A Man Of God Doing The Right Thing: Franklin Graham Blasts Buttigieg For Being Gay

[EvilCat Breath]

So if you don't know, then why are you posting something you're ignorant about? Duh!!

Take it up with the author of the piece. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

The author is a liar. There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible. If the author is a liar, your article is a lie. DUH!!

The article is stating observable behavior of the religious right wing bigots. Are you stating that you and they do not want to marginalize, demean, control and discriminate against LGBT people? Now THAT is a lie

Yep, I don't want queers raising children, teaching children or having an authority over children. I also don't want homosexuality taught as being as normal behavior as heterosexuality. Guilty as charged. I admit it. Why don't you also get honest and admit you want to marginalize and control Christians.

I do want to marginalize and control Christians . But only bigoted, ignorant Christians like you . Not the decent, humanitarian Christian, that I believe most are .

You want to marginalize and control anyone who disagrees with you.

Congratulations you are a democrat.

 

[Seawytch]

We all know that heterosexual men are repulsed by gay guys...

While at the same time lesbians have a different effect.

you do bring up a good point, just about every porn flick ever made for guys has woman one woman sex...for a reason

Interestingly enough, there is nothing in the Bible about lesbianism.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/lgbt/index.htm

The Bible

There are about half a dozen direct references to what we today term homosexuality in the Tanach and NT, and a few others which are relevant but not direct. Two of the most negative passages are found in the book of Leviticus, alongside a mass of ancient Jewish food and incest taboos, purification rituals and medical protocols. In the New Testament, there are several instances in the Epistles where Paul disparages homosexuality. Notably, at no point in the Gospel narrative does Jesus condemn homosexuality.


Another point to note is that there was no word for homosexuality, in the sense that we now use the term, in ancient Hebrew or Greek. So the text of the Tanach and NT uses circumlocutions or eumphemisms in these passages.


As far as lesbianism goes, the Bible is silent. There is no explicit mention (or condemnation) of female homosexuality in the Tanach, and it turns up only once (very tangentially) in the NT.

LOL>

"
Romans 1:26-27[edit]

Saint Paul writing his Epistles
Epistle to the Romans 1:26–27 (English Majority Text Version, EMTV):

“ For this reason [viz. idolatry], God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error. "

That passage said god did that to them as punishment for something else. They weren't born gay.

 

[Seawytch]

Really, I wouldn't know. If true it does not change to point that is being made

So if you don't know, then why are you posting something you're ignorant about? Duh!!

Take it up with the author of the piece. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

The author is a liar. There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible. If the author is a liar, your article is a lie. DUH!!

The article is stating observable behavior of the religious right wing bigots. Are you stating that you and they do not want to marginalize, demean, control and discriminate against LGBT people? Now THAT is a lie

Yep, I don't want queers raising children, teaching children or having an authority over children. I also don't want homosexuality taught as being as normal behavior as heterosexuality. Guilty as charged. I admit it. Why don't you also get honest and admit you want to marginalize and control Christians.

How can you, in the same page say you want my children taken from me and also say that you don't care who sleeps with who and that you don't punish people for their "beliefs"? Being gay isn't a belief by the way.

 

[Ambivalent1]

We all know that heterosexual men are repulsed by gay guys...

While at the same time lesbians have a different effect.

you do bring up a good point, just about every porn flick ever made for guys has woman one woman sex...for a reason

Interestingly enough, there is nothing in the Bible about lesbianism.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/lgbt/index.htm

The Bible

There are about half a dozen direct references to what we today term homosexuality in the Tanach and NT, and a few others which are relevant but not direct. Two of the most negative passages are found in the book of Leviticus, alongside a mass of ancient Jewish food and incest taboos, purification rituals and medical protocols. In the New Testament, there are several instances in the Epistles where Paul disparages homosexuality. Notably, at no point in the Gospel narrative does Jesus condemn homosexuality.


Another point to note is that there was no word for homosexuality, in the sense that we now use the term, in ancient Hebrew or Greek. So the text of the Tanach and NT uses circumlocutions or eumphemisms in these passages.


