PDA

View Full Version : Jesus might have been homosexual


Z Commando
Apr 5th, 2005, 08:01 PM
By Elizabeth Day (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/03/ngay03.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/03/ixhome.html)
(Filed: 03/04/2005)

The first openly gay Anglican bishop has sparked outrage for suggesting that Jesus might have been homosexual.

The Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church of the United States, said that Jesus was an unmarried, "non-traditional man" who did not uphold family values, "travelled with a bunch of men" and enjoyed an especially close relationship with one of his disciples.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/04/03/ngay03.jpgTraditionalists have suggested that the Bishop should be ‘struck down by thunder and lightning bolts’

His comments, made in a recent address at the Christ Church of Hamilton and Wenham in Massachusetts, have enraged traditional Anglicans who have suggested that the Bishop should be "struck down by thunder and lightning bolts". Bishop Robinson, whose consecration in 2003 triggered a schism between evangelicals and liberals in the worldwide Anglican Communion, was giving an address entitled "Homosexuality and the Body of Christ: Is There a New Way?"

In answer to a question from the congregation about how the acceptance of homosexuality could be squared with the scriptural emphasis on redemption for sins, the Bishop replied: "Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values, this man that we follow was single, as far as we know, travelled with a bunch of men, had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved' and said my family is not my mother and father, my family is those who do the will of God. None of us likes those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was at heart, in his earthly life.

''Those who would posit the nuclear family as the be all and end all of God's creation probably don't find that much in the gospels to support it," he said.

David Virtue, an evangelical commentator who runs the influential conservative Anglican website, VirtueOnline, called the comments "rubbish".

He said: "It is appalling deconstructionism from the liberal lobby which will spin even the remotest thing to turn it into a hint that Biblical figures are gay. It is so utterly preposterous to imply that Jesus's relationship with John was homo-erotic, but twisting the truth is the only way these people can get scriptural justification for their lifestyles. Can you imagine Calvin, Luther or Erasmus saying something like this? It is a wonder that thunder and lightning bolts don't strike Bishop Robinson down."

Mr Virtue also said that passages in which Bishop Robinson compared the loneliness of being gay to a black person being called "a ******" were "deeply offensive". The comments came at the end of a sermon in which Bishop Robinson dispensed with his notes and spoke freely of his experiences growing up as a homosexual. In one passage he recalled a Playboy magazine being handed around his classmates and realising that it was causing them "a whole lot more excitement" than it was for him.

"I was terrified in high school, especially dreading the 10th grade [for 16-year-olds] when we would go into a gym class and have to go into the showers and I was absolutely terrified that I would get beaten to a bloody pulp if something happened in the showers that might indicate in some way that I was erotically attracted to boys my own age," he continued.

"It was a very lonely place to be. At least if you're black and you're called a ******, you can go home to your mother and father and say, 'Oh my god, they called me a ****** today', and the parents have had the same experience. But a young kid growing up terribly fearful that he or she might be gay can't go home to the parents because of the consequences."

Bishop Robinson, who married his partner, Mark, said that he had come to reconcile his sexuality with his faith and could feel "God's light and God's life ooze over me like warm butter".

Canon Chris Sugden, a spokesman for the evangelical organisation, Anglican Mainstream, said: "He's really selective in what he's addressing. He makes no mention of Jesus's teaching on marriage, for instance. And he does not acknowledge that nowhere in the text or in ancient literature is there any suggestion of any form of sexual impropriety among Jesus or the disciples. Jesus broke the cultural traditions of the time and has women mixing with men in public and having them teaching. Those of us who put scripture as a priority are called on to obey the scripture even when that is in conflict with our culture.

"Bishop Robinson is saying that the culture has moved in his direction and that it's all becoming accepted, so he's looking for ways to interpret scripture to support that instead of realising that scripture asks us to do the unpopular thing and stand against the prevailing culture."

This is not the first time that it has been suggested Jesus might have been gay. In 1977 Mary Whitehouse, the moral campaigner, brought a private prosecution against the Gay News for publishing a poem by Professor James Kirkup called The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name. The poem depicted a centurion's love for Christ and the newspaper was fined under the blasphemy laws.

Mike Barwell, a spokesman for Bishop Robinson, said: "Jesus was a non-traditional person who broke all the rules and hung out with all the wrong people. Anything else that people infer from the Bishop's comments is all speculation." :tape:

J_Migoe
Apr 5th, 2005, 08:49 PM
weird

griffin
Apr 5th, 2005, 08:57 PM
there actually ARE people who believe Jesus had sexual relations with John.

Nothing in Bishop Robinson's actual statement (as opposed to the overzealous reactions of his detractors) indicates that he is one of them.

Cariaoke
Apr 5th, 2005, 08:58 PM
that'd be the ultimate irony. :)

Pengwin
Apr 5th, 2005, 09:02 PM
Why is it wrong to suggest it? He didn't say that he belived in it or anything.

griffin
Apr 5th, 2005, 09:05 PM
Why is it wrong to suggest it? He didn't say that he belived in it or anything.

Because they're so desperate to discredit him, they'll grab at anything - either that or they're so freaked out and obsessed with homosexuality that they really are reading that into his words.

Wigglytuff
Apr 5th, 2005, 09:14 PM
Why is it wrong to suggest it? He didn't say that he belived in it or anything.

because some people are so obessed with hating people and using the bible as an excuse to do so, that even the trace of opposition (real or imagined) is considered a massive threat.

lakeway11
Apr 5th, 2005, 09:21 PM
"traditional Anglicans who have suggested that the Bishop should be "struck down by thunder and lightning bolts"...and spend the rest of his days in purgatory

serves the Episcopal Church right

Cybelle Darkholme
Apr 5th, 2005, 10:07 PM
Oh please.


What gets me is his comparing being called the n word to being lonely and gay.

Listen bishop Whoeverthefuckyouare you can grow up lonely and be straight, gay, bi or whatever.

Plenty of kids grow up lonely.

You could have sought out gay people and if there were none in your town you just have to wait until you grow up and move away like every other small town gay person trapped in the country.

Grow up already.

