What’s the reason why so many liberals can’t seperate love from sex?
They read about Achilles and Patroclus or David and Jonathan expressing love for one another and immediately think they must banging. They hear Jesus preaching love and immediately think that means Jesus supports men sodomising each other.
Why are they like this? Why are they so sexually perverted?
It was the ancient Greeks who initially thought Achilles and Patroclus were in love with each other romantically and sexually. Shakespeare makes reference to this as well. To be fair, most heterosexual men do not display this kind of devotion to one another — and when they do, they are mocked by their straight peers as suspected homosexuals.
The purest love between men is a platonic one, not sexual. Don’t let liberals pervert you.
Look at this letter by Oliver Cromwell to his Son in law (Charles Fleetwood) and the strong love it expresses. It’s the kind of love Jesus talks about, not the sexual kind of love that liberals now think Jesus must have been for.
Men in the past could express love for one another more freely before the liberal perversion.
There is nothing wrong with eros between men. Start with the Greeks
Anal sex is pretty shitty.
That's what soap is for
Gay sex =/= anal sex you dumbfuck.
>Start with the Greeks
If you read the Republic, Plato is actually pretty against sexual male-male relations.
You mean the Laws. And Plato was a subversive anyway who wanted to do away with the family
>And Plato was a subversive anyway who wanted to do away with the family
Considering he debunks the possibility of doing away with the family by having his favorite character, Socrates, stumble, evade, and eventually change the topic entirely when dealing with the problem of family in Book V... I don't think he's against the family at all.
Plato also believed in wife sharing (cuckoldry)
> Over a decade later in Plato's Republic Socrates declares that an ideal state would eliminate all forms of private property among the elite of society to the extent that even children and wives are shared.
>Socrates says something
>Plato said this
Socrates was also an inveterate troll throwing out thought experiments. Reread it.
So what Greek word does Jesus use in the New Testament for “love?”
Philia and agape, if I remember correctly. Unlike when Greeks describe Achilles and Patroclus relationship as based on eros. Also I don't know where OP is getting the idea that "liberals" think Jesus was promoting sodomy.
Well I’m an atheist but every time I’ve asked a liberal Christian/atheist why think homosexual acts are biblically
acceptable, they always seem to reply that it’s because Jesus preached love.
The New Testament itself gives a definition of love and never describes it as anything to do with sexual acts
> 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. Love is patient and is kind; love doesn’t envy. Love doesn’t brag, is not proud, doesn’t behave itself inappropriately, doesn’t seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil; doesn’t rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.
They obviously don't mean that Jesus preached homosexual love. What they mean is they believe that Jesus' message of love means loving homosexuals. This does not seem objectionable. The question is whether or not loving homosexuals means permitting them to marry, or encouraging them to be chaste.
> The question is whether or not loving homosexuals means permitting them to marry, or encouraging them to be chaste.
If they genuinely believed in the bible then those practising homosexuality (Arsenokoitai) would simply end up going to hell anyway as Paul says.
So you don't believe in repentance for homosexuals? But repentance is possible for adulterers, masturbators, etc?
You can't be repentant for something you keep doing bro.
We were discussing whether or not one should love homosexuals. Evidently one should. And if one does love them, that entails helping them to be chaste, if one believes that chastity is the moral option
That is a good starting point, but the Scriptures demand more than this. Christ admonishes the Pharisees specifically for making a good show of self-control and outward propriety, but still harboring the same inward lusts as other men (Matthew 23:25-28, Luke 11:39-41). The 'loving' thing to do is always to point to Christ and the sufficiency of His person and work; that they might know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, that, by any means, they may attain to the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:11). The Christian life is essentially a working out of the realities conveyed by the crucifixion (mortification of sin in the flesh) and the resurrection (living unto God by the power of the Holy Spirit) of Jesus, the God-man, who acts as our representative head, with whom we identify and in whom we are reckoned as members of His body (1 Corinthians 6:15-17, 12:12-14, 2 Corinthians 4:5-15). This is why Paul can speak so harshly about those who continue to defile themselves by giving heed to unlawful passions; they are essentially transgressing the temple of God, in so much as the believer is His chosen dwelling place, by making room on the altar of their heart for an alternative object of worship and desire. Such men (or women) will not inherit the kingdom of God.
What then? Are we powerless before the insatiable proclivity of our hearts to go astray after idols, as Calvin makes so poignantly clear in his commentaries? Not at all! For as Paul says in Romans 7:24-25, "O wretched man I am! Who will deliver me out of this body of death? Thanks be then to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
spot on observations. I too can't stand the woke or 'seeker sensitive' directions that even conservative evangelical denominations are trending to; I expect that the SBC and PCA will both be apostate bodies in another twenty years or so. Regardless, you're absolutely right in terms of preaching repentance and the power to do so being freely available to those who avail themselves of union with Christ. Those who lack the Spirit are not of the faith.
