“Jesus Had Two Dads And He Turned Out Just Fine.”

The Methodist pastor who put this on his message board claims he had no idea it would go all over the internet and he would receive so many messages.  His intention, he says, was merely to point to the many different family arrangements he encounters in his work and to let people know they can all be successful.

He said he has received praise from those who thought he was endorsing gay marriage and bitter criticism from those who oppose it.  The sign over all had a good outcome, he has concluded, because it got people talking about the issue and his church.

As a statement of fact, the Jesus story included two “Dads”.  The stories of Jesus do not reveal any problem with his gender identity due to the two dads either.

Defenders of the faith might object to the entire premise of the “Holy Spirit” or “God” being considered a “Dad” in any common definition of the term, Dad.  I would concede that point.

But, much Bible punditry takes things from one context and applies them to something else just like the “two dads” idea.  For example, the passages that refer to two men lying together was sometimes about straight men impersonating gay sex acts.  It seems like this part of the Bible, too, is often used in a misleading way.

All that being said, pointing out that Jesus had two “Dads” or two fathers is a good way to explain the story of the virgin birth.  Anyway one tells it, it’s hard to believe.


40 Responses

  1. Wanna B Sure

    I really have no opinion on this pastor”s sign after reading his explanation. It does catch your eye. However, if true, He really needs to get out of his office, and into the real world to temper his naivete. to reduce misunderstanding. However, being aware of what is trending in the UMC, Who knows. He could be coy after the controversy appeared. I don’t care one way or another.

  2. entech

    What a lovely story, God the father and Joseph Husband of Mary the Mother. What could be more simple than that. At least that is what I was taught at a Church of England school, and what I believed as a youth and child.
    Reminds me of a story I heard, same source, about a missionary in Africa. This would have been during the 1914-18 war and the German army was attacking the mission. He told his followers to run to the river, cross over and go back to their villages until it was safe. He was captured almost immediately, you see, he took of his clothes and ran with them completely forgetting that he was white and they black.

    That some gay people interpreted the sign as a sign of support is understandable, there is so little of it from any church that any possibility is embraced. That the same interpretation was so immediate from Christians is a sign that the Fred Phelps types are winning, a cause for concern.

    1. Wanna B Sure

      Entech; You may not be aware of the big noise over her a while ago about a children’s book : “?????? (can’t remember the name), has two daddies.” I understand it was promoted in some schools somewhere, not around my area. If I remember right, it was promoted by the gay community. But it hit the news media, and was on talk shows.. Probably the reason for the awareness of the “two daddies” concept, and the sudden pick up. By the title, one would think it was targeted for kindergarten kids. Who knows.

    2. Wolfy32

      Not to mention kids can have multiple “dads” in broken / split families. e.g. Divorced, then remarried etc.. Children of hetero parents could have multiple dads of some type. Just stating that it’s odd to me to immediately jump to gay dads.

      1. entech

        But Wolfy, Divorce, remarriage and so on are all sins, just that they are so widespread and so common amongst the leadership that they are not allowed to be counted. Only one form of multiple dad is permitted one supernatural and one celibate, that is only one of many strange and wondrous ways that wonders are created. It truly is a miracle that anyone takes this stuff seriously any more. (thank you le bon David)

      2. entech

        The second part, the automatic jumping to the gay delusion just demonstrates how obsessed so many are with sin. Good job they have their commandments and their supernatural law giver, who knows what they would be up to if they didn’t believe in punishment from the one who knows what they are up to. Remember even thinking about it is a sin 😆
        Mathew 5:28

          1. entech

            I wonder if there is a particularly infernal part of the inferno for people whose lustful thoughts, even slightly vague and speculative, had some slight same sex overtones (not too homoerotic of course, perhaps bi more than homo) 🙄

          2. Wanna B Sure

            Interesting that those of unbelief dwell on sin, and forget–omit –reject forgiveness. (Justification by Grace through Faith), then move on. You can’t get past sin, so you reject the 2nd part of the equation.

          3. Wanna 3:23 Interesting those of belief dwell on the forgiveness and not the sin. I have yet to meet one single person with lust in his heart who got into heaven by pulling the forgiveness gambit. Safer to never lust it would seem.

          4. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; You aren’t there. You don’t know. Forgiveness isn’t self initiated.

