Smoke
Done here.
I wouldn't say that, but I can't help noticing that he never married, and spent most of his time with a close circle of male friends.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it wrong to advocate homosexuality as a sin?
- Thread starter Jeremiah
- Start date
Thats what most people have done in history when they surrendered their lives to God. It was commonplace, and in many religions still is. The idea is to lose sex desire and keeping distant from women was to not allow yourself to be tempted.
Smoke
Done here.
Jesus. It's naturally occurring, but it's not natural because it's not -- in your mind -- the way things are "supposed" to be? Do you really think for even one minute that nature follows your arbitrary and misbegotten idea of the way things are "supposed" to be?
One only needs to notice that we have quite obviously evolved so that a substantial number of us are gay, and yet the human race is procreating just fine. If anything, it's procreating too much. Whatever danger of extinction there is, dying out from lack of reproduction is not a worry.
We have also, quite obviously not evolved so that all of us are gay. Nobody suggested that we would or should. Some of us are gay. And many of those who are, reproduce, while many heterosexuals don't. That's the way things are. It's the way things have always been. We don't have to worry about "following" nature, much less your idea of what nature should be. Homosexuality is perfectly natural for people who are homosexual, just as red hair is perfectly natural for red-haired people.
Smoke
Done here.
And yet countless monks and nuns, both Christian and Buddhist, have taken lovers of the same sex.
Yeh, probably because they realise they cannot suppress their sexual desires and they happen to live only with people of the same sex. Also, there are definitely many homosexuals who choose a renounced order. But there really isn't any way of knowing that Jesus was or was not homosexual.
averageJOE
zombie
I've heard this too and I know it to be true!!
How? Because I have FAITH that he was gay!
If Mary Magdela wasn't the Beloved Disciple, he was gay.
Secret Mark is in a letter from Clement of Alexandria arguing against Jesus being gay. Admitting that Secret Mark is genuine and belongs in Mark, but to deny it, because it makes Jesus look bad.
And of course, the other naked youth with Jesus according to the regular Mark on the Mt. of Olives.
No, he wasn't gay, Mary Magdela was his main squeeze, but he just met her before Paul killed them both.
And of course, the other naked youth with Jesus according to the regular Mark on the Mt. of Olives.
No, he wasn't gay, Mary Magdela was his main squeeze, but he just met her before Paul killed them both.
Letter of Clement of Alexandria on Secret Mark
Translated by Morton Smith.
From the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis. To Theodore.
You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan", they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in 1, verso Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".
To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.
And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications. Now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy ...
Secret Mark
Translated by Morton Smith.
From the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis. To Theodore.
You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan", they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in 1, verso Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.
To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".
To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.
And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications. Now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy ...
Secret Mark
Thanks for the explanation, didn´t understand that. Not that I agree with you, but you helped me understand people who argue that it is not natural. Personally I am not sure if there is a difference between naturally occuring and natural, and even if there where I would still consider it natural.
Anyway, it does not matter if it is natural or not. Murder is natural but wrong, just as love is natural and good.
Masourga
Member
Oh boy... here we go. I wasn't really trying to say that I know or have some intimate knowledge of what nature "should be"... I used bad wording with the word "supposed to" in there somewhere. However, it is not hard (at least to me) to understand what would never propagate without serious transformations in living condition/ability to live/survive. Which is the case we have with humanity. We have altered our living condition to the point that nearly everyone survives to procreate, and as a result our gene pool is constantly being mixed with every aberration and detriment known to our physical state. I am a PERFECT example. I have horribly poor eye-sight. So much so that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a dog and a deer at 30 feet. Now... if this condition were present in, say, an eagle... that eagle would die far before it had the chance to pro-create. Plain and simple. There are none among his species with intelligence enough to help him get over the hurdle of having poor eye-sight as an eagle, and there is only so much a mother eagle is equipped to do herself to help. Humans, however, CAN help one another, and so we do so all the time. We help those to survive who (let's be honest now) would not on their own. And so the eagle becomes stronger as a species, even as the human race becomes weaker. Not that I believe gay to be a state of weakness, mind you. But it is a state that is only propagated by our living condition. You simply can't sustain a species populated with entirely gay members. Which DOES (no matter what you want to believe) say something about the validity of that state when it comes to natural survival. That is nearly my only point.
