Who would've thought a country of atheists has more morals (and balls) than us?

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from jem:

The written law is the first step, but perfection, for example, might require one to not even think about being intimate with another outside of what God would find acceptable.

What you say is a profound answer to those who have the questions:
Was Jesus gay?, or Does God, Jesus accept homosexuality?

Jesus's message all along was to convince non-believers that to seek perfection was to overcome nature; nature being a basic desire to put ourselves (or our own wants) first.

By putting ourselves first, we succumb to our desires.

One of our basic desires is to be intimate with others, outside of God.

Succumbing to our desires is sinful nature, which is forgivable. The most important lesson being; you must be able to have compassion, and forgive others for their sinful nature.

Forgiveness is, after all, a bi-product of compassion.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Why do you think that Jesus tells his disciples, Don't get caught up in domestic affairs?

IOW Don't get married to anyone outside of God.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Hoofhearted:

The adequate evidence I was referring to is the fact that none of the gospels or Paul's writings mention the destruction of the temple. This in itself suggests that the accounts were documented before 70 c.e., the actual date when the Roman army destroyed the temple.

This is what I refer to as common sense evidence, and as you point out, we currently have no hard evidence- but then again, to find hard evidence of the very first written accounts would be a miracle in itself.

Also as with Tacitus, and the accounts of Josephus:
Common sense tells me that these two historians would have in their lifetimes read the articles which were already in circulation well before their own documentations were made on the subject.

The articles that both Josephus and Tacitus drew from, were likely copies, or copies of copies, and as you point out, these may have been altered, but we shouldn't assume the content was heavily altered.

We can expect some grammatical errors were fixed, and paragraphs may have been re-arranged to help the reader make sense of the chronological order.

We can expect that some truths may have been embellished, while some outright myths may have been added to the accounts.

We should remember too that some important events may have been left out, or were misunderstood to begin with.

But perhaps most importantly, We can also have some faith that much of the content and the lessons within have remained true to this day.

This is where we have the very unscientific task of listening to our hearts for where the truth may lie.

This is assuming that the stories could have only been passed down through campfires generation after generation, when in fact the accounts may have very well been written down immediately within days, weeks, months or years after Christ's crucifixion.

My hunch is that the accounts found their way to paper almost immediately. The problem is the fragility of paper, thus the need for making copies.

These were not stone-age people who had no written language to turn to.

These were highly educated people, living in and around a central hub of worldly scholar. Most understood at least two or three languages.

These were people who took great care in writing their accounts and beliefs down for others to read.

It's only insurmountable if you have a settled belief that the events were indeed supernatural.

In your mind, try to reverse the situation, and imagine handing the people of two thousand years ago a book about the events of today.

Would they not think you were out of your mind when you describe to them the way a television or radio works?

It would take some leap of faith for many to believe that two people from opposite ends of the world can easily have a conversation with each other with only a fraction of a second delay.

Just over a century ago, many great minds would have considered Nikola Tesla's notion of using remote energy waves to transmit power through the air as being hocus pocus, or the stuff of sorcerers- yet here we are using it every day. Our best minds of today, still cannot figure out exactly what all Tesla knew.

As a scientific enthusiast, you are probably well aware that we are thought to only use a fraction of our minds' capacity- maybe 10-30%. Our minds have scientifically been compared to super computers that work by using electronic signals (well, maybe not Leap-up's, eheh).

It's difficult to imagine what is possible knowing that we have such limited use of our brains.

Perhaps a few centuries from now, we will be knocked back to the dark-ages, and the campfire stories of our technological society of today will fade into myth. Only those capable of leaps of faith might ever believe Grandpa's stories of men walking on the moon- even if there are historic writings found which speak of it.

I will think some more on your quandaries of Paul, and other things.

Hoof. I appreciate your response. It's balanced and not at all unreasonable. However, while your example of what those a thousand years previous would think of today's technological achievements makes sense, the example doesn't work in the other direction. Those living long ago could not correctly interpret or understand events and technology of today, but we are capable of correctly interpreting the past.

Now, thanks to you, I accept the high probability that the Jesus of the Bible existed. But that still leaves this question: If the bible is correct about the lives of Jesus and the Disciples, then I think there is a very high probability that they were all gay. Don't laugh, I'm quite serious about this. But I do think any of that bit about the disciples and the last supper, etc. is unlikely. Well it's not unlikely, it is impossible. So if I'm right about the nonsense of Jesus coming back to life after being dead three days etc., then I think it is reasonable to call into question all of the stories about Jesus and the disciples. And therefore, I would question the otherwise rather obvious conclusion that Jesus was gay.

