Reader comments · Gay-friendly church asks ‘Would Jesus discriminate?’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay-friendly church asks ‘Would Jesus discriminate?’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jesus would not have discriminated against gays any more than he did against prostitutes, tax collectors, Romans (the enemy of the state of Israel), Samaritans and any others considered, at the time, to be ‘undesirables’ or sinners.
    He would probably tell gays to “… go and sin no more.”
    Jesus loves us all. He loves sinners, but not the sin.
    It is not a sin being gay – only engaging in homosexual practices.
    Just as it is not a sin being hetrosexual – but it is a sin to engage in hetrosexual practices out of wedlock. A gay person indulging in homosexual practices is no worse (and no better) than a hetrosexual who commits adultery or fornication.

  2. What a lot of nonsense the so-called Christian speaks. As religious faith is a mental illness, he is clearly mentally ill.

  3. so basically it’s not okay for a committed loving gay couple to make love, yet its perfectly ok for you straights to do so is it?

  4. Simon Murphy 10 Sep 2009, 9:12pm

    I don’t care whether Jesus would discrminate as I look at him as a fictional character. I am more interested in knowing whether Hercule Poirot would discriminate against gay people.

  5. The argument for the queer reading of the Matthew 8 story is based on the meaning of the Greek word ‘pais’ which is used many times in the New Testamant to mean ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ or even the boy Jesus. The parallel passage in Luke uses the word ‘doulos’ which means ‘servant’ or ‘slave’.
    The MCC rendering of the Matthew story is wishful thinking and very poor exegesis.

  6. The example of Jesus Christ is to be compassionate and loving. Religious people who talk about ‘positive hate’ are deluding themselves and justifying their own lack of compassion.

    Advocating ‘ex gay therapy’ is also a delusion. It does not make the feelings go away. It does not make the love go away. It just fills hearts with fear and self-loathing which is then projected out against other gay people.

    I applaud Bishop Gene Robinson for being honest with his ex-wife and having the courage to separate and then come out as gay. Pretending to be straight was unfair to both his ex-wife and himself – he knew that and did the right thing by separating.

    The MCC is right to talk about the actions of JC. He was compassionate and friends with everyone except for hypocrites like the pious and puffed-up Pharisees (whom he called ‘whited sepulcres’) and the money changers who profited by lending money and exchanging currencies with high interest (sound familiar?).

    Love is never wrong but arrogance and hatred is.

  7. Anti-Christian 11 Sep 2009, 12:17am

    Christian, look, make us all a favor and get lost with your imaginary friend and let us be.

  8. Bill Perdue 11 Sep 2009, 1:16am

    The cults are always the enemy. They’re the longest lasting scam in our history. And sometimes they’re just silly.

    Our responses to bigoted cults has to be doing everything we can to suppress them.

    Their hate speech is criminal.

    Their consistent use of cult beliefs as a cover for rape is criminal.

    Their opposition to HIV/AIDs education and treatment is criminal.

    They have to be put down using every political means at our disposal – jailing rapists for life, confiscatory taxes, closing their schools, and making them pay for local police agencies to provide armed guards to protect children and others when priests, rabbis, pastors or mullahs are on the loose.

    As for the rest they should be taxed just like any other component of the entertainment industry.

  9. Still makes me wonder: “Who would Jesus do?” Maybe it ain’t your mom.

  10. “He would probably tell gays to “… go and sin no more.”
    Jesus loves us all. He loves sinners, but not the sin.”

    Such bigoted rubbish… same old argument. Well, then, enlighten us the line where Jesus actually said that being born gay is sinful, or “practising” what is natural to gay people was “sinful”?

    No? Didn’t think so. This makes you a liar, “Christian”, and a christian in name only.

    “Just as it is not a sin being hetrosexual [sic]- but it is a sin to engage in heterosexual practices out of wedlock.”

    Well, then you’ll be delighted to see that we’re getting gay marriage rights all over the place! So, then it won’t be “sinful” will it? Then you’ll be happy, no?

    Actually, I’d like to point out, I’m not a “practising homosexual”, I’m fairly proficient at it now, cheers. Instead of “practising homosexual”, I would like to be called a “professional homosexual”, because not only am I really good at it, I friggin love being gay!

  11. Gays show the world what the true meaning of love is – and that it is right to ‘love one another as I have loved you’ (the 11th Commandant) So many people and churches do not know about the 11th Commandment – they should go home and rethink their lives.

  12. the bible has been mistranslated and misunderstood – ( the bible has also been re-edited and had “homosexual” added in 1946 (, “homosexual” was a term coined in 1868 so it logically is not sin etc. Jesus never condemned gays, lesbians or bisexuals

  13. If Jesus existed, he was probably gay himself. Just look at all those men he supposedly surrounded himself with! However, I think that it is a good plan of MCC to ask all those ‘compassionate’ Christians whether their hero would have discriminated against gay people – or any other minority.

  14. IAIN: “The MCC rendering of the Matthew story is wishful thinking and very poor exegesis. ”

    Rubbish. Do you read Ancient Greek? The word ‘pais’ is used in that context to distinguish that slave from the other slaves because that particular slave is the lover of the centurion. ‘Pais’ is commonly used in that way, and the context of its use in that section shows that the slave in question was the male lover of the centurion. Jesus would have been well aware of that – such relationships weren’t uncommon – yet he healed the slave and actually praised his faith.

  15. I’d like to thank this Church for its support. I understand friends on this site who do notbelieve in Jesus; I am agnostic!
    If we must have christian churches then its much better that they hold out the hand of love to us rather than the blood splattered claws of the RC Church!

  16. Right wing fundamentalists have for too long been allowed to twist and misinterpret Scripture to suit their agendas (homophobia, anti-semitism, misogyny, racism, sectarianism, creationism, the rapture, dominionism). It is great to see progressive christians beginning to use the same tactics. As well as Jesus healing the centurion’s lover the Bible also contains the description of Jonathan and David’s love for each other (Samuel 1:18-20, Samuel 2:1). So I say to fundies if you believe the Bible is literal and inerrant you must also acknowledge that the Bible blesses gay love, and if you don’t then you are nothing more than hypocritical bigots.

  17. @Iris
    In answer to your question – a bit.
    ” The word ‘pais’ is used in that context to distinguish that slave from the other slaves because that particular slave is the lover of the centurion. ‘Pais’ is commonly used in that way, and the context of its use in that section shows that the slave in question was the male lover of the centurion.”

    But I might also ask you,are you a magician? Because you pulled that out of a hat!

    FYI here are the NT references to ‘pais’

    Matthew 2:16 Male children
    Matthew 12:18 Servant
    Matthew 14:12 Servant
    Matthew 17:18 Boy
    Matthew 21:15 Children
    Luke 1:54 Servant
    Luke 1:69 Servant
    Luke 2:43 Boy (Jesus)
    Luke 8:51,54 Child (Girl)
    Luke 9:42 Boy
    Luke 12:45 Servant
    Luke 15:26 Servant
    John 4:51 Servant
    Acts 3:13 Servant (Jesus)
    Acts 3:26 Son (Jesus)
    Acts 4:25, 27, 30 Servant (David, Jesus)
    Acts 20:12 Youth

  18. So Matthew 8 is different? Luke uses the word doulos in his parralel story.

  19. @Mel
    ” So I say to fundies if you believe the Bible is literal and inerrant you must also acknowledge that the Bible blesses gay love, and if you don’t then you are nothing more than hypocritical bigots.”

    The fact is that the Fundies do indeed believe in the innerancy of scripture.For the liberals and the progressives its basically believe the bits that you like and re-invent the bits that you dont. For instance the ‘Jesus Seminar’ might study the gospels to decide which bits Jesus actually said.But at the end of the day its all decided by a show of hands and nothing more than opinion wins the day.

  20. @Rich.
    Yeh. I can just FEEL all the LOVE exuding from these comments.
    If that is the true meaning of love I would rather have Christian love. Thanks anyway.
    Bless you ‘pais’.

  21. @IAIN
    Are you from SA? Maybe from KZN?
    Not too many people use the term ‘Fundies’.

  22. Just to clarify points made above: the Luke passage (7.1-10) includes *both* the words ‘doulos’ (in verses 2,3,8,11) and ‘pais’ (in verse 7, the speech of the centurion himself). In Matthew, ‘pais’ is used in verses 6,8,13 (in both narrative and direct speech), while ‘doulos’ (verse 9) is used by the centurion when he speaks of giving orders to a non-specific slave.

  23. @Nick
    Thanks for the clarification.
    Nah! Im a Scot! Fundie is quicker to type !

  24. If I disagree with you – you call it discrimination.
    If I hold to Biblical truth – you call me a fundamentalist.
    If I embrace hetrosexual marriage – you call me homophobic.
    If I hold to the simplest renderings of Scripture – you tell me I misinterpret it.
    If I speak my beliefs – you call me a bigot.

    Re: Ancient/Classical Greek and NT Greek. They are different.
    Re: Gay Marriage. Marriage is defined by God as union of Man and Woman, therefore Gay Marriage is a figment of human imagination.
    Re: The pais = gay lover theory, it’s an exegetical fallacy and wishful thinking. The New Testament has more to say against the practice. The Corintian church had a high proportion of homosexuals but Paul refers to their practices in the past tense.
    Re: You can be gay, but not practice – Heresy, see Matt 5:28

    People, you want to have your cake and eat it. You can’t. However you spin it, truth always remains true.

  25. @Lucas
    “Re: Ancient/Classical Greek and NT Greek. They are different”

    Spot on!

  26. The question I have always asked, and never got an answer to, is how can you believe in the accuracy of what is written in the bible when you do not have an original copy. The best anybody has been able to state is that what we have is 6th generation of stories. Who knows how many discrepancies were added through the previous four generations. After all, it’s been done in translations since.

    @ IAIN 20.

    You miss the point. Nobody is denying that Leviticus includes the infamous ‘man shouldn’t lie with man’ quote, although many debate as to the actual meaning of the quote. What I say, and will continue to do so, is that if you use that, or indeed any other part of the bible, in a manner to justify homophobia then you should stick to EVERY part of the bible, including the diktats on cloth made of more than one fibre, shellfish and many, many others which seem to be ignored.

