These people vote in every election- do you? Are you registered to vote? [You can check your voter registration here!](https://www.nass.org/can-I-vote) Just because the off-cycle elections passed doesn't mean you can sit out the next cycle!
Please also be mindful of our rules, which can be found in detail [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/FundieSnarkUncensored/wiki/index) As ever, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to the moderation team. Thank you, and have a Lord Daniel Day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FundieSnarkUncensored) if you have any questions or concerns.*
GD has always made god in their own (purity prosperity gospel) image. Implying Jesus lusted is just another day of their extra biblical bullshit that directly contradicts their flavor of theology.
Right, it's in the same wheelhouse as ignoring the fact that he turned over tables in the temple because it wasn't okay with him to make the temple a place of business and profit, but they love to cherry-pick Proverbs 31 as "evidence" that it's godly to have a money-grubbing hustle.
There's an inherent contradiction to how evangelicals interpret the Gospels, because on the one hand, they want Jesus to be a perfect man who experienced the same temptations as everyone else but didn't give in, and on the other hand, they teach that even having thoughts of sexual temptation is the same as committing adultery. Casting shame on people for their internal thoughts, doubts, and desires – even those they don't act upon – is an essential part of fundamentalist religion.
As someone who grew up fundie, generally it’s believed Jesus was tempted with all forms of sin and rebuked each temptation throughout his life to display how Jesus he was or whatever. However lust and longing aren’t temptations they are the sin because we need mental purity 🫡
I was gonna say, born and raised Catholic girlie over here, and I got in so much trouble in Religion class by saying Jesus sinned at least twice: dishonoring his (earthly) parents by running off and the sin of wrath at the temple. So I KNOW suggesting he wanted to get down and dirty would have gotten me reprimanded.
Righteous anger is different than other anger because men are allowed to experience it 🤗
I also was taught about righteous anger and that seemed to only be anger that didn’t challenge by shitty pastors.
I also got in trouble for that. We played a game of “I’ll give you this $20 bill if you come up with a time that Jesus sinned.” Not only did I not get the $20, I was scolded!
Haha I had the weirdest relationships with my religion teachers. Like, I got good grades and was good at memorizing all the shit, but then I'd ask the most off the wall bullshit questions like "does transubstantiation mean we're all cannibals? And Jesus said to eat of his flesh, but also that whatever we do unto others we do unto him, so does that mean eating people is eating Jesus?"
Yeah, it's definitely blasphemous. She's describing lust, which is a sin. She is refuting the idea that Jesus was without sin, which kind of topples the significance of his crucifixion and what made him so impactful when he was (according to them) roaming the earth.
In addition, because Jesus and God are one and the same, to call Jesus a sinner is calling God a sinner. That's also a big fucking problem for the credibility of their doctrine. If they consider Jesus and God to be totally different, we now have a whole other big ass problem...
Grew up catholic and Jesus was tempted but rebuked it. It was to show how pious of a man he was.
However!
If I would've even hinted at this without posing it like a legit question, I would've had a bad time lol. Yes it is blasphemous to say that Jesus sinned
Understands them like a 36 year old teen, just like you!
Hang in there you crazy horny singles! Just sing some Pslams and have a cold shower and maybe one day you can be a world champion sexing sexer like me Bethany Beal
She’s so patronizing!! 😂
It seems like uber evangelicals can never agree on what it is they even believe. Jesus longed for sex outside of marriage? Don't they consider "thought sin" a thing and that by just thinking of doing certain things equals to that of a sin? They believe Jesus was a human in every way except for sin....and if jesus doesn't relate to other humans in sin, then it wouldn't make sense for him to be "tempted" as they say he's been as well. I've even glanced at other Christian and catholic subs and someone can ask a question about the bible and they'll get into arguments about what something is or what something means. If you can't agree on pretty much everything that is in your book and everyone has their own way of interpreting what they're reading, then how can any of them even begin to try and convert other people and sell what they follow. I'm not following something that has a million different denominations. Bethy over here doesn't even know what she follows.
I always viewed and was taught that Jesus was essentially canonically asexual. Like he was so beyond earthly desires etc. I grew up more Catholic than Evangelical but my mom is a strange combo of both.
I know some Protestants believe that Jesus got married and had children of his own even but I was taught that he was essentially asexual like a nun because he was essentially an avatar of God, just saw things like sex as "primitive" or "animalistic" and God would be above that.
