• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jesus was 'drag king' with 'queer desires,' claims theology professor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
A theology professor at a Catholic college is making some bizarre – some would even say blasphemous – claims about Jesus Christ that is causing a stir on campus.Dr. Tat-siong Benny Liew, chair of New Testament Studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., said Jesus was a “drag king” who had “queer desires.” He also claims the Last Supper was a “literary striptease” and that Jesus was not a man, but gender fluid.
The “Gospel of John” professor cited the book of John in the Bible to try to back his arguments.
Click to expand...
Jesus was 'drag king' with 'queer desires,' claims theology professor | Fox News

Seriously, this guy is allowed to teach this ****?

“[Christ] ends up appearing as a drag-kingly bride in his passion,” he argues. “If one follows the trajectory of the Wisdom/Word or Sophia/Jesus (con)figuration, what we have in John’s Jesus is not only a ‘king of Israel’ or ‘king of the Ioudaioi [Jews],’ but also a drag king.”Then he used Jesus’ crucifixion to try to show the Passion of Christ was really a “(homo)sexual bonding of the Father and the Son.”
“What I am suggesting is that, when Jesus’ body is being penetrated, his thoughts are on his Father. He is, in other words, imagining his passion experience as a (masochistic?) sexual relation with his own Father.”
Click to expand...

SERIOUSLY.. this guy is ****ed in the noggin.
 
I don't mind it. It's more interesting than the original.
 
He is preaching to his choir. Jesus doesn't need defending. It's all good.
 
Renae said:
Jesus was 'drag king' with 'queer desires,' claims theology professor | Fox News

Seriously, this guy is allowed to teach this ****?



SERIOUSLY.. this guy is ****ed in the noggin.
Click to expand...


When you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything...


"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." - II Thessalonians 2 : 9 - 12
 
Lovebug said:
He is preaching to his choir. Jesus doesn't need defending. It's all good.
Click to expand...

That aside, I mean, I've read some wack **** in my life, but this is near the top of that pile
 
Well, that is a new twist on the ol’ story.
 
Renae said:
Jesus was 'drag king' with 'queer desires,' claims theology professor | Fox News

Seriously, this guy is allowed to teach this ****?



SERIOUSLY.. this guy is ****ed in the noggin.
Click to expand...

not like this is a new belief:
James I of England may have been relying on a pre-existing tradition when he defended his relationship with the young Duke of Buckingham: "I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his son John, and I have my George."
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Jesus
 
Renae said:
Jesus was 'drag king' with 'queer desires,' claims theology professor | Fox News

Seriously, this guy is allowed to teach this ****?



SERIOUSLY.. this guy is ****ed in the noggin.
Click to expand...



...and some people chew the heads off live chickens to get attention. Usually people like this guy end up in places like Waco baying at the moon. I haven't known Jesus all my life but long enough to know this deranged fellow is no threat to Him and, if I were to raise it with Him, He would likely remind me to mind my own business.

If anything this man needs more than anything to see the real face of Jesus and the light it brings. How that happens is also out of my hands.
 
justabubba said:
not like this is a new belief:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Jesus
Click to expand...

On the issue of the sexuality of Jesus, the traditional understanding of Christian churches is that Jesus did not marry and remained celibate until his death. That has not prevented speculation about alternative theories of his sexuality. The Gospels and the New Testament reveal little on the subject.
Click to expand...

Not even a hint. You think that's an accident?

Here's my question, during the life of Jesus it was the custom in Greece to take a male lover, usually a teen. The activities are born out in the carvings and paintings of the age, statues to two men each grasping each other's genitals. I am also to understand it was a practice among the Romans at the same time.
So here's my question; if homosexuality is so abhorent, then how come there's no reference to it at all in the new testament? Preachers instantly hate me when I ask that.
 
Renae said:
Jesus was 'drag king' with 'queer desires,' claims theology professor | Fox News

Seriously, this guy is allowed to teach this ****?



SERIOUSLY.. this guy is ****ed in the noggin.
Click to expand...

I can't find anyplace that isn't a very strongly right wing biased site that has this story in it. .. and it all seems to be come from the same source, a student that made an article. I don't see any article BY him to verify what his position is. The possibility exists that this holy cross student is misrepresenting Liew's position. Can you show any source from a non-right wing and biased news site that directly has the professor as a source, rather than a potentially disgruntled student??

