REPORT: Coming Out of the Closet - By Bob Enyart
- Thread starter webby
- Start date
His biggest concerns are boys being molested in scouts (does not mention his concern that lesbians can be girl scout leader and even -gasp - go on overnight trips with girl scouts.) He is concerned about AIDS - but AIDS is higher in the heterosexual population than the lesbian population, so, again, it is men. It seems to be his main focus.
The only mention of lesbians is the "So, you think you're are a lesbian..." So much of the article is full of falsehood, that I question it. They taught us about contraception when I was in high school, and that was often interpretted as encouraging us to go out and have sex.
If anything, they dispelled myths that you can't get pregnant standing up, the first time, etc., and how to deal with peer pressure that seems to have been around since the beginning of time - to have the courage to say no.
The only mention of lesbians is the "So, you think you're are a lesbian..." So much of the article is full of falsehood, that I question it. They taught us about contraception when I was in high school, and that was often interpretted as encouraging us to go out and have sex.
If anything, they dispelled myths that you can't get pregnant standing up, the first time, etc., and how to deal with peer pressure that seems to have been around since the beginning of time - to have the courage to say no.
Last edited:
Evangelion
New member
Beanieboy -
Phwooaaaar!!!!
Sexy old devil...
Phwooaaaar!!!!
Sexy old devil...
Jesus said NOTHING against homosexuality, unless you count the verse where he says "I will make you fishers of men." That passage is either a bad translation, or an outright distortion by liberal translators.
How many realize that King James himself was an effete, pale-faced gent whose own sexual proclivities were questionable in his own lifetime? What can you expect from a Bible translation mandated from a womanly wag?
But then again, Jesus WAS against sin. Once we can judge what sin REALLY is and who is waging it, we'll be fine. We'll have to forget a lot of what Jesus said about forgiveness, though. His question of "Who made me a judge?" and his caution against pointing out that "speck" in one's brother's eye before attending to the timber in one's own are probably later additions to the texts put in by followers to "tone down" his real judgemental views and wrath.
Jesus was probably no different that Caesar in that way: He was into dividing people and pointing out faults to judge. When Jesus finally returns in glory, though, he will put the mighty Caesar to shame, for the ancient Roman bloodbaths and violence will not compare to Jesus' wrath. Remember, Revelations tells us (which is actually Jesus channelled by St. John) that the blood will flow so deep it will be up to the level of the horses' bridles!
But if Bob wants to talk about sin, let's make sure he points the finger AWAY from himself and toward the poor, the marginalized and the outcast. That way at least we will still have a platform to exist. We as Christians seem best (and more effective) when we are defined by our ENEMIES. We will always have enemies, right? And if we can always find enough to demonize we will never run out of them and WE will always exist.
Jesus is reputed to have said "love your enemies," but obviously that is just "pick and choose" theology favored by liberals. If you look at Jesus' total message, he called Jews "children of the devil" and cursed a fig tree until it withered. These verses are the true Jesus, seprating the sheep from the goats.
The whole rest of it we can safely ignore, secure in the knowledge that the other verses are the ancient beginings of the liberal wing of the Christian church. Clearly they do not come from the real Jesus. Anyone can see that.
How many realize that King James himself was an effete, pale-faced gent whose own sexual proclivities were questionable in his own lifetime? What can you expect from a Bible translation mandated from a womanly wag?
But then again, Jesus WAS against sin. Once we can judge what sin REALLY is and who is waging it, we'll be fine. We'll have to forget a lot of what Jesus said about forgiveness, though. His question of "Who made me a judge?" and his caution against pointing out that "speck" in one's brother's eye before attending to the timber in one's own are probably later additions to the texts put in by followers to "tone down" his real judgemental views and wrath.
Jesus was probably no different that Caesar in that way: He was into dividing people and pointing out faults to judge. When Jesus finally returns in glory, though, he will put the mighty Caesar to shame, for the ancient Roman bloodbaths and violence will not compare to Jesus' wrath. Remember, Revelations tells us (which is actually Jesus channelled by St. John) that the blood will flow so deep it will be up to the level of the horses' bridles!
But if Bob wants to talk about sin, let's make sure he points the finger AWAY from himself and toward the poor, the marginalized and the outcast. That way at least we will still have a platform to exist. We as Christians seem best (and more effective) when we are defined by our ENEMIES. We will always have enemies, right? And if we can always find enough to demonize we will never run out of them and WE will always exist.
Jesus is reputed to have said "love your enemies," but obviously that is just "pick and choose" theology favored by liberals. If you look at Jesus' total message, he called Jews "children of the devil" and cursed a fig tree until it withered. These verses are the true Jesus, seprating the sheep from the goats.
