Whatever happened to Paul's prohibition of Phariseeism, and salvation by
"law" We
are "saved" by faith ALONE. Not by sinlessness but by God's unlimited
infinite forgiveness.
Sinlessness is impossible.
As for Boswell, actual parish records, centuries of French middle ages
Sinlessness is impossible.
As for Boswell, actual parish records, centuries of French middle ages
parish church
records show unequivocably that the church blessed same sex unions
records show unequivocably that the church blessed same sex unions
in fact, de jure
and defacto. Families raised by same sex couples recognized by
and defacto. Families raised by same sex couples recognized by
the churches.
Most Christians did not "marry." It was too expensive. Certainly not in a
Most Christians did not "marry." It was too expensive. Certainly not in a
church. That was
for rich people.
All the deniers of same sex love deny church history, deny the actual
for rich people.
All the deniers of same sex love deny church history, deny the actual
Hebrew, Aramaic
and Greek with which "scriptures" are written and the actual words of
and Greek with which "scriptures" are written and the actual words of
the "Bible" about
such lives as Ruth and Naomi and Jonathan and David and explicit
such lives as Ruth and Naomi and Jonathan and David and explicit
blessing of same sex
love throughout both the Hebrew Aramaic scriptures and the Aramaic
love throughout both the Hebrew Aramaic scriptures and the Aramaic
Greek scriptures.
They invent and then lie.
Overwhelmingly, scripture expresses its approval of gay people,
They invent and then lie.
Overwhelmingly, scripture expresses its approval of gay people,
for example the Ethiopian
eunuch in Acts. "Eunuch" did NOT mean castrati. It was in each of
eunuch in Acts. "Eunuch" did NOT mean castrati. It was in each of
the Middle Eastern
languages a euphemis, household "slave" as opposed to farming or
languages a euphemis, household "slave" as opposed to farming or
manufacturing slave.
Educated. Non-male males. "Gay"
isa kocher • 2 years ago
Educated. Non-male males. "Gay"
1. there are substantıve well founded textual crıtıcısm of the socalled
prohıbıtıons same sex
love. Jesus himself says some are gay for God's sake in Matthew.
Nowhere in any book of
the hundreds in the Bible does the Hebrew the Aramaic or the Greek
unequivocably
prohibit same sex love. What is prohibited explicitly is exploitation, rape
and injustice,
and idol worship. And nowhere does the Hebrew or the Aramaic extol
ONE man and
One woman. Such readings do not exist in the 5 and 6 thousand year
old idioms and
cultural references inexplicable today. The hate theology is read back
into texts unrelated
to the question of same sex love. These texts are so idiomatic and so
contextual nobody
today can definitively say what the original intent was but it was not
about same sex love
for certain.
2. there are extensive passages extolling and encouraging same sex love,
2. there are extensive passages extolling and encouraging same sex love,
in the most open and unmistakable terms. Yet these are ignored.
3. the homophobic "christians" simply lie yet not once are their assertians
3. the homophobic "christians" simply lie yet not once are their assertians
ever challenged.
4. the church, east and west, Latin, and Greek, blessed same sex unions
4. the church, east and west, Latin, and Greek, blessed same sex unions
in church
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!This is my favorite type of argument.
That one that
exposes loud and clear that anti LGBT Christians are just ignoring so
exposes loud and clear that anti LGBT Christians are just ignoring so
much of the Bible
and church history to focus on the parts that supposedly supports
and church history to focus on the parts that supposedly supports
their point. Sure you
can quote a million times the verses of the Bible you think have to do
can quote a million times the verses of the Bible you think have to do
with
"homosexuality" (still don't know where the anti-trans comes from) as
"homosexuality" (still don't know where the anti-trans comes from) as
it may apply
today and make the argument based on sexual purity between "one man
today and make the argument based on sexual purity between "one man
and one
woman" but then you cannot ignore the other side of the argument that
woman" but then you cannot ignore the other side of the argument that
uses just as
many verses to make the VALID point that sexual purity is not just in
many verses to make the VALID point that sexual purity is not just in
the context of
"one man and one woman marriage." Therefore, the bottom line is that
"one man and one woman marriage." Therefore, the bottom line is that
because there
are two valid points to each side of the argument, trying to force the
are two valid points to each side of the argument, trying to force the
view of sexual
purity only in the context of marriage between one man and woman is
purity only in the context of marriage between one man and woman is
only arrogant
because there are many different valid arguments that come from the
because there are many different valid arguments that come from the
Bible itself as
well.
well.
