F
fix
Guest
Lisa N:
All heresy begins below the belt.
Jesus might have been homosexual, says the first openly gay bishop
- Status
O
Orogeny
Guest
From the article:
You’re right, he didn’t state that Jesus was gay. Given the title of his speech, what do you think he was suggesting? Hmmm?
Peace
Tim
F
fix
Guest
Can’t you see the “hate” in this “bishop’s” tone?
W
Werner
Guest
Well, from what i see in the article the bishop said that Jesus dind’t live the traditional family lifestyle.
But most Catholic priests don’t either because of celibacy.
Does that mean they are all supposedly gay?
I don’t think so.
So why should somebody think that Jesus was a homosexual just because he didn’t live the traditional family lifestyle?
I still don’t get it!
Maybe some fine nuances in the English language i don’t get.
Just because a homosexual bishop says truthfully that Jesus didn’t live the traditional family lifestyle for me doesn’t sound like “Jesus was a homosexual”
Maybe you all hear what you want to hear? Not sure.
Werner
B
buffalo
Guest
In America the thrust has been that there are other healthy and acceptable alternatives to the 'traditional" vocations.
F
fix
Guest
Very true, Werner. You hear what you want to hear.
M
Mac6yver
Guest
Dj Roy Albert:
Well, Jesus was black. Not African black, but he certainly was not white.
B
buffalo
Guest
Did you see Him?
O
Orogeny
Guest
He wasn’t giving a speech on traditional family lifestyles nor was he responding to a question regarding traditional family lifestyles.
He wasn’t giving a speech on celibacy of Catholic priests nor was he responding to a question regarding celibacy of Catholic priests.
That was his answer given to a question from the congregation about how the acceptance of homosexuality could be squared with the scriptural emphasis on redemption for sins. And this was during a question and answer session following a speech he made titled “Homosexuality and the Body of Christ: Is There a New Way?” . Perhaps your question should be to the bishop, not me.
Perhaps YOU are not hearing what YOU don’t want to hear.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
What difference does it make?
Peace
Tim
M
Mac6yver
Guest
No, I did not. However, I have read information about the indigenous during that time period in that geographical location. According to history they were not white. What does it really matter what color of skin Jesus had anyways? I was only stating a historic fact, but you act as if the revelation that Jesus was not white would matter to you…
B
Brad
Guest
You brought it up. Now you are instigating.
M
Mac6yver
Guest
Actually, this brought it up:
I was simply pointing out that in fact Jesus was of color.
B
Brad
Guest
I know you were responding to that but the original poster’s intent was to point out that how you view yourself often skews your perception of truth, whom many of us consider personified in Jesus Christ. I don’t think he/she was making a statement one way or the other about Jesus’ ethnicity.
I take back the “instigating” part. You just read it in a different way.
J
jdnation
Guest
He used these example of Jesus loving John etc etc. A while back there were attempts to historically revision the Bible passages and reinterpret them from Sodom and Gomorrah down to the Acts in an attempt to show that:
- Jesus was a homosexual
- God doen’t condemn homosexuality, only homosexual prostitution.
- THe greek/hebrew don’t really mean homosexual etc. etc.
However, I then looked for refutations by apologists, and when the apologists were through with the pro-gay interpretations, they exposed them as being completely contradictory in themselves and outright wrong. Anyone who would use those same arguments again would find themselves in a highly embarassing situation, because not only would they be shot down, but it would expose their utter lack of comprehension and understanding of the ANE period and biblical criticism.
The fact that this gay anglican bishop stated these same examples is proof that he was trying to suggest Jesus was gay. It’s no mistake nor coincidence. You can still find pro-gay anti-christian sites carrying these long refuted arguments. Not surprising since many atheists sites continue to carry Bible ‘contradictions’ that have all long been dealt with. For people who care so much about mankind ‘progressing’ out of religion, they show a strange lack of enthusiasm to update themselves.:tsktsk:
M
Mac6yver
Guest
I apologize if I was mistaken. I thought the person was implying that the traditional portrayal of Jesus being white was the correct one. If someone thought that I would not blame them, that is the image they have to go by. It is rare that people point out that Jesus was not white.
B
Brad
Guest
No harm done.
R
roymckenzie
Guest
This just can’t stand, Jesus was not black, he was not African, he was not European, Jesus was Hebrew.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
I can’t see where he said Jesus was a homosexual either. Seems like a tempest in an teapot.
D
demolitionman65
Guest
JS and Werner, you need to read in context, which has been provided multiple times in this thread by Orogeny.
Perhaps you enjoy being purposefully obtuse. Did the Soviet Union explicitly state that their goal was the destruction of the Western democracies? Not in so many words. but Lenin’s philosophy made it clear that was the goal, and made USSR’s actions much more inimicable.
Werner might (MIGHT) be able to claim an inability to understand nuances in English on his own. But at this point, it should be clear -given the context- that Robinson is attempting to insinuate that Jesus was gay.
Perhaps you enjoy being purposefully obtuse. Did the Soviet Union explicitly state that their goal was the destruction of the Western democracies? Not in so many words. but Lenin’s philosophy made it clear that was the goal, and made USSR’s actions much more inimicable.
Werner might (MIGHT) be able to claim an inability to understand nuances in English on his own. But at this point, it should be clear -given the context- that Robinson is attempting to insinuate that Jesus was gay.
- Status