If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(First Things)   Finally, a gay bishop in the Episcopal Church writes a powerful, well thought-out defense of gay marriage... *flip* *flip* "Jesus and John the Apostle were homosexual soulmates." Okay, scratch that, maybe next time   (firstthings.com) divider line 63
    More: Fail, John the Apostle, Episcopal Church, gay bishops, gays and lesbians, Bull Connor, Gene Robinson, gender neutral  
•       •       •

864 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:08 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-11 07:44:07 PM
Sorta like Batman and Robin?
 
2014-03-11 07:53:14 PM
He's not the first to suggest that Jesus had teh ghey
 
2014-03-11 07:55:36 PM
Keep it up, Christians.  Eventually, you'll come to the realization that all the tortured, twisted apologetics in the world won't change a damn thing and you've bought into a broken system.  Hopefully, you won't get hurt too badly in the process.
 
2014-03-11 08:15:10 PM
Hangs out with 12 dudes, six-pack abs, perfectly-conditioned hair in a desert?
 
2014-03-11 10:12:34 PM
You're not helping
 
2014-03-11 10:15:13 PM
"This appears to be a kind of Arian code for "I don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God," but as with much mainline doublespeak, one simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology."

Stopped reading right there. "One simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"? Please.
 
2014-03-11 10:15:58 PM
I'm biased towards episcopalians, because I grew up one, but it's nice to see a theological argument, and a critique of that argument, that is reasoned and measured without being shouty and aggressive.
Now personally I care as much about God's opinion on homosexuality as I do the Easter bunny's, but it's still nice to see.
 
2014-03-11 10:16:57 PM
Can you disprove it? No?

So there's just as much evidence as there is for a Christian god?
 
2014-03-11 10:19:47 PM
 
2014-03-11 10:19:56 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-11 10:21:25 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I'm biased towards episcopalians, because I grew up one, but it's nice to see a theological argument, and a critique of that argument, that is reasoned and measured without being shouty and aggressive.
Now personally I care as much about God's opinion on homosexuality as I do the Easter bunny's, but it's still nice to see.


That review was pretty aggressive. "Mainline oublespeak", "lockstep with the progressive agenda", "one can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"...
 
2014-03-11 10:22:12 PM
It's nice that he's a gay Episcopal bishop.

It's sad that he has to find a way to make the Bible still be the inerrant word of god and yet support homosexuality anyway.
 
2014-03-11 10:30:40 PM
media.tumblr.com
 
2014-03-11 10:33:24 PM
Not sure why this gets the fail tag?  It's not far-fetched at all to think that Jesus was gay.
 
2014-03-11 10:33:54 PM

qorkfiend: "This appears to be a kind of Arian code for "I don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God," but as with much mainline doublespeak, one simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology."

Stopped reading right there. "One simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"? Please.


Okay someone is going to have to help me out here. What actually constitutes "christology"
 
2014-03-11 10:34:13 PM
"Robinson also asserts that raising children is not a primary religious purpose of marriage for those able to conceive, and is merely optional, a view which contradicts countless biblical pericopes. But perhaps the most astounding of all his biblical propositions on marriage was his observation that Jesus and the apostle that He loved, John the Apostle, were homosexual "soulmates," while perhaps not lovers."

I have a feeling that the author of the editorial may be taking liberty with what Robinson actually wrote; I'll have to check his actual book, rather than trust a fundamentalist editorial attacking his book.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Believes-Love-Straight-Marriage/dp/0307948 09 9

/Episcopalian.
//When we takeover and force our religious views down America's throat, it will be fabulous.
 
2014-03-11 10:35:28 PM

ScaryBottles: qorkfiend: "This appears to be a kind of Arian code for "I don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God," but as with much mainline doublespeak, one simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology."

Stopped reading right there. "One simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"? Please.

Okay someone is going to have to help me out here. What actually constitutes "christology"


lmgtfy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

Basically, the author is claiming that Robinson is Christian in Name Only.
 
2014-03-11 10:36:46 PM

qorkfiend: "This appears to be a kind of Arian code for "I don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God," but as with much mainline doublespeak, one simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology."

Stopped reading right there. "One simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"? Please.


Christology is a word used by Theologians to describe the level of divinity ascribed to Jesus so don't dismiss it. (Example: The Gospel of John has the highest level of Christology of the Gospels)

The notion of "homosexual soulmates" is laughable. That being said I have a problem with the articles author freaking out because this guy had the temerity to reinterpret The Ol Testament. Jesus is supposed to be Gods new covanent with all mankind, and Christianity has a tradition of reinterpreting the old rules since the time Christians were just weird Jews.
 
