LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond.

[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.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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.

I didn't question Jesus' virtue or character. I asserted that the Bible makes no explicit statement about his marital status or sexuality thus leaving the matter open for speculation.

You accused me of "trolling", having "a crooked heart" and implied that I was a "false prophet" worthy of "swift destruction" by quoting 2 Peter 2.1. I'll let others decide for themselves if that was a personal attack on me or not.

[Sons to Glory!]

After the weekly brothers' breakfast this morning, one brother made a comment to a few of us I'd never thought about. He said that most women are probably more accepting of homosexuality, because they've not been in a position where they have felt that threatened by it. On the other hand, many men have experienced this from other males (sometimes in an aggressive way). Therefore men may tend to feel less accepting of homosexuals than women.

So the Guardian says Jesus was gay?

Right. And the National Inquirer says that John the Baptist was a cross-dresser and Martha and Mary were drag queens!

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

So the Guardian says Jesus was gay?

Right. And the National Inquirer says that John the Baptist was a cross-dresser and Martha and Mary were drag queens!

https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets...osexuality.pdf

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

So the Guardian says Jesus was gay?

Right. And the National Inquirer says that John the Baptist was a cross-dresser and Martha and Mary were drag queens!

The writer of the Guardian article, "Was Jesus gay? Probably", Paul Oestreicher, is an Anglican priest.

[Trapped]

From the article:

"Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."

I think it's pretty understood that Jesus never married. To suggest that theologically it would have been fine for an unmarried, unblemished, sinless, spotless Son of God to have been involved in sexual activity (gay or straight regardless) outside of marriage is utter absurdity. All of us are eternally dead in our sins if this is the case, because then Jesus would have been a sinner and could never have been acceptable as the one who could lay His life down as a sacrifice for any of us.

I'm speechless that what seem to be professing Christians (zeek excluded, IIRC) on this thread are waving that article as anything remotely credible to point to. Do you even understand the implications of some of the things you are trying to pass off?!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think it's pretty understood that Jesus never married. To suggest that theologically it would have been fine for an unmarried, unblemished, sinless, spotless Son of God to have been involved in sexual activity (gay or straight regardless) outside of marriage is utter absurdity. All of us are eternally dead in our sins if this is the case, because then Jesus would have been a sinner and could never have been acceptable as the one who could lay His life down as a sacrifice for any of us.

I'm speechless that what seem to be professing Christians (zeek excluded, IIRC) on this thread are waving that article anything remotely credible to point to. Do you even understand the implications of some of the things you are trying to pass off?!

What Trapped said . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm speechless that what seem to be professing Christians (zeek excluded, IIRC) on this thread are waving that article as anything remotely credible to point to. Do you even understand the implications of some of the things you are trying to pass off?!

It's like trying to reason with a mob.


Anyone understand what blasphemy looks like?

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

After the weekly brothers' breakfast this morning, one brother made a comment to a few of us I'd never thought about. He said that most women are probably more accepting of homosexuality, because they've not been in a position where they have felt that threatened by it. On the other hand, many men have experienced this from other males (sometimes in an aggressive way). Therefore men may tend to feel less accepting of homosexuals than women.

I have heard something similar before.

"Some men are homophobic because they are afraid of being treated the way they treat women"