LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond.

[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?

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


Oestreicher with his two heros Marx and Engels

So what other kooks do you want to dig up that claim Jesus was a homo? Keep at it guys. This is fun!

[Ohio]

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!

Oestreicher with his two heros Marx and Engels

So what other kooks do you want to dig up that claim Jesus was a homo? Keep at it guys. This is fun!

Humperdinck ... you were not supposed to expose things like this.

Didn't you know you were supposed to "cover the bros?"

Sure you guys asked for it: for fellow brothers, Humperdink, Ohio, Sons of Glory, Trapped

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vic...-jesus-gay-702

http://religiousinstitute.org/denom_...s-in-the-bibl/

Ruth and Naomi (lesbian or bisexual)
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/bi...uth_naomi.html

Jonathan (gay) and David (bisexual):
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/bi..._jonathan.html

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by LoveMatters

Sure you guys asked for it: for fellow brothers, Humperdink, Ohio, Sons of Glory, Trapped

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vic...-jesus-gay-702

http://religiousinstitute.org/denom_...s-in-the-bibl/

Ruth and Naomi (lesbian or bisexual)
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/bi...uth_naomi.html

Jonathan (gay) and David (bisexual):
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/bi..._jonathan.html

In today's vernacular these are all fake websites. O the website is real, but the info is fake, unreliable, speculative, not fact-based, and purely conjecture.

A little surprising coming from "Love Matters."

[Sons to Glory!]

As usual, man is trying to change God into our image: that of fallen, sinful, confused man. I am unsubscribing from this thread as it is more & more offensive to me. If anyone wants to communicated with me, they know where (PM). But I will not entertain outright blasphemy - there is a spirit behind it, and it's not of Him.

May the Lord be with you all!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

As usual, man is trying to change God into our image: that of fallen, sinful, confused man. I am unsubscribing from this thread as it is more & more offensive to me. If anyone wants to communicated with me, they know where (PM). But I will not entertain outright blasphemy - there is a spirit behind it, and it's not of Him.

May the Lord be with you all!

I am seriously taking STG's advisement under consideration. This thread has transitioned from a discussion about transgender damages to our society as a whole to an orchestrated and blasphemous assault on the character of the holy Lamb of God, my Savior Jesus Christ.

I didn't want to leave this thread without saying why. If I had any say in the matter, I would shut down the Alt-Views to all such blasphemy about the holy virtue and character of Jesus Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

As usual, man is trying to change God into our image: that of fallen, sinful, confused man. I am unsubscribing from this thread as it is more & more offensive to me. If anyone wants to communicated with me, they know where (PM). But I will not entertain outright blasphemy - there is a spirit behind it, and it's not of Him.

May the Lord be with you all!

Why thank you brother. You'll be missed. May the Lord be with you as well.

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

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

Not totally. When his reasonings are related to a character issue, his own character does become relevant. It’s one thing to look at the character of a person trying to reason a math proof or something. But it’s another to look at the character of the person claiming a fornicating-outside-of-marriage Jesus (a character issue) is theologically no big deal. The character of a person arguing a character point provides a framework for the basis of his viewpoint.

[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 Ohio

It's like trying to reason with a mob.

I typically feel sorry for the underdog.

Originally Posted by O

Anyone understand what blasphemy looks like?

No. Tell me.

[Trapped]

I'll sit at a roundtable and grapple sincerely with "Is God gay?" and "Was Jesus homosexual" but there has to be a basic level of logic and reason to be able to have a discussion. If claims and statements are made, the logic has to hold up. That's all I'm asking.

The claim has been made earlier in this thread that Jesus could have been a celibate homosexual. As I also mentioned elsewhere, if this is the case, then we also have to look at the implications of that claim and what it means for those with same-sex attractions now. In other words, His example is the one to follow. This is why I didn't understand what there was to gain by throwing Jesus's potential homosexuality around.....because it logically brings us to a place it doesn't seem like you would want to be.

It's also not an assumption that Jesus was heterosexual. It's a reasonable inference. There is a vast difference between the two. For Jesus to be homosexual and yet surround Himself with a group of men makes no sense. That is what someone who was heterosexual and reasonably wanted to remain sinless would do.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

I typically feel sorry for the underdog.


No. Tell me.

I find it ironic when people start to think it's blasphemy when greeted with views that reveal there are gay people in the bible. Jesus was crucified for "blasphemy". good riddance because that is how pharisees think.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I find it ironic when people start to think it's blasphemy when greeted with views that reveal there are gay people in the bible. Jesus was crucified for "blasphemy". good riddance because that is how pharisees think.

No one is saying there aren't gay people in the Bible. Paul speaks of this in one of his letters, saying "this is what some of you were". There they are in Scripture, right there.

What we are saying, which so far no one has actually addressed other than weak ad hominem claims that don't apply, is that arguments and logic starts crumbling if you try to claim Jesus was gay. We can reasonably infer He wasn't, and if He was, His celibate example doesn't bode well for homosexuals who want to engage in homosexual activity. In two directions that argument fails.

Blasphemy, by the way, is only blasphemy in relation to the truth of the issue. Just as calling a murderer "a murderer" is not slander because it's true, so are Jesus' claims to divinity not blasphemy, because they are true. If you or I made claims to divine origins, that's a problem because it's not true. But if Jesus does, no problem, because it's true. The Pharisees didn't like the truth, and they called that truth blasphemy.

Likewise, for all the logical and rational reasons and arguments I've stated here, it is similarly blasphemy to make the false statements about Jesus and God that are being thrown around here, that I've repeatedly shown to hold no water.

Let me ask anyone reading a question: If living a homosexual lifestyle (I'm not talking about having the feelings, but continually acting on them) was indeed shown to be a sin, would you continue to live according to your same-sex attractions? In other words, if God Himself undeniably visited you and told you without question that acting on the attractions was immoral, would you cease?

This is a simple hypothetical question, and I'm curious how you would answer.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I find it ironic when people start to think it's blasphemy when greeted with views that reveal there are gay people in the bible. Jesus was crucified for "blasphemy". good riddance because that is how pharisees think.

It's an emotional heart thing for SoG and Ohio. They have ideals of purity coming down from tradition about Jesus and the Bible.

I think it's caused by seeing only the divine side of the Bible and not the human side of the Bible ; producing such divine idealism that they completely miss the fact the the every book of the Bible were written by human hands, thinking rather, that it was written by God's hands ... like God actually has hands.

I think it boils down to ignorance of the formations of the Bible, and its compilation. An ignorance that's likely going to stick with them until the grave, unfortunately. Cuz, they're very happy in their ignorance, and will likely proudly tell you so.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I typically feel sorry for the under dog.

Where is zeek et. al. coming out to defend me for awareness' vicious ad hominem insult calling me a dog?

Talk about double standards, yet without them, some folks around here would have none at all.

Where's that "my feelings are so hurt" emoji?