The whole rest of it we can safely ignore, secure in the knowledge that the other verses are the ancient beginings of the liberal wing of the Christian church. Clearly they do not come from the real Jesus. Anyone can see that.
Last edited:
Jesus did not mention a lot of things like road rage. This is not much of an argument. Scripture is clear on homosexuality. Are you implying Christ would disagree with anything in Scripture?
Last edited:
"Excuse me"
Last edited:
rfburnhertz
Repent Leo, repent
Originally posted by Poly
You're excused!
Thanks for bringing this thread back from the dead Poly!
I hadn't seen it before.
Alas,
I too am homophobic.
rfburnhertz
Repent Leo, repent
I know,
all I want is to be accepted for who Iam.
A fundamentalist pastor was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and deaprted, leaving him half dead.
Now by chance an evangelical was going down that road and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a liberal Catholic priest and bible scholar, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
But a Buddhist homosexual, as he journeyed, came to where he was and when he saw him he had compassion and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine, then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying "Take care of him, and whaterver more you spend, I will repay you when I come back."
______________________________
This is, of course, an abridged and updated version of Luke's famous parable. Today the parable has become deadened to our ears and is known now as a story of how to be a good neighbor.
But in the first century, Jesus' story would have had quite a startling effect. Startling and alarming.
To any Jew back then listening to Jesus tell this story, he would know that a Samaritan was a member of the bastard race of Jews. They were seen as the illegitimate heirs of Abraham. The first-century Jewish mind could no more conceive of a Samaritan as "good" any more than they could envision loving one's enemies.
This fixed and frozen text that is preserved for us in Luke perhaps took at least a half hour or more to perform. It contains all the elements of a great narrative story with an unusual "punch line." Jesus begins to unfold the tale slowly. Nothing seems out of the ordinary (and would not be to any member of his audience then): A mugging on a known and dangerous stretch of road, a gentle lampooning of who passed as "religious" and "righteous" during that time, and then comes the clincher: Divine help from an unexpected source.
The religious mandate of reaching out to the less fortunate was a long-held tradition for the Jews. But care for the widow, the orphan and the destitute was especially pertinent during a time when the Roman Empire and the top tiers of society expoited more than 80 per cent of the total population.
Re-casting the Samaritan as a "Buddhist homosexual" comes closer to replicating the original force and bite of Jesus' didactic parable. It wasn't the good neighbor that God sent after all. It was the queer, the faggot, the fairy. The enemy.
The Samaritan
Now by chance an evangelical was going down that road and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a liberal Catholic priest and bible scholar, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
But a Buddhist homosexual, as he journeyed, came to where he was and when he saw him he had compassion and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine, then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying "Take care of him, and whaterver more you spend, I will repay you when I come back."
______________________________
This is, of course, an abridged and updated version of Luke's famous parable. Today the parable has become deadened to our ears and is known now as a story of how to be a good neighbor.
But in the first century, Jesus' story would have had quite a startling effect. Startling and alarming.
To any Jew back then listening to Jesus tell this story, he would know that a Samaritan was a member of the bastard race of Jews. They were seen as the illegitimate heirs of Abraham. The first-century Jewish mind could no more conceive of a Samaritan as "good" any more than they could envision loving one's enemies.
This fixed and frozen text that is preserved for us in Luke perhaps took at least a half hour or more to perform. It contains all the elements of a great narrative story with an unusual "punch line." Jesus begins to unfold the tale slowly. Nothing seems out of the ordinary (and would not be to any member of his audience then): A mugging on a known and dangerous stretch of road, a gentle lampooning of who passed as "religious" and "righteous" during that time, and then comes the clincher: Divine help from an unexpected source.
The religious mandate of reaching out to the less fortunate was a long-held tradition for the Jews. But care for the widow, the orphan and the destitute was especially pertinent during a time when the Roman Empire and the top tiers of society expoited more than 80 per cent of the total population.
Re-casting the Samaritan as a "Buddhist homosexual" comes closer to replicating the original force and bite of Jesus' didactic parable. It wasn't the good neighbor that God sent after all. It was the queer, the faggot, the fairy. The enemy.
The Samaritan
rfburnhertz
Repent Leo, repent
Why are you posting this stupid "abridged and updated version of Luke's famous parable" in so many threads?
Is there some hidden wisdom in there that we are meant to find?
If so, it's hidden very well.
You should not change the words of God for any reason let alone for reasons of propaganda.
Is there some hidden wisdom in there that we are meant to find?
If so, it's hidden very well.
You should not change the words of God for any reason let alone for reasons of propaganda.
