You may also like...

65 Responses

  1. Sarah says:

    🙂

  2. Gary says:

    Awesome David! Pretty much says everything that needs to be said.

  3. Christine says:

    LMAO! Might be my favorite one yet.

  4. Cindy says:

    It’s ridiculous just how much I relate to this. So perfect!

  5. rob g says:

    Dude! Relax! is the message the church and straight christians need to hear as well…

    Thanks for another great cartoon!

  6. Flint Native says:

    The Gospel, as seen in the words attributed to Jesus, is scandalous! It boils down to our being loved, just period, and loving our neighbor, just period. Made-up moral abstractions, doctrinal belief requirements and “tribal” social control do not apply.

  7. ally c says:

    One of my friends said this to me- that it wasn’t like, “Hey God, surprise!” since (S)He knew before I did… never underestimate the power of such an affirmation.

  8. Sarah says:

    In’t Jesus’ love lovely?

  9. Gary says:

    @Flint – “Made-up moral abstractions, doctrinal belief requirements and “tribal” social control do not apply.”

    This is an awesome statement. I am so tealing it for my facebook. Thanks.

  10. George says:

    I don’t think Jesus even believed in sin. Did he ever use that word?
    He just talked about love. Didn’t he use that word a lot?

  11. Lydia says:

    It’s been a while since I commented here but this was a great comic.

    I wonder if that’s how it really is? (I hope so!)

  12. Jessica says:

    I love it! If only everyone saw it that way…the world would be a lot more loving and accepting of a place!

  13. Zack says:

    @George:

    Yes, Jesus did believe in and talk about sin. Specifically, sexual sin. After preventing the adulterous woman from being stoned (let he who is without SIN cast the first stone), he told her “go and SIN no more. Her sin was sleeping with men to whom she wasn’t married.
    Jesus loves people. That doesn’t mean you can
    candy coat His message of holiness and righteousness.

  14. ccws says:

    LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE!

  15. Le & Sarah says:

    That’s great David. It’s going into our MCC Sydney Newsletter. We need all the affirmation we can get for our GLBTQI congregants.

  16. Rebecca says:

    God doesn’t deny our feelings, but He does call us to surrender our entire selves to Him no matter what. 🙂 It very clearly states that homosexuality is not God’s plan for people, but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. God loves everyone, & He wants them all to come to Him!

  17. Brigitte says:

    Is your Jesus actually omniscient?

  18. nakedpastor says:

    just link me 🙂

  19. Gary says:

    Actually Zack Jesus did NOT tell the woman to go and sin no more. This entire episode was added to the bible some centuries later. And the original versions of this story had Jesus telling her to “go in peace”. This would make much more sense in view of His encounter with the woman at the well who had had many husbands and was presently living with a man. He never brought sin into the equation at all.

    What you are witnessing in the present version of the story your quote is the early evidence of the church stealing the gospel away from it’s true message and forcing millions of believers back into bondage.

  20. Gary says:

    Oh and Zack…adultery was in no way simply “sleeping with people who were not married”. This is yet another corruption. Adultery was breaking of a covenant…as the nation of Israel was guilty of adultery many times. This woman’s was guilty of adultery because she was the PROPERTY of another man and was acting without his permission…hence adultery.

  21. Gary says:

    Rebecca…what you declare is “clear” is a gross perversion of the scripture.

  22. Cindy says:

    @Rebecca
    The bible doesn’t reference homosexuality. It couldn’t given the time periods in which the various books were written. And there isn’t anything in any of those books that would suggest that my love for my wife is anything other than godly. I don’t know what bible you’re reading but you clearly need to take a closer look.

    @Gary
    Can you give me a source for the “sin no more” comment being added later. I’ve never heard that before. It makes me very curious.

    @Brigitte
    He just has really good gaydar 🙂

  23. Karl says:

    I can’t find reference to a variant reading of “go, sin no more” as “go in peace”, but the whole story appears to be a later addition. Augustine on the other hand thought that it might have been left *out* of some manuscripts in case women thought that Jesus was allowing adultery 😉

  24. Christine says:

    God doesn’t deny our feelings, but He does call us to surrender our entire selves to Him no matter what. 🙂 As homosexuality is natural and inborn and beneficial, it is clearly God’s plan for some people, but it doesn’t mean people won’t reject it. God loves everyone, & He wants them all to come to Him!

