The fact that Christians - who follow the teachings of a man who spent most of his personal (non-sermonizing) time exclusively with other men, who never had sexual intercourse with a woman, and whose closest female friend was an "actress" - revile and condemn homosexuality seems hilariously hypocritical. In light of the time in which he lived, being an asexual, unmarried late 20 something would have been seriously aberrant, as would seducing the sons of the villages and locales he visited to follow him off into the wilderness. Of all Christian writers, he would be the one you would expect to be most vehemently opposed to homosexuality, and yet it's a point he remains silent on. All rote, tradition, and religious hysteria aside, - seriously, does no one else see the possible irony?
2007-05-28
14:45:17
·
40 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous