Talk:Gay Jesus/Archive 1

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Talk:Gay Jesus
Revision as of 15:18, October 7, 2011 by Aleister in Chains (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
So you want to learn more about Jesus?

Here is a list of the various interpretations and related personages attributed to Jesus. Further information can be found by visiting some of the places frequented by Jesus: Israel, the houses of tax collectors, big open fields, Heaven, and the southeastern US (proving that He could walk on swampland as easily as on water).

Sacred Heart

Original Jesus was said to be emo.
This is evident from his self harming, which can be seen on his hands and feet

Disambug
This is a disambiguation page. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
cs:Ježíš

de:Jesus es:Jesucristo fr:Jésus it:Gesù nl:Jezus pl:Jezus Chrystus pt:Jesus Cristo zh-tw:耶酥


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

Flamingcross
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
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
Embarassjesus2

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.
Angryjesus1
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
The "authority" of the Bible? It was written by men, not by god directly. What is there to not understand? Here you are, using all of these ancient rituals and what other people said thousands of years ago as if it's something other than what it is - People saying stuff. No, I don't recognize the authority of what some king in the first century wants me to believe. I don't recognize all of your vaunted Old Testament rules and regulations written by men. I have a conscience and that's all the god I need to tell you that you're full of shit and all of this legalese BS isn't religion. This is boys club crap. You love the law which is why you're a Pharisee. The fact that you actually expend energy looking to the law for your answer as to whether or not you have to treat homosexuals as equals is telling enough. You will always find the answer you want to find and, as a result, you worship nothing but the monsters from your id.
".....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."
WTF is that? So, you're not a Pharisee because you say so...If you cannot understand the meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan, you are indeed a Pharisee. You love law, not love. Are you going to tell me that your love of Jesus brought you here? Your god is so tiny that he needs you to come in here and threaten me with eternal damnation? It's all about you, isn't it? If you can find a reason to discriminate against gays in the Bible then you can basically justify anything. That's your "autocratic interpretive grid"--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  10:18, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Jesusblow

When I look at this animated gif I don't say to myself "who was the sick bastard who made this", I wonder aloud as to who was the "serious" person who made the homoerotic drawing/painting that has been comically taken to its latent extreme. I bet that the guy who drew this child with his head buried in Jesus' crotch is probably just like you. Overtly against sexuality while secretly a pervert in denial.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  11:43, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Biblical love " Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth" (1 Corinthians 13:6) which contrasts love with lawlessness an unholiness, and it is those who change the truth of God into a lie end up justifying homosexuality, etc. (Rom 1:25) Nor is grace to work a lower standard of holiness, rather it is given so that "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4) The apostle of love states, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1Jn 3:4) " For this ye know, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."(Ephesians 5:5) "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?" "...as also saith the law". (1Co 9:8; 14:34)
If you actually read the Bible as it is written you would see that that it is Jesus and the apostles who appeal to the moral law, and only uphold it, and also interpret Scripture by Scripture, and it is they who condemn you. Meanwhile, your specious use of the Bible to justify yourself is hypocritical as you reject its Divine authorship thru men, which position is necessary for you to justify yourself. Peacebyjesus 21:11, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
I see, so I MUST never have read the bible nor researched where all those infallible books came from. Basically, your position is that sex outside of marriage/procreation is sinful and that homosexuality is the ultimate form of fornication. I'm telling you that what I do with my penis is irrelevant to my standing with god and none of your books change that reality. You think that even joking about a gay Jesus is somehow immoral and worthy of eternal damnation. No matter what anyone tells you here, you are going to learn absolutely nothing from this exchange because it's already predestined to have you walking away thinking that you showed those sinners a thing or two. Frankly, the grossest sinning here has been done by you. You are the man who casts the first stone and as such will not be recognized by Jesus and thrown out of the wedding party for using the Bible to condone the hatred of others. You fixate on sexual sin like a pervert and have completely lost the knowledge of your intellectual sins against others.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  22:44, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
I MUST never have read the bible nor researched where all those infallible books came from This is plain misconstruane. What you should not do is invoke the Bible as the authority for your superior ethos when you blithely proceed to rejects its authority.
Basically, your position is that sex outside of marriage/procreation is sinful. Yes, you do have that correct. From Genesis to Revelation that is what it consistently says, thus you reject it.
...none of your books change that That is the problem. The rest of your response is more angry self-righteous sophistry, as one that is "wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason." (Prov. 26:16) Sorry you insist upon it being so, as i have tried to reason with you out of the Scriptures as far greater men have. (Acts 17:2) Peacebyjesus 00:51, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Hea! Don't argue with him! Argue with me instead! I demand my moneys worth dammit! Look you did not reply to this. Please do. Also... We will know when you are starting to question your truth because you begin to attack the users, and not what they say. As you are starting to now. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 01:09, Feb 24