As far as lesbianism goes, the Bible is silent. There is no explicit mention (or condemnation) of female homosexuality in the Tanach, and it turns up only once (very tangentially) in the NT.

LOL>

"
Romans 1:26-27[edit]

Saint Paul writing his Epistles
Epistle to the Romans 1:26–27 (English Majority Text Version, EMTV):

“ For this reason [viz. idolatry], God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error. "

That passage said god did that to them as punishment for something else. They weren't born gay.

Are you truly that dense? It says God gave them over because it's what they chose to be/do.

 

[BS Filter]

So if you don't know, then why are you posting something you're ignorant about? Duh!!

Take it up with the author of the piece. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

The author is a liar. There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible. If the author is a liar, your article is a lie. DUH!!

The article is stating observable behavior of the religious right wing bigots. Are you stating that you and they do not want to marginalize, demean, control and discriminate against LGBT people? Now THAT is a lie

Yep, I don't want queers raising children, teaching children or having an authority over children. I also don't want homosexuality taught as being as normal behavior as heterosexuality. Guilty as charged. I admit it. Why don't you also get honest and admit you want to marginalize and control Christians.

I do want to marginalize and control Christians . But only bigoted, ignorant Christians like you . Not the decent, humanitarian Christian, that I believe most are .

You mean the fake Christians that support homosexuality.

 

[Deno]

We all know that heterosexual men are repulsed by gay guys...

While at the same time lesbians have a different effect.

you do bring up a good point, just about every porn flick ever made for guys has woman one woman sex...for a reason

Try as we might, we can't fight nature...……......

I seem to recall reading something about the spirit being willing and the flesh being weak...

You read?

 

[BS Filter]

So if you don't know, then why are you posting something you're ignorant about? Duh!!

Take it up with the author of the piece. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

The author is a liar. There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible. If the author is a liar, your article is a lie. DUH!!

The article is stating observable behavior of the religious right wing bigots. Are you stating that you and they do not want to marginalize, demean, control and discriminate against LGBT people? Now THAT is a lie

Yep, I don't want queers raising children, teaching children or having an authority over children. I also don't want homosexuality taught as being as normal behavior as heterosexuality. Guilty as charged. I admit it. Why don't you also get honest and admit you want to marginalize and control Christians.

How can you, in the same page say you want my children taken from me and also say that you don't care who sleeps with who and that you don't punish people for their "beliefs"? Being gay isn't a belief by the way.

You raise your children the way you see fit and allow others to do the same. Get your filthy homosexual agenda out of public school.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The only scripture that I pay attention to is the Constitution of the United States of America. The rest is, well ….unfiltered BS. Save you preaching for the mentally defectives who believe that tripe.

Glad to know you respect the Constitution. How about that First Amendment? You respect that?

Yes I do. Why do you ask? Oh I bet I know. I'm somehow infringing on your right to religious freedom. Don't even go there.

Yes, I will go there. So many of you filthy jackals demand that Christians shut up and keep it at home or in our church. That isn't what the Constitution says. YOU are NOT to prohibit the free exercise (expression) of my religion. That's what it says. You don't believe that.

No one is trying to shut you people up. It is only with the rise of the political religious right that a bastardized view of religious freedom has emerged. It has come to mean that you get to impose your religious views on others. Being free to believe, worship, live and speak your mind whenever and wherever you wish is no longer enough. You might want to take a look at this:

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.

The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed.

It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: Religious freedom & the freedom to discriminate

There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible.

Just because it's not in the KJV of the Bible, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. When the KJV Bible was created, many books were either dropped, or they were heavily edited.

However, the Gospel of Thomas didn't have either of them happen to it, because it wasn't discovered until 1945.

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

The Gospel of Thomas (also known as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) is a non-canonical sayings gospel. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture.[1][2]

The Coptic-language text, the second of seven contained in what modern-day scholars have designated as Codex II, is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.[3] Almost half of these sayings resemble those found in the Canonical Gospels, while it is speculated that the other sayings were added from Gnostic tradition.[4] Its place of origin may have been Syria, where Thomasine traditions were strong.[5]

 

[BS Filter]

Glad to know you respect the Constitution. How about that First Amendment? You respect that?

