Was Jesus Gay?

[viole]

Of course it's sick. It goes against God's design and purpose for humans. Once again you're in denial.

Does going against God’s design and purpose for humans, entail sickness?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

And any competent psychologist will agree that it is only choice, nothing more. Just because it's your choice, doesn't mean it isn't choice for others too.

when did you choose your sexual orientation? Was it difficult?

people, who believe sexual orientation is a choice, can only be bisexual.

ciao

- viole

 

[lukethethird]

i am not sure how it is relevant, since I addressed the existence of homophobic Christians.

Ciao

- viole

Why did you address the existence of homophobic Christians?

 

[columbus]

Homosexuality IS a choice, regardless of you or anyone else putting forth futile arguments to the contrary.

No, this is not true.
I spent most of my young adulthood trying desperately to be straight. I even got a girl pregnant. I did not choose being gay.

You may well believe I'm lying about this, but I know the truth of the matter.
And the very fact that you confidently believe things I know are false is unequivocal evidence, to me, that you aren't a trustworthy source about anything important. Especially not God, morality, Scripture, or religion. Because you have demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to believe and say things I know to be false, based on your own opinions.
Tom

 

[Sand Dancer]

No, this is not true.
I spent most of my young adulthood trying desperately to be straight. I even got a girl pregnant. I did not choose being gay.

You may well believe I'm lying about this, but I know the truth of the matter.
And the very fact that you confidently believe things I know are false is unequivocal evidence, to me, that you aren't a trustworthy source about anything important. Especially not God, morality, Scripture, or religion. Because you have demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to believe and say things I know to be false, based on your own opinions.
Tom

It's not worth debating people who don't learn from reality and discussion.

 

[columbus]

It's not worth debating people who don't learn from reality and discussion.

Sure it is.
It's cheap entertainment. And while I'm unlikely to make an important difference, it's not impossible that I'll make a tiny difference.

That'll work, under the circumstances.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not worth debating people who don't learn from reality and discussion.

Eventually with some I change from debating to correcting. If they constantly display an inability to learn polite debate no longer does the job and slightly sterner replies are necessary. No name calling etc.. But pointing out a person's hypocrisy sometimes will get their attention.

 

[1213]

What is "Biblical love," and why would Jesus single out just one of his disciples as especially deserving of it? ...

...If the love isn't eros (romantic) one would think his love would be distributed equally among his disciples. But it isn't!
.

In Bible, there is nothing romantic included in the word love. In practice ilove means that one doesn’t do anything evil to others. It could be said it is to care without conditions. I believe Jesus cared much of the one disciple, because he had understood the message more profoundly than the others.

 

[viole]

Why did you address the existence of homophobic Christians?

because if no Christian would be homophobic, then to ask whether Jesus was gay would not be flaming. It would be like asking whether Jesus was blonde.

ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

In Bible, there is nothing romantic included in the word love.

Prove it. From where I sit your claim here is nothing more than an unsupported assertion created to absolve Jesus from having a romantic interest in his special disciple. Support your assertion and I may consider it.

In practice ilove means that one doesn’t do anything evil to others.

You've got to be kidding.

.

 

[Skwim]

.


Additional references to Jesus's special disciple in John 20:2

AMPC
"whom Jesus [tenderly] loved,"

DARBY
" the other disciple, to whom Jesus was attached,"

VOICE
" the dearly loved disciple"
​

PLUS the very suggestive comment in John 13:23

"Now there was one of his disciples, which leaned on Jesus’ bosom, whom Jesus loved."
"There was at the table reclining in Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples,"
"Now there was at table one of his disciples in the bosom of Jesus",
"One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was at the table, leaning against Jesus’ breast."

.​

 

[1213]

Prove it. From where I sit your claim here is nothing more than an unsupported assertion created to absolve Jesus from having a romantic interest in his special disciple. Support your assertion and I may consider it.
.

Interesting if you require me to prove a negative. Usually atheist think it is wrong to require that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting if you require me to prove a negative. Usually atheist think it is wrong to require that.

Actually you made a positive assertion. That does put the burden of proof upon yourself. You should have chosen your words more wisely.

 

[Skwim]

Interesting if you require me to prove a negative. Usually atheist think it is wrong to require that.

As Subduction Zone rightly recognizes, you made a positive assertion.: In effect you're saying: "It is true that In Bible, there is nothing romantic included in the word love." Moreover,

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."
Source:Wikipedia​

And you, not me, made the claim, so you bear the burden of proof.

,

 

[stvdv]

Simply consider.

"The phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved" . . . or, in John 20:2 the disciple beloved of Jesus . . . is used six times in the Gospel of John, but in no other New Testament accounts of Jesus. John 21:24 states that the Gospel of John is based on the written testimony of this disciple."
Source: Wikipedia

Was Jesus Gay?

