Jesus-Gay Billboards Defaced

The Indy Channel ^

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

I don’t know how they come to that conclusion from this passage either, but I do remember reading a while back about how some biblical passages were being re-interpreted (i.e. stretched beyond recognition) to be gay friendly.

Basically, any affection between people of the same sex is interpreted to mean the people are homosexual. The centurion cared about his ill servant. They must be gay. What other conclusion could a person come to? (/sarc) Some even say that there was something going on between Jesus and “the disciple whom he loved.”

[Red Badger]

It truly is a LIE. The centurion’s servant, most likely was a very old man, having taken care of him since he was born. The Centurion was most likely from a wealthy family and his “servant” would have been his constant companion from childhood on. He would have been more father-like than his real father. To have this relationship put forth as a “gay couple” is blatant falshood, and to have Jesus “affirming” them is blasphemy..........

[FortWorthPatriot]

Check out their website: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/

[Red Badger]

see #22....

[Just another Joe]

What does that verse have to do with homosexuality?

It has to do with faith, but homosexuality?

[trillabodilla]

Our Country is rotting from the inside out.

God help us!

[weegee]

Master and Servant is a traditional set of roles in homosexual society. Maybe this is why they pick up on it.

They also saw the Passion as an S&M flesh feast for the eyes.

They are sick. Mentally sick.

[macamadamia]

It looks like Jeff Miner is right about this. From the New Feel Good Testament:

"The centurion said to Jesus, "Lord, my partner and I had a fight. He scratched me and I scratched back. Now he is in our loft apartment paralyzed with angst and desiring validation."

When Jesus heard this he said, "Dude. Being gay is cool with me. Whatever makes you happy. Now go and scratch no more."

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

I hadn’t thought of it that way before, but that’s a good explanation.

[Shelayne]

Sheesh, they will see homosexuals where none exist. That passage, as has been noted, has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

Now Romans 1:26-32 has mention of it, but not the way the Reverend would like.

Apparently there must be a new version out there: The New Standard Homo Version, or the NSHV.

[17th Miss Regt]

On the right of that billboard is another one that says Disc...swee...in your....McGR....I'm lovin' it!

I wouldn't be surprised if the full billboard read something like 'Discover how sweet it is to be in your Governor McGreevy!'

[wideawake]

Of course, Greek literature of the evangelical period had a specific, commonly-used word for such an individual: catamitos.

[FormerLib]

While I can't really endorse vandalism...

"We're going to share a false, powerful message that contradicts how the Bible condemns acts of sodomy and we know there is going to be some opposition as we try to get that damned lie out here."

...sometimes you reap what you sow.

[Nea Wood]

Well, GOOD. Lots of people will see that billboard and say, “Huh?! Jesus affirmed a gay couple?” Then they’ll look up the Bible verse and realize that that’s not what it says. In the meantime, people will be opening up their Bibles!

[17th Miss Regt]

They also saw the Passion as an S&M flesh feast for the eyes.

Yep. Sick, truly sick.

[FormerLib]

I can’t even begin to understand how they can convince themselves that that passage can be interpreted to mean that. I’m at a total loss.

They are confessing how they would take advantage of a young man if they were given the opportunity, you see. This is why we can't let them be Scout Leaders.

[Abathar]

The problem is that most people WON’T open their bibles, they will take it on faith that no one would lie like that and assume it was true. They will banter it about like it was fact, spreading the lie to other lazy individuals who will then spread it further.

[Rembrandt_fan]

As the posts quoting the actual scriptural demonstrate, Matthew 8:5-13 says nothing whatsoever about the supposed nondiscriminatory nature of Christ. I mean, the words used to describe them: ‘Centurion, servant’ pretty much establishes their relationship as nonsexual, and the Bible isn’t shy about discussing sexual matters. For Miner to imply a such a relationship is disingenuous, at best, and grossly, blatantly misleading, at worst. The problem for Miner is that Indianapolis, my home town, is filled to bursting with people who know scriptural verse backwards and forwards. They would know at glance what they were seeing, what Miner is saying.

I don’t think Indy Hoosiers would’ve minded had Miner spread a message of Christian tolerance and love. It isn’t, after all, we who judge, but rather, He. For that matter, churches need to be more welcoming, with whole battalions of prostitutes, criminals, and hedonists sitting in the pews, praying, trying hard to change their hearts and their lives. But no, Miner isn’t really out to persuade anyone. What’s he trying to do is gain political clout within the local left-liberal progressive and gay communities—fairly insignificant statewide, but carrying considerable weight within the city itself.

[gidget7]

Absolutely it’s blasphemy. It also shows pretty clearly, that while Christians are being bashed left and right, and all reference to Jesus being removed from the public eye, these gaytards, can show him anytime and anywhere they want, and the left will support it.

So much for their claim that His face is offensive.

[Sans-Culotte]

Two versions of the interaction with the centurion have been posted. One refers to the ill one as his servant and the other refers to the ill one as his son. The billboard does not claim that Jesus was gay, so it must mean that the centurion and the ill person were a gay couple. So the billboard is saying that the centurion was having homosexual relations with his son (i.e. he is a child molester) or with his slave (probably non-consensual). Neither makes gay couples look real good. They probably need to rethink their PR on this one.

The idiot who put up the original billboard is ignorant of history. Homosexuality was actually quite taboo in the the Roman Republic and early empire period, and it was "officially" frowned upon in the legions (though some activity doubtless occurred).

Some Romans who were of the homo persuasion perversion would spend a lot of time on "business" in Athens so they could find all the bum-boys they wanted.