Church preaches how 'Jesus loves porn stars'

No one finds that amusing?

I saw Leah Luv wearing one of their t-shirts this weekend, and I laughed.

so yea. i think it's funny.

Jesus is dead.

Not particularly. They are probably right. I am guessing very few of you have read the Bible, as it is no secret that Jesus didn't spend his time hanging out with politicians and big business types.

Amen to that. There is a big different in Jesus and modern-day Christians.

I find it very amusing, how anyone in this industry can call themselves christians and be church goers. I was raised in the church and Yes I have been through the bible more than once. Just another group of people twisting religion to suit their needs and ease their conscience. As you were saying Baddog, anyone who has READ the bible would know what it says about what activities/lifestyles are acceptable and which are not...

I guess one of the perks of being a Christian is that you can ask for forgiveness and it is erased like an Etch-A-Sketch.

Actually most people assume and use this excuse but the Bible states something else. Repeated sins and committing one anyways and telling your self you can always ask for forgiveness later are not acceptable. But like you said most people just skip that part and like the conscience freeing, "I will be forgiven for all my sins."

Gotta love that hypocrasy.

The funny thing is, being raised in the church and then separating from it and now as an adult I see things I couldnt back then. I see more Christians that are Hypocritical and Judgmental than non-christians, both of which good christians shouldnt be doing any of either. I could go on and on for hours about all the messed up things you notice once away from an influence like that, it is almost like brainwashing...

It is exactly like brainwashing.

well said. "The Church" does NOT equal Jesus.

I recommend reading anything by Bishop Spong.



Also, my grandpa, Rev. Caleb Shikles has helped me find a new appreciation for Jesus as a teacher:

http://www.veoh.com/vlogs/GrandpaCaleb

1. The church was built upon the rock... Christ being the rock... No Christ No Church

2. Dont even get me started on Catholics and Catholicism. Romans where the original corruptors of the word.

3. Why read his books when the source material (The Bible) is there....

All respect for you grandpa, but I dont think when they were writing up the scrolls and making the christian laws or rules of conduct that they meant for them to be flexible or interrpruted to suit a group or individuals needs. You cant just take pieces of the bible you LIKE and disregrad the rest you dont.

I knew it!

Jesus loves the cock

None of the writings (source materials) you refer to were written by Jesus. At best, his spoken words were translated from Aramaic to Greek 50 years after his death...then to English.

We can agree to disagree...but to me, holding on to old words is missing the point entirely.

Wrong, Peter was the rock.

Peter becomes Head of the Apostles. In especially solemn fashion Christ accentuated Peter's precedence among the Apostles, when, after Peter had recognized Him as the Messias, He promised that he would be head of His flock. Jesus was then dwelling with His Apostles in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, engaged on His work of salvation. As Christ's coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the Messias, many different views concerning Him were current. While journeying along with His Apostles, Jesus asks them: "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" The Apostles answered: "Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets". Jesus said to them: "But whom do you say that I am?" Simon said: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God". And Jesus answering said to him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).

By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words "bind" and "loose" are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops. Entirely inconsistent and in itself untenable is the position of Protestants who (like Schnitzer in recent times) assert that the primacy of the Roman bishops cannot be deduced from the precedence which Peter held among the Apostles. Just as the essential activity of the Twelve Apostles in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear with their deaths, so surely did the Apostolic Primacy of Peter not completely vanish. As intended by Christ, it must have continued its existence and development in a form appropriate to the ecclesiastical organism, just as the office of the Apostles continued in an appropriate form. Objections have been raised against the genuineness of the wording of the passage, but the unanimous testimony of the manuscripts, the parallel passages in the other Gospels, and the fixed belief of pre-Constantine literature furnish the surest proofs of the genuineness and untampered state of the text of Matthew (cf. "Stimmen aus MariaLaach", I, 1896,129 sqq.; "Theologie und Glaube", II, 1910,842 sqq.).

Also, as an individual who chooses his own path, I can most certainly choose only the parts that resonate with me. There are thousands of books that claim to be the word of God. As Gandhi said, "All Religions Are True."

You are absolutly right I flubbed that in my haste, Peter was the rock but my point is stated in your post

MY CHURCH...

Well it sounds like we agree, if in fact you are stating:
You dont claim to be a devoted christian, therefore you are not twisting the bibles intent to satisfy your own need, rather adopting beliefs from multiple sources to build your own philosophy on life and how to live it.

I am hitting on the subject of people who claim to be of a particular religious faction that only acknowledge the doctorine in their chosen religion and disregard that which they dont like. For instance, everyone is familiar with Fornication, Adultery, etc. I have run into people who ignore those as sins listed in the bible because it doesnt fit into their lifestyle but still claim to be what they are.

Haha thats pretty random

there was no jesus.......

ah, yes. Well clarified.

Odd sidenote:

When I visited my grandpa today, he was gone at a party. But "All Relgions Are True" was set out on his table. I took it as a sign and read it while he whooped it up. AMAZING book. Too bad it is out of print. !!!!!

Haha, Nice.... weird how stuff like that happens from time to time....

I say fuck the church. The catholic religion is pure shit.

The bible on the other hand, is one of the best guide you can follow in your life to live a good life.

Since I'm not a Christian (see darkland's post), I'm just gonna stick to the Sermon on The Mount for now. For me, the rest is TBD.

Only you can be the judge of who and what you are, I did not mean to imply they you are or you aren't and if that is how you took it I apologize. I am merely stating my opinion/views and happen to think that Christianity and Pornography cant blend.

When you said "...as an individual who chooses his own path, I can most certainly choose only the parts that resonate with me..." I posted back asking if you did or did not consider yourself a christian or in fact adopt beliefs from multiple sources to build your own philosophy on life and how to live it. Maybe it didnt come out right or I communicated poorly which I have a tendency to do...

no no! You are correct. I consider myself a "seeker." And gleen from many many sources in an always changing spiritual perspective. But I appreciate your willingness to dialogue rather than debate. very refreshing.