            Keep wallowing in your non-sin if it makes you feel better about yourself.

          5. Wanna 4:26 “Jon; You aren’t there. You don’t know. Forgivenrss isn’t self intiated.”

            Sounds to me like more tricky thinking to get yourself off the hook. It says right there in Matthew lust is sin.

            Now, I can imagine that if I were writing the Bible and wanting to control people, I would think to myself, “Gosh, everybody lusts. I’ll make it a sin. Then, I’ll tell people the only way to get the sin wiped clean is to require a visit with me. It’ll be great.”

          6. Wanna B Sure

            Not on the hook, but I see you weaseling and spinning on Matt. Did say lust wasn’t a sin? No I didn’t even bring up lust today. You are again preoccupied with sin, and now lust in particular. Hmmmm. More wallowing, and obsessing.

          7. Wanna B Sure

            Jon; You may want to council Entech. He is the one who brought up Matt, and lust. Looks like even age won’t reduce your preoccupation with it. There are 12 step programs for that.

          8. wolfy32

            I’m totally confused by the concept of forgiveness… (Mainly because every denomination treats forgiveness differently).

            My parents said that catholics are evil, because once they go through their confirmation that they are eternally saved.. Hence why they can drink, and do whatever they want, because, they’ve been saved and no longer need to worry about sin ever again.

            Now, coming from quite the opposite of the gambit, I can see how catholics would seem evil… After all, my parents took the verse That, to “Love the things of the world, is to be of the world. To be in the world, but not of the world, is to be of God.”

            I think it means that to lust over material or “secular” things, is to make one’s life about the world. Instead of not caring about those things and going after what is of God or more meaningful than pointless things.

            Well, in my parents case, the extreme was nothing is good because it’s all of mankind. Having a sexual thought, even while single is a sin that requires repentence and forgiveness. I don’t know how many times I was “saved” because within 5 minutes of walking out of the church I felt evil. Dirty, that being human was wrong…

            I needed forgiveness all the time, because Watching TV was doing something of the world. dating was evil because it led to lustful thoughts. I didn’t feel like I could do anything without needing forgiveness.

            Nothing I ever could do or be capable enough would be good enough for anyone, so, every 2-5 minutes everyone was supposed to be asking forgiveness. Many preachers talked of how the rapture could happen any moment and that only those that had been saved would be taken. So, one had to be in perpetual prayer praying for salvation and asking for forgiveness in case in the next 2 minutes the Rapture would happen.

            The other problem I had with the concept of forgiveness in terms of sin, is, If it’s not one time and one is saved for ever, but, it’s not every 5 minutes, then how often does one need to be “saved ” / forgiven? Is it daily? Every 10 minutes? Every other week if one goes to church?

            It’s so confusing!!

          9. Wanna B Sure

            Wolfy: I do not to speak for the Catholic faith with authority, but what your parents said, is really “once saved, always saved”. Not at all in the Catholic Church. That is in some of the post reformed churches. The Catholics and many others believe that one can loose the faith with the resulting loss of salvation. But upon returning to the faith, salvation is once again received. Which gets us to the last part of your post. We all sin every day, knowingly or unknowingly, (willingly or not, through human weakness). In spite of that, through faith, forgiveness is received. If I understand you right, your last words are more related to works, not faith. Works do not produce faith or salvation, but works and salvation are the result of faith. (In a nut shell). Some churches tend to emphasize works over faith. It would serve you well to do a study of comparative theology. I’m afraid you may have picked up some disinformation along the way. There is a lot of that going around. Sometimes it isn’t always the source of information, or the information itself, but careless understand of what is actually said.

          10. Wanna B Sure

            PS When I say “return to the faith”, I don’t mean to say return to a specific church, in this case the Catholic Church, but returning to the faith contained in all the Christian churches. I may get an argument on that with some Catholics who consider the Catholic Church to be the only true church, but that has changed a lot in recent years.

        1. wolfy32

          Your comment: “In spite of that, through faith, forgiveness is received.”

          Many churches do not believe this. The holy spirit has to convict you of your “crimes” and then you must repent, and then (well, depending on your flavor, be slain by the holy spirit, or fall weeping for all you’ve done wrong for the next hour, or pray in toungues for the next hour.)

