Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
And neither were gay. Nice try, though.Cheers,Victoria
hmmm...new sitcom? Tony Danza needs work!
So what was Mary, chopped liver?
"So what was Mary, chopped liver?"Well, pretty much, Joseph was chopped liver.
Joe was the stepdad, but he raised Jesus, so I guess it kinda works, but not the way they mean it.
Well, pretty much, Joseph was chopped liver.In Latin cultures (read, French, Italian, Portuguese not just Hispanic), Joseph is very, very important -- not an afterthought like he is in Protestant cultures. Hence all the Josés/Giuseppes out there.
If the case for whatever sort of gay rights they're arguing for could stand on its own, they wouldn't need these spurious arguments. The gay rights advocates undermine their own case.
Is this poster supposed to convince someone? I'm having a hard time imagining how that would work.That poster says Jesus. I like Jesus. Hey, that poster insinuates that the Lord and Creator of the Universe used to sodomize the man who raised Jesus Christ. Now I like gay people!
Jesus was black and had two Dads.
Stunts like this is where militant homosexuality goes off the cliff and loses most people. It has to be about them.vbspurs said...Well, pretty much, Joseph was chopped liver.In Latin cultures (read, French, Italian, Portuguese not just Hispanic), Joseph is very, very important -- not an afterthought like he is in Protestant cultures.Important in Ireland, as well, mum. Throughout the Catholic world.An awful lot of Irishmen with Joseph as a middle name.PS Joseph was the one who taught Jesus to be a man.
This feels pretty asinine to me-- I don't want to whine and say 'offensive' exactly, but it sounds annoyingly stupid and juvenile. Like a moronic schoolyard taunt that makes no sense. Really, should gay men (or lesbians) take gratification in the implication that Mary was a third wheel, a fag hag surrogate, with the Holy Spirit as a sort of feathered labcoat delivering the insemination? Not that having two dads would make Jesus gay, of course; but it does lead one to think there would be a much stronger whiff of metrosexuality in the manger scene. Now I've seen the Zeffirelli "Jesus of Nazareth", and he's as big a queen as they come, but I did not pick up on this vibe *at all*.
Is that what turned Jesus gay?
I don't get it. Joseph and the Father? Jesus has two moms might work, as there's Mary and the Holy Spirit is sometimes expressed as the feminine expression within the Trinity. But, then the Spirit conceived Jesus through Mary, so that's a masculine and feminine role, unless of course we dismiss orthodox theology altogether and say that it was Mary and a Roman soldier, but that wouldn't make two dads. And where is Jesus' dad after age 12 anyhow. How doe absentee fathers help the cause? Maybe, what they mean is something more like a quirky sitcom. There's Jesus, then a party dad and a conservative dad, with Paul Reiser playing the role of the Father and Greg Evigan starring as Joseph. Anyhow it doesn't really make sense as effective and now I'm off to a Maundy Thursday service.
vbspurs: And neither were gay. Nice try, though.We have no way of knowing.
That is what Paul called a different Jesus in a different Gospel from a different spirit. It is unwise to fool around like that.
sweet bleedin' jeebus, doesn't anybody have a sense of humor anymore?? the slogan is just a cheeky little tweak to those (mostly religious)folks who oppose legal recognition of same-sex couplings.besides, if you believe the story, jesus did, indeed, have two 'dads'...whether either of them were gay we may never know.
Heh.How does that appropriation compare to the "coming out of the closet" of college Republicans?How infuriating is it and can we use it as an excuse for having a mini-melt-down?
"sweet bleedin' jeebus, doesn't anybody have a sense of humor anymore??"As an attempt to be "cute" I suppose it works for the bare moment before someone figures out that as any sort of an analogy it doesn't apply. Far as anyone knows Jesus grew up in a two parent household with a mother and a father. It's not *funny* but neither is it particularly *not funny*. It's sort of meh.Reminded me of that women's studies prof in Iowa, though, who had some sort of emotional attack because of the appropriation of the language of the gay struggle, or some such, by campus Republicans planning a "coming out" event. It was simply too much for her nerves, don't you know.
Well, only in the same way that we all have two dads. Hopefully, one of them is interested enough in you to play catch once in a while.
I'm fine with one of the conditions of gay marriage to be that one of the partners is God. And able to prove it. Next issue?
Mohamad had two dads.Not too catchy. Especially when one considers that rioting, murder, and beheadings follow putting that on a poster.WV: sectine:I got nothin'.
Jesus needed a Heavenly father -- otherwise, he would have inherited original sin from his Dad.
I am so completely fucking tired of middle class kids playing human rights crusaders.This is all directly related to a bloated university system, here and abroad, that produces millions of useless humanities graduates.They don't know how to do anything production, and in fact hate those who do, but they know how to write an essay that envisions Utopia.
Joe was the stepdad, but he raised Jesus, so I guess it kinda works, but not the way they mean it.A Jewish friend of mine asserted that tat that time in history, Jesus would have been treated as Joseph's son for all intensive purposes - including training him in his profession of carpentry.Keep this in mind the next time you read about Joseph being convinced by an angel to accept Mary as his wife, after finding her with child. (Matthew 1:18-25) He was not only being asked to accept damaged goods, but also to raise the kid as his own, including providing Jesus with all the benefits of a first-born son.
