Was Jesus a gay?

MrStuffins

I always love these threads at first

But then the usual offenders come along (i'm looking at you Freddie) and spout absolute nonsense and show complete ignorance for anything and everything that isn't in line with the religious rubbish he's been indoctrinated with and ruin it for the rest of us.

Arguing with these people is like playing Whack-A-Mole! They stick their ignorant heads up, you whack it back down, they just pop it up somewhere else straight away. You can't win because they don't want to listen. They've been brainwashed to think that discent of their beliefs makes them stronger.

I mean, if they've grown to be the age they are without knowing oxygen can be seen, as can radiowaves and that religion has (and still does in a sense) hold back science......... then what makes you think they will ever change their mind or see sense?

Havermeyer

MrStuffins wrote: »

I always love these threads at first

But then the usual offenders come along (i'm looking at you Freddie) and spout absolute nonsense and show complete ignorance for anything and everything that isn't in line with the religious rubbish he's been indoctrinated with and ruin it for the rest of us.

Arguing with these people is like playing Whack-A-Mole! They stick their ignorant heads up, you whack it back down, they just pop it up somewhere else straight away. You can't win because they don't want to listen. They've been brainwashed to think that discent of their beliefs makes them stronger.

I mean, if they've grown to be the age they are without knowing oxygen can be seen, as can radiowaves and that religion has (and still does in a sense) hold back science......... then what makes you think they will ever change their mind or see sense?

I don't.

I just can't sleep, and don't like backing down from an argument/debate.

I am under no illusion of changing people's positions on such matters.

Benny_Cake

nummnutts wrote: »

No my problem is not with christianity. I don't care which god you believe in.

I am simply arguing that religion did hinder science, and civilisation as a whole, during the dark/middle ages.

And I'm simply arguing that it's a more complex picture than that - history always is. Certainly religious dogma did have a negative effect on science to some degree at some points during the Middle Ages. But religious institutions also provided education and preserved the philosophy of the ancient Greeks.

I'd doubt we'll agree on this, but it's been an interesting discussion. Damn insomnia.

MrStuffins

Here's another question.

Was Jesus heterosexual?

Havermeyer

Benny_Cake wrote: »

And I'm simply arguing that it's a more complex picture than that - history always is. Certainly religious dogma did have a negative effect on science to some degree at some points during the Middle Ages. But religious institutions also provided education and preserved the philosophy of the ancient Greeks.

I'd doubt we'll agree on this, but it's been an interesting discussion. Damn insomnia.

And I am simply arguing that religion did - a historical fact, no less - hinder science etc, regardless of the complexities of the subject matter.

However, we shall agree to disagree.

Now, back to the jesus was gay stuff.

Cú Giobach

Freddie59 wrote: »

God is known under different names (such as Allah, etc).

Allah is the Arabic word for God, an Arabic speaking Christian will also pray to Allah, just like a French speaking one will pray to Dieu, a Polish one to Bóg, Irish to Dia etc......
Though Arabic speaking Christians sometimes use the term Allāh al-ʾab (الله الأب, God the Father) to distinguish from Islam.

nozzferrahhtoo

lastlaugh wrote: »

How very condescending of you.

If you say so. I see no reason to think so however.

lastlaugh wrote: »

Nor should it mean we should deride it.

Nor have I claimed it does. There are other reasons for doing so. As I said there is good reasons to attack, falsify and even deride poor or unsubstantiated beliefs. Also as I said this can be done with respect to... and without attacking in any way... the people who actually hold those beliefs.

None of which is changed by you feeling offended or condescended vicariously on behalf of the beliefs.... nor as I said should we pander to those people who claim to be.

lastlaugh wrote: »

Fatwa envy?

It is the term that is often applied on forums to Christians, or people who are sympathetic to Christians, who whine that "Were this an Islam thread the mods would DO something". It is a bad thing to whine for a few reasons, the first being that the issue with such moderators as is being fantasied in the whine should not be closing the other thread, not that they should be closing this one... and another being that often the reason that Islamic threads and even live public meetings are closed down is because of the people who rule by fear, threats and violence. In the face of such behavior we should be keeping such threads open, not sticking our tails between our legs, shutting them down and running before the bad men come with sticks.

lastlaugh wrote: »

The point I'm making is that any jokes about Muslims or Jews would result in bans being slapped out left right and center.