Being called the N word is a verbal attack. An attack on someone's sense of self worth and dignity and humanity. It has no comparison to being lonely.

SelesFan70
Apr 5th, 2005, 10:41 PM
Well, most Christians believe that Jesus lives inside you, and if having a male inside you if you're a man isn't gay, then I don't know what is! :shrug: I always wonder if god gave Jesus a big penis, though? I mean...he's god's son...surely he had the biggest one ever... :devil:

Wigglytuff
Apr 5th, 2005, 11:36 PM
Well, most Christians believe that Jesus lives inside you, and if having a male inside you if you're a man isn't gay, then I don't know what is! :shrug: I always wonder if god gave Jesus a big penis, though? I mean...he's god's son...surely he had the biggest one ever... :devil:
just plain not right! :devil:

roarke
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:26 AM
blasphemy! The portals are waiting...............

CJ07
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:29 AM
That teeters on blasphamy. What an idiot

And it teeters on blasphamy not because of what he said neccessarily, but the simple fact that this man is warping Jesus's message and his life.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:42 AM
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/04/03/ngay03.jpg

As I often wonder about all people who spend a good deal of time holding signs... don't these people ahve jobs? I suppose this could have been after the work day :angel:

Or maybe they quit their jobs so that they could spend their time doing God's work - hating on people :angel:

Kart
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:46 AM
What an amusing article :lol:.

bionic71
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:53 AM
The guys in the photo look like a fun, interesting and dare I say "traditional" bunch.

SzavayFi
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:57 AM
:o, this guy needs help

BK4ever
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:58 AM
:haha: it would be the ultimate irony if Jesus was proven to be black (even though we all know he was ;) and gay :haha:

Religion the worst thing to happen to man...think of all the crimes, prejudice and hatred committed in the name of religion.

bionic71
Apr 6th, 2005, 01:07 AM
The article has some interesting points of view though....much of what he is saying is simply suggesting that Jesus himself was not a participant in a traditional, nuclear type family. Once again though, the focus of the article ends up being about sex.....too many hang ups.

I cannot understand the problem with articulating the loneliness of many gay youth and the isolation that many feel. If anyone is "outraged" by such admissions then they are simply heartless and if they also claim to be traditional christians then they are simply imposters.

Knizzle
Apr 6th, 2005, 01:11 AM
We have sunk to a whole new low in this country.

Scotso
Apr 6th, 2005, 02:05 AM
:yawn:

CJ07
Apr 6th, 2005, 02:41 AM
We have sunk to a whole new low in this country.
it gets lower every year

"Topaz"
Apr 6th, 2005, 03:53 AM
it gets lower every yearActually, every quarter.

Philbo
Apr 6th, 2005, 05:46 AM
Oh please.


What gets me is his comparing being called the n word to being lonely and gay.

Listen bishop Whoeverthefuckyouare you can grow up lonely and be straight, gay, bi or whatever.

Plenty of kids grow up lonely.

You could have sought out gay people and if there were none in your town you just have to wait until you grow up and move away like every other small town gay person trapped in the country.

Grow up already.

Being called the N word is a verbal attack. An attack on someone's sense of self worth and dignity and humanity. It has no comparison to being lonely.

This post is a load of horsehit I have to say.

If you get called "Poofter or Fagot or pillow biter' or any of the other common words for gays, then that is also an attack on someones self worth and dignity.

Robinson made a good point.

You totally TRIVIALISE the fear that young teens feel when they know they are gay. You trivialise it as 'everyone gets lonely'..

Well growing up gay, the fear is more than just being 'lonely'. Its growing up with the belief that if people - your brothers and sisters and parents included - ever find out the truth, you will be kicked out of the family, disowned, viewed as evil and on your way to hell, rejected by your friends and family and all those you love.

Its much MORE than just being a bit 'lonely'.

Robinsons point is that, if you get called the N word, you have the SUPPORT of your family, you can go home and cry to your Mum and she'll be there for you without any doubt.

Being gay is different - you dont have the belief your Mum will even support you. Lumping that sort of fear into just the usual feelings of loneliness is completely stupid and plain wrong.

Straight people have never had to really think about and consider being rejected by everyone in their life they love for something totally beyone their control, something they have no choice over.

Gay kids live with that fear each and every day growing up.

mandy7
Apr 6th, 2005, 06:08 AM
OMG! someone says he might have been gay!? :eek:
what's happening to this world?! :eek:
before you know it people will say he never even excisted! :eek:
:rolleyes:

F-R-E-A-K
Apr 6th, 2005, 06:21 AM
OMG! someone says he might have been gay!? :eek:
what's happening to this world?! :eek:
before you know it people will say he never even excisted! :eek:
:rolleyes:


:retard: LOL :lol:

:bolt:

azza
Apr 6th, 2005, 06:45 AM
Thats gay :p

Andy_
Apr 6th, 2005, 07:28 AM
The guys in the photo look like a fun, interesting and dare I say "traditional" bunch.

And one of them seems to be keen on a passage from the bible a former poster on this board used to like to quote a lot :tape: :haha:

bionic71
Apr 6th, 2005, 07:48 AM
And one of them seems to be keen on a passage from the bible a former poster on this board used to like to quote a lot :tape: :haha:

I noticed that....made me laugh as well...
"former" you say...I am sure she/he/thing/it still lurks in our midst....as some other unholy creation no doubt.

Andy_
Apr 6th, 2005, 08:34 AM
I am sure she/he/thing/it still lurks in our midst....as some other unholy creation no doubt.

Sounds like Gollum :scared:

M2k
Apr 6th, 2005, 11:40 AM
Oh please.


What gets me is his comparing being called the n word to being lonely and gay.

Listen bishop Whoeverthefuckyouare you can grow up lonely and be straight, gay, bi or whatever.

Plenty of kids grow up lonely.

You could have sought out gay people and if there were none in your town you just have to wait until you grow up and move away like every other small town gay person trapped in the country.



Being called the N word is a verbal attack. An attack on someone's sense of self worth and dignity and humanity. It has no comparison to being lonely.