2014-03-11 10:38:07 PM
You want an argument for the Biblical case for gay marriage?  Then try this:

Imagine the happiest, most moral, saintly, best parents, and overall nicest people you know heterosexual couple.  Now, imagine that instead of being man and wife, they were husband and husband or wife and wife.  Would they suddenly become bad parents?  Would they suddenly become a threat to the moral fabric of the nation?  Would they suddenly become any less deserving of God's love and acceptance into Heaven?  Or would the only thing that would change would be whether one of them sat down to take a piss?

My position: any God that determines whether a person is good or not by whether the person they love is a man or woman is no God worth worshiping.  He would be, in fact, an Asshole.
 
2014-03-11 10:38:10 PM
John 13:34-35: A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

Well, that sounds kinda gay.
 
2014-03-11 10:39:19 PM

qorkfiend: "This appears to be a kind of Arian code for "I don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God," but as with much mainline doublespeak, one simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology."

Stopped reading right there. "One simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"? Please.


Welcome to apologetics, the branch of "philosophy" were the goal is to break logic and bend the language into a pretzel, where most philosophies are trying to do the opposite.

// If you want to really explode your brain with stupid, look up apologetics claiming to solve the problem of evil without shortening/breaking one of the legs.  They invent like 300 different words for "shut up and believe this even though the evidence/logic indicates the exact opposite", it's so bad you'll have to either laugh or cry.  Or both, I guess.  My favorite is "ineffable".
 
2014-03-11 10:43:52 PM

HighOnCraic: ScaryBottles: qorkfiend: "This appears to be a kind of Arian code for "I don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God," but as with much mainline doublespeak, one simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology."

Stopped reading right there. "One simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"? Please.

Okay someone is going to have to help me out here. What actually constitutes "christology"

lmgtfy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

Basically, the author is claiming that Robinson is Christian in Name Only.


I should've guessed.
 
2014-03-11 10:44:23 PM

Jim_Callahan: qorkfiend: "This appears to be a kind of Arian code for "I don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God," but as with much mainline doublespeak, one simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology."

Stopped reading right there. "One simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"? Please.

Welcome to apologetics, the branch of "philosophy" were the goal is to break logic and bend the language into a pretzel, where most philosophies are trying to do the opposite.

// If you want to really explode your brain with stupid, look up apologetics claiming to solve the problem of evil without shortening/breaking one of the legs.  They invent like 300 different words for "shut up and believe this even though the evidence/logic indicates the exact opposite", it's so bad you'll have to either laugh or cry.  Or both, I guess.  My favorite is "ineffable".


"Ineffable": a word used when someone just wants to say "I can't farking explain it" but, for whatever reason, is unable to use the f-word.
 
2014-03-11 10:45:34 PM
"Romantic Orientation" is a thing. Some are more likely to call it "bromance."
 
2014-03-11 10:46:07 PM

Karac: You want an argument for the Biblical case for gay marriage?  Then try this:

Imagine the happiest, most moral, saintly, best parents, and overall nicest people you know heterosexual couple.  Now, imagine that instead of being man and wife, they were husband and husband or wife and wife.  Would they suddenly become bad parents?  Would they suddenly become a threat to the moral fabric of the nation?  Would they suddenly become any less deserving of God's love and acceptance into Heaven?  Or would the only thing that would change would be whether one of them sat down to take a piss?

My position: any God that determines whether a person is good or not by whether the person they love is a man or woman is no God worth worshiping.  He would be, in fact, an Asshole.


Some people like worshiping assholes. Example: Ted Nugent.
 
2014-03-11 10:52:10 PM

HighOnCraic: ScaryBottles: qorkfiend: "This appears to be a kind of Arian code for "I don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God," but as with much mainline doublespeak, one simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology."

Stopped reading right there. "One simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"? Please.

Okay someone is going to have to help me out here. What actually constitutes "christology"

lmgtfy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

Basically, the author is claiming that Robinson is Christian in Name Only.


Along with anti-homosexuality, I tend to look down upon or outright reject any form of Christianity which uses terms like Christology.  Jesus is supposed to be accessible to all mankind.  No longer do you have to approach God through a high priest who can only speak to Him one special day of the year and after the proper ritual purifications.  You just talk to him like, you know, a person named Jesus.  And if your explanation of that concept requires a wikipedia entry with 69 citations and an in-depth knowledge of two thousand year old Greek dialects, then it's pretty damn inaccessible to the common man.
 
