What was Jesus' Sexuality?

Jesus was an ugly woman or a mutated X chromosome...

Since "spirits" don't need or possess physical chromosomes and our VIRGIN Mary didn't possess any Y chromosomes Jesus had to have been a woman OR a mutant! Mary's egg must have spontaneously developed and embryo and in turn mutated one of her X chromosomes. Kind of like EVOLUTION, only a divine evolutionary dead end.

 

I like your reasoning, but if you cut of your hand are you any less you?

 

Actually , if you removed your testes you wouldnt be the same person you are now. It would be similar to taking massive doses of Female hormones. Though this sometimes depends on age. Removing them before puberty will result in a more feminine male ..

Emotional changes would be more than the physical. But the male wouldnt be a very strong one due to the lack of testosterone ..

 

Same person influenced by different stimuli, testosterone producing behaviors we associate as being male. Not very strong is not a statement of strength but of relative weakness. We are not indelibly subject to the chemicals coursing through our bodies. It's desire is for us, but we must learn to master it. That is, an excess of testosterone, is not an excuse for rape. A lack of testosterone is not an excuse for not presenting yourself responsibly. You don't need balls to be brave. Not knocking your point, just embellishing, perhaps for future reference.

 

i dont belive for one minute there was any malice or hate whatsoever intended by either of the people that started the last closed thread an this one.both were just a question on peoples views and opinions.dont you you think its contradiction in terms to say on one hand that "people have the right to believe what they want"but then when people express their opinions on what they do or dont believe to then judge them for their own beliefs,which you say they are entilted to have.that dose'nt make any intelligent or lodgical sense to me at all.i dont believe in god.but i do believe in jesus,as a matter of fact he's my best spirit friend.no its not ok to disrespect anyone in the wrong.but as this whole topic is concerned i know that the real jesus.a man who once walked on this earth would be very upset about the feelings of other people in this world being hurt because of their sexualities.cos the way i figure it is to call it a bad thing for people ta do to even contemplate that jesus could possibly have been homosexual is'nt very respectful either,cos thats the same as saying homosexuality is wrong.fine, i understand thats your opinion on it,cos thats what you and others of the same thinking believe and as everyone else you also are entitled to your beliefs and opinions.but seening as your going along the lines of whats disrespectful and offensive,it would be only fair ta keep in mind that others also may find things being said as also disrespectful and offensive.nobody knows for sure what sexuality jesus was.he could have been any sexuality.and the reality of it all is that it dose'nt make any difference whatsoever which one he was.,because its not a persons sexuality that makes them who they are in their hearts an souls.its who the are.nothing at all to do with sexuality.jesus was a very good person who tryed ta make a good difference in the world when he was in it.and i believe he would have loved everybody unconditionally.cos thats just the kinda person he was.so if thats good enough for jesus,thats good enough for me.and i think when jesus lived here everybody would have been welcome in his house.to recieve unconditional love is a beautiful gift,but to give it is a privilige open to all human kind.

 

I'm not judging anyone , what the hell are you talking about ? People believe what they believe , I don't care .

All I was saying is no one who calls himself " CHRISTIAN " , would suggest the things this guy was saying ,PERIOD !

And did you read the original closed thread that this poster continued to carry over in this one ?

Even for christian light , it's nonsense and absurd ! They wouldn't even suggest it . People always want the bible to bend for them , instead of bending their ways for it . It doesn't work that way .

It's not about homosexuality , it's about lies and nonsense . Your trying to turn it into that , cause that's your bone I guess . However do you see me posting in a gay forum about what I believe , or my thoughts on the bible ? No you don't . Because I respect their right to THEIR beliefs . yet IF I had would you afford ME the same liberties , of " seeing no hate or malice " in my hypothetical thread ? No of course not , You would have a real problem with that , now wouldn't you ? Of course you would . Yet it's okay when christian hate mongers , which MANY are by the way to spread their nonsense here . Yeah it's always a double standard , right ? That's horseshit !

As a matter of fact wasn't it YOU , who posted something in a recent past thread asking someone if they were " racist against the Islamic faith " ? Yes , I believe it was . And I remember thinking of informing YOU that Islam is a religion and not a race , so how could one be racist toward it ? I skipped that response because I didn't want to embarrass you . So since you took the gloves off ,so shall I .

Perhaps you should ask , wrongly again , If these people are " racist against Christians"

Frankly , I'm sick of all this double standard nonsense .

 

I disagree, check out the thread, 'sexual preference and reasons to hate."

Me too.

 

Hey, check this out, Okiefreak: t

I respectfully inquired of you, "what does 'canon' mean?" - so how could I possibly understand the concept of something I had never heard of? What were you thinking? What I do understand is that we don't need the middle men you refer to as "church councils" to understand the Bible. And, your presumption that what I meant when I referred to "actual scripture from The Bible" is what church fathers chose to accept as inspired - is completely inaccurate. I mean what I specifically say: actual scripture from The Bible is just that - reading the Bible - not going along with what "church fathers (whoever they are) chose to accept as inspired." My inspiration comes from my own experience, not through someone else's choice of what they find acceptable.

