Limerick Pride March 2012

 Posted by on September 8, 2012  Add comments
Sep 082012
 

It was a lovely sunny day.  The sort of day that makes you feel good about yourself, and Limerick was humming along nicely, getting wound up for the festivities ahead.  (And the shenanigans.  Never forget the shenanigans).

Limerick Pride day is always great fun, but I’ve never seen the weather as good as it was for this one.  Obviously, God has stopped hating Limerick gays, or else he’s away for the weekend.  Who can tell?

Well, some people are fairly sure that God hates gays, if the evangelical gobshites handing out leaflets are anything to judge by.  Beyond the Grave.

This tosser started shouted about damnation and repentance immediately the parade started.  He went remarkably quiet very fast when a young female Garda reminded him that he needed to shut the fuck up unless he wanted to be arrested.

 

He went remarkably quiet very fast when a young female Garda reminded him that he needed to shut the fuck up unless he wanted to be arrested.

I had a chat with his Leader, earlier, a smug Northern bible-basher straight from Central-Casting.  He told me that he knew Christ had brought happiness to many people, and that sex wasn’t everything.  I told him that the Limerick gay parade had nothing to do with his beliefs or with sex, but everything to do with people proclaiming their status as equal citizens in this republic.  He didn’t seem to like that, for reasons I couldn’t quite fathom.

I asked him if Jesus would be out condemning gays but he didn’t have an answer to that .  I pointed out to him that Limerick people had always shown goodwill to the Pride event, and that we had only ever seen protests from a few bigoted maniacs, but he was welcome to our town anyway.

I also reminded him that everyone is either gay or has a gay child, brother, sister or friend.  I told him it’s an inevitable part of the human condition.

He shrugged and smiled in an evangelical sort of way, but at least he didn’t offer me a leaflet and we parted on amicable enough terms.

Here he is a little later.

 

Here he is again, handing out pamphlets as he follows the march.

But enough of these gobshites.  What about the day?

Well, as usual, the people of Limerick embraced the whole event, and it went without a hitch, ending in the grounds of the Hunt Museum with sun, silliness, beer and music.  It will of course go on to the small hours, ending with a massive party in Dolans, but I won’t be there because I lack the stamina.  Jesus, these fucking gays go on forever.

Here’s a few pictures as usual.

Are you ready?  Have you got your Cute settings on Aaaaawwwww!!!?

Here we go.  Beat this if you can.

 

Warning.  It’s all downhill from here.  (Well, almost.  I’ll rescue it at the end).

 

 

The Mayor and the Minister for Community Stuff, supporting Gay Pride

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time to get off these fucking stilts

 

 

 

Our Mayor

 

 

And finallly, one more time.  Aaaaawwwww!!

 

 

__________________

More on Limerick Pride

  73 Responses to “Limerick Pride March 2012”

Comments (73)
  1.  

    It takes balls to go out dressed like that.

  2.  

    Fair play to Ginger for getting involved could never see jim Long doing the same

  3.  

    Gay Pride March 2012. And it took you until September to comment?

    Wtf took you so long?

  4.  

    its was Saturday

  5.  

    He’s just being a tool.

  6.  

    Oh I see Block the Blobber couldn’t figure out that March in the title is march as in to march.

    Interesting post, great pictures. Limerick Pride was AWESOME!

  7.  

    This is a great piece of writing and I love that the Mayor got so involved, I am glad to be living in a town that finally gets that people should be allowed to live their lives in as much color and grace as they deserve , regardless of there differences. Unity in Diversity that’s what I say. Really really sorry I missed all the celebrations, i would normally be in the middle of it all, but I am up the walls. As for the wee bible thumpers, well ya gotta love their stupidity, Ah God really does have a sense of humor!!!!

  8.  

    What a great day. Great article Bock

  9.  

    Good article great day, I guess the fundamentalist christian types who protested must believe that God forgives hatred and bigotry.

  10.  

    Well, I did ask them if they thought Jesus would be out protesting. They didn’t seem to have an answer to that.

  11.  

    I know he is Bock, lets discuss it later over our usual few teusday night pints in Collins Bar Dooradoyle, im sure you will be there as always.

  12.  

    That would be a great idea if you were actually in this country, which you’re not, and if I actually ever set foot in that establishment, Tuesday night or any other, which I don’t.

  13.  

    sorry Bock, identity almost revealed
    Any way ill be wearing my blue jumper as always

  14.  

