Is there a cure for homophobia? Introducing Lovelace......

[mossrose]

I don't have LGBT characteristics but I started this thread.
And you can think what you like, say what you must, as long as your thoughts and words don't become actions.
But it could be an idea to rethink it all out, read Jesus's words again? A kind of cure, maybe?

The LGBT movement certainly has allowed its thoughts and words to become actions, hasn’t it? Like vile parades exposing themselves and forcing small children to share bathrooms and dressing rooms with alleged transgendered people or forcing children, and their parents, to accept school curriculums that actively teach the lifestyle as normal. You mean those thoughts and words?

Pastors in this country are thrown in jail or fined for speaking out against homosexuality. It is now "hate speech" here to refer to someone as the gender they were born with instead of their alleged claim to be another gender. Is that what you mean by keeping thoughts and words from becoming actions?

How about a whole month celebrating that lifestyle, when the thoughts and words of that group should be kept in the bedrooms of those who insist that those who disagree with them should mind their own business and stay out of their private life’s? Is that what you mean by keeping thoughts and words from becoming actions?


How about, as has already been mentioned in this thread, LGBT folk actively seeking out Christian bakers and florists and venues and suing them when they refuse to take an order from them because of their Christian convictions, when the same LGBT folk who own bakeries and flower shops and rental facilities, at the same time, refuse service to a Christian who wants a cake, let's say, to celebrate God's ordained plan for the marriage of one man and one woman? Do you mean keeping those thoughts and words from becoming actions?

There are a myriad of examples of this, if you are not blind to them!

And you really do not understand Jesus at all, do you? I just love it when people who obviously know nothing about the whole of scripture try to tell believers what it means. What a joke you make of God's word!

[rogue06]

Get thee to thine own thread.

Is this your thread that you can kick someone out?

And I see that once again you utterly failed to answer that simple question so I guess it is time to conclude that like all too often you were just talking out of your backside again.

No surprise there.

[mossrose]

Some people simply cannot keep their proverbial noses out of other people's private lives. Whatever happened to the notion "Live and let live"? They also have [IMO] an unhealthy fixation on sex.

No, sweetie, you are the one here with an unhealthy fixation on sex. Since you bring it up in every thread you’re in, even if it has nothing to do with the topic.

[mossrose]

I have answered your question. You are also at risk of derailing this thread. If you want to to start your own thread, you are free to do so.

no, sweetie. This isn’t your thread. You can’t throw people out at a whim.

[mossrose]

Get thee to thine own thread.

No, sweetie. This isn’t your thread and you can’t throw people out on a whim.

[rogue06]

I'm not sure what you're going on about. The "whoosh" was for Hypocritical_Alexandria who responded to rogue's question by simply restating her assertion, but if it's scripture you're interested in..

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people think that merely repeating their initial unsupported assertion somehow provides corroboration for it.

It really ought to be easy to explain what sort of "extraneous corroborative evidence" that she thinks should exist.

[rogue06]

Sure, you could try and spin things that way, or you could simply accept a plain reading of scripture which unambiguously calls homosexuality a sin.

And, no, the Bible is not silent on lesbianism. Romans 1, "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts..."

B-but, but... that's just Paul's opinion

[tabibito]

B-but, but... that's just Paul's opinion

If Paul was alone in opposing homosexual relationships among believers, it would indeed be no more than Paul's opinion: he is not the only Biblical author to oppose such relationships.

[rogue06]

If Paul was alone in opposing homosexual relationships among believers, it would indeed be no more than Paul's opinion: he is not the only Biblical author to oppose such relationships.

I wouldn't go that far even if it were only Paul.

[tabibito]

I wouldn't go that far even if it were only Paul.

Even Jesus acknowledged that people would have been justified in rejecting his own witness, had no corroboration (in the form of demonstrations of power) been available.

[aside] Sole witness is a factor highly relevant to the "women in authority" debate. In that one, Paul stands decidedly alone. [/aside]

[rogue06]

Even Jesus acknowledged that people would have been justified in rejecting his own witness, had no corroboration (in the form of demonstrations of power) been available.

[aside] Sole witness is a factor highly relevant to the "women in authority" debate. In that one, Paul stands decidedly alone. [/aside]

Who else wrote anything where the issue would arise? Sounds like an argument from silence.

[tabibito]

Who else wrote anything where the issue would arise? Sounds like an argument from silence.

Paul himself.
2 Cor 13
1 This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES.

Whether that is to be interpreted as a claim that the third testimony by the same witness should be considered "three witnesses" is possible. But it can also be considered that context shows Paul to be referring to another witness, the same that Christ called on.

[rogue06]

Paul himself.
2 Cor 13
1 This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES.

Whether that is to be interpreted as a claim that the third testimony by the same witness should be considered "three witnesses" is possible. But it can also be considered that context shows Paul to be referring to another witness, the same that Christ called on.

I can't help but think that when Paul wrote it he'd have had no trouble with "three witnesses"

[tabibito]

I can't help but think that when Paul wrote it he'd have had no trouble with "three witnesses"

I hadn't thought of that.

Nor did I think to mention that a single testimony is not necessarily to be rejected. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it can be accepted "on advisement."

[Mountain Man]

I am unwilling to joyfully embrace the LGBT lifestyle...

Homophobe.