Mar 31 2008 gay liberation theology

[Spocktavian]

FUCK THE WHITE MAN!!!!! THIS IS THE BLACK MANS TIME NOW!!!! YOU WILL NOT HOLD US BACK!!!!!!!!! YOU WILL NOT ENSLAVE US!!!!!!

[jtw90210]

@AlexzandrSpringvale I wish you would read your bible. The sins of Sodom were well chronicled, but they did not include homosexuality. In the bible we learn that the sodomites were simply inhospitable to God and their neighbors. READ Ezekiel 16.49-50, Luke 17.26-29.

So failing to treat your neighbors as you treat yourself is the great commandment, and blocking my marriage from legal recgonition because you think yours is better, that is the reason Sodom was destroyed.

[bimboblacky]

were considered "unclean" by the Hebrews, and precisely B-cause their Torah SAID so! So when Saint Peter had that vision of those "weird" animals on that sheet, he was clearly trying 2 B obedient 2 GOD. Of course, the Lord told him this: "DO NOT call what GOD has cleansed common or unclean!" This eventually let Peter (and all of the Church) know that *Gentiles* (also formerly considered unclean) were now WELCOME in the Body of Christ. People who practiced Gentile WAYS (2 a point) were, 2!!!

[bimboblacky]

Okay, let's get away from the David/Jonathan and Ruth/Naomi thing 4 just a sec.  How about the Acts of the Apostles Chapter 10 and Peter's vision? The Hebrew adjective describing male same-sex relations (toevah) is EXACTLY the same one describing consumption of shellfish, pork, and I B-lieve mixing of crops and fabrics. There is a FAR WORSE adjective that describes rape and certain forms of incest (zima). This translation pretty much carried over in-2 the Greek. Pork, shellfish, etc. (cont.)

[777Thinking]

You changed my world. Love, Tyler

[krissy4nik]

Jonathan and David: "That same day, when Saul had finished speaking with David, he kept him and would not let him return any more to his father's house, for he saw that Jonathan had given his heart to David and had grown to love him as himself. So Jonathan and David made a solemn compact because they loved the other as dearly as himself. And Jonathan stripped off the cloak he was wearing and his tunic, and gave them to David, together with his sword, his bow, and his belt."[

[krissy4nik]

Jonathan and David :David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, 'Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the LORD, saying, "The LORD shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, for ever."' He got up and left and Jonathan went into the city."1 Sam. 20:41-42

[krissy4nik]

Jonathan dies:"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

[MrFinklestein]

David loved him as himself. The word love must be examined by the context by which it is being used. Let's look a bit deeper.

They both loved each other as dearly as himself. This differentiates the close love between two friends. It in no way alludes to the idea of them being anything more than simply that.

Jonathan gave David his cloak, tunic, etc. Can't people give gifts to one another? I don't see the significance in this. He obviously wasn't naked.

[MrFinklestein]

David bowed three times, then they kissed each other, and wept with each other. They were wonderful friends who, in the problem they were facing, had to depart from one another. It was customary to kiss ones that you loved. Yes, even ones of the same sex. But this isn't saying where they kissed each other, so you might realize that it was customary to kiss those that you were close to on the forehead.

[MrFinklestein]

Finally... The LORD shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants. What does this have to do with anything? Well, clearly to have further descendant one would have to make love to a woman who would produce those very descendants. This to me clearly outlines the weakness in your argument.

[signab43]

sorry, this thread needs an intervention too. Ruth and Naomi is a nice example of two women having descendants, or in particular a barren woman having a descendant. And what a descendant:

"And the women her neighbors gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David." Ruth 4:17

God indeed recognizes and blesses adoption, same-sex parenting, and if you use Ruth 1:17 for wedding vows, gay marriage.

Ha!

[MrFinklestein]

Ha? You've proven nothing with this argument. Why would God be against Adoption or same-sex parenting? It doesn't mean the two have to be lovers of any sort, and Ruth does not allude to that.