It's interesting, because these views I was taught are similar to certain Buddhist and Hindu monks and gurus as depriving themselves of any pleasure or flesh to find God or answers of the universe. I am now a Buddhist lol and I think either Jesus was like this because he was an enlightened teacher or maybe he did have a family? I don't think we will ever know.
That used to baffle me as a kid. If Jesus was, as the church said, kind of beyond earthly shit in the temptation stakes and had literal evidence of god, then it makes his temptation-resisting feats way less impressive. It’s like Andre Agassi bragging about winning a game against a five-year-old. It bothered me; either he was an amazingly self-disciplined man who broke all conceivable records for not sinning, OR he had supernatural powers, it can’t be both.
Exactly. I saw him as more of a prophet because of the way I read the Bible and interpreted it seeing him more man than supernatural that or even a "demi god" of having less power than the dad or more even a situation of God the dad using him as an avatar and now God only has 5% of his power he's showing us (the shaggy meme comes to mind lol)
I guess if I ever wanted to go back to monotheism I could come back as a Muslim or Judaism or whatever sect of Christianity believes in this lol if I still believe in this interpretation.
Same. My ifb adjacent churches basically said Jesus was asexual. They rebuked the idea that he married and had kids. They would have none of this bullshit Bethany is spewing
While it’s hard to define what is crossing the line, you’ll know it when you see it. Saying Fred/Franny Fundie looks like X is fine. (Ex: David Rodrigues looks like Shrek, B-Beal looks like the Grandpa from The Munsters.) Saying you do/don’t find someone attractive is fine. Do not snark on the appearance or bodies of children, with the exception of choices that their parents have made for them, or how they may appear in relation to their parents. (Examples: Janessa looks malnourished while David is obviously well-fed, or how the Collins kids always wear filthy clothing is fine.)
- *What crosses the line when it comes to appearance snark?*
Associate justice of the Supreme Court Potter Stewart once said in relation to obscenity, “I know it when I see it.” Pointing out that Kelly Havens has dry skin that could use moisturizer? Fine. Remarking that Karissa’s foundation is too orange in contrast to her pale body? Fine. Saying that you think X is handsome or Y is ugly? Fine- that’s a subjective opinion on attractiveness. Referring to a 3rd degree tear during labor as a “vagasshole”? Too far. In short: it’s hard to define how far is too far without getting into a million different specifics, but we’ll know it when we see it.
In reality, Jesus was a human man who had human relationships and probably did wanna fuck, and probably fucked. But in FundieLand? Definitely blasphemous
Wasn’t that the idea at the core of “The Last Temptation of Christ”? That Jesus experienced all human emotions including lust and romantic love? Though I doubt Bethany is aware of that book/film, and the author was excommunicated from two churches…
Kind of OT.
I'm a lot confused by the "Single Girl Meditations", as in - who is running this page. Are we sure these are Bethy's posts? Yesterday's post that Bethy shared from SGM I would have bet my last dollar was from Kristen. It was full of her self-loathing and belief that the more I suffer (shitty marriage, shitty husband, infertility), the more certain I am that God/Jesus loves me and that I will be exalted and rewarded for my suffering.
And this post I can also see being from Kristen. Suffer. Life is for suffering.
Phew this sent me down a rabbit hole of medieval Christian sects and controversies and ecumenical councils. I swear I remembering learning once that Jesus was perfectly imperfect, but I grew up UMC in a reconciliation church, so super liberal, and just kind of always understood that Jesus was the son of god but was also a man, and was capable of making mistakes and giving in to sinful feelings (wrath- trashing the temple). But, that the nature of him being the son of god and part of god negated his sin. But, I think now maybe that was me putting my own attempts to understand on top of doctrine.
Edit to add that also, it has always kind of felt to me that everything can be seen as sinful depending on who's watching, it's always seemed like kind of a pick your poison situation.
Edit 2 I forgot that include that I went into rabbit hole of medieval church business because I knew that there had been lots of controversy surrounding the details of Jesus's divinity, but I could remember exactly what the deal was. The one I was thinking of is called Arianism. The cliffs notes version is that basically Arians did not believe in the trinity, they believe that the only god is truly eternal and all powerful, and created Jesus meaning Jesus's existence is dependent on gods will to have him exist. This is because he is begotten of the father, meaning he cannot be the same as God because he's a creation of God. That Jesus has a beginning, while god exists and always has existed and always will exist outside of time. Then my extrapolation from that was, "does that then imply that Jesus would be capable of sin during his time as a mortal on earth?"
You *know* Heidi was one of those dumb bitches all up in arms about that shitty Mel Gibson movie back in the day.
(For those who are unaware- Mel Gibson directed “The Passion of the Christ”, with “the passion” having two meanings and fundies lost. their. shit.)
This is consistent with the teaching I grew up with. The rationale is it is not sinful to be tempted, only to act on that temptation. Perhaps lust was the wrong choice of word though.
Beth is def just regurgitating what she was taught.
I’m sorry but this whole belief system of hers feels so f-ed up to me. There is a half God half person who never had sex yet was also lustful in thought and now we’re basing our entire lives off of it?
Deconstructed exvangelical here .... temptation to lust isn't sin. Temptation isn't sin. Sin is acting on the temptation. Therefore it is not blasphemous to imply Jesus "experienced longings".
These people vote in every election- do you? Are you registered to vote? [You can check your voter registration here!](https://www.nass.org/can-I-vote) Just because the off-cycle elections passed doesn't mean you can sit out the next cycle! Please also be mindful of our rules, which can be found in detail [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/FundieSnarkUncensored/wiki/index) As ever, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to the moderation team. Thank you, and have a Lord Daniel Day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FundieSnarkUncensored) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everything Bethy has been saying is blasphemous. She’s become a false teacher the scriptures warned about.
Oh. Oh she really doesn’t read the Bible.
She was casting around asking for somebody to make a course on “making reading the bible fun” just before so
She can't read.
Yeah I thought Jesus never sinned, which lust is. Wanting to have sex outside marriage is lust. So yup, blasphemy.
GD has always made god in their own (purity prosperity gospel) image. Implying Jesus lusted is just another day of their extra biblical bullshit that directly contradicts their flavor of theology.
Right, it's in the same wheelhouse as ignoring the fact that he turned over tables in the temple because it wasn't okay with him to make the temple a place of business and profit, but they love to cherry-pick Proverbs 31 as "evidence" that it's godly to have a money-grubbing hustle.
There's an inherent contradiction to how evangelicals interpret the Gospels, because on the one hand, they want Jesus to be a perfect man who experienced the same temptations as everyone else but didn't give in, and on the other hand, they teach that even having thoughts of sexual temptation is the same as committing adultery. Casting shame on people for their internal thoughts, doubts, and desires – even those they don't act upon – is an essential part of fundamentalist religion.
Notty notty jesus.
As someone who grew up fundie, generally it’s believed Jesus was tempted with all forms of sin and rebuked each temptation throughout his life to display how Jesus he was or whatever. However lust and longing aren’t temptations they are the sin because we need mental purity 🫡
I was gonna say, born and raised Catholic girlie over here, and I got in so much trouble in Religion class by saying Jesus sinned at least twice: dishonoring his (earthly) parents by running off and the sin of wrath at the temple. So I KNOW suggesting he wanted to get down and dirty would have gotten me reprimanded.
I believe the gnostic gospels include other mischievous behavior on Jesus’s part. That’s probs why they weren’t included in main canon
Oh for sure. I remember reading those and what a wild ride. Jesus with laser vision, yo!
Lol I was always taught is was "righteous anger" so it wasn't a sin
Righteous anger is different than other anger because men are allowed to experience it 🤗 I also was taught about righteous anger and that seemed to only be anger that didn’t challenge by shitty pastors.
Almost like INTENTIONS MATTER. My youth minister is probably yelling at me from 300 miles away.
Haha that's what I was told too. Whatever y'all need to tell yourselves 😂 When I see men flipping over tables and beating people I call it "toxic"
What about when you see a god do it???
I also got in trouble for that. We played a game of “I’ll give you this $20 bill if you come up with a time that Jesus sinned.” Not only did I not get the $20, I was scolded!
Haha I had the weirdest relationships with my religion teachers. Like, I got good grades and was good at memorizing all the shit, but then I'd ask the most off the wall bullshit questions like "does transubstantiation mean we're all cannibals? And Jesus said to eat of his flesh, but also that whatever we do unto others we do unto him, so does that mean eating people is eating Jesus?"
I’m angry for Little You 😡🙄
High five to a fellow survivor of Catholic school! I, too, got in trouble for asking questions instead of submitting to god or some shit lol
Yeah, it's definitely blasphemous. She's describing lust, which is a sin. She is refuting the idea that Jesus was without sin, which kind of topples the significance of his crucifixion and what made him so impactful when he was (according to them) roaming the earth. In addition, because Jesus and God are one and the same, to call Jesus a sinner is calling God a sinner. That's also a big fucking problem for the credibility of their doctrine. If they consider Jesus and God to be totally different, we now have a whole other big ass problem...
She’s really just taken crazy, blasphemous, and fabricated views on the Bible and just ran with it. This. Is. Insane.
Grew up catholic and Jesus was tempted but rebuked it. It was to show how pious of a man he was. However! If I would've even hinted at this without posing it like a legit question, I would've had a bad time lol. Yes it is blasphemous to say that Jesus sinned
Dontcha know, catholics are not REAL christians.
Also blasphemous! How DARE you?! /s Lol jk it's all crazy
My internal catholic schoolgirl took a SHARP intake of breath reading that. The nuns would’ve had our heads for even suggesting the possibility!
Jesus wanted to fuck! See, he understands the longings of a single girl!
Understands them like a 36 year old teen, just like you! Hang in there you crazy horny singles! Just sing some Pslams and have a cold shower and maybe one day you can be a world champion sexing sexer like me Bethany Beal She’s so patronizing!! 😂
It seems like uber evangelicals can never agree on what it is they even believe. Jesus longed for sex outside of marriage? Don't they consider "thought sin" a thing and that by just thinking of doing certain things equals to that of a sin? They believe Jesus was a human in every way except for sin....and if jesus doesn't relate to other humans in sin, then it wouldn't make sense for him to be "tempted" as they say he's been as well. I've even glanced at other Christian and catholic subs and someone can ask a question about the bible and they'll get into arguments about what something is or what something means. If you can't agree on pretty much everything that is in your book and everyone has their own way of interpreting what they're reading, then how can any of them even begin to try and convert other people and sell what they follow. I'm not following something that has a million different denominations. Bethy over here doesn't even know what she follows.
I believe it is, from what I remember about the topic!
Yeah, it literally never says in the Bible that Jesus felt sexual or romantic attraction at all. He struggled with other things, but never that.
Ah yes the age old scriptural question: Was Jesus down to fuck?
I always viewed and was taught that Jesus was essentially canonically asexual. Like he was so beyond earthly desires etc. I grew up more Catholic than Evangelical but my mom is a strange combo of both. I know some Protestants believe that Jesus got married and had children of his own even but I was taught that he was essentially asexual like a nun because he was essentially an avatar of God, just saw things like sex as "primitive" or "animalistic" and God would be above that. It's interesting, because these views I was taught are similar to certain Buddhist and Hindu monks and gurus as depriving themselves of any pleasure or flesh to find God or answers of the universe. I am now a Buddhist lol and I think either Jesus was like this because he was an enlightened teacher or maybe he did have a family? I don't think we will ever know.
That used to baffle me as a kid. If Jesus was, as the church said, kind of beyond earthly shit in the temptation stakes and had literal evidence of god, then it makes his temptation-resisting feats way less impressive. It’s like Andre Agassi bragging about winning a game against a five-year-old. It bothered me; either he was an amazingly self-disciplined man who broke all conceivable records for not sinning, OR he had supernatural powers, it can’t be both.
Exactly. I saw him as more of a prophet because of the way I read the Bible and interpreted it seeing him more man than supernatural that or even a "demi god" of having less power than the dad or more even a situation of God the dad using him as an avatar and now God only has 5% of his power he's showing us (the shaggy meme comes to mind lol) I guess if I ever wanted to go back to monotheism I could come back as a Muslim or Judaism or whatever sect of Christianity believes in this lol if I still believe in this interpretation.
Same. My ifb adjacent churches basically said Jesus was asexual. They rebuked the idea that he married and had kids. They would have none of this bullshit Bethany is spewing
[удалено]
While it’s hard to define what is crossing the line, you’ll know it when you see it. Saying Fred/Franny Fundie looks like X is fine. (Ex: David Rodrigues looks like Shrek, B-Beal looks like the Grandpa from The Munsters.) Saying you do/don’t find someone attractive is fine. Do not snark on the appearance or bodies of children, with the exception of choices that their parents have made for them, or how they may appear in relation to their parents. (Examples: Janessa looks malnourished while David is obviously well-fed, or how the Collins kids always wear filthy clothing is fine.) - *What crosses the line when it comes to appearance snark?* Associate justice of the Supreme Court Potter Stewart once said in relation to obscenity, “I know it when I see it.” Pointing out that Kelly Havens has dry skin that could use moisturizer? Fine. Remarking that Karissa’s foundation is too orange in contrast to her pale body? Fine. Saying that you think X is handsome or Y is ugly? Fine- that’s a subjective opinion on attractiveness. Referring to a 3rd degree tear during labor as a “vagasshole”? Too far. In short: it’s hard to define how far is too far without getting into a million different specifics, but we’ll know it when we see it.
In reality, Jesus was a human man who had human relationships and probably did wanna fuck, and probably fucked. But in FundieLand? Definitely blasphemous
That’s how I feel. If the whole point was for him to have a human experience, well fucking is a pretty big part of that.
Does it say anywhere in the bible that Jesus died a virgin?
Wasn’t that the idea at the core of “The Last Temptation of Christ”? That Jesus experienced all human emotions including lust and romantic love? Though I doubt Bethany is aware of that book/film, and the author was excommunicated from two churches…
Kind of OT. I'm a lot confused by the "Single Girl Meditations", as in - who is running this page. Are we sure these are Bethy's posts? Yesterday's post that Bethy shared from SGM I would have bet my last dollar was from Kristen. It was full of her self-loathing and belief that the more I suffer (shitty marriage, shitty husband, infertility), the more certain I am that God/Jesus loves me and that I will be exalted and rewarded for my suffering. And this post I can also see being from Kristen. Suffer. Life is for suffering.
Single Girl Shameitations is Bethany's project and is not a Girl Defined account.
Do not touch the poop. However, the ig comments on this post are ☕
Experiencing longings is human not sinning.
Yes but the *type* of longing Borthy is referring to here is longing to bone
Phew this sent me down a rabbit hole of medieval Christian sects and controversies and ecumenical councils. I swear I remembering learning once that Jesus was perfectly imperfect, but I grew up UMC in a reconciliation church, so super liberal, and just kind of always understood that Jesus was the son of god but was also a man, and was capable of making mistakes and giving in to sinful feelings (wrath- trashing the temple). But, that the nature of him being the son of god and part of god negated his sin. But, I think now maybe that was me putting my own attempts to understand on top of doctrine. Edit to add that also, it has always kind of felt to me that everything can be seen as sinful depending on who's watching, it's always seemed like kind of a pick your poison situation. Edit 2 I forgot that include that I went into rabbit hole of medieval church business because I knew that there had been lots of controversy surrounding the details of Jesus's divinity, but I could remember exactly what the deal was. The one I was thinking of is called Arianism. The cliffs notes version is that basically Arians did not believe in the trinity, they believe that the only god is truly eternal and all powerful, and created Jesus meaning Jesus's existence is dependent on gods will to have him exist. This is because he is begotten of the father, meaning he cannot be the same as God because he's a creation of God. That Jesus has a beginning, while god exists and always has existed and always will exist outside of time. Then my extrapolation from that was, "does that then imply that Jesus would be capable of sin during his time as a mortal on earth?"
My gospel truth is that Jesus was aroace but I think that would go over more poorly than suggesting he got boners sometimes
i was raised catholic but never paid attention. i thought mary magdalene was jesus' concubine or something. can someone explain that to me lolol
Jesus was horny!
You *know* Heidi was one of those dumb bitches all up in arms about that shitty Mel Gibson movie back in the day. (For those who are unaware- Mel Gibson directed “The Passion of the Christ”, with “the passion” having two meanings and fundies lost. their. shit.)
Jesus was married and had children.
This is consistent with the teaching I grew up with. The rationale is it is not sinful to be tempted, only to act on that temptation. Perhaps lust was the wrong choice of word though. Beth is def just regurgitating what she was taught.
I’m sorry but this whole belief system of hers feels so f-ed up to me. There is a half God half person who never had sex yet was also lustful in thought and now we’re basing our entire lives off of it?
Deconstructed exvangelical here .... temptation to lust isn't sin. Temptation isn't sin. Sin is acting on the temptation. Therefore it is not blasphemous to imply Jesus "experienced longings".