Was Jesus Gay?

Can the Christians and Republicans prove that Jesus was not gay?

Before they embark on taking the rights away or preventing a group of people from having rights then I think that they should prove that Jesus was not gay.

I have always thought that he might have been and I am a heterosexual woman.

Flame away.

he hung around with a bunch of men and prostitutes.

when he wasn't in the company of dudes who liked to wash each others feet....I'd have to say chances are Mr. Christ was in the family.

RC

I want them to prove that he WASN'T gay and not that he was.

It's speculated that he might have actually been married and may have even had kids. Although most people on the right reject that idea as well.

A woman who could only find and use her voice if she dressed like a man.

As far as we know, Jesus never slept with anyone. But had a huge following among women, and his closest confidant was Mary Magdalene (according to the gnostic gospels, at least).

Those two fact about Jesus could support either of our theories. :hi:

Jealous because Jesus was too close to Mary Magdalene?

of others. Hear me Fundies!! YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIANS.

You Fundies hate Jesus. Give me my Jesus back. Ass holes are co-opting Jesus for their intollerant agenda. Give him back!

Live long and prosper.

Live Long and Prosper

Accept my love. I beam it... BEEAAM. There.

Perhaps we could put pictures of Lost Jesus on the backs of milk cartons? That'd stir 'em.

Live long and prosper

How do we profit by raising this question? Could you explain?

He wasn't really "straight" either. He was a non-sexual person from what I understand.

and may even have had children

including Jesus'

I'm wondering WHY I should spend my time on this. I think it's an interesting point, but I don't see the profit in it, and right now there's much to do and we don't have forever to do it.

Something tells me that means you intend on WASTING plenty of time on this "useless" thread,just don't spend forever doing it.:grouphug:

:shrug:

We only know what the person that put the bible together wants us to know.

Do we have any proof that the bible that we have now is the same as the original one.

Can we tell if it's been rewritten or not?

I don't understand why think some fact is going to change the radical right when facts have never had an effect on them before.

That's why I care.

I've heard that it will stop the radical right from pushing their religon on you. That it will make them think. That they will have to answer the question in order to promote their agenda, and now because they use the Bible to back their views.

Than in receiving the message.

If you have a problem with that, then shouldn't we work to change it?

How does asking this question change their ability to polish their idol?

and charlatans about issues that can't be proven, or don't matter anyway.

edit- It wasn't about their "ability" to polish their idol, it was that they do. And that is where their vain interest lies. When Christ warned about idolatry, I don't think he excluded himself. Christianity isn't about the man, but the message.

Christians are the ones with a problem.

They also think that you have to be a Christian in order to go to heaven. Did Hammurabi right that code because I can't find it in the bible.

So you started a thread complaining about it?

Why would you take it as a complaint when in fact it was a question. I want some proof that Jesus wasn't gay.

I do have a problem with people denying other people their rights.

From your OP:

Before they embark on taking the rights away or preventing a group of people from having rights then I think that they should prove that Jesus was not gay.

And you don't have a problem with this?

And so were yours!

But, I think that it's worse to be denyed the right to get married then to be denied the right to vote.

That's an odd reaction to having one's rights taken away.

You mentioned my rights well it's not my rights that are being denied when it comes to marriage is it?

It has been rearranged, edited and embellished like nothing else. If it is the "infallible" word of God" as so many would have us believe, then why does God need editors? Find any historical source (note I said historical, not religious - they are not the same thing) on this topic and you'll see that the Bible is all cut 'n' paste.

I would love to read the Holy Grail but we can't find it and we might not be able to interpret it either.

you probably could not read it if it was found.
It is a chalice, not a text.

Seems there was a boy in a loincloth that managed to drop it and get away when the arresting officers came. So, who was that naked boy and why was he naked?

Or was he nekkid?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but I thank you for being the only one in this thread to think about how this question might affect others.

I've been realizing more and more that our words, especially here, may come back to haunt us.

I've been watching this forum for a year, and do you know why I never posted until now?

The very first time I came here, I saw a poster displaying a picture of Che Gueverra next to his post, and I thought, "Oh, yeah, THAT'S really gonna help the cause...".

