Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[Sons to Glory!]

I'm taking down this starting post, because after rereading it, I decided to edit it a bit. I'll repost sometime Sunday after I consider & pray.

[awareness]

I'm itching to drop another bomb in support of the LGBTQ.

But ... it prolly wouldn't do any good for Bible literalists out here, who consider God to consider it an abomination.

So I won't criticize God, even if He deserves it. I'll hold it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm itching to drop another bomb in support of the LGBTQ.

But ... it prolly wouldn't do any good for Bible literalists out here, who consider God to consider it an abomination.

So I won't criticize God, even if He deserves it. I'll hold it.

Perhaps some introspection and self criticism is in order.

Or perhaps you are just hard of hearing.

Now I understand why the Spirit continually asked, "he who has an ear to hear?"

[awareness]

Study: LGBTQ people nearly 4 times as likely to be victims of violent crime than non-LGBTQ individuals

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/stu...q-individuals/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Study: LGBTQ people nearly 4 times as likely to be victims of violent crime than non-LGBTQ individuals

Hate Hoax: Prosecutors Charge LGBT Activist with Burning Down Own Home with Pets Inside

Michigan prosecutors allege Nikki Joly, a longtime LGBT activist, set fire to her home and killed her pets due to resentment from subsiding controversy over the enactment of nondiscrimination legislation she supported.

"The Detroit News reported Monday that law enforcement charged Joly, a transgender man from Jackson, Michigan, who burned down her own home, killing five pets inside, in what was initially investigated by the FBI as an alleged hate crime in 2017. The newspaper, citing two individuals who worked alongside Joly at St. Johns United Church of Christ, where the Jackson Pride Center is based, reported that Jolly, 54, had become “frustrated the controversy over gay rights had died down with the passage of the nondiscrimination law.”

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'm taking down this starting post, because after rereading it, I decided to edit it a bit. I'll repost sometime Sunday after I consider & pray.

I've been thinking of posting my thoughts on the OT verses against homosexuality on this thread. What do you think?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've been thinking of posting my thoughts on the OT verses against homosexuality on this thread. What do you think?

Well . . . I suppose. I started this thread to post things we've learned about LGBTQ+, but haven't had the time or inclination to repost (as said, I didn't like the exact tone of the first thing I put on here, so I took it down).

So since we might not have to be so "sensitive" on this thread . . . let 'er rip!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well . . . I suppose. I started this thread to post things we've learned about LGBTQ+, but haven't had the time or inclination to repost (as said, I didn't like the exact tone of the first thing I put on here, so I took it down).

So since we might not have to be so "sensitive" on this thread . . . let 'er rip!

I am seriously surprised at the lack of concern about the dangers of trans on Title 9 women's sports. The world has never seen a trans movement, and is sorely unprepared for the consequences. If enabled by the courts, the trans movement will destroy every historical separation between the genders.

No more girls sports. No more girls schools. No more girls clothing stores. All of these are binary sexist and must be torn down. Consider the consequences! Parents will no longer be able to protect their daughters from predators. And guaranteed we will have predatorial trans opportunists. All protected by law.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

I've been thinking of posting my thoughts on the OT verses against homosexuality on this thread. What do you think?

Awareness, let's hear it.

[UntoHim]

Ok I have restored the garbage posts that were made on the other thread over here on this one. Continue on.....I guess.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Terry

Awareness, let's hear it.

Oh my goodness Terry! My thoughts won't be liked very much. But I think I can use OT books to prove my point, for whatever that's worth.

[awareness]

From Serenity Thread

Originally Posted by awareness

So how many out here can say "I'm with Serenity?" Cuz if we're with her then, her wish is OUR command, and maybe she'll leave it open for her desired ones, in and out of the LC, to come and find acceptance.

What say ye?

Originally Posted by StG

I'm with Serenity on what matters - Christ in us, the hope of glory!

Refresh my memory, or correct it. Is that a Jesus saying, that I don't know about? Did I miss him saying, "Love your neighbor as yourself, but only if they have Christ in them?"

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hate Hoax: Prosecutors Charge LGBT Activist with Burning Down Own Home with Pets Inside

Michigan prosecutors allege Nikki Joly, a longtime LGBT activist, set fire to her home and killed her pets due to resentment from subsiding controversy over the enactment of nondiscrimination legislation she supported.

"The Detroit News reported Monday that law enforcement charged Joly, a transgender man from Jackson, Michigan, who burned down her own home, killing five pets inside, in what was initially investigated by the FBI as an alleged hate crime in 2017. The newspaper, citing two individuals who worked alongside Joly at St. Johns United Church of Christ, where the Jackson Pride Center is based, reported that Jolly, 54, had become “frustrated the controversy over gay rights had died down with the passage of the nondiscrimination law.”

Ohio, for every of these articles you post, I can show you many more of innocent trans people who got murdered

https://transequality.org/blog/murde...t-seven-months

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ng_transgender

https://www.hrc.org/resources/violen...munity-in-2020

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...rnd/index.html

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

From Serenity Thread




Refresh my memory, or correct it. Is that a Jesus saying, that I don't know about? Did I miss him saying, "Love your neighbor as yourself, but only if they have Christ in them?"

Non sequitur - Serenity has Christ in her, does she not? (and of course we're to love all)

[Sons to Glory!]

I suppose the one thing we couldn't seem to get past on the other thread, was any admittance that homosexuality was off the original mark, and is therefore a sin.

To repeat myself, over & over, again & again, one more time . . . LGBTQ+ in my Bible is off the mark (i.e., "sin"). So are many things of the flesh and are talked about in scripture a lot. Man's heart is sick and produces all kinds of things which are off the mark. We need The Savior to bring us all back so we're able to fellowship freely with God and damaging things can be dealt with.

So the Bible calls us to agree with His word, confess and repent whenever fleshy things are manifested. I repeatedly used drunkenness as an example previously, because by itself drunkenness harms no one else (unless something else is committed while drunk). Yet it is called out as a sin in the Bible. If I'm a drinker, I may not like that scripture calls drunkenness a sin, yet there it is. So do I get scissors and cut out those verses? I could, but the truth is still the truth. If I'm an alcoholic, no one does me any favors by not calling it what it is!

So it seems to me, that to a homosexual who has also been regenerated with the life of Christ, there is at least some issue here. Just like if I'm a Christian who likes to get drunk. There's a damaging element, which our loving Father wants to save us from, but can't if we don't even admit that something's off. (it's a free will thing)

So can someone help me understand why it seems that Christian LGBTQ+ people don't seem to see that it's something even a little off the mark - just like other manifestations of the flesh?

Final thought here; I know that the sweeping tide of this age wants to say all kinds of things are perfectly okay or not even a tad bit off-the-mark, because it (apparently) hurts no one, etc. But the tide of the world is in contrast to the Word of God on pretty much everything!!! As Christians, we are called to be set apart from the world and to speak the truth in love to those in it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Non sequitur - Serenity has Christ in her, does she not? (and of course we're to love all)

Good answer.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Ohio, for every of these articles you post, I can show you many more of innocent trans people who got murdered.

We live in an ugly world and people are being murdered all of the time. Look at how many have died in this summer of riots in many large cities.

If a straight white male or female is murdered, do we say they were murdered for who they were by birth? It seems as if no one cares.

All data can and will be politicized in this nasty age we live in. For example, thousands of black people are being killed in Chicago gang warfare, but the news only reports when a black person is killed by a police officer.

The media would love to give us the impression that gangs of evil straight people are hunting down LGBTQ every day, but that is not happening. Neither are the Police hunting down black people.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The media would love to give us the impression that gangs of evil straight people are hunting down LGBTQ every day, but that is not happening. Neither are the Police hunting down black people.

Oh a media conspiracy. Let's go to a extreme. Let's blame the media for everything.

And LGBTQ everyday? Goodness, lets go to a extreme again.

The Pulse gay nightclub doesn't happen everyday.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh a media conspiracy. Let's go to a extreme. Let's blame the media for everything.

And LGBTQ everyday? Goodness, lets go to a extreme again.

The Pulse gay nightclub doesn't happen everyday.

Facts, my friend. Why bring this up when the perp at Pulse was also gay?

It was Serenity who suggested that the LGBT community were a victimized class. How can we continue with that narrative when they are killing their own?

I mentioned before that the gay community had the highest economics among all the so-called "minorities." So how can they continually claim "victim" status?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Facts, my friend. Why bring this up when the perp at Pulse was also gay?

It was Serenity who suggested that the LGBT community were a victimized class. How can we continue with that narrative when they are killing their own?

I mentioned before that the gay community had the highest economics among all the so-called "minorities." So how can they continually claim "victim" status?

Did you even look at the separate stories in my websites? Trans people are killed because they’re trans. White people are not killed because they’re white but because of other reasons.

Show me the highest economics claim you have and back it up with everything with evidence because me and my lgbtq friends are poor as hell due to little to no financial support from their families. and they make up a large percentage of the homeless population

And fact check, the gunman who was canvassing the nightclub only pretended to be gay. he was prob bisexual but he did cheat on his wife with other women. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...amp/ncna882571

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I suppose the one thing we couldn't seem to get past on the other thread, was any admittance that homosexuality was off the original mark, and is therefore a sin.

To repeat myself, over & over, again & again, one more time . . . LGBTQ+ in my Bible is off the mark (i.e., "sin"). So are many things of the flesh and are talked about in scripture a lot. Man's heart is sick and produces all kinds of things which are off the mark. We need The Savior to bring us all back so we're able to fellowship freely with God and damaging things can be dealt with.

So the Bible calls us to agree with His word, confess and repent whenever fleshy things are manifested. I repeatedly used drunkenness as an example previously, because by itself drunkenness harms no one else (unless something else is committed while drunk). Yet it is called out as a sin in the Bible. If I'm a drinker, I may not like that scripture calls drunkenness a sin, yet there it is. So do I get scissors and cut out those verses? I could, but the truth is still the truth. If I'm an alcoholic, no one does me any favors by not calling it what it is!

So it seems to me, that to a homosexual who has also been regenerated with the life of Christ, there is at least some issue here. Just like if I'm a Christian who likes to get drunk. There's a damaging element, which our loving Father wants to save us from, but can't if we don't even admit that something's off. (it's a free will thing)

So can someone help me understand why it seems that Christian LGBTQ+ people don't seem to see that it's something even a little off the mark - just like other manifestations of the flesh?

Final thought here; I know that the sweeping tide of this age wants to say all kinds of things are perfectly okay or not even a tad bit off-the-mark, because it (apparently) hurts no one, etc. But the tide of the world is in contrast to the Word of God on pretty much everything!!! As Christians, we are called to be set apart from the world and to speak the truth in love to those in it.

It’s pretty simple. Comparing alcohol addiction to being gay or lesbian is not a good parallel comparison. Alcohol can lead to drunk driving, reckless behavior, even murder and violence. Being lgbtq in it of itself is not harmful. Just providing discomfort to white males. It is only harmful if the homosexual couple behaves like any other straight couple might- cheating, divorce etc. Have you guys ever divorced? Instead of throwing pebbles at lgbtq relationships that work and being jealous about it, why dont you guys just take a look at yourselves and your own relationships with your wives, ex-wives etc? Just take a look at this discussion right here;

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comm...tent=post_body

Gay and lesbian couples can have living successful relationships, based on prominent couple psychologist: https://www.gottman.com/about/resear...e-sex-couples/

Just like any other couple.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We live in an ugly world and people are being murdered all of the time. Look at how many have died in this summer of riots in many large cities.

If a straight white male or female is murdered, do we say they were murdered for who they were by birth? It seems as if no one cares.

All data can and will be politicized in this nasty age we live in. For example, thousands of black people are being killed in Chicago gang warfare, but the news only reports when a black person is killed by a police officer.

The media would love to give us the impression that gangs of evil straight people are hunting down LGBTQ every day, but that is not happening. Neither are the Police hunting down black people.

I think you should ask the FBI as they have the data. are you white and male and over age 50? because that can explain the discrepancy between what I experience and what you experience. Do you have a undergraduate and masters degree in Criminology? I do, and I can tell you that blacks are disproportionately in the prison system due to systemic racism from police officers to the legal system. And my professors are all elderly white male with pHD’s in this stuff. You can be against media but are you going to be against research, where data is collected not only from minorities but white straight males? and peer reviewed by academics, scientists, and all those experts. or is the Bible your only expert? God made us with a brain so we should use it to determine the facts and I have done that. I dont know about you.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/1582614001

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Did you even look at the separate stories in my websites? Trans people are killed because they’re trans. White people are not killed because they’re white but because of other reasons.

Show me the highest economics claim you have and back it up with everything with evidence because me and my lgbtq friends are poor as hell due to little to no financial support from their families. and they make up a large percentage of the homeless population

And fact check, the gunman who was canvassing the nightclub only pretended to be gay. he was prob bisexual but he did cheat on his wife with other women. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...amp/ncna882571

Things have dramatically changed in the 21st century. I really don't think it's fair to discuss the evils of past generations in order to judge today's people. The US has had more progress in this area than any other country on earth. For example, compare women's rights in the US with those in Muslim countries, and compare human rights with the Uyghers in China.

When social / economic researchers discuss minority statistics, they collect vast amounts of data, and then use average and median information. That doesn't mean there will be no poor people. But are you saying that you and your friends are abandoned minor children living as homeless?

Yes, it has been reported that the Pulse gunman was bisexual, who frequented gay bars, and cheated on his wife. Not a nice character.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

It’s pretty simple. Comparing alcohol addiction to being gay or lesbian is not a good parallel comparison. Alcohol can lead to drunk driving, reckless behavior, even murder and violence. Being lgbtq in it of itself is not harmful. Just providing discomfort to white males. It is only harmful if the homosexual couple behaves like any other straight couple might- cheating, divorce etc. Have you guys ever divorced? Instead of throwing pebbles at lgbtq relationships that work and being jealous about it, why dont you guys just take a look at yourselves and your own relationships with your wives, ex-wives etc? Just take a look at this discussion right here;

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comm...tent=post_body

Gay and lesbian couples can have living successful relationships, based on prominent couple psychologist: https://www.gottman.com/about/resear...e-sex-couples/

Just like any other couple.

I agree it's not a good comparison, and I think that a better one is a heterosexual couple in a committed relationship living together and having sex before marriage, or never getting married.

I like this as a example because its commonly done, still oftentimes looked down upon, and it also pertains directly to what has been called "the clobber verses".

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The "fornicators" and the "sexually immoral" in those verses apply directly to me, as a heterosexual, in precisely the same way "practicing homosexuality" applies to a homosexual. There is no difference. Both refer to the acts rather than to who we are as a person. Both refer to the sexual acts, and not to feelings we wish we didn't have.

These verses "clobber" me just as much as they "clobber" an LGBTQ person.

So in my example of a committed heterosexual couple, all the same arguments apply:

1. we can adopt a child and help the world
2. we aren't hurting anyone
3. we skirt what the Bible says about sexual relations in/outside the bounds of marriage
4. it "feels right"
5. it involves sex
6. it involves love
7. it involves commitment

And yet, it's also a sin. We can have something that hits all the feel good markers, that we can point to all the reasons why no one should take issue with it, and yet, the Word calls it unrighteous and contrary to sound doctrine.

Do I like it? Not necessarily. Can it be called a "living successful relationship"? Yep. But do I know what the Bible says and thus not do it? Yep.

Would you call a heterosexual couple committed, living together, having sex, adopting a child, not hurting anyone, and yet never getting married......a sin?

There's no catch behind the question. It's a simple, straightforward yes or no, for anyone reading.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I think you should ask the FBI as they have the data. are you white and male and over age 50?

because that can explain the discrepancy between what I experience and what you experience. Do you have a undergraduate and masters degree in Criminology? I do, and I can tell you that blacks are disproportionately in the prison system due to systemic racism from police officers to the legal system. And my professors are all elderly white male with pHD’s in this stuff.

This post has a little bait-n-switch in it, but I'll respond. And I'm trying to get past all of the racial, sexist, and age-related undertones in your post.

This current administration has done more in the area of criminal justice reform than any of its predecessors. Did you know that?

Also, it was Joe Biden's controversial 1994 Crime Bill that did more to incarcerate Blacks. E.g. Blacks using Crack Cocaine received far harsher sentences than Whites using Powdered Cocaine. Why was that? Many said it was racist. And Biden has a history of racist comments.

But everything flowed down hill from that legislation. If the police arrest more Blacks, and the courts sentence more Blacks -- all for using one drug rather than another -- shouldn't we identify the source of the problem, and correct it, rather than blaming the police, who merely are protecting their communities?

Consider Alice Johnson, who was convicted and sentenced in 1996 after Biden's infamous legislation was enacted. She received a horrible sentence, based on those legislated guidelines, as a first time offender. Obama refused to pardon her when lobbied by Kim Kardashian, but Trump did. What a wonderful story. But how many other "stories" are still in prison?

Let's correct bad legislation rather than condemn the Police. Agreed?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

You can be against media but are you going to be against research, where data is collected not only from minorities but white straight males? and peer reviewed by academics, scientists, and all those experts. or is the Bible your only expert? God made us with a brain so we should use it to determine the facts and I have done that. I dont know about you.

Did you say that you have a background in criminology?

Then you know that stats are always fair game for manipulation, right?

I have heard and read from many black scholars and speakers. Everyone of them point to the destruction of the nuclear family as the source of increased crime. A secondary source is Democratic policies in big cities, which do not have the benefits of two-party checks and balances. I'm sure you would be surprised to hear that Black families were far better off before civil rights legislation of the 60's -- less divorce, less poverty, better education, less unemployment, less crime. Read scholars like Thomas Sowell and Bob Woodson.

Without the nuclear family there is no father figure at home. There is little emphasis on education. The inner city schools are failures. Entire schools in Baltimore graduate kids who can't even read. No father figure at home and no education in school spell one thing -- crime. There are reasons why the highest density percentages of 911 calls come from inner city black neighborhoods. That means blacks are calling the police to help protect themselves from other blacks. That is not racism!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I suppose the one thing we couldn't seem to get past on the other thread, was any admittance that homosexuality was off the original mark, and is therefore a sin.

To repeat myself, over & over, again & again, one more time . . . LGBTQ+ in my Bible is off the mark (i.e., "sin"). So are many things of the flesh and are talked about in scripture a lot. Man's heart is sick and produces all kinds of things which are off the mark. We need The Savior to bring us all back so we're able to fellowship freely with God and damaging things can be dealt with.

So the Bible calls us to agree with His word, confess and repent whenever fleshy things are manifested. I repeatedly used drunkenness as an example previously, because by itself drunkenness harms no one else (unless something else is committed while drunk). Yet it is called out as a sin in the Bible. If I'm a drinker, I may not like that scripture calls drunkenness a sin, yet there it is. So do I get scissors and cut out those verses? I could, but the truth is still the truth. If I'm an alcoholic, no one does me any favors by not calling it what it is!

So it seems to me, that to a homosexual who has also been regenerated with the life of Christ, there is at least some issue here. Just like if I'm a Christian who likes to get drunk. There's a damaging element, which our loving Father wants to save us from, but can't if we don't even admit that something's off. (it's a free will thing)

So can someone help me understand why it seems that Christian LGBTQ+ people don't seem to see that it's something even a little off the mark - just like other manifestations of the flesh?

Final thought here; I know that the sweeping tide of this age wants to say all kinds of things are perfectly okay or not even a tad bit off-the-mark, because it (apparently) hurts no one, etc. But the tide of the world is in contrast to the Word of God on pretty much everything!!! As Christians, we are called to be set apart from the world and to speak the truth in love to those in it.

First of all your post is off the mark. Alcohol is not off the mark in the Bible. Jesus turned the water into fine wine, and lots of it. And it makes glad the heart of man. Plus it was used as medicine back then.

Now, let's talk about the clobber verses in the OT, particularly in Leviticus 18. Can they be trusted? And even more, can the OT God be trusted?

The key book in the OT to determine that is, the book of Job. The book of Job depicts God as completely untrustworthy. I think it's so clear to anyone with an objective brain that there's no point to do a exegesis on the book, and how God acted in it ... or is depicted in it.

So if the book of Job depicts God as untrustworthy, how much can we trust the book of Leviticus ; a book that doesn't apply to us? That's why we ignore most of the book, except the clobber verses. We hetero's like those verses. But the food verses are ignored by Christians. The Jews still keep them. It's called keeping kosher. But even they don't stone people like Leviticus advises. That's because the OT God can't be trusted.

The OT God is off the mark.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

First of all your post is off the mark. Alcohol is not off the mark in the Bible. Jesus turned the water into fine wine, and lots of it. And it makes glad the heart of man. Plus it was used as medicine back then.

Now, let's talk about the clobber verses in the OT, particularly in Leviticus 18. Can they be trusted? And even more, can the OT God be trusted?

The key book in the OT to determine that is, the book of Job. The book of Job depicts God as completely untrustworthy. I think it's so clear to anyone with an objective brain that there's no point to do a exegesis on the book, and how God acted in it ... or is depicted in it.

So if the book of Job depicts God as untrustworthy, how much can we trust the book of Leviticus ; a book that doesn't apply to us? That's why we ignore most of the book, except the clobber verses. We hetero's like those verses. But the food verses are ignored by Christians. The Jews still keep them. It's called keeping kosher. But even they don't stone people like Leviticus advises. That's because the OT God can't be trusted.

The OT God is off the mark.

Hard to have effective fellowship with a Christian who doesn't seem to like or trust God, or believe in much of scripture!

I NEVER said alcohol was the problem and that's certainly a Strawman! But the excess thereof - getting drunk - that is what scripture talks about, right?

Originally Posted by Trapped

I agree it's not a good comparison, and I think that a better one is a heterosexual couple in a committed relationship living together and having sex before marriage, or never getting married. Yes, this is a better comparison - thanks!

I like this as a example because its commonly done, still oftentimes looked down upon, and it also pertains directly to what has been called "the clobber verses".

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The "fornicators" and the "sexually immoral" in those verses apply directly to me, as a heterosexual, in precisely the same way "practicing homosexuality" applies to a homosexual. There is no difference. Both refer to the acts rather than to who we are as a person. Both refer to the sexual acts, and not to feelings we wish we didn't have.

These verses "clobber" me just as much as they "clobber" an LGBTQ person.

So in my example of a committed heterosexual couple, all the same arguments apply:

1. we can adopt a child and help the world
2. we aren't hurting anyone
3. we skirt what the Bible says about sexual relations in/outside the bounds of marriage
4. it "feels right"
5. it involves sex
6. it involves love
7. it involves commitment

And yet, it's also a sin. We can have something that hits all the feel good markers, that we can point to all the reasons why no one should take issue with it, and yet, the Word calls it unrighteous and contrary to sound doctrine. AMEN

Do I like it? Not necessarily. Can it be called a "living successful relationship"? Yep. But do I know what the Bible says and thus not do it? Yep.

Would you call a heterosexual couple committed, living together, having sex, adopting a child, not hurting anyone, and yet never getting married......a sin?

There's no catch behind the question. It's a simple, straightforward yes or no, for anyone reading.

Thanks for that Trapped - makes the point I was trying to make much clearer. There's been a lot of dancing around and around this . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And even more, can the OT God be trusted?

The key book in the OT to determine that is, the book of Job. The book of Job depicts God as completely untrustworthy. I think it's so clear to anyone with an objective brain that there's no point to do a exegesis on the book, and how God acted in it ... or is depicted in it.

So if the book of Job depicts God as untrustworthy, how much can we trust the book of Leviticus ; a book that doesn't apply to us? That's because the OT God can't be trusted.

The OT God is off the mark.

Can you provide disclaimers in your signature that your opinions in no way reflect those of the rest of the members on this forum?

The story of Job in the Book of Job is truly incredible to all of those who endeavor to walk by faith. To those without faith in God, it appears as gibberish and foolishness. And that, my friend, also summarizes the entire story of the Bible. Paul's words here quoting Isaiah make this point abundantly clear:

"For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will reject the understanding of the experts. Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in God's wisdom, the world thru wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached." -- (I Cor. 1.19-21)

Jesus Himself is the Message of God. Our Savior Jesus Christ, the One you regularly mock and criticize on this forum became weak and foolish and despised and even cursed in order to save all men, including you.

At least those who decide to believe the "foolish" message of the Bible. It's up to you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you provide disclaimers in your signature that your opinions in no way reflect those of the rest of the members on this forum?

The story of Job in the Book of Job is truly incredible to all of those who endeavor to walk by faith. To those without faith in God, it appears as gibberish and foolishness. And that, my friend, also summarizes the entire story of the Bible. Paul's words here quoting Isaiah make this point abundantly clear:

"For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will reject the understanding of the experts. Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in God's wisdom, the world thru wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached." -- (I Cor. 1.19-21)

Jesus Himself is the Message of God. Our Savior Jesus Christ, the One you regularly mock and criticize on this forum became weak and foolish and despised and even cursed in order to save all men, including you.

At least those who decide to believe the "foolish" message of the Bible. It's up to you.

You say all that in support of the homophobic verses in Leviticus 18?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

You say all that in support of the homophobic verses in Leviticus 18?

I said all that in response to your comments here:

And even more, can the OT God be trusted?

The key book in the OT to determine that is, the book of Job. The book of Job depicts God as completely untrustworthy. I think it's so clear to anyone with an objective brain that there's no point to do a exegesis on the book, and how God acted in it ... or is depicted in it.

So if the book of Job depicts God as untrustworthy, how much can we trust the book of Leviticus ; a book that doesn't apply to us? That's because the OT God can't be trusted.

The OT God is off the mark.

[Sons to Glory!]

So while you two (Ohio, awareness) go down an apparent rabbit hole with each other once more, hopefully someone from the LGBTQ+ community will answer what Trapped and myself have put forth, which is the question we keep going around & around on and never gets answered directly. The responses I've seen on it so far falls basically into, "If it feels so good, how can it be wrong?" arena. Or another incredible response I've seen is, "Homosexuality is not off the mark in any way and is actually God's intention."

It was even inferred that if we don't completely accept 100% that all LGBTQ+ is normal and part of God's grand design, then we are haters. This is a total Strawman argument and patently false. As Christians with Christ in us, we love everyone - He came to die for sinners & enemies of God, of which we all were (and still sin sometimes). However, what is in the Bible is God's truth, and we must speak the truth in love accordingly, right?

[Sons to Glory!]

As I was working outside today I was musing about this subject and talking to the Lord about it and how to speak the truth in love. Here's what came to me - God has a household administration and His banner over us is love. Because He loves us, He wants the best for us, and He has an order of things that facilitate each one in His household in getting what they need (not necessarily what they want though).

God doesn't give laws and guidance just to be flappin' His lips - they are for a purpose. And that loving purpose is to help us and to not do harm to others and have good relationships with one another. Some of His laws are real obvious in that we can see that violating them does obvious harm to others - e.g., murder, stealing, lying, etc. Other things He calls out, like adultery, cause issues and harm with relationships . . . it is hurtful to the other parties. Sexual sins cause relationship issues.

So God has a loving, household administration to see that everyone in His household gets what they need. And things are put in place and communicated for the children's security, safety, comfort, nourishment, continued relationships, etc. And to keep things operating well, there is an order so that the love and care can flow to all. Often there are ones who want to rebel against that order (think teenagers), because they don't see the overall benefits of maintaining that order.

If you say LGBTQ+ doesn't do anyone any harm, then what about all the other relationships surrounding a LGBTQ+ person? You may say it's not fair and all that, and that others should be more "enlightened," but to say the least, the lifestyle is not easy on various relationships. (that's what a gay friend of the family once said, "Who in the world would choose this - because it's certainly not easy!") Perhaps God had this in mind, when He called various sexual behaviors as being "off the mark." I don't know completely . . . I just know He calls it out. Sin is off the mark and causes death. (1 Cor 15:56)

I'm not here to judge - the Lord knows we all have sin and things we do that are counterproductive according to God's universal order of things. And Christians should love others regardless of behaviors (this really takes Christ's love in us!) But God's laws and guidance are not just some arbitrary and capricious thing for His amusement. They are there for a loving reason, even if we disagree or can't see what that reason is exactly. Some things we just have to trust Him on. (e.g., drunkenness, adultery, homosexuality, etc.)

So I hope that makes sense - I am trying to say the same thing in different ways to hopefully make it more clear. Please forgive any shortcoming I have in effectively communicating this. Lastly, if someone doesn't see that any LBGTQ+ behavior is even just a teeny-tiny little off the mark according to the Bible, I don't know what else can be said!

Jesus loves me this I know, cuz the Bible tells me so.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So while you two (Ohio, awareness) go down an apparent rabbit hole with each other once more, hopefully someone from the LGBTQ+ community will answer what Trapped and myself have put forth, which is the question we keep going around & around on and never gets answered directly. The responses I've seen on it so far falls basically into, "If it feels so good, how can it be wrong?" arena. Or another incredible response I've seen is, "Homosexuality is not off the mark in any way and is actually God's intention."

It was even inferred that if we don't completely accept 100% that all LGBTQ+ is normal and part of God's grand design, then we are haters. This is a total Strawman argument and patently false. As Christians with Christ in us, we love everyone - He came to die for sinners & enemies of God, of which we all were (and still sin sometimes). However, what is in the Bible is God's truth, and we must speak the truth in love accordingly, right?

Haven't you ever been on a discussion board with 2 conversations going on at once? Yes, I do think that awareness's blasphemous comments about God should not go unchallenged. I think it is he who derails discussions, not me, and I have said so. Perhaps you are not bothered by them, and that's fine too. But I am. It's a Christian forum, isn't it? Do we believe in God and the Bible or not?

From the beginning I took another course of discussion. Instead of taking the normal path and using the Bible verses to say how LGBT is sin, I decided to examine it from a societal view. My posts also went unanswered, specifically what are the long term damages that the trans movement will have on society?

Neither of these are "rabbit holes" to me.

Since you started this thread, why don't you state some guidelines for discussion, that way you won't get offended like serenity and awareness when someone like me inadvertently steps on your toes and you demand this thread be shut down. So far we have discussed the following:

• Slandering God and defending Him
• Allegations of LGBT persecutions and hoaxes
• Dangers of Trans on women
• Claims by the Moderator that these posts are garbage
• God truly loves the LGBT but hates the sin, just as he loves all sinners but still hates their sin
• Effects of alcohol on people
• Mistreatment of Blacks in criminal justice system

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

If you say LGBTQ+ doesn't do anyone any harm, then what about all the other relationships surrounding a LGBTQ+ person? You may say it's not fair and all that, and that others should be more "enlightened," but to say the least, the lifestyle is not easy on various relationships.

Jesus loves me this I know, cuz the Bible tells me so.

This is like comparing a striaght couple’s relationship where the in laws dont like the partner. I already shared on the other thread about my parents ultimately accepting my relationship with my spouse so I dont know the harm you are talking about.

[Sons to Glory!]

See below comments Basically, don't get yer feathers too ruffled, bro, mine aren't!

Originally Posted by Ohio

Haven't you ever been on a discussion board with 2 conversations going on at once? Yes, I do think that awareness's blasphemous comments about God should not go unchallenged. I think it is he who derails discussions, not me, and I have said so. Perhaps you are not bothered by them, and that's fine too. But I am. It's a Christian forum, isn't it? Do we believe in God and the Bible or not? I am bothered by awareness' anti-God comments, and have said so a number of times . . . perhaps you've missed this. I do usually find his comments more bothersome.

From the beginning I took another course of discussion. Instead of taking the normal path and using the Bible verses to say how LGBT is sin, I decided to examine it from a societal view. My posts also went unanswered, specifically what are the long term damages that the trans movement will have on society?

Neither of these are "rabbit holes" to me. No, I think that's fair - it's just that once you and awareness get going, it seems to prety much dominate the discussion . . . you two can't resist jabbing each other apparently.

Since you started this thread, why don't you state some guidelines for discussion, that way you won't get offended like serenity and awareness when someone like me inadvertently steps on your toes and you demand this thread be shut down. Not offended bro - just don't want to see us off snorkeling in the weeds (as mentioned above).

So far we have discussed the following:

• Slandering God and defending Him *
• Allegations of LGBT persecutions and hoaxes *
• Dangers of Trans on women *
• Claims by the Moderator that these posts are garbage
• God truly loves the LGBT but hates the sin, just as he loves all sinners but still hates their sin * Amen & AMEN!!!
• Effects of alcohol on people * - just trying to point out that an excess thereof is also called out as sin, like homobizness
• Mistreatment of Blacks in criminal justice system

Thanks for that synopsis! So the things marked with an asterisk are definitely related to the LGBTQ+ things learned topic I think. The others are a sidebar at best. Sidebars are okay as they may help clarify the main point, but at some point it's snorkeling in the weeds. I really just ask that things like what you and awareness get into would somehow not become the predominate thing as it seems to have been on other threads (you guys must secretly enjoy these little back-n-forths between each other) - then the main subject tends to get lost as people start responding to the other thing . . .

Also, the things that appear to really trip each other's triggers are the political related stuff, and slandering God comments. If we can keep these to a minimum, it might make for a more fruitful discussion. (However, I also acknowledge it may be difficult to do, since this topic is so intertwined with both minefields!

And as we say in our leadership classes, "Attack the problem, not the person!"

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I agree it's not a good comparison, and I think that a better one is a heterosexual couple in a committed relationship living together and having sex before marriage, or never getting married.

I like this as a example because its commonly done, still oftentimes looked down upon, and it also pertains directly to what has been called "the clobber verses".

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The "fornicators" and the "sexually immoral" in those verses apply directly to me, as a heterosexual, in precisely the same way "practicing homosexuality" applies to a homosexual. There is no difference. Both refer to the acts rather than to who we are as a person. Both refer to the sexual acts, and not to feelings we wish we didn't have.

These verses "clobber" me just as much as they "clobber" an LGBTQ person.

So in my example of a committed heterosexual couple, all the same arguments apply:

1. we can adopt a child and help the world
2. we aren't hurting anyone
3. we skirt what the Bible says about sexual relations in/outside the bounds of marriage
4. it "feels right"
5. it involves sex
6. it involves love
7. it involves commitment

And yet, it's also a sin. We can have something that hits all the feel good markers, that we can point to all the reasons why no one should take issue with it, and yet, the Word calls it unrighteous and contrary to sound doctrine.

Do I like it? Not necessarily. Can it be called a "living successful relationship"? Yep. But do I know what the Bible says and thus not do it? Yep.

Would you call a heterosexual couple committed, living together, having sex, adopting a child, not hurting anyone, and yet never getting married......a sin?

There's no catch behind the question. It's a simple, straightforward yes or no, for anyone reading.

The verses you pointed out with the words “homosexuality” in it, the word “arsenokoitai” shows up in two different verses in the bible, but it was not translated to mean “homosexual” until 1946. “Arsenokoitai” in greek (the language New Testament was written in) meant men having sexual relationships with boy slaves. so of course it was sexual immorality. it was never meant used to equate two men or two women in a commited respectful relationship. So the entire premise for the rest of the paragraphs underneath is wrong, thus the argument doesnt hold up.
See below on a scholar’s view regarding this matter:

“Anyway, I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” Then we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.” So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
I then grabbed my facsimile copy of Martin Luther’s original German translation from 1534. My friend is reading through it for me and he says, “Ed, this says the same thing!” They use the word knabenschander. Knaben is boy, schander is molester. This word “boy molesters” for the most part carried through the next several centuries of German Bible translations. Knabenschander is also in 1 Timothy 1:10. So the interesting thing is, I asked if they ever changed the word arsenokoitai to homosexual in modern translations. So my friend found it and told me, “The first time homosexual appears in a German translation is 1983.” To me that was a little suspect because of what was happening in culture in the 1970s. Also because the Germans were the ones who created the word homosexual in 1862, they had all the history, research, and understanding to change it if they saw fit; however, they did not change it until 1983. If anyone was going to put the word homosexual in the Bible, the Germans should have been the first to do it!”

There is a gay agenda, but not for what people think of it today. They used mistranslations to condemn gay sex in general.

Source: https://um-insight.net/perspectives/...-in-the-bible/

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

This is like comparing a striaght couple’s relationship where the in laws dont like the partner. I already shared on the other thread about my parents ultimately accepting my relationship with my spouse so I dont know the harm you are talking about.

Okay, that may be a harder one to show, or at least it's maybe a sidebar that could be pursued at some point . . .

But the big question some on here want to know: Do you see anything wrong at all with homosexuality from scriptures? Or do you see it 100% okay and justified completely from scripture?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did you say that you have a background in criminology?

Then you know that stats are always fair game for manipulation, right?


Without the nuclear family there is no father figure at home. There is little emphasis on education. The inner city schools are failures. Entire schools in Baltimore graduate kids who can't even read. No father figure at home and no education in school spell one thing -- crime. There are reasons why the highest density percentages of 911 calls come from inner city black neighborhoods. That means blacks are calling the police to help protect themselves from other blacks. That is not racism!

Stats can be manipulated but that’s why there’s peer reviews from academaia from all over the world, not just one source .

And have you ever wondered why there’s no father? because of poverty (thus more crime) , caused by sustemic racism, not just police but in every part of our society. African males are in prison so thats why the fathers are absent.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Things have dramatically changed in the 21st century. I really don't think it's fair to discuss the evils of past generations in order to judge today's people. The US has had more progress in this area than any other country on earth. For example, compare women's rights in the US with those in Muslim countries, and compare human rights with the Uyghers in China.

When social / economic researchers discuss minority statistics, they collect vast amounts of data, and then use average and median information. That doesn't mean there will be no poor people. But are you saying that you and your friends are abandoned minor children living as homeless?

Yes, it has been reported that the Pulse gunman was bisexual, who frequented gay bars, and cheated on his wife. Not a nice character.

Yes i have friends/acquaintances who are kicked out of their parents and were homeless for a few months. But thanks to lgbtq centers and their friends who let them sleep on couches, they were able to pick themselves up. I’m not homeless but I shouldnt be answering to you because you didnt regard answering if you were a white male over your 50’s which makes a big difference in being able to empathize minorities’ situations.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Stats can be manipulated but that’s why there’s peer reviews from academaia from all over the world, not just one source .

And have you ever wondered why there’s no father? because of poverty (thus more crime) , caused by sustemic racism, not just police but in every part of our society. African males are in prison so thats why the fathers are absent.

There is no factual basis for this. Media hype without stats. Peer reviews can only help when there is no financial incentive and political agenda to skew the results, case in point: climate change.

Did you know that before the Civil Rights Era of the 60's, there was less poverty, less unemployment, less crime, and less imprisonment among Black men, yet there was purported to be more racism. I'm surprised your information is so inaccurate. It shows how biased our universities have become.

Here are a few Stats to consider:

• 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks
• Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do
• Blacks committed 52% of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population
• Wites committed 45% of homicides while composing 77% of the population
• There were almost 6,000 blacks killed by other blacks in 2015.By contrast, only 258 blacks were killed by police gunfire.
• Black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s, when black poverty was higher and “racial discrimination was rampant and legal.”
• A straight line can be drawn between family breakdown and youth violence
• As economist Thomas Sowell points out, before the 1960s “most black children were raised in two-parent families.” In 2013, over 72 percent of blacks were born out of wedlock. In Cook County (Chicago), 79 percent of blacks were born to single mothers in 2003, while only 15 percent of whites were born to single mothers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Yes i have friends/acquaintances who are kicked out of their parents and were homeless for a few months. But thanks to lgbtq centers and their friends who let them sleep on couches, they were able to pick themselves up.

I’m not homeless but I shouldnt be answering to you because you didnt regard answering if you were a white male over your 50’s which makes a big difference in being able to empathize minorities’ situations.

Were your friends/acquaintances minors or adults over 18 when they were kicked out of the house? The laws can protect minors.

There are lots of straight white males who got kicked out of their parents house. Did you empathize with them?

I never asked you personal questions about yourself, so why go there? For this discussion, who cares if I am a green juvenile from Tazmania?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There is no factual basis for this. Media hype without stats. Peer reviews can only help when there is no financial incentive and political agenda to skew the results, case in point: climate change.

Did you know that before the Civil Rights Era of the 60's, there was less poverty, less unemployment, less crime, and less imprisonment among Black men, yet there was purported to be more racism. I'm surprised your information is so inaccurate. It shows how biased our universities have become.

Here are a few Stats to consider:

• 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks
• Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do
• Blacks committed 52% of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population
• Wites committed 45% of homicides while composing 77% of the population
• There were almost 6,000 blacks killed by other blacks in 2015.By contrast, only 258 blacks were killed by police gunfire.
• Black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s, when black poverty was higher and “racial discrimination was rampant and legal.”
• A straight line can be drawn between family breakdown and youth violence
• As economist Thomas Sowell points out, before the 1960s “most black children were raised in two-parent families.” In 2013, over 72 percent of blacks were born out of wedlock. In Cook County (Chicago), 79 percent of blacks were born to single mothers in 2003, while only 15 percent of whites were born to single mothers.

I’m not surprised you are against climate change and education. Not my information: Also we should be paying attention to today not the 60’s. nd so convenient that the two black activists you named dont believe in systemic racism and you quote from them, and blame Democrats for impoverished black neighborhoods. But we should get away from politics and stick to the outline StG has for us and talk about lgbtq issues
https://www.sentencingproject.org/pu...l-disparities/

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Were your friends/acquaintances minors or adults over 18 when they were kicked out of the house? The laws can protect minors.

I never asked you personal questions about yourself, so why go there? For this discussion, who cares if I am a green juvenile from Tazmania?

You asked in the other thread if my spouse would feel jeaopardized by the fact that I am bisexual.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

You asked in the other thread if my spouse would feel jeaopardized by the fact that I am bisexual.

I only asked questions about the information you volunteered to provide.

Sorry if that offended you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I’m not surprised you are against climate change and education.

Not my information: Also we should be paying attention to today not the 60’s.

I'm not against climate change. I am for the truth. I have seen lots of data that disputes prevailing group think.

The earth goes thru cycles. When I was in high school, the earth was going thru a cooling cycle. All of the scientists and prevailing climatologists predicted an ICE AGE would soon destroy the earth. The last one was 10K years ago, and the next one was coming soon. The reasons were the same: fossil fuel emissions polluting the atmosphere. Then in the 90's a warming cycle occurred. Wait 10 years or so and we will be cooling again. Historical data proves this.

It's no wonder that they use all sorts of frightful and apocalyptic propaganda to deceive and manipulate young people.

[Sons to Glory!]

Serenity: This question may have been missed, due to other posting activity, so I thought to repost. Answering this will help lay a more effective foundation I think.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But the big question some on here want to know: Do you see anything wrong at all with homosexuality from scriptures? Or do you see it 100% okay and justified completely from scripture?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by awareness

From Serenity Thread

Refresh my memory, or correct it. Is that a Jesus saying, that I don't know about? Did I miss him saying, "Love your neighbor as yourself, but only if they have Christ in them?"

9 times did I find "love your neighbor as yourself. whether they are saved or unsaved, that is not the basis for our loving them.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives from other LGBTQ thread

I would like to also add that I believe not only that the Bible is from expressed through human writers and there are hints of human biases throughout the Bible. Just look at heinous tragedy of “spilling seed” in the case of Judah and his sons and Tamar. At the time, society was for propagating. And also take a look at the story of the adulterous woman the Pharisees brought to Jesus to have her stoned. If there was an adulterous woman, there must have had sexual relations with men, implicating them also in adultery. But where are these men? Were they punished as well or was only the woman punished (kind of like the witch trials in Salem)? Why is the Bible mute about thee men. Was the woman commiting adultery by herself? The interpretation that makes most sense is that the Bible including the New Testament was written mostly be men with biased patriarchical views based on the time period that they lived in, so to talk about stoning the men along with the woman must’ve prob been covered up. This shows that the Buble is a human book made by humans (with some divine inspiration but surely not completely). Then we have to wonder about the circumstances regarding the passages regarding clobber passages used by some Christians to condemn homosexuality as a sin.

The Bible can't trace every line of every interaction of every implied participant in every story it tells. It's not a secret that for the adulterous woman to be an adulterer, there was a man or men involved. But the side we see is the side that Jesus was involved in. That's why we see only the woman's side, because the NT follows the line that involves Jesus. Maybe they took the man off to be punished and just brought the woman to trap Jesus.

Additionally, if you want to assume they didn't punish the man, well....the law then was that both parties involved in adultery be put to death - man and woman. So the accusers were themselves caught in sin by accusing the woman only and apparently letting the man go free. This could be why Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".....because the men in front of him accusing the adulterous women had literally sinned right then by not dragging the man along to be brought to justice too.

It's very interesting that you'd take a passage most known to show the extent of God's grace and try to use it to claim biased patriarchal views. I mean.....the whole point of the passage is that Jesus DIDN'T go along with stoning her! How un-patriarchal can you get?!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness from the other LGBTQ thread

StG quoted "the letter kills," and then goes to the letter to make his points.

Okay....."the letter kills" but the spirit gives life isn't talking about quoting a verse.

The letter kills is referring to the law, and that keeping the law won't save you from death. Keeping the law is not what justifies us before God and saves us from the wages of our sin (death). It is the spirit that does that.

Sheesh. Can't even quote verses in this place without getting slapped.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Serenity: This question may have been missed, due to other posting activity, so I thought to repost. Answering this will help lay a more effective foundation I think.

Boy we can be here all day talking about this. From my opinion, as I mentioned in previous posts the word for “homosexuality” was mistranslated from Greek in the New Testament. If you look at the OT, homosexuality was condemned but only men lying with men (nothing about women), so it’s vague. You have to see the bible as a book written by humans and the historical context in whoch Paul wrote those clobber verses. So short answer is the Bible is unclear about homosexuality. It doesnt mention anything about sexual orientation, and bible scholars do not believe people at the time understood or had the scientific knowledge and advancements we have today to put qords such as “sexual orientation”, “leabian,”bisexual”, “transgender” or “intersexual”. The only place I remember is Jesus praising sexual other, the eunuchs, in the Bible. If you ask me personally, I don’t believe 100 percent that scripture is against homosexuality. But Christ in my heart says it’s 100 percent okay to be like this, according to my spirit.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I said all that in response to your comments here:

And even more, can the OT God be trusted?

The key book in the OT to determine that is, the book of Job. The book of Job depicts God as completely untrustworthy. I think it's so clear to anyone with an objective brain that there's no point to do a exegesis on the book, and how God acted in it ... or is depicted in it.

So if the book of Job depicts God as untrustworthy, how much can we trust the book of Leviticus ; a book that doesn't apply to us? That's because the OT God can't be trusted.

The OT God is off the mark.

What I said about God in the book of Job can be proven, using the same book.

Now God being off the mark? That's a subjective judgement. And it's difficult to explain. I look at it this way : We assume, with just a few verses, that we know what God approves of or not. But God is like your wife or husband, even with years of talking you still don't know all that's in him or her's mind, and really like many other systems of him or her's fleshly person. That's just the way it is, like it or not.

I like the Bible. It's a great book, and to me as well, is entertaining. For most of my life I looked at it like it's divine. Then I grew up, and began to see it as a human book.

Today I look at it in human terms and values. So I read Leviticus 18 with modern day human values. And a lot of chapter 18 makes sense, like sleeping with kinsmen, and kinswomen -- incest. And those statements in chap 18, match what we know about genetics today. But I don't see the homophobia verses as such. Genetics today disproves that homosexuality is just a choice that God can judge.

I personally see 18 as lacking all of God's thinking on the matter ; like the author(s) failed to write at the end, something like, "Love conquers all." Which means God realized that love between same sexes, overrides such condemnatory statements. Then God wouldn't be off the mark. We just don't know the mind of God.

And if how Job depicts God is accurate, then, God is a trickster God ... and all bets are off. God could mean Leviticus 18 ... or not. And looking a genetic evidence today, He doesn't.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

What I said about God in the book of Job can be proven, using the same book.

And if how Job depicts God is accurate, then, God is a trickster God ... and all bets are off. God could mean Leviticus 18 ... or not. And looking a genetic evidence today, He doesn't.

I always wondered, if the story of Job was just that, a story to teach us something. Because if it really did happen, wouldnt that be really really messed up? God taking away everything you love or allowing Satan to take away everything you love just to prove a point. No matter the new wives or children Job had at the end, it wouldnt make a difference because they wouldnt be the same loved ones he lost. Yes, lets say we treat the women and children like inanimate objects or property, then prob the grief would have seemed to be less. But that just shows how God views our loved ones in the OT. And not to mention God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and in the end it was “just kidding, herems a ram”. Thats sadistic. And God being Jealous all the time when the Israelites worship other gods. isnt that a human attribute? Is God compassionate and understanding or is he sadistic and jealous?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Genetics today disproves that homosexuality is just a choice that God can judge.

I'm not sure you even read responses to on these threads. We've covered this already. God judges your actions. If you have same-sex attractions, that's not a sin. If you jump into bed and have homosexual sex, that's a sin He'll judge. No one's genetics are tying their hands and forcing them to have homosexual sex. We are all made in various ways, but God judges what we do, not just simply us existing.

