A Discussion On The Christian Holy Bible

[Jason California]

There was also the guy who attempted to euthanize his pets.

http://sonoma.patch.com/articles/springs-resident-takes-heat-for-plans-to-kill-pets-pending-doomsday

I just don't understand the disconnect. "Jesus is coming to save us! Let me kill my loved ones/pets so they don't have to suffer."


Some people think the color blue tells them to kill people. It does not make Blue a bad guy. I don't think Jesus is the source of the crazy in this situation. He was just an idea the nutter latched onto.

[HomerGator]

Some people think the color blue tells them to kill people. It does not make Blue a bad guy. I don't think Jesus is the source of the crazy in this situation. He was just an idea the nutter latched onto.

Jesus was awesome. He had some really great ideas/lessons/etc.

But I could do without a lot of the people that claim to follow his teachings, mostly because a lot of them DON'T follow his teachings, but try to shove them down my throat.

[SethJ]

I haven't read through the entire thread, but I'm curious if anyone has checked out the Nag Hammadi Library? It contains texts from a fringe sect of Christianity, "Gnositicism". I think the Gospel of Thomas is particularly interesting.

[Jason California]

I haven't read through the entire thread, but I'm curious if anyone has checked out the Nag Hammadi Library? It contains texts from a fringe sect of Christianity, "Gnositicism". I think the Gospel of Thomas is particularly interesting.

I like the take on Jesus that the book of Thomas portrays. We can all be the sons and daughters of God that Jesus was. We all have it in us to commune directly with God and do not need an intermediary.

[Phantom Eagle]

Amen, Brother Jason!

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Jesus was awesome. He had some really great ideas/lessons/etc.

But I could do without a lot of the people that claim to follow his teachings, mostly because a lot of them DON'T follow his teachings, but try to shove them down my throat.

I can't think of any particular great thing that Jesus taught which others haven't taught before and since.


I haven't read through the entire thread, but I'm curious if anyone has checked out the Nag Hammadi Library? It contains texts from a fringe sect of Christianity, "Gnositicism". I think the Gospel of Thomas is particularly interesting.

Those interested in Gnosticism should take a look at the work of Elaine Pagels, who studied them extensively and published several books about them.

[SethJ]

I like the take on Jesus that the book of Thomas portrays. We can all be the sons and daughters of God that Jesus was. We all have it in us to commune directly with God and do not need an intermediary.

There are some parts that blow my mind..

"I will give you what no eye has seen, and what no ear has heard, and what no hand has touched, and what has not occurred to the human mind."

"For what goes into your mouth will not defile you. Rather, what comes out of your mouth will defile you."

The disciples said to Jesus: "Tell us how our end will be."
Jesus said: "Have you already discovered the beginning that you are now asking about the end? For where the beginning is, there the end will be too. Blessed is he who will stand at the beginning. And he will know the end, and he will not taste death."

"Jesus says: "Do not lie. And do not do what you hate. For everything is disclosed in view of <the truth>. For there is nothing hidden that will not become revealed. And there is nothing covered that will remain undisclosed."

Why is it that all of these quotes seem to make more sense than most of what you find in the accepted Gospels?

[Phantom Eagle]

I can't think of any particular great thing that Jesus taught which others haven't taught before and since.

I would argue that his positive statement of the Law of Reciprocity, and his disentangling of ethics from eschatology, cosmology and hygiene lore was somewhat revolutionary in the context of his time and location.


Those interested in Gnosticism should take a look at the work of Elaine Pagels, who studied them extensively and published several books about them.

I would add that the works of Tobias Churton are certainly worth a glance, and that anyone interested in Gnosticism would do well to get a thorough grounding in Zoroastrian and Mithraic traditions.

[Phantom Eagle]

There are some parts that blow my mind..

"I will give you what no eye has seen, and what no ear has heard, and what no hand has touched, and what has not occurred to the human mind."

"For what goes into your mouth will not defile you. Rather, what comes out of your mouth will defile you."