I mean, we can treat this place like a private clubhouse if we want to, but as long as anyone can come here and read our posts, we need to realize that every word said here can and will be used against all Democrats.

Please post.

Go to Lucianne.com and ask me if we're extreme. Please.
Just take a look over there and when you come back (and are thorougly decontaminated: It's rank over there.) tell me if we're too extreme.

and I don't have to look at lucianne.com to find out whether or not DU is extreme.

To be gay but what if Jesus was would that change their views about marriage and rights?

I want the nut cases to shut up and let people live their life's the way that they want to live them.

They are always quoting scriptures from the bible and trying to interpret them the way that they think that they were meant to be.

To be gay but what if Jesus was would that change their views about marriage and rights?

I think you need to learn a whole lot more about Christianity, particularly the beliefs of the radical right.

I want the nut cases to shut up and let people live their life's the way that they want to live them.

And you think saying "Jesus was gay" will shut them up? Do you really think they are going to stop doing what they think God COMMANDED them to do merely because you question Jesus' sexuality?

They are always quoting scriptures from the bible and trying to interpret them the way that they think that they were meant to be.

And asking if Jesus was gay is going to stop that? How?

...not inclined to much sex one way or the other. I am guessing he probably didn't care what people did with their genitals. from what I understand he was concerned with higher things.

not sure about sexually.

And Buddhist monks are often not celibate...but they are supposed to be. Even The Dalai Lama has said he had to struggle with it.

..

lol

I hope you're a glutton for punishment :P

lol

refers somewhere to himself as the apostle whom Christ loved. Always sounded a bit odd to me.

They should make a sitcom "Everybody Loves Jesus" it would be better than "Everybody Loves Raymond"

I was always wondering about that. Recently, I read "The Da Vinci Code" and the book speculated that John was really Mary Magdalene and so on. Of course, it was merely a work of fiction and not based on fact. Yet, maybe the accounts of the Gospels were not completely factual either. The Gospels were the accountings of mortal men like us. I think Jesus was very loving of Mary and very masculine and certainly heterosexual. That is just my speculation, of course.

It is full of stuff that can really be understood in relation to the Gospel of Thomas (a Gnostic Gospel written at the same time as Mark and the other synoptic Gospels). In the Gospel of John Jesus is elevated to the level of diety and de-sexualised....

Its a huge subject

Please see the book "Beyond Belief, The Secret Gospel of Thomas" by Elaine Pagels

it's shit like this which is why we lose.

Was Jesus gay? Was Jesus black?

Who the fuck cares? Jesus was a guy who was ABOVE issues like sexuality and race.

Was Ghandi gay? Is Bishop Desmond Tutu gay? Was Martin Luther King part white?

ROFL

Dutch, not the Duke.

:shrug:

That go in to peoples bedrooms and tell them how to live and what they can and can't do.

I am sick of them denying people the right to get married and the right to have benefits from their SO.

I am sick of the religious zealots trying to say that their way of living is better then someone else's way of living.

When they are using the bible as a source to deny people their rights it is my damn business.

Asking "Was Jesus gay?" has nothing to do with who comes into your bedroom

When they denying people their rights it is my damn business

Then get off your ass and FIGHT. Asking "Was Jesus gay?" is a pitiful example of fighting.

I don't think that people considered homosexuality much as a state of being. It was considered a major sin in Judiaism at the time though. Jesus, himself is silent on the subject. There is speculation that he might have been married to Mary Magdalene for various reasons. It is very possible that he was a chaste teacher who was not concerned about things of this world like sex and having a family just as most Christians popularly believe. As far as the whole friendship with John, it was highly probable that they were friends. At that time and in some cultures to this day, friendship love is considered to be more important than sexual love. We should not insert our modern American assumptions into that.

How can we deny a group of people wanting rights their rights.

I hate lumping people into a group because we are all the same.

in its irrelevance.

I mean really, who cares.
But, it never hurts to ask. I personally think God is Black Woman.

The fact that it is is its only relevence.

When I studied art, we saw paintings from medieval times that showed Jesus with breasts. While he had a relationship with Mary Magdalene, he also had a relationship with his most "beloved" disciple, I think it was James. In olden times, apparently people expected their gods to be larger than life and to be there for all persons, and being bisexual would be a symbol of this.