Besides, like much of this thread, claims and arguments have been contradictory. LGBTQ supporters want to absolve themselves by pointing to genetics, and then they post an article (on the other thread), the main crux of which is "oh no, how dare you point to genetics!!" I haven't seen literally anything that makes cohesive sense yet.

Originally Posted by awareness

I personally see 18 as lacking all of God's thinking on the matter ; like the author(s) failed to write at the end, something like, "Love conquers all." Which means God realized that love between same sexes, overrides such condemnatory statements. Then God wouldn't be off the mark. We just don't know the mind of God.

And if how Job depicts God is accurate, then, God is a trickster God ... and all bets are off. God could mean Leviticus 18 ... or not. And looking a genetic evidence today, He doesn't.

Okay.......awareness.......God loves us all. He "SO" loves us, as John 3:16 says. Love does conquer all. But guess what.....as you know.....His holiness and righteousness still have to be satisfied. Love doesn't NEGATE all. When we sinned, God the righteous judge has to punish wrongdoing, or else He wouldn't be a just God. If a murderer killed a family member of yours, and the judge looked at you and said "love conquers all" and let the guy go, that's not a righteous judge. Punishment still has to occur.

And so Jesus took our punishment, so God's righteousness and holiness can still stand. His love does reach "farther" but it doesn't mean everything else is tossed off a cliff.

God fully sees and acknowledges our sins, and in order for us to be saved, we have to acknowledge the depth of our sin too. Otherwise we wouldn't have need for a Savior without that acknowledgement. It's when we see them and acknowledge them that He will cover them. But if we go around claiming clear sins aren't sins, and continue in those sins, He can't cover them.

You are mixing two things, frequently. "Love between same sexes" is fine. SEX between same sexes ISN'T. "Love covers all" is certainly not speaking of homosexual sex, and you fully well know that.

I'll get to SerenityLives' interesting thoughts on arsenokoitai this weekend. I've been wanting to respond to that from the previous thread but haven't had the time.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

The verses you pointed out with the words “homosexuality” in it, ...

Nice dodge of the question. My question to you still stands.

I'll respond about arsenokoitai a little later when I have more time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Nice dodge of the question. My question to you still stands.

I'll respond about arsenokoitai a little later when I have more time.

The Greek word "arsenokoitai" is a compound word composed of "arsen" (Strong's #730) which indicates a male, and "koitas" which is a bed or mat. There are verses which use arsen when referring to the birth of a male baby, a male child, and a male adult. As such, "arsen," without further context, does not provide any definite information about the age of the male, as it is in the English language. Arsen is only gender specific, without reference to age.

Thus, using only the strict wording of 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1, we don't know specifically whether this act is adult with adult or adult with child. Since no caveats are included in scripture for male adult with male adult, none should be assumed, which refutes the entire basis of the article referenced by Serenity and her "German" friend.

Romans 1.27 also addresses male with male sex. The context never indicates that one party is a child or a victim, rather that both males "burned in their lust toward one another." Obviously both males could be adults or mature minors, old enough to lust passionately.

Trapped, I rushed these comments out, so please confirm, correct, or expand on anything I wrote here.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I always wondered, if the story of Job was just that, a story to teach us something. Because if it really did happen, wouldnt that be really really messed up? God taking away everything you love or allowing Satan to take away everything you love just to prove a point. No matter the new wives or children Job had at the end, it wouldnt make a difference because they wouldnt be the same loved ones he lost. Yes, lets say we treat the women and children like inanimate objects or property, then prob the grief would have seemed to be less. But that just shows how God views our loved ones in the OT. And not to mention God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and in the end it was “just kidding, herems a ram”. Thats sadistic. And God being Jealous all the time when the Israelites worship other gods. isnt that a human attribute? Is God compassionate and understanding or is he sadistic and jealous?

We're human. We can only understand things in human terms. So we write in human terms grand poetry such as the book of Job. (It's exquisite poetry).

It's written in three parts, between the 7th and 4th c. BCE. It's core early original concern was theodicy, or how a good God allows human suffering and evil. Then later was added the opening of the story, and the ending, that makes for interesting marvelous literature.

And humorist reading.

After my son died -- my beautiful smart blonde Chinese boy -- I was drawn to the book of Job, and was reading it over and over again.

I remember it well. I won't go into the details of the moment, but I remember after reading it many times, I busted out laughing. It was after God coming out of the whirlwind, and bragging about how big and powerful He was.

What made me laugh was, after betting with 'the Satan,' that Job would stand righteous no matter what the devil would do to Job, save take his life, and Job ends up with nothing but dust and ashes, and sores all over his body, God comes out, and didn't thank Job for making Him a winner, but comes out bragging about how wonderful and powerful He is. Now that's some humorous feminist poetry.

In the end the book attempts to explain why bad things happen to good people. But it depicts God as a The-O-Dicey. In other words, a unpredictable God, with indifference to human suffering (like the powers of nature - what humans know).

Anyway, to continue my original point, if the book of Job depicts God as He or She is, then the 18th chapter of Leviticus should not be taken as God's law. But should be just another example of poetry, depicting God as The-O-Dicey.

And therefore, shouldn't be used to clobber gays.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Serenity: This question may have been missed, due to other posting activity, so I thought to repost. Answering this will help lay a more effective foundation I think.

But the big question some on here want to know: Do you see anything wrong at all with homosexuality from scriptures? Or do you see it 100% okay and justified completely from scripture?

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Boy we can be here all day talking about this. From my opinion, as I mentioned in previous posts the word for “homosexuality” was mistranslated from Greek in the New Testament. If you look at the OT, homosexuality was condemned but only men lying with men (nothing about women), so it’s vague. You have to see the bible as a book written by humans and the historical context in whoch Paul wrote those clobber verses. So short answer is the Bible is unclear about homosexuality. It doesnt mention anything about sexual orientation, and bible scholars do not believe people at the time understood or had the scientific knowledge and advancements we have today to put qords such as “sexual orientation”, “leabian,”bisexual”, “transgender” or “intersexual”. The only place I remember is Jesus praising sexual other, the eunuchs, in the Bible. If you ask me personally, I don’t believe 100 percent that scripture is against homosexuality. But Christ in my heart says it’s 100 percent okay to be like this, according to my spirit.

OK, thanks, I wanted to be sure that was your answer to this - it seemed like that was the case from various prior posts. So checking for understanding: it sounds like you believe the Bible doesn't talk clearly about homosexuality (specifically perhaps not about female homosexuality) and possibly condones it, and that in your own heart you believe God is fine with it. Right?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Greek word "arsenokoitai" is a compound word composed of "arsen" (Strong's #730) which indicates a male, and "koitas" which is a bed or mat. There are verses which use arsen when referring to the birth of a male baby, a male child, and a male adult. As such, "arsen," without further context, does not provide any definite information about the age of the male, as it is in the English language. Arsen is only gender specific, without reference to age.

Thus, using only the strict wording of 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1, we don't know specifically whether this act is adult with adult or adult with child. Since no caveats are included in scripture for male adult with male adult, none should be assumed, which refutes the entire basis of the article referenced by Serenity and her "German" friend.

Romans 1.27 also addresses male with male sex. The context never indicates that one party is a child or a victim, rather that both males "burned in their lust toward one another." Obviously both males could be adults or mature minors, old enough to lust passionately.

Trapped, I rushed these comments out, so please confirm, correct, or expand on anything I wrote here.

Again you take the historical context out of the meaning of the words. In some languages, you cant just take the word’s meaning at face value, yoo have to read the surrounding verses and the cultural context in which the author, or Paul is writing in. Romans 1:27 is talking about the ancient Roman practice of temple prostitution. Readers of Romans would know what Paul is talking about but us as modern readers, no, because we dont live in that time period! This is why those who use the Bible to justify their points of view (i.e slavery at the time of Abraham Lincoln is right) are foolish. Take a look here for historical context:
https://eewc.com/historical-literary...romans-124-27/

https://collected.jcu.edu/cgi/viewco...=mastersessays

https://www.google.com/amp/s/lgbtqco...-romans-1/amp/

See this article for terminology:
https://www.westarinstitute.org/wp-c...koitai-3.1.pdf

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

OK, thanks, I wanted to be sure that was your answer to this - it seemed like that was the case from various prior posts. So checking for understanding: it sounds like you believe the Bible doesn't talk clearly about homosexuality (specifically perhaps not about female homosexuality) and possibly condones it, and that in your own heart you believe God is fine with it. Right?

Yes, correct. And denying the sex part of a relationship but maintaining that attraction is okay is like denying a straight heterosexual couple the need for intimacy, which is important for human bonding and such a fundamental part to a relationship. God said that it was not good for man to be alone.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Nice dodge of the question. My question to you still stands.

I'll respond about arsenokoitai a little later when I have more time.

I was merely pointing out the policability of the verses you use to lead up to your questions. I’m not a bible literalist and the bible literalists in here only think the only Christians are Christians who look and think like them.

So no, I have different points of view on each of your questions

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I was merely pointing out the policability of the verses you use to lead up to your questions. I’m not a bible literalist and the bible literalists in here only think the only Christians are Christians who look and think like them.

So no, I have different points of view on each of your questions

Is that a roundabout way of saying that you think committed heterosexuals living together and having sex, but not being married.....is fine and is not a sin?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I was merely pointing out the policability of the verses you use to lead up to your questions. I’m not a bible literalist and the bible literalists in here only think the only Christians are Christians who look and think like them.

Ahh, well no. So let's define what a Christian is. Simply defined, it's someone who has Christ living in them, right?

Someone with Christ living in them can think and do all sorts of things - in fact, they can behave just like unbelievers and do everything unbelievers do. In other words, a child of God can go into a far country, waste their substance on riotous living and sleep with the hogs in despair. But they're still a child of the King and Father still loves them!

I think this forum, and specifically this thread, points to the fact that we're all over the proverbial map when it comes to how we take scripture.

(and someone can do all the things according to the law and be a very good person, but without Christ living in them, they are not a child of God and are lost)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I think this forum, and specifically this thread, points to the fact that we're all over the proverbial map when it comes to how we take scripture.

What? Me? I resemble that remark.

Ya know Trapped, Ohio, and others, Serenity makes a valid point. In short, we weren't back there. And we don't have a clue of what it was like. It was a whole other world back then. They were flat earthers. They couldn't help it.

Our modern scientific age is a universe apart with how they lived and thought back then. Their mindset was beyond our ability to even imagine. For one, superstition was prevalent virtually everywhere back then. It was the common way to think. It couldn't be helped. Yet they were smart, as proven by their writings, many that are full of out of this world fantastical stories.

I point that out because they back then had minds far and away from ours today.

So we shouldn't be so certain about what Paul says, to the point of clobbering anyone with his verses. I think if we're gonna stick to Paul, we should read 1 Corinthians 13 over and over again. Otherwise we risk just being a clanging cymbal ... and be stuck thinking like a child.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Again you take the historical context out of the meaning of the words. In some languages, you cant just take the word’s meaning at face value, yoo have to read the surrounding verses and the cultural context in which the author, or Paul is writing in. Romans 1:27 is talking about the ancient Roman practice of temple prostitution.

Actually, I do not take these words out of historical context. My study uses excellent time-tested Bible study aids, and not some "covid-in-the-basement internet scholar." What I wrote is confirmed by the best authors.

For example, Paul had in mind Genesis 19 when he wrote Romans chapter 1. Had Paul written comments like this to the Corinthians, then I would agree with you. I Cor chap 6 confirms this. Paul directly referred to temple prostitutes in verses 6.9, 6.11, and 6.15-6.20.

The semantics I use are found in the Bible and contemporary Greek writings. What you have written about me is inaccurate.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ya know Trapped, Ohio, and others, Serenity makes a valid point. In short, we weren't back there. And we don't have a clue of what it was like. It was a whole other world back then. They were flat earthers. They couldn't help it.

This presupposes that the Bible was written only by men and without divine inspiration and help, and couldn't possibly know with clarity man's real nature and what manifestations of the flesh would like like in the future . . . (because God can surely knows it and see the end from the beginning, right?)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

And if how Job depicts God is accurate, then, God is a trickster God ... and all bets are off.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Okay.......awareness.......God loves us all. He "SO" loves us, as John 3:16 says. Love does conquer all. But guess what.....as you know.....His holiness and righteousness still have to be satisfied. Love doesn't NEGATE all. When we sinned, God the righteous judge has to punish wrongdoing, or else He wouldn't be a just God.

But Job doesn't depict God as just. What God does to Job is far from just. That's why I say God might be a trickster. Hey, I can be nutty, but I'm going by the word of God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Job doesn't depict God as just. What God does to Job is far from just. That's why I say God might be a trickster. Hey, I can be nutty, but I'm going by the word of God.

It's all distorted when it passes thru you.

Why are you permitted to call God a TRICKSTER?

If I refer to you this way, immediately I am censored, but you regularly get away with it with impunity.

The story of Job reveals God's love and care for us, using trials to perfect our faith, exposing our pride and self-righteousness, providing us with a heavenly scene to expose the source of all evil, yet pointing to the coming Redeemer. Occurring in time after Abraham but before Moses, Job's story has become a source of learning and encouragement for all God's people, both Jew and Gentile, for all generations.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, you're not. It's all distorted when it passes thru you.

We must be looking thru different lenses.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

But Job doesn't depict God as just. What God does to Job is far from just. That's why I say God might be a trickster. Hey, I can be nutty, but I'm going by the word of God.

I do actually understand where you are coming from on the Job thing. That's one of those I have "put a pin in" to grapple with later when I have more time, because it's a common stumbling block to many.

A few thoughts though:

1. Since you and I are not the author of life, when we take the life of another, it's murder and a sin, because it's not ours to take. But God is the author of life, and He thus has the full right to give it and take it as He sees fit. Period. We are the clay and we talk back to the Potter, but it's just the facts. He has determined the length of our days.

2. We each think that we deserve a life without pain or suffering, fully energetic and healthy all the way to 102 years old, but that's not how it goes. Some live to 2. Some to 32. Some to 82. Most suffer a lot during those years. None of us have earned any right to live to the age we think we should be given to live to.

3. If you are a Christian, you know that people don't really die.....they just change location, if you will. When someone dies, we know their body is no longer alive, but their soul is still indeed alive. So while Job's kids lost their temporal, earthly life of suffering, only their body died, as for us all. In Job 3, Job even speaks of being in death as peace, rest, ease, and freedom.

As for Job himself? The torment he was put through? Yeah. Ya got me. Job 4:18 says "For He wounds, but He also binds; He strikes, but His hands also heal." Sounds like a human being I would be scared of, honestly. So I'm partially with you on this one.


Edit to add: sorry, I don't mean to veer away from the thread topic.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I do actually understand where you are coming from on the Job thing. That's one of those I have "put a pin in" to grapple with later when I have more time, because it's a common stumbling block to many.

A few thoughts though:

1. Since you and I are not the author of life, when we take the life of another, it's murder and a sin, because it's not ours to take. But God is the author of life, and He thus has the full right to give it and take it as He sees fit. Period. We are the clay and we talk back to the Potter, but it's just the facts. He has determined the length of our days.

2. We each think that we deserve a life without pain or suffering, fully energetic and healthy all the way to 102 years old, but that's not how it goes. Some live to 2. Some to 32. Some to 82. Most suffer a lot during those years. None of us have earned any right to live to the age we think we should be given to live to.

3. If you are a Christian, you know that people don't really die.....they just change location, if you will. When someone dies, we know their body is no longer alive, but their soul is still indeed alive. So while Job's kids lost their temporal, earthly life of suffering, only their body died, as for us all. In Job 3, Job even speaks of being in death as peace, rest, ease, and freedom.

As for Job himself? The torment he was put through? Yeah. Ya got me. Job 4:18 says "For He wounds, but He also binds; He strikes, but His hands also heal." Sounds like a human being I would be scared of, honestly. So I'm partially with you on this one.


Edit to add: sorry, I don't mean to veer away from the thread topic.

Ha! The "topic police" won't come down too hard on this . . . let's see if we can tie it back into the topic. Yes, Job is a little troubling to us humans. I don't think I would call God a "Trickster," but I get it. (hard to trust someone if you see them as a trickster)

The Bible shows us He is a real person who gets upset and I'm sure is even pained by what He sees His creation has fallen into. And He makes various decisions that are way above our pay-grade and some actions seem off to us. But He is still the all-knowing Creator who certainly knows best (that's a huge understatement!). In Job's case, it reveals the behind-the-scene situation and God uses it all. But He is all-knowing and the Life-Giver, so it is His prerogative on how He does this, and Job gets this point clearly at the end. If the Potter decides to smash the clay vessel to start again and make it better, that's His prerogative. We're dealing with a Real Person here and we are but an image of Him at best.

And if He calls things out as being harmful to us (drunkenness, adultery, homosexuality, lying, etc.), He may let us keep doing these things. Or He may be merciful and cause some consequences to come our way that will cause us to turn to Him. In any case, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God - but it's also the best thing!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

As for Job himself? The torment he was put through? Yeah. Ya got me. Job 4:18 says "For He wounds, but He also binds; He strikes, but His hands also heal." Sounds like a human being I would be scared of, honestly. So I'm partially with you on this one.

You made some great points Trapped, but isn't Job's assessment here inaccurate? The beginning of Job makes it clear just who "wounds and strikes." Yes, God permitted it, but it is Satan who always does the evil to us. In His wisdom, God uses all the damages done by His adversary to perfect His seekers, though damaged by the fall. The encouragement drawn by all from Job, is not that we will understand "why" such and such is happening in our life, but that we are assured the God is sovereign and truly loves us.

Is not this the real result of the fall, Adam's disobediance in the garden? Nothing is easy, and all "easy" things become worthless to the children of God. All the precious things in life are not physical possessions, but things like love, faith, hope, etc. These don't come cheap. They all require testing and proving to make them valuable. Like Peter learned the hard way, "the proving of our faith more precious than gold."

Which man of God in the Bible or church history did not follow this narrow and difficult way? Adam tried the easy way, and thus he seemed to learn nothing. Yes, Job's suffering was extreme, because he established the groundwork, the example, for others. In this regard Job was a type of Christ; he was not punished for his own sins, rather he was clearly righteous according to God's demands. I think Job's raw cries are quite similar to David's and the Lord's on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Yet unlike the Lord, Job was proud and righteous in his own mind. In the end, however, he repented, and God seemed to reward him like no other.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Which man of God in the Bible or church history did not follow this narrow and difficult way? Adam tried the easy way, and thus he seemed to learn nothing. Yes, Job's suffering was extreme, because he established the groundwork, the example, for others. In this regard Job was a type of Christ; he was not punished for his own sins, rather he was clearly righteous according to God's demands. I think Job's raw cries are quite similar to David's and the Lord's on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Yet unlike the Lord, Job was proud and righteous in his own mind. In the end, however, he repented, and God seemed to reward him like no other.

David's story is most encouraging! That is, God doesn't like sin and what it causes (pride & blindness & more hurt), but ultimately He is looking for a humble and contrite heart that just repents and comes to Him in simplicity.

So is there an application here, regarding this thread's topic?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So is there an application here, regarding this thread's topic?

Sometimes, in the course of our discussions, comments must be made to correct gross misstatements.

This is something I learned from the LGBTQ+ Discussions.

[awareness]

Such a wonderful response, I left it below.

But I was caught by your last line :

Originally Posted by Trapped

Edit to add: sorry, I don't mean to veer away from the thread topic.

It's true, a discussion of Job is off thread topic. Sorry for that StG.

I didn't mean for that to happen. The BoJ doesn't speak for or against LGBTQ's.

Tho poorly, obviously, I was trying to use The BoJ to make us realize that we can't know the mind of God, can't write all of it, or understand all of it. And that might be true for Leviticus 18 as well.

So, not only do I think that Christians clobbering LGBTQ is sin, but there might be questions of using Leviticus 18 to clobber them.

Clobbering anyone is sin ... especially for Christians. Clobbering LGBTQ's is not proper Christian behavior. Not welcoming them in our Churches is not proper Christian behavior. Giving them a cold shoulder, or worse, is not proper Christian behavior. Not hugging them is not proper Christian behavior.

Christians doing that are sinning. Rejecting gays is a sin against God.

As you say, we're not the author of life ... so we're not the judge of it either. Let's leave that to God. Our job is to love our neighbors, even if we think they don't deserve it.

We're no longer in the age of stoning people, thank God. Leviticus 18 comes out of that age. We left the stoning age behind. Why not question the rest from that age? After all, The Book of Job comes out of that age.

Thanks for your marvelous and well thought out response ....
Harold

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Trapped

I do actually understand where you are coming from on the Job thing. That's one of those I have "put a pin in" to grapple with later when I have more time, because it's a common stumbling block to many.

A few thoughts though:

1. Since you and I are not the author of life, when we take the life of another, it's murder and a sin, because it's not ours to take. But God is the author of life, and He thus has the full right to give it and take it as He sees fit. Period. We are the clay and we talk back to the Potter, but it's just the facts. He has determined the length of our days.

2. We each think that we deserve a life without pain or suffering, fully energetic and healthy all the way to 102 years old, but that's not how it goes. Some live to 2. Some to 32. Some to 82. Most suffer a lot during those years. None of us have earned any right to live to the age we think we should be given to live to.

3. If you are a Christian, you know that people don't really die.....they just change location, if you will. When someone dies, we know their body is no longer alive, but their soul is still indeed alive. So while Job's kids lost their temporal, earthly life of suffering, only their body died, as for us all. In Job 3, Job even speaks of being in death as peace, rest, ease, and freedom.

As for Job himself? The torment he was put through? Yeah. Ya got me. Job 4:18 says "For He wounds, but He also binds; He strikes, but His hands also heal." Sounds like a human being I would be scared of, honestly. So I'm partially with you on this one.


Edit to add: sorry, I don't mean to veer away from the thread topic.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

We're dealing with a Real Person here and we are but an image of Him at best.

And if He calls things out as being harmful to us (drunkenness, adultery, homosexuality, lying, etc.), He may let us keep doing these things. Or He may be merciful and cause some consequences to come our way that will cause us to turn to Him. In any case, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God - but it's also the best thing!

I guess we’ll have to see if God loves me enough to be merciful and “fall into the hands of the living God”. God blessed me with my beautiful wife and I have not been happier and enjoying him ever since! (For now there’s little consequence)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Clobbering anyone is sin ... especially for Christians. Clobbering LGBTQ's is not proper Christian behavior. Not welcoming them in our Churches is not proper Christian behavior. Giving them a cold shoulder, or worse, is not proper Christian behavior. Not hugging them is not proper Christian behavior.

Christians doing that are sinning. Rejecting gays is a sin against God.

This is classic STRAW MAN.

NEWS FLASH: Christians are clobbering LGBTQ. Watch on YouTube.
These Christians are sinning! They are sinning against God Himself!

Ok ... Ok ... a little dramatic, BUT ... I dare say an honest response borne out of frustration to incessant trolling. And how many times have I said it? But awareness leads every conversation on Alt-Views to God-bashing, Bible-bashing, and Christian-bashing.*

But let me also ask. Is it a sin to reject the truths of the Bible? To smear God and Jesus as gays and tricksters? To give Christians the verbal "cold shoulder" at every opportunity?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I guess we’ll have to see if God loves me enough to be merciful and “fall into the hands of the living God”. God blessed me with my beautiful wife and I have not been happier and enjoying him ever since! (For now there’s little consequence)

Well, good. Listen, I sure don't know exactly how He works . . . shoot, I don't even know what I'm gonna have for dinner tonight!

But this I know - He's got this! He cares for us, He's able, and He's promised amazing things to us and for us. We just need to keep our hearts soft toward Him and have ongoing conversations with Him.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is classic STRAW MAN.

NEWS FLASH: Christians are clobbering LGBTQ. Watch on YouTube.
These Christians are sinning! They are sinning against God Himself!

Ok ... Ok ... a little dramatic, BUT ... I dare say an honest response borne out of frustration to incessant trolling. And how many times have I said it? But awareness leads every conversation on Alt-Views to God-bashing, Bible-bashing, and Christian-bashing.*

But let me also ask. Is it a sin to reject the truths of the Bible? To smear God and Jesus as gays and tricksters? To give Christians the verbal "cold shoulder" at every opportunity?

I concur, although I wouldn't have said it quite like that perhaps. The "clobbering" thing, to me, is like pulling out the hate or race card - effective communication and everything comes to a screeching halt when those StrawMan cards are played, and people are then prone to respond in a defensive way - this tactic is childish in my book. (almost akin to name calling)

I haven't seen bashing of LGBTQ+ folks on this thread or the last one. Just because many of us understand our Bibles to say that homosexuality is one of those off-the-mark things is not clobbering!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I concur, although I wouldn't have said it quite like that perhaps. The "clobbering" thing, to me, is like pulling out the hate or race card - effective communication and everything comes to a screeching halt when those StrawMan cards are played, and people are then prone to respond in a defensive way - this tactic is childish in my book. (almost akin to name calling)

I haven't seen bashing of LGBTQ+ folks on this thread or the last one. Just because many of us understand our Bibles to say that homosexuality is one of those off-the-mark things is not clobbering!

There's 13 verses in 1 Corinthians 13. Over twice as many as there is so called clobber verses in the entire Bible. We'd do best to stick to the 13.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's 13 verses in 1 Corinthians 13. Over twice as many as there is so called clobber verses in the entire Bible. We'd do best to stick to the 13.

Sure. Love. Correct. Doesn't mean there's not sin. Mentioning sin doesn't = so called clobbering. The Bible speaks to us in love. But if someone doesn't see a thing they are doing is off the mark, it's technically above my pay grade to show them -- other than show them the Word concerning it (and which would maybe save them).

But I guess the "facts" are in dispute, just like the Word of God and that God is love (i.e., "Trickster"). A complex system can be built up around anything to justify doing it, because it feels good to us to do it and our heart tells us it's OK . . .

Think I'll go get drunk and commit adultery ----> and then work on the complex theology to justify it later! (and yer job is just love me and agree that what I'm doing is all okay)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Sure. Love. Correct. Doesn't mean there's not sin. Mentioning sin doesn't = so called clobbering. The Bible speaks to us in love. But if someone doesn't see a thing they are doing is off the mark, it's technically above my pay grade to show them -- other than show them the Word concerning it (and which would maybe save them).

But I guess the "facts" are in dispute, just like the Word of God and that God is love (i.e., "Trickster"). A complex system can be built up around anything to justify doing it, because it feels good to us to do it and our heart tells us it's OK . . .

Think I'll go get drunk and commit adultery ----> and then work on the complex theology to justify it later! (and yer job is just love me and agree that what I'm doing is all okay)

You hint doing no such thing. You just set up a straw clobber man. And we still love you.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You made some great points Trapped, but isn't Job's assessment here inaccurate? The beginning of Job makes it clear just who "wounds and strikes." Yes, God permitted it, but it is Satan who always does the evil to us. In His wisdom, God uses all the damages done by His adversary to perfect His seekers, though damaged by the fall. The encouragement drawn by all from Job, is not that we will understand "why" such and such is happening in our life, but that we are assured the God is sovereign and truly loves us.

Is not this the real result of the fall, Adam's disobediance in the garden? Nothing is easy, and all "easy" things become worthless to the children of God. All the precious things in life are not physical possessions, but things like love, faith, hope, etc. These don't come cheap. They all require testing and proving to make them valuable. Like Peter learned the hard way, "the proving of our faith more precious than gold."

Which man of God in the Bible or church history did not follow this narrow and difficult way? Adam tried the easy way, and thus he seemed to learn nothing. Yes, Job's suffering was extreme, because he established the groundwork, the example, for others. In this regard Job was a type of Christ; he was not punished for his own sins, rather he was clearly righteous according to God's demands. I think Job's raw cries are quite similar to David's and the Lord's on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Yet unlike the Lord, Job was proud and righteous in his own mind. In the end, however, he repented, and God seemed to reward him like no other.

I can only give some head-scratcher type responses on this topic. I read through much of Job last night (save some of the latter unhelpful chapters from his "friends"), but I recall a few things that furrowed my brow:

1. Satan does indeed come to God, and God grants him the permission to mess with Job's belongings/family but not Job himself, in chapter 1. But then at some point one of the people who narrowly escaped being killed in the events says something like "the fire of God came down from heaven" (Job 1:16).

2. Also Job's immediate response was "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."

3. Then in Job 2:3, God says this, "Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one on earth like him, a man who is blameless and upright, who fears God and shuns evil. He still retains his integrity, even though you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause.”"

Incited Me against him to ruin him without cause??? What do we do with THOSE words from God's mouth?

4. Then in Job 2:10, Job responds to his wife this way, "“You speak as a foolish woman speaks,” he told her. “Should we accept from God only good and not adversity?” In all this, Job did not sin in what he said."

It seems Job is saying the adversity is "from God". And the scripture keeps saying Job didn't sin in what he said. If Job was off or wrong or blaming God for something God didn't do, then that would be identified as a sin. But it never identifies sin in Job's conduct or speaking.

5. And then in chapter 4 we get to Job's assessment about wounding/binding/striking/healing. We don't know yet if it's true or not, but, we see in point 7 below that it actually was.

6. In Job 38 or thereabouts God shows up in a swirl of wind and, frankly, comes across kind of arrogant and blustering about His power. Does He have a ton of power? Oh yeah. But to have basically zero compassion on the anguish and bewilderment of someone who did nothing to deserve the treatment He allowed and/or did, kind of, I mean, His actions just don't seem just here. I don't know what to say.

7. Then in Job 42:7-8, God says twice that Job was correct in what he said about God: "After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, He said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is kindled against you and your two friends. For you have not spoken about Me accurately, as My servant Job has. So now, take seven bulls and seven rams, go to My servant Job, and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. Then My servant Job will pray for you, for I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken accurately about Me, as My servant Job has.”" As I mentioned in point 5, this means Job's comments about God hurting/wounding and healing are true. I just don't know what to do with that.

I know Job retracted his words and repented in chapter 42, but I honestly don't see why. The book repeatedly says he didn't sin in what he said. What is he retracting or repenting for if he didn't sin?

I don't want to derail this thread with this topic, a new one can be made if there is interest, but all that I wrote above just leaves me kind of ...... wanting some milk and cookies for comfort.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I can only give some head-scratcher type responses on this topic. I read through much of Job last night (save some of the latter unhelpful chapters from his "friends"), but I recall a few things that furrowed my brow:

1. Satan does indeed come to God, and God grants him the permission to mess with Job's belongings/family but not Job himself, in chapter 1. But then at some point one of the people who narrowly escaped being killed in the events says something like "the fire of God came down from heaven" (Job 1:16).

2. Also Job's immediate response was "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."

3. Then in Job 2:3, God says this, "Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one on earth like him, a man who is blameless and upright, who fears God and shuns evil. He still retains his integrity, even though you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause.”"

Incited Me against him to ruin him without cause??? What do we do with THOSE words from God's mouth?

4. Then in Job 2:10, Job responds to his wife this way, "“You speak as a foolish woman speaks,” he told her. “Should we accept from God only good and not adversity?” In all this, Job did not sin in what he said."

It seems Job is saying the adversity is "from God". And the scripture keeps saying Job didn't sin in what he said. If Job was off or wrong or blaming God for something God didn't do, then that would be identified as a sin. But it never identifies sin in Job's conduct or speaking.

5. And then in chapter 4 we get to Job's assessment about wounding/binding/striking/healing. We don't know yet if it's true or not, but, we see in point 7 below that it actually was.

6. In Job 38 or thereabouts God shows up in a swirl of wind and, frankly, comes across kind of arrogant and blustering about His power. Does He have a ton of power? Oh yeah. But to have basically zero compassion on the anguish and bewilderment of someone who did nothing to deserve the treatment He allowed and/or did, kind of, I mean, His actions just don't seem just here. I don't know what to say.

7. Then in Job 42:7-8, God says twice that Job was correct in what he said about God: "After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, He said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is kindled against you and your two friends. For you have not spoken about Me accurately, as My servant Job has. So now, take seven bulls and seven rams, go to My servant Job, and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. Then My servant Job will pray for you, for I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken accurately about Me, as My servant Job has.”" As I mentioned in point 5, this means Job's comments about God hurting/wounding and healing are true. I just don't know what to do with that.

I know Job retracted his words and repented in chapter 42, but I honestly don't see why. The book repeatedly says he didn't sin in what he said. What is he retracting or repenting for if he didn't sin?

I don't want to derail this thread with this topic, a new one can be made if there is interest, but all that I wrote above just leaves me kind of ...... wanting some milk and cookies for comfort.

You make some good points. Whenever I read Job, it just confuses me why God seems to treat his friends with more compassion that Job himself. Maybe there were earlier editions with more details that didnt survive antiquity? After all, some historians do place Job as being older than Genesis, due to the fact that Satan is convwrsing with God with a full on conversation. so maybe God wasnt as “evolved” and Satan had a different role in God’s universe at the time? Just my speculation.

https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/chr...the-bible.aspx

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I can only give some head-scratcher type responses on this topic. I read through much of Job last night (save some of the latter unhelpful chapters from his "friends"), but I recall a few things that furrowed my brow:

1. Satan does indeed come to God, and God grants him the permission to mess with Job's belongings/family but not Job himself, in chapter 1. But then at some point one of the people who narrowly escaped being killed in the events says something like "the fire of God came down from heaven" (Job 1:16).

2. Also Job's immediate response was "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."

3. Then in Job 2:3, God says this, "Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one on earth like him, a man who is blameless and upright, who fears God and shuns evil. He still retains his integrity, even though you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause.”"

Incited Me against him to ruin him without cause??? What do we do with THOSE words from God's mouth?

4. Then in Job 2:10, Job responds to his wife this way, "“You speak as a foolish woman speaks,” he told her. “Should we accept from God only good and not adversity?” In all this, Job did not sin in what he said."

It seems Job is saying the adversity is "from God". And the scripture keeps saying Job didn't sin in what he said. If Job was off or wrong or blaming God for something God didn't do, then that would be identified as a sin. But it never identifies sin in Job's conduct or speaking.

5. And then in chapter 4 we get to Job's assessment about wounding/binding/striking/healing. We don't know yet if it's true or not, but, we see in point 7 below that it actually was.

6. In Job 38 or thereabouts God shows up in a swirl of wind and, frankly, comes across kind of arrogant and blustering about His power. Does He have a ton of power? Oh yeah. But to have basically zero compassion on the anguish and bewilderment of someone who did nothing to deserve the treatment He allowed and/or did, kind of, I mean, His actions just don't seem just here. I don't know what to say.

7. Then in Job 42:7-8, God says twice that Job was correct in what he said about God: "After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, He said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is kindled against you and your two friends. For you have not spoken about Me accurately, as My servant Job has. So now, take seven bulls and seven rams, go to My servant Job, and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. Then My servant Job will pray for you, for I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. For you have not spoken accurately about Me, as My servant Job has.”" As I mentioned in point 5, this means Job's comments about God hurting/wounding and healing are true. I just don't know what to do with that.

I know Job retracted his words and repented in chapter 42, but I honestly don't see why. The book repeatedly says he didn't sin in what he said. What is he retracting or repenting for if he didn't sin?

I don't want to derail this thread with this topic, a new one can be made if there is interest, but all that I wrote above just leaves me kind of ...... wanting some milk and cookies for comfort.

That's a pretty good rundown of Job. I can add much to it. I'll just say that when I read the book it makes me pissed off at God. I don't, or didn't, see Him as that mean, cold, and indifferent, to Job's significant heart-wrenching losses, and abject suffering and torture.

It certainly makes me wonder if the book is the actual word of God. Maybe it should be considered apocryphal.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I haven't seen bashing of LGBTQ+ folks on this thread or the last one. Just because many of us understand our Bibles to say that homosexuality is one of those off-the-mark things is not clobbering!

Forget the terminology of clobbering for a sec. Do you know of any other group of people whom when Christians preach out of love regarding other topics, not just homosexuality being a sin, that these people have suicidal thoughts? I think that is the main concern. Like why ex-gay ministries or conversion therapies do more harm than good even when Christians out of the kindness of their hearts are trying to “save” others. These kids sent to these boot camps end up with major depression and suicide attempts, all while reading the bible or being taught but feeling terrible that they cant change and the pain is so horrible they’d rather die. Why is it like that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I don't want to derail this thread with this topic, a new one can be made if there is interest, but all that I wrote above just leaves me kind of ...... wanting some milk and cookies for comfort.

Here's a couple more verses for you -- Isaiah 53:9-10 -- far worse than the ones you posted. You gonna need far more than milk and cookies to find comfort with that mindset.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Forget the terminology of clobbering for a sec. Do you know of any other group of people whom when Christians preach out of love regarding other topics, not just homosexuality being a sin, that these people have suicidal thoughts? I think that is the main concern. Like why ex-gay ministries or conversion therapies do more harm than good even when Christians out of the kindness of their hearts are trying to “save” others. These kids sent to these boot camps end up with major depression and suicide attempts, all while reading the bible or being taught but feeling terrible that they cant change and the pain is so horrible they’d rather die. Why is it like that?

Not sure - is that really the case? If so, what is the cause of the suicidal thoughts? Is it the action other Christians are taking or something speaking directly to the individual? There are powers of darkness around us wanting to destroy us.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

You hint doing no such thing. You just set up a straw clobber man. And we still love you.

Thank you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Not sure - is that really the case? If so, what is the cause of the suicidal thoughts? Is it the action other Christians are taking or something speaking directly to the individual? There are powers of darkness around us wanting to destroy us.

The logic I sometimes read is often overwhelming.

Do you have any idea how many suicides have occurred just after being arrested or sentenced for a crime? That alone should persuade us to abolish the police and the court system.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The logic I sometimes read is often overwhelming.

Do you have any idea how many suicides have occurred just after being arrested or sentenced for a crime? That alone should persuade us to abolish the police and the court system.

There is one who condemns blood-washed Christians and that is the enemy who wants to steal, kill and destroy us. Therefore it is a little bit of a quandary to see damaging sin behaviors in other Christians, yet not take the side of the accuser of the brethren in our speaking.

Even though we do our best to speak the truth in love, others may receive it as condemning. And our speaking may also fall quite short - only Christ in and through us can properly address such behaviors in others I think, and I don't do a very good job most times of letting Him do that through me!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

There is one who condemns blood-washed Christians and that is the enemy who wants to steal, kill and destroy us. Therefore it is a little bit of a quandary to see damaging sin behaviors in other Christians, yet not take the side of the accuser of the brethren in our speaking.

Even though we do our best to speak the truth in love, others may receive it as condemning. And our speaking may also fall quite short - only Christ in and through us can properly address such behaviors in others I think, and I don't do a very good job most times of letting Him do that through me!

The collective conscience of society used to have an impact on morality, but agencies like the SPLC and the ACLU have damaged that impact both on our legal system and our collective conscience. The growing progressive sentiment of modern society is moving to ban such books as the Bible which used to guide civilized societies. Then, of course, they will completely remake God in their own progressive image. I see that regularly happening.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The collective conscience of society used to have an impact on morality, but agencies like the SPLC and the ACLU have damaged that impact both on our legal system and our collective conscience. The growing progressive sentiment of modern society is moving to ban such books as the Bible which used to guide civilized societies. Then, of course, they will completely remake God in their own progressive image. I see that regularly happening.

It is actually pretty easy to see that happening. The worldly system, headed up by the devil, is pushing an anti-God/Bible agenda under the guise of "enlightenment." As scripture says, he can take the form of an angle of light, so people are deceived into thinking it is all a good thing.

Scripture is narrow. It calls out sin of all types for what it is (a tool to steal, kill & destroy man) and convicts men of their error, so they feel the need for the Savior. But the headlong rush of "it doesn't hurt anyone and feels so good" has a numbing & blinding effect so that the need for the Savior is hidden from them until (hopefully not) too late.

I think the day is coming quickly when blinded men will rush upon Christians, much like when Stephen was stoned . . .

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The logic I sometimes read is often overwhelming.

Do you have any idea how many suicides have occurred just after being arrested or sentenced for a crime? That alone should persuade us to abolish the police and the court system.

I thought you are fervently pro-life. So suicide should concern you if social pressure from family and religious community, are causing gays to consider suicide.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

I thought you are fervently pro-life. So suicide should concern you if social pressure from family and religious community, are causing gays to consider suicide.

No one wants anybody to commit suicide - then the devil wins. Societal pressures, apart from God and "religious do-gooders" operating out of the flesh, are not good. The message, as always, is we need The Savior.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

No one wants anybody to commit suicide - then the devil wins. Societal pressures, apart from God and "religious do-gooders" operating out of the flesh, are not good. The message, as always, is we need The Savior.

Are you saying that gay conversion therapy is operating out of the flesh, not God? Or that you’re taking responsibility away from these programs and blaming “darkness” or Satan for leading lgbtq youth to commit suicide? Consider these two people’s experiences in gay conversion therapy:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.co...ay/%3famp=true

https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/conve...xperience.html

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The logic I sometimes read is often overwhelming.

Do you have any idea how many suicides have occurred just after being arrested or sentenced for a crime? That alone should persuade us to abolish the police and the court system.

Comparing a person who commited a crime to a person just having same sex attractions is illogical

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Are you saying that gay conversion therapy is operating out of the flesh, not God? Or that you’re taking responsibility away from these programs and blaming “darkness” or Satan for leading lgbtq youth to commit suicide? Consider these two people’s experiences in gay conversion therapy:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.co...ay/%3famp=true

https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/conve...xperience.html

Yeah, I don't know about these "conversion therapies" ---> seems like a bunch of manmade psychology (flesh) to me. Can God use others in something like that to affect real, lasting change? Sure, but I suspect it's usually the flesh trying to make legalistic changes in others (Ohio may disagree).

Overall, my views on such things generally follow the reasoning Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson put forth in their 1999 book, "Blinded by Might; Why the religious right can't save America." Basically it says that we might try to do a whole bunch of things to correct the moral situation, but it won't work well because no matter how well-intentioned, it's largely just the religious flesh trying to correct the unmoral flesh. America, and all it's issues, needs The Savior. Period.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I thought you are fervently pro-life. So suicide should concern you if social pressure from family and religious community, are causing gays to consider suicide.

I am concerned about anyone who would want to commit suicide.

But, as your habit always is, you put the blame on Christians. Have you considered perhaps their conscience convicted them, and it was not social pressure, but conscience conviction by the Spirit of God, with the goal to bring them to repentance? (John 16.8)

Regret, without repentance and forgiveness, can lead people to despair, depression, and suicide. It is insane to think that there would be no suicide if there was no Bible, no Christians, no laws, no moral norms. But that's the implication you sometimes portray.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Comparing a person who commited a crime to a person just having same sex attractions is illogical

The point is that we should not blame the gospel of grace, nor the laws of a society, for someone who takes their own life.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yeah, I don't know about these "conversion therapies" ---> seems like a bunch of manmade psychology (flesh) to me. Can God use others in something like that to affect real, lasting change? Sure, but I suspect it's usually the flesh trying to make legalistic changes in others (Ohio may disagree).

Overall, my views on such things generally follow the reasoning Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson put forth in their 1999 book, "Blinded by Might; Why the religious right can't save America." Basically it says that we might try to do a whole bunch of things to correct the moral situation, but it won't work well because no matter how well-intentioned, it's largely just the religious flesh trying to correct the unmoral flesh. America, and all it's issues, needs The Savior. Period.

Yes, we need a Savior, but a civil society also needs laws, police, and courts to protect its people, otherwise we have lawlessness.

The Bible often mentions wise counsel. I don't think that should be considered "man made psychology (flesh)." Even Paul says that the Law is good and is a child conductor.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, we need a Savior, but a civil society also needs laws, police, and courts to protect its people, otherwise we have lawlessness.

The Bible often mentions wise counsel. I don't think that should be considered "man made psychology (flesh)." Even Paul says that the Law is good and is a child conductor.

Of course. But we all know the flesh produces nothing, and there is a lot of it being produced by Christians . . .

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am concerned about anyone who would want to commit suicide.

But, as your habit always is, you put the blame on Christians. Have you considered perhaps their conscience convicted them, and it was not social pressure, but conscience conviction by the Spirit of God, with the goal to bring them to repentance? (John 16.8)

Regret, without repentance and forgiveness, can lead people to despair, depression, and suicide. It is insane to think that there would be no suicide if there was no Bible, no Christians, no laws, no moral norms. But that's the implication you sometimes portray.

True. To my surprise, more people consider suicide than I thought. Then I joined a suicide hotline. That was not a happy time. I've never had that problem. Maybe you just don't know gays personally well enough to considered it. And I didn't say Christian, I said religious.

Religion of all types are hard on gays. Our sister Serenity, for example, grew up in the LC. Coming out there, or being shoved out, would be such a hard psychological impact, I can't see how suicidal considerations wouldn't come to be a serious resolution.

Is there only enough religion in the world to make us hate each other, but not enough for us the love each other? Do we have to hate a group? Any group? . . . and a new one, when its for whatever reason no longer a hateable group? Is that why our gods hate?

Blacks were a easy group to hate. They're color coded. But that's no longer socially acceptable. Right now, it's gays. And socially caused dejection, of any kind, will bring suicide to the surface of any nervous system.

And pro-lifers should be concerned.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Of course. But we all know the flesh produces nothing, and there is a lot of it being produced by Christians . . .

If we blame the flesh then we're all in trouble. We're all 100% flesh thru and thru ... and we have to tend to it 24/7. That's the nature of being fleshly beings. We can't escape it. It places demands on us constantly ... and everyday of our lives.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

If we blame the flesh then we're all in trouble. We're all 100% flesh thru and thru ... and we have to tend to it 24/7. That's the nature of being fleshly beings. We can't escape it. It places demands on us constantly ... and everyday of our lives.

Au contraire mon frère! As Christians with the NEW BIRTH that is not our nature any more! We have been born from above and made partakers of the divine nature. But we still have the flesh, however, which is not our "nature" or who we are.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

True. To my surprise, more people consider suicide than I thought. Then I joined a suicide hotline. That was not a happy time. I've never had that problem. Maybe you just don't know gays personally well enough to considered it. And I didn't say Christian, I said religious.

Religion of all types are hard on gays. Our sister Serenity, for example, grew up in the LC. Coming out there, or being shoved out, would be such a hard psychological impact, I can't see how suicidal considerations wouldn't come to be a serious resolution.

Is there only enough religion in the world to make us hate each other, but not enough for us the love each other? Do we have to hate a group? Any group? . . . and a new one, when its for whatever reason no longer a hateable group? Is that why our gods hate?

Blacks were a easy group to hate. They're color coded. But that's no longer socially acceptable. Right now, it's gays. And socially caused dejection, of any kind, will bring suicide to the surface of any nervous system.

And pro-lifers should be concerned.

I disagree with many of your claims.

I don't think we should lump all *religious people* together. The LC is far more archaic and bigoted than the general Christian public. It bothers me to see all the criticisms against the US in the 21st Century. LGBTQ have the right to marry, and with hate crimes legislation, their lives are more valuable, and Ambassador Rick Grenell said Trump is the most gay-friendly president ever. All the LGBTQ community has to do is visit the many Communist countries or Muslim countries, and they will quickly gain a renewed appreciation for the many perks and liberties our great country has to offer them.

Who hates groups? Let's be honest here in the 21st century America. No one is targeting Blacks, Gays, or the Special Needs. There is, however, one group of people who daily are at risk. Who are regularly targeted for extinction. Who die because of somebody else's "rights" and conveniences. Who alone these days need our protection. That would be, of course, the unborn. Sorry, but this is absolutely true.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That would be, of course, the unborn. Sorry, but this is absolutely true.

The problem of the unborn is that some of them are gay.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The problem of the unborn is that some of them are gay.

Huh? Is that some sick joke?

Some are women. Some are black. Some are Hispanic.

But all deserve to LIVE! Don't they?

And until you begin to support the unborn, those most innocent and defenseless, every one of them absolute victims in every regard, then your passion for the other hurting folks is just fake. And hypocritical.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I disagree with many of your claims LGBTQ have the right to marry, and with hate crimes legislation, their lives are more valuable, and Ambassador Rick Grenell said Trump is the most gay-friendly president ever. All the LGBTQ community has to do is visit the many Communist countries or Muslim countries, and they will quickly gain a renewed appreciation for the many perks and liberties our great country has to offer them.

Why did the Trump administration take off lgbtq content from the federal websites when Trump became president? It took a long time for the US to accept gay marriage, behind several countries actually. The Obama administration, not the Trump administration, Ruth Ginsburg made same sex marriage legal. that was only a few years ago. Consider this article regarding medical rights that target lgbtq: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/1130907001

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh? Is that some sick joke?

Some are women. Some are black. Some are Hispanic.

But all deserve to LIVE! Don't they?