OK, now that we've established just how tiny of a minority you are in the various Christian communities that exist in the world, tell me this. Of all the possible things you could be offended by in this world (and there's an awful lot), you have chosen to vent your displeasure at a humor page that makes jokes about an alleged Gay Jesus. Considering the fact that there are legions of people who are seriously advocating and presenting a Jesus that doesn't match your interpretation of those well researched manuals for perfect living, don't you find it silly that you're wasting time on a humor wiki over an article that isn't serious and doesn't actually promote that Jesus was ever gay? It looks to me like you have an inability to focus on what's important, which explains your extremely unpopular interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps you've fallen for the most addictive of sins: Cheap faith with zero consequences --DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  09:48, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Popehell2
It is no waste of time to reprove "works of darkness" (Eph. 5:11), but when the object simply treats the Word of God as an unholy thing, and rips as it a fleshly beast to mean contrary to true Godliness - as you consistently react every time you are reproved you for your vile parody of Christ and rendering of what holiness and Biblical love entails - then a certain warning applies. (Mt. 7:6). It is this you have chosen, and its punishment, (Rev. 22:15) but may God yet grant you, if possible, repentance unto life. Amen.Peacebyjesus 21:27, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
I see, so despite all of the intentional misrepresentations of Christ's message (like you) in the world, this fictional humor page is worthy of rebuking by the lord almighty (you) because you have ordained it so. Thank you for playing, sin again.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  21:57, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Man. You can't just pull a single quote out of the bible. That proves nothing. How about I toss Genesis 19:8 at you? Oh, that proves that fornication is OK then. Clearly you are doing what you accused me of doing (even though I had not). You are picking one part of the bible and suggesting it's the single voice of the bible. Clearly it's not. The bible is confused about many things. However, I think we can agree that there are some common values which do speak from the bible in enough places that they are undeniable. One of those is that Jesus consistently showed total humility. Because of that I think he would not have been offended by this article. This article IS NOT FORNICATION. It is a joke about fornication. Again you fail to answer my simple question. What would Jesus have thought of this article? Do you seriously think Jesus would have been offended? If you think it's possible to offend Jesus then you sir are no Christian. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 22:26, Feb 24
As the Lord said to Peter in Mat 16:23 (and Mar 8:33 and Luk 4:8), "Get thee behind me, Satan". I think that passage is clear enough. Your filthy mind probably turns it in to something filthy, though. I bet you think passages like Isa 16:11 are really funny, don't you? Can't you see the depths of your own depravity? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:31, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
What I want to know is WTF Genesis 6:1-4 is all about. The Nephilim? No really. That's some fucked up shit about there. Course the rest of Genesis is all fine... Except for that bald drummer. What a tosser he was... MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 23:45, Feb 24
Have you asked your Reverend about those? And take off those "glasses of unbelief". All passages that appear incoherent or morally troublesome only do so because you aren't bringing in the Christian Worldview when you read scripture. And heed the words of John 3:3 ("Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."). If you don't understand the bible that's because you are not born again (G_d will choose, indeed has already chosen, your time to be washed clean in the blood of the lamb, if He predestinated you for the Good Book's good ending. If He did not, you can boil in torment for your eternity of firey burning knowing that, somehow, it's still your fault anyway). In short, to truly believe, you have to already truly believe, so you should probably stop believing the wrong things before it's too late. I hope that clears things up. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:14, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I asked him about Phil Collins as you suggested, and he said "You know the song by Phil Collins, 'In the Air of the Night' about that guy who coulda saved that other guy from drowning, but didn't, then Phil saw it all, then at a show he found him? That's kinda how this is, you coulda rescued me from drowning, Now it's too late - I'm on a 1000 downers now, I'm drowsy and all I wanted was a lousy letter or a call, I hope you know I ripped ALL of your pictures off the wall, I love you Modus, we coulda been together, think about it, You ruined it now, I hope you can't sleep and you dream about it, And when you dream I hope you can't sleep and you SCREAM about it, I hope your conscience EATS AT YOU and you can't BREATHE without me" ... Dude listens to far to much Eminem if you ask me. I asked him about the Nephilim and he said it was about a load of aliens who came down from space (can't be angels cos they don't marry, and can't be humans cos the offspring were giants), shagged a load of women and were then all murdered by God in the great flood. Except for this one dude who survived. Personally I assume that's where Phil Collins comes from actually, although I am still confused because Phil Collins was a short arse. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 00:35, Feb 25
I bought a Genesis album once. When I found out, much to my dismay, that it wasn't about what it said it was about, I took it right back, post haste. As for the rest of your comment, you need help. More than I can, humbly, provide. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:19, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Are you disputing that Phil Collins is/was not a little bit stumpy? Here is a detailed discussion on the issue. OK, Frank Sinatra was 5'6" and I would not call him "stumpy" (well, not to his face anyway) but I still think the general consensus suggests that Phil Collins was/is shorter than Sting. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 01:31, Feb 25
You sound like a Pentecostal. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:29, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
JesusDances

