https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciple_whom_Jesus_loved

I note the following from Wikipedia:

" ... Homoeroticism:

Some scholars have suggested a homoerotic interpretation of Christ's relationship with the Beloved Disciple, although the majority of mainstream Biblical scholars argue against any scriptural evidence to this effect.[28][29] Tilborg suggests that the portrait in John is "positively attuned to the development of possibly homosexual behaviour". However, he cautions that "in the code... such imaginary homosexual behaviour is not an expression of homosexuality." Meanwhile, Dunderberg has also explored the issue and argues that the absence of accepted Greek terms for "lover" and "beloved" discounts a purely erotic reading.[30]

That the relationship was interpreted as a physical erotic relationship as early as the 16th century (albeit in a "heretical" context) which is documented, for example, in the trial for blasphemy of Christopher Marlowe, who was accused of claiming that "St. John the Evangelist was bedfellow to Christ and leaned always in his bosom, that he used him as the sinners of Sodoma".[31] In accusing Marlowe of the "sinful nature" of homosexual acts, James I of England inevitably invited comparisons to his own erotic relationship with the Duke of Buckingham which he also compared to that of the Beloved Disciple.[32] Finally, Calcagno, a monk of Venice[33] faced trial and was executed in 1550 for claiming that "St. John was Christ's catamite".[29]

Dynes also makes a link to the modern day where in 1970s New York a popular religious group was established called the "Church of the Beloved Disciple", with the intention of giving a positive reading of the relationship to support respect for same-sex love. [29]

So who was the Beloved disciple and did that person share intimate relations with the Nazarene?

o sung wu,

That’s not the way it sounded in your first post.

<<I’m not speaking of lesbians or the 'few' (much older) homosexual men who never commit the abominable act of sodomy.>>

In your first post, you just referred to homosexuality in general.

<<I was referring entirely to those who're sodomites.>>

So are you saying, then, that marriage should not be extended to those who practice anal sex? Because that would rule out an increasing number of heterosexual couples who practice it. Would it then mean that marriages should be automatically annulled if a couple decides to experiment?

<<For reasons that are totally beyond me these sodomites seem to find or attract trouble without any apparent effort whatsoever.>>

The proximal reasons are drug and alcohol abuse, and mental illness; which are ultimately caused by social stigmatisation and rejection. Anxiety and depressive illnesses often develop in gay people as a result of spending most of their developmental years in a constant state of fear of being rejected when they let their sexuality be known. This is turn leads to higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, which only exacerbates the problem.

<<Surely AJP you would 'never wish' nor condone any son of yours, to pursue a homosexual lifestyle…?>>

I wouldn’t ‘wish’ it, but only because we live in a society that still stigmatises gay people. But if it turned out that that’s who they were, then I would encourage it because living a life in which one was not true to oneself would be utterly miserable, and I would never wish that on them.

<<Very few go on to lead deep fulfilling lives, despite their claims.>>

I know quite a few gay people, and most are quite successful and seem to live very fulfilling lives.

<<It's against the laws of nature !... It's simply unnatural.>>

I’ve provided quite a few links now discrediting this claim. Again, this is the Appeal to Nature fallacy. Rape is natural, but that doesn’t make it good. Whether or not something is natural says nothing about whether it is good or right. Hence the fallacy.

A J Philips:

"I am not the topic of this thread"

No you are not but that does not mean we cannot address your aggression. You think you should be able to bully and intimidate people and everyone just sit by and watch you?

Thanks for the links to the forum rules. If you think I am breaking the rules then the best thing to do would be to report me. That has a much better chance of success than to just providing a link to rules that even one of your 'imbeciles' would assume to be the case.

Then you warn me as well as runner and o sung wu that the moderator might step in. I am not intent on staying on topic unless I choose to. I am intent on focusing on your bullying and intimidation. The other two have also focused on those things. Perhaps the moderator agrees with us that the best way to deal with your behaviour is to let the members of the forum expose your behaviour for what it is in the hope that you might become less aggressive. It is not your so-called knowledge that frightens people away but your need to hurt others. Allowing that to go unchallenged is not very healthy for the forum. People will just drift away or new people will not stay long after being attacked by you.