In modern times, people have become very puritannical about sexual matters and so have twisted the Gospels to pretend that Jesus was asexual. There is no evidence to my knowledge that the ancient Hebrews would have followed an asexual leader. Sex was a source of life and power.

So I see no reason to flame away.

The stories of Jesus in Eqypt as a boy, raising all kinds of hell, make him seem more like John Lennon than Elton John.

Had a affair with Brian Epstein.

does not a homosexual make.

and a whole lot seduced.

:)

The beloved disciple was not James but John. I stand corrected.

Bisexual :wow: I wonder if the Christians have studied history books that support other views outside of their way of thinking.

I think that gay couples should be able to get married and have benefits just like anyone else.

Supposedly it was almost unheard of to have not been married. If I can find the reference I'll post it. Although this does not mean he couldn't have been gay.

Wouldn't approve of gay marriage because she personally knew him. That was about the most ridiculous comment that I had ever heard in my life. She knew him? What is he her personal friend that has lunch with her.

Why do I question it because of the comment that I heard while I was flipping channels on cable. I no longer watch TV because I am sick of it. I am also sick of the Christians thinking that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

St. Aelred of Rivaulx also "knew" Jesus--probably a lot better than this woman does--and referred to Jesus' relationship with the "beloved disciple" as a "spiritual marriage."

Now, whether he was gay himself or not--and personally, I'm inclined to the married to Mary Magdalene theory--Jesus certainly had no hatred or fear of gay people. If he did, he wouldn't have healed the Roman Centurion's "beloved youth" without so much as the "go and sin no more" with which he admonished the woman he rescued from stoning. Indeed, he told the Centurion that he had never seen such great faith, "no, not in Israel." That scarcely seems likely if he shared his modern followers' homophobia.

Supported fucking over the poor in favor of the wealthy
Supports lying about the reasons for war.

Supports being thrown to fear by terrorism
Supports mob values
supports churches spending loads of money on Ceasar
Supports using church money for ballots that profess that you hate your fellow man
Supports killing civilians
Supports torture
Supports commercializing himself

Christians fought a crusade in Mesopotamia once before. Modern day Mesopotamia is Iraq and we have someone who thinks that he is Jesus in office right now.

* is crazy enough to start a crusade in this country against a group of people by denying them rights.

any real connection to them.

Didn't he warn about "false prophets in his name"

I also think that one of them is sitting in the Whitehouse right now.

you know, that is a VERY interesting question.

And . . . it doesn't offend me at all. Certainly he knew what it was like to be a homosexual because he was capable of understanding everyone who was marginalized and downtrodden.

It is certainly possible to be enthralled with delivering a message, to the point where one is able to control their libido. Jesus merely channeled his sexual energy into religious energy. Look at how many religious people seem erotically aroused when they go into one of their religious trances. Not saying he did it, but it creeps me out to watch people like bush squeeze their eyes shut like they're about to have an orgasm while praying.

On the other hand, the natural and genuine exuberance that you see in churches attended by people of color is a wonder to behold, and in my perception, gives true testament to the awesome power of faith that loving Jesus can bring to one's soul.

(I am willing to believe, however, considering statistical probabilities, that one of the disciples was a practicing homosexual, maybe more than one of them. So be it.)

would be channeling spiritual energy into sexual energy, not vice-versa.

they deny that he had any carnal knowledge what so ever with the groupies that followed Yashua every where He went. Not only did these women admire Yashua, they were the main funding of His ministry!
Let's face it Yashua was a stud maximus, and all along religious hypocrites have insisted that He was celibate. Now we all know what happens to religious types who practice celibacy, just ask the Catholic priesthood!

Jesus was not gay.

Heyo

:shrug:

... "Jesus was not gay" is one of those statements that is pretty much self evident.

Not that there is anything wrong with being gay.

But if you had to wager all your posessions on Jesus being gay or not, which way would you go?

Trsut me on this one, Jesus wasn't gay.

Heyo

Does it negate his message?

Does it negate his mission?

