LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

Paul Oestreicher? A well-known commie socialist who wears a crucifix. Yeah, that's where we should get our theology and biblical history from

This is an ad hominem fallacy argument for dismissing the contents of his reasonings based on his character/personality

That's right. Humperdinck's argument is an ad hominem fallacy dismissing Oestreicher's argument based nothing more than questionable inferences Humperdinck makes about Oestreicher from a single photo.

[Humperdinck]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's right. Humperdinck's argument is an ad hominem fallacy dismissing Oestreicher's argument based nothing more than questionable inferences Humperdinck makes about Oestreicher from a single photo.

I'll make a deal with you zeek, you don't try to bolster your argument by referencing somebody's supposed credentials (Anglican priest) and I won't bother to point out that your "proof" is coming from a fraud. If you don't want me to be shootin your fish in that barrel, don't bring out that barrel full of fish and shove it in my face. Deal partner?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

I'll make a deal with you zeek, you don't try to bolster your argument by referencing somebody's supposed credentials (Anglican priest) and I won't bother to point out that your "proof" is coming from a fraud. If you don't want me to be shootin your fish in that barrel, don't bring out that barrel full of fish and shove it in my face. Deal partner?

I'll speak for zeek : not until you tell us who the disciple whom Jesus loved was ... the one that's said laid on his bosom. And prove it beyond a shadow of doubt.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'll speak for zeek : not until you tell us who the disciple whom Jesus loved was ... the one that's said laid on his bosom. And prove it beyond a shadow of doubt.

Yeah.......the Greek word for bosom in that verse (John 13:23) is the same word used in John 1:18 where it says that the Son of God is in the bosom of the Father. Unless you sincerely are also trying to imply some kind of homosexual relationship between God the Father and His own Son, seriously, for your own sake, just stop.

Is anyone going to deal in the realm of logic and with the substance of the previous posts or is this thread just for making up sexually scandalous and baseless insinuations about the only One who can save your soul?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Yeah.......the Greek word for bosom in that verse (John 13:23) is the same word used in John 1:18 where it says that the Son of God is in the bosom of the Father. Unless you sincerely are also trying to imply some kind of homosexual relationship between God the Father and His own Son, seriously, for your own sake, just stop.

Is anyone going to deal in the realm of logic and with the substance of the previous posts or is this thread just for making up sexually scandalous and baseless insinuations about the only One who can save your soul?

Now now bro Trapped. Calm down. I think brother zeek's point about Jesus possibly being homosexual is that the NT has left us with only speculations about his sexuality.

Same with the word bosom. Angels carried the beggar into Abraham's bosom, Lazarus was "in" his bosom, and the same Greek word was used for a "creek" in Acts 27.

All the speculation about those days 2000 yrs ago is taken care of by tradition, and christian hearts has embraced it. So John the evangelist is said to be the one that lay on Jesus' bosom, proof not needed.

And Humperdinck is acting all smart and everything, so I challenged him to answer who it was, to test his standing on tradition ... and his emotional attachment to all this.

You keep wanting logic, but most are objecting due to emotion, not logic. Logic can't answer speculations about 2000 yrs ago, if the records don't.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Now now bro Trapped. Calm down. I think brother zeek's point about Jesus possibly being homosexual is that the NT has left us with only speculations about his sexuality.

Same with the word bosom. Angels carried the beggar into Abraham's bosom, Lazarus was "in" his bosom, and the same Greek word was used for a "creek" in Acts 27.

All the speculation about those days 2000 yrs ago is taken care of by tradition, and christian hearts has embraced it. So John the evangelist is said to be the one that lay on Jesus' bosom, proof not needed.

And Humperdinck is acting all smart and everything, so I challenged him to answer who it was, to test his standing on tradition ... and his emotional attachment to all this.

You keep wanting logic, but most are objecting due to emotion, not logic. Logic can't answer speculations about 2000 yrs ago, if the records don't.

I'm already calm. Do you think you are riling people up by posting totally ludicrous statements that are still handled seriously?

