Monday, December 17, 2012

Andrei Glynn's been gazumpted

Silly season.

And an annual presser from St Matthews in the city: Was Jesus Gay? Controversial Christmas billboard at St Matthew-in-the-City

Poor Revs Glynn and Clay.

Powershop got in before them with the gay thing this year.

What a yawn.......

28 comment(s):

Lucia Maria said...

What narcissists!

Though, this "gay Jesus" meme is somewhat of an Anglican thing. Some NZ reverend who lives in both Wellington and London came out with the concept in a UK article a few months back. Another narcissist.

leftrightout said...

hmmm,

Never married.

No girlfriend.

No children.

Spends all his time hanging out with a bunch of blokes.

Lucia Maria said...

You forgot the being God part.

leftrightout said...

No, I didn't forget it at all. I await the proof that Jesus even lived, let alone was a god.

Have you seen these t-shirts?

Lucia Maria said...

LRO,

Not looking at the tee-shirts.

I also truly doubt you are waiting for proof, as most of your comments about God indicate that you know He exists and that you are in rebellion against Him. Proof won't help in your case, as a massive change of heart is required.

ZenTiger said...

LRO, what blatant stereotyping. So if some-one doesn't get married, they must be gay? As for "no children" one would expect that if the person in question believed in no sex outside of marriage. Throw away the pink coloured glasses and avoid the stereotyping.

leftrightout said...

No, not stereotyping, simply posing questions.

According to the Jesus Myth, he became a man to experience what it was like to be a Man. And being a Man, fatherhood is a very important role. So why didn't he take on that role? An unmarried Rabbi? The Jews had never heard of such a thing!

My pink glasses seem to give me far less trouble than you get from your ideological blinkers.

ZenTiger said...

He became a man knowing the ultimate sacrifice that was in store. He was the father, he became the son.

I must say, pink looks good on you.

leftrightout said...

Ultimate sacrifice? don't make me laugh. What sort of "sacrifice" is 2 days dead then the rest of your life riding ponies in heaven?

I think that's a sacrifice most of us would be prepared to make.

Oddly enough, its not that far removed from the beliefs of the Muslim suicide bomber, is it?

So why was he so damned afraid of women that he wouldn't marry one? Did he know something the rest of us don't?

ZenTiger said...

That comment is all over the place, and hardly worth debating given you appear to be firing blanks wildly hoping for a hit.

But they are blanks.

"Damned afraid of women"?

*snort*


Shawn said...

LRO,

First, the incarnation has nothing to do with God needing to know what being human is like. That is a biizarre idea that no Christian church has ever taught. You cannot critique with any credibility that which you do not understand.

Roman crucifixion was easily one of the most brutal forms of execution ever invented. The suffering of those who were crucified was horrific, and unimaginable tonthevrest of us, let alone the fact that on the case of Jesus it took place after a Roman scourging, itself a terrible form of torture.

On top of all that Jesus had to suffer seperation from His Father when He took the guilt of the world's sin and evil upon Himself.

Blithely claiming that anyone of us, or yourself, would happily undergo what Jesus did is truly laughable. Frankly speaking such a statement is just plain dumb.

Suicide bombers murder people, often civilians. Comparing that to someone who gives up his own life to save others is also dumb. Your basically saying that, for example, a man who pushes a child out of thie way of an oncoming car, but is killed by the car himself, is no different to a suicide bomber.

No sane, intelligent, mature person would ever make such a stupid statement.

Seriously, if all you have is profound ignorance of basic Christian teaching and imature one-liners, then why bother posting here?

Your not impressing anyone, your not challenging anyone, your not saying anything we have not heard before. All your doing is embarrassing yourself, and coming across as a very ignorant and immature Internet troll.

Finally, I will prove that Jesus lived when you prove that Julius Caeser did. All serious scholars of history rightly accept that Julius Caeser was a real historical person, yet the textual evidence for that fact is far less than what we have for Jesus, which is why all mainstream academic historians accept that Jesus was a real person.

Only a tiny number of fringe mutters think otherwise, and their claims have all the credibility of those who deny the Moon landings or the Holocaust.

I have been dealing with anti-Christian Internet trolls for many years, and your just not impressing me.

Perhaps you should find something more constructive to do with your time.


Blithely saying that anyone would happily underr

Lucia Maria said...

Shawn,

LRO likes baiting us. He studied theology a number of years back and has since lost his faith. So, his baiting has the additional barbs of actual knowledge that he purposefully twists. He's not ignorant, he's just checking if we are.

leftrightout said...

Oh Shawn, where do I start?

Well, If I had a $ for every christian who has ever said All serious scholars of history rightly accept that Julius Caeser was a real historical person, yet the textual evidence for that fact is far less than what we have for Jesus,

Evidence for Caesar v Evidence for Jesus

We have books written by Caesar. Jesus left not even a single note. Perhaps he was illiterate.

We have portraits and busts of Caesar. Of Jesus we have only "artists' impressions" and those impressions are founded in the ethnicity of the artist.

