- James V. Penn
Main idea: James Penn, in his work “The Gay Jesus,” argued that the homosexuality of Jesus might be hidden in the Bible, if traditional religious interpretations did not emphasize same-sex relationships as a sin. Penn explores the symbolism of love between Jesus and his disciples, especially in the context of his relationship with John the Apostle, who is described as “the beloved disciple.” - Thomas L. Neff
Main idea: Neff, in his work “Jesus and the Gays,” viewed Jesus as a figure whose behavior could be interpreted as homosexual in a modern context, analyzing the affectionate relationships he had with certain men, like John.
Quote: “The story of the love between Jesus and John reflects a deeper and more intimate level of relationship than is usually assumed.” - John D. Smart
Main idea: Smart viewed the relationship between Jesus and his disciples as more complex than just brotherly love. His works hypothesize that Jesus was the only person whose relationships with men went beyond mere friendship and included aspects of homosexual connections. - Mark Rivers
Main idea: In his book “Christ, the Gay Messiah,” Mark Rivers discusses that the love between Jesus and his disciples, particularly with John, could be interpreted as a form of romantic love. He explores how Christianity can be reconsidered from the perspective of homosexuality and how modern culture views ancient texts. - Hermann Weidenfels
Main idea: In his essay “Jesus and the Homosexual Question,” Hermann Weidenfels argued that there is much evidence that the relationship between Jesus and his disciples went beyond simple spiritual closeness. In this context, he notes that Christianity later replaced these moments with more traditional concepts of marriage and family relations. - James D. Daniels
Main idea: In his research, James Daniels argued that the relationship between Jesus and his followers could be interpreted as “sexual” in the sense that he communicated with them on a level of love that, in modern understanding, could be seen as romantic or homosexual love. - Michel Foucault
Main idea: Although Foucault did not claim that Jesus was homosexual, he raised important questions about power, love, and social conformity. He wrote about how the spiritual and sexual spheres often intertwine in culture, which can be interpreted as an indirect discussion of possible homosexual relationships in a historical context. - Robert M. Stern
Main idea: Stern, in his book “The Secret Teachings of Jesus: Love and Friendship,” writes about how the love of Jesus and his relationships with men, especially John, can be seen through the lens of homosexual theology, suggesting that the symbolism of love and male devotion in the Bible may point to hidden aspects of sexuality. - Richard Parks
Main idea: In his works on Christian theology, Richard Parks examines the figure of Jesus as a symbol of liberation from traditional religious dogma, including concepts of heteronormative relationships. He discusses the possibility that the relationships between Jesus and his disciples could have been interpreted as closer than just spiritual.
Well, I’ll be damned. Ol’ J was puttin’ from the rough, was he? Hey, I don’t judge. I’m a nihilist on my way to nothingness through self-dissolution (slowly losing my electrons and producing more free radicals).
Question: if J was god, and god existed before any perverts existed, would J then technically be a prevert?
I disagree. Words themselves don’t mean much unless they point to real ideas. It’s the ideas — the** concepts **— that matter. And when a concept is legit, it connects to real things in the world. That’s what gives it meaning.
A definition is just a way of describing those real things. That’s why definitions help us understand what’s true. Aristotle nailed it: he said humans are animals, but what makes humans special is that we can think deeply — we come up with ideas, understand stuff beyond what we see, and reason through things.
So when you define something, you’re doing two things: first, you say what big group it belongs to (like ‘animal’), and second, you explain what makes it stand out from the rest (like ‘can reason’).
Please cite any reference where Hume or Nietsche would has said something so crass!
But is there reason in faith in reason in faith in reason?
Eh??
Answer me that!
So crass as what?
Do you even remember what you responded to?
I asked ‘what about the faith in reason?’
If that is crass… brace yourself:
“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” - David Hume
The most important question is why. And its modification is who benefited. Who benefited from making an idol out of a gay man? You die a lowlife, come back an idol. The answer will make you laugh.