Who would want to be in a forum where you feel the need to describe members as imbeciles?

"Rape is natural, but that doesn’t make it good. Whether or not something is natural says nothing about whether it is good or right. Hence the fallacy."

How do you know that rape is natural? Is homosexual behaviour natural? How do we decide if it is good or right ?

//How do you know that rape is natural?//

Everything that we know exists is natural. If something occurs in nature (i.e. known existence) then it is natural.

//Is homosexual behaviour natural?//

Does it occur in nature? Yes.

So it's natural. Getting the hang of it now, phanto?

//How do we decide if it is good or right ?//

I use philosophy. Other people use religion. Some people rely on arguments from authority and prefer others to think for them. And some people prefer not to think at all and rely on raw emotion. There are probably other approaches that I haven't covered. Whatever works for you.

phanto,

Yes, Im sure what I say feels very aggressive to you. We all feel attacked when dearly held beliefs are shown to be unjustified.

<<No you are not but that does not mean we cannot address your aggression.>>

How about you try addressing my arguments first? o sung wu is. Why can’t you?

<<You think you should be able to bully and intimidate people and everyone just sit by and watch you?>>

Certainly not. If I were doing that then your actions would be a little more justified, and you should probably report me too. So far, however, you have not provided any evidence that I have used strength or influence to intimidate those who are weaker than me. Good luck with that, given that I’m out-numbered here.

You, on the other hand, are just heckling. It’s very petulant of you. Clearly your homophobia is something that is very dear to you and your inability to mount a rational argument to justify it has you very upset. But it’s okay, phanto. You are welcome to take that out on me, if that’s what you need to do.

<<How do you know that rape is natural?>>

Because some people do it, and we are a part of nature. Sadly, our species possibly would have become extinct without it. Domestic violence, too, is natural. It was how primitive male humans ensured that they did not spend energy raising children that weren’t their own.

I know, I know. It sounds horrible. But nature is cruel, and we are a part of it.

<<Is homosexual behaviour natural?>>

Yes, and, once again, I have provided multiple links demonstrating this.

<<How do we decide if it is good or right?>>

By weighing up the harms and benefits that result from it, or the harms and benefits that would result from forcibly removing it. The same as we would do for anything else. If the bene

A J PHILIPS be assured there are many things you assert in your threads that can be taken either way - vaginal 'rape' is a natural act, but it's neither good nor lawful. But if the victim is sodomised against his or her will, then it's a crime. It's all to do with the age of the victim and their consent at the time of the event.

Anal sex between a married man and woman ? In a heterosexual marriage A J P, I guess it's whatever 'floats your boat' ?

Duck or weave to your heart's content A J P, sodomy or buggery is wholly unnatural. This is despite all the links and academic invalidation you've sought to introduce into the discussion, in some vain attempt to demolish this basic principle ? And all the justification and vindication you care to introduce, will never change it, nor rebut this basic truth forever and a day.

This 'Appeal to Nature' fallacy - It's no delusion, none at all. Just because some scientific whizz loudly exclaims to everyone who'll listen; '...nature is all a fundamental nonsense, sodomy is now quite 'natural' therefore it can be practiced with gay abandon...', does it make it right ? I think not.

You know A J P, for someone who lays claim to be a true 'champion for knowledge', a 'righter of wrongs', I must despair at the lack of commonsense someone with your educated antecedents should really possess. Given that you probably have, a Bachelors Degree or two, tucked away safely in the confines of your trusty brief case.

Moreover I've found without doubt, you're definitely, a Purveyor of Words. Which at my time of life gives me a headache. With nightmares, and visions of 'Roget's', and the 'Concise Oxford English Dictionary', backed up with, 'Wharton's Law Lexicon' ninth ed. as a reliable reserve. In which to systematically beat me about the head nightly I fear. I voluntarily relinquish to you everything that you've said herein, as being fundamentally right The only real difficulty is, you're wrong, absolutely !