  27. IAIN. No, I’m not a magician. I’m a teacher. I can’t prove to you that the word ‘pais’ there means male lover, but I’d bet I know more Greek than you and I’m pretty sure it does. Listing the other uses of the word are absolutely pointless and show nothing.

    You work out the meaning of the word from its context. That’s how we differentiate between words that have two or more meanings. Take the English word ‘primate’. You know whether it refers to an ape or a bishop depending on it’s context. You don’t say “Oh, in these other circumstances it meant ‘ape’ so it must do here too”.

    I also wonder why you’re so keen that the Bible be shown to sanction homophobia.

  28. @Alan
    Some of the diktats are to do with distancing the Israelites from Caananite religious/fertility practices, some deal with the health of the community and others with sexual morality etc.But I am simlplifying.
    In fact its a great subject to study if you ever have the time.
    As is the history of the NT documents which are in fact not 6th generation as you said.
    Wether we choose to believe the bible or not, the New Testament is in fact very much the same as the original autographs.
    Again,that something you can study for yourself.

    But the point some of us have been making here is that it is not honest to give in to the Hermeneutical Hijackers to put whatever spin they like on the text. Wether it be Liberation Theology,Black Theology or Queer Theology.

  29. @Iris
    “, but I’d bet I know more Greek than you”

    You seem to have a big thing about your intellect!

    “I also wonder why you’re so keen that the Bible be shown to sanction homophobia”

    Again you pulled that out of a hat and not from my comments!

    And thank you, I am well aware of context.


  30. @Alan
    Reply to the first part of your question – have you heard of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’?
    The second thing: (and I am not criticising you here) when you say, (to quote you) – “… What I say, and will continue to do so …”. I believe that we all have the right to STAND BY OUR BELIEFS. But is that not the definition of a bigot. Or does that only apply to Christians? Or at least, does that apply to all people who are not pro-gay.
    Sort of like ONLY whites are racist and everyone else is a victim, and ONLY Christians are bigots and everyone else is a victim, and ONLY gays are victims and everyone else persecutes them.
    It’s a tough old world innit?

  31. Monkeychops 12 Sep 2009, 1:57pm

    Nice thought of this church to try to appeal to a wider section of society (presumably funds must be low), but I’ll keep my agnostic card and my current legal system thanks. It says a lot about a person’s level of insecurity or uncontrolled imagination when they choose to believe in the existence of a set of figures that no-one has yet proved existed. We should all be believing in and worshipping fairies at the bottom of the garden. After all, they’re depicted in books, appear in tales from many countries and have never been seen. There’s no point in trying to argue out whether Jesus loves anyone or not, the fact is we’d be better off working on loving each other in the many wonderful ways we can than trying.

    I’m off to see my mum because she is actually real and I know she loves me. She will also punish me if I don’t fix her shelves like I promised.

  32. @Monkeychops
    Good luck with the shelves.

  33. IAIN. No, I don’t “have a big thing about my intellect”. (And you were talking about pulling comments out of a hat??!) I said that because you said you knew ‘a bit’ of Greek and I have a degree in it. If you knew about context, you’d understand the implication of the choice of words in that section. My view isn’t just mine alone. That particular passage was drawn to my attention at Uni when we came across the word ‘pais’ in a similar context in a piece of Greek we were reading and our lecturer told us about it.

  34. @iris,
    You crack me up Iris!
    To use your reading means translating the word pais in a manner not used elsewhere in Scripture.
    If you know the scriptures then I am sure that this should not surprise you.

  35. Jean-Paul Bentham 12 Sep 2009, 6:47pm


    I hain’t no intellektual, but ‘pears ta me youse is worshipin’ a book ‘stead ‘o the Spearit ‘o da livin’ gawd.

    Babies aren’t born with ‘omophobia, are dey?

    Wha’ ya doin’ ‘ere on a gay site anyway? Carryin’ out yo’ mission, aw suppose, eh. Getin’ paid for it, are ya? Expect ta make many converts, are ya?

    ‘xsuse me while aw go fix ma’s shelves…haha!

  36. Monkeychops 12 Sep 2009, 7:31pm

    JP – If you weren’t so full of yourself then maybe you might be taken seriously. But I guess it’s probably because you don’t understand what Iain and Iris are actually arguing about. Feel a bit left out and need a bit of attention to you? Need winding? Hope you feel better now.

    Let us know when you finally graduate from maternelle……

  37. @Bentham

    Shucks! Aint that sumthin’
    You gawt me preachin’ an hollerin’ holly rollin’ an pluckin ma banjo.
    But ahm gonna TESTIFY! that ah aint a church goer !

  38. Brian Burton 12 Sep 2009, 9:28pm

    You slimy slug, still slithering about the various threads and making a perfect PRAT of youself!

