The Remnant

[M]ost people who accept homosexuality (actually all, in my experience) do not have a high view of Scripture or the deity of Jesus.

The reason PSPruett goes on and on about homosexuality is not that he hates poofs. It is that he has-

-what was that, Pruett?God angry

"a high view of Scripture or the deity of Jesus".

I am glad that he does not claim to have “experience” of me. Really, Pruett? So you would behave morally, would you, and not be beastly to people who have done you no harm, were it not for your high view of Scripture? There are so few Christians left, Pruett, it really must be the End Times, because they are all falling away, all in danger of Hell, all (whisper it) accepting homosexuality. No-one accepts Scripture or believes in the Deity of Jesus any more.

Pruett, though, has to stand up for God (unless he thinks God stands up for Himself, by sending all those floods and storms). No belief in the Deity of Jesus, no Christian goodness, no self-sacrificing attempt to follow Jesus, is worth a damn unless you echo Pruett’s homophobia. Even The Pope is no longer a Christian, though he may be a Catholic.

OK, Pruett, you and the Bigot can enjoy your mutual appreciation society, while the church (following God) leaves you behind. Bye.

Here is an Italian bishop open to the arguments in favour of homosexuality.

71 thoughts on “The Remnant

  1. I’ve always found it amusing that the word pandereta (tamborine) in Spanish is so close to pandering… Pruett is an annoying tamborine.
    Also a fool. Probably not his fault. Just someone who was born into a limited mindset and never had the opportunity to overcome it.


  2. Did Jesus accept the deity of Jesus? It doesn’t seem so from Mark 10:18 “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.”


    • Well-

      “Before Abraham was, I am” is taken as a claim to divinity, and this question could be interpreted as “Are you calling me God?”- open to the possibility, rather than a denial. Quakers and others, and various ancient Greeks, see God as in every human being, and there is a bit in the epistles somewhere about God making us younger siblings for Jesus or something. Then again “son of man” means human being.

      Welcome, Linuxgal, and congratulations on your new blog. It is wonderfully diverse. I am glad you found me, and look forward to reading more.

      Added: Oh, you’re in Seattle! You could check out Katy the Bigot’s Grace Church (not the Presbyterian Grace Church).


  3. Hello Clare. Your blogs are as always a pleasure to read, even for a died-in-the-wool atheist like me.

    Firstly I keep an open mind to the historicity of Jesus, the man. But assuming that he did exist, I would like bigots like Pruett to show me exactly where Jesus, the man who told others not to judge and said that whoever came to him he would not turn away, said one word about homosexuality.

    In fact, even if one looks at the scriptual interpretation, Jesus was said to be bringing a New Covenant, to replace the old one. Yet it is amazing how many people like Pruett will claim the New Covenant and bang on about Old Testament laws. This is called having your cake and eating it. Another name for it is hypocrisy.

    And let’s face it, Pruett IS a hypocrite. He will bang on about homosexuality, yet I’ll bet he is not adverse to the odd bacon sanwich, shellfish, or wearing clothes of mixed fibres – all equally as condemend in Leviticus as homosexuality. It is not a matter of Pruett standing up for God, as you say, more it is that Pruett thinks he IS God, and, like so many of his ilk, abuses the Bible to hide behind and promote his own bigotry.

    It strikes me therefore that if anyone does not have a high view of scripture of the alleged deity of Jesus, it is P.S.Pruett.

    To use a scriptural reference, perhaps he would do better to remove the mote from his own eye first. 😉


    Xandra xxx


    • In the post linked and comments, Pruett says that Jesus is God, God inspired the whole Bible, so Jesus inspired the bit about stoning us to death in Leviticus and the bits in Paul about how awful we are. He does not seek to convince you, only his own side. I would distinguish the moral law in the OT from the ceremonial law, which no longer applies-

      Acts 15:19- I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled[e] and from blood.

      Acts 21:25- But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgement that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled[e] and from fornication.’

      But I eat black pudding. Complex. Complex.

      Onywye. You are very welcome here, and atheism is no bar to that at all.