    I have seen these people preach regularly on the streets in the city centre not just on parade days!!! I think it’s very unfair the way you are portraying what they are doing.. not to mention the little speech bubbles!! who’s inciting hatred?? These people have a right to take to the streets to share their faith the same as you can go on the streets to promote what you believe in.. I thought the parade was all about love and equality and acceptance??? who’s persecuting who??? Christians preach out of genuine concern not as an excuse for bigotry!!!!! If what Jesus claimed is true, Which historically is verifiable, then you should at least hear their point of view and not stigmatize and put slanderous pics of them up on the internet… Christianity has been misrepresented. Even a casual look at what Jesus said in the Bible will show that many people who profess Christianity aren’t true christians!!! and are (as you rightly pointed out) bigoted and full of hatred.. Look at Christ not man’s interpretation of Christ. Every organization of people has those who attach themselves to it, who misrepresent it and betray the true heart of the organization, be it Christianity, an Garda Siochana or even the LGBTQ community.. The fact is humanity is full of hypocrites, you don’t use that to label an entire community of people… Good day to you sir

  15.  

    Who’s inciting hatred? They are.

    Bunch of pricks. Don’t lecture me about haters.

  16.  

    “If what Jesus claimed is true, which historically is verifiable”

    Sorry, but that is nonsense.

    Sources? Peer review of research?

    There is no historic verification, it’s a matter of faith.

  17.  

    @Gary: ” Look at Christ not man’s interpretation of Christ.” – well even if (and it’s not) the bible as it exists today was literally the same as it was written originally, it bloody well was written by humans so it already is a man’s interpretation of Christ to begin with. And the people who march in these parades aren’t promoting anything – they’re celebrating it…there is a difference.
    I didn’t see anyone there handing out the “Oh Its Such A Lovely Day Isn’t It And By The Way You Should Become Gay” pamphlets. What I did see was some people handing out the “Jesus Loves You But Not Really Ha Ha You Are A Sinner And You Are Going To Hell Unless You Do What We Say”-style ones. I very much doubt that Christ himself would have approved…

    Matthew 24:11 “and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.”

    “These people have a right to take to the streets to share their faith the same as you can go on the streets to promote what you believe in”. Really. So would you support someone’s right to share their faith in Satan?

  18.  

    Bock, speaking as A Roman Catholic, I find that I would have to support these young Protestant Christians in this circumstance even though, as I already said in another blog (“Failing to define a Protestant ethos”), I have grave reservations about Northern Ireland Protestantism. If they earnestly believe that a gay parade in the city is an evil ,then they must be seen as being true to their calling although I am not sure if they are going the right way about it.
    Now, as there is no point in speaking from a religious standpoint, which I would like to do, I shall speak entirely from the secular point of view.
    I am living in Sydney, Australia, at the moment, and every year we have this homosexual parade called the Mardi Gras,(Nothing to do with the Louisiana event), and I can tell you with certainty, that it is promoting something unnatural —- that is the only way that I can put it and in the strongest terms. I am convinced that young people are being corrupted sexually. See it like this, if you have a son or a daughter, and lets say you have some control of the situation, would you suffer them to go in that direction if you could help it? That is the heartbreaking situation that many parent have to suffer.
    Finally, bear in mind that homosexuality is more than just an unclean and unholy sexual practice: It is a political power.

  19.  

    John, you’re asking me to accept your presumption that homosexuality is unclean and unholy. I don’t accept your premise. What kind of way is that to open a debate?

    Would you also support these fanatics if they picketed a wedding, on the grounds that the bride and groom might engage in what they regard as unnatural sexual practices? WHo are they to be bothered about what other people do in private?

    Can you explain precisely what you regard as unnatural that the Mardi Gras is promoting?

    As regards the direction my son or daughter go in, that would be none of my business.

    Can you provide some factual basis for your belief that young people are being corrupted and can you define the precise nature of this corruption as you see it?

  20.  

    John like many people who have been corrupted by religious extremism you are clearly unable to speak from a secular point of view. Your attitude towards the rights of others is an incitement to hatred and violence. Your deep set fear of what others do in private is perhaps a reflection of your own issues around sexuality. By the way do you consider heterosexual anal sex to be unnatural?

  21.  

    I have to admit that I am speaking entirely from a subjective platform so maybe I am wrong, but I do not think so. My observations of the homosexuality are that there is some substantial effort made to court the attention of the young and gullible and they are constantly being saturated with propaganda to accept this lifestyle as healthy and normal. The truth is however, that homosexuality is an unstable condition in which relationships are usually short-lived and promiscuity is the result. I think that this is an established fact in psychology, and if so, then it stands to reason that there is something wrong with it — correct me if I am wrong but I do recall reading it authoritatively somewhere. Once again, speaking from the secular point of view, I am not concerned what two adults do in a locked room —- here I can be told to mind my own business, but I am concerned for the young being drawn into a way that is unhealthy, unholy, perverse, heartbreaking and often suicidal.
    Also, it is not to be overlooked that the whole Gay Movement is more than just a matter of sexual preference: It is a political power that erodes the morality of the nation and I have no doubts that it is puppetered from behind the scenes by powers that do not have neither the national interest nor the social interest at heart. It flourishes now because it is allowed to flourish and it does not do that without co-operation from persons within the establishment and it is quite symptomatic of utter corruption. As for the Limerick performance, where did this green light come from? Be sure of it, there is something rotten in the State of Ireland —- and Australia.