  39. IAIN: “To use your reading means translating the word pais in a manner not used elsewhere in Scripture.”

    Yes, that’s correct. Why is that a problem for you? I don’t see what you’re getting at with that comment. The word ‘pais’ commonly means ‘boy’ yet you’re happy that it also means ‘slave’ (which it does) in some places in the Bible, but you can’t accept the likelihood that it means ‘male lover’?

    Is this only because there are no other instances of that use in the Bible? Well, I have books that use the word ‘bird’ to mean ‘girl’ throughout with no other meaning, but I wouldn’t argue that that must mean that ‘bird’ couldn’t mean the feathered variety.

    Biblical Greek wasn’t a special kind reserved for the Bible only. It was the Greek of its time. ‘Pais’ could be used to mean ‘male lover’ at that time. Also, as I’m sure you know, such relationships weren’t uncommon, so it was hardly a big thing. The use of the word ‘pais’ in that particular section is used to show affection, that this slave was special. There are other Greek words that could have been used, but the word chosen was ‘pais’, which seems very deliberate to me and it would have been understood to have been so – ie well-chosen.

  40. “If I hold to Biblical truth – you call me a fundamentalist.”

    For sure, we call such people fundamentalists – also, crackpots, or worse.

    And ‘Biblical truth’: an impossibility, an oxymoron if ever there was one.

  41. @Iris,

    “but you can’t accept the likelihood that it means ‘male lover’?”

    No Iris,I can’t accept that it could mean that at all. Its a revisionist eisegesis which fits well our own liberal culture but has no root in scripture.
    Thanks for taking the time to reply to my comments and also for some of the stuff you posted about IVF recently. I was thinking about that for days.

  42. “Its a revisionist eisegesis which fits well our own liberal culture but has no root in scripture.”

    No surprise there. In the absence of rational, “scripture”, in all its fine contradictions, is usually the recourse of those who can’t think for themselves. Caring what “scripture” says does not apply to anyone with a brain, sorry.

  43. Absolutely Will, and the verses in St John’s Gospel about Jesus telling the adulterer to go away and sin no more, were most likely inserted later, after the book was written.

    What are people arguing about modern English versions of this nonsense for?

  44. Well said Adrian… not to mention, when one refers to “scripture”, they’re referring to a multitude of so called “bibles”. These writings often have links with those books which are regarded as “non canonical”. Not every branch of the Christian church is in agreement as to which writings are to be regarded as “canonical” and which are “apocryphal”. What about the gnostic gospels, for example? There are literally hundreds of other “bibles”. So, how does one sanctimoniously say which is right and which is wrong?

    In other words, you can pick what you believe and what bible to read from, as it all usually contradicts each other, so you’ll always find a passage, out of context, to use to feed your bigotry. I’m sure this twat IAIN doesn’t follow the ludicrous rules set by Leviticus either, but seems able to pick and chose what he believes to validate his irrational prejudices….how positively intelligent of him. Many serial killers have used to bible to justify what they did, for heavens sake, using passages out of context like this IAIN. One example, look at the case of “Bible John” in Scotland:- he had frequently quoted from the Bible to his victims and used it as validation for his killings. He was reported to have said: “I don’t drink at Hogmanay, I pray,” and to have referred to Moses and his religious belief that dance halls were “dens of iniquity”. Sound familiar? Was he right to kill in the name of “scripture”?

    Quoting “scripture” has no more basis in reality or authority that someone who takes the Harry Potter books as bibles. Using the bible as “immutable truth” is all a load of nonsense and the recourse of the stupid.

  45. Oh, one more thing, and the “revisionist eisegesis” comment just shows his ignorance of history, given the “current” bible was revised many times, not least by the Synod of Hippo in AD 393.

  46. The only reason people believe all this is because a balkan thug called Constantine won a battle at the Milvian Bridge outside Rome in 313AD. he was blinded by the light, saw an X and a P in the sky, and said unto his troops ‘In hoc signo vinces.’

    And since then, it’s been spread by the sword.

    Of course, there are loads of books and verses arbitrarily left out – as explained by Elaine pagels in her book on the Gnostic Gospels, left out because jesus came across as too ‘human’. the early elders put jesus at an unattainable status, to stop ordinary folk working things out for themselves, taking responsibility, and of course, making the church the unassailable authority. The biggest con trick of all time – that’s why we have people having inane arguments on here, why fraudster TV evangelists and megachurches can make millions to this day.

  47. Jean-Paul Bentham 13 Sep 2009, 3:20am

    I am deeply hurt by Monkeychops abusive language towards me. I never did anything to him.

    Is that what it means to be an ex-gay …to go around insulting gay people for no reason at all? I have a right to say what I want here, don’t I?

    And shouldn’t MC be addressing the issue instead of insulting me? Or anybody else for that matter? I have half a mind to report him to the moderator for inciting violence on the threads.

    But I won’t this time.

  48. outlandish 13 Sep 2009, 3:39am

    Jesus never talked about black folks, bible never talked about blacks, i think one of the sons of noah was black. But jesus never talked about blacks or the gays, he loved everybody equally.

