43 Comments

• 1. jayhay  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm

  What do I think? I think you’re in way over your head, scholarship-wise. But I’ll skip that one or we end up in an Old Testament scripture-quoting contest - it doesn’t prove anything, or rather it DOES prove anything.

  But what I KNOW is that Jesus preached love and compassion for those society shuns, for the oppressed, for the meek who will inherit the earth, he preached humility, poverty, peace. You know, the GOP platform.

  Of course none of that will stop you from beating gays with your Bible (figuratively, I hope) - Lord only knows why that makes you feel righteous and proud.

  As was once said, “If Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he’d never stop throwing up.” I’d say that goes for Goldwater, Eisenhower, Lincoln and probably Reagan too…

• 2. Max Power  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm

  Are the teachings of Jesus Christ homophobic?- No

  Is the modern Christian church homophobic?- Yes

  But that’s the great thing about free speech.

  You have the right to tell gay people that they will burn in perdition for all eternity, and people that disagree have the right to respond that you’re a bigoted asshat.

  Everyone wins…

• 3. Bigfoot  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm

  Christians express the opinion that homosexual behavior is sinful.

  Certain Muslims execute people for being homosexual.

  Which group’s behavior does the left have a problem with?

• 4. Some Assembly Required  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm

  Some Christians would execute people for being homosexuals, thankfully the good ol USA have laws against that.

  I think it’s safe to say the ‘left’ has a problem with both considering the average ‘leftist’ advocates for equal rights.

  Lets be honest, are Christians afraid that maybe homosexuals will have better marriage records then heterosexuals? I mean, they really can’t get much worse.

• 5. Sunny  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm

  “Which group’s behavior does the left have a problem with?”
  Bigfoot | July 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm

  I would guess both. And I am assuming that there no gays on the right side of the isle??

• 6. majoriot  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm

  “…Over centuries a set of rules were developed in order to regularise sexual activity and turn it more and more towards the act of self-donation it is supposed to be…”

  Ah, making rules about what is supposed to be.
  According to?…well, let’s say religion. ( do we know of a religion that supports all forms of consentua adult sexual behavior?)

  So. I should base my love for another human being on the rather absurd notion that a supernatural…ghost, of sorts…nay, a creation of human emotion and thought, has determined this for me.

  As for the policeman and his situation. To be honest, I don’t agree that he should have to follow the guidelines set forth. Unless he wants to keep from corrective action and perhaps keep his job. He can find other employment that doesn’t hold him to this requirement.

• 7. JPL  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm

  Hey Jay — Maybe you shouldn’t have skipped that “scripture-quoting contest.” I think it would have been a lot more instructive than the mush you wrote. C’mon, Jesus taught compassion, therefore he must have condoned homosexual acts? What nonsense. Jesus always showed tremendous compassion for the poor and humble, but He never preached that they were free to steal, lie or violate God’s other commandments. Similarly, he showed great compassion for the woman at the well, but didn’t and would never condone her sin of adultery.

  If you can cite actual passages from Scripture supporting the idea that God approves of men having sex with men and women with women, cite away. But please spare us theology of the Church of Whatever Makes You Happy, Man.

• 8. OhioOrrin  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 3:53 pm

  from a purely anatomical viewpoint - it is beyond argument that homosexuality is incorrect given our 2 biological forms.

  homophobia is an invented word which is political & doesn’t capture the meaning of a phobia.

• 9. jayhay  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm

  JPL - Scripture-quoting? You’d talk about abominations, I’d talk about shellfish, and we’d be off and running. It’s pointless. You’d say Jesus never said homosexuality was OK, I’d say he never said Microsoft Windows was OK. If your Christianity is locked literally into a 1600-2000 year-old second- or third- or eighteenth-hand text, well, just enjoy your companions in the Taliban.

  God gave us brains, and bodies, to use, to explore our world, to find joy, to love, and maybe get closer to Him (as if we can even comprehend that) and as if our genuflections matter to an omniscient God. My God, my Christianity does not insist I live according to ancient social mores, it insists on simple truths that I need to apply to my world - to love my neighbor, that I not judge, that I not kill, that I act with honor and humility and charity. The text above is about shame, accusations and mumbo-jumbo to “prove” gays are icky because Leviticus said so.