Yes I do. Why do you ask? Oh I bet I know. I'm somehow infringing on your right to religious freedom. Don't even go there.

Yes, I will go there. So many of you filthy jackals demand that Christians shut up and keep it at home or in our church. That isn't what the Constitution says. YOU are NOT to prohibit the free exercise (expression) of my religion. That's what it says. You don't believe that.

No one is trying to shut you people up. It is only with the rise of the political religious right that a bastardized view of religious freedom has emerged. It has come to mean that you get to impose your religious views on others. Being free to believe, worship, live and speak your mind whenever and wherever you wish is no longer enough. You might want to take a look at this:

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.

The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed.

It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: Religious freedom & the freedom to discriminate

There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible.

Just because it's not in the KJV of the Bible, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. When the KJV Bible was created, many books were either dropped, or they were heavily edited.

However, the Gospel of Thomas didn't have either of them happen to it, because it wasn't discovered until 1945.

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

The Gospel of Thomas (also known as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) is a non-canonical sayings gospel. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture.[1][2]

The Coptic-language text, the second of seven contained in what modern-day scholars have designated as Codex II, is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.[3] Almost half of these sayings resemble those found in the Canonical Gospels, while it is speculated that the other sayings were added from Gnostic tradition.[4] Its place of origin may have been Syria, where Thomasine traditions were strong.[5]

Wikipedia is for lazy amateurs. No reputable scholars will use it because it's not a secure site and can be edited by anyone. There are qualifications before a document is considered Scripture. You and other unbelievers do not qualify to tell Christians what is what isn't Scripture.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

them thar evangelisticals are notoriously known for being gay or kinky hooker humping or meth heads behind the scenes..............

Yeah, they have a special place also.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yes I do. Why do you ask? Oh I bet I know. I'm somehow infringing on your right to religious freedom. Don't even go there.

Yes, I will go there. So many of you filthy jackals demand that Christians shut up and keep it at home or in our church. That isn't what the Constitution says. YOU are NOT to prohibit the free exercise (expression) of my religion. That's what it says. You don't believe that.

No one is trying to shut you people up. It is only with the rise of the political religious right that a bastardized view of religious freedom has emerged. It has come to mean that you get to impose your religious views on others. Being free to believe, worship, live and speak your mind whenever and wherever you wish is no longer enough. You might want to take a look at this:

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.

The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed.

It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: Religious freedom & the freedom to discriminate

There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible.

Just because it's not in the KJV of the Bible, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. When the KJV Bible was created, many books were either dropped, or they were heavily edited.

However, the Gospel of Thomas didn't have either of them happen to it, because it wasn't discovered until 1945.

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

The Gospel of Thomas (also known as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) is a non-canonical sayings gospel. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture.[1][2]

The Coptic-language text, the second of seven contained in what modern-day scholars have designated as Codex II, is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.[3] Almost half of these sayings resemble those found in the Canonical Gospels, while it is speculated that the other sayings were added from Gnostic tradition.[4] Its place of origin may have been Syria, where Thomasine traditions were strong.[5]

Wikipedia is for lazy amateurs. No reputable scholars will use it because it's not a secure site and can be edited by anyone. There are qualifications before a document is considered Scripture. You and other unbelievers do not qualify to tell Christians what is what isn't Scripture.

I referenced the Wiki article because the summary was succinct and to the point, as well as gave the date it was discovered.

But, if that's not good enough for you, here, try these........................

This is a translation of it from the Nag Hamadi library:
The Gospel of Thomas Collection - Translations and Resources

Here's one from the Bible Archaeology Society:
The Gospel of Thomas’s 114 Sayings of Jesus

Here's one from Early Christian Writings:
The Gospel of Thomas

But..................I get it..............if there is something that goes against your narrow world view, you look for any reason to discredit it. So, since you don't like Wiki because you think it can have fake entries, are all those other good Christian sites lying as well?

