LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Keep in mind that Jesus was a known figure, thronged by crowds much of the time, and most importantly was always being watched and scrutinized so the Pharisees, etc could find a reason to do away with Him. If there was a single HINT of homosexual activity on Jesus' part, the religious guys after Him would have pounced before they could say "aha!" since it was, as Humperdinck said, punishable by death.

They were looking for any reason to kill Him. And yet Jesus was with a group of guys all throughout the time of His earthly ministry and the religious establishment still had nothing to charge Him with in that regard. They muttered and complained about His speaking to women, eating with prostitutes and tax collectors and sinners, but we never read a word about them scheming about any homosexual suspicions.

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

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

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sons to Glory!]

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

So the Guardian says Jesus was gay?

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

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

So the Guardian says Jesus was gay?

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

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

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

So the Guardian says Jesus was gay?

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

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

[clever sister]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

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

I have heard something similar before.

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