I really don't think you all read the "other side's" posts on these threads. The NT doesn't leave us with only speculations, there is plenty to reasonably infer, as I've detailed out. I know, some people love to claim that John the beloved disciple was literally in Jesus's underwear, as the Vice article posted earlier (did you read it?) said, but do you really think angels carried a beggar into Abraham's underwear? This is why I'm asking for just a semblance of logic and reason. Because if we don't have that as a basis, then there is no way to have a discussion. And that's what this forum is about, and that's what the OP said she wanted in her OP - "a civilized discussion". I've kept my posts civil as well as discussion-oriented to the point of seriously engaging topics that many would have walked away from the second they were even posed. Are you going to hold to that parameter?

We've already got some people on one side of the issue claiming they are "hated" while others on that same side are the ones to tell people on the other side "good riddance" they are gone. Where's the civility?

Here's another semblance of reason: the rest of the apostles were Jews giving up their lives for this guy. Do you really think they were all sitting there at the last supper chilling out with no issues as John got in Jesus's underwear....and still came away believing in faith that the sinless Lamb of God was who He said He was?

The objections are not even emotional. They are out in left field and crumble under a little basic inspection. Again, if logic and reason are out the window, then the entire basis of this thread is also out the window. It's up to you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm already calm. Do you think you are riling people up by posting totally ludicrous statements that are still handled seriously?

I really don't think you all read the "other side's" posts on these threads. The NT doesn't leave us with only speculations, there is plenty to reasonably infer, as I've detailed out. I know, some people love to claim that John the beloved disciple was literally in Jesus's underwear, as the Vice article posted earlier (did you read it?) said, but do you really think angels carried a beggar into Abraham's underwear? This is why I'm asking for just a semblance of logic and reason. Because if we don't have that as a basis, then there is no way to have a discussion. And that's what this forum is about, and that's what the OP said she wanted in her OP - "a civilized discussion". I've kept my posts civil as well as discussion-oriented to the point of seriously engaging topics that many would have walked away from the second they were even posed. Are you going to hold to that parameter?

We've already got some people on one side of the issue claiming they are "hated" while others on that same side are the ones to tell people on the other side "good riddance" they are gone. Where the civility?

Here's another semblance of reason: the rest of the apostles were Jews giving up their lives for this guy. Do you really think they were all sitting there at the last supper chilling out with no issues as John got in Jesus's underwear....and still came away believing in faith that the sinless Lamb of God was who He said He was?

The objections are not even emotional. They are out in left field and crumble under a little basic inspection. Again, if logic and reason are out the window, then the entire basis of this thread is also out the window. It's up to you.

Brother Trapped, this post has me flooring in the floor. Thanks for that. These days while in isolation I could use a good laugh.

Okay, there exists lots of speculation about Jesus' sexuality, going back to the 16th c. And there's lots flying around out here.

Did homosexuality even exist 2000 yrs ago? Was anybody homosexual? Of course, but it doesn't make sense that Jesus and/or Paul were gay. It doesn't come up in the record left to us.

And it certainly doesn't enter the minds of 99.9999% of Christians. Their minds are filled with traditional imaginations of Jesus and Paul, and their hearts are deeply attached to them.

And I have to admit that, if I went around in this Bible belt saying Jesus or Paul were gay, I doubt I'd be long on this earth. That's how deeply and strongly Christians feel toward common and/or traditional imaginations of Jesus and Paul. And I'm not on any of the social media sites, like Facebook, but if I were, and I suggested that either or both of them were gay, I'd likely get plenty of death threats, from both rational and irrational Christians alike.

Brother zeek is a master at weaving words, and put the question up about Jesus' sexuality to make a point that our records are skimpy on details, even about Jesus' sexuality. Did they even wear underwear back then, as we know 'em today? Maybe, and prolly, at least loincloths. But according to our NT records we don't know, do we?

We get more such details from Egyptian records, and from Roman records, during the days of Jesus.

So let's drop speculations that can't be supported by the records we have so far today.

Let's rather get back to the question of how gays should be treated today, by both Christians and the community at large. After all, homosexuality isn't contagious, either biologically or socially. We don't control it any more than we can control the genitalia we're born with.

I've been told for much of my life that homosexuality is a choice. That's what Bible believers have told me. But it's not. They just want it that way so that they and God can condemn homosexuals to everlasting torment in hell fire.

But Jesus didn't say, "Love your neighbors, unless they are gay." Not according to the record we have. No need for speculations there. We're to love them.

Thanks for speaking for logic. Jesus made it logical to love the gays, and people -- neighbors -- of all variations thereof. Let's stick with Jesus, and the two great commandments ... and not the law from long before Jesus.