          Catholics used to do confession to absolve people of their sin, and most likely some type of ritual as well.

          My point was moreso, who’s right? Are both right, you just choose which way you want to be forgiven. NO one has ever said, just believe again and you’re forgiven. Usually requires some type of ritual weather it’s raising your hand in a crowd admitting to everyone you’re a sinner, or a priest praying some rite or ritual over oneself. And if one doesn’t know what actions, thoughts, beliefs, are for sure sins and which ones are not? Then, does one just pray every five minutes asking for forgiveness for what one may or may not have done or thought as a sin in the last five minutes.. Or should the interval be 30 seconds since we sin all the time… And what if we die in the 30 seconds that we didn’t ask for forgiveness for those 15 seconds?

  3. entech

    In the Hebrew scriptures, sin is viewed as a hatred of God or defiance of his commandments. The New Testament regards sinfulness as the inherent state of humanity, which Jesus came into the world to heal. Christian theologians divide sin into actual and original sin. Actual sin, consisting of evil acts, words, and deeds, is in turn divided into mortal sin, in which the perpetrator deliberately turns away from God, and venial sin, a less serious transgression committed without full awareness of wrongdoing. In Islam, sin is a straying from God’s path; the prophets were sent to guide people back to the true path.

    It is strange that montheisms have a creator god that lays down laws and to break those laws is sin. In a pretty generic definition. Non believers are often accused of being capable of anything because they don’t believe in the creator and hence his laws and be extension sin. We are also accused of being obsessed with sin, with that which does not exist. One particularly strange idea is that we wallow in it, can you imagine a hippopotamus wallowing in non-mud? Probably as all the rest is probably imagination anyway.

    Wolfy, I know you are a believer in God, but I have to agree with you on the confusing nature of forgiveness, I would imagine that you are inclined to the Jewish (the original) view that the only way past sin is repentance and atonement, if you do the sin you have to atone.

    To be forgiven requires the presupposition of an entity that defines the sin and also decides under what circumstances that sin is forgiven. Without such an entity there is no “sin” according to the above definition (the definition is a separate discussion), the reason for the apparent obsession with sin by non believers is due to the actual obsession by believers. The religious obsession with sin has a fairly obvious reason, religion promises an afterlife and the quality of that afterlife depends on your condition when you enter it. The so called obsession by atheists (there I said it) is also obvious, it is a source of humour, to watch the religious jumping through hoops and going frantic is so funny, it may be an evil an malicious humour (perhaps a sin in itself) but always good for a laugh.
    As it says on the buses, relax and have a nice time, it is probably all wrong anyway. Of course, don’t forget the harm principle and just do good for its own sake

    1. entech 2:05 “To be forgiven requires the presupposition of an entity that defines the sin and also decides under what circumstances that sin in forgiven. Without such an entity there is no ‘sin’ according to the definition.”

      Wonderful explanation. The criticism of our atheist/agnostic posters here is often that we don’t understand the faith. Actually, we understand it better than the faithful because we understand it as you explained it. Ground zero is the entity which decides, not the rules he makes up (or, others make up and assign to him).

    2. Wanna B Sure

      If you don’t “wallow” or dwell on sin, (a constantly reappearing topic here), talk about the price of wild rice, or how much better the atmosphere in cities is with the elimination of tetraethyl lead in gasoline. Don’t wallow? silly boy. Go back and check topics. Hippos find their own wallow, and yours is sin. You may not swallow it, but you wallow.
      Wolfy: Re. Entech’s paragraph, is vicarious (substitutionary) atonement, of which the atonement in the OT was a prefiguration. Related is “clansman redemption, (bought back). The OT atonement was provided until the sacrifice on the cross, redeemed. The OT= the story–The NT=”the rest of the story”. It is difficult to understand the OT without the NT, and the NT can’t be fully appreciated without the OT. Those who dwell on the OT miss the point of the NT, which is the Gospel, “The rest of the story.
      “Sin” ( the word) is in the Bible 448 times. 75% of which is in the OT, (which should give you a clue), and 25% in the NT, which also should give you a clue as to where the emphasis is.

      1. Wanna 1:42 “The OT atonement was provided until the sacrifice on the cross, redeemed.”

        In the quiet of the night, when you are in a reflective mood, doesn’t it ever occur to you that’s really a stretch.

    3. entech

      Interesting take on something that does not exists, there would be little on this site to talk about without sin and guns. The two things that fascinate you lot.

      Your note to Wolfy could not be more wrong if it tried.
      “And be it indeed that I have erred, mine error remaineth with myself .”—Job 19:4.
      “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Ezk. 18:20.
      Nothing vicarious here, not even the hint of prefiguration. Even Galatians 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

      As for this business of referring the two testaments or covenants, it is all desperation , trying to make sense out of nonsense, you select bits from each and try and match them. It doesn’t work. Look back and say, hey that could be interpreted as a prophecy (if I distort it enough, a young girl could be a virgin).
      When Einstein started working out his ideas there were some things that would naturally follow, the theory made predictions which were eventually proved correct – this is prophecy – not looking back for justification.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            That’s what kind of what is sounds like, but the content is so vulgar and disconnected. Maybe more like a squeal.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        So Entech: Still looking for evidence of my fascination with guns? I did go hunting years ago, but that’s about it. I think I mentioned that a couple years ago. some fascination huh? It’s vulgar for you to think so, and make the accusation, for that would be lying. That would be so common. Let’s see, what does that mean? Let me think: Oh yes, that would be vulgar.

        1. Wanna B Sure

          Now to use your approach, re. “sin and guns”: If you are wrong with the gun “fascination”, how can you be sure about the sin thingie accusation? See my earlier posts on the reduced sin significance due to the Gospel which overwhelms sin.

        2. Wanna B Sure

          Entech: I do have to admit a fascination with music. I have and play many instruments, but my favorite is the accordion. I have several. Each one has a different feel, touch, tone, and tuning. I have a couple favorites, but I don’t covet others, or lust after them. When you start whining, I feel like playing the violin, but then I usually end up in a minor mode.

  4. entech

    Interesting take on something that does not exists, there would be little on this site to talk about without sin and guns. The two things that fascinate you lot.

    What total and complete arrogance, do you think that the entire universe is all about you. I know you think everyone else is wrong except you. Talking about the site in general.

    My second paragraph was about your incomprehensible nonsense directed to Wolfy, Wolfy has his own thoughts which are much closer to reality than yours, perhaps even mine. Entech’s paragraph, is vicarious (substitutionary) atonement, of which the atonement in the OT was a prefiguration Not at all, I was talking about being responsible for your own sins, there is no vicarious redemption in Judaism, there is no NT, it is all an invention, a pathetic attempt at justifying a failed saviour. Some saving, destruction of the temple and the expulsion from Palestine.

    1. Wanna B Sure

      On this site or off, fascinating is what it is. “Two things that fascinate you lot”. Not this lot. Clearly, you were referring to me as the subject of something that doesn’t exist was the main thrust of your paragraph. This is an interesting ploy. I never thought of that before. Make an ambiguously broad statement toward/about an intended individual, then deny the intention. Boy–you may be good, but not that good.

      Now you say there is no clansman/kinsmen redeemer. (to buy back one of their own) in the OT. There is a Hebrew word: “Go’el”, Two meanings. Meaning one, is essentially “getting even through revenge. (probably your main objective here and now,) The other is the one I am referring to. It’s in Exodus, Psalms, and Isaiah. The redeemed ones of YHWH, property or person. Not vicarious, (substitutionary) ? Get a pail of sand. Insert head.

      Your entire post was in context with what I said earlier. Preparing to unsheathe my violin now.

  5. entech

    My 12:01 am
    First paragraph – on this site; nothing ambiguous there,
    Second paragraph – your note to Wolfy nothing ambiguous there either.

    Never mind we have been here before, you have previously said things about what either Jon or I have said was not what we meant, but instead that we meant was what YOU said. Not only that we were using the wrong words for what we said and meant and that you knew the words we should have used. ?
    Notice a pattern, the only thing that has any objective meaning is what you say, I am not trained in that field so I don’t know the right words so all I can say is you are showing symptoms of being a delusional wack job. Hope you don’t think that is not too personal.

    1. Wanna B Sure

      Not personal at all. Nice spin on the “…don’t think…not too” though. Just more evidence of your being “bound”. You just can’t help yourself. How long ago was it since your heart procedures?

Comments are closed.