Comments

  1. no angel says

    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!

  2. jesse james says

    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.)

  3. TANK says

    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.

  4. jesse james says

    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.

  5. TANK says

    “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.

  6. Bryan says

    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?

  7. voet says

    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.

  8. Sargon Bighorn says

    “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!

  9. carter says

    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.

  10. TANK says

    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

  11. TANK says

    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.

  12. DH says

    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…

  13. says

    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!

  14. Blake says

    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.

  15. TANK says

    “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.

  16. Blake says

    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

  17. Stan James says

    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/

  18. ty says

    Elton is right, Jesus was a big mary. Never married, all male entourage. He was no doubt killed for being gay!

  19. Josh says

    I, like Jesus, had a 9″x7″ boyfriend I nicknamed my “beloved”. I totally want to join the Church of Elton. Where should I send my tithing?

  20. sTANKy says

    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.

    Yeah what he said. LOLOLOLOLOLOL God what a tool you are Tank.

    It seems you are hungry/desperate to talk to people and exchange ideas. Hmmm I wonder why that could be?

    Huge Ahole perhaps? But thanks for the laugh and solidifying the already laughable opinion most of us have of you.

  21. James Brown says

    I was a fan of yours every since i can remember! Not anymore!Now i can really see that you are really twisted!I throught that yu had a lot of class! Now i think yo han,nt got any at all! Taste that is!You shouldn,t Let the world Know what you,re thinking! Keep SOME SHIT TO YOURSELF!!!

  22. TANK says

    As I said, there are crazy people here who have been off their medication for a long time…stalkers, really. It’s funny because it can’t be tragic.

  23. jamal49 says

    Everyone’s idea of faith is their own business. Right. But only if they don’t use that “faith” as a bludgeon against those who are different or believe differently. Take the NOM crowd (please!). Or the DADT anti-repeal crowd. Or the FOTF crowd. All of them use their “faith” to justify their poisonous, hateful bigotry against LGBT people. Check out Uganda. The American evangelicals can’t get away with such vile hatred here, so they export it to Africa where, for various reasons, it finds fertile ground. That is “faith”? Take that “faith” and shove it!

  24. AM says

    I don’t see anything in Tank’s intelligent and interesting post that was “tool”ish, “hungry” or “desperate”…but I do see those traits in Stanky’s post.

  25. Dan Simmons says

    What is the problem? They act like there is something wrong with speculating about someone who lived 2 thousand years ago. What is wrong with a spiritual person being gay?

  26. Paul says

    Good grief, you have the nerve to make a crack about Elton being “past his prime.”

    He is still FABULOUS, and considering all of his charity work, you have the nerve to take a shot? How about Cher? She is just as “past it” but I’m sure you wouldn’t take a shot at her, and she doesn’t do a 10th the charity he does. Wanna take a crack at Liz Taylor now that is is infirm and no longer the knock-out star she was once?

    Your ageism is showing, dude.

  27. nic says

    the jewish sages urged early marriage. “for, the man who did not marry slew his posterity.” typically, a man was expected to marry before age twenty, and a girl was considered a woman at 12 years and one day old. if we buy into the jesus story, Mary was likely a young teenager and Joseph under twenty. it was common for a man to have grandchildren by his late 30s.
    given jewish tradition, he was a strange bird. gay? who knows. but, giving the evidence, he certainly could have been. on the other hand, their is not a whit of proof that he was heterosexual.

  28. Kaj says

    Well well…Lot´s of comments here and people with different views and thats good, it´s our God given right to have one and judge according to our own life. But…and it´s a big BUT – The Bible teach us to turn our hearts to God and to gain knowledge from HIS point of view. The way I understand that, is to WHATEVER it takes, is that WE need to be changed and formed by His love and how He looks at things like sin (wich means “to miss the goal”) and what salvation is all about. The main theme in the Bible is that veryone has come away from the glory of God and need to repent and have a loving relationship with Jesus Christ. Not knowing His ways, to feel His presence and feel upplifted by Him is impossible if you do not want to change your life after his words. Ask yourself this simple question: Who do I live for? For whose sake? Yourself or God? -If you put your life in His hands, say ‘yes’ to Jesus, believe He took your sins upon himself on the cross, everything is dandy and you’re on the way to salvation! This must happen even if you do not like it. But it’s the truth! However, if you do not want to adjust your life according to God’s way of dealing with sin in your life, whatever it is, then you are not ready for the kingdom of God. If God exists he must be absolutely true and no lie can live in Him. And if Jesus was gay so please show me the Bible word and I’ll believe it too. I am a simple Bible-believing Christian and have learned to love the truth even if it does not fit today’s modern man. God be with you and may He shine with his face upon you all! / Kaj from Sweden