fascinating article on the visual representation of Jesus in 16th century

[Cerb]

OK, Jesus was a black Jewish flippin' i love you who got off a bit whilst modelling after his death.
Now...whether or not that is true, let us say it is. Why would that be a problem (yes, it is somewhat rhetorical)?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But I still think that when one actually is comfortable with ones own sexuality one is inclined to go on sexual crusades to get the rest of the world on board.

Are you suggesting that this is what I am doing in posting on this subject?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That sort of push to get others to loosen up, I think, reflects an unresolved inner uptightness one has not gotten over oneself.

Who here is pushing others to loosen up? Are you suggesting that I am doing that?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It is sort of like a thief advocating for loosening the regulations on theft. Scratching is a sure sign of an itch. But it's not a big deal either way.

I think it is a big deal. Please explain what you mean.

What I think is interesting is that you can't acknowledge Jesus as a sexual being without bringing up the topic of homosexuality. That signals fear to me. The fact that you acknowledge no same-sex tendencies within yourself is also a bit of a red flag. Why are you so afraid to embrace (or even acknowledge) that part of yourself? Are you saying you have never found another man to be attractive? I find that hard to believe. You do the "christ figure" shtick but run a mile when the topic turns to things that you yourself are afraid of. As if Christ himself wasn't bisexual. Indeed, the very notion of a strictly heterosexual Christ is utterly preposterous.

I will have to be more careful in editing my posts. I meant to say, "But I still think that when one actually is comfortable with ones own sexuality one is notinclined to go on sexual crusades to get the rest of the world on board." and that you may want to ask yourself if you may be on something of a crusade. I don't know whether you are or not nor is it important for me to know.

I am suggesting that you may want to know, yourself, if you are pushing. I am fine on this as I am.

I mean by not a big deal is that it is not a big deal to me. I am at rest with my own sexuality and quite uninterested in sex as a theme. I don't much care if medieval artists were advocating something or not as any lessons required today will need new vehicles of expression. I would say that babies touching their genitals is about as meaningful as touching their noses. I'm seeing pretty much nothing in all of this. But I don't care if I am right or wrong.

Lets do the rest line by line:

a: What I think is interesting is that you can't acknowledge Jesus as a sexual being without bringing up the topic of homosexuality. That signals fear to me.

M: I simply, at your request, pictured Him in our maladaptive culture's worst light, as a gay. That should have told you, and my message was clear as far as I was concerned at the time, that I have no problem picturing Him in any way at all sexually. Bi, gay, straight, it all matter not a whit to me. I do not believe in the Jesus you do. To me Jesus is way beyond sex. Jesus is a door to a truth beyond imagining. Who Jesus was sexually is of complete irrelevance to me. There is nowhere here I'm afraid to go. It's that none of this interests me. I got no dog in the who Jesus was sexually race.

a: The fact that you acknowledge no same-sex tendencies within yourself is also a bit of a red flag. Why are you so afraid to embrace (or even acknowledge) that part of yourself? Are you saying you have never found another man to be attractive? I find that hard to believe.

M: Listen, I find it hard to believe also that you can find a man to be sexually attractive. I find it not only hard to believe but inconceivable. But I take you at your word that you do. I am saying that I have absolutely no, zero, nada, zip, and nil sexual attraction for men. I do love them, however, and have no problem hugging and kissing them. Men are wonderful things. I am very sure who I am and have been all of my life, so sexually repressed gay hiding in me, I am sure more than 1000%

a: You do the "christ figure" shtick but run a mile when the topic turns to things that you yourself are afraid of. As if Christ himself wasn't bisexual. Indeed, the very notion of a strictly heterosexual Christ is utterly preposterous.

M: As I said, I ain't running from anything. I could give a rat's ass who Jesus was sexually, but the last thing I'd do is pretend to know. If you think he was Bi, go in peace. I think you are full of crap but I don't care. The notion that Jesus was heterosexual is as preposterous to me as that I am and of that I am absolutely sure. That you get to be gay in your mind but I don't get to be straight is your mental hang up, not mine, in my opinion.

 

[kage69]

I never understood where the "sex is a bad thing" came from in Christianity

The Confessions of Constantine. His mother was a christian, and likely had a hand in making him regret the sexual exploits of his youth. Emperors got a lot of tail, particulary Roman ones!

