by ISP 172 Replies latest watchtower bible
have never heard of this being accepted in places unaffected by Christianity.
Well, of course not, because it wasn't mentioned, because it wasn't an issue Just funnin ya. Plato may heve been. Some american shamans dressed in womens clothes. It wasn't a sin in hinduism or buddhism or shamanism. It was just a variation. I'll do a search for more info, as i don't have anything specific on hand.
SS also non gay class
First off, all scholars and historians agree that Jesus existed.
What made you say that, Logans........? There is a great deal of doubt about it.
ISP
First off, all scholars and historians agree that Jesus existed.
Say what!?
I'm afraid you have a lot of research to do. Your waaaaay off pal.
Gumby
ISP,
Among modern scholars there really is no question as to whether a historical Jesus existed. Just think of the Jesus Seminar. This is a group of world-reknown scholars who are devoting oodles of time trying to figure out exactly what the man named Jesus really said and did. And they are not Christian fundamentalists, by the way. In fact, I believe most of them are extemely liberal Christians or agnostics.
Think about it: you really believe a religion as powerful as Christianity was founded on nothing? Now, I don't believe in the myths of Jesus walking on water and multiplying bread, but I certainly believe there is a core of historicity to the Gospels. It just boggles the mind to think that such a rich system could develop without some figure behind it.
Plus, there are documents outside of Christianity which talk about Jesus, although these are extraordinarily sparse. Josephus talks about Jesus (I'm NOT talking about the spurious passage of Josephus invented by the Christians) as well as a couple other first century Roman historians. And, we cannot forget the James ossuary which is pretty impressive.
Unfortunately, some pseudo-scholars like the infamous "Acharya" make wild claims which are generally disregarded by professional historians. The quality of this scholarship rivals creationism in it's status.
Bradley
Well now if we consult the classical paintings and scultpures it's ever so obvious that Jesus was a WASP and a hippie to boot! Don't forget to read your pre-Raphaelite primers?
if he was gay he wouldn't have been caught dead with that dreadful hairstyle
LMAO riz!
~Aztec
Gumby
Here is a quote about buddhism:
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender. Likewise would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one's sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.
More at http://www.electricpride.com/spirituality/buddhism.html
It has similar comments about hinduism.
In shamanism, each tribe having it's own shaman, the tribe would make decisions like this on it's own. So, there would be no hard and fast rules. Sometimes, the shaman was a woman.
In secret societies, sometimes homosex was part of the transmission of knowledge. Again, this is something a read a while ago, and i don't have a reference for it.
Hetero SS
Another one:
Logan...The question of the Jesus charactor being a completely fictonal composition is not fringe scholarship. Of course the majority at present do accept the likelyhood that at least some elements in the story reflect historical events many see this "historical" personage as a composite of a number of ages and revolutionaries of the two centuries before Christians created the legend. A minority of legitamate and accredited scholars in the field see no need for a historrical core at all but that the mythology and political environment provided all the pieces of the story. Do not judge this hypothesis by the work of a few authors that have become popular because of striking a "conspiracy" cord in the public. As to the gay topic, the secret gospel of Mark seems to suggest that the authors of this Jesus tale did have their hero enjoy the intimate company of men much as the rest of the Roman world then did. Very hot topic today but not as much an issue at the time. Homosexual pleasure was not viewed as abnormal or even as sex for that matter. It was simply a diversion and pacticed by men and boys who otherwise had normal families and wives. No I am not gay. But IF there was a Jesus of Nazareth he MAY have acted as the rest of the Roman world and practiced what we today would call homosexual acts.
Logans, the problem with the Jesus we know ,according to the gospels, was that his antics, his teachings, illustrations, miracles were unknown to first century writers, like Paul for example.
The gospels were written in the second century long after the events supposedly took place. The second century is the first time the accounts got mentioned by other writers. There are many scholars who do not accept the idea of a historical Jesus.
ISP
Yeah rite, next he will be saying that Bin Laden is guilty for 9/11.
What a dick head.