We have coins with the image of Caesar. I think Jesus even had one of those coins, but he never appeared on a coin or a stamp, did he? Only on toast, water stained walls and doritos.

We have books and articles written about Caesar by eyewitnesses and contemporaries to the events they record. There is not a single eyewitness account about Jesus, all we have is third hand hearsay.

We even have a calendar and a medical procedure named for him. Jesus was bog ignorant of science and medicine.

For your supposed proof of Jesus' existence all you have are the 4 gospels which disagree with each other on many points and also contain some demonstrably false claims.

So, where's that proof of yours?

Lucia Maria said...

My personal proof is in every Tabernacle, LRO. :)

ZenTiger said...

Shawn, ignore LRO. He knows full well the historicity of Jesus is accepted by most serious scholars, and he would likely fully realise that the evidence is more than the 4 gospels, as he falsely asserts above. He is simply trolling.

As you answer each point, he will simply ignore the evidence, make another wild claim and then change the topic.

What we need to consider at this point is that LRO does not actually exist, that there is no proof for his existence and these random comment inserts are perhaps a complete fabrication or perhaps an accidental by-product of the Google Search engine.

When you start reading these comments carefully, under critical analysis, you will soon see my theory of LRO's non-existence has merit.

leftrightout said...

Shawn, ignore LRO. He knows full well the historicity of Jesus is accepted by most serious scholars,

No true. Accepted maybe by scholars blinded to truth by faith, but there is a vast body of scholarship disputing the biblical accounts.

As you answer each point, he will simply ignore the evidence, make another wild claim and then change the topic.

Again, untrue. Provide facts, you will win. Bluster, blather and ignore the point, as you do here, and I will push for an answer.

You see, ZT, you have nothing except faith, and faith is what you are left with when reality brings your house of cards crashing to the ground.

So, here's a really, really easy one for you to answer.

Find corroboration of Mark 15:33 from non biblical sources.

leftrightout said...

Lucia Maria said...
My personal proof is in every Tabernacle, LRO. :)
8:04 PM, December 21, 2012


Personal opinion? Yes.

Proof? No.

What you believe proves nothing. What we see, hear, feel, touch, smell, observe and discern is reality.

I have personal experience of taking a blessed host, breaking it with fellow diners, sharing pieces of each others crackers, and guess what? Nothing except a cloying dryness on the roof of my mouth. (Lithuanian custom at Xmas & Easter).

Lucia Maria said...

LRO,

I certainly hope it wasn't a transubstantiated host, but it would be pretty unlikely. Poles have the same custom, and the host handed out is blessed, but is not the Real Presence.

I once rescued Our Lord from a woman who had accidentally gone up with every one else to receive Holy Communion. Obviously not a Catholic, because she hadn't eaten Him, but her hand was shaking when I got to her.

It depends on your state of grace and the amount of faith you have, and whether or not Our Lord wants you to be absolutely aware of Him, as to what sort of experience you get. I never expect an experience, and sometimes I get the most amazing surprises.

I have an MP3 testimony of a lady who used to be a Satanist. When she came back to the faith, it took her quite a long time before she could actually keep the host down. She also said, you give any bonafied witch two thousand hosts, with only one transubstantiated one, the witch will know which one is Our Lord.

ZenTiger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ZenTiger said...

You are trolling LRO, please dont try to waste my time making weak arguments like "those scholars must be biased". That's not an argument, that is a baseless assertion.

Evidence for the historicity of Jesus

Here's the opening bit, with citations:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7]

leftrightout said...

ZT - Find corroboration of Mark 15:33 from non biblical sources.

Too hard for you, was it?

ZenTiger said...

No, as I explained - you like to make one set of assertions and if it gets too hard you move on.

Let's go back to the first things you threw at me and deal with those, rather than you prove my point so spectacularly quickly.

leftrightout said...

ZenTiger said...
No, as I explained - you like to make one set of assertions and if it gets too hard you move on.

Let's go back to the first things you threw at me and deal with those, rather than you prove my point so spectacularly quickly.


Although I wouldn't call it throwing things at you, the first question that I posed, directly to you was:

Find corroboration of Mark 15:33 from non biblical sources.

Deal with that, then I can deal with the stuff you are throwing at me.

ZenTiger said...

Weasel words mate. Don't come on to this blog and through assertions around, then run from them. I've got better things to do with my time than pander to you, especially when you just make shit up.

You've implied that only biased scholars believe Jesus existed, and that there is no other evidence than the 4 gospels.

Actually, there is other evidence than the four gospels. You can start by admitting you got that one way wrong.

leftrightout said...

Find corroboration of Mark 15:33 from non biblical sources.

Is that b really too hard for you? I guess it is.

ZenTiger said...

As I said to Shawn:

"As you answer each point, he will simply ignore the evidence, make another wild claim and then change the topic."

Proven.

I.M Fletcher said...

Oops, I didn't see this post already - obviously didn't go back far enough :P
Sorry for the double-up :)

ZenTiger said...

No double-up Fletch - you raised a different issue.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.