Isn't Islam even more strict in this regard?

As I recall, the Koran allows homosexual contact between men provided the dominant male 'wounds the other with his sword.' Metaphor? Maybe, but it's a far cry from 'both must be put to death!" I can't say I've ever read anything concerning the muslim take on girl-on-girl action. Anyone?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But I still think that when one actually is comfortable with ones own sexuality one is inclined to go on sexual crusades to get the rest of the world on board.

Are you suggesting that this is what I am doing in posting on this subject?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That sort of push to get others to loosen up, I think, reflects an unresolved inner uptightness one has not gotten over oneself.

Who here is pushing others to loosen up? Are you suggesting that I am doing that?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It is sort of like a thief advocating for loosening the regulations on theft. Scratching is a sure sign of an itch. But it's not a big deal either way.

I think it is a big deal. Please explain what you mean.

What I think is interesting is that you can't acknowledge Jesus as a sexual being without bringing up the topic of homosexuality. That signals fear to me. The fact that you acknowledge no same-sex tendencies within yourself is also a bit of a red flag. Why are you so afraid to embrace (or even acknowledge) that part of yourself? Are you saying you have never found another man to be attractive? I find that hard to believe. You do the "christ figure" shtick but run a mile when the topic turns to things that you yourself are afraid of. As if Christ himself wasn't bisexual. Indeed, the very notion of a strictly heterosexual Christ is utterly preposterous.

I will have to be more careful in editing my posts. I meant to say, "But I still think that when one actually is comfortable with ones own sexuality one is notinclined to go on sexual crusades to get the rest of the world on board." and that you may want to ask yourself if you may be on something of a crusade. I don't know whether you are or not nor is it important for me to know.

I am suggesting that you may want to know, yourself, if you are pushing. I am fine on this as I am.

I mean by not a big deal is that it is not a big deal to me. I am at rest with my own sexuality and quite uninterested in sex as a theme. I don't much care if medieval artists were advocating something or not as any lessons required today will need new vehicles of expression. I would say that babies touching their genitals is about as meaningful as touching their noses. I'm seeing pretty much nothing in all of this. But I don't care if I am right or wrong.

Lets do the rest line by line:

a: What I think is interesting is that you can't acknowledge Jesus as a sexual being without bringing up the topic of homosexuality. That signals fear to me.

M: I simply, at your request, pictured Him in our maladaptive culture's worst light, as a gay. That should have told you, and my message was clear as far as I was concerned at the time, that I have no problem picturing Him in any way at all sexually. Bi, gay, straight, it all matter not a whit to me. I do not believe in the Jesus you do. To me Jesus is way beyond sex. Jesus is a door to a truth beyond imagining. Who Jesus was sexually is of complete irrelevance to me. There is nowhere here I'm afraid to go. It's that none of this interests me. I got no dog in the who Jesus was sexually race.

a: The fact that you acknowledge no same-sex tendencies within yourself is also a bit of a red flag. Why are you so afraid to embrace (or even acknowledge) that part of yourself? Are you saying you have never found another man to be attractive? I find that hard to believe.

M: Listen, I find it hard to believe also that you can find a man to be sexually attractive. I find it not only hard to believe but inconceivable. But I take you at your word that you do. I am saying that I have absolutely no, zero, nada, zip, and nil sexual attraction for men. I do love them, however, and have no problem hugging and kissing them. Men are wonderful things. I am very sure who I am and have been all of my life, so sexually repressed gay hiding in me, I am sure more than 1000%

a: You do the "christ figure" shtick but run a mile when the topic turns to things that you yourself are afraid of. As if Christ himself wasn't bisexual. Indeed, the very notion of a strictly heterosexual Christ is utterly preposterous.

M: As I said, I ain't running from anything. I could give a rat's ass who Jesus was sexually, but the last thing I'd do is pretend to know. If you think he was Bi, go in peace. I think you are full of crap but I don't care. The notion that Jesus was heterosexual is as preposterous to me as that I am and of that I am absolutely sure. That you get to be gay in your mind but I don't get to be straight is your mental hang up, not mine, in my opinion.

NO SENSE.

I'll try later when I'm drunk.

But I suspect all the great philosophers were/are stuck in Europe and India and we are left with such pathetically obtuse remnants....

 

[aidanjm]