Here is an email I received in response to one of my essays on religion.
Through out your essay you make assumptions about love being a sexual act from one person to another?
This is untrue. The word love appears only once in my essay in this context: Jesus’s groupies competed, each claiming to love Jesus the most. That clearly can’t mean sex. When you say you love someone more than another does, you are not bragging you have been to bed with him more often.
Second, being intamite with some one doesn’t mean sexual in its defintion either.
I said nothing of the kind. I quote from my essay: Jesus associated almost exclusively with men. He and his friends were physically intimate with each other, putting their heads in each other’s laps to dine. If a modern North American male behaved this way, it might raise some eyebrows. It is clear I am not talking about sex, but about Jesus’s dining habits.
All you did in the entire splur was a play on words. For example, John leaning on Jesus breast simply meaning he leaned towards him in the time that it was written.
I think that is quite a stretch. Look at medieval paintings showing the apostles and Jesus in close physical contact. I see no reason to not take the words of the king James Bible literally. He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? I checked other translations: Darby: But he, leaning on the breast of Jesus, says to him, Lord, who is it? Webster: He then lying on Jesus’ breast, saith to him, Lord, who is it? ESV (English Standard Version) : So that disciple, leaning back against Jesus, said to him, Lord, who is it? Good http://groups.google.com/group/ So that disciple moved closer to Jesus’ side and asked, Who is it, Lord?
You see the Bowdlerism and prudery of the more modern translations trying to disguise Jesus’s behaviour that was acceptable in his time, but is no longer in ours. It is dishonest and it is motivated by homophobia.
Do you take pride in desieving people by flirting information to suit your point of view and lying to people?
You have pointed out not a single lie or even an error. You remind me of an old joke. A psychiatrist gave a Rorschach ink blot test to a young man. To the first he responded, That’s two lesbians making it with donkey. To the second he replied, That Nixon blowing a dead goat. To the third he replied That’s Jesus having sex with the virgin Mary. The psychiatrist stopped and said, I don’t think we have to go any further. You are clearly obsessed with sex. The young man replied, Me obsessed! You’re the one showing me the dirty pictures.
You are reacting to an imaginary document that you expected me to write, not the one I actually did.
The point of the essay is that modern Christians are so anti-gay that if Jesus were alive today and did the very things he is described doing in the bible, they would label him a queer and would reject him. There is nothing in the bible about Jesus having sex with anyone. But there are about him doing the acts I described in my essay.
available on the web at:
optional Replicator mirror
Please email your feedback for publication, letters to the editor, errors, omissions, typos, formatting errors, ambiguities, unclear wording, broken/redirected link reports, suggestions to improve this page or comments to Roedy Green : . If you want your message, your name or email kept confidential, not considered for public posting, please explicitly specify that. Unless you state otherwise, I will treat your message as a letter to the editor that I may or may not publish in the feedback section. After that, it will be too late to retract it. If you disagree with something I said, especially when sending an ad-hominem attack, a rant composed mainly of obscenities or a death threat, please quote the offending passage and cite the web page where you found it, tell me why you think it is wrong, and, if possible, provide some supporting evidence. I can’t very well fix erroneous or ambiguous text if I can’t find it.
Your face IP:[188.8.131.52]
|Feedback||You are visitor number 11.|