2014-03-11 10:53:21 PM

Karac: You want an argument for the Biblical case for gay marriage?  Then try this:

Imagine the happiest, most moral, saintly, best parents, and overall nicest people you know heterosexual couple.  Now, imagine that instead of being man and wife, they were husband and husband or wife and wife.  Would they suddenly become bad parents?  Would they suddenly become a threat to the moral fabric of the nation?  Would they suddenly become any less deserving of God's love and acceptance into Heaven?  Or would the only thing that would change would be whether one of them sat down to take a piss?

My position: any God that determines whether a person is good or not by whether the person they love is a man or woman is no God worth worshiping.  He would be, in fact, an Asshole.


Personally I'm reminded of the words used in Cosmos this past Sunday; "your God is too small"

Saying that God would look upon same sex love and itercourse differently than heterosexual love and intercourse ascribes a gender bias to Him/Her. Doing that attempts to limit the limitless divine.
 
2014-03-11 10:58:59 PM

Karac: You want an argument for the Biblical case for gay marriage?  Then try this:

Imagine the happiest, most moral, saintly, best parents, and overall nicest people you know heterosexual couple.  Now, imagine that instead of being man and wife, they were husband and husband or wife and wife.  Would they suddenly become bad parents?  Would they suddenly become a threat to the moral fabric of the nation?  Would they suddenly become any less deserving of God's love and acceptance into Heaven?  Or would the only thing that would change would be whether one of them sat down to take a piss?

My position: any God that determines whether a person is good or not by whether the person they love is a man or woman is no God worth worshiping.  He would be, in fact, an Asshole.


My theory is, if there were a god, he would not see us as men or women, black or white, gay or straight. He would only rec
 
2014-03-11 11:00:59 PM
*crap* he would only recognize or see (or judge) our souls. Why would he care who we love? It seems he would be more concerned about who we hate.
 
2014-03-11 11:02:46 PM
the holey scripture
 
2014-03-11 11:02:47 PM

Karac: HighOnCraic: ScaryBottles: qorkfiend: "This appears to be a kind of Arian code for "I don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God," but as with much mainline doublespeak, one simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology."

Stopped reading right there. "One simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"? Please.

Okay someone is going to have to help me out here. What actually constitutes "christology"

lmgtfy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

Basically, the author is claiming that Robinson is Christian in Name Only.

Along with anti-homosexuality, I tend to look down upon or outright reject any form of Christianity which uses terms like Christology.  Jesus is supposed to be accessible to all mankind.  No longer do you have to approach God through a high priest who can only speak to Him one special day of the year and after the proper ritual purifications.  You just talk to him like, you know, a person named Jesus.  And if your explanation of that concept requires a wikipedia entry with 69 citations and an in-depth knowledge of two thousand year old Greek dialects, then it's pretty damn inaccessible to the common man.


Again Christology is a scholarly term not a religious one. There's a reason the Christians split from the Jews and it mainly has to do with the fact that one group believed Jesus to be divine and the other did not.when examining ancient texts there has to be a measurement of where the author falls on that scale. My previous example should demonstrate that because the Gospels portray Jesus with differing levels of divinity. Not surprising that John is the most blatant "Jesus equals God" because it was the last written and closest to the split.
 
2014-03-11 11:12:32 PM

meat0918: You're not helping


yeah, I know.  I mean if American Christians thought Jesus had teh gay, they'd start abandoning his other teachings that they care so much about like social justice, charity, and forgiveness instead of retribution
 
2014-03-11 11:29:54 PM

ScaryBottles: [media.tumblr.com image 300x361]


 I love MS Paint art when it's well done-ish like this.
 
2014-03-11 11:30:05 PM

HighOnCraic: ScaryBottles: qorkfiend: "This appears to be a kind of Arian code for "I don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God," but as with much mainline doublespeak, one simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology."

Stopped reading right there. "One simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"? Please.

Okay someone is going to have to help me out here. What actually constitutes "christology"

lmgtfy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

Basically, the author is claiming that Robinson is Christian in Name Only.


Just read your link. I was using the definition of the.word used by a professor at The University of Toronto. Gonna have to relisten to those lectures to make sure I'm not confused.
 
2014-03-11 11:43:05 PM

dababler: ScaryBottles: [media.tumblr.com image 300x361]

 I love MS Paint art when it's well done-ish like this.


