There was an article published in E. Michael Jones' Culture Wars magazine last month about how certain parties on the left are trying to push the idea of "gay jesus". Embedded is an interview with the author of that article on that topic (plus some other related topics).
Last month's issue of Culture Wars:
my.mixtape.moe
Absolutely degenerate.
Other urls found in this thread:
I thought they were already pushing tranny Jesus, and it even has that magical sounds correct leftist vibe.
It seems they're trying to claim Jesus the same way they claimed the rainbow. Here are some more quotes from the article:
Yes there is an academic that is pushing that idea.
It's the Gay Disco. Just see Drumpf, he said he will lead a campaign to end """homophobia""" in the world. He is a total pawn of the Jews.
b-b-b-b-but Zig Forums tolde that trump was going to be the next hitla!!!!
Typical tbh. They want to claim Jesus was gay or whatever "the cause" is this week, whilst pretending people like Oscar Wilde never converted to Christianity. Because unless you embrace degeneracy and never turn from it you're "homophobic". Par for the course. Nothing is new under the sun.
Unrelated.
Anyone remember when this board was overflowing with Zig Forumstards before they all switched to paganism and nihilism? Looking back now with crap like this it's hilarious to think how many people actually bought into this bs.
Yeah, I still remember when they will make some massive damage control for their deared god """"""""emperor""""""""""" but now is just too embarassing to do so. Even Zig Forums got over it quickly after the bump stock controversy.
You think that's bad?
Imagine claims that Christianity started as a gay mushroom sex cult.
...
these fags should really read mircea eliade to know the difference between the sacred and the profane. this is certainly profane
I love E. Michael Jones, but are the faggots claims too blasphemous to read about or it is just an "ah lol ur gay". Because if it is the former I prefer not to know.
...
Canadian journalist Lauren Southern tried handing out pamphlets saying Allah was a gay god to show there's a double standard about this stuff and sure enough she got banned from the UK. Meanwhile not a single banning over claims Jesus was gay. Sharia marches on.
What a bunch of garbage.
Just the latter.
Ah OK then. I'll read it.
how is homosexuality real if gender is not?
This kills the leftist.
The dangers of secularism everybody, how do you even come to this conclusion without being extremely intellectually dishonest or just outright lying to push an agenda
And the "right" pushes a violent or capitalist Jesus, and people from every which way push a Jesus like themselves instead of getting to know him in the sacrament and adoration as Himself. It's what always happens when God isn't God and politics, homosexuality, and anything else is god.
Jesus is the one who literally says he's not here to make peace.
Jesus is a capitalist. He spoke a parable agianst jewish communism (parable of the wicked tenants) working hard for your employer (parable of the talents)
Cast out usurious bankers (economies have worked without them for a very long time).
The fact of the matter, Jesus is not a filthy communist and never will be. He never advocated violent revolution. He never advocated an envious government system that steals from people so it can be given to an oligarchy of bureaucrats (while a fraction of it goes to the poor). Communists get the lake of fire as well as crony (read greedy) capitalists.
Yeah, no. Jesus isn't a Commie, be he's also not a capitalist. The philosophy he preaches is beyond the worldly possessions that men concern themselves with. He encourages his followers to take up poverty and charity,
Luke 18:22
That's counter to Communism because it is by will, and rather than equal distribution of wealth, it is willfully taking up poverty. However such an act is also counter to Capitalism.
I liked that first pic, but saying "free market capitalist" is wrong. Capitalism by itself is all about the accumulation of capital by any means, this is different than a free trade economy, where as the goods have more relevance than capital itself, what is important is what is needed.
Capitalism induces artificial scarcity, to force ramp up the values of goods for more capital, this is perverse and I'm sure goes against Christians values.
Pretty much
Try and avoid using the Left's definition of capitalism, they skew everything.
You can keep thinking that. I probably have areas in my theology based on horrific eisegesis too. So we all suffer under sin.
I wasn't using the left's definition of capitalism. I'm a business major… I can tell you that liquidating all of your assets to live a life of poverty and charity is not a good business/investment strategy in a free market. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a market at all.
I'm not saying you have to be poor to be a good christian, but I am saying Jesus didn't encourage a mindset that was particularly capitalistic or communistic.
I've even seen Jordan Peterson talk about "the androgyny of christ"
Don't remember when, might've been in his 12 rules
Not sure if this works on 8ch
Oh God. That's the most disgusting shit I've read in my entire life.
H-how can they get away with it.
Even the enemies of the Early Church who detested us will all their guts never even dared to claim that (probably because for them gayness was accepted), hell not even the Jews in the Talmud ever dared to call him that.
I'm speechless and I shouldn't have read it.
But he did encourage anti-materialism.
Thus destroying both capitalism and communism.
