Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's as opposed to you vacant minded types getting your dogma from YEC'ist sites such as the ICR.and I gather you got your information from some pro-gay website instead of from reading scripture.......lol.....if you pretend one happened I suppose you can pretend anything you want.....doesn't make you rational.....just makes you a pretender.....I suppose next you're going to say that Uriah's wife was really Uriah's husband.....and Solomon's mother was a guy......does that change the Greek language somehow?.....oh wait, you didn't intend your post to be responsive did you.......Would you be personally offended at the jeebus appearing during a gay pride event, swishing around in ass-less chaps?
If David and Jonathan were a couple that made a covenant then stripped naked to lay together, why would there be any surprise that Jesus might have laid with a naked boy or Judas?
David was twice a son-in-law to Saul, with Michal and with Jonathan.
The sin is the hate people have towards people in love. The church even frowned on passion between a man and woman. Sad when the body was designed to enjoy sex and to be a bond between two people.
I gather you have not read Samuel or Daniel, or at least no recently.
and I gather you got your information from some pro-gay website instead of from reading scripture.......lol.....if you pretend one happened I suppose you can pretend anything you want.....doesn't make you rational.....just makes you a pretender.....I suppose next you're going to say that Uriah's wife was really Uriah's husband.....and Solomon's mother was a guy......does that change the Greek language somehow?.....oh wait, you didn't intend your post to be responsive did you.......Would you be personally offended at the jeebus appearing during a gay pride event, swishing around in ass-less chaps?
If David and Jonathan were a couple that made a covenant then stripped naked to lay together, why would there be any surprise that Jesus might have laid with a naked boy or Judas?
David was twice a son-in-law to Saul, with Michal and with Jonathan.
The sin is the hate people have towards people in love. The church even frowned on passion between a man and woman. Sad when the body was designed to enjoy sex and to be a bond between two people.
I gather you have not read Samuel or Daniel, or at least no recently.
no shit for brains....the YEC stuff is only in your imagination........That's as opposed to you vacant minded types getting your dogma from YEC'ist sites such as the ICR.and I gather you got your information from some pro-gay website instead of from reading scripture.......lol.....if you pretend one happened I suppose you can pretend anything you want.....doesn't make you rational.....just makes you a pretender.....I suppose next you're going to say that Uriah's wife was really Uriah's husband.....and Solomon's mother was a guy......does that change the Greek language somehow?.....oh wait, you didn't intend your post to be responsive did you.......
If David and Jonathan were a couple that made a covenant then stripped naked to lay together, why would there be any surprise that Jesus might have laid with a naked boy or Judas?
David was twice a son-in-law to Saul, with Michal and with Jonathan.
The sin is the hate people have towards people in love. The church even frowned on passion between a man and woman. Sad when the body was designed to enjoy sex and to be a bond between two people.
I gather you have not read Samuel or Daniel, or at least no recently.
External sources absent an agenda to press are always the bane of existence for religious extremists who are intellectually stunted such that you must attack any source not consistent with your fundie ministries.
well I sincerely doubt you learned much about David and Jonathan in the book of Daniel.......and I gather you got your information from some pro-gay website instead of from reading scripture.......lol.....if you pretend one happened I suppose you can pretend anything you want.....doesn't make you rational.....just makes you a pretender.....I suppose next you're going to say that Uriah's wife was really Uriah's husband.....and Solomon's mother was a guy......does that change the Greek language somehow?.....oh wait, you didn't intend your post to be responsive did you.......
If David and Jonathan were a couple that made a covenant then stripped naked to lay together, why would there be any surprise that Jesus might have laid with a naked boy or Judas?
David was twice a son-in-law to Saul, with Michal and with Jonathan.
The sin is the hate people have towards people in love. The church even frowned on passion between a man and woman. Sad when the body was designed to enjoy sex and to be a bond between two people.
I gather you have not read Samuel or Daniel, or at least no recently.
Bible, several versions, in a number of languages is sufficient
well I sincerely doubt you learned much about David and Jonathan in the book of Daniel.......and I gather you got your information from some pro-gay website instead of from reading scripture.......lol.....if you pretend one happened I suppose you can pretend anything you want.....doesn't make you rational.....just makes you a pretender.....I suppose next you're going to say that Uriah's wife was really Uriah's husband.....and Solomon's mother was a guy......If David and Jonathan were a couple that made a covenant then stripped naked to lay together, why would there be any surprise that Jesus might have laid with a naked boy or Judas?
David was twice a son-in-law to Saul, with Michal and with Jonathan.
The sin is the hate people have towards people in love. The church even frowned on passion between a man and woman. Sad when the body was designed to enjoy sex and to be a bond between two people.
I gather you have not read Samuel or Daniel, or at least no recently.
Bible, several versions, in a number of languages is sufficient
The question i have is was he the pitcher or catcher?Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian
"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
I think perhaps you are thinking of the Song of Solomon......you remember Solomon, right.......the child of David and a woman?.......well I sincerely doubt you learned much about David and Jonathan in the book of Daniel.......and I gather you got your information from some pro-gay website instead of from reading scripture.......lol.....if you pretend one happened I suppose you can pretend anything you want.....doesn't make you rational.....just makes you a pretender.....I suppose next you're going to say that Uriah's wife was really Uriah's husband.....and Solomon's mother was a guy......
I gather you have not read Samuel or Daniel, or at least no recently.