From the Fox News article , the statement from the Holy Cross was

Holy Cross spokesman John Hill told Fox News that Liew hasn't taught the controversial material in the classroom. “The decade-old work referenced in the Fenwick Review article was not intended for an undergraduate classroom, nor has it ever been assigned at Holy Cross. It was an intentionally provocative work, not a statement of belief, meant to foster discussion among a small group of Biblical scholars exploring marginalization. No one has made a complaint about the content of Professor Liew’s classes in his four years at Holy Cross.”
Click to expand...

If that statement is true, then the entire piece is being misrepresented, and lied about.
 
Someone's a little snowflake.

Also, read Julian of Norwich if you want to have some real fun.
 
SoulFire77 said:
Wrong.


[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New

Let's quote from your source. It says

The presumed references to 'homosexuality' itself in the New Testament hinge on the interpretation of three specific Greek words: arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης), malakos (μαλακός), and porneia (πορνεία) and its cognates.[1][2] While it is not disputed that the three Greek words apply to sexual relations between men (and possibly between women), some academics interpret the relevant passages as a prohibition against pederasty or prostitution rather than homosexuality per se, while other scholars have presented counter arguments.[3][4][5] The historical context of the passages has also been a subject of debate.
Click to expand...

That indicates to me that the passages that are referenced are ambiguous, and open to interpretative, based on people's preconceptions.
Click to expand...
 
Just as plausible as all the other nonsense in the bible about Jesus like he turned water into wine, and rose from the dead. It's funny, religious people don't hold the same standards to their own beliefs. Same as when they claim other religions are cults. All based on the same made up stuff

And I'm sure Fox news is exaggerating the story like they always do

RAMOSS said:
I can't find anyplace that isn't a very strongly right wing biased site that has this story in it. .. and it all seems to be come from the same source, a student that made an article. I don't see any article BY him to verify what his position is. The possibility exists that this holy cross student is misrepresenting Liew's position. Can you show any source from a non-right wing and biased news site that directly has the professor as a source, rather than a potentially disgruntled student??

From the Fox News article , the statement from the Holy Cross was



If that statement is true, then the entire piece is being misrepresented, and lied about.
Click to expand...

Looks like I was right, Fox is so predictable. And idiots just lap it up.
 
Last edited:
Renae said:
Jesus was 'drag king' with 'queer desires,' claims theology professor | Fox News

Seriously, this guy is allowed to teach this ****?



SERIOUSLY.. this guy is ****ed in the noggin.
Click to expand...
If true, he was clearly the kind of drag queen that would share his size 12 sparkly 6 inch platforms and duct tape with his flock. He would also seek to heal the bunions caused by aforementioned 6 inch sparkly platforms on his flock before he would consider healing his own. That would be the kind of drag savior he would be....
 
AGENT J said:
Uhm . . .nothing you posted makes him "WRONG" LMAO
it clearly explains where some of the INTERPRETATIONS come from based on perception and not that they factually exist.

at best/worst that LEAVES it open to interpretation and discussion.
Click to expand...

He said the New Testament "makes no reference to" homosexuality.

It does, and always as a negative (see: arsenokoitēs - men who DEFILE themselves with other men).

I guess that's being "correct" in Liberal World... :roll:
 
SoulFire77 said:
1.) He said the New Testament "makes no reference to" homosexuality.

It does, and always as a negative (see: arsenokoitēs - men who DEFILE themselves with other men).

2.) I guess that's being "correct" in Liberal World... :roll:
Click to expand...

1.) Im aware of what he said and what you replied with doesnt prove him "wrong" in anyway
2.) not a liberal but based on facts, you didnt post anything in your response that made him "wrong"
 
SoulFire77 said:
He said the New Testament "makes no reference to" homosexuality.

It does, and always as a negative (see: arsenokoitēs - men who DEFILE themselves with other men).

I guess that's being "correct" in Liberal World... :roll:
Click to expand...

There is debate if that is the correct translation. Paul made that word up.. and it was only used twice. The term means 'man bed'' and is preceeded by the word 'malakos', which implies femininity. While some people call it 'defile with other men', considering the entomology , it could very well mean something like being a submissive to a dominatrix for example. The term is not unambiguous.

In the medival times, the translation into Latin in the Vulgata Clementina was masculorum concubitoribus, which implies being a male prostitute. The translation from Martin Luther in the medival times implied it was being a pedophile. .. going after young boys.

So, your translation is a matter of preconceived ideas. Translation is interpretation, and is often based on preconceptions. It's not as clear as you are making it out to be. It might not be homosexuality at all. So, in some respects, his claim is partly correct. There is no clear and concise reference to homosexuality. It's a matter of interpretation.
 
RAMOSS said:
There is debate if that is the correct translation. Paul made that word up.. and it was only used twice. The term means 'man bed'' and is preceeded by the word 'malakos', which implies femininity. While some people call it 'defile with other men', considering the entomology , it could very well mean something like being a submissive to a dominatrix for example. The term is not unambiguous.

In the medival times, the translation into Latin in the Vulgata Clementina was masculorum concubitoribus, which implies being a male prostitute. The translation from Martin Luther in the medival times implied it was being a pedophile. .. going after young boys.

So, your translation is a matter of preconceived ideas. Translation is interpretation, and is often based on preconceptions. It's not as clear as you are making it out to be. It might not be homosexuality at all. So, in some respects, his claim is partly correct. There is no clear and concise reference to homosexuality. It's a matter of interpretation.
Click to expand...

The Bible does not allow for homosexuality. It's not a matter of "interpretation." Despite the modern attempt to soften its view of homosexuality, it is a sin in both the Old and New Testament. Every time homosexuality is mentioned, it is called such.

I know it hurts people's feelings, and makes them feel bad... That is called "being convicted", spiritually speaking.

Here is another NT scripture that (apparently) "doesn't mention" homosexuality (even though it does)...

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6 : 9-10 (NKJV)
 
SoulFire77 said:
The Bible does not allow for homosexuality. It's not a matter of "interpretation." Despite the modern attempt to soften its view of homosexuality, it is a sin in both the Old and New Testament. Every time homosexuality is mentioned, it is called such.

I know it hurts people's feelings, and makes them feel bad... That is called "being convicted", spiritually speaking.

Here is another NT scripture that (apparently) "doesn't mention" homosexuality (even though it does)...

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6 : 9-10 (NKJV)
Click to expand...

bc931c9ef59b3aa3241f9a8be316b664.gif
 
SoulFire77 said:
The Bible does not allow for homosexuality. It's not a matter of "interpretation." Despite the modern attempt to soften its view of homosexuality, it is a sin in both the Old and New Testament. Every time homosexuality is mentioned, it is called such.

I know it hurts people's feelings, and makes them feel bad... That is called "being convicted", spiritually speaking.

Here is another NT scripture that (apparently) "doesn't mention" homosexuality (even though it does)...

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthians 6 : 9-10 (NKJV)
Click to expand...

Now, that is a modern translation. You won't find a version of the bible before the 20th century that used the term 'homosexual'. While it could be interpreted as that.. it is more modern. Other translations of that say 'Male Prostitutes' instead of homosexual. SO, that again, points out that translation is interpretation, and it is the more modern translation that say 'Homosexual'.
 
Renae said:
Jesus was 'drag king' with 'queer desires,' claims theology professor | Fox News

Seriously, this guy is allowed to teach this ****?



SERIOUSLY.. this guy is ****ed in the noggin.
Click to expand...

so many times it seems you never read your own articles or your OPs instantly fail for various reasons LMAO


Holy Cross spokesman John Hill told Fox News that Liew hasn't taught the controversial material in the classroom. “The decade-old work referenced in the Fenwick Review article was not intended for an undergraduate classroom, nor has it ever been assigned at Holy Cross. It was an intentionally provocative work, not a statement of belief, meant to foster discussion among a small group of Biblical scholars exploring marginalization. No one has made a complaint about the content of Professor Liew’s classes in his four years at Holy Cross.”
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
Now, that is a modern translation. You won't find a version of the bible before the 20th century that used the term 'homosexual'. While it could be interpreted as that.. it is more modern. Other translations of that say 'Male Prostitutes' instead of homosexual. SO, that again, points out that translation is interpretation, and it is the more modern translation that say 'Homosexual'.
Click to expand...

Interesting... Under most circumstances, when confronted with something they don't like in the Bible, people say: "Oh, the KJV is so outdated... What do the modern translations say about it? Let's hear it in plain, modern English..."

It's clear what both the KJV and the NKJV are talking about.

Furthermore, my original point was: IT IS MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The most popular modern translation on Planet Earth is the New International Version. Ten years of work by over 100 multi-denominational scholars, and this is what THEY say is the "correct translation" of that scripture:

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom