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

    To register, turn off your VPN; 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.

video: son disowned by parents

If one is trying not to see the point taught, it is easy. Although chapter or verse markings are not in any of the original texts, of which none survive, the narrative surrounding the excerpt about "hating" family should not be ignored. It was grouped together for a reason.

In the preceding teaching, the Lord healed a man on the Sabbath, violating Jewish law of the day. That didn't seem hateful.

Next, he taught to be humble when taking a seat at a banquet, and not to assume honors, letting them be granted you or not.

Then, before the teaching about "hate," he counseled his followers and others not to throw dinner parties for friends and family, as it was not helping anything but just setting up a social favor in return. He was more concerned with the poor and disabled who were hungry.

Finally the Teacher gives an example of guests invited to a banquet, but all made excuses, which sounded legitimate enough. A couple of them were wrapped up in business deals and a third was a honeymooner. Seemed reasonable. But, the teaching then follows that half-hearted devotion isn't going to be enough.

Disciples are told that they must hate their families if they were to take on the tough thing, following the new way. The one teaching used the same word that the writers of Genesis used to describe Jacob and his comparative preference against Leah because she was childless. Unloved is a better word in its effect.

Jesus was gathering up followers who would have to endure both Jewish and Roman persecution, so anyone who was more concerned that he would miss his kid's birthday party would not be made of the sterner stuff that would be required to meet the challenge of the day. To make it an eternal teaching is to misapply it.

And, if one is examining Jesus to see if he taught hate, how did he regard others, including his family? He obeys his mother in various passages, but has to turn her and his siblings away when they come for him to stop his teachings. It wasn't hate, but he did practice what he preached.

Many of us have had to separate ourselves from our own families because the path we chose was not possible if our families were to hold us back. We have not preferred them over the life we chose, but that is not the same as hate in the bitter use implied by some.

Is it not true that many times Olympic athletes have to hate everything else, including some family members, in order to focus on the most important thing in their lives? We praise single-mindedness when it comes to artists, but it becomes a thing of scorn when we apply it to a man who did not teach violence or war.

And as for hating one's own life, it is a real hindrance when fear keeps one from answering the door, talking to strangers, or giving a ride to a hitcher. If one is so afraid, he is much less likely to be on the front lines in a world that needs a helper.

Go figure.

Accept Jesus as King or die.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)


And...

Mark 11:12-14 and 11:20-25

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.

...

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

1394649542663.jpg


Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but thrice seems to be habbit. :lol:

god-hates-figs-handout.jpg
 
And yet most christians disagree with you. Most christians believe the bible specifically tells them to hate us.

Trying to be accepted by the people who hate you is a strong drive. I get it. At some point, you desperately want to be part of their family. I get that. But this bending over backward to deny what's right in front of you is getting tiring.

No, most Christians don't believe that -- it's just that the ones who do have really loud mouths.

And no, I don't "want to be part of their family" -- if it was about "their family", I'd be a buddhist and tell them where to go.
 
Hate your family and love Jesus.

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

What sort of twisted logic will you apply to this? The words of Jesus are emphatic, hate

your parents,
your spouse,
your children,
your brothers and sisters

and your own life.

Thank you for the demonstration of fundamentalist (=moron) "theology".

Try reading it in context, for starters -- there's a whole chapter it belongs with (and then some).
 
If one is trying not to see the point taught, it is easy. Although chapter or verse markings are not in any of the original texts, of which none survive, the narrative surrounding the excerpt about "hating" family should not be ignored. It was grouped together for a reason.

In the preceding teaching, the Lord healed a man on the Sabbath, violating Jewish law of the day. That didn't seem hateful.

Next, he taught to be humble when taking a seat at a banquet, and not to assume honors, letting them be granted you or not.

Then, before the teaching about "hate," he counseled his followers and others not to throw dinner parties for friends and family, as it was not helping anything but just setting up a social favor in return. He was more concerned with the poor and disabled who were hungry.