    See, so close to a positive message. Now the happy face looks like it actually belongs.

  25. Gary says:

    Oh golly Cindy…I thought I had my reference handy but I can’t locate it right now. I know when I first discovered this the scholar making this statement also provided verifiable references to the actual manuscripts which contained the go in peace conclusion and they were the earliest of the manuscripts containing this passage.

    Sorry for putting this out there and not being able to locate my source. I’ll keep looking.

  26. Cindy says:

    No worries Gary. If you come across it at any point just let me know. You can post it here as I am subscribed to this post so I’ll see it even if its long after the comments have died off.

  27. If I link, is it OK to post one of your cartoons on my blog?

  28. nakedpastor says:

    of course. that’s how it works. thanks mimi

  29. Thanks, David. Even with attribution, some cartoonists are rather strict about copyright is why I asked.

  30. nakedpastor says:

    i understand mimi. but i share. thanks for asking though.

  31. Ellie says:

    This is deeply moving.

  32. Tony Daniels says:

    Homosexuality is a very sensitive subject within the culture of the modern church. Condemnation from within the legalistic element of the culture has built seemingly an impenetrable wall through which no reasonable or rational dialogue may pass. How I wish it were possible to conduct a meaningful exchange without the fear of setting off a landmine of emotional explosion. The undeniable fact that Jesus loves ALL mankind seems to be lost upon many who profess to follow Him, while the fact that He came to deliver us from the bondage of “natural” desires, those carnal impulses which contradict the spiritual nature for which we were created, seems lost on many others without regard to any principles of character which conflict with the principle “if it feels good, it must be right”. Proverbs declares that, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death”, Prov. 14:12.

  33. Tony Daniels says:

    Perhaps one of the greatest deterrents to our ability to minister effectively is indeed the lack of God’s love we show towards those with whom we disagree. That, in conjunction with the hypocrisy that is evident in our own lives, for who among us is without sin? Christ declared, “There is none good, but one, and that is God”…..and sin is not just about the evil we commit, it is equally, or perhaps even more so evident in the good wherein we fail….James 4:17 Therefore, to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. How can we expect to help others with their problems while simultaneously denying our own. We must be willing to acknowledge that ALL men may come to Him and enter into a relationship where He begins a process of correction to the issues of the ungodly character of our nature. Those who deny their nature requires any correction are deceiving only themselves. 1 John 1:8 That having been said, we must therefore realize there will be characters within the nature of the flesh which the flesh will resist releasing and which initially will be yielded only through great reluctance …..Functional faith is the acceptance that the truth of God’s principles are of greater benefit to me than to remain clinging to those feelings and emotions of my carnal nature which oppose them, no matter what they may be or how strongly I “feel” about them. We must be willing not only to accept, but to embrace the radical transformation brought about by the renewing of our minds and our thinking though the fundamental principles of God’s Word.

  34. Tony Daniels, what you name our ‘carnal nature’ is God’s creation, which God has called good. (I won’t name chapter and verse, as I’m certain you can find the passage quickly.) To view our ‘natural desires’ as bondage seems very odd to me. On the other hand, nor do I support the concept “if it feels good, it must be right”.

    Jesus taught us to love God and love our neighbor and to do as we would be done to, which words, as I see it, serve as a guide in deciding whether we do the things that make us feel good. It’s also wise to keep in mind that if it feels good, it’s not necessarily wrong.

  35. Tony Daniels says:

    Mimi, it is not I, but the Apostle Paul who refers to the nature of sin that resides within us all as “carnal”, you may see both Romans 7 and 8, perhaps you have another term for the desire within the nature of the flesh to disregard the law of God and commit sin. And again, the desires of the flesh which encourage me contrary to the principles and disciplines of God’s Word are creating bondage in the sense that I have submitted to the flesh rather than to God and I have become a slave to my flesh. True, there are things which “feel” good that are in fact good, so where is the distinction to be made? I have found by my experience that more often than not, I don’t know a good thing from a bad thing ……I have experienced circumstances which I knew were good at the time, only to discover later how bad it really was, and things of which I was convinced were absolutely horrible, only to later realize how good it was that it had occurred ….and so, I have learned not to trust my feelings or emotions, they will always mislead me, but God’s Word is truth I can trust, even if it doesn’t “feel” right or “good”and at the time….THAT is functional faith ….

