LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond.

Sons to Glory! · 09-24-2020, 10:00 AM

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.

09-24-2020, 11:15 AM

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!

09-24-2020, 11:31 AM

Quote:

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 · 09-24-2020, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

So the Guardian says Jesus was gay?

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

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

Trapped · 09-24-2020, 05:05 PM

From the article:

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

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

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

Sons to Glory! · 09-24-2020, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

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

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

What Trapped said . . .

Ohio · 09-24-2020, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

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

It's like trying to reason with a mob.

Anyone understand what blasphemy looks like?

09-24-2020, 07:36 PM

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

Oestreicher with his two heros Marx and Engels

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

Ohio · 09-24-2020, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

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

Oestreicher with his two heros Marx and Engels

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

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

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

09-25-2020, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humperdinck

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

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

awareness · 09-24-2020, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's like trying to reason with a mob.

I typically feel sorry for the underdog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by O

Anyone understand what blasphemy looks like?

No. Tell me.

Trapped · 09-24-2020, 08:08 PM

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

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

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

SerenityLives · 09-25-2020, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I typically feel sorry for the underdog.

No. Tell me.

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

Ohio · 09-25-2020, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I typically feel sorry for the under dog.

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

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

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

clever sister · 09-24-2020, 02:07 PM

Quote:

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"

09-24-2020, 10:00 AM	#1
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,622	Re: LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond. 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. __________________ *LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now*

09-24-2020, 11:15 AM	#2
Humperdinck Guest Posts: n/a	Re: LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond. 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!

09-24-2020, 05:05 PM	#5
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond. From the article: "Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches." I think it's pretty understood that Jesus never married. To suggest that theologically it would have been fine for an unmarried, unblemished, sinless, spotless Son of God to have been involved in sexual activity (gay or straight regardless) outside of marriage is utter absurdity. All of us are eternally dead in our sins if this is the case, because then Jesus would have been a sinner and could never have been acceptable as the one who could lay His life down as a sacrifice for any of us. I'm speechless that what seem to be professing Christians (zeek excluded, IIRC) on this thread are waving that article as anything remotely credible to point to. Do you even understand the implications of some of the things you are trying to pass off?!

09-24-2020, 07:36 PM	#8
Humperdinck Guest Posts: n/a	Re: LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond. Paul Oestreicher? A well-known commie socialist who wears a crucifix. Yeah, that's where we should get our theology and biblical history from! Oestreicher with his two heros Marx and Engels So what other kooks do you want to dig up that claim Jesus was a homo? Keep at it guys. This is fun!

09-24-2020, 08:08 PM	#12
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: LGBTQ, in LC and Beyond. I'll sit at a roundtable and grapple sincerely with "Is God gay?" and "Was Jesus homosexual" but there has to be a basic level of logic and reason to be able to have a discussion. If claims and statements are made, the logic has to hold up. That's all I'm asking. The claim has been made earlier in this thread that Jesus could have been a celibate homosexual. As I also mentioned elsewhere, if this is the case, then we also have to look at the implications of that claim and what it means for those with same-sex attractions now. In other words, His example is the one to follow. This is why I didn't understand what there was to gain by throwing Jesus's potential homosexuality around.....because it logically brings us to a place it doesn't seem like you would want to be. It's also not an assumption that Jesus was heterosexual. It's a reasonable inference. There is a vast difference between the two. For Jesus to be homosexual and yet surround Himself with a group of men makes no sense. That is what someone who was heterosexual and reasonably wanted to remain sinless would do.