" I am the L-rd your G-d who rescued you from the land of Egypt... gods besides Me you should not know, and there is no Saviour but Me" (Shemot 20: 2 & Hoshea 13: 4) . A Sephardi discussion on Orthodoxy, the world, notes, essays & other pedantic musings
Wednesday, 9 July 2014
Jesus had 2 dads....
Dudes,
This was sent over a gay Anglican friend and she asked me to put it up here without comment.
Even for this Christ hating, anti-Christian site, pro-homosexual blog, this is disgusting! This is offensive and blasphemous to the Christian religion! God created Adam and eve, not adam and steve!
This man would like to know. Are you a homosexual? That is the only reason why you'd be posting all this homo erotic pro-homosexuals up the duff type posts. What!
Yeah, this is pretty offensive in the eyes of a Christian. It's blasphemous in its implications, and it's actually not very funny. Does it bother me all that much? Not viscerally, because unbelievers behave like unbelievers. But doctrinally, yes, this is pretty bad stuff.
Nope. I'm fully heterosexual. But clearly I do support LGBTQ people as I'm somewhat liberal in my politics (in classical, not American sense of the word).
Yes, well as I don't actually believe in Christianity. Of course if it had been something about Islam. I'd have had to have thought twice. Fatwars and all.
You could say it is offensive to lesbian couples who bring up children.
But this was actually put up by a Vicar of a Christian Church. I can appreciate that I'm not a believer (of course I'm not) and therefore acting like one, but I figured that if this was done by a Church, then it couldn't be as far as blasphemy; in bad taste perhaps, but blasphemy ?. But what about the Vicar or Parish Council that agreed to put the sign up? Are they worse for doing this? Is it blasphemy or making a political church point? OK this happened in Australia, but I'm sure it is a wider meme than that. Here is the link that Sophie sent to me :
Ah, the joys of controversy. But did Jesus really have 2 fathers? Clearly a Christian would say that God was Jesus's father. But there was also Jacob? I guess you'd say adopted father? So isn't the statement true? To a non-Christian, the only father would be Jacob. I guess the offence would be because it references gay parenting?
Looking at the article Sam linked to below, I doubt if it were support to be funny. It seems more shock jock/controversial to get people talking or whatever. Aside from the political implications about gay parenting, where is the specific nature of the offense. As I've noted above, it is technically true if you are a Christian- God was the father of Jesus, but in a way so was Joesph, in an adopted kind of sense. Or did I not sufficient get the gospels? Oh and I'd take Sam with a pinch of salt. He likes to be controversial. A bit like Alex Jones, but a left wing version.
I didn't find it that funny. I can see why it would appeal to you though. Because one Christian group thinks it is OK, doesn't mean others do. Think about statutes of the virgin mary. It is idol worship to protestants, but not to anglicans, RC's or Orthodox Christians.
No. Sam isn't gay, my sister is. If Sam is gay, then he is the best actor on the planet. He has no need to hide being gay, because if he were, we are all reasonably tolerant and accepting people.
Remember that a Christian is defined not according to membership or self-identification but according to creed. It surprises me not at all that this might be the work of an Anglican vicar. The visible church is overrun with counterfeits.
OK, point taken to a certain extent, but to me the issue is not about the theology of the Trinity etc, but on the matter of gay parenting. This sign is presumably trying to say it is OK?
Yes, must stop thinking like a Jew when it comes to these ecumenical encounters. I guess that is why people laugh at me when I refer to some people I know as 'secular Christians'. It is about a certain format of beliefs, rather than something you are born into. You're Calvinist. Is that the same as Evangelical?
Say, twenty years ago, 'Evangelical' was a word used to describe conservative Protestants as a opposed to their liberal counterparts in the old mainline churches. The word has become somewhat vague as of late because it has been partially claimed by those who are not conservative Protestants. According to the old definition, I am an Evangelical. I don't typically use the word to refer to myself anymore.
There are two schools of thought within Christianity about Justification - how we become righteous before God. These two schools go by the names 'Arminianism' (after Jacob Arminius) and Calvinism (after John Calvin.) It's basically a debate about the necessity of human agency in coming to faith. The Arminian says "Man cooperates with God." The Calvinist says "God does it all." There are Evangelicals (old definition) on both sides. We generally regard it as a 'friendly' debate. Sort of. If you catch my drift.
I normally describe myself as a Reformed Christian. But truthfully there isn't a good single-word description out there anymore.
Thanks for the info Carl. It is basically a debate on 'free will'. I think Esther was going to write about that a while back, of course she hasn't yet.
Even for this Christ hating, anti-Christian site, pro-homosexual blog, this is disgusting! This is offensive and blasphemous to the Christian religion! God created Adam and eve, not adam and steve!
ReplyDeleteThis man would like to know. Are you a homosexual? That is the only reason why you'd be posting all this homo erotic pro-homosexuals up the duff type posts. What!
ReplyDeleteHi Sam.
ReplyDeleteThanks for putting this up. I'm glad you saw the humorous side to it!
Sam, Gay ? Nope!
ReplyDeleteLOL! Isn't this actually an orthodox jewish weblog?
ReplyDeleteYeah, this is pretty offensive in the eyes of a Christian. It's blasphemous in its implications, and it's actually not very funny. Does it bother me all that much? Not viscerally, because unbelievers behave like unbelievers. But doctrinally, yes, this is pretty bad stuff.
ReplyDeletecarl
Yes it is and it is supposed to be thought provoking!
ReplyDeleteRubbish. At least it makes you think.
ReplyDeleteWell dude, no one forces you to log on to watch!
ReplyDeleteNope. I'm fully heterosexual. But clearly I do support LGBTQ people as I'm somewhat liberal in my politics (in classical, not American sense of the word).
ReplyDeleteYes, well as I don't actually believe in Christianity. Of course if it had been something about Islam. I'd have had to have thought twice. Fatwars and all.
ReplyDeleteAh Carl,
ReplyDeleteYou could say it is offensive to lesbian couples who bring up children.
But this was actually put up by a Vicar of a Christian Church. I can appreciate that I'm not a believer (of course I'm not) and therefore acting like one, but I figured that if this was done by a Church, then it couldn't be as far as blasphemy; in bad taste perhaps, but blasphemy ?. But what about the Vicar or Parish Council that agreed to put the sign up? Are they worse for doing this? Is it blasphemy or making a political church point? OK this happened in Australia, but I'm sure it is a wider meme than that.
Here is the link that Sophie sent to me :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2683372/Anglican-priests-stance-marriage-equality-goes-viral.html
Ah, the joys of controversy. But did Jesus really have 2 fathers? Clearly a Christian would say that God was Jesus's father. But there was also Jacob? I guess you'd say adopted father? So isn't the statement true? To a non-Christian, the only father would be Jacob. I guess the offence would be because it references gay parenting?
ReplyDeleteCarl,
ReplyDeleteLooking at the article Sam linked to below, I doubt if it were support to be funny. It seems more shock jock/controversial to get people talking or whatever. Aside from the political implications about gay parenting, where is the specific nature of the offense. As I've noted above, it is technically true if you are a Christian- God was the father of Jesus, but in a way so was Joesph, in an adopted kind of sense. Or did I not sufficient get the gospels? Oh and I'd take Sam with a pinch of salt. He likes to be controversial. A bit like Alex Jones, but a left wing version.
I didn't find it that funny. I can see why it would appeal to you though. Because one Christian group thinks it is OK, doesn't mean others do. Think about statutes of the virgin mary. It is idol worship to protestants, but not to anglicans, RC's or Orthodox Christians.
ReplyDeleteNo. Sam isn't gay, my sister is. If Sam is gay, then he is the best actor on the planet. He has no need to hide being gay, because if he were, we are all reasonably tolerant and accepting people.
ReplyDeleteThis guy is more like a lefty Rush Limbaugh on a blog.
ReplyDeleteHi David,
ReplyDeleteIt was Joesph, not Jacob, who was married to Mary....
"This guy is more like a lefty Rush Limbaugh on a blog."
ReplyDeleteLOL!
Error corrected!
ReplyDeleteMy brother isn't that far to the left...
ReplyDeleteRemember that a Christian is defined not according to membership or self-identification but according to creed. It surprises me not at all that this might be the work of an Anglican vicar. The visible church is overrun with counterfeits.
ReplyDeletecarl
OK, point taken to a certain extent, but to me the issue is not about the theology of the Trinity etc, but on the matter of gay parenting. This sign is presumably trying to say it is OK?
ReplyDeleteAh Carl,
ReplyDeleteYes, must stop thinking like a Jew when it comes to these ecumenical encounters. I guess that is why people laugh at me when I refer to some people I know as 'secular Christians'. It is about a certain format of beliefs, rather than something you are born into. You're Calvinist. Is that the same as Evangelical?
It's all part of the show, as Rush would say!
ReplyDeleteShmu'el
ReplyDeleteSay, twenty years ago, 'Evangelical' was a word used to describe conservative Protestants as a opposed to their liberal counterparts in the old mainline churches. The word has become somewhat vague as of late because it has been partially claimed by those who are not conservative Protestants. According to the old definition, I am an Evangelical. I don't typically use the word to refer to myself anymore.
There are two schools of thought within Christianity about Justification - how we become righteous before God. These two schools go by the names 'Arminianism' (after Jacob Arminius) and Calvinism (after John Calvin.) It's basically a debate about the necessity of human agency in coming to faith. The Arminian says "Man cooperates with God." The Calvinist says "God does it all." There are Evangelicals (old definition) on both sides. We generally regard it as a 'friendly' debate. Sort of. If you catch my drift.
I normally describe myself as a Reformed Christian. But truthfully there isn't a good single-word description out there anymore.
carl
Thanks for the info Carl. It is basically a debate on 'free will'. I think Esther was going to write about that a while back, of course she hasn't yet.
ReplyDelete