Reflections, Reflections

From Paul at Off the Beaten Track:

The Rt Rev Gene Robinson (he whose appointment caused the current rift in the Anglican church) has stated that 'Jesus might have been homosexual'. He made his comments in a recent address at the Christ Church Hamilton and Wenham in Massachusetts - of which he is Bishop.

It has crossed my mind recently that there would be no reason why Jesus could not have been homosexual; but I think Bishop Robinson's reasoning is somewhat naive. The gospels do not tell us that Jesus was not married, which would indicate that he may well have been. It was quite common for teachers and rabbis to have all-male groups of followers; and as in previous posts it is quite probable that there were women in the group as well, one of which was Mary Magdalene, who it seems shared a close relationship with Jesus.

According to homos, Jesus, Lincoln and many other symbolic historical/cultural figures could well have been homosexual. They are desperate to attach homosexuality onto positive figures. This is a cultural strategy to legimitize a particular dogma or politics, in this case, modern liberal homosexuality.

I am surprised homo Robinson didn't elaborate on his homo Jesus theory, which could go like this: Judas was really a homophobic bigot, who was just afraid to admit he was a homo at heart, and betrayed Jesus because he was jealous of the attention and sodomy Jesus practiced with John or Paul or Peter, who must have been all homos as well. I mean, why just Jesus? Make them all homos, it's a Gospel homo sauna. Why not bisexuals? Maybe, occasionally going after sheep? Rural, primitive communities is one setting where bestiality occurs.

There is nothing to stop anyone from impinging any kind of sexuality on anyone they want to fantasize about.

And if Jesus was a homo, why isn't God a homo too? Like father, like son. We could have a homo holy spirit; Mary, a lesbian (did Jesus have brothers and sisters? was the marriage consummated? No, so that must mean she was a lesbian), and on it goes.

I sense by your post, however, since you have already erred in legitimizing homosexuality, you probably won't understand what I am addressing here.

Nevertheless, how surprising that homo Robinson made that statement, eh? The homo is made bishop and the next second, whadyoknow, "Jesus could have been a homo!" Really...

Look what I just thought! Dan Brown really missed a powerful, not dreamed by anyone ending to the Da Vinci Code!!! The Grail is proof that Jesus was really a transgendered lesbian in disguise, all that lesbian-phobia and misogyny forced her to disguise herself as a man, and Mary Magdalene was another homo, and the two were homo lovers, occasionally sleeping with the other apostles, or maybe the apostles just liked to watch the two lesbians (aren't a lot of pro-homos like that? what do porn consumption patterns show us?). What did homos recently unearth next to the Holy Shroud, that the Vatican kept secret? An ancient fake beard. Oh! The sacred homo feminine! Oh, how progressive homos are! Jesus was transgendered! And there was a conspiracy by the Church to hide it all from us for centuries!

So what can we expect now? As the Anglican Church (and others) appoint more and more self-legitimizing homos, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendereds, all of a sudden, half of the biblical figures will be "discovered" to be... guess?

I apologize for the racy tone and suggestions made here, but I am really tired and upset regarding how pro-homos insult our intelligence again and again with their homosexuality legitimizing obsession and never think there is a problem to that.

.