Jesus is Bi and Non Binary

Whilst this is sweet by the boy it also unbelievable that a kid is being taught that types of clothes represent a stereotypical gender view

Its wrong to teach a kid that to believe a man wearing a tunic or a dress makes them non-binary. What the kid should be taught is that its fine for people to wear what they like. Without placing a gender stereotypical label on them, based on what type clothing they wear 


Apart from that, I guess they are doing this to make Jesus more appealing to the LGBT

OMG...where will it end?
If I was that mother I would be having a word with the RE teacher.

I really don't think the average person thinks about Jesus's sexual preferences.
(If he existed) he was born male. Any other labels put upon the man are pointless.

Syl wrote:OMG...where will it end?
If I was that mother I would be having a word with the RE teacher.

I really don't think the average person thinks about Jesus's sexual preferences.
(If he existed) he was born male. Any other labels put upon the man are pointless.

i think if i were that mother i would be inclined to tell my kid to go into the classroom tomorrow and announce in a loud voice in front of the whole class that ''my mother says you're an ignorant fool and you have no idea what you're talking about and she wants to see you after school about all the rubbish you keep teaching, that's what my mum said.'' or some such. i would want every other kid in the class to hear it.

Syl wrote:OMG...where will it end?
If I was that mother I would be having a word with the RE teacher.

I really don't think the average person thinks about Jesus's sexual preferences.
(If he existed) he was born male. Any other labels put upon the man are pointless.

lol, yes its very possible Jesus existed and was nothing more than a man, who was a gifted teacher for the time. Who then had Paul reinvent what Jesus taught by deifying him as the son of god. Which such teaching was at odds with the Apostles and the siblings of Jesus. Who believed he was the Messiah, but only a man and not the son of God

I do not mind teachers putting their spin on this and if they view Jesus a certain way that diverges from the bible, as do many LGBT Christians.

There is already 44,000 Christian dominations that already put their spin on Christianity. So no issue on that front

With the claim Jesus is Bisexual. Its not beyond the realms of impossibility, based on reading the works. Hypothetically, he was clearly very intimate with Mary Magdalene and in the Gospel of john, we have an unnamed apostle, he loves. (The writer may have omitted the name, because this disciple may have been Mary Magdalene. Where the teachings of Paul are very sexist and anti-woman. Hence her name omitted.) If this apostle, as its believed is in fact the apostle John. Then it does beg the questioned, what kind of love relationship they may have had. Also there is a text in Mark that speaks of a naked follower running away, when the guards arrest Jesus in the garden of gethsemane. . So who knows. Its unlikely, but its still important to speculate. It would certainly go a long way to reducing the discrimination faced by gays, lesbians and bisexuals, by mainstream Christianity

My objection was teaching Gender woo woo and claiming wearing a tunic is deemed a dress, making them automatically non-binary.

Its utterly daft and labelling them with genders based on the type of clothing people wear. Like i said, kids should be taught is that its fine for people to wear what they like. Without placing a gender stereotypical label on them, based on what type clothing they wear.

Its okay for kids to be gender non-conforming. If a boy wants to wear makeup, wear a skirt then that is fine. He is still a boy exploring who they are. Just as we saw through the 90's with acts like Boy George. You teach kids to understand it does not matter how they look.

Not as seen here, where kids are being taught to place people into gender categories. Based off types of gendered clothes that have been assigned to either boys or girls. Based upon some imaginary classification of what types of clothes girls and boys are expected to wear

This is why Gender theory, is not progressive but regressive. Its creating an imaginary divide based upon an expectation of what boys and girls should wear. As clothes do not define sex. Biology does and the fact there is biological differences between the sexes. Whereas gender theory is mainly made up divisive claptrap

https://jimmyknibbe.medium.com/the-nonsense-of-gender-theory-acb21ca05993

Didgee wrote:

Syl wrote:OMG...where will it end?
If I was that mother I would be having a word with the RE teacher.