What an ignorant and idiotic comment from Cybelle Darkholme ---> :scared: The "N" word is obviously a terrible insult (I know I don't feel very good when someone calls me a ******) but you speak as if growing up gay and lonely(to boot) shouldn't affect your self worth and feelings of dignity. Do you know how helpless it feels to be insulted and yet come home and have no one understand how deeply hurt you are?

Andy T
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:30 PM
By Elizabeth Day (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/03/ngay03.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/03/ixhome.html)
(Filed: 03/04/2005)


Bishop Robinson, who married his partner, Mark, said that he had come to reconcile his sexuality with his faith and could feel "God's light and God's life ooze over me like warm butter".



Warm butter! Hmm It seems that the naughty Bishop Robinson is not averse to some sensual experimentation with his partner Mark. ;)

Brings a whole new angle to the "more tea and crumpets, Vicar?" line :lol:

daniela86
Apr 6th, 2005, 12:44 PM
that's one of the most :eek: and :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: thing i have ever heard :mad: :mad:

DunkMachine
Apr 6th, 2005, 02:10 PM
No, he was not gay. He was married to Magdalene

spindoctor
Apr 6th, 2005, 02:32 PM
No, he was not gay. He was married to Magdalene

Just because a man is married to a woman doesn't necessary mean that he's straight. I've met many men who are or have been married to woman but are gay.

nash
Apr 6th, 2005, 02:34 PM
I don't think he actually meant to imply that Jesus was homosexual - just to imply that Jesus led a non-traditional lifestyle, and it was OK for Him. Therefore, all non-traditional lifestyles must be OK, including homosexuality.

I'm not sure where to even begin to address the flaws in that logic...

True, Jesus never married a woman, never had 2.5 children, and never lived in a house with a white picket fence. But to imply that Jesus would approve of his homosexual relationship because of that is just flat out ridiculous.

Jesus affirmed marriage as a relationship between one male and one female in His own words in Mark Chapter 10:

... from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I would like to know what the bishop has to say about that? Here is a man who supposedly has dedicated his life to serving God - but is intentionally living a life contrary to the teachings of the Bible. He deserted his wife and children for another man, and the Anglican church makes him a BISHOP? What kind of example does that set? It's OK to abandon the marriage vows that you made to your wife and run off with another man? Furthermore, it's not only OK, but we'll make you a bishop!

I can understand someone who is not a Christian living such a life, because that person does not believe the teachings of the Bible. But, for someone who professes to be a "man of God" to blatantly ignore the words of Jesus is beyond my comprehension.

I understand we all make mistakes, even Christians, but it is clear he doesn't believe he has made one.

So until he starts teaching the Bible instead of his own personal opinions, then I don't see why anyone would pay attention to a word he says.

Halardfan
Apr 6th, 2005, 02:49 PM
I don't think the right-wing fundementalist christian stuff is at all new, but I do think its true that their power and influence over wider (saner?) society is one the rise...Such groups, and their cheerleaders on Fox News, seem to be in a state of perpetual rage and moral indignation at, well, pretty much everything vaguely modern, progressive or just plain reasonable in society.

What a tiresome bunch.

DemWilliamsGulls
Apr 6th, 2005, 02:53 PM
That is a twisted Irony...but people will take anything and run with it.

griffin
Apr 6th, 2005, 03:06 PM
I don't think he actually meant to imply that Jesus was homosexual - just to imply that Jesus led a non-traditional lifestyle, and it was OK for Him. Therefore, all non-traditional lifestyles must be OK, including homosexuality.

I'm not sure where to even begin to address the flaws in that logic...

...

I understand we all make mistakes, even Christians, but it is clear he doesn't believe he has made one.

So until he starts teaching the Bible instead of his own personal opinions, then I don't see why anyone would pay attention to a word he says.

I hope even you understand that this is a VAST oversimplification (if not misrepresentation) of Robinson's undestanding of his homosexuality and his relationship to God, as well as the Episcopal Church's teachings on homosexuality or human sexuality in general.

Putting arguments over whether homosexuality is ok with God aside for a moment (because I think at this point we've had it 1000 times with no discernable progress or even change on either side), if you are coming from the perspective that the Bible is the literal word or God, and the Episcopalians (at least as it's been explained to me) do not, but rather see scripture as one of three pillars - the others being tradition and experience/interactions with the world - I frankly don't see why they should pay attention to a word you say about Robinson, his fitness to lead in their Church, or their church's teachings.

DevilishAttitude
Apr 6th, 2005, 03:18 PM
Is it allowed to believe in God but not Jesus :confused: I find the Jesus story a little... unbelievable :rolleyes: :lol:

Jesus never had kids or a girlfriend... ;)

nash
Apr 6th, 2005, 03:25 PM
I hope even you understand that this is a VAST oversimplification (if not misrepresentation) of Robinson's undestanding of his homosexuality and his relationship to God, as well as the Episcopal Church's teachings on homosexuality or human sexuality in general.

Putting arguments over whether homosexuality is ok with God aside for a moment (because I think at this point we've had it 1000 times with no discernable progress or even change on either side), if you are coming from the perspective that the Bible is the literal word or God, and the Episcopalians (at least as it's been explained to me) do not, but rather see scripture as one of three pillars - the others being tradition and experience/interactions with the world - I frankly don't see why they should pay attention to a word you say about Robinson, his fitness to lead in their Church, or their church's teachings.

See that's the difference. The church CANNOT afford to put aside the issue of whether something is OK with God or not. If we allow tradition and "experience" to enter in to our decision making processes we are BOUND TO FAILURE, which is exactly what has happened here. The Anglican church has turned aside from Biblical teaching because of their own "experience" - in other words, their own wants & desires.

Frankly, Griffin, what I (or you or anyone else) thinks DOESN"T MATTER - it's what GOD thinks that counts. And the Bible is the ONLY word of God that we have. The Bible clearly, clearly, clearly (did I say it enough) teaches that sex outside of a marriage relationship between one male and one female is wrong. I don't know how Robinson's "experience" can directly contradict the Bible and still be right.

Fantastic
Apr 6th, 2005, 03:25 PM
If gay = love, and God = love, then God = gay. That's my Christian logic for the day. ;)

Andy T
Apr 6th, 2005, 04:10 PM
Just because a man is married to a woman doesn't necessary mean that he's straight. I've met many men who are or have been married to woman but are gay.