Quick rundown on the Secret Gospel of Mark:
Historical scholar Morton Smith, in 1960, claimed to have discovered an eighteenth century copy of a letter of Clement of Alexandria at a Greek Orthodox monastery in Palestine. In this letter, Clement ostensibly talks about this Secret Gospel, according to him actually written by Mark, and he quotes some of it. Here is the significant part: (spoiler because it may be blasphemous)
>And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.
If the implications weren't already obvious, Clement in this letter goes on to say that the words "naked man with naked man" and "other things" were present after this in the version of the Carpocratians, but not authentic.
Morton Smith threatened to sue the publisher of a book which briefly suggested this letter was a forgery for a million dollars. He was also the student of Gershom Scholem, a "Professor of Jewish Mysticism and the Kabbalah," who he would often discuss his supposed discovery with. A Greek paleographer hired by BAR to evaluate the authenticity of this letter determined the letter was forged. Ehrman describes Morton Smith as a "brilliant scholar" but also as arrogant and that "he regularly bloodied people – even internationally famous scholars – who disagreed with him."
All of that being said, Morton Smith's bad character does not necessarily mean that the letter is a forgery. Some say Smith would not have even had the ability to forge the letter. Most scholars think the letter is authentic. It is also possible it is a forgery but that Morton Smith isn't the forger. Ehrman writes:
He goes on to write:
Anyway, whether the letter is authentic or not doesn't matter that much for Christians, since it would only mean Clement of Alexandria bought into this longer, revised version of Mark's gospel, not that the Secret Gospel is authentic, which it obviously isn't – although Smith argued it was the original version of Mark's gospel, and that the orthodox Gospel was a shortened version of it, a theory rejected by most scholars.
The manuscript, by the way, was lost a few years after it was returned to the Greek Orthodox Church.
Hopefully this is helpful.
Jesus was an ubercapitalist. Read the parable of the talents. He was also against greed.
Jesus using an analogy to describe the kingdom of heaven through the system he was living in does not necessarily mean he supported that system. You yourself seem to recognize this because you acknowledge he opposed greed – so why bring it up?
The parable of the talents has nothing to do with Capitalism. Talent, in the metaphor, has a double meaning. It's about utilizing the particular gifts/strengths/talent that God gave you for the sake of accomplishing what he put you on this earth for, for the sake of your salvation and his glory. The wicked servant, who buries his one talent in the dirt, is symbolic of squandering God's gifts on worldly matters, or not utilizing them to their fullest, or not using them at all, out of fear or sloth or lack of faith. You gifts/talent/etc. may be indeed be in a Godly business venture, but they may also be in the realm of asceticism, which has nothing to do with making money or generating tangible product at all.
"Talent" only has the meaning of "ability" in English – in Greek, "talanton" refers specifically to a currency worth about twenty years of labor.
My mistake. We both agree that the parable is spiritual in meaning rather than literally material though:
This makes me ponder further if the parable isn't just about gifts, but also the allotted time God has set for each of us on earth.
It is. As with many things in Holy Scripture I recommend that you not stare blindly at the one "correct interpretation" but all the interpretations which are correct. Including, in this case, things such as literal monetary wealth. Spend yours wisely.
This is why English Bibles were a mistake.
I don't think that's true. In the early church translations were constantly being produced in vernacular langauges. Opposition to vernacular translations does more harm than good since it inhibits the word of God from reaching people in a way they can understand.
I'm by the way, ID changed.
There are many correct interpretations.
There are also many incorrect interpretations though.
Why do poltards have to ruin every board?
*Sigh* Yes I was incorrect on the double meaning part of the word "Talent." That was a mistake and assumption on my part. I was wrong to jump to that conclusion of my own accord. The rest however, I literally just recited what the church fathers have essentially interpreted of that verse (in other words, the church fathers that you probably view as having the most accurate interpretation):
^Spiritual gifts, alms-giving, helping one's neighbors to the best of one's ability, learning the Lord's mercy through the Master's journey as an icon of God's long-suffering and patience. Nothing about hardcore laissez faire capitalism. (Note, the title of the Homily seems to indicate it is only about the parable of the Ten Virgins, but it goes into depth about the Talents as well, as the parables compliment each other.)
I've got to respectfully agree with , it's better to stick with the interpretations of those more knowledgeable and experienced than to try to jump to one's own interpretation. I relearned this myself the hard way: While Chrysostom supports your view on the literal monetary wealth aspect of the passage as far as alms-giving goes, others that have viewed it as an endorsement of pure Capitalism have been way off.
Then we are in agreement. I did not deny these good points, in case it came across that way.
Choosing to raise one's own interpretation in place of that of the Church is pretty much the definition of heresy. And it is of course the method used to push the progressive agenda against all evidence.
They can't even make up their minds on what blasphemies they push.
First it's marriage to Mary Magdalene, then it's Socialism Jesus and not the King of Kings, and now it's gay fantasy.
Either way, they don't want the real Jesus. That isn't new.
Why do modernists have to ruin everything in general?