themistocles

"Jesus, you're so gay."

Doctor X

Maybe if someone refered him to that Christian organization that "prays you straight?"

Anyways, this sort of crapolla is about a reliable and respectable as trying to figure out his sandal size, what car he would have driven, and whether or not he prefered Leno to Letterman or either to a root canal.

It is up there with declaring that an author of one of the gospels "could be a woman" because . . . like . . . there are relatively more women in it . . . sorry, it shows "sensitivity" to "women's issues."

Crawl up on soapbox. . . .

This is just another example of trying to remake history in the image of what you want to believe. Yyyyesssssss . . . it would be "fun" to watch the Fundamentalist-haters of homosexuals squirm if you could prove "Junior" "wore comfortable sandles"--not that there is anything wrong with it--just as it was trying to prove he really a Marxist.

As the many "Was There . . . Like . . . You Know . . . a Historical Jesus?" threads have shown we REALLY KNOW SQUAT historically. We are left with a "probably." I, myself, have cited Galatians versus Acts as evidence of a "someone" since Paul refers to his brother . . . which, again, demonstrates diddly squat about details. I know some posters doubt the authenticity of Galatians. If they are right that flushes that argument.

So we know nothing.

So let us suppose! These games are fun, but the problem is too many fools take them seriously and try to institute national policies on them!

I well recommend Ecco's The Name of the Rose--FLEE from the movie!!!--where you can meet monks who go into conniptions at suggestions that "our savior" may have laughed!!

Now take astology . . . PLEASE!! This has been debunked more than O.J.'s "I was sleeping/taking a shower/packing/practicing putts on the lawn" explanation. Interested parties may visit the The Bad Astronomer if they still have some faith in this delusion. To even PRETEND rigor by basing conclusions on such should require immediate cognitive reconditioning with a sledge hammer!

Dragged off of the soap box, subdued with batons, and thrown into the waiting van.

--J.D.

[Edited because while he may know "no" he has no knowledge of "know."--Ed.]

mark9950

because the ancient peoples used it in the old testament.

I believe jesus was gay mainly because there is no commandment against it.(he left room for it as God,God is gay)

I also believe that marys father may have had sex with her and she concieved jesus.If he even existed.

There is no commandment against incest.(he left room for that too,look at lot)

The ten commandments was the only law for the children of israel which does not relate to ceremonial laws of the sacrifices.

Why did this God not make a commandment against the ancient israelites for homosexuality and incest especially since most likely they practiced it?

Simple explanation God is a gay perverted sicko.

Jackalope

Uh, this gawd person did have commandments about both of those. Dude, this is about the fourth time in the last week I've caught you making blatantly wrong statements (and I haven't been reading that closely). If you want to argue scripture, you need to read it first. You don't have to believe, but you do need to know what you're mouthing off about.

Now, one might argue that the ancient israelites actually did practice incest regularly, as God spends so much time telling them what they must not do. After all, why forbid something that they weren't doing anyway? But that's a far cry from claiming there was no commandment against incest.

mark9950

Christianity in many instances practice or supposed practice the ten commandments(that is all they would claim to folow).

God gave the children of Israel the TEN COMMANDMENTS,not 20 not 30,TEN COMMANDMENTS.

HOW MANY COMMANDMENTS DID GOD GIVE?

a)10
b)20
c)30
d)none of the above

I will be waiting for a response

What you gave me is irrelevant when the ten commandments are involved.

When the ten commandments are involved there is no arguement.

I guess you must have forgotten about lot and his daughters?

Are you a christian?

mark9950

the possibility of a bi/gay or even pedophiliac jesus.

http://human.st/ttbr/NGay.html

http://outrage.nabumedia.com/pressrelease.asp?ID=37

http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/newtestament/id5.html

Jackalope

Non sequiteur.
That assumes that the 10 commandments are the only things the ancient isrealites had to follow. Which is patently untrue, or there wouldn't be a whole book of rules called Leviticus.