Your responses continue to depend upon or display ignorance of the Bible.

You can't just pull a single quote out of the bible. That proves nothing. How about I toss Genesis 19:8 at you? Oh, that proves that fornication is OK then

I assure you that what i have stated dos not rest upon one text, and if i supposed you would actually contend that such things as fornication are not consistently condemned i could have posted far more. Sound exegesis systematically establishes doctrine, taking in the whole of Scripture, and interpreting it in the light of context, literary genres, linguistical aspects, and coventantal distinctions, where pertinent.

In so doing it is evident that all sexual relations with others outside the bond of marriage are revealed to be fornication, which is prohibited and condemned. (Gn. 34:1-4,13,31; 38:15,18,24; Lv. 19:29; 21:9; Dt. 22:13-30; Num. 25:1; Jdg. 8:33; 2Chrn. 21:11; Prov. 7:10-12; Hos. 1:2; Ezek. 6:9; 16:17,36; 20:7,18; 23:7; Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Cor. 5:1,11; 6:9,13,18; 7:2; 2Cor. 6:16; 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21, etc.)

As for textual evidence that fornication is sanctioned, the only possible texts are a couple historical narratives, which, like news reports today, by themselves do not establish a moral standard. In the case of Gn. 19:8, the context is quite clear, that of house under siege by men seeking men, in which Lot seeks to pacify them with virgin daughters. In the parallel story in Jdg. 19, the Levite does likewise with his concubine wife, and which they leave for dead after abusing her all the night. Lot resorting to this action under such pressure is akin to giving into rape at gunpoint, and do justifying fornication any more than circumstances as such as that may, even if Lot's motive was the preservation of the stranger.

The bible is confused about many things.

No, it is not the Bible which is confused, but as today, those who misunderstand context, etc., with the problem not being transmission, but reception, or those who suppose that peripheral areas in which the Bible has not provided clear light on indicates confusion.

