Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[h_k_s]

Excellent summary of the various issues around this topic of a man-loving God or Gods.

In the case of Jaakob (English transliteration of original Hebrew) depending on your translation from ancient Hebrew, it is quite a stretch to presume this was about a sexual act. But it does show that God (or one of the Hebrew Gods) is physical indeed. No question about that. It also shows that the Christian and Judaic notion that no man can see God and live is a fallacy. Jaakob saw God and lived to tell about it.

Whether God/Theos or God/Jesus or even God/Holy Spirit (the Christian deities from the Greek New Testament) is man-loving or not, we are not told. St. Paul certainly would have argued against it, as would have Moses, if they were each here to argue about it.

It's not much of a stretch. Many theologians religious historians have concluded it was sexual. As for Moses, St. Paul, in Galatians, says that the Law he gave did not come from God but from the angels.

"Many (anything/anyone) …" is clearly a populorum fallacy.

[h_k_s]

Nonbelievers will of course say that's because he is a mythical character and the authoritative historical accounts of the time period support that position - there is absolutely no record of him.

But you are contradicting yourself: if there is so little biographical information on Jesus, why do you presume he was gay? One could make a case for any sexual orientation - or none at all, there are people who are genuinely asexual, they could care less about sex. If one finds simply being alive to be blissful, and Joy is one's constant companion, the lesser pleasures have no allure.

I think it is a lot of fun arguing about the historicity of Jesus. And about whether or not the Bible supports the idea that he was gay. I am aware that rationalists like you are uncomfortable talking about these issues and would just as soon make Jesus totally asexual. That's not going to happen.

As far as Jesus' (Latin version of his name) sexuality or asexuality or bisexuality goes, with respect to indications (not evidence) of his relationships with John the younger brother of James, and Mary Magdalena go, we are not told by the gospel (good-message, in Greek) writers Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. So to assume either would be a fallacy of argument from ignorance.

As good philosophers, rather than Sophists, we must avoid fallacies.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I think it is a lot of fun arguing about the historicity of Jesus. And about whether or not the Bible supports the idea that he was gay. I am aware that rationalists like you are uncomfortable talking about these issues and would just as soon make Jesus totally asexual. That's not going to happen.

As far as Jesus' (Latin version of his name) sexuality or asexuality or bisexuality goes, with respect to indications (not evidence) of his relationships with John the younger brother of James, and Mary Magdalena go, we are not told by the gospel (good-message, in Greek) writers Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. So to assume either would be a fallacy of argument from ignorance.

As good philosophers, rather than Sophists, we must avoid fallacies.

We are here on social media and intricate nuances are out of place. Away from social media, reading "many" people in historical criticism, one finds strong "indications" that Jesus was gay. That's all a historian ever has to work with. You are trying to muddy the waters here because one might reach a conclusion you don't like.

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith: I am aware that rationalists like you are uncomfortable talking about these issues and would just as soon make Jesus totally asexual. That's not going to happen.

I could care less whether he existed or if he did, what his sexual orientation may have been, you are the one who is hung up on these matters. It seems to be important to you that he be gay, I guess you can only believe in a god who is made in your image.

GaryLouisSmith: I am of those who don't believe in enlightenment and who find the whole idea boring.

Well sure it's boring compared to virgin birth and coming back to life after you've died, but unlike those fantasies, one can have intimations of it and there is plenty of evidence that it happens.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith: I am aware that rationalists like you are uncomfortable talking about these issues and would just as soon make Jesus totally asexual. That's not going to happen.

I could care less whether he existed or if he did, what his sexual orientation may have been, you are the one who is hung up on these matters. It seems to be important to you that he be gay, I guess you can only believe in a god who is made in your image.

GaryLouisSmith: I am of those who don't believe in enlightenment and who find the whole idea boring.

Well sure it's boring compared to virgin birth and coming back to life after you've died, but unlike those fantasies, one can have intimations of it and there is plenty of evidence that it happens.

Of course the sexuality of Jesus is important to me and Yes I do want a gay Jesus. Likewise, his asexuality is important to you and, my guess, is that that Jesus would be like you. I think Sheela, the assistant to Osho was right. She didn't believe in enlightenment either. You might look into that Wild Wild Country thing. It's very interesting. It's all over the internet. Sheela was the engine that drove that commune. Yes, I don't believe Osho, though I know some who do.

[h_k_s]

As far as Jesus' (Latin version of his name) sexuality or asexuality or bisexuality goes, with respect to indications (not evidence) of his relationships with John the younger brother of James, and Mary Magdalena go, we are not told by the gospel (good-message, in Greek) writers Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. So to assume either would be a fallacy of argument from ignorance.

As good philosophers, rather than Sophists, we must avoid fallacies.

We are here on social media and intricate nuances are out of place. Away from social media, reading "many" people in historical criticism, one finds strong "indications" that Jesus was gay. That's all a historian ever has to work with. You are trying to muddy the waters here because one might reach a conclusion you don't like.

Has nothing to do with me or what I like or don't.

I like to stay neutral in all my viewpoints, and as such ever prepared to serve on a jury as an impartial juror.

My deductions, inferences, assumptions/presumptions, and ethics are all fairly neutral and moderate.

If Jesus is "gay" then he is what he is. Same with Theos/God or the Lord Holy Spirit. Those are their names in Greek, by the way, when transliterated into English, from the Greek New Testament. Not sure if you knew that already or not. You do seem to be quite well informed, and a scholar, better than most.

[Pattern-chaser]

Back to the topic: do you think a theist can understand [an] atheist?

An active atheist, who explicitly asserts the non-existence of God(s), is a believer, just like the theist. So I suspect they have enough in common for a theist to understand such an atheist.

A passive atheist, who is simply indifferent to the idea of God, not finding it useful in their life, is another matter. This is someone who - from a religious point of view, at least - simply doesn't care to believe, who sees no reason to believe, and so doesn't bother with belief. That is foreign to the theist and the active atheist, and may be more difficult to understand. Nevertheless, humans aren't too bad at understanding, and it may be that this obstacle can be overcome too.

Does that about cover it?

[chewybrian]

Back to the topic: do you think a theist can understand [an] atheist?

An active atheist, who explicitly asserts the non-existence of God(s), is a believer, just like the theist. So I suspect they have enough in common for a theist to understand such an atheist.

A passive atheist, who is simply indifferent to the idea of God, not finding it useful in their life, is another matter. This is someone who - from a religious point of view, at least - simply doesn't care to believe, who sees no reason to believe, and so doesn't bother with belief. That is foreign to the theist and the active atheist, and may be more difficult to understand. Nevertheless, humans aren't too bad at understanding, and it may be that this obstacle can be overcome too.

Does that about cover it?

It mostly covers it, and I was waiting for someone to approach it this way. As an agnostic, it seems odd to me to be convinced there is no God. There is no reason for the universe to construct itself, to exist without any prompting, and most of all for life and consciousness to come around with no purpose whatsoever to them. Total nothingness and non-existence seems consistent with no God, and that is not what I see. To say that I know and understand God is also a bit bonkers to me. If there is a God, I seem to have no connection other than a fantasy I might create in my head. Faith is not consistent with reason, except perhaps through Pascal's wager. So, both the theist and atheist seem foreign to me.

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith: Of course the sexuality of Jesus is important to me and Yes I do want a gay Jesus. Likewise, his asexuality is important to you and, my guess, is that that Jesus would be like you.

It's not, like I said, I have no more interest in his sexuality than that of Apollo or Athena. Obviously religion fills an emotional need for you.

A friend of mine knew Rajneesh (a.k.a, Osho) personally, they taught at the same college before he became a guru. He said he was a renowned liar, but he had charisma. Not sure what that has to do with Christ though.

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith: Of course the sexuality of Jesus is important to me and Yes I do want a gay Jesus. Likewise, his asexuality is important to you and, my guess, is that that Jesus would be like you.

It's not, like I said, I have no more interest in his sexuality than that of Apollo or Athena. Obviously religion fills an emotional need for you.

A friend of mine knew Rajneesh (a.k.a, Osho) personally, they taught at the same college before he became a guru. He said he was a renowned liar, but he had charisma. Not sure what that has to do with Christ though.

Atheist rationalists always think the people are into religion because they are emotionally weak and somehow religion fills some need of theirs. It's of course nonsense, but that belief fills some need to explain religion of theirs.

[LuckyR]

Back to the topic: do you think a theist can understand [an] atheist?

An active atheist, who explicitly asserts the non-existence of God(s), is a believer, just like the theist. So I suspect they have enough in common for a theist to understand such an atheist.

A passive atheist, who is simply indifferent to the idea of God, not finding it useful in their life, is another matter. This is someone who - from a religious point of view, at least - simply doesn't care to believe, who sees no reason to believe, and so doesn't bother with belief. That is foreign to the theist and the active atheist, and may be more difficult to understand. Nevertheless, humans aren't too bad at understanding, and it may be that this obstacle can be overcome too.

Does that about cover it?

It mostly covers it, and I was waiting for someone to approach it this way. As an agnostic, it seems odd to me to be convinced there is no God. There is no reason for the universe to construct itself, to exist without any prompting, and most of all for life and consciousness to come around with no purpose whatsoever to them. Total nothingness and non-existence seems consistent with no God, and that is not what I see. To say that I know and understand God is also a bit bonkers to me. If there is a God, I seem to have no connection other than a fantasy I might create in my head. Faith is not consistent with reason, except perhaps through Pascal's wager. So, both the theist and atheist seem foreign to me.

I understand what you are describing but I don't see the most common atheistic attitude amongst your commentary. Namely, the atheist who finds all of the arguments for existing gods absolutely illogical and unconvincing, yet withholds judgment on a potential future argument that doesn't yet exist (for him).

[GaryLouisSmith]

It mostly covers it, and I was waiting for someone to approach it this way. As an agnostic, it seems odd to me to be convinced there is no God. There is no reason for the universe to construct itself, to exist without any prompting, and most of all for life and consciousness to come around with no purpose whatsoever to them. Total nothingness and non-existence seems consistent with no God, and that is not what I see. To say that I know and understand God is also a bit bonkers to me. If there is a God, I seem to have no connection other than a fantasy I might create in my head. Faith is not consistent with reason, except perhaps through Pascal's wager. So, both the theist and atheist seem foreign to me.

I understand what you are describing but I don't see the most common atheistic attitude amongst your commentary. Namely, the atheist who finds all of the arguments for existing gods absolutely illogical and unconvincing, yet withholds judgment on a potential future argument that doesn't yet exist (for him).

How many of those atheists you describe, do you think, have actually checked out the existing arguments?

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith: Atheist rationalists always think the people are into religion because they are emotionally weak and somehow religion fills some need of theirs. It's of course nonsense, but that belief fills some need to explain religion of theirs

.

Well, I'm not an atheist and I'm not sure what a rationalist is, if it's the opposite of an irrationalist then maybe I am.

I suppose I was psychoanalyzing your statement, "off course the sexuality of Jesus is important to me and Yes I do want a gay Jesus." If the basis of your preference is not emotional than what is it?

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith: Atheist rationalists always think the people are into religion because they are emotionally weak and somehow religion fills some need of theirs. It's of course nonsense, but that belief fills some need to explain religion of theirs

.

Well, I'm not an atheist and I'm not sure what a rationalist is, if it's the opposite of an irrationalist then maybe I am.

I suppose I was psychoanalyzing your statement, "off course the sexuality of Jesus is important to me and Yes I do want a gay Jesus." If the basis of your preference is not emotional than what is it?

One of the respondents in the Symposium of Plato said that those who go after family and children are lovers of women, while those who reach after the transcendent Forms go after boys. Women are aligned with the natural world and birth and death, boys are aligned with unchanging supernatural things. That is, I suppose, a rather sexist way of looking at things, but it is how I see it. My sexual preference is grounded in my philosophy. I want a supernatural, transcendent Jesus, not a natural being.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I understand what you are describing but I don't see the most common atheistic attitude amongst your commentary. Namely, the atheist who finds all of the arguments for existing gods absolutely illogical and unconvincing, yet withholds judgment on a potential future argument that doesn't yet exist (for him).

I find it so oddly Western how much people think of religion as something to do with arguments, rather than say, experience. Imagine you have some with ideas about women, ones that are not easily countered via statistics, say. They say, so far the arguments people present about women not being X are unconvincing, someday perhaps an argument will come along that will convince me, but not so far. Now of course, that fine and that's that person's choice. To only want to learn that way, to think that's the way one changes one's mind. Could be a combination of an epistemological stance and simply not having much interest in changing, for example. But it's a truly poor way to think about learning. To learn about women and change one's mind would likely entail experiences with women. IOW experiencing anomolies that do not fit is models. If he doesn't have much experience with women, or in nature, or with refugees, or with the elderly or with lucid dreams, or with learning how to get better at golf or public speaking, sure one can wait for the great argument that these things are not like whatever model or beliefs one has
or one could engage in practices that practioners or regular experiencers engage it.

And it cannot be stressed enough: I am not saying one should engage in the practices that actually constitute methods where one might have the kinds of experiences that might change one's mind.

I am saying that this focus on arguments often seems to me as if this is a good method and the only method.