      • Theologically it could indeed be argued that Jesus was God, as he was God incarnate. However, in claiming that Jesus upholds the moral law of the OT, this creep effectively denies the New Covenant and the message of forgiveness Jesus preached. So again, if anyone is denying the divinity of Jesus, it is he.

        You make a good point about ceremonial law. If Pruett is so sure about the OT, let’s see him cure leprosy by sacrificing a couple of pigeons.

        Mmmm. Black pudding. Drool.


  4. Jesus never once said he was a god. Never.
    I matters not what men interpret.
    It is also worth bearing in mind that this preposterous assertion was arrived at after the bible was written/printed at the instance of Constantine. There was already a christian church and already christian doctrine.
    One only has to read the history of Gnosticism and Arianism and study what happened to many other Christian sects at the hands of the church after godhood was bestowed upon the narrative character of Jesus of Nazareth.

    The nature of god was eventually written into law and pushed by Theodosius.

    In other words…the church made it up.


    • Here is an account of the instances in the canonical Gospels when he does.

      Do we have the original texts of the Gospels? No, but the different readings, numerous as they are, do not touch on any essential questions of Christian faith (New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 68:188). If you can produce a reference to a text of the Gospels altering these particular verses, please do.


      • I think it is crucial to enable honest dialogue to fully understand the words and not attempt to tag along with Christian interpretation.
        The bible was created after the formation of Christianity and notably a long time after the Christian church.
        The widespread interpretation of the nature of Jesus did not include him as a god at any point until it was asserted
        by those who wished for a unified doctrine. Even Eusebius rejected the idea that Jesus was God.
        Furthermore, once Constantine was out of the picture his son reasserted the Arian doctrine and came down hard on those that claimed the character, Jesus was God.
        Without being patronizing or condescending in any way, you should comprehensively research the history of your bible and religion.

        Christianity, is largely based on the teachings of Saul of Tarsus, and he did not consider Jesus to be God.

        If you can find a single line of biblical or religious text that clearly shows the character Jesus saying I am God then I will retract my statement.

        I reiterate. The church bestowed godhood on the character Jesus of Nazareth.


        • I am all for honest dialogue, mi duck, but I would like you to unpack your statements. I have not taken great interest in early Christian heresies. If you shift your ground to citing Arians, rather than the canonical Gospels, why should the heretic’s account of the words of Jesus be more accurate than the Gospels’? The Codex Sinaiticus is pretty old.

          The Bible was created after the Church: well, duh- Paul’s letters, the earliest from the 50s, were addressed to churches.

          Which Eusebius? The historian? Where?

          As for the history of my religion, I was baptized into the Scottish Episcopal Church, the rump of the Erastian church set up by James VI in order to take control of worship, who supported the Young Pretender in 1745 and were punished for-

          history does not vitiate value now.

          St Paul repeatedly refers to Jesus as “Lord”, “Kyrios”, the common LXX title of God.

          “Before Abraham was, I am”. They picked up stones to stone him, because they saw this as a blasphemous claim to be God. Read the article I linked to above, argue that the verses cited are not claims to be God, and I will pay attention.


          • Now you are expecting me, an atheist, to educate a Christian? mi duck….
            Do you truly wish to be educated or are you merely being asinine?
            And if I were to trot out all the relevant details you would reconsider you position, would you?
            Then what possible use have you of faith if you require empirical evidence?

            I have not taken great interest in early Christian heresies

            Sad to say, this statement speaks volumes about the general ignorance of Christians.

            The claims are merely Christian interpretation, as I have already outlined.
            If this were not so, there would clearly be no need to define Christian doctrine, make it law and then enforce this law through wholesale slaughter.
            And I am sure you don’t need me to list all the atrocities that were committed against fellow Christians, let alone non believers or those of other faiths.
            Look up the siege of Caracasonne.
            Or the Cathars and Albigenies. or the Waldenese , for example.

            The character Jesus never , ever said he was God, and his disciple dd not think so either.

            Whether you wish to pay attention is for you to decide.
            If you wish to be so intractable that’s your decision as well
            You believe what you wish to believe.
            It will not alter the truth.


