"Jesus wore a Pride flag like a cape
like some sort of gay superman"
is not an historical fact,
but it is an image that appears
faithful to the biblical witness.
famously was asked to support the religionists
and join in with them
to stone an adulterous woman
to death
to kill the woman "caught in the act"
until she was dead as a stone
...beating & battering her bloody, bruised body
with stones until her heart quit beating
her lungs no longer able to exhale
her Self, shattered and shapeless.
Jesus was asked to join in with the religionists
and brutally murder her
righteous, in their rule-following
("rules" defined by them...).
...Jesus did NOT join in with the religionists.
Indeed, Jesus said
the ones with no sins
should cast the first stone
and while the religionists
no doubt
may have considered themselves
damned near sinless
couldn't bring themselves to say it out loud
and so they shuffled away
dropping rocks as they disappeared
in the sand
Jesus wore a Pride Flag that day
like a cape
like a gay superman
9 comments:
Matthew 9
While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
Mark 2
While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
Luke 5
Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. 30 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
Like Jesus, I love a good Pride get together dinner. Like all oppressed groups, they do great dinners.
You could not be more blasphemous.
Marshal - not having been taught what christian faith is or what christian scriptures teach - is ignorant of what blaspheming the Holy Spirit consists.
Marshal is in eternal danger: “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. This sin involves a willful, hardened, and persistent rejection of the Holy Spirit's work.”
“Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven….
Then Peter began to speak to them: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every people anyone who fears him and practices righteousness is acceptable to him….
While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the gentiles… Then Peter said, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
…. Now the apostles and the brothers and sisters who were in Judea heard that the gentiles had also accepted the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers[a] criticized him, saying, “Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?” Then Peter began to explain it to them, step by step…
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”
Marshal attacked, with no support of course, saying...
You could not be more blasphemous.
I believe in a welcoming God. A God who came very specifically to welcome and preach literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized.
Do you consider that blasphemous?
I believe in a God of Grace and Love, one who, of course, welcomes and loves all of us, even Marshal.
Do you consider that blasphemous?
I believe in the teachings of Jesus who taught us that we are more beloved than mere rules and who says - even to those considered the worst "sinners" and "deserving of literally a torturous death..." - "Neither do I condemn you."
AND that he said that after shaming the deadly rule-followers who lacked grace and decency and thereby chased them away, saving the so-called "sinner's" life from me who would have tortured and killed her.
Do you consider that blasphemous?
I believe that Jesus taught AGAINST the deadly teachings of rule-givers/enforcers and in favor of Grace and welcome.
Do you consider that blasphemous?
Perhaps it's time you reconsider what you consider "blasphemy."
And wise, good points, all, Feodor.
Marshal, doing his best Chandler Bing-as-Pharisee impression:
"Could you BE any more blasphemous!?"
And the world laughed, recognizing the sad, graceless humor in chandler-marshal.
"I believe in a welcoming God. A God who came very specifically to welcome and preach literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized.
Do you consider that blasphemous?"
You believe in a god of your own making, one you've made in your image and likeness. That's blasphemous. Your insistence on ignoring what Jesus meant when He said He's come to bring Good News to the poor is to corrupt His words. That's blasphemous, to attribute to Christ what He never said, did or intended. I've provided a deep dive in this particular issue and I now present it yet again. You should actually read it this time:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-poor-in-the-gospels-and-the-good-news-proclaimed-to-them/
"I believe in a God of Grace and Love, one who, of course, welcomes and loves all of us, even Marshal.
Do you consider that blasphemous?"
Of course He loves me, as I seek to subordinate my life to Him completely (still working on it). But He doesn't love me so much that He'll not have expectations of me regarding that subordination. In my case it's based on His teachings, including those I find inconvenient, difficult and in conflict with my nature and desires.
This clearly isn't the case with you, so your condescension is again unjustified, irrational and illogical. Those He welcomes completely (into His Eternal Presence) are those who repent and accept Jesus as Savior...not those who accept Him on their own terms...like you and yours. That's blasphemous.
"I believe in the teachings of Jesus who taught us that we are more beloved than mere rules and who says - even to those considered the worst "sinners" and "deserving of literally a torturous death..." - "Neither do I condemn you."
AND that he said that after shaming the deadly rule-followers who lacked grace and decency and thereby chased them away, saving the so-called "sinner's" life from me who would have tortured and killed her.
Do you consider that blasphemous?"
Yes I do as you again, willfully and intentionally to protect blatant sinners you enable, corrupt this story to suggest that Jesus didn't condemn the adultery of the woman in question. Of course He did or He wouldn't have told her to "sin no more". What's more, He didn't bring this woman to trial and had no reason to condemn her personally, though come Judgement He most certainly will condemn her if she doesn't repent.
And of course we don't know what became of the woman or whether she went back to her lover who wasn't brought forth along with her as the Law demands. That, too, would prevent Jesus from condemning her as there was no co-conspirator present. (It takes two to tango. No lover? Where's the adultery?) Jesus can't condemn her by law in that case (even if He had legal authority in the first place, which He didn't).
"I believe that Jesus taught AGAINST the deadly teachings of rule-givers/enforcers and in favor of Grace and welcome.
Do you consider that blasphemous?"
It's blasphemy to suggest that you don't make up your own laws, and ignore those of God you don't like, which is just as bad if not worse, and pretend you're doing His Will.
So yeah, I understand the word "blasphemy" quite well and use it appropriately here. You reject God in favor of your own fictitious god.
Who is Chandler Bing?
The world laughs with me as I mock the likes of you with the truth and facts of Scripture. Indeed, the world pees itself, otherwise it would be weeping in grief at your determination to get the best seat in Hell.
Marshal, when I ask you a direct and rational question, I expect you to answer it. I'm leaving your comment just to show all that you're not answering the questions asked of you and are, instead, just going on to insult-driven, evident-less false accusations. You are slandering and bearing false witness. There are literally rules in the Bible that condemn such activities as being evidence of being NOT part of the realm of God. (If you are a Bible-as-rule-book believer... I'm not).
Marshal:
corrupt this story to suggest that Jesus didn't condemn the adultery of the woman in question.
Jesus:
NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU.
[rolls eyes]
You are your own worst enemy, dear man.
Don't bother answering. I've given you grace and an opportunity to actually respectfully answer questions. You opted not to. YOU opted out of polite discourse. That is your choice. You'll have to live with it.
So, again, don't bother replying further short of beginning with an apology for not answering the questions asked and a second apology for the stupidly false claims and accusations you made and then respectfully answering the questions that were asked of you.
Marshal keeps hanging himself right in front of scripture.
“In my case it's based on His teachings, including those I find inconvenient, difficult and in conflict with my nature and desires.”
What does Paul strain to tell him?
“Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life [note: sackcloth and ashes aren't needed]; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.”
I'll make it easier for you, Marshal. Here's the question...
I believe in a welcoming God. A God who came very specifically to welcome and preach literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized.
Do you consider that blasphemous?
That is, the question is, DO YOU consider the notion of a welcoming God, blasphemous?
Do you consider the notion that Jesus came, in his own words, to preach good news to the poor, blasphemous?
Answer those direct and reasonable questions directly or move on.
Oh, and while you're at it, a good person would begin by acknowledging they did NOT answer those questions directly, and apologize for that.
Be a good person or move on.
Post a Comment