Jul 3, 2013 8:27am

There are times when we forget the love we have from our Lord Jesus and start thinking materially. The purpose Christ gave us was to bring people to Him stop worrying about how you are doing in this life He will guide you.

MATTHEW 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

In most of our minds we will never be able to do the Lords work very well and we will let it get us down. The devil will use that against us and try to keep us from doing what Christ asks of us. There will never be a perfect person here on earth. We can’t let life get us down so far that were not doing anything at all.

ROMANS 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

When we ask Christ for salvation Christ covers our sin from before, now, and after too we’re God can’t see our sin. We are perfect in Gods eyes and there is no way to lose that salvation after we truly ask for it. That is the reason Christ had to die for us.

1CORINTHIANS 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

Don't convince your self that your not accomplishing anything. Several churches have been weak because of that. Meditate on doing our Lords work and you will find yourself more free of the sin in your life and you can do the Lords work well.

REVELATION 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Here is a sample prayer if you're not saved today ask God for salvation in Jesus Christ's Name. Saying this prayer is a way to declare to God that you are relying on Christ for your salvation.

The words themselves will not save you. Only faith "full belief" in Jesus Christ can provide salvation.

“Dear Heavenly father I know that I have sinned against you and am deserving of punishment. But Christ took the punishment that I deserve, so that through faith in Him I could be forgiven?"

"Jesus Christ, with your help I place my trust in you for salvation, and I ask that you will forgive me of my sins. I thank you for your wonderful grace and forgiveness.”

Go tell a Christian church you have asked Christ for salvation and go to Sunday school you'll find fellowship and the study of the bible to be a great help as you grow as a Christian.


Jul 3, 2013 9:12am

Have you really learned nothing?


Jul 3, 2013 12:00pm

I really do think that Jesus was a gay man.  He surrounded himself by single men who were instructed not to lust after women.  Then, in the New Testament we see that Jesus didn't condemn homosexuality.  The apostle Paul described relationships as being between a man and a woman, but Paul's life was much later than Jesus's life and Paul never met Jesus.

So, Jesus was totes gay.


Jul 3, 2013 12:09pm



Jul 3, 2013 8:18pm

Jesus was not gay; he was quite the bro


Jul 3, 2013 8:23pm

Why couldn't he be a gay bro?  Or a married bro?  Is it really Paul/Saul we have to listen to?  Not saying Jesus was a bad guy, just saying he was a human. There are records of him outside the bible ... kinda.

Alls I know is that dad doesn't seem to realize that the only people who even realize he posts anything is people who don't care or just get pissed off that he's using the same set of data to an audience who no longer wants to hear that same old rubbish.


Jul 3, 2013 9:10pm




How about some peeps in this thread take a seat and sit back and relax.
Just ... take a break.


Jul 5, 2013 1:41pm

The only real source we have on Jesus are the Gospels and the writings of Paul, neither of which implies Jesus was gay.  You can only infer from the source material, and this kind of speculation is not only anti-religious but academically stupid.  



Jul 5, 2013 6:46pm

There's actually a solid argument in favor of gay Jesus.  Of the twelve apostles and Jesus there is roughly a 50% chance that one of them was gay.  Jesus, however, was the one who gathered the all men group and instructed them not to lust after women while never condemning homosexuality.

Being gay isn't anti-religious.  In many ways Jesus was a rebel of his time and perhaps being gay was another thing he wanted to change public opinion of.

In fact, I would say that the case for gay Jesus is stronger than the case that God is against all abortions.  The word "abortion" is not mentioned any where in the Bible.  There are, however, many verses in which God aborts a pregnancy by causing women to miscarriage.

For example, if a woman had cheated on her husband then God was to abort her unborn fetus. [Numbers 5:11-21]


Jul 5, 2013 7:35pm

Maybe in modern times, God's way of aborting fetuses is through the hands of humble mortal abortion doctors. Clinic bombers are doing Satan's work.


