Talk:Gay Jesus

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(The Sound Of His Coming)
Line 51: Line 51:
   
 
:I ignored nothing MrN9000, including that invoking Bible as an authority, while rejecting certain parts of it as merely the works of men as a Dan Brown tactic, and it similar to what pro homosexual polemicists must resort to, that or relegating the Bible to be the work of homophobic editors when it fails to describe the homoeroticism they lust to see, and need to find. As for Jesus not being offended by someone making a parody of Him committing pederasty and sodomy, what kind of Bible have you wrote?! He condemned all fornication, and by His Spirit further so, and you would have to put the N.T. through a paper shredder to eliminate that!
 
:I ignored nothing MrN9000, including that invoking Bible as an authority, while rejecting certain parts of it as merely the works of men as a Dan Brown tactic, and it similar to what pro homosexual polemicists must resort to, that or relegating the Bible to be the work of homophobic editors when it fails to describe the homoeroticism they lust to see, and need to find. As for Jesus not being offended by someone making a parody of Him committing pederasty and sodomy, what kind of Bible have you wrote?! He condemned all fornication, and by His Spirit further so, and you would have to put the N.T. through a paper shredder to eliminate that!
+
:::::By your interpretation of the bible Jesus condemned fornication. That's fine, and your opinion, and may well be true, I don't know. Reading the bible it appears confused on the matter to me. The point you miss is that although he may have condemned fornication, he still would not be offended by this article. Do you think that Jesus would have felt offended? Lol. He would have simply laughed at it. Is that not what Jesus would have done had he read this? Please answer YES or NO. {{User:MrN9000/sig}} <small><small>09:52, Feb 23</small></small>
 
::DrStrange, the issue with authority is whether it is warranted. Rome effectively rests upon its own declaration that it is (conditionally) infallible (according to our interpretation, our interpretation is correct, because we say so, a form of "viscous" CR), and requires implicit trust in herself, while acting contrary to the Scriptures which it effectively holds to be a secondary authority, and disparaging human reasoning and "private interpretation" of the Scriptures as a mean of assuredly knowing truth. In contrast Jesus provided (and provides) evidence by which to make a step of faith, and with obedience leading to more evidence, and obedience to the Bible itself result in realization of its promises, which is abudantlty testified to. And the Scriptures clearly evidence that God appealed to human reasoning, and treated the prior established revelation as authoritative, with that additional revelation conflating with it (with 278 different Old Testament verses being cited in the New and multiple more allusions), much in contrast to Rome's traditions such as praying to Mary.
 
::DrStrange, the issue with authority is whether it is warranted. Rome effectively rests upon its own declaration that it is (conditionally) infallible (according to our interpretation, our interpretation is correct, because we say so, a form of "viscous" CR), and requires implicit trust in herself, while acting contrary to the Scriptures which it effectively holds to be a secondary authority, and disparaging human reasoning and "private interpretation" of the Scriptures as a mean of assuredly knowing truth. In contrast Jesus provided (and provides) evidence by which to make a step of faith, and with obedience leading to more evidence, and obedience to the Bible itself result in realization of its promises, which is abudantlty testified to. And the Scriptures clearly evidence that God appealed to human reasoning, and treated the prior established revelation as authoritative, with that additional revelation conflating with it (with 278 different Old Testament verses being cited in the New and multiple more allusions), much in contrast to Rome's traditions such as praying to Mary.
 
 

Revision as of 09:52, February 23, 2010

When the Bible foretells that "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God", (Psa 9:17) and of His coming to "execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed", (Jude 1:15) and "who shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone;" which is the second death," (Rv. 21:8), be assured it includes the writers of your page, and the longer it remains the worse your judgment shall be, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required". (Lk. 12:48).

If you want a rather thorough refutation of the voluminous but species efforts to negate the Biblical condemnation of homosex (which what the Bible always does wherever it is explicitly dealt with), and to construe sanction for it, see http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Peacebyjesus 15:41, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oooh look! A curse!