Either the Bible stories of Jesus and the Disciples are true, and Jesus and the Disciples were very likely gay, or these stories are just that, made-up stories, and we therefore don't have any reason to think that Jesus was gay. Nevertheless, and regardless, there is no mention of a girlfriend or wife!

Let me add that none of this really matters to me one bit, other than the big grin that overcomes me when I point out to those that insist that the bible is the word of god and is true in all respects, that if that is the case, then it is highly likely Jesus was gay. And, of course, this drives certain "Christians" nuts.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from piezoe:

Hoof. I appreciate your response. It's balanced and not at all unreasonable. However...

...while your example of what those a thousand years previous would think of today's technological achievements makes sense, the example doesn't work in the other direction.

I'm afraid you're wrong again, lama lips, as I will point out.

Quote from piezoe:

Those living long ago could not correctly interpret or understand events and technology of today, but we are capable of correctly interpreting the past.

But, we are also quite capable of incorrectly interpreting, and misunderstanding the past, as you have shown repeatedly already, No?

Quote from piezoe:

... I accept the high probability that the Jesus of the Bible existed. But that still leaves this question: If the bible is correct about the lives of Jesus and the Disciples, then I think there is a very high probability that they were all gay.

Don't laugh, I'm quite serious about this.

Piehole,

I would conclude, after considering your history of ignorance and somewhat childish behavior, as well as your propensity for rejecting higher education, that you have not spent enough time and thought on the subject to make any real conclusions of your own. I hope that makes sense.

I suggest that you read my last post that came just before yours where I address the very question that has likely been mulling in your mind for quite some time.

I suggest also that you look at Jem's post that I was corresponding to, addressing the subject of marriage, before making any final judgments on the matter.

If, after some contemplation, you still believe that Jesus was gay, then that would perhaps point to something more about your own desires.
If so these can be changed.

It may, however, point to a deficit in advanced learning skills and thinking on your part.
If this is the case, I'm afraid you're fucked.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Hoofhearted:

I'm afraid you're wrong again, lama lips, as I will point out.

But, we are also quite capable of incorrectly interpreting, and misunderstanding the past, as you have shown repeatedly already, No?

Piehole,

I would conclude, after considering your history of ignorance and somewhat childish behavior, as well as your propensity for rejecting higher education, that you have not spent enough time and thought on the subject to make any real conclusions of your own. I hope that makes sense.

I suggest that you read my last post that came just before yours where I address the very question that has likely been mulling in your mind for quite some time.

I suggest also that you look at Jem's post that I was corresponding to, addressing the subject of marriage, before making any final judgments on the matter.

If, after some contemplation, you still believe that Jesus was gay, then that would perhaps point to something more about your own desires.
If so these can be changed.

It may, however, point to a deficit in advanced learning skills and thinking on your part.
If this is the case, I'm afraid you're fucked.

Hoof, please reread my last paragraph in my post above. You will learn that I don't think Jesus was necessarily Gay, we don't have reliable information on his sexual orientation as far as I know. I think the Disciples stories are highly unreliable at best, and at worst entirely made up by church clerics. They are cute stories. My point is that if those stories are true, then it is highly likely that Jesus was gay. I don't see how anyone that believes those stories would think otherwise if they were thinking at all. But I don't believe those stories, and I don't think Jesus was gay, and I don't think he was straight, I just don't know!! (I don't believe in supernatural events that violate the natural laws either.)

To your other point, we are capable of understanding the past, assuming we have correct information. Given correct information about today, however, people of the past would not be capable of understanding it without the same background we have today. The people of Biblical times, in what is today the Middle East, were by and large illiterate. The Romans, of course, had a higher literacy rate. Was Christ illiterate, or is there a record of him having been taught to read and write? As a desperately poor carpenter born of an un-impregnated mother in a stable among livestock he would logically have been illiterate in those times. (There weren't many bookstores two thousand years ago.)

Hoof, I'm afraid you are a prisoner of your pathetic Christian education. Fortunately, I've managed to overcome mine, not an easy task considering the pervasive nature of the modern Christian Church and the religion industry in the U.S., the peer pressure one is subjected to, the accusations of being accused of "childishness" if one questions the Christian dogma, and the threats of burning in hell for not towing the line often preached from the pulpit in more primitive Christian sects.