If you think it's possible to offend Jesus then you sir are no Christian.

Rather, if you suppose Jesus is not offended by sin then you have "another Jesus" than that of the Bible.

Offend: 1. Cause to feel resentment or indignation 2. Act in disregard of laws, rules, contracts, or promises 3. Strike with disgust or revulsion

Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. [saving, rather than sacrificing oneself for good]

Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. [proceeds to warn of sins caused by hands, eyes...]

from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. (Mark 7:21-23)

Mat 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; [those who break God's laws]

And if you think Jesus is not offended by you making a parody of Him as a "gay Jesus" and indulging in pederasty, then you are most perverse, and shall indeed have your part in the Lake of Fire! Peacebyjesus 21:23, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, but since there were multiple Jesii with different opinions on that particular graphic and absolutely no storyline about Jesus having sex with children, your summary is invalid and unwarranted. There are Jesii upset with the article and criticizing the "Gay Jesus" story all the way through and you continue to act like you're reading a different article than everyone else. I know why you're doing that. You saw the words "Gay Jesus" and figured this would be a cakewalk, especially since you're some kind of (latent) "expert" on gayness and Christianity. Guess what sunshine, god has a sense of humor and you don't. Since the article promotes absolutely nothing and has several Jesii with several opinions, the idea that this is a "work of darkness" is unwarranted. The Bible has not been intentionally altered in this article for the sole purpose of spreading disinformation about Christianity and therefore is not something anyone cares about except you - the guy with the gay fetish.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  23:05, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Well, Peacebyjesus has not actually read this article. Obviously... MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 23:59, Feb 26
The thing that really gets me is the turning of my personal offense at him and his un-Christian actions & viewpoints into some kind of personal anger at authority and God. The guy thinks he represents both apparently. I should simply walk away from the argument but I have too much time on my hands and his flesh tastes like candy I guess.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  00:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Ok... You can't just pull a single quote out of the bible. That proves nothing. How about I toss Genesis 19:8 at you? Oh, that proves that fornication is OK then It makes no difference how many quotes you provide me which suggest one perspective. Shall I provide you with other material which directly contradicts those quotes you gave me? Did you watch this it was provided for your reference at the end of this page. If you don't watch this video we will be unable to continue this discussion.

The bible is confused about many things.

Um, clearly it is. based on the multitude of contradicting stories. Let's pick 1. Please tell me how it's possible for David to have 700 wifes and 300 concubines if "Though shalt not commit adultery". Let's not get confused by looking at other specific examples (there are thousands of direct contradictions) all I ask is that you explain to me this 1 issue with David and his concubines contradicting one of the ten commandments. I agree it's possible to miss-understand some parts of the bible. I don't see how it's possible to miss-understand or take out of context this part. If that's not confusion, I don't know what is. Please explain how I have miss-understood or taken out of context this part of the bible? I agree that the weight of the bible leans in the direction that fornication is not allowed, however it is clear (and you have agreed) that there are some places where the bible is confused. As there is confusion it then comes down to the reader to make a judgement. The judgements of men are sometimes wrong.

If you think it's possible to offend Jesus then you sir are no Christian.

I agree that Jesus does not like sin. I think offended is the wrong word as I think it's not possible for a man to offend Jesus. Maybe Satan can offend Jesus, but I don't think a man can. However, I see no sin here in this article. Please tell me what sin is committed by this article. I'm asking you for specifics here. Exactly which sin?

