Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 13:48:23 GMT
I didn't mean for it to sound like I suggested no divine attributes if it read that way. I see Jesus as savior and Son of God. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 14, 2017 14:35:04 GMT
I think Jesus was gay. I'm an atheist, but I do believe that the person behind the Jesus myth was real and just an ordinary person. People often do the misstake of believing that marriage was something everybody strived for in historic times, but that is far from the truth. People weren't stupid, and they did realize that if they didn't own a plot of land, they could hardly feed a family. But to my gay theory. Jesus was born into a macho culture, yet he is described as quite soft and gentle, unmanly according to what was expected in those times. Those that was closest to him, were all men, yet his mother is a dominent figure in his life. It would make the hole Judas thing and suicide a bit more understandable, a forsaken and deserted lover seeks revenge (maybe Jesus got in a new relationsship with one of the others?), and then when Jesus is dead, Judas realize what he has done and kills himself. Judas killed himself before Jesus was executed, not after.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 14, 2017 15:39:46 GMT
gadreelThinking about it and assuming it are two different things. To ponder on it isn't worthy of discussion. To debate the notion requires an opinion though and all I'm saying is there's no particular reason to think that Jesus thinks as even most people do in the 21st century and some disagree with that notion. Yes, I already said that one needs to boink to have kids. However, a man will not die if he never has sex or even a romantic relationship. Genitals will not explode or whither away. I think that overall the only issue I have is with the notion that all men share a similar level of desires. I thinks that's a falsehood that is simply based on the individual projecting what their needs are onto others and that's whether we are discussing Jesus or not. There are plenty of stats that back up the notion that people can live their entire lives as virgins, single, or not even inclined to romance. There are a deviation from the norm but that doesn't mean they are abnormal. I also think there is a false notion that unless one personally experiences a particular desire or even sin, they can't know how it affects others or its consequences. Jesus would have been around plenty of people, including some of his apostles, who would have experienced things that he could comment on just like we all do. They are most certainly not the same. People aren't even the same now as they were in the 90's so to try and pretend that we can know with certainty what life was like in an ancient time is ludicrous. All we have to go on is what's written about it which is why you do indeed need incite into that time and place. Otherwise, you just wind up assuming that opinion automatically is the fact of the matter which may be sufficient for some, it's just no reason for it to be sufficient for everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jun 14, 2017 15:48:32 GMT
I think Jesus was gay. I'm an atheist, but I do believe that the person behind the Jesus myth was real and just an ordinary person. People often do the misstake of believing that marriage was something everybody strived for in historic times, but that is far from the truth. People weren't stupid, and they did realize that if they didn't own a plot of land, they could hardly feed a family. But to my gay theory. Jesus was born into a macho culture, yet he is described as quite soft and gentle, unmanly according to what was expected in those times. Those that was closest to him, were all men, yet his mother is a dominent figure in his life. It would make the hole Judas thing and suicide a bit more understandable, a forsaken and deserted lover seeks revenge (maybe Jesus got in a new relationsship with one of the others?), and then when Jesus is dead, Judas realize what he has done and kills himself. Judas killed himself before Jesus was executed, not after. I didn't know forensic science evolved during biblical times. And the bible can hardly be used as evidence, as there are to very different stories on how he died.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 14, 2017 15:49:56 GMT
The purpose of Jesus coming was not that he could experience human life. His experience as a human automatically provided this experience.
Then what was the point of it? Why would Jesus need to come to Earth to be human without another point to it. There would have to be a sequel since angels had been human before.
In any event, it's explained in Scripture that he was there to redeem mankind both by his instruction and by his sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 14, 2017 15:58:54 GMT
Judas killed himself before Jesus was executed, not after. I didn't know forensic science evolved during biblical times. And the bible can hardly be used as evidence, as there are to very different stories on how he died. Your statements can hardly be used as evidence either so this is back to square one.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Jun 14, 2017 16:07:05 GMT
I didn't know forensic science evolved during biblical times. And the bible can hardly be used as evidence, as there are to very different stories on how he died. Your statements can hardly be used as evidence either so this is back to square one. Sorry, i thought this was a discussion forum so i was trying to do just that, my bad.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 14, 2017 16:10:40 GMT
Your statements can hardly be used as evidence either so this is back to square one. Sorry, i thought this was a discussion forum so i was trying to do just that, my bad. What I said didn't stop this from being a discussion. You are completely free to expound on your theory.
You should learn how to accept criticism better. That's another aspect of discussion forums.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 15, 2017 10:58:45 GMT
Judas killed himself before Jesus was executed, not after. I didn't know forensic science evolved during biblical times. And the bible can hardly be used as evidence, as there are to very different stories on how he died. A) Forinsic science is irrelevant. The discussion is concerning religion (the entire basis of which comes from the bible. You already used the bible as "evidence" in your opening assumptions about the very existence of both Jesus and Judas (since there is no record of either existing outside of biblical scripture). So as long as you are using the bible as the basis for your entire idea (which assumes that these people you are discussing did in fact exist), then you cannot just throw out what it says when it flat out contradicts your idea. B) There are only TWO stories concerning the death of Judas, and neither one directly contradicts the other. One says he hung himself, the other says he fell in a field and his body split open. It is entirely plausible that both of those things occurred (he hung himself and then his body fell when the rope gave way). Regardless of how he died, both versions are consistent about the chronology. It is implied by one and directly stated in the other that this occurred after he betrayed Jesus, but before Jesus was executed.
|
|