    Now most people here will call me an intolerant crank, the Northerners will call me a Papist and a Romanist and the gays will call me an homophobic bigot, so clearly I am nobody’s darling but I will own my words.

  22.  

    John, you keep stating your personal beliefs as fact. Don’t you see that people are too intelligent to be taken in by that trick?

    If you have evidence of an attempt to court the young and gullible, please produce it. I think this is something you claimed because you find homosexuality distasteful.

    I personally know many people, both gay and lesbian, who are in long-term, stable, fulfilling relationships. By the same token, I know many straight people who flit from one relationship to the next. Produce facts and figures to support your assertion. Don’t tell me you read it authoritatively somewhere. That’s just being ridiculous. If you have something to back up your claims, produce it. Otherwise, let’s just agree you made it up to suit your prejudices.

    Unhealthy, unholy, perverse are your words for your personal beliefs about homosexuality. They are not, as you seem to think, agreed facts, and again, nobody here is going to swallow that sort of trick.

    Likewise, don’t invite me to agree with you that the gay movement as you call it erodes the morality of a nation. This is not a fact but simply a restatement of your personal prejudices based on the fact that you don’t like what homosexuality is. You own this problem, John, not the rest of us. Examine the reasons why you recoil personally from it.

    And by the way, can you define exactly what you think sex involves when it’s between people of the same gender? Give us examples.

    When you talk of puppeteers behind the scenes, you’re bordering on paranoia and making whatever case you had, which was pretty threadbare to begin with, completely absurd.

    As for Limerick, our people cheerfully embrace the Pride day every year, with the exception of a few bigots and lunatics like the people pictured.

    I won’t call you any names John, but on this site, we deal in facts, not assertions that people pull out of their arse.

  23.  

    The first sentence that I uttered above was that I was speaking from a subjective platform, so I admitted that I could be wrong. However, I don’t think so. What I am saying, is in the last analysis only my opinion, but it is an educated opinion. By that I mean, that although I am not formally qualified in psychology or any other relevant field, I can render an accurate account of what I observe and draw my own conclusions based on reason.
    Very well, lets review some facts: Fact 1: The function of sex in life is to procreate: that is its primary function — pleasure is only there as a biological mechanism to make it work. If it does not foster procreation then there is something wrong —- can you accept that?
    Fact 2: The young have this lifestyle openly propagated in front of them. Look at your own pictures above. Nothing unusual there. This is my main concern.
    Fact 3: Unhealthy —- It is well postulated in psychology, that there is a marked instability in relationships, and it naturally follows there is a high turnover in partners. Now you may say that this happens in heterosexual unions also, but NOT WITH THE SAME FREQUENCY. The one thing that a heterosexual couple can do is produce their own children and this is well recognized as a mainstay in sexual relationships.
    Unholy: I am trying to stay in the secular arena here. By unholy I mean, immoral. The inability to form stable relationships tends towards multiple partners, albeit one at a time, but this in its turn CAN foster promiscuity. To avoid any hint of the self-righteous here, heterosexual promiscuity is just as immoral, often worse. Now, if immorality has no place with you then we can skip this one.
    Perverse: By this I mean a progressive degeneracy, sometimes called lust, in which sex becomes harder and harder to satisfy and the taste more and more away from the original. There are plenty of heterosexual men and women given to this but once again they have better defenses and are not as exposed.
    The green light?? Nothing happens anywhere without a cause. Enough said there.

    Now, let us look at some of your “facts”. Why did you portray those Protestant Northerners in your photos saying things that they obviously never said.? Did any of them say anything as written in the bubbles?

  24.  

    Who says the function of sex is procreation? Where is your source for this proposition?

  25.  

    WHO??— Who says that the function of sex is procreation???
    Well, whoever ordained it in the beginning, I suppose !

  26.  

    There you go again, John, asking people to agree with your assumptions. If you want to believe in a creator, go right ahead, but don’t assume that everyone agrees with you.

    To address your earlier comment, no, I do not agree that sex has one purpose. That’s something you think because you need to believe you were created. I don’t suffer form that delusion and therefore have no need to construct assumptions reinforcing it.

    So don’t call your unverified beliefs facts.

    The thing you label Fact 1 is just nonsense. Sex fulfils many functions, including procreation and recreation. Indeed, in nature, sex is even used to make peace, as a brief study of bonobos will reveal to you. People who choose not to procreate, and those who cannot for physical reasons, still have sex, and that sex takes many forms. I’ll come back to your evasion of questions in a minute, because you’re not going to comment any further until you address some of the points that have been put to you.