Resentment or Indignation? I don't think it's possible for Jesus to feel those things about something a man has done. Do you? MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 22:02, Feb 26

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)
Evil jesus
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)
While there certainly are culturally adapted laws (ox goring, roofs on fences, etc.), this is not like cultural relativism in which there are no moral absolutes, and as a more liberal criteria for divorce was allowed than under Christ, due to the recalcitrant nature of Israel, laws regulating slavery culturally implemented moral laws (as against murder), but which worked toward a higher standard which the fullness of revelation would revealed. The N.T. provides a greater degree of amelioration of slavery, while recommending slaves gain freedom, and with Paul requiring an escaped slave be taken back no longer as a slave, but a brother beloved in the Lord. Peacebyjesus 21:43, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
"Right for them. Wrong for us." or "Wrong for them. Right for us" are pretty much the definition of cultural relavitism. If slavery is absolutely wrong, then your tale has Him telling His Chosen to do wrong. Whether Israel was "recalcitrant" or not is moot, because Man isn't in charge. G_d is. Man follows the standard which the Lord has set by word, by deed, by His guidance in one's heart and by His very existence. Calvinism aside, men can choose to follow or not (whether, in the end, they are counted among the Elect or not is another matter entirely), but He is the CEO and His son, who is also Him, is the Chairman of Universe Inc. That's what my pastor said. Then we set out our covered dishes; casseroles, salads and the like. We normally bring coleslaw to the picnics. The wife makes the best coleslaw. Some disagree. They probably think that it is okay for there to be raisins in coleslaw. They probably believe that it is just fine to substitute coleslaw for, say, a jell-o dish with grapes and shredded carrots floating in it. I hope my point is clear. "Frankly," I replied, "I don't know what to believe anymore, except to put my faith in His infinite and just hands." 'Glass darkly' and all... Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:46, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Estragon123
Modusoperting or whomever you pretend to be today, you and peacebyjesus are like a tag team match, spouting sermons in the guise of "arguing" with each other. Modus has been a thorn in the side of uncyclopedia for a long time, blocking what he thinks are obscene pictures and articles, trying to stop Gay Jesus when it was created and ever since (you finally have a partner in censorship I see). Both of you are the kind who would stop the rest of us from putting roofs on fences. You are both gay, and I hope you are happy with each other's bedroom set and curtain selection, good day sirs. Peacebypussy 00:29 24 2 2MX
Is it my fault that this site, a coven of militant Atheists, Socialists, Moslem apologists and liberal so-called "Christians", requires the Righteous to rise up and fight the rising tide of garbage and filth that infests it, lest it rise too far and overflow, corrupting the very souls of our youth far and wide? "WWW" is not "the worldwideweb", it's "The Wordwideweb".
If this wrestling match teaches you nothing, at least let it teach you that you cannot win. The manager in our corner is stronger than the one in yours. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:30, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Will continue slavery discussion on your page later. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peacebyjesus (talk • contribs)
I'd keep it here, if I were you. Talkpages are for conversations about ponies and sunshine. That's my experience, anyway. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:36, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Whoa!! How had I not come to kill this too serious arguement yet?! —Paizuri MUN Talkpage My Contributions 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, not here Modusoperandi. We all know Pelargonium is one of your many sockpuppets, the one that always tries to cause a flame war. The use of the word 'kill' and misspelling of the word "Whoaaaa!!" gave it away. We are all fine with your religious rantings, we are used to that, but please, not your sockpuppets too! Peacebypussy 11:27 25 2 2MX
Don't blame me. The internets are full of crazies, here especially. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:57, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Law vs Love

Look at how many times this man invokes the law! Look at how many times he uses the word "law". Where is the love? It's only through the attractive powers of our gay savior that this poor man has come to us - unknowingly seeking our help. God indeed works in mysterious ways. I think it's time for another song.

Let's all pray for brother peacebyjesus and hopes he finds love in the world instead of law. Let's us pray that he is finally touched by the gay savior and forever changed. Then may he be able to remove the yoke of the law and entertain himself without fear of retribution. Amen.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  10:52, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Hang On!