The disciples said to Jesus: "Tell us how our end will be."
Jesus said: "Have you already discovered the beginning that you are now asking about the end? For where the beginning is, there the end will be too. Blessed is he who will stand at the beginning. And he will know the end, and he will not taste death."

"Jesus says: "Do not lie. And do not do what you hate. For everything is disclosed in view of <the truth>. For there is nothing hidden that will not become revealed. And there is nothing covered that will remain undisclosed."

Why is it that all of these quotes seem to make more sense than most of what you find in the accepted Gospels?

Because they allow direct access to the Deity, allow for critical thinking, and were excised from accepted versions for just those reasons.

[Magnum V.I.]

I've read some books from the Nag Hammadi. But they go against Christian Doctrine. The snake is to be revered, flesh and matter is evil, the creator god is evil and wicked, Jesus "revealed" the true way back to the spirit form.

Lots of radical ideas that are diametrically opposed to standard accepted Christian Theology.

[Jason California]

Those interested in Gnosticism should take a look at the work of Elaine Pagels, who studied them extensively and published several books about them.

It was her book on The Book of Thomas that I read.

[Phantom Eagle]

I've read some books from the Nag Hammadi. But they go against Christian Doctrine. The snake is to be revered, flesh and matter is evil, the creator god is evil and wicked, Jesus "revealed" the true way back to the spirit form.

Lots of radical ideas that are diametrically opposed to standard accepted Christian Theology.

Indeed. These ideas were also apparent in Manichaeism and Albigensianism. They stem from many older traditions. The "snake" represents the questing mind seeking to reconcile material existence with the apparent spiritual world within the mind. See also the double-W or "Wonder Woman" symbol. Flesh and matter being evil comes out of Zoroastrian Dichotomous This-or-That thinking, and can be seen in the root of words like "material" and "maternal" which equate woman with base matter. The creator God being evil is an idea which arises from the above ideas, for if spirit is pure and matter base, then only an evil deity would create the manifestation of the incarnate universe. Jesus is therefore seen as a teacher who can reconcile these Fight-or-Flee ideas with an acceptable teaching of how to reclaim our inherent Godliness.

[HOOKS]

There are some parts that blow my mind..

"I will give you what no eye has seen, and what no ear has heard, and what no hand has touched, and what has not occurred to the human mind."

"For what goes into your mouth will not defile you. Rather, what comes out of your mouth will defile you."

The disciples said to Jesus: "Tell us how our end will be."
Jesus said: "Have you already discovered the beginning that you are now asking about the end? For where the beginning is, there the end will be too. Blessed is he who will stand at the beginning. And he will know the end, and he will not taste death."

"Jesus says: "Do not lie. And do not do what you hate. For everything is disclosed in view of <the truth>. For there is nothing hidden that will not become revealed. And there is nothing covered that will remain undisclosed."

Why is it that all of these quotes seem to make more sense than most of what you find in the accepted Gospels?

I haven't checked out Gnositicism yet, but those quotes have me interested enough to learn more. Any recommended readings?

[SethJ]

The essential idea of Gnosticism is that the God you see in the Old Testament is not the true God. Yahweh is the malformed spawn of Sophia, the ultimate benevolent deity, and when she gave birth to Yahweh she shunned him to his own little bubble universe. In that bubble universe, Yahweh was ignorant of his creation and simply assumed that he is the ultimate God, when in reality, that's Sophia.

The Gnostics retroactively explained why Yahweh acts like such a jerk in the Old Testament, why he demands you worship only him and no other gods, why he orders genocide, why he destroys the world, etc, ad infinitum. It's because he's a blind god, an ignorant "Samael" who created our universe inside his little bubble away from Sophia and he assumes that he is the ultimate God. But because the imperfect Yahweh was created from the perfect Sophia, the Gnostics say that there is a "divine spark" within everyone that transcends the malformed nature of the universe Yahweh created.

In a way, the Gnostics were pioneers of the retcon. Their demiurge is a bit like Geoff John's Parallax entity, if you'll forgive the silly comparison. If you want to read some awesome Gnosticism influenced fiction, I'd recommend Philip K Dick's "VALIS", or Grant Morrison's The Invisibles.

[Phantom Eagle]

The Gnostic Bible, Barnstone & Meyer, eds.

The Gnostics, by Tobias Churton

Gnostic Philosophy, by Tobias Churton

Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, by Mary Boyce

In Search of Zarathustra, by Paul Kriwaczek

The Mysteries of Mithras, by Payam Nabarz

The History of Magic, by Eliphas Levi

The Way of Hermes, translated by Salaman et al

The Appendices to the Illuminatus Trilogy, by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson

and any good beginner's primer on Wicca, such as Essential Wicca, by Tuitean and Daniels

[Jef UK]

Any proponents of Jesus myth theories?

[Phantom Eagle]

I found this book to be pretty interesting.

The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ: Natural Genesis and Typology of Equinoctial Christolatry (http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Mythical-Christ-Christolatry/dp/1585090735/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_2) by Gerald Massey

[Jef UK]

Twice in Revelation it refers to Satan as the serpent (Rev. 12:9). Also, when Jesus was condemning the religious leaders of his day, he called them 'a generation of vipers' because of their deceit and blood-guiltiness, thus comparing them to Satan.


das

Yeah, but those were gnostic monks with the editorial abilities available to those who would compile texts hundreds and hundreds of years old, themselves composed from oral traditions. It would be like someone writing an origin story today about that dude being saved on the cover of Amazing Fantasy #15 and then pretending that that was always the intention of the original writer. I mean, the creation story has conflicting descriptions juxtaposed against each other without even a paragraph break, written thousands of years apart! There are at least 3 authors or groups of authors of Genesis alone, the last of those authors living hundreds if not thousands of years after the first!!


Edit: I'm including the 5th century editors as a third author, which may be an innacurate position: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

[Jason California]

Any proponents of Jesus myth theories?


Scotty and I almost worked on a story about secret agent super hero Jesus with a machine gun.

[Phantom Eagle]

Yeah, but those were gnostic monks with the editorial abilities available to those who would compile texts hundreds and hundreds of years old, themselves composed from oral traditions. It would be like someone writing an origin story today about that dude being saved on the cover of Amazing Fantasy #15 and then pretending that that was always the intention of the original writer. I mean, the creation story has conflicting descriptions juxtaposed against each other without even a paragraph break, written thousands of years apart! There are at least 3 authors or groups of authors of Genesis alone, the last of those authors living hundreds if not thousands of years after the first!!


Edit: I'm including the 5th century editors as a third author, which may be an innacurate position: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

Also, because the serpent was representative of the beliefs of earlier religions, especially fertility-based and feminine-aspect-of-the-deity religions, it was only natural that those who would seek to undermine and replace those beliefs with their patriarchal thunderer and all-seeing sky god would try to turn the serpent from a symbol of knowledge and wisdom into the very personification of evil itself. See also the Green Man or Horned God.

See Marija Gimbutas (http://www.amazon.com/Language-Goddess-Marija-Gimbutas/dp/0062512439), Martin Bernal (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Athena-Afroasiatic-Civilization-Fabrication/dp/0813512778), and Riane Eisler (http://www.amazon.com/Chalice-Blade-Our-History-Future/dp/0062502891) for a more complete discussion of the symbols and politics involved.

[Jef UK]

Scotty and I almost worked on a story about secret agent super hero Jesus with a machine gun.

Hm, I think I've seen that dude fight zombies in Jesus Hates Zombies.

[mario]

I like the take on Jesus that the book of Thomas portrays. We can all be the sons and daughters of God that Jesus was. We all have it in us to commune directly with God and do not need an intermediary.

And that's why the gnostics were eradicated by the Church: can't have the monopoly of God's intermediary become compromised

[Jason California]

Hm, I think I've seen that dude fight zombies in Jesus Hates Zombies.


