LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: LEFT WING LOON:Was Jesus Gay? Probably
Source:
AlterNet
URL Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/15511 ... d=8639.260530.yHLN-e&rd=1&t=16
Published: Apr 26, 2012
Author: By Paul Oestreicher
Post Date: 2012-04-26 15:19:50 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 3240
Comments: 20
Preaching on Good Friday on the last words of Jesus as he was being executed makes great spiritual demands on the preacher. The Jesuits began this tradition. Many Anglican churches adopted it. Faced with this privilege in New Zealand's capital city, Wellington, my second home, I was painfully aware of the context, a church deeply divided worldwide over issues of gender and sexuality. Suffering was my theme. I felt I could not escape the suffering of gay and lesbian people at the hands of the church, over many centuries. Was that divisive issue a subject for Good Friday? For the first time in my ministry I felt it had to be. Those last words of Jesus would not let me escape. "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman behold your son!' Then he said to the disciple. 'Behold your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home." That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches.
All that, I felt deeply, had to be addressed on Good Friday. I saw it as an act of penitence for the suffering and persecution of homosexual people that still persists in many parts of the church. Few readers of this column are likely to be outraged any more than the liberal congregation to whom I was preaching, yet I am only too aware how hurtful these reflections will be to most theologically conservative or simply traditional Christians. The essential question for me is: what does love demand? For my critics it is more often: what does scripture say? In this case, both point in the same direction.
Whether Jesus was gay or straight in no way affects who he was and what he means for the world today. Spiritually it is immaterial. What matters in this context is that there are many gay and lesbian followers of Jesus – ordained and lay – who, despite the church, remarkably and humbly remain its faithful members. Would the Christian churches in their many guises more openly accept, embrace and love them, there would be many more disciples.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
Yeah, yeah... and the Gnostics believe that he was married to Mary Magdalene. It's like students who don't want to take a class so they pass around stories attacking the teacher's credentials. Take the class, then see if you need to question his credentials.
Magician over at the lp has all their bones in a vault too !
Misses the old days, when you could nail Christians to a cross or feed them to the lions. A devout statist neocon nutcase.
More like your typical lib - dnc - jew - anti christ neocom ! you may most likely w / o knowing it be one ! Hating neocons is a good indication ! Hell no. It’s a freaking embarrassment. All the while, as these pathetic sissies giggle like school girls over magic unicorns that spray rainbows from their horns ... real men – and women – who have put aside the temptation to retreat into a frivolous fantasy world --- are tromping through the wilds of Afghanistan. Such young adults, some younger (in years) than the “bronies,” are protecting all of us – including these pathetic weirdoes http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/04/25/my-little-pony
Neocon = Wiccan/Satanic hybrid suicide cult!
So what? Would the fires have gone out and the people not have died if he had jumped in and ran around in circles in a panic?
What is the advantage of waiting for 7 minutes before assessing the situation, and responding to an attack? No one wants the commander in chief to panic. You're the only one to suggest it. There's no way of knowing if some lives could have been saved by responding sooner.
There is no way anybody can assess an event like that in even 24 hours. Not even a president with access to all the electronic and human spying/intelligence a US president has. Not to mention meet with his cabinet and the Senate and Congressional leaders in order to formulate a united response. No one wants the commander in chief to panic. You're the only one to suggest it. Say WHAT? Where did you get that from? If anything YOU are the one wanting him to panic and make these decisions in the heat of the moment with almost zero input as to who made the attacks,how many attacks there were,how many more attacks there would be,where the attacks would be,what the targets would be,etc,etc,etc. There's no way of knowing if some lives could have been saved by responding sooner. Yeah,there is. The answer is absolutely ZERO. The attacks were still in progress at the time,and there is not one single thing that could have been done to stop them at that point.
There are no replies to Comment # 16. End Trace Mode for Comment # 16.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Anthem (#3)
#5. To: BorisY, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#4)
(Edited)
Magician over at the lp has all their bones in a vault too !
#6. To: hondo68 (#5)
(Edited)
A devout statist neocon nutcase.
#7. To: BorisY, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#6)
Look closely. The book is upside down. Satanism inverts images. The inverted cross symbolizes Satan. Bush remained seated for seven minutes and kept reading about the GOAT while Americans were burning alive and leaping to their death from the flaming towers.
#10. To: hondo68 (#7)
Bush remained seated for seven minutes and kept reading about the GOAT while Americans were burning alive and leaping to their death from the flaming towers.
#13. To: sneakypete (#10)
So what?
#16. To: hondo68 (#13)
What is the advantage of waiting for 7 minutes before assessing the situation, and responding to an attack?
Replies to Comment # 16.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]