Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Religion on SI -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chris land who wrote (1461)	10/31/1998 1:31:00 PM
From: Arthur Radley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1542

Sure Chris! Lets label all those homosexuals as immoral people and lets not forget to enslave a whole race of people because their skin is black. Let me see if I understand you. Love between two people is BAD. Slavery is GOOD. And we wonder why there is so much hatred in this world.

To: Chris land who wrote (1461)	11/1/1998 10:59:00 AM
From: Machaon	Respond to of 1542

<< Is this to say that you are an ok person because you don't take a stand against immorality? >> I don't really know. What do you think? Am I an evil person? What do you want the government to do with people like me? Should we have trials? How about bringing the Inquisition back? << The gay lifestyle is perverted, the whole agenda of equality for gays is perverted, and anyone who stands up for gay rights is perverted. >> You sound like your prefer hate to forgiveness. So...... the gay lifestyle is perverted?! I take it that you are a male. Suppose that you were born with female hormones or female tendencies. In fact, some are born with both male and female sex organs, or mixtures of both. What would you do with these awful people? Would you want them stoned? Perhaps we could have stonings of children, who are born with gay tendencies, right in the cafeteria of grade schools at lunch. The children would then learn how compassionate your god is, and about the compassion of His followers. << It's a good thing the bible spells out the sin of homosexuality or else there would be even more people scratching their heads wondering if it's ok or not. >> Yeh. I've read it: "Leviticus(20:13) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death." So, people that are blessed by God to be born gay, should be put to death. Nice guy! Do you sit around at night pulling the wings off of flys? << I live in a state that is trying to allow same sex marriage and I guess it's people like you would would vote it in because you don't want to deny people their rights. >> So...... you would deny a lasting relationship to two men or women who love each other? Marriage is more than just about sex. Could you be overly concerned about sexual behaviour? There is about a 50% marriage breakup in this country. That means that many more couples are living together in misery. Marriage is not really working very well for opposite sex couples. The real shame is that we don't teach our children effectively enough about long term relationships, and the importance of selecting the right partner. Sexual education in our schools has been flunking the test for years. Hmmm!? Perhaps we heterosexual could learn something about commitment from the gays? Whatcha think? << Well, as for me and my house we will serve the Lord our God and do our best to make sure gays stay a minority and not a majority over here. >> Well, I wonder how well you are doing at serving your lord? How well do think you are doing at serving my Lord? After all, there is a good possibility that Jesus was gay. Also, seeing that your god doesn't hesitate from creating gays, you are openly criticizing His great work, aren't you? Is that a regular sin or a mortal sin? Regards, Bob

To: Chris land who wrote (1461)	12/26/1998 10:15:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1542

Was Jesus a Sexual Deviate or a Homosexual? Jesus certainly did not lead the conventional sexual life of a contemporary average pious Jewish man. Jesus told the children to love one another. He didn't say that boys were to love only girls, and girls were to love only boys, but that they were to love one another. John the Evangelist claimed to be the disciple whom Jesus loved (Jn. 21:20) Have you looked up that "love" in the Greek lexicon? Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but lived exclusively in close companionship with men. He had very close and personal relations with Peter, James, and John. James and John were brothers, and had been business partners with Peter (and Andrew)in the fishing trade. Was there a special David-Jonathan relationship between Peter and James and between Jesus and John? They went on camping and resurrection trips alone together and claimed that amazing things happened which Jesus told them they were to keep to themselves from the other nine disciples. There is no report that Jesus married, or dated, or had any sexual relationships at all except that he appears to have been a foot fetishist and a pornophile. He enjoyed (in at least one instance at Simon the Pharisee's house) having his feet bathed by a woman of the streets's tears and having his feet dried by her hair and being kissed and greased by her sexual unguents. Mary (who may or may not have been a prostitute at a different house) (Jn 12:3). A pound of ointment is one enormous amount of ointment for one pair of feet -- except Jesus appears to have had truly enormous feet (at least according to Caravaggio -- but it may just be the perspective angle) He was never much concerned about chastity. He protected the woman taken in adultery. He allowed women to follow him on the road and to "minister" to the disciples. We don't know if Peter's wife came along as sort of a matron or chaperone, but at least one of women was a former prostitute and needed some to keep an eye peeled on her. He hung with, genuinely liked, and redeemed prostitutes (long before William Gladstone). A generous view of the evidence is that Jesus was a pornophile. It is said that even today in some of the world's brothels, there is a special trick much loved by the girls known to this day as a "Jesus" in which the john may talk about the weather or the news with and be bathed by her but is sexually passive and there is no touching, filthy talk, palpation, penetration, or ejaculation permitted to be initiated by the john. What else the girl does depends on circumstances and is purely her free choice and free gift. We know that on one occasion only, Jesus washed all of his disciples' feet (Jn 13:5) and urged them to wash each others' feet. This was ritual ablution necessary before eating (you understand the mess in the roads and paths they had to walk through). I believe the disciples had been washing each others feet all along in keeping with Jewish custom of the day, but that they were divided into two person teams. We must suspect that on many other occasions it was his beloved John who washed Jesus's feet (apparently Peter never had done so and intially refused to do so on this occasion; on the camping trips of the four, James and Peter perhaps reciprocally washed each others feet, and John and Jesus may have reciprocally washed each other's feet (John reports no protest at having his feet washed by Jesus -- even though he shared with Peter and James Jesus's confidential claims about his messiah-hood or near godhead). If John ever dried Jesus's feet with his hair and kissed and annointed them, we cannot know. What feelings gripped his heart when he looked worshipfully up to Jesus (I hope clad in his loincloth) looming above him on a stool (Jesus I believe customarily laid aside his garments before washing feet (Jn 13:4)) we cannot know. That they were passionate feelings we can be sure (this scene is suggested by a drawing in my possession). That they were feelings of love we can be confident. That it was carnal love we may well suspect. Whether or not it had ever been consummated we can never know (and I, at least, do not care to know unless someone with the information just has to tell -- "don't ask, don't tell" is my policy). But it was love, and it was love between men -- and that is, by definition, homosexual love, the practitioners of which are called homosexuals. That John loved Jesus we cannot doubt, but we have only John's own word that Jesus loved him. No one else cares to mention it. In fact, according to John, Peter was so jealous of him that after the resurrection, he suspected that John had been the traitor. (Jn 21:20) Were I on the jury in a jurisdiction where admissions of homosexual love were justiciable, as a respected of law, I should have to vote to convict John both of homosexual love for Jesus and of defamation of Jesus (although under common law, dead people can't be defamed.) John's claim that Jesus was his homosexual lover is endorsed by no one else, and I would cheerfully acquit Jesus for lack of corroborating evidence. Were Jesus to be arraigned on a charge of consorting with harlots (disturbing the peace), I suppose as a believer in the categorical imperative I should vote to convict Jesus. But the offenses, if such they were, took place long ago, and I can't imagine that anyone really cares in the light of 2000 years of war, agony, and destruction. Moreover, truth to tell, I would hold out for jury nullification of these unjust laws. I cannot but believe that Jesus, were he the judge, would dismiss all charges and dismiss the nullifying jury with thanks. Children, love one another.