erimir

Ah yes, but what about having other gods behind him?

At any rate, even supposing that the Christian Jesus was based on a historical figure, I don't think there's enough evidence about his sexuality to come to a conclusion EITHER WAY.

There certainly isn't enough evidence to conclude that he was definitely not homosexual, and there are some things that could support him being homosexual, but then again they could have been unrelated to his sexuality.

In order for the fact that Jesus "was God" to have any relevance to a discussion of his sexuality, I think it would require for us to either agree to limit the discussion to that possibility, or for you to prove that he was god. Since this discussion is merely about his sexuality, IF a historical Jesus existed, there is no reason for us to accept that as proof that he was not homosexual.

And besides, I don't see any reason why if Jesus both existed and was god that he couldn't be homosexual. As far as I know, Jesus himself never said anything about homosexuality (I thought that things concerning it were from the OT and Paul) nor can it be said that those sources against homosexuality were necessarily reflecting god's will.

But the subject is rather useless, and you can't really come to a conclusion.

However, it IS a rather amusing subject

Zeda

Yes, actually they often are. Just because something is government sanctioned doesn't mean it is necessarily right.

Actually I am not an atheist, and actually this is exactly the way it was taught in my Baptist church. I am aware of course that it refers to murder, and not killing as in self-defense or in war. It also does not refer to manslaughter, in which there was no intention that someone would die.


2 Sam. 24:1 And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he (God) moved David or in the kj incited David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

It is quite clear that the Idea of the Census came from God. God inspired David to take the census.



I in fact agreed with you on this point. Jesus was born with no sin nature and no human desires, as far as I understand it, and that is why I said I believed that if he was a historical person as described in the NT, he was in fact asexual.

I also addressed the point in my post that the rules given to humanity are not intended for God. As i said, Might is Right. The rules, laws, commandments apply to us, and not to him. Of course, God is without sin, he doesnt have to follow any of the rules. However, to us humans, it sure looks like sin from here.

Nectaris

I agree that there are different words in Hebrew that mean killing, however Ratsach is one of them, and is defined as either murder or kill. Heck there are other passages in the KJV that the word is translated as murder, but why not in Exodus 20. Remember I have no problem admitting the possibility that the word could indeed be murder, and for all intents and purposes I think that "don't murder," makes a better law than "don't kill"--but that's from my human moral standpoint.

I am just having difficulty knowing with absolute certainty that the word is murder.

While NT distinctions are interesting, I don't really put much weight in their ability to define Hebrew scripture, but I could see why it would have more weight with you. Even though I'm still uncertain of the actual definition, you have explained your position, thanks.

Since this isn't really related to the subject of the thread, I will not post more on this topic. If you feel the need for further explanation or clarification, or if anyone else does, perhaps a new thread could be started or this could be split off to a new thread.

Dave

Jack the Bodiless

The ending of the Gospel of John, the Beloved Disciple:

Boro Nut

Evidence For:-
Wore frocks
Big Hair
Batchelor Boy
Liked to sleep in the company of other men

Evidence Against:-
Kissing Judas (a hairy twat)
Shocking colour co-ordination
Brown sandals

Boro Nut