And until you begin to support the unborn, those most innocent and defenseless, every one of them absolute victims in every regard, then your passion for the other hurting folks is just fake. And hypocritical.

I think awareness meant this as sarcasm

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am concerned about anyone who would want to commit suicide.

But, as your habit always is, you put the blame on Christians. Have you considered perhaps their conscience convicted them, and it was not social pressure, but conscience conviction by the Spirit of God, with the goal to bring them to repentance? (John 16.8)

Regret, without repentance and forgiveness, can lead people to despair, depression, and suicide. It is insane to think that there would be no suicide if there was no Bible, no Christians, no laws, no moral norms. But that's the implication you sometimes portray.

This was definitely not my experience. Ostracization and bullying leads to suicide for lgbtq. So no, it wasnt my conscience that led me to have suicidal thoughts. It was despair from losing my “family” community, thinking that everyone I ever knew ( who all happen to be Christians in the LC) hates me and I would rather be better off dead, leading me to even believe God hates me like poison (as some sisters called me) because everyone tells me I am an “abomination”. If you have not experienced such a thing, you will never know, so do not assume to know. So yes, I blame Christians, but only the ignorant ones who dont know. But now you know.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Huh? Is that some sick joke?

Some are women. Some are black. Some are Hispanic.

But all deserve to LIVE! Don't they?

And until you begin to support the unborn, those most innocent and defenseless, every one of them absolute victims in every regard, then your passion for the other hurting folks is just fake. And hypocritical.

I found it smart to support the woman ... regardless of her choice. But that's just me. To each his or her own. Force is not conducive to a happy healthy relationship, gay, straight, or otherwise.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I think awareness meant this as sarcasm

Yes and No. I think it was more about the irony of pro-lifers caring about the unborn gays before birth but not so much after birth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I found it smart to support the woman ... regardless of her choice. But that's just me. To each his or her own. Force is not conducive to a happy healthy relationship, gay, straight, or otherwise.

I support women too, and not just the ones you mentioned, but I also support the unborn women.

How can we support the women who's "rights" or her "choice" includes the murder of others?

Isn't that the same as a KKK white supremacist who says he has the "right" and the "choice" to live in a community without blacks?

And isn't that the same as a bigoted homophobe who claims to have the "right" and the "choice" to live in a straight community without LGBT?

Don't you think that the time has finally come to end all so-called civil rights and personal choices which in any way damage the life of another?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes and No. I think it was more about the irony of pro-lifers caring about the unborn gays before birth but not so much after birth.

This is a bigoted statement categorizing all pro-life people as anti-gay.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a bigoted statement categorizing all pro-life people as anti-gay.

Awareness and Ohio, I think we should get back to discussing LGBTQ. We can all start a thread on abortion if you’d like but I realize we keep going off on tangents. StG, what do you think?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Awareness and Ohio, I think we should get back to discussing LGBTQ. We can all start a thread on abortion if you’d like but I realize we keep going off on tangents. StG, what do you think?

Amen to that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Why did the Trump administration take off lgbtq content from the federal websites when Trump became president? It took a long time for the US to accept gay marriage, behind several countries actually. The Obama administration, not the Trump administration, Ruth Ginsburg made same sex marriage legal. that was only a few years ago. Consider this article regarding medical rights that target lgbtq: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/1130907001

That article is about protecting religious liberties. Log Cabin Republicans and OUTspoken point to how much Trump has done to support them.

There are millions of articles out there against Trump. It's all political. You can find an article on google to say anything you want.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

This was definitely not my experience. Ostracization and bullying leads to suicide for lgbtq. So no, it wasnt my conscience that led me to have suicidal thoughts. It was despair from losing my “family” community, thinking that everyone I ever knew ( who all happen to be Christians in the LC) hates me and I would rather be better off dead, leading me to even believe God hates me like poison (as some sisters called me) because everyone tells me I am an “abomination”. If you have not experienced such a thing, you will never know, so do not assume to know. So yes, I blame Christians, but only the ignorant ones who dont know. But now you know.

Is this not bigotry? Blaming all Christians because your family hates you and wanted you dead? So, if all of your family was overweight, would you hate all fat people for the way you were treated?

Didn't you say that your family is Asian? I may be wrong. But the animosity you faced could be cultural or group based, and not indicative of every Christian.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Awareness and Ohio, I think we should get back to discussing LGBTQ. We can all start a thread on abortion if you’d like but I realize we keep going off on tangents. StG, what do you think?

Yes, I took a little break (wife's B-day party) and come back and there are a dozen messages with Ohio & awareness going at some sidebar with a vengeance . . . I actually find it a little amusing . . . but yes . . . the topic. It looks like we've sorta already veered back on track, so . . . (they just need to be reminded & encouraged to do so from time to time).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Didn't you say that your family is Asian? I may be wrong. But the animosity you faced could be cultural or group based, and not indicative of every Christian.

Every Christian who? And I think, no I know, that Serenity knows the source of the ideology her parents used to show animosity toward her being gay.

In fact, they took her to the LC in Taiwan, hoping that it would help her to get over her gay 'phase.' But it didn't work. When they got there the LC there knew she was gay.

And just because the LC is against the LGBTQ doesn't mean "all Christians" are. But it is likely that every Christian Bible literalist is a group that can be called "all Christians" that show animosity toward LGBTQ.

And I can't be totally certain, but I think you are in that group. Yes or no?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Every Christian who? And I think, no I know, that Serenity knows the source of the ideology her parents used to show animosity toward her being gay.

In fact, they took her to the LC in Taiwan, hoping that it would help her to get over her gay 'phase.' But it didn't work. When they got there the LC there knew she was gay.

And just because the LC is against the LGBTQ doesn't mean "all Christians" are. But it is likely that every Christian Bible literalist is a group that can be called "all Christians" that show animosity toward LGBTQ.

And I can't be totally certain, but I think you are in that group. Yes or no?

Isn't your line of thinking the basic definition of bigotry?

But, no, I'm not a Taiwanese in the LC. Thanks for asking.

And I am not a Bible "literalist" whatever that is. Stop that!

And here is an article on LGBT rights in China.

[Trapped]

I was going to write a post, but turned to google to get help with some phrasing, and found an article already written that encapsulates my thought better than I could have written it. I also think this article dovetails somewhat into StG's line of inquiry about homosexual acts being "off the mark".

Here's the link. This is standard apologetics/logic stuff:

https://www.str.org/w/homosexuality-...ought-fallacy-

I would tighten up his words to say "homosexual sex is unnatural" rather than homosexuality, which would just imply the attractions. I'm consistently trying to make a distinction between the feelings and the acts, the former not being a sin, and the latter being a sin, at least in my grounding of it.

To me, this is like looking at a pile of hex nuts and bolts, and thinking it's totally normal to try to use two hex nuts to assemble a bookshelf. Can you put two hex nuts next to each other? Sure you can. But it's obvious it's "off the mark" of how nuts and bolts were designed to be used in conjunction with each other.

And by the way, this is not an argument related to procreation. I'm just talking about the design for use, not what's produced from the designed use.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I was going to write a post, but turned to google to get help with some phrasing, and found an article already written that encapsulates my thought better than I could have written it. I also think this article dovetails somewhat into StG's line of inquiry about homosexual acts being "off the mark".

Here's the link. This is standard apologetics/logic stuff:

https://www.str.org/w/homosexuality-...ought-fallacy-

I would tighten up his words to say "homosexual sex is unnatural" rather than homosexuality, which would just imply the attractions. I'm consistently trying to make a distinction between the feelings and the acts, the former not being a sin, and the latter being a sin, at least in my grounding of it.

To me, this is like looking at a pile of hex nuts and bolts, and thinking it's totally normal to try to use two hex nuts to assemble a bookshelf. Can you put two hex nuts next to each other? Sure you can. But it's obvious it's "off the mark" of how nuts and bolts were designed to be used in conjunction with each other.

And by the way, this is not an argument related to procreation. I'm just talking about the design for use, not what's produced from the designed use.

Then what is the line of reasoning for masturbation among heterosexuals? Homosexual sex is mostly masturbation if you think about it. Or people who are born intersex?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Isn't your line of thinking the basic definition of bigotry?

But, no, I'm not a Taiwanese in the LC. Thanks for asking.

And I am not a Bible "literalist" whatever that is. Stop that!

And here is an article on LGBT rights in China.

Taiwan is not the same as China. They have legalized same sex marriage and there’s pride parades. Two of my cousins who are Christian but not LC think homosexuality is not off the mark.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is this not bigotry? Blaming all Christians because your family hates you and wanted you dead? So, if all of your family was overweight, would you hate all fat people for the way you were treated?

Didn't you say that your family is Asian? I may be wrong. But the animosity you faced could be cultural or group based, and not indicative of every Christian.

Stop trying to excuse LC’s bad behavior. I said “family” in quotation marks meaning I considered the LC sisters and brothers as my family. This was in the entire sister’s house and their families and the news traveled to “higher ups”. In the fellowship meetingns, there were people accusing whom I’ve never met, but they were the elders. and most of the serving ones were white if you needed to know.

Religion IS a part of culture.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That article is about protecting religious liberties. Log Cabin Republicans and OUTspoken point to how much Trump has done to support them.

There are millions of articles out there against Trump. It's all political. You can find an article on google to say anything you want.

But you cannot ignore the fact hat the lgbtq website disappeared overnight among the federal ones.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I was going to write a post, but turned to google to get help with some phrasing, and found an article already written that encapsulates my thought better than I could have written it. I also think this article dovetails somewhat into StG's line of inquiry about homosexual acts being "off the mark".

Here's the link. This is standard apologetics/logic stuff:

https://www.str.org/w/homosexuality-...ought-fallacy-

I would tighten up his words to say "homosexual sex is unnatural" rather than homosexuality, which would just imply the attractions. I'm consistently trying to make a distinction between the feelings and the acts, the former not being a sin, and the latter being a sin, at least in my grounding of it.

To me, this is like looking at a pile of hex nuts and bolts, and thinking it's totally normal to try to use two hex nuts to assemble a bookshelf. Can you put two hex nuts next to each other? Sure you can. But it's obvious it's "off the mark" of how nuts and bolts were designed to be used in conjunction with each other.

And by the way, this is not an argument related to procreation. I'm just talking about the design for use, not what's produced from the designed use.

I think it's more complex than the nut fits the bolt.

I've mentioned a brother in the LC, that came out as gay to his wife, 3 kids, parents, and the LC. I was out of the LC for about 6 months at that time. It didn't bother me that he was gay. I stayed friends with him for years.

And I picked and picked at his brains to try to determine what made him gay. To no avail. Then he eventually explained it to me.

Here's how it happened. He and his lover worked as programmers for a large utility company. There they made friends with a female programmer. She didn't know they were gay, and was hurt when her advances were rejected.

At Halloween, they went together to Oktoberfest in Key West. They got drunk. When they got back to their room she was inebriated out of her gourd. So they decided to give her whats she's been begging for. They took turns.

This blew my mind on many levels. I said, John, you told me you didn't like lady parts. He said, "I'm not gay for the sex ; lady parts are made for male parts. It's the best. I'm gay for romance with men.

And there it was. That's why I say it's more complex than a nut and bolt. Human's aren't robots.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

But you cannot ignore the fact hat the lgbtq website disappeared overnight among the federal ones.

Websites, twitter accounts, news blurbs, etc. constantly disappear overnight. Doesn't sound like a nefarious plot.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And there it was. That's why I say it's more complex than a nut and bolt. Human's aren't robots.

And there we have it folks: perfect justification for LGBT: Humans are not robots.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I was going to write a post, but turned to google to get help with some phrasing, and found an article already written that encapsulates my thought better than I could have written it. I also think this article dovetails somewhat into StG's line of inquiry about homosexual acts being "off the mark".

Here's the link. This is standard apologetics/logic stuff:

https://www.str.org/w/homosexuality-...ought-fallacy-

I would tighten up his words to say "homosexual sex is unnatural" rather than homosexuality, which would just imply the attractions. I'm consistently trying to make a distinction between the feelings and the acts, the former not being a sin, and the latter being a sin, at least in my grounding of it.

To me, this is like looking at a pile of hex nuts and bolts, and thinking it's totally normal to try to use two hex nuts to assemble a bookshelf. Can you put two hex nuts next to each other? Sure you can. But it's obvious it's "off the mark" of how nuts and bolts were designed to be used in conjunction with each other.

And by the way, this is not an argument related to procreation. I'm just talking about the design for use, not what's produced from the designed use.

Trapped - that linked article was a pretty cerebral argument that I didn't completely follow part of the time, but I believe I get the point.

Originally Posted by awareness

This blew my mind on many levels. I said, John, you told me you didn't like lady parts. He said, "I'm not gay for the sex ; lady parts are made for male parts. It's the best. I'm gay for romance with men.

That's interesting . . . have to think about that for a bit. The gay man acknowledged that one sexual part (female) was designed for another part (male), but is choosing to ignore that fact and go against the design purpose, in order to have a romantic relationship with another man. Hmmmmmm

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think it's more complex than the nut fits the bolt.

I've mentioned a brother in the LC, that came out as gay to his wife, 3 kids, parents, and the LC. I was out of the LC for about 6 months at that time. It didn't bother me that he was gay. I stayed friends with him for years.

And I picked and picked at his brains to try to determine what made him gay. To no avail. Then he eventually explained it to me.

Here's how it happened. He and his lover worked as programmers for a large utility company. There they made friends with a female programmer. She didn't know they were gay, and was hurt when her advances were rejected.

At Halloween, they went together to Oktoberfest in Key West. They got drunk. When they got back to their room she was inebriated out of her gourd. So they decided to give her whats she's been begging for. They took turns.

This blew my mind on many levels. I said, John, you told me you didn't like lady parts. He said, "I'm not gay for the sex ; lady parts are made for male parts. It's the best. I'm gay for romance with men.

And there it was. That's why I say it's more complex than a nut and bolt. Human's aren't robots.

He’s bisexual homoromantic.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible...d-homoromantic

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

He’s bisexual homoromantic.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible...d-homoromantic

Is there another alphabet for that or is included in the + sign?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

He’s bisexual homoromantic.

Truly amazing how many new diseases and pandemics are infecting the human race in these last days.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

He’s bisexual homoromantic.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible...d-homoromantic

Sometimes the body parts just get in the way. But my question is, is homoromanticism sin? David and Jonathan comes to mind. Clearly they had a romance going on. Would what they had be called homoromantic? And was it sin?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

He’s bisexual homoromantic.

Sorry but......

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is there another alphabet for that or is included in the + sign?

No it’s this..
What is the difference between romantic orientation and sexual orientation?

Romantic orientation indicates the gender with which a person is likely to have a relationship or fall in love. This does not necessarily have to involve sex. This means that some people can have different sexual and romantic orientations, based on the perspective that sexual attraction is just a single component of a larger dynamic. For example, someone might be sexually attracted to more than one gender (bisexual) but might only be able to see themselves in a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender (homoromantic).

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sometimes the body parts just get in the way. But my question is, is homoromanticism sin? David and Jonathan comes to mind. Clearly they had a romance going on. Would what they had be called homoromantic? And was it sin?

Definitely homoromanticism. David adopted Jonathan’s kid after Jonathan died in battle. Well the prophet Nathan commented on David’s trangression with the other man’s wife. (And God had to abort their first kid.)But nothing about his relations with Jonathan. And since David became the ancestor of Jesus, it shows that even God can use a guy who committed sin, for ultimate good.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

No it’s this..
What is the difference between romantic orientation and sexual orientation?

Romantic orientation indicates the gender with which a person is likely to have a relationship or fall in love. This does not necessarily have to involve sex. This means that some people can have different sexual and romantic orientations, based on the perspective that sexual attraction is just a single component of a larger dynamic. For example, someone might be sexually attracted to more than one gender (bisexual) but might only be able to see themselves in a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender (homoromantic).

Is it just me? Maybe it is . . . but I have to ask - is this getting more and more complex?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is it just me? Maybe it is . . . but I have to ask - is this getting more and more complex?

In the beginning it is, but thats like theoretical science.. I didnt know what lgbtq stood for at first. Until I had those same sex feelings and attractions, then had to look it up as a teenager. And I’m sure if we can comprehend the trinity, we can comprehend the difference between these two concepts. I’m glad God made us with brains

Here let me dumb it down for you... if someone feels like they are romantically attracted to someone and wants to be in a romantic relationship with someone, thats romantic attraction.
Biromantic- can be in relationship with either a male or female
Homoromantic- can be in romantic relationship with same sex but not opposite sex
Heteromantic- can be in romantic relationship with opposite sex but not same sex
Panromantic- Can be in a relationship with any gender (these include people who identify as transgender, or intersex, agender

If the relationship includes sexual attraction, and involves sex-
bisexual- sexually attracted to both males and females (may or may not be at the same time in their lives)
heterosexual- sexually attracted to someone of opposite sex
homosexual- only sexually attracted to someone of same sex.
pansexual- sexually attracted to those who are bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, asexual.

Here is a full list of terms if you want to dig deeper:
http://www.umass.edu/stonewall/sites...rm_handout.pdf

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Truly amazing how many new diseases and pandemics are infecting the human race in these last days.

Very nice of you to say that gayness is a disease.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Very nice of you to say that gayness is a disease.

Wail a minute! What does "bisexual homoromantic" even mean? Sounds like something you just made up.

If I can be so-called "diagnosed" as a "heterosexual homophobic," as if that is some kind of new disease, so can that guy who ruined his wife and kids.

Sorry Serenity, but many of those in the LGBTQ community look at those of us traditional conservatives with disgust because we believe marriage is one male and one female, so don't act so shocked when the shoe is on the other foot.

Just the other day you tried to denigrate me as an "old white guy." How do you think that makes me feel? Some would say that was a micro-aggression?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is it just me? Maybe it is . . . but I have to ask - is this getting more and more complex?

This is 2020. Get used to it!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the funniest things I heard all year was a comment about the Cleveland Browns football team last month. They lost their first game, and the comment was, "that's the first normal thing that has happened all year."

Then the Browns won 4 straight games, and we, by definition, have just returned to "2020 crazy."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

In the beginning it is, but thats like theoretical science.. I didnt know what lgbtq stood for at first. Until I had those same sex feelings and attractions, then had to look it up as a teenager. And I’m sure if we can comprehend the trinity, we can comprehend the difference between these two concepts. I’m glad God made us with brains

Here let me dumb it down for you... if someone feels like they are romantically attracted to someone and wants to be in a romantic relationship with someone, thats romantic attraction.
Biromantic- can be in relationship with either a male or female
Homoromantic- can be in romantic relationship with same sex but not opposite sex
Heteromantic- can be in romantic relationship with opposite sex but not same sex
Panromantic- Can be in a relationship with any gender (these include people who identify as transgender, or intersex, agender

If the relationship includes sexual attraction, and involves sex-
bisexual- sexually attracted to both males and females (may or may not be at the same time in their lives)
heterosexual- sexually attracted to someone of opposite sex
homosexual- only sexually attracted to someone of same sex.
pansexual- sexually attracted to those who are bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, asexual.

Here is a full list of terms if you want to dig deeper:
http://www.umass.edu/stonewall/sites...rm_handout.pdf

Well . . . thanks, I guess. I'm just glad for simplicity in Christ, sister!

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Wail a minute! What does "bisexual homoromantic" even mean? Sounds like something you just made up.

If I can be so-called "diagnosed" as a "heterosexual homophobic," as if that is some kind of new disease, so can that guy who ruined his wife and kids.

Sorry Serenity, but many of those in the LGBTQ community look at those of us traditional conservatives with disgust because we believe marriage is one male and one female, so don't act so shocked when the shoe is on the other foot.

Just the other day you tried to denigrate me as an "old white guy." How do you think that makes me feel? Some would say that was a micro-aggression?

Did I say “old white guy”? I only asked your demographics but you declined to answer. It’s the same as you saying that I was Asian and my experiences were “cultural” and I was generalizing to other Christians. I dont look at you with disgust. But i t seems like you look at gays with disgust since you microlabeled them as a disease. And I sure as hell did not make “bisexual homoromantic” up. Just look at the articles or google it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

In the beginning it is, but thats like theoretical science.. I didnt know what lgbtq stood for at first. Until I had those same sex feelings and attractions, then had to look it up as a teenager. And I’m sure if we can comprehend the trinity, we can comprehend the difference between these two concepts. I’m glad God made us with brains

Here let me dumb it down for you... if someone feels like they are romantically attracted to someone and wants to be in a romantic relationship with someone, thats romantic attraction.
Biromantic- can be in relationship with either a male or female
Homoromantic- can be in romantic relationship with same sex but not opposite sex
Heteromantic- can be in romantic relationship with opposite sex but not same sex
Panromantic- Can be in a relationship with any gender (these include people who identify as transgender, or intersex, agender

If the relationship includes sexual attraction, and involves sex-
bisexual- sexually attracted to both males and females (may or may not be at the same time in their lives)
heterosexual- sexually attracted to someone of opposite sex
homosexual- only sexually attracted to someone of same sex.
pansexual- sexually attracted to those who are bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, asexual.

Here is a full list of terms if you want to dig deeper:
http://www.umass.edu/stonewall/sites...rm_handout.pdf

When I said it was more complex than just a nut and bolt, that was a understatement. I feel that I can't keep up. Humans are complex. And what is LGBTQIA? Just when I understood what LGBTQ meant, two more letters were added. I want to care about the gays, but they change faster than I can keep up.

And your list (link) was massive. I'd have to make it my profession to remember it all.

I think I'll just take it as it comes. People only share such personal information when they get close. And right now, it ain't comin'.

I think I'm an A in LGBTQIA. Asexual's don't sin. I'm not a sinner. Everybody happy?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think I'm an A in LGBTQIA. Asexual's don't sin. I'm not a sinner. Everybody happy?

Actually I'm glad you brought up being a sinner (or not being one.....right). Asexuals may not sin sexually, but it sure don't mean they ain't sinners.

Can the LGBTQIA+ supporters on this thread explain the gospel to me?

I'm setting aside the LGBT part of this thread for this question. This is not in relation to the LGBT issue being discussed. I'm only directing the question to those supporting same sex relations in this thread.

This is a serious question, and to be honest it relates a little more to the "LC" portion of the other closed thread. I didn't ever really understand the gospel until after I left the LC and heard it from totally non-LC and non-LSM sources.

The only reason I'm asking, in case you want to know my motives, is to try to understand how you understand sin.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Did I say “old white guy”? I only asked your demographics but you declined to answer. It’s the same as you saying that I was Asian and my experiences were “cultural” and I was generalizing to other Christians. I dont look at you with disgust. But i t seems like you look at gays with disgust since you microlabeled them as a disease. And I sure as hell did not make “bisexual homoromantic” up. Just look at the articles or google it.

I think neither of us really understands how we sound to each other, and this is just a microcosm of society.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Trapped - that linked article was a pretty cerebral argument that I didn't completely follow part of the time, but I believe I get the point.

That's interesting . . . have to think about that for a bit. The gay man acknowledged that one sexual part (female) was designed for another part (male), but is choosing to ignore that fact and go against the design purpose, in order to have a romantic relationship with another man. Hmmmmmm

Since Trapped put out an interesting article, I would like to share my own. I think this one embodies almost all of how I view interpreting homosexuality in the bible:

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...agebyColin.pdf

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Actually I'm glad you brought up being a sinner (or not being one.....right). Asexuals may not sin sexually, but it sure don't mean they ain't sinners.

Can the LGBTQIA+ supporters on this thread explain the gospel to me?

I'm setting aside the LGBT part of this thread for this question. This is not in relation to the LGBT issue being discussed. I'm only directing the question to those supporting same sex relations in this thread.

This is a serious question, and to be honest it relates a little more to the "LC" portion of the other closed thread. I didn't ever really understand the gospel until after I left the LC and heard it from totally non-LC and non-LSM sources.

The only reason I'm asking, in case you want to know my motives, is to try to understand how you understand sin.

i went to a couple of various denominations after LC and they all mention sin a little differently. I will get back to you within the week on this question.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think neither of us really understands how we sound to each other, and this is just a microcosm of society.

It’s okay brother, we can be opposite ends of spectrum in terms of views but our love for God still allows us to continue kickin on this forum. I did not intend for you to have felt any negative feelings from my words/ i sincerely apologize if it ever made you feel that way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

It’s okay brother, we can be opposite ends of spectrum in terms of views but our love for God still allows us to continue kickin on this forum. I did not intend for you to have felt any negative feelings from my words/ i sincerely apologize if it ever made you feel that way.

Thanks. Much love and peace to you also.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Actually I'm glad you brought up being a sinner (or not being one.....right). Asexuals may not sin sexually, but it sure don't mean they ain't sinners.

Can the LGBTQIA+ supporters on this thread explain the gospel to me?

I'm setting aside the LGBT part of this thread for this question. This is not in relation to the LGBT issue being discussed. I'm only directing the question to those supporting same sex relations in this thread.

This is a serious question, and to be honest it relates a little more to the "LC" portion of the other closed thread. I didn't ever really understand the gospel until after I left the LC and heard it from totally non-LC and non-LSM sources.

The only reason I'm asking, in case you want to know my motives, is to try to understand how you understand sin.

I'd like to offer some thoughts.

Biblically speaking that's a hard question. Not so much because the Bible mentions sin, but more importantly, what God overlooks. Apparently He does that.

Consider King David. He sinned like none of us out here on this forum, including any LGBTQIA's out here. Yet he had a heart for God.

Can gays do that, with their comparably puny little sins?

What we clobber as sin, does God just overlook it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'd like to offer some thoughts.

Biblically speaking that's a hard question. Not so much because the Bible mentions sin, but more importantly, what God overlooks. Apparently He does that.

Consider King David. He sinned like none of us out here on this forum, including any LGBTQIA's out here. Yet he had a heart for God.

Can gays do that, with their comparably puny little sins?

What we clobber as sin, does God just overlook it?

When did God overlook King David's sins?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

i went to a couple of various denominations after LC and they all mention sin a little differently. I will get back to you within the week on this question.

Yes, I too think this is a very pertinent question and am also awaiting your thoughtful reply. Be sure, as Trapped mentioned, to describe how you see the gospel too.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When did God overlook King David's sins?

I agree. God certainly didn't overlook David's sins! There were big consequences. There are consequence to sin. Like a child purposely drinking poison - the parent certainly may forgive, but there will be consequences.

Sometimes God graciously removes the consequences when He forgives, but often not I think. (And in Christ we certainly don't get what we deserved, as previously being outright enemies of God)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When did God overlook King David's sins?

When did God abandon David? That sinner is in the line of Jesus ... central in fact.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

When did God abandon David? That sinner is in the line of Jesus ... central in fact.

We were not talking about abandonment, but sin & consequences, right?

The encouraging thing about David for us is that even though he committed a few biggies, he still demonstrated a heart to pursue God - David did not abandon God and owned-up to his sins before Him. So there were consequences for David's sin, but God could still work with him because he still had a heart for God, and David accepted the consequences of his sins.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

When did God abandon David? That sinner is in the line of Jesus ... central in fact.

You are the prisoner of 2 ideas. Apparently you see only 2 choices: overlooking sin or abandoning the sinner.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'd like to offer some thoughts.

Biblically speaking that's a hard question. Not so much because the Bible mentions sin, but more importantly, what God overlooks. Apparently He does that.

Consider King David. He sinned like none of us out here on this forum, including any LGBTQIA's out here. Yet he had a heart for God.

Can gays do that, with their comparably puny little sins?

What we clobber as sin, does God just overlook it?

So the way I see it, and I can see where Ohio, Sons of Glory are coming from, is that David did commit grievous sins and yes, it did take him a while to repent and see the error of his ways: example, him and Bethsheba and having Bethsheba’s husband killed in line of duty for his own selfishness so he can have Bethsheba. Another example, him having lots of murder on his hands and taking multiple wives. According to the bible, God did punish David (He allowed Bethsheba’s and David’s firstborn son to die although it wasnt the kid’s fault), he told David that he wasnt worthy of building God’s temple and instead Solomon would take over (Solomon being the second son of David and Bethsheba since the first one died). And God leading David’s sons to kill each other (ie Absolom and Abner, I totally need to reread the OT, he had a lot of sons and they had lots of conflict). In a way God punished yet overlooked, according to Awareness, due to the fact that David eventually became the ancestor of Jesus. He still allowed David to marry Bethsheba, he still allowed his son Solomon to build the temple. So though there were sonsewunces, in the long run, there were also rewards for what David reaped.

I think Awareness’s point is that lets say homosexuality is a sin, it is not as grievous as murdering thousands or stealing another man’s wife, so if God can save David and make him the ultimate ancestor of Jesus, He can surely forgive all the homosexuals in the world who have a heart for God but yet “sin”.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, I too think this is a very pertinent question and am also awaiting your thoughtful reply. Be sure, as Trapped mentioned, to describe how you see the gospel too.

Okay so I will be busy this week but let me just give an overview of what I believe the gospel to be:
The word gospel means “good news,” so the gospel of Christ is the good news of His coming to provide forgiveness of sins for all who will believe (Colossians 1:14; Romans 10:9). Since the first man’s sin, mankind has been under the condemnation of God (Romans 5:12). Because everyone breaks God’s perfect law by committing sin, everyone is guilty (Romans 3:23). The punishment for the crime of sin is physical death (Romans 6:23) and then an eternity spent in a place of punishment (Revelation 20:15; Matthew 25:46). This eternal separation from God is also called the “second death” (Revelation 20:14–15).

The bad news that all are guilty of sin and condemned by God is countered by the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ. God, because of His love for the world, has made a way for man to be forgiven of their sins (John 3:16). He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to take the sins of mankind on Himself through death on a cross (1 Peter 2:24). In placing our sin on Christ, God ensured that all who will believe in the name of Jesus will be forgiven (Acts 10:43). Jesus’ resurrection guarantees the justification of all who believe (Romans 4:25).

The Bible specifies the content of the gospel message: “Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time” (1 Corinthians 15:1–6). In this passage, Paul emphasizes the primacy of the gospel—it is of “first importance.” The gospel message contains two historical facts, both supported by Scripture: Christ’s death and His resurrection. Both those facts are bolstered by other proofs: Christ’s death is proved by His burial, and His resurrection is proved by the eyewitnesses.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news that God provided the way for man to be freed from the penalty of sin (John 14:6; Romans 6:23). Everyone dies physically, but those who believe in Jesus Christ are promised a physical resurrection unto eternal life (John 11:23–26). Those who reject Christ will not only die physically but will undergo a “second death,” which the Bible describes as an eternal lake of fire (Revelation 20:13–14). Jesus is the only One in whom salvation can be found (Acts 4:12).

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the best news anyone will ever hear, and what a person does with this news will determine where he or she spends eternity. God is calling you to choose life. Call on the name of the Lord and be saved (Romans 10:13).

This is according to the bible, although my personal beliefs is that God is all forgiving and I dont think hell exists as an eternal punishment (this is too much of a punishment for a human being who sinned for 100 years). But I’m sure God will sort it out.

In relation to sin, some Methodist and Episcopal and more “progressive” churches I’ve been through, they do not view homosexuality as a sin. If anything, it’s either not as bad as adultery or equal to adultery, depending on the specific church. And churches are very understanding towards those who divorce or have premarital sex, more so than homosexuality ( these are some other churches I’ve been to). So yes, I guess it really depends on what denomniation you go to. Some ordain women to be pastors and higher ups, some dont. I’ve been to a few Catholic ones and they seem a lot more open to homosexuality being as “come as you are”, the message being God accepts all diversity. Again, this is in California, and I’m sure those in the “Bible Belt” will disagree.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Okay so I will be busy this week but let me just give an overview of what I believe the gospel to be:
The word gospel means “good news,” so the gospel of Christ is the good news of His coming to provide forgiveness of sins for all who will believe (Colossians 1:14; Romans 10:9). Since the first man’s sin, mankind has been under the condemnation of God (Romans 5:12). Because everyone breaks God’s perfect law by committing sin, everyone is guilty (Romans 3:23). The punishment for the crime of sin is physical death (Romans 6:23) and then an eternity spent in a place of punishment (Revelation 20:15; Matthew 25:46). This eternal separation from God is also called the “second death” (Revelation 20:14–15).

The bad news that all are guilty of sin and condemned by God is countered by the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ. God, because of His love for the world, has made a way for man to be forgiven of their sins (John 3:16). He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to take the sins of mankind on Himself through death on a cross (1 Peter 2:24). In placing our sin on Christ, God ensured that all who will believe in the name of Jesus will be forgiven (Acts 10:43). Jesus’ resurrection guarantees the justification of all who believe (Romans 4:25).

The Bible specifies the content of the gospel message: “Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time” (1 Corinthians 15:1–6). In this passage, Paul emphasizes the primacy of the gospel—it is of “first importance.” The gospel message contains two historical facts, both supported by Scripture: Christ’s death and His resurrection. Both those facts are bolstered by other proofs: Christ’s death is proved by His burial, and His resurrection is proved by the eyewitnesses.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the good news that God provided the way for man to be freed from the penalty of sin (John 14:6; Romans 6:23). Everyone dies physically, but those who believe in Jesus Christ are promised a physical resurrection unto eternal life (John 11:23–26). Those who reject Christ will not only die physically but will undergo a “second death,” which the Bible describes as an eternal lake of fire (Revelation 20:13–14). Jesus is the only One in whom salvation can be found (Acts 4:12).

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the best news anyone will ever hear, and what a person does with this news will determine where he or she spends eternity. God is calling you to choose life. Call on the name of the Lord and be saved (Romans 10:13).

This is according to the bible, although my personal beliefs is that God is all forgiving and I dont think hell exists as an eternal punishment (this is too much of a punishment for a human being who sinned for 100 years). But I’m sure God will sort it out.

In relation to sin, some Methodist and Episcopal and more “progressive” churches I’ve been through, they do not view homosexuality as a sin. If anything, it’s either not as bad as adultery or equal to adultery, depending on the specific church. And churches are very understanding towards those who divorce or have premarital sex, more so than homosexuality ( these are some other churches I’ve been to). So yes, I guess it really depends on what denomniation you go to. Some ordain women to be pastors and higher ups, some dont. I’ve been to a few Catholic ones and they seem a lot more open to homosexuality being as “come as you are”, the message being God accepts all diversity. Again, this is in California, and I’m sure those in the “Bible Belt” will disagree.

Thank you for that very thoughtful answer! Your focus on Christ as the one and only Savior of mankind is really good to hear! His substitutionary death for us on the cross was a huge price to pay for a huge penalty, of which we don't know the half of either!

That sums up the propitiation for sins . . . what are your thoughts on the "much more" aspect, as in Romans 5:10? "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life." Now that the sin aspect has been dealt with, we are much more blessed with "Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Col 1:27)

And let me add that all the discussion about the degree of sin that homosexuality is, is a little above my pay-grade. Maybe others can address this better. It is off-the-mark as far as everything I read, and a sin much like many other fruits of the flesh as discussed here repeatedly. But my thought is not to get too wrapped around the axle - as far as my personal mental gymnastics go in trying to figure it all out - because this is one of the things He will quickly sort out when He returns. Is that making too light of homosexuality? Perhaps, but I'd rather err on the side of love when it comes to interacting with other believers. Love is a solid motivation that I can "take to the bank!" However, love also does not allow others to be harmed ---->But we must be careful that this isn't done out of some self-righteousness or other fleshly motive. Again, better to err on the side of love rather than on the side of judgment toward other believers.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed.

John 1:17 & Psalm 85:11

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Okay so I will be busy this week but let me just give an overview of what I believe the gospel to be:
The word gospel means “good news,” so the gospel of Christ is the good news of His coming to provide forgiveness of sins for all who will believe (Colossians 1:14; Romans 10:9).....

Welllllllll.......

I was really hoping for YOU to explain it (you, in your own words, as you understand it now, without researching it) and not copy/paste from someone else's post.....

https://www.facebook.com/11121721821...9353379428612/

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Welllllllll.......

I was really hoping for YOU to explain it (you, in your own words, as you understand it now, without researching it) and not copy/paste from someone else's post.....

https://www.facebook.com/11121721821...9353379428612/

Are you saying that her post was plagiarized? (I can't read the FB link you posted)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Then what is the line of reasoning for masturbation among heterosexuals? Homosexual sex is mostly masturbation if you think about it. Or people who are born intersex?

That line of reasoning to strict Bible believers is Onanism.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Welllllllll.......

I was really hoping for YOU to explain it (you, in your own words, as you understand it now, without researching it) and not copy/paste from someone else's post.....

https://www.facebook.com/11121721821...9353379428612/

too much work. those are basic tenets of what the gospel means to me. I can just recite it and pit it in my own words but it’s the same. why dont you guys explain it

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thank you for that very thoughtful answer! Your focus on Christ as the one and only Savior of mankind is really good to hear! His substitutionary death for us on the cross was a huge price to pay for a huge penalty, of which we don't know the half of either!

That sums up the propitiation for sins . . . what are your thoughts on the "much more" aspect, as in Romans 5:10? "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life."" However, love also does not allow others to be harmed ---->But we must be careful that this isn't done out of some self-righteousness or other fleshly motive. Again, better to err on the side of love rather than on the side of judgment toward other believers.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed.

John 1:17 & Psalm 85:11

so those conversion therapies were out of self righteousness and fleshly motive. Now my question to you StG, is how do we preach it as love when our motive is for the person to be converted and recognize it as sin, as our preaching at times does more harm than good for the lgbtq? For example, How would you preach the gospel to lgbtq in your own words?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

so those conversion therapies were out of self righteousness and fleshly motive. Now my question to you StG, is how do we preach it as love when our motive is for the person to be converted and recognize it as sin, as our preaching at times does more harm than good for the lgbtq? For example, How would you preach the gospel to lgbtq in your own words?

Absolutely the same words as to anyone - focus on Christ and His amazing gift to us, and the need to accept Him! It's the Holy Spirit's job to touch people's hearts as they individually need.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I think Awareness’s point is that lets say homosexuality is a sin, it is not as grievous as murdering thousands or stealing another man’s wife, so if God can save David and make him the ultimate ancestor of Jesus, He can surely forgive all the homosexuals in the world who have a heart for God but yet “sin”.

Well if that is awareness point then I agree completely.

Serenity, perhaps you could be awareness' spox! I'm for that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

so those conversion therapies were out of self righteousness and fleshly motive.

Conversion therapies are evil. But they were just trying to save their souls from hell fire. That's why the belief in eternal hell fire is evil.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Conversion therapies are evil. But they were just trying to save their souls from hell fire. That's why the belief in eternal hell fire is evil.

This is a sidebar to the main discussion, but I had a thought come to me regarding eternal damnation this morning. In order for God to judge the devil and his minions to eternal damnation, He has to be righteous. Therefore, anyone not accepting the one provision for salvation in Christ, has to experience it too. Otherwise, the devil can point his finger and say to God, "That is totally unrighteous to send us to eternal damnation, because these humans got a pass and they didn't accept Christ as Lord either!"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This is a sidebar to the main discussion, but I had a thought come to me regarding eternal damnation this morning. In order for God to judge the devil and his minions to eternal damnation, He has to be righteous. Therefore, anyone not accepting the one provision for salvation in Christ, has to experience it too. Otherwise, the devil can point his finger and say to God, "That is totally unrighteous to send us to eternal damnation, because these beings got a pass and they didn't accept Christ as Lord either!"

Then gays that accept Jesus, like Serenity and her mate, escape eternal damnation? Otherwise they are as bad as the devil and his minions?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then gays that accept Jesus, like Serenity and her mate, escape eternal damnation? Otherwise they are as bad as the devil and his minions?

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" Matt. 25:41

How could God be justified in throwing the devil and his angels into the lake of fire for not accepting Jesus as Lord, if He did not do the same with humans? The devil would certainly have grounds to accuse God of unrighteousness then. But as it says in Romans 3:19, "so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" Matt. 25:41

How could God be justified in throwing the devil and his angels into the lake of fire for not accepting Jesus as Lord, if He did not do the same with humans? The devil would certainly have grounds to accuse God of unrighteousness then. But as it says in Romans 3:19, "so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God."

But the verse you provided depends on how the least of these are treated, not accepting Jesus as Lord. And the LGBT community could be treating the least of these just fine.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

But the verse you provided depends on how the least of these are treated, not accepting Jesus as Lord. And the LGBT community could be treating the least of these just fine.

In the final, ultimate "test", it's not about what you do, but Who you know. If you align with and accept Jesus as Lord, you accept God's only provision for eternal life (verses eternal damnation), right?

So do you get the point about God being righteous about sending the devil & his angels into the eternal flames, but only if that also happens with all who don't proclaim Jesus as Lord?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

But the verse you provided depends on how the least of these are treated, not accepting Jesus as Lord. And the LGBT community could be treating the least of these just fine.

Earlier Sons of Glory mentioned that he didnt believe I was going to hell. Now I’m jusy confused. Anyways, can God really anull my salvation? I was baptized and believed in Him at the time. I think thats why the concept of purgatory or a thousand years in darkness was invented, because hell and heaven are very black and white concepts. Sometimes the punishment doesnt fit the crime. people on here mentioned that there’s dark forces at work, so are the people influenced by the Devil really 100 percent at fault for what they do? I think the Davil takes a greater responsibility.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So do you get the point about God being righteous about sending the devil & his angels into the eternal flames, but only if that also happens with all who don't proclaim Jesus as Lord?

Now this is where it gets a little fuzzy, before Christianity or good news was preached, what happens to all those who never heard the gospel? They were never given the chance, lgbtq or not. What does God do with those? I believe God will have to give them a chance in the afterlife yes? Or those who cannot comprehend the gospel due to limited mental faculties (those who were born with parts of their brains physically missing), they are unable to comprehend and much less proclaim Jesus as Lord with their whole being.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Earlier Sons of Glory mentioned that he didnt believe I was going to hell. Now I’m jusy confused. Anyways, can God really anull my salvation? I was baptized and believed in Him at the time. I think thats why the concept of purgatory or a thousand years in darkness was invented, because hell and heaven are very black and white concepts. Sometimes the punishment doesnt fit the crime. people on here mentioned that there’s dark forces at work, so are the people influenced by the Devil really 100 percent at fault for what they do? I think the Davil takes a greater responsibility.

Don't be confused . . . sory for any on my part. Children of God don't go into damnation. How are you a child of His? Because you were reborn with His life in you! As example - My son may do all kinds of bad things like go into a distant country and waste his inheritance and substance there. Does he suddenly not become my child? Of course not! Why? Because it's a life thing - my son shares my life and genetics.

Now are there consequences for what my son does? Sure. But I still love Him. Sometimes we need the chastening of our loving Father to teach us something we need.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Now this is where it gets a little fuzzy, before Christianity or good news was preached, what happens to all those who never heard the gospel? They were never given the chance, lgbtq or not. What does God do with those? I believe God will have to give them a chance in the afterlife yes? Or those who cannot comprehend the gospel due to limited mental faculties (those who were born with parts of their brains physically missing), they are unable to comprehend and much less proclaim Jesus as Lord with their whole being.

Once again I cannot tell . . . but this I know is He is and will be found 100% righteous in all His dealings with every being in the universe. I trust Him . . . even in the things I don't understand (which is most of it - considering all the vast mysteries of the macro & micro universe).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

In the final, ultimate "test", it's not about what you do, but Who you know. If you align with and accept Jesus as Lord, you accept God's only provision for eternal life (verses eternal damnation), right?

So do you get the point about God being righteous about sending the devil & his angels into the eternal flames, but only if that also happens with all who don't proclaim Jesus as Lord?

Well the verse in Matthew, about the least of these, begs to differ with you.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well the verse in Matthew, about the least of these, begs to differ with you.

What!? You differ with me!? Well that's a first!

Please explain what you mean . . . really have no clew. Thx

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What!? You differ with me!? Well that's a first!

Well that is indeed very funny. But it was Matthew 25 that differed with you, not me.

Originally Posted by StG

Please explain what you mean . . . really have no clew. Thx

Yesterday in response to me you stated:

Originally Posted by StG

In the final, ultimate "test", it's not about what you do, but Who you know. If you align with and accept Jesus as Lord, you accept God's only provision for eternal life (verses eternal damnation), right?

So do you get the point about God being righteous about sending the devil & his angels into the eternal flames, but only if that also happens with all who don't proclaim Jesus as Lord?

Earlier you posted Matthew 25 in support of eternal damnation in everlasting fire, with Satan and his minions :

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

That passage is concerning how the least of these are treated. And the passages undeniably have to do with DOING, and mentions nothing about proclaiming Jesus as Lord.

Therefore, those passages about the least of these differ with you.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Therefore, those passages about the least of these differ with you.

Okay, please come up with something that's clearer to support what I'm trying to convey.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, please come up with something that's clearer to support what I'm trying to convey.

I'm not sure of what you are trying to convey.

Are you trying to convey that gays that accept Jesus will avoid eternal damnation?

Or are you using Matthew 25 to prove that there is eternal fire damnation?

First, Matthew 25 doesn't say that, it says that the determination is how you treat the least of these, not that it's determined by accepting Jesus as Lord.

And as to a eternal torture chamber, filled with most of the earth's population, every generation, I don't buy it.

What you seem to be saying is that every one that accepts Jesus as Lord, will be saved. And those that don't go to the eternal fiery torture chamber.

I don't buy that there's such a chamber. As you say, God is just. A just God wouldn't do such a thing.

[Sons to Glory!]

See below for response

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not sure of what you are trying to convey.

Are you trying to convey that gays that accept Jesus will avoid eternal damnation? Yes

Or are you using Matthew 25 to prove that there is eternal fire damnation? Well, it's one "proof" and there are also plenty of other places for that "proof."

First, Matthew 25 doesn't say that, it says that the determination is how you treat the least of these, not that it's determined by accepting Jesus as Lord. Yet there is mention of "eternal fire." So it does exist.

And as to a eternal torture chamber, filled with most of the earth's population, every generation, I don't buy it.

What you seem to be saying is that every one that accepts Jesus as Lord, will be saved. And those that don't go to the eternal fiery torture chamber.

I don't buy that there's such a chamber. As you say, God is just. A just God wouldn't do such a thing. How then can He be just in judging the devil and his angels? If people weren't sent to the place "prepared for the devil and his angels" as judgment, the devil can point to those ones and say, "How can you throw me into the lake of fire if you let those guys off?!" And if all will be saved anyway, why did Jesus pay the ultimate price?

I used to have thoughts about "How can a loving God send others to the eternal fire?" too . . . it's a very natural thought. But if you reason it out, there's no other way He can righteously judge all beings (human and otherwise) if all get off scot-free regardless of whether they accept the Ultimate Gift of salvation or not.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

See below for response
I used to have thoughts about "How can a loving God send others to the eternal fire?" too . . . it's a very natural thought. But if you reason it out, there's no other way He can righteously judge all beings (human and otherwise) if all get off scot-free regardless of whether they accept the Ultimate Gift of salvation or not.

This is my view/opinion on the matter: there is a way for God to judge the Devil and his minions separately from human beings. The Devil is the ultimate source of evil and so He should have the greater punishment- if he tricked humans into commiting his dirty deeds, the humans are also responsible but not AS responsible as the Devil who perpetrated and tempted them in the first place I think thats why some Christians invent the concept of purgatory or as mentioned in Revelations, the outer darkness as penance for those who are not too bad and not too good. Anyways, it’s still vague on how God will punish us. Dante’s inferno has more details than the Bible, so we’ll have to see what really happens.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

See below for response
I used to have thoughts about "How can a loving God send others to the eternal fire?" too . . . it's a very natural thought. But if you reason it out, there's no other way He can righteously judge all beings (human and otherwise) if all get off scot-free regardless of whether they accept the Ultimate Gift of salvation or not.

Good discussion. But we're off thread topic. Sorry if I did that. I think there's a thread out here, either on the upper or lower, concerning hell. And I think it's got many things to say about it from the Bible, looking into the Greek words.

I get that we like hell fire.

I was laying on my couch, working remotely on a computer, in my underwear, when I heard a car pull up.

I looked and 3 men in suits got out of the car. I knew one of them. He was a frequent visitor from the JW's. I've given him a hard time many times, so he was bringing a couple of big guns.

When they got to the porch, I busted out the door, still in my underwear. I said, "y'all take the fun out of everything. You don't believe in hell ... so I can't tell you to go to hell. All I can tell you is, go be nothing."

And they liked it. We laughed. The truth is, if there was nothing about it in the Bible we'd have to invent hell. We have to be able to tell people "Go to hell."

And where else can we condemn the dirty nasty gays+?

[awareness]

Merriam-Webster redefines the term 'sexual preference' as offensive after Amy Coney Barrett used it and was criticized by Democrat senator who said it's used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest sexuality is a choice
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

Why does it have to be a choice?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

Merriam-Webster redefines the term 'sexual preference' as offensive after Amy Coney Barrett used it and was criticized by Democrat senator who said it's used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest sexuality is a choice
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

Why does it have to be a choice?