He is the most powerful super hero ever, but you have to believe in him first. He can't do anything without that. That is why he carries the machine gun. A Muslim for example would only be able to rely on him as a mid upper mid level super hero because he is just a prophet to them.

[Phantom Eagle]

So, he's kinda like Hulk Hogan?

[Dreaded Anomaly]

And that's why the gnostics were eradicated by the Church: can't have the monopoly of God's intermediary become compromised

That's essentially correct.

[Jef UK]

He is the most powerful super hero ever, but you have to believe in him first. He can't do anything without that. That is why he carries the machine gun. A Muslim for example would only be able to rely on him as a mid upper mid level super hero because he is just a prophet to them.

Haha, that's great!!

[Jason California]

Haha, that's great!!


Thanks. I think i will go back to developing the story. I appreciate that it was worth 2 exclamation points.

[mario]

That's essentially correct.

Yup: it's the same reason why the Church forbade literacy for the common folk because they would be able to read and interpret the bible for themselves!

[mlpeters]

I've read some books from the Nag Hammadi. But they go against Christian Doctrine. The snake is to be revered, flesh and matter is evil, the creator god is evil and wicked, Jesus "revealed" the true way back to the spirit form.

Lots of radical ideas that are diametrically opposed to standard accepted Christian Theology.

I like Gnosticism, except for the "flesh is evil" B.S. I think that opens the door to beliefs that the material world is bad and being dead/spirit only is better than being alive, making all these middle-eastern dualistic religions an "anti-life equation". It's sad that even Gnosticism doesn't escape this.

[HOOKS]

This was a great thread.

[Artie Pink]

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvcdmk27Il1qzserlo1_400.jpg

[Dreaded Anomaly]

@BRIANMBENDIS BRIAN MICHAEL BENDIS
wow, marvel just locked me and bagley in for NEW TESTAMENT 2. very psyched. finally, we can tell the story RIGHT :)

:thumb:

[BriRedfern]

This threa is all kinds of awsome.

[Phantom Eagle]

I like Gnosticism, except for the "flesh is evil" B.S. I think that opens the door to beliefs that the material world is bad and being dead/spirit only is better than being alive, making all these middle-eastern dualistic religions an "anti-life equation". It's sad that even Gnosticism doesn't escape this.

Nietzsche was right. Everybody who followed Zoroastrian dualism as a premise was locked into an Iron Age belief system based on a fascination with the number two. It was a great idea on the steppes of Iran when the wheel and the cart were new technology, and raiding and raping was the order of the day. Then a line clearly needed to be drawn between what was and was not acceptable behavior. But by taking the theoretical aspects of dualism and carrying them to ridiculous extremes (everything in the universe belongs in either the Good or Bad category), many systems simply go too far, as if two were the only low whole number worth being fascinated by, or basing an entire system of belief on. It warps our reality tunnels too much, and makes our map/model of the universe too unwieldy for daily use.

I think there's the possibility of a new Gnosticism which corrects these shortcomings. As more people become aware of where the Ancients left off, more people can take up the torch and continue the search. The basic idea, know God directly, can be a very useful one when moderated by other knowledge.

I'd like to thank a couple of old wise men, namely Robert Anton Wilson and George Carlin, for setting me straight on a few things.

[MayorMitch100]

This was a great thread.

Was? It can still be!

[HOOKS]

This thread still exists, Atheist-threaders.

[Patton]

My bad.

[michealdark]

Nietzsche was right. Everybody who followed Zoroastrian dualism as a premise was locked into an Iron Age belief system based on a fascination with the number two. It was a great idea on the steppes of Iran when the wheel and the cart were new technology, and raiding and raping was the order of the day. Then a line clearly needed to be drawn between what was and was not acceptable behavior. But by taking the theoretical aspects of dualism and carrying them to ridiculous extremes (everything in the universe belongs in either the Good or Bad category), many systems simply go too far, as if two were the only low whole number worth being fascinated by, or basing an entire system of belief on. It warps our reality tunnels too much, and makes our map/model of the universe too unwieldy for daily use.