Well said: I'm sleeping with one!

griffin
Apr 6th, 2005, 04:21 PM
See that's the difference. The church CANNOT afford to put aside the issue of whether something is OK with God or not.

Not the church, nash, you and I (and the others on this board). The Episcopal Church, like many denominations, has been having a lively dialog/debate/argument on these issues for years, entirely on their own and without our help. I just don't see the point of you and I butting heads AGAIN over God and gays.

Unless I've completely misread your statements on this board, you see the Bible as the literal word of God. Again, forgetting whether I think that's actually what's going on, that is where your faith and beliefs come from. Right? By that standard, pretty much all the Episcopal Church's teachings are going amount to "personal opinion" since that is very much NOT their approach to things. And as a whole they've already come to very different conclusions than you have about homosexuality, homosexual relationships, gays in the priesthood, and from the sound of it, divorce.

They're trying to understand what God wants just like you are, whether or not you share or approve of their way of getting there.

Fearful Jesuit
Apr 6th, 2005, 05:16 PM
oh, come on!

nash
Apr 6th, 2005, 06:28 PM
I just don't see the point of you and I butting heads AGAIN over God and gays.


Well at least we agree on something! :)


Unless I've completely misread your statements on this board, you see the Bible as the literal word of God.

Yes, you are correct


Again, forgetting whether I think that's actually what's going on, that is where your faith and beliefs come from. Right?

Again, correct


By that standard, pretty much all the Episcopal Church's teachings are going amount to "personal opinion" since that is very much NOT their approach to things.

Sadly, I agree...


And as a whole they've already come to very different conclusions than you have about homosexuality, homosexual relationships, gays in the priesthood, and from the sound of it, divorce.

I wouldn't say "as a whole", but many of them, yes.


They're trying to understand what God wants just like you are, whether or not you share or approve of their way of getting there.


Here's where I disagree. I don't believe they are seeking to understand God's will, but rather to satisfy their own sinful desires. There are a few things that all Christians, regardless of demoninational differences, have in common. One of those is faith in Jesus Christ. Another is the Bible. Now, if the Bible clearly teaches that murder is wrong, but I really, really want to murder someone, does that make it right?

griffin
Apr 6th, 2005, 07:32 PM
Now, if the Bible clearly teaches that murder is wrong, but I really, really want to murder someone, does that make it right?

Depends, who are we talking about? (sorry, bad joke)

No, it does not. Since we're dealing in oversimplification: the Bible does however condone slavery, and having sex with slaves, and rape (among other things). Should we make them legal again?

I really don't want to put myself in the position of explaining someone else's religious traditions, but it seems to me that when you're dealing with a text created by human hands (whoever's words they were transcribing), that often seems to contradict itself, trying to understand the meaning and spirit of the law rather than just reading the letter is a valid approach.

I do of course understand that you disagree.

nash
Apr 6th, 2005, 07:54 PM
Depends, who are we talking about? (sorry, bad joke)
:lol: actually, good joke!


No, it does not. Since we're dealing in oversimplification: the Bible does however condone slavery, and having sex with slaves, and rape (among other things). Should we make them legal again?


Depends, who are we talking about? (sorry, bad joke)



trying to understand the meaning and spirit of the law rather than just reading the letter is a valid approach.

I do of course understand that you disagree.

Yes, I disagree, but I respect your right to have your own opinion... Nice debate, griffin - always a pleasure to talk to you! :wavey:

JustineTime
Apr 6th, 2005, 08:33 PM
I don't think he actually meant to imply that Jesus was homosexual - just to imply that Jesus led a non-traditional lifestyle, and it was OK for Him. Therefore, all non-traditional lifestyles must be OK, including homosexuality.

I'm not sure where to even begin to address the flaws in that logic...

True, Jesus never married a woman, never had 2.5 children, and never lived in a house with a white picket fence. But to imply that Jesus would approve of his homosexual relationship because of that is just flat out ridiculous.

Jesus affirmed marriage as a relationship between one male and one female in His own words in Mark Chapter 10:

... from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

I would like to know what the bishop has to say about that? Here is a man who supposedly has dedicated his life to serving God - but is intentionally living a life contrary to the teachings of the Bible. He deserted his wife and children for another man, and the Anglican church makes him a BISHOP? What kind of example does that set? It's OK to abandon the marriage vows that you made to your wife and run off with another man? Furthermore, it's not only OK, but we'll make you a bishop!

I can understand someone who is not a Christian living such a life, because that person does not believe the teachings of the Bible. But, for someone who professes to be a "man of God" to blatantly ignore the words of Jesus is beyond my comprehension.

I understand we all make mistakes, even Christians, but it is clear he doesn't believe he has made one.

So until he starts teaching the Bible instead of his own personal opinions, then I don't see why anyone would pay attention to a word he says.

I have to echo the "serves the Episcopal Church right" sentiment posted earlier. :tape: :tears:

1 Timothy 3:1-7 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?[!!!]) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. :rolleyes:

This guy's short on several counts. :(

:shrug:

griffin
Apr 6th, 2005, 08:45 PM
I have to echo the "serves the Episcopal Church right" sentiment posted earlier. :tape: :tears:

1 Timothy 3:1-7 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?[!!!]) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. :rolleyes:

This guy's short on several counts. :(

:shrug:

One wife? And yet the Catholic Church insists on a celibate preisthood? But I digress...

His "wife" is a man, and while I understand that this will seriously bunch some people's panties, from what I know of the man he certainly fits all these requirements.

Bishop Robinson has been attacked and slandered, and he has turned the other cheek. He has met ugliness and venom with patience, kindness and "Christian" love. Really, it's something you should aspire to.

Cybelle Darkholme
Apr 6th, 2005, 08:50 PM
This post is a load of horsehit I have to say.

If you get called "Poofter or Fagot or pillow biter' or any of the other common words for gays, then that is also an attack on someones self worth and dignity.

Robinson made a good point.

You totally TRIVIALISE the fear that young teens feel when they know they are gay. You trivialise it as 'everyone gets lonely'..