So that people (I can’t say “Christians” anymore because Ohio might get sad) can legitimize gay conversion therapy and use the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” which is also related to gay conversion through the love of Christ.

According to my experience, it has never been a choice just as heterosexuals never chose to be with the opposite sex. But my experience is just that. An experience. Which becomes illegitimized when percieved as “sinful”.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Merriam-Webster redefines the term 'sexual preference' as offensive after Amy Coney Barrett used it and was criticized by Democrat senator who said it's used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest sexuality is a choice
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

Why does it have to be a choice?

Everything in life is a choice.

Last night I watched a montage of famous people using the phrase "sexual preference." Included in the list was Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the progressive icon herself. The phrase has been used by millions of progressives over the years. The phrase is part of thousands of pages of law and legal documents. It was the Progressive Movement that taught us all to use this phrase. Then some progressive social justice warrior decided everyone is now wrong. The whole country is wrong, but more importantly Amy Coney Barrett is WRONG!

Hirono caught her!

Ten seconds of shame!

ACB was forced to apologize!

Busted by the PC thought police!

Tomorrow the word "sex" will be wrong. Why? Because it implies a choice.

Change your dictionaries idiots. Again.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So that people (I can’t say “Christians” anymore because Ohio might get sad) can legitimize gay conversion therapy and use the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” which is also related to gay conversion through the love of Christ.

According to my experience, it has never been a choice just as heterosexuals never chose to be with the opposite sex. But my experience is just that. An experience. Which becomes illegitimized when percieved as “sinful”.

Heterosexual sex is a CHOICE.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Heterosexual sex is a CHOICE.

I don't ever remember making that choice.

If it's a choice, then you can chose homosexuality. If you can do that then, you are bisexual.

Are you bisexual brother Ohio? a member of the lgBtq community? You can be honest with us. There's no shame on this thread.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't ever remember making that choice.

So ... You were forced against your will? Or perhaps you were asleep?

I have heard of people sleep-WALKING, but not that. Did you also have Rapid Eye Movement in "the act?"

But I do admit that you are one of a kind, and tend to break all the rules, pioneering at times "strange but true stories of the supernatural."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So ... You were forced against your will? Or perhaps you were asleep?

I have heard of people sleep-WALKING, but not that. Did you also have Rapid Eye Movement in "the act?"

But I do admit that you are one of a kind, and tend to break all the rules, pioneering at times "strange but true stories of the supernatural."

Well that was an entertaining dance. But since you can chose, you are bi. Just admit it. It will be therapeutic and cathartic. Come out brother, come out. Be what God made you.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well that was an entertaining dance. But since you can chose, you are bi. Just admit it. It will be therapeutic and cathartic. Come out brother, come out. Be what God made you.

Well there's been no talk on here of trisexuals - they'll try anything!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well there's been no talk on here of trisexuals - they'll try anything!

Maybe you're thinking of Pansexuality :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe you're thinking of Pansexuality :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality

Oh boy, and with that we may have exhausted this topic . . .

In the words of the Doris Day song: Que Sera, Sera!

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Oh boy, and with that we may have exhausted this topic . . .

In the words of the Doris Day song: Que Sera, Sera!

I’ve never heard of the term trisexuals but pansexual yes. You guys are all too funny. I feel like this thread has become a meme. but hey life’s too short to be labeling everything as conservative or progressive. We’re all in this together.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Oh boy, and with that we may have exhausted this topic . . .

In the words of the Doris Day song: Que Sera, Sera!

It's your thread, do whatever you want.

But we haven't even exhausted the question of choice. As Serenity pointed out, that's the basis of Conversion therapy. It's an easy fix : Just teach 'em to make better choices.

But we haven't answered why it has to be a choice yet. There's lots in life that's not a choice. We didn't, for example, chose what gender we're born with.

It's my contention that there's a whole bundle of tweaks that hitch along, like same sex attraction ... that some can't help, any more than they could help with who and what they are at birth.

But why do some have to believe it's a choice?

Why does sexuality have to be a choice?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's your thread, do whatever you want.

But we haven't even exhausted the question of choice. As Serenity pointed out, that's the basis of Conversion therapy. It's an easy fix : Just teach 'em to make better choices.

But we haven't answered why it has to be a choice yet. There's lots in life that's not a choice. We didn't, for example, chose what gender we're born with.

It's my contention that there's a whole bundle of tweaks that hitch along, like same sex attraction ... that some can't help, any more than they could help with who and what they are at birth.

But why do some have to believe it's a choice?

Why does sexuality have to be a choice?

It's simple: Something went haywire along the line called the 1st Adam. God's solution for the only thing that fixes Adam? The cross and the Last Adam.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

It's simple: Something went haywire along the line called the 1st Adam. God's solution for the only thing that fixes Adam? The cross and the Last Adam.

So what is the fix? If a gay person accepts Jesus, is his gayness then fixed?

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by awareness

So what is the fix? If a gay person accepts Jesus, is his gayness then fixed?

Once a brother and I talked to a brother. He told us when he got saved, he felt the Lord was telling him he isn’t gay. When he told his liberal family in CA about accepting Jesus, etc they threw him out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

Once a brother and I talked to a brother. He told us when he got saved, he felt the Lord was telling him he isn’t gay. When he told his liberal family in CA about accepting Jesus, etc they threw him out.

How old was he?

[Trapped]

I'm very behind in responding to things here, but am trying to catch up as I can. Below is an excerpt from the HuffPo article posted on the other LGBT thread (the article that the term "clobber verses" came from). The article was titled "The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality".

Excerpt in red, italics and bold are NOT added by me:

-----

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. —Romans 1:26-27

In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.

The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:

“...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic.”

This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts — as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.

The Bible’s clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.

-----

Okay. Anyone see the glaring issue with this?

The verses in Romans 1 that are cited refer to BOTH women lusting for each other as well as men. However, the article's response speaks only of the historical existence of MALE prostitute/coercive/conquering type acts.

Sorry. This doesn't hold up unless you can also show that there were somehow women who also had coercive homosexual relations with women slaves. These verses in Romans say "in the same way".....so the male/male relations and female/female relations are of the same type. If the argument is that male relations mentioned are about what is essentially coercive rape of a younger male, then the article also has to show the same type of coercive rape of younger females BY WOMEN also historically occurred and was similarly seen as acceptable in society. I'm not saying this isn't the case, but I have not see one instance of this in any of the articles supporting LGBT that deal with these verses. They always wave the male coercive acts around while conveniently skipping the fact that identical female acts are also in the verse, and yet provide no historical mention of female coercive rape being acceptable in society in those times.

Absent that, these verses are speaking of homosexual relations.

Furthermore, the words are "lusting for one other". This is both parties participating in lusting after one another. No one would describe coercive rape that way. It's not rape. It's consensual homosexual relations.....two men and two women wanting to have sex with each other (again, the ACT, not just having feelings). Shown as sin in Scripture, in the New Testament.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well that was an entertaining dance. But since you can chose, you are bi. Just admit it. It will be therapeutic and cathartic. Come out brother, come out. Be what God made you.

I've been happily married a looong time. Perhaps you are projecting here.

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by awareness

How old was he?

I would say in his early 50s. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, but he said he was gay before his salvation experience.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

I would say in his early 50s. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, but he said he was gay before his salvation experience.

50 is a little old for living with parents. Was he still gay after his salvation experience?

[awareness]

Oh! Shame on me. Thanks for weighing in Weighingin ....

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I'm very behind in responding to things here, but am trying to catch up as I can. Below is an excerpt from the HuffPo article posted on the other LGBT thread (the article that the term "clobber verses" came from). The article was titled "The Best Case for the Bible Not Condemning Homosexuality".

Excerpt in red, italics and bold are NOT added by me:

-----

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. —Romans 1:26-27

In the times during which the New Testament was written, the Roman conquerors of the region frequently and openly engaged in homosexual acts between older men and boys, and between men and their male slaves. These acts of non-consensual sex were considered normal and socially acceptable. They were, however, morally repulsive to Paul, as today they would be to everyone, gay and straight.

The universally acknowledged authoritative reference on matters of antiquity is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Here is what the OCD (third edition revised, 2003) says in its section about homosexuality as practiced in the time of Paul:

“...the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic.”

This is the societal context in which Paul wrote of homosexual acts, and it is this context that Christians are obliged to bring to their understanding and interpretation of the three clobber passages. Paul certainly condemned the same-sex sexual activity he saw around him. It was coercive; it was without constraint; it involved older men and boys. As a moral man, Paul was revolted by these acts — as, certainly, he would have been by the same acts had they been heterosexual in nature.

The Bible’s clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being a homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written.

-----

Okay. Anyone see the glaring issue with this?

The verses in Romans 1 that are cited refer to BOTH women lusting for each other as well as men. However, the article's response speaks only of the historical existence of MALE prostitute/coercive/conquering type acts.

Sorry. This doesn't hold up unless you can also show that there were somehow women who also had coercive homosexual relations with women slaves. These verses in Romans say "in the same way".....so the male/male relations and female/female relations are of the same type. If the argument is that male relations mentioned are about what is essentially coercive rape of a younger male, then the article also has to show the same type of coercive rape of younger females BY WOMEN also historically occurred and was similarly seen as acceptable in society. I'm not saying this isn't the case, but I have not see one instance of this in any of the articles supporting LGBT that deal with these verses. They always wave the male coercive acts around while conveniently skipping the fact that identical female acts are also in the verse, and yet provide no historical mention of female coercive rape being acceptable in society in those times.

Absent that, these verses are speaking of homosexual relations.

Furthermore, the words are "lusting for one other". This is both parties participating in lusting after one another. No one would describe coercive rape that way. It's not rape. It's consensual homosexual relations.....two men and two women wanting to have sex with each other (again, the ACT, not just having feelings). Shown as sin in Scripture, in the New Testament.

Q: Unlike Corinthians and Timothy, Romans 1:26-27 clearly condemns same-sex erotic behavior for both men and women. How can this be mistranslation? “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (ESV)

Answer:
Paul describes a complex descent into sin beginning many verses earlier in Romans 1, but what should be very clear for any reader in the chronology and context of Paul’s narrative in Romans 1 is that this has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex relationships. This is not an ambiguous, generalized portrayal of non-Christians. Paul is painting a picture of the pagan religious industry and its consumers. This likely was epitomized by either the Temple of Aphrodite itself or a Cybeline cult in Corinth. The former had its prostitution ring that would have operated in the temple or around the city, while the latter actually hosted orgies of men and women who mutilated their sex organs to achieve a state of “genderless transcendence.”

Moreover, Paul is speaking specifically about people who have rejected God, worship idols, are consumed with lust and love sin. That we would apply the reasoning of this passage to all people with a homosexual orientation, including people who love Jesus, makes a mockery of Paul’s careful logic.

But what about Paul detailing the homosexual behavior of men and women as “dishonorable,” “shameless,” and “contrary to nature”? Surely we can’t ignore that just because Paul is addressing the moral corruption that comes with pagan temple cults around him. Yet, Paul also describes their homosexuality as a result of “passions,” essentially unbridled lust and desire, but this is not the nature of a same-sex marriage that we seek to affirm.
Even more critical to Paul’s context is that Paul identifies all this homosexual activity to initially heterosexual idolaters. In the verses prior Paul describes the heterosexual sex ceremonies these people were having, which is why he also includes the critical caveat that both these men and women either gave up or exchanged “natural relations for what is contrary to nature.” Fitting within the ancient Mediterranean worldview that often viewed homosexuality as excessive and uncontrolled sexual desire by otherwise heterosexual people, Paul essentially saw them as straight people having gay sex. Heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts during the worship of pagan gods, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the Levitical context, has no logical bearing on same-sex relationships.

Are we then saying that Paul would have endorsed same-sex relationships? No. Paul’s formative exposure to homosexuality was limited to older men engaged in sexual relationships with younger boys (i.e. pederasty), temple prostitution, and wild temple cultic orgies. Additionally, as a former Jewish Pharisee in the first century, Paul was culturally predisposed to scorn expressions of homosexuality. However, just as we excuse Paul’s acceptance of slavery (Colossians 3:22) based on his ancient cultural and religious context, we should also be very careful to import his experience with expressions of first-century homosexuality into our current context of loving and monogamous same-sex relationships.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

50 is a little old for living with parents. Was he still gay after his salvation experience?

It could be he was bisexual. Sexuality is fluid, even with men. you can be 100 percent straight, 100 percent gay, or 50-50 or 70-30, etc.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

So what is the fix? If a gay person accepts Jesus, is his gayness then fixed?

I'll just tell you according to what happened to me. Before I was saved at age 18, I was really into smoking pot, drinking and partying and did a lot of experimentation with many other drugs - I got quite into the dark side of things (winding up in jail and even briefly the state mental institution). It was 1974 and I was sort of a wanabe hippie and bought into all the rhetoric - peace, love, drugs & rock & roll. When I cried out to Him in desperation one night and He saved me wondrously, I had a voice inside telling me over and over, "I is dead."

I didn't know exactly what "I is dead" meant, but I felt joyous repeating it out loud. I was in wonderful 1-on-1 communication and love with the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob (the Anointing spoke these names to me too). And one thing I found out rather quickly, was that the joy of pot smoking had simply been taken away --> when I tried it at one point, it didn't have the euphoric effect I had previously loved so much. In fact, it just made me depressed and paranoid. I knew that this part of me had died and just wasn't there. The real me wanted to be with those that loved Him the way I did, and I prayed He take me to be with them. He did, and that's how I was brought miraculously to the LC in Berkeley over 2000 miles away within a week's time. My new life had begun.

Now, in the time since, the flesh does try to rise up and say I'm still that old person and I should do this and that, but I know it's really a lie - there's little satisfaction in those things. Some things were very apparent that they were part of the old me that had died, like smoking pot. God was quite wise in taking pot from me in a strong and instant way, as it was certainly a gateway to other ruinous behaviors. Many other things from my old life are taking longer for me to realize the fact that yes indeed, those things were part of the old (crucified) me. When I identify and act according to my new life that's hidden in Him, then I have life, peace, joy and clarity; when I identify and act according to my old life, I experience basically none of those good things. But that's all part of the grand experiment of life - progressively finding out what He's already done and made me to be, and what is real and profitable and pleasing to Him!

My old man has been crucified with Him,
With all its foul corruption deep within;
And buried too its nature serpentine,
Completely finished—this great fact is mine,
I hold it fast.

But there’s a Person in my spirit now,
Born as a babe so small, so weak, so low;
Who by the Word’s pure milk will grow to be
The overcoming inner man in me
To gain my heart.

Christ as my Person must possess my heart
And be preeminent in every part.
The former owner died but haunts it still.
O Lord, move in; my mind, emotion, will
Now welcome Thee.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
for it is God Who operates in you both the willing and the working for His good pleasure!"

Philippians 2:12-13

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

It could be he was bisexual. Sexuality is fluid, even with men. you can be 100 percent straight, 100 percent gay, or 50-50 or 70-30, etc.

He had been living back east. He somehow got my name, said he had been in a locality there, but was now out west and needed help. When another brother and I went to visit him, he shared with us that upon meeting the Lord, he said that the Lord told him he’s not gay. He emphasized this again as I recall.
He had visited with his family to tell them he believed in Jesus , etc, but they rejected him, and told him to go away.
He happened to be in the city I lived in at that time , and needed financial assistance to get back east, so we helped him in that way, giving it all to the Lord.
This was just my little contribution to this thread.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

It could be he was bisexual. Sexuality is fluid, even with men. you can be 100 percent straight, 100 percent gay, or 50-50 or 70-30, etc.

I'm confused as to how I fit in. As a male I'm 100% straight. But inwardly I identify as lesbian, so I'm 100% gay. I'm both ; 100% straight and 100% gay.

How can that be? Is there a term for me?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'll just tell you according to what happened to me. Before I was saved at age 18, I was really into smoking pot, drinking and partying and did a lot of experimentation with many other drugs - I got quite into the dark side of things (winding up in jail and even briefly the state mental institution). It was 1974 and I was sort of a wanabe hippie and bought into all the rhetoric - peace, love, drugs & rock & roll. When I cried out to Him in desperation one night and He saved me wondrously, I had a voice inside telling me over and over, "I is dead."

I didn't know exactly what "I is dead" meant, but I felt joyous repeating it out loud. I was in wonderful 1-on-1 communication and love with the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob (the Anointing spoke these names to me too). And one thing I found out rather quickly, was that the joy of pot smoking had simply been taken away --> when I tried it at one point, it didn't have the euphoric effect I had previously loved so much. In fact, it just made me depressed and paranoid. I knew that this part of me had died and just wasn't there. The real me wanted to be with those that loved Him the way I did, and I prayed He take me to be with them. He did, and that's how I was brought miraculously to the LC in Berkeley over 2000 miles away within a week's time. My new life had begun.

Now, in the time since, the flesh does try to rise up and say I'm still that old person and I should do this and that, but I know it's really a lie - there's no satisfaction in those things. Some things were very apparent that they were part of the old me that had died, like smoking pot. God was quite wise in taking pot from me in a strong and instant way, as it was certainly a gateway to other ruinous behaviors. Many other things from my old life are taking longer for me to realize the fact that yes indeed, those things were part of the old me. When I identify and act according to my new life hidden in Him, then I have life, peace, joy and clarity; when I identify and act according to my old life, I experience basically none of those good things. But that's all part of the grand experiment of life - progressively finding out what He's already done and made me to be, and what is real and profitable and pleasing to Him!

Thank you for sharing. It is an incredible journey you have been through. I still have a lot of questions though, like how can I just kick my “habit” of being with my sweetheart. Like she is a person, not a drug. And I also cried out so many times before I met her, until God sent me my wife, so I think it’s a blessing from Him and an answer that He is telling me that this love is real and profitable and pleasing.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm confused as to how I fit in. As a male I'm 100% straight. But inwardly I identify as lesbian, so I'm 100% gay. I'm both ; 100% straight and 100% gay.

How can that be? Is there a term for me?

You may be “bigendered” or as the native americans say, “two spirited”

https://www.mvc.edu/files/Allies_Terminology.pdf

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

He had been living back east. He somehow got my name, said he had been in a locality there, but was now out west and needed help. When another brother and I went to visit him, he shared with us that upon meeting the Lord, he said that the Lord told him he’s not gay. He emphasized this again as I recall.
He had visited with his family to tell them he believed in Jesus , etc, but they rejected him, and told him to go away.
He happened to be in the city I lived in at that time , and needed financial assistance to get back east, so we helped him in that way, giving it all to the Lord.
This was just my little contribution to this thread.

Thanks for sharing, it was very good for you to help him. What I meant to say was that he was probably not 100 percent gay to begin with, more like he is bisexual so he could have had different feelings with opposite sex as well. Only time will tell. This is a very interesting story of a family who rejected their son due to him not being gay. Was the family not religious?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Thank you for sharing. It is an incredible journey you have been through. I still have a lot of questions though, like how can I just kick my “habit” of being with my sweetheart. Like she is a person, not a drug. And I also cried out so many times before I met her, until God sent me my wife, so I think it’s a blessing from Him and an answer that He is telling me that this love is real and profitable and pleasing.

I don't know . . . just keep seeking Him. We are new creations in Him; "Behold I make all things new!" He is faithful to reveal what is part of the new creation and therefore lasting, and what isn't.

BTW - I made some edits and additions to that post you responded to.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

You may be “bigendered” or as the native americans say, “two spirited”

Two spirited maybe, and maybe even bigendered, except my attraction either as straight or lesbian, is single gendered.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Two spirited maybe, and maybe even bigendered, except my attraction either as straight or lesbian, is single gendered.

Two spirited? You have one spirit . . . if there is another spirit in you, that isn't good.

BTW: My dad - who really likes women - in jest used to say, "I'm just a lesbian trapped in a man's body." We all thought that was quite witty of him!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Two spirited? You have one spirit . . . if there is another spirit in you, that isn't good.

I have room for more than two. I can hold two conflicting concepts in my head at the same time, without it causing trouble. Same with spirits. They can't violate my free will. I can tell God no, and Satan no, and any spirit no.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have room for more than two. I can hold two conflicting concepts in my head at the same time, without it causing trouble. Same with spirits. They can't violate my free will. I can tell God no, and Satan no, and any spirit no.

If you think you have 2 spirits who are you, then that's a problem.

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Thanks for sharing, it was very good for you to help him. What I meant to say was that he was probably not 100 percent gay to begin with, more like he is bisexual so he could have had different feelings with opposite sex as well. Only time will tell. This is a very interesting story of a family who rejected their son due to him not being gay. Was the family not religious?

He told us when he told them about accepting Jesus, they were unhappy with him and told him to leave. It seemed to me they were unbelievers who hated Jesus or Christianity.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

He told us when he told them about accepting Jesus, they were unhappy with him and told him to leave. It seemed to me they were unbelievers who hated Jesus or Christianity.

What ethnicity is he? I've know Native Americans that hate Christianity with a passion, for what Christians did to them. I can't blame them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

If you think you have 2 spirits who are you, then that's a problem.

Spirits can't control me. Besides, haven't you heard, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Spirits can't control me. Besides, haven't you heard, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer?

Is that in the Bible?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is that in the Bible?

Only by inference. Does the Bible tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth for all times, and everything?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

If you think you have 2 spirits who are you, then that's a problem.

The Native Americans had a different concept of the spirit than Christians do. Theh thought unanimated nature like rocks and trees had spirits too.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

The Native Americans had a different concept of the spirit than Christians do. Theh thought unanimated nature like rocks and trees had spirits too.

They also didn't have a problem with sexual identity. They didn't have sexual hangups like Christians.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

They also didn't have a problem with sexual identity. They didn't have sexual hangups like Christians.

And you discovered these basic insights by working closely with every Native American tribe over several centuries of supervised field work? Simultaneously researching every known Christian congregation over the same timeframe?

Or you just made it up? Yeah ... That's what I thought.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is that in the Bible?

Source:
http://zionlutheranskanee.blogspot.c...close.html?m=1

Out of the blue, David starts asking if anyone of the house of Saul has survived. He'd like to do them some kindness, for the sake of Jonathan. Jonathan's crippled son, Mephibosheth, is brought to David, by a former servant of Saul. And... David is extremely kind, giving him all that had formerly belonged to his grandfather, including the former servant of Saul to work the land. David will ensure that Mephibosheth is cared for all the days of his life.

So why do I question David's motives by implying that this chapter is about keeping our enemies close? There is nothing particular in this chapter that implies it - except that - the servant Ziba was Saul's servant. Except that - Mephibosheth is the grandson of the former king, who for years had pursued David and wanted his death. Yes, Jonathan loved David. But, this is Jonathan's son and Saul's grandson. Who can say where Mephibosheth's loyalties will lie? What about Ziba's loyalties? And... if they are not with David, maybe David will win them over with his generosity and kindness. It is good to keep those who are potential enemies close beside you so that you will know what they are doing. Strategies... of politics and war.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer... Be kind to each of them.

Proverbs 25:21-22

"If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the Lord will reward you."

And who can tell, by your kindness, just maybe your enemy will become your true friend.

And Jesus told us to: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matt 5:44)

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And you discovered these basic insights by working closely with every Native American tribe over several centuries of supervised field work? Simultaneously researching every known Christian congregation over the same timeframe?

Or you just made it up? Yeah ... That's what I thought.

“The debate over marriage in American society and the fears expressed by some conservatives that allowing diversity will somehow destroy the institution of marriage is ever evolving. While there appears to be some who feel that there is only one kind of marriage, in reality there are many options regarding marriage. Traditional Native American marriage is one of the unique types that is interesting to explore.
First, however, a caution: at the beginning of the European invasion there were several hundred separate and distinct Indian cultures, each with their own view of marriage. This article discusses Indian marriage in very broad terms and we realize that there are many exceptions to some of the generalizations.
In American society, part of the discussion about marriage is really about sex. While sex was a part of traditional Native American marriage, marriage was not about sex. Prior to marriage, young people were expected to engage in sexual activities. Sex was not confined to marriage.
The Europeans, and particularly the missionaries, had a great deal of difficulty in understanding that women had power in Indian society and that they had the right to sexual freedom. Indian societies were not organized on the patriarchal, monogamous norms of European society. Christian missionaries were deeply shocked and offended by the fact that Indian women were allowed to express their sexuality. At the same time, many of the European men were delighted by this.
Among some contemporary American commentators, there is a view that there are only two genders: male and female. Yet, in many American Indian cultures, people did not make this an either/or situation. They viewed gender (and sexuality) as a continuum. Many modern Indians talk about a third sex/gender often called a berdache or two-spirit. Yet in traditional cultures, it wasn’t quite that simple. There was a recognition of the feminine and masculine in all people. There was not an either/or concept of being heterosexual or homosexual. There were in traditional societies male and female homosexuals and transvestites who played important spiritual and ceremonial roles. These individuals were seen as being an important part of the community.
Traditional Native American cultures tended to be egalitarian: all people were equal. This is one of the things that bothered many of the early Christian missionaries, particularly the Jesuits in New France, as they viewed marriage as a relationship in which the woman subjugated herself to the man.”
source: https://capacitybuilders.info/preven...iage-views.php

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...outputType=amp

“Major reasons offered by Europeans for why Indians were not human:
They seemed incapable of embracing European notions of reason;
Their passions and brutality made them only slightly better than animals (as opposed to the passions and brutality of the Europeans, which were more civilized, or something like that);
They could not master the “Arts of civil Life & Humanity.”[2]
Their sexuality was "animalistic" (as compared to the plain-old missionary position procreative sex that Christian missionaries held up as an ideal)
They chose to show a little skin, and not cover their bodies like "decent" God-fearing people”
Source: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Native...d_Christianity

You can also read the Creation Story of the Navajos, where it explains the creation of hermadaphrites, transgender, gay, and lesbian people.

Or from this article:
https://indiancountrytoday.com/archi...VEWQHWkjNn0rQQ
“Those who arrived in the Native American Garden of Eden had never seen a land so uncorrupted. The Europeans saw new geography, new plants, new animals, but the most perplexing curiosity to these people were the Original Peoples and our ways of life. Of all of the foreign life ways Indians held, one of the first the Europeans targeted for elimination was the Two Spirit tradition among Native American cultures. At the point of contact, all Native American societies acknowledged three to five gender roles: Female, male, Two Spirit female, Two Spirit male and transgendered. LGBT Native Americans wanting to be identified within their respective tribes and not grouped with other races officially adopted the term “Two Spirit” from the Ojibwe language in Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1989. Each tribe has their own specific term, but there was a need for a universal term that the general population could understand. The Navajo refer to Two Spirits as Nádleehí (one who is transformed), among the Lakota is Winkté (indicative of a male who has a compulsion to behave as a female), Niizh Manidoowag (two spirit) in Ojibwe, Hemaneh (half man, half woman) in Cheyenne, to name a few. As the purpose of “Two Spirit” is to be used as a universal term in the English language, it is not always translatable with the same meaning in Native languages. For example, in the Iroquois Cherokee language, there is no way to translate the term, but the Cherokee do have gender variance terms for “women who feel like men” and vice versa.

Old Prejudices In The New World

The Jesuits and French explorers told stories of Native American men who had “Given to sin” and “Hunting Women” with wives and later, the British returned to England with similar accounts. George Catlin said that the Two Spirit tradition among Native Americans “Must be extinguished before it can be more fully recorded.” In keeping with European prejudices held against Natives, the Spanish Catholic monks destroyed most of the Aztec codices to eradicate traditional Native beliefs and history, including those that told of the Two Spirit tradition. In 1530, the Spanish explorer Cabeza de Vaca wrote in his diary of seeing “soft” Native Indian males in Florida tribes dressing and working as women. Just as with all other aspects of the European regard for Indians, gender variance was not tolerated. Europeans and eventually Euro-Americans demanded all people conform to their prescribed two gender roles.

The Native American belief is that some people are born with the spirits of both genders and express them so perfectly. It is if they have two spirits in one body. Some Siouan tribes believed that before a child is born its soul stands before The Creator, to either reach for the bow and arrows that would indicate the role of a man or the basket that would determine the role of a female. When the child would reach for the gender-corresponding hand, sometimes The Creator would switch hands and the child would have chosen the opposite gender’s role and therefore casting its lot in life.

Native Americans traditionally assign no moral gradient to love or sexuality; a person was judged for their contributions to their tribe and for their character. It was also a custom for parents to not interfere with nature and so among some tribes, children wore gender-neutral clothes until they reached an age where they decided for themselves which path they would walk and the appropriate ceremonies followed. The Two Spirit people in pre-contact Native America were highly revered and families that included them were considered lucky. Indians believed that a person who was able to see the world through the eyes of both genders at the same time was a gift from The Creator. Traditionally, Two Spirit people held positions within their tribes that earned them great respect, such as Medicine Men/Women, shamans, visionaries, mystics, conjurers, keepers of the tribe’s oral traditions, conferrers of lucky names for children and adults (it has been said that Crazy Horse received his name from a Winkte), nurses during war expeditions, cooks, matchmakers and marriage counselors, jewelry/feather regalia makers, potters, weavers, singers/artists in addition to adopting orphaned children and tending to the elderly. Female-bodied Two Spirits were hunters, warriors, engaged in what was typically men’s work and by all accounts, were always fearless.

Traditional Native Americans closely associate Two Spirited people with having a high functioning intellect (possibly from a life of self-questioning), keen artistic skills and an exceptional capacity for compassion. Rather than being social dead-enders as within Euro-American culture today, they were allowed to fully participate within traditional tribal social structures. Two Spirit people, specifically male-bodied (biologically male, gender female) could go to war and have access to male activities such as the sweat lodge. However, they also took on female roles such as cooking, cleaning and other domestic responsibilities. Female bodied (biologically female, gender male) Two Spirits usually only had relationships or marriages with females and among the Lakota, they would sometimes enter into a relationship with a female whose husband had died. As male-bodied Two Spirits regarded each other as “sisters,” it is speculated that it may have been seen as incestuous for Two Spirits to have a relationship with each other. Within this culture it was considered highly offensive to approach a Two Spirit for the purpose of them performing the traditional role of their biological gender.”

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And you discovered these basic insights by working closely with every Native American tribe over several centuries of supervised field work? Simultaneously researching every known Christian congregation over the same timeframe?

Or you just made it up? Yeah ... That's what I thought.

I don't hold your ignorance against you. We can't know everything. Try reading this :

Diné Bahane': The Navajo Creation Story
https://www.amazon.com/Din%C3%A9-Bah.../dp/0826310435

But I don't advise it if you have sexual hangups. I won't give some examples out here, but if I did, Untohim would delete this post promptly. And you would be up in arms.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Source:
http://zionlutheranskanee.blogspot.c...close.html?m=1

Out of the blue, David starts asking if anyone of the house of Saul has survived. He'd like to do them some kindness, for the sake of Jonathan. Jonathan's crippled son, Mephibosheth, is brought to David, by a former servant of Saul. And... David is extremely kind, giving him all that had formerly belonged to his grandfather, including the former servant of Saul to work the land. David will ensure that Mephibosheth is cared for all the days of his life.

So why do I question David's motives by implying that this chapter is about keeping our enemies close? There is nothing particular in this chapter that implies it - except that - the servant Ziba was Saul's servant. Except that - Mephibosheth is the grandson of the former king, who for years had pursued David and wanted his death. Yes, Jonathan loved David. But, this is Jonathan's son and Saul's grandson. Who can say where Mephibosheth's loyalties will lie? What about Ziba's loyalties? And... if they are not with David, maybe David will win them over with his generosity and kindness. It is good to keep those who are potential enemies close beside you so that you will know what they are doing. Strategies... of politics and war.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer... Be kind to each of them.

Proverbs 25:21-22

"If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head,
and the Lord will reward you."

And who can tell, by your kindness, just maybe your enemy will become your true friend.

And Jesus told us to: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matt 5:44)

Good post. Keep your friends close and enemies closer is not a quote in the Bible. But as you've pointed out here, it is covered and addressed.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't hold your ignorance against you. We can't know everything. Try reading this :

But I don't advise it if you have sexual hangups. I won't give some examples out here, but if I did, Untohim would delete this post promptly. And you would be up in arms.

I know in some native American cultures, there are five genders instead of two and they all have a role in society. Seems to me like they were getting along well in native american society, before the europeans attempted to converted them to Protestant Christianity values. At the time, they would rather kill the Native American savages or “pagans” in an attempt to “save them in the name of Jesus Christ”. So some of the claims on this thread that trans people or other gendered people are destroying society is just full of paranoia. Now I know that different tribes can have variations on the “two -spirit” formulation based on heritage and attempting to fit white cultural norms of linguistics to native american terms, but that just supports my point that when Paul was writing about “homoseuxality”, the term “homosexuality” may have different nuances of meaning pertaining to that specific era or Greek/Roman culture audience he was writing to.

I saw a comment that someone made on a 2 spirited yotube video that really encapsulates this point. It says “It is obvious that we are born from spirits of both a mother and a father. That makes two spirits in a body. Both are vital even though one may be suppressed and the other expressed in the world. I am physically a male and the suppression of my female personality caused very bad sociopathic personality in me. thank fully I outgrew those behaviors”

To me that sounds like toxic masculinity in men raised in two-gender cultural/religious backgrounds.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

“The debate over marriage in American society and the fears expressed by some conservatives that allowing diversity will somehow destroy the institution of marriage is ever evolving. While there appears to be some who feel that there is only one kind of marriage, in reality there are many options regarding marriage. Traditional Native American marriage is one of the unique types that is interesting to explore.”

“We forget everything. What we remember is not what actually happened, not history, but merely that hackneyed dotted line they have chosen to drive into our memories by incessant hammering.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago," 1918–1956

Funny thing about history is that you can make it say most anything you want, and such is never more true than with indigenous history. Nothing has ever been more diverse than the thousands of American tribes over thousands of years. Pick a time and pick a place, take a snapshot, and characterize the whole with whatever you have selected. Such is Native American history. Study the horrible revisionist movement called the 1619 Project for implications today.

In 1990 Kevin Costner starred as John Dunbar in the epic post Civil War classic "Dances With The Wolves" glamorizing the Sioux Nation and won 7 Oscars for Best Picture, etc. Viewers left the movie with disdain for the "villainous" Union Army white man and compassion for the plight of Native Americans. "Dances With The Wolves" has been called a "white savior" film. Lost in the memory of the story, however, was the treacherous Pawnees whose power hungry chief was hell-bent on Sioux genocide. So, do we characterize all Native Americans as Sioux or Pawnee? Lost also in the film was that the Union Army had just paid an enormous price to liberate the slaves under President Lincoln.

Such is the case with all aspects of Native American life, culture, character, worship, economics, etc. Take a snapshot in time to say anything you want. Truth is they were as diverse as the rest of the world is today. Truth be told Lieutenant John Dunbar was a compassionate missionary who loved God and man. He left his New England home to bring the Gospel of Christ to the Pawnee people. Now why do you think they left that inconvenient fact out of the story?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

“We forget everything. What we remember is not what actually happened, not history, but merely that hackneyed dotted line they have chosen to drive into our memories by incessant hammering.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago," 1918–1956

Funny thing about history is that you can make it say most anything you want, and such is never more true than with indigenous history. Nothing has ever been more diverse than the thousands of American tribes over thousands of years. Pick a time and pick a place, take a snapshot, and characterize the whole with whatever you have selected. Such is Native American history. Study the horrible revisionist movement called the 1619 Project for implications today.

In 1990 Kevin Costner starred as John Dunbar in the epic post Civil War classic "Dances With The Wolves" glamorizing the Sioux Nation and won 7 Oscars for Best Picture, etc. Viewers left the movie with disdain for the "villainous" Union Army white man and compassion for the plight of Native Americans. "Dances With The Wolves" has been called a "white savior" film. Lost in the memory of the story, however, was the treacherous Pawnees whose power hungry chief was hell-bent on Sioux genocide. So, do we characterize all Native Americans as Sioux or Pawnee? Lost also in the film was that the Union Army had just paid an enormous price to liberate the slaves under President Lincoln.

Such is the case with all aspects of Native American life, culture, character, worship, economics, etc. Take a snapshot in time to say anything you want. Truth is they were as diverse as the rest of the world is today. Truth be told Lieutenant John Dunbar was a compassionate missionary who loved God and man. He left his New England home to bring the Gospel of Christ to the Pawnee people. Now why do you think they left that inconvenient fact out of the story?

Yes and my readings of the Plymouth Pilgrim's encounters with various tribes also back this up - Native Americans were not in the least homogeneous and were actually quite widely diverse from tribe to tribe.

And interesting about the real John Dunbar who was a missionary to the Pawnees. The Pawnees, however, were not much taken with his message of the gospel.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Only by inference. Does the Bible tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth for all times, and everything?

A few of us had a little discussion around this topic this morning, at Saturday church maintenance. One of the six sharing bros said he was thinking of bringing the question up in a couple weeks when he is scheduled to speak, about how do we know the Bible is the word of God?

Some Christians seem to believe it basically is the word of God, until there's a passage they disagree with or don't understand well - then it was probably just written by some uninspired man . . .

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by awareness

What ethnicity is he? I've know Native Americans that hate Christianity with a passion, for what Christians did to them. I can't blame them.

He appeared Caucasian.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

A few of us had a little discussion around this topic this morning, at Saturday church maintenance. One of the six sharing bros said he was thinking of bringing the question up in a couple weeks when he is scheduled to speak, about how do we know the Bible is the word of God?

Some Christians seem to believe it basically is the word of God, until there's a passage they disagree with or don't understand well - then it was probably just written by some uninspired man . . .

So what do YOU think?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So what do YOU think?

Bible = Word of God.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

“We forget everything. What we remember is not what actually happened, not history, but merely that hackneyed dotted line they have chosen to drive into our memories by incessant hammering.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago," 1918–1956

Funny thing about history is that you can make it say most anything you want, and such is never more true than with indigenous history. Nothing has ever been more diverse than the thousands of American tribes over thousands of years. Pick a time and pick a place, take a snapshot, and characterize the whole with whatever you have selected. Such is Native American history. Study the horrible revisionist movement called the 1619 Project for implications today.

In 1990 Kevin Costner starred as John Dunbar in the epic post Civil War classic "Dances With The Wolves" glamorizing the Sioux Nation and won 7 Oscars for Best Picture, etc. Viewers left the movie with disdain for the "villainous" Union Army white man and compassion for the plight of Native Americans. "Dances With The Wolves" has been called a "white savior" film. Lost in the memory of the story, however, was the treacherous Pawnees whose power hungry chief was hell-bent on Sioux genocide. So, do we characterize all Native Americans as Sioux or Pawnee? Lost also in the film was that the Union Army had just paid an enormous price to liberate the slaves under President Lincoln.

Such is the case with all aspects of Native American life, culture, character, worship, economics, etc. Take a snapshot in time to say anything you want. Truth is they were as diverse as the rest of the world is today. Truth be told Lieutenant John Dunbar was a compassionate missionary who loved God and man. He left his New England home to bring the Gospel of Christ to the Pawnee people. Now why do you think they left that inconvenient fact out of the story?

So you make my point clear, there is diversity including the fact that some tribes did recognize other genders, and the New Testament is “that we remember is not what actually happened, not history, but merely that hackneyed dotted line they have chosen to drive into our memories by incessant hammering”.

Homosexuality is part of that revisionist movement of Christianity putting its own twist of views on the greek/roman sexuality.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

A few of us had a little discussion around this topic this morning, at Saturday church maintenance. One of the six sharing bros said he was thinking of bringing the question up in a couple weeks when he is scheduled to speak, about how do we know the Bible is the word of God?

Some Christians seem to believe it basically is the word of God, until there's a passage they disagree with or don't understand well - then it was probably just written by some uninspired man . . .

This didn't answer my question. No biggie. It was a silly question. Of course the Bible doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, for all times, and everything. The Bible didn't even know about the internet, and so, so, so, much, much, much, more.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

This didn't answer my question. No biggie. It was a silly question. Of course the Bible doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, for all times, and everything. The Bible didn't even know about the internet, and so, so, so, much, much, much, more.

The physical Bible itself is just a static book, letters on a page, with no intelligence of its own. Yes, some worship it like is an idol and like it will give them all the answers to everything. It's only when one contacts its Author that everything springs to life. The message really is not to try and do the things in this book, it's to let the Author live in and through us, and let Him bring those words to life!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The physical Bible itself is just a static book, letters on a page, with no intelligence of its own. Yes, some worship it like is an idol and like it will give them all the answers to everything. It's only when one contacts its Author that everything springs to life. The message really is not to try and do the things in this book, it's to let the Author live in and through us, and let Him bring those words to life!

Author(s), due to many things new under the sun, has to speak differently then He, or they, spoke 3 and 2 thousand years ago.

And that includes to the LGBTQ community members.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Author(s), due to many things new under the sun, has to speak differently then He, or they, spoke 3 and 2 thousand years ago.

And that includes to the LGBTQ community members.

Nothin' new under the sun, bro!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Nothin' new under the sun, bro!

Baloney. There's tons new since Ecclesiastes was written. The author of that book needed Prozac. Which is also something new under the sun.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Baloney. There's tons new since Ecclesiastes was written. The author of that book needed Prozac. Which is also something new under the sun.

Well . . . double baloney! So there!

Best wishes in trying to find something that's really new out there and will satisfy. You must put yer hope in man to save us . . .

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well . . . double baloney! So there!

Nanny nanny boo boo. Beat that.

Originally Posted by StG

Best wishes in trying to find something that's really new out there and will satisfy.

Thanks, it's an easy job : computers, cell phones, TVs, cars, airliners ... on and on and on and on.

Originally Posted by StG

You must put yer hope in man to save us . . .

That would be foolish.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So you make my point clear, there is diversity including the fact that some tribes did recognize other genders, and the New Testament is “that we remember is not what actually happened, not history, but merely that hackneyed dotted line they have chosen to drive into our memories by incessant hammering”.

Homosexuality is part of that revisionist movement of Christianity putting its own twist of views on the greek/roman sexuality.

For you to maintain your own little gay marriage, you must attempt to discredit the most authentic and reliable BOOK mankind has ever owned.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Only by inference. Does the Bible tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth for all times, and everything?

Dumbest question I ever heard!

Did you expect today's weather and instructions for IKEA bookshelves?

You have lost all credibility.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For you to maintain your own little gay marriage, you must attempt to discredit the most authentic and reliable BOOK mankind has ever owned.

I think you mischaracterize the relationship here. I don't think there's a direct link here between her marriage and the BOOK. She has no reason to do such a thing to maintain her marriage. Aren't you just imagining it?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dumbest question I ever heard!

Did you expect today's weather and instructions for IKEA bookshelves?

You have lost all credibility.

Why thanks bro Ohio. You got my point.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For you to maintain your own little gay marriage, you must attempt to discredit the most authentic and reliable BOOK mankind has ever owned.

I prefer to not base my marriage on a little book that claims the earth is flat. Sorry I dont want a 2 dimensional relationship.

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is...-reject-bible/

This will shake up your nickers but you wont read it, Awareness can.

Next time you hear marriage vows between a man and woman that uses Ruth’s verses, “ Whereever you go, I will go, Whereever you dwell, I will dwell, My people will be your people and your God will be my Godd, Whereever you die, I will die and there be buried. Jehovah do to me and more as well if anything parts me from you.”. This was a VOW BETWEEN TWO WOMEN. let that sink in.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I prefer to not base my marriage on a little book that claims the earth is flat. Sorry I dont want a 2 dimensional relationship.

I will call you out on this - show me in scripture where it says the earth is flat! (FYI - there are verses that tell it's not)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Baloney. There's tons new since Ecclesiastes was written. The author of that book needed Prozac. Which is also something new under the sun.

Further comment on this - there really is nothing new. It may look like the latest and greatest, but it's the same ol' same ol'. Man is born, he lives and does a bunch of stuff, then dies. And everything he did is quickly forgotten. And even if someone remembers something a dead person did, it really was still the same old thing, but maybe done in a slightly different way. But then again, many, many have probably done it the same way.

"Man is born into trouble as the sparks fly upward." "Surely every man walketh in a vain show. Surely they are disquieted in vain. He heapeth up riches and knoweth not, who will gather them. Now Lord what wait I for? My hope is in Thee"

Job 5:7 & Psalm 39:6

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I prefer to not base my marriage on a little book that claims the earth is flat. Sorry I dont want a 2 dimensional relationship.

I.......I...don't think many people here are under the illusion that you've based your marriage on the Bible........

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is...-reject-bible/

This will shake up your nickers but you wont read it, Awareness can.

Holy crap you really need to spend some time listening to apologetics. These "contradictions" are laughable at best. Listen to the guy J. Warner Wallace, who used to be a cold case detective in Los Angeles and former atheist. The gospels, as an example, are eyewitness accounts, and it's very normal in eyewitness testimony for there to be slight inconsistencies between accounts, to the point where if there were NOT inconsistencies then you know something squirrelly is going on....like one person is simply telling the other what to say rather than telling their own recollection. If you had several eyewitnesses saying the EXACT same thing in a complex scenario, then detectives know there's a problem. But all the slight variations in accounts of the gospels don't vary at all when it comes to the backbone of what happened, and that IS what is to be expected with multiple eyewitnesses who saw the same thing.

Seriously, for your own sake, listen to apologetics.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Next time you hear marriage vows between a man and woman that uses Ruth’s verses, “ Whereever you go, I will go, Whereever you dwell, I will dwell, My people will be your people and your God will be my Godd, Whereever you die, I will die and there be buried. Jehovah do to me and more as well if anything parts me from you.”. This was a VOW BETWEEN TWO WOMEN. let that sink in.

Holy crap again, SL. Yes, Ruth and Naomi, it's a well known passage in Scripture. Ruth, by the way, was Naomi's daughter-in-law for 10 years. Naomi had a husband and two sons. Ruth married one of her two sons, Orpha married the other. Then both Naomi's husband AND two sons died, leaving her totally alone with just her two daughters-in-law during a famine.

Please, pleeeeease don't tell me you were trying to insinuate some kind of homoerotic (or homoromantic, or whatever else insane thing is next) between a mother and her compassionate daughter-in-law who had been part of the family for 10 years and who saw that her MIL was alone and depressed during the time of a severe famine? If that's the manner into which you read things, I honestly worry for you.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Holy crap you really need to spend some time listening to apologetics. These "contradictions" are laughable at best.

If that's the manner into which you read things, I honestly worry for you.

Thank you Trapped. So many, nay all of the things I've read recently that someone has put forth that supposedly shows there are all these gay relationships being promoted in the Bible, upon just a little careful reading and consideration they utterly collapse in the light. To me this shows what a construct is trying to be developed - it's an agenda to deceive those who don't have that strong a foundation in scripture, and who don't dig a little deeper themselves to see if these things are really true in the Word. They are not.

Let's call it for what it is - a spirit of deception, seeking to steal, kill and destroy mankind.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I will call you out on this - show me in scripture where it says the earth is flat! (FYI - there are verses that tell it's not)

I recommend The Flat Earth Society:
https://www.tfes.org/

Now show me the verse that tells it's not.

[awareness]

Hey Trapped, this response (left below) smells angry.

I'll only question one statement, that, the gospels are eyewitness accounts.

First, they were written decades after Jesus, John, six and a half decades.

Second, the gospels were written anonymously. So we don't know if the authors were eyewitnesses.

Harold

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Trapped

I.......I...don't think many people here are under the illusion that you've based your marriage on the Bible........



Holy crap you really need to spend some time listening to apologetics. These "contradictions" are laughable at best. Listen to the guy J. Warner Wallace, who used to be a cold case detective in Los Angeles and former atheist. The gospels, as an example, are eyewitness accounts, and it's very normal in eyewitness testimony for there to be slight inconsistencies between accounts, to the point where if there were NOT inconsistencies then you know something squirrelly is going on....like one person is simply telling the other what to say rather than telling their own recollection. If you had several eyewitnesses saying the EXACT same thing in a complex scenario, then detectives know there's a problem. But all the slight variations in accounts of the gospels don't vary at all when it comes to the backbone of what happened, and that IS what is to be expected with multiple eyewitnesses who saw the same thing.

Seriously, for your own sake, listen to apologetics.



Holy crap again, SL. Yes, Ruth and Naomi, it's a well known passage in Scripture. Ruth, by the way, was Naomi's daughter-in-law for 10 years. Naomi had a husband and two sons. Ruth married one of her two sons, Orpha married the other. Then both Naomi's husband AND two sons died, leaving her totally alone with just her two daughters-in-law during a famine.

Please, pleeeeease don't tell me you were trying to insinuate some kind of homoerotic (or homoromantic, or whatever else insane thing is next) between a mother and her compassionate daughter-in-law who had been part of the family for 10 years and who saw that her MIL was alone and depressed during the time of a severe famine? If that's the manner into which you read things, I honestly worry for you.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey Trapped, this response (left below) smells angry.

