Religion and LGBTQ

[TranquilMind]

Yes, I suppose you are right. But my conversations with non-Christians are normal whereas my (Internet) observations of conservative Christians as well as my occasional real-life interactions with them lead me to believe that they are terribly judgmental and hate-filled. We study a lot of Conquest materials here, and have personal experience with the current Conquest going on in Latin America, so I won't pretend that this doesn't color my view of these Christians.

 

I am not religious. If I were inclined to be, I would never, ever, ever, in a million years choose to be Christian. It frustrates me to no end when I see people justifying unjustifiable behavior based on some book written centuries ago. It frustrates me to no end that children in America are not educated as well as they could be because of this book and this religion. They aren't taught things because it might encourage them to question their own beliefs. So we wind up with a nation of people who not only can't think for themselves, but are taught to be unkind. :(

 

I do apologize. I know that many good people are Christians and I am sorry to lump them all together. It just makes me sad that so much time and energy is wasted justifying this with such-and-such passage, and this with another and there is so much nonsensical fighting about it. You know how most people view ancient religions, astounded that people would actually believe in it, in those gods? I am sorry to say that that is how I view Christianity. And if all Christians were good, peace loving people who celebrated all people and believed that all people were entitled to the same rights and respect, it would be one thing and I could not believe myself but at least think "well, sure, it's a fairytale, but it is a nice one." But when Christians continually mistreat others and hate and divide, sorry, but I have had enough and I can't let it go without saying anything anymore.

 

Again, my apologies to good and kind believers.

 

See, one might see exactly the same in reverse, since we are going down this little rabbit trail, detached from the primary topic.  

 

It's pretty clear that you have an extremely  strong predetermined bias that skews your view.      And you will likewise say the same.

 

I hope you are quick to say something to the hateful irreligious as well. 

 

[TranquilMind]

You missed the point. It's cowardly if you, TranquilMind, can not stand up to your beliefs and say, yes-- these things I am professing - I am talking about your child, your relative, your spouse, or you!

I don't give a rat's patootie what the Bible says. But you do. Wonderful. Own it. Own up to it and admit you think these things about Joker's child, about the other children of these board members.

Sorry...you don't get to force your own ideas into your preselected holes and call them my ideas.

 

I don't know anything about any of these people and they may all be the most wonderful people I've ever met. 

 

But that doesn't change scriptural proscriptions, even if they are. 

 

Since you seem to be unable to understand this distinction, I don't know how to fix that. 

 

Maybe inserting a different sexual proscription will help:  It is a sin to have sex with someone else's husband.  No matter if you want to.  No matter how happy it would make you.  No matter if you, I , and the guy across the street all agree that it is best for us. No matter if the Surgeon General and all medical research decides it is now best for all of us not to be monogamous.  No matter if we change the law to protect it.    It is still a biblical proscription.  Do what you want, but it doesn't go away. Now that doesn't matter if you aren't in the faith, but it does if you are ,and you cannot in good conscience promulgate policy that defies it.

Edited January 24, 2017 by TranquilMind

[FaithManor]

I have come to the conclusion that an awful lot of hateful nonsense promoted by the religions of the earth could be avoided if everyone just thought "WWMRD" and acted on it. What would Mr. Rogers do?

Be kind, be gracious, be friendly, be courteous, and don't be a busy body. Some people definitely did not watch enough Mr. Rogers growing up!

 

If you can manage that, my kid can live without looking over his shoulder all the time. If you can manage that, then the Bill of Rights can apply to him to. If you can manage that, he can be what he is without hurting you, and you can be you without hurting him.

 

That seems like a plan we should all be willing to live with.

 

All I can say is that as usual, I am eternally grateful my son was born to me and not most of the people I interact with IRL and online.

[quark]

But then Jesus warned of this in Luke 6:22-23 (and elsewhere): "Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

 

Who is hating? The ones asking that LGBTQ folks be accepted? Or the ones calling LGBTQ folks sinners and therefore, hateful? (Not able to multiquote or see post numbers on phone...referring to liber's post and your response to it).

 

Doesn't it also say a few lines down..."Do not judge...do not condemn"? Again, on phone. Not able to cut paste for now.

[Veritaserum]

I have come to the conclusion that an awful lot of hateful nonsense promoted by the religions of the earth could be avoided if everyone just thought "WWMRD" and acted on it. What would Mr. Rogers do?

Be kind, be gracious, be friendly, be courteous, and don't be a busy body. Some people definitely did not watch enough Mr. Rogers growing up!