Well growing up gay, the fear is more than just being 'lonely'. Its growing up with the belief that if people - your brothers and sisters and parents included - ever find out the truth, you will be kicked out of the family, disowned, viewed as evil and on your way to hell, rejected by your friends and family and all those you love.

Its much MORE than just being a bit 'lonely'.

Robinsons point is that, if you get called the N word, you have the SUPPORT of your family, you can go home and cry to your Mum and she'll be there for you without any doubt.

Being gay is different - you dont have the belief your Mum will even support you. Lumping that sort of fear into just the usual feelings of loneliness is completely stupid and plain wrong.

Straight people have never had to really think about and consider being rejected by everyone in their life they love for something totally beyone their control, something they have no choice over.

Gay kids live with that fear each and every day growing up.

Sorry but that was not his point. He compared being called the N word to being lonely.

As far as I know gay people dont have to come out of the closet. My brother didnt come out until he was ready. Nobody knew. Why? Because he doesnt fit the stereotype.

Everyone feels lonliness sometime or another. Why do Gay people get the lockdown on lonely?

What about a child of color adopted into an all white neighborhood. If he feels lonely it is not the same is being called the N word or C word or S word which is an attack.

If you cannot see the difference that is your problem. Its quite clear to me.

nash
Apr 6th, 2005, 08:53 PM
His "wife" is a man, and while I understand that this will seriously bunch some people's panties, from what I know of the man he certainly fits all these requirements.


Well bunch my panties, but a man cannot be a WIFE, by definition. A wife is FEMALE. It amazes me the lengths that some people will go to justify their behavior...

griffin
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:08 PM
Sorry but that was not his point. He compared being called the N word to being lonely.

As far as I know gay people dont have to come out of the closet. My brother didnt come out until he was ready. Nobody knew. Why? Because he doesnt fit the stereotype.

Everyone feels lonliness sometime or another. Why do Gay people get the lockdown on lonely?

What about a child of color adopted into an all white neighborhood. If he feels lonely it is not the same is being called the N word or C word or S word which is an attack.

If you cannot see the difference that is your problem. Its quite clear to me.

I understand this kind of thing hits a nerve, and that people should be careful when they're making comparisons between diffent kinds of oppression, but it was pretty clear to me when I read it that he was not comparing being called a ****** to being lonely(which of course is ridiculous): he was trying to help people understand the fear and isolation that many gay people have to deal with. If you're black, or an immigrant, or poor, or jewish, odds are your family knows it, and are so as well. If you catch shit for it, you've got a support system around you who's probably been through it to and will stand by you.

Most gay people do not have that kind of support and validation. If your brother went home and told your family he was beaten up for being black, do you think your parents would have thrown him out of the house for it? Because I know gay kids that's happened to - and just the fear of something like that can be pretty crushing. That's not to say it's harder or you're oppressed more if you're gay, it's just trying to help people understand (it's also a heck of a lot more than "just being lonely").

Robinson should have chosen his words more carefully, but I wish you would step back and consider his meaning a little more carefully, too.

griffin
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:09 PM
Well bunch my panties, but a man cannot be a WIFE, by definition. A wife is FEMALE. It amazes me the lengths that some people will go to justify their behavior...

And it amazes me the lengths that some people will go to diminsh other people's lives.

nash
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:13 PM
And it amazes me the lengths that some people will go to diminsh other people's lives.

I'm not diminishing anyone's life. I don't make fun of anyone for being gay, or call anyone names, or put anyone down. I know firsthand how powerful the temptation to turn away from God can be.

apoet29
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:21 PM
I'm not diminishing anyone's life. I don't make fun of anyone for being gay, or call anyone names, or put anyone down. I know firsthand how powerful the temptation to turn away from God can be.

So by being gay, you've turned away from God?

JustineTime
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:22 PM
Unless I've completely misread your statements on this board, you see the Bible as the literal word of God. Again, forgetting whether I think that's actually what's going on, that is where your faith and beliefs come from. Right? By that standard, pretty much all the Episcopal Church's teachings are going amount to "personal opinion" since that is very much NOT their approach to things. And as a whole they've already come to very different conclusions than you have about homosexuality, homosexual relationships, gays in the priesthood, and from the sound of it, divorce.

They're trying to understand what God wants just like you are, whether or not you share or approve of their way of getting there.

Scripture, Tradition, and Reason
The Anglican approach to reading and interpreting the Bible was first articulated by Richard Hooker, also in the 16th Century. While Christians universally acknowledge the Bible (or the Holy Scriptures) as the Word of God and completely sufficient to our reconciliation to God, what the Bible says must always speak to us in our own time and place.
The Church, as a worshiping body of faithful people, has for two thousand years amassed experience of God and of loving Jesus, and what they have said to us through the centuries about the Bible is critical to our understanding it in our own context. The traditions of the Church in interpreting Scripture connect all generations of believers together and give us a starting point for our own understanding.

Episcopalians believe that every Christian must build an understanding and relationship with God’s Word in the Bible, and to do that, God has given us intelligence and our own experience, which we refer to as “Reason.” Based on the text of the Bible itself, and what Christians have taught us about it through the ages, we then must sort out our own understanding of it as it relates to our own lives.

Prov 3:5-7 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

Prov. 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. [This was important enough for Solomon to say it twice: 16:25]

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.[Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33]

2 Timothy 3:1-9 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.

Verse 16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

nash
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:28 PM
So by being gay, you've turned away from God?

Any sexual relationship other than that between one man and one woman married to each other is contrary to the word of God.

JustineTime
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:28 PM
One wife? And yet the Catholic Church insists on a celibate preisthood? But I digress...

The Catholic Church is wrong about a lot of things. What's your point? :shrug:

His "wife" is a man, and while I understand that this will seriously bunch some people's panties, from what I know of the man he certainly fits all these requirements.

Consider my panties bunched. :p That's ridiculous on its face and you know it. Double :p :p

Bishop Robinson has been attacked and slandered, and he has turned the other cheek. He has met ugliness and venom with patience, kindness and "Christian" love. Really, it's something you should aspire to.