  For me, Christianity insists I use my brain to see what that text means today. And it’s for me to call BS when something beautiful is used to oppress and vilify based on your OBSESSION with other’s sexual activity (How many posts has this site written about this topic?!). Seriously, would you guys try to stop thinking about guys doing it? It’s really none of your business. If you just lived your life loving your brother, you’d please God. You can skip the gays-are-bad screeds and just keep your own side of the street clean.

• 10. nhak  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 5:50 pm

  Deleted - off topic, Mark’s possible stalker, commenter to be banned.

• 11. What?  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 12. Retired Spook  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 pm

  Homosexuality is one of those minor aberations that exists in the animal kingdom to such a small degree that I’ve never quite understood why people get so worked up over it. Most estimates I’ve seen put homosexuality in humans at 1-2%. I have a niece who’s gay, and it’s just no big deal.

  Dr. Dean Edell, a while back on his radio show, expressed what I’ve always thought was a pretty accurate explanation for homosexuality. His theory was that everyone is born with varying degrees of homosexuality. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being completely straight and 10 being completely gay, the vast majority of people are probably 7-10. The ones from, say, 4-6 may be conflicted and may choose to be either gay or straight, depending on factors within their environment, while those from 1-3 just don’t have much to say about it.

  I tend to agree with OhioOrin in that “homophobia is an invented word which is political & doesn’t capture the meaning of a phobia.”

• 13. dedosinuna  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm

  Is Christianity Homophobic?

  Gee, I don’t know:
  http://youtube.com/watch?v=iU0_T42U29M&feature=related
  http://youtube.com/watch?v=-gX-vQ5sMOw
  http://youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE&feature=related

• 14. ViralNexus  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 7:03 pm

  HOLY COW!!! I know that Spook got his numbering wrong (you did say most people are 7-10 meaning most people are gay) but I get the jest of what he was saying. I don’t think I have ever heard anyone talk about it so intelligently on this site before and that goes for liberals and republicans alike. Homosexuality is an aberration in the animal kingdom that can be seen in about 1-2% of ALL creatures. This is where theological hypocrisies come in to play. You can’t say that everything in nature is a creation of God and then claim 2% of that creation is against the will of God. First don’t be so arrogant as to believe you understand ANYTHING about the will of God. Secondly, as it was stated before, stop using a 1700 year old scripture that has been revised uncountable times, was written 300 years after Jesus died, and of which no one can verify the true identities of the original authors. God gave you a brain for a reason and you really should use it. There has to be another conduit for all of the animosity that is focused on a 2% aberration of nature.

• 15. Rana Quijotesca  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 7:06 pm

  Is Christianity homophobic? Well, it depends on the type of Christianity–and I don’t mean any particular denomination; I mean fundamentalist/traditionalist vs. moderate vs. liberal (that is, loose) reading of the scripture.

  (For the purposes of this comment, “Homophobia”-an unreasoning fear or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality [”unreasoning” means that it is not something that one can be persuaded otherwise on])

  Fundamentalists-they will definitely be homophobic, because a strict reading of both the New and Old Testaments will lead to belief in the absolute truth of various lines in Leviticus and Romans calling homosexual acts (strangely enough, only man-on-man is mentioned) “abominations.”

  Moderates are less likely to be homophobic because their relatively loose reading allows them to deemphasize parts that they don’t particularly like (How one chooses an order of importance for “divine” commandments I don’t quite understand, but people do it), which can be applied to homosexuality.

  Religious Liberals are most likely to be accepting of homosexuality because the reasons mentioned earlier, but they tend to just discount parts of doctrine they don’t agree with or like.

  Personally, I don’t agree with Christianity on a lot of things (obviously), but if you are going to believe in part of the book, believe it all and stop kidding yourself…

• 16. neocon  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 7:30 pm

  I believe the biggest obstacle between man and God is religion. There are just too many complex interpretations of a very simple message, and those interpretations lead to division, hate, phobias, and in the case of our friends in the ME, death.

  Jesus showed us all how it is done, we’re just not paying attention.

• 17. Some Assembly Required  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm

  RS,

  I agree almost entirely with what you posted. I do not believe being a homosexual is a choice. For those who are, they just are and theres nothing they can really do about it. In fact, I’m sure some would tell you they wish that they were not considering the damage it does to some families.

