Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

How would Christianity be different if Jesus was sex positive?

Nah, just kiddin.

by Anonymousreply 1201/24/2013

Getting nailed on the crucifix would have taken on an entirely different dimension.

by Anonymousreply 101/23/2013

How do you know he wasn't?

by Anonymousreply 201/23/2013

Did Jesus ever actually directly address sex? The only thing I can recall from my Catholic H.S. bible classes was the incident with Mary Magdalene when he admonished those in the crowd by saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And even so, it had broader implications than not delivering judgments on prostitutes. As I recall the New Testament from grade school catechism (at a liberal Catholic grade school in CA in the '70s) and later, Jesus was neither here nor there about it.

by Anonymousreply 301/23/2013

"Jesus Christ Superstar" would've been a porn video.

by Anonymousreply 401/23/2013

Hide the altar boys!

by Anonymousreply 501/23/2013

Nothing in the Bible suggests Jesus was necessarily sex-negative. It was Paul who was the big prude.

by Anonymousreply 601/23/2013

r3, that woman is never said to be Magdalene. No where in the gospels does it say that Magdalene was a prostitute. It was a papal edict that equated Mary Magdalene with the same woman who is about to be stoned.

by Anonymousreply 701/24/2013

Paul was not a big prude. He was always telling the brethren to kiss and love one another.

by Anonymousreply 801/24/2013

Paul's writings is one of the few places in NT that homosexuality is mentioned.

[quote] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen....For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:20–28

Some interesting perspective on this in the book by Bishop Gene Robinson, "God Believes In Love."

by Anonymousreply 901/24/2013

It was mistranslated, first of all, and second he was describing a historical event, not setting down a moral code. When they asked him about it later he was like, "Why are you asking me if you should love one another." Later in Romans he set it down very clearly:"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

by Anonymousreply 1001/24/2013

Paul's bowels were always yearning for Oneismus.

by Anonymousreply 1101/24/2013

And for Timothy. Let's face it, Paul was a promiscuous whore.

by Anonymousreply 1201/24/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!