"Therefore there is now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. For the Law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the Law of sin and death. For of the Law being powerless in that it was weak through the flesh, God, having sent His Son in likeness of sin of flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteousness of the Law should be fulfilled in us not walking according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
For those being according to flesh mind the things of the flesh; but those according to Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit, life and peace, because the mind of the flesh is hostility toward God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, for not even can it be. And those being in the flesh are not able to please God.
Now you are not in flesh but in Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you; but if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him. But if Christ is in you, the body is indeed dead on account of sin, but the Spirit is life on account of righteousness. And if the Spirit of the One having raised up Jesus out from the dead dwells in you, the One having raised up Christ Jesus out from the dead also will give life to your mortal bodies, on account of His Spirit dwelling in you." Romans 8:1-11
It is of utmost importance to teach this passage and others like it to liberals who deny the necessity of sanctification (i.e. continuing growth in holiness) as an objective benefit and authenticating mark of the salvific work of Christ in the life of a believer. They want forgiveness of sins, but cannot stomach the fact that the owner of the vineyard demands they produce fruits of repentance which testify to their possessing newness of life. In short, they love their sin too much to give it up.
This has much relevance for the Church today, especially those like Greg Johnson who seek to win pity for their continuing in sin.
> So you don't believe in repentance for homosexuals?
I mean Paul follows up by saying “such as WERE you” so Paul clearly seems to believe in repentance for homosexuals
Jesus never said anything against bestiality or incest either so how come I never see liberal Christians defending those practises as strongly as they do homosexuality? Why is it only homosexuals that get sympathy why no sympathy and love for those who bang their parents?
Because liberal Christians just like everyone else have prejudices and aversions. CS Lewis discusses this in Surprised by Joy. He says that in his opinion homosexuality is not a particularly bad sin, it is just persecuted more heavily than other more serious sins because of people's emotion of disgust.
Well if liberal Christians don’t want to be hypocrites (as they believe if Jesus didn’t say anything against it then means it’s fine) then they should start defending bestiality or incest on those basis as both are nowhere directly condemned in the New Testament either by Christ or Paul.
But the liberal Christians presumably have independent moral objections to incest and bestiality which, in their opinion, don't apply to homosexuality.
Did the Iliad really use the word Eros to describe the love between Achilles and Patroclus?
If so then why is there still a major debate about whether or not Achilles and Patroclus were lovers? Wouldn’t the use of such a word have cleared things up?
The Iliad does not. Later Greek texts do. I'm not claiming their relationship is romantic in the Iliad, I'm just saying that in Greek mythology there are versions of Achilles and Patroclus that are unambiguously romantically involved. Greek myths were very mutable. It also seems that many Greeks believed Homer intended them to be read as lovers, though there are some dissenting voices (like Xenophon).
>There is nothing wrong with eros between men. Start with the Greeks
Anon, 90% of the time 10-year-old boys were involved in that "eros".
Because English only has one word for love while others don't
This isn't an exclusively English problem. We have Amor and Amizade in Portuguese (Love and Friendship), but not much else.
Liberals can't fall in love.
When have you known a modern liberal to have patience when contemplating the words and deeds of another and not self-serving their desperate agenda of rationalization?
They look at the history of man and interpret fan fiction to delude themselves, as better to suit their perspective and outlook.
you just described rightoids. and i say that as a conservative. people on the right are, on average, much more invested in maintaining ludicrous historical fictions than the left.
I disagree, both do it just as much.
There are a lot of insane narratives the left keeps up with even if in theory they don't need to for their core beliefs to hold.
I agree to some extent but I think they are more subtle on average. For instance, people on the left tend to adhere to dogmas like "fascism is capitalism in decay" and interpret historical events strictly according to theoretical doctrine. you have loonies who deny or defend stalinist and maoist mass murder
>why can't liberals
Why can't you touch grass? Liberals are the only people I know who can actually distinguish between platonic affection and Eros because they're the only ones who read Greek literature.
I always see righties shrieking whenever two dudes are seen being close and not having a woman hanging off one or both of them, and that's because they're homosexuals who can't accept their insatiable lust for cock, so they hide it behind militarism (buff dudes marching in lock step into each others assholes), architectural fetishism (gayest form of antiquarianism), or uniforms/heraldry (fashion design)
Modern gay project a lot
>What’s the reason why so many liberals can’t seperate love from sex?
They... can? Hookup culture was literally created and is mostly practiced by Liberal-leaning people during the Free Love Movement. It's Conservatives who struggle with separating physical intimacy from love because it goes against traditional values.
Liberals? I see just as many conservatives doing this dance.
Because they don't believe in "love". They think love is just a chemical reaction in the brain that causes a person to act favorably towards another human, but love is something more than that. Our Human love is more unique than any other form of animal "love". Animals might only love in a way like their brain dictates them to, but Humans love in a way that both their brain and their mind dictates--and the mind is what separates humans from animals.