  Anyway, I have to disagree that homophobia is an invented word. There are people with genuine fears of homosexuals who walk the streets and even post here (Jeremiah). I had a friend once who was that homophobic that if he knew a homosexual was at a party he’d up and leave. I suspect these people who are homophobic probably live in a household where it is deemed ‘wrong’. They fear homosexuals simply because they are uncomfortable with their sexualities. Knowing if they turned to the ‘darkside’, their families would likely disown them, would most certainly give cause for fear. The other reason I blame on the Church. The whole homosexual treatment experiment in the past has created these repressed homosexuals. These people don’t know what’s up or down, thanks to those wonderful priests and mommy and daddy’s need for a ‘normal’ child.

  Oddly though, I have not seen anything proving or even suggesting this phobia translates outside of the human species. I mean, I have not seen any chimps being beaten or out casted because Jerry has funny sex with Jim.

  What I find even stranger is Greeks, Romans, and even Spartans (All 300 of them) practiced homosexuality with no real political ramifications like modern day. Sure they didn’t do it openly (Aside from Spartan warriors when heading to battle) but it was known and generally accepted. It’s only since a little before the ‘New World’ that homosexuality has become as big of a political issue as what it is. Giving way to the fears it instills in people.

  Personally I find it Ironic that in the century’s to come I see people looking back and laughing at how we took such meaningless moral issues so seriously.

• 18. Retired Spook  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm

  HOLY COW!!! I know that Spook got his numbering wrong (you did say most people are 7-10 meaning most people are gay) but I get the jest of what he was saying.</I.

  Yeah, my bad; I got it exactly backwards. But you all got what I meant.

• 19. Retired Spook  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 pm

  I believe the biggest obstacle between man and God is religion.

  neo, my wife and I kinda came to the same conclusion back in the early 80’s. We were both raised Methodist, and our families went to the same church — it’s where we met, actually. As young adults, we saw organized religion becoming more about money and social proselytizing than it was about worshiping God. We had friends who were cheating on their spouses. Over a dozen couples (mostly friends) in our age group got divorced in the course of just a few years. When someone in our church molested our 12-year-old daughter, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

  Interestingly,WRT the topic of this post, I never had the sense that the Methodist Church had much to say one way or the other on homosexuality.

  Anyway, once we divorced ourselves from “organized” religion, we both became much closer to God. It’s a decision neither of us has ever regretted.

• 20. neocon  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm

  We’re on the same page Spook.

• 21. Retired Spook  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm

  Yeah, neo; I got that impression.

• 22. Tractatus  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 11:36 pm

  Is Christianity Homophobic?

  It doesn’t have to be, but it certainly can be (and often is as espoused by hardcore fundies).

• 23. What?  |  July 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm

  Neocon writes:
  ” I believe the biggest obstacle between man and God is religion.”

  Creepy, I agree with you on something. I beleive that is a first.

  I would think that with that sentiment you would be as annoyed as I am when Mark starts placing his own religion above all others as the one true religion. Am I wrong? Are you okay with it?

• 24. ViralNexus  |  July 24th, 2008 at 12:07 am

  What is going on here? I hate to even put this out here but we have combined the issues of homosexuality and religion and everyone is getting along (well minus the first couple of ignorant posts). This is great, keep up the good work.

• 25. JPL  |  July 24th, 2008 at 12:58 am

  I hate to interrupt your love fest here, but what have you all decided to do with the poor benighted policeman who stubbornly refuses to accept the new establishment view on sex? (Which is the view that it’s no big deal if we completely separate sex from any willingness to bear and raise a child.)

• 26. Mark Noonan  |  July 24th, 2008 at 1:18 am

  what,

  I don’t “start” placing my religion above all others - as I am adherent of it, I naturally think that of all the various ideas out there, it is the most correct. If I didn’t believe that, there wouldn’t be much point in belonging, now would there?

  One of the odder phenomena of modern life is the people who view religion as a sort of hobby…to be used when wanted and ignored all other times. Pick a side, that is always my view.

• 27. Mark Noonan  |  July 24th, 2008 at 1:32 am

  jayhay,

  The curious thing about Christianity is that it doesn’t adhere to ancient morality - as a matter of fact, Christian morality is unique in the world…even Judaism doesn’t give an indication of what Christian morality would be. Christ preached a morality in direct contradiction to the spirit of the age - and one of the things people have been trying to do almost from the start is modify Christ’s morality to fit the age, rather than modify themselves to fit Christ. You - and many others - are trying to shape Christ into something which is ok with homosexuality…but Christ has his own shape, and he can’t be changed, and any attempt to modify him to suit our desires is foolish and bound to fail.

