The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

"High school pastor" says gays can "change" in OC

Remember this?

attachment.php


Jerking 2 invisible penises and taking one up the ass for the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • n92127561896_1597092_455434.jpg
    n92127561896_1597092_455434.jpg
    39.6 KB · Views: 437
  • sarahpalinsuckingdicks.jpg
    sarahpalinsuckingdicks.jpg
    41.7 KB · Views: 441
So his main concern in the world is people having gay sex. :mad:
I hope no one donate him any money but should spy on his personal life.
 
All this about Blakely being a repressed homo is ridiculous. If that accusation was true as often as it's made, then the true percentage of gays in the population must be about 20% -25%.

He's just an enthusiast who wants people to notice him. He's probably sincere about serving God, but he's bought into a bad translation, so instead of condemning the prostitution and promiscuity the Bible actually talks about, he's condemning gays. He probably doesn't really care about gays one way or the other, it's just a topic that gets people to pay attention to him, which feeds his ego by convincing him he's doing God's work.

People like Blakely aren't going to be convinced of their error easily. They don't get an exposure to actual scholarship, so they haven't been shown how to actually weigh things to find the truth. They generally don't get an education in the Bible's actual languages, either, so there's no way to explain to them just how difficult it is to translate rare words, or how common it is to link rare words of uncertain meaning to things the translators (or their bosses) don't like personally.

The only success I've ever had with people like him are in face-to-face conversations in front of a crowd of people actually interested in learning things, when I confront them with the actual Greek of the New Testament and calmly explain the truth. It hasn't swayed the "preacher", but it has swayed the audience.
 
LMAO YES! That theater queen was SLAYIN that monologue!
YOU BETTA WORKKK !!
 
rareboy said:
Blakey is another repressed homo who is trying not to be found out.

I'll bet the 'straight' boys who went through homonomo training probably had to suck off Blakey.
Click to expand...

The dude is cute, in a Edward Norton sort of way, so I'd suck him off....then post the pics/video all over the net and expose that bigoted closet ass.
 
I like the dramatic vibe the video tries to evoke. XD

Those kids are totally gay! They'll be having a hard time accepting it for the next couple of years, though.
 
That Corinthians verse was mistranslated and talks about promiscuity.

How many times has this been said?

Dear God.



"I liked to sing and dance...everybody told me I was gay"


lolololololololllllllolllllllllollll

So he was gay because people told him he was? No wonder the change back to hetero was so easy!
 
I still only see 2 comments on Patch.

If Jayqueer is Gay in DB, it puts his posting history here in a very different light.

If he isn't, I want to know why he isn't adding his comments but asking others to.
 
I don't see a problem. J-Queer is a Republican and so is the preacher man; two peas in the same pod.
 
Those poor kids are probably emotionally fucked up for life.

Erm, somebody should ask the pastor whether he would be able to change into a gay man if he was indoctrinated to do so??? He should be asked in front of a group. He would not be able to answer the question truthfully, and keep spewing the same old tired propaganda.

One of these scenarios would be true, if he was committed to telling the truth:
1. Are you kidding me? I'm straight, and THAT'S THAT - there's nothing anybody could ever do to make me gay...OR
2. He would have to admit that he himself is gay or bisexual...and it is what it is. As immutable as the color of his blood.

Kulindahr said:
They generally don't get an education in the Bible's actual languages, either, so there's no way to explain to them just how difficult it is to translate rare words, or how common it is to link rare words of uncertain meaning to things the translators (or their bosses) don't like personally.

The only success I've ever had with people like him are in face-to-face conversations in front of a crowd of people actually interested in learning things, when I confront them with the actual Greek of the New Testament and calmly explain the truth. It hasn't swayed the "preacher", but it has swayed the audience.
Click to expand...
I've always had some suspicions about the King James translation, because it was done entirely by HUMANS who, when translating earlier versions of The Holy Bible, were no doubt free to include interpretations not included in the original work. With the absolute power of the Anglican Church at the time, people, even those who were scholars, were not likely to make a public row about the inconsistencies, lest they be executed for heresy. As the translators were from within the Church, the translation was most likely intended to maintain the supreme power of the Church. It's very possible the translators may have even been TOLD what parts of Doctrine to include in their translations.

I wonder how different a true literal and objective translation would look. For example, the Leviticus translation, in its original intent, MIGHT be something more like "People, if not married, shall not lie with other people, for it is an abomination." I'd be very curious what this passage, if it even existed, said in whatever language the OT was originally written in - was it Hebrew, or was the Hebrew a translation of an earlier text in Aramaic or something?