  36. Tony, all of us do indeed need to look to God for mercy for things done and things left undone, even as we remember that God loves infinitely, no matter what we do.

    Perhaps our conversation will be more fruitful if you know that I believe the words of Jesus trump all other words in the Scriptures. I confess that you make living according to the Gospel sound quite complicated. I’ve known people of little education or sophistication to follow Jesus in a most saintly manner, and I think The Way is simpler than you describe.

    I do wonder a bit why you feel the need to back up everything you say with a passage from Scripture. God gave us minds to use to think for ourselves.

  37. Tony Daniels says:

    Mimi, I apologize that it seems so complicated to you, it seems very simplistic to me….we are born with a nature of sin, that which is unlike God, hence, Jesus tells Nicodemus, “You must be born again”, even going so far as to make a distinction between that which is flesh and that which is spirit. Then God begins a work in our lives through His word and by His Spirit to develop His character, the fruit if His Spirit, within the new nature that has been birthed in us. As far as your position that the words of Christ “trump” the other scriptures, well then my friend, you have gone farther than Christ Himself, for He declared that He did not come to do away with the law, but rather to fulfill it, frequently supporting His statements from the authority of the scriptures, which is what I choose to do and frankly what I don’t understand you don’t feel the need to do yourself, because honestly neither of our opinions matter if we cannot support them with God’s Word. Yes, God gave us a mind to think for ourselves, but I certainly would not be so foolish as to assert the wisdom of my mind or yours above the authority of God’s Word. Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free…” If you are not now, nor ever have been in any bondage, what is it then that the truth will make us free from? And what is that truth He spoke of if it is not the Word of God? Your opinion or mine? I hardly think so…..but the Spirit of God within us will bear witness to the truth of God’s Word.

  38. Cindy says:

    @Gary
    Just watched a video through iTunesU from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts where a guy by the name of Daniel B. Wallace talks about the passage about the woman caught in adultery in John. According to this guys research, that passage is not found in any of the most important manuscripts. It isn’t found in any that date back later than the 8th century in fact and is not referenced by any of the early church writers before the 13th century. It also isn’t in keeping with John’s style of writing but more like Luke’s. It is interestingly included in Luke’s gospel in some manuscripts. He makes a very strong case for why the entire passage should be removed from modern translations if we really want to be true to the text.

  39. Christine says:

    Tony, I understand what tou are saying, but you have misunderstood the discussion underway. The position of those who would affirm sax-sex relationships in the church are not putting a heavier reliance on “feeling” than others, and are not denying that there are “carnal” desires of all sorts which may gain an unhealthy control over any of us. Instead, they have come to view, through the lens of biblical study, empirical evidence, personal experience (which can be of observing others and not just one’s feelings), and the need for justice, that same-sex attractions are no different than opposite-sex attractions in terms of their inherent goodness or evil, with both having the potential for godliness and sin irregardless of how they feel. The reason why you may be having toruble dialoguing on this issue is that you are fundamentally misrepresenting what the dispute is about.

  40. Tony, for heaven’s sake, we are made in the image of God.

    Jesus said all the law and the prophets depend on the Two Great Commandments.

    The Word of God is a person, not a book.

    And I see we talk past each other. I’m sorry, but I grow weary of long discussions that seem to go nowhere.

    I leave you with one of my touchstone passages from the Hebrew Testament.

    “He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
    and what does the Lord require of you
    but to do justice, and to love kindness,
    and to walk humbly with your God?”

    (Micah 6:8)

    That’s how I try to live my life, though I often fall short.

  41. Tony Daniels says:

    To Mimi, I am sorry that you become weary so easily, I pray that you are made strong. Yes, we are created in the image of God….I tell people constantly that every man deserves respect for the image of God which he bears, and that is how I live….however, it was not the image of God which Adam lost by his willful disobedience to the Word of God, it was God’s likeness that died…..if you recall, God said, “Let us make man in our image AND after our likeness……yes, every man still bears the image of God and deserves respect, but every man deserves to be pitied for the likeness of God which he has lost and which can only be restored through a relationship with Jesus Christ, who is more than a book, He is the Living Word of God, and any relationship with Him demands an obedience to the Word He represents, thus, how can a man “walk humbly with God” while at the same time rejecting the His very Word?

  42. nakedpastor says:

    Tony: You are a true fundamentalist. You interpret the scriptures and believe that to be the standard by which everyone else is judged. Even if it is a more liberal interpretation, it doesn’t matter. When someone says, “I didn’t say it, God did in his Word!” that is a fundamentalism against which there is no discussion.