:bigclap: :rolleyes:

I do. ;) And may I call your attention to the fact that I took issue with the Church itself for promoting this guy and not with the man himself? :hehehe:

:shrug:

apoet29
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:36 PM
Any sexual relationship other than that between one man and one woman married to each other is contrary to the word of God.

Did anyone ever stop to think that the word of God, if it indeed comes from God, considering that these biblical rules were written by man, could be wrong?

nash
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:38 PM
Did anyone ever stop to think that the word of God, if it indeed comes from God, considering that these biblical rules were written by man, could be wrong?

I think probably everyone questions that at some point in their life. That's why becoming a Christian is a personal decision to accept Jesus as Savior. At some point, each of us are at a crossroads - we can either choose to accept God or reject Him.

I've made my choice, and I'm sticking with God! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

apoet29
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:39 PM
I think probably everyone questions that at some point in their life. That's why becoming a Christian is a personal decision to accept Jesus as Savior. At some point, each of us are at a crossroads - we can either choose to accept God or reject Him.

I've made my choice, and I'm sticking with God! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

The reason that I asked that question is that I have a hard time taking the Bible seriously, when it was a book, essentially written by men.

JustineTime
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:39 PM
Did anyone ever stop to think that the word of God, if it indeed comes from God, considering that these biblical rules were written by man, could be wrong?

Yes.

Many times. :)

:shrug:

Andy T
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:41 PM
2 Timothy 3:1-9 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.








The way I understand this:
Men shall love themselves. All the words that come afterwards refer to self promotion and self-interest, not homosexual relationships.
"Natural affection" is not defined but again what follows suggests without humanity or respect for others.
"Lovers of pleasure" is not expressly linked to homosexuality or even sex. In addition, the pb is that pleasure is loved more than God, not that pleasure is loved at all.

This whole passage seems to be more about attacking the self-interest and hedonism and has zero to do with homosexuality.

nash
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:47 PM
The reason that I asked that question is that I have a hard time taking the Bible seriously, when it was a book, essentially written by men.

Actually, many books, written by many men over a period of thousands of years - all of which cohesively fit together into a perfect work. The Old Testament is a picture of what was to come - Jesus, the Messiah. From Abraham's "almost" sacrifice of his only son, Isaac, to Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, to the Jewish tabernacle & temple, the Old Testament is filled with symbolism of a man who would not even be born for thousands of years.

The new testament is filled with evidence that Jesus fulfilled each and every one of the prophecies made about the Messiah in the Old Testament.

A book written by mere men could not accomplish that task... The evidence is there, but it takes faith to accept it. The world says it's false, but Jesus says "be of good cheer - I have overcome the world"...

apoet29
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:51 PM
Actually, many books, written by many men over a period of thousands of years - all of which cohesively fit together into a perfect work. The Old Testament is a picture of what was to come - Jesus, the Messiah. From Abraham's "almost" sacrifice of his only son, Isaac, to Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, to the Jewish tabernacle & temple, the Old Testament is filled with symbolism of a man who would not even be born for thousands of years.

The new testament is filled with evidence that Jesus fulfilled each and every one of the prophecies made about the Messiah in the Old Testament.

A book written by mere men could not accomplish that task... The evidence is there, but it takes faith to accept it. The world says it's false, but Jesus says "be of good cheer - I have overcome the world"...

Right, but these are men, who proclaim to speak the Word of God, but how do we know that they are? That is my point. It takes faith to accept that, but I have a hard time with that since the "Word of God" has been misused horribly over the centuries to actively discriminate against the so-called wrong kind of person.

nash
Apr 6th, 2005, 09:56 PM
Right, but these are men, who proclaim to speak the Word of God, but how do we know that they are? That is my point. It takes faith to accept that, but I have a hard time with that since the "Word of God" has been misused horribly over the centuries to actively discriminate against the so-called wrong kind of person.

apoet - I'm just about to leave the office for the day, but I promise that tomorrow I'll try to answer your question to the best of my ability...

Hope you have a nice evening... Talk to you tomorrow...

-Nash-

backhanddtl4
Apr 6th, 2005, 10:35 PM
How about this idea? There never was a Jesus!!!! hahaha, just kidding...or am I?

Borris
Apr 6th, 2005, 10:43 PM
Jesus was a psycho... believing he was the son of God and the virgin Mary, how naive can you get...

LindsayRocks89
Apr 7th, 2005, 12:34 AM
what a stupid article.

JustineTime
Apr 7th, 2005, 01:16 AM
Jesus was a psycho... believing he was the son of God and the virgin Mary, how naive can you get...

...and being convinced enough of His claim to be willing to go so far as to die a horrible, excruciating death to fulfill His earthly mission...that's BIG TIME crazy! :cuckoo:

...or :unsure:...

:hehehe:

Rev. 1:17-18 And when I [John] saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

TRUE! :yeah:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

:hehehe:

;)

JustineTime
Apr 7th, 2005, 01:34 AM
The way I understand this:
Men shall love themselves. All the words that come afterwards refer to self promotion and self-interest, not homosexual relationships.
"Natural affection" is not defined but again what follows suggests without humanity or respect for others.
"Lovers of pleasure" is not expressly linked to homosexuality or even sex. In addition, the pb is that pleasure is loved more than God, not that pleasure is loved at all.

This whole passage seems to be more about attacking the self-interest and hedonism and has zero to do with homosexuality.

You are correct. The passage is most definitely NOT speaking expressly of homosexuality. What it DOES intimate is that in the last days people would be wholly given over to pleasure-seeking, hence a variety of sins, of which homosexuality is but one.

What I think is extremely pertinent to the subject at hand is that people such as this Episcopal bishop and the Church itself rationalize sin and make it acceptable, indeed claiming that our "experience" makes it irrational to do otherwise. "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." Basically they are doing nothing more than trying to twist the Word of God to justify their evil deeds.

Prov. 19:21 There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

Verse 27 Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.

The Word of God is not elastic, as some try to make it.

