Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That’s right. Hypocrites and the self-righteous, judgmental “religious “ people were at the top of his No-No list. LGBTQ? Jesus had no problem with them.
I have been saying this forever, if a man loves two women why can’t he marry both? We have men marrying men and women marrying women because they love each other but a man or woman who loves two others can’t marry them both.
I used to resent the idea of marriage. I’ve made my peace with that, but I agree that it should be treated as a contract where consenting adults can decide what their marriage looks like, including if it has more than two people.
Honestly, I don’t think there’s a lot of pull for that. Most people are just fine with open marriages or relationships if they’re going to do anything of the sort.
King James, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, etc. No version of the Bible contains a quote of Jesus condemning homosexuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
“ I agree he loves LGBT people, just as he loves everyone”
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying there’s no evidence that Jesus considered LGBT behavior to be sinful. He did however directly call judgmental self-righteousness a sin.
BTW, he also stated clearly that it is a sin to get divorced and remarry, something the Catholic Church upholds but most Christians don’t seem to care about.
“ He cannot save everyone”
Why not?
For the billionth time... It's not homosexuals he condemned... It's some of their sex acts. Sodomy to be specific. It's clearly described to be a sin. You can believe it, or not, but it's in there, and many people were taught to believe this if they wanted to save their souls.
Churches are always evolving in order to keep up with the times, but they are not always "right". They used to support and endorse some fairly evil stuff. The crusades, the Spanish Inquisition... Many terrible things happened with the church's blessing, so let's not pretend the church is God.
Jesus loves everyone, even those condemned to hell. He cannot save everyone, so he created an instruction manual on how to avoid going to hell. Avoiding sodomy was definitely part of that. Are you really going to deny the fact that Jesus specifically described sodomy as a sinful behavior that should be avoided?
And the reason Jesus cannot save everyone is because the devil exists and he get's to take his share too. I'm pretty sure the Bible even states the devil or Satan himself rules the earth. At the very least, Satan has immense influence over worldly affairs because weak humans cannot resist his temptations.
For the billionth time... It's not homosexuals he condemned... It's some of their sex acts. Sodomy to be specific.
Yes, Jesus isn't opposed to homosexuality, he is opposed to homosexual acts, therefore no one should oppose homosexuality.
These are the mental gymnastics that certain people believe make perfect sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
Are polygamists included in LBGTQIA+2S?
If it destroys traditional morality, family, identity, birthrates, and demoralizes men, then yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sholomar
Considering women are genetically wired to want to share the dominant male of the pack over having the non dominant male to themselves
Rofl, no. Human females are not "genetically-wired" to want to share their resources with other females. If anything they want multiple men providing them resources, and every other female should die.
You have to understand, almost all of human evolutionary history was spent living in small tribes with very little inequality. It wasn't until agriculture 10k years ago and the domestication of livestock 4-10k years ago that there could have been "wealth". Moreover, agriculture/domestication of livestock didn't spread around the world at the same time. In parts of the world they didn't exist until European colonialism.
If for the vast majority of human evolutionary history there was no concept of wealth then this evolutionary preference would have had to come recently, and only in those areas with conditions conducive to such an arrangement.
In reality, if you look at actual primitive societies, marriage tends to be temporary, and women tend to have children from multiple men(much like modern civilization). The idea is that if she has children with multiple males, then each of those males will support her.
For comparison, in Chimpanzees, females have sex with every male in the entire group. By doing this, the male chimp believes the child is his(or at least he cannot be sure of paternity).
Moreover, humans never had anything like an "alpha" or "beta". Humans are an relatively egalitarian species(within our tribe), and weak men will ally with other weak men to defeat stronger men. It's one of the reasons we're so likely to root for the underdog. We're fearful of bullies because we don't like being bullied. Thus the strong usually try to appear weaker than they really are, and vice versa. The dominant male who hogs resources/women is only possible in a state of civilization where there are laws/police to protect them. In a natural state he would be murdered.
Polygamy mostly came alongside civilization and mass conquest, especially after the Bronze Age. Polygamy was used to solve gender-imbalances resulting from destructive wars. Which is why polygamy is mostly associated with conquering cultures/religions(such as Islam). Whereas monogamy is ideal for non-conquering cultures/religions(such as Christianity).
Last edited by Redshadowz; 06-28-2023 at 04:02 AM..
What? Most women are anti sharing. There are the polygamists, who have little confidence in themselves or are tied to deeply rooted religions, or are on the freaky side, but see the divorce count, most is due to infidelity.
Because of Romney, MAGA has turned against Mormons. This is a thinly veiled stab at him. Silly topics not worthy of serious discussion.
Yes, Jesus isn't opposed to homosexuality, he is opposed to homosexual acts, therefore no one should oppose homosexuality.
These are the mental gymnastics that certain people believe make perfect sense.
Actually it does make perfect sense if you understand the most basic and fundamental principles of Christianity. Simply having urges and desires (whatever they may be) is not considered a sin. But acting on those temptations that are forbidden according to Jesus... Yup, that's what is considered sinful. But Jesus never told anyone to hate the sinner. In fact, it is not our place to pass judgement on the homosexual, because we are not God. So it is correct that we have no basis or right to hate the homosexual. It is their soul, and many do not even believe in God, the existence of a soul, or perhaps they believe in a different god.
And even in the Christian faith, different sects have different attitudes and beliefs, and offer different guidance on homosexuality. Some even have homosexual clergy. So obviously, it's something of a complex issue. Religion in of itself of course is not an exact science, and much is left up to interpretation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
