The Bible is Clear About Sex and /sexual-misuse.

In reference to Blasphemy:
by Paul Oestreicher (from alternet.org) April 23, 2012 "Was Jesus Gay? Probably The evidence that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it."

-----------------------------------------------------

MY  RESPONSE

To those who have not studied the bible, Paul Oestreicher may be able to appear with a valid argument.  However, to those who have read the bible, for decades, the picture is clear: Either Mr. Oestrecheicher intentionally wants to mislead his readers, or he does not remember what is on the bible—if he actually has read it. Intension seems more evident.

There have been those across the ages who want only certain parts to the bible to stand. They want the bible to justify their chosen life-style.  That would be like us wanting just certain parts of the US Constitution to stand; than we could all have machineguns and bombs, and militias. We all know better than that; just like our US Constitution, the bible has to be taken as a whole.

The word “love” in the bible is taken as total-respect, and total-devotion, and voidness of evil: “Love thy neighbor”, “Love God”, Love one another”.

One example is clear, while Peter told Jesus that he could die for Jesus, when the pressure came, Peter denied Jesus three times. So, if the bible mentions that Jesus loved John more than the others, it is because John did not have fear. That can be seen when Peter and John ran to the tomb, Peter stayed at the door, while John went inside the tomb.

We can see that the others were not as devoted to Jesus’ cause. And Jesus said that He came to do His Father’s work—devotion to the cause of God. Thomas at first did not believe that Jesus had resurrected. Do we have a clue of lack of love and dedication. We can see that the others were not as devoted to Jesus’ cause. And Jesus said that He came to so His Father’s work—devotion to the cause of God.

Another clue: The apostles strictly advised the new members to stay away from “fornication, and away from sex with those of the same kind (homosexuality)” The bible stated that false churches would come. Are those who mix the teaching of Christ with sinful activity the fasle churches? That is what the Catholic Church did when they mixed paganism with Christianity—325 AD.

Now, which part to the bible doesn’t Mr. Oestreicher understand, or has not yet read?

Marriage is a sacred contract with a purpose

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/us/pat-robertson-remarks-on-alzheimers-stir-passions.html


From: NY Times
Robertson Stirs Passions With Suggestion to Divorce an Alzheimer’s Patient
By ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: September 16, 2011

____________________________________________________
My Take

Marriage for convenience is one of the most shameful of all acts in Christianity. When two people make a contract, each party depends on the honesty of the other—it is based on trust; Mr. Robertson’s advice on marriage should not be different.

However, now, marriage has become a burden to a man who seems to claim following Christ, but who is trying to be running away from his test. Christ did not say that to follow Him would be pleasant; rather he said: “Take you cross and follow me.” We are in this world to prove who we really are.

Robertson’s response to a man in grief was not about faith. It sounded more about being faithful when convenience is present. Now, how about the sic wife, who will care for her—a nursing home? One has to talk to nursing-home workers before such statement. Was not the agreement “ … for better or for worse, in sickness or health …? That sic spouse’s relatives should considering suing the husband, for breach of contract if that divorce materializes.

Where is the love that the sic spouse needs at this critical time? Love is not there from that Husband. The agreement is biding. But surprisingly, the advice comes from a man who has used the name of Jesus Christ as if he was a true believer. Mr. Robertson has not read Ephesians 5:25, or if he did he is neglecting it. Nor has he read Mathew 19:8-9, where Jesus states that divorce was not from the beginning --not to occur unless because adultery.

Some of the article’s comments support the healthy spouse to be able to remarry to go on with their happiness. If such happiness [selfishness] is essential to go on, does it mean discard ing the sick spouse? That means that the ultimate reason for marriage is being disregarded--unity.

Yes, it touches the case of multiple spouses, but if extended marriage was part of the agreement there is no problem. For, unfortunately open marriages are on the rise, though secretly; but at times implied, if it comes from the Hollywood crowd. However, if such agreement is made in soberness, it should be to the greatest happiness for each. Nonetheless, disposing of a sick spouse like disposing of a worn-out pencil, is being unchristian; and Christ advised for one-spouse marriage.

Now, is the time for Christians to prove on what side each person is on. Nevertheless, Jesus stated: “By their fruits you shall know them”. Robertson’s advice also raises another question: Are these tell-evangelists preaching to save souls as Christ focused on—eternal life, or are they a bunch of capitalists cashing in on convenience to please the audience, and to get more followers and thus, getting more money; and getting glory on the eyes of the world?

Any true religion follows the entire bible with focus on being Christ-like, rather than focusing on lustful material conveniences.

How Christ-like would it have been if Robertson would have advised the tormented man to pray and ask God for guidance, and ask to be able to love his wife, and be able to go on with life. That would be the ultimate test of true love, and following Christ.

