Here is an email I received in response to one of my essays on religion.
Well lets see, according to you, Jesus was gentle which made him a pansy, he didn’t have sex with every woman he could find, which didn’t make him have morals, but a queer, and he spent his time with men, who were teachers and leaders, and he dined with them in manners consistent with his time and culture.
Hmm, that’s like saying Jesus could not be a Jew because you don’t like Jews.
Well, I’m a non violent person, monogamous, and I eat in ways which work for my culture. I’m not gay, incidentally. If this is as good as rational people get in their thinking, I’d rather not be rational.
What evidence was there Jesus was heterosexual? — none. There is some that he was homosexual. Given than roughly one in ten people is, it seems reasonable to conclude he was gay. People used to make excuses for Oscar Wilde too, when being gay was considered unspeakably evil. He even married! You hold a much higher standard of evidence simply because he is Jesus.
The other possibility of course is that he was totally asexual. The logic goes like this: All lust is sin. Jesus was sinless. Therefore Jesus could not have had a sexual preference. You have to take it on faith that Jesus never masturbated and that he was the son of God and hence sinless even in mind. David Copperfield and Peter Popoff (crooked faith healer) did parlour tricks far more amazing than turning water into wine. Whatever Jesus actually did (as opposed to what he Bible claims he did), was not even spectacular enough to make it into the history books. Even Houdini managed that. So I see insufficient evidence that he never masturbated or that he either was God or the son of God.
Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
~ Carl Sagan (born: 1934-11-09 died: 1996-12-20 at age: 62)
Being gay is commonplace. Being the son of God is not. You seem to have the evidence requirements backwards for these two claims.
It is also possible that Jesus was a homosexual or heterosexual virgin. Such people do exist. You don’t have to be a slut to be homosexual, or heterosexual for that matter. The priesthood today attracts homosexual men who attempt chastity.
However you missed the point of the essay, namely that modern Christians condemn in modern day gays behaviour they completely excuse in Jesus. It actually irrelevant what his sexual preference, if any, was.
available on the web at:
optional Replicator mirror
Please email your feedback for publication, letters to the editor, errors, omissions, typos, formatting errors, ambiguities, unclear wording, broken/redirected link reports, suggestions to improve this page or comments to Roedy Green : . If you want your message, your name or email kept confidential, not considered for public posting, please explicitly specify that. Unless you state otherwise, I will treat your message as a letter to the editor that I may or may not publish in the feedback section. After that, it will be too late to retract it. If you disagree with something I said, especially when sending an ad-hominem attack, a rant composed mainly of obscenities or a death threat, please quote the offending passage and cite the web page where you found it, tell me why you think it is wrong, and, if possible, provide some supporting evidence. I can’t very well fix erroneous or ambiguous text if I can’t find it.
Your face IP:[18.104.22.168]
|Feedback||You are visitor number 11.|