 

[BS Filter]

Yes, I will go there. So many of you filthy jackals demand that Christians shut up and keep it at home or in our church. That isn't what the Constitution says. YOU are NOT to prohibit the free exercise (expression) of my religion. That's what it says. You don't believe that.

No one is trying to shut you people up. It is only with the rise of the political religious right that a bastardized view of religious freedom has emerged. It has come to mean that you get to impose your religious views on others. Being free to believe, worship, live and speak your mind whenever and wherever you wish is no longer enough. You might want to take a look at this:

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.

The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.

One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: Religious freedom & the freedom to discriminate

There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible.

Just because it's not in the KJV of the Bible, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. When the KJV Bible was created, many books were either dropped, or they were heavily edited.

However, the Gospel of Thomas didn't have either of them happen to it, because it wasn't discovered until 1945.

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

The Gospel of Thomas (also known as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) is a non-canonical sayings gospel. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture.[1][2]

The Coptic-language text, the second of seven contained in what modern-day scholars have designated as Codex II, is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.[3] Almost half of these sayings resemble those found in the Canonical Gospels, while it is speculated that the other sayings were added from Gnostic tradition.[4] Its place of origin may have been Syria, where Thomasine traditions were strong.[5]

Wikipedia is for lazy amateurs. No reputable scholars will use it because it's not a secure site and can be edited by anyone. There are qualifications before a document is considered Scripture. You and other unbelievers do not qualify to tell Christians what is what isn't Scripture.

I referenced the Wiki article because the summary was succinct and to the point, as well as gave the date it was discovered.

But, if that's not good enough for you, here, try these........................

This is a translation of it from the Nag Hamadi library:
The Gospel of Thomas Collection - Translations and Resources

Here's one from the Bible Archaeology Society:
The Gospel of Thomas’s 114 Sayings of Jesus

Here's one from Early Christian Writings:
The Gospel of Thomas

But..................I get it..............if there is something that goes against your narrow world view, you look for any reason to discredit it. So, since you don't like Wiki because you think it can have fake entries, are all those other good Christian sites lying as well?

I said there are standards and qualifications that a document must pass before it is considered Scripture. Stick to your ignorant juvenile reasoning. Carry on.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No one is trying to shut you people up. It is only with the rise of the political religious right that a bastardized view of religious freedom has emerged. It has come to mean that you get to impose your religious views on others. Being free to believe, worship, live and speak your mind whenever and wherever you wish is no longer enough. You might want to take a look at this:




Source: Religious freedom & the freedom to discriminate

There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible.

Just because it's not in the KJV of the Bible, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. When the KJV Bible was created, many books were either dropped, or they were heavily edited.

However, the Gospel of Thomas didn't have either of them happen to it, because it wasn't discovered until 1945.

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

The Gospel of Thomas (also known as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) is a non-canonical sayings gospel. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture.[1][2]

The Coptic-language text, the second of seven contained in what modern-day scholars have designated as Codex II, is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.[3] Almost half of these sayings resemble those found in the Canonical Gospels, while it is speculated that the other sayings were added from Gnostic tradition.[4] Its place of origin may have been Syria, where Thomasine traditions were strong.[5]

Wikipedia is for lazy amateurs. No reputable scholars will use it because it's not a secure site and can be edited by anyone. There are qualifications before a document is considered Scripture. You and other unbelievers do not qualify to tell Christians what is what isn't Scripture.

I referenced the Wiki article because the summary was succinct and to the point, as well as gave the date it was discovered.

But, if that's not good enough for you, here, try these........................

This is a translation of it from the Nag Hamadi library:
The Gospel of Thomas Collection - Translations and Resources

Here's one from the Bible Archaeology Society:
The Gospel of Thomas’s 114 Sayings of Jesus

Here's one from Early Christian Writings:
The Gospel of Thomas

But..................I get it..............if there is something that goes against your narrow world view, you look for any reason to discredit it. So, since you don't like Wiki because you think it can have fake entries, are all those other good Christian sites lying as well?