  49. Brian Burton 13 Sep 2009, 7:07am

    The only time Jesus discriminated or got hopping mad was when the Temple was turned into a ‘Den of Thieves’ by the money changes. He did not care who’s toes He trod on in turning over the tables of those Temple violaters. Disobedience in the eyes of anyone who knows history, is mans original virtue. Progress can be made through rebellion.

  50. Jean-Paul Bentham 13 Sep 2009, 8:47am

    In my post 47, I said I was deeply hurt by Monkeychops’ abusive comments towards me.

    I do believe I’ve recovered, and moreover, the next time I want to hear sh*t coming from somebody’s mouth, I’ll know whose head to squeeze: Gueule singée! Tête de merde! Grande folle à maman! Crétin! Microbe! Imbécile! Sans-dessein! Néanthropien!

    I wasn’t speaking to him in the first place; as usual, MC bulldozes his way in and disrupts everything, demeans as many people as he can, then goes home to momma cause she, and she alone, loves him. Jerk. But I ain’y bitter.

  51. “Cast off the shoe… follow the gourd, the holy gourd of Jerusalem!”
    Why aren’t we debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?
    I’m sorry but every time someone gives me a different account of the scriptures, I just clock it up as one more version of events not to believe in.
    In the world governed by cold hard empirical fact the Bible is a non-starter. To many rampant inconsistancies and partisan edits from 2000 years of George Lucas style tampering after the fact, even assuming it was an accurate account of historical fact in the first place.

  52. What or whom Jesus would discriminate against is a modern question hard to relate to the ancient and deeply heirarchical culture he lived in and seems pretty much to have accepted, though there is no coherent view of him offered in the Gospels(yes, that’s right – what the fundamentalists deny about the NT is in fact why it is so interesting). I couldn’t care less whether an obscure and maybe apocalyptic 1st century rabbi would discriminate against me or not, but MCC in Texas deserves support for defending gay rights in this way in an area of the American hinterland where a lot of people, in Gore Vidal’s words, have a less rational world-view than a Tongan witch-doctor.

  53. IAIN – on my way out so apologies for the very quick reply.

    You said: “@Iris,

    “but you can’t accept the likelihood that it means ‘male lover’?”

    No Iris,I can’t accept that it could mean that at all. Its a revisionist eisegesis which fits well our own liberal culture but has no root in scripture.”

    Sorry, I have to disagree. Although the interpretation I gave may not have been much mentioned until recent times, I believe that that story would have been interpreted at the time it happened and was recorded as being about the centurion’s male lover. This was a Roman centurion who was so desperate to cure his ‘pais’ that he approached somebody who, during his lifetime, was seen only as a dangerous cultist by the Romans. He must have cared about this man very much to do that.

    Moreover, for centurions to have such lovers wasn’t unusual at the time this happened/was written. It wouldn’t have been a ‘wow – that’s so unusual!’ situation. It was commonly accepted and frequently happened.

    So, in my opinion, by this interpretation – which holds up linguistically – we are just returning to the original interpretation.

  54. JP
    Take no notice of MC. Even though, I suppose, I ought to be arguing AGAINST you, I must say that when people lose an arguement – or at least when they have run out of anything INTELLIGENT to say, they attack their opponents personally.
    I find that, as soon as I receive a PERSONAL attack, my opponent had ADMITTED DEFEAT. I just smile to myself and ignore that person as an UNWORTHY opponend. Very much like NEVILLE in posting No 2.
    Ignore MC as he seems to have run out of anything WORTHWHILE to add.

  55. Brian Burton 13 Sep 2009, 6:17pm

    JP…Are you OK?

  56. Jean-Paul Bentham 13 Sep 2009, 8:25pm


    Gros merci. On the off-chance that you keep abreast of Canadian News, our minority Conservative Government, which has specialized in mindless, public name-calling for far too long, is being shot down as we speak. We expect the PC’s to collapse no later than Friday.

    As for your relationship with Neville, please leave me out of that. lol.

    Brian: Thanks for your concern. Yea, I’ve been hanging around with a civilized crowd for too long, I guess.

    Such insults out of the blue are enough to momentarily stun anyone, especially on a thread like this one.

    Sounds to me like MC is jealous, but whatever for? His life is much more fulfilled than mine, innit.

  57. Presumably christian would also condone slavery, the stoning to death of those who do ordinary work on the sabbath, the stoning to death of non virgin brides and many others guilty of even lesser “crimes”. And if not, then why not? This is the word of god!

  58. Brian Burton 13 Sep 2009, 10:36pm

    Are you the Christian who left the city of destruction. If so, I hope you do not fall into the slough of desponence! Many have come along to our Pink Family to preach and teach and make real prats of themselves. They get tired long before we do and tend to fall into that ‘slough’ I mentioned. We exposed Monkeychops for what he is some time ago. By the by dear sweet Christian, if you do reply: Please refrain from using capitals to emphisise…It is a juvinile trait.

  59. Brian: AND YOUR POINT IS?? *giggle* (runs away)

  60. Christian ignores that some beliefs like homophobia shouldn’t be acceptable
    religion is losing it’s power and it’s dragging out the death of it’s evil infliuence

  61. Brian Burton 14 Sep 2009, 9:08am

    You naughty Boy, Behold Nemisus has cought you in her net and is about to bare your postiria for spanking (Slap ‘n tickle ooah!)

