What will Jesus do with this wave of gay?

"Jesus Rides the Wave of Gay" cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

“Jesus Rides the Wave of Gay” cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

[LIKE THIS CARTOON? GET THE PRINT HERE!]
Wow the drama! Now anything goes! The end of the world is coming. Because it can’t get any worse!

A tsunami of sin! Or a good wave!

Meet other LGBTQ people at The Lasting Supper! Check us out HERE!

You may also like...

15 Responses

  1. Ducatihero says:

    What would he do? Probably love and being willing to die for anyone who is gay if needed.

    As for the “wave of gay”, what would he have to say? Well, he didn’t say anything about homosexuality in the gospels, that should give a clue.

  2. Bernardo says:

    WWJD? Not much since he still is a-mouldering in the ground outside of Jerusalem. Of course, after 2000 years, he is probably turned to dust and is now wandering in the wind being recycled in one of natures many cycles.

  3. BrianE says:

    Actually this could be misconstrued as Jesus ‘washing the gay away’ since the color beneath his board his missing…

  4. Caryn LeMur says:

    WWJD? In my mind, I see Him welcoming all, just like he always did.

    A religion that believes Jesus said, “Permit the children to come to me”, and “neither do I condemn you”… is a good religion. A Jesus who said, “For God did not send His son to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved…” is a great man to imitate.

    Open arms; and no condemnation…. I kind of like this guy, yanno?

    Waves up! Surf it! Yes!

  5. Bernardo says:

    Caryn LeMur,

    Only one of your citations, (Mark 10; 13-14, Matt 19:14, http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb020.html ) passes rigorous historic testing. The other two, John 8:11 and John 3:17 fail. e.g. From Professor Gerd Ludemann’s book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 416, “Anyone in search of the historical Jesus will not find him in the Gospel of John……This verdict is the consensus among New Testament scholars.”

  6. Oh please! I may not agree that the bible is an historical document, but the phrase “consensus among New Testament scholars” is a joke and a lie.

  7. Bernardo says:

    In support of Professor Ludemann’s comments:

    From Professor Bruce Chilton in his book, Rabbi Jesus,

    “Conventionally, scholarship has accorded priority to the first three gospels in historical work on Jesus, putting progressively less credence in works of late date. John’s Gospel for example is routinely dismissed as a source……

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship

    “Since “the higher criticism” of the 19th century, some historians have largely rejected the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus.[3][4] “[M]ost commentators regard the work as anonymous,”[5] and date it to 90-100.”

    “The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative Johannine view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle.”

    See also http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

  8. Ducatihero says:

    Bernardo,

    I refer to my earlier comment about an argument from authority being fallacious. Again, just because someone is in authority, that is no guarantee that what the posit is true and not false.

    I have no doubt from what you say that you have read a lot, but there are some professors who can’t tie their own shoe laces.

    When you talk about source, this comes from the German “Quelle” meaning “source”. This comes form an historical critical approach to the gospels with attempts to establish their historical authenticity or otherwise. Some scholars have perceived commonalities in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) that with this corroboration between the three would suggest greater authenticity. As there is material that appears in Matthew and Luke that also appears in Mark, a hypothesis was developed that Mark was a source document for Matthew and Luke. As Matthew and Luke also contains other material on common that is not found in Mark, a hypothesis was also developed that there was another source, either form oral tradition or from other source documents. This is calls “Q” for quella. So the two source hypothesis evolved with Mar and “Q” being sources for Mark and Matthew.

    It seems that from this hypothesis that form what you say Ludemann and others have rejected the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus. However this is not the consensus for all NT Scholars.

    There are folks here with Masters in Theology, not that you need a asters in theology but just a little discernment to sniff out BS and there are folks with masters and not the ability to discern.

    David was appropriate to call you out and I don’t understand why you continue to argue from authority when doing so is easily refuted.

  9. Ducatihero says:

    Typo “So the two source hypothesis evolved with Mar and “Q” being sources for Mark and Matthew.” should read “So the two source hypothesis evolved with Mar and “Q” being sources for Luke and Matthew.

  10. Bernardo says:

    Ducatihero,

    After reviewing all the references regarding John’s gospel, I recommend reviewing Professor Ludemann’s and Professor Crossan’s many books on the historical Jesus where they explain in great detail their rigorous test procedures for determining the authenticity of not only John’s gospel but the authenticity of all passages of the NT, passage by passage. These studies are summarized on line at http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Crossan_Inventory and http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html

  11. Ducatihero says:

    Bernardo,

    If you engage with the point I have made about arguing from authority, then I will consider your commendation.

    Otherwise, have a nice day. 🙂

  12. Bernardo says:

    Ducatihero,

    If you read the studies of the likes of Crossan and Ludemann, you will see that their methods are based on authoritative educations and due diligence to the scriptures. Might also want to review the following site that lists the works of the major contemporary historic Jesus scholars.

    . Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html – the titles of over 100 books on the subject.

  13. Ducatihero says:

    Bernardo,

    You haven’t responded to what I have talked about with argument from authority, so I’m not going to consider your recommendations. It’s too easy for me not to take you seriously and to refute any of the points you wish to make. It’s getting a little boring for me with your quoting of professors and your “recommendations”. With all due respect, it’s leading me to believe that thought you may have done some reading and know some web sites that you have limited ability to engage critically. that’s disappointing, I was hoping we might have some good chats, wrestling with ideas but I can’t take your approach seriously, it would be a waste of my time.

    So, I’m going to leave it there and make this my last comment with you on this thread. Do what you like

    Take care and enjoy your day.

  14. whisperingsage1 says:

    Jesus wrote the Bible by inspiring the human writiers. Let’s see what the Bibe says;
    Romans 1:26-28, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.”

  15. You don’t go to the bible to see what it says about its own veracity. Just because people say what they write is inspired by God doesn’t mean it is.