I said there are standards and qualifications that a document must pass before it is considered Scripture. Stick to your ignorant juvenile reasoning. Carry on.

So, you don't think that the library at Nag Hamadi (where they keep a whole bunch of other sacred documents) isn't a good enough authority? Keep your head buried in the sand if that is what suits you.

 

[BS Filter]

There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible.

Just because it's not in the KJV of the Bible, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. When the KJV Bible was created, many books were either dropped, or they were heavily edited.

However, the Gospel of Thomas didn't have either of them happen to it, because it wasn't discovered until 1945.

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

The Gospel of Thomas (also known as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas) is a non-canonical sayings gospel. It was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in December 1945 among a group of books known as the Nag Hammadi library. Scholars speculate that the works were buried in response to a letter from Bishop Athanasius declaring a strict canon of Christian scripture.[1][2]

The Coptic-language text, the second of seven contained in what modern-day scholars have designated as Codex II, is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.[3] Almost half of these sayings resemble those found in the Canonical Gospels, while it is speculated that the other sayings were added from Gnostic tradition.[4] Its place of origin may have been Syria, where Thomasine traditions were strong.[5]

Wikipedia is for lazy amateurs. No reputable scholars will use it because it's not a secure site and can be edited by anyone. There are qualifications before a document is considered Scripture. You and other unbelievers do not qualify to tell Christians what is what isn't Scripture.

I referenced the Wiki article because the summary was succinct and to the point, as well as gave the date it was discovered.

But, if that's not good enough for you, here, try these........................

This is a translation of it from the Nag Hamadi library:
The Gospel of Thomas Collection - Translations and Resources

Here's one from the Bible Archaeology Society:
The Gospel of Thomas’s 114 Sayings of Jesus

Here's one from Early Christian Writings:
The Gospel of Thomas

But..................I get it..............if there is something that goes against your narrow world view, you look for any reason to discredit it. So, since you don't like Wiki because you think it can have fake entries, are all those other good Christian sites lying as well?

I said there are standards and qualifications that a document must pass before it is considered Scripture. Stick to your ignorant juvenile reasoning. Carry on.

So, you don't think that the library at Nag Hamadi (where they keep a whole bunch of other sacred documents) isn't a good enough authority? Keep your head buried in the sand if that is what suits you.

I respect any library. Libraries are good. Education is good. However, we're talking about Scripture, and there are qualifications to meet before something is considered Scripture. Read this.
Why Shouldn't We Trust the Non-Canonical Gospels Attributed to Thomas? | Cold Case Christianity

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Really, I wouldn't know. If true it does not change to point that is being made

So if you don't know, then why are you posting something you're ignorant about? Duh!!

Take it up with the author of the piece. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

The author is a liar. There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible. If the author is a liar, your article is a lie. DUH!!

The article is stating observable behavior of the religious right wing bigots. Are you stating that you and they do not want to marginalize, demean, control and discriminate against LGBT people? Now THAT is a lie

Yep, I don't want queers raising children, teaching children or having an authority over children. I also don't want homosexuality taught as being as normal behavior as heterosexuality. Guilty as charged. I admit it. Why don't you also get honest and admit you want to marginalize and control Christians.

Yes and there we have it! You are a religious, idiotic bigot. In your own words!! You hate gays more than you care about children and are willing to use them as pawns in your holy war against homosexuals. You disgust me.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Fuck no!!

Then you know nothing about Christianity!

That is not entirely true. As a child, I was told that I was Catholic. I was put through all of the rituals and bullshit. The "religious training" and all of that. I was subjected to the guilt and fear of not believing. "Worship this God or burn in hell ". Then one day, in my early 20"s I realized that being Catholic is not genetic, or a congenital defect. It is a choice, and a not very good one . It was an awakening. A new found freedom to choose how I want to live and not be told how to live my the clerics who seek to control other by fear and superstition . I have been happy and free since- 50 years and counting- and know that you don't need religious doctrine or a belief in God to lead a moral and good life without inflicting pain on others, as you surly with to do. .