  62. @ IAIN (28)

    How do you know that particular diktats are aimed at particular groups of people, and not everybody? I was forced to do more than enough bible study to not really want to waste any more of my life trying to read meaning into texts which have been extensively altered and mistranslated, but I am sure that if that’s your thing then it’s a great subject to study. Personally I have many things higher up my list.

    You also state that the NT documents are not 6th generation, as others have claimed. However, you allude to the fact that they are not 1st generation when you state that it is very much the same as the original autographs. In effect you admit that they have been changed. How do you know that they have not been extensively changed, after all it has happened throughout history, why not at the outset of Christianity?

    @ Christian (30) Yes, I have heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but how many of them are actually original documents and, furthermore and, quite possibly more pertinently, are all of them included in the modern day bible? If not who decided which ones should be left out, and why did were they left out?

    I too believe that everybody has the right to stand by their beliefs, until those beliefs come into direct opposition to humanity’s ever growing knowledge of life. However, I know, and have experienced first-hand, the damage that using biblical justification for hatred can and does do to an individual. It’s also worth remembering that you made a choice to be a follower of Christ, nobody ever chose their sexuality. All they have ever done is choose to be honest about it. Are you really telling me that you would rather people lied? I’m sure that Jesus wouldn’t.

    In addition I find it incredibly disingenuous of opponents of the MCC are saying that they are selectively using the bible to justify their stance. This is exactly what they have been doing, for centuries. How do you spell HYPOCRITES?

  63. @Alan
    Yes, I do believe that SOME gays cannot help it.
    (EMPHASIS FOR BB’s BENEFIT). I know he love’s it – EMPHASIS I mean!! (And other things too, no doubt.)

  64. “Yes, I do believe that SOME gays cannot help it.”

    Then who are the gays who “choose” it?

  65. Jesus sent His disciples out to spread the Gospel. His final instruction to them before they went was:
    “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that town.
    I tell you the truth, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town”
    Matt 10:14-15
    What He was saying was that, not listening to the word of God is even WORSE than being a sodomite (gay).
    I know that I will not have converted anyone here. That was not my intention. I have been on leave and was getting a bit bored. Thought it might be fun to wind you guys up a bit.
    Unfortunately, this too, is getting rather dull – and I’m going back to work tomorrow, anyway – so you will not be hearing from me any more.
    I know you’ll be devastated but, as the old song went – ‘don’t cry for me Soddom and Gomarrah’ (or was that Argentina? can’t remember).
    God Bless ya all.

  66. ‘Christian’ – Oh, dear. Another Biblicist projecting medieval obsessions onto the Bible. Jesus said that it would be worse for the towns giving his disciples a bad reception than for the land of Sodom because of their bad treatment of visitors, not specifically because of their sexual violence (which I certainly wouldn’t condone, and I doubt anyone writing on this thread would).
    Since we are in Matthew’s Gospel, have a peek at Matthew 25, which defines the Last Judgement in terms of people’s charity or lack of it – not any of the mystical nonsense about Jesus’ atoning blood or justification by faith invented by the Church after he died. It’s just Judaism, after all!!

  67. Simon Murphy: I think you are mixing your deities a bit here. Whilst most of us here would agree God is a fictitious character dreamt up by some ancient, insecure bloggers, there is a fair amount of evidence that a certain J. Christ Esq. (b. Nazareth 0 AD)did actually exist. So he walked on water, and turned water into wine, but then I reckon Derren Brown could do that, and he’s gay! – but I digress, if you are going to bother the botherers, make sure you don’t confuse your Son of God(tm) with all the other magicians and snake oil merchants.

  68. What is it freaks like this “Christian” twat can’t answer the most rudimentary questions without quoting some random passage from that bible of theirs and expect us to be awed by their lack of intelligence?

    And yeah, I hear you on the “this too, is getting rather dull”, I generally like my religious nutters to have half a brain, it makes laughing at them all the more fun.

    I’m glad you’re going back to work, those toilets at Paddington Station sure do miss your cleaning skills, Christian.

  69. Christian 63 & 65

    Thank you for visiting and spreading the usual, yawn inducing nonsense at the same time as not answering any of the tricky questions that were put to you. You do the credibility of christianity no good at all, and attitudes like yours, with the intolerance you show to a group of people who have no choice in their sexuality, as modern science is showing time and again, are what is pushing people away from your faith. Keep it up and soon you will be the only one sitting on the pews.

    Perhaps then everybody will be allowed to live and let live.

    It’s kind of ironic that you found a gay website whilst on your leisure time. Do you have nothing better to do, or would you like to come out?

    In the immortal words of Dave Allen, may your god go with you.

  70. Brian @49, good point you make. seems the only people Jesus himself every attacked physically and verbally were the bankers and the money lenders in the Temple; not too different to today then!

  71. Brian Burton 15 Sep 2009, 12:59pm

    In the immortal words of Shakespeare:

    O thou that dost inhabit in my breast,
    Leave not the mansion so long tenantless,
    Lest, growing ruinous the building fall,
    And leave no memory of what it was.