I wish I could take credit for this one. FunnyJunk is a veritable goldmine.
 
2014-03-12 12:10:25 AM
First there was heresy. Now there's HIMESY!
 
2014-03-12 12:12:42 AM

ScaryBottles: qorkfiend: "This appears to be a kind of Arian code for "I don't believe Jesus to be the Son of God," but as with much mainline doublespeak, one simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology."

Stopped reading right there. "One simply can't be certain about Robinson's Christology"? Please.

Okay someone is going to have to help me out here. What actually constitutes "christology"


First thing, get a bull. Doesn't matter what species. Then feed him, again it doesn't matter what you feed him. Then you wait. Usually within a day, some black or brown stuff comes out the back end. That stuff is called "christology".

/Or bullshiat.
 
2014-03-12 12:26:03 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-12 01:18:10 AM

Jim_Callahan: Welcome to apologetics, the branch of "philosophy" theology


FTFY
 
2014-03-12 01:50:00 AM
Fan fiction is way too gay.
 
2014-03-12 02:00:45 AM
It seems to me that if Jesus were gay, and he really was in cahoots with a Divine Higher Power who Really and Truly inspired men to write books about their new religion, then SOMEWHERE in those writings would be an explicit passage that stated "And my Father doth say, It doesn't matter whom you love, just love somebody."

("Whom," right? It is "whom" in that usage, isn't it?)
 
2014-03-12 02:09:15 AM
John: Mother, Jesus and I are in love. We are getting married and adopting children.
Salome:  My son, love is love, Yahweh knows... May your house flourish in His name and guide your children in our Jewish faith!
Jesus: Awkward...

/"Jesus Christ, at least circumcise the boys!"
 
2014-03-12 02:23:20 AM

CanisNoir: There's a reason the Christians split from the Jews and it mainly has to do with the fact that bacon is delicious.


/ftf all of us
 
2014-03-12 02:31:57 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: It seems to me that if Jesus were gay, and he really was in cahoots with a Divine Higher Power who Really and Truly inspired men to write books about their new religion, then SOMEWHERE in those writings would be an explicit passage that stated "And my Father doth say, It doesn't matter whom you love, just love somebody."

("Whom," right? It is "whom" in that usage, isn't it?)


Have you read any of the 'Gnostic Gospels'? While that isn't explicitly mentioned, there are a lot of passages that are direct quotes from text that made it in the bible aside from changes to fit a patriarchal worldview. ("Let all people hear my words" becomes "Let all men hear my words", for example) I would not be surprised to find that just such a teaching had been suppressed by the 'church' in the last 1500 years or so...
 
2014-03-12 02:45:51 AM

grumpfuff: Jim_Callahan: Welcome to apologetics, the branch of "philosophy" theology

FTFY


It's ostensibly naturalistic philosophy used to "prove" elements of theology, not theology in itself.

In practical terms, yes, but they are in fact at least pretending that it isn't, thus the sarcasm quotes.
 
2014-03-12 02:50:35 AM

Jim_Callahan: grumpfuff: Jim_Callahan: Welcome to apologetics, the branch of "philosophy" theology

FTFY

It's ostensibly naturalistic philosophy used to "prove" elements of theology, not theology in itself.

In practical terms, yes, but they are in fact at least pretending that it isn't, thus the sarcasm quotes.


They can call it whatever the hell they want, but the last work that can be considered an apologetic(that I can think of off the top of my head) that didn't have to do with religion is from ancient Rome.
 
2014-03-12 03:52:34 AM

HighOnCraic: "Robinson also asserts that raising children is not a primary religious purpose of marriage for those able to conceive, and is merely optional, a view which contradicts countless biblical pericopes. But perhaps the most astounding of all his biblical propositions on marriage was his observation that Jesus and the apostle that He loved, John the Apostle, were homosexual "soulmates," while perhaps not lovers."

I have a feeling that the author of the editorial may be taking liberty with what Robinson actually wrote; I'll have to check his actual book, rather than trust a fundamentalist editorial attacking his book.


Uh yeah, I'd like to read what he actually says in the book. I actually saw him speak in my church, back in my churchgoing days. He seemed like a really nice guy.
 
2014-03-12 03:56:33 AM

Fabulous!!!

i242.photobucket.com

 
2014-03-12 04:01:32 AM
img.photobucket.com

I don't want to insinuate something nasty here, but maybe Jesus should just get away from the glory hole, and have a seat over there...
 
2014-03-12 04:42:47 AM
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report