity).

 

So your are saying that Jesus was not human then correct Lori_7

 

What is is

You know, in truth, Lori, I expect to be sharing this odd formulation of yours with people because it's one of those things that widens their eyes and shakes their heads in disbelief. I actually dropped the line on a friend of mine the other day while we were talking about her gay brother. It got me two things; a thin laugh and this look common in my social circles that says, "I don't really want to know where that comes from, do I?"

Perhaps next we should argue about what is is. At the very least it would be less neurotic.

With his rude, persistent demand for the bodily origin of spiritual things, Freud starts not with love but with sexuality. But the man who discussed what he called the sexual life of children, and who insisted on the sexual character of thumb-sucking, must have had a special definition of sexuality. In fact, Freud's definition of the sexual instinct shows that he means something very general. It is the energy or desire with which the human being pursues pleasure, with the further specification that the pleasure sought is the pleasurable activity of an organ of the human body. He attributed the capacity of yielding such pleasure ... to all parts of the surface of the human body, and also to the internal organs. The organ in question may be the genital, or it may be the mouth, as in thumb-sucking, or it may be the eyes, as in the delight of seeing. If sex is so defined, there will surely be little disposition to deny that infants do have a sexual life, or even that sex in this sense is their chief aim. Infants are naturally absorbed in themselves and in their own bodies: they are in love with themselves; in Freudian terminology, their orientation is narcissistic. Infants are ignorant of the serious business of life (the reality-principle) and therefore know no guide except the pleasure-principle, making pleasurable activity of their own body their sole aim. And since childhood is a period of real immunity from the serious business of life, children are really in a position to obtain pleasure from the activity of their bodies to an extent which the adult is not. So Freud's definition of sexuality entails the proposition that infants have a richer sexual life than adults.

(Brown, 26)​

In reducing the polymorphous to the singular and deliberately exclusive, you are only encouraging neurosis.

What's really curious about this, Lori, is that you are the one who tied one's sexual appeal so tightly to their personal worth. That is, if one hasn't what it takes to get a person off, then that one is somehow worthless.

This strikes many as ironic. Even feminist sympathizers such as myself stop and scratch our heads at this: So, first we all spend years—in some cases lifetimes—trying to explain that a woman's worth is not measured in her physical attributes or her ability to dole out adequate sexual pleasure on demand. But, along comes a gay man who isn't turned on by the thought of plowing a woman's furrow, and suddenly it's genderist? Really, Lori? Is that really where you want the discussion to go? Right back to measuring you—a woman—as a human being according to your ability to sexually satisfy men?

So let's make a short list here: people who think that "discussing" homosexuality is somehow verboten by Sciforums or other similar standards.

• People who compare consensual sex to raping animals.
• People who think a gay couple getting married somehow wrecks their own union.
• Biblically religious people who like to ignore Jesus.
• People who assert that those who want sexual satisfaction should have to submit themselves to being raped.​

Do you notice a theme emerging? We can expand the list all you want, but the underlying theme will continue to be, "People who have a problem with homosexuals."

So let's stop and think about that for a moment. Not only have you stated that gay people should be raped if they want sexual satisfaction—and if you can't see the problem in that phrasing, I don't know what to tell you—but you've also repeatedly tried to dehumanize them by claiming they cannot have sex. Yet when questioned on the implications of this formulation, you dodged.

What are people supposed to think, m'lady? That is, when they see you dehumanizing a class of people, demanding that they be raped, and snarling at the idea that this sort of declaration is looked down upon—what the hell are people supposed to think?
____________________

Notes:

Brown, Norman O. Life Against Death. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.