LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond.

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, none of my posts are disrespectful. But I do think it is a little disrespectful to post anonymously without even a moniker. You cannot play semantic word games and then call me "disrespectful."

Why is it you have not addressed my points? I have made numerous posts on this forum on behalf of women. I stand against all abuse, and stand up for the rights of those who have been hurt. On this particular thread I have pointed out how the trans movement hurts women. It damages women's rights. It is just ripe for corruption and fraud. Since I am advocating for women, why do you not support me?

You may not view your posts as disrespectful but disrespect is not always intended; it can come from implicit misunderstandings and/or ignorance towards a group of people that are different from yourself. It's like saying all Muslims are terrorists; a person may genuinely believe that all Muslims are terrorists so from their perspective they are stating a fact rather than bigotry, so as a product of that person's ignorance, a bigoted statement doesn't appear disrespectful to that person.

When it comes to your "activism" of women's rights and safety, you're hiding behind the veil of advocacy to label an entire demographic you clearly don't understand as a 'danger to society'. The intention behind identifying as trans is not anything else but identifying as that person actually is. This hypothetical danger you perceive from the trans community to women is irrational and incorrect.

Will there be individuals who might take advantage of a situation for their deviant behavior? Sure, that goes for all of humanity in every circumstance and scenario. Does that justify denying an entire demographic of real people the right to live normally in society? No. That would be like outlawing cars because some outlier deviants would intentionally use cars to kill people.

[zeek]

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

Do you think God's Firstborn of all creation could be homosexual? Where would we find any inclination in scripture to suggest that . . . starting with the 1st Adam?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Do you think God's Firstborn of all creation could be homosexual? Where would we find any inclination in scripture to suggest that . . . starting with the 1st Adam?

Where would we find any inclination in scripture to suggest that He was straight? If it's actually important to be straight instead of homosexual, bisexual, etc, don't you think the Bible would have explicitly emphasized that in the humanity of Jesus, which is a pattern for Christians everywhere to follow?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Where would we find any inclination in scripture to suggest that He was straight? If it's actually important to be straight instead of homosexual, bisexual, etc, don't you think the Bible would have explicitly emphasized that in the humanity of Jesus, which is a pattern for Christians everywhere to follow?

There was a first Adam (male), who had Eve (female) given to him by God. First man Adam came up short and then we have the last Adam finishing the job in perfection. So why would we think God would have the last Adam as a homosexual when the first one wasn't? There would be no pattern in scripture for that, right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

Trollin' on by?

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? How do we know he wasn't an Antifa protester who was out looting, catching chariots on fire and seeking to defund the Roman army? The New Testament doesn't say one way or another? What the NT does say is that Jesus was a Jew who observed the law., in fact he was a Rabbi and spoke in the temple and many synagogues throughout Isreal.

Homosexual sex was punishable by death. So the NT writers would leave out something as significant as Jesus being married? Doubtful.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? How do we know he wasn't an Antifa protester who was out looting, catching chariots on fire and seeking to defund the Roman army? The New Testament doesn't say one way or another? What the NT does say is that Jesus was a Jew who observed the law., in fact he was a Rabbi and spoke in the temple and many synagogues throughout Isreal.

Homosexual sex was punishable by death. So the NT writers would leave out something as significant as Jesus being married? Doubtful.

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.

[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.

[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 Trapped

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.

Many thanks to Trapped and Humperdinck for expressing an obvious rebuttal from the gospels and refuting the pathetic and scurrilous accusations against our beloved Savior, Jesus Christ. It did serve, however, to expose the crooked hearts of zeek, awareness, and others on this thread.

Peter spoke specifically about such ones, "But also among you will be false prophets and teachers, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2.1)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many thanks to Trapped and Humperdinck for expressing an obvious rebuttal from the gospels and refuting the pathetic and scurrilous accusations against our beloved Savior, Jesus Christ. It did serve, however, to expose the crooked hearts of zeek, awareness, and others on this thread.

Peter spoke specifically about such ones, "But also among you will be false prophets and teachers, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2.1)

Hi Ohio. I see you are as opposed as ever to new thinking. Once again you resort to personal attack, judgment and condemnation.

By the way I wonder what happened to our buddy ZNP. We had a lot of interesting conversations with him back in the day.

Anyway, I wish all the best to you and your family in these difficult times.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Hi Ohio. I see you are as opposed as ever to new thinking. Once again you resort to personal attack, judgment and condemnation.

By the way I wonder what happened to our buddy ZNP. We had a lot of interesting conversations with him back in the day.

Anyway, I wish all the best to you and your family in these difficult times.

Nice to see you too zeek. Glad to see you are surviving this DemPanic.

I'm am not opposed to any "new thinking," rather I believe all new thinking must be vetted for value, veracity, and virtue. Assaulting the personal integrity of the holy Lamb of God qualifies for none of these.