 

If you can manage that, my kid can live without looking over his shoulder all the time. If you can manage that, then the Bill of Rights can apply to him to. If you can manage that, he can be what he is without hurting you, and you can be you without hurting him.

 

That seems like a plan we should all be willing to live with.

 

All I can say is that as usual, I am eternally grateful my son was born to me and not most of the people I interact with IRL and online.

I'm glad my transgender son came to me, too. And I'm glad God prepared my heart to accept it long before my child came out to me.

 

But I also wish that everyone had supportive, inclusive families. I know too many queer people who have the tortured experience of being rejected by their family and friends and religious communities. I have a friend who adopts these souls (welcoming them into her home and heart, inviting them for holidays and meals, etc.). She's a Christian, too, and her actions exemplify the love of Christ.

[TranquilMind]

Who is hating? The ones asking that LGBTQ folks be accepted? Or the ones calling LGBTQ folks sinners and therefore, hateful? (Not able to multiquote or see post numbers on phone...referring to liber's post and your response to it).

 

Doesn't it also say a few lines down..."Do not judge...do not condemn"? Again, on phone. Not able to cut paste for now.

 

It depends, is the answer to that question of "who is hating".  Could be one side. Could be the other.  We've certainly been on high level hate for the last week everywhere in the media. 

The verse you reference is in a different book (Matthew) and is about hypocrisy, not judgment.   Don't judge the other guy for doing what you yourself are doing or with harsher judgment and penalty than you would give yourself.    Correct your own behavior before attempting to correct the same behavior in someone else. 

That's why everyone is the perfect person to address someone...but not everyone.

 

Here, we are merely discussing concepts and issues, not people's own lives.  Apply it or not as you will.  No one knows you (or me).  

 

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by TranquilMind

[Veritaserum]

Nothing feels more loving than being bludgeoned to death by religious law....

 

I recall Jesus saying something about the law and the prophets needing to hang on the commandment to love, but whatevs. It's clearly more "loving" to shame and coerce people into living heteronormative lifestyles even though that kills them because at least their souls won't be eternally damned. Suffering in this life is no big deal.

 

Except it is. It's a huge, bloody, horrific deal in some cases. :(

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I'm glad my transgender son came to me, too. And I'm glad God prepared my heart to accept it long before my child came out to me.

 

But I also wish that everyone had supportive, inclusive families. I know too many queer people who have the tortured experience of being rejected by their family and friends and religious communities. I have a friend who adopts these souls (welcoming them into her home and heart, inviting them for holidays and meals, etc.). She's a Christian, too, and her actions exemplify the love of Christ.

I'm sure it's painful, but discussions such as these are worthwhile. I used to believe differently than I do now, simply because I was raised to think that way (as religious teaching). Through hs'ing, which has broadened my mind in many ways, I realized that there are fewer absolutes than I'd been led to believe...

 

but equally important in my education were forums such as these, where I gained more access to life situations I've never experienced, and the thought processes of people going through them. Attitudes such as are being discussed in this thread included - as I thought about how I would feel if one of my children were transgendered, I very swiftly knew that I'd turn my back on anyone who hated them, and my only priority would be their happiness and wellbeing.

 

The two thoughts following that thought were

 

1. If that's how I feel about my child on a hypothetical level, then love compels me to feel the same about your child's reality, and

2. Does the Bible condone negativity or lack of acceptance toward transgendered persons? I couldn't find anything. I looked, but Jesus was still Jesus, thank God.

 

So if I could change my mind as a result of education, since ignorance was my problem and not hate, others can change, too.

[Mergath]

Nothing feels more loving than being bludgeoned to death by religious law....

 

I recall Jesus saying something about the law and the prophets needing to hang on the commandment to love, but whatevs. It's clearly more "loving" to shame and coerce people into living heteronormative lifestyles even though that kills them because at least their souls won't be eternally damned. Suffering in this life is no big deal.

 

Except it is. It's a huge, bloody, horrific deal in some cases. :(

I've finally come to realize that people like the ones posting here don't care what Jesus said. They can't, or they could never post the things they do. Paul gives them a free pass to judge and scorn, so they grab it with both hands and judge the heck out of us and then have the nerve to call themselves righteous. Honestly, I think they should call themselves "Paulians" rather than Christians because they certainly aren't acting anything like Jesus.

[quark]

It depends, is the answer to that question of "who is hating".  Could be one side. Could be the other.  We've certainly been on high level hate for the last week everywhere in the media. 

The verse you reference is in a different book (Matthew) and is about hypocrisy, not judgment.   Don't judge the other guy for doing what you yourself are doing or with harsher judgment and penalty than you would give yourself.    Correct your own behavior before attempting to correct the same behavior in someone else. 

