Dear Foxy

Men have been twisting Scriptures to their own destruction for centuries. The interpretation of Jesus and John is a clear illustration of this. The suggestion that Jesus was 'gay' is as ridiculous as His so called sexual relationship with Mary. It might ease the sinful conscience but will result in eternal death for those gullible enough to want to believe in such tripe. No truer words were written than that of John when He wrote 'This is the crisis we're in: God-light streamed into the world, but men and women everywhere ran for the darkness. They went for the darkness because they were not really interested in pleasing God. Everyone who makes a practice of doing evil, addicted to denial and illusion, hates God-light and won't come near it, fearing a painful exposure.'

I am surprised you choose to believe lies written by men rather than God's Word.

"addicted to denial and illusion,"

Now who does that sound like?

Dear runner,

I was merely trying to bring to your attention
the fact that this topic has been under
discussion by academics for decades.

The website that I referred you to was to show
you that it's merely one of many sources
on the subject.

It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs.

I think you may have missed the point yet again, Boaz.

>>Speculation about Jesus sexuality should be based on the available evidence. It's fine to discuss it.. (as the evidence does not point to any such gay conclusion) but to use it as a means of mocking Jesus? aah..<<

The way I read it, it is you who are being gently mocked here.

I doubt, for example, that it matters a fig to these researchers whether or not Jesus was homosexual.

But it so clearly matters to you.

In protesting "illegality", you are only making an exhibition of yourself.

Quite so, Pericles. I can't speak for anybody else, but my speculation about Jesus' sexuality was certainly far more about lampooning homophobic fundies than about mocking their hero.

Obviously, the point is that wondering whether Jesus was gay has no negative connotations, unless of course one regards homosexuality as a negative quality. My position is, of course, that homophobia is the problem rather than homosexuality per se.

And of course, the stuff about Jesus and his "beloved" John is quite fascinating in itself.

One aspect of Porky's silly homophobic rant that I haven't commented on is his certainty that the gay support group members who were rejected by the Brethos would have been having sex while at their meeting. Why does he assume this?

Is it because those randy gays do nothing other than bonk, or is it because Porky knows more about what usually happens at the "adventure resort" than the rest of us do?

I mean, it's hard to imagine Porky taking his kids to Phillip Island for a weekend love-in among the faithful, but stranger things have happened with these cults...

What matter is Jesus' sexual orientation? He preached love and acceptance of all people, something that completely escapes the thoughts and actions of the religious fundy.

As Pericles and CJ have pointed out it is Polly who is being mocked here. Not Jesus. His sexual orientation is moot.

Also as my esteemed fellow posters have highlighted, Polly's claim:
"Speculation about Jesus sexuality should be based on the available evidence..."

Whatever happened to faith, Polly? You retreat with alacrity into that line of defence at the mere whisper of evolution.

Apply 'available evidence' to all of your religious text, Polly.

Here is a start:

Homosexual behaviour is normal throughout all of the creatures on this world:

".... many species seem to have ingrained homosexual tendencies that are a regular part of their society. That is, there are probably no strictly gay critters, just bisexual ones. “Animals don’t do sexual identity. They just do sex,” says sociologist Eric Anderson of the University of Bath in England...."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bisexual-species