Jul 5, 2013 8:21pm


Church tradition from a number of sources have 10 out of 12 apostles as married.  That means there was a 1/11th chance one of them was gay.  Statistically it doesn't matter as there is nothing in the source material that gives you any evidence to back up your hypothesis.  During that time only men would have been leaders of a group, and you have ignored Mary Magdalene, as well as Mary and Martha: sisters of Lazarus.  Jesus stated not to lust after women for it was adultery, which while conservative is compatible with Jewish law.  The absence of homosexuality may speak to their rarity, their ostracism in society, or the fact that it had been plainly banned in OT law.  

If Jesus wanted to change the public perception of homosexuality he had the opportunity to do so, and he didn't.  

Jesus' sexuality and abortion are separate issues, evidence for one is not evidence for the other and lack of evidence for one is not lack of evidence for the other.  

In the Bible, the Greek word brephos is often used of the newly born, infants, and other children. For example, in Acts 7:19, brephos refers to the children killed at Pharaoh's command. But in Luke 1:41,44, the same word is used for John the Baptist while he was yet a fetus in the womb, a pre-born infant.

The Bible also informs us that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb, indicating personhood (Luke 1:15). In addition, the Greek word Huios means "son," but it is also used in Luke 1:36 to refer to John the Baptist's existence in the womb before birth, at six months.

The Hebrew word yeled is usually used to refer to children - a child, a boy, etc. But in Exodus 21:22, it is used of a child in the womb.

In Genesis 25:22, the word yeladim (children) is used in reference to Rebecca's children struggling while still in her womb.

In Job 3:3, the word geber is used to describe the conception of Job as "a man child is conceived." That word, geber, is a Hebrew noun that is usually translated as a man, male or husband.

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

21 These curses shall light upon thee: The Lord make thee a curse, and an example for all among his people: may he make thy thigh to rot, and may thy belly swell and burst asunder.

"Thigh" is referring to the sexual organs, and the belly is referring to the internal organs. Translations that have "miscarry" are incorrect translations.  The older Douay-Rheims and King James Bible have "thigh."  Even if you were right, an abortion could only be moral if supervised by a priest, which no Catholic priest would do.  

What God does is under His jurisdiction.  Everyone dies directly or indirectly according to God's schedule, but that does not give us liberty to murder.  

What9Thousand: You could say that about any institution that kills as being God's will.  What makes it true or not is whether it is approved and authorized by the Church, which it is not. 






Jul 5, 2013 8:28pm

What makes it true or not is whether it is approved and authorized by the Church, which it is not.

Maybe the church is interpreting god's will incorrectly. The church has had all kinds of fuckups throughout history, so it's not like it's infallible.

Maybe the last pope was a fraud and that's why he had to step down.


Jul 5, 2013 8:58pm

Church tradition held that the world is flat.  Clearly, church tradition can be quite wrong.  Besides, as you said a few minutes ago:

"You can only infer from the source material, and this kind of speculation is not only anti-religious but academically stupid."

Indeed, no where in the Bible does it say that Jesus or any of the twelve apostles were married or had any intimate relationships with women.

"The absence of homosexuality may speak to their rarity, their ostracism in society, or the fact that it had been plainly banned in OT law."

The contrast between Jesus (who never spoke negatively of homosexuality) and the Old Testament's hatred and slaughter of homosexuals is quite telling, I think.  Regardless if Jesus himself was gay or not, he evidently did not wish to speak ill of or condemn homosexuality.

Concerning the earlier Greek versions of the scriptures, is your position that the infants God killed regularly as part of that weird ritual were new-born infants, not fetuses?  The ritual even goes so far as to say:

"... when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell."


Jul 5, 2013 9:14pm

Maybe the last pope was a fraud and that's why he had to step down.

Whhhoooaa. Hang on.

How about you check your facts instead of "maybeing." Benedict XVI decided to step down because of his own health...