That's why everyone is the perfect person to address someone...but not everyone.

 

Here, we are merely discussing concepts and issues, not people's own lives.  Apply it or not as you will.  No one knows you (or me).  

 

 

No, I was referring to Luke 6:37-38

Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back.

 

Bolded...please explain? Why are we not discussing people's own lives?

 

ETA: To be clear, I am happy and satisfied with my beliefs as I am sure you are with yours. I am just baffled by what comes across (at least to me) as contradictions. Especially about loving one's own child. Or how children are expected to blindly respect their parents but cannot expect that same level of respect back just because they are different.

Edited January 24, 2017 by quark

[TranquilMind]

Nothing feels more loving than being bludgeoned to death by religious law....

 

I recall Jesus saying something about the law and the prophets needing to hang on the commandment to love, but whatevs. It's clearly more "loving" to shame and coerce people into living heteronormative lifestyles even though that kills them because at least their souls won't be eternally damned. Suffering in this life is no big deal.

 

Except it is. It's a huge, bloody, horrific deal in some cases. :(

Your perspective is very personal and emotional here, which I understand, but that doesn't change scriptural proscription.    If you don't care, you don't care and if you have adopted new beliefs (or always had different faith), then you have adopted new beliefs.    But don't try to say, as many do, that orthodox scriptural truth means something else now.   That's my objection.  We are back to argumentum ad populum. 

 

Yes, He did say to love, but He also said, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?" He expects His followers to follow everything in the law; it's a given, as He continually gives instuctions (go show yourself to the priest, make the appropriate offering, Peter,  pay the taxes, tithe mint and dill and cumin etc)   Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, â€œThe scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat,  so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.  In other words, respect the office even if you don't respect the man (because he is a hypocrite).

 

Again with the hypocrisy thing,  He doesn't tell them to just forget what the priests teach (the law) and do whatever they want. 

 

 He said the law will not pass away until the perfect comes and we know fully as we are fully known.  He also defined marriage as a man leaving his mother and father and clinging unto his wife and the two become one flesh (spiritually, physically).  

 

The Christians who were forced out of business because they were targeted and no longer permitted to do weddings without being bludgeoned by secular law could argue exactly the same thing you are arguing from the other direction.   How loving was it for them to be targeted?  It really does cut both ways. 

 

So if none of this applies to you, fine.  Only you know.   My only objection is the revisionist stuff we hear all the time now.  When the Biblical Addendum comes out, deleting and revising scriptural commands, well, Jesus will be back before then. 

 

 

[Greta]

Yes, I suppose you are right. But my conversations with non-Christians are normal whereas my (Internet) observations of conservative Christians as well as my occasional real-life interactions with them lead me to believe that they are terribly judgmental and hate-filled. We study a lot of Conquest materials here, and have personal experience with the current Conquest going on in Latin America, so I won't pretend that this doesn't color my view of these Christians.

 

I am not religious. If I were inclined to be, I would never, ever, ever, in a million years choose to be Christian. It frustrates me to no end when I see people justifying unjustifiable behavior based on some book written centuries ago. It frustrates me to no end that children in America are not educated as well as they could be because of this book and this religion. They aren't taught things because it might encourage them to question their own beliefs. So we wind up with a nation of people who not only can't think for themselves, but are taught to be unkind. :(

 

I do apologize. I know that many good people are Christians and I am sorry to lump them all together. It just makes me sad that so much time and energy is wasted justifying this with such-and-such passage, and this with another and there is so much nonsensical fighting about it. You know how most people view ancient religions, astounded that people would actually believe in it, in those gods? I am sorry to say that that is how I view Christianity. And if all Christians were good, peace loving people who celebrated all people and believed that all people were entitled to the same rights and respect, it would be one thing and I could not believe myself but at least think "well, sure, it's a fairytale, but it is a nice one." But when Christians continually mistreat others and hate and divide, sorry, but I have had enough and I can't let it go without saying anything anymore.

 

Again, my apologies to good and kind believers.

 

 

:grouphug:  I actually share many (many!) of the frustrations that you have expressed here.  Sometimes people use their religion as an excuse to be cruel towards others though their cruelty is simply their own.  Sometimes religion itself gets twisted into something cruel.  I don't expect the faithful of ANY religion to live up to their ideals 100%.  Nobody is perfect.  But, yeah, it's pretty disheartening when faith becomes destructive.  That simply should not happen, and there's no excuse for it.