I think there's the possibility of a new Gnosticism which corrects these shortcomings. As more people become aware of where the Ancients left off, more people can take up the torch and continue the search. The basic idea, know God directly, can be a very useful one when moderated by other knowledge.

I'd like to thank a couple of old wise men, namely Robert Anton Wilson and George Carlin, for setting me straight on a few things.

Given the influence Gnosticism had on later non-dualistic systems like Thelema, I could see a new Gnosticism coming into being too.

[michealdark]

Nietzsche was right. Everybody who followed Zoroastrian dualism as a premise was locked into an Iron Age belief system based on a fascination with the number two. It was a great idea on the steppes of Iran when the wheel and the cart were new technology, and raiding and raping was the order of the day. Then a line clearly needed to be drawn between what was and was not acceptable behavior. But by taking the theoretical aspects of dualism and carrying them to ridiculous extremes (everything in the universe belongs in either the Good or Bad category), many systems simply go too far, as if two were the only low whole number worth being fascinated by, or basing an entire system of belief on. It warps our reality tunnels too much, and makes our map/model of the universe too unwieldy for daily use.

I think there's the possibility of a new Gnosticism which corrects these shortcomings. As more people become aware of where the Ancients left off, more people can take up the torch and continue the search. The basic idea, know God directly, can be a very useful one when moderated by other knowledge.

I'd like to thank a couple of old wise men, namely Robert Anton Wilson and George Carlin, for setting me straight on a few things.

Given the influence Gnosticism had on later non-dualistic systems like Thelema, I could see a new Gnosticism coming into being too.

[I've Got the Monkeys]

This thread still exists, Atheist-threaders.

Hey, Athiests don't just not follow the Bible; we also disregard the Bhagavad Gita, The Koran, The Book of Mormon, and Dianetics.

[HOOKS]

Hey, Athiests don't just not follow the Bible; we also disregard the Bhagavad Gita, The Koran, The Book of Mormon, and Dianetics.

Oh I know. I'm one of you.

[stevapalooza]

Hey, Athiests don't just not follow the Bible; we also disregard the Bhagavad Gita, The Koran, The Book of Mormon, and Dianetics.

Agreed. Lets give some other religious douchebags some grief for a change--

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/Religion/?view=usa&ci=9780195394832

http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/2158/monks_with_guns%3A_discovering_buddhist_violence

[michealdark]

Atheists do know that they can still believe in the philosophical and moral espoused in a religious work without necessarily believing in all the other trappings, right? That just because a work has mystical incidences and supernatural beings, that doesn't mean that there aren't deeper truths in there to extract? Seemed to work for Jefferson.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Atheists do know that they can still believe in the philosophical and moral espoused in a religious work without necessarily believing in all the other trappings, right? That just because a work has mystical incidences and supernatural beings, that doesn't mean that there aren't deeper truths in there to extract? Seemed to work for Jefferson.

As I have often said, a lot of the morality in the Bible is pretty awful. The few parts that aren't, e.g. the golden rule, predate the Bible by far.

There's a lot of philosophy and morality that atheists could believe in, but that doesn't mean we should.

It's also very hard to rephrase Biblical morality consistently in a secular fashion. A friend of mine who is a devout Catholic and has studied theology once admitted to me that she could not see any secular foundation for Biblical morality; one has to accept the existence of the (Christian) God for it to make any sense.

[Hate_Prime]

Atheists do know that they can still believe in the philosophical and moral espoused in a religious work without necessarily believing in all the other trappings, right? That just because a work has mystical incidences and supernatural beings, that doesn't mean that there aren't deeper truths in there to extract? Seemed to work for Jefferson.

Yeah? Like what?

[Doc Randy]

Question:
Where in the New Testament is the passage where Jesus says every sperm is sacred or that birth control is bad?

[tim nixon]

Question:
Where in the New Testament is the passage where Jesus says every sperm is sacred or that birth control is bad?

i didn't get your answer, but i did find this...