Christ's message was so simple, no wonder it's been misunderstood for 2,000 years: Love thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul and all thy might, and love thy neighbor as thyself. That's it. The rest, as they say, is commentary.

No strings, no conditions attached.

Now, we move on.

Time to move on.

Yes, Jesus liked hanging out with guys, never married, was incredibly sensitive and showed sympathy for the marginalized and outcast. He also had a knack for attracting the ire of The Man, who was convinced he had an "agenda" and thus had to be eliminated. Yep, sounds about right.

Edited for a lame grammatical goof

What a cook, too!

He coordinated his sandals and purse/tote with his dresses/robes.

I personally believe he was married and had kids with Mary Magdalene. She was the disciple he loved, and the wedding where he turned water to wine was his own.

I've done some research, and it feels right. And when you're talking about the life of a man who lived so long ago, I think you can get away with that.

What we must do is show these pharisees that the teaching of Jesus is what they should be focussed on - not the teachings of their zealot preachers.

just like you and me."

-Timbuk 3

but he liked Mary Magdeline. Jesus's sexuality was basically taken out of the gospels after the 3rd century when the Gnostic gospels were suppressed. But I recall the salient passages from the Gospel of Phillip (A Gnostic Gospel written after the Gospel of Mark but it pre-dated the Gospel of John) anyway, I'm paraphrasing but here goes.

The Gospel of Phillip

Jesus loved the apostle Mary Madgelene more than all the others and used to kiss her often on the mouth. The apostles asked Jesus; "Master, why do you love her more than us?". Jesus answered with the question; "Why is it that I love her more?"

Other interesting things in the Gnostic Gospels Jesus' has brothers and sisters and even a twin (Thomas, the apostle). His family basically thinks he's nuts and after he dies totally uses his celebrity.

I'm sure Jesus was very hot, like a rock star with all that goes with it.

Also... "gay" was not really a concept in ancient time ...You were either passive or active. Basically Jesus was a top.

It would have been much easier for the religious and political leaders of his day to kill him if he was. Look what they can do with Gay marriage in the 21st century in America! He would have been stoned or crucified straight away had people known he was gay.

....for writing Romans 1:26-27


26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Now, my personal belief has always been that these verses came from Paul's own decidedly prejudiced viewpoints, and not from God or JC. But if JC were gay, than either He, or His Dad (who I assume would have come to terms with having a gay Son by this time) would have done some editing of the scriptures and thrown a couple locusts Paul's way or something.

If you want to find homosexuals in the Bible, David & Jonathan are a much better example. Try 1 Samuel, chapters 18-20

like that at all.. Stupid Saul, guilty ass conscienced lunatic. Probably another "false prophet" in his name. From what I gather, the growing cult of the Nazerene suffered from a fractious leadership struggle. Jesus's family ran the early christians along with the 12 apostles but there were others who brought in their own ideas.

I don't know whether God actually spoke to him from the sky or he just drank funky wine...but Paul pisses me off too!

Changed his name to Paul? Funky wine...LOL

Seriously, he went from a Roman/Jewish gestopo guy to basically Jerry Falwell. Major head case.

EXTREME JESUS is most certainly NOT GAY!!! EXTREME JESUS is F***ING SICK of all these wussy pseudo-followers wangin' on his weener. DO NOT TAUNT EXTREME JESUS!!! The jury's out on MegaJesus and Buddy Jesus, Buddy's always looked a little... festive. EezyJeez and his sidekick, New, Improved, SQUEEZY EezyJeez were unavailable for comment today, but they do live together and there have been rumours that they own a cat. And New, Improved, SQUEEZY EezyJeez is very well dressed, as we all know... wink, wink

The party to join when you hate Jesus! Talk about breaking up any sort of unification! A party divided and beaten! Even with the media elite and Hollywood stepping up to the plate! Screw you New York! Southern Democrats have a voice too! Silenced by the majority, but we need to divide and conquer! You bastards don't have a place for us and your words are wicked! Go to Hell!

:evilgrin:

:shrug:

LOL!