    What you call Fact 2 is just a restatement of your prejudices. Repetition doesn’t strengthen an argument.

    Fact 3 is more waffle. Produce these psychological studies you keep referring to.

    Don’t try to base your spurious arguments on your skewed view of morality. Nobody buys it. Don’t use meaningless words like perverse and degenerate.

    Ian asked you to support your claims of what Jesus said on the subject of homosexuality. You ignored him. Before you make one more comment, you will reply to him, providing references as he requested.

    I asked you to define exactly what you think sex involves when it’s between people of the same gender. You also ignored that.

    Until you respond to these points you will receive no further platform for your prejudice and homophobia.

    Lety

  27.  

    Ian put a fair question to me and he got a fair answer. Jesus was not mentioned. His answer is comment no: 25 and it stands as it stands. As I said, I am trying hard to maintain a secular platform here and if all my previous comments are objectively evaluated, I think that I have done that. I also admitted to you that my standpoint is subjective. (I’ll reply to the rest of what you said in a day or two —- I’m pressed for time right now).

  28.  

    Not good enough John. I don’t believe you’re trying at all.

    Every one of your comments is based on religion, not logic.

    What you’re presenting here is nothing more than the polite face of homophobia and when it comes down to producing facts, all you have to offer is your prejudice.

  29.  

    Reply to Tommy (comment 20): What others do in private doesn’t bother me a bit. My main concern here is the incorporation of the young and unguarded into a way that is, whether you like it or not, against the natural order. I did not ordain the natural order — I just know what it is — that is all, and I am NOT speaking from a religious point of view.

    As for heterosexual anal sex, I don’t give it much thought really — just a bit of a dirty habit,
    I suppose. However, I notice that there is medical and sex education literature on the net which addresses this issue and the prevailing opinion seems to counter-recommend it.

    I hope that I answered your question to your satisfaction.

    Bock: I will get back to you soon — maybe a day or two.

  30.  

    John,

    You seem incapable of disentangling facts from your opinions.

    ‘Natural order’ is an explicitly religious concept, no scientist would ever use such language.

  31.  

    Still not good enough John. I expect a reply to the question I asked you. Define exactly what you think sex involves when it’s between people of the same gender.

    No more wriggling John. Your next published comment will be an answer to this.

  32.  

    @John get a look at this and let me know what you think when you re not pressed for time.

    http://www.ivillage.com/5-myths-anal-sex-uncovered/4-a-284083

  33.  

    “Define exactly what you think sex involves when it’s between people of the same gender”

    Not sure if this is allowed, but this might help John along – [deleted]

  34.  

    You’re right. It’s not allowed.

  35.  

    Ok no gay porn this time.
    This is a good article, IMO
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    “At the heart of evolutionary biology, since Darwin, has been the idea that any genetic traits and behaviors that outfit an animal with an advantage — that help the animal make lots of offspring — will remain in a species, while ones that don’t will vanish. In short, evolution gradually optimizes every animal toward a single goal: passing on its genes. The Yale ornithologist Richard Prum told me: “Our field is a lot like economics: we have a core of theory, like free-market theory, where we have the invisible hand of the market creating order — all commodities attain exactly the price they’re worth. Homosexuality is a tough case, because it appears to violate that central tenet, that all of sexual behavior is about reproduction. The question is, why would anyone invest in sexual behavior that isn’t reproductive?” –— much less a behavior that looks to be starkly counterproductive. Moreover, if animals carrying the genes associated with it are less likely to reproduce, how has that behavior managed to stick around?”

  36.  

    Five days, still no reply from John, but it’s not a time problem since he found plenty of time to comment on other threads.

    John, answer the question or you won’t be commenting at all on this site.

  37.  

    Five days already ! I think defending King Billy exhausted me !
    It seems that I have several people to answer so starting with Ian back at comment no. 24: As you did ask “who”, I will reword to “what” for you: What makes me think that the primary function of sex is procreation?
    Answer: You probably noticed in life, that there is a very definite association between men and women having sexual intercourse and the occurrence of babies !! Now, I am sorry that I cannot put it more fundamentally than that. If you don’t believe me, then all I can suggest to you is to buy a good elementary book that explains to you all about the birds and the bees. The two sexes are by nature attracted to one another and the laws of biology are as immutable as the laws of physics. ( Like the first law of magnetism: Like poles repel, unlike poles attract. ) As for “natural order” which you care to deny, (comment 30), it is not only a religious concept, you will find it also used in evolutionary theory. To deny “natural order” is to deny any order —– it is very much a scientific concept in any approach to biology.

    My next reply will be to Tommy and then to Three-of five and last to Bock, all within an hour or two.