Sacred Semen
The History and Spirituality of Swallowing Semen.

http://sacredsemen.com/

[Hate_Prime]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

[Patton]

Question:
Where in the New Testament is the passage where Jesus says every sperm is sacred or that birth control is bad?Ejaculastes 3:14

[HOOKS]

i didn't get your answer, but i did find this...

Sacred Semen
The History and Spirituality of Swallowing Semen.

http://sacredsemen.com/

So Jesus, who allegedly hung out with prostitutes, made his disciples swallow his nut.

Maybe The Last Supper was really The Last Sucker.

[Urgur the Gurgur]

So Jesus, who allegedly hung out with prostitutes, made his disciples swallow his nut.

Maybe The Last Supper was really The Last Sucker.

Luke 22:14. And Peter asked if Jesus would pass the butter. 15. And Jesus said I haven't any butter for your bread Peter. But it would be a shame to let all this Man Mustard go to waste.

[michealdark]

As I have often said, a lot of the morality in the Bible is pretty awful. The few parts that aren't, e.g. the golden rule, predate the Bible by far.

There's a lot of philosophy and morality that atheists could believe in, but that doesn't mean we should.

It's also very hard to rephrase Biblical morality consistently in a secular fashion. A friend of mine who is a devout Catholic and has studied theology once admitted to me that she could not see any secular foundation for Biblical morality; one has to accept the existence of the (Christian) God for it to make any sense.

I'm not just talking about the Bible, but religious texts from around the world.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

I'm not just talking about the Bible, but religious texts from around the world.

I'm going to repost an article I posted in the atheism thread: A Parable On Obsolete Ideologies (http://lesswrong.com/lw/fm/a_parable_on_obsolete_ideologies/)


With sincere apologies to: Mike Godwin

You are General Eisenhower. It is 1945. The Allies have just triumphantly liberated Berlin. As the remaining leaders of the old regime are being tried and executed, it begins to become apparent just how vile and despicable the Third Reich truly was.

In the midst of the chaos, a group of German leaders come to you with a proposal. Nazism, they admit, was completely wrong. Its racist ideology was false and its consequences were horrific. However, in the bleak poverty of post-war Germany, people need to keep united somehow. They need something to believe in. And a whole generation of them have been raised on Nazi ideology and symbolism. Why not take advantage of the national unity Nazism provides while discarding all the racist baggage? "Make it so," you say.

Or, to borrow an expression from computer science: garbage in, garbage out.

[HOOKS]

Luke 22:14. And Peter asked if Jesus would pass the butter. 15. And Jesus said I haven't any butter for your bread Peter. But it would be a shame to let all this Man Mustard go to waste.

17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.
18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."

:shock:

[Generic Poster]

Question:
Where in the New Testament is the passage where Jesus says every sperm is sacred or that birth control is bad?

Stop trying to justify your love of the terrible crime of Onan, Randy!

[Gregory]

Recent thought:

Lets look at Genesis. Adam and Eve enjoy paradise and a direct rapport with God. They talk to each other. God sets his goals and limits for mankind, and they comply. All is well.

But another resident of creation, someone hanging out in the neighborhood (not a divine creature) intercedes, claiming to understand God's thinking and tells the humans to act counter to God's direct words. The humans follow the third-party notions, and everything literally goes to hell.

Now, to me, that sounds like a shot at the church and for those who claim to know God's thinking and distort the supposed word of God for contemporary interpretation. You know, the clergy. Folks who now say Jesus turned water in grape juice because alcohol is evil.

What say you?

[Matt Jay]

Recent thought:

Lets look at Genesis. Adam and Eve enjoy paradise and a direct rapport with God. They talk to each other. God sets his goals and limits for mankind, and they comply. All is well.

But another resident of creation, someone hanging out in the neighborhood (not a divine creature) intercedes, claiming to understand God's thinking and tells the humans to act counter to God's direct words. The humans follow the third-party notions, and everything literally goes to hell.