Jason (the commenter) wrote:We have no way of knowing.Why, Jason, if Joseph had been gay, it would've been MARY who would've had to rescue HIM from being stoned to death. ;)
El Polacko wrote:sweet bleedin' jeebus, doesn't anybody have a sense of humor anymore?? the slogan is just a cheeky little tweak to those (mostly religious)folks who oppose legal recognition of same-sex couplings.Don't you believe it! The kinds of people who actually join activist groups, whether gay, straight or whatever, are not the kinds to do anything strictly for laughs. In case anyone does actually laugh at this wry little poster, they'll be accused of making light of homophobia faster than you can say Father Ted is Dead.Cheers,Victoria
BTW, did you know that "Polaco" is the perjorative (indeed, anti-semitic) term for a Jewish person? Because so many Jews who lived in Cuba were from Poland.There's famous archival footage shot of Fidel Castro decrying los polacos and their capitalist ways...
Throughout the Catholic world.We Protestants threw Joseph under the bus with Mary. The first toss was easier with non- celibate clergy.wv - forty. Alas, fifty.
The homosexuals are at it again. Trying to legitimize their nonsense by denigrating that which they seek acceptance from. They are nuts and it makes no sense. It's akin to shitting on yourself. Titus notwithstanding.They would be better suited by starting their own homosexual world-wide church and call it The Church of Homosexuality. Get global governance sanctioning as an ecumenical movement and take it from there. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, fuck and suck until your asses bleed and leave 96% - 98% of the rest of the heterosexual population alone. Well, except for the roughly 10% of hetero's that sometimes swing for the other team and then come back when they feel guilty about it.Wait I thought Unitarians/Methodists were as close as they can get with that? Oh well.
Jason (the commenter) said... Is that what turned Jesus gay?You know, sometimes you have these insightful moments where I nod my head and think, "Yes, this is a smart man." then you say something cock-eyed (pun intended) like this and I think, "His gay reared (pun intended) its ugly head (pun intended) again."
What strikes me as interesting here is the casual assumption that God is unquestionably male. God. Anything and all things. Omniscient. Omnipotent. If God ever appears to me, I hope God comes as a perfect vegetable, that I will not dice.
What strikes me as interesting here is the casual assumption that God is unquestionably male. God is unquantifiable, and therefore has no gender, but his actions seem to suggest a more male (fatherly) personality, than a female (motherly) one. E.G.: He loves Adam and Eve, his creations, but when they disappoint Him, He makes no excuses for their behaviour and casts them out without a second thought."Learn your lesson: My house, my rules!"Cheers,Victoria
"Learn your lesson: My house, my rules!"Frankly, sounds more like my Mom than my Dad. Dad was the softie, until Mom said "Wait until you dad get's home!" Then Dad did the smiting. Theologically, I'm not sure how that plays out.
Mark said... "Learn your lesson: My house, my rules!" Frankly, sounds more like my Mom than my Dad. Dad was the softie, until Mom said "Wait until you dad get's home!" Then Dad did the smiting. Theologically, I'm not sure how that plays out.Like your mom and dad, the lord requires obedience. Not from some authoritarian point of view, but from one of grace and humility. That's how it plays out.
...and casts them out without a second thought.As the story goes, He did pause to make A and E some clothes before showing them the door.
vbspurs: God is unquantifiable, and therefore has no gender, but his actions seem to suggest a more male (fatherly) personality, than a female (motherly) one. Biblically he's presented as anthropomorphic and becomes less so as the bible progresses. There is mention in the bible of a Book of the Wars of Yahweh, which, based on the content of similarly titled books in Middle Eastern cultures would have described the heroic deeds of the God.There's also archeological evidence that sometimes at Jewish shrines God would be given a companion goddess as a wife. So it's safe to assume he's male, or was viewed as a man, before the modern (still thousands of years old) conception of him as "unquantifiable" came about.
Jason, do you have citations for those points? That's some pretty debatable stuff you're mentioning, far from being accepted broadly, so I'm curious to seeing where you're getting your info. It really does sound more Da Vinci code than standard scholarship. It comes off a bit more like the early anti-Christian charges. Interpreting "going to the love feast with my brothers and sisters to eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord" was interpreted as being about incest and cannibalism. Only that's very much missing the point, as the early Christian apologists noted. From the very earliest, there was a pretty strong reaction against portraying God, as early as the Exodus narratives. Of course, Christianity believes in an anthropomorphized God, in Jesus, but goes about it in a very careful sort of way.
"Jesus had two Dads"...... and neither of them was Paul Reiser
Now, a poster saying "Mohammed had two dads," tht would be edgy ...
Paddy O: That's some pretty debatable stuff you're mentioning, far from being accepted broadly, so I'm curious to seeing where you're getting your info. It really does sound more Da Vinci code than standard scholarship.Try James L. Kugel: How to Read the Bible, and Robert Alter: The Five Books of Moses. It's pretty basic stuff.
Strange fact: I LOVE reading thick tomes about the bible, Mesopotamia, and Egypt.
Jason's right. It's been written up in Biblical Archeology Magazine more than once. BTW, I am a Christian. Understanding historical facts does not undermine my faith. One's faith is a gift from God.
Jason, although I echo Paddy O's curiousity about your sources for the goddess/wife claim, I find the note interesting.Of course, Jews also slaughtered animals at the altar in sacrificial rites.But things change/evolve/become verboten.
vbspurs: But things change/evolve/become verboten.Yes, even in religion.My ideas may seem strange to most Christians, but that's because most Christians haven't been exposed to them on purpose. Some of the mysteries of the bible have simply been edited out in translation. Most of them are never brought up, their answers are just given without people knowing a question was ever asked.
Post a Comment