Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
I wouldn't expect you to agree, you're a close-minded person and have no room for alternative views other than what the church says. It's your own
little comfort bubble that you refuse to leave.
I'm not closed minded, I'm just naturally attracted to facts. There are a plethora of facts, none of which need come from the church, that says
Jesus was a male, and absolutely zero that says he was not. Why on Earth would anyone fall down on the side that says he wasn't? That's like
saying "Oh, there's all these facts about gravity, but this one guy says it's bollocks, so I guess gravity doesn't exist" and then you fall off
of a cliff proving your point.
You are so rude, am I not allowed to have a different opinion than you?
You're welcome to an opinion, but you're not welcome to an unchallenged opinion. As I often say, if you don't want to defend nonsense, don't post
DaVinci was a genius and he was obviously hinting at something with his paintings. Just because it's outside your little comfort bubble
doesn't make it dumb or ridiculous.
Yes, it is. It is utterly ridiculous to say that Da Vinci was claiming that Jesus was a woman, because there is no evidence for it, so, contrary to
setting Da Vinci as a genius, you set him up as an idiot, who clearly couldn't read the five hundred places that state that Christ was a man, and the
zero that say he was a woman.
You might, however, make the case that Da Vinci depicted Jesus (or John) in an effeminate manner, as a reflection of his own sexuality, and that would
make for an interesting discussion, but saying that he thought Jesus was a woman is nothing but foolishness.