Supergayjesus1

I never saw this before. I'd be the solitary writer who's eternal punishment accrues daily while this page is on Uncyclopedia. The weirdest thing about this page is how many people can't get past the words "gay Jesus". Doesn't matter if the story says it has nothing to do with the historical Jesus, etc etc. Others see it as an exploitation of Jesus. The real joke being sent here is the ludicrousness of people continually applying attributes to Jesus. WWJD? There's literally a million Jesii out there with a political axe to grind and it's really sad when people need to hide behind an icon to strengthen an argument. "It's not my racist, homophobic, xenophobic opinion, I'm just a servant of Jesus". It's BS. That's why the article has multiple Jesii with different agendas commenting on the article as it's written.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  16:06, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Your attempt to explain your article away is only less insolent as the page itself. Whatever disclaimer you see yourself making, the article is clearly a spoof of the historical Christ, and a most obscene one at that - the worse being that of portraying pederasty. Would you place a picture that portrayed your mother as a prostitute doing crack? Perhaps you would, but this is far far more evil. You have abused the talent and brain God gave you, and if the goodness of God does not bring you to repentance, may others means do so, and so know the reality of Christ.Peacebyjesus 20:34, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
That's not Jesus. That's someone's representation of him. Being obsessed with a fictitious icon being sacred is your problem. Obsession with regulating behavior is also mentioned by Christ in the parable of the good Samaritan. My ability to mock people's exploitation of Jesus shall not be hindered by your irrational reverence of myth versus the real man. Tough noogies. Do you really think you're showing reverence and keeping the faith by invoking the name of the lord against me? That's about you, not about faith. Matthew had it right. Go take your spiritual peacocking elsewhere.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  21:24, February 21, 2010 (UTC)


Who the fuck are you to police the internet for alleged blasphemy?

"be assured it includes the writers of your page, and the longer it remains the worse your judgment shall be"

Seriously, what the fuck is that? Are you some post bible prophet that I'm unaware of? You must have been looking for gay Jesus and you found him. Since you're a homophobe, I can only assume that you have no idea who the fuck Jesus is and if you love the purity laws of Leviticus, why the fuck are you breaking all the other rules included therein? From a scientific point of view, it's simple. The people with the biggest axe to grind against gay people are closet homosexuals themselves who are desperately saying "stop turning me on" to the gay community.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  21:41, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Gay :P MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 21:48, Feb 21

I think you have deeper issues behind your irreverence, and seem driven by an anger against the moral authority God represents, and your spurious doctrinal polemic and psychological tactics are a result. Peacebyjesus 01:07, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

You actually created an Uncyclopedia account for the sole purpose of witnessing a perverted version of Christianity to the author of Gay Jesus? Go do something constructive because all that is not faith is sin. Being a self-righteous piece of shit on a humor wiki is sin. --DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  01:19, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

If you have come here to complain about Uncyclopedia taking the piss out of your religion, go and read Atheism (religion).

We are proud of the fact that we insult everyone equally...

No. You are just trying to impose your values onto others. Many of our users are Christians and find this article very funny. The fact that you don't shows that you are insecure in your religious believes. The fact that you are particularly worried about him being called Gay suggests that you are insecure about your sexuality. Read some of our other articles. Like Gay for example, and check out those listed at Jesus (many of which are pro Christian). Learn what Uncyc is really all about and stop crying like a baby. Jesus would not act like you. He would laugh at this. Why don't you do that also. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 01:15, Feb 22

You have no real argument, and may be said to be "imposing" your values, or lack of them, onto others, while relying on a fantasy in ad hominem attacks. Such ranting as you display is all too typical of militant atheism, and which is necessary for those who at war with God, as its lack of any transcendent objective authority allows them to call good evil an evil good, which is the same moral reasoning atheists as Mao and Pol Pot operated out of. This does not mean an atheist cannot be a relatively good person, but atheism can offer no assurance it will not sanction what they did. The typical response of calling Hitler a Christian and invoking the Inquisition as evidence of following the Bible is also contrary to their self-ascribed title, "Brites". Peacebyjesus 02:05, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an atheist. I believe in a God and a creator. I consider myself a Christian, in that I try to follow what I consider to be the ethics behind the words of Jesus Christ as written in the bible. You sir, act nothing like him. When did you last actually read the bible? I mean, really read it. The feeling behind the words of Christ I mean. Not the parts which were fabricated by evil men during the First Council of Nicaea, and various other times when Jesus' words were twisted, and not someone else's interpretation of it. Listen to the meaning behind the words which Jesus said. Don't listen to the values which others ascribe to him. Christianity has been forced onto millions thought the ages by evil men. We are not imposing our views on anyone. We never forced you to read this. I doubt you have read more than the first few lines of this article? Have you read it all the way through? Did you read any of our other articles about Jesus? Did you read Gay? I doubt it. You sir are far to closed of mind to do so. If you really knew Jesus you would know that he would have approved of this article.
In addition, Jesus was an Arab. He would have looked like Saddam Hussain. Do you see an Arab in these pictures? It's a joke. You are offended by this because you think that it's possible for such a thing to weaken your religious believes. Again I ask you... Are you sir homophobic? Apparently you are because you consider being called gay to be an insult. I'm not gay, but if someone jokingly said I was I would laugh. Just as Jesus Christ would if he were here now. I suggest you get your ethics and values in order. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 09:25, Feb 22
Flamingcross
If you would listen to yourself then you might realize that your whole defense is based upon the subjective presupposition that your esoteric understanding of Jesus enables you to sanction which it most clearly condemns, and to condemn those who disagree! No matter what disclaimer the article provides (and i did read that attempt, while a cursory overview of the rest was enough), it is obviously a spoof of the Biblical Christ, even if He did not have blond hair and blue eyes, and is both profane, and an attempt to make Christi into an image of morally corruptible man, as your interpretive grid enables as well. The aforementioned analogy of disgracefully portraying a likeness of ones mother still fits. It is no surprise that you subscribe to conspiratorial Da Vince Code nonsense THE DA VINCI CODE: TRUE OR FALSE?, which i wrote (if Rome did so then they sure missed the opportunity, necessitating true forgeries later on!), and its favoring of gnostic interpretations certainly would be attractive to you.
Re. reading the Bible, i can assure you that I do seek its fuller meaning, and have read it for over 30 years, and God has showed me much, and i seek to test things by it, rather than just buying a denominational interpretation. And as i seek to die to self and yield to Him, as well thru my failures to do so, God has revealed much about myself to me, as one who has a long way to go to be like Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible however, not that which men contrive.
As for "gay", i assure you i have read - and refuted - homosexual polemics quite extensively, and yet the reason why is due to their attempt to manipulate the Bible, which is why i have also done extensive refutation of the Roman church and others which depend upon self exaltation of themselves as sole infallible interpreters, which you also convey, rather than having to substantiate their case by Scripture. Yet i am not "Romeophobic", and do not have any personal animosity toward Rome, and acknowledge positive aspects of her, and am more tempered in my criticism than Jack Chick type adherents. I can also honestly say that i do not fear homosexuals, and am very secure in my "sexual identity", which is most unmistakably toward the female species, and will seek to help homosexuals as well as towards straight people (including atheists), with my greatest desire being that they both come to salvation. My former next door neighbor was a lesbian, and we were friendly toward each other, and one day she asked Christ to save her, and is now singing in the choir in a straight church, as a straight and truly "gay" person. Praise the Lord.Peacebyjesus 15:07, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
I have never read or watched The Da Vinci Code. What has that got to do with anything? You simply ignored the obvious fact that Jesus would not be offended by this article, so why are you? Answer that, or admit you are wrong. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 18:05, Feb 22

So, in your studies I'm sure you've become familiar with argument by authority as a logical fallacy and using the Bible as a rulebook. You don't seem to differentiate between the law and the concept of Christ's fulfilling thereof. You also seem to not understand that the books of the Bible are not the infallible works of god's hand and were written and compiled by men. You actually think you can "prove" that it's somehow immoral and illegal to be gay. Again, the parable of the good Samaritan. You are a Pharisee whose obsessed with the facade of faith and not the substance. This entire exercise has not been faith on your part, it's been sin. Your sins of haughtiness and this self-righteous bragging about your relationship with god is positively sickening and offensive to the lord of the bible-by-committee but you haven't even figured that out yet. You aren't following god, you're some sick monkey who likes claiming the power and playing new age prophet.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  16:27, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