My Master taught us "what you see in others, is in you"

 

[1213]

Actually you made a positive assertion. That does put the burden of proof upon yourself. You should have chosen your words more wisely.

As Subduction Zone rightly recognizes, you made a positive assertion.: In effect you're saying: "It is true that In Bible, there is nothing romantic included in the word love." ...
,

Yes, if you read the book, there is nothing romantic in the definition of love in the Bible. How could I prove there is nothing? Only way is that you read the book and see for yourself that it is so. So, should I quote the whole Bible here so that you could see?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, if you read the book, there is nothing romantic in the definition of love in the Bible. How could I prove there is nothing? Only way is that you read the book and see for yourself that it is so. So, should I quote the whole Bible here so that you could see?

I don't know about that. Some of the verses that @Skwim quoted seemed to be pretty sexual. Remember, this was a time when gay people had to stay deep in the closet. Openly declaring that one was gay was a death sentence.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, if you read the book, there is nothing romantic in the definition of love in the Bible.

So what is this all-inclusive definition of love in the bible (chapter and verse please) that excludes the possibility of romantic love within its pages?

How could I prove there is nothing?

I don't know. It was your assertion, so the burden of convincing anyone of its truth and how you'd go about it is up to you. If it's too difficult to do then you shouldn't expect anyone to believe you.

Thing is, having read the relevant verses in John I believe there is more than sufficient evidence to assert the love Jesus had for his special disciple is romantic.

"The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies states that "Romantic love, based on the model of mutual attraction and on a connection between two people that bonds them as a couple, creates the conditions for overturning the model of family and marriage that it engenders." This indicates that romantic love can be the founding of attraction between two people. This term was primarily used by the "western countries after the 1800s were socialized into, love is the necessary prerequisite for starting an intimate relationship and represents the foundation on which to build the next steps in a family."
Source: Wikipedia​

And being a romantic love I believe it's enough to conclude the two people involved are "in love," which is enough to further conclude the two, depending on their sexes, are either heterosexual lovers or homosexual lovers. Homosexual lovers typically being labeled "gay."

And don't forget:
The disciple was singled out as one who Jesus "dearly loved," "particularly loved, "loved very much," "kept loving," "loved dearly," "specially loved." So it is obvious this is A disciple Jesus loved as he loved no other. Therefore, this love isn't at all like the love you claim as meeting the "definition of love in the Bible."


.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So what is this all-inclusive definition of love in the bible (chapter and verse please) that excludes the possibility of romantic love within its pages?


I don't know. It was your assertion, so the burden of convincing anyone of its truth and how you'd go about it is up to you. If it's too difficult to do then you shouldn't expect anyone to believe you.

Thing is, having read the relevant verses in John I believe there is more than sufficient evidence to assert the love Jesus had for his special disciple is romantic.

"The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies states that "Romantic love, based on the model of mutual attraction and on a connection between two people that bonds them as a couple, creates the conditions for overturning the model of family and marriage that it engenders." This indicates that romantic love can be the founding of attraction between two people. This term was primarily used by the "western countries after the 1800s were socialized into, love is the necessary prerequisite for starting an intimate relationship and represents the foundation on which to build the next steps in a family."
Source: Wikipedia​

And being a romantic love I believe it's enough to conclude the two people involved are "in love," which is enough to further conclude the two, depending on their sexes, are either heterosexual lovers or homosexual lovers. Homosexual lovers typically being labeled "gay."

And don't forget:
The disciple was singled out as one Jesus "dearly loved," "particularly loved, "loved very much," "kept loving," "loved dearly," "specially loved." So it is obvious this is A disciple Jesus loved as he loved no other. Therefore, this love isn't at all like the love you claim as meeting the "definition of love in the Bible."


.

Having known what it is like to really love another male -- at a time when this absolutely could not be admitted (and therefore remained unconsummated) -- I grok where you're going. I've long suspected that this was not just a BFF sort of thing.

 

[1213]

So what is this all-inclusive definition of love in the bible (chapter and verse please) that excludes the possibility of romantic love within its pages?

Here are few things about love in the Bible:

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:16

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

Now concerning things sacrificed to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
1 Cor. 8:1

Love is patient and is kind; love doesn't envy. Love doesn't brag, is not proud, doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil; doesn't rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
1 Cor. 13:4-7

On basis of those I think love means person cares. But nothing in Bible supports the idea of romantic love.

I don't know. It was your assertion, so the burden of convincing anyone of its truth and how you'd go about it is up to you. If it's too difficult to do then you shouldn't expect anyone to believe you.

Ok, thank you, I have to use that against atheists.