            • I am not asking you to educate me, so much as to back up your statements. I link an article with verses where Jesus is quoted as making claims to divinity, and your response is to change from

              Jesus never once said he was a god.


              The character Jesus never, ever said he was God.

              And you call me asinine?


            • So?

              Even crazy fundie sites admit that he did not specifically state I am god.

              Once more, this is interpretation. If it was free of ambiguity then there would not have been so much dissent prior to the decrees of the church.

              Even today, there are Christians who do not believe that Jesus is God.

              Once more..he never said he was God.
              This was bestowed upon him by the Church and written into Church Law.


            • This is because you likely suffer from indoctrination, a position so often influenced by tainted ( tinted) rose coloured glass.
              The bible also details the flood, the garden of Eden, a talking snake, a talking donkey,someone called Moses and an Exodus, including the parting of the Red Sea. etc etc.
              Are we to accept these parts of the bible as factual? Well, do you?

              Furthermore, Abraham as part of the Pentateuch, is considered by scientific consensus to be a fictitious character.
              For Jesus to be referencing a made-up person is a bit odd for someone who you claim is God.

              You really ought to investigate the history of your religion – not I hasten to add, your particular church/sect.
              I could very well be the most enlightening thing you ever do.


            • The most enlightening thing I ever did was visiting the Northern Concord TV/TS club. You are arguing a bit like a young earth creationist: just as for them, every dispute between scientists is evidence against evolution, so for you every disagreement in the early Church is evidence against us. If fiction has value- eg, the story of Jonah- then fiction can be in the Bible.

              Why not reference a made-up character? Lots of people use Dickens characters as metaphors or examples, without believing in them.


            • Ah…are we about to mark our dance cards for the Cherry Pickers waltz, Clare?

              Faith is such a splendid ‘go to’ simply because it allows you to brush aside reason so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.

              If fiction has value- eg, the story of Jonah- then fiction can be in the Bible.
              I think Ken Ham may disagree with you there.

              And if Jonah is fiction, and Moses and Abraham and a host of other biblical ‘personalities’ then why on earth must I or anyone else lend credence to Christian god-claims made on behalf of a story about a 2000 year old unwashed,itinerant eschatological preacher who was not noted by a single contemporary, hmm?


            • Ken Ham is ridiculous, but accepting “Walking on Water” is perfectly acceptable?

              Young Earthers are totally out the ball park but claiming a man came back from the dead is as scientific and rational as….well, you give me an example?

              Considering the walls of Jericho fell down because of the say so of Joshua and his make believe entourage is plain nuts, but a bunch of saints rising from the earth at the time of the Crucifixion ( Thank you Matthew) to go ‘walkabout ‘ in downtown Jerusalem is so obviously factual only a blind,idiotic moron would suggest otherwise. Ask Mike Licona what happened to him when he suggested this was ‘make believe’ – and he is an evangelist!
              How high up the cherry tree would you place the above bits of fruit, Clare?
              And just where do you draw the line between fact and fiction?
              And based on what criteria, may I ask?


            • No.
              And that had surly as well as indoctrination written all over it.
              Please don’t pout, Clare. I didn’t write the rubbish in the bible, it was inspired by God remember.
              *shakes head*


            • That’s okay….we can’t all be scintillating bloggers, I guess.
              I just wish Christians would show a little humility and integrity when they are ‘called out’ as it were.
              Oh…and take the time to study the history of their religion
              and the source of their doctrinal beliefs.


            • You assert that Christ is not quoted as claiming divinity, and then faced with clear evidence to the contrary, resort to generalised abuse. Why should I bother with what you say? How would it profit me?


            • Being divine is not the same as being the god, God, the creator of the universe, as per Yahweh.

              What generalized abuse?

              Profit you? I don’t know, are you not interested in truth?


            • You wish to banter semantics or are you really unsure of the meaning? ..

              If you cannot be bothered to study the history of your religion, preferring to rely upon the human interpretation that resulted n the bible this is choice. But please, have the integrity to recognise that what you believe is based solely on faith and faith alone.


            • For goodness’ sake, now who is getting boring?
              You are entitled to believe what you like but you are not entitled to your own facts.
              It is an historical fact that the godhood was bestowed upon the the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth by the Church.

              Read the history. It is not difficult.


            • To put it in words you can understand:

              “Before Abraham was, I am” is a claim to living 2000 years (or however old the story is), and “I Am Who I Am” is the name God adopts. It is a claim to divinity.


            • Oh, I know what the biblical apologist interpreters say,mi duck, but Jesus ….that’s Jesus of Nazareth.. .did not say, “I am God” and this is why there was so much dissent ..otherwise they would all have joined hands and said Hurrah; and this is also why the Church had to invent the Trinity and declare that Jesus was God to put a stop to( or at least try to) the Gnostics and Arians and all the other varieties of Christians who couldn’t agree on Jack S***.
              Which is why Constantine convened the Council of Nicea and this is why Theodosius, after finally seeing off the Arian Mob, had it written into law and declared open season on Heretics.
              With me so far?

              I hope these are words you can understand?
              As I said before… Jesus never said he was God.

              You really should study the history of your religion.
              It is so disappointing that so many Christians have no clue about it.


            • Why is this not getting through to you? The Gospel quotes him as saying “before Abraham was, I am”. Nothing at all to do with Theodosius. On the wider question of whether the Gospels call him God, there is also, say, John chapter 1.


            • Why is this not getting through to you?
              Abraham was a fictitious character and irrespective, Before Abraham was I am is not, I am God.
              It was because of the ambiguity that Constantine convened the Council of Nicea, and later what prompted Theodosius to write it into law and go hell for leather on the Gnostics Arians, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all.
              Are you getting it yet?

              John 1 …I mean really? How much of this barrel are you going to scrape, Clare?
              Would you like me to quote the verse in John that is used to show that Jesus was not considered God?

              [Clare: rest deleted. I cannot be bothered arguing with you, with your silly little hints. If you wanted truth, rather than point-scoring, you would quote that verse. Your posturing bores me. Go away, and bug someone else.]


            • This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John (14:28)”[3] passage: “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

              Happy now?
              Good…now do yourself a favour and go and study some history.

              And if you want to know how the church made Jesus God…read the rest of the post.


              [Continued below, for people with a very high boredom threshhold only.]


  5. This guy is so pompously afraid of … well, something. I mean, Caligula made his horse a god, and that was kind of cool but there wasn’t any dogma or hoo-haw attached. You could just say, “Hi, horse god, how’s it going.” I agree with Clare that the reason people have abandoned the church, is largely because of scriptural judgment … well, that’s more me.

    What used to freak me out was that the bible was just sort of thrown together like a bad frittata … Council of Nicea? I don’t recall. But Constantine wanted a book … so that had to get the Emperor a book. The stories I’ve read about the swaps, deals, back-room exchanges of coinage, made me realize that chiefly the bible is a mish-mash of … stuff. Some of what they left out, is much better than what they put in.

    Is there a sensible religion? Quakers, perhaps. Definitely not any of the rest. If there were a God wouldn’t we be overrun with people, since there would never have been a war, devastating cyclone, airplane crash .. etc.?


  6. And when I post the verse you delete the comment?
    Oh, well….that’s indoctrination for you.
    The blinkered mentality of the person who sticks their fingers in their ears and sings la
    Very grown up, I must say!


    • I was hoping for another anguished rant before I released these from the trash, but I see you have moved to a different post.

      Well, let’s see. The historical progress of its composition. The Gospels have sentences interpretable as Jesus is God, and Jesus is Man. Different theories emerged- wholly God, wholly man, mostly God but a little bit man etc, until the Councils, which ended up with “Jesus is wholly God and wholly Man”. These councils were either murderous bigoted politicians, or the Saints inspired by the Truth of the Holy Spirit, or something in between. Hmm. I wonder which your post will say they are?


      • Being so sarcastic does nothing for your cause you know?
        The verse in John quite clearly shows that Jesus did not regard himself as God., so why should ‘your’ interpretation trump mine? Or more the point, the Arians?

        I have explained at length how Jesus became God, yet you insist on parading the doctrinal nonsense of your faith.

        The bottom line is this: the side with the biggest stick won the day, wrote into Law that Jesus was God and then set about liquidating all opposition. In the main, they did a pretty good job too. ‘Love’ can kill you, hadn’t you heard?

        This is historical fact. If you prefer to ignore this so be it.

        If you have a problem with it, don’t blame me, take it up with the Catholic Church.


        • But why should you support the Arian stance, if you believe God does not exist? And why do you deny all the evidence that the Gospels call Jesus God? That they also call him Man is not a contradiction: see orthodox dogma.

          You accuse me of sarcasm. Do you read your own comments?


          • I do not support the Arian stance, as I do not believe that Jesus was divine, and he certainly was not god.

            I am trying to point out that there were several beliefs regarding the nature of Jesus and until the church Constantine – intervened none of these different points of view included Jesus being God. It would have been considered anathema.
            Read the post about the iota.
            It contains very good historical background.

            Remember Jesus was Jewish, sent for the Jews, not the gentiles
            Again…read the history. (This, of course, is in the bible, btw.)

            There is no evidence that the gospels call Jesus, God. None.
            What are you struggling to comprehend here?


            • I have no idea? Because you post on a public forum and want interaction? Or are you merely looking for an echo chamber?

              [Clare: Rest deleted. I can only be bothered responding to this bit. On many posts here you will find courteous disagreement. You are a bore. Go away, and irritate someone else.]


  7. You are entitled to this opinion, most certainly, though I fear to stop to deleting comments simply because you have no rational argument and then leave silly qualifiers for deleting the comment.
    At least have the integrity to simply say, I accept what I believe on faith.
    This is at least honest and unless you invite interaction requires no justification.


    • In two days you have bombarded me with 26 comments. In this one you accuse me of having no integrity, but you got angry and insulting early. This is a hobby. I do it for fun.

      I do not have to explain to you the value of what I say if you cannot get it. I delete your comments because you insult me and bore me. Go away.

      Since you are going to reply to this comment- why do you want to “interact” like this?


          • I get upset about your argument.
            You can believe what you like providing you don’t proselytize it as truth to unable to defend it.

            Smile…religion is an interesting topic which I find fascinating.
            That supposed intelligent people still cling to such doctrine is quite frankly , quaint but rather odd.
            That it is pushed onto children is disturbing.
            That you continue to vehemently dispute historical fact is also strange.


            • You get upset about my argument. That is not my concern. Go for a walk, or something.

              I have not disputed any historical fact: I have hardly even disputed your biased interpretation.

              Why do you want to interact like this? Was “I get upset” your answer? Are you a masochist?


            • I have not disputed any historical fact:

              Sorry, you have asserted that the gospel and Jesus claim he is God.I have explained this is fallacious and was a doctrine created by the church.
              This is historical fact.
              Maybe you would like to reconsider your previous statement?


            • No, don’t be silly.
              Interact like what?
              Dispute your false claims?
              Should misinformation not be challenged in an open forum?
              You challenge false perceptions and erroneous statements pertaining to your sexuality, I am merely doing the same concerning your false statements/beliefs about your religion.

              There is no veracity pertaining to god claims in the link. Once again, only interpretations. How many times do you have to be told this? Are you unable to process this information?
              Is this developing into cognitive dissonance for you?

              Why do you want to interact like this?
              Are you afraid of historical fact?


            • What is the problem, for you, with “Before Abraham was, I am”? How blind are you, exactly?

              Before Abraham was. A long time ago, whether Abraham existed or not.

              I am. A name for God.

              “They picked up stone to stone him”- because they recognised the claim, and thought it blasphemous.

              You falsely denied this. You keep saying this is not a claim to be God. The trouble is, if you were wrong the first time you keep being wrong.

              There are other such verses, but you have said nothing useful about this one: first blank denial, and now wild allegations- “cognitive dissonance”, forsooth.

              You waste my time.


            • I am is not a term for god.
              Jesus never said he was god.Never,ever, not no never.The trouble is, Clare, you are unable to comprehend the sentence.
              Jesus never said he was god.
              Neither are you prepared to acknowledge that Jesus never said I am god.
              And, finally, you are seem unable to comprehend that nowhere in the gospels is it stated that Jesus was god.
              Divine…maybe. God. Not a chance in Hades.

              Sadly you waste your own time.
              You need to study history and learn to read the bible without preconceived indoctrinated ideas and running to apologist websites for your explanations.

              I hope this has last..made this clearer for you?
              One final time.
              Study the history. Okay?

              Let me help you…



            • “Never, ever, no not ever”!!!!!

              Exodus 3:13-15:

              But Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the Israelites and say to them, “The God of your ancestors has sent me to you”, and they ask me, “What is his name?” what shall I say to them?’ 14 God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’[a] He said further, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, “I am has sent me to you.”’ 15 God also said to Moses, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, “The Lord,[b] the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you”:

              This is my name for ever,
              and this my title for all generations.

              NRSV footnotes: (a) Exodus 3:14 Or I am what I am or I will be what I will be
              (b) Exodus 3:15 The word ‘Lord’ when spelled with capital letters stands for the divine name, YHWH, which is here connected with the verb hayah, ‘to be’

              You may say this is made up, but you would not believe this bit anyway. Even if there had been an exodus, you would think this bit made up. The point is that Jesus’ audience believed it (they picked up stones to stone him) and the Gospel writers believed it.

              Oooh, the apologists. Shocking. So you cite “Answering Christianity”- a body, surely, without an agenda?


            • Of course it is not worth your time.Truth never is for the religious….

              I have no idea what you are trying to say with your last rather silly sentence.
              If you have a point to make ….make it.


            • “If you have a point to make, make it,” he says.

              You know, I realised that you have not accused me of anything, just made allusions and rhetorical questions. You could not make a point directly if you tried.

              A: it is crucial to enable honest dialogue

              C: Who is not honest?

              A: Do you truly wish to be educated or are you merely being asinine?
              That’s okay….we can’t all be scintillating bloggers, I guess.
              I don’t know, are you not interested in truth?
              But please, have the integrity to recognise that…
              For goodness’ sake, now who is getting boring?
              I hope these are words you can understand?
              You really should study the history of your religion.

              C: As if study necessarily leads to his position.

              A: Why is this not getting through to you?
              How much of this barrel are you going to scrape, Clare?
              do yourself a favour and go and study some history.
              The blinkered mentality of the person who sticks their fingers in their ears and sings la
              Being so sarcastic does nothing for your cause you know?
              What are you struggling to comprehend here?
              are you merely looking for an echo chamber?

              C: And, at last, the truth:

              A: I get upset about your argument.

              Oh, poor you.


            • So, you’re position is indefensible, and now you resort to whining?
              Well, this is of course in character.with the general behaviour of the indoctrinated.

              You have been shown evidence that your position is false and yet you still deny it.
              Good for you!

              It does not alter the truth.
              Have the integrity to recognise that you have no evidence and what you believe is based on faith not fact.
              It really is this simple, Clare, and you can dance around it ’til the cows come home.


            • You are completely blind. I quote your tedious whining, and you accuse me of whining? Then you accuse me of having no integrity.

              Why should anyone put up with your whingeing? When you first commented here, I had to release your comment from the spam folder, and the judgment that your comments belong there seems more and more clear.

              Added: He keeps blundering on, despite going into the Spam filter. Sad, really. I deleted the first one, but he continued:

              If you say so….*smile* Why not simply delete all the comments, ban me from your blog and chooses to remain as blinkered and blissfully ignorant as you are right now?
              At least i have provided you with the factual information which you were completely unaware of 24 hours ago. What you choose to do with it is up to you. (2.11pm)

              So you are not going to bother with fact then, it seems? Oh, well. C’est la vie, n’est ce pas? (3.46pm)


All comments welcome.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.