Posted by lm4771 on July 18, 19102 at 04:38:21:
In Reply to: just questions and theories posted by Chris Geiger on July 18, 19102 at 02:16:01:
: I believe that Jesus was Asexual. Meaning he had NO sexual prefrence. He was a man born of a woman, concived of a virgin bith.
>> What does a man born of a vigin woman have to do with Him being asexual? Just wondering.
: I think that Jesus really did have a 'favorite' but hardly sex. I can see kissing as friends, but not romantic lovers. Jesus knew he was on a mission, and nothing was going to distract him from that mission. In other words, there is nothing to support that Jesus had a boyfriend among the diciples.
>>So you don't think Jesus needed any sexual release?? I thought he was fully human. I too doubt that He had a "boyfriend" in John. But, it is odd how 8 times it's mentioned - the one Jesus loved. It's hard to tell thru our modern viewpoint what was meant. My thing is - who cares one way or the other. Well, I guess some people do.
Most of the Bible doesn't go into any detail about the sex lives of anyone. Song of Solomon being the exeption. So being intimate with someone would be a distraction, but going to weddings and parties, providing the best wine was not a distraction? :) Relationships were so very different back then. Who knows what went on.
: I think that it takes a more radical view and stretching some verses beyond what they really mean.
>>Isn't it just as radical to look at these phrases and think there was absolutely nothing? Conservatives think any two guys touching or having deep feelings for another, is gay - so they go way to the opposite side. Meant nothing - especially no sexual contact. Who knows - it's silent. Just has indications.
: There is no evidence that supports David and Johnathon were sexual partners. There is futhermore no evidence of this steamy sex story between them. I belive that there is a good possiblity that they might have been, but the bible does not provide intamate details of thier sex life. It only states that they loved each other as themselfs, and from this love, they became one.
>>I really don't think anyone says this is a sure thing. Just a very good argument that this may be the case based on the wording in Hebrew. We have just always been taught gay is bad so of course there couldn't be any possibility. Hmm. Sounds like that is based in bias as well.
: That's my take on it.
: ~Chris