The party to join when you want blow jobs! Talk about mincing around like some goddamn cross-dresser! A party giggling like schoolchildren under the boardwalk! Even with Michael Moore and MegaJesus trashing Tokyo AS WE SPEAK! Screw you, Europe! And your little dog, too! Southern Democrats have a big chip on their shoulder! BIG! BIGGER THAN YOURS, YOU DAMN EUROPEANS! Spacked up by the rhetoric, but we need to cringe like whipped dogs at every mention of homosexuality because they taint us by association! You bastards didn't win the election for me and I HATE YOU! One of your grandmother's trouser legs is slightly too short! And you're no good at pool! When was the last time you washed your motorcycle? HUH? F***CKING Blue State Pussies! GO TO OHIO!

And will burn up even faster......

Last I checked, the people in the Middle East aren't white.

So...now Jesus may be a gay, dark-skinned man. (Nothing wrong with that.)

I wonder how the religious fundies will take this news?????

and drove an itty-bitty car...but what does it matter?

I was just simply pointing out an observation.

Jesus works at Home Depot in the paint department! He looks gay to me!

when did you snap out of it?

I guess it is going to take a good swift kick in the nutz! I say fuck you and the divisionist and I'm fighting mad! Most of you bastards are pussy Yankees and could not fight your way out of a paper bag! I am ready for bear! Fuck your flame!

eom.

Do you remember who won the last time?

and I whipped windbags like you before I gave up short pants.

Wanna try me?

LOL

anyhow, Jesus was everything to everybody.

God Bless Jesus, and each of us. It's only the Rethugs who judge because of sexuality.

moveon . org!!

What would they celebrate on December 25th?

What was the texture of his hair according to the bible? He must have gotten a perm right :shrug: I also forgot where was Africa located at in the biblical days? Hollywood made God & the Pharaohs white the bible didn't.

on both counts. The way I believe. I believe he took a physical body with all the temptations that go with it but the way I believe Jesus was perfect..Not like us. We are all imperfect......gay or sstraight. He was not married and his presence here the way I believe was to come to Earth to tell people not be like Bushlike !

that he and Mary Magdalene were a bit more than friends and she was not a prostitute. The early Church, wanting to diminish the role of women, created this story as she is one of the strongest women from the early Church and the men in power did not want women with power in the Church.

I wanted to prove that the Christian Right are a bunch of Hypocrites for trying to push their beliefs down everyones throats as fact.

They can't prove that he wasn't gay so how can they tell people how to live their life's according to the way that they interpret their bibles.

I cornered a fundie and asked them if he believed in dinosaurs. He said yes, absolutley. I told them that they lived millions of years ago messing up the fundie Earth creation timeline. He commented that they do not since he could quote scriptures that proves they were alive during the Old Testament. My point is no matter what you say, their blind faith will win out. You can not debate with them at all unfortunately.

shared the earth with dinosaurs.

I'm going to visit my cousin at the zoo tomorrow LOL

Whether he was married or gay, it goes against everything they have taught for eons.

that Jesus had a wife and it was probably Mary Magdalene. I don't have an opinion now and don't care, one way or the other. I no longer believe in God. Assuming Jesus existed - and I have the impression it's been proven, or maybe it's just some kind of consensus - I occasionally spend time wondering if he really believed or actually ever said he was the son of God and what that might mean.

So how can they tell people how to run their life's according to the bible if they can't prove that he wasn't gay.

Thanks :loveya:

prove that clinton isn't gay
prove that i'm straight
prove that you're not an ass
prove that you are an ass (Matcom cannot answer this one)
prove that this site isn't populated with christ-hating bigots...

homosexual or heterosexual. Either way, it involves sexuality, something they believe Jesus was "above."

damn...

There is a society of Jesus's offspring in the middle east right now, who are protected by secrecy.

and since there is no body of Jesus...you got nothing. You cannot prove that he was gay or straight...neither

That's supposed to have Jesus's blood on it.

Btw, why is asking whether or not Jesus is gay "garbage' and "christian bashing"?

Sounds homophobic if you ask me.

of inflaming the natives...that is why it is bashing. Suggesting that it be PROVED is the problem...talking about it isn't...

Your opinions of me are incorrect...

theProdigal

Some of his relatives are suppose to be living in England and the Holy Grail is suppose to be located in a wall of an old Church in England.