It is Choice

http://ldsspiritualthoughts.com/2011/08/03/the-lord-invites-all-to-come-unto-him-haight/

The Lord Invites ALL to Come Unto Him (Haight)

----------------

My take

That puts the ball on your court. It is your move. But, there is a humbling word that is the key to be able to return to Him. It is called "repentance"; each of us needs to consider repenting. Than, the big question arises, repenting about what? Well, we can check the Lords, desires, and His commandments, to be able to know what to repent from. Thus, it comes to square one. Study the scriptures, change as you learn, and you will find yourself on the way to returning to God, through Jesus Christ. For, Jesus said: "No one comes to the Father but through me." It takes courage to return to God, but each one of us can do it, it is called change.

Desire

http://ldsspiritualthoughts.com/2011/07/30/if-you-desire-to-know-the-truth-hinckley/#comment-1529

If You Desire to Know the Truth (Hinckley)
Posted July 30, 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------

My Take
-----------
It is All Based on Deciding

Though, the message by Hinckley may appear as a dream or as a wish, it is not. I can testify to the simplicity of it. I mean simplicity. Having the desire to know the truth about what makes life being what it is. Also, having the desire to understand that from the material perspective it is impossible to learn about spirit. Such understanding is the key to understanding the spiritual answer that lies within each of us; but, can be reached only by following the simplicity of life like the prophets of old—focused on God.

My own experience sums to a few things mentioned by Hinckley. First, having the desire to know more. Second, being sincere about the intentions for searching. Third, being sincere to allow room for change as the evidence is discovered. Forth, being firm on the knowledge received. And, fifth, as it was said before by Hinckley, paraphrasing “The decision is only made once.” In other words, once a person decides on what the evidence a person gets from God, that stays firm.

All clues are in the bible. Evidence can be: On what made the prophets of old have access to God’s information. If we use the prophets of old as a measuring rod, then, we need to understand how those prophets lived.

Being ready to leave the material desires behind, is next on the line. Jesus Himself, had the same needs as we have. According to the Gospel he was a man like each of us—as I see it. But Jesus’ priorities were on doing the will of Him who sent Him—The Father. If we too try to do the will of God, we too can be like He was and is. Jesus said so.

There is not secret about it, there is only the desire. Once we have a sincere desire to be better that what we are, we automatically are able to see greater spiritual things. The path of growth continues until we allow ourselves to get entangled with negativity such as hate, lack of understand to forgive, and greed, and arrogance, and physical distractions such as lust. The change is called repentance—condemning the act, while knowing that Jesus already paid for it; and strive to avoid doing it again.

To be more specific, the rules is easy: Would I do it if I was in the presence of God?
Did the prophets or Jesus ever do this? Is it in the commandments? Or, like Jesus said in His greatest decision, “Not my will, Father, by thy will be done.” When we deny ourselves, we are ready to receive greater knowledge. And when we get it, we will also learn that greater knowledge is at hand. As Jesus said, “All that my Father has is theirs”.

I am not a prophet, nor claim to be. Rather, I am a sinner who has tried to learn; and I have made many changes on my life at great sacrifices in order to learn more about God. Such changes came as I learned about what a few things are in the bible, by studying it. Though I am a poor man, I feel peace within me, even in the face of worldly conditions as we all have to face. It is part our learning process, deciding based on what we have learned.

Can anyone help Simcha Jacobovici?

Seed Newsvine

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8445464/Jesus-crucifixion-nails-found.html

Telegram   UK

Israel

Jesus crucifixion nails 'found'

Two of the nails used to crucify Jesus have been discovered in a 2,000-year-old tomb, according to a new film.

12:22PM BST 12 Apr 2011

_________________________

My Comment

Simcha needs to find a good lawyer to sue the school that provided him with a diploma or degree.  After all, appears that Jacobovici never took a course in logic, or at least Common Sense 101.  Therefore Jacobovici should ask for a full refund for his tuition, and for his academic fees, plus compensation for causing him to become clown-like.    

Since archeologists and researches use folk stories and documentation to focus on some social research, it would be prudent for Mr. Simcha Jacobovici to have read the New Testament.  There he would have noticed that logically the odds of probability would not have Caiaphas with Jesus’ cross nails. 

Though, the New Testament appears to be used by Simcha, as Caiaphas is in Simcha’s mains reference, the New Testament is not followed by Jacobovici.  If he used the New Testament as a basic source of reference, than why not read more, and why not know that Caiaphas was the enemy of Jesus.  Therefore, the nails from the crucifixion of Jesus would have been treated by the High Priest with disdain. 