Finally the Teacher gives an example of guests invited to a banquet, but all made excuses, which sounded legitimate enough. A couple of them were wrapped up in business deals and a third was a honeymooner. Seemed reasonable. But, the teaching then follows that half-hearted devotion isn't going to be enough.

Disciples are told that they must hate their families if they were to take on the tough thing, following the new way. The one teaching used the same word that the writers of Genesis used to describe Jacob and his comparative preference against Leah because she was childless. Unloved is a better word in its effect.

Jesus was gathering up followers who would have to endure both Jewish and Roman persecution, so anyone who was more concerned that he would miss his kid's birthday party would not be made of the sterner stuff that would be required to meet the challenge of the day. To make it an eternal teaching is to misapply it.

And, if one is examining Jesus to see if he taught hate, how did he regard others, including his family? He obeys his mother in various passages, but has to turn her and his siblings away when they come for him to stop his teachings. It wasn't hate, but he did practice what he preached.

Many of us have had to separate ourselves from our own families because the path we chose was not possible if our families were to hold us back. We have not preferred them over the life we chose, but that is not the same as hate in the bitter use implied by some.

Is it not true that many times Olympic athletes have to hate everything else, including some family members, in order to focus on the most important thing in their lives? We praise single-mindedness when it comes to artists, but it becomes a thing of scorn when we apply it to a man who did not teach violence or war.

And as for hating one's own life, it is a real hindrance when fear keeps one from answering the door, talking to strangers, or giving a ride to a hitcher. If one is so afraid, he is much less likely to be on the front lines in a world that needs a helper.

Go figure.

Well said!

"Hate" may be the best single-word translation into English of the Greek there, but it is still a poor one. "Count as of no value in comparison to" is more the thought. The part I bolded expresses it extremely well.
 
As for migration of gays, a couple of factors go unmentioned. Anonymity of cities is also a draw, especially in a hookup culture. There is no such thing as anonymity in rural areas. Everyone knows what goes on. The second factor is the sheer rarity of gay men period. Despite fantasy threads and whatnot, the real incidence of gay men is low in the general population, depressingly low. When a young man is hoping to find a mate, his chances are very low in a rural area with a low population. If one draws a circle around him with a 60-mile radius, it may only encompass a few dozen gay men of his age and preference when in a rural setting.
Very true...the density of "compatible" gay people in a rural area will be very low, because the fact of migration exacerbates it. It is a successfully-operating "feedback loop" where the density is low to begin with, and the non-acceptance is high, and many adult gay people are more likely to try to migrate to dense-population areas and cities which leaves behind even a smaller density of gays. There is some truth, as well, that people who are the most accepting of gay people are at least somewhat more likely to embrace multiculturalism - and those people are also more likely to try to migrate to more-vibrant and lively surroundings such as a larger city, which is a second "loop" that will tend to leave behind those who may be less accepting of GLBT.

And at least in the United States, it is very telling to look at how rural people generally vote.
 
Thank you for the demonstration of fundamentalist (=moron) "theology".

Try reading it in context, for starters -- there's a whole chapter it belongs with (and then some).

Just the thing you would say, the passages are cherry picked, out of context, blah, blah, blah. I began above saying religious beliefs enable the extremists in your midst. What you see quoted was in part to answer your original question, and to highlight the young man's stepmother who lashed out at him, and the father and stepmother who wanted him out. His parents take comfort in their religion, in their God and cast out their son, because their belief in their so called God enables them to do so.

For all your 'they're not real christians' and 'you're reading the bible all wrong' etc.., it is these numbskulls who are living their confused take on christianity.
 