  For 2,000 years now the Church has faced one after another (and some times the same thing under slightly different guises) heresies which have attempted to keep some desired part of Christianity while excluding some part considered inconvenient for one reason or another. In your particular instance you are trying very much to keep Christ’s love for the lost sheep, while doing without Christ’s command to “go forth, and sin no more”.

  God did, indeed, give you a brain so that you may learn about things - and the first thought you should have when you approach these issues is, “who I am to decide what is right and what is wrong?”. This is because the primary thing a wise man understands is the impossibility of figuring it out on his own. Authority has its place - question it, indeed, but don’t use “question authority” as a cover for “ignore authority”.

• 28. What?  |  July 24th, 2008 at 3:02 am

  Noonan writes:
  “but it is an important point to be held because alone amongst the religions of the world, Christianity (and its base, Judaism) understand the true worth and use of sexual activity.”

  This is placing your religious views above others, Mark. If I said this about another religion to you, you would take offense.

  Then there is this:
  “I naturally think that of all the various ideas out there, it is the most correct. If I didn’t believe that, there wouldn’t be much point in belonging, now would there?”

  Here is your problem. You are obsessed with being correct. This is a running theme in your personality. You either got really good grades or really bad grades in school, huh?

  Adhering to one faith doesn’t require you to denigrate other faiths and point out how yours is better. Doing so only demonstrates a lack of faith in your own religion. Faith is something you can share with others, not brag about.

  Also you want people to “pick a side” when it comes to religion. You make it sound like you are choosing who your favorite NFL player is.

  Think of how strange your thinking is, Mark. In your four decades on this planet do you really feel you are enlightened enough to choose one religion as the one true religion? You have stopped exploring all other spiritual possibilities and have settled on one (that just happens to be one of the dominant religions in the United States.) Your certainty in your choice and your need to trumpet it demonstrates both arrogance and fear.

  Those with the greatest faith are those who have harshly examined their own under the brightest light. It is so easy to believe in something when you don’t question it.

  Finally, the point of belonging to a religion is not not to be “correct.” Belonging to a religion is about creating a spirtual connection with the divine. There is no correct way of doing this, despite what you say. It is a personal endeavor between one man and his god.

• 29. congressive  |  July 24th, 2008 at 3:23 am

  So to call Christinaity[sic] homophobic is to essentially call Christ’s Church an evil upon the face of the earth.

  Hallelujah!! Finally, a breakthrough. All the death, manipulation, fear-mongering, superstition and yes, homophobic bludgeoning of mankind under the guise of “love” may someday be forgiven if you stay on this enlightened path.

  The fictitious character Jesus never spoke a word, pro or con, about homosexuality. Not a word. It was only later, long after the character was dead and gone, that church writers decided to add that little tidbit.

  The truth is coming, and it will set you free. Jesus never was. The Bible is a hodgepodge of agendized and often contradictory writings by men who considered themselves holier than the rest of us. Sure, there’s some great stuff. But there is also dribble about rejoicing in bashing enemies’ babies on rocks.

  Homosexuality very well may be a social survival mechanism when a society comes under the stress of limited resources, something like the way goldfish stop growing in a small aquarium. Looking at the higher geographic density of metropolitan areas known for a high percentage of gays, San Francisco, Manhattan, Mumbai, etc., homosexuality may be triggered by environmental constraints to prevent a population from breeding itself into starvation and extinction.

  Population studies using the Nash Equilibrium as a guide bear this out. Easter Island is an excellent micro cosmos that bred itself into the complete depletion of resources, leading to war, famine and ultimately the extinction of it’s indigenous peoples. The sex drive is uncontrollable within a population. People will have sex, sometimes risking death to do so. Had fifteen to twenty percent of it’s population shifted to non-breeding status, Easter Island may well have not just survived, but could still be a thriving paradise off the Chilean coast.

  Under these circumstances, homosexuality may well be key to our survival here on Earth. Remove the artificial “morality” issue, and it becomes clear gays play an important part in the survival stakes we face.

  Gay bashers: your turn.

• 30. Tim  |  July 24th, 2008 at 6:38 am

  Well i guess since you put it that way i do believe Christ’s Church to be an evil on the face of this earth as well as all organized religion.

• 31. Ted Diverson  |  July 24th, 2008 at 7:57 am

  Since Jesus was so obviously gay, how can a true Christian be homophobic?