  38.  

    Once again, Tommy, my attitude to anal intercourse is that it is just a bit of a dirty habit which I believe possibly has health implications. If you do not believe that it has health implications, that’s fine —- I won’t convince you. I am not a doctor so it is fair to say that I don’t really know. Perhaps, you should check with a doctor.
    My own rationale for my own belief is that the anus is NOT a sexual organ —- it is not designed, (if I am allowed to use that word), for sexual intercourse in the way that the female vagina and the male penis are —– and that is the sum total of the matter. The function of the anus is to retain faecal matter in the rectum until the reflex stimulates the anal sphincter to relax and allow the waste to be expelled. Sex is not its function and that is all there is to it.

  39.  

    Three-in-one : It seems from your own admission that you were sending me gay porn
    “to help me along”
    Well, my answer here is short and to the point : I think that you are the one who needs help!

  40.  

    Hi Bock —- I take it that the question you think that I am evading is the one in comment 31, am I right?
    What do I think sex involves when it is between persons of the same gender? Right?

    Well, frankly I don’t really know. If you are referring to sexual intercourse, then according to the precise biological definition, it is the penetration of the female genital organ by the male genital organ with the express intention of depositing its genetic material. Whether the participants are aware of this is not included for sexual intercourse is an almost entirely instinctive function and whether you like it or not, it is intimately associated with procreation.
    As I said to Ian in reply 37, If you don’t believe me, read all about the birds and the bees.

    Going by this, it follows that I don’t believe that true sexual intercourse is possible between two men —- only a parody of it.
    Also, one of the major frustrations that gays must face is that they cannot have their own children by natural means.

    Now, what actually goes on in a locked room between two gay men, I don’t really know, I don’t give it much thought, and it is none of my business anyway but I will not consent to the delusion that male homosexuality is all right.
    I am not learned academically on the subject, but I have observed it in others enough to release that there is very definitely something VERY wrong about it.
    I might add here that I consider homosexuality, especially male, a tragic event, but at the same time one with which there is no compromise.

    Does this answer satisfy you?

  41.  

    The original objection that I voiced is lost here amid all the clamor.

    Back to the original: The Evangelical people. If they seriously believe that the Gay element is evil then they are only being true to their calling and you can’t blame them for that.
    Try not to be too hard on them, Bock, — They are only trying to get you into Heaven.

    The second item is the matter of exposing children to this element —– I am not saying what I think is right or wrong, but it does not need much of a conscience to see something wrong here. I leave it there.

  42.  

    It’s not an answer at all. It’s simply a restatement of your personal prejudices, presented yet again, in your usual fraudulent way, as fact.

    With your level of sexual understanding, you must be a barrel of fun for any lucky girl who manages to snare you.

    I give up on you John. There’s no point arguing with a man so wedded to his own ignorance.

  43.  

    Comment 39 should be addressed to Three-of-five, not Three-in-one.

  44.  

    Na’er the twain will meet.

  45.  

    Ne’ar the twain will meet.

  46.  

    John in my opinion you’re are using the defense mechanism of rationalisation in order to disown a part of you which you find abhorrent i.e your own homosexuality. [why else would you defend King Billy so vigourously and become so obviously hurt by a suggestion that he may have been gay after all it wasn t suggested that he was a rapist or a pedophile, being gay is not a crime, not a bad thing,] I have sympathy for you John like I have sympathy for anyone who cannot accept who they are and therefore wish to change the unchangeable but I must say you do make it difficult. I m loathe to continue debating with you but I would like to know whether you think being gay is a choice that people make.

  47.  

    Tommy, Being gay is not a choice that anyone has in life for the good and simple reason that life did not come on your terms nor on mine nor at the behest of any man. We do not understand what makes for homosexuality but I do not believe that it is a genetic inheritance. Research has been conducted in this direction but I am unsure of its progress or findings. Indications seem to be, in so far as I can discern environmental or something deeply rooted in the childhood sub-conscious.

    There are worse deviations from sexual normality than being gay. Need I start listing them for you? The very nature of some of them, would seem to indicate something stunned or injured deep within the psych very early in life.

    I respect your opinion and in saying that I am using some defense mechanism to look away from what is abhorrent about myself, I believe to be true. I am not gay myself, so I suppose that I might be described as being perfectly “normal” whatever that means. But this does not mean that I can imagine gays to be sinners, (pardon the expression), worse than myself —- that is only a lot of “Holier than thou” nonsense. Be sure that we are all made from the same dirt.

    Thank you for you sympathizing with me —- feelings are mutual.

  48.  

    Thank you John

    What do you make of this article ?

    http://sourcefednews.com/theres-no-gay-gene-says-scientists/

  49.  