It truly amazes me that you would consider attacks on the virtue and character of Jesus Christ as merely an acceptable forum inquiry, and yet make my expected responses to these posts a "personal attack" to yourself.

I just saw a recent post on the forum by ZNP. Being a teacher from NYC, he has faced much greater hardship than most.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

For all we know Jesus was built like a Ken doll down there ... or even like a Barbie doll. I doubt it, but we don't know. Nothing in the New Testament mentions such things.

We don't even know if Jesus had bowel movements. And if he did -- that's likely since he was 100% human -- where he relieved himself. Did they back then just go in the open ground, like in India today.

We don't even know what made Jesus laugh. It's recorded that he wept, and that he was perfect.

The point being : We know little about the historical Jesus. We only have accounts of Jesus written decades after Jesus left the earth, by anonymous authors.

And we can't look to Paul. He didn't know the historical Jesus. And we don't know if he was a celibate homosexual either ... or what the thorn in his flesh was. And Paul was 100% human. No divinity there. No perfection either.

But thanks bro zeek for bringing up the question. What I wonder is, if Jesus was gay -- doubtful -- would we still love him.

[awareness]

Just for the record, transgender is not mentioned in the Bible, neither for or against it. None of the authors of the books of the Bible, writing in the bronze and iron ages, knew anything about it. Therefore Bible believers have no Biblical standing to be against it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Just for the record, transgender is not mentioned in the Bible, neither for or against it. None of the authors of the books of the Bible, writing in the bronze and iron ages, knew anything about it. Therefore Bible believers have no Biblical standing to be against it.

The Bible does address lying with animals. That seems to apply here.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible does address lying with animals. That seems to apply here.

Are you comparing and equating same sex loving relationships to bestiality, or one partner of a same sex relationship as an animal? Or both homosexuals as animals? trying to understand, bro Ohio. You cant just lump bestiality and homosexuality together. Both are very different. LGBTQplus does not include people who have animal fetishes., only includes humans. And for your information, heterosexuals also can engage in bestiality. Being transgender is very different than having sex and attraction with an animal. They have attractions to other fellow human beings, so your reasoning doesnt apply here. And if you going to quote the “strange flesh” verse or Paul’s Romans verses, Awareness has a lot to say about that one.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Are you comparing and equating same sex loving relationships to bestiality, or one partner of a same sex relationship as an animal? Or both homosexuals as animals? trying to understand, bro Ohio. You cant just lump bestiality and homosexuality together. Both are very different. LGBTQplus does not include people who have animal fetishes., only includes humans.

Some people behave like animals, and it's hard to differentiate them at times. Haven't you heard that there are some people who want to marry their favorite pet? Don't you think that some pets and their owners "love" each other? I have been told that only love is needed for marriage.

Once we decide that marriage is no longer exclusively one man and one woman from birth, then the door is open to almost everything. Or do you discriminate against animals? Are you against polygamy?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm curious. How do we know that Jesus was heterosexual? The New Testament doesn't say anything explicitly about his sexuality one way or the other. It doesn't even say if he was married or not. So people seem to assume he was a celibate heterosexual. Based on what? And why did the authors leave the door open for speculation? Ideas?

This raises a very interesting question because back in the day, the average guy living in that time era would have been married before age 33, which was how old Jesus was before he got crucified.

I was also thinking along the lines that if God is a “He”, and he was lonely and created Adam, then doesnt that sound gay? you know, before Eve came along

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I was also thinking along the lines that if God is a “He”, and he was lonely and created Adam, then doesnt that sound gay? you know, before Eve came along

The Bible never says God was lonely. That would imply the infinite God was needy or lacking, and He sure isn't.

Genesis 1:26 says "Let US make man in Our image...." not "let ME make man in MY image". God wasn't alone at the beginning of creation when He made Adam, and He didn't create man because He was lonely.

If He was gay, then He would have wanted Adam for Himself, and would never have created Eve for Adam.

If God was gay, then why would He make a straight Adam? And Adam was clearly straight because God made Eve. That's a heterosexual relationship. It would be pretty awful of God to have made a straight Adam if He wanted a gay relationship with straight Adam.

So, no, for multiple pretty logical reasons, God's not gay.

God is Spirit. He's not a physical person like us. He is not bounded by space, by time, by physical matter. He is infinite, holds the universe in His hands, knows every star, every hair on your head, He is powerful, moral, personal, more mighty and majestic than we can ever comprehend.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The Bible never says God was lonely. That would imply the infinite God was needy or lacking, and He sure isn't.

Genesis 1:26 says "Let US make man in Our image...." not "let ME make man in MY image". God wasn't alone at the beginning of creation when He made Adam, and He didn't create man because He was lonely.

If He was gay, then He would have wanted Adam for Himself, and would never have created Eve for Adam.

If God was gay, then why would He make a straight Adam? And Adam was clearly straight because God made Eve. That's a heterosexual relationship. It would be pretty awful of God to have made a straight Adam if He wanted a gay relationship with straight Adam.

So, no, for multiple pretty logical reasons, God's not gay.

God is Spirit. He's not a physical person like us. He is not bounded by space, by time, by physical matter. He is infinite, holds the universe in His hands, knows every star, every hair on your head, He is powerful, moral, personal, more mighty and majestic than we can ever comprehend.

okay you got me there. But consider this: if God said “it is not good for man to be alone”, and God wasn’t alone, then why do some (not all) Christians state that homosexuals should be celibate, and imply that they do not deserve a loving companionship with one they choose?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

okay you got me there. But consider this: if God said “it is not good for man to be alone”, and God wasn’t alone, then why do some (not all) Christians state that homosexuals should be celibate, and imply that they do not deserve a loving companionship with one they choose?

I have some thoughts about this, probably none of which will be satisfying to anyone here. Your question is basically one of the THE big questions, and I know I'm not going to be the one to solve this painful struggle. I'm just posting this to let you know that I've seen your question and haven't forgotten about it. I will respond when I can, but it won't be right away. I am at the edge of my capacity in my non-forum life, and need some time to think about your question, because it's such an important one.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

God is Spirit. He's not a physical person like us. He is not bounded by space, by time, by physical matter. He is infinite, holds the universe in His hands,

I guess you're speaking figuratively. If God is Spirit, He doesn't have hands.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess you're speaking figuratively. If God is Spirit, He doesn't have hands.

Isaiah 40:12
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens.....

Isaiah 49:16
Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of My hands.....

The Bible says God's got hands.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Isaiah 40:12
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens.....

Isaiah 49:16
Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of My hands.....

The Bible says God's got hands.

How in the world would awareness know that God doesn't have hands?

Has he become the forum know-it-all ever since he was made the Moderator of the Age?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You may not view your posts as disrespectful but disrespect is not always intended; it can come from implicit misunderstandings and/or ignorance towards a group of people that are different from yourself. It's like saying all Muslims are terrorists;

I definitely agree with you here.

People like you are needed in this cancel culture age, with many claiming all white people have "white privilege" and by nature are racists.

But in no way did I mis-characterize a group or characterize anyone wrongly.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I definitely agree with you here.

People like you are needed in this cancel culture age, with many claiming all white people have "white privilege" and by nature are racists.

But in no way did I mis-characterize a group or characterize anyone wrongly.

You actually did mischaracterize me, as you assumed I belong to the neo-liberal cancel culture that automatically assumes all white people are racist without knowing anything about me.

You also mischaracterized the trans community when you said that they pose a danger to women.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You actually did mischaracterize me, as you assumed I belong to the neo-liberal cancel culture that automatically assumes all white people are racist without knowing anything about me.

No, I did not mischaracterize you. I said, "People like you are needed in this cancel culture age, with many claiming all white people have "white privilege" and by nature are racists."

If you would read my words carefully, you would discover I assumed nothing about you nor did I mischaracterize you. I only expressed how much you were needed these days.

But you claimed I did. So, I will accept your apologies gracefully.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You also mischaracterized the trans community when you said that they pose a danger to women.

Not so fast there!

I said repeatedly that the trans movement poses dangers to women's rights.

• I cited an open letter addressing radical cancel culture to support my position
• I cited recent lawsuits by female athletes whose scholarships and futures were damaged by trans athletes
• I explained how trans athletes would nearly destroy most of women's sports
• I agreed with Serenity that trans-gender incentives were ripe for fraud
• I supported that position by noting that trans-racials have received enormous benefits from their deceptions, one of which ran for President, and there have been numerous others who have benefitted

How unfortunate it is that your blatant biases mischaracterize me, all the while claiming that you are the "victim" here.

But to your point, actually I agree. Though I did not yet mention this, there are huge segments of society outraged by the dangers presented by trans to women while sharing bathrooms, locker rooms, gym classes, etc.

Trans rights violate women's rights and puts them in danger!

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not so fast there!

I said repeatedly that the trans movement poses dangers to women's rights.
[*]I agreed with Serenity that trans-gender incentives were ripe for fraud[*]I supported that position by noting that trans-racials have received enormous benefits from their deceptions, one of which ran for President, and there have been numerous others who have benefitted[/LIST]How unfortunate it is that your blatant biases mischaracterize me, all the while claiming that you are the "victim" here.

Trans rights violate women's rights and puts them in danger!

I’m sorry when did I say this?? that there was fraud in transgender “incentives”?
if it were a deception, then how come you’re aware? hahaha. But some transwomen are women! so they have women rights too!