I'll only question one statement, that, the gospels are eyewitness accounts.

First, they were written decades after Jesus, John, six and a half decades.

Second, the gospels were written anonymously. So we don't know if the authors were eyewitnesses.

Harold

Oh no! Someone got fed up with the repeated insinuations of normal relationships in the Bible being twisted to be homosexual ones without actually reading what's going on!

I'm happy to rescind my first "holy crap" but definitely not my second.

Regarding the eyewitness accounts, I should have been more specific in saying that they are written "as" eyewitness accounts, or at least by people who had access to eyewitnesses. This is nothing new. To follow in the footsteps of those who supply links to articles rather than engage in discussion, here's one on that very topic by the cold case detective I referred to earlier: https://coldcasechristianity.com/wri...ness-accounts/

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Oh no! Someone got fed up with the repeated insinuations of normal relationships in the Bible being twisted to be homosexual ones without actually reading what's going on!

I'm happy to rescind my first "holy crap" but definitely not my second.

Regarding the eyewitness accounts, I should have been more specific in saying that they are written "as" eyewitness accounts, or at least by people who had access to eyewitnesses. This is nothing new. To follow in the footsteps of those who supply links to articles rather than engage in discussion, here's one on that very topic by the cold case detective I referred to earlier: https://coldcasechristianity.com/wri...ness-accounts/

You seem to always get angry when other perspectives get thrown into the mix. I mean, isnt this supposed to a discussion forum. For the sake of all the angry men on here, I wont go into detail on my views then.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I will call you out on this - show me in scripture where it says the earth is flat! (FYI - there are verses that tell it's not)

I agree that the same bible verses can be interpreted both ways but why beat around the bush. There’s no single verse that explicitly says “Lo the earth is round”. But there’s some verses that people may consstrue or misconstrue that the earth was seen as flat back then: check out these verses-
https://www.flatearthdoctrine.com/fl...th-scriptures/

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

- it's an agenda to deceive those who don't have that strong a foundation in scripture, and who don't dig a little deeper themselves to see if these things are really true in the Word. They are not.
.

again, you love that “agenda” word. Are you implying I dont have a strong foundation in scripture? How dare you. 😆

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I agree that the same bible verses can be interpreted both ways but why beat around the bush. There’s no single verse that explicitly says “Lo the earth is round”. But there’s some verses that people may consstrue or misconstrue that the earth was seen as flat back then: check out these verses-
https://www.flatearthdoctrine.com/fl...th-scriptures/

I looked at it - thanks for sharing. Here's something for your consideration:

The irony of choosing Job 38:5, 12-14, Isaiah 11:12, 40:22, and Revelation 7:1, 20:7 to sustain the claim that the Bible is a flat-earth book is that these biblical texts better fit a spherical Earth than they do a flat Earth. While it would be an overinterpretation to conclude that these texts explicitly teach that Earth is a sphere, nowhere in the Bible do we find any text saying that Earth is flat. The Bible remains the only holy book for which we can say that it contains no provable errors or contradictions.

SEE HERE

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

again, you love that “agenda” word. Are you implying I dont have a strong foundation in scripture? How dare you. ��

Well thanks for pointing out I love "that agenda word!" (actually, a quick search shows you appear to have used this word first in this thread) Would you prefer I use the word "schemes" or "stratagems"?

Look, the Bible is a big book and anyone that says they've got the market cornered on the whole of it is suspect. But in my reading of "gay apologetics" over the past couple years, there has been a lot of pretty obvious shortcomings in the way most of their arguments are presented, in trying to show that the Bible is fine - or even promotes - homosexuality. Like in the example Trapped highlighted about Ruth & Naomi . . . with a little understanding of the context it's quite clear that some kind of homo-whatever did not take place there.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Oh no! Someone got fed up with the repeated insinuations of normal relationships in the Bible being twisted to be homosexual ones without actually reading what's going on!

Well I'd like to know if there are records in the Bible of the rules of stoning were ever followed thru with.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Regarding the eyewitness accounts, I should have been more specific in saying that they are written "as" eyewitness accounts, or at least by people who had access to eyewitnesses. This is nothing new. To follow in the footsteps of those who supply links to articles rather than engage in discussion, here's one on that very topic by the cold case detective I referred to earlier: https://coldcasechristianity.com/wri...ness-accounts/

Thanks for the link. It presents the same verse that I've heard many times about John not being anonymous.

“This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:24)

My additional question is, who is the "we" in that verse? They are undeniably anonymous.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

You seem to always get angry when other perspectives get thrown into the mix. I mean, isnt this supposed to a discussion forum. For the sake of all the angry men on here, I wont go into detail on my views then.

Between this thread and the previous one, there have been over 530 posts chock full of "other perspectives". I've dealt with "God is gay" and "Jesus is homosexual" perfectly respectfully and seriously, to name a few. Now you try to insinuate there was a homosexual relationship between a mother and daughter-in-law in the Bible and you try to paint it as being a positive thing rather than totally disgusting, when it's obvious you haven't taken one minute to read the passage you are quoting from?

I didn't know that shaking my head and putting my head in my hands on ONE post out of 530 is "always" getting angry.

The Bible you read seems to be "so and so turned and blinked at his friend" and you see that verse and say "AHA THEY LOOKED AT EACH OTHER, CLEARLY THEY ARE GAY LOVERS!"

That's how absurd some of the "arguments" here have been. SURELY you must recognize that about your recent Ruth/Naomi statement. Do you really still think that the Ruth/Naomi example was remotely solid or can you admit it's totally ridiculous?

Again, as usual, I'm looking for a basic shared level of logic here. That's the only thing discussion can stand on.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well thanks for pointing out I love "that agenda word!" (actually, a quick search shows you appear to have used this word first in this thread) .

My bad.I think it was Ohio who first used the word in the other thread.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I looked at it - thanks for sharing. Here's something for your consideration:
SEE HERE

Actually I came across that same website! But yeah I do agree it depends on how you interpret the verses. Anyways, we’re getting off topic I think about flat earthers. I only meant it as an analogy to use for using the Bible in support of gay marriage that Ohio brought up.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Between this thread and the previous one, there have been over 530 posts chock full of "other perspectives". I've dealt with "God is gay" and "Jesus is homosexual" perfectly respectfully and seriously, to name a few. Now you try to insinuate there was a homosexual relationship between a mother and daughter-in-law in the Bible and you try to paint it as being a positive thing rather than totally disgusting, when it's obvious you haven't taken one minute to read the passage you are quoting from?

I didn't know that shaking my head and putting my head in my hands on ONE post out of 530 is "always" getting angry.

The Bible you read seems to be "so and so turned and blinked at his friend" and you see that verse and say "AHA THEY LOOKED AT EACH OTHER, CLEARLY THEY ARE GAY LOVERS!"

That's how absurd some of the "arguments" here have been. SURELY you must recognize that about your recent Ruth/Naomi statement. Do you really still think that the Ruth/Naomi example was remotely solid or can you admit it's totally ridiculous?

Again, as usual, I'm looking for a basic shared level of logic here. That's the only thing discussion can stand on.

I’ve read the story of Ruth and Naomi a number of times, so no you dont have to tell me I didnt take even one minute to read the passage. I’ll come back to this later but how you reacted to claims in previous thread of how God is gay or Jesus as homosexual just proves my point that it made you feel very angry and disgusted whenever others point out there is any hint of homo-romance in the Bible.

Also, do you have anything to say in regards to my response to your other post about Paul’s verses and the context he was writing in?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I looked at it - thanks for sharing. Here's something for your consideration:
SEE HERE

The easy answer is, they didn't have telescopes back then.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I’ve read the story of Ruth and Naomi a number of times, so no you dont have to tell me I didnt take even one minute to read the passage. I’ll come back to this later but how you reacted to claims in previous thread of how God is gay or Jesus as homosexual just proves my point that it made you feel very angry and disgusted whenever others point out there is any hint of homo-romance in the Bible.

Also, do you have anything to say in regards to my response to your other post about Paul’s verses and the context he was writing in?

I'll save you the time. I'm obviously the one who wrote those responses on God/gay and Jesus/homosexual and I remember very well that there was no anger in them. Here they are reproduced below for your convenience. Any reader can see there is no anger. If you read "anger" into these kinds of responses, then I don't know what to say because there is blatantly no anger in them. There is no point you have to prove in this regard.

My frustration at the end of the last thread was related to you shutting things down again in the middle of a discussion. At that time I pointed out that I respectfully and seriously dealt with hearing things opposite from mine without trying to shut anything down, and didn't appreciate you wanting to shut things down when you got reasonable responses opposite yours in return. That's not anger at homo-romance. That was frustration at you opening and closing threads up repeatedly, that's all. I'm thrilled the conversation has been able to continue on this thread.

The only thing that riles me on these threads is nonsensical "logic", which I have said repeatedly. By the way, the "totally disgusting" comment I made about Ruth and Naomi wasn't even related to their both being the same gender, but being within the same family. And both were clearly heterosexual, with husbands (and children, one of them) and yet somehow you get a lesbian relationship from that? Like I said - my issue is repeatedly with the "logic" presented here. That's the thing - there's not even a HINT of homo-romance in the portions you are trying to wedge it in there! You say you have read the passages, so what on earth are you doing trying to pretend there is a God-approved homo-romance in there from literally out of nowhere?

Yes, I have many responses to many of the things that have been posted on this thread. I'm short on time every single day and am literally posting here as much as I can. This topic being discussed has knocked down many a rainforest in books and articles contending with it by professionals on both sides of the issue, and those of us on this thread are just lay-people doing so in our precious little spare time. Happily, I might add, but I don't have time to go down every single issue in real-time, as much as I truly do want to. It's an important topic, as I have said in the past. I'm trying to keep up.

I'm also guessing from your lack of responding to my asking you three times to confirm that you don't have a problem with two committed heterosexuals living together having sex but not being married......that you think that behavior is okay?

Originally Posted by Trapped's totally un-angry post about God is gay

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.

Originally Posted by Trapped's similarly not-angry two posts about Jesus being homosexual

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.

And

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?

[SerenityLives]

Hi Trapped,

Well here was my response to the thread being closed, I’m sure you’ve read it:
“I understand the frustrations of everyone on here but I am at my emotional capacity to deal with anymore of this right now. We can continue on Sons of Glory’s thread for more political issues or biblical interpretations. I originally intended for this thread to be a space for anyone who were lgbtq church kids or family members with relatives identifying as lgbtq to share their experiences. Sorry if I wasnt clear on that. No one is forcing anyone to read this , yes, but I know for a fact that lgbtq church kids who are planning to leave the church will linger on here, since UntoHim’s website is unique and one of the few that exist for ex local church members. Thats why I wanted to end this thread on a good note and close this thread for being clean for those church kids. The other thread can be for more controversial topics related to being lgbtq and Christian in general”

So that was my stance, to clarify. I didnt want it deleted. It’s still open for those who want to share their experiences. But if anyone wants to discuss and debate on lgbtq and the bible, then we are doing it on this/stg’s thread.

I read anger in your Caps about putting up with Jesus being gay and Lazarus ending up in abraham’s undergarments, so sorry if I misinterpreted.

[awareness]

Trapped, I'm sorry for saying one of your recent posts smelled of anger.

But back in the days of God is gay, and Jesus was homosexual (and Paul too), I thought your responses were very gracious.

After all, those conjectures are iconoclastic to say the least. God can't be gay. There's no other like "him." I don't even know if God has a gender.

Please don't ask, none out here could handle it if I went into it, except Serenity.

God might be a He/She/It/They for all I know. I know the Bible speaks of God as He, and Father. I just think those are expedient and convenient literary figures of speech.

But not to worry brother Trapped. This whole thread is a sensitive subject to Bible believers. It's touchy to all of us. I think Serenity has weathered it quite well. I'm amazed actually. She's a gay wonder woman, with a beautiful and sharp mind. Ya gotta give her that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm sorry for saying one of your recent posts smelled of anger.

But back in the days of God is gay, and Jesus was homosexual (and Paul too), I thought your responses were very gracious.

After all, those conjectures are iconoclastic to say the least. God can't be gay. There's no other like "him." I don't even know if God has a gender.

Please don't ask, none out here could handle it if I went into it, except Serenity.

God might be a He/She/It/They for all I know. I know the Bible speaks of God as He, and Father. I just think those are expedient and convenient literary figures of speech.

But not to worry brother Trapped. This whole thread is a sensitive subject to Bible believers. It's touchy to all of us. I think Serenity has weathered it quite well. I'm amazed actually. She's a gay wonder woman, with a beautiful and sharp mind. Ya gotta give her that.

Who says we gotta anything?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The only thing that riles me on these threads is nonsensical "logic", which I have said repeatedly. By the way, the "totally disgusting" comment I made about Ruth and Naomi wasn't even related to their both being the same gender, but being within the same family. And both were clearly heterosexual, with husbands (and children, one of them) and yet somehow you get a lesbian relationship from that? Like I said - my issue is repeatedly with the "logic" presented here. That's the thing - there's not even a HINT of homo-romance in the portions you are trying to wedge it in there! You say you have read the passages, so what on earth are you doing trying to pretend there is a God-approved homo-romance in there from literally out of nowhere?

I'm also guessing from your lack of responding to my asking you three times to confirm that you don't have a problem with two committed heterosexuals living together having sex but not being married......that you think that behavior is okay?

So Ruth and Naomi were technically not blood related, only through their mother and daughter in law relationships. Wasnt Isaac and Rebecca distant cousins? Anyways, to me there are plenty of hints they have homoromantic love. Ruth wanted to be buried with Naomi, thats very deep love right there. Ruth only married Boaz out of survival and Naomi helped Ruth to survive. After all, they were women with no rights. Boaz was in Naomi’s family? So yeah, everyone’s one happy family. In the end of the story, when Ruth gave birth to her son, the villagers or the people said it was Naomi’s. Not boaz’s. And the bible used the hebrew word of cleave, as in Ruth cleaved onto Naomi, the same word used in Eve cleaving unto Adam.

Okay now to Jonathan and David. It says, “Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.“ sounds like they were soulmates. When Jonathan died, David was so distraught he said “My love to you was deeper than that of women”. On top of that, Jonathan stripped in front of David and the two of them kept making covenants, which sounds remotely like marriage covenants or marriage vows. When they made the covenant, it says, “ Now Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul”. Saul was so mad at Jonathan that he lashed out at him at the dinner table and used Jonathan’s mother’s name in vain, like “son of a b’**”. It says “Then Saul’s anger was aroused against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse (David) to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? 31 For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, you shall not be established, nor your kingdom. Now therefore, send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.” See, Saul knew about their relationship was more than friendship and disapproved. At the time, if Jonathan were gay, he couldnt have kids so no kids, no kingdom. Reminds me of those family dinners when gay people come out and they have to escape their parents’ wrath. Compare their story to Achilles and Patroclus, two greek gays where one also died in battle and Achilles did not want to bury Patroclus’s body and was mourning for him for days. Thats deep love.


So yes, lots of hints. But no matter, right? I think their love can be said as higher than any romantic sexual love. it can be more of a spiritual kind.

As for your question, I didnt answer because I didnt think it related to lgbtq but I’ll answer anyway. For the most part, I dont think it’s right because sex outside of marriage can lead to all kinds of confusion. Thats what marriage is for, but in today’s age, it seems like if people are divorcing at the same rate of getting married, that negates the importance of marriage. Now, proponents of same sex marriage say that marriage allows gays and lesbians the same opportunities (they can now wait to have sex within legal bounds of marriage! and on top of that, taxes and such). After all, God says that it’s not good for man to be alone and Paul said that it’s better for people to marry than burn with passion. So yes, very sad when homosexuals burn with passion and cant marry. You have to also look back when marriage was made. Did God marry Adam and Eve? Because it seems like they were sure getting it on as soon as they left that garden and they had no ceremony.

Now you can answer my rebuttal regarding Paul’s context for homosexuality.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So Ruth and Naomi were technically not blood related, only through their mother and daughter in law relationships. Wasnt Isaac and Rebecca distant cousins? Anyways, to me there are plenty of hints they have homoromantic love. Ruth wanted to be buried with Naomi, thats very deep love right there. Ruth only married Boaz out of survival and Naomi helped Ruth to survive. After all, they were women with no rights. Boaz was in Naomi’s family? So yeah, everyone’s one happy family. In the end of the story, when Ruth gave birth to her son, the villagers or the people said it was Naomi’s. Not boaz’s. And the bible used the hebrew word of cleave, as in Ruth cleaved onto Naomi, the same word used in Eve cleaving unto Adam.

That's family love between family members who had both had numerous shared family members die on them....it's not romantic love.

Ruth 4:15 clearly states that people know the son is Ruth's:

He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.”

When they say in verse 17 that "Naomi has a son" there is no way to wring out of that some kind of romantic relationship....at all.

Naomi repeatedly calls Ruth "daughter" and the book of Ruth repeatedly refers to their relationship as MIL and DIL. There is simply no "romantic" element anywhere. It's a family relationship. I'm sorry but it sounds like you are advocating for romantic relationships within families.

The Hebrew word "dabaq" for cleave there (I assume you mean in Ruth 1:14) is indeed the same word used for Eve cleaving unto Adam, but don't stop there. There are numerous other places it is used with zero implication of romantic love. It's also the same word used in.....

Deut. 28:21 “The LORD will make the pestilence cling (dabaq) to you until He has consumed you from the land where you are entering to possess it.

1 Samuel 14:22 When all the men of Israel who had hidden themselves in the hill country of Ephraim heard that the Philistines had fled, even they also pursued them closely (dabaq) in the battle.

2 Samuel 23:10 He arose and struck the Philistines until his hand was weary and clung (dabaq) to the sword, and the LORD brought about a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to strip the slain.

2 Kings 5:27 “Therefore, the leprosy of Naaman shall cling (dabaq) to you and to your descendants forever.” So he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.

Psalm 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves (dabaq) to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death.

So unless you also want to seriously imply some kind of romantic relationship of pestilence, men in battle, a sword, leprosy, and a dry tongue.....we know that the word doesn't even remotely exclusively mean romantic love.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Okay now to Jonathan and David. It says, “Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.“ sounds like they were soulmates. When Jonathan died, David was so distraught he said “My love to you was deeper than that of women”. On top of that, Jonathan stripped in front of David and the two of them kept making covenants, which sounds remotely like marriage covenants or marriage vows. When they made the covenant, it says, “ Now Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul”. Saul was so mad at Jonathan that he lashed out at him at the dinner table and used Jonathan’s mother’s name in vain, like “son of a b’**”. It says “Then Saul’s anger was aroused against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse (David) to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? 31 For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, you shall not be established, nor your kingdom. Now therefore, send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.” See, Saul knew about their relationship was more than friendship and disapproved. At the time, if Jonathan were gay, he couldnt have kids so no kids, no kingdom. Reminds me of those family dinners when gay people come out and they have to escape their parents’ wrath. Compare their story to Achilles and Patroclus, two greek gays where one also died in battle and Achilles did not want to bury Patroclus’s body and was mourning for him for days. Thats deep love.

Jonathan and David is the one place I've encountered so far that, to me, could reasonably be inferred as more than standard male friendship, quite obviously. It very well could be a homosexual or homoromantic relationship. As I've said, I'm interested in what's logical and reasonable, not to just negate everything without seriously looking at it. I have to add this to the list to get back to you about, because I'm already late as it is writing this.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So yes, lots of hints. But no matter, right? I think their love can be said as higher than any romantic sexual love. it can be more of a spiritual kind.

As for your question, I didnt answer because I didnt think it related to lgbtq but I’ll answer anyway. For the most part, I dont think it’s right because sex outside of marriage can lead to all kinds of confusion. Thats what marriage is for, but in today’s age, it seems like if people are divorcing at the same rate of getting married, that negates the importance of marriage. Now, proponents of same sex marriage say that marriage allows gays and lesbians the same opportunities (they can now wait to have sex within legal bounds of marriage! and on top of that, taxes and such). After all, God says that it’s not good for man to be alone and Paul said that it’s better for people to marry than burn with passion. So yes, very sad when homosexuals burn with passion and cant marry. You have to also look back when marriage was made. Did God marry Adam and Eve? Because it seems like they were sure getting it on as soon as they left that garden and they had no ceremony.

Okay, so you understand that sex outside of marriage isn't okay, which is the crux of the entire subject. The law can call same-sex marriage "marriage", but it certainly doesn't mean it's "marriage" in God's eyes. Every instance of marriage in Scripture is between a man and a woman. Adam and Eve. A man leaves his "father and mother" to be united to "his wife". Elders shall be "husbands of one wife". "Husbands love your wives". "Wives submit to your husbands."

In a homosexual relationship, who is the husband and who is the wife? Scripture repeatedly affirms the marriage relationship is between a married man and a woman, a husband and a wife. Sex outside of this arrangement is a sin, whether homosexual "legal marriage" or whether heterosexual committed couple living together but not married.

Regarding Adam and Eve getting it on, Matthew 19:6 says "...what God has joined together, let no one separate." In making Eve from Adam's side, and presenting her to Adam, God was the one who "joined them together"....so yes, they were married.

It's also sad when heterosexuals burn and can't marry either. As I've mentioned, I'm one of them. God's silent on that issue for me, and so I don't contradict scripture, and.....yeah.....suffer daily. Writing about burning while burning and writing about sexual relationships while wanting one is about the worst thing. I asked God just 30 minutes ago why He's put a burden in me to get into the weeds on such a sexually explicit subject when He seems to have left me in the dust on much of the things I have to write about here, but......what am I gonna do?

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Now you can answer my rebuttal regarding Paul’s context for homosexuality.

I will. I have this on my mental list to respond to you about still. I also owe you a response on your masturbation question. I also owe you a response about the gospel question. I also owe you a response on Jonathan and David as I mentioned above. I really still owe you a response on more of the HuffPo article but I might have to let that go so I don't drown.

I will do my best to respond to some of these before next weekend, although it might not be until then, or even later. I literally have to write these on my lunch breaks or between eating dinner and packing lunches, etc....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Who says we gotta anything?

Honesty . . .

[SerenityLives]

hi trapped,
You’ve mentioned that “Ruth 4:15 clearly states that people know the son is Ruth’s
When they say in verse 17 that "Naomi has a son" there is no way to wring out of that some kind of romantic relationship....at all. Naomi repeatedly calls Ruth "daughter" and the book of Ruth repeatedly refers to their relationship as MIL and DIL. There is simply no "romantic" element anywhere. It's a family relationship. I'm sorry but it sounds like you are advocating for romantic relationships within families.”

You have to know that the scripture is written by men, even the story of Ruth and Naomi, so of course, they’re gonna focus on the men’s relationships, hence why more details on relationship between david and jonathan than ruth and naomi.. but after their husbands died, are Ruth and Naomi still obligated to be daughter in law and mother in law? and you have to look at other examples of couples such as rebecca and isaac who were clearly genetically related whereas Ruth and Naomi were not. I’m not advocating for anything here. I’m taking the historical context of them (that incest between rebecca and iassac were okay at the time, that marrying within the family was okay at the time (naomi and boaz’s familial relationship, allowing Ruth to marry Boaz). And my point exactly, Ruth and Naomi’s son, whereas Boaz was just the sperm donor and doing his responsibility to carry on Naomi’s line.
In regards to dibaq, I understand that there are several non-sexual references throughout the bible but that does not negate the possibility of ruth and naomi’s relationship being of the first kind.
Ruth 1: 8-9 reads as follows: Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go back, each of you, to your mother's home. May the LORD show kindness to you, as you have shown to your dead and to me. May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband."

Check this website: http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/bi...uth_naomi.html
-Did you notice that Ruth is specifically turning down the opportunity to find another husband in order to follow Naomi?Their marriages would be arranged by family. Ruth would not have the ability to arrange such a marriage where she was going. There she would be dependent on the largess of others. By going away with Naomi, Ruth was giving up on any chance at a heterosexual relationship EXCEPT as a loose woman. And she was doing that in order to be with another woman. Ruth spoke those haunting words, “Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried,” she wasn’t talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn’t do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.
There is no doubt that this is the story of two women who were in love, who made vows, lived together for life and vowed to be together in death, loved each other deeply, adopted each other’s extended families as their own, and relied on each other for sustenance – as do many lesbian couples today. That the relationship was “blessed by God” can be seen not only from the fact that one of the books of the Bible is named Ruth, but the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mathew includes the name of Ruth as one of only four women named as he lists the genealogy of the 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus. When you read Ruth 3:1-5 Naomi is explaining how Ruth could seduce a man -- and seduction would come rather naturally to a heterosexual woman and would not need to be explained. Since it needed to be explained to Ruth, Ruth couldn't have been heterosexual. It was so low on her priorities that she never bothered to find out on her own, which would have been simple enough if she DID have the interest. As an older woman, Naomi would have had a harder time ignoring all the talk over her lifetime. So yes these are more hints of their love being more than familial love.

Okay, so you understand that sex outside of marriage isn't okay, which is the crux of the entire subject. The law can call same-sex marriage "marriage", but it certainly doesn't mean it's "marriage" in God's eyes. Every instance of marriage in Scripture is between a man and woman. Adam and Eve. A man leaves his "father and mother" to be united to "his wife". Elders shall be "husbands of one wife". "Husbands love your wives". "Wives submit to your husbands.
In a homosexual relationship, who is the husband and who is the wife? Scripture repeatedly affirms the marriage relationship is between a married man and a woman, a husband and a wife. Sex outside of this arrangement is a sin, whether homosexual "legal marriage" or whether heterosexual committed couple living together but not married

The problem is do we really know what God wants? but from what I’ve experienced from him, he gave me a wife and I’ve never been more at peace ever since. the neat thing about homosexual relationships is that it’s more equalitarian, my wife and I share our duties, we make it so one does not have to keep submitting to the other, which can lead to emotional abuse. we are both man and woman in our relationship. we love and we submit based on the situation and we communicate. Thats a healthy relationship in my book. And if God doesnt like a healthy relationship just because of the different genders, I truly dont know what to say. eother way, it seems like im doomed. married couples have more happiness and higher life expectancy (without divorce) because of companionship, it seems I cant have any to that thanks to your interpretation of God wants from me, biblically in marriage.


I’m sorry you have to endure burning of passions. i dont know what yor life situation is, but what I can say is if God if loving and righteous, he will lift that burden. no benevolent God would want you to suffer too long for something not of your own fault.

Take your time with the rest of the topics. I’ll be busy as well and will answer when free.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

hi trapped,
You’ve mentioned that “Ruth 4:15 clearly states that people know the son is Ruth’s
When they say in verse 17 that "Naomi has a son" there is no way to wring out of that some kind of romantic relationship....at all. Naomi repeatedly calls Ruth "daughter" and the book of Ruth repeatedly refers to their relationship as MIL and DIL. There is simply no "romantic" element anywhere. It's a family relationship. I'm sorry but it sounds like you are advocating for romantic relationships within families.”

You have to know that the scripture is written by men, even the story of Ruth and Naomi, so of course, they’re gonna focus on the men’s relationships, hence why more details on relationship between david and jonathan than ruth and naomi.. but after their husbands died, are Ruth and Naomi still obligated to be daughter in law and mother in law? and you have to look at other examples of couples such as rebecca and isaac who were clearly genetically related whereas Ruth and Naomi were not. I’m not advocating for anything here. I’m taking the historical context of them (that incest between rebecca and iassac were okay at the time, that marrying within the family was okay at the time (naomi and boaz’s familial relationship, allowing Ruth to marry Boaz). And my point exactly, Ruth and Naomi’s son, whereas Boaz was just the sperm donor and doing his responsibility to carry on Naomi’s line.
In regards to dibaq, I understand that there are several non-sexual references throughout the bible but that does not negate the possibility of ruth and naomi’s relationship being of the first kind.
Ruth 1: 8-9 reads as follows: Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go back, each of you, to your mother's home. May the LORD show kindness to you, as you have shown to your dead and to me. May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband."

Did you notice that Ruth is specifically turning down the opportunity to find another husband in order to follow Naomi?Their marriages would be arranged by family. Ruth would not have the ability to arrange such a marriage where she was going. There she would be dependent on the largess of others. By going away with Naomi, Ruth was giving up on any chance at a heterosexual relationship EXCEPT as a loose woman. And she was doing that in order to be with another woman. Ruth spoke those haunting words, “Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried,” she wasn’t talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn’t do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.
There is no doubt that this is the story of two women who were in love, who made vows, lived together for life and vowed to be together in death, loved each other deeply, adopted each other’s extended families as their own, and relied on each other for sustenance – as do many lesbian couples today. That the relationship was “blessed by God” can be seen not only from the fact that one of the books of the Bible is named Ruth, but the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mathew includes the name of Ruth as one of only four women named as he lists the genealogy of the 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus. When you read Ruth 3:1-5 Naomi is explaining how Ruth could seduce a man -- and seduction would come rather naturally to a heterosexual woman and would not need to be explained. Since it needed to be explained to Ruth, Ruth couldn't have been heterosexual. It was so low on her priorities that she never bothered to find out on her own, which would have been simple enough if she DID have the interest. As an older woman, Naomi would have had a harder time ignoring all the talk over her lifetime. So yes these are more hints of their love being more than familial love.

Okay, so you understand that sex outside of marriage isn't okay, which is the crux of the entire subject. The law can call same-sex marriage "marriage", but it certainly doesn't mean it's "marriage" in God's eyes. Every instance of marriage in Scripture is between a man and woman. Adam and Eve. A man leaves his "father and mother" to be united to "his wife". Elders shall be "husbands of one wife". "Husbands love your wives". "Wives submit to your husbands.
In a homosexual relationship, who is the husband and who is the wife? Scripture repeatedly affirms the marriage relationship is between a married man and a woman, a husband and a wife. Sex outside of this arrangement is a sin, whether homosexual "legal marriage" or whether heterosexual committed couple living together but not married

The problem is do we really know what God wants? but from what I’ve experienced from him, he gave me a wife and I’ve never been at peace ever since. the neat thing about homosexual relationships is that it’s more equalitarian, my wife and I share our duties, we make it so one does not have to keep submitting to the other, which can lead to emotional abuse. we are both man and woman in our relationship. we love and we submit based on the situation and we communicate. Thats a healthy relationship in my book. And if God doesnt like a healthy relationship just because of the different genders, I truly dont know what to say. eother way, it seems like im doomed. married couples have more happiness and higher life expectancy (without divorce) because of companionship, it seems I cant have any to that thanks to your interpretation of God wants from me, biblically in marriage.

I’m sorry you have to endure burning of passions. i dont know what yor life situation is, but what I can say is if God if loving and righteous, he will lift that burden. no benevolent God would want you to suffer too long for something not of your own fault.

Take your time with the rest of the topics. I’ll be busy as well and will answer when free.

SL: pleeeeease stop plagiarizing and putting it in the middle of things as if it's your own. It's disingenuous. If you use what other's have written CITE IT. You are right that this is a discussion forum. Why are you mostly copy/pasting rather than discussing?

I'm leaning heavily towards not continuing participating on this thread otherwise, or simply writing what I want to add without engaging in a back-and-forth. When I post I do so only partially for the ones I am corresponding with. The other part is for anonymous lurkers and readers following the discussion but not participating.....and I'm more than happy that what I've written is clear and reasonable to everyone reading. I'm saying this because I'm interested in discussing with YOU....not with a bunch of other people from around the internet.

I understand time is short. If you have to continue lifting what others write rather than seriously engaging with the Biblical texts at hand yourself, just cite the source.

Regarding dabaq again, in Ruth 2:8 Boaz uses the same word when he tells Naomi to stay close to the women who already work for him. Again....it's simply not reasonable to think that Boaz is telling her to go have a romantic relationship with all the women who work for him. As usual, context is king and there is simply no context in any portion of Ruth for there to be homoromantic relationships. Ruth stayed with Naomi because Naomi was her mother in law who had just lost her husband AND her two sons. Hopefully most of us wouldn't say "smell ya later" to a family member in a state of bereavement while we go care only for ourselves. You are reading this book of the Bible WITH homosexual glasses on trying to overlay something on it that just isn't there. This is no better than what Witness Lee did.

You said God gave you a wife and you've "never been at peace ever since." I'm sure that's an unfortunate freudian slip.......given your position I have to assume you meant you've "BEEN at peace ever since"......

God is not unrighteous if He doesn't provide a mate for me. The entirety of humankind suffers for things not of their own fault and it doesn't make God a less benevolent God. All of this ties heavily into the gospel question I asked earlier so I won't belabor the point right now.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So Ruth and Naomi were technically not blood related, only through their mother and daughter in law relationships. Wasnt Isaac and Rebecca distant cousins? Anyways, to me there are plenty of hints they have homoromantic love. Ruth wanted to be buried with Naomi, thats very deep love right there. Ruth only married Boaz out of survival and Naomi helped Ruth to survive. After all, they were women with no rights. Boaz was in Naomi’s family? So yeah, everyone’s one happy family. In the end of the story, when Ruth gave birth to her son, the villagers or the people said it was Naomi’s. Not boaz’s. And the bible used the hebrew word of cleave, as in Ruth cleaved onto Naomi, the same word used in Eve cleaving unto Adam.

Okay now to Jonathan and David. It says, “Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.“ sounds like they were soulmates. When Jonathan died, David was so distraught he said “My love to you was deeper than that of women”. On top of that, Jonathan stripped in front of David and the two of them kept making covenants, which sounds remotely like marriage covenants or marriage vows. When they made the covenant, it says, “ Now Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul”. Saul was so mad at Jonathan that he lashed out at him at the dinner table and used Jonathan’s mother’s name in vain, like “son of a b’**”. It says “Then Saul’s anger was aroused against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse (David) to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? 31 For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, you shall not be established, nor your kingdom. Now therefore, send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.” See, Saul knew about their relationship was more than friendship and disapproved. At the time, if Jonathan were gay, he couldnt have kids so no kids, no kingdom. Reminds me of those family dinners when gay people come out and they have to escape their parents’ wrath. Compare their story to Achilles and Patroclus, two greek gays where one also died in battle and Achilles did not want to bury Patroclus’s body and was mourning for him for days. Thats deep love.


So yes, lots of hints. But no matter, right? I think their love can be said as higher than any romantic sexual love. it can be more of a spiritual kind.

As for your question, I didnt answer because I didnt think it related to lgbtq but I’ll answer anyway. For the most part, I dont think it’s right because sex outside of marriage can lead to all kinds of confusion. Thats what marriage is for, but in today’s age, it seems like if people are divorcing at the same rate of getting married, that negates the importance of marriage. Now, proponents of same sex marriage say that marriage allows gays and lesbians the same opportunities (they can now wait to have sex within legal bounds of marriage! and on top of that, taxes and such). After all, God says that it’s not good for man to be alone and Paul said that it’s better for people to marry than burn with passion. So yes, very sad when homosexuals burn with passion and cant marry. You have to also look back when marriage was made. Did God marry Adam and Eve? Because it seems like they were sure getting it on as soon as they left that garden and they had no ceremony.

Now you can answer my rebuttal regarding Paul’s context for homosexuality.

You forgot to mention that David and Jonathan kissed. If I saw two men kissing my first thought would be "gay."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

You forgot to mention that David and Jonathan kissed. If I saw two men kissing my first thought would be "gay."

There are a number of cultures (Lebanese in this case) where men kiss when greeting loved ones. (The guys who did this were cousins.) I have seen this before and I thought it strange, but such is the case with many foreign customs. But since my mind is not pickled with the gay agenda, my first thought was NOT gay.

Go read the context of the story in I Samuel 20. It was a life and death situation for David, since King Saul had decided to kill him. I find it quite sickening that the LGBT community would justify their actions using distorted interpretations from old Bible stories.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

SL: pleeeeease stop plagiarizing and putting it in the middle of things as if it's your own. It's disingenuous. If you use what other's have written CITE IT. You are right that this is a discussion forum. Why are you mostly copy/pasting rather than discussing?

I'm leaning heavily towards not continuing participating on this thread otherwise, or simply writing what I want to add without engaging in a back-and-forth. When I post I do so only partially for the ones I am corresponding with. The other part is for anonymous lurkers and readers following the discussion but not participating.....and I'm more than happy that what I've written is clear and reasonable to everyone reading. I'm saying this because I'm interested in discussing with YOU....not with a bunch of other people from around the internet.

I understand time is short. If you have to continue lifting what others write rather than seriously engaging with the Biblical texts at hand yourself, just cite the source.

Regarding dabaq again, in Ruth 2:8 Boaz uses the same word when he tells Naomi to stay close to the women who already work for him. Again....it's simply not reasonable to think that Boaz is telling her to go have a romantic relationship with all the women who work for him. As usual, context is king and there is simply no context in any portion of Ruth for there to be homoromantic relationships. Ruth stayed with Naomi because Naomi was her mother in law who had just lost her husband AND her two sons. Hopefully most of us wouldn't say "smell ya later" to a family member in a state of bereavement while we go care only for ourselves. You are reading this book of the Bible WITH homosexual glasses on trying to overlay something on it that just isn't there. This is no better than what Witness Lee did.

You said God gave you a wife and you've "never been at peace ever since." I'm sure that's an unfortunate freudian slip.......given your position I have to assume you meant you've "BEEN at peace ever since"......

God is not unrighteous if He doesn't provide a mate for me. The entirety of humankind suffers for things not of their own fault and it doesn't make God a less benevolent God. All of this ties heavily into the gospel question I asked earlier so I won't belabor the point right now.

There ya go, all fixed- with citation and freudian slip. It can be said you are reading it with heterosexual lenses because how can you not see it?! Any woman trying to survive at the time would have done it the “selfish” way; not stick to a woman, unless she loves her and cares for her and says those words, that she wants to stay with her to the end. Family loyalty itself doesnt cut it, there HAS to be more. Any gay woman would see it but you’re not a gay woman. Boaz of course would not want her to have sex with other women- he said that only to ensure she was safe, safety in numbers am i right? But Ruth clung to Naomi for other reasons. I am seriously engaging on this thread, or I can quickly just drop everything and go because there’s no point in me trying. Do you see any other gay sister spending time on here? No, because it takes a lot out of them to do so, and to be vulnerable when this issue is so deeply personal to them.
And I am not sorry for having to copy and paste articles, since you guys clearly dont read the links I send you unless it’s in the body of the text. I’ve spent so much time trying to compose my thoughts in my other responses, maybe only for three posts did I have to copy and paste so you guys can see other views, not just mine. Plus Ohio is always like “you’re making it up” so to defend myself, I have to show you guys I’m not making it up by showing you outside sources. In short I dont know what you guys want from me or for this thread. So yeah come to a consensus, or else I dont know how else to post. Or it seems like no matter what I do, I’m wrong.
You guys put links too from time to time from other perspectives, but I read them.
Comparing me to Witness Lee? Thats just a new low. We all survived from witness lee’s church of abuse and so lets be mindful of our commonality instead of comparing each other to the brother who abused us all.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

You forgot to mention that David and Jonathan kissed. If I saw two men kissing my first thought would be "gay."

Ever been to Italy?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There are a number of cultures (Lebanese in this case) where men kiss when greeting loved ones. (The guys who did this were cousins.) I have seen this before and I thought it strange, but such is the case with many foreign customs. But since my mind is not pickled with the gay agenda, my first thought was NOT gay.

Again with that word “agenda”. Can you define what gay agenda is? because I dont know why people use it all the time with lgbtq or “gay promotion”. It sounds like peacocks

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Ever been to Italy?

Don't confuse him with facts!

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Ever been to Italy?

Kissing with souls knit to each other. The bible said it, not me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Again with that word “agenda”. Can you define what gay agenda is? because I dont know why people use it all the time with lgbtq

The gay agenda desires to convert our population and culture (mores, education, laws, customs, etc.) into a gay utopia, destroying and canceling everyone in the existing culture who gets in their way.

Perhaps your goals are more benign, but that still does not change the "agenda" in place.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Kissing with souls knit to each other. The bible said it, not me.

Sounds like your LGBT Version.

Have you read the context of the story?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds like your LGBT Version.

Have you read the context of the story?

Did you read what I wrote below on Jonathan and David? Yes I’ve read the whole story in both Chinese and English, non recovery versions, King James and others. There’s no “LGBTQ” version. There’s just the bible and interpretation, thebible is for all ages, except the scary ones like Daniel’s weird dreams for kids bedtime stories.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The gay agenda desires to convert our population and culture (mores, education, laws, customs, etc.) into a gay utopia, destroying and canceling everyone in the existing culture who gets in their way.

Perhaps your goals are more benign, but that still does not change the "agenda" in place.

When has gay culture canceled everyone else? If you think gays will make the world extinct, you have paranoia issues.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

When has gay culture canceled everyone else? If you think gays will make the world extinct, you have paranoia issues.

That's their agenda. That's their goal. That's the direction they are going.

Don't change the subject. I answered your question about the gay agenda. Why don't you study some of their radical literature?

And who said the gay culture "canceled everyone" or will "make the world extinct"?

Rabbit hole. Obviously, no one has said that. Radically transformed, yes, extinct, no.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Did you read what I wrote below on Jonathan and David? Yes I’ve read the whole story in both Chinese and English, non recovery versions, King James and others. There’s no “LGBTQ” version. There’s just the bible and interpretation, thebible is for all ages, except the scary ones like Daniel’s weird dreams for kids bedtime stories.

Daniel's dreams were incredibly prophetic. Didn't you ever study world history? They all came true!

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's their agenda. That's their goal. That's the direction they are going.

Don't change the subject. I answered your question about the gay agenda. Why don't you study some of their radical literature?

And who said the gay culture "canceled everyone" or will "make the world extinct"?

Rabbit hole. Obviously, no one has said that. Radically transformed, yes, extinct, no.

Can you show me some of this “radical literature”? I have never read it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Ever been to Italy?

It's like the brother that lived with my wife and I. He came home from work all upset. When we asked what was wrong, he said he stopped by Two Guys Pizzeria and saw men sitting in booths with their arm around each other.

I thought that he 'Didst protest too much.' It was, after all, Two Guys Pizzeria.

Well he eventually got his own little apartment. I stopped in on him unannounced one Saturday morning. And surprise, surprise, he had a friend that spent the night over. This guy was obviously gay. There was no hiding it. He knew then that I knew. It became the elephant in the room.

He packed it up and started making his way out of town, where he/we came from. He'd call me from time to time, and tell me he became friends with a Methodist preacher. I knew what he meant. It's wasn't spoken of, but he knew that I knew what he meant.

He's now an elder at a locality. Wondering why he lives deep in the closet, I asked him why he stay in the LC. He said, "the food."

Is that why your Italy question? all those gay Catholic priests? Or did you mean something else?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's like the brother...

Wouldnt it be a tad funny and interesting to see if living in Italy, you cant tell the homosexuals and heterosexuals apart due to everyone kissing each other? Like it would be paradise for closeted gays. If only we had that custom here in the U.S.
Imagine that

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Wouldnt it be a tad funny and interesting to see if living in Italy, you cant tell the homosexuals and heterosexuals apart due to everyone kissing each other? Like it would be paradise for closeted gays. If only we had that custom here in the U.S.
Imagine that

I have this book : Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity with illustrations.
https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Ex.../dp/031225377X

It turns out that around the same percentage of the critters are gay as the percentage of humans.

Seems gayness is natural after all, and Paul just didn't know about it. Paul, by the way, wasn't omniscient. He was a flawed person just like the rest of us. So why become fixated on him and what he has to say?

He was after all, a flat earth person. I'm not saying that to put him down. He couldn't help it. He lived during the flat earth age.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have this book : Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity with illustrations.
https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Ex.../dp/031225377X

It turns out that around the same percentage of the critters are gay as the percentage of humans.

Seems gayness is natural after all, and Paul just didn't know about it. Paul, by the way, wasn't omniscient. He was a flawed person just like the rest of us. So why become fixated on him and what he has to say?

He was after all, a flat earth person. I'm not saying that to put him down. He couldn't help it. He lived during the flat earth age.

Well, even apart from the main subject of this particular thread, it's not much wonder why this is on the Alternative Views section with comments like that!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well, even apart from the main subject of this particular thread, it's not much wonder why this is on the Alternative Views section with comments like that!

Which comments?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Which comments?

Pretty much all of them in that last post . . . to varying degrees.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Pretty much all of them in that last post . . . to varying degrees.

So do you disagree that the animal kingdom has the same percentage of gays as us humans? It is a fact that animals can be gay.

Now my question is, does God condemn gay animals? or does He just consider it part of nature?

Can you answer that?

[UntoHim]

Wow. So that's what qualifies as an "alternative view" over here...that "It is a fact that animals can be gay"? And "does God condemn gay animals"? Sorry Harold, you gotta do better than that my man. I know you can do better than that.

Also please refrain from disclosing personal names and details on the forum. I have edited post #295.

Carry on...I guess.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Wow. So that's what qualifies as an "alternative view" over here...that "It is a fact that animals can be gay"? And "does God condemn gay animals"? Sorry Harold, you gotta do better than that my man. I know you can do better than that.

Also please refrain from disclosing personal names and details on the forum. I have edited post #295.

Carry on...I guess.
-

I fully understand. When I saw someone on TV talk about the book, and show some illustrations, it blew my mind. I didn't believe it was true. So I bought the book. And it blew my mind even more.

There's endless examples and illustrations of animals in gay activities, and some of them in same sex relationships for life. The whole notion still blows my mind.

So I understand Untohim's reaction. And prolly the reaction of y'all.

Cuz if animal homosexuality exist in approximately the same percentage as human homosexuality, it says that homosexuality is natural.

And how could the author's of the Bible know that?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

I fully understand. When I saw someone on TV talk about the book, and show some illustrations, it blew my mind. I didn't believe it was true. So I bought the book. And it blew my mind even more.

There's endless examples and illustrations of animals in gay activities, and some of them in same sex relationships for life. The whole notion still blows my mind.

So I understand Untohim's reaction. And prolly the reaction of y'all.

Cuz if animal homosexuality exist in approximately the same percentage as human homosexuality, it says that homosexuality is natural.

And how could the author's of the Bible know that?

Ahhh, like - DUH - maybe they were inspired by God perhaps?!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Ahhh, like - DUH - maybe they were inspired by God perhaps?!

But God couldn't inspire them beyond what they could understand. He couldn't tell them, for example, E = mc2. God was dealing with people of very limited understanding and knowledge.

God wasn't going to sit them down and tell them about homosexuality in the animal kingdom, and how it matched human sexuality. They just wouldn't understand such information. God was dealing with flawed humans, of that age.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

But God couldn't inspire them beyond what they could understand. He couldn't tell them, for example, E = mc2. God was dealing with people of very limited understanding and knowledge.

God wasn't going to sit them down and tell them about homosexuality in the animal kingdom, and how it matched human sexuality. They just wouldn't understand such information. God was dealing with flawed humans, of that age.

You are wrong here. People wrote many things down in both the Old and New Testaments they didn't fully understand. The books of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation come to mind, along with hundreds of prophetic words - was this not way beyond human comprehension? Yet they faithfully wrote it down. Do you think when the creation story Genesis was conveyed there was a good human understanding of what happened there?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

You are wrong here. People wrote many things down in both the Old and New Testaments they didn't fully understand. The books of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation come to mind, along with hundreds of prophetic words - was this not way beyond human comprehension? Yet they faithfully wrote it down. Do you think when the creation story Genesis was conveyed there was a good human understanding of what happened there?

So you think God gave them his omniscience? And why didn't God tell them about homosexuality in His animal kingdom?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you think God gave them his omniscience? And why didn't God tell them about homosexuality in His animal kingdom?

As the song goes, "I cannot tell . . ."

I did want to say one thing, and that is, I am one in Christ with you, SerenityLives, Ohio, Trapped, UntoHim and all the saints on this thread. We surely don't have all the answers, but we have THE ANSWER! May the love of Christ be strong among us all!

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

As the song goes, "I cannot tell . . ."

I did want to say one thing, and that is, I am one in Christ with you, SerenityLives, Ohio, Trapped, UntoHim and all the saints on this thread. We surely don't have all the answers, but we have THE ANSWER! May the love of Christ be strong among us all!

Amen to that!!

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you think God gave them his omniscience? And why didn't God tell them about homosexuality in His animal kingdom?

I dont know but the story of Noah’s Ark came up. I was wondering how long it took for Noah to recognize which were the males and which were the females from each soecies, especially the insects. And if some insects live for a day (mayfly) or a week (fly) were they reproducing already during the 40 days and forty nights? what would have happened if Noah accidently paired up two of the same sex critters? Maybe God helped Noah learn about biology, I dont know

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

As the song goes, "I cannot tell . . ."

I did want to say one thing, and that is, I am one in Christ with you, SerenityLives, Ohio, Trapped, UntoHim and all the saints on this thread. We surely don't have all the answers, but we have THE ANSWER! May the love of Christ be strong among us all!

Well amen to that.