I ignored nothing MrN9000, including that invoking Bible as an authority, while rejecting certain parts of it as merely the works of men as a Dan Brown tactic, and it similar to what pro homosexual polemicists must resort to, that or relegating the Bible to be the work of homophobic editors when it fails to describe the homoeroticism they lust to see, and need to find. As for Jesus not being offended by someone making a parody of Him committing pederasty and sodomy, what kind of Bible have you wrote?! He condemned all fornication, and by His Spirit further so, and you would have to put the N.T. through a paper shredder to eliminate that!
By your interpretation of the bible Jesus condemned fornication. That's fine, and your opinion, and may well be true, I don't know. Reading the bible it appears confused on the matter to me. The point you miss is that although he may have condemned fornication, he still would not be offended by this article. Do you think that Jesus would have felt offended? Lol. He would have simply laughed at it. Is that not what Jesus would have done had he read this? Please answer YES or NO. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 09:52, Feb 23
DrStrange, the issue with authority is whether it is warranted. Rome effectively rests upon its own declaration that it is (conditionally) infallible (according to our interpretation, our interpretation is correct, because we say so, a form of "viscous" CR), and requires implicit trust in herself, while acting contrary to the Scriptures which it effectively holds to be a secondary authority, and disparaging human reasoning and "private interpretation" of the Scriptures as a mean of assuredly knowing truth. In contrast Jesus provided (and provides) evidence by which to make a step of faith, and with obedience leading to more evidence, and obedience to the Bible itself result in realization of its promises, which is abudantlty testified to. And the Scriptures clearly evidence that God appealed to human reasoning, and treated the prior established revelation as authoritative, with that additional revelation conflating with it (with 278 different Old Testament verses being cited in the New and multiple more allusions), much in contrast to Rome's traditions such as praying to Mary.
As for your charge that i do not differentiate between the law and the concept of Christ's fulfilling thereof, quite the contrary is the case, as it is antinomian types who fail to distinguish between the ceremonial law and the moral law as concerns literal obedience. The N.T. specifically reveals the type of laws that were typological, these being those of the liturgical calendar, dietary laws and temple ordinances (Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 9:10), while moral laws are reiterated, include 9 out the 10 commandments. No where are moral laws includes in these. This is not a contradiction of Scripture, but a fulfillment of it, in which a New Covenant which was "not according" to the old was promised, (Jer. 31:31-34) yet the N.C. upholds and surpasses the morality it required.
While Christians are "not under the law" as regards salvation, as the righteousness it requires for acceptance before God is imputed under grace, (Rm. 3-5) nor is the law the end as regards the highest code of conduct, as Christ is, (Rm. 10:4) who fulfilled the requirements of the law, yet in calling believers to follow Him, the N.T. makes abundant appeals to the righteousness of law, that hey may live out practically the holiness which is imputed positionally. (1Cor. 10:8; Gal. 5:16,25) One does not escape Hell and find justification before God and gain eternal life on the basis of his "works of righteousness", (Titus 3:5) but by confessing his inability to merit such, and unworthiness of it, and instead trusting Christ as Lord and Savior to save Him by His blood and righteousness, with a faith that results in overall following Christ. (1Cor. 6:9-11; Titus 2:11-14; Heb. 5:9) And there is far more to morally following Christ than just being a good Samaritan, and which i seek to also be.
However, you basically reject the authority of the Bible, even while you upon it to make fallacious charge of sin, self righteousness and Pharisaical attitudes, which have no substance but are simply your ideologically driven mud slinging, while you defend profane parodies of Him. but with your autocratic interpretive grid you cannot be wrong. Peacebyjesus 02:52, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Hey, numbnuts, you are trapped in a meme and couldn't punch your way out of it if Madonna (take your pick which one) was waiting on the other side to blow you. Jesus had two commandments, love God with all your heart and Love your neighbor as yourself. All the rest is "fuck them over and I'll be left standing" semantics. Smoke some grass and write something funny. Jesus Christ, lighten up, caphice? Meme boy? Peacebypussy a few minutes later

Peacebyjesus is right

Fire+and+Brimstone

You people make me sick. I can't start to begin to describe my disgust at even the memory of the thought of the sight of this page. Where do you people get your ideas? The gutter? I could not even make it past the title and I had to read that in stages, just to get through it. I assume that the text and pictures that follow are as, if not more so, squishy and gross as the title, which is both squishy and gross. Shame on you for making this page. Shame! Words are not a weapon of Satan the Deceiver, unless you let Satan, the Deceiver, in to your heart, displacing the Holy Spirit who should be dwelling there, guiding you and leading you to Him for Him by His will, rather than writing this...this...this filth. The Lord (yes, the Lord!) invented language so that you (yes, you!) could be His tool on this fallen Earth, and praise Him and His boundlessly bountiful bounty, not so that you could embarrass both Him and yourself by going all crass and blue and potty-mouth, like late night television and other things that I do not watch on the television.
I have little doubt that you people all come from broken homes. Catholic and Atheist homes, probably. You people probably spend your days, unemployed and swilling the burning chill of the liquor and shooting the marihuana into your veins, surrounded by popery and rebellion against G_d. It's all about the here and now with you people isn't it?
Don't let temptation lead you to perdition!
What's next for you people, jokes about number two? Oh, won't that be so-called "funny"! Let me tell you something; comedy is supposed to be about about things that don't offend people. You've offended all the good people of this Christian Nation of these United States. This page is not comedy.
You should spend less time here and more time absorbed in scripture. Come, let the light of the Lord wash over you. Let your darkened soul, blackened by your willful defiance, reflect His might and His will and His love! There is no path to the Father, except through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who is also Him, His Father, but a different part that's the same but also not and the part is a whole of the three parts of Him, all of which are each the whole. Stare at the whole of Him and try to deny it. You can't. His whole is all that you need. Repent! You have nothing to lose but your sins. Get yourself right with the Lord before it's too late. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:06, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your stand for righteousness. Great image (is it really copyrighted or you can you share it freely?). Peacebyjesus 15:15, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
I did not add it. One of the people here did. I'm against smoking (you know, body - temple and all). Still, it's probably the least pornographic picture on the entire site. I touched the mouse on the "random" button, and think I saw a nipple. Is there no depth to which these people won't sink? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:26, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and they just steal images and put them here. I asked about it and got some falderal about "fair use". Sounds more like communism to me. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:23, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Joy and gladness, forgiveness too
Life everlasting and free
All that I've longed for and all I need
It's all in the name of Jesus --DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  15:30, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

