Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[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.

[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?

[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)

[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.

[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/

[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

[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.

[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 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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.