  43. Tony Daniels says:

    Christine, thank you for helping me to understand what it is I am saying. I am fully aware of the context of the discussion. As I am aware that many are promoting a popular view that has been rationalized by whatever means, however you have failed to provide a shred of the emperical proof you claim, and as far as personal experiences, my point exactly has been that they exist in the realm of feeling and emotion, which any rational person would willingly admit is often self-deceptive…..and so, I must choose to seek a higher standard, the Word of God, and you have not given me a single principle to support what you choose to believe from the desire of the nature you possess. I truly love all men, as I know does my Father, and it is never my purpose to debate with the intent of harm to anyone, but merely to raise legitimate concerns that we should all examine ourselves in the light of His Word.

  44. Christine says:

    Tony, could you start by replacing “man” with “person”? I can’t help but feel you are only talking about half of humanity.

  45. Christine says:

    Hi Tony. I could have gone into empirical evidence and biblical study (you didn’t either, by the way), but my first post to you was merely introductory – the full discussion would be quite long as you know. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt when I assumed you didn’t understand the nature of the discussion – because the alternative of course would be to discuss a lot of earnest scholarship and study by people gay and straight alike as mere rationalization. I could dismiss your view the same way – a mere rationalization of homophobia, but I did not. Until we can at least accept that those with differing views mean to be sincere and we are willing to consider their views, not dismiss them before they are even presented, I can’t see how we can have a fruitful discussion. Thanks for stopping by, though…

  46. Tony Daniels says:

    Yes David, I suppose in that sense I must be a fundamentalist …..but I do not adjust the scriptures to fit my life, lol, that would be too easy, believe me, I struggle with my own demons, and not because of fundamentalist traditional teaching, as you can probably tell I rejected that long ago, I wanted to know what God was really saying, whether I liked it or agreed with it at all, and then I began to adjust my life to His Word. By no means do I profess to be “there” yet, I am still a seeker, but I seek within the context of what God’s Word declares, not ehat I hope to find. I am not very unlike you, very cynical of the modern culture of the “church”, but I have found, for me, that to fixate on the problems of the church does not seem to build the Lingdom of God. God bless you my brother, thank you for allowing my “fundamentalist” comments, it has been an interesting discussion.

  47. Cindy says:

    @Tony
    I never ceased to be amazed by the number fo people that claim to be seekers of truth while at the same time arrogantly proclaiming that all those that reach different conclusions than they do are just making the bible say what they want it to say. I’m sorry but nobody who has spent any real effort seeking truth from scripture maintains the arrogance with witch you speak. Keep trying my friend. You’ll get there one day. Take it from someone who has been where you are.

  48. nakedpastor says:

    Hi Toni: when you say “I do not adjust the scriptures to fit my life”, i think we need to realize that in actuality we all do exactly that. it’s called “hermeneutics”, which I’m sure you’re aware of. it can’t be helped. the key is to understand that this happens when we read the scriptures, or any other document for that matter. i appreciate your contribution to this discussion.

  49. Tony Daniels says:

    Thank you David, and yes, I am aware of that which is why I seek to avoid it. And to Cindy, my dear, I never ceased to be amazed by the hypocrisy of those who declare others to be arrogant who do not agree with our own ideology, definitely the height! God bless us every one….

  50. Cindy says:

    @Tony
    I suspect you already know better, but just in case you don’t, I did not call you arrogant for disagreeing with my perspective, or theology, or ideology or whatever you want to call it. There are many people I disagree with on many topics who I don’t consider the least bit arrogant. But you came in here with an underlying assumption that anybody that believes differently than you (at least on the topic of gay Christians,though I suspect it would apply more broadly) is just ignoring and or twisting scripture to appease what “feels good” to them. You further dismissed that there could possibly be any scholarship that might disagree with your particular view of scripture as mere “rationalizing”. And you have consistently used a very condescending tone (especially in your discussions with Mimi). What do you suggest I call that if not arrogance? Have you at any point even considered that anybody here might also consider it important to honestly study scripture and adjust their lives accordingly, but have still somehow reached very different conclusions than you? Because if you have, your comments do not show that. Your comments suggest that you dismiss anyone with a different take on at least this topic as just catering to their fleshly desires and not being sincere in their searching of scripture or their desire to honestly follow God. If that is how you feel, then yes you are too arrogant to recognize your own arrogance. If that is not how you feel, then demonstrate it with your words and then perhaps we can have an actual discussion.