As I, nor the denominations I have worshiped in, are literalists, the variances are not failings, but testaments of literary process. Islam holds to an unadulterated scripture

No, most American churches of every denomination use the same 1-2 translations of the Bible which haven't changed in decades. The variances do not come from new issues of the Bible coming out and people forming new views around them. Yes, denominations exist because of different interpretations over time of exactly the same written words and how much or how little they should be applied and to what extent, NOT because the literature of the Bible itself is in any way in an evolutionary process over time. The same Bible that supports a benign flavor of Christianity provides textual ammunition for people who wish to interpret Christian teachings in a more aggressive or less tolerant manner, even if more benign Christians would argue that people who do so are ignoring an equally important message of love and forgiveness. Those same 'literalists' can turn around and say that benign Christians are tolerating offenses to God clearly delineated in the Bible as offenses.

And no, your statement about Islam applies only to radical Islam. The two largest sects of Islam (and undoubtedly countless smaller and regional ones) exist because of differences interpretation both in what combination of doctrines are core to Islam and to what extent and by what interpretations they apply to understanding the faith. There isn't even universal agreement within Islam of what the "unadulterated book" is because there is a plethora of hadiths and differences both over which ones should be included and also over how they should be interpreted. And since Muslim scholars recognize the hadiths as pre-eminent over literal passages from the Quran in cases of dispute, arguments over which hadiths should be included are substantial in repercussion.

We get to define how we interpret our own religion, but no one has the ability to undefine another's.

That's what you just did.
 
No, most Christians don't believe that -- it's just that the ones who do have really loud mouths.

And no, I don't "want to be part of their family" -- if it was about "their family", I'd be a buddhist and tell them where to go.

Voting results of referendums prove my point. Most of them hate us and do not wish is well. Even Cali, the most liberal state in the union, voted to ban gay marriage. Liberal christians went out by the masses to vote against us. It's not like we tried to rape their kids. We haven't done anything to them and they voted with hatred.
 
The same Bible that supports a benign flavor of Christianity provides textual ammunition for people who wish to interpret Christian teachings in a more aggressive or less tolerant manner, even if more benign Christians would argue that people who do so are ignoring an equally important message of love and forgiveness.

But there's the thing: it provides "ammunition", because you can pull anything out of context and set it on top. The proper reading of a book, or collection, is to ask what it sets on top, and proceed from there. And one finds that "love and forgiveness" is most certainly not "an equally important message", it is the message.

And that's not just one "view" -- it's the way all literature is to be read. What those using various verses as "ammunition" are doing is as if the leader of a book club going through a mystery novel latched on to a proposed solution from chapter four, and held that up as the actual solution despite the rest of the book. It's patently foolish in ordinary literature, and the Bible being not-quite-so-ordinary doesn't make it any less foolish.

So in the end, those "aggressive" or "less tolerant" versions aren't using "Christian teachings" at all, any more than that reading group leader is saying what the book says: both are contradicting the book, and both are insulting the author.
 
Voting results of referendums prove my point. Most of them hate us and do not wish is well. Even Cali, the most liberal state in the union, voted to ban gay marriage. Liberal christians went out by the masses to vote against us. It's not like we tried to rape their kids. We haven't done anything to them and they voted with hatred.

The problem in California was not that "Liberal christians went out by the masses to vote against us" -- the truth is that they, along with young people, just didn't bother to vote... but the bigots sure did.
 
But there's the thing: it provides "ammunition", because you can pull anything out of context and set it on top. The proper reading of a book, or collection, is to ask what it sets on top, and proceed from there. And one finds that "love and forgiveness" is most certainly not "an equally important message", it is the message.

And that's not just one "view" -- it's the way all literature is to be read. What those using various verses as "ammunition" are doing is as if the leader of a book club going through a mystery novel latched on to a proposed solution from chapter four, and held that up as the actual solution despite the rest of the book. It's patently foolish in ordinary literature, and the Bible being not-quite-so-ordinary doesn't make it any less foolish.

So in the end, those "aggressive" or "less tolerant" versions aren't using "Christian teachings" at all, any more than that reading group leader is saying what the book says: both are contradicting the book, and both are insulting the author.

I agree with you re: picking things out of context to support otherwise insupportable positions. This is what radicals and hate-based fundamentalists of every evangelical religion on Earth do to support their extremism.

However I would disagree with the notion that every theologian, student, priest or interpreter of the Bible throughout the centuries of human history where dominant Christian belief mingled harmoniously with draconian penal systems, burnings, social ostracization, slavery were all merely extremists intentionally refusing to acknowledge some parts of the Bible and only recognizing others. They were interpreting the Bible according to widespread social and cultural contexts of the time into which they had been born and regarded as normal. The interpretation changed over time, as did general social consciousness and regards for the rights of individuals. The words in the Bible did not. The Bible's text didn't change and condemn people for owning slaves or for living far away from lepers even though our modern sensibilities did: we would regard those things as viciously without the compassion we would expect from a modern understanding of Christian values today.

Ultimately what it sounds like you're telling me is "every less benign brand of Christian who came before me throughout history was wrong, and I am right." From where I'm standing those were all merely different interpretations of the same book filtered through social norms of their times which shaped those interpretations-- and the Bible was always ardently argued to support all of them, often exclusively, to the point of naming any differing interpretation heretical-- which doesn't sound that different from what you're saying. Perhaps in another 300 years someone will talk about your brand of Christian the same way.
 
But there's the thing: it provides "ammunition", because you can pull anything out of context and set it on top. The proper reading of a book, or collection, is to ask what it sets on top, and proceed from there. And one finds that "love and forgiveness" is most certainly not "an equally important message", it is the message.

And that's not just one "view" -- it's the way all literature is to be read. What those using various verses as "ammunition" are doing is as if the leader of a book club going through a mystery novel latched on to a proposed solution from chapter four, and held that up as the actual solution despite the rest of the book. It's patently foolish in ordinary literature, and the Bible being not-quite-so-ordinary doesn't make it any less foolish.

So in the end, those "aggressive" or "less tolerant" versions aren't using "Christian teachings" at all, any more than that reading group leader is saying what the book says: both are contradicting the book, and both are insulting the author.

I often send people birthday cards filled with "fuck yous" and then, hidden amongst the sprawling verbiage, a tiny little mirthful "happy birthday."

Now some people will take that out of context, but if you read it right...
 
I agree with you re: picking things out of context to support otherwise insupportable positions. This is what radicals and hate-based fundamentalists of every evangelical religion on Earth do to support their extremism.

However I would disagree with the notion that every theologian, student, priest or interpreter of the Bible throughout the centuries of human history where dominant Christian belief mingled harmoniously with draconian penal systems, burnings, social ostracization, slavery were all merely extremists intentionally refusing to acknowledge some parts of the Bible and only recognizing others. They were interpreting the Bible according to widespread social and cultural contexts of the time into which they had been born and regarded as normal. The interpretation changed over time, as did general social consciousness and regards for the rights of individuals. The words in the Bible did not. The Bible's text didn't change and condemn people for owning slaves or for living far away from lepers even though our modern sensibilities did: we would regard those things as viciously without the compassion we would expect from a modern understanding of Christian values today.

Ultimately what it sounds like you're telling me is "every less benign brand of Christian who came before me throughout history was wrong, and I am right." From where I'm standing those were all merely different interpretations of the same book filtered through social norms of their times which shaped those interpretations-- and the Bible was always ardently argued to support all of them, often exclusively, to the point of naming any differing interpretation heretical-- which doesn't sound that different from what you're saying. Perhaps in another 300 years someone will talk about your brand of Christian the same way.

I didn't call anyone extremists. Yes, there are understandable reasons why many things were done in the past -- but understanding doesn't make those things right.

As for those positions "ardently argued", if you look at them, every one was a distortion of what the Bible actually says -- in other words, people were taking bits and snippets as ammunition. But all along the way, there were Christians reading the Bible as a whole, and following it -- they opposed slavery from the beginning, because despite the presence of verses that could be ripped out to support it, the very concept is blasphemous in the light of who Christ was. Christ-centered interpretation always was, and always will be, what the Bible is about.
 
