Did Jesus say anything about gay folk?.

a reply to: Lucius Driftwood

Correct... but what he didn't call himself was God... He knew better then that...

The son of man has power to forgive sins... Meaning All that are born can forgive sins...

Also the obvious reason its mentioned in the lord prayer...

Forgive us as we forgive others...

This is just another issue where the jews were confused... Not only God can forgive sins...

IF one sins against his brother... that man has the power to forgive his brother if they choose to

a reply to: Lucius Driftwood

When I understand and employ reading comprehension? No, I do not have a problem with with others speaking for me. If I find myself in agreement, I share it. When I link something, it is called citing sources. I also employ a little known technique called Critical Thinking before I accept it as fact.

I took the time to verify my words and beliefs as a former fundamental Christian, and guess what I found? Fraud, lies, and deceit. I was horrified how I acted against others, thinking I was "Christlike". Have you taken that step, or are you the one letting others speak for you, telling you they hold the truth? Look at your own words against your brother.

As for your other rhetorical question about "Paul" couldn't quite possibly mean he was going to murder Corinthians? I seem to recall a certain Saul, boasting he did exactly that in his "past" Pharisaical life. His reputation would have preceded him. If a known murderer said that to you, what would you think? Your case isn't as airtight as you think it is.

Another example of Paul not being a true Apostle:

Jesus:

(Matt. 23:9 YLT) and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens

Paul:

(1 Cor. 4:15, NLT) For even if you had ten thousand others to teach you about Christ, you have only one spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you.

Yep. It's that easy to point out.

And to answer your question about God? I do believe in God. The Most High. Certainly far higher than Enlil/YHWH. Whom, I might add was the murderer from the beginning. Who did Jesus say the murderer was?

I believe VERY little remains of what was a true word of God. Most of it, is NOT within the pages you call the Bible.

Fragments of the True Word, if even that, are all that remain. Some of Jesus' words attributed to him, are corrupted, wrong, and fraudulent. Early Jewish Polytheism/Henotheism is also right in front of you.

Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus, digs far deeper into that question about "is anything the Word Of God", than any links I could possibly provide you.

As far as why I care? Because I am tired, so tired, of people peddling fictional stories, to reinforce the oppression of people that they don't like for one reason or another. Ones who should NEVER have had to have this kind of conversation to begin with. Hypocrits. You quote YHWH/Enlil/Paul/etc far more than the so called Jesus you worship. Most would draw blank stares quoting Jesus. But Paul? No problem.

I am a heretical HEATHEN by your religious standards, yet I try to follow Christs own words better than you do.

originally posted by: DarknStormy

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

Can I ask who you think put "it" there? Remember that (uneducated) man has always been ready to attack something it doesn't see as "the norm"

When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter who said what, where or when.. The Question was "Did Jesus say anything about gay folk"? The answer is Not directly but if you were to use a bit of critical thinking, you would understand that there is no possible way that Jesus could of promoted Homosexuality because the laws he speaks about will not allow Homosexuality.

So, in other words, no. That's that then.

Jesus not "promoting" homosexuality just shows he said nothing of it. Therefore, how can it be SO bad as those who use (insert religious text here) to condemn homosexuals? For Christians, if Jesus said nothing of it and didn't warn against it, I think you're pretty safe.

I wasn't "flinging crap" at you, believe me. But as a man who was raised a Catholic and still holds his faith close to his heart, I can't see how the Bible is used against Gay people.

a reply to: Lucius Driftwood

Guess you're right about the ‘And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ thing, but that still doesn't rock the boat, clearly they weren't. Again, Leviticus is the Levites' Book, not a book for priests in general, but Levites. The Law also says that you should always carry with you a sharpened stick which you shall use when you go to the toilet: "And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon". That is just as important as the "No man-love in the Temple" part.

Moses was indeed a visionary but most of his laws are of no use these days. Please tell me when the Torah is supplied with traffic regulations and anti-trust legislation. If you want to live in the bleeding stone-age, be my guest. It ends in misery.

Moses was a Levite btw, as were his brother Aaron father of the Kohenim.

originally posted by: Lucius Driftwood
a reply to: Not Authorized

I heard the same thing with my fundamental teachers. They lied to me. They replaced Paul with Jesus. Again, Jesus's words were clear. Why do you need Paul?

So many words you wrote, yet the direct comparison to what Jesus said, and what Paul said, are not addressed.

Like what John wrote about false apostles rejecting what the 12 said (paul did).. Just for starters.

Try me. To what are you referring?
And do I NEED Paul? Arguably no, particularly if I was a Jew. Paul is talking to gentiles who are not immersed in the 'Jewishness' of the disciples and their background.
How is the direct comparison between what Jesus said and what Paul said not addressed?
What did John write about false apostles rejecting what the 12 said? What did Paul reject that the 12 said?
And don't post You Tube clips as a response. Speak for yourself, please. Do you think Jews and Gentiles can eat together?