  51. Thanks, Cindy, I would have said patronizing myself, but condescending will do.

    Tony, it’s as though you pitied me for being so misguided about the faith that you had got exactly right. I don’t know how old you are, but the older I get, the less I’m convinced that I have every jot and tittle of my faith down just right, and I’m much less inclined to impose my views on others.

  52. Gary says:

    Tony I have read your comments with interest. Though I have no intention of engaging you in a substantive debate of the scriptural evidence against your views (you have made it abundantly clear it would be pointless) I would like to comment on your behavior. In virtually EVERY comment you have made you frame you points in a context of contemptuous insult and profound conceit. You characterize opposing views as rationalizations, point out what is complicated to others it simple to you, your views are based on faith and biblical study where others are based on emotion and whatever feels good, Etc.

    Frankly your air of smug superiority cannot be hidden within your attempt at eloquence. Though you may perceive us a simpletons or pleasure seeking compromisers, in truth you appear to lack an understanding of the message of Jesus at the most fundamental of levels. You won’t find us dumb hicks to be nearly so easily bamboozled.

  53. Gary says:

    Ah Cindy you beat me to the punch…but I agree with you completely.

  54. Tony Daniels says:

    And so my friends, I suppose it is your intention to demonstrate for me how Christians are supposed to act….and this is what you offer? Tead the hypocrisy of your own posts ….do they teflect the “love of God you so vehemently claim to possess? Really? Name calling and insults? I have come here seeking discussion of an issue of significance to me, but it has been you with the preconceived perceptions of anyone who questions your so-called enlightenment. You have become the very thing you so greatly despise ….God’s blessings, I will trouble you no more, you have more than sufficiently answered my questions ….

  55. Cindy says:

    Ah yes, we were supposed to bow to your self-righteousness. You know, like Jesus would…

  56. nakedpastor says:

    I wrote a post a long time ago about “How to Talk to a Fundamentalist”: https://www.nakedpastor.com/2010/03/04/how-to-talk-to-a-fundamentalist/ … maybe that would help. But Tony, you must realize that you came in with a tank claiming to come in peace.

  57. Cindy says:

    Tony,

    I must apologize to you. I am sorry for coming down on you so hard. The more I reread what you have posted, the more I get the feeling that you are right where I used to be just a few years ago. It’s possible that you may even be struggling with many of the same things that I struggled with. I could be wrong of course, but I get the feeling that this issue is actually very personal for you.

    If you would like to, I for one would be more than willing to wipe the slate clean and have a calm rational discussion with you either here, or if you can ask David for my email address if you would prefer to talk privately. Anything discussed in confidence I never share publicly. Just want to put that out there.

    I spent many years of my life very carefully avoiding any sort of scripture interpretation that I feared might be in any way self-serving. But I eventually learned that sometimes we can be so afraid of interpreting things in our own favour that even God has trouble getting through to us with his amazing grace and love. Sometimes the true message really is so much better than anything we could have ever imagined.

  58. Christine says:

    “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

    Indeed, Jesus’ followers would endure much difficulty, they would suffer at the hands of other people for their belief.

    But Jesus said that His own requirements, the burdens He placed on them would not be difficult, would not be heavy.

    And yet we contort ourselves into such agony, in the effort to deny ourselves, in the name of being set free. We are trying to suffer our way into freedom.

    The law is dead, long live the law.

  59. Gary says:

    It is always amusing to me when the attacker claims to be the attacked. The tank analogy is very good David. We

    No Tony you are not being attacked…your disrespectful behavior has simply been called out. Truth is we absolutely disagree with you on much of what you have written. So you claim we therefore disagree with God or scripture itself. This is a very typical response from a fundamentalist. I have no doubt the Pharisees responded in very much the same fashion when questioned as you do. Of course the fact was evident that they missed the message of Jesus in a very fundamental way. And Jesus called them out on it far more bluntly than anything you have been subject to here.

    The truth is Tony, many of us would have been willing to engage your questions and explore the scriptures with you. In fact there are many on this board who have spent years studying and teaching the scriptures. 30 years teaching myself…mostly from the same fundamental mindset you now bring to this board. I understand the bias you posses very keenly. But even in my days of closed mindedness I do not remember feeling the need to elevate myself and impune all those who disagreed with me.

    I really hope you take Cindy up on her offer and enter into a serious (and respectful) discussion. She has a great deal of sound biblical knowledge from which you could benefit. Of course if your approach is to simply look for areas to attack then I fear it will be an effort in futility. But if you could approach the discussion with a genuine desire for knowledge and an understanding of various views (even those you may still finally reject) then you could learn much.

    The way of wisdom is never afraid of questions. Never afraid to explore differing points of view.

  60. Christine says:

    You’re sweet, Gary. Cindy’s offered that shoulder to a few now. Most we never here from again, but she’s been taken up on it before. We’ve been secret-keepers for strangers, been told things no one else knows about people we have never met. Some times, you need to just be able to confide in someone, and sometimes it’s easier when you know you could chose to never hear from that person again.

    As much as some people are just arrogant, we’ve learned reasons to suspect when someone is writing on this subject from a place of personal pain. Easier to spot than for most, since we were both there, but still hard sometimes. Cindy’s best at it, probably because she had the biggest change.

    You see, she describes what she had done something like this: Deep inside, she wanted it to be ok to be a lesbian. She wanted being a lesbian to be possible – fundamentalist Cindy knew people couldn’t really be gay because God would never be cruel enough to create people that way. It was just a temptation some people felt, no different than any other. She told herself eventually she would met a man she could have some level of attraction to, he had to be out there. So, she determined to remain objective. She refused to hear, listen, read or in any way entertain any information that would lead to the conclusion that being gay was normal. She believed that any consideration of the idea was just giving herself what she wanted. This worked for the first 32 years of her life – so not a small effort.

    But you see, her attempt at objectivity led to the utlimate subjectivity. She came to the issue with the outcome already determined, and with a complete refusal to reconsidered – all on the basis of how she felt! Her attempt to segregate her personal experience from the question led to the EXACT opposite. And she was CONVINCED all the while that she was being objective, that she was the MOST objective of anyone because she was working harder than anyone to deny herself. Not only was she being as subjective as possible, but was completely blinded to that subjectivity.

    And so, sometimes she can see when that is happening in others. When their subjectivity has become objectivity in their eyes because they think they can buy an unbiased approach with personal suffering. Like you could pay for intellectual integrity in misery when you lack the necessary courage to test your own resolve.

    Had she come to the question honestly and not changed her mind, she woul have done what she believed was right, no matter the torture. I know her. But she didn’t trust herself to do that, or maybe she believed it would just make everything so much harder. I wonder if I would have gotten over it.

    But in the meantime, that view, meant to keep herself honest and upright, came to impact others as well. It was a view she shared, discriminated for, voted based on. While she was so dedicated to being righteous herself, it was taking it’s toll on others. All of us who come out and were religious have to face what we did to others like ourselves, how we furthered the cycle of suffering. In the end, by not facing our own fears of who we were, we were the least righteous of all.

    We should never accept self-sacrifice as inherently good or right. It can be noble, but it can also be misguided and lead to a harmful sense of superiority that is visited upon others. The offer goes out to all those that may be in that place.

  61. Porlock Junior says:

    Another reference on casting the first stone here.

    (But note that this refers to a popularization, not a scholarly work ; and rumor has it that some people don’t approve of the scholar who wrote it. I’d be glad if someone came up with a scholarly reference that’s reasonably accessible in both senses of the word.)

    But anyway, Bart Ehrman discusses the passage in his book Forged, page 242 in the paperback edition, summarizing the case against its being authentic. That is, authentic as Scriptural text, there being no doubt about its being authentically wise.

    Also, in a note to his chapter 5, he gives a reference to more discussion in Misquoting Jesus, pp. 63-65. I can’t look that up at the moment, so I don’t know if it has more detail.

    Sidelight that I didn’t know till this week: That passage is the only reference in the NT to Jesus writing.

  62. Love the cartoon, brother. You got it in one 😉

  63. I am so sick of people claiming they love “me” but :hate “my” sin.

    How dare they judge me by standards they thmmselves do not and cannot live by? How dare they claim bibical aurthority to cast “me” out, while dismissing everything Jesus had to say about live, compassion, justice, caring for the needy etc?

    Thank you nakedpastor, U truly believe that you may have/or will soon say some GBLY person from despair.