Is there a game on Conservapedia called Uncycatroll? Do do hope so. Seriously. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 11:55, Feb 23

Peacebyjesus is correct

And his correctness is super hot. PM me if you're interested in allowing me to gently insert my erect penis into your gaping asshole. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN01:02, 24 Feb

Meh. You're just saying that. It's a sad day when heterosexual men turn gay just cos they want to bum some ranting Christian fundamentalist. You see what you did Peacebyjesus! You turned a straight man homosexual with rage! MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 01:17, Feb 24

150,000 People Will Die Today

Animated Gif Counter (18)

150,000 People
Will Die Today

The counter to the side is ticking off the number of people who have died since you opened this webpage. The vast majority of those people are entering Hell. Christ commanded his followers to share the Gospel with those who are perishing... who have you shared with today?

From Peacebyjesus' web page. The difference between this guy and David Koresh is that Koresh had a ministry and this guy has a webpage. He actually does have a proper counter for tallying up the hellbound souls unlike my intentional joke submission.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  10:29, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, it didn't take long to find something that contradicted the above

"Conversely, in the true light of the Biblical Gospel of CHRIST, it would wrong for a true Bible-believing Christian to practice physical violence or coercion in bringing souls to yield to their Lord and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST, or to defend the faith." http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/JESUS.Vs.Muhammad.html

Kind of funny because his alleged adherence to the Bible is not unlike the Islamic extremist's attitude. --DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  10:39, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ah come on. Everyone knows they copied both of em from the Egyptian book of the dead. Still, I note that no one is answering my question. If Phil Collins is from Genesis how come Peter Gabriel is only slightly taller than him? It's a God good dam question, you don't need to be devil evil to answer it. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 12:12, Feb 25
I think that Peter's swollen head made him bigger than Phil Collins. Then Phil turned around and became bigger that Pete but his head stayed the same size. Phil is currently looking to screw up another relationship so that he'll have source material for a new album.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  14:15, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

I have a complicated theological question

Flameing fart

You don't believe in Jesus? Hellfire for you!

Being Jewish I completely reject that idea of Jesus and your whole bollocks religion. I mean, seriously, Catholicism? That sounds more like a medical condition than a religion. In that case, am I allowed to argue that Jesus is gay? ~Jewriken.GIF 12:23, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly more evidence that proves Jesus was gay than there is evidence that proves Jesus ever existed. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 12:27 Feb 25 2010
That's not answering my question but you've opened an interesting can of worms - are you saying that Jesus was a gay non entity? ~Jewriken.GIF 12:55, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I'm understanding your post under this subheader. Are you asking if you can still argue that Jesus is gay if you completely reject Jesus and Christianity, or do you mean to say that Catholicism is a medical condition like homosexuality? On the latter, I'm not sure what bearing, if any, these two being medical conditions would have on one's ability to argue that Jesus is/was gay. On the former, if Jesus existed, he was clearly gay. The gayness of Jesus, whether he was simply a myth plagiarized from other mythologies, or whether he was a living figure whose biographers simply couldn't agree on anything, is indisputable, even by the infatuated disciples themselves. The gayness was there, but was the Jesus? --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 14:23 Feb 25 2010

A potentially daft non-theological question

Is modus serious or not? parts of it were so insane i was convinced it was a joke, but other bits it seemed like he was actually upset by gay jesus. --DougalthePanda 13:23, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Modus, you forget easily. Last July the Sockpuppets Board Of Supervisors proved that DougalthePanda was your sockpuppet as well. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on Jesus I suppose? Peacebypussy 13:34 25 2 2MX
i resent that. i was just curious...--DougalthePanda 13:44, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
You resent and are curious? Curiousity is a sin, it is the sin of questioning faith and the hand that god has dealt you. As for the other, I call John 15:25. Yes, I call John 15:25 on you. All in. Peacedbyplussy 14:10 that day
Clown1

Christians have better PR

How come nobody is freaking out like it's Y2K about Muhhamed(or however the fuck you spell that this week), Jehova, Buddha, etc etc etc? GOOD PR, that's what. Christians have all the best stories! We're going to be zapped up to a lawnchair in the sky and watch all you heathens take the mark of the beast and be stung eternally by giant mosquito with the face of Regis Philbin. Haw Haw!--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  15:14, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Buddha never wrote anything which got close to being as entertaining as the book of revelations. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 16:16, Feb 25
Which Buddha? --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 17:06 Feb 25 2010
Siddhārtha Gautama? You know... The one who based his teachings on the sensible parts of the Vedas. Same as Jesus did. Obviously. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 17:15, Feb 25

Oh My God! Betty Bowers makes videos now?