I wasn't saying we're going to die out. I was only pointing out that if all of us were gay, we certainly would. Look, we didn't evolve penises and vaginas, testes and ovaries for no good reason, obviously. The sperm is drawn to the egg... and there is no question what the plan is there with regard to our nature.
Hell, I agree with you that the world is likely becoming over-populated with humans.. and who knows, the tendency toward being gay may even be a function of nature itself to trim the population in some small form.
I was obviously only using that scenario to make a point.
And is this a "natural" form of reproduction? It can't be. You see... therein lies my point. Our nature doesn't provide for humans to pro-create in same-sex relationships. What is so hard to understand about that? It is a simple truth. I am merely being honest about the way things are. I'm sorry if that offends you... but denying it doesn't change it.
You KNOW there is a difference between hair-color and sexual alignment. I'm not even going to make other comment on this point. You can battle it out with yourself.
Nice attempt to poison the well. What other sloppy little logical fallacies do you have?
Are you actually suggesting that nature has intentions? If so, can you show some evidence for that notion?
There are no exclusively homosexual mammals. Yeah, plenty of bisexual behavior here and there, but exclusive homosexuality by choice? Only humans do it. About as unnatural as you get.
But that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't be tolerated as long as they don't hurt anyone else. We are only on the earth for a limited time, everyone has a right to pursue happiness as best they can.
But that doesn't mean everyone shouldn't be tolerated as long as they don't hurt anyone else. We are only on the earth for a limited time, everyone has a right to pursue happiness as best they can.
Masourga
Member
Nature is not a consciousness, therefore no, it has no "intentions" per se. But, nearly every species on Earth concerns itself with it's best and most fruitful propagation at all times. Only humanity breaks this mold. Our sentience allows us to fly in the face of our nature. We do it ALL THE TIME. We inhale smoke. We pierce our skin with metals and other objects. We heal the natural degradation of our bodies through artificial means. We travel in vehicles at speeds that destroy us when something goes wrong. To say that being homosexual doesn't fly in the face of our nature is ludicrous. A penis is built to enter a vagina. Sperm is built to seek the egg. Just you try and deny that. And you want to say that why? So you don't offend someone? Who cares? The truth is the truth.
And let's not forget that I don't believe homosexuality to be "wrong" in the least! Right and wrong are man-made contrivances, used to wield law and rule over the masses. If you and your partner were alone on this planet and were homosexual, who would there be to tell you you were "wrong"? No one! Therefore "wrong" doesn't play into it. However... your "nature" in that particular scenario has doomed your kind.
Homosexuality is actually common when it comes to other animals as well. It has nothing to do with our changed living condition.
That does not mean homosexuality is unnatural.
Which also means it would be a naturally occuring way for nature to "trim the population".
So now free will and the ability to choose is unnatural? Besides, homosexuality is not a matter of choice.
I don't know, different animals show signs of perculiar sexual behaviour. Eg/ dogs humping legs, male cockatiels trying to have sex with human hands (very common) and there's a species of ape, I can't remember what they are called right now, that are always having sex, sometimes with the same sex.
Edited to add: Bonobos! That's what they are called.
Edited to add: Bonobos! That's what they are called.
Last edited:
False, there's not a single solitary mammal that exibits exclusive homosexuality, other than humans.
Yep, bonobos are obsessed with sex. But no mammals are exclusively homosexual.
No animals really, but someone is bound to bring up the famous two homosexual penguins, as if tormented penguins in a cage would exhibit natural behavior.
I don't have to prove the negative. If you think Elephants have exclusively homosexual relationships, you need to demonstrate it. I say it doesn't exist. Do elephant, human, bonobo, etc. have same sex friends and allies for life? Of course.