Clearly a bad point then since my comment in the last post resulted in nothing of the sort. Fatwa Envy posters often play the "You would be banned if you derided islam card" but when someone like me actually does, and I did in my last post, nothing of the sort actually happens thus negating your point entirely, though I can see the sick sense of humor of After Hours leading me to a ban now for saying THAT Also Jesus WAS not only a Jew but is also an important figure in Islam so I am not sure what you are even talking about now and... to be honest... am not entirely convinced you are either.

Cú Giobach

Benny_Cake wrote: »

For me there is one God, understood by different people's and cultures in different ways. I'm happy enough to go with my understanding, accept the right of others to walk their own road of faith.

Many of the concepts differ so wildly that many of the gods around the world, and through time, could have no connection with the Abrahamic faiths concept of god.
For example in Buddhism there are gods, but they play no role in "the greater scheme of things" and are as stuck in the cycle as humans are, in fact Buddha himself who wasn't a deity of any type whatsoever, would be (since he achieved enlightenment) superior to a god who didn't, or how about the Japanese Shinto gods who were formed at the same time as the universe. Neither of those religions have a "creator of everything god".
Thinking god is god irrespective of the religion is quite a misconception.

Ghost Buster

Freddie59 wrote: »

You don't know. The key statement. For all the theorising.:)

Yes he doesnt know and honestly admits it. I dont know. No body knows. You dont either but rather than be honest you plug the gap with a pretend being with super powers

Osgoodisgood

Freddie59 wrote: »

You don't know. The key statement. For all the theorising.:)

Hmmm, the sort of poorly conceived sophistry that blights the apologist's argument.

It's really quite endearing to watch the xtians hovering around the science labs looking for a space that they can wedge their dusty old "beliefs" into. The opportunities are becoming harder to find though aren't they?

:):rolleyes::o:mad::(:eek::cool::P:confused::pac:

efb

Jesus never had sex apparently

Bet his mates crucified him for that...

Benny_Cake

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Many of the concepts differ so wildly that many of the gods around the world, and through time, could have no connection with the Abrahamic faiths concept of god.
For example in Buddhism there are gods, but they play no role in "the greater scheme of things" and are as stuck in the cycle as humans are, in fact Buddha himself who wasn't a deity of any type whatsoever, would be (since he achieved enlightenment) superior to a god who didn't, or how about the Japanese Shinto gods who were formed at the same time as the universe.
Thinking god is god irrespective of the religion is quite a misconception.

Well, I'd look on it as a general rule rather than a universal one. Obviously being from Ireland I'm rooted in the Judeo-Christian outlook, it's part of our culture as much as anything else. You're right though, I have a lot of time for Buddhists - I lived in Thailand for a while, and on the subject of God they are best described as agnostic. All religion is a search for something beyond ourselves, something transcendental. If people find that in Christ as I do, great, but I'm not one of those who believes that people who don't believe as I do will be tortured for all eternity. Nor so I reject the findings of science, wherever they may lead.

Micky Dolenz

We'll wrap this up kinda soon. Circles are forming.

Don't worry though, we can debate it all again in next weeks thread.

Ghost Buster

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

We'll wrap this up kinda soon. Circles are forming.

Don't worry though, we can debate it all again in next weeks thread.

Are you a gay?

Micky Dolenz

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Are you a gay?

Are you asking me out?

Cú Giobach

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

We'll wrap this up kinda soon. Circles are forming.

If we all meditate we can break out of the circle. Who knows, maybe Boards itself could achieve enlightenment. Ohm....

sensibleken

nummnutts wrote: »

. You say monasteries preserved knowledge. You're right, they preserved knowledge that would be beneficial to the christian faith. They destroyed everything else.

This is not true. Monastarties, particularly the irish ones and those founded by Irish missionaries kept record of pagan religions alive, see all of irish mythology which although given a christian twist would be absolutely unknown if it werent for them. The only reason we have the scientific writtings of aristotle and archimedes is because monks kept it alive, especially since the burning of the library of Alexandria.