Jul 5, 2013 9:22pm

What9Thousand: And what is the alternative for Christianity?  It was the Orthodox Catholic Church that canonized the Bible.  Church mistakes are in politics and administration, things that can be easily corrupted by men.  The dogmas of the Church are the same as the Early Church, and cannot be in error.  

Pope Benedict XVI stepped down because he was too old for the demands of the office.  He was honored highly during the time he was Pope, and is still appreciated now. Pope Francis has had a few meetings with him already.



Jul 5, 2013 9:50pm


I refer to this article, and I will state in a general way that it was not Church tradition that the world was flat.  There was debate among Christian theologians on the matter from the very beginning, and there were those on both sides of the argument.  By the 1000s, the introduction of Islamic astronomy made it obvious to Christian Europe that the Earth was a sphere.  Bringing up the flat earth controversy is a non-sequitur to the current topic you brought up.  

Peter's mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels.  The Bible is not the only authority on information related to the Apostles.  

An argument from silence may apply to a document only if the author was expected to have the information, was intending to giving a complete account of the situation and the item was important enough and interesting enough to deserve to be mentioned at the time.

#1. You assume the Gospel writers even had knowledge of Jesus' view on homosexuality, or if they did decided not to include it for the expressed purpose of implying an endorsement on homosexuality counter to OT law.  This is laughably false.  

#2. You assume that Jesus didn't speak on the issue, and thus approved homosexuality.  The opposite is more likely seeing as how the status quo was opposed to homosexuality. Jesus had the opportunity to denounce the supposed hypocrisy of the Pharisees on homosexuality but decided not to. At best, one can argue that Jesus didn't care about homosexuality which is not an overly favorable opinion towards gays.

#3. Jesus stated that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish the law, which implies he endorsed the Mosaic Law within Judea.  He also stated that his followers were to obey the Pharisees but not do as they do, because they were hypocrites. 

#4. Writings of Paul against homosexuality are consistent with Jewish attitudes on homosexuality. Since Christians believe Paul received a revelation from Christ on his mission it can be assumed that Paul's writings were inspired.  Furthermore, Christ promised his Church that Hell would never prevail against the Church, and so it is the believe that Christ is still very much involved in the Church today.  

#5. Jesus gave authority onto the Church and in particular Peter and that whatever Peter bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven.  Therefore, if the Church rules against homosexuality it is bound in Heaven as it is in on Earth.  Even if Jesus had no position on the issue, he gave the Church the authority to make such judgments.  

The correct translation is not "miscarry" but to cause damage to internal and reproductive organs as a sign of guilt.  So, my contention is your translation of verse 21 is incorrect.  Not your fault, I blame the publishers.  



Jul 6, 2013 12:19am

"Peter's mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels."

Ah yep, the fever miracle.  So that most likely cuts out Peter as the guy who had a 50% of being gay.  We're getting it narrowed down!  haha


Ah, I suppose by "church tradition" you don't mean any of the Old Testament traditions in the times before Jesus came along.  That cuts out the "flat Earth" belief, then.

What about heliocentricity, though?  There are at least a few verses in the Bible that insist the Earth does not orbit the Sun - that the Earth stands still.

Even as late at the 17th century the church was still extremely insistent that the Earth stands still and does not orbit the Sun.  Not even Galileo could convince the church leaders that their tradition was incorrect.


Your point #1 --- Nope.  My position is that regardless if Jesus himself was gay or not, he evidently did not wish to speak ill of or condemn homosexuality.

"#2. You assume that Jesus didn't speak on the issue, and thus approved homosexuality."

Nope.  I work with probabilities, brah, not absolutes.


"#3. Jesus stated that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish the law ..."

Yup.  Most denominations of Christianity I have known seem to interpret that verse to mean that Jesus was saying the old laws were suitable for their place and time.  Now, however, it's no longer necessary to do such things as sacrifice animals and execute homosexuals. lol


"#4. Writings of Paul against homosexuality are consistent with Jewish attitudes on homosexuality."