Another logical point is that the New Testament Tells us that Joseph of Arimathaea asked Pilot for Jesus’ body, and got the body of Jesus.   If any of the High Priests would have been present, it would probably be mentioned.  But why would Caiaphas put someone to death and then ask for the nails? 

A priest or any Jew would become unclean if he would touch a corpus or anything that had been in contact with the dead.  Jesus came from the cross short before sunset.  Just before the Passover starting at sunset.  Common sense tells us that all faithful Jews were preparing for the Passover; therefore the High Priests would not have been present when Jesus’ body was taken from the cross. 

Why than would the Roman soldiers keep separate the nails used to nail Jesus.  Also, Pilot was not pleased with the High Priests for demanding Jesus’ crucifixion, for Pilot did not want to put Jesus to dead.  Pilot washed his hands as a token of his innocence about the blood of Jesus.  Thus, pilot would not keep the nails either.

The nails would have been associated with a criminal, as the High Priests accused Jesus of.  That would make Caiaphas “unclean” if he would have touched the crucifixion nails.  Such example is seen when the High Priests considered the money returned from Judas, as unclean; “They bought the potter’s field with that money, for it was unclean money.”   Thus Mr. Simcha Jacobovici’s so called research is flawed from the beginning.

It is too bad that the anti-Jesus gang would come as low as to bring shame to and degrade archeology to make some money with another poorly concocted story contradicting the bible. 

The Book of Mormon is about Jesus, not Socialism

Seed Newsvine


Reference to:



The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51308137-82/mormon-book-poor-saints.html.csp


The case for Book of Mormon socialism

BY TROY WILLIAMS

First published Feb 26 2011 12:15AM

Updated Mar 1, 2011 03:23PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Comment


While Williams’ general quotations from scripture are true, one must be careful in implying that the Book of Mormon is about socialism, because it is not about socialism. Just like the New Testament is not about socialism. Rather, both scriptures reflect on the principal of Christianity—love and equality on free-will-bases to achieve salvation.


Equality is one quality needed for salvation. Yes, Jesus did say that richesness was an obstacle to salvation (paraphrasing); but, neither Jesus nor Joseph Smith ever condemned wealth.


Also, Glen Beck and Mitt Romney are not the examples of LDS people, nor do they represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Though that does not mean they are bad people, not at all. But to use Beck and Romney as an implication of the LDS church is wrong.


By example, Romney is not the ideal church member.  The fact is that “Staples” of which Romney is one of its founders—if I am correct, and continues to have a large stake on, forces its employees to work on Sunday. Sunday is the Lord’s day, no work to be done, except emergencies or unavoidable tasks. Staples is open seven days a week.


So wile Mitt may keep the Sabbath day holly, he deprives his subordinates to do likewise. It is his money and his free agency.  Moreover, anyone who heard Romney’s debate with Kennedy for the Senate in the 90s, can see that Romney is not the person to be used as an example of the LDS church.

Getting back to socialism and the Book of Mormon. It is wrong to associate the Book of Mormon or the New Testament or the LDS Church with socialism. For, scripture as well as the LDS Church focus on helping each person to help him or herself. That is not redistribution of one’s money. Even though in Peter’s time as well as in the early LDS Church the practice did exist, it was not by force.


Extra taxes on the rich or on a corporation as Troy Williams suggests, is forced equality. That is unchristian. Therefore using the Book of Mormon or the New Testament to force equality is misusing the sacred scriptures, that is what Constantine did. Jesus gave us the scriptures to promote freedom, so people could choose eternal life.

However, if by free will, the people choose to be equal, then the scriptures can be used for such encouragement. Other wise, it is sacrilegious to compare the Book of Mormon with socialism.

The Popes have been hating the Jews

Seed Newsvine



Reference to:

HAARETZ

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/pope-exonerates-jews-for-death-of-jesus-1.346699

Pope exonerates Jews for death of Jesus

Benedict XVI's theological analysis contradicts traditional Catholic interpretations which have been used throughout history to justify anti-Semitism.

By The Associated Press Tags: Israel news

---------------------------------------------
My Comment


The Popes have been hating the Jews. As if the Jewish rulers who killed Jesus by proxy represented the entire Jewish nation. Well, Jesus was a Jew and so were his disciples and the whole base of Christianity —Jews.

The Jews who killed Jesus did what every one in power throughout the world has done before and after Jesus--kill all possible opposition. It had nothing to do with religion. It was purely power.

So, Joe or Benedict is not doing anything special. He is just putting things in perspective. However, Benedict should also condemn his darn predecessors for instigating hate against the Jews in order to take the focus off their corruption of mixing paganism with the teachings of Christ.

When is the Pope going come clean in all of that? If Benedict was really serious about his findings, he would admit that the Catholic Church has been wrong.

An apology to the Jews community is simple overdue.  That would be Christ-like.