Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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 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 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.

[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.

[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?

[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

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.

[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!

[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!