Protesters livid over play depicting Jesus as gay

[slurmsmackenzie]

i apologize to everyone following this, for i am hardly a quote extrodinare. i'm sure scrolling through the majority of my post to get to the meat of my point grows tiresome.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: negiti
'. . . .As for God's views on homosexuality: you bring your homophobic biases with you when you approach scripture, and your reading & understanding of scripture is compromised by those biases. We must be clear: Jesus did not speak against homosexuality. When Jesus refers to the parable of Sodom, he uses it as an example of violation of traditional Middle Eastern customs of hospitality - not as justification for the persecution of homosexuals. (The innaccurate notion that the story of Sodom is a warning against homosexuality is a deliberate misinterpretation of that story, first spread by the Catholic Church in the 1200s in order to justify their brutal murder of thousands upon thousands of homosexual men and also Jewish people). Jesus did not say: I revoke all the laws of the old testament, oh, EXCEPT for that one about killing homosexuals. Jesus loves homosexuals, and he wants them to be happy. If that means having homosexual relationships and sex, then so be it. Afterall, Jesus points out, heterosexual marriage is not for everyone. Some people are "eunuchs" (sexual outcasts -- homosexual, asexual, celibate, castrated) - whether by nature, by choice, or whatever: "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"."

^^^^^^^^^^^
Looking up the greek wording, such as we have it (we don't have the originals), we end up with the following assessment of Matthew 19:12:

- 1st instance of the word "eunuch" = transliterated "Eunouchos":

a bed keeper, bed guard, superintendent of the bedchamber, chamberlain

1. in the palace of oriental monarchs who support numerous wives the superintendent of the women's apartment or harem, an office held by eunuchs
2. an emasculated man, a eunuch
1. eunuchs in oriental courts held by other offices of greater, held by the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in Ac. 8:27-39.
3. one naturally incapacitated
1. for marriage
2. begetting children
4. one who voluntarily abstains from marriage

- 2nd instance of the word "eunuch" = IDENTICAL to the 1st instance

- 3rd instance of the word "eunuch" = IDENTICAL to the 1st instance

- 4th instance of the word "eunuch" = transliterated "Eunouchizo"

1. to castrate, to neuter a man
2. metaph. to make one's self a eunuch i.e. by abstaining (like a eunuch from marriage)

The 4th instance is METAPHORICAL. The 4th instance is SELF-IMPOSED, VOLUNTARY ABSTINENCE. It is a primary scripture used by the Catholic (catholic = "universal") faith for the PRIESTHOOD. It is a referential throwback to the pre-Messianic priesthood of the Levites. But now that Messiah has come to fulfhill the requirement of the Law, it is a VOLUNTARY form of service.

The Inquisition in all its many branches and subbranches took the lives of fantastically more heterosexual men and women than homosexuals. PLEASE.

Scripture condemns homosexuality in the same way as it condemns lying, cheating and adultery. FRANKLY, I don't understand what heterosexual Christians think they have to crow about . . unless they are of course without sin themselves.

Its' the FORGIVENESS, stupid.

Where are you getting your definition from? And at what date was that definition established? One can adduce numerous historical documents (Roman laws of the empire, plays, books, letters, other documents) which establish without a doubt that male homosexuals came under the rubric of eunuch at the time of Christ. You can deny this til the cows come home, but the simple fact is that I am right, and you (& what's his name) are wrong. 🙂 Do you really think that by supplying an anachronistic (innappropriate to the times) definition of "eunuch" you can snowball those of us with the facts on our side? Lol.

Leviticus is irrelevant. Jesus came to renounce those old laws. Note that it is not possible [for a Christian] to justify a scriptural stance against homosexuality without invoking the self-loathing St. Paul (Romans, Corinthians). To my mind, Paul represents the beginning of the Church, and as such the beginning of the corruption of Jesus' message. Who are you going to listen to on this issue, Paul or Jesus Christ??

>The Inquisition in all its many branches and subbranches took
>the lives of fantastically more heterosexual men and women
>than homosexuals. PLEASE.

And this is relevant to my comments precisely how? None of the above changes the fact the Church quite deliberately set about murdering homosexuals "in the name of God", and chose to obfuscate the meaning of the story of Sodom as a pretext for doing so (killing homosexuals). Surely you're not suggesting that the fact that more heterosexuals than homosexuals were killed (according to you) means the loss of those homosexuals is not even worth commenting on? That is what I infer you are saying with your snarky, condescending comment above.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: negiti
Why sure I can.