PBS Had a story about it one time and I waited patiently for the second part but I must have missed it or it never came on. Someone located a couple of pages from the Holy Grail in the walls of a Church in England. My bet is that it's scattered throughout several different countries.

but the actual descendents of christ. :shrug:

the gestalt wisdom of transcendant being?

:eyes:

:shrug:

It has been suggested that his favorite apostle, his "beloved John" was also his bed fellow. Homosexuality in Jesus's times was openly practiced in the Greco-Roman world. It could also explain why he was always at odds with the religious establishment of the Pharisees. The stricter Jewish religious laws frowned upon homosexuality.

I can't prove he isn't, I can't prove he's heterosexual either.

People who they can and can't marry?

I'm heterosexual my rights were violated on Tuesday along with everyone else's rights so If we tell one group of people that they can't marry isn't that taking away someone else's rights? :D

Does that stop them from wanting to nuke all the Arabs?

You assume these people aren't hypocrites. Hate to tell you, but they are, and even if Jesus was gay they'd still have no problem spewing anti-gay shit because they don't reason.

Palestinians and Jews are semites too strangely enough... Arabs were nomadic people

so you are free to interpret how you see fit...imo

during that time in history. This is what I heard somewhere. I am not Jewish so I am not familiar with these things but it remains easily concluded that it would be extremely unusual for him not to have been married...but that does not lead us to the conclusion that he was gay. I suspect he was busy being Holy and taking instructions from God...way too busy for dating, marriage and the like.

he lived in and religion he was, to not be married. He was either gay or married. Also on a side note it seems to me he was a terrible judge of character. I like to think if I were being abused as he was, one of my friends would say and do SOMETHING. His friends, for the most part, silence was as brutal as the beating to me.

ask that question if you are not aware of the mainstream Christian belief that Jesus was at the same time, true God and true Man. A paradox; and one that we as Christian human beings (not necessariy formally Christian, but in that we love in a sacrificial sense) begin to share in, in this life.

Since "he was tempted in every way that men are", it is difficult to escape the conclusion that he would have been tempted (in the broadest sense, i.e. being on occasions prey to evil thoughts), with just about every deviant sexual thought imaginable, although he remained completely guiltless in respect of them, as pure as "a lamb without spot".

However, such deviant thoughts would have had to be acquiesced to, identified with by Jesus, in order for him to become sexually deviant in any way. And, since he was without sin, and his parents must have been as close to being sinless as any human family could be, and, in fact, he was to be our template, why, in the light of Christian scripture and tradition, would not his Father have blessed him with habitually-orthodox, Christian sexual orientation? He was to have plenty of suffering and crosses in his life without suffering that as well, as many of his children do. I say Christian, but as far as I know, heterosexuality is a requirement of all the mainstream religions.

Christianity is not liberal in terms of sexual permissiveness, still less deviancy. But it is liberal in terms of economics. And just as in Christ's day, those who worship money in our world are prone to tout outward observances, (among which unswerving sexual propriety is bound to figure, as it is physical, and therefore, in principle, open to view), as the be-all and end-all of the Christianity/(Judaism). In actuality, we know that they tended to be major hypocrites, and their sexual shenanigans would have remained covert, rather than open to view.

Although there were few references Jesus made to the subject, there are no grounds at all for believing that he countenanced or approved sexual promiscuity or deviancy. However, almost all his warnings, expressed in the most vehement diatribes, were aimed at the avarice, worldly ambitions and extortionate injustice of the "haves" against the "have-nots".

Are you saying that homosexuality is a "deviant sexual thought"?

Is that the passage from the bible? :shrug:

Pretending to be something on the outside
that they were not on the inside.

Which one?

the deviant thoughts, isn't it?

Show me one passage in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament, referring to a same gender "marriage". Never mind one that is condoned, implicitly or explicitly. It is so far off the radar, the question is never even raised.

And I can't be dogmatic about this, but, while I imagine pagan marriages existed prior to Christianity, I don't believe I have ever read or heard any suggestion that same-sex marriages were ever envisaged in their societies.

The poster said:

"...it is difficult to escape the conclusion that he would have been tempted (in the broadest sense, i.e. being on occasions prey to evil thoughts), with just about every deviant sexual thought imaginable..."

