All the proof I need:
'Jesus's astrological chart'.
May God have mercy on the deluded souls responsible for this blasphemy.
Good gosh! Relying on astrology to make a spiritual/religious case! One of the many flaws in the homosexual thinking is that they confuse love and sex. Not all love is sexual! You don't have to do anything with anybody for whom you have some kind of remotely warm feeling--being it lust or love. Sexual activity is rightly only about a particular kind of love between one man and one woman. They don't care. As the FrontPage article Mark cites above shows, the only objective is absolutely unfettered freedom (political, social, legal, moral) to engage in any kind of sexual activity that might intrigue a person.
ok...maybe this is the scariest thing you've ever posted...
An Anglican and a qualified reader of astrological charts, Dr McCleary is open about being gay himself.
I think the article meant to say 'idiot' not gay. I mean, huh? its easier to be a Christain if you are gay. (at least you don't have to be!)
Pax Christi
Having at one time been a "qualified reader of astrology charts" myself I have to say -- and just HOW did he get an accurate date and time for the birth chart??? Even from an astrological perspective this is foolishness....
But then, maybe it's easier to be foolish if you're gay, too.
All that, and Mark didn't post a link to his "Real Jesus" article? My faith in humanity is shaken!
Seriously, I can't say that I'm surprised. His thesis will be picked up by people who have already decided that the whole of mainstream Christianity for 2000 years is wrong, and their lustful passions are right. Of course near the bottom of the article it mentions that the "researcher" is openly gay. You don't think he could be trying to justify his own lifestyle, do you? While we're at it, let's pay Bob Sungenis to do a serious, unbiased scientific study of heliocentrism.
This just shows how uninformed we Catholics are who do not read the Bible and dutifully avoid astrology. Who knew? 
Isn't his conclusion/thesis a little to lazy and un-believable to rise to the rank of blasphemy?
In the old days, heretics actually put some effort into their work.
Any man with a pulse, a hard-on and a word processor could get a PhD from this university. (And if you're having trouble finding a pulse or a word process, assistance is available.)
Yup. Yet another reason to be so gosh-darned proud to be an Anglican. 
Dude'll probably end up a bishop.
Chris:
I must confess I thought of you as I read this. Look at the bright side, the guy makes Spong look like a brainiac.
If he's telegenic, he'll become the most prominent "Christian" interviewed by mainstream media.
The story of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus casting demons from the pagan temple comes to mind. Would that a contemporary saint do the same regarding this blasphemy!
"One of the many flaws in the homosexual thinking is that they confuse love and sex."
You're right, some heterosexuals aren't guilty of that either. (rolls eyes) I think what you meant to say, before your overly broad generalization of lifestyles you loathe kicked in, was that "some gays confuse love and sex, as do some straight people."
That said, the guy's proposition is pretty hilarious, especially with the astrology nonsense thrown in. I know I'm convinced!
Oh, and...
"As the FrontPage article Mark cites above shows, the only objective is absolutely unfettered freedom (political, social, legal, moral) to engage in any kind of sexual activity that might intrigue a person."
So long as it's between consenting adults and behind closed doors, what should be restricted about it? What is your fascination with controlling the genitals of others?
Have a nice day!
Andy,
Nice day to you as well.
I agree that many a person of any sexual persuasion has confused love and sex to horrible results. I raised the point because the doctoral student stated that John was Jesus' beloved disciple, implying that they must have been homosexual lovers. RE: mistaking love and sex comes into play in homosexuality--I noticed this mostly from reading stuff like Andrew Sullivan who speaks of his love for his "partner". I have tried to figure out why he cannot love this guy a great deal and be close friends, but marry a woman and have a family with her. I see no reason why the close feelings he says he has for this guy must automatically lead to sexual intimacy as a fulfillment of that love. Certainly, any one who is not sure of himself/herself and does not possess a clear sense of morality can fall into the trap of--I guess I'll vaguely call it "inappropriate intimacy"--with some one of the same or opposite sex. Both are proscribed by the commandment not to commit adultery, last time I checked.
P.S. I have no desire to control the activities of others. I don't have time. We are all responsible for controling our own "impulses" (as Hillary referred to unchecked behavior at a post-Columbine event she attended). I have a serious problem, however, with the attempts to force me to agree that such things are "normal" and then resort to offensive ad hominem arguments if I disagree. Of especial concern are the efforts being made to sexualize children and confuse them at such young ages.