Hulet
Apr 7th, 2005, 01:43 AM
I always thought of Jesus as asexual (Neither hetro- nor homo-sexual). Incidentally, I watched "The motorcycle diaries" the other day, and Che Guevera is sort of similarly depicted with not such a great desire for sex (in comparison to his companion). This strenghens my hypothesis that Jesus was indeedy a commie.

deja_entendu
Apr 7th, 2005, 05:44 AM
It's amazing how Jesus Christ, some crazy kid with good intentions, managed to DESTROY the entire world as far as I'm concerned: he spawned catholicism (and thus christianity), which has killed millions upon millions of people, oppressed billions upon billions, and brain-washed many more billions upon billions... oh well... religion really is the bane of human existence. :wavey:

But it would indeed be COMPLETELY IDEAL if some old scrolls were discovered that prove that Jesus was a nelly bottom who could ride it like those girls in the fishnets on 12th & Market Street... :rolls:

Andy T
Apr 7th, 2005, 07:18 AM
You are correct. The passage is most definitely NOT speaking expressly of homosexuality. What it DOES intimate is that in the last days people would be wholly given over to pleasure-seeking, hence a variety of sins, of which homosexuality is but one.


Agreed up to //
"What it DOES intimate is that in the last days people would be wholly given over to pleasure-seeking, //

the rest
"hence a variety of sins
of which homosexuality is but one."
is interpretation:

JustineTime
Apr 7th, 2005, 01:55 PM
Agreed up to //
"What it DOES intimate is that in the last days people would be wholly given over to pleasure-seeking, //

the rest
"hence a variety of sins
of which homosexuality is but one."
is interpretation:


True, but logical interpretation based on other scriptures:

2 Timothy 3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Romans 1:27 - And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I don't want to post the whole thing, but Chapter 1 of Romans elaborates further.

nash
Apr 7th, 2005, 02:16 PM
Right, but these are men, who proclaim to speak the Word of God, but how do we know that they are?


Hi apoet!

I believe it's because men who weren't even alive at the same time could not have conspired together to produce a book as perfect as the Bible.

Here is a link to an excellent article on the reliability of the Bible:

http://www.christiananswers.net/AIIA/ap-vol10-no4.html

Also, many of these men paid for their faith with their very lives. It would not be likely that they would die for something they knew to be a lie.



That is my point. It takes faith to accept that, but I have a hard time with that since the "Word of God" has been misused horribly over the centuries to actively discriminate against the so-called wrong kind of person.

Yes, men have misused the Bible many times in history and caused great harm. But that doesn't make the words of the Bible any less true, or God any less powerful.

It is when we take our own wants & needs & try to make the Bible fit them that we get into trouble. This is what I believe the Anglican Church has done. It should be the other way around - we should be fitting our lives to the teachings of the Bible. Then, we will receive the promises that God has given us in His word.

nash
Apr 7th, 2005, 04:09 PM
Only brainwashed, psychotic, schizophrenic, desperate, freaks and ex-cons people take everything seriously in the bible from A to Z. There might be not a global "conspiracy", but if you take consideration it was written by men, you can't start taking every sentence of the book as the word of God. Just a question of common sense - which is something delusional people lack.

brainwashed? nah
psychotic? definitely! :)
schizophrenic? not me, but that other guy...
desperate? sometimes
freak? without a doubt
ex-con? :tape:

sticks and stones, dude...

:wavey:

-Nash-

SelesFan70
Apr 7th, 2005, 04:21 PM
I don't have anything against people believing in a god who sent his son to earth to die for all of our sins, but I just hate how people pick and choose which parts of the bible to take literally and conveniently use the old testament to defend their point but the same people will deny the old testament is relevent because jesus became the new covenent. I say the same for muslims and that damn koran they so love, too. Too bad christians and muslims can't see how fanatically similar they are.... :tape:

Borris
Apr 7th, 2005, 05:41 PM
I think probably everyone questions that at some point in their life. That's why becoming a Christian is a personal decision to accept Jesus as Savior. At some point, each of us are at a crossroads - we can either choose to accept God or reject Him.

I've made my choice, and I'm sticking with God! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

So you agree that prostitutes should be stoned to death because the bible (=God) says so?

Borris
Apr 7th, 2005, 05:51 PM
I think probably everyone questions that at some point in their life. That's why becoming a Christian is a personal decision to accept Jesus as Savior. At some point, each of us are at a crossroads - we can either choose to accept God or reject Him.

I've made my choice, and I'm sticking with God! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

So you agree that prostitutes should be stoned to death because the bible (=God) says so?

Dancehall_Queen_
Apr 7th, 2005, 05:53 PM
I bet this "priest" saved his first encounter of homosexual sex till the wedding night too....

nash
Apr 7th, 2005, 06:10 PM
So you agree that prostitutes should be stoned to death because the bible (=God) says so?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

griffin
Apr 7th, 2005, 06:26 PM
a man cannot be a WIFE, by definition. A wife is FEMALE.

Just as a clarification - imo this is reduces the roles people play in each other's lives, who they are and what they mean to each other, to "who has what genitalia" (oversimplified, but that's the gist of it)

Now, as we've veered of into the traditional "the Bible says/No it doesn't/Which doesn't matter anyway/yes it does" portion of our program, I'm off. May I remind everyone to play nice, and I tip my hat to those of you who already are :)

M2k
Apr 7th, 2005, 08:22 PM
But it would indeed be COMPLETELY IDEAL if some old scrolls were discovered that prove that Jesus was a nelly bottom who could ride it like those girls in the fishnets on 12th & Market Street... :rolls:

OMG ---> :lol: this whole thread changes from one extreme to the other* :lol:

nash
Apr 7th, 2005, 09:55 PM
I wasn't referring to you but in general, I've never met someone mentally sane who completely believe in the Bible from A to Z.

You have now! Nice you meet you, Dr. B...

-Nash-

deja_entendu
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:19 PM
You have now! Nice you meet you, Dr. B...