    John, in future, maybe you’d confine yourself to quoting research you actually know something about.

  50.  

    Bock, you are not exactly one for quoting research yourself. In all of the 49 foregoing comments only Tommy produced a simplified reported article on research into the matter in comment 48.

    You yourself never did refer to a single item of reported research and I could justifiably ask you if YOUR opinions are informed at all.

    It is of further note that most people here would not be able to read or evaluate research without some training so it is more appropriate to refer to reliable reports that “translate” it for you.

  51.  

    Ian — (comment 16) When you were replying to Gary, (comment 14) Could you please tell me what Jesus claimed seeing you took licience to condemn it?

    Bock —- This is a fair question to ask Ian seeing that these Evangelical people are at the center of your article.

  52.  

    Thank you for your linked article, Tommy. The possibility of DNA switching in the infant and the postulated epigenic factor are certainly issues worth entertaining and hopefully we shall hear more as time goes by. The dismissal of the “gay gene” element is something that I figured would happen sooner or later although I suppose that some schools of scientific thought still adhere to it.

    In a way, it is not so different from my own view in that I believe that there is something predestined about it: As I already said to you, life did not come on our terms. In a way, I suppose that you could say that I hold to the “epigenic” idea although I do not use the word epigenic within the strict scientific meaning of the word. (Epi-genic — outside of genetic). However, I might point out that whether the key to the matter is genetic or outside of genetics it would seem to be irrelevant from the individual’s point of view as they still are the subjects of predestination for whatever reason.

  53.  

    That’s right John, I didn’t quote any vague research that I can’t support and I’m asking you not to do so either.

  54.  

    John,

    It was stated:

    “If what Jesus claimed is true, which historically is verifiable”

    This is a nonsensical claim. It is not historically verifiable. Where is the evidence and where is its verification?

  55.  

    I find this article to be a sly misrepresentation of two men trying to spread the gospel to those who need it. These men, Christians and Jesus doesn’t hate gays. To pigeonhole these men and lop them in with the hypocrites of the westboro baptist church is unfair, untrue and deceitful.

    Why would these men take time out of their day to try preach the gospel and bring people to Christ if they hated you?

    The contrary is actually true. They love you and want everyone in this city come to Christ and see the kingdom of God!

    God doesn’t hate homosexuals. He see’s a homosexual the same as any other sinner. In need of a relationship with God and repentance.

    Bock, I pray someday the Lord will reveal himself to you and become real to you.

    God bless you brother!

    “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

    John 14:6 KJV

  56.  

    Bock, I notice in your article that you asked one of these people if Jesuswould be out condemning gays and he did not answer you. May I answer for him?
    Jesus of Nazereth was someone with a serious mission from God and he did not compromise any aspect of it. He was always one to call a spade a spade and this is the ultimate reason for His being murdered on a cross. Be very sure that He
    would speak against homosexuality and the need to turn away from it along with all other vises besides. His apostle Paul did.

  57.  

    As I understand it, Paul was a delusional character who claimed to have met the ghost of Jesus and who hated not only gays but woman. Not the most reliable source to quote.

    May I ask how you know what Jesus would say?

  58.  

    Bock, Paul was no delusional character by any measure and his letters which form about half of the New Testament do not indicate any sign of personality disorder. He comes across to us as a highly educated and intelligent man who knows exactly what he is on about.
    He did not meet the ghost of Jesus at all — none of his letters speak of meeting Jesus’s ghost, but he encounter The Risen Lord on the Damascus road — no ghost. Others were with him at the time who could at least testify to some sort of supernatural event on the road.

    Now, how do I know what Jesus of Nazareth would have to say here: As I said to you He was a person with a mission who took that mission very seriously and with a single mind indeed and when it came to condemning all things against His Father’s will He was no gentleman about it, to put it mildly, and in this case, God did speak against homosexuality among other evils in the Jewish Scriptures.
    (Later on, Paul also singles it out). Jesus of Nazareth was uncompromising about wrongdoing right up to death itself. He just knew His mission, That is how I know.

    I trust that I have given you a satisfactory answer in lieu of the silence that you received in the street.

  59.  

    Of course, you’re quite right when you say that Paul didn’t see the ghost of Jesus. He might have suffered a drug-induced hallucination, he might have had a severe mental illness, he might have been lying or it might have been a combination of all three.

    This God of wehich you speak — is that the same sadistic deity that encouraged Moses to commit mass-murder and rape?

  60.  

    Bock, I don’t think it is fair to say that the Apostle Paul might be on drugs or mad or lying. I can speak with more certainty than just “might” this that or the other. I am afraid that your suppositions of “might” are only wild guesswork without any foundation whatsoever because it is long established that the writings of the New Testament are as reliable as any other record of Roman times. The Romans and the Greeks and the Jews were meticulous recorders.