That's when you let Satan take over your once soul and you chose to become a homosexual. You must repent and let God back into your heart and defeat Satan. It's the only way to prevent from burning in hell for eternity.

More pathetic stupidity! Do you really believe that only " homosexuals" advocate for gay rights and equality? Do you live under a rock?

Not stupidity but fact! You don't know any facts because you haven't read the Bible like most if not all Homosexuals.

So the bible says only homosexuals support gay rights? LOL

 

[whitehall]

Franklin Graham blasts nobody but apparently the poster who claims to be a "white MAGA man" ain't zakly a Trump supporter but instead is a garden variety cheap Alinsky nut case.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Then you know nothing about Christianity!

That is not entirely true. As a child, I was told that I was Catholic. I was put through all of the rituals and bullshit. The "religious training" and all of that. I was subjected to the guilt and fear of not believing. "Worship this God or burn in hell ". Then one day, in my early 20"s I realized that being Catholic is not genetic, or a congenital defect. It is a choice, and a not very good one . It was an awakening. A new found freedom to choose how I want to live and not be told how to live my the clerics who seek to control other by fear and superstition . I have been happy and free since- 50 years and counting- and know that you don't need religious doctrine or a belief in God to lead a moral and good life without inflicting pain on others, as you surly with to do. .

That's when you let Satan take over your once soul and you chose to become a homosexual. You must repent and let God back into your heart and defeat Satan. It's the only way to prevent from burning in hell for eternity.

More pathetic stupidity! Do you really believe that only " homosexuals" advocate for gay rights and equality? Do you live under a rock?

Not stupidity but fact! You don't know any facts because you haven't read the Bible like most if not all Homosexuals.

So the bible says only homosexuals support gay rights? LOL

The Bible makes it clear that Christians know homosexuality is wrong. Christians shouldn't judge or condemn them that is God's job.

 

[BS Filter]

So if you don't know, then why are you posting something you're ignorant about? Duh!!

Take it up with the author of the piece. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

The author is a liar. There is no Gospel of Thomas in the Bible. If the author is a liar, your article is a lie. DUH!!

The article is stating observable behavior of the religious right wing bigots. Are you stating that you and they do not want to marginalize, demean, control and discriminate against LGBT people? Now THAT is a lie

Yep, I don't want queers raising children, teaching children or having an authority over children. I also don't want homosexuality taught as being as normal behavior as heterosexuality. Guilty as charged. I admit it. Why don't you also get honest and admit you want to marginalize and control Christians.

Yes and there we have it! You are a religious, idiotic bigot. In your own words!! You hate gays more than you care about children and are willing to use them as pawns in your holy war against homosexuals. You disgust me.

Wrong. The left are the ones forcing their agenda on children in the education system. You and your friends in the homosexual clan are the ones that want to indoctrinate children with your filth. God is a bigot. I'm in good company. Of course I disgust you. God's word and the Holy Spirit disgust you. I'm in good company. Yes, we are at war, a spiritual war.

 

[BS Filter]

Then you know nothing about Christianity!

That is not entirely true. As a child, I was told that I was Catholic. I was put through all of the rituals and bullshit. The "religious training" and all of that. I was subjected to the guilt and fear of not believing. "Worship this God or burn in hell ". Then one day, in my early 20"s I realized that being Catholic is not genetic, or a congenital defect. It is a choice, and a not very good one . It was an awakening. A new found freedom to choose how I want to live and not be told how to live my the clerics who seek to control other by fear and superstition . I have been happy and free since- 50 years and counting- and know that you don't need religious doctrine or a belief in God to lead a moral and good life without inflicting pain on others, as you surly with to do. .

That's when you let Satan take over your once soul and you chose to become a homosexual. You must repent and let God back into your heart and defeat Satan. It's the only way to prevent from burning in hell for eternity.

More pathetic stupidity! Do you really believe that only " homosexuals" advocate for gay rights and equality? Do you live under a rock?

Not stupidity but fact! You don't know any facts because you haven't read the Bible like most if not all Homosexuals.

So the bible says only homosexuals support gay rights? LOL

The ungodly support the ungodly.