-Nash-

It's people like you that will keep Tennessee and its similar conservative, bible humping high-school dropout states the cultural armpit of the United States :hearts:

Think of how much more productive, powerful, and foward-thinking our country would be if we could somehow annex every state between California and the east coast... :drool:

griffin
Apr 7th, 2005, 10:26 PM
It's people like you that will keep Tennessee and its similar conservative, bible humping high-school dropout states the cultural armpit of the United States :hearts:

Think of how much more productive, powerful, and foward-thinking our country would be if we could somehow annex every state between California and the east coast... :drool:

Well now THERE'S a constructive addition to the discussion :rolleyes:

(now I really am out of here)

deja_entendu
Apr 7th, 2005, 11:37 PM
Well now THERE'S a constructive addition to the discussion :rolleyes:

(now I really am out of here)

My patience for the ignorant is thin! Perhaps next time I'll offer the brainwashed masses a cup of tea.

JustineTime
Apr 8th, 2005, 04:15 AM
So you agree that prostitutes should be stoned to death because the bible (=God) says so?

The Bible says God told the NATION of Israel to stone adulterers, etc...

1 Peter 2:13-15 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

'Nuff said. :rolleyes:

Cybelle Darkholme
Apr 8th, 2005, 04:49 AM
I understand this kind of thing hits a nerve, and that people should be careful when they're making comparisons between diffent kinds of oppression, but it was pretty clear to me when I read it that he was not comparing being called a ****** to being lonely(which of course is ridiculous): he was trying to help people understand the fear and isolation that many gay people have to deal with. If you're black, or an immigrant, or poor, or jewish, odds are your family knows it, and are so as well. If you catch shit for it, you've got a support system around you who's probably been through it to and will stand by you.

Most gay people do not have that kind of support and validation. If your brother went home and told your family he was beaten up for being black, do you think your parents would have thrown him out of the house for it? Because I know gay kids that's happened to - and just the fear of something like that can be pretty crushing. That's not to say it's harder or you're oppressed more if you're gay, it's just trying to help people understand (it's also a heck of a lot more than "just being lonely").

Robinson should have chosen his words more carefully, but I wish you would step back and consider his meaning a little more carefully, too.

Okay I get what you are saying and I agree. I also think he should have worded this message a bit better to avoid confusion.

Cybelle Darkholme
Apr 8th, 2005, 04:52 AM
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

Wow great quote! Now why can't you ultra conservative right wing idiots live by this motto?

JustineTime
Apr 8th, 2005, 05:05 AM
I wasn't referring to you but in general, I've never met someone mentally sane who completely believe in the Bible from A to Z. I don't mean this as an offensive way, but if someone believe every sentence of the Bible is God's exact words, I seriously question his mental state. This is a book written by MEN, and translated by MEN, nuff' said.

Just to make an analogy, let's say there's a child who saw a murder and when he's older he decides to write a very detailed book about it. Of course there's gonna be a couple of things that are factually wrong, simply because memory isn't perfect, because sometimes you think you really heard, thought or saw something, but in reality it never really happened. That doesn't mean that child is a liar and that it's a conspiracy. :rolleyes: Also, sometimes you heard something from a source you think is reliable, but in reality it never happened.

Even if you have faith, that's not incompatible with being critical. If people want to believe in Jesus, his story and his message of love, I respect that, but I would think it's more appropriate to respect his message overall, not starting to dissect the Bible and build morality on some random, vague sentences that we have no way to know for sure if they are God's words or not.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

As for God, His way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: He is a buckler to all those that trust in Him.

Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth: :hehehe: shall not make haste.

To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.

O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was :hehehe: God.

Verse 14 And the Word :hehehe: was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Daniel
Apr 8th, 2005, 06:52 AM
:yawn:

nash
Apr 8th, 2005, 01:27 PM
Wow great quote! Now why can't you ultra conservative right wing idiots live by this motto?

What makes you think I don't?

Borris
Apr 8th, 2005, 01:33 PM
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

Indeed, the bible is full of contradictions. If God really said all the words in the bible, he must have been a schizofrenic.

nash
Apr 8th, 2005, 01:40 PM
It's people like you that will keep Tennessee and its similar conservative, bible humping high-school dropout states the cultural armpit of the United States :hearts:

Think of how much more productive, powerful, and foward-thinking our country would be if we could somehow annex every state between California and the east coast... :drool:

How easy it is to dismiss someone as an ignorant high school dropout because he or she believes in something you don't understand. (You might just be surprised if you knew more about me! :secret: )

And, I hope you're right. I'm doing everything I can to spread the message of Jesus to my community and state. If that makes me the cultural armpit of the US, then so be it!

Have a blessed day!

-Nash-

JustineTime
Apr 8th, 2005, 01:58 PM
If John says so that MUST be true huh. :hehehe:

Which one are you, the ex-con, the schizo or the desperate. :lol:

All three...:hehehe:...in one! ;) :p


A little Solomon:

Prov. 30:1-6 The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal, Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man. I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy. Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended :hehehe:? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's :hehehe: name, if thou canst tell? Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

A little David:

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Verse 12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.

A little Prophet:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The :bowdown: Prince of Peace.:bowdown: Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. The Lord sent a word:hehehe: into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.

:hehehe:

A little bull:

Psalm 22:12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

Verse 16-18 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Nahhh! They're ALL full of it! :shrug:

nash
Apr 8th, 2005, 02:01 PM
Indeed, the bible is full of contradictions. If God really said all the words in the bible, he must have been a schizofrenic.

Not really. There may seem to be a lot of contradictions, but if you study in depth and not just look on the surface, there really aren't any.

Jesus came to complete or fulfill the Jewish law and sacrificial system, which was an imperfect symbol of the Messiah who was to come. His sacrifice of his own blood shed on the cross removed the need for any more priests, animal sacrifices, and the like.

God set up the Jewish law for a reason - to point to Jesus, who was to come. The Jews of Jesus' day accused Him of the same things that you're pointing out now - that He couldn't be the Messiah because He spoke things contrary to the law. What they didn't understand (and couldn't see) was that the entire law was a symbol of imperfect justice, which could only be made perfect through a Savior.

BigB08822
Apr 8th, 2005, 08:44 PM
Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and this is fact. They even had a child together.

nash
Apr 8th, 2005, 09:07 PM
Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and this is fact. They even had a child together.

I hope you're not buying into that "Da Vinci Code" stuff. It's been proven to be a total sham. Don't believe a word of it...

BigB08822
Apr 9th, 2005, 02:34 AM
How was it proven to be a total sham?