But still, there are queer animals. And God makes 'em.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I dont know but the story of Noah’s Ark came up. I was wondering how long it took for Noah to recognize which were the males and which were the females from each soecies, especially the insects. And if some insects live for a day (mayfly) or a week (fly) were they reproducing already during the 40 days and forty nights? what would have happened if Noah accidently paired up two of the same sex critters? Maybe God helped Noah learn about biology, I dont know

Noah's Ark came to my mind too. God loved the critters. And prolly some of them were queer. Some of their descendants are. And, just like humans, God makes 'em.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Noah's Ark came to my mind too. God loved the critters. And prolly some of them were queer. Some of their descendants are. And, just like humans, God makes 'em.

But don't forget, there was this little thing called "the fall" where all creation became corrupted as evidenced by death coming in.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But don't forget, there was this little thing called "the fall" where all creation became corrupted as evidenced by death coming in.

I don't know if I can buy it. A just God would never find innocents guilty for what a couple of guilty people do.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But don't forget, there was this little thing called "the fall" where all creation became corrupted as evidenced by death coming in.

Thats why God sent the flood right? By your logic, if God saved Noah and his family and they were righteous, then He would have been sure to make sure the most righteous animals were saved. And God must have loved all the sea animals because they werent impacted by water raging on. Noah would have been really surprised to see a pregnant male seahorse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Noah would have been really surprised to see a pregnant male seahorse.

That's against nature. Must be because of the fall.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know if I can buy it. A just God would never find innocents guilty for what a couple of guilty people do.

But there was something not good in man, right? As evidenced by the eating in the garden of the bad fruit, a poison was taken into mankind which was genetically passed along. Adam & Eve weren't the only ones to die as their children had the malady too, and therefore also physically died. Outward actions, like the law, could not take care of the poison itself, only the resultant behaviors. Mankind needed a New Adam, with a new life, to be descendant from.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Thats why God sent the flood right? By your logic, if God saved Noah and his family and they were righteous, then He would have been sure to make sure the most righteous animals were saved. And God must have loved all the sea animals because they werent impacted by water raging on. Noah would have been really surprised to see a pregnant male seahorse.

God saved some through the flood, but sin and therefore death still reigned after the flood, right? There was still corruption in the flesh. Again, mankind needed a New Adam to be descendant from.

[awareness]

Pope Francis calls for civil union law for same-sex couples, in shift from Vatican stance

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...n-stance-12462

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Pope Francis calls for civil union law for same-sex couples, in shift from Vatican stance

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...n-stance-12462

The rising tide of this age - political pressure. (and I don't really have an issue with the government issuing "civil unions.")

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But there was something not good in man, right? As evidenced by the eating in the garden of the bad fruit, a poison was taken into mankind which was genetically passed along. Adam & Eve weren't the only ones to die as their children had the malady too, and therefore also physically died. Outward actions, like the law, could not take care of the poison itself, only the resultant behaviors. Mankind needed a New Adam, with a new life, to be descendant from.

We can't help but draw pictures in our head of how it must be, based upon Bible stories. So we draw poison into the story of the "fall," when it's not even in the story. And then claim that we're all born with that poison in us, and that's why all men are flawed and broken ...

... and that's why there are LGBTQIA++.

Here's the problem with the fall doctrine, as I see it : we're all fallen going back to Adam, and Eve, specially Eve.

So it was fallen man that wrote the books of the Bible ; it was fallen man that selected the books that formed the Canon. Therefore, the Bible is a fallen book. It does, after all, tell of good and evil.

Do you see the problem with the doctrine of the fall?

Originally Posted by StG

God saved some through the flood, but sin and therefore death still reigned after the flood, right? There was still corruption in the flesh. Again, mankind needed a New Adam to be descendant from.

God wasn't satisfied with the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. Or He would have reversed the damage done by the fall. He didn't.

[Trapped]

Don't have time to post a lot but StG touched upon my nerve related to the two trees, so I have to pipe in briefly! I'm with awareness on there not being poison in the TOTKOGAE. Sons to Glory, can you explain (on another thread is fine so as not to derail this one) why you think there is poison from the tree? I know we've discussed this elsewhere...to me the verse evidence is overwhelming that there is no poison.

awareness, Jesus died to save us from the punishment of death for our sins. Just before He died, He said "it is finished"....in other words, the debt has been paid. He paid a debt, a fine that we owed. That's what His death was for.

God raising Him from the dead shows us that God was satisfied with this sacrifice. And as to the damage of the effects from the fall not being reversed.......the response there is "not yet". Don't put short-term blinders on yourself!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Don't have time to post a lot but StG touched upon my nerve related to the two trees, so I have to pipe in briefly! I'm with awareness on there not being poison in the TOTKOGAE. Sons to Glory, can you explain (on another thread is fine so as not to derail this one) why you think there is poison from the tree? I know we've discussed this elsewhere...to me the verse evidence is overwhelming that there is no poison.

awareness, Jesus died to save us from the punishment of death for our sins. Just before He died, He said "it is finished"....in other words, the debt has been paid. He paid a debt, a fine that we owed. That's what His death was for.

God raising Him from the dead shows us that God was satisfied with this sacrifice. And as to the damage of the effects from the fall not being reversed.......the response there is "not yet". Don't put short-term blinders on yourself!

Agree with the part addressed to awareness!

As to the poison, those are my words. Something got into man as evidenced by eating the fruit. Whatever got into mankind, and his genes, caused death. (and I know we talked about this in another place, but obviously I didn't get any light that changed my thinking . . .) If not poison, what would you call that which got into mankind and caused death?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Agree with the part addressed to awareness!

As to the poison, those are my words. Something got into man as evidenced by eating the fruit. Whatever got into mankind, and his genes, caused death. (and I know we talked about this in another place, but obviously I didn't get any light that changed my thinking . . .) If not poison, what would you call that which got into mankind?

Rom 3: All have sinned. (This rebuts awareness who thinks we all are blamed for Adam's disobedience)

Rom 6: The wages of sin is death.

It's logical to think that A&E were "poisoned" by the fruit of the TOKOGAE, but the scriptures don't say it.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Agree with the part addressed to awareness!

As to the poison, those are my words. Something got into man as evidenced by eating the fruit. Whatever got into mankind, and his genes, caused death. (and I know we talked about this in another place, but obviously I didn't get any light that changed my thinking . . .) If not poison, what would you call that which got into mankind and caused death?

What Ohio said.

The Bible never says death is caused by something that got into us. It is crystal clear that death is wages.

The wages of sin is death. Death is wages. Death is our wages, what we earned, for our sin. Death is our punishment. This is why God cut them off from the tree of life -- that was their punishment, so they would die (by not being able to eat the tree that allowed them to live forever).

Death is punishment, over and over again. It's not death due to poison, but punishment.

Sin is in us, but from the act of disobedience, not from the fruit. Since we sinned, we were punished by God with the death penalty. The wages of sin is death.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Sin is in us, but from the act of disobedience, not from the fruit. Since we sinned, we were punished by God with the death penalty. The wages of sin is death.

What is the point of the fruit then, which purpose is to be eaten and therefore gets into us? From what I remember of the other thread, it was being said that the fruit itself wasn't bad, but rather the act of eating the fruit, right? So why did God not want man to eat it? Was it just to say, "Don't cross that line, because I said so!" just to see if they would be obedient? Or was it because there was something deadly about the fruit?

I think perhaps both are true here.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What is the point of the fruit then, which purpose is to be eaten and therefore gets into us? From what I remember of the other thread, it was being said that the fruit itself wasn't bad, but rather the act of eating the fruit, right? So why did God not want man to eat it? Was it just to say, "Don't cross that line, because I said so!" just to see if they would be obedient? Or was it because there was something deadly about the fruit?

I think perhaps both are true here.

Not true. The Bible is explicit that the tree was "good for food". There is no way to slice it whereby deadly fruit can be called "good for food".

[Trapped]

And remember, God is not a liar. He called the trees by what they were. Eat the tree of life - get life. Eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - get the knowledge of good and evil ("....they've become like us, knowing good and evil..."). For there to be poison in the tree means God would have called it "the tree of deadly poison", otherwise we are saying that He named the trees in a tricking way. But that's not what they got when they ate the tree. They got what God said - the knowledge of good and evil.

It was a sin to eat the tree. Death is the punishment for sin. So they got death as punishment (".....let us cut him off from the tree of life lest they eat and live forever...")

This is a major shift from Lee's teaching, but it's a critical one as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually directly looking to change your mind on this one.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Not true. The Bible is explicit that the tree was "good for food". There is no way to slice it whereby deadly fruit can be called "good for food".

Where does it say the tree of the knowledge of good & evil was "good for food"?

Here's an article that agrees with your basic premise, but disagrees that the TOTKOGAE was "good." Tree Meaning Article

However, the question remains, why did God use something that would be ingested? (As we know, what we eat becomes part of us.) Why wouldn't he perhaps have said instead, "Don't cross over that river!" as the test? This way nothing would be ingested and therefore assimilated into them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

And remember, God is not a liar. He called the trees by what they were. Eat the tree of life - get life. Eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - get the knowledge of good and evil ("....they've become like us, knowing good and evil..."). For there to be poison in the tree means God would have called it "the tree of deadly poison", otherwise we are saying that He named the trees in a tricking way. But that's not what they got when they ate the tree. They got what God said - the knowledge of good and evil.

It was a sin to eat the tree. Death is the punishment for sin. So they got death as punishment (".....let us cut him off from the tree of life lest they eat and live forever...")

This is a major shift from Lee's teaching, but it's a critical one as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually directly looking to change your mind on this one.

Thanks for the responses. But you don't want to hear my take on the fruit.

The question I was addressing was that the fall caused the LGBTQ.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for the responses. But you don't want to hear my take on the fruit.

The question I was addressing was that the fall caused the LGBTQ.

Yer probably right! (in that we don't really want to hear your take on the fruit . . . )

As to the 2nd part, whether the fall caused LGBTQWERTY, this gets to the heart of the matter of whether it's off-the-mark (i.e. sin) or not. My contention is the Bible clearly calls it sin along with a bunch of other things; whereas some do their best to demonstrate that the Bible doesn't actually call it a sin (and perhaps even promotes it).

So assuming it is a sin (as I do), therefore it was something that just came along with the fall as another corruption of the flesh.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Where does it say the tree of the knowledge of good & evil was "good for food"?

Good for food verses:

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3:6
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom, she took the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Here's an article that agrees with your basic premise, but disagrees that the TOTKOGAE was "good." Tree Meaning Article

The article ends with this sentence, so I think it actually agrees that the TOTKOGAE was "good":

"In short, the answer to the commenter’s question is, yes, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was good. The fault for man’s fall lies with Adam and Eve, not the tree."

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

However, the question remains, why did God use something that would be ingested? (As we know, what we eat becomes part of us.) Why wouldn't he perhaps have said instead, "Don't cross over that river!" as the test? This way nothing would be ingested and therefore assimilated into them.

All I can say here between tasks at work is don't take the Witness Lee approach of looking for "the intrinsic significance of the nature of the element of the command." If God said "don't cross over that river" then what would you say --- it matters where our feet go? It matters what we drown ourselves in? As you know, if you cross over a river, you get wet and muddy. God was simply never concerned with 'what they ate'. It's just not there in the verses. He's concerned with their obedience, and the tree was the way He chose.

I've put forth my personal view somewhere on this forum already I think. Hebrews somewhere speaks of mature believers distinguishing between good and evil. I think the TOTKOGAE was possibly forbidden until, say, Adam and Eve showed they would obey God's commands. Show maturity. Then maybe be allowed to eat the tree. Some things are forbidden until the right time - dessert (after dinner), sex (after marriage), using a gun (after gun training), etc. I can see the TOTKOGAE falling into that category, although as I said, those are just my thoughts and I don't intend to try to convince you of that particular part.

[Sons to Glory!]

Thanks for the reply, Trapped! You've given me something to think over and ask the Lord about. I do wonder about the word "good" that is used in both of the Genesis verses concerning the trees. Good can also mean "fit." That is you can say, "It's good (or fit) for that purpose." In other words, "It is good for food - it can be eaten." Strong's says the word can also be translated as "pleasant."

Another thing I notice about Genesis 2:9 is it also describes the trees in two ways: 1) pleasing to the eye; 2) good for food. Were all trees both, or were some just pleasing to look at and others good for food?

But I still come back to why use something that was food? Man ingesting food and drink is a big thing in the Bible, is it not? Lots and lots of references to eating, tasting and drinking of the Lord in both the OT and NT. Here's a few: "Taste and see that the Lord is good." "He that eats Me shall live because of Me." "Do this [the Lord's Table] until I come." "He who drinks of the water I give him shall never thirst again." "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you." "The marriage feast of the Lamb." God surely seems to be making some key point about taking the right things into us. I can't help but think that it wasn't an accident that He used the fruit of two trees in the garden.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for the reply, Trapped! You've given me something to think over and ask the Lord about. I do wonder about the word "good" that is used in both of the Genesis verses concerning the trees. Good can also mean "fit." That is you can say, "It's good (or fit) for that purpose." In other words, "It is good for food - it can be eaten." Strong's says the word can also be translated as "pleasant."

Another thing I notice about Genesis 2:9 is it also describes the trees in two ways: 1) pleasing to the eye; 2) good for food. Were all trees both, or were some just pleasing to look at and others good for food?

But I still come back to why use something that was food? Man ingesting food and drink is a big thing in the Bible, is it not? Lots and lots of references to eating, tasting and drinking of the Lord in both the OT and NT. Here's a few: "Taste and see that the Lord is good." "He that eats Me shall live because of Me." "Do this [the Lord's Table] until I come." "He who drinks of the water I give him shall never thirst again." "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you." "The marriage feast of the Lamb." God surely seems to be making some key point about taking the right things into us. I can't help but think that it wasn't an accident that He used the fruit of two trees in the garden.

Will be curious to know if/what the Lord says!

Genesis 2:16 - And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,

From God saying this, it seems to me that every tree was indeed good for food....if God Himself is saying they can eat from them all. He wouldn't tell anyone to eat from a tree that wasn't good for food!

Good for food....fit for food.....all of them mean you can eat it. God would never tell one of His children that something poisonous is good or fit for food and can be eaten.

Regarding the pleasing to look at versus good for food, Eve saw that the TOTKOGAE was both. The Bible doesn't record that that view of hers was wrong.

I won't push back too hard on the ingesting thing. I agree it does matter what we take into ourselves, although I usually think of it in terms of what we hear, read, watch, etc. if you want to take the metaphorical approach. I'm not saying it isn't important in general, but as far as everything the Bible says about this story in particular, including in Romans, the emphasis is consistently on the act, the offense, the disobedience, the sin, rather than the eating, the ingesting, the "taking in", etc. The main reason I'm not totally acquiescing here is because once we say there was anything wrong with the fruit of the TOTKOGAE is the nanosecond we give the grounds for the abusive teachings of "good is death/poison" or "knowledge is death/poison", etc. I know the potential for abuse of a teaching doesn't negate a teaching, but when the verses aren't there to back up that the ingesting of the fruit (aside from disobedience) was a problem, then we've got an unbiblical teaching that turns into an abusive teaching. And that riles me up!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Will be curious to know if/what the Lord says!

Genesis 2:16 - And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden,

From God saying this, it seems to me that every tree was indeed good for food....if God Himself is saying they can eat from them all. He wouldn't tell anyone to eat from a tree that wasn't good for food!

Good for food....fit for food.....all of them mean you can eat it. God would never tell one of His children that something poisonous is good or fit for food and can be eaten.

Regarding the pleasing to look at versus good for food, Eve saw that the TOTKOGAE was both. The Bible doesn't record that that view of hers was wrong.

I won't push back too hard on the ingesting thing. I agree it does matter what we take into ourselves, although I usually think of it in terms of what we hear, read, watch, etc. if you want to take the metaphorical approach. I'm not saying it isn't important in general, but as far as everything the Bible says about this story in particular, including in Romans, the emphasis is consistently on the act, the offense, the disobedience, the sin, rather than the eating, the ingesting, the "taking in", etc. The main reason I'm not totally acquiescing here is because once we say there was anything wrong with the fruit of the TOTKOGAE is the nanosecond we give the grounds for the abusive teachings of "good is death/poison" or "knowledge is death/poison", etc. I know the potential for abuse of a teaching doesn't negate a teaching, but when the verses aren't there to back up that the ingesting of the fruit (aside from disobedience) was a problem, then we've got an unbiblical teaching that turns into an abusive teaching. And that riles me up!

Concerning the bolded above, I wonder about "may eat . . ." Sure, we may eat a lot of things, including things we shouldn't - as they did.

So if it was about just the disobedience, and wasn't about both the disobedience and the ingesting, then this means that everything happened because of the disobedience. That is, sin got into the flesh and corrupted man and death was brought in, only as a result of the disobedient act. Their very genes seemed to have changed and they passed this on to all generations of those in Adam #1, again, simply because they were disobedient.

It's easier for me to think that something got into them through what they ingested, that caused things to drastically change in them - from the perfect beings they were as created, into the monumental mess of a train wreck of flesh that resulted.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

God wasn't satisfied with the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. Or He would have reversed the damage done by the fall. He didn't.

He wasnt satisfied with the Flood either.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What is the point of the fruit then, which purpose is to be eaten and therefore gets into us? From what I remember of the other thread, it was being said that the fruit itself wasn't bad, but rather the act of eating the fruit, right? So why did God not want man to eat it? Was it just to say, "Don't cross that line, because I said so!" just to see if they would be obedient? Or was it because there was something deadly about the fruit?

I think perhaps both are true here.

Well from what I read from it, once A and E ate the fruit, their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked. So maybe sex or something else was bad? Or having knowledge

[Sons to Glory!]

Quote: Originally Posted by awareness
"God wasn't satisfied with the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. Or He would have reversed the damage done by the fall. He didn't."

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

He wasnt satisfied with the Flood either.

Dear sister, of course you could say He wasn't satisfied with the flood, because it was essentially just a reboot of the flesh . . . until that which was Perfect would come in Christ. (He also wanted to do away with some particularly evil things that were happening prior to the flood) And this is where awareness is blatantly wrong: God did undo all the damage done by the fall, in Christ. We simply haven't seen it manifested completely yet. This is faith, to trust and wait on Him and the full salvation of the kingdom coming soon.

Why is He waiting so long? I think 2 Peter 3:9 explains it: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Concerning the bolded above, I wonder about "may eat . . ." Sure, we may eat a lot of things, including things we shouldn't - as they did.

So if it was about just the disobedience, and wasn't about both the disobedience and the ingesting, then this means that everything happened because of the disobedience. That is, sin got into the flesh and corrupted man and death was brought in, only as a result of the disobedient act. Their very genes seemed to have changed and they passed this on to all generations of those in Adam #1, again, simply because they were disobedient.

It's easier for me to think that something got into them through what they ingested, that caused things to drastically change in them - from the perfect beings they were as created, into the monumental mess of a train wreck of flesh that resulted.

Romans 5:15-19
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many!
16 Again, the gift is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment that followed one sin brought condemnation, but the gift that followed many trespasses brought justification.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 So then, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Romans 5 agrees with your statement that it's about the disobedience, the sin, the trespass, the act. Everything truly happened because of the disobedience. Sin is in us because of the act of disobedience of Adam and Eve. Death reigns because it's the punishment for sin and we all sin.

Other verses (also in Romans I think?) talk of SIN dwelling in us. Sin came in through the sinful act of disobedience. There is never a mention of any kind of element or poison or substance that entered from the tree. Not one.

It's a shift of some neurological pathways that have believed for so long that it's something external, some element, something from the tree that "got in", but the support for it is an echoing silence in scripture.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Romans 5:15-19
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many!
16 Again, the gift is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment that followed one sin brought condemnation, but the gift that followed many trespasses brought justification.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 So then, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Romans 5 agrees with your statement that it's about the disobedience, the sin, the trespass, the act. Everything truly happened because of the disobedience. Sin is in us because of the act of disobedience of Adam and Eve. Death reigns because it's the punishment for sin and we all sin.

Other verses (also in Romans I think?) talk of SIN dwelling in us. Sin came in through the sinful act of disobedience. There is never a mention of any kind of element or poison or substance that entered from the tree. Not one.

It's a shift of some neurological pathways that have believed for so long that it's something external, some element, something from the tree that "got in", but the support for it is an echoing silence in scripture.

Thanks for that - a compelling argument from scripture! Again, something to consider and pray about. As is probably your experience, sometimes I get the answer pretty quickly, and other times it takes awhile - oftentimes a verse that comes my way in reading or fellowship, or sometimes "out of the blue." But I still wonder about the eating aspect . . . (was that just happenstance? I doubt it)

So to tie back to the LGBTQ+ main topic; if sin came in through the one act of disobedience, that's the source of all the things of the flesh, including gayness.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks for the reply, Trapped! You've given me something to think over and ask the Lord about. I do wonder about the word "good" that is used in both of the Genesis verses concerning the trees. Good can also mean "fit." That is you can say, "It's good (or fit) for that purpose." In other words, "It is good for food - it can be eaten." Strong's says the word can also be translated as "pleasant."

The good for food is the same as the tree of good and evil. And God declares each day of His creation good, or very good.

It's all the same good. The same word.

In other words, the forbidden fruit was GOOD for food. Not poison.

And what happened after eating it was not just disobedience. Their eyes were opened. They could see like gods.

What could cause something like that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Where does it say the tree of the knowledge of good & evil was "good for food"?

Gen 3.6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and delightful to the eyes, and desired to make one wise."

Jehovah never said that the TOKOGAE was good for food and pleasant to the sight, rather Eve said it after being deceived by the Serpent.


When WL taught these verses, he totally dismissed the disobedience, Adam's transgression in Rom 5, and portrayed the event as a child eating poison after the mother said to stay out of the cabinet.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Gen 3.6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and delightful to the eyes, and desired to make one wise."

Jehovah never said that the TOKOGAE was good for food and pleasant to the sight, rather Eve said it after being deceived by the Serpent.


When WL taught these verses, he totally dismissed the disobedience, Adam's transgression in Rom 5, and portrayed the event as a child eating poison after the mother said to stay out of the cabinet.

OK, Got it! Trapped did a good job, and I'm considering, as mentioned in earlier posts . . . still wondering why it was through something eaten though . . .

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

OK, Got it! Trapped did a good job, and I'm considering, as mentioned in earlier posts . . . still wondering why it was through something eaten though . . .

Eating makes all the sense in the world.

[awareness]

“Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God,” Francis said. “You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Gen 3.6 "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and delightful to the eyes, and desired to make one wise."

Jehovah never said that the TOKOGAE was good for food and pleasant to the sight, rather Eve said it after being deceived by the Serpent.

When WL taught these verses, he totally dismissed the disobedience, Adam's transgression in Rom 5, and portrayed the event as a child eating poison after the mother said to stay out of the cabinet.

Yes there is the verse in chapter 3, but don't forget this verse in chapter 2:

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

That's the Biblical description of the trees.....not just Eve's view of them.

Yes, WL totally tossed the disobedience aside. How convenient for him to downplay the sin......

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

OK, Got it! Trapped did a good job, and I'm considering, as mentioned in earlier posts . . . still wondering why it was through something eaten though . . .

Weeeellll......I'll mention one thing.

Where were they placed? In a garden. A big garden. A garden full of trees. Full of trees with fruit that can be eaten.

So in a sense, it makes perfect sense for God to use a tree as the test......because in a garden FULL of other options, man has no excuse for taking from the only, one, singular thing that was forbidden.

In other words, man can't claim "it's not fair.....there were only 4 trees and I didn't like the taste of some of them so in order to eat I had to take from the one you told me not to eat of." They had, probably literally, at least hundreds of other trees to take from. There was no reason to eat of the TOTKOGAE. It's a good test God set up that used something so prevalent so that man could be.....

.....without excuse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

In other words, man can't claim "it's not fair.....

.....without excuse.

By man I hope you realize Adam. And Adam, and Eve, were like children, who didn't understand anything ... much less complaining, or excusing, by the number of trees.

As I read it. Adam and Eve ran straight for the forbidden tree, ignoring all the others, including the tree of life. But in their defense, they didn't know what life, or death, meant.

[Ohio]

[QUOTE=awareness;96060]By man I hope you realize Adam. And Adam, and Eve, were like children, who didn't understand anything ... much less complaining, or excusing, by the number of trees.
[/BQUOTE]
This is pure conjecture. Where is the evidence that God created immature children, who did not understand His commands?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Genesis 2:9
Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food. And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Yes, and did you see my question about these two description of the trees: 1) pleasing to the yes 2) good for food. So were some just #1 and some just #2 and maybe some both?

Also, "In the day you eat of it in dying you will die." (lit)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

By man I hope you realize Adam. And Adam, and Eve, were like children, who didn't understand anything ... much less complaining, or excusing, by the number of trees.

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is pure conjecture. Where is the evidence that God created immature children, who did not understand His commands?

Where's the evidence that God didn't. Seems there's more evidence in my favor, just judging by what the record said they did.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, and did you see my question about these two description of the trees: 1) pleasing to the yes 2) good for food. So were some just #1 and some just #2 and maybe some both?

Also, "In the day you eat of it in dying you will die." (lit)

Gen 2:17 KJV - "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
ESV - "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yes, and did you see my question about these two description of the trees: 1) pleasing to the yes 2) good for food. So were some just #1 and some just #2 and maybe some both?

Also, "In the day you eat of it in dying you will die." (lit)

Yes I did, and I could have sworn I answered it but don't have time to scroll back right now to look. How about this - if I said "I saw a bunch of horses that were wild and free" would you question whether some of them were only wild and some were only free? Nope, you would know that that kind of phrased description applies to all.

And Eve sees both attributes in the TOTKOGAE in chapter 3. Those two attributes are repeated twice, once about all the trees, and another time when Eve is looking only at one. I don't see a way to read it that somehow one adjective phrase refers to some and one adjective phrase refers to others.

If your reasoning is correct, that would mean some were good for food but some weren't. And yet God told them all blanket "you can eat all of them except one". What on earth would God be doing creating some of them NOT good for food but yet telling them they can eat all of them? That's a God who feeds His kids rocks and tells them they are bread!

The phrase "dying you will die" is a known Hebrew idiom that implies judicial punishment, not inherent natural consequence.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

By man I hope you realize Adam. And Adam, and Eve, were like children, who didn't understand anything ... much less complaining, or excusing, by the number of trees.

As I read it. Adam and Eve ran straight for the forbidden tree, ignoring all the others, including the tree of life. But in their defense, they didn't know what life, or death, meant.

By man I mean mankind, both Adam and Eve. Neither could claim unfairness (even though they both tried to point the finger at someone else).

Between verse 7 and 13 (when Adam and then Eve were created), enough stuff happened between God and Adam that we should be hard pressed to call Adam like a little kid. God entrusts him with responsibilities and tasks and interacts with him repeatedly. Even a kid understands "don't eat that".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The phrase "dying you will die" is a known Hebrew idiom that implies judicial punishment, not inherent natural consequence.

And where is that idiom in Gen.?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Between verse 7 and 13 (when Adam and then Eve were created), enough stuff happened between God and Adam that we should be hard pressed to call Adam like a little kid. God entrusts him with responsibilities and tasks and interacts with him repeatedly. Even a kid understands "don't eat that".

They may understand the command but would they do it? If it were us being Adam and Eve, would we have acted differently? Check out this experiment of delayed gratification done with kids and marshmallows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan...low_experiment

I also wonder why all of humanity is judged based on the actions of A and E. Here is a thought experiment: if God created Eve and Eve, would Christians today frown on straight couples? If Adam and Eve were black, you get my point. No diversity in the Garden of Eden so how do we know which aspects were there before or after the fall? How do we know gayness was an attribute before or after the fall?

Here is a question for you all: If there are verses in the bible that says that women are inferior and slaves should obey their masters, then why did Woman’s Rights and Civil Rights Movements occur? Are they against the bible? Some people in those eras used bible verses to condemn woman rights and african americans getting equal rights. How is gay rights any different?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I also wonder why all of humanity is judged based on the actions of A and E. Here is a thought experiment: if God created Eve and Eve, would Christians today frown on straight couples? If Adam and Eve were black, you get my point. No diversity in the Garden of Eden so how do we know which aspects were there before or after the fall? How do we know gayness was an attribute before or after the fall?

Good questions, and I don't know that I understand all the answers fully, so hopefully others will jump in.

So for your first question of why all are judged because of Adam/Eve's disobedience . . . one answer is because we were all in Adam as a corporate man. We may not think this is fair, because we technically weren't individuals yet. But let's say that we were present in Adam. In that case we all did it. Again, you may say this is not fair, because you should have had an individual voice in the matter. But again, in a corporate sense, we were all there. Kinda hard to conceive of this as the individuals we are now, and we can cry, "It's not fair!", but there it is.

However, on the plus side of this corporate aspect is who we are in Christ. Because of one Man's (Christ's) righteous act, the many are constituted righteous. (Romans 5) How does this happen exactly? It's hard to fathom, but God, when we have faith in Christ, puts us in Him and imputes His righteousness to us! So I might not agree that through the disobedience of the one man (Adam), sin and death came in - but I surely like the fact that the Father sees me as the righteousness of God in Christ because of His one righteous act!

The other idea, that some on here argue against, is that something not intended for man got into mankind through the eating of the forbidden fruit ("in eating it you will die"), and this corruption was passed along. But I'll leave that idea for now, so as not to continue that sidebar.

I thought the second question would be perhaps more difficult to answer because it's a hypothetical, then again, maybe not. One can easily conjecture that since God created beings of the opposite sex, that was his intention all along.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Good questions, and I don't know that I understand all the answers fully, so hopefully others will jump in.

So for your first question of why all are judged because of Adam/Eve's disobedience . . . one answer is because we were all in Adam as a corporate man. We may not think this is fair, because we technically weren't individuals yet. But let's say that we were present in Adam. In that case we all did it. Again, you may say this is not fair, because you should have had an individual voice in the matter. But again, in a corporate sense, we were all there. Kinda hard to conceive of this as the individuals we are now, and we can cry, "It's not fair!", but there it is.

However, on the plus side of this corporate aspect is who we are in Christ. Because of one Man's (Christ's) righteous act, the many are constituted righteous. (Romans 5) How does this happen exactly? It's hard to fathom, but God, when we have faith in Christ, puts us in Him and imputes His righteousness to us! So I might not agree that through the disobedience of the one man (Adam), sin and death came in - but I surely like the fact that the Father sees me as the righteousness of God in Christ because of His one righteous act!

The other idea, that some on here argue against, is that something not intended for man got into mankind through the eating of the forbidden fruit ("in eating it you will die"), and this corruption was passed along. But I'll leave that idea for now, so as not to continue that sidebar.

I thought the second question would be perhaps more difficult to answer because it's a hypothetical, then again, maybe not. One can easily conjecture that since God created beings of the opposite sex, that was his intention all along.

Right. Without the fall -- in each of us -- there's no need for Jesus.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

They may understand the command but would they do it? If it were us being Adam and Eve, would we have acted differently? Check out this experiment of delayed gratification done with kids and marshmallows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan...low_experiment

Only have a couple seconds to write but actually your "they may understand but would they do it" question feeds perfectly into my personal thought that Adam and Eve would have been allowed access to the TOTKOGAE eventually once they showed they would obey God (given that, as I said to StG, Hebrews tells us that mature believers discern between good and evil).

I've seen the marshmallow experiment before -- too cute, honestly. You can see the (sometimes very short) struggle on the kids faces!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Here is a question for you all: If there are verses in the bible that says that women are inferior and slaves should obey their masters, then why did Woman’s Rights and Civil Rights Movements occur? Are they against the bible? Some people in those eras used bible verses to condemn woman rights and african americans getting equal rights. How is gay rights any different?

SL, you can write shorts posts that require dissertations to answer! These are all good questions, but there are no short answers to these. But I'll have to try.

The Bible says men and women are made in the image of God, both of them. As such, they both carry equal and inherent value and worth.

In speaking of husbands and wives, wives are to submit, but husbands are to love with a love that would figuratively and literally die for their wives (just like Christ laid His life down). Both parties are called to sacrifice for the sake of the other. There is no inferiority/superiority there.

I can imagine you are thinking of some other specific passages when you say "the bible says women are inferior", and I can tell you I won't have time any time soon to deal with the specifics and still get to my already existing backlog, but there is much to say on this topic.

I can also sum it up by saying the Bible never says being a woman is a sin. It also never says being black is a sin. Those are both states of being.

For the record it also never says being gay is a sin. That is a state of being.

But it does say gay sex is a sin. It's not a state of being. It's an action. That's the sin.

As far as the politics of gay rights, it's different from women's rights and african american rights. Women and african american rights are about voting, employment, schooling, segregation, etc. They did not have the same rights and were fighting for equal rights.

But gay people have always had the exact same rights as every other person regarding marriage. Everyone can marry someone within certain parameters. Those parameters are:
1. not already married
2. not underage
3. not of the same gender
4. not a different species
5. not too closely related

Those rights are the same across the board and no one has been deprived of those rights.

But what gay rights are fighting for are the right to marry who you are attracted to. Well, that's never been an outright right for anyone without meeting certain conditions. There are always boundaries to marriage. Gay rights sought to change the boundaries, the definition of marriage. To change the parameters of marriage. I'm no history teacher but women and AA's didn't redefine terms to gain equal rights. They were just granted the same rights that existed for others. But gay people have had the same rights and parameters that everyone else had, as I outlined above. Gay rights sought to change those boundaries or parameters. To me, that's the fundamental difference between women/AA rights and gay rights.

With the argument being "I should be able to marry whoever I'm attracted to" that forced an erosion of the same-sex boundary, which necessarily lends itself to the erosion of the other boundaries. The reason and logic and argument against "why shouldn't I be able to have multiple husbands/wives then?" erodes with it, as well as "who cares if they are underage, if we are both attracted and want it, what's the problem?" There are cascading moral repercussions to the way things have gone.

I'm speaking clinically here, not emotionally. I understand there are gut-wrenching emotions behind this, but this is a quick intellectual/clinical response.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

SL, you can write shorts posts that require dissertations to answer! These are all good questions, but there are no short answers to these. But I'll have to try.

The Bible says men and women are made in the image of God, both of them. As such, they both carry equal and inherent value and worth.

In speaking of husbands and wives, wives are to submit, but husbands are to love with a love that would figuratively and literally die for their wives (just like Christ laid His life down). Both parties are called to sacrifice for the sake of the other. There is no inferiority/superiority there.

I can imagine you are thinking of some other specific passages when you say "the bible says women are inferior", and I can tell you I won't have time any time soon to deal with the specifics and still get to my already existing backlog, but there is much to say on this topic.

I can also sum it up by saying the Bible never says being a woman is a sin. It also never says being black is a sin. Those are both states of being.

For the record it also never says being gay is a sin. That is a state of being.

But it does say gay sex is a sin. It's not a state of being. It's an action. That's the sin.

As far as the politics of gay rights, it's different from women's rights and african american rights. Women and african american rights are about voting, employment, schooling, segregation, etc. They did not have the same rights and were fighting for equal rights.

But gay people have always had the exact same rights as every other person regarding marriage. Everyone can marry someone within certain parameters. Those parameters are:
1. not already married
2. not underage
3. not of the same gender
4. not a different species
5. not too closely related

Those rights are the same across the board and no one has been deprived of those rights.

But what gay rights are fighting for are the right to marry who you are attracted to. Well, that's never been an outright right for anyone without meeting certain conditions. There are always boundaries to marriage. Gay rights sought to change the boundaries, the definition of marriage. To change the parameters of marriage. I'm no history teacher but women and AA's didn't redefine terms to gain equal rights. They were just granted the same rights that existed for others. But gay people have had the same rights and parameters that everyone else had, as I outlined above. Gay rights sought to change those boundaries or parameters. To me, that's the fundamental difference between women/AA rights and gay rights.

With the argument being "I should be able to marry whoever I'm attracted to" that forced an erosion of the same-sex boundary, which necessarily lends itself to the erosion of the other boundaries. The reason and logic and argument against "why shouldn't I be able to have multiple husbands/wives then?" erodes with it, as well as "who cares if they are underage, if we are both attracted and want it, what's the problem?" There are cascading moral repercussions to the way things have gone.

I'm speaking clinically here, not emotionally. I understand there are gut-wrenching emotions behind this, but this is a quick intellectual/clinical response.

Where does parameter 3 come from? Black people can marry. Women can marry. gay people cant marry. That’s fair? I disagree, being gay is a state of being which encompasses everything that has to do with gay attractions, including intimacy. Just like you cant take such an important part of being a woman which is also intimacy or black people which is also intimacy. You cant take away the attractions. To deny gay people their rights to marry is to deny their right to intimacy, such an important component of healthy human relations. Yes I understand your post is supposed to be intellectual but you cannot look at the issue of humanity with just this lens. If you tell gay people to only marry within those parameters, thats against their God given nature. The only two choices for them is to not marry or marry an opposite gender with zero intimacy. Thats not the same “rights” as a person who is heterosexual, able to enjoy intimacy in their relationship.

In addition, comparing gay couples to incest or polygamy is like comparing apples to oranges. Gay couples can have lasting healthy relationships within marriage. Incest leads to birth defects. Polygamy can lead to jealousy between the wives. Can you tell me one negative thing gay marriage can lead to for the gay couple? If you look at the condition “clinically” as you said, gayness is not a disease or aberration psychologically, mentally, emotionally.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Where does parameter 3 come from? Black people can marry. Women can marry. gay people cant marry. That’s fair? I disagree, being gay is a state of being which encompasses everything that has to do with gay attractions, including intimacy. Just like you cant take such an important part of being a woman which is also intimacy or black people which is also intimacy. You cant take away the attractions. To deny gay people their rights to marry is to deny their right to intimacy, such an important component of healthy human relations. Yes I understand your post is supposed to be intellectual but you cannot look at the issue of humanity with just this lens. If you tell gay people to only marry within those parameters, thats against their God given nature. The only two choices for them is to not marry or marry an opposite gender with zero intimacy. Thats not the same “rights” as a person who is heterosexual, able to enjoy intimacy in their relationship.

In addition, comparing gay couples to incest or polygamy is like comparing apples to oranges. Gay couples can have lasting healthy relationships within marriage. Incest leads to birth defects. Polygamy can lead to jealousy between the wives. Can you tell me one negative thing gay marriage can lead to for the gay couple? If you look at the condition “clinically” as you said, gayness is not a disease or aberration psychologically, mentally, emotionally.

Parameter 3 comes from:

1. God
2. the Bible
3. all of human history
4. outward design
5. inward biology

Of course gay people can marry. They can marry anyone within those boundaries just like everyone else. Like I said in my post, the right to marry has not been denied gay people, but the right to marry "whoever I'm attracted to" has NEVER been a blanket right for ANYONE.

Again, this post is going to be clinical and cold. It is not personal towards you. It does not mean I don't care a lot. But the cold hard truth is that COUNTLESS people don't get to have their "right to intimacy", for numerous reasons that have nothing to do with LGBT issues.

-mental retardation
-physical defects
-illness that takes their life prematurely
-car accident paralyzing them, leaving them without the ability to feel sexual pleasure
-heterosexuals for whom God doesn't answer their desperate pleas
-people who were married but their spouses divorced them for unbiblical reasons leaving them unable to remarry and have sex while they wait on their ex-spouse to break the marriage covenant sexually.....I know too many like this
-etc

Life is suffering. Period. We are not here for this world. We are on a plane ride on a broken down plane and we all have to jump with a parachute when the plane goes down. The parachute is Jesus, who saves us from death.

What we've done is think that while we are on this broken down doomed plane we are entitled to everything our heart desires, but that focus is completely wrong.

Remember, you are speaking to someone who knows every second of every day that we don't all have a "right to intimacy" however we want it.

I never compared gay couples to incest. That parameter was on the list, but it wasn't a comparison TO gay couples.

Acting on gay attractions is an aberration, just like all sin. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. Gay marriage is against God's creation. Put some spiritual lenses on and look at the creation of man and woman from God's eyes. Remember, God took woman FROM man. They are part of the same whole. And when they come together again in marriage and in sex, they complete the whole as God designed it. God created it and called it "good". But then humankind comes along and takes two halves that were never meant to be together, never part of the design, never called "good" but is actually called a serious sin in God's eyes, and tries to say that the action of coming together in that way is laudable and holy and approved and blessed by God.

The negative thing that can happen for the gay married couple? Finding out what it means to fall into the hands of the living God who has made it repeatedly clear that homosexuals who practice same-sex relations won't make it into the kingdom of God. Finding out what the wrath of God is. Finding out just how seriously God takes sin. Finding out that God is not all-forgiving, but punishes all sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed one single time, and their punishment was death. I would say that's a pretty negative consequence for gay married couples.

This is the same argument for two committed heterosexuals living together their whole life, having sex but not being married. "What's the one negative thing that can lead to?" Plenty of people do it. It's normal in this society now. But the negative thing is that God has said very clearly that it is sin in His eyes.

Don't mistake God's patience and kindness as His approval.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

If you tell gay people to only marry within those parameters, thats against their God given nature.

As has been discussed on here, it is not against their "God given nature." It is an aberration, something off-the-mark (sin) that occurred after God's perfect creation.

Trapped put it very well as is quoted again below. Sin is a very basic idea in the Bible, and therefore why we need The Savior!

Originally Posted by Trapped

Acting on gay attractions is an aberration, just like all sin. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. Gay marriage is against God's creation. Put some spiritual lenses on and look at the creation of man and woman from God's eyes. Remember, God took woman FROM man. They are part of the same whole. And when they come together again in marriage and in sex, they complete the whole as God designed it. God created it and called it "good". But then humankind comes along and takes two halves that were never meant to be together, never part of the design, never called "good" but is actually called a serious sin in God's eyes, and tries to say that the action of coming together in that way is laudable and holy and approved and blessed by God.

As an example to this last part, it is like me getting drunk and committing adultery and then saying God fully approves of it! (these things, like gay actions, are all off the mark)

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I also wonder why all of humanity is judged based on the actions of A and E.

I totally understand where you are coming from, and I thought this, quite angrily, for years.

Then I came across an example online a few years ago that helped me. I tried to find it again yesterday but couldn't so I'll have to try to convey it as best I can.

Imagine you've got a man who owns a large property. On this property is a deep pit. This man tells his gardener "you can go anywhere on the property to do your work, but just stay away from that pit. Once you fall in, you're out of luck. We can't get you out."

And the gardener goes and jumps in the pit. He was told not to, he was told what would happen, and he knew he would be doomed. Is he at fault? Yep. Is he stuck in the pit and needs someone to get him out? Yep.

Got it? Okay. So now pretend that gardener is actually a pregnant woman. The pregnant woman is told “you can go anywhere on the property but stay away from the pit. We can’t get anyone out of the pit who falls in. You’re doomed if you do.”

And the pregnant woman does the same thing as the gardener. She jumps into, or gets too close to and falls into, the pit. She was told not to, she knew what would happen, and she knew she would be doomed. Is she at fault? Yep. Is she stuck in the pit and needs help to get out? Yep.

And let’s say the pregnant woman is in the pit long enough that she has her child, a little boy. The baby boy is born into the pit. This is akin to our situation. We are the babies born into the pit.

Is it the baby’s fault that he is in the pit? Nope. He was born into it. But does the baby still need to be saved out of the pit? Yes, a thousand times, yes.

I recognize this analogy isn’t perfect, and I can think of a few ways already that it isn’t (God’s judging us for our actions, although if a baby grows up in a pit and murders someone else there, it’s still an evil action whether in a pit or not). Being in a pit doesn’t make sins not sins.

But I personally was helped by the analogy because it’s the first time I’d heard something that recognized we were not the ones who originally “jumped into the pit” (sinned) but also shows that we need saving regardless.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Here is a thought experiment: if God created Eve and Eve, would Christians today frown on straight couples? If Adam and Eve were black, you get my point. No diversity in the Garden of Eden so how do we know which aspects were there before or after the fall? How do we know gayness was an attribute before or after the fall?

If God created Eve and Eve, and said a woman should leave her mother and mother and marry another woman, and if "women lying with men as if with a woman" was repeatedly spoken of negatively in the Bible, of course Christians would look askance at heterosexual sexual activity because THAT would be contrary to scripture.

How do we know gayness was an attribute before or after the fall? Well, what we are told is that Adam was there. God created woman from him. Adam really seemed to like the woman. Adam and Eve had sex and had kids. I don't see evidence for even a hint of gayness in any of that. They were the only two people before the fall and theirs was clearly a heterosexual relationship, so, no, there is no evidence that gayness was an attribute before the fall.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Trapped

And let’s say the pregnant woman is in the pit long enough that she has her child, a little boy. The baby boy is born into the pit. This is akin to our situation. We are the babies born into the pit.

Is it the baby’s fault that he is in the pit? Nope. He was born into it. But does the baby still need to be saved out of the pit? Yes, a thousand times, yes.

This is one aspect. Not bad, as it shows we were "in" Adam when he made that fateful error. But as Romans 7:17-18 shows, something of that rebellious nature is actually in the "baby" too (that will prompt it to murder, steal, lie, etc.): "It is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh."

I kinda like to replace "the pit" in this sort of analogy with a cesspool. Mankind is drowning in unimaginable filth and winds-up ingesting a lot of crap!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

This is one aspect. Not bad, as it shows we were "in" Adam when he made that fateful error. But as Romans 7:17-18 shows, something of that rebellious nature is actually in the "baby" too (that will prompt it to murder, steal, lie, etc.): "It is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh."

I kinda like to replace "the pit" in this sort of analogy with a cesspool. Mankind is drowning in unimaginable filth and winds-up ingesting a lot of crap!

Agreed, there are some shortcomings to the analogy. I was going to go in a direction of having the "pit life" or something but didn't have the energy. The cesspool angle works great for me!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Is it the baby’s fault that he is in the pit? Nope. He was born into it. But does the baby still need to be saved out of the pit? Yes, a thousand times, yes.

God would then say, "as the sin, so the salvation." God would say, "all I required to impute My righteousness to any person is for them to believe." That's all I require. Is that really so difficult? And I place no requirements on time or space. Not a Jew, no problem. Not living in the 1st century, no problem. Not living after My Son's sacrifice, no problem. Not a rich person, no problem. Not a smart person, no problem. Not literate, no problem. Not able to see or hear, no problem.

We may all have a million complaints about getting a raw deal in this life, but regarding the debt to the law for our sins, we have no complaint, Jesus paid that debt once for all, for all of us.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

If you tell gay people to only marry within those parameters, thats against their God given nature.

But gay sex between married gay couples is not sin.

And God, in the Bible, is not against getting drunk. And I suppose you'd throw the first stone.

And Trapped, your posts are great, and well thought out, but wrong in so many places.

I won't belabor them, but just one : The idea that we're all made in God's image, so we're all equal. Not only have we humans not practiced that, but neither does God. Example : God's chosen people, the equal Israelite's, and then all the rest of unequal image bearers.

And Sons to Glory. As far as I tell in the Bible, God has never had a perfect creation. He said it was "good," but not "perfect." And it was neither.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

But gay sex between married gay couples is not sin.

And God, in the Bible, is not against getting drunk. And I suppose you'd throw the first stone.

And Trapped, your posts are great, and well thought out, but wrong in so many places.

I won't belabor them, but just one : The idea that we're all made in God's image, so we're all equal. Not only have we humans not practiced that, but neither does God. Example : God's chosen people, the equal Israelite's, and then all the rest of unequal image bearers.

And Sons to Glory. As far as I tell in the Bible, God has never had a perfect creation. He said it was "good," but not "perfect." And it was neither.

WOW - what can one say to these responses?! I am speaking to a believer in the God of the Bible here, right?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

God would then say, "as the sin, so the salvation." God would say, "all I required to impute My righteousness to any person is for them to believe." That's all I require. Is that really so difficult? And I place no requirements on time or space. Not a Jew, no problem. Not living in the 1st century, no problem. Not living after My Son's sacrifice, no problem. Not a rich person, no problem. Not a smart person, no problem. Not literate, no problem. Not able to see or hear, no problem.

We may all have a million complaints about getting a raw deal in this life, but regarding the debt to the law for our sins, we have no complaint, Jesus paid that debt once for all, for all of us.

Agreed. Jesus says "here let me help you out of your doomed condition" and people instead turn around and say "how dare You!" and curse Him and hate Him. We have no complaint for how simple God has made it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

WOW - what can one say to these responses?! I am speaking to a believer in the God of the Bible here, right?

It is confusing. I don't like the God of the OT, but I'm a big fan of the God of the NT, except for Revelation. That book brings back the OT God.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

It is confusing. I don't like the God of the OT, but I'm a big fan of the God of the NT, except for Revelation. That book brings back the OT God.

I can sorta understand that. The God of the OT was dealing with us according to the law and was all about righteousness to the inth degree, with not much grace. Yet He showed mercy to those who trusted Him. Then when He came in the person of Christ, we got His provision/gift for sin, and along with it grace and truth.