You see, a gay man is a Jew. Believing a Jew, people understand with their arse. A cross on the mind. You have to think with your arse. Are you having fun?
Ah yes…
“Jesus Christ was a sodomite faggot”
“Jesus Christ is burning in Hell in his own excrement and feces”
“Here is a jar of piss with the Christ and the Crucifix in it, Fine Art”
You Christ Killers never change, even after two thousand, twenty-five years. You are still the same as ever before.
Ye shall know them by their fruits.
At least you named your Username accurately, Demon.
You will know them by their fruits.
The fires of the Inquisition. The murder of all the beautiful women of Europe. The Crusades and millions and millions of innocent corpses. The current Christian hatred of everything that makes sense. You don’t change - you are Evil.
Faith is the animal instinct of the herd. Faith does not tolerate otherness. Faith is the cause of all conflicts, wars and confrontations. Faith is the murder of reason.
By the fruits of faith, you will know them.
I’m not the one calling… whatever Satanic God you worship, flaming homosexuals, Demon.
YOU ARE. You are the one asserting the claims, faith, and beliefs, NOT me.
The absence of faith and the presence of knowledge preclude worship.
Satan is a name given to the intellect. It is a name coined by Faith. Faith is incapable of open combat.
It is impossible to write an example of evil from Satan. But Faith is truly Evil. There are many examples of evil coming from Faith.
You are angry because you are a believer. That is ridiculous and pathetic.
You believe in Jesus Christ more than I do – why else would you slander your LORD as a sodomite and homosexual??
A demon doesn’t need faith. It’s easily replaced by assumptions. Where and in what way do you see slander? Just a simple statement of fact. For example, virgins get pregnant through petting or anal intercourse. That’s a fact. What does that have to do with miracles? Where’s the slander? Jesus is the product of anal intercourse between Mary and the sons of an old Jew. What’s miraculous about that?
This is a talking point I often use about Hume. It is not related to Fatih. You will have to do better than that.
You might want to start with a workinf definition of Faith since it can also be used for “trust”. But when people use “faith” most commonly and oft in a religious sense it is a label for something other than simple trust.
Faith is beleiving a thing to be true regardless of evidence and reason. Fatih is where reason goes to DIE.
It is not compatible with a notion of Reason. That is why your statement was so crass.
Passions do in fact motivate and push reason. It is the passion that feeds the erge to discover, and investigate.
Passion gets us up in the morning.
Your words say more than I could about you.
Christ Killers apparently never changed.
I can only agree with that if by reason he meant the how, and by passions he meant the why.
I keep going back-and-forth between whether why is primary or how is primary.
For example, the love relationship is the why that motivates the how of making it work.
It is important not to get that confused as meaning you work in order to get love.
Love is the music, the work is the dancing.
Love (why) is what motivates the work/dancing (how) (makes it fun / worth it).
As for the OP…
The why/value is the reason we dance… the how/action is the dancing… and we are the ones who may know how to dance even if we don’t know why, or may know why we dance, even if we don’t know how… or refuse/choose to dance whether we know why/how… or not.
If we are good at dancing without having to learn or knowing why… that’s programmed in (animal program). If we can (and at least sometimes should) refuse/choose to dance despite all passions driving us to/against it… Hume was wrong.
I wonder how he grounds his “ought”.
Do you think yourself a Christian??
Kind of, I believe Jesus Christ was a real person, who did amazing things during His lifetime, but nothing Supernatural. No resurrection. No magic involved. He may have had a royal lineage though.
KInd of… BS
Jesus is truning in his grave.
Why dont you actually read the damn bible, you will be horrified at how nice he is compared to your rantings
Jesus Christ, your LORD, is example of Moral Selflessness and the height which can be achieved of Moral and Ethical Goodness.
You, and the Christ Killers, have hated Him so much, for so long, that you would do ANYTHING to slander, defile, desecrate, and kill Him again… it’s pathetic really.