Bible, several versions, in a number of languages is sufficient
I talks of love and sexuality, but you would know that if you had read
The question i have is was he the pitcher or catcher?Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian
"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
What would Jesus have exclaimed getting it deep and hard? "Oh me! Oh me!" Actually no, you typically crude fundie whack job. You should proof read your own comments which suggest you're just another ICR clone.no shit for brains....the YEC stuff is only in your imagination........That's as opposed to you vacant minded types getting your dogma from YEC'ist sites such as the ICR.and I gather you got your information from some pro-gay website instead of from reading scripture.......lol.....if you pretend one happened I suppose you can pretend anything you want.....doesn't make you rational.....just makes you a pretender.....I suppose next you're going to say that Uriah's wife was really Uriah's husband.....and Solomon's mother was a guy......If David and Jonathan were a couple that made a covenant then stripped naked to lay together, why would there be any surprise that Jesus might have laid with a naked boy or Judas?
David was twice a son-in-law to Saul, with Michal and with Jonathan.
The sin is the hate people have towards people in love. The church even frowned on passion between a man and woman. Sad when the body was designed to enjoy sex and to be a bond between two people.
I gather you have not read Samuel or Daniel, or at least no recently.
External sources absent an agenda to press are always the bane of existence for religious extremists who are intellectually stunted such that you must attack any source not consistent with your fundie ministries.
The Holy Spirit (the third part of the TRINITY) miraculously placed in Mary's womb the Messiah. God wants people to understand that they will benefit by not being greedy with money they were ultimately given by God. Adam sinned and brought death to humanity. However, Christ brings hope for what we must deal with today, along with a promise for a wonderful future. Christians want to preserve an environment that allows for free expression of Biblical truth ---- to be able to witness as unobstructed as possible so that others may receive salvation and find hope.Little Nipper, If he's your god then he impregnated his own mom-right?
Besides incest you're saying your god complains to himself for foresaken himself=Sybil like split personality?
Why does your god always need your money when he can make gold poop out the mouth of his preachers?
Why do you have christian hospitals, mortuaries, grave yards if he was god?
Why are Christians complaining about being persecuted when they have their promises of this idol gods protection?
Why does your god warn us of himself and you guys coming in his name claiming him christ and deceiving many?
Why does your faith spend millions converting people from God if that same Hebrew God is him?
Why did they torture and murder people of that same God to convert to that same God they already had?
WHY do you disbelieve your own god man when he says he had somone greater send him?
Or when he admited he was the nemesis of God and Michael (evening star) by calling himself the morning star (fallen one).-Rev22:16
Days joke the tops gayer because he's hard.The question i have is was he the pitcher or catcher?Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian
"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
Vast majority of homosexual men in the US, now, are 'bottoms.' Kinda makes sense, if the 'top' it's not significantly different than being with a woman, so being the 'bottom' is much more "gay." Assuming this has always been the case, if Jesus was gay, may have been a bottom
Amusing mental image Jesus on elbows and knees wiggling his tushy around.
I a
Days joke the tops gayer because he's hard.The question i have is was he the pitcher or catcher?Was Jesus gay Probably Paul Oestreicher Comment is free The Guardian
"That disciple was John whom Jesus, the gospels affirm, loved in a special way. All the other disciples had fled in fear. Three women but only one man had the courage to go with Jesus to his execution. That man clearly had a unique place in the affection of Jesus. In all classic depictions of the Last Supper, a favourite subject of Christian art, John is next to Jesus, very often his head resting on Jesus's breast. Dying, Jesus asks John to look after his mother and asks his mother to accept John as her son. John takes Mary home. John becomes unmistakably part of Jesus's family.
Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.
After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.
Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
Vast majority of homosexual men in the US, now, are 'bottoms.' Kinda makes sense, if the 'top' it's not significantly different than being with a woman, so being the 'bottom' is much more "gay." Assuming this has always been the case, if Jesus was gay, may have been a bottom
Amusing mental image Jesus on elbows and knees wiggling his tushy around.
Erection is just as much simple physical response as psychological. Can become erect receiving a gay blowjob if you don't know it's a guy. As with being blind-folded or a very passable transsexual's doing it. Doesn't then mean you're gay so much as you responded to a physical sensation just as you would have if it were a known woman. It's how your mind and whatever prejudices you may have interpret the experience that can change how you feel about it very quickly.
/shakes head....I keep wondering if you will ever stop being a fucking idiot......you keep showing me, no....no....no......Actually no, you typically crude fundie whack job. You should proof read your own comments which suggest you're just another ICR clone.no shit for brains....the YEC stuff is only in your imagination........That's as opposed to you vacant minded types getting your dogma from YEC'ist sites such as the ICR.and I gather you got your information from some pro-gay website instead of from reading scripture.......lol.....if you pretend one happened I suppose you can pretend anything you want.....doesn't make you rational.....just makes you a pretender.....I suppose next you're going to say that Uriah's wife was really Uriah's husband.....and Solomon's mother was a guy......
I gather you have not read Samuel or Daniel, or at least no recently.
External sources absent an agenda to press are always the bane of existence for religious extremists who are intellectually stunted such that you must attack any source not consistent with your fundie ministries.
I think perhaps you are thinking of the Song of Solomon......you remember Solomon, right.......the child of David and a woman?.......well I sincerely doubt you learned much about David and Jonathan in the book of Daniel.......and I gather you got your information from some pro-gay website instead of from reading scripture.......I gather you have not read Samuel or Daniel, or at least no recently.
Bible, several versions, in a number of languages is sufficient
I talks of love and sexuality, but you would know that if you had read
Little nipper said: Adam sinned and brought
death to humanity. However, Christ brings hope for
what we must deal with today....