BTW - the book of Revelation is about love.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

How do we know gayness was an attribute before or after the fall? Well, what we are told is that Adam was there. God created woman from him. Adam really seemed to like the woman. Adam and Eve had sex and had kids. I don't see evidence for even a hint of gayness in any of that. They were the only two people before the fall and theirs was clearly a heterosexual relationship, so, no, there is no evidence that gayness was an attribute before the fall.

What if that it was just a coincidence that Adam liked Eve because God only gave him one human being to choose from?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Parameter 3 comes from:

1. God
2. the Bible
3. all of human history
4. outward design
5. inward biology

but the right to marry "whoever I'm attracted to" has NEVER been a blanket right for ANYONE.

Remember, you are speaking to someone who knows every second of every day that we don't all have a "right to intimacy" however we want it.

Acting on gay attractions is an aberration, just like all sin. That has been repeated over and over on this thread. Gay marriage is against God's creation. Put some spiritual lenses on and look at the creation of man and woman from God's eyes.

I would have to disagree with you on numbers 3-5
3) not All of human history-homosexuality has been around since the dawn of civilization- the Greeks and Romans practiced it, the Native Americans practiced it
4) outward design- The women's sensory spots are within reach of their arms and hands. You still have to answer my previous rebuttals on masturbation.
5) inward biology- I won't repeat what was on my previous thread but there are evidences of both inborn traits from the womb and genetics that result in sexual orientation. Some people are born intersex

So in the end, only God and the Bible are your sources. God evolved over time, as you can see from varying degrees of New Testament and Old Testament divine inspirations. The Bible was written by man.

And "repeated over and over on this thread", it seems like you are only reading you and the other Bible literalists' points of views on here, and disregard what Awareness and I repeat over and over.

"spiritual lens"- you mean "Bible literalists" lens.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

The negative thing that can happen for the gay married couple? Finding out what it means to fall into the hands of the living God who has made it repeatedly clear that homosexuals who practice same-sex relations won't make it into the kingdom of God. Finding out what the wrath of God is. Finding out just how seriously God takes sin. Finding out that God is not all-forgiving, but punishes all sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed one single time, and their punishment was death. I would say that's a pretty negative consequence for gay married couples.

But the negative thing is that God has said very clearly that it is sin in His eyes.

Don't mistake God's patience and kindness as His approval.

Thank you Trapped, it seems like you take Paul's words at face value, because that his books are the only books in the bible that claim those with homosexuality don't enter the kingdom of God. And due to previous discussions, you and I have different ideas of what the Greek term for "homosexuality" actually means, so in the end, it's pretty vague on what kind of homosexuals we are talking about here- men having sex with boys, temple prostitutes, boy slaves? or gang rape form Sodom and Gomorrah?

Everyone dies, not just same sex couples. The fact that God is not all forgiving contradicts God as forgiving. I thought Jesus took care of that.

Sons of Glory said that me and my sweetheart wont end up in hell and you imply that we will not enter into the kingdom of God. Where do gay couples end up? I hope it's in a land of unicorns and fairies so I don't have to deal with people who threaten homosexuals for using God to condemn them.

still don't see God stating it's a sin clearly, only writers in the bible who are interpreted by later readers that it's a sin.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So in the end, only God and the Bible are your sources. God evolved over time, as you can see from varying degrees of New Testament and Old Testament divine inspirations. The Bible was written by man.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Thank you Trapped, it seems like you take Paul's words at face value, because that his books are the only books in the bible that claim those with homosexuality don't enter the kingdom of God. And due to previous discussions, you and I have different ideas of what the Greek term for "homosexuality" actually means, so in the end, it's pretty vague on what kind of homosexuals we are talking about here- men having sex with boys, temple prostitutes, boy slaves? or gang rape form Sodom and Gomorrah?

Everyone dies, not just same sex couples. The fact that God is not all forgiving contradicts God as forgiving. I thought Jesus took care of that.

Sons of Glory said that me and my sweetheart wont end up in hell and you imply that we will not enter into the kingdom of God. Where do gay couples end up? I hope it's in a land of unicorns and fairies so I don't have to deal with people who threaten homosexuals for using God to condemn them.

still don't see God stating it's a sin clearly, only writers in the bible who are interpreted by later readers that it's a sin.

And that pretty much sums up where things stand on this thread (bolded quotes above). Not much good presenting you with things from the Bible . . . because you don't believe it's veracity. So ultimately this kind of discussion is futile . . .

However, if the Bible is indeed the word of God, then the verses conveyed by various ones on here, will have some impact. Maybe not immediately apparent now, but He says, "My word will not return unto me void." So, I pray, let us let the word and the Spirit do it's work in people's hearts, and shine loving light as He may!

And a word on hell and the kingdom. Christians - those who have Christ's life in them - are not eternally damned. We are His children. However, there is still accountability for Christians, as the word says, "For things done in the body." Therefore there are rewards for what we do on earth now, or there may be loss, but not eternal fire.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

What if that it was just a coincidence that Adam liked Eve because God only gave him one human being to choose from?

I always thought that Eve would have been quite gorgeous and talented.

I doubt if Adam had any complaints.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

but He says, "My word will not return unto me void."

The whole verse:

Isa 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.


Look up the "word" in Strong's. My goodness, it's used over 1400 times, and is all over the place.

But what's most critical about the verse is the last statement : and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it

That means it's a living word. Not a dead letter word. Like the verse.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I always thought that Eve would have been quite gorgeous and talented.

I doubt if Adam had any complaints.

Anthropologically they were prolly people of color. What I wonder is, what language did they speak? There were earlier languages than Hebrew.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

What if that it was just a coincidence that Adam liked Eve because God only gave him one human being to choose from?

This is extreme grasping at non-existent straws.

But I'll entertain the scenario as if there are straws. Adam lived to 930 years old. That's plenty of time for if when Adam was, say, 500 years old, and saw some hot young 200 year old guy crossing the street that "aroused something in him" he could have acted on it.

And yet.....not one record of anything like that in the Bible. Adam is only ever represented as a heterosexual husband of a woman, even though he had more time than any of us ever will to swing the other way if that was something that actually happened.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This is extreme grasping at non-existent straws.

But I'll entertain the scenario as if there are straws. Adam lived to 930 years old. That's plenty of time for if when Adam was, say, 500 years old, and saw some hot young 200 year old guy crossing the street that "aroused something in him" he could have acted on it.

And yet.....not one record of anything like that in the Bible. Adam is only ever represented as a heterosexual husband of a woman, even though he had more time than any of us ever will to swing the other way if that was something that actually happened.

I meant before the fall, in the Garden of Eden. (Since we are pondering about whether gayness was already in the genes of A and E before the fall). God only gave Adam one choice, and it was a specific woman.


Genesis chapter 1

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis Chapter 2

5*And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6*But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7*And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

Chapter 4
And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
16*And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Several questions here-
There are two genesis stories, the first in chapter one where God made men and women at the same time, the second in chapter two where God created one man and then a woman came out from his side.
When Cain was wandering the earth, where did those people wanting to kill them come from? Did God have a separate garden of eden I was not aware of, in the land of Nod where there were men and women (from first chapter) were living and also got kicked out? Were they same sex? Is that why they got kicked out? Cain had sex with one of them so it cant be Adam and Eve’s kids right? that will be incest.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/pass...ons-in-genesis

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Those rights are the same across the board and no one has been deprived of those rights.

To change the parameters of marriage. I'm no history teacher but women and AA's didn't redefine terms to gain equal rights. They were just granted the same rights that existed for others. But gay people have had the same rights and parameters that everyone else had, as I outlined above. Gay rights sought to change those boundaries or parameters. To me, that's the fundamental difference between women/AA rights and gay rights.


I'm speaking clinically here, not emotionally. I understand there are gut-wrenching emotions behind this, but this is a quick intellectual/clinical response.

During the Civil rights movement, proponents of black slavery were using Ephesians 5:6 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

African Americans had to change the parameters to get what they deserved.

1st Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

Women rights were trying to change this parameter to become teachers and enter educational fields

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Anthropologically they were prolly people of color. What I wonder is, what language did they speak? There were earlier languages than Hebrew.

Everyone is a person of color. Only the dead have no color.

Adam and Eve spoke the language of love.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I meant before the fall, in the Garden of Eden. (Since we are pondering about whether gayness was already in the genes of A and E before the fall). God only gave Adam one choice, and it was a specific woman.

Perhaps Adam should have had a lineup to choose from, or perhaps a runway?

What if Adam was a racist and wanted a Native American woman?

But then you would be whining about Eve needing the same.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps Adam should have had a lineup to choose from, or perhaps a runway?

What if Adam was a racist and wanted a Native American woman?

But then you would be whining about Eve needing the same.

I cant take you seriously anymore Ohio, ur too funny.

But yeah, God made the first arranged marriage in human history. The LC loves arranged marriages.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I cant take you seriously anymore Ohio, ur too funny.

But yeah, God made the first arranged marriage in human history. The LC loves arranged marriages.

And they were the only people without a bellybutton.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

And they were the only people without a bellybutton.

At least we assume that, because form follows function . . . (get it?)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

At least we assume that, because form follows function . . . (get it?)

We're talking creation here, and the first of everything. You'd figure there would be details explaining it all.

We should know where the strangers out to kill Cain came from, and his wife. There had to be sisters, or Abel, Cain, and Seth couldn't procreated. Where are they? It took 800 yrs after Seth for Adam to create other sons and daughters. And Seth had to sleep with his sisters to procreate. Seth couldn't do 'em all. Did they pleasure each other? Was loving in those early incestuous times willy-nilly, and loosey-goosey?

We don't know. The Bible writers, and/or inspirations, were extremely short on details. As a result, their accounts don't make sense. And later morality was out the window.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

We're talking creation here, and the first of everything. You'd figure there would be details explaining it all.

We should know where the strangers out to kill Cain came from, and his wife. There had to be sisters, or Abel, Cain, and Seth couldn't procreated. Where are they? It took 800 yrs after Seth for Adam to create other sons and daughters. And Seth had to sleep with his sisters to procreate. Seth couldn't do 'em all. Did they pleasure each other? Was loving in those early incestuous times willy-nilly, and loosey-goosey?

We don't know. The Bible writers, and/or inspirations, were extremely short on details. As a result, their accounts don't make sense. And later morality was out the window.

Sounds like one of those pure conjecture movies that someone might do . . .

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Sounds like one of those pure conjecture movies that someone might do . . .

It does indeed, both the Genesis account, and conjectures to fill in the missing gaps.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

It does indeed, both the Genesis account, and conjectures to fill in the missing gaps.

Yeah so going back to my question, if God creeated mean and women at the same time (from genesis 1) we have no idea whether some of them were gay or not, or different color, creed etc. maybe they were the neanderthals. my point being, if this were the case, we dont know if gayness existed before or after the fall. Gayness existing after the fall would then be a conjecture.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Yeah so going back to my question, if God creeated mean and women at the same time (from genesis 1) we have no idea whether some of them were gay or not, or different color, creed etc. maybe they were the neanderthals. my point being, if this were the case, we dont know if gayness existed before or after the fall. Gayness existing after the fall would then be a conjecture.

We can't even date the supposed fall. There were obvious other people than Adam and Eve. Those people could very well have been neanderthals, or Denisovans, going back 40 to 50 thousand years. So it's very probable that gayness existed before Adam and Eve.

[Sons to Glory!]

I'll just change one word here:

Originally Posted by awareness

We can't even date the supposed fall. There were obvious other people than Adam and Eve. Those people could very well have been neanderthals, or Denisovans, going back 40 to 50 thousand years. So it's very probable that sin existed before Adam and Eve.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'll just change one word here:

Then it would make sense for Adam and Eve to sin if they had sin already. If they were so innocent, they wouldnt have thought about taking that fruit or be so easily influenced by a snake.

Anyways, I just find it interesting that Judaists look at their story of Genesis in a different lens than Christians. To them, it was an allegory of some sort of man’s progression. They didnt have a concept of original sin until the Christians came along.

I found interesting articles regarding the Jewish point of view about Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve if you guys want to look at it: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol26Strickman.pdf

https://www.thetorah.com/article/the...f-adam-and-eve

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

We can't even date the supposed fall. There were obvious other people than Adam and Eve. Those people could very well have been neanderthals, or Denisovans, going back 40 to 50 thousand years. So it's very probable that gayness existed before Adam and Eve.

Now I really want to go to that Creation Museum you mentioned about and ask the staff some questions about where all these human species fit in the picture. And maybe the dinosaurs, since there has been cave drawings of dinos found by archaelogists.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Then it would make sense for Adam and Eve to sin if they had sin already. If they were so innocent, they wouldnt have thought about taking that fruit or be so easily influenced by a snake.

In my opinion, there was some time that passed between Genesis 1:2 & 3. That was a time Lucifer frolicked about in rebellion. When God started taking things back and put man in the garden, the evil one saw his chance to beguile Adam & Eve and corrupt them. If that idea is true, who knows what kinds of deviations and problems Lucifer lead those beings into!?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'll just change one word here:

You seem to be hung up on sin. Do animals sin? How about neanderthals, or Denisovans? Were they humans or animals? Did God have the same standard of sin?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

You seem to be hung up on sin. Do animals sin? How about neanderthals, or Denisovans? Were they humans or animals? Did God have the same standard of sin?

Just "off the mark" bro, as has been said many times. Off the mark or corrupted as God had originally intended them. Sin brings about death, and everything dies. (not so sure about Mr. Lucifer & angles - maybe there's a different consequence for them, like Lake of Fire) The better we understand sin, the more we see a need for the Savior!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

https://www.thetorah.com/article/the...f-adam-and-eve

This was an incredible link, that covered a lot of different views of Adam and Eve.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The better we understand sin, the more we see a need for the Savior!

Right O! When we support sin we support the need for a savior. Now I see why you harp on it so much.

But still, do animals sin? Are gay animals judged by God?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

In my opinion, there was some time that passed between Genesis 1:2 & 3. That was a time Lucifer frolicked about in rebellion. When God started taking things back and put man in the garden, the evil one saw his chance to beguile Adam & Eve and corrupt them. If that idea is true, who knows what kinds of deviations and problems Lucifer lead those beings into!?

Are you saying that Genesis 1 was a separate creation story before Gensis 2? Or that Genesis 1 was first? Because the way I see it, two different authors wrote the genesis 1 and genesis 2 stories, respectively. In Genesis 1, God seems more distant creating things from a far off point of view and creates men and women simultaneously AFTER creating plants and animals. Genesis 2, God splits man into two halves, the other half being Eve and then creates the plants and animals. Also, in the hebrew versions of the words for God, one story uses Yahweh, the other uses Elohim. Genesis 1 tries to transition into Gensis 2 but fails to do so because the wording is flipped and different. See here:
There’s another example of evidence that the two stories were redacted- Genesis 1 begins with The first “when God began to create heaven and earth” (Gen 1:1) and then flows into “this is the story of heaven and earth when they were created” (Gen 2:4). The second story begins in the same verse, with a similar clause, “When the Lord God made earth and heaven.” Though both narratives commence with the same word pair (“heaven and earth”) the terms are in opposite order.

See source: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/pass...ons-in-genesis

So then if Genesis 1 occured many years before Genesis 2, then there are two creation stories and homosexuality could have veen in the creation from the very beginning, but the authors or whoever editted it would have left it out due to it being a taboo at the time. If Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are the same story, with different order, then it has to be one or the other, unless God made plants and animals before A and E and then after A and E, and humans existed before A and E, along with A and E or after A and E. So we can never be sure of what really happened and when gayness was an element introduced by God or Lucifer/fall of man.

Please see article for further reading: https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Are you saying that Genesis 1 was a separate creation story before Gensis 2? Or that Genesis 1 was first? Because the way I see it, two different authors wrote the genesis 1 and genesis 2 stories, respectively. In Genesis 1, God seems more distant creating things from a far off point of view and creates men and women simultaneously AFTER creating plants and animals. Genesis 2, God splits man into two halves, the other half being Eve and then creates the plants and animals. Also, in the hebrew versions of the words for God, one story uses Yahweh, the other uses Elohim. Genesis 1 tries to transition into Gensis 2 but fails to do so because the wording is flipped and different. See here:
There’s another example of evidence that the two stories were redacted- Genesis 1 begins with The first “when God began to create heaven and earth” (Gen 1:1) and then flows into “this is the story of heaven and earth when they were created” (Gen 2:4). The second story begins in the same verse, with a similar clause, “When the Lord God made earth and heaven.” Though both narratives commence with the same word pair (“heaven and earth”) the terms are in opposite order.

See source: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/pass...ons-in-genesis

So then if Genesis 1 occured many years before Genesis 2, then there are two creation stories and homosexuality could have veen in the creation from the very beginning, but the authors or whoever editted it would have left it out due to it being a taboo at the time. If Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are the same story, with different order, then it has to be one or the other, unless God made plants and animals before A and E and then after A and E, and humans existed before A and E, along with A and E or after A and E. So we can never be sure of what really happened and when gayness was an element introduced by God or Lucifer/fall of man.

Please see article for further reading: https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

No, what I was refering to here is a gap of time between Genesis verse one & two.

From Wikipedia Found Here:

Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or "the Gap Theory") is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-yom creation period, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved six literal 24-hour days (light being "day" and dark "night" as God specified), but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth. It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.

Long before the modern study of geology, early church writers have examined the biblical text and considered the idea that between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2 was an indeterminate period when the created world fell into chaos. It is often linked with the idea that the angelic realm was originally entrusted with power over the earth which concluded with a betrayal of that trust when a number of them followed Satan in rebellion against God.

Genesis 1 1)In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

The Gap Theory posits that in verse one, God created everything perfectly. Then something happened (a rebellion) to make it formless, void, empty and vain, which is shown in verse 2. The word "was" can be translated "became" or "came to pass." Therefore verse two can be rendered, "The earth became without form and became void." Therefore He then came to the earth and brooded over it ("Spirit of God hovering") to restore it.

BTW - The waters covering the earth, mentioned in verse two, may have been because he had previously flooded it in judgment, to destroy the rebellious ones (at least physically). Therefore He promised after Noah's flood not to again destroy everything with water.

[awareness]

Well it's Sunday morning here. Since I won't be going to covid center church, or attending the impersonal Zoom preachin', I'll get into this gay/garden question.

First. We all have a little Neanderthal in our DNA history. Neanderthals go back like 800,000 years ago, during some of the hardest times for humans in our history. Them were pre-historic times, so we don't have a record of anything that went on, or of who loved who. But considering the brutish Neanderthal's, surely the girls went for the more attractive female sex. We don't know. We weren't there. Just sayin' it's likely.

But neither was the author(s) of Genesis, J, E, P, or otherwise, there. And I don't understand inspiration, so I don't trust it (it doesn't seem to do a complete job -- or it would have told of the Neanderthals).

My point being : We weren't there, and neither were they. So we don't know about gayness going back 800,000 years. But given that some of the animals are gay, we can trust more than inspiration, that it was happening.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

No, what I was refering to here is a gap of time between Genesis verse one & two.

From Wikipedia Found Here:


Genesis 1 1)In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

The Gap Theory posits that in verse one, God created everything perfectly. Then something happened (a rebellion) to make it formless, void, empty and vain, which is shown in verse 2. The word "was" can be translated "became" or "came to pass." Therefore verse two can be rendered, "The earth became without form and became void." Therefore He then came to the earth and brooded over it ("Spirit of God hovering") to restore it.

BTW - The waters covering the earth, mentioned in verse two, may have been because he had previously flooded it in judgment, to destroy the rebellious ones (at least physically). Therefore He promised after Noah's flood not to again destroy everything with water.

Earth's Earliest Ages - G.H. Pember

https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Earlie.../dp/0825435331

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Earth's Earliest Ages - G.H. Pember

https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Earlie.../dp/0825435331

Yes, that was the first book I read on the Gap Theory. Others have followed which sometimes take a little different tact than Pember did. Strict Creationists don't like the idea and think it is a mater of essential faith that we believe the Genesis creation account all happened 6-7 thousand years ago, and believe any variance in that idea is caving to evolution theory.

I don't hold to it as closely as I once did, realizing it's not an essential of our faith. It's one of those things I think he will reveal in an instant, when the time comes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

It's one of those things I think he will reveal in an instant, when the time comes.

And when it's too late to be any good ; the story of my life.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

No, what I was refering to here is a gap of time between Genesis verse one & two.

From Wikipedia Found Here:


Genesis 1 1)In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

The Gap Theory posits that in verse one, God created everything perfectly. Then something happened (a rebellion) to make it formless, void, empty and vain, which is shown in verse 2. The word "was" can be translated "became" or "came to pass." Therefore verse two can be rendered, "The earth became without form and became void." Therefore He then came to the earth and brooded over it ("Spirit of God hovering") to restore it.

BTW - The waters covering the earth, mentioned in verse two, may have been because he had previously flooded it in judgment, to destroy the rebellious ones (at least physically). Therefore He promised after Noah's flood not to again destroy everything with water.

Regardless though, God created men AND women after the waters in Genesis 1, and called them good. So gayness could have still be in those “original” men and women. unless you are positing that Genesis 2 occured before Genesis 1. But they still seem like two variations of creation story, which then throws into question of whether A and E are Indeed God’s original design or the men and women in genesis 1 and thus, how marriage is supposed to be.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Regardless though, God created men AND women after the waters in Genesis 1, and called them good. So gayness could have still be in those “original” men and women. unless you are positing that Genesis 2 occured before Genesis 1. But they still seem like two variations of creation story, which then throws into question of whether A and E are Indeed God’s original design or the men and women in genesis 1 and thus, how marriage is supposed to be.

Seems simple enough, right? The fall came after Adam & Eve's creation, and brought with it things God didn't originally intend.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Seems simple enough, right? The fall came after Adam & Eve's creation, and brought with it things God didn't originally intend.

When was that?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Seems simple enough, right? The fall came after Adam & Eve's creation, and brought with it things God didn't originally intend.

Lucifer the Daystar was created with a free will, and look how self-willed pride consumed his heart, yet that was never created by God. If Lucifer could become what he became, coming from a perfect creation of God, then everything which has been seen in history is also possible. The source is not God, but free-will in created beings, both human and not.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lucifer the Daystar was created with a free will, and look how self-willed pride consumed his heart, yet that was never created by God. If Lucifer could become what he became, coming from a perfect creation of God, then everything which has been seen in history is also possible. The source is not God, but free-will in created beings, both human and not.

Thanks God for free will. Free will rules.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Seems simple enough, right? The fall came after Adam & Eve's creation, and brought with it things God didn't originally intend.

No it’s really not. Im confused. If you say the fall came after A and E, and Genesis Chapter 1 had other men and women created before A and E, then doesnt that throw into question whether these other human beings were gay or not? And if these men and women before A and E were gay, then they were gay before the fall. So then it would be God’s intention for such diversity to occur.

(A and E were in Genesis Chapter 2). You are saying God had the waters (which you said was a primordial flood) to destroy all the men and women (in Chapter 1) because they were sinful. So is this Genesis 1 flood the same as Noah’s flood? Because I thought there was only one flood.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lucifer the Daystar was created with a free will, and look how self-willed pride consumed his heart, yet that was never created by God. If Lucifer could become what he became, coming from a perfect creation of God, then everything which has been seen in history is also possible. The source is not God, but free-will in created beings, both human and not.

But I thought we were created in the image of God, so isnt our will also God’s will or at least mirroring it? Unlike Lucifer, man was created in God’s image so I would assume human’s will is different and supposed to be the same as God’s from Lucifer’s will. And if human will’s source is not from God, then where is it from??

[awareness]

I thought this would be a good time to repost the following, that maybe happened in the gap:

Well it's Sunday morning here. Since I won't be going to covid center church, or attending the impersonal Zoom preachin', I'll get into this gay/garden question.

First. We all have a little Neanderthal in our DNA history. Neanderthals go back like 800,000 years ago, during some of the hardest times for humans in our history. Them were pre-historic times, so we don't have a record of anything that went on, or of who loved who. But considering the brutish Neanderthal's, surely the girls went for the more attractive female sex. We don't know. We weren't there. Just sayin' it's likely.

But neither was the author(s) of Genesis, J, E, P, or otherwise, there. And I don't understand inspiration, so I don't trust it (it doesn't seem to do a complete job -- or it would have told of the Neanderthals).

My point being : We weren't there, and neither were they. So we don't know about gayness going back 800,000 years. But given that some of the animals are gay, we can trust more than inspiration, that it was happening.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

I thought this would be a good time to repost the following, that maybe happened in the gap:

Well it's Sunday morning here. Since I won't be going to covid center church, or attending the impersonal Zoom preachin', I'll get into this gay/garden question.

First. We all have a little Neanderthal in our DNA history. Neanderthals go back like 800,000 years ago, during some of the hardest times for humans in our history. Them were pre-historic times, so we don't have a record of anything that went on, or of who loved who. But considering the brutish Neanderthal's, surely the girls went for the more attractive female sex. We don't know. We weren't there. Just sayin' it's likely.

But neither was the author(s) of Genesis, J, E, P, or otherwise, there. And I don't understand inspiration, so I don't trust it (it doesn't seem to do a complete job -- or it would have told of the Neanderthals).

My point being : We weren't there, and neither were they. So we don't know about gayness going back 800,000 years. But given that some of the animals are gay, we can trust more than inspiration, that it was happening.

Yes, and there were supposedly different species of humans, some became extinct. So we dont know what happened to them, whether God sent another flood or not to wipe each and every one of them out. Or if he even experimented and tried different variations to see which ones had the least sin. The fact that Neanderthals died out and we have Neanderthal blood, shows perhaps (according to how Christians may view it).. that they were the ones before so called Flood and God decided to start over, but those nasty genes got in the way so he didnt completely start from scratch. Those genes were still passed down.
To us. So there seems to be a gap in Genesis 1 and then according to Sons of Glory, many years passed between Adam and Cain and Seth. The homo gene could’ve been inserted in any of these various times/gaps OR it could be there since the beginning. But the Bible is still not clear on what was the absolute beginnning. Im starting to think A and E werent the only ones when God created them and that there were other human species before they were created. So “original” sin is not so original after all.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

So do you disagree that the animal kingdom has the same percentage of gays as us humans? It is a fact that animals can be gay.

Now my question is, does God condemn gay animals? or does He just consider it part of nature?

Can you answer that?

It seems that no one can answer your question, because of course, God wouldnt condemn gay animals! They are innocent.

Christians keep telling me to just take a look at the universe and nature and I can see God in it. When I see gay animals, I see God too. When I see gay penguins fostering abandoned penguin chicks or adopting eggs left behind by other penguins, I see God’s love there too. When I see dolphins mating for life and they turn out to be female and female, I see God’s long lasting love too.
Some animal specieis use transvestism, bisexuality, and have XXY chromosomes to help them evolutionarily. I see God’s genious in that too. I see God’s genius and handiwork in creating such diversity in everything.

But of course some Christians will say that we are better than animals, as if humans are supposed to behave better than animals. But in the end, do we? Sometimes I see animals being more humane than how humans animalistically treat one another.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

It seems that no one can answer your question, because of course, God wouldnt condemn gay animals! They are innocent.

Christians keep telling me to just take a look at the universe and nature and I can see God in it. When I see gay animals, I see God too. When I see gay penguins fostering abandoned penguin chicks or adopting eggs left behind by other penguins, I see God’s love there too. When I see dolphins mating for life and they turn out to be female and female, I see God’s long lasting love too.
Some animal specieis use transvestism, bisexuality, and have XXY chromosomes to help them evolutionarily. I see God’s genious in that too. I see God’s genius and handiwork in creating such diversity in everything.

But of course some Christians will say that we are better than animals, as if humans are supposed to behave better than animals. But in the end, do we? Sometimes I see animals being more humane than how humans animalistically treat one another.

"I don't believe in evolution. Man devolved ... into the lowest form of animal on the earth." - Mark Twain

I've found that Christians don't accept that we're in the animal kingdom ; that we're primates. After all, Jesus can't be saving and sacrificing for animals.

But God saved animals from the flood, some of them might even have been gay :

Gen 7:2 ESV - Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate,

Some translators couldn't stand the possible implications, so they translate it : "the male and female." But that's not a strict translation.

Anyway, the point being that, there's plenty of evidence that God cares about the animals, gay or not, human or not.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

It seems that no one can answer your question, because of course, God wouldnt condemn gay animals! They are innocent.

I have purposely avoided the gay animal thing because #1 I don't know; #2 it seems like a sidebar/rabbit hole; and #3 - see #2 - interesting perhaps, but . . . (I have to focus my energies somewhere, and this doesn't seem like the thing to expend my time on)

Regarding the Gap Theory, there seems to be some confusion which maybe a little timeline would clear up:

1. God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1)
2. Lucifer rebelled with certain angels (sin)
3. Created beings on the earth were corrupted by Lucifer (Neanderthals, et. al.?)
4. God wiped the inhabitants of the earth out (likely with worldwide flooding) - this may have happened repeatedly
5. God's Spirit came to brood over the waters (Gen 1:2)
6. God did a recovery process on the earth and created Adam & Eve and gave them dominion over the earth (Gen chapters 1 & 2, after the first two verse)
7. Man was deceived by Lucifer and sin entered the picture on earth again (Gen chapter 3)
8. Sin became rampant among mankind, with very few faithful to God
9. Apparently direct contact between mankind and fallen angels happened, producing physical abominations on the earth (angelic beings procreating with women)
10. God was grieved and wiped out the evil abominations with the final flood of Noah

Anyway, that's my understanding of how a basic Gap Theory timeline would look. Hope that helps.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I have purposely avoided the gay animal thing because #1 I don't know; #2 it seems like a sidebar/rabbit hole; and #3 - see #2 - interesting perhaps, but . . . (I have to focus my energies somewhere, and this doesn't seem like the thing to expend my time on)

Regarding the Gap Theory, there seems to be some confusion which maybe a little timeline would clear up:

1. God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1)
2. Lucifer rebelled with certain angels (sin)
3. Created beings on the earth were corrupted by Lucifer (Neanderthals, et. al.?)
4. God wiped the inhabitants of the earth out (likely with worldwide flooding) - this may have happened repeatedly
5. God's Spirit came to brood over the waters (Gen 1:2)
6. God did a recovery process on the earth and created Adam & Eve and gave them dominion over the earth (Gen chapters 1 & 2, after the first two verse)
7. Man was deceived by Lucifer and sin entered the picture on earth again (Gen chapter 3)
8. Sin became rampant among mankind, with very few faithful to God
9. Apparently direct contact between mankind and fallen angels happened, producing physical abominations on the earth (angelic beings procreating with women)
10. God was grieved and wiped out the evil abominations with the final flood of Noah

Anyway, that's my understanding of how a basic Gap Theory timeline would look. Hope that helps.

That was a neat rundown. The Lucifer thing had me rolling, given that according to the book of Job, God controls he/it/they.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

That was a neat rundown. The Lucifer thing had me rolling, given that according to the book of Job, God controls he/it/they.

He controls within the parameters He sets. It seems God delegates authority, then backs off and sees how things go - He wants to see how created ones will use their free will I think. I suppose He watches patiently and lovingly - hoping the best outcome, but if things get too far off track, then He comes back in to make corrections.

Only by allowing free will does it make sense. For instance, if I set something up that is automatically functioning and the result is a given every time, then it's not all that interesting. I mean it's nice to know outcomes and take things for granted in some areas, but in others it's downright boring!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Regarding the Gap Theory, there seems to be some confusion which maybe a little timeline would clear up:

1. God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1)
2. Lucifer rebelled with certain angels (sin)
3. Created beings on the earth were corrupted by Lucifer (Neanderthals, et. al.?)
4. God wiped the inhabitants of the earth out (likely with worldwide flooding) - this may have happened repeatedly
5. God's Spirit came to brood over the waters (Gen 1:2)

Few comments here . . .

Between #1 and #2 you should add that Lucifer was God's top "assistant" (for lack of a better word) and was appointed over all the other angels to administrate (for lack of a better word) all of God's creation in the universe. Lucifer was given incredible authority, while God apparently stepped into the background.

For #2, we know that 1/3 of the angels sided with Lucifer. We also know that other types of creatures also did, notably the demons. There may also have been human-like creatures on earth, and perhaps on numerous other planets throughout the universe.

For #4, we don't know if God directly judged the earth, or whether a global collapse occurred as a natural consequence of the rebellion.

It is my belief, for example, that life existed on Mars, and possibly other planets in the solar system. There may well be skeletons on Mars too. There might very well have been a universal loss of life throughout every solar system in every galaxy.

Even after God restored earth to habitable life for man, Lucifer still maintained his former positions of authority, along with myriads of his supporting "staff."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Few comments here . . .

Between #1 and #2 you should add that Lucifer was God's top "assistant" (for lack of a better word) and was appointed over all the other angels to administrate (for lack of a better word) all of God's creation in the universe. Lucifer was given incredible authority, while God apparently stepped into the background.

For #2, we know that 1/3 of the angels sided with Lucifer. We also know that other types of creatures also did, notably the demons. There may also have been human-like creatures on earth, and perhaps on numerous other planets throughout the universe.

For #4, we don't know if God directly judged the earth, or whether a global collapse occurred as a natural consequence of the rebellion.

It is my belief, for example, that life existed on Mars, and possibly other planets in the solar system. There may well be skeletons on Mars too. There might very well have been a universal loss of life throughout every solar system in every galaxy.

Even after God restored earth to habitable life for man, Lucifer still maintained his former positions of authority, along with myriads of his supporting "staff."

Bro Ohio, can you please cite your sources for 1 and 2?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Few comments here . . .

Between #1 and #2 you should add that Lucifer was God's top "assistant" (for lack of a better word) and was appointed over all the other angels to administrate (for lack of a better word) all of God's creation in the universe. Lucifer was given incredible authority, while God apparently stepped into the background.

For #2, we know that 1/3 of the angels sided with Lucifer. We also know that other types of creatures also did, notably the demons. There may also have been human-like creatures on earth, and perhaps on numerous other planets throughout the universe.

For #4, we don't know if God directly judged the earth, or whether a global collapse occurred as a natural consequence of the rebellion.

It is my belief, for example, that life existed on Mars, and possibly other planets in the solar system. There may well be skeletons on Mars too. There might very well have been a universal loss of life throughout every solar system in every galaxy.

Even after God restored earth to habitable life for man, Lucifer still maintained his former positions of authority, along with myriads of his supporting "staff."

Never mind. You're just pulling our legs.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

Never mind. You're just pulling our legs.

The evidence for 1 was from non-canonical books. Book of Enoch perhaps?
The evidence for 2 is from Star Trek

Also I find it very fascinating that there are biological and evolutionary advantages for transvetism, transgenderism, and bisexuality in many species of the animal kingdom. For example, birds that are bisexual are able to care for young beter than strictly heterosexual male parents. Usually the male one abandons the chicks after they’re born but in a same sex pair, they tend to stick around.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

The evidence for 1 was from non-canonical books. Book of Enoch perhaps?

O c'mon. Bro Ohio don't read non-canonical books. He musta picked it up from Facebook or something.

Originally Posted by Serenity

The evidence for 2 is from Star Trek

That's what made me realize he was pulling our legs.

Originally Posted by Serenity

Also I find it very fascinating that there are biological and evolutionary advantages for transvetism, transgenderism, and bisexuality in many species of the animal kingdom. For example, birds that are bisexual are able to care for young beter than strictly heterosexual male parents. Usually the male one abandons the chicks after they’re born but in a same sex pair, they tend to stick around.

The display of love and caring always moves me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio, can you please cite your sources for 1 and 2?

From SonsToGlory's post.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

From SonsToGlory's post.

Hi Bro Ohio, I was doing some research on the “gay agenda” and I found this written by a terrorist (not equating you to a terrorist because you have been so kind to me, but just trying to understand here...)

From Eric Rudolph, “Along with abortion, another assault upon the integrity of American society is the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an aberrant sexual behavior, and as such I have complete sympathy and understanding for those who are suffering from this condition. Practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own private lives, homosexuality is not a threat to society. Those consenting adults practicing this behavior in privacy should not be hassled by a society which respects the sanctity of private sexual life. But when the attempt is made to drag this practice out of the closet and into the public square in an "in your face" attempt to force society to accept and recognize this behavior as being just as legitimate and normal as the natural man/woman relationship, every effort should be made, including force if necessary, to halt this effort.

This effort is commonly known as the homosexual agenda. Whether it is gay marriage, homosexual adoption, hate crimes laws including gays, or the attempt to introduce a homosexual normalizing curriculum into our schools, all of these efforts should be ruthlessly opposed. The existence of our culture depends upon it. It is the duty of the state to promote the public welfare and this includes holding up values and model behaviors which tend to create a healthy society capable of reproducing itself by the natural means of the family unit. This model behavior which lies at the heart of a healthy society is the marriage between a man and a woman. To place the homosexual relationship along side of the model and pronounce it to be just as legitimate a lifestyle choice is a direct assault upon the longterm health and integrity of civilization and a vital threat to the very foundation of society — and this foundation is a family hearth.

Any conscientious individual afflicted with homosexuality should acknowledge that a healthy society requires a model of sexual behavior to be held up and maintained without assault. Like other humans suffering from various disabilities homosexual should not attempt to infect the rest of society with their particular illness.”

Do you agree with any of what he stated in his sentencing statements about homosexuality?

Source:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=4600480

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Hi Bro Ohio, I was doing some research on the “gay agenda” and I found this written by a terrorist (not equating you to a terrorist because you have been so kind to me, but just trying to understand here...)

Do you agree with any of what he stated in his sentencing statements about homosexuality?

Source:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=4600480

Rudolph's views more accurately reflected those of society -- 15-20 years ago. Things have changed. My views lie somewhere between the extremes.

Interestingly I was driving thru Murphy, NC like the day after Rudolph was arrested. He got tired of living on the run. The Federal Pen does provide 3 squares and a dry bed.

Society's views toward homosexuality have changed. For better or for worse. Rudolph's article condemned the Republicans as Pharisees, but today few Republicans even oppose LGBT. It's totally a non-issue with Trump, and his advisor Ric Grenell even says Trump is pro-LGBT.

If you want to know the radical agenda, go to PRIDE rallies and dig into their radical literature. But as a group LGBT are all across the political spectrum. Like every group, they do not all espouse homogeneous goals. Conservative LGBT are scared of radical LGBT. On his Twitter feed, Ric Grenell even calls himself an "imperfect follower of Christ."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio, can you please cite your sources for 1 and 2?

For point #1 See Here (cites verses from OT & NT)

For point #2: Rev 12:4 "His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth."

[Sons to Glory!]

Theology 101: God created and it was good. Creatures with free will corrupted that good creation.

Now we need The Savior

Capiche?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

For point #1 See Here (cites verses from OT & NT)

For point #2: Rev 12:4 "His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth."

Thanks bro. Did you know that the word Lucifer doesn't appear in the Bible, except once in the KJV, in Isaiah 14:12. Methinks you're seeing things that aren't there. Except maybe in comic books. Lucifer is the most powerful being in the DC universe. Have you been reading the book of Hezekiah?

Those interpretations of scripture, about the fall of Lucifer, tho very popular and loved, are ludicrous.

But they served your rundown of the gap -> another wild Pember interpretation, that's also ludicrous.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks bro. Did you know that the word Lucifer doesn't appear in the Bible, except once in the KJV, in Isaiah 14:12. Methinks you're seeing things that aren't there. Except maybe in comic books. Lucifer is the most powerful being in the DC universe. Have you been reading the book of Hezekiah?

Those interpretations of scripture, about the fall of Lucifer, tho very popular and loved, are ludicrous.

But they served your rundown of the gap -> another wild Pember interpretation, that's also ludicrous.

"SonsToGlory, you are seeing things, reading DC comic books, making things up, wild speculations, just ludicrous, you and all your crazy Christians" -- says our forum resident expert on Greek Mythology, Stone Age Culture, and anti-Bible studies.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks bro. Did you know that the word Lucifer doesn't appear in the Bible, except once in the KJV, in Isaiah 14:12. Methinks you're seeing things that aren't there. Except maybe in comic books. Lucifer is the most powerful being in the DC universe. Have you been reading the book of Hezekiah?

Those interpretations of scripture, about the fall of Lucifer, tho very popular and loved, are ludicrous.

But they served your rundown of the gap -> another wild Pember interpretation, that's also ludicrous.

Did not know that about the name "Lucifer." Don't know anything about the comics you referenced (though comics are sure popular in our culture, aren't they!?). Well, whatever name he's given, we know who it is.

As mentioned before, Pember is just one author of the Gap Theory, but he was the one we were introduced to in the LC. I've read a few pretty good ones by more recent authors, who, as said before, take a little different tact than Pember did. It's just a theory, like various others. As said, I don't hold to these things nearly as closely as I once did, for a few reasons. But I haven't found any of the theories more plausible to me than this, and very rarely does it ever get brought up where I fellowship.

So, what creation theory do you not find ludicrous?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Did not know that about the name "Lucifer." Don't know anything about the comics you referenced (though comics are sure popular in our culture, aren't they!?). Well, whatever name he's given, we know who it is.

As mentioned before, Pember is just one author of the Gap Theory, but he was the one we were introduced to in the LC. I've read a few pretty good ones by more recent authors, who, as said before, take a little different tact than Pember did. It's just a theory, like various others. As said, I don't hold to these things nearly as closely as I once did, for a few reasons. But I haven't found any of the theories more plausible to me than this, and very rarely does it ever get brought up where I fellowship.

So, what creation theory do you not find ludicrous?

I have a book entitled "25 Creation Stories." And while I find all of them interesting, they're all ludicrous. But I think I like the Navajo Creation story the most, so far.

All creation stories have to be ludicrous. Cuz no human was there. The Big Bang is ludicrous.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

I have a book entitled "25 Creation Stories." And while I find all of them interesting, they're all ludicrous. But I think I like the Navajo Creation story the most, so far.

All creation stories have to be ludicrous. Cuz no human was there. The Big Bang is ludicrous.

The idea of God is ludicrous and so is evolution. Life itself is ludicrous. None of it makes sense really. If it all made sense, then we'd be God!

Interesting sidebar, but back to the ludicrous topic at hand!

[Sons to Glory!]

Back on topic (in case anyone missed it):

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Theology 101: God created and it was good. Creatures with free will corrupted that good creation.

Now we need The Savior

Capiche?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rudolph's views more accurately reflected those of society -- 15-20 years ago. Things have changed. My views lie somewhere between the extremes.

Interestingly I was driving thru Murphy, NC like the day after Rudolph was arrested. He got tired of living on the run. The Federal Pen does provide 3 squares and a dry bed.

Society's views toward homosexuality have changed. For better or for worse. Rudolph's article condemned the Republicans as Pharisees, but today few Republicans even oppose LGBT. It's totally a non-issue with Trump, and his advisor Ric Grenell even says Trump is pro-LGBT.

If you want to know the radical agenda, go to PRIDE rallies and dig into their radical literature. But as a group LGBT are all across the political spectrum. Like every group, they do not all espouse homogeneous goals. Conservative LGBT are scared of radical LGBT. On his Twitter feed, Ric Grenell even calls himself an "imperfect follower of Christ."

Well lets just hope it’s a non issue if Trump gets reelected because with Amy Barrett, they might overturn the same sex marriage thing, and then I wont be able to be with my sweetheart (also Daca status). I’m trying to look uo the radical literature- do you have any sources.

But thanks for your clarification. To sum it up, you believe that not all lgbtq have the gay agenda, just some with varying degrees? would you compare the agenda to soemthing of more of a civil rights movement, because thats the way I sorta view it. Because I didnt know there was any gay agenda when I became attracted to a person.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The idea of God is ludicrous and so is evolution. Life itself is ludicrous. None of it makes sense really. If it all made sense, then we'd be God!

Interesting sidebar, but back to the ludicrous topic at hand!

Hey! you were the one who wanted to continue said ludicrous topic on this thread ��

Also, Trapped I hope ur okay there buddy. Havent heard from you in days.. miss your insights

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Well lets just hope it’s a non issue if Trump gets reelected because with Amy Barrett, they might overturn the same sex marriage thing, and then I wont be able to be with my sweetheart (also Daca status). I’m trying to look uo the radical literature- do you have any sources.

But thanks for your clarification. To sum it up, you believe that not all lgbtq have the gay agenda, just some with varying degrees? would you compare the agenda to soemthing of more of a civil rights movement, because thats the way I sorta view it. Because I didnt know there was any gay agenda when I became attracted to a person.

Every civil rights agenda starts out with the simple desire to be treated equally and not to be mistreated, but then a militant wing emerges that demands not just equality but superiority. Critical Race Theory is an example.

Regarding over-turning women's and gay rights, I have heard this Democratic outcry with every Republican nominee to the SCOTUS going back to John Paul Stevens. Did you know that 1973 Roe V. Wade was given to us by 5 Republican appointments? And one of the dissenters was a Democratic appointee. Imagine that! The case that solidly reinforced Roe was 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Note that Casey was a Democratic Governor and once again Republican appointees gave us the majority.

Too bad none in the liberal media ever learn from history! Fear-mongering is all they understand. And in a recent ruling, it was Republican appointees Roberts and Gorsuch that upheld LGBT rights in the workplace -- "a resounding victory from a conservative court."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Hey! you were the one who wanted to continue said ludicrous topic on this thread ��

You are correct! ha ha But that was really just a segue into the "Theology 101" which I assume everyone must agree with, because nobody has disputed it. Here it is again, in case you missed it:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Theology 101: God created and it was good. Creatures with free will corrupted that good creation.

Now we need The Savior

Capiche?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Every civil rights agenda starts out with the simple desire to be treated equally and not to be mistreated, but then a militant wing emerges that demands not just equality but superiority. Critical Race Theory is an example.

Regarding over-turning women's and gay rights, I have heard this Democratic outcry with every Republican nominee to the SCOTUS going back to John Paul Stevens. Did you know that 1973 Roe V. Wade was given to us by 5 Republican appointments? And one of the dissenters was a Democratic appointee. Imagine that! The case that solidly reinforced Roe was 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Note that Casey was a Democratic Governor and once again Republican appointees gave us the majority.

Too bad none in the liberal media ever learn from history! Fear-mongering is all they understand. And in a recent ruling, it was Republican appointees Roberts and Gorsuch that upheld LGBT rights in the workplace -- "a resounding victory from a conservative court."

And there it is! I think it's the radical in-your-face thing that upsets many and causes a big push-back. For instance, my wife had a gay male friend, whom her whole family was close to and did a lot of activities with (he eventually died of AIDS), and she is very open-minded on the gayness subject. But she has repeatedly said that she opposes any of the radical, in-your-face kinds of displays that aggressively to want to push an agenda (opps, there's that word again ).

Then again, some would say that no civil rights movement gets much attention until there's a more radical display involved. (think women's suffrage movement or black civil rights in the 60s for instance)

Personally, I question if various things like LGBTQ+ or BLM are really even "civil rights" issues by definition. It seems to me that gay marriage is about changing the very definition of marriage that's been solidly in place for thousands of years (i.e., between a man and a woman). Isn't this akin to just wanting to rename a dog as a cat? And BLM seems to be solely based upon an assumption that there is widespread, systemic racism in America's police forces, even though no one has produced empirical, peer reviewed studies demonstrating that this thunderous postulation is true (see the thread on that topic, also in the Alternative Topics section of this forum). So it appears like the thing to do, if you want to get traction on something, is to say, "It's all about civil rights!" and label those who question it as backward haters. That proclamation then brings civilized discussion effectively to an end . . . (and as a consequence maybe that's when the more radical approaches are deemed necessary by those pushing the agenda)

It's all pretty ludicrous, but then that's Adam for ya!

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Also, Trapped I hope ur okay there buddy. Havent heard from you in days.. miss your insights

Thanks. I realized if I tried to respond one post at a time on the things I owe you responses about, I would get replies to my responses quicker than I could get to the next thing I owed you a response about and my backlog would keep growing. I'm just trying to write all my replies at once so I can post them in a row and then breath for a second. I had to step back this weekend just to relax and get a bunch of things done at home that I couldn't put off any longer. I'm finishing up the last one or two responses I owe you and hope to post them in the next day or so.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The idea of God is ludicrous and so is evolution. Life itself is ludicrous. None of it makes sense really. If it all made sense, then we'd be God!

Interesting sidebar, but back to the ludicrous topic at hand!

It's also ludicrous that God makes gayness, in humans and animals, but condemns only literate gays. Those gay animals, that God makes, and that can't read the Bible, are blessed.

And don't tell that A & E did it by eating the forbidden tree. God did the curse. And that makes God beyond ludicrous for making everyone suffer for what A & E did. One would have to ask : What's wrong with God? Why did HE break with being just early on?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"SonsToGlory, you are seeing things, reading DC comic books, making things up, wild speculations, just ludicrous, you and all your crazy Christians" -- says our forum resident expert on Greek Mythology, Stone Age Culture, and anti-Bible studies.