Why are you so preoccupied with the "sexuality" of Jesus, anyway? It is a most inordinate pursuit; and, I venture to say; one that you will not see come to fruition.

The fact that you could make your last statement without inquiry of any kind; without careful consideration; without pause to investigate such an intriguing perspective; but, conversely; with haste - as you make mockery of my sincerity; tells me that it would behoove you to entertain the thought of opening your mind to possibilities - you might learn something and grow.

I find your "better-than-thou" and "know-it-all" mindset insulting. This forum is supposed to be used to share information and knowledge - and when someone poses a sincere inquiry to you, the door is open to do just that.
Your reply that still didn't answer my question; combined with your ridicule as you brushed off my perspective, told me that you really don't know anything about the spirit of sharing information & knowledge.

 

Roamy, where are you learning about Jesus? The most common record we have of Jesus is the Bible, there are 4 books that document his life extensively. Here is a very commonly known episode in Matthew 21;

Jesus does talk about love, and says the rest of the world will know we are His followers if we love each other. And yet there is right and wrong. For instance, if someone steals something, it's wrong and we send them to prison. Maybe we bring them nice home cooked meals to show them we love them, but they are still in prison. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore Christians should believe it is wrong. Many people who call themselves Christians have chosen to ignore that portion of the Bible and say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The Bible says at the final judgement many will call on His name and he will say He never knew them.

My own personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong but it is not more wrong than going 56 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour speed zone. The Bible says we are to obey the laws of the land, so if we speed one mile per hour over the limit we have sinned. So I am not better than a homosexual. I would welcome them in my church although people who live in sin should not be leaders of the church. I also work with a homosexual and we get along well, he is a great guy.

 

I never heard that theory before. It doesn't seem plausible. I think institutions can certainly play a part in shaping sexual behavior, but I find it hard to believe that repression of heterosexual expression by religion is responsible for homosexuality, because: (a) homosexual behavior occurs in the animal kingdom; (b) societies that suppress heterosexual outlets suppress homosexual outlets even more; (c) it seems at least as plausible that policies of celibacy and positions of trust attract homosexuals and pedophiles as that they cause such behaviors.

 

everyone knows about jesus humpy cos he's very famous historical figure.i dont know what the bible says,cos i never read one.but i do know who jesus was and still is in spirit.my best teachers were my parents.

 

I think we can blaspheme against Jesus, God or any other sacred person or object. Blasphemy is defined as: "A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity." This could include, for example, Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses,using the names of the Prophet Muhammad's wives for prostitutes, naming the Prophet Mahound, which was the Crusaders contemptuous name for Muhammad, portraying the monotheistic Muhammad as being visited by the goddess al-Lat, etc. (I'm not endorsing the Ayatollah's fatwa against Rusdie, afterwards lifted, but only illustrating what could be a blasphemy.) Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a particularly serious form which Jesus calls the "unforgivable sin'. The illustration given is the Pharisee's contention that Jesus cast out Devils by Beelzebub. This was apparently blasphemous because it suggested that God was incapable of such a feat, and that only the Devil or a demon could do such exorcisms. (This is my understanding. Corrections are welcome).

So was my original post blasphemous? The post was in response to a closed post by Chodpa which was phrased as a question: "Jesus was a homosexual?", and contained a link to a Wikipedia article addressing Jesus' sexuality. My post is entitled: "What was Jesus' sexuality?", and contains discussion of four possible answers: 1.Jesus was heterosexual, 2. Jesus was homosexual, 3. Jesus was unisexual, and 4. nobody can possibly know--the view that I personally favor. The basis for contending that the post is blasphemous seems to rest either on the idea that it is blasphemy even to consider the notion that Jesus had sexuality, or that even considering that his sexuality was other than mainstream is blasphemous. Or that readers can assume blasphemous content without reading farther.

The notion that Jesus had no sexuality conflicts with Christian teachings that Jesus was fully human. The Bible teaches that he was subject to temptation like the rest of us. What made him perfect was that he resisted temptation, unlike the rest of us. Martin Luther believed that Jesus must have been married, since no normal man could have gone without sexual relations. I think it's possible for a normal man to be celibate, and that there are men, such as celibate priests, who are faithful to their commitments. I think it's possible that Jesus did this. Saying that he had sexuality does not mean that he had lustful thoughts or that he ever yielded to temptation. Let ye among you who are without sexuality cast the first stone. There still seem to be some in our Puritanical culture for whom "sex" and "sexuality" are forbidden subjects or dirty words. Posters raise the legitimate objection "Who cares?" Apparently, Dan Brown, Nikos Kazantzakis (The Last Temptation of Christ), Martin Scorcese, the previous OP (Chodpa), Hollywood, and numerous posters on Hip Forums who have raised this issue many times in the past. Should they care/ Possibly not. Should we then address the issue? I think so, to make the limitations of the evidence clear and to avoid giving life to the issue by dodging it.