Why do the gentiles require anything from Paul? If Jesus was the Saviour of everyone, why was he born into a jewish area and not somewhere in another place?

This is all just getting so frustratingly ridiculous and convoluted, that it's becoming either an obviously sick joke on humanity or a completely evil lie - which some people still want to actually base their lives around and not only that, they want me to as well lest I burn in hell for being human!

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

If you believe the lies and apply the inerrancy doctrine against the Bible itself, it paints a different story than what is told and sold to others.

You'll find YHWH is a violent tribal war God. Not the Father, and fits the description of Satan by Jesus. And Paul, was also a false apostle. Peter was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was slammed in texts extraneous to the bible as not a follower. Even Revelation hints of it in the letter to the church at Ephesus. One of Paul's self promotional epistles are in the bible. The book of Ephesians.

His writings were good for oppression though. As you have sadly, experienced yourself.

It is basically myth. With that said, if he existed, his supreme law is simple.

1.) Love God. Note, he never named one specifically.
2.) Treat thy neighbor as thyself.

I prefer to use this document as my Golden Rule template.

a reply to: Not Authorized

lol, it says exactly what I've been explaining through the thread..

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to [found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Notice how it says Men and Women above and for everything else it says Everyone in your link? So your Golden rule actually disagrees with Homosexual marriage.

a reply to: DarknStormy

And those who feel they are women? Or, wish to express that right to in any religion? Like religions that worship a Homosexual God, and allow for it?

Please. You missed article 30. Nice try.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

So bigoted. You see only what you want to see. It is there to avoid a type of collectivism that would claim the State owns the family, or, the family has no right to exist.

a reply to: Not Authorized

Umm no, Every other article clearly states Everyone or No-one. Article 16 makes it clear it is speaking about Males and Females in marriage and not everyone.. It says (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Or does Homosexuality fall under a race, a nationality or a religion? It is what it is I'm sorry to say and I don't have to be a bigot to point it out either.

a reply to: DarknStormy

You took the bait. Perfect.

Yes, families should be protected from interference. That is all that it means. Again, article 30, it can not be used to remove another's rights. Period.

Now, lets read it slowly. What does it say? Men and women may marry.... without limitation due to religion. You are assuming only men and women apply because of religion. That is not what it says. You cannot limit, men, nor women, of age, marrying whomever they want, due to not only religion, but race or nationality too.

Note, part 2. They only have to agree and consent. No restrictions. The word changes to spouses to describe the marriage, not husband and wife.

lim·i·ta·tion
ˌliməˈtāSHən/
noun
1.
a limiting rule or circumstance; a restriction

In otherwords, no restrictions whom a man, or, a women may marry, due to religion, is allowed. None. It is their choice whom they can marry. They can also found a family.

It didn't define with whom, or only opposite genders. Please show us, limitations of anything in that document? As you yourself said in the post I replied to, everything else uses the words... that are all inclusive of everyone.

Besides, Article 1, all humans being equal, including homosexuals, due to that "all" word, makes then equal, with all rights, including that article. Free to marry, without interface from religion. Your religion.

Or, are they not human? Lol.

Good night sir.

a reply to: Not Authorized

I admit I know stuff all about the United Nations and their Laws and Regulations... Why do you think I'm asking? So be it,I misinterpreted a part of the article, at least I admit it unlike others who misinterpret parts of the scriptures.

a reply to: Not Authorized

That's pretty much a good 'way'. I think from now on, I'm going to assume anyone calling themselves Christian and not actually behaving the way a Christian should, is corrupted.

This thread, frustrating as some of the discussion has been for me, has been enlightening for me, proving that you can follow 'the way' as it was probably meant to be followed, or you can follow 'a way' the way it fits your own worldview.

Edit: The same goes for any other religion, whether they mean to love and be inclusive, or not.

The times they are a changing and I wouldn't want to be a hater when things really get stirred up!

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

Why? What's going to happen? Are people going to persecute religious folk or something?

a reply to: DarknStormy

I mean, if there's ever a day of judgement, surely the first to be judged will be the hateful little buggers that claim to be love and light from their chosen god, but in fact are the biggest haters of all of us, having caused harm and sadness.

Of course, there may never be such a day and they can happily continue to be the same old negative nancys they always were and always want to be, without an issue.

I'm not saying that the religious haters among us won't ever be accountable to their fellow man, though. Accountability isn't persecution.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: DarknStormy

Except Christians follow the entire book... or at least most think they do

that's why Christianity is such a mess...

Instead of trying to follow their saviour, they follow the entire book

Many Christians don't do their religion any favors... There are some absolute idiots out there who ruin it for everyone else.

a reply to: DarknStormy

If you believe Peter, judgement starts in the house of God first.