  As been proven with all the sex scandals, the church is the haven for gays. Just ask Ted Haggard

• 32. Retired Spook  |  July 24th, 2008 at 9:10 am

  Well, what was getting to be an interesting discussion last night has certainly devolved into a Christian bashing, Jesus-was-gay fest. I guess that’s one of the reasons I seldom get involved in religious threads. Having, as I said previously, divorced myself from organized religion because it was not a positive force in my life, I rediscovered what faith was all about.

  The really neat thing about faith is that mere words bounce off it like water off a duck’s back. I doubt that people like Congressive, Tim and Ted can understand that. Which is OK because, if there is a judgement day as I believe there is, I won’t have to answer for them, only for myself.

• 33. js  |  July 24th, 2008 at 9:37 am

  people always cite the “animal kingdom” as a justification for sodomy….but it really doesnt work that way…

  there isnt any distictive study of animals that shows from generation to generation homosexual traits are passed on…there is no scientific evidence that shows the desire to sodomize anyone is genetic…because its not true….

  the instinct to reproduce exists in every living thing…snakes…snails…and men and women too…just like monkeys…the way we deal with it is the only thing in dispute…if it controls our lives, or if we control it….

  while we have observed monkeys in some african or south american jungles sodomizing another monkey…the cognative ability of those creatures have to be taken into account for thier actions…yes…they can feed themselves…and are resourceful little critters…but really, for them to concieve that sodomy is not the purpose of thier reproductive system is a bit beyond reasonable…and cannot guide human behavior models….

  so humans see monkeys sodomizing each other…and use it as a crutch…because the human mind is very capable of figuring out the natural purpose of thier sexual reproductive system…

  so..effectively speaking…just because you saw some critter do it…is just an excuse…do you climb trees and pee on people passing by? like monkeys do…do you eat termites with a stick? monkeys do…so the excuse doesnt carry weight…its not genetic…its learned behaviors….

  what we call homosexuality is nothing more than deviant sexual behavior…cut and dried…there is nothing more to debate….because if they cant figure out the proper use of thier reproductive system and control thier lusts…yes…they are going to fall in love with another confused monkey…because they dont use thier cognitive ability and form habits that are dangerous and distasteful to those who understand the nature of these things…and instead of sodomizing other folks…they go out and have children…and thier children will have more children…generation to generation…century by century…forever….

  you ever seen the child of sodomy….there are none…

• 34. js  |  July 24th, 2008 at 9:39 am

  and spook…thats the way natures God intended it to be…

• 35. neocon  |  July 24th, 2008 at 9:43 am

  Religious threads usually do devolve into chaos, as does many of men’s interpretation of the Word. The Christo-phobics usually come out en masse.

  What?,

  Mark is a true follower of Jesus Christ and thus promotes His message at every opportunity, that’s not a feeling of superiority but rather a desire to educate.

  Jesus would have done the same thing.

• 36. js  |  July 24th, 2008 at 9:47 am

  the idea that christianity is homophobic is absurd…its called a porcupine attack…because homosexuals know deep down inside that what they do is not natural..and to remove attention from the truth about the matter…they have to attack….

  what the church teaches is in line with the natural purpose of the human reproductive system…and the human instinct to reproduce….and the bible is right…sodomy and deviant sexual behavior is an abomination….an unnatural behavior….and nature confirms that in medical science….and all the gory details that sodomy causes…

  its sick….if we taught the truth about sodomy to our children…like we did in every generation in america right up to the last 30/40 years….they too would reject sodomy….

  http://americansfortruth.com/news/surgeon-general-nominee-dr-james-holsingers-1991-paper-pathophysiology-of-male-homosexuality.html

• 37. Mark Noonan  |  July 25th, 2008 at 1:36 am

  congressive,

  Nice theory - the only thing wrong with it is that it is nonsense.

• 38. Mark Noonan  |  July 25th, 2008 at 1:42 am

  what,

  You presume too much - you don’t nearly as much about me as you might think; you certainly don’t know what my faith journey has been like or what I’m going through right now in it.

  To cut to the chase here - after very long thought and study, the great good luck of meeting the woman who would become my wife, and the very grace of God, I came to the Truth. Reason is the foundation of Christian belief, what - reason then fortified by faith. I’m not so-so about this; I have the absolute conviction based on myriad sources that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God; God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God…once you get to that point and garner a full understanding of a few other basics, you fall right into the most orthodox of Christian belief and for me this also entailed a return to my ancestral home, the Roman Catholic Church.