Bro Ohio is pulling our legs again.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's also ludicrous that God makes gayness, in humans and animals, but condemns only literate gays. Those gay animals, that God makes, and that can't read the Bible, are blessed.

And don't tell that A & E did it by eating the forbidden tree. God did the curse. And that makes God beyond ludicrous for making everyone suffer for what A & E did. One would have to ask : What's wrong with God? Why did HE break with being just early on?

Nope! In case you missed it, here it is again:

Theology 101: God created and it was good. Creatures with free will corrupted that good creation.

Now we need The Savior

Capiche?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Nope! In case you missed it, here it is again:

Theology 101: God created and it was good. Creatures with free will corrupted that good creation.

Now we need The Savior

Capiche?

Is free will really free? thats the philisophical question.

Check this out: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psy...ree-will%3famp

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Personally, I question if various things like LGBTQ+ or BLM are really even "civil rights" issues by definition. It seems to me that gay marriage is about changing the very definition of marriage that's been solidly in place for thousands of years (i.e., between a man and a woman). Isn't this akin to just wanting to rename a dog as a cat?
It's all pretty ludicrous, but then that's Adam for ya!

No it’s not changing the definition of marriage. It’s adding to it to encompass more people to have the right. Just like segregation and then separate but equal emerged from laws of slavery. evoltionary change

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Nope! In case you missed it, here it is again:

Theology 101: God created and it was good. Creatures with free will corrupted that good creation.

Now we need The Savior

Capiche?

God said his creation was good, but didn't point out it was fragile, and so puny that a couple of puny little humans could bring it all down. That doesn't pass the smell test.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

God said his creation was good, but didn't point out it was fragile, and so puny that a couple of puny little humans could bring it all down. That doesn't pass the smell test.

with one caveat, with original sin able to enter.

God created and man and women with ability to get original sin, then he drowned the world for sinning, then He impregnated a woman with himself, so he can be born, then he had himself killed to save us all from the sin he gave us in the first place. no capiche

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

God said his creation was good, but didn't point out it was fragile, and so puny that a couple of puny little humans could bring it all down. That doesn't pass the smell test.

Are you again pulling our legs?

It doesn't pass your "smell test" because your smear campaign against God stinks to high heaven.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

with one caveat, with original sin able to enter.

God created and man and women with ability to get original sin, then he drowned the world for sinning, then He impregnated a woman with himself, so he can be born, then he had himself killed to save us all from the sin he gave us in the first place. no capiche

We're all like Job. We can't do anything against a powerful God. And nothing is guaranteed.

We turn the Bible into God's law cuz we can't stand for nothing to be guaranteed. But God does what He/She/It/They want, even to a straight righteous upright man and his family. None of us is better than Job ... nor prolly, as rich.

The whole thing would have been different ... if Job had been gay. Being bi would have saved him and his family and farm a lot of trouble.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

We're all like Job. We can't do anything against a powerful God. And nothing is guaranteed.

We turn the Bible into God's law cuz we can't stand for nothing to be guaranteed. But God does what He/She/It/They want, even to a straight righteous upright man and his family. None of us is better than Job ... nor prolly, as rich.

The whole thing would have been different ... if Job had been gay. Being bi would have saved him and his family and farm a lot of trouble.

I have to ask what type of stuff yer smokin' here! (if I still smoked whacky backy, I might want some . . .)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

with one caveat, with original sin able to enter.

God created and man and women with ability to get original sin, then he drowned the world for sinning, then He impregnated a woman with himself, so he can be born, then he had himself killed to save us all from the sin he gave us in the first place. no capiche

Look, folks, none of it works if we don't have free choice. Of course, God could create perfectly functioning robots that always make the right choices, but would He receive real love without free will? Of course not.

Just because our widdle minds can't wrap around all this, doesn't mean it's not so. If we understood it all perfectly, then we'd be God. We're not - He is. Stop blaming God for our shortcomings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I have to ask what type of stuff yer smokin' here! (if I still smoked whacky backy, I might want some . . .)

I am convinced that half of awareness' posts are designed to troll us over our fundamental evangelistic Christian views.

Right bro?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

with one caveat, with original sin able to enter.

God created and man and women with ability to get original sin, then he drowned the world for sinning, then He impregnated a woman with himself, so he can be born, then he had himself killed to save us all from the sin he gave us in the first place. no capiche

This made my morning. I'm SO glad you wrote this post. This understanding frustrates and stumbles a lot of people, and I'm thrilled there's the opportunity to respond to it. I only have time to respond a little at a time, but I just can't put it off.

I'll just deal with this part first: "God created and man and women with ability to get original sin, then he drowned the world for sinning"

I would say God created man and women with the ability "to sin".

A good way of delineating this is "God is responsible for the FACTS of free will; man is responsible for the ACTS of free will."

I'll give an example which I saw elsewhere. God made our hands, arms, and shoulders so that we could curl our fingers into a fist, extend our elbow, and use our shoulder to move our arm forward just a couple inches so we could do the "fist bump" with another person. The fist bump is a good thing. It connects people, sometimes makes them laugh, is a greeting that acknowledges the other person. God designed our body so we could do that good thing.

And man uses it for that good thing. But it was also man's choice to take that design for good, add some force to it, and use that very same motion to punch people in the face so they could be more easily robbed.

God didn't make people punch each other, God didn't make it impossible for them NOT to punch each other, and God isn't responsible for man's choice. It was MAN's choice to use in an evil way what God created for good. This doesn't mean man was originally created with evil inside him. It means that man was truly given free will to go either way, with no influence, and man made the choice.

BECAUSE man made that choice, God judges. As the creator, God has the full right to judge His creation for the acts of unrighteousness they commit. And boy, do they ever commit acts of unrighteousness.

We may respond, "why didn't God create us in a way that we wouldn't punch each other?" For God to take away the ability to do evil, would mean He would have to remove all the things that give us a way to do good too. To prevent us from punching another person, God would have to remove our joints, our muscles, etc. Then we wouldn't be able to fist bump, to hug, to pet a dog, all those good things that need that mobile design in order to be possible.

I'll get to the rest later.

Edit to add: kids are a good analogy for this too. Parents have children knowing the kids are going to misbehave, sin, etc. But does that absolve the kids of the responsibility and punishment/discipline for their wrongdoing? Of course not. Same with us.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am convinced that half of awareness' posts are designed to troll us over our fundamental evangelistic Christian views.

Right bro?

I'm getting there - 47.9% convinced of this too . . .

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This made my morning. I'm SO glad you wrote this post. This understanding frustrates and stumbles a lot of people, and I'm thrilled there's the opportunity to respond to it. I only have time to respond a little at a time, but I just can't put it off.

I'll just deal with this part first: "God created and man and women with ability to get original sin, then he drowned the world for sinning"

I would say God created man and women with the ability "to sin".

A good way of delineating this is "God is responsible for the FACTS of free will; man is responsible for the ACTS of free will."

I'll give an example which I saw elsewhere. God made our hands, arms, and shoulders so that we could curl our fingers into a fist, extend our elbow, and use our shoulder to move our arm forward just a couple inches so we could do the "fist bump" with another person. The fist bump is a good thing. It connects people, sometimes makes them laugh, is a greeting that acknowledges the other person. God designed our body so we could do that good thing.

And man uses it for that good thing. But it was also man's choice to take that design for good, add some force to it, and use that very same motion to punch people in the face so they could be more easily robbed.

God didn't make people punch each other, God didn't make it impossible for them NOT to punch each other, and God isn't responsible for man's choice. It was MAN's choice to use in an evil way what God created for good. This doesn't mean man was originally created with evil inside him. It means that man was truly given free will to go either way, with no influence, and man made the choice.

BECAUSE man made that choice, God judges. As the creator, God has the full right to judge His creation for the acts of unrighteousness they commit. And boy, do they ever commit acts of unrighteousness.

We may respond, "why didn't God create us in a way that we wouldn't punch each other?" For God to take away the ability to do evil, would mean He would have to remove all the things that give us a way to do good too. To prevent us from punching another person, God would have to remove our joints, our muscles, etc. Then we wouldn't be able to fist bump, to hug, to pet a dog, all those good things that need that mobile design in order to be possible.

I'll get to the rest later.

Edit to add: kids are a good analogy for this too. Parents have children knowing the kids are going to misbehave, sin, etc. But does that absolve the kids of the responsibility and punishment/discipline for their wrongdoing? Of course not. Same with us.

Bro Trapped your posts are so fun. BBBUUUTTT ........

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE WILL.

Sure I've made lots of choices since I was born so it sure feels like I have free will. But they were determinate choices, not free.

Much of it is like the new born instinct to suckle, not a free will fortunately.
Not to mention no choice in being born, what gender, what parents, or parent, where born, what religion born in, and on and on. Such choices are determined not free.

Puberty is another not of free will. As is sexual attraction. I'm hetero. Not by free will. It's determined by what activates my loins. Women do that but not men.

Yet I've known men that the opposite is true, didn't like it, but couldn't change it with their supposed free will. Same with women.

Just this morning I was talking to a friend that's been married for 35 years. For years we've suspected that his wife is bi. But she grew up indoctrinated with a strong Catholic compass that prevents her from admitting it. Her choice, her free will, is not bisexuality. So it appears.

With men excitement shows. But not women. Oh it shows, but requires closer inspection. After 35 years they've resorted to pornhub to get things going. And what excites her? Lesbian porn. In fact, she can't climax without it. And she wants him to play the role of one of the women.

She didn't make this choice. In fact she fights admitting it.

Without going into more details, do y'all get my point?

And one more thing. When did I use my free will to be born with original sin?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Trapped your posts are so fun. BBBUUUTTT ........

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FREE WILL.

Sure I've made lots of choices since I was born so it sure feels like I have free will. But they were determinate choices, not free.

Much of it is like the new born instinct to suckle, not a free will fortunately.
Not to mention no choice in being born, what gender, what parents, or parent, where born, what religion born in, and on and on. Such choices are determined not free.

Puberty is another not of free will. As is sexual attraction. I'm hetero. Not by free will. It's determined by what activates my loins. Women do that but not men.

Yet I've known men that the opposite is true, didn't like it, but couldn't change it with their supposed free will. Same with women.

Just this morning I was talking to a friend that's been married for 35 years. For years we've suspected that his wife is bi. But she grew up indoctrinated with a strong Catholic compass that prevents her from admitting it. Her choice, her free will, is not bisexuality. So it appears.

With men excitement shows. But not women. Oh it shows, but requires closer inspection. After 35 years they've resorted to pornhub to get things going. And what excites her? Lesbian porn. In fact, she can't climax without it. And she wants him to play the role of one of the women.

She didn't make this choice. In fact she fights admitting it.

Without going into more details, do y'all get my point?

And one more thing. When did I use my free will to be born with original sin?

Thanks for the explicit detail

You believe in an unrighteous God, awareness.

Your worldview, which is apparently theological determinism, says that God causes each person to act certain ways and then judges them for it. Actually, this worldview is similar to atheistic materialists and doesn't require a God to even exist. We're all just moist robots, with our future actions already pre-wired, just acts of physics. In fact, if there is no such thing as free will, this necessarily means that there is no such thing as "wrong", and we have no place or right to condemn, say, Hitler for what he did.

This viewpoint of yours may explain a good portion of your posts.......

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Thanks for the explicit detail

You believe in an unrighteous God, awareness.

This viewpoint of yours may explain a good portion of your posts.......

Now lets define what righteousness is. Is it subjective? Based on cultural norms? Can you see a righteous God killing the firstborn of all the Egyptians just because of what Pharoah did to Moses?

Sorry Trapped, more homework for you :/

I do realize that our little detour into free will and God is important to understanding whether same sex behavior is 100 percent of our own free will or choice, or if it is not. I wish God would let us know and be more clear on the matter.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Look, folks, none of it works if we don't have free choice. Of course, God could create perfectly functioning robots that always make the right choices, but would He receive real love without free will? Of course not.

Just because our widdle minds can't wrap around all this, doesn't mean it's not so. If we understood it all perfectly, then we'd be God. We're not - He is. Stop blaming God for our shortcomings.

I thought previously someone (I’m not sure if it was you) who mentioned that God didnt have needs, and therefore didnt need man to love Him. Oh yes, the other thread where I brought up that God was lonely and needed love, and then someone refuted saying God doesnt need love, he gives us love.

So yes I get it, the serpent lied to Eve about “becoming like God” , he meant it to a certain degree. But was it completely free will with the serpent’s influence? Without the serpent, the entire world would have went the other way. Free will doesnt exist in a vacuum. Our choices are defined by factors that are available to us at each moment each day.

Btw I’m still having a hard time buying the whole corporate man explanation. If I came across a talking snake, I would’ve run away in the opposite direction as fast as I could before I really understood what it was saying. I’m really scared of snakes.. unless God didnt design Adam and Eve with the foght or flight response. But I wasnt Eve.. she might have been curious like a child. You know how children are, they believe everything you tell them and they remember the last thing you tell them. Same with Eve’s encounter with the serpent.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Now lets define what righteousness is. Is it subjective? Based on cultural norms? Can you see a righteous God killing the firstborn of all the Egyptians just because of what Pharoah did to Moses?

Sorry Trapped, more homework for you :/

I do realize that our little detour into free will and God is important to understanding whether same sex behavior is 100 percent of our own free will or choice, or if it is not. I wish God would let us know and be more clear on the matter.

Don't have time to write a response myself, but here's one example of what was going on with Egypt and the firstborns: https://bible.org/seriespage/q-was-g...yptians-exodus

A God who creates you without choice and then judges you is not a righteous God. This is why I have delineated between attractions (which I can grant aren't a choice) and the choice to sleep with someone. It absolutely is a choice to engage or not engage in sexual activity with another person.

If we don't have free will, then our own thinking becomes self-defeating. If our own thinking is pre-determined then we have no way of trusting our own thoughts. There has to be a creator God who designed our thinking faculties to reason and choose in order for us to even have a grounding for trusting the validity of our own conclusions.

[awareness]

Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by Trapped

You believe in an unrighteous God, awareness.

I'm not sure about that. I like to think God is righteous, but then I read the Bible. It looks to me like authors of the books of the Bible mischaracterize God. The book of Job comes to mind. How about this verse :

Jdg 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

If that verse is true, God doesn't have a chance against our weapons.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Your worldview, which is apparently theological determinism, says that God causes each person to act certain ways and then judges them for it.

That's not quite accurate. True, if God causes it he can't judge it. But what does God cause?

The Bible is confusing. Example, it says thou shalt not kill. But then God tells the Israelite's to go into the promised land and kill everything that breathes. And there's a verse like this one :

Psa 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

Originally Posted by Trapped

Actually, this worldview is similar to atheistic materialists and doesn't require a God to even exist. We're all just moist robots, with our future actions already pre-wired, just acts of physics. In fact, if there is no such thing as free will, this necessarily means that there is no such thing as "wrong", and we have no place or right to condemn, say, Hitler for what he did.

You are right. God is not needed to determine right and wrong. We have laws, and courts, to determine that.

Originally Posted by Trapped

This viewpoint of yours may explain a good portion of your posts.......

Thanks ... maybe ... i guess.

I think the question on this thread is, does God cause homosexuality? I don't know. Are some people born gay? I think so. There's evidence of it, now that we know genetics and hormones have something to do with it. Does God cause it? I guess it depends on how involved He is. Is God involved at conception, development, and birth? According to the Bible, God controls the womb. That's pretty involved.

If that's true, and some are born gay -- even animals -- then God causes it. And I think we all agree that if God causes it, then He can't judge it.

Does this mean that I'm an atheist determinist? BTW, that's the first time I've heard that term. Are there theistic determinist's? Please help this idiot learn.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Don't have time to write a response myself, but here's one example of what was going on with Egypt and the firstborns: https://bible.org/seriespage/q-was-g...yptians-exodus

A God who creates you without choice and then judges you is not a righteous God. This is why I have delineated between attractions (which I can grant aren't a choice) and the choice to sleep with someone. It absolutely is a choice to engage or not engage in sexual activity with another person.

If we don't have free will, then our own thinking becomes self-defeating. If our own thinking is pre-determined then we have no way of trusting our own thoughts. There has to be a creator God who designed our thinking faculties to reason and choose in order for us to even have a grounding for trusting the validity of our own conclusions.

I think that link would make pro-lifers confused.

Do you believe in predestination? Where does that fit in if God doesnt pre determine things to happen?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I think that link would make pro-lifers confused.

Do you believe in predestination? Where does that fit in if God doesnt pre determine things to happen?

Do you mean it would make pro-lifers confused because it gives God a pass for taking the life of the firstborns? (btw I thought it was an interesting point that we usually think of firstborns as infants or newborns, but that it can legitimately apply to adults too.....and thus the leaders of that corrupt society would be removed....anyway, sidebar not relevant to this discussion....was just something new to me)

If that's what you meant, then I would just respond by repeating what I said about something else earlier in this thread, that when God takes a life it's not murder because He is the Author of life and is the only one with the unique right to do so. For humans it's murder because we are taking a life that is not ours to take.

If you're talking about predestination as relates to salvation specifically, I have to pass since that's outside this thread topic and I can't take time to get into another hotly debated topic. (Because I don't have my perspective on it yet, and its not something I've taken the time previously to get into and just don't have time to start from zero on it). Maybe others can give their input on that one. I agree it's confounded me some. I know in the LC (and other places too) they will tell the story of people walking through a gate with the words "whosoever will" on top, and then when they turn around they see that on the other side the gates say "chosen" on top. That smacks of "twofoldness of the truth" that the LC loved to bandy around and it doesn't do it for me, but there does seem to be both in the Bible. It's an important topic but not one I can speak about in a way that would be helpful.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for your response.

I'm not sure about that. I like to think God is righteous, but then I read the Bible. It looks to me like authors of the books of the Bible mischaracterize God. The book of Job comes to mind. How about this verse :

Jdg 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

If that verse is true, God doesn't have a chance against our weapons.

awareness, you are like a magician who whips out the most unexpected verses and conclusions. I chuckled the whole time reading through Judges 1. Most of the Bible commentaries on verse 19 (biblehub.com pulls a bunch of them together on one page) explain the iron chariot failure as a lack of belief on the part of Judah. They saw the iron chariots, their faith wavered, and thus couldn't drive them out. The commentaries reference other verses but I don't have time to go down those paths.

Originally Posted by awareness

That's not quite accurate. True, if God causes it he can't judge it. But what does God cause?

The Bible is confusing. Example, it says thou shalt not kill. But then God tells the Israelite's to go into the promised land and kill everything that breathes. And there's a verse like this one :

Psa 137:9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!

This is not in my wheelhouse, but again, the commentaries explain that this same thing was done by the Babylonians to Jewish children, and now divine retribution is occurring. This (admittedly horrible) thing was prophesied to happen in the future, and thus the expression of happiness at carrying out a prophecy.

Do I claim to understand? Nope.

And frankly, I'd rather pretend the book of Job doesn't exist. Every time I read it I kinda want to quietly whistle as I sidestep away from God, but, the reality is, just like my "God alone can kill someone and it's not murder" explanation to SL, the same applies with Job. God alone has the right to do what He wants with His creation. Do I like it? Not in cases like Job, no. Does it drive me to my knees in recognition of His might? Yep.

Originally Posted by awareness

You are right. God is not needed to determine right and wrong. We have laws, and courts, to determine that.

That's not quite what I meant. I meant, you can hold a predeterministic view and excise God from the picture and essentially end up with the same worldview. If you presupposed a creator God as opposed to a "all this came from nothing" view, then that God is the basis of right and wrong, He gave us a conscience, we have the moral law written on our hearts.

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks ... maybe ... i guess.

I think the question on this thread is, does God cause homosexuality? I don't know. Are some people born gay? I think so. There's evidence of it, now that we know genetics and hormones have something to do with it. Does God cause it? I guess it depends on how involved He is. Is God involved at conception, development, and birth? According to the Bible, God controls the womb. That's pretty involved.

If that's true, and some are born gay -- even animals -- then God causes it. And I think we all agree that if God causes it, then He can't judge it.

Does this mean that I'm an atheist determinist? BTW, that's the first time I've heard that term. Are there theistic determinist's? Please help this idiot learn.

We can ask this same question about known birth defects. Did God cause that guy Nick Vujicic to be born without arms and legs? If there is going to be the genetic argument for homosexuality, then I personally think it is reasonable to assume something like environmental factors (say the increasing level of discarded medications in the groundwater, or whatever) have had an effect on some portions of the population at a genetic level. Genetic abnormalities, or normalities if you want to argue for it, don't always have to be caused by God. There's plenty of other influences on this earth; maybe we just haven't found the link yet.

Which is still why I say homosexual PEOPLE are not abominations, BEING homosexual is not a sin, it's JUST the sexual act that is the problem.

There are indeed theistic determinists, it's called "theological determinism", although the explanations frequently admit there are inherent problems with the perspective.

The phrase I used for atheists was atheistic materialist, which is saying the same thing as "atheistic determinism" but the word materialism is usually used. Basically atheist materialists believe that the material world is all there is, everything is grounded in the physical, atoms, molecules, etc and there are no immaterial realities, and so everything is just a matter of physics. Our thoughts, actions, behaviors, etc are all just physical neurons firing, we are pre-wired, and thus don't have free will. The problem with this perspective is, as I tried to explain, if we are all just wet robots wired to behave certain ways without any free will, then consequences for our actions become meaningless, and we have no grounds to punish a murderer because he didn't choose to murder, he was just wired to. But we all inherently know that murderers (outright, not defensive, etc) should receive retribution.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I think that link would make pro-lifers confused.

And it doesn't address that God hardened Pharaohs heart.

Originally Posted by Serenity

Do you believe in predestination? Where does that fit in if God doesnt pre determine things to happen?

Oh that. I grew up with that. The Southern Baptist's hold to Calvinisn, at least the ones I grew up in, and Calvinist's totally believe in predestination. That means God set everything up from the beginning.

Which means sister SerenityLives, you were predestined to be gay. God planned it from before the beginning of everything.

And we were predestined to be friends. Praise Him.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Do you mean it would make pro-lifers confused because it gives God a pass for taking the life of the firstborns? (btw I thought it was an interesting point that we usually think of firstborns as infants or newborns, but that it can legitimately apply to adults too.....and thus the leaders of that corrupt society would be removed....anyway, sidebar not relevant to this discussion....was just something new to me)

If that's what you meant, then I would just respond by repeating what I said about something else earlier in this thread, that when God takes a life it's not murder because He is the Author of life and is the only one with the unique right to do so. For humans it's murder because we are taking a life that is not ours to take

But how can He know all those little babies will turn out to be bad people? Or bad leaders? Even if He did, why couldnt he have prevented the Holocaust and Hitler or Stalin from being born?
If God is creating and destroying continually, what is the big picture here? Why is he doing that? What is the true purpose or meaning? Does the end justify the means? Is there an end if He just ends up destroying most of what He creates?

I meant predestination like fate. God knows how each of our paths will lead without us knowing it. It’s that annoying little prase some people use to make you feel better - “Everything happens for a purpose”

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

when God takes a life it's not murder because He is the Author of life and is the only one with the unique right to do so.

So God doesn't have to be as moral as He expects us to be? That doesn't sound right.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Which is still why I say homosexual PEOPLE are not abominations, BEING homosexual is not a sin, it's JUST the sexual act that is the problem.

How is it a problem? What act? All the behaviors that include the act? How far can I go? Can I kiss my sweetheart on the cheek? Is that a sin? Is holding hands a sin? Are these sexual acts?
Okay, so two women living together holding and kissing each other forever, showering together, without touching the genitals, thats not a sin. Got it!
Being a homosexual is okay without the grand finale.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

And it doesn't address that God hardened Pharaohs heart.


Oh that. I grew up with that. The Southern Baptist's hold to Calvinisn, at least the ones I grew up in, and Calvinist's totally believe in predestination. That means God set everything up from the beginning.

Which means sister SerenityLives, you were predestined to be gay. God planned it from before the beginning of everything.

And we were predestined to be friends. Praise Him.

This also means he knew we were going to talk about homosexuality and create a long thread about it on a forum before the world began.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

So God doesn't have to be as moral as He expects us to be? That doesn't sound right.

This reminds me of the Euthyphro dilemma by Socrates..and the divine command theory and CS Lewis’s points of views.

http://augustinecollective.org/chris...nd-euthyphros/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Skip down to “God's goodness: If all goodness is a matter of God's will, then what shall become of God's goodness?“

yay for philosophy, number one major that LC condemns.

Or another example from
http://jamesharper1.blogspot.com/201...ently.html?m=1
Here is the main part of the article pasted below for convenience, main crux of argument, and for reading. (I know that it is still long, but this goes back to my question regarding righteousness and morality based on norms, culture, history, which change over time, and our common sense.)

“The biblical passages on homosexuality are examples of exactly the kind of ambiguous statements which need to be interrogated in the light of ordinary morality before we can decide whether they are or are not commands of God. Of course, it is possible that our moral reasoning will let us down, or be influenced by our changing culture- but this is all we have. The alternative is to revert to a purist Divine Command theory which, as noted above, has unacceptable implications.Homosexuality, therefore, needs to be evaluated in light of the best moral thinking currently available to us, in order to decide whether it is the kind of thing God would allow, promote, discourage, or rule out absolutely...Modern moral philosophy is a normally a matter of some sort of combination of the following: weighing up the good and bad consequences of an act, considering rights and responsibilities of those involved, and applying rules and principles which we generally believe to be important. Of course, many of us evaluate consequences differently, and we hold different general principles. ..let’s see how some other practices, such as bestiality and incest (which Paul claims supporters of homosexuality have no reason to reject) fare...The consequences of bestiality are- they will miss out on the profound emotional, spiritual and practical support which a human partner can provide. They may also suffer physically.... What does make bestiality wrong in most cases, however, is that distress and confusion are likely to be caused to an animal against its will. It will, for obvious reasons, be extremely difficult to work out when this is and is not the case. This is a powerful reason for holding that human beings should not generally engage in sexual relationships with animals.

[Now on to homosexuality. Let’s start with the good and then look at the bad. The benefits of intimate, loving relationships are abundantly clear. Happiness, support, security, warmth, passion, zest for life…and so on. Desire for these things is not the same as desire for sexual gratification- they are all part of the desire to be fully human. These things promote other goods by making relationships more likely to last, children more likely to be loved, families more likely to be cherished. This is all common sense. The mental health benefits of coming out are slap-you-in-the-face clear-Ought these things to be denied to gay people? In other words- is it wrong for them to enter relationships, notwithstanding the benefits?.. most Gay people have no choice- even if biological factors not set their orientation, other factors do. The lack of choice is what matters, not whether that is caused of biological or environmental factors that would justify the denial of so many excellent and fundamental things to gay people, or by gay people to themselves? What countervailing considerations would make entering such relationships wrong? Not, I suggest, vague and unexplored correlations between being gay and higher incidences of mental health or IPV- the prejudice and marginalisation gay people historically experience increases the chance of having these problems- then these things become issues to address socially, politically and economically. But they do not on any reasonable moral view stand any chance of making homosexuality wrong. To do that, gay relationships would need to bring with them a profound and incurable risk of destruction, injury, death or abuse, to the point where it would simply be necessary to contain ones sexuality- to restrict one's very humanity- in order to avoid severely harming oneself and others.... Are rights and responsibilities involved? Gay people choose to accept any risks there may be, just as straight people accept risks in their relationships and in other areas of life. Rights come into it in the sense that human beings, it certainly seems to me, have the moral right to realise their inherent capacities for love and happiness- and that's a right which is very hard indeed to override.”

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

How is it a problem? What act? All the behaviors that include the act? How far can I go? Can I kiss my sweetheart on the cheek? Is that a sin? Is holding hands a sin? Are these sexual acts?
Okay, so two women living together holding and kissing each other forever, showering together, without touching the genitals, thats not a sin. Got it!
Being a homosexual is okay without the grand finale.

No, they say celibate homosexuality is not sin. But in reality they believe just homosexual romance is a sin.

It's like the wife, or husband, asking their cheating partner, do you love her? Just sex isn't liked, but romance is unacceptable and is a deal breaker.

So showering together may not be sin -- girls locker rooms -- but romantic involvement is, even if you don't touch. It's the romance alone that's sin. It leads to all the rest.

Cuz you see, Jesus says : "everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his[her] heart."

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

No, they say celibate homosexuality is not sin. But in reality they believe just homosexual romance is a sin.

It's like the wife, or husband, asking their cheating partner, do you love her? Just sex isn't liked, but romance is unacceptable and is a deal breaker.

So showering together may not be sin -- girls locker rooms -- but romantic involvement is, even if you don't touch. It's the romance alone that's sin. It leads to all the rest.

Cuz you see, Jesus says : "everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his[her] heart."

okay but there’s nothing saying that God punished David and Jonathan’s love. Unless you count Jonathans death in the battle, but I think that was more because God wanted to punish Saul.

So okay my entire romantic relationship is a sin. So am I going to go tell my wife “hey sweetie, our entire relationship is a sin in Christian God’s eyes, so lets get a divorce”. That doesnt sound right. That leads to more suffering. A moral God would never break apart what is good.

Thats why Trapped I feel bad for you.

ALL of my clients in my private practice coming in with mental health issues are Christians. Is it a coincidence? I think not. Because keeping to the laws centuries years old and an angry God can make one go beserk.

[Sons to Glory!]

Wow - lot's of responses on here in the last day! I guess I don't have to concern myself that this thread will languish in any way while I'm not able to be on here (I was traveling - did you miss me? ). Anyway, lots of good conversation. Trapped, I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed responses! And sis Serenity, I appreciate your hanging in with the discussion!

So awareness, I've posted regarding this a number of times, but feel it has still not maybe received direct answers from you (apologize if I missed your specific responses). Therefore, instead of me just trying to "talk louder," maybe I should ask in a different way:

1) You don't believe that man really has free will, right?

2) You don't believe God created man perfectly, right?

3) You don't believe there was a major fall that brought in sin and caused the proverbial cesspool we're in, right?

Bonus Question: You believe God isn't really loving and has less than good motives, is that correct?

Awareness, I appreciate your concise answers to these questions, if you would, as I think it would help clarify some things . . . A lot has been said, and maybe you feel like you've answered these (things do tend to get "lost in the sauce"); if you do think you've answered these already, could you please answer these specific questions above (again)? I think it would be helpful.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

okay but there’s nothing saying that God punished David and Jonathan’s love. Unless you count Jonathans death in the battle, but I think that was more because God wanted to punish Saul.

Christians that hold to the Bible look the other way concerning David and Jonathan. They'll really dig deep into other Bible stories, but don't admit connecting the dots between David and Jonathan. They'd rather talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, and Leviticus 18, and the few verses by Paul concerning homosexuality, when there's more verses concerning D & J.

I think it's heterosexual bias ... back then and now.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Wow - lot's of responses on here in the last day! I guess I don't have to concern myself that this thread will languish in any way while I'm not able to be on here (I was traveling - did you miss me? ). Anyway, lots of good conversation. Trapped, I appreciate your thoughtful and detailed responses! And sis Serenity, I appreciate your hanging in with the discussion!

I was wondering where you were haha. But while awareness comes up with answers to those questions, I still have a lot of unanswered questions as well that werent addressed yet in the thread..I was hoping someone can address them but they were too lost in the proverbial sauce.
but I can answer your question that homosexuality is not off the mark (a question you raised earlier by pointing to the article I mentioned a few posts earlier regarding the morality of homosexuality as being so much more than just sex. It brings so many human, psychological, emotional benefits. In fact to say that one has to be celibate is contradicting Paul’s admonishment that not all can be celibate and that it is better to marry than to burn with desire.

Here is the article in case you missed it- “http://jamesharper1.blogspot.com/201...ently.html?m=1

“The biblical passages on homosexuality are examples of exactly the kind of ambiguous statements which need to be interrogated in the light of ordinary morality before we can decide whether they are or are not commands of God. Of course, it is possible that our moral reasoning will let us down, or be influenced by our changing culture- but this is all we have. The alternative is to revert to a purist Divine Command theory which, as noted above, has unacceptable implications.Homosexuality, therefore, needs to be evaluated in light of the best moral thinking currently available to us, in order to decide whether it is the kind of thing God would allow, promote, discourage, or rule out absolutely...Modern moral philosophy is a normally a matter of some sort of combination of the following: weighing up the good and bad consequences of an act, considering rights and responsibilities of those involved, and applying rules and principles which we generally believe to be important. Of course, many of us evaluate consequences differently, and we hold different general principles. .”

see post 470 for more detail

And Trapped, I know you are always busy but thank you for being such a good sport. Youd till owe me some answers regarding what you wrote a week ago:
Paul’s context for homosexuality in his verses
masturbation/Onanism
the Huffpo article

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

Christians that hold to the Bible look the other way concerning David and Jonathan. They'll really dig deep into other Bible stories, but don't admit connecting the dots between David and Jonathan. They'd rather talk about Sodom and Gomorrah, and Leviticus 18, and the few verses by Paul concerning homosexuality, when there's more verses concerning D & J.

I think it's heterosexual bias ... back then and now.

I would say they choose the other places in the Bible but they dont dig deep enough no matter which one they’re looking at. Sodom and Gomorrah was more about gang rape, debauchery (remember, Lot offered both his daughters to be gang raped) and inhospitality than loving same sex relationships. Leviticus 18 had a whole range of other examples, of unclean vs clean etc. And Paul, well they dont consider the historical context Paul was writing in.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

And Trapped, I know you are always busy but thank you for being such a good sport. Youd till owe me some answers regarding what you wrote a week ago:
Paul’s context for homosexuality in his verses
masturbation/Onanism
the Huffpo article

I'm going to have to let the HuffPo article go, especially as I've already given some comments on it, but I'm aware of the other two at least. I also owe you a response on the gospel, as well as the rest of your "god died to save us from himself" thought the other day. Haven't forgotten, no intention to ghost you, just delayed. Thanks.

[SerenityLives]

[QUOTE=Trapped;96261 as well as the rest of your "god died to save us from himself" thought the other day. Haven't forgotten, no intention to ghost you, just delayed. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

I think this has to do with the way the Trinity is portrayed. God didnt save us from himself but from the sin he allowed to enter the garden. So he is culpable to some degree. Man is 100 percent not responsible for that sin, as portrayed by Awareness’s instance of God hardening Pharoah’s heart not of his free will, it seems, and the curious walking serpent he allowed in the garden. Seems like the serpent has free will too. Yes free will makes things more interesting but does it cause more harm than good? Why would God allow that? I wish there was some middle ground here, where God allows free will but which you have to wonder if it was free will or a God who just wants His way with divine retribution.

He used his son to save us, everything can be fixed through simple sacrifice. Just like Isaac and Abraham. and Abel’s offerings. He is still a God who loves sacrifices (atonements is a word ilwith more positive connotations), no better than the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses. Dont get me wrong, I thank God for sacrificing his son to atone for our sins, but it’s like dealing with a bipolar Dad. One minute he’s angry, and the next minute he forgives. Now that, I dont understand because it sounds like an emotionally abusive dad. Please God, why cant I understand?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

I think this has to do with the way the Trinity is portrayed. God didnt save us from himself but from the sin he allowed to enter the garden. So he is culpable to some degree. Man is 100 percent not responsible for that sin, as portrayed by Awareness’s instance of God hardening Pharoah’s heart not of his free will, it seems, and the curious walking serpent he allowed in the garden. Seems like the serpent has free will too. Yes free will makes things more interesting but does it cause more harm than good? Why would God allow that? I wish there was some middle ground here, where God allows free will but which you have to wonder if it was free will or a God who just wants His way with divine retribution.

He used his son to save us, everything can be fixed through simple sacrifice. Just like Isaac and Abraham. and Abel’s offerings. He is still a God who loves sacrifices (atonements is a word ilwith more positive connotations), no better than the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses. Dont get me wrong, I thank God for sacrificing his son to atone for our sins, but it’s like dealing with a bipolar Dad. One minute he’s angry, and the next minute he forgives. Now that, I dont understand because it sounds like an emotionally abusive dad. Please God, why cant I understand?

I fully agree on the issue of the portrayal of the Trinity. Since this is Alt-views I can say freely that I think the Trinity is..........not really what the Bible tells us.

This is my viewpoint: There is God the Father. He is the "one true God". There is one God, the Father. God the Father has a Son. The Son of God. We all understand that a father and a son in every possible instance on this earth are two separate beings. Jesus tells us He and the Father are one, but this doesn't mean they are the same or they are each other. They are just one in purpose, in goal, etc. On other threads on this topic, who the Son of God is gets hotly debated - some say He's not God. Some say He is God. I say that as the Son of God, He can't also be that same God.....but as the Son of God He is clearly divine or of god-kind. Just like a human father and his son are different people but are both of mankind, they are just not the same man.

This view takes away the "God came to save us from Himself" thing. The Bible tells us God sent His Son, not sent Himself. And His Son took our punishment of death upon Himself, so that when we succumb to physical death, we know we are not also facing the total extinguishing of our soul too.

I've also had the same thought of "why did the serpent have to be there" and tried to blame it on God. But follow my logic for a second: If God had ONLY given man the prohibition to not eat the TOTKOGAE, then man would have been influenced one way. The only influence would have been God. That's not truly free will so much as it is "influenced will". With the serpent, Adam and Eve had two inputs - God's and the serpent. This "balanced the scale" so to speak, and so Adam and Eve were truly free to choose, not overly influenced one way or the other. Input A and input B. So as strange as it may sound, I'm of the strong opinion that the serpent made it MORE fair than it otherwise would have been.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I've also had the same thought of "why did the serpent have to be there" and tried to blame it on God. But follow my logic for a second: If God had ONLY given man the prohibition to not eat the TOTKOGAE, then man would have been influenced one way. The only influence would have been God. That's not truly free will so much as it is "influenced will". With the serpent, Adam and Eve had two inputs - God's and the serpent. This "balanced the scale" so to speak, and so Adam and Eve were truly free to choose, not overly influenced one way or the other. Input A and input B. So as strange as it may sound, I'm of the strong opinion that the serpent made it MORE fair than it otherwise would have been.

yes there’s only two influences. Maybe there should have been a control group, like in any scientific experiement with proper results. Who’s to say Eve wasnnt more influenced by a walking talking snake than God (whom we dont know what form He tok when he spoke to Adam and Eve). Thus it can still be argued that it was MORE fair but not completely fair nor equal influences.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I've also had the same thought of "why did the serpent have to be there" and tried to blame it on God. But follow my logic for a second: If God had ONLY given man the prohibition to not eat the TOTKOGAE, then man would have been influenced one way. The only influence would have been God. That's not truly free will so much as it is "influenced will". With the serpent, Adam and Eve had two inputs - God's and the serpent. This "balanced the scale" so to speak, and so Adam and Eve were truly free to choose, not overly influenced one way or the other. Input A and input B. So as strange as it may sound, I'm of the strong opinion that the serpent made it MORE fair than it otherwise would have been.

What a hoot! So our free will is not so free after all. It depends on inputs. But how could the serpent make it fair? The serpent was just a critter in the garden, made crafty by God. The serpent wasn't a god by any way shape or means. So he couldn't make it fair against the God of the universe. God was a super giant all powerful inputter, while the serpent was just a tree seller, like a used car salesman. He wasn't even a flying fiery serpent, like found in Isaiah 14:29.

The serpent didn't even come close to balancing the fairness scales. But his input was greater and stronger than Gods ; doesn't say much for God ... that a little serpent, created by Him, beat Him at His own game.

Adam an Eve didn't really have free will. That's just a myth.

[Sons to Glory!]

I was considering all the opinions that are being put forth here in my morning time with the Lord today. And I was considering how I might best respond to help ones on here see some things more clearly, etc. (i.e., my "good" intentions). Then there was this verse in Daily Light which seemed to speak to me: "You will not need to fight this battle. Position yourself, stand still and see the salvation of the Lord." (2 Chron 20:17)

So we are all right where we should be, and "Being confident in this very thing, that He who began a good work in you, will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phil 1:6) He's got this! I too have plenty of things that surely I don't see clearly or am concerned about - but I must trust Him . . . He will do it!

As the song goes, "All things are the best they can be - so let's gain Christ!" Let us be encouraged!

(and allow me add one thing if I may: Granted, viewing God clearly and accurately in the Old Testament is often not so easy. Then Christ came and He is the best picture of God. I used to focus solely on the NT for the reason that the the image of God in the OT did not always seem that clear, and appeared to have conflicting presentations of Him. 40 some years later I am starting to see a little better that God in the OT was indeed very loving, but because He was mainly interacting with mankind through the covenant of the law, His actions can seem pretty harsh in places. But hallelujah, grace & reality - a clear picture of God - came through Jesus Christ! He just loves us, folks, much more than even we love ourselves!)

[SerenityLives]

Consider this article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.c...-homosexuality

If Jesus were alive walking on the earth today, I bet he wouldnt like how some Christians are acting towards the lgbtq. He would sit and talk to them.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Consider this article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.c...-homosexuality

If Jesus were alive walking on the earth today, I bet he wouldnt like how some Christians are acting towards the lgbtq. He would sit and talk to them.

Absolutely!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

If Jesus were alive walking on the earth today, I bet he wouldnt like how some Christians are acting towards the lgbtq. He would sit and talk to them.

And what would Jesus say to your LGBTQ comrades about how they treat God and His children?

And on another front, did you know that the much aligned Trump has done more to protect the LGBTQ around the world than any other Prez in history?

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And what would Jesus say to your LGBTQ comrades about how they treat God and His children?

And on another front, did you know that the much aligned Trump has done more to protect the LGBTQ around the world than any other Prez in history?

For your first question, you tell me. What have I done to you all?? my friends have done nothing wrong except leave Christianity. Is that what you mean?

For your second, lets not mix politics in this thread. I wrote “some Christians”, not all Christians, so pres trump could be the alleged exception. Under Obama, same sex marriage became law. But maybe you can let me know too about that.
I dont know what kool aid you’re drinking.

https://www.hrc.org/news/the-list-of...gbtq-community

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Consider this article.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.c...-homosexuality

If Jesus were alive walking on the earth today, I bet he wouldnt like how some Christians are acting towards the lgbtq. He would sit and talk to them.

I was moved by the opening line :

"Christians need to accept that Jesus was sometimes wrong—in fact, he might even want us to."

. . . as I've felt the Spirit has been "teaching me all things" since leaving the local church, even teaching me about the false depictions of God in the Bible.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

For your first question, you tell me. What have I done to you all?? my friends have done nothing wrong except leave Christianity. Is that what you mean?

For your second, lets not mix politics in this thread. I wrote “some Christians”, not all Christians, so pres trump could be the alleged exception. Under Obama, same sex marriage became law. But maybe you can let me know too about that.
I dont know what kool aid you’re drinking.

Serenity, when you said "some" Christians, then I replied about "some" LGBT. Is that not fair? Your comment did not directly imply me or my behavior, nor did my comment imply you or your behavior. Wasn't I just being fair? Did not I just provide a counter to provide balance?

But this has always been the case with this Alt-Views forum, especially with awareness. And since this thread was started by STG, don't I have a little more liberty here than on your own thread? awareness would often dig up misbehavior done by Christians (really unbelieving, but dogmatic Catholics) a thousand years ago in order to discredit Christians of all time (e.g. flat earthers). That's why many here think he is perhaps 49.94% troll. I don't think using one bad example to mischaracterize the whole is fair. Do you?

But I have not stooped so low as to accuse you of "drinking Kool-Aid." And since this thread is about what we have learned, how can you demand that I not mention in passing something about I have learned about Trump's support for LGBTQ? How can that be fair to me? And should I not mention how Obama for years has flip-flopped on the issue for his own political expediency? Just because Obama signed it into law doesn't mean that he should take credit for it. He never exhibited political courage over the matter.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Serenity, when you said "some" Christians, then I replied about "some" LGBT. Is that not fair? Your comment did not directly imply me or my behavior, nor did my comment imply you or your behavior. Wasn't I just being fair? Did not I just provide a counter to provide balance?

But this has always been the case with this Alt-Views forum, especially with awareness. And since this thread was started by STG, don't I have a little more liberty here than on your own thread? awareness would often dig up misbehavior done by Christians (really unbelieving, but dogmatic Catholics) a thousand years ago in order to discredit Christians of all time (e.g. flat earthers). That's why many here think he is perhaps 49.94% troll. I don't think using one bad example to mischaracterize the whole is fair. Do you?

But I have not stooped so low as to accuse you of "drinking Kool-Aid." And since this thread is about what we have learned, how can you demand that I not mention in passing something about I have learned about Trump's support for LGBTQ? How can that be fair to me? And should I not mention how Obama for years has flip-flopped on the issue for his own political expediency? Just because Obama signed it into law doesn't mean that he should take credit for it. He never exhibited political courage over the matter.

you said your “lgbtq comrades treat God and His children”, not “some of his children”. And Im a child of God. It seems like you imply that all my “comrades” are not God’s children as well

And just following the precedent that UntoHim put regarding not involving politics on this thread, but we will let StG and Untohim decide. My view is that Trump flip flops a lot too. My point is Trump didnt sign anything into law that wasnt there already. You didnt answer either of my questions.

You and StG call Awareness high on smoking something and a trollso isnt it fair to say you guys are on some kool aid?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

you said your “lgbtq comrades treat God and His children”, not “some of his children”. And Im a child of God. It seems like you imply that all my “comrades” are not God’s children as well

And just following the precedent that UntoHim put regarding not involving politics on this thread, but we will let StG and Untohim decide. My view is that Trump flip flops a lot too. My point is Trump didnt sign anything into law that wasnt there already. You didnt answer either of my questions.

You and StG call Awareness high on smoking something and a trollso isnt it fair to say you guys are on some kool aid?

I confess. I've been trolling bro Ohio for at least 15 years. Cuz he loves me. That's why he makes me the topic of every thread.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by awareness

I confess. I've been trolling bro Ohio for at least 15 years. Cuz he loves me. That's why he makes me the topic of every thread.

You guys sure have some weird love dynamic going on, being gay for each other.. seriously sometimes you two bicker like an old couple I feel like I need to send you two to couples counseling.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

And just following the precedent that UntoHim put regarding not involving politics on this thread, but we will let StG and Untohim decide.

There is no precedent from UntoHim about politics on this thread, only a warning to awareness about using actual names.

Perhaps what we really need are a team of fact-checking editors for many of the posters here.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

You guys sure have some weird love dynamic going on, being gay for each other.. seriously sometimes you two bicker like an old couple I feel like I need to send you two to couples counseling.

Well at least we're back on topic.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

my friends have done nothing wrong except leave Christianity.

Quick comment regarding this - my hope is they haven't left Christ Himself! (to me, "Christianity" can imply the system)

Regarding politics on this thread, I don't mind up to a point where it stops being substantive and blatantly disrespectful. I have seen Ohio and awareness go down a political rabbit hole with each other many times! On one hand it's sorta amusing, but . . .

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Quick comment regarding this - my hope is they haven't left Christ Himself! (to me, "Christianity" can imply the system

Yes I mean the politics on the previous thread/ my thread, there was a warning. But we can have some on here; I just think it needs to be controlled because it doesnt add much to the topic and can lead to bickering. And there’s a lot of politics thread on Alt views.

Most lgbtq I know havent left God and Christ Himself and still consider themselves Christian, but they have left their denominations/Christianity. There are quite a few who have became just “spiritual” (thats how they label their beliefs at the moment)

[awareness]

Politics is muddy and dirty. LGBTQ is clean.

[Weighingin]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Yes I mean the politics on the previous thread/ my thread, there was a warning. But we can have some on here; I just think it needs to be controlled because it doesnt add much to the topic and can lead to bickering. And there’s a lot of politics thread on Alt views.

Most lgbtq I know havent left God and Christ Himself and still consider themselves Christian, but they have left their denominations/Christianity. There are quite a few who have became just “spiritual” (thats how they label their beliefs at the moment)

Often when people leave a Christian organization or system, whether they’re this or that, they no longer trust any organized group with its leadership. Yet they still love the Lord, they talk or fellowship with Him, and can bring all to Hin.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Politics is muddy and dirty. LGBTQ is clean.

First sentence is true. Second sentence is trolling.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Politics is muddy and dirty. LGBTQ is clean.

This is simply your sentiment. Many of the comments on these LGBT threads made me cringe. But I'm a prude right? And you have been progressively "enlightened," eh?

Andrew Breitbart once made a famous saying that "politics is downstream from culture." In other words politics merely follows the filth of culture, whether academia, media, entertainment, music, sports, etc., and LGBT is at the forefront of that culture.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

Often when people leave a Christian organization or system, whether they’re this or that, they no longer trust any organized group with its leadership. Yet they still love the Lord, they talk or fellowship with Him, and can bring all to Hin.

That's a true statement. Thanks for the clarity.