Then there's the whole issue of which Ten Commandments you're talking about. The ones that most protestant denominations teach as the Ten Commandments is not actually called by that name. The covenant that is actually called the Ten Commandments in the text is considerably different. I have yet to see a christian sect that correctly identifies that section of text.

edited to add:

Exodus 20-23 Moses gets a bunch of rules that are written down in the Book of the Covenant, starting with what christians think of as "the" ten commandments.
Exodus 24 Moses comes down, tells everyone what he's been ordered to write. Writes it down, builds an altar. Makes sacrifices, splatters blood all over. Is called back up to Mt.Sinai
Exodus 25-30 Instructions on building the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, and temple furnishings. More temple furnishings, the actual tabernacle (framed tent). Instructions for building the altar, size and arrangements of the courts. How Aaron and his sons should be dressed. The offerings. The great feasts, obligations.
Exodus 31 All this crap gets written down on "two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." Holy Shit, we finally get to the stone tablets! That's a lot more than the "10 commandments" most fundies are incorrectly taught were written there.
Exodus 32 The Golden Calf, God wants to ice 'em all, Moses talks him out of it, Moses breaks those same tablets
Exodus 33 God tells the jews what idiots they are, but promises them land, Moses makes arrangements with YHWH to "see his back parts"
Exodus 34 A new pair of tablets hewn But they won't say the same thing!, Moses sees God's arse.
Now we get to the interesting part:
Exodus 34:10-11: God states he's making a covenant with the ancient jews
Exodus 34:12-26 A set of commandments
Exodus 34:27 Hey Moses, write this shit down.
Exodus 34:28:
And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

The things written in Exodus 43:12-26 is the only section ever actually called "the ten commandments. And they're quite different from the first set.

End Added Section


Again, the "ten commandments" were not the only rules handed down to the ancient isrealites. You state that there was no commandment against incest. While it's not one of the (incorrectly labeled) Ten Commandments, it's part of the covenant outlined in Leviticus. Yes, the ancient jews were required to adhere to those rules, or face a set of consequences that are also outlined in that text.

Not punished does not mean permitted. Especially since there's such a very long section on who one must never sleep with. Most of Genesis appears to be a set of myths that were grafted together, so I don't particularly find anything odd in the fact that the rules are applied inconsistantly.

No, I'm not a christian. I think the the whole text is ridiculous. However, you don't do the atheist side of the debate any favors when you make wrong and/or bizarre statements not supported by either the text or archeological evidence. I'd prefer that inability to read and think critically stay on the theist side of the debate.

mark9950

All the ten commandments nonsense were for Israel ONLY.

Deuteronomy 4:15-19 recognizes the god-like status of stars, noting that they were created for other peoples to worship.

We non israelites are to worship the stars according to the book of enoch.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Jackalope

Yes, but none of that has anything to do with whether or not incest, homosexuality, adultery, or beastiality were forbidden in Gawd's laws. They were in fact forbidden, but the great and painstaking detail used would suggest that in practice all those things were done. Again, why go to all that detail if no one was actually committing those "sins"?

Doctor X

Maybe it is the late hour . . . maybe it is the merlot . . . but I am not sure what the point of the argument is.

mark:

There are more than Decalogue and Jack is correct that other laws get added on . . . indeed what follows the Decalogue in Exod 20:1-17 is a whole list of laws . . . pages . . . including my favorite--child sacrifice!!--Exod 22:29b.

Now it is true recent scholarship on the Leviticus prohibition questions that it is forbidding a "position" rather than a life-style--"better to give than receive!"

The various gods in the OT are variants of your basic "storm god" or "mountain god"--"Big Daddy" that runs a particular region. A later layer elevates the conception to a "bigger" or more universal god--hence the later creation myth.

No textual evidence for El, the Elohim, or even YHWH hanging out in fern bars . . . not that there is anything wrong with that.

If anything, one can argue for a consort of YHWH--Asherah . . . bit of a stretch . . . probably supressed . . . lots of Ph.D. thesis parsing sentences and looking at pottery shards. So declaring "god gay" is rather a stretch to write the least.

Neat!

Where does this make Junior a homosexual? At best one can argue that a particular writer of a particular text portrayed him/ or alluded to it. I am far from familiar with "Secret Mark"--but I am not at all convinced that it was composed by "Mk." One can giggle about the naked man running from the garden . . . and probably the same guy found in the tomb . . . but it is stretching to conclude that Mk considered Junior gay . . . not that there is anything wrong with that.

Other than that . . . I do not see it. I do not see it as much of a consideration for the authors.

Finally, perhaps one can try an oblique argument. I am reading a book about two rival renaissance artists. Anyways, one of them and a younger artist may have had "a relationship." The evidence is not solid, but as the historian noted that such was quite common . . . so . . . perhaps . . . we can expect . . . et cetera.

So . . . perhaps . . . one can argue . . . at the time of Junior . . . it was common . . . therefore it was likely . . . can I be anymore non committal than that!!

Right. This is like trying to argue his sandle size. Good luck!

--J.D.