I really don't think the average person thinks about Jesus's sexual preferences.
(If he existed) he was born male. Any other labels put upon the man are pointless.

lol, yes its very possible Jesus existed and was nothing more than a man, who was a gifted teacher for the time. Who then had Paul reinvent what Jesus taught by deifying him as the son of god. Which such teaching was at odds with the Apostles and the siblings of Jesus. Who believed he was the Messiah, but only a man and not the son of God

I do not mind teachers putting their spin on this and if they view Jesus a certain way that diverges from the bible, as do many LGBT Christians.

There is already 44,000 Christian dominations that already put their spin on Christianity. So no issue on that front

With the claim Jesus is Bisexual. Its not beyond the realms of impossibility, based on reading the works. Hypothetically, he was clearly very intimate with Mary Magdalene and in the Gospel of john, we have an unnamed apostle, he loves. (The writer may have omitted the name, because this disciple may have been Mary Magdalene. Where the teachings of Paul are very sexist and anti-woman. Hence her name omitted.) If this apostle, as its believed is in fact the apostle John. Then it does beg the questioned, what kind of love relationship they may have had. Also there is a text in Mark that speaks of a naked follower running away, when the guards arrest Jesus in the garden of gethsemane. . So who knows. Its unlikely, but its still important to speculate. It would certainly go a long way to reducing the discrimination faced by gays, lesbians and bisexuals, by mainstream Christianity

My objection was teaching Gender woo woo and claiming wearing a tunic is deemed a dress, making them automatically non-binary.

Its utterly daft and labelling them with genders based on the type of clothing people wear. Like i said, kids should be taught is that its fine for people to wear what they like. Without placing a gender stereotypical label on them, based on what type clothing they wear.

Its okay for kids to be gender non-conforming. If a boy wants to wear makeup, wear a skirt then that is fine. He is still a boy exploring who they are. Just as we saw through the 90's with acts like Boy George. You teach kids to understand it does not matter how they look.

Not as seen here, where kids are being taught to place people into gender categories. Based off types of gendered clothes that have been assigned to either boys or girls. Based upon some imaginary classification of what types of clothes girls and boys are expected to wear

This is why Gender theory, is not progressive but regressive. Its creating an imaginary divide based upon an expectation of what boys and girls should wear. As clothes do not define sex. Biology does and the fact there is biological differences between the sexes. Whereas gender theory is mainly made up divisive claptrap

https://jimmyknibbe.medium.com/the-nonsense-of-gender-theory-acb21ca05993

Good post didge

''Gender woo woo''



hahahahaha

gelico wrote:

Didgee wrote:

lol, yes its very possible Jesus existed and was nothing more than a man, who was a gifted teacher for the time. Who then had Paul reinvent what Jesus taught by deifying him as the son of god. Which such teaching was at odds with the Apostles and the siblings of Jesus. Who believed he was the Messiah, but only a man and not the son of God

I do not mind teachers putting their spin on this and if they view Jesus a certain way that diverges from the bible, as do many LGBT Christians.

There is already 44,000 Christian dominations that already put their spin on Christianity. So no issue on that front

With the claim Jesus is Bisexual. Its not beyond the realms of impossibility, based on reading the works. Hypothetically, he was clearly very intimate with Mary Magdalene and in the Gospel of john, we have an unnamed apostle, he loves. (The writer may have omitted the name, because this disciple may have been Mary Magdalene. Where the teachings of Paul are very sexist and anti-woman. Hence her name omitted.) If this apostle, as its believed is in fact the apostle John. Then it does beg the questioned, what kind of love relationship they may have had. Also there is a text in Mark that speaks of a naked follower running away, when the guards arrest Jesus in the garden of gethsemane. . So who knows. Its unlikely, but its still important to speculate. It would certainly go a long way to reducing the discrimination faced by gays, lesbians and bisexuals, by mainstream Christianity

My objection was teaching Gender woo woo and claiming wearing a tunic is deemed a dress, making them automatically non-binary.

Its utterly daft and labelling them with genders based on the type of clothing people wear. Like i said, kids should be taught is that its fine for people to wear what they like. Without placing a gender stereotypical label on them, based on what type clothing they wear.

Its okay for kids to be gender non-conforming. If a boy wants to wear makeup, wear a skirt then that is fine. He is still a boy exploring who they are. Just as we saw through the 90's with acts like Boy George. You teach kids to understand it does not matter how they look.

Not as seen here, where kids are being taught to place people into gender categories. Based off types of gendered clothes that have been assigned to either boys or girls. Based upon some imaginary classification of what types of clothes girls and boys are expected to wear

This is why Gender theory, is not progressive but regressive. Its creating an imaginary divide based upon an expectation of what boys and girls should wear. As clothes do not define sex. Biology does and the fact there is biological differences between the sexes. Whereas gender theory is mainly made up divisive claptrap

https://jimmyknibbe.medium.com/the-nonsense-of-gender-theory-acb21ca05993

Good post didge

''Gender woo woo''



hahahahaha  

lol thanks Gelico

Utterly bonkers. I think Jesus was a clay teapot. Or similar.

I think it's a pretty obvious, almost inescapable conclusion that Jesus was gay.

Ben Reilly wrote:I think it's a pretty obvious, almost inescapable conclusion that Jesus was gay.

Yep. Remember Judas’ kiss?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I think it's a pretty obvious, almost inescapable conclusion that Jesus was gay.

Yep. Remember Judas’ kiss?

There's that, there's the fact that he travelled with 12 men at all times, and especially the fact that he was a platonic friend to a prostitute.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I think it's a pretty obvious, almost inescapable conclusion that Jesus was gay.

Yep. Remember Judas’ kiss?

Judas is the hero of the story

Yeah I was just joking about Jesus being gay.

eddie wrote:Yeah I was just joking about Jesus being gay.

He may well have been gay

There is no evidence he was gay, he definately had a foot fetish though.

Syl wrote:There is no evidence he was gay, he definately had a foot fetish though.

Oooh do tell!

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:There is no evidence he was gay, he definately had a foot fetish though.

Oooh do tell!

I dont like to gossip, but rumour had it he liked his feet to be washed in tears and dried with hair....kinky or what?

I'm sure Jesus scratched his balls like most men.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Oooh do tell!

I dont like to gossip, but rumour had it he liked his feet to be washed in tears and dried with hair....kinky or what?

At least he didn't expect his cigars to be rolled on a virgin's thigh!

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:
I dont like to gossip, but rumour had it he liked his feet to be washed in tears and dried with hair....kinky or what?

At least he didn't expect his cigars to be rolled on a virgin's thigh!

Maybe if tobacco had been around back then Mary M would have obliged.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:There is no evidence he was gay, he definately had a foot fetish though.

Oooh do tell!

I dont like to gossip, but rumour had it he liked his feet to be washed in tears and dried with hair....kinky or what?

I saw a video once where a woman wanked a man off with her long hair.
Rather interesting.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:There is no evidence he was gay, he definately had a foot fetish though.

Oooh do tell!

I dont like to gossip, but rumour had it he liked his feet to be washed in tears and dried with hair....kinky or what?

I saw a video once where a woman wanked a man off with her long hair.
Rather interesting.

I remember that one ... nice

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:
I dont like to gossip, but rumour had it he liked his feet to be washed in tears and dried with hair....kinky or what?

I saw a video once where a woman wanked a man off with her long hair.
Rather interesting.

The film 'Something about Mary' springs to mind.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:
I dont like to gossip, but rumour had it he liked his feet to be washed in tears and dried with hair....kinky or what?

I saw a video once where a woman wanked a man off with her long hair.
Rather interesting.

I remember a video with a guy repeatedly slamming his knob in a bedside drawer. It was years ago and I thought...if this is porn you can keep it, I'd rather have a coffee and a donut.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:
I dont like to gossip, but rumour had it he liked his feet to be washed in tears and dried with hair....kinky or what?

I saw a video once where a woman wanked a man off with her long hair.
Rather interesting.

I remember a video with a guy repeatedly slamming his knob in a bedside drawer.  It was years ago and I thought...if this is porn you can keep it, I'd rather have a coffee and a donut.

Yeah....that thought does not turn me on.

Was the chest of drawers hot, at least?

Ben Reilly wrote:Was the chest of drawers hot, at least?

Deviant.