Scientific suppression came about during the late middle ages alright but your going to have to come up with some examples of how they burnt everything that was not of use to christianity.

Dwaegon

cursai wrote: »

Thread hijacked by jihad atheists I see. I was hoping to find out if Jesus had fondness for the lads through some interesting and unknown fact like Mary Magdalene was,actually called Mark.

Slight misunderstanding of what the word 'jihad' means perhaps?

Ghost Buster

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Are you asking me out?

Dont flatter your self. Who do you think you are?? Jesus?

hondasam

So what if he was, what difference does it make, he is still Jesus. He loves everyone equally.

Benny_Cake

Close the thread, but we're so close to solving atheism vs religion, I can smell it! Although it has gone slightly off track, even if the original track was warped.

Cú Giobach

sensibleken wrote: »

........... since the burning of the library of Alexandria.

Now that was a loss, of any single event in history that one had to have had one of the largest effects on scientific and rational thinking, it doesn't bear thinking about what was probably lost forever.

Seachmall

hondasam wrote: »

So what if he was, what difference does it make, he is still Jesus. He loves everyone equally.

I dun wan no gays lovin me! Tis unnatural tis what it is!!

Benny_Cake

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Dont flatter your self. Who do you think you are?? Jesus?

He's a mod, that's pretty close....

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

I dun wan no gays lovin me! Tis unnatural tis what it is!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx227986hc8

zuroph

efb wrote: »

Jesus never had sex apparently

Like father Mother, like son

norrie rugger

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Hear hear.
I subscribe to your superior theory of "If you dont know how it happened....... GOD DIDDIT!!!"
Lets stop all research and quest for knowledge now and just replace it with that.

We did that, it was called the Dark Ages. Did not really work out well

Micky Dolenz

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Dont flatter your self. Who do you think you are?? Jesus?

I'm bigger then Jesus.

gbee

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'd doubt we'll agree on this, but it's been an interesting discussion. Damn insomnia.

It's basically relevant to the authorities at the time, science was seen as beneficial up to the point where it challenged dogma ~ The Sun circling the Earth is perhaps the classic case.

As other times there was a challenge to authority that changed administrations attitudes, Joan De Arc was one such but certainly not unique individual who used the Church's very teaching and principals to become more powerful than them ~ for a while, but she served a purpose for their needs in the meantime.

The Church also followed a few broad paths, Monks and monasteries were more or less a society onto themselves until it was discovered that they were in fact preserving all documents of history, the 'hard core' Church then disbanded some of them branding them heretics and massacring some.

Early Irish Christianity was initially from the monasteries, later the 'Roman Catholic Church' took over and 'Religion' underwent a change.

To confuse and confound history, the Roman Catholic Church invaders rewrote history and wrote people and places into past history to give themselves a linearity, either calling people converts or placing people who never lived at the time there.

gbee

Broadly speaking, we have a Christian movement spreading out from around the time of Christ, whether he initiated it or adopted it, he has nonetheless been accepted as it's greatest supporter and the movement has carried his name since.

This pre-dates the organised Roman Church by some 350 years or so. The Roman Church saw religion as a means to dominate people by sheer fear at a time when it's own [Roman] army was decimated by war, rebellion, desertion, separation [3 Ceasers] and lack of money to pay what little remained loyal.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church follows the Christian Movement across all empires and tries to force conversions which it is initially very successful with, however, a massive rebellion erupted in the East some 300 or so years later.

gbee

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Though Arabic speaking Christians sometimes use the term Allāh al-ʾab (الله الأب, God the Father) to distinguish from Islam.

Thanks. Didn't know that, but I have heard this inflection difference.

sensibleken

gbee wrote: »

It's basically relevant to the authorities at the time, science was seen as beneficial up to the point where it challenged dogma ~ The Sun circling the Earth is perhaps the classic case.

As other times there was a challenge to authority that changed administrations attitudes, Joan De Arc was one such but certainly not unique individual who used the Church's very teaching and principals to become more powerful than them ~ for a while, but she served a purpose for their needs in the meantime.

The Church also followed a few broad paths, Monks and monasteries were more or less a society onto themselves until it was discovered that they were in fact preserving all documents of history, the 'hard core' Church then disbanded some of them branding them heretics and massacring some.

Early Irish Christianity was initially from the monasteries, later the 'Roman Catholic Church' took over and 'Religion' underwent a change.

To confuse and confound history, the Roman Catholic Church invaders rewrote history and wrote people and places into past history to give themselves a linearity, either calling people converts or placing people who never lived at the time there.

I wouldnt put it all down to Roman Catholic invader per se. That is if we are talking about things such as the children of Lear meeting Patrick, Cesair being the granddaughter of Noah etc.

They certainly combined christian with (probably) older myths but there is nothing to say this was done intentionally or happened organically with people combining older stories with christian ones.

roman catholicism only really took over around the anglo norman invasion by which time most of these stories were already recorded. But the process had probably begun back at the synod of whitby in 663, before most had been written. In short, who knows.

nozzferrahhtoo

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I'm bigger then Jesus.

Wasn't the lead singer of some boy band not shot for saying something like this?

gbee

sensibleken wrote: »

I wouldnt put it all down to Roman Catholic invader per se. That is if we are talking about things such as the children of Lear meeting Patrick, Cesair being the granddaughter of Noah etc.

It's very unlikely that Patrick was a Catholic, he probably saw himself as part of the Christian Church and of Simon's lineage.

Patrick seems to have arrived 60 years after Catholicism, yet as you say, Catholicism in Ireland did on arrive for another 700 years. The conquest of Ireland was also during an early crusade period.

sensibleken

gbee wrote: »

It's very unlikely that Patrick was a Catholic, he probably saw himself as part of the Christian Church and of Simon's lineage.

Patrick seems to have arrived 60 years after Catholicism, yet as you say, Catholicism in Ireland did on arrive for another 700 years. The conquest of Ireland was also during an early crusade period.

Hard to say, he was an ordained bishop which seperated him from the monastary tradition that later emerged as the real powerhouse in Ireland. Palladius' earlier intervention at the Pope's behest was not very successful, nor was Ciaran a century earlier. I would say Patrick was a catholic, he brought christianity and then the Irish did what they liked with it until Laudabiliter gave them a slap.

Doc Ruby

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Many of the concepts differ so wildly that many of the gods around the world, and through time, could have no connection with the Abrahamic faiths concept of god.
For example in Buddhism there are gods, but they play no role in "the greater scheme of things" and are as stuck in the cycle as humans are, in fact Buddha himself who wasn't a deity of any type whatsoever, would be (since he achieved enlightenment) superior to a god who didn't, or how about the Japanese Shinto gods who were formed at the same time as the universe. Neither of those religions have a "creator of everything god".
Thinking god is god irrespective of the religion is quite a misconception.

Probably most if not all religions do hold a few basic concepts in common though, if you go deeper than "is there a god". They all believe there is more to the world than meets the eye, there is an existence after death, and this existence is structured in some way like heaven, hell, higher planes of existence, enlightenment, or what have you.

The evolution of religion from primitive animism to huge and sophisticated belief structures like the Catholic church, with intricate laws and dogmas, is more of a story of how people can abuse belief than anything else, but the central idea, a reaching for something more, in many ways the same instinct that gave us science, is still there under all the fossilised layers.

Maybe its a fairy tale, but it means well.

old hippy

Do I have to trawl through 23 pages of this?

I would say he could have been; it doesn't make any difference to me. I cannot ever, ever accept him as the son of a non-existent deity. That's the most insulting part for me.

I think he was a good bloke, chucking bankers about and standing up to the brutal imperialists.

sensibleken

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Probably most if not all religions do hold a few basic concepts in common though, if you go deeper than "is there a god". They all believe there is more to the world than meets the eye, there is an existence after death, and this existence is structured in some way like heaven, hell, higher planes of existence, enlightenment, or what have you.

The evolution of religion from primitive animism to huge and sophisticated belief structures like the Catholic church, with intricate laws and dogmas, is more of a story of how people can abuse belief than anything else, but the central idea, a reaching for something more, in many ways the same instinct that gave us science, is still there under all the fossilised layers.

Maybe its a fairy tale, but it means well.

If anything that is an argument on how the human mind works. Every civilisation who could not explain a phenomena would explain it by unseen forces, sometimes gods or spirits.

But science looked a bit closer and saw it was something else causing it. Religion doesnt reach for somethign more, it thinks it has everything already.

Doc Ruby

sensibleken wrote: »

But science looked a bit closer and saw it was something else causing it. Religion doesnt reach for somethign more, it thinks it has everything already.

Science isn't an independent entity wandering about the place discovering things, its a product of the very same minds that produced religion. There isn't any "scientist" gene. It is the same instinct, trying to understand and influence things beyond our reach at the moment, and to me that represents something of value.

As a disclaimer I'm not a religious person, although I'll give respect at a mosque or temple as easily as I would in a church. Its less respect to the institution than to the underlying ideal however.

bombs away

billyhead wrote: »

Bull****. Since when did I state I was homophobic.

If as you state your not homophobic then what exactly would be wrong if Jesus were gay

Benny_Cake

sensibleken wrote: »

If anything that is an argument on how the human mind works. Every civilisation who could not explain a phenomena would explain it by unseen forces, sometimes gods or spirits.

But science looked a bit closer and saw it was something else causing it. Religion doesnt reach for somethign more, it thinks it has everything already.

If you meet a religious person who thinks that they have all the answers, give them a wide berth. The truth is that none of us have all the answers, even the bible admits in Corinthians that for now "we see through a glass darkly". Plenty of people who would consider themselves religious or spiritual work in the various fields of science. Personally I find scientific discovery exciting, each discovery reveals more than we knew before. In no way does it conflict with faith, not for me anyway. The big problem in Christianity is biblical literalism, people reading the Bible as a blow-by-blow account of history, which is a relatively new concept.

sensibleken

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Science isn't an independent entity wandering about the place discovering things, its a product of the very same minds that produced religion. There isn't any "scientist" gene. It is the same instinct, trying to understand and influence things beyond our reach at the moment, and to me that represents something of value.

As a disclaimer I'm not a religious person, although I'll give respect at a mosque or temple as easily as I would in a church. Its less respect to the institution than to the underlying ideal however.

true, bad wording on my part. I was anthropomor- thingy (can never spell that word) science and religion to illustrate that science looks deeper than religion to find actual causes rather than the prefered cause.

I agree totaly that religion seeks to understand just as science does. It just that its very very bad at it when it comes to the material world. It has a habit hang onto ideas despite all evidence to the contrary

Doc Ruby

sensibleken wrote: »

I agree totaly that religion seeks to understand just as science does. It just that its very very bad at it when it comes to the material world. It has a habit hang onto ideas despite all evidence to the contrary

Well that goes back to what I touched on earlier, the evolution of spiritualism into organised religion and the corruption of institutions into tools of control. If new knowledge threatens the actual purpose of these institutions, of course they will resist it - if new information led to increased power, watch how quickly it gets embraced.

Although its worth mentioning that the iconic example of Galileo was less to do with his groundbreaking theories than with the fact that he was an antisocial sort who made a habit of publicly insulting an autocratic medieval ruler with absolute power.

This doesn't obviate the potential of the underlying message though, no more than a charity being abused obviates the idea of charity.

As a spiritual but non religious person myself I find ample ground in science for at least the potential of a spiritual dimension. For example, there is most definetely an existence after death, according to the principles of conservation of energy and matter, its just not much use to people. All the bits are still there just not working.

The real question is whether or not there is conservation of information, the arrangement of those bits in some manner to make them useful. The discipline of quantum mechanics is built on the concept of exactly that, preservation of information, albeit again not neccessarily in a useful fashion.

It annoys me when I hear people going on about humans as meat machines tick tocking from the cradle to the grave along predetermined routes. This is an arrogance to match any religious dictat which no real scientist would support, since there is tremendous debate in scientific circles as to whether or not the universe is deterministic at a minimum.

We really have no clue about an awful lot of stuff, certainly a lot more than we have already discovered. Spirituality doesn't have to mean woodoo hoodoo, it could very well just be undiscovered science. I wouldn't conflate that with religious institutions.

sensibleken

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Well that goes back to what I touched on earlier, the evolution of spiritualism into organised religion and the corruption of institutions into tools of control. If new knowledge threatens the actual purpose of these institutions, of course they will resist it - if new information led to increased power, watch how quickly it gets embraced.