    If I could write the beautey of thine eyes,
    And in fresh numbers, number all you graces,
    The age to come would say, this Poet lies.

    Alan, I hope old Shakespeare is not yawn inducing?

  72. Brian Burton 15 Sep 2009, 1:09pm

    Right on the Button matey and for you sweet Mike: “Without Love, life is no better than the unhewn stone laying in a quarry. Before the sculpter has set the God within it. Without Love, life is as silent as the common reeds, that through the marshes or by rivers grow and have no music in them.

  73. Eagle Ashcroft 15 Sep 2009, 9:18pm

    Why is everyone getting all worked up over this when as an intelligent sane person knows the bible is a complete work of fiction and Jesus never existed except in the author’s minds?
    So it does not really matter what Jesus said anymore than what Mickey Mouse said or Donald Duck as its a made up story to be read to adults at bed time by their caretakers while they stay in the loony bin and was never meant to be believed by sane persons. Look at it this way; was Puss in Boots a real character? Are the Mother Goose tales real? Of course not, they are for entertainment only. If you don’t like what is written in the bible, change it and write your own version. After all other people have. And remember that only insane people believe the bible is about real people.

  74. Dr. Derek Northcote 15 Sep 2009, 10:27pm

    What is life?

    Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.

    What happens between birth and death is obvious for all to see.

    Children can be told things or Children can learn and investigate.

    Sometimes both happens. It’s then up to the child to decide that which he/she works out for themselves.

    Which was the strongest influence on the child.

    The prospect of fear, fire and hell or “Work it out for yourself”.

    For my own part, my 18 year old “Catholic Infused since birth” nieces have worked it out for themselves.

    They want no part of it.

  75. Dr. Derek Northcote 15 Sep 2009, 11:37pm

    As an addition, the more the Religious types scream free speach to discriminate, the more I throw their own doctrines back at them.

    “Homosexuality is un-natural”, to whit ” So is a heart valve or indeed an asparin, ( extract of tree bark )”

    Satan caused Homosexuality.

    Indeed he did. Perhaps to show up the never ending
    heterosexual tax subsidised breeding that is f@ing up
    this planet.

    Oops. Temper over. I see no GOD.

    Just a good nights sleep.


  76. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Sep 2009, 12:33am


    Cute…and spot on!

  77. Brian Burton 16 Sep 2009, 3:23pm

    Eagle Ashcroft,
    We take it then you you think the Bible is a book of fiction? You say only insane people belive the bible. Who told you these things? Comparing Micky Mouse, donald Duck and Puss-in-Boots with stories from the Bible….Is…Insane in itself! Remember you are commenting to adult, Gay men and woman on these threads, not School Kids matey! So do watch the metaphors. Your a real klutz as the saying goes.

  78. if there had been no Maccabean revolt, judaism would have remained a minority sect, the Romans wouldn’t have got involved in palestine, there would have been no need for a myth to develop about a messiah and there wouldn’t have been any christiaity for the arabs to plagiarise: we would have bypassed all three monotheisms

  79. Adrian T – Interesting theory. I also wonder what would have happened if the emperor Julian (reigned 361 – 63)had lived longer. His attempts to restore paganism and marginalise Christianity just didn’t get enough time.

  80. Brian Burton 16 Sep 2009, 7:56pm

    Who are these scribes happily pumping fiction and non-fiction with out first looking into the clear waters of beauty and the well undefiled truths they seek from the waters. The shifting and shadowy image of their own stupidity, oblivious of it also. Let them peer and probe through whatever lens they choose at us. But should I put them under the microscope, there would be nothing to be seen.

  81. @Iris,
    Really appreciated your reply,thanks.

  82. Ohhhh, Iris, guess who has a religious fundamentalist admirer who trawls gays sites… you, you luck girl!

  83. Eagle Ashcroft 17 Sep 2009, 7:05am


    Eagle Ashcroft,
    We take it then you you think the Bible is a book of fiction? You say only insane people belive the bible. Who told you these things? Comparing Micky Mouse, donald Duck and Puss-in-Boots with stories from the Bible….Is…Insane in itself! Remember you are commenting to adult, Gay men and woman on these threads, not School Kids matey! So do watch the metaphors. Your a real klutz as the saying goes.

    (Report comment to the moderator)

    Comment by Brian Burton — September 16, 2009 @ 15:23

    Of course if you don’t know the differences between reality and myths, then its your problem, not mine. I stopped believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and God when I was eight years old as my young mind grew up fast when I realized my parents had been feeding me a crock of sh-t when I caught them putting presents under the tree, money under my pillow and never saw a rabbit lay an egg, and I certainly wasn’t going to continue believing in a magical being called God. Then there is the case of the bible stories; why some of the best fairy tales I read as a child were no different than the bible stories. If one can not differ between reality and fantasy, they are certainly neither mature nor secure, but insecure and immature. But then some people never grow up, but live in Peter Pan Land forever and ever, then they die and no more Peter Pan Land for them as they cease to exist. End of the fairy tale.