IOW, this is something the poster has concluded (ie deduced) from the text, but the text doesn't state this explicitely.

explicit and indeed comprehensive statement on the matter, can you, than: "He was tempted in every way that men are,...". Unless you don't see it as a temptation but as a perfectly moral prompting.

I agree it's an obvious conclusion. I don't disagree with it in the slightest. I just want to be clear that that particular phrase isn't found in the Bible, and that is relevant due to the Talibornagain's emphasis on a literal interpretation for the Bible.

I believe, have a similar literal understanding of the scripture, although unlike "our friends", the so-called fundamentalists, they seem very sincere and idealistic searchers for the truth. At least the ones who have come to our door.

This thread does raise the question of Church and State, though, doesn't it. I can understand why such a separation should appeal to sincere agnostics, but unfortunately, supernature, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and when God is lost sight of, so is man. Certainly, in the short-term, man becomes the centre and justification of anything and everything, but the weakest and most vulnerable become viewed as expendable.

The thing is, sins are not self-contained, they impact on other ostensibly unrelated areas. I hesitate to bring up abortion, as I do homosexuality, these days, because of the increasingly permissive culture in which young people have to grow up in, there are surely many people in both categories, at least as sinned against as sinners. Which is not, intentionally, to downplay the seriousness of the actions.

As well as the horrendous effects of economic deprivation, including an attack on all aspects of the welfare state, I believe much of the violence in the UK is a result of the legalisation of abortion. But whatever the case, as regards the growing chaos when there is a separation of Church and State (in the UK, de facto, chiefly, I believe), street violence, it seems, is actually being glorified by cable programmes, and maybe on ordinary channels, too - evidently, for the benefit of youngsters, who, instead need to learn the self-respect necessary to respect others.

I can scarcely believe it as I think of it. One was called "Hard B*******s", featuring the CVs of heavies in the criminal underworld. (I'm not talking about politics, now). Another - last week - was called "The Toughest Villages in Britain. Britain's Most Unfriendly Villages". I'm tempted, I'm afraid to say WTF! Then you read about total strangers being set upon and kicked to death by a gang for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I was going to say, "just for kicks".

but thank you for those engaing posts. I was struck by your "hesitation" regarding certain topics, as I am also hesitant to get too far into certain topics in some environments. However, I do think that with the recent disappointments, and the talk about the need for a "new message", there is an opportunity to speak of some very old messages. I do hope you stick around, and when the opportunity presents itself, you take advantage of that and share your insights.

And on a less "deep" note, I happen to agree that we ought to be thinking more about the effects of our mass media on our culture and how the images and sounds that emanate from it reflect our culture, our values, and our morality while at the same time, working to shape them.

I said in the last sentence of my post, isn't it.

"Deviant thoughts" How do I know which thoughts are deviant and which are not. Does the bible provide a list?

We have so many versions of the Bible that I haven't been able to read them all nor would I want to because of the length of each one.

Have Christian bibles been rewritten to back up some of their opinions on the subject of sex and life in general. It could be the reason why their views are so different then the rest of us.

This:

"However, almost all his warnings, expressed in the most vehement diatribes, were aimed at the avarice, worldly ambitions and extortionate injustice of the "haves" against the "have-nots"."

does not even come close in meaning to this:

"Actually, most of his "warnings" were aimed at hypocrites.
Pretending to be something on the outside
that they were not on the inside."

The first sentence could be talking about people who
openly championed avarice, worldly ambitions, etc.
Jesus focused more on their false piety than on
their avarice, etc. They were pretenders, bloviators,
windbags of phony morality. Sounds familiar.

but according to my understanding of Jesus' teaching, any expression of faith on the part of those who did not share their fortune with the less fortunate was hypocritical. I don't think His warnings were limited to those who championed avarice. IMO, His warnings applies equally to those who practice avarice, even if they do so silently.

so, I guess so

i certainly cant. it would be an interesting thing to bring up with fundies. kind of make them stop and look at his teachings instead of the rantings of TV evangalists

:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

I thought that someone else interpreted it into Jesus words for him.

:shrug: