Elton John | Jesus Christ | News

Watch: Elton John Responds to 'Jesus Was Gay' Controversy

In an interview with WGN, Elton John clarified the remarks attributed to him in Parade magazine that "Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man," explaining that the quote doesn't appear in the published magazine but Parade put it on their website, and he may have said it while talking to them. 

John  "I think everybody's individual faith is their own business, and I do believe in Jesus and I believe he was a compassionate person, and from my point of view, and that's just my point of view, as a compassionate person — someone who was persecuted, someone who forgave people. And that's how I see him...I identify, in my own mind, as someone like that...I'm not saying to everyone that he definitely was gay. That's how I see him. That's my idea of faith."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Aah HA!! Sneaky Parade magazine, I assumed like everyone that it was really in the article but, it's not. I'm glad Elton clarified what Parade did to make this a controversy and give Parade more buzz (not cool, don't use us in a potentially harmful way to sell magazines) and I'm glad that Elton clarified how he feels and what he actually said. And what he is saying makes perfect sense and maybe now Bill O'Reilly will do a retraction for his knee-jerk reaction to it. Like I said in the previous post, people get touchy when it comes to their faith and you have to be aware of that when you talk about Jesus, etc. I think Elton's clarification will go along way to have civil and frank discussions about gays and Jesus. Which we need and could help change minds. Yay!

    Posted by: no angel | Feb 20, 2010 4:31:16 PM


  2. I knew exactly what he was talking about, but I'm glad he cleared it up so simply.

    Posted by: Eric26 | Feb 20, 2010 4:32:25 PM


  3. People are always the most upset when someone tells the truth about something, like saying Jesus was gay. Of course, He was. They can't refute it with facts, they can just scream, "Oh, NO HE WASN'T!" But, yeah, He was.

    (Notice how I capitalized the pronouns out of deference to their beliefs.)

    Posted by: jesse james | Feb 20, 2010 4:37:15 PM


  4. Well. Now that's all better that he's fixed it.

    sssssssssssssssssssssss

    Posted by: ben in oakland | Feb 20, 2010 4:40:29 PM


  5. I bet you're glad he clarified his remarks. I bet every enraged christian is happy he clarified...and he really had to. Because ignorant superstitious fairytales needs to be pandered to and appeased. Blood sacrifice! Apologize to make believe...apologize.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 20, 2010 4:41:25 PM


  6. That video would not play for me, but in the picture Elton is looking good, maybe lost some weight? Good hair day? Maybe controversy agrees with him.

    Posted by: jesse james | Feb 20, 2010 4:49:49 PM


  7. Jesse James,

    The video was a flash player video.
    Try updating your computer's Flash Player.

    You can download it here:

    http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/


    Posted by: Jake | Feb 20, 2010 5:07:08 PM


  8. "As long as you do believe..."

    Elton captures it. This is one of the most fundamental reasons why religion is so popular. Religious people almost universally hold a belief in belief, i.e., that it's GOOD to have religious faith, period... It doesn't matter what, just that belief in belief or faith in faith.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 20, 2010 5:15:09 PM


  9. Jesus was a Power Bottom!

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Feb 20, 2010 5:22:46 PM


  10. Oh Reg...

    You were a closet case when it got you the attention you can't live without, you came out when it would achieve the same goal, and now your babbling about Jeeezuss® for similar reasons.

    Another gay man whose entire life has been determined by having been chosen last for basketball (and/or rugby)... Another sixty-something faggot who's lived one long publicity stunt, now sadly devoid of dignity.

    Your statement is a toothless sucking up to the enemy. Next time try, "There's no evidence of the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the religions based on his alleged doings have always been as brutally exploitive as they are intellectually insupportable."

    Oh, never mind - you're right. A sentence that long would never get you on the toob, there being so few people there with an attention span that reaches all the way to the period.

    Of course we love him, but why? Why do we love him?

    Posted by: Bryan | Feb 20, 2010 5:28:49 PM


  11. How come no body complains about artists who portray Jesus as a blond? (Or is it brown hair with highlights?) Many painters of Jesus portray him as they are. I really do not see a differnce. It is rare to find paintings of Jesus that look like his true ethnicity, but no one seems bothered by that.

    Posted by: voet | Feb 20, 2010 5:57:28 PM


  12. I think it's funny that he believes in Jesus. How embarrassing.

    Posted by: Bill | Feb 20, 2010 6:31:57 PM


  13. Tank, have you read Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris? Let's talk. email me, deglr6328 at hotmail

    Posted by: Blake | Feb 20, 2010 7:06:04 PM


  14. "Everyone's Idea of faith is their own business" WTF? No it's not. In fact it's SO NOT their business that Elton John talks to the WORLD about his faith. Everyone talks about their faith all the time. "I don't have a faith" is talking about what you don't have. "I have a faith but I don't talk about it." What you dance and mime about it? GHEEZUZ! If it was his own business he would not be talking about it! He would sit there with his mouth shut and smile. I don't blog about my faith I think it's a personal thing, let me tell you about Vishnu; I love Vishnu but it's a personal thing I don't blog about. Lordy!