    (1) Paul, who was a very strict Pharisee could not have been on any mind affecting substance because the Jewish religious institution was very tightly regulated and you may be sure that it would not have been tolerated. Even alcohol intoxication could be a disciplinary matter. Paul was also with others who witnessed the reality of a supernatural event. He was also blinded by this encounter until his eyesight was intentionally restored. It did not restore itself.

    (2) His extensive writings do not show any sign of personality disintegration over all the time that they were written. Paul is always intelligent and consistent in addressing his subject. There is nothing to suggest mental instability.

    (3) Paul was very certainly not lying. He was tortured and he was imprisoned over the period of his entire ministry and finally executed for what he preached. Now, be certain of this: Nobody will endure that and then lay down his very life for a lie.

  61.  

    I’d be very interested to hear more about the meticulous records the Romans kept on Jesus.

  62.  

    Bock, I had only intended to presume answering for your query presented in the street and I can only hope that the person whom you addressed would agree with what I have said so far. I feel that I might be getting a bit out of my depth here as I am not a scholar on the matter — I just know basic history surrounding the period.

    To start with, you must understand that Palestine was a hotbed of political and religious activity at this time and Jesus of Nazareth was attracting crowds by thousands with His doctrine, His claims, and those miracles which anybody could behold. He was also a cause of major disruption to the Jewish religious establishment. As the Romans were always on edge in this troublesome area of the Empire you may be quite sure that He was well in the public eye and subject to Roman Government attention. Pontius Pilate is known to have been reporting back to the Emperor as indeed would have been his official duty to be reporting on events within his jurisdiction and correspondence developed between the Prefect and the Emperor. It ended up with Tiberius expressing his extreme annoyance with Pilate when he heard of the execution of Jesus. Tiberius then went on to address the Roman Senate on the matter of elevating Jesus the Nazarene to the status of a god in the Roman pantheon.
    The Senate disapproved the application !!!
    Some of the record I believe exists in copies at the Congressional Library, Washington. D.C. The Vatican Library may also have copies.

    Others worth mentioning are: Cornelius Tacitus, Member Senate and historian.
    Suetonius, Court official and historian
    Tallus, Roman secular historian.
    Pliney the Younger. Governor of Bithynia (Writing about 110 AD)
    Julius Africanus Phlegon, Historian.
    Flavius Josephus, Jewish Roman Historian.

    I don’t think that you should overlook the writings of Paul himself. Paul was a Roman citizen and a high ranking member of the Jewish Sanhedrin who was well qualified to be writing history and before his conversion, it would have been his business to transact with the Roman authority as he was conducting a persecution that could impose capital punishment.

  63.  

    Instead of giving me homework, could you identify some of these scrupulously-maintained records of which you speak?

  64.  

    Bock, Most of what I wrote I knew from a long time back.

    Probably the best example of meticulous Roman recording is the census that was carried out during the reign of the Emperor Augustus at about the time that Christ was born.
    This was a massive undertaking for an ancient civilization, (it would be a monstrous task even today), and it took a complete record of every man, woman and child in the Empire. It took no account of personal privacy or inconvenience and people were forced under threat of the most severe penalties to travel and attend.
    Its purpose was taxation and where money was concerned, don’t doubt that it was exact.
    Ancient Rome won its empire with the sword but only high level organization and ordered records are what kept it. The same is true for any other political entity.

    As I am not a scholar on this subject I cannot go into deep academic discussion and library references, but as I don’t think that you are qualified either, (please correct me if I am wrong),
    then the forgoing should suffice for educated lay conversation.
    I feel sure that the academic confraternity would agree with me.

  65.  

    In other words, you have no facts at all but you thought you’d get away with some made-up nonsense.

  66.  

    Sorry, Bock but you are wrong. I have not made up anything at all and everything that I have said is factual whether you like it or not.
    It is you who choose to disparage and disregard the facts.

    Now, as my only intention was to answer your query to the young man in the street, I shall return here. I tell you certainly that Jesus of Nazareth would denounce in no uncertain terms a public display of homosexuality if He was physically present. You may be very sure that He would not be courting popular opinion in speaking His Father’s attitude and I will further note His stance towards scandalizing little children with these things. (I see children at these festivities).
    Anticipating His office as Judge on the Day of Judgement, He made it clear that He would seven-fold punishment upon those who lead those little ones astray, (and if is of any “comfort” to you this will include your hated clerics).

    Now, Bock, please don’t hammer me for what I have said: I am only pointing to the Mind of God on matter as revealed to us.. I did not write the Sacred Record which today we call The Testaments, Old and New.

    I know that this answer to your question in the street is not palatable but truth seldom is.

  67.  

    In fairness to you, it’s a brilliant spoof.

  68.  