  84. Brian Burton 17 Sep 2009, 12:15pm

    Eagle Ashcroft,
    What a depressinly sad person you are. First you publicly dishonour your parents who you obviously take for granted in a purely selfish way. Then you attempt to preach and teach at me to satisfy your inflated ego. A lot of kids don’t have parents to tell them anything like Santa Is on his way or the tooth fairy or even a magical being called God. Clearly, Eagle Baby, what you lack and it scerames at me…Love..there is no love in you. This is the reason your imagination is limited, the world is made of world-light and yet you cannot understand it. Love and the capacity for it, distinguishes us from you!

  85. @Will
    The topic is “Would Jesus Discriminate?”

    Just in case you have forgotten……

  86. Brian Burton 17 Sep 2009, 5:53pm

    A Gay Friendly Church asks ‘Would Jesus Discriminate?’ A good trick question to get everyone to comment. Beliver and non-belivers alike, every comment is valid from both sides because everyone has faith in something. Love or hate Religion, but with a passion. To understand anything fully you must cease to be a critic. People don’t understand that criticism is prejudice because to understand you must have Love within you. In Rome and Mecca, swarms of pilgrims stampeed and die underfoot and all for their need for a closer encounter with their God. For myself, I like principled people, equally, I like people without principles. The un-principled will say the only way to get rid of temptation is to yeald to it. The principled might say, I can resist anything exept temptation. Life is simple, it’s people who are complex. I have never searched for happiness, that should come naturally or not at all. Jesus, If he was homosexual, was an unconsious one. He never discriminated against woman and in His time on earth, woman was an entirely seperate entity. Jesus always treated them with respect. Jesus would only discriminate against Pharisee hypocrits, but he loved ignorant people because He knew that in the soul of the ignorant was room for great ideas. The spirit of humanity is inspired by the spirit of Love. The spirit of the Christ that is not in Churches can make everything possible because He dose not discriminate.

  87. Jean-Paul Bentham 17 Sep 2009, 6:41pm

    IAIN (85):

    Blow it out your ear!

  88. “Blow it out your ear!”

    Okay then,
    As I read it ,I cannot see that Jesus would discriminate against anyone. The miracle of the healing of the centurions servant ( the story in question here)is about faith and not about a same sex relationship.The fact that this man was a Gentile shows that Jesus did not discriminate.


  89. Jean-Paul Bentham 18 Sep 2009, 4:39am

    IAIN (88):

    Blow it out your ear!

  90. Brian Burton 18 Sep 2009, 10:16am

    No word possesses so many S’s as possesses possesses!

  91. @IAIN (88) ‘The miracle of the healing of the centurions servant ( the story in question here)is about faith and not about a same sex relationship.’

    You definitively know this how? Where you there? Have you read the original scripts? in their original language which you speak fluently (difficult, seeing as they are not available)

    Or are you, as the MCC has been accused of, using somebody elses selective translation of the biblical texts?

  92. @Alan,
    Just read the story and make up your own mind. Its in Matthew 8.
    Theres no hidden meaning and no Dan Brown conspiracy,its about an act of faith by a Gentile.

    “In truth I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found faith as great as this.”

  93. @ IAIN

    If I could read the original text, in it’s original language, which I spoke fluently then I would read it and make my mind up for myself. However, what you are suggesting is that I read a translated version, which have been shown to have been translated for the purposes of whoever it was that translated it.

    So your answer to your question is, obviously, you don’t and you can’t.

  94. @Alan,
    You present a circular argument in which you are painting yourself into a corner!
    You could always ask the MCC which translation they use?
    But they also claim to be utilizing the Greek text and not a selective translation.(and they are using the Greek text)
    But wether in Greek or in English the main thrust of the story is in fact the act of faith by a Gentile outsider.

  95. @Alan,
    Thats all I will be saying on this thread as its getting a bit tired. Just waiting for Bentham to see me off :)

  96. @ IAIN

    You say tomarto, they say tomayto. Who is to say which, if indeed either of those meanings, were what the original author intended.

    Unless, of course, you have some psychic link to the long gone author.

    However, either way, the question asked by the MCC, would Jesus Discriminate, is still valid, and something that you haven’t actually answered, before ducking out of this debate.

  97. Brian Burton 19 Sep 2009, 9:51pm

    Mary Magdelin was a reformed prostitute, Jesus never discriminated against her. The woman who Jesus saved from being stoned, He refused to condem her. All this speaks of a Love beond our understanding. That Love is lacking sadly in Alan and Iain’s comments.

  98. Perhaps Jesus was the Original Gay Man sent here by his own father to preach inclusiveness by shining a light on oppression. Seriously, he was a dude in a dress who hung out with dudes (disciples),,, he never got married or had an interest in women, he could make a feast out of a fish and a loaf of bread,,,who caters better than a gay dude? just sayin’ Christian,,just sayin’.

  99. Gay Christian Europe 26 May 2011, 6:33pm

    I invite all European LGBT Christians who need support, friendship, complete acceptance (and of their same sex relationship), and community (both online and in person), to join the forums of the Gay Christian Europe site :

    (it is available in various European languages)

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.