Taking "science" as a model; throughout mankind's history, "scientists" have hacked around Creation, expounding one absolutely preposterous theory after another. Samples?:

- the universe revolves around the Earth
- the universe revolves around the Sun
- the world is flat
- evolution (read "Darwin on Trial"; Darwin himself qualified and recanted a number of his most fundamental positions)
- the "air" is bad, (literally, "malaria")
- there are "things" "out there" that simply spew matter into our reality; don't know what they are, can't prove they're there, but that's the explanation for "WHERE THE @!#$@#$ DID MATTER COME FROM?"

After each preposterous "theory" is dispelled, there is a period of "radio silence" in which the scientific community does not recant any held stupidities of the time unless absolutely crucified into doing so.

They have this in common with witch doctors, and secular humanists.

And this is with "stuff" they actually understand on some level.

What "they" don't understand about Judaism/Christianity could . . well . . fill the Universe.

WAIT. That would mean that they're ignorance in this subject would be EVERYWHERE, ALL AT ONCE.

The only way for that to happen (I think) is for that ignorance to travel faster than light, therefore increasing exponentially in mass, allowing for it (the ignorance factor) to be present everywhere, all at once.

WHY, THAT DESCRIBES GOD.

And who said secular humanism wasn't a religion?!?

Secular humanism is NOT a religion. At a minimum, a religion would involve worship or recognition of the supernatural. Secular humanism doesn't have this worship of supernatural elements. Secular humanism is a philosophical outlook or approach to life -- not a religion. The fact that you THINK it is a religion makes you look somewhat dippy, IMO. Science differs from religion in that science has a built in means of correcting itself. Theory gets modified, refined, rejected. There is no equivalent rectifying process in religion.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: piasabird
According to biblical records hundreds of people saw Jesus after he rose from the dead and felt and touched the wound in his side and in his hands and feet. You just choose to beleive in something else.
People saw Jesus rise people from the dead and cure hopelessly crippled individuals and people who were blind from birth. What you want to beleive is up to you.

There is more proof that Jesus was the son of God than that we landed on the moon. You just choose to ignore it.

This is tranparently obviously stupid statement, although many persist with this sort of rhetoric. Biblical records on the event were clearly written after the fact, had clear possible motivations to be biased and are not backed up by contemperary accounts from other secular sources. Some of the contemperary sources previously claimed to back up the biblical accounts are now widely believed to be forgeries. The reality is that even if some guy named Jesus existed, let alone any of the specific accounts of events involving in the bible, are based on extremely weak evidence if looking at things from a historical basis. If you believe in the events described in the bible you can do so as a matter of religious faith, but the fact we landed on the moon has plenty of geniune evidence and support if you look at it from the perspective of historical analysis. (In fact the moon landing should be pretty dang obvious that it occured if you take a serious look at the evidence from any perspective other than that of the wacko conspiracy theorist.)

While there is some truth to what you say, I still have never heard a valid refute the story and miracles of Fatima in the early 1900's? Some of the witnesses, including one of the girls, Lucia Dos Santos, who remains a Sister, are still alive. Many of the witnesses were researched and brought together in the 60's, and published in a book called, "Meet the Witnesses."

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
rediculous..... i'm the one twisting words to fit my beliefs? homophobic? you don't even know me, have never met me, nor could you possibly make viable excuses for my behavior.

Yes, but your heterosexist biases are evident in almost everything you have said in this thread. I don't think you 'hate' homosexual people. Nevertheless, it is apparent that you think of yourself & your way of life as superior to gay people or a so-called gay lifestyle, and it's apparent that you cherry-pick from the Bible to support those heterosexist attitudes. What I am saying is not necessarily intended as criticism of you -- I am simply giving you my perceptions of you and your behavior. It's nothing personal, you know.

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
once again, everything i'm getting from you is "says you". "people said this"... "it's well documented..." WHERE??? SHOW ME, don't just tell me. i still think my explanation offers far better reasoning than your stab in the dark to somehow justify your way of life (with things you yourself profess not to believe... not being a christian and all). be gay... i don't care. i'm not homophobic, i don't hate homosexuals. that doesn't mean i'm going to stand idly by while you twist Jesus' words to fit your lifestyle. it's simply not credible. i come at you with sources, definitions, bible quotes, and reasoning. you have one misconstued scripture, john corvino (whoever the fvck that is), and what you assume it all means. i'm just gonna need more than that, sorry