Suffering as Christians
…16but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name. 17For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18AND IF IT IS WITH DIFFICULTY THAT THE RIGHTEOUS IS SAVED, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE GODLESS MAN AND THE SINNER?

Most read that, and dive back into the writings of Paul, when they should go directly to Jesus.

Matthew 7:21-23 • Those Who Practice Lawlessness

“’Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.”’”

What law?

Matthew 22:36-40Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

36 `Teacher, which [is] the great command in the Law?' 37 And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding --
38 this is a first and great command;
39 and the second [is] like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;
40 on these -- the two commands -- all the law and the prophets do hang.'

James would agree as well. He called it the royal law.

A Warning against Favoritism
…7Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called? 8If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well. 9But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.…

It is pretty obvious to me what they meant.

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: Year1

I do not agree with all your points and bringing abortion into this is absurd, but I do understand your logic just do not agree with you.

In my opinion, it is religion that has devolved and held humanity back. As a species we should be a thousand years ahead in Scientific discovery but we were held back because of religion.

Religion is a personal thing and should be treated in the same as male genitalia, we all know men have them but don't need to see them out in public.

From page 16 of this thread...

I agree with Year 1's position and to a certain point with your's flammadraco.

The point and position from both the Olde Testament and New Testament for which most of the posters here are missing is that Believers do not want to do as is the pattern of the world...to define themselves by their sex and sexuality.

This is a problem with not only the Homosexualy community but also the Heterosexual community.

For as I have stated...people ..proper human beings are so much more than sex and sexuality. Yet ironically in the time of scientific achievement...that is all that most people have on which to boast and promote themselves.

Do not put heavy stock in Scientific Achievement..for science is a poor substitute for religion.

How do I know this.."" Because many governments in the time of Enlightenment and Intellect..in the last 100 years..have used science and modern philosophy to cull the heard...of their people. To turn on their people ..to mold the perfect society.

This is called Democide...death by ones own government.

en.wikipedia.org...


One has to go to public school and become educated and enlightened not to know this history.

Note what the author, R. J. Rummel, states...in this article..

His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle.

This is in Enlightened Scientific times. I do not understand the folly at which some of you are trying to default through and think yourselves Enlightened and Illuminated. The sad truth about this is that many Believers/Christians themselves do not know this about Enlightenment and Illumination ..nor about Science.


For many of the most vile and corrupt governments in the last 100 years were devout followers of the religion of Science.

For I know that Science will go where is to be found..the money. Meaning going towards politics and finance. And they will all sell, barter, and trade their souls as well as the souls of others for a shot at the title.

Be Warned about the religion of Science getting into bed with another devout and zealous priesthood..called Politics.



I agree with Year 1's position that the words hate and bigot are devised to control people...and invented with just such an tack in mind. This is guilt politics and guilt manipulations by labeling..towards the goal of silencing opposition or silencing dissent. In short..it is censorship..while teaching tolerance. It is none of these. It is the very hate by which they try to label others.

The race baiters of today and the women's movements use just this very tack and method. Thus indicating that all of these groups are controlled by the same masters at the top. By the very technique of their operational method.

Guilt politics, guilt manipulations, and the blame game.


THe homosexual community lost it with me when they showed themselves intolerant while demanding tolerance from others. This back when they went after some beauty contestant for speaking her views on marriage. I don't even remember the woman's name..but the question was asked of her by a member of a panel. When this panel member did not like her answer...this individual turned a whole institution..a whole media on and against this contestant and tried to socially try them in the court of public opinion...after it was they who asked her the question and did not approve of her answer about marriage.

I found this to be highly intolerant..and to be censorship.

This is where this community lost it with me. While I have little use for beauty contests...I did note in the news ..how this method and technique is exactly the technique which the Homosexual community disapproves in others...dissent.

They are in fact the very thing of which they disapprove in others. They are not tolerant.

So too with many of the posters on this topic.

I do not approve of trial by press or public opinion..not with this football player and the dog incident..not with the OJ trial many many years ago..Not with the Duke University Lacross team also many years ago...not with the Travon Martin incident of recent. Same with this individual and the beauty pagent so many years ago.

I also think very poorly of the news media today. Even the so called Conservative news media. I find them as well to be phonies and manipulators.

I do not agree with all your points and bringing abortion into this is absurd, but I do understand your logic just do not agree with you

The abortion issue..in like manner to Homosexuality... is nothing more than an attempt at whoredom. It is the body politic using and misusing the women of this nation for votes. It is allowing one sex to use and misuse their sexuality for political power..and on the public purse for votes for the body politic. ON the other hand and in confirmation of this tack ..you have the election technique of female contraception...on the public purse...and for votes.

Again...more rampant and runaway sexuality...for some and on the public purse and for votes. And anyone who speaks out against it..is a hater...ie..censorship.