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Feb 20, 2010 7:09:43 PM


  15. I wish he hadn't dignified their outrage with a response.

    Posted by: krispy | Feb 20, 2010 7:38:27 PM


  16. Both Elton and Parade Magazine are past their prime. Why should anyone care one way or another.
    Who is/was Jesus, for christ's sake?!
    Folks, get a life.
    There is more to life than bs religion, and if not, you really need to figure it out, and sooner is better.

    Posted by: carter | Feb 20, 2010 8:35:24 PM


  17. Yup, I've read Harris and Dennett (a lot of dennett...can't forgive him for what he did to Stephen Jay Gould, though. Totally without class...and in consciousness explained, he did everything but explain consciousness...but ah, he's dan dennett, goddamnit ;)). Specifically, breaking the spell I think you're referring to; treating religion as a natural phenomenon. Interesting stuff. I'd give my email for further discussion, but I know I'd get a torrent of haters. A good classic on the topic's William James' varieties of religious experience...still a wonderful book. Another current goody is andy thompson's talk...skim the needless thank yous at the beginning.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 20, 2010 9:45:05 PM


  18. And, of course...there's (I'm sure you've read it) David Hume's dialogues concerning natural religion. He was one of the first to analyze religion through the lense of naturalism. The only philosopher I'd like to have a drink with...davey knew how to have himself a good time.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 20, 2010 10:04:45 PM


  19. if the stupid christians truly believed that "man was created in god's image," then they'd realize that that also applies to atheists, gays, communists, etc., and they would not be at all shocked by elton's assertion. there is no scriptural basis for saying that jesus did NOT find men attractive...

    Posted by: DH | Feb 20, 2010 10:32:31 PM


  20. Don't understand why people get upset over one's beliefs. I don't give a shit. Who cares. They are entitle to their own opinions So what! Not like it, ignore it. simple!

    Posted by: Ted | Feb 21, 2010 12:24:12 AM


  21. Are you referring to the "new" atheist's takedown of Gould's idea of NOMA? If so I would disagree. Again, email me, let's talk. I am aware of very, very, VERY few other gay skeptics and your posts here indicate to me that you are one. Gay atheists are a dime a dozen, but very few of us posses a significant understanding of the rational, skeptical framework which I believe should underlie said disbelief. I suspect that you are one of these few.

    Posted by: Blake | Feb 21, 2010 12:39:14 AM


  22. "Are you referring to the "new" atheist's takedown of Gould's idea of NOMA? If so I would disagree"

    No, I don't care for NOMA. I think that's a pretty crap idea of Gould's. I think the so-called new atheists have demolished it. But it was never a good idea, and never taken seriously by philosophers (those who analyze thought). I'm referring instead to Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and the controversey that he and Gould got into, where gould labeled him a darwinian fundamentalist. Gould wrote for a mass audience. That's unmistakable. But so does dennett. Dennett will never be mistaken for someone like G.E. Moore: a philosopher's philosopher who wrote primarily for other philosophers in assuming a measure of technical proficiency. He wasn't writing for scientists. But it ain't all in the environment of the organism, as Gould compellingly (in my opinion) demonstrated, nor does natural selection determine every single trait we have. There are extremely significant external factors that determine the course of evolution by natural selection that have nothing to do with natural selection, and are completely random (global catastrophes, etc). It was in the way that Dennett described natural selection as an algorithmic process (which is so completely general that one can hardly disagree with it). No, it's not true that one can look exclusively to an organism's environment to explain why certain organisms have certain traits (many are just there...). Dennett has since watered down his position to the degree that I can't see that there's much disagreement between gould and himself. But Gould's criticism of dennett's book (which employed a host of thought experiments and even just so stories) was pretty legitimate. Dennett went so far as to give a positive characterization to the pseudo science that is the aquatic ape theory to explain why humans don't have hairy bodies. What I take explicit issue with is this.

    During the heat of their public exchange, Dennett ferried a bunch of his graduate students to harvard to interrupt a class of Gould's after Dennett had supplied them all with questions in an attempt to descredit Gould as a scientist in front of his students. It was tasteless, and unbecoming of a serious academic.

    I like the "new atheist" movement. I think it's healthy to be vocal.

    Posted by: TANK | Feb 21, 2010 1:42:12 AM


  23. omg you think aquatic ape theory is bullshit too??! Marry me. Seriously though, PLEASE send me a message. We HAVE to talk. deglr6328[at]hotmail.com

    Posted by: Blake | Feb 21, 2010 2:40:38 AM


  24. Jesus never married. Tells you something.

    And his church - in the queerest marriages of all, the church marries priests to the church.

    Not at all unlike many Islamic marriages. Where the victim is the property of the husband, they cant go out (of the house or closte) without a church escort. And are whipped if they disobey the master.

    And I've also heard that the church says it or Jesus - not sure which way, is the bride of the other.

    Sure sounds queer to me.

    The whole stinking hcurch is in the closet. From its founder to the current pope.

    Throwing out its se;f loathing and self hatred on others in order to hide who it really is/

    Posted by: Stan James | Feb 21, 2010 2:50:18 AM


  25. I don't believe in Elton John.

    Posted by: Phil | Feb 21, 2010 9:28:41 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «French Sports Newspaper L'Equipe Features Cover Profile, Shirtless Photos of Gay Welsh Rugby Star Gareth Thomas« «