"I have tried to figure out why he cannot love this guy a great deal and be close friends, but marry a woman and have a family with her."
Perhaps because our ideal, achievable or not, is to be madly in love with the person you marry - and somehow I doubt his "wife" would appreciate him being in love with a man (as opposed to a friendly love, and not romantic or passionate love). It might also complicate matters if he doesn't find the woman, or any women, remotely sexually interesting - that tends to be a requirement for the, um, equipment to function properly (at least for me).
Well heck, maybe I [i]should[/i] pay attention to the horoscope in the newspapers...
Where's Ignatius J. Reilly when you need some insightful commentary about the secret lives of Jesus and the Twelve Apostles?
I'm looking forward to the day when some kook writes a dissertation claiming that Mohammed was gay. Now that, would be a courageous or foolhardy act, depending on the way one looks at it.
It wouldn't get the circulation this did. No way.
The article linked to almost makes it sound as though the University of Queensland has offered a graduate student $51000 for saying that Jesus was gay. In fact, the student's thesis 'explored male homosexuality and spirituality in the history of western thought' and only mentioned Jesus' sexuality briefly. The $51000 is the normal funding for a graduate student and the student was not obliged to come to any particular conclusion about Jesus. See www.uq.edu.au/news/index.phtml?article=4489 for another version of the story.
It is certainly disturbing if a student gained a Phd. by offering astrological charts as evidence. My guess, though, is that the astrology is going into the book he intends to write and there is none of it in the thesis.
Some of you are obviously very upset by the 'blasphemy' and 'heresy' of saying that Jesus was gay. It seems clear, however, that the student did not intend to insult Jesus. He may, indeed, have thought of it as some sort of compliment.
I am not a Catholic and I see nothing wrong with being gay so you may not think my opinion on this subject is worth much. I wonder, though, if it would not be possible for a believing Catholic to think that Jesus was gay. It is an article of faith that Jesus was sinless and the Church teaches that homosexual activity is sinful so it is not possible to think that Jesus ever performed any homosexual acts but a homosexual orientation is not a sin, although it is a defect.
The traditional Catholic teaching is that Jesus never suffered from any defect or disease. No colic as a baby, no childhood illnesses, no colds, no flu, no irrational fears, no indigestion or headache or toothache. Everyone who knew him must have realised early on that he was very unusual.
This is, I know, traditional Catholic teaching but I think (though I might be wrong) that it is not an article of faith. If a Catholic wished to dissent from this teaching, perhaps on the grounds that someone like that could hardly be called human, I think they would be able to. If Jesus could suffer from defects is there something about a homosexual orientation that puts it in a special class of defects that he could not suffer from? If so, what is it?
It remains true that there is really no evidence at all that Jesus was gay. But that is another matter.
Katherine:
The traditional Catholic teaching is that Jesus never suffered from any defect or disease. No colic as a baby, no childhood illnesses, no colds, no flu, no irrational fears, no indigestion or headache or toothache. Everyone who knew him must have realised early on that he was very unusual.
The only thing one has to believe about Jesus' humanity is that He was like us in all things but sin. What you quote seems to be taken from private revelations, which are not binding in matters of faith and morals.
Dave,
I was not quoting anyone. The list of diseases is mine. If Jesus did not suffer from any diseases, though, it does seem to follow that he did not suffer from the ones in my list.
I think you are right in saying that Catholics are not obliged to believe this. I said as much in my post. It is, however, traditional Catholic teaching. The article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (online at www.newadvent.org/cathen) explains that Catholics believe that Jesus' body was 'subject to all the bodily weaknesses to which human nature unassumed is universally subject' but not to sickness or deformity because 'sickness is not a weakness that is a necessary belonging of human nature.' He suffered from tiredness, thirst and pain because everyone, simply by virtue of being human, suffers from these things but 'no specific sickness is suffered by all mankind.'
Dave,
I'm sorry. I quoted from an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia without saying which one it was. Of course it is the one on the Incarnation.
Katherine:
Gotcha. There are some private revelations out there (Mystical City of God comes to mind) which get very far out in their details on Our Lord's life.
As far as Our Lord's "orientation" goes, I'd have to say definitely heterosexual. He has a Bride -- the Church.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