    Arrasure didn’t Jesus of Nazareth brought Lazarus back from the dead because they were gay lovers.

    I can be as certain about that statement as iap337 is about Jesus denouncing public displays of homosexuality.

  69.  

    Jesus said not a word about homosexuality – he did say quite a lot about economic injustice, that people who talked about the minor stuff while ignoring the poor would burn in hell. I have never seen iap337 comment on such matters – hardly a surprise when the people who attack gays are the people who in previous generations said women should keep silent and the people who believed white Europeans had a right to impose their religious on other races.

  70.  

    I am returning to this conversation somewhat against my better judgment as I thought I had answered Bock’s question satisfactorily but I see that others have added comments, one at least which I feel deserves an answer.

    To Ian I will say that your concept of Jesus of Nazareth seems to be one of a “good man” and some kind of social reformer, an economic champion of the poor and a host of other things that we would like Him to be but really it was nothing to do with talking about trivialities whilst the poor languished.
    In His Sermon on the Mount He told the poor that they were blessed “for their’s was the Kingdom of Heaven”. In another place, a repentant prostitute spent a small fortune on Him on precious ointments triggering a protest from someone who complained of waste and said that the money would have been better spent on the poor. He checked that person saying: “The poor ye will always have with ye. Me ye will not”. He never spoke against the contemporary practice of slavery, which you might say, is economic poverty at its worst.
    He did however, speak against sexual immorality in all its forms along with a host of other excesses and this crusade against the power of evil was His great mission from His Father and He served that mission with a steel, determined, resolve without compromise.
    Now this is important, so note carefully:
    It is impossible to understand Him at all without reference to His relationship with His Father.
    In light of this, you may be sure that homosexuality is included as sexual immorality and as I said in an earlier comment, Paul singles it out later on.
    He, (Jesus), does not dwell on the matter of inordinate sex, but in His discourse with the Pharisees about divorce, He makes it plain that marriage and sex is an unique institution between man and woman, ordained by God.

    So, to recap Bock’s original question: What would Jesus do if He were physically present on Limerick Pride Day?
    To justify me answer, remember now, that the that the mouth that spoke of the lilies of the fields also spoke of hellfire and damnation and eternal loss. He also blasted the unfruitful fig tree and the hands that healed the sick and the maimed also beat the traders out of the Temple wielding a whip. The supreme patience which bore with poor sinners seeking His salvation is also the intolerance that came out with those who imagined that they had no sin.
    The Merciful Saviour is also a Dreadful Judge.

    So, in view of this portrait which I have painted for you, you may be very sure that He would denounce the whole public spectacle in a manner that you might never have seen anything condemned before. He would not be complacent simply because homosexuality is against God’s ordinance.

    In a second place, I am guessing here but it is plausible. Maybe He would make a whip or take a strong stick and scatter the whole show. Think He couldn’t? Remember, He was backed with supernatural power. When He scattered the traders in the Temple, it must have involved hundreds of people in The Court of the Gentiles and the Police, (Temple Guards) did not stop Him nor did the Roman Militia who were allowed into this court.

    Now, as before, please don’t start blasting me as a “homophobe” or something of the like, (although it is OK if you do — I’m not John Waters — I can take a slap in the face without complaining !!), because I am not expressing my own views on homosexuality —- they are not important.
    All I am trying to do is to answer the question “What would Jesus do” and now I think that I have done that quite painstakingly.

    Thank you, Bock for your forbearance with me. I know that I was very longwinded.

  71.  

    I’m sure Reverend Poulton will be very grateful to you for providing him with such a detailed explanation of the gospels. Your patience with his ignorance is commendable.

    Please educate me a little more. Who is this prostitute you refer to? Mary Magdalene is the only character I’m aware of who is said to have anointed the feet of Jesus, and nowhere in the gospels is she identified as a prostitute. Have you got access to a new, and previously-unpublished manuscript?

  72.  

    iap337,

    Why does Jesus declare explicitly in Matthew 25 that judgement will be based on one’s response to the poor? Are you suggesting he was deluded? Scripture makes 2,500 references to money and justice, it makes four to homosexuality – when will you start taking Scripture seriously instead of trotting out texts to try to justify prejudice?

    And what of the place of women? Are you suggesting they should keep their heads covered and should keep quiet?

  73.  

    Bock, You are quite right. I am not sure if there more than one or only one instance of a woman anointing the feet (and the head) of Jesus but whatever, she is never described as a prostitute. The only indication of the woman’s background is that she was “a woman of the city, who was a sinner” and judging by Simon’s reaction to her it would seem that she was some kind of well known sinner. However, the Bible never says what her sins actually were. On this matter the Sacred Text is silent and it was wrong of me to draw an assumption.

    Thank you for your correction. I stand reproved.

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)

/* ]]> */