Now, to me, that sounds like a shot at the church and for those who claim to know God's thinking and distort the supposed word of God for contemporary interpretation. You know, the clergy. Folks who now say Jesus turned water in grape juice because alcohol is evil.

What say you?
Whether they intended that message or not, I think that's probably an accurate interpretation.

[tim nixon]

Recent thought:

Lets look at Genesis. Adam and Eve enjoy paradise and a direct rapport with God. They talk to each other. God sets his goals and limits for mankind, and they comply. All is well.

But another resident of creation, someone hanging out in the neighborhood (not a divine creature) intercedes, claiming to understand God's thinking and tells the humans to act counter to God's direct words. The humans follow the third-party notions, and everything literally goes to hell.

Now, to me, that sounds like a shot at the church and for those who claim to know God's thinking and distort the supposed word of God for contemporary interpretation. You know, the clergy. Folks who now say Jesus turned water in grape juice because alcohol is evil.

What say you?

i say i must paraphrase you elsewhere. good thought.

[michealdark]

Whether they intended that message or not, I think that's probably an accurate interpretation.

I'm not sure if rabbis were considered intermediaries or scholarly interpreters yet at the time Genesis was written, but I think that's a good message to take from it. Spirituality is a personal experience (that can sometimes be shared with others). No one else but you can really decide what relationship, if any, you have with the Divine, for that way lies madness.

[HOOKS]

WAS JESUS GAY? Probably.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/295-164/11070-was-jesus-gay-probably


"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple. 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."

That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.

Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.

After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.


More in link.

[MayorMitch100]

WAS JESUS GAY? Probably.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/295-164/11070-was-jesus-gay-probably

"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple. 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home."

That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.

Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.

After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.

More in link.

Well that is definitely one way of looking at it.

[Brad N.]

Well that is definitely one way of looking at it.

Yes, but another way of looking at it was he WAS married to the woman he "kissed on the mouth" and also "loved in a special way" in Mary Magdelene and Constantine and his anti-women crusaders kept anything remotely close to a relationship with the opposite sex hidden and made peopel think she was a mere prostitute. I mean, Dan Brown didn't just make up that stuff out of thin air. Jesus being unmarried would have indeed been very noticeably strange.

[MayorMitch100]

Yes, but another way of looking at it was he WAS married to the woman he "kissed on the mouth" and also "loved in a special way" in Mary Magdelene and Constantine and his anti-women crusaders kept anything remotely close to a relationship with the opposite sex hidden and made peopel think she was a mere prostitute. I mean, Dan Brown didn't just make up that stuff out of thin air. Jesus being unmarried would have indeed been very noticeably strange.

I haven't done much research in the subject so I don't feel comfortable talking at length about it. However your point about constantine holds as an example of translation differences and whatnot.

[Brad N.]

I haven't done much research in the subject so I don't feel comfortable talking at length about it. However your point about constantine holds as an example of translation differences and whatnot.

Not really. The time when Constantine and his council decided which books to canonize was very hostile toward women. There are a number of books that paint a very different picture of Jesus that were not included for whatever reason.

[silverboy]

Every time I glance over this thread, I think it says "A Discussion On The Christian Holy Bale."

[I've Got the Monkeys]

Every time I glance over this thread, I think it says "A Discussion On The Christian Holy Bale."

?


No, don’t just be sorry, think for one fucking second. What the FUCK are you DOING ? Are you professional or not?

[HOOKS]

This is interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes

[Black Lantern Nate]

The Bible is mainly romanticized metaphor. That's my contribution. See you at church!

[BriRedfern]

This is interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes

I read this earlier. Very interesting. AND it predates the Catholic Bible.

[Magnum V.I.]

This is interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes

http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2007/12/05/borat_narrowweb__300x400,0.jpg

My Wiiffee!

[SidekicksRevenge]

I read this earlier. Very interesting. AND it predates the Catholic Bible.

It's interesting, but ultimately there's no room in the modern church for new discovery. Too many are convinced that we got the Bible we needed from God Almighty Himself and everything else is just noise.

(these people are wrong)