While I don't recall Paul ever condemning homosexuality, he would often describe marriage with the words "man" and "woman".  Which verse(s) did you have in mind that might be consistent with the Mosaic notion that gays are an abomination and should be put to death?


Your point #5 --- Ah!  I was wondering why you believe that church tradition is infallible.  Out of curiosity, how do you incorporate your world-view with changing church traditions?  How do you categorize your beliefs, actually?  (Catholic?)


Apparently the abortion verses in Numbers I linked earlier are known as "the ordeal of the bitter water".  The case that it describes abortion is pretty strong.  Here's the wikipedia page for it.


Jul 6, 2013 1:40am

dashing_n00b: The church tradition I was referring to were writings by early church leaders 0-300 AD.  The Bible was written for human understanding at the time it was written.  So, when a verse has the sun staying put, moving forward, or backwards it does not mean that the sun is literally moving in this way.  If it were a physical miracle or illusion of the eyes then it would appear to the human observer that the sun is moving.  The Bible is not intended to be a science book.  

The Catholic Church appeared to endorsed heliocentric views officially around the 1750s, but at the time heliocentric theories were discussed among Catholic authorities.  The reason Galileo got into so much trouble is because he publicly insulted the Pope with his book.  The Pope did not claim infallibility when it came to the heliocentric theory, and it should be noted that the Protestants of the day also opposed it.

#1. You did not address my point on argument from silence, which is a very weak argument by historians. It is even weaker on your side, because you are proposing that Jesus would have supported a radical change in cultural/theological beliefs concerning homosexuality without evidence.  

#2. The probability Jesus was in favor of homosexuality is near zip.  There are a number of sins and virtues that Jesus did not speak of, but we can infer God's will from other verses throughout the Bible.  

#3. The fulfilling of the law changed the legal requirements for salvation, but it did not change fundamental morals.  The authority for morality now resides in the Church.

#4. Paul condemns it in a number of places, but I will give you Romans 1 as an example. And simply because Christian don't execute gays (at least in the US) doesn't make it any less a sin.

#5. The Church is infallible during a Council, one of which canonized the Bible.  There are dogmas that always remain the same and are infallible, doctrines, and teachings that concern present situations that are not infallible.  

If you actually read the article you would see that there is a dispute on the interpretation of the passage, and that the text itself does not support abortion.  But even if you were right (and I don't say you are) it doesn't mean anything.  Mosaic Law only pertains to the Jews, and not the Christian Gentiles. The passage in Numbers concerns Hebrew priests who have no authority now.  It is an obsolete law.  If your interpretation were correct (and I don't believe it is) abortion would only be legal upon a conviction of adultery, and supervised by a priest using water and dust that will do nothing to the unborn fetus. This passage, even if it serves the abortion argument does nothing to advance the pro choice cause.  It doesn't define person hood since the taking of human life at any stage is under God's jurisdiction.  

I also noticed that you conveniently ignored the other Biblical passages I provided that are more relevant to the discussion.  





Jul 6, 2013 7:48am

Benedict XVI decided to step down because of his own health...

According to the official statement released by the Vatican, or do you know the man personally?

The dogmas of the Church are the same as the Early Church, and cannot be in error. 

Early heliocentrists were accused of heresy, so wouldn't that mean geocentrism was part of the church's dogma at the time? It certainly isn't now.



Jul 6, 2013 8:29am

What9Thousand: It was the official statement of the Vatican and by Benedict himself.

Heliocentric theory, which Galileo insisted be taught as fact was considered heresy by the opinion of theologians in the Holy Office.  It was not condemned as heresy by the Pope or the Inquisition as an infallible opinion.  It should be noted that Galileo was condemned for the actual heresy by having a different interpretation on the Eucharist.  


Post a comment