Although its worth mentioning that the iconic example of Galileo was less to do with his groundbreaking theories than with the fact that he was an antisocial sort who made a habit of publicly insulting an autocratic medieval ruler with absolute power.

This doesn't obviate the potential of the underlying message though, no more than a charity being abused obviates the idea of charity.

As a spiritual but non religious person myself I find ample ground in science for at least the potential of a spiritual dimension. For example, there is most definetely an existence after death, according to the principles of conservation of energy and matter, its just not much use to people. All the bits are still there just not working.

The real question is whether or not there is conservation of information, the arrangement of those bits in some manner to make them useful. The discipline of quantum mechanics is built on the concept of exactly that, preservation of information, albeit again not neccessarily in a useful fashion.

It annoys me when I hear people going on about humans as meat machines tick tocking from the cradle to the grave along predetermined routes. This is an arrogance to match any religious dictat which no real scientist would support, since there is tremendous debate in scientific circles as to whether or not the universe is deterministic at a minimum.

We really have no clue about an awful lot of stuff, certainly a lot more than we have already discovered. Spirituality doesn't have to mean woodoo hoodoo, it could very well just be undiscovered science. I wouldn't conflate that with religious institutions.

I dont see how principles of conservation could possibly enter into a debate about spirituality as it makes no allowance for systems.

Doc Ruby

sensibleken wrote: »

I dont see how principles of conservation could possibly enter into a debate about spirituality as it makes no allowance for systems.

Merely making the point that all of the bits that were there before you died are there after you die.

sensibleken

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Merely making the point that all of the bits that were there before you died are there after you die.

yes but thats hardly existence after death.

Doc Ruby

sensibleken wrote: »

yes but thats hardly existence after death.

...hence the rest of the post.

gbee

Papacy in the 14th century

[edit]Curia
After the arrest of the Bishop of Pamiers by Philip IV in 1301, Pope Boniface VIII issued the bull Salvator Mundi, retracting all privileges granted to the French king by previous popes, and a few weeks later Ausculta fili with charges against the king, summoning him before a council to Rome. In a bold assertion of Papal sovereignty, Boniface declared that "God has placed us over the Kings and Kingdoms."

In response, Philippe wrote "Your venerable conceitedness may know, that we are nobody's vassal in temporal matters," and called for a meeting of the Estates General, a council of the lords of France, who had supported his position. The King of France issued charges of sodomy, simony, sorcery, and heresy against the pope and summoned him before the council. The pope's response was the strongest affirmation to date of papal sovereignty. In Unam Sanctam (November 18, 1302), he decreed that "it is necessary to salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy] Legend.

Cú Giobach

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Probably most if not all religions do hold a few basic concepts in common though, if you go deeper than "is there a god". They all believe there is more to the world than meets the eye, there is an existence after death, and this existence is structured in some way like heaven, hell, higher planes of existence, enlightenment, or what have you.

The evolution of religion from primitive animism to huge and sophisticated belief structures like the Catholic church, with intricate laws and dogmas, is more of a story of how people can abuse belief than anything else, but the central idea, a reaching for something more, in many ways the same instinct that gave us science, is still there under all the fossilised layers.

Maybe its a fairy tale, but it means well.

I was only addressing the concept of "god", more specifically the misconception many who follow the Judeo-Christian beliefs have, when they hear the word "god" with respect to other religions.
I don't suppose anyone has noticed but in my time posting here in any thread with a religious theme I have never discussed, an afterlife, higher planes of existence etc....But stuck to discussing the attributes of and human failings (anger, jealousy etc...) given to the Abrahamic God and how science has pushed deities back by giving scientific explanations for things that were once believed to have been the direct result of interventions by them.

For the record, my own personal feelings are a bit of a strange blend, the result of a (limited) knowledge of quantum mechanics, cosmology and Buddhism.

Mickey H

We definately know 2 things about Jesus.

1. He was crap at football.
2. He drove a Honda.

Proof:

1. He went up for the cross and got nailed.
2. John 12:49 - For I did not speak of my own Accord.