And "if" you use Ruth 1:17? What "if" I used ANY Bible scripture to fit my own beliefs?

Your point alone proves your ignorance. You've given nothing to advocate same sex relations in any shape or form. I'll not be responding to this post again based on your lack of knowledge concerning the Bible. Bye.

[signab43]

Ha indeed.

Fortunately Jesus teaches us how to sort this out: throw out the old laws and follow His prime directive.

"...if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Romans 13:9

In all your name calling, you have forgotten that it is not your place to tear apart my marriage or Ruth & Naomi's. It is to love and support us, not "prove" that the Bible somehow condemns us.

You might be surprised on the last day.

[krissy4nik]

I think context is a great idea. I am a christian and i believed being gay was wrong for ages until i read this contextually and took it for what it was.Saul tells jonathan "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?" Why woulod he mention him being perverse or confused as he does in another verse if it's only friendship?

[krissy4nik]

Why is it so obvious he wasn't naked if i take off my clothing and give it to someone i am naked..there is nothing that says he was still wearing clothes

[MrFinklestein]

He wasn't naked because he only removed his tunic and cloak.. not his loincloth, or leggings. Nothing to do with his lower regions was removed except his belt.

[MrFinklestein]

Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. Have you studied the Greek translations of these words for "love"? You should probably do that. The Greeks had more than one word for love. Agape is probably what was used here.

[krissy4nik]

The word agape doesnt exclude a relationship i have agape love for my fiance ...all agape means is unconditional love it is the same kind of love Christ has for the church and husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church so that still doesnt exclude a relationship...the fact that he had more agape love for him than he has had for any woman still remains very significant

[MrFinklestein]

I'm still willing to debate this with you if you want. But not within the limit of five-hundred characters. Send me a message with all the known facts that you have concerning David's "Homosexuality", and I'll be more than happy to reply in due measure.

[krissy4nik]

To be honest it really doesn't make much pointto debate because i strongly doubt i'll change your mind and you wont change mine but if you wish to continue thats fine because 500 characters really does restrict things ..I also want to thank you for keeping things respectful when it comes to taboo topics that doesnt always happen...but as i said feel free to message me no problem at all

[signab43]

Hi, just caught this thread. You seem to be trying to find ways to "thread the needle" to make it look like the bible condemns homosexuals. It's sad to see. Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, whatever - the truth is if you can pick and choose, why not choose love?

Jesus supported affirming relationships, and Opponents of Equality do not. That is the truth, in less than 500 chars.

[MrFinklestein]

But it doesn't say that Jesus was for Homosexual relations. In the Law same sex relations were condemned and Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but rather to uphold it. So by upholding this Law one has to assume he couldn't have been for same sex relations because, if he had been, His work would mean nothing and we would be without hope.

[signab43]

You said it yourself, Jesus said nothing about same-sex relationships. If he was opposed to them, he had plenty of opportunity to say so.

He did teach us to ignore a lot of Laws of the time, "there is no male nor female, Jew or gentile, but one Christ Jesus" and "there is but one law, to love your neighbor as yourself."

If you understand that Jesus was for love, we all win; if you think two women getting married is going to undo the work of Jesus then you are indeed hopeless.

[krissy4nik]

Man , we christians need to get back to that!

[247Aztec]

i have not condemed you, you have condemned yourself, because you know better and you continue to sin and be proud of it,

i am not sentencing you to death or even jail. i am simply letting you know that you must ask forgivness.... didnt even Christ do that? So in your eyes should Christ be Condemed also?

Jesus did segragate, and will agian so your wrong... in the end he will segregate the wheat from the tares.

Stop listening to the false teachers as jesus had warned about and Repent!

[krissy4nik]

First off , I'm not gay i just have the common sense to know that people use biblical texts to spew all kinds of hatred.I think you need to read the orginal greek texts of the bible because the word modern christians use to mean homosexual is actually more accurately translated as "temple prostitute" You do not know that this guy is any more or less sinful than anyone else who says they are christian so i hope you are telling every 1 on yt & earth 4 that matter the same thing.