The Sound Of His Coming


And I can hear a sound from heaven
As a rushing mighty wind
As God pours His spirit out upon all men

Gay Jesus is just another sign of his coming brother. Rejoice!--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  15:48, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Dammit! That proves it! I was wrong all along... Rejoice brother! MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 18:07, Feb 22
You people are still at it? Show some respect! If the common man won't stand up and defend our omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Lord against the defilers of goodness and light, who will? His infinite love, justice and mercy do have limits, you know. You will regret your mockery when you stand in judgment before Him, beside Himself at His own right hand. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:54, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
You are truly the keeper of God's children, Modus. BTW, are we still on for KKK next week?--Matfen 19:02, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
And God took a rib from Uncyclopedia. And he saw that it was good... Amen MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 19:08, Feb 22
I am but a simple tool. Of His will. And, no, I'm not "on for KKK". The Southern Baptist Convention apologized for not fighting hard enough to end slavery (and by extension racism and civil rights for whatever the coloreds are calling themselves today) way, way back in 1995. That era, thankfully, has passed. I don't have a singe racist bone in my whole body. Some of my friends are negroes. Heck, my gardener is Mexican! Or Panamanian? Hindu? One of those filthy countries. In any event, I can't understand a word he says and his lunch smells really bad.
Now the SBC is fighting for everyone's civil right to marry only people of the opposite sex, and this time, with the Lord's blessing, we will be victorious. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:26, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
And it was evangelicals who did not go along with the status quo who were among the leaders of the abolitionist movement, though slavery in the Bible was not that which was typically seen in 18,000's. Peacebyjesus 03:20, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Saint Paul predict that Jesus would come back to earth in the 18,000's? Party Like It's 17,999 a few minutes later
Maybe the WP page on slavery had 18,000 page views? Warp 5 Mr. Zulu. Peacebyjesus 06:16, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Which goes to show just how powerful the Lord is, that His grace can shine on even a Yankee's heart, like the great Evangelical Lutheran, Charles Hodge, and his treatise laying out the case for abolution, "The Bible Argument on Slavery". I'm sure that the South had many, too, but their names escape me at the moment.
My son asked me once, "If God is the objective, absolute and unchanging standard and foundation for morality and in one Testament He decreed that Man should take and keep slaves, then isn't slavery good even today?". I told him that the Lord's plan is ineffable, and to thank Him and His wisdom every day for the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit that dwells within him, so that he would not make the same mistakes that so-called "Christians" did these many years ago.
Shortly after that, we went on a family road trip to California in support of Prop 8. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:54, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there is not contradiction, as the unlike basic moral laws, which are transcendent, and not culture dependent, the institution of slavery was not a moral imperative, but is part of the cultural applied laws, dealing with a universal practice in the ANE, that was an integral part of economy, and which the Bible ameliorated, while making it dispensable when the culture permitted. Good study o nthat here. [1] As it was, the O.T. forbade returning of escaped slaves, and foreigners could even own Hebrew slaves, while requiring kindness be shown to the poor and the stranger, and its laws can easily be seen to be saving more lives from being lost due to immorality than ours do, while preventing long term debt. War however, war also prevalent back then. Peacebyjesus 06:16, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
That sounds an awful lot like cultural relativism to me. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:41, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects