The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
107 Points
The Contender
solo
Con (against)
Losing
99 Points

Jesus was gay and John the Evangelist was his boyfriend.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 12,375 times Debate No: 5428
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (107)
Votes (31)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the New Testament is an accurate historical document and that Jesus actually existed.

Now, let's examine the facts:

1 - Jesus never got married. Indeed, there is no record of him even having a steady girlfriend. Some Biblical scholars have suggested that Mary Magdalene came on to him once (1) but he clearly did a runner because there is no evidence in the Bible that they actually got off with one another.

2 – Jesus was, however, in love with one of his disciples. We know this because at the last supper Jesus got his kit off and his boyfriend came over and snogged him in front of everybody – which was a very improper display of public affection, if you ask me.

"He riseth from supper and laid aside his garments"
John, 13:4

"Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples whom Jesus loved"
John 13.23

(See illustrations: A; B)

Now, although the disciple remains anonymous in this passage of the Bible, most Christian theologians believe his boyfriend was actually John the Evangelist. (2)

3 – Although homosexuality is widely condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, Jesus never said a word against gays. This is strange, because he had something to say about pretty much every other aspect of life and he got quite upset about things too. For example, he completely trashed some market stalls just for trading on church premises.

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves."
Matthew 21:12-13

So we can see that he was very self-opinionated and had a tendency to get irate, but, tellingly, there's no passage in the scriptures like:

"And Jesus entered the inn and there did He find many men wearing garments of black leather, and who were adorned with peak-ed caps and had big bushy moustaches. And Jesus did witness them behaving intimately together. And lo, Jesus did overturn the pool table and did snapeth the cues and verily did he curseth those miserable sinners. Then Jesus spateth and did say unto them: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

His failure to criticise homosexuality clearly demonstrates that he was himself gay and that he didn't want to appear hypocritical by condemning alternative sexual practices.

Therefore, in the light of all this incontrovertible evidence, I hereby submit that Jesus was gay and John the Evangelist was his boyfriend.

Thank you.

Sources:

(1) http://www.lectio.unibe.ch...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...

Illustrations:

(A) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(B) http://en.wikipedia.org...
solo

Con

"Jesus was gay and John the Evangelist was his boyfriend."

I do not dispute that John was Jesus' boyfriend. However, I do deny that Jesus was gay.

Jesus having sex with lots of men does not make him gay. He also had relationships with women, which make him "bisexual". I do not disagree with your arguments, except for the point that Jesus didn't have sex with women. He did. A lot. Everyone knows that after John snogged Jesus, a woman would come and snog his bum.

That is my argument.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

That's your argument? Hmm, yes, well, thank you Solo for joining the debate and for discussing this important ecumenical matter with such enlightened consideration!

So, just to recap our respective positions then, here's what my opponent and I agree on:

1 – Jesus had sex with at least one man.
2 – His boyfriend was called John.

And here's what we disagree on:

1 – Jesus also had sex with women.

You see, I don't know about that. Here's ten reasons why I believe no girl would touch him with a bargepole:

1 – He had long lanky hair.
2 – He had a beard.
3 – He used to go around wearing an old robe and a pair of sandals.
4 – He still lived with his mum.
5 – He was only a simple carpenter so couldn't afford to take girls out for nice meals.
6 – He was sleeping with men so probably had the ancient equivalent of AIDS.
7 – He spent most of his time hanging around with his mates doing weird magic tricks with loaves and fishes and things.
8 – He was a boring bastard* who used to go about lecturing people all the time.
9 – He was a Jew, so would not have eaten bacon sandwiches for breakfast and everybody knows all girls love something warm inside them in the morning.
10 – All of the above.

* I mean in the literal sense of the word – http://www.merriam-webster.com... - Mary (Jesus' mum) was raped by the Holy Ghost, but luckily for him, his Joseph (Jesus' dad) didn't make her have an abortion.
solo

Con

You have my apologies for not approaching this debate as you have, but I recently have conducted myself in a less than admirable manner on this site and I just wanted to give what could be interpreted as theism-bashing a rest. I'll stick with the route of levity for now.

You argued ten reasons why you believe no girl would touch him, but that has nothing to do with him being gay. There are plenty of straight men that no girl would ever be interested in, but that does not make them homosexuals by default. However, I will address your points.

<<1 – He had long lanky hair.>> See? Gays don't do that do, so Jesus couldn't have been gay. He was clearly a bisexual.
<<2 – He had a beard.>> Many bisexuals have beards and many women find them attractive.
<<3 – He used to go around wearing an old robe and a pair of sandals.>> Again, no self-respecting gay would be caught dead in that get up.
<<4 – He still lived with his mum.>> This is a characteristic most commonly found in straight men. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
<<5 – He was only a simple carpenter so couldn't afford to take girls out for nice meals.>> Gay men are known for having more disposable income than most, so he couldn't have been gay.
<<6 – He was sleeping with men so probably had the ancient equivalent of AIDS.>> Who didn't?
<<7 – He spent most of his time hanging around with his mates doing weird magic tricks with loaves and fishes and things.>> Okay... magic is pretty gay.
<<8 – He was a boring bastard* who used to go about lecturing people all the time.>> Gays don't lecture - they simply like to talk about themselves... a lot.
<<9 – He was a Jew, so would not have eaten bacon sandwiches for breakfast and everybody knows all girls love something warm inside them in the morning.>> He was very fond of fish tacos, which is what made the women come back for more.
<<10 – All of the above.>> Just 'no'.

Also, Jesus was deeply conflicted and often confused. Yes, bisexual indeed. No doubt about it.
Debate Round No. 2
107 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NatoDesper 3 years ago
NatoDesper
It's funny that people are actually thinking this is a serious accusation.
Posted by Forrestp 8 years ago
Forrestp
the word used for "love" in the name "the disciple Jesus loved" (John the evangelist), is Philia, which is used for friendly love, as opposed to eros, which means sexual love. Furthermore, the practice of reclining on someone's breast was common in those days, as they didn't really have our conventions today, and intimacy between men (not a sexual intimacy) was socially acceptable.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
Your church can send all the money it wants to help people but in this case bthr004, your church deserves respect because it has sent money to help people. NOT bc of their particular metaphysical beliefs. Sending money is wonderful that is why we should honor your church. Not just bc they happen to preach a metaphysics.

Suppose someone believes elvis is still alive. This person claims elvis has spoken to them and said they need to donate money to such and such. So this person does. Well the reason we honor this person is bc they donated money not bc they believe in elvis.

I never claimed to do anything to warrant respect. (again i differentiate respect from human decency. If you include Human decency in the definition of 'respect' well then i existed as a human, and i earned the basic respect of human decency that all people deserve no matter what their beliefs are.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
bthr004, I do not have a belief when it comes to god. If that is what you are referring to. My belief cannot be substantiated or unsubstantiated bc the belief simply doesn't exist. (difference between strong and weak atheism, look it up.)

Hilter did not believe you should simply ridicule someone for their belief he believed you should KILL them for it. I never made that claim and I NEVER would. Everyone has the right to believe whatever foolish thing they desire just don't expect anyone to give your ridiculous beliefs respect. (IMO the world would be a better place if we could somehow operate without any belief at all.)
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Why are you beliefs substantiated and mine not? I believe mine with as much intensity as as you in believing the other. Why does ZERO decide what beliefs are substantiated and which are not.

You wish to ridicule someone because they believe in something you dont. Hitler had that same view. What do you consider a respectful gesture. My church traveled to New Orleans after the hurricane to help clean up. We sent nearly $20,000 dollars to the efforts as well. This is a common practice among Christians. I took off work, picked up and left and put in about 60 hours of labor cleaning and gutting damaged homes,.. I did this because it was my Christian duty. Respectfull?? Mother Theresa devoted her life to helping the poor,... do you ridicule her and dis respect her for her "unsubstantiated" beliefs.....

What have you done to warrant any respect? I mean,.. since ones personal beliefs and not actions, according to you, are what consitutes respect or disrespect.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
We as ppl deserve the right to belief whatever we wish. But we don't necessarily deserve respect for said beliefs.
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
I already clarified what i meant brth004 you are either being disingenuous or you simply don't read what I write. We have the right to have religion. Just as we have the right to believe Elvis is still Alive. That right doesn't mean either belief deserves respect. (respect defined as discussed)

You have the right to believe I will burn in hell forever. That doesn't mean this is a honorable belief. It is a terrible belief. Far more terrible than believing religion doesn't deserve respect.

"You can continue to argue with me about what ever you want to pick at, but this is what I meant:
when someone has unsubstantiated beliefs, said beliefs do not deserve respect nor does the person deserve respect simply for having those beliefs. If the person has done other things to earn respect then they have obviously deserve respect. According to you, saying 'hello' is a sign of respect. In this case the religious person's action that warrants them respect is the act of being human. Earning them basic human decency. The point is that religious belief itself (as an unsubstantiated belief) does not and should not grant and individual respect."

And for the record calling me Hitler does nothing to support your argument. It's juvenile and you're just appealing to emotions.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
In the United States,.. religion deserves and is granted respect. This is a great liberty and should be protected from people like you.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Zero,..Why do you keep getting worked up about eternal damnation,... if it just an "unsubstantiated" belief, what do you care that I think you will suffer and rot while burning in the fires of hell.

"my.matryoshka do you respect people's beliefs that Elvis is still alive? I don't. Such people deserve ridicule because respect is something to be earned. Now i'm not saying that there is anything wrong with people who believe that Elvis is still alive, they are just hilariously foolish people. Good people all the same. Yet Hilarious. Why should religious belief warrant any more respect that Elvis belief? They are both completely unsubstantiated."-- Zero

You on other hand believe people that have religion should be ridiculed. That is substantiated, making it "on the same footing." *cough, cough-Hitler- cough*
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
bthr004 you are pretty hilarious. I already clarified my stance is not pro disrespect but even if it was i hardly see eternal damnation as being on the same footing as disrepect. It you do then i think your morals have been a bit skewed.
31 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DeafAtheist14 6 years ago
DeafAtheist14
brian_egglestonsoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
brian_egglestonsoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
brian_egglestonsoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
brian_egglestonsoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Chaosflame 7 years ago
Chaosflame
brian_egglestonsoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
brian_egglestonsoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
brian_egglestonsoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
brian_egglestonsoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
brian_egglestonsoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mdal 8 years ago
Mdal
brian_egglestonsoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34