You know, the only reference you have given so far was that article on gay genetics, written by an UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT. You tried to pass that off as having been written by a PhD or expert in the field, lol. You have made a series of logic errors in the other thread. I responded to that by linking to an article describing the most common logical fallacies people make in discussions on whether homosexuality is a choice. You respond to that article by asking "Who the fsck is John Corvino"? This is also a logical fallacy -- known as an appeal to authority. You think that if you have not heard of John Corvino before, therefore his article is worthless??? Lol again. (And this is particularly rich coming from you right after you link to an article written by an UNDERGRADUATE, presenting it as if it is written by an expert in the field or a PhD.) Corvino's article is an exercise in logic and clear thinking. You do not need to know his credentials (altho in fact his credentials are quite impressive). You DO need to be able to think in a clear coherent logical manner to make use of his article. 🙂

I also think it's funny you make a point to mention I am not a Christian... as if knowledge of the contents of the Bible is dependent on belief. Another appeal to authority on your part (or, appeal to supposed lack of authority or qualificiations).

I am not twisting Jesus' words -- it's there for all to see: some men are born eunuchs [homosexual]. Those who can receive it, do so. 😱 😀 Enjoy, courtesy of Jesus Christ!

The only evidence I 'need' to supply you is evidence that homosexuals were referred to as eunuchs at the time of christ. I'm happy to furnish that evidence, tho you may have to wait a short while for it.

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
1st timothy 1:12-14....

12 I am grateful to Christ Jesus our Lord, who imparted power to me, because he considered me faithful by assigning me to a ministry, 13 although formerly I was a blasphemer and a persecutor and an insolent man. Nevertheless, I was shown mercy, because I was ignorant and acted with a lack of faith. 14 But the undeserved kindness of our Lord abounded exceedingly along with faith and love that is in connection with Christ Jesus.

.... sounds like Jesus finds him to be a credible source...

Oh, are they the words of Christ are they? What you have offered above are 'merely' the ravings of the self-loathing, sex-phobic St Paul. We can never be sure if Christ did in fact assign ministry to St Paul.

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
and the fact that you keep making this personal (especially since you've had the pleasure of my banter for all of two days) only lends credibility to my stance: that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

You're just another dull stooge with somewhat misinformed, illogical views pertaining to homosexuality. I've 'met' a thousand on-line just like you in that regard - there is nothing 'personal' here for me. Try not to read to much into my posts. I don't dislike you.

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
Romans 3:23... "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Jesus' acceptance of homosexuals (not the practice, but the people) was in keeping with his acceptance of all sinners. they are all equally sinful, but equally protected under his new covenant with God. by no means is that a concession to sin, ANY sin.

[/quote]

There is no proof Jesus intended for the above comments to be applied to homosexual people or homosexual behavior. In fact, there is no proof Jesus believed that homosexuality was a sin. The fact that you THINK Jesus perceived homosexuality to be a sin is a reflection of your OWN biases -- not the biases of Jesus Christ. 🙂

We do know that Jesus affirmed that heterosexual marriage was not appropriate for everyone. We know that Jesus was aware that some men are BORN eunuchs (i.e., homosexual), and Jesus was OK with that. 🙂

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I stand corrected Scotland does have a blasphemy law.

Q & A: Blasphemy law

Therefore, if a law was being broken, Scottish citizens had every right to call the police.

So portraying Jesus as gay is offensive, correct? Would that be because he wasn't gay or because being gay is a bad thing, iyo?

I was waiting on this post. Gaard, I think you need to understand that being gay doesn't have to be a bad thing for someone to be offended by this portrayal. I"m neither a Christian or a bigot(I fully support gay rights), yet I can understand how a play that was meant to inflame would be offensive. I can also understand how many Christians who don't believe in judging people(and therefore accept gays and their rights) would have a problem with labeling Jesus as a homosexual. It is not because being homosexual is a bad thing, but because it is a baseless claim that is seeking to mock the church and its believers. Surely you aren't so obtuse that you cannot see that. Or are you?

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

As Paul neared Damascus, Christ Jesus revealed himself to Paul in a flashing light and commissioned him to be an attendant and a witness of the things he had seen and would yet see. Whereas those with Paul also fell to the ground because of this manifestation and heard the sound of someone speaking, Paul alone understood the words and was blinded, necessitating his being led by the hand to Damascus. (Ac 9:3-8; 22:6-11; 26:12-18) ) For three days he neither ate nor drank. Then, while praying in the house of a certain Judas at Damascus, Paul, in vision, saw Christ?s disciple Ananias come in and restore his sight. When the vision became reality, Paul was baptized, received holy spirit, partook of food, and gained strength.?Ac 9:9-19.