Next question: Does even considering the question whether or not Jesus was gay, even to rule it out, constitute blasphemy? I don't think so. Sexuality per se, as I understand it, can never be sinful. It only becomes sinful if it leads to lust (unrestrained sexual craving) or actual sex outside of marriage. There is no substantial evidence that Jesus violated these norms. In sum, I stand by my previous assessment: consideration of Jesus' sexuality is speculative and the issue becomes a Rorschach test that tells us more about the needs and interests of the people who speculate about the subject. The reaction of one poster reminds me very little of Jesus and very much of the Pharisees he criticized.

 

.

 

quote

I read the very first sentence , and it's all I'm going to read . Because right there , it's incorrect . It's clear as day to me you don't read the bible . Might I suggest you start by reading Mark 3:28-29 instead of reading other man made theories and books, TRY GOD'S OWN WORDS ! You too DOPE !

29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Jesus said ALL sins can be forgiven to men , including blasphemies against himself . But none would be forgiven for blasphemes against the holy ghost .

What Jesus meant by this is calling the spirit within him from God the devil . That the forces in him and its power were of Satan .

I don't know what you're bag is man , no do I really care . But I can tell you this post is offensive to any Christian . Show me one Christian sect or denomination who wouldn't have an issue with this garbage . Even the new "christian light " sects or the cults
would reject this nonsense .

And why are you pushing this ? You're not asking any real questions , your stating your opinion as fact when it's clearly fiction . What's your real agenda here ?

Whatever who cares , I'm done with it and you .

 

I would think about the worst you could say of god is there is no god, doesn't bother god, evidently doesn't bother you. You can't blaspheme jesus for the same reason. That is, if blaspheme is to speak with disrespect, I don't think god or jesus would be offended in that way. It takes two for a condition to exist, both the offender and the offended. While you may by definition speak with disrespect, you do not actually offend. However in the case of the holy spirit, to reject it is to cut your lifeline to god. It is not offensive to the holy spirit, to god, or to jesus, but it is vitally disruptive to you. That is why, it cannot be forgiven. It is not a matter of grievous offenses to god, but of the offense to yourself. To blaspheme against the holy spirit does not make you guilty, it makes you beyond help. Love does not seek it's own but waits on invitation.

 

"

I don't know where this is coming from either Dope . Read the words of Jesus .

John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them " most assuredly , I say to you before Abraham
was I AM . "

John 8:24 - "Therefore I say unto you that you will die in your sins , if you do not
believe that I AM HE ."

John 10:30-33- Jesus answered them " I and my father are ONE . "

John 14:6-7 - Jesus said unto them " I am the way ,the truth and the life . No man comes to the father except for ME ".

Revelations 1:5-6 - Jesus blood purchased us .

1 peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree , that we having died to sins , might live for righteousness , by whose stripes you were healed .

 

Well maybe if you would read the whole thing instead of reacting to whatever words push your buttons, you'd be able to engage in a rational discussion. I quoted, italicized and bold printed the words in the Bible you said I didn't read, and I think you may have misinterpreted the first sentence. Your own words refute your claims against mine. You say
"Jesus said ALL sins can be forgiven to men , including blasphemies against himself " Ergo, it is possible to commit blasphemies against Jesus and other sacred people. But they're forgiven. My post was a reply to the Dope. Blasphemy is also a term used in other religions and cultures besides Christianity, and is used in the law, so to say it is impossible to commit any other kind of blasphemy than against the Holy Spirit is incorrect. If the Bible says blasphemies against Jesus can be forgiven, it must be possible to commit blasphemies against Jesus. (By the way, for the benefit of those who don't read or think well, it is not my intention to blaspheme against Jesus, Yahweh, the Holy Spirit, Allah, or any other sacred personage.) I said that the issue of Jesus' sexuality, raised by the previous poster and countless others on Hip Forums, is a Rorschach test of our own needs and interests projected onto Jesus. You've helped to prove the point.

I explained my "real agenda", and I suspect there are plenty of Christians who don't have a problem with my post. Take two tranquilizers and post me in the morning. If you're really done with me, no problemo. I see no point wasting further time with an irrational fanatic.

 

Well I'm no fanatic , It may seem that way but I'm not . We have different interpretations for sure . And I see you're not here to spread hate and stir things up , as I still think the first poster whose thread was closed was trying to do . I guess I did go A little over the top on you and for that I apologize . As you know religion can become a passionate heated topic . Like the abortion or the politics issue , it can stir intense debate . No I'm not a fanatic , just another poster and sinner . I've done a lot of bad shit in my life and I'm getting old . I don't know if atonement will be enough for me , but I have to believe in his promise to forgive .

Lets just say we agree to disagree , and call it a day . I hold no malice or anger toward you . I hope you find the answers you seek my friend . Good luck and Be well .

 

I don't believe sex is a sin but Jesus had a mission to accomplish and probably wasn't all to concerned with starting an earthly family.