• 39. What?  |  July 25th, 2008 at 3:24 am

  Hmm,
  I think I hit it on the nose, Mark.

  You write this:
  “I have the absolute conviction based on myriad sources that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God; God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God…”

  This shows your “faith journey” has ended. Sure you may refine your beliefs but you are not open to questioning them. You are done. You are a Catholic and all other faiths are wrong. You repeat this over and over.

  Whatever the length of your period of “very long thouht and study” it would never be long enough to know the absolute truth of your faith. Hence the reason it is called faith. You are only capable of believing in it, not knowing it.

  I take issue with the many neo-catholics that I had to suffer through during religious classes and youth group sessions. They always took the easy road of trumpeting their beliefs with such authority. This conviction, to them, was somehow an indication of their faith. It was a little competiton they had amongst each other. Of course, when it came to other religions they took on an air of smugness.

  The harder road to faith involves not playing an advocate for one’s relgion and realizing that whatever the Catholic Church (or any other orgainized religion) says is at best a poor translation of Christ’s message. The hard road to faith involves not knowing whether it is true or not yet still believing in it and following it.

• 40. What?  |  July 25th, 2008 at 3:39 am

  Neocon,

  Your previous comment I agreed would tend to show you don’t think someone like Mark actually knows Christ all that well.

  Mark writes:
  ” I have the absolute conviction based on myriad sources that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God; God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God…once you get to that point and garner a full understanding of a few other basics, you fall right into the most orthodox of Christian belief”

  Mark basically claims to be a strict adherant to his organized religion. In your previous post you said that following a religion gets in the way of one’s relationship with God.

  So, which is it? Is Mark’s strict adherance to relgion aid him in talking to God or does it make his relationship with God suffer?

  You also wrote:
  “There are just too many complex interpretations of a very simple message”

  What is the simple message?

• 41. js  |  July 25th, 2008 at 6:36 pm

  is the bible what you say it is what?? or are you shooting from the hips??

  its a certain fact that it had revealed factual information of history…

  its a certain fact that it proclaims Jesus

  its a certain fact that the bible is not the only verification that Jesus lived….so what you need to show us is that there is ancient information that details that Jesus didnt live…based on that alone…i assume accurately that your halfwit ways are consistent in all of your endevors….

  dealing in a study of the bible, a field called textural criticism, details in fact, the authenticity of the text…simple enough…so…

  please…if you cant deal with the truth…you really should not be dealing at all…..so where is the proof that will turn these fields of study upside down and prove that you, yourself, are doing more than spreading halfwitted lies and gossip….where…please…show us all….

• 42. What?  |  July 26th, 2008 at 1:13 am

  Hmm js,
  I think you are kind of off, here.

  So are you saying that because there is historical evidence that there was a man named Jesus, he was the son of God?

  Do you see the problem with your statement. A person’s existence does not prove he is the son of God. You are missing a critical step in your thinking. Sure, there is evidence of Jesus’ existence, but there is nothing evidencing he was the son of God other than the Bible, a somewhat bias source.

  The larger problem you face is that you are basically saying every religion is true since all are based in part on some historic event or figure.
  For example, there is historical evidence showing that Mohammed was a real person who preached Islam in the 8th century. By your logic, his very existence proves he was a prophet. If he was a true prophet, then Islam is the correct religion.

  Sorry, js. Try as you might you will never prove Jesus was the son of God. The best one can do is believe it.

  Also, please try writing in complete sentences next time. It will make your writing more coherent.

• 43. js  |  July 27th, 2008 at 10:10 am

  actually what, i dont think the term Son of God exists in this blog right up to your post….no…i didnt say anything of that nature…but then again…critical steps go beyond the shallow thought of merely physical existence, where mamon exists for those like you….you cannot serve two masters they say….for if you worship the flesh…you can not give full creadence to spirit…yet if you worship in spirit…you realise the lack of need to worship anything in the flesh…

  so…in your questioning…which is created through the worship of nothing but mamon….an answer about spirit does not register as real…suffice then to say….that in your ignorance you reject God…while he patiently waits for you to grow up….growing this way is like finding a treasure if a field….because when you find it….you will go out an sell everything you have to buy that field….because the treasure is so great that nothing else matters…

  so saying Jesus was not the Son of God is an incomplete view of reality…as reflected in you post above….the worsip of mamon you could say…because you dont even know God to start with…and if you dont know God…you will never know His Child…..or the wonderful treasure that He gave us….

Matt Margolis on Twitter