When reading the AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION article in wikipedia, I was surprised to see that neither the Old nor New Testaments were translated from Latin as I had always assumed. That source says the translation was from Hebrew in the OT, and from Greek in the NT. (So, then, I guess the Holy Book and the Catechism used by the Catholics was a special translation-into-Latin for that particular religion only?)

In what context were you debating Scripture in front of a group? That's a very interesting scenario, and one which few people would have the courage to take on, because they REALLY have to know what they're doing.
 
WaGWaG said:
Are we talking about general population or Christian leaders?
Click to expand...

Leaders.

Your typical right-wing "evangelical" leader might have a Bible College degree, and nothing else -- sometimes just a two-year degree. It's not uncommon for there to be no college degree at all.

The other side of the fence... typically a real college degree, and a master's degree on top of it, sometimes even multiple degrees including doctoral level.


The general population probably follows the same trend.
 
frankfrank said:
I've always had some suspicions about the King James translation, because it was done entirely by HUMANS who, when translating earlier versions of The Holy Bible, were no doubt free to include interpretations not included in the original work. With the absolute power of the Anglican Church at the time, people, even those who were scholars, were not likely to make a public row about the inconsistencies, lest they be executed for heresy. As the translators were from within the Church, the translation was most likely intended to maintain the supreme power of the Church. It's very possible the translators may have even been TOLD what parts of Doctrine to include in their translations.
Click to expand...

You're hardly the only one to speculate about the political aspects of the translation, both ecclesiastic and royal. Given the situation, I'd consider it a miracle if there weren't political reasons for some of the word choices.

frankfrank said:
I wonder how different a true literal and objective translation would look. For example, the Leviticus translation, in its original intent, MIGHT be something more like "People, if not married, shall not lie with other people, for it is an abomination." I'd be very curious what this passage, if it even existed, said in whatever language the OT was originally written in - was it Hebrew, or was the Hebrew a translation of an earlier text in Aramaic or something?
Click to expand...

The language can't be stretched that far -- that passage reads pretty much as the KJV has it. The question is what it loses in the translation -- a phenomenon at least as common as gaining things in the translation. And that's just the beginning of questions....

frankfrank said:
When reading the AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION article in wikipedia, I was surprised to see that neither the Old nor New Testaments were translated from Latin as I had always assumed. That source says the translation was from Hebrew in the OT, and from Greek in the NT. (So, then, I guess the Holy Book and the Catechism used by the Catholics was a special translation-into-Latin for that particular religion only?)
Click to expand...

No, they deliberately tried to bypass the Latin. But they still relied on it heavily, especially for the Old Testament, because Hebrew wasn't that well known. For that matter, a great deal of the Old Testament didn't exist in a Hebrew form that could be translated, so they relied on the Septuagint, the old Greek translation of the Old Testament.

The original translation into Latin was opposed by the church -- in fact the true first attempts got silenced. St. Jerome pulled it off, getting the Bible into what was then the common tongue (the "vulgar", and thus Vulgate) because he had several things going for him. Of course, once it had been done, eventually tradition made what had been objectionable turn into venerable....

frankfrank said:
In what context were you debating Scripture in front of a group? That's a very interesting scenario, and one which few people would have the courage to take on, because they REALLY have to know what they're doing.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually mean to. But this preacher on campus was making some rather outre claims about some rather obscure verses, so I stopped and pulled out my Greek New Testament, since that was what I carried. At one point the speaker, seeing me with a Bible, suggested I loan it to someone else to read. Absent-mindedly I replied I didn't think that would work. The preacher got a little hostile, like I was refusing to share, and made some remark about my copy. Still focused on the text, I told him no, the deal was that mine was the original Greek, and I doubted anyone there could read it.

Next thing I knew, everyone wanted me to comment on the claims being made. It turned into a debate, the crowd demanding the preacher go over the verses he'd used. He got more than a little irate when I baldly pronounced that a few of his interpretations were flat out not possible from the original.

He did the typical fundamental-case response -- denounced my words as proceeding from "human learning" and not from the Spirit of God.

I tossed back at him, "Study to show yourself approved" -- in Greek, then translating it -- and it killed his audience. He preached there two more days, but never had more than a few listeners any more. I stopped again several times, and he always got really nervous.

It made me a celebrity with the first-year Koine Greek students I tutored, which was kinda kool.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top