And one more thing, Hoof, that I hope you won't take lightly, and that is the tremendous harm that organized religion has done over the centuries through its false teachings and its persecution of those considered heretics, and in the U.S. through its steadfast support of war and killing.

 

[piezoe]

Hoof, what you write in the post of yours that you referred me to is a nice example of false Christian teachings. Though the teachings are not entirely false, and not entirely harmful. They are a mixed bag, so to speak. This is naturally the case because the Christian teachings are the work of man. Man is imperfect in that he/she is capable of error. In fact what I have written could be in error. One must decide for one's self. The Christian teaching of Jesus is for one to come to Christ not with an open mind, but rather a supple, blank mind to be written on, as the mind of a child. Or as sheep being led to the slaughter house.

 

[Hoofhearted]

Quote from piezoe:

My point is that if those stories are true, then it is highly likely that Jesus was gay. I don't see how anyone that believes those stories would think otherwise if they were thinking at all.

I understand that, while having a good time waving your gay Jesus dildo around and poking people in the butt with it- you are also actually learning something in the process.







You say that if the gospel stories are true, then Jesus would have to be gay, but you've given no examples of what leads you to such a novel thought. Please, explain, if you are at all serious.

It's one thing to say, I have formulated a theory of why Jesus must be gay if the bible stories are true, and then explain-
But instead you present no evidence other than to hint of some rumors you've heard concerning the Last Supper painting.



You can say Jesus was gay all you like, and that will no doubt piss some people off, but as far as I know, there was no hairy butt sex mentioned in any of the gospels.




You say that my post concerning the subject of whether or not Christ was gay, is an example of a false christian teaching.

I wonder, How do you consider it to be a teaching if nothing was learned from it?




When others accuse you of childishness, perhaps its not because you've merely questioned Christian dogma, but that you obviously find pleasure in trying to ridicule it.

Is your goal to convince me and others there is no value in a subject you seem to be in-large ignorant of?

Or, as you have alluded to, Is your primary goal to gain pleasure in finding ways to drive christian folks nuts?

It's ok to have fun prodding the sheep so to speak, but this is all I meant when I referred to your childish behavior. I hope you haven't taken offense to that, but it's just me saying I understand you are here to be playful at times rather than to learn, or exchange in philosophical discord.

And I can only hope that you might someday realize that there is value in his teachings.




You say I have fallen for a trap, and I am a prisoner of a pathetic and dangerous religion, but I do not practice it.

I study the teachings of Christ, but I doubt I could ever live as he did, and I certainly don't agree with many of the orthodox christian views. Nay, I only take from it what I think helps me, then just keep mulling over the rest of it till something clicks.

Can you then give me one example of something Christ said that you believe was a dangerous teaching?








You asked that I consider all of the death and destruction that has come about over the last two millennium by the christian church, and I have.





It is quite true that plenty of heads have been cut off and villages burned by those who wore crosses.



Countless people have killed and been killed in the name of greed, power, and fear, yet it's Christ who continues to be crucified for their deeds.

Our not-so-distant relatives killed many of the people who lived here, and took control the land, yet we still enjoy the property and teach about the slaughter of natives in our schools.
Should we ignore these lessons too?

If you choose to believe these were christian acts, then I can understand your fear of christianity.

Only Christ could define what christianity is, as he was the only person who practiced and fully understood it.
None of his disciples that followed have been able to fully understand him or his messages.



We are all killing and destroying right now, as a part of the corporate world, yet Are we not happy to be plugged into the system, lavishing in the exquisite pleasure that comes from torturing the hypocrisy out of so-called christian folk on the internet?

Do you think about how many people get beaten, maimed, killed and removed from their land every day so we can have the technology available to use our cell phones? So we can drive our cars?

Do you find the teachings of Christ are to blame for all of this too?


Scientific advances in technology will soon destroy much in the world that can never be returned, yet nobody is trying to stop it.

Have you not considered that scientific technology might be the anti-christ that Revelations speaks of? Oh yeah, you don't believe in that mumbo jumbo, Do you?


I imagine Anti-Christ to be a good thing in your mind, no?




Have you considered all the torture, mutilations and deaths that have come about in the name of science since the beginning?

Scientists, Athiests, Pagans, Heathens, and the like have all killed their share.

I'll point out to you again that science has had, and still has it's fair share of contradictions, and mis-information, yet you do not turn your back to its teachings.

You find it acceptable to continue utilizing the technologies that has caused the death and mutilation of countless others, Do you not?

Your main reason for ignoring Christ's teachings is because you believe they're dangerous and destructive.
Well so is nuclear energy, rocket fuel, mineral mining and all that it takes to propel today's often unscrupulous scientific and technological advances.





You began to show some excitement about 5 minutes ago, when you realized for the first time in your life that Christ, the man actually existed, and I sensed the way your imagination was wanting to open up.

Then you did, what I believe we all do, sadly, which is to snap back into our prejudice views that others have helped us develop, and that we accepted as the truth when our minds were still ignorant.

Ignorance is simply a comfort zone for most. It's just easier to stay that way, don't you think?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Hoofhearted:

...You say that if the gospel stories are true, then Jesus would have to be gay, but you've given no examples of what leads you to such a novel thought....

It's one thing to say, I have formulated a theory of why Jesus must be gay if the bible stories are true, and then explain-
But instead you present no evidence...

God dammit I hate it when I agree with you.

 

[trendlover]

Quote from Hoofhearted:

Have you not considered that scientific technology might be the anti-christ that Revelations speaks of?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

?

 

[piezoe]

Hoof, Just a couple fine points. I did not say in my more serious post above, not my original post that you correctly identified as "playful," that Christ had to be gay, I said, if a person believed the gospels, then you would have to conclude that it is likely that Jesus was gay. You would agree with this, i'm sure. You couldn't not! But there is a big difference between "likely" and "had to be." Please don't make any mistake about my firm position. The gospels are made up stories. How they got into the form that appears in the translation from Greek that made its way into the King James version of the bible many centuries after the supposed Christ walked the sands of Galilee, I haven't the faintest idea. But these stories all violate natural law. None of them can be true!

For someone that believes the gospels are true, I'm guessing jem may, here is the evidence supporting our gay Jesus. 1) no mention of a romantic relationship with a woman or women; 2) spent much of his "intimate" time with other men of whom we likewise have no indication that any of them were romantically involved with women. The Christian church will naturally try to head off this kind of heretical thinking by claiming that the disciples were married to God, or other equally ridiculous nonsense.

This whole business brings a big smile to my face. And I have enjoyed immensely our "discussion" and differing points of view. You are clearly one of the better informed participants in our little micro culture called ET. Then too, you taught me about Tacitus, of whom I had not heard. It is a tragedy for today's historians that there are practically no surviving original documents, mostly just a bunch of fragments, nearly everything existing today that is somewhat intact is a copy, or a copy of a copy, etc. and, sadly, they didn't have zerox. And too, the chain of possession is none too reliable. At some point the church, being the center of all "learned activity," was able to get its hands on just about everything written about biblical times. There must have been a surfeit of Jimmy Swaggart like characters in the early Christian period. Despite all this certain tampering with the evidence, we can still chuckle when we read about him who "stinketh" after being dead four days and then popping up bound and gagged. This is the kind of stuff that appeals to today's teen movie goers. I'm surprised we haven't yet Lazarus I, II, and III coming out of Hollywood. Surely we can look forward to that any day now. And in 3D!

As far as what teachings are really dangerous, I have to point out that the entire bible is really dangerous. I don't believe we would have hardly anyone today buying into this nonsense if it wasn't for the money to be made. I mean think of the millions of checks that are mailed to TV evangelists every week.

I don't mean to disparage the inspirational feeling one gets from hearing the great organ at Westminster pipe up God Save the Queen as she waddles down the aisle. Or when one hears truly inspirational music in a great cathedral. But none of that makes the Bible lies true.

The specific thing that is dastardly dangerous of "Christ's Teachings" is the way one is admonished not to do much thinking but just accept on faith the teachings, since Christ tells us that he is just God's mouthpiece (Our Father in Heaven). The more primitive sects, such as the Southern Baptists --which is incidentally the church most useful to used car salesmen-- really emphasizes that the more intellectually humble one behaves the better one's chance of getting into heaven, where the really good stuff is.

When you read the old testament it is immediately clear why religion is the refuge of the ignorant. (The "church" has the greatest vitality in countries with larger illiterate and minimally educated populations. Curiously, in Italy, the local churches are almost empty on a Sunday morning, save for a few old ladies fumbling their rosaries. In the U.S., however, churches are the poor man's country club. That's where business is done. The Episcopal church being an exception -- it's the upper middle class and rich man's country club. The preferred location for the local chapter of AA to meet.

I've enjoyed reading your posts immensely.