I didn't call anyone extremists. Yes, there are understandable reasons why many things were done in the past -- but understanding doesn't make those things right.

As for those positions "ardently argued", if you look at them, every one was a distortion of what the Bible actually says -- in other words, people were taking bits and snippets as ammunition. But all along the way, there were Christians reading the Bible as a whole, and following it -- they opposed slavery from the beginning, because despite the presence of verses that could be ripped out to support it, the very concept is blasphemous in the light of who Christ was. Christ-centered interpretation always was, and always will be, what the Bible is about.

Of course the same god in his first book was doing exactly the same thing without christ: he was gracefully and compassionately watching humanity suffer through slavery and genocide because we weren't ready yet for a revelation about grace or compassion. Because those concepts were totally incomprehensible to humanity until just around the time mary spend an evening out while joseph was working overtime, it was just another act of compassion that we didn't hear about it until later..
 
99% of human beings are conformist. 60% of children are carbon-copies of their parents.

I fought my parents to be baptized at 8 yo. I am both a Catholic and gay man and don't see anything wrong with that. I think many Catholics are tolerant of gays, and the hierarchy is wrong thinking homosexuality is a sin. With time I'm convinced they will realize that Love is divine (between two consenting adults yada yada) and in a century there will be same sex marriages in churches.
 
As for those positions "ardently argued", if you look at them, every one was a distortion of what the Bible actually says -- in other words, people were taking bits and snippets as ammunition.

According to us, today. Someone could make the exact opposite claim that modern benign Christians selectively overlook, or rationalize around, the very many things in the Bible that offer harsh judgment or condemnation of many things that nearly all everyday people do today, on a reasoning that those condemnations are either obsolete or incompatible with the message of non-judgment and forgiveness which modern Biblical interpretations elevate as more important than avoiding the things which the Bible states to offend God.

Again I'm sensing from your post a "but every other interpretation rips things out or distorts their context", with the implication that your understanding doesn't. I don't think anyone from either 100 years in the past or 100 years in the future would sign that statement.
 
According to us, today. Someone could make the exact opposite claim that modern benign Christians selectively overlook, or rationalize around, the very many things in the Bible that offer harsh judgment or condemnation of many things that nearly all everyday people do today, on a reasoning that those condemnations are either obsolete or incompatible with the message of non-judgment and forgiveness which modern Biblical interpretations elevate as more important than avoiding the things which the Bible states to offend God.

Again I'm sensing from your post a "but every other interpretation rips things out or distorts their context", with the implication that your understanding doesn't. I don't think anyone from either 100 years in the past or 100 years in the future would sign that statement.

"...very many other things in the Bible" are not of importance --no detail or set of details is important. What's important is what the collection as a whole is about, and that's the Christ -- that's what the whole set of books points to. It's not a matter of elevating some things and neglecting others, it's a matter of treating the collection as literature and paying attention to what it's saying. And what it says is that the whole thing is about the Messiah, the Christ -- that starts right off in Genesis 3 and keeps going.

So unless you think that people in the future will decide for some reason that literature isn't to be read the way it itself says to read it, no -- no one who does not put the Christ in the center of it all even actually knows how to read. That's the way it's been down through the centuries, one of the great things that brought C S Lewis and others to Christ: that message of the Bible has continue through every generation, right up until today.
 
So unless you think that people in the future will decide for some reason that literature isn't to be read the way it itself says to read it, no -- no one who does not put the Christ in the center of it all even actually knows how to read.

So everyone except early 21st century Christians and only the portion of those who agree with your views actually had the reading ability to process the Bible properly.
 
So everyone except early 21st century Christians and only the portion of those who agree with your views actually had the reading ability to process the Bible properly.

Anyone who doesn't read a work of literature the way it itself indicates it is to be read is doing it wrong, yes. The alternative is that nothing means anything at all.
 
Back
Top