Now, here's an authority on traditional marriage.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  17:54, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Fucks Up, is Born Too Early

Jesusaurus rex Peacethroughstrenth or whatever your name is, how do you explain this? Does me posting this blasphamy series of computer code and electronic bits qualify me to go to Hell or whatever curse-power you think you have? Don't you realize that by sticking so closely to doctrinal gobbalygook that you've become the same kind of person Jesus came to Earth to contest and defeat? And how about the video just above, about the bible's view of marriage, people have asked you to comment on the points that Betty Bowers makes and you haven't done so yet. Very telling. Peacebypussy 20:44 27 2 2MX

He thinks he is better than us so there is no need to comment about the things he does not want to. I would be interested to know if he considers Raptor Jesus (or our other articles about Jesus) to be offensive. Although he did not even read Gay Jesus so I doubt he will read this. Basically the situation is that our friend has created a website and UN:N about it, so he's come here to try and drum up some business for it. The interesting thing is that a good few users here have actually looked at his site, but he has still not even bothered to actually read the article he is making so much fuss about. The mind is like a parachute. It works better when open. Our friend would do well to realise that. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 21:23, Feb 27
We don't think we're better than you. It's you pointy-headed liberals who think you're better than us, the heartland of America's backbone. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:32, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
We submit to your superiority if you happen to be a properly BBQ'd plate of baby back ribs.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  22:37, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
BBQ?! That's the Devil's cooking! Meat should be boiled, to remove excess flavor and nutrients. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:48, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Look! A threat to traditional marriage! I suppose it's OK as long as two male dogs don't get married - that would be blasphemous.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  22:57, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Goddammit! Why do I always get to these things so late?!?

Homosexuals

I'm vehemently against gay sex and to prove that point I shall now post this picture of two guys kissing.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  14:35, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Please, next time shit is going down, someone please contact me so I can jump right into the aforementioned shit. - ho scopato tua madre nel culo - 14:04,3March,2010

You must have heard about the BBQ'd plate of baby back ribs. Well, you are tool late, they are all gone. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 14:08, Mar 3
If everyone had responded to my lapel button reading "Ask me about our lord Mr. Wobble, the furnisher of our universe!!", your heart will have sang to this very page of blasphemy. Everyone is wrong. --nldr 14:12, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Sad Face You made me sad.
*sniff*

Why?
I guess I'll just leave this as my only comment on the subject.
And fuck you Nachalader for edit conflicting me. - ho scopato tua madre nel culo - 14:18,3March,2010
np, chedderer. --nldr 14:23, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Holy fuck, do these perverts have to put a huge picture of two guys kissing on this "Christian" anti-gayness page? Fucking latent freaks!--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  14:25, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
Sodomites madonna and britney

Decency forces me to censor the vile tongues of these lesbians--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  14:39, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Bigbangers

A good port of call, my brother. I am against the theory of the big bang, which is my opinion actually a big flop!!!!!! lol! Here is picture of proof, that I'm against it. --nldr 14:46, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Evilwalken

Why doesn't any guy ever want to kiss me like that? Peacebyjesus, how about you. Come on, Pucker up.

I don't have a picture to post :'( - ho scopato tua madre nel culo - 16:47,3March,2010
Crawhus

This page, if anything, makes me even sicker than I was before. When it made me sick. Here's a good, wholesome picture to cleanse your soul. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 18:12, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

284

Found a great one. - ho scopato tua madre nel culo - 19:14,3March,2010

And now for the real Jesus, who has returned to us, and forgives us for all the beef

Cowabunga
Personal tools
projects