O
oneofmany
Guest
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably
This seems to be a gay agenda and it will never to away.
This seems to be a gay agenda and it will never to away.
- Status
O
oneofmany
Guest
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/23/liberal-christians-gayness?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
Paul Oestreicher expects that many Christians will be shocked by his suggestion that Jesus was gay. Perhaps so, but here is another response: why canāt liberal Christians shut up about gayness for a while? Dwelling on the issue is a bad form of Christian communication. The point of Christian communication, or āproclamationā, is to interest people in Christianity, to make it seem attractive, inviting, serious. Banging on about gayness puts people off. The more that liberal Christianity seems to be a holy pressure group for gay rights, the less the average person wants anything much to do with it ā not because sheās homophobic, just because sheās not that interested in the issue. A form of religion in which the issue is so prominent is woefully limited.
Paul Oestreicher expects that many Christians will be shocked by his suggestion that Jesus was gay. Perhaps so, but here is another response: why canāt liberal Christians shut up about gayness for a while? Dwelling on the issue is a bad form of Christian communication. The point of Christian communication, or āproclamationā, is to interest people in Christianity, to make it seem attractive, inviting, serious. Banging on about gayness puts people off. The more that liberal Christianity seems to be a holy pressure group for gay rights, the less the average person wants anything much to do with it ā not because sheās homophobic, just because sheās not that interested in the issue. A form of religion in which the issue is so prominent is woefully limited.
T
Trishie
Guest
Then why add another thread to the question, particularly one intended to shock and cause offense?
A newspaper article provides no authority to who Jesus is, nor does any individualās opinion intended to defend the gay agenda.
It is not a debate in which I have engaged until now, so in fact your own thread has not quietened the issue, only caused further debate.
The bible does provide authority. God made man and woman to multiply and spread out, an why would anyone presume to assert that God would allow the Son of God Incarnate to be a departure from the model that God himself created.
āmale and female he created themā Genesis 1: 27
āThis is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and they become one flesh.ā Genesis 2 :24
God did not say, they must leave father and father or mother and mother, and God did not say, āa man leaves and becomes attached to another manā and they are one, or āa woman becomes attached to another womanā and becomes one. You will find that nowhere in Genesis, nowhere in the bible.
How dreadful for any person to claim God would betray Godās own model of creation and Godās own model for procreation! For anyone to say that Jesus Christ Son of the living God did not align perfectly with that model!!! May God forgive them
If God had wanted humans to be hermaphrodites He would have made them so. Men who mate with men, women with woman, this is more consistent with an hermaphrodite model. If God had wished to model procreation in that way, He would have. That would enshrine same-sex. If He had, fine, but He didnāt.
God made man and woman complementary in the propagation of the series, and then He pronounced regarding marriage of male and female. This is Godās model, and the holy Son of God would be true to such a model.
To say otherwise is blasphemy when it concerns Jesus.
The Son of God, was partaker in the Creation, more, the universe was created through Him
From John Chapter
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God ā 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbandās will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Full of grace and truth
For those who deal with the issues on a personal levelā¦thatās not a debate Iāve entered in this site. Humans are human,
but Jesus is quite another matter.
Certainly Jesus never married, it wasnāt useful to His mission or part of it.
He was there to redeem souls, to teach them goodness and truth.
A newspaper article provides no authority to who Jesus is, nor does any individualās opinion intended to defend the gay agenda.
It is not a debate in which I have engaged until now, so in fact your own thread has not quietened the issue, only caused further debate.
The bible does provide authority. God made man and woman to multiply and spread out, an why would anyone presume to assert that God would allow the Son of God Incarnate to be a departure from the model that God himself created.
āmale and female he created themā Genesis 1: 27
āThis is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and they become one flesh.ā Genesis 2 :24
God did not say, they must leave father and father or mother and mother, and God did not say, āa man leaves and becomes attached to another manā and they are one, or āa woman becomes attached to another womanā and becomes one. You will find that nowhere in Genesis, nowhere in the bible.
How dreadful for any person to claim God would betray Godās own model of creation and Godās own model for procreation! For anyone to say that Jesus Christ Son of the living God did not align perfectly with that model!!! May God forgive them
If God had wanted humans to be hermaphrodites He would have made them so. Men who mate with men, women with woman, this is more consistent with an hermaphrodite model. If God had wished to model procreation in that way, He would have. That would enshrine same-sex. If He had, fine, but He didnāt.
God made man and woman complementary in the propagation of the series, and then He pronounced regarding marriage of male and female. This is Godās model, and the holy Son of God would be true to such a model.
To say otherwise is blasphemy when it concerns Jesus.
The Son of God, was partaker in the Creation, more, the universe was created through Him
From John Chapter
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God ā 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husbandās will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Full of grace and truth
For those who deal with the issues on a personal levelā¦thatās not a debate Iāve entered in this site. Humans are human,
but Jesus is quite another matter.
Certainly Jesus never married, it wasnāt useful to His mission or part of it.
He was there to redeem souls, to teach them goodness and truth.
E
EviPolevhia
Guest
Speaking as one whoās been accused of being part of the Gay Agenda Iād like to say that story is not probable, but in fact malarkey. The article simply asserts itās likely. Considering that the minority of the population is gay, I think the odds are against Jesus being gay. Lots of straight guys have lots of male friends, doesnāt make them gay. Please, Catholics, donāt read that article and think everyone on the āother side of the issueā from you guys believes that ****. Pardon my language.
T
Terry_Washingto
Guest
Of course itās a lot easier to speculate that Jesus was gay as opposed to Buddha or the Prophet Mohammed( for fear of retaliation from you know who- wink, wink- hint I DONāT mean Episcopalians)!
Terry
Terry
E
EviPolevhia
Guest
To be fair I think that Buddhists would be one of the largest groups to not care if their main figure was gay. Not that itās a majority opinion among them but I think itād probably be a larger % then any other main religion.
A
acacia12
Guest
I just wish people would stop trying to hijack a religion and start their own. The jealousy is unbelievable because we have a long history and they wouldnāt. Their religion would be new. If they donāt like the Church and what it teachesā¦fair enough, then leave it. Start your own or have no religion.:banghead:
E
epan
Guest
Looks like pointless speculation to me. (1) There is no way to know this. (2) What difference would it make, anyway?guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably
This seems to be a gay agenda and it will never to away.
H
Hokomai
Guest
I cannot see any evidence in scripture that could be read that way. It would not be intended to convey that meaning, given the attitudes of the time. But if it were true, would that say anything at all about Jesus that is not accepted by the Church? The Gospels say he was tempted. The descriptions suggest he was tempted by the sin of pride. Why not by the sin of lust? And why not men, rather than women? I know someone is going to say: he was God, and therefore would not have been ādisorderedā in his thinking. But is a tendency to pride any less disordered, or a tendency to worship Satan (which he was tempted to do)? And I think there is quite a long history of the Church holding that these were genuine temptations. Why could, from the catholic point of view, Jesus not have been sexually attracted to men? And why could he have not, from the Catholic point of view, formed close gay friendships unencumbered by attraction to women? I can see that from the catholic point of view it would be hard to believe he would not have been celibate, but is there really a problem with thinking he might have been (not that he was, on the evidence), or could have been, a celibate gay?
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Disgusting.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably
This seems to be a gay agenda and it will never to away.
Through the prayers of the Mother of God, have mercy on us and save us.
Amen.
C
Crescentinus
Guest
Knowing homosexualists, they have a desire in either identifying homosexuals as the most persecuted people in history or that every famous person in history is a homosexual. And yet they claim that we are obsessed with homosexuality.
D
DWGarvin
Guest
Very well said.
C
Contra_Mundum_1
Guest
So true. Perhaps looking for proof of homosexuality everywhere makes them feel better about themselves.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Well, though this specific accusation is a reflection of the āgay cultureā that is a blot on our times, I must point out that slandering Jesus Christ is as old as the New Testament itself.
In St. Johnās gospel, chapter 8, his opponents call him a āSamaritanā (i.e. a heretic), accuse him of being possessed by a demon, and hint that he is going to commit suicide. That his opponentsā (spiritual) descendants are continuing their work, 2,000 years later, shouldnāt be too much of a surprise.
In St. Johnās gospel, chapter 8, his opponents call him a āSamaritanā (i.e. a heretic), accuse him of being possessed by a demon, and hint that he is going to commit suicide. That his opponentsā (spiritual) descendants are continuing their work, 2,000 years later, shouldnāt be too much of a surprise.
R
rfournier103
Guest
Just another pathetic attempt to legitimize deviant behavior.
āIf He was, how could Christians say homosexuality wrong?ā
Pitiful. Pathetic. Laughable.
āIf He was, how could Christians say homosexuality wrong?ā
Pitiful. Pathetic. Laughable.
M
manualman
Guest
Why is it that gay activists have this almost pitiful need to attempt to claim beloved characters of history as āone of them,ā even on the most laughable of flimsy evidence?
Itās to the point that any man in history that has had serious emotional friendships with another man is assumed to be gay. Some years ago the favorite targets were King David of ancient Israel and his best friend Jonathan. Do they not realize their implicit assumption that heterosexuality means isolation and alone-ness? Makes you wonder if these activists really understand what heterosexuality IS before they concluded that they were not. News flash! Straight men can have actual friends, not just drinking buddies!
Itās to the point that any man in history that has had serious emotional friendships with another man is assumed to be gay. Some years ago the favorite targets were King David of ancient Israel and his best friend Jonathan. Do they not realize their implicit assumption that heterosexuality means isolation and alone-ness? Makes you wonder if these activists really understand what heterosexuality IS before they concluded that they were not. News flash! Straight men can have actual friends, not just drinking buddies!
C
Crescentinus
Guest
It is also the reason why they claim that weāre secretly gay.So true. Perhaps looking for proof of homosexuality everywhere makes them feel better about themselves.
S
Slavonic
Guest
I feel, in general, with no direct comment to any particular post, that a personās response to the theory, and others like it, says more about his or her feelings about gay people than it does about his or her feelings about Jesus.
T
tabycat
Guest
Another target was Richerd the First of England, who tried to have sex with every woman in the area he was in.
O
oneofmany
Guest
Well I did not want to cause shock or offense by posting this and I do not come to CA that often to know how many threads like this are on here.
I was on another board where it was said Abraham Lincoln was probably gay and I said next they are going to say Jesus was gay and they came back with this article and said he was.
I was just trying to get some ideas on how to respond and the posts on here has helped me very much, so thanks. I now have something to post on the subject.
- Status