As I have stated in previous post on this thread and other places on ATS. I do not approve of people who define themselves by their sex and sexuality...because people are much much more than sex and sexuality.
But if you observe events carefully ..you would get exactly the opposite message.

The heated debate on this thread is clearly illustrative of this point.

I do not approve of Heterosexuals who have mainly their sex and sexuality by which to define who and what they are.
I certainly do not have to approve of Homosexuals who only have sex and sexuality by which to define themselves.

Religion is a personal thing and should be treated in the same as male genitalia, we all know men have them but don't need to see them out in public.

flammadraco this quote of yours above is textbook of todays public education non standards..thinking no one will see it for what it is.

Sex and Sexuality is a personal thing and should be so treated. We all know people have it..but don't need to see it out in public. Understand now??

This is also how I know that sex and sexuality is a devout and zealous religion for many out here. I am not debating here that people do not have sex or sexuality..but that people be more than this.



Nicely stated Year1..well said.

Thanks too all for their posts,
Orangetom

a reply to: Not Authorized

Yes but James also adds more to what the Royal Law actually is.. It doesn't just mean

36 `Teacher, which [is] the great command in the Law?' 37 And Jesus said to him, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding --
38 this is a first and great command;
39 and the second [is] like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;
40 on these -- the two commands -- all the law and the prophets do hang.'

James actually gives examples of what showing Partiality is..

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scriptures, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well; But if you show Partiality, you commit Sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever shall keep the whole law and stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the Law..

Yeah the two laws that you have cited are not the only two though they are important ones.

originally posted by: boymonkey74

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: boymonkey74

Whatever... Don't ask the question next time if you don't like an honest answer. Bloody Commies.

Lol commie? oh because Iam a socialist you think Iam a commie....nope and guess what Jesus was a socialist also.

From page 15 of this thread.


Negative Boy Monkey,

The Romans were the socialists. They approved of any religions as long as the Roman religion and gods were kept supreme and the power base of the Romans was not disturbed...via..their religion.

The Romans even recognized the holydays of the nations they had conquered..as long as it was not a threat to their religion and power base.

For historically..religion is the ultimate political power..always was and always will be.

The difference today is that politics has carefully and craftily hidden the religion in the cloak of Humanity.

The tell tale that this is so..is that politics and the body politic..is returning the social structure carefully and craftily back to what it was...in the time of the Romans and before...through sex and sexuality...the return of the Ancient Fertility religions.

This return to the fertility religions is not the position of Jesus nor the Olde and New Testament both.



The reason the Romans went after the Christians is that these people did not acknowledge this power base of the Fertility religions. They wanted to separate from this whoredom. And Rome demanded allegiance to this system.

It is the same today. Government and also public education is demanding a return to this olde system and dissenters are marked for censorship and eventually final disposition....by people demanding tolerance. By humanitarians.

Jesus was never a socialist.

Thanks,
Orangetom

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: orangetom1999

It does seem to me as though you're focused on the flaunting of homosexuality in public. If we can agree that the majority of homosexuals are not doing this, can we also agree that we can put it to rest?

I'm here assuring you that the majority of homosexuals are living room and garden types, but I'm also going to say that there is going to come a tipping point where christians are going to find out exactly what the end of things is like if they keep pressing the issue.

There is far more homos out there than you'd probably be comfortable imagining and I'm getting tired of this conversation. That doesn't mean I'm going away, that means I'm about to get pretty damn pissy.

From the bottom of page 16,

Once again this is a rapidly moving thread. Get caught up in other things and this thread moves several pages.


I am aware of the understanding that most homosexuals do not flaunt their sex or sexuality. But the leaderships does exactly this.

The Average American is shielded from much that happens at these Homosexual parades and would be shocked to know.
This is carefully shielded from them by a deceiving and censored media. Thus much of it defaults through. It is deliberately done in this manner to keep the public ignorant...and particularly ignorant of the direction Science, Social Engineering, and leadership want to make our social structure go...the direction they intend to lead us.



I am also not ignorant to what this means...merely from a read of history. As I quoted in a previous post concerning the Romans , their religion, and the relationship of their religion to the power structure of the times.

I'm here assuring you that the majority of homosexuals are living room and garden types, but I'm also going to say that there is going to come a tipping point where christians are going to find out exactly what the end of things is like if they keep pressing the issue.

I am also aware of the true nature of politics..it's true religion, and its working philosophy. This garnered from a study of Occult religions, and much of today's philosophies...and counterfeits.


The average Christian is asleep at the wheel on this. Remember what I posted above about the beauty contestant...and what happened to her. That is only a sneak preview of what is coming to America....in tolerance.

By the way...you do realize that this is not tolerance on the part of those demanding tolerance from others..yes???

Think it through ...carefully.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom