LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I just want to echo our visitor Humperdinck's answer on this one (zeek, welcome back!)

Keep in mind that Jesus was a known figure, thronged by crowds much of the time, and most importantly was always being watched and scrutinized so the Pharisees, etc could find a reason to do away with Him. If there was a single HINT of homosexual activity on Jesus' part, the religious guys after Him would have pounced before they could say "aha!" since it was, as Humperdinck said, punishable by death. They were looking for any reason to kill Him. And yet Jesus was with a group of guys all throughout the time of His earthly ministry and the religious establishment still had nothing to charge Him with in that regard. They muttered and complained about His speaking to women, eating with prostitutes and tax collectors and sinners, but we never read a word about them scheming about any homosexual suspicions.

I'm all for no question being off the table when it comes to grappling with the Bible. I hope the sincere and reasoned responses you are getting don't just "glance off" of you, but actually settle some of these questions sufficiently.

Thank you for the welcome, Trapped. Since the New Testament says nothing about Jesus' sexuality, he may have been a celibate homosexual which would not be a violation of Torah law. The same may be true of Paul. I don't know and I don't think anybody else does either. The New Testament is strangely mum about the sexuality of these men. Whether by accident or design the issue is left open. The ambiguity allows for a more inclusive interpretation than the traditional view.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you for the welcome. Since the New Testament says nothing about Jesus' sexuality, he may have been a celibate homosexual which would not be a violation of Torah law. The same may be true of Paul. I don't know and I don't think anybody else does either. The New Testament is strangely mum about the sexuality of these men. Whether by accident or design the issue is left open. The ambiguity allows for a more inclusive interpretation than the traditional view.

The NT is equally mum about whether Jesus killed anyone or didn't kill anyone, stole anything or didn't steal, coveted or didn't covet, liked His meat cooked rare or well done......does anyone consider that "strangely mum" or issues that are "left open"? The NT writers probably could never have imagined people 2,000 years later reasonably positing that the Son of God who came to seek and to save those who are lost was a homosexual!

And if this discussion is couched in Jesus, and if you want to reasonably suggest what you've suggested, then His being a celibate homosexual, and an example to those claiming to be Christian, means His is the example to follow when it comes to what people who have homosexual attractions should do. To suggest Jesus was a celibate homosexual doesn't seem to be a desirable suggestion for homosexuals who want the Bible/Jesus to support their desire for a homosexual relationship.

What does suggesting that Jesus was a celibate homosexual (the very two things no one wants paired together) gain for anyone?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The NT is equally mum about whether Jesus killed anyone or didn't kill anyone, stole anything or didn't steal, coveted or didn't covet, liked His meat cooked rare or well done......does anyone consider that "strangely mum" or issues that are "left open"? The NT writers probably could never have imagined people 2,000 years later reasonably positing that the Son of God who came to seek and to save those who are lost was a homosexual!

And if this discussion is couched in Jesus, and if you want to reasonably suggest what you've suggested, then His being a celibate homosexual, and an example to those claiming to be Christian, means His is the example to follow when it comes to what people who have homosexual attractions should do. To suggest Jesus was a celibate homosexual doesn't seem to be a desirable suggestion for homosexuals who want the Bible/Jesus to support their desire for a homosexual relationship.

What does suggesting that Jesus was a celibate homosexual (the very two things no one wants paired together) gain for anyone?

My point is that I don't know, and I don't think you or anyone else does either, because I don't think the New Testament makes a factual statement about it one way or the other. That strikes me as odd and perhaps meaningful.

I've read other classical literature and usually the sexuality of the major subjects of the texts is characterized. We know quite a bit about the sexuality of Socrates , the Caesars and St. Augustine as examples. But, nothing about the sexuality of Jesus, the putative perfect man of the Christian religion.

So I'm asking the question: why? And it seems, as often the case, when I question the assumptions of people, they become defensive about it.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by zeek

My point is that I don't know, and I don't think you or anyone else does either, because I don't think the New Testament makes a factual statement about it one way or the other. That strikes me as odd and perhaps meaningful.

I've read other classical literature and usually the sexuality of the major subjects of the texts is characterized. We know quite a bit about the sexuality of Socrates , the Caesars and St. Augustine as examples. But, nothing about the sexuality of Jesus, the putative perfect man of the Christian religion.

So I'm asking the question: why? And it seems, as often the case, when I question the assumptions of people, they become defensive about it.

I concur. If God wanted us to know and to avoid so much heartbreak over the issue, he should have been more clear about Jesus since Hems the Son of God Or maybe he doesnt care, but then why all the secrecy?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thank you for the welcome. Since the New Testament says nothing about Jesus' sexuality, he may have been a celibate homosexual which would not be a violation of Torah law. The same may be true of Paul. I don't know and I don't think anybody else does either. The New Testament is strangely mum about the sexuality of these men. Whether by accident or design the issue is left open. The ambiguity allows for a more inclusive interpretation than the traditional view.

If only I was there. If Jesus and Paul were celibate gays, if they were light in the loafers, rather sandals, limp-wristed, and speaking with a lisp, I would have spotted it the minute I looked at them. I learned that gift from gay brothers in the local church.

But I wasn't there, and neither were any of us. All we've got is a skimpy record.

But we do have : Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I wasn't there, and neither were any of us. All we've got is a skimpy record.

But we do have : Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed

sorry this part made me laugh so hard

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But we do have : Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

sorry this part made me laugh so hard

But, of course, the Bible never says "two men" in one bed, it simply says "two."

KJV added "men" in italics to, I suppose, identify two humans, rather than a couple of dogs or perhaps MyPillows.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But, of course, the Bible never says "two men" in one bed, it simply says "two."

KJV added "men" in italics to, I suppose, identify two humans, rather than a couple of dogs or perhaps MyPillows.

You are so very creative, bro!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But, of course, the Bible never says "two men" in one bed, it simply says "two."

KJV added "men" in italics to, I suppose, identify two humans, rather than a couple of dogs or perhaps MyPillows.

Many translations besides the KJV has "two men," including the ASV, Darby, and many others.

Besides, before modernity, it wasn't uncommon for two men to sleep in the same bed together. And I suppose no one is concerned when two women sleep in the same bed together. And they can grind together too, it goes on to say, in verse 35.

Again, these verses only goes to prove that the record is skimpy, leaving it open to question.

Now, more importantly, just because you hate this thread doesn't mean you should be trying to sabotage it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Many translations besides the KJV has "two men," including the ASV, Darby, and many others.

Besides, before modernity, it wasn't uncommon for two men to sleep in the same bed together. And I suppose no one is concerned when two women sleep in the same bed together. And they can grind together too, it goes on to say, in verse 35.

Again, these verses only goes to prove that the record is skimpy, leaving it open to question.

Now, more importantly, just because you hate this thread doesn't mean you should be trying to sabotage it.

I told you what the Greek said "duo" -- "TWO." Look it up. Whenever the Bible or translators refers to people, they normally say "men" or perhaps use the inflected ending for male gender. Sometimes not. The English language has very few gender specific words (e.g. his, her) so most Americans don't understand that nouns and pronouns in other languages often have inflected endings.

A while ago you said God was female because the word for "wisdom" is feminine. Today you are implying that Jesus is gay because the Bible was silent about it. The reader should be aware that you have a severe bias against God, His word, and His people.

How do you know what was "common" before "modernity?" Were you there? Human nature has not changed, only technology, and I assert that it made many of us more stupid.

Once again your mind is in the gutter bro. "Grind together" (Lk 17.35) is in the flour mill, and is not a sexual act. You also have gender stereotypes here. The verse says "duo" -- "TWO." The verse does NOT say "two women." All of that is assumed by translators.

Each verse in Luke 17:34, 35, 36 refers to "two" or "duo" in Greek. The word "men" in v 34 and v 36 is added. The word "women" in v 35 is added.

Obviously you can twist any verse to say what you want. It's a habit of yours. At least try to maintain a little integrity about what the scripture says.

Obviously I don't hate this thread, as you suppose. I have presented a number of unique perspectives which no one has responded to. Perhaps you also are afraid of the honest truth?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have presented a number of unique perspectives which no one has responded to

Which persoectives havent been responded to? Is it the sports one? You havent responded to one of the poster’s questions regarding how lgbtq rights affect you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously I don't hate this thread, as you suppose. I have presented a number of unique perspectives which no one has responded to. Perhaps you also are afraid of the honest truth?

Well you've been honest, admitting that you stand on the Bible, and therefore LGBTQ+ are an abomination to God. So your unique views are just covering for your real views.

We've got it. There's no since in carrying on. The gays know the applicable verses better than most Bible Thumpers. They are used as ammunition against them.

So stop shooting.