Skip to main content

View Diary: Wrong: Jesus did speak about homosexuality (291 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, how much time did he spend on this? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cassandracarolina, raincrow, Matt Z

    One passing comment?  Homosexual behaviour was quite widespread at the time Jesus was alive.  If he knew or cared, we'd have a ton of quotes about it, not one dubious interpretation of a single line.

    •  Jesus said all he needed to say about homosexuals (3+ / 0-)

      "let those who can accept it, accept it"  What more is there to say?

    •  We Don't Really Know (5+ / 0-)

      how much or what precisely Jesus had to say on these or any matters. We know what was allowed into the canon.

      "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov

      by Hammerhand on Sun May 13, 2012 at 10:57:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One passing comment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      On homosexuals makes a lot more sense to me than one passing comment on asexuals. I only ask because I want to know what makes you think he's referring to asexuals and why you are so insistent on that fact. Is there anything to support your claim or is it a conclusion you reached based on your understanding of the word eunuch?

      •  No, that was one alternative theory among many (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nowhere Man

        I only repeated it because I was the first to bring it up.

        But all of the other suggestions for possible 'eunuchdom' are just as likely, if not moreso than it referring to homosexuality.

        People with thyroid or adrenal problems, people with infertility issues or undescended testicles or low testosterone, people who were raised to believe that to be holy one should remain celibate, the list can go on and on.  There are all sorts of reasons that people can't or don't have sex, and to specifically choose to refer to people who do have sex as eunuchs just because they don't have sex with the people you expect them to seems more of a stretch.

        There are lots of possible ways to interpret 'eunuch' and I don't care if you want to go with asexuals or not, but I don't see anything in the diary that supports the diarist's interpretation as anything more than 'his understanding of the word' other than one claim that he found it listed in a dictionary somewhere, no doubt written by someone who also had their own 'understanding of the word'.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site