 

 

 

Edited because I feel like I said waaaay too much.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Greta

[TranquilMind]

I've finally come to realize that people like the ones posting here don't care what Jesus said. They can't, or they could never post the things they do. Paul gives them a free pass to judge and scorn, so they grab it with both hands and judge the heck out of us and then have the nerve to call themselves righteous. Honestly, I think they should call themselves "Paulians" rather than Christians because they certainly aren't acting anything like Jesus.

 

You would be woefully incorrect in this assumption that "people like the ones posting here" (meaning me, and a couple of others) don't care what Jesus said. 

 

But then the obvious point of this post was a gratuitous smear of biblically-adherent/orthodox Christians, not a sincere examination of what Jesus did say and mean.  

 

No one is judging you. Judge yourself.  You do you, as they say.  

 

[Laura Corin]

Maybe inserting a different sexual proscription will help:  It is a sin to have sex with someone else's husband.  

 

In another thread you explained to me that my straight marriage was scriptural even though my husband's first wife is still alive.  They divorced after her adultery.  The bible verse that you used to justify your opinion was one that related to a believer setting aside an unbelieving spouse.  

 

This was not relevant to the situation, as neither my husband nor his then wife were believers.  Could you tell me if the proscription given above applies to me please and to all other straight people in our situation?  Or are there other bible verses that would cover this circumstance?

[TranquilMind]

No, I was referring to Luke 6:37-38

 

Bolded...please explain? Why are we not discussing people's own lives?

 

ETA: To be clear, I am happy and satisfied with my beliefs as I am sure you are with yours. I am just baffled by what comes across (at least to me) as contradictions. Especially about loving one's own child. Or how children are expected to blindly respect their parents but cannot expect that same level of respect back just because they are different.

I have said nothing about loving one's own child or not respecting a child because he is different. 

 

About that scripture, it is about hypocrisy.  Don't expect to be judged on a lighter scale than you judge others (especially leaders). 

[Mergath]

You would be woefully incorrect in this assumption that "people like the ones posting here" (meaning me, and a couple of others) don't care what Jesus said.

 

But then the obvious point of this post was a gratuitous smear of biblically-adherent/orthodox Christians, not a sincere examination of what Jesus did say and mean.

 

No one is judging you. Judge yourself. You do you, as they say.

 

I guess it could be considered a smear if you don't like Paul much.

[quark]

I have said nothing about loving one's own child or not respecting a child because he is different. 

 

About that scripture, it is about hypocrisy.  Don't expect to be judged on a lighter scale than you judge others (especially leaders). 

 

Thank you for answering my questions. I will stop here. I don't have the intellectual capacity or emotional stamina at the moment to continue.

 

Peace be with you, TM.

 

To others who have truly supported, respected and accepted an LGBTQ child/ teen/ adult, thank you. Thank you so very much. And if you are LGBTQ yourself, I just want you to know that you have an ally in me.

[DesertBlossom]

So, given that, it seems to me to be just as possible that the sex of the body is wrong, as it is to believe that the mind's perception is wrong. How are we to know which it is?

 

I feel that I can't know, I can't answer that question. So I would like to hear how others have answered that question for themselves.

 

 

I don't know either. LDS doctrine teaches that we existed as spirits before coming to this earth and that our gender is an essential and eternal part of who we are. Whether or not a person could be born into a body that did not match their eternal gender is not a question I know how to answer either. A friend (an acquaintance rather, whom I haven't seen since she was a child) recently announced on FB that she found out she was intersex. Most recent pictures show she has cut her hair very short, but I don't know that she's transitioning to a male. Whether she is male or female is something only she can answer, I think. I will say that one of my first thoughts though were that it's probably a good thing she was born in a small, South American city where doctors were not aware of her condition until adulthood. Apparently a lot of intersex people resent the surgeries done to them as children. IMO, it seems they ought to have the right to make those decisions for themselves as they come to understand who they are when they are older.

 

I know that being intersex is very different than being transgender though. That's probably a different conversation.

[Greta]

I don't know either. LDS doctrine teaches that we existed as spirits before coming to this earth and that our gender is an essential and eternal part of who we are. Whether or not a person could be born into a body that did not match their eternal gender is not a question I know how to answer either. A friend (an acquaintance rather, whom I haven't seen since she was a child) recently announced on FB that she found out she was intersex. Most recent pictures show she has cut her hair very short, but I don't know that she's transitioning to a male. Whether she is male or female is something only she can answer, I think. I will say that one of my first thoughts though were that it's probably a good thing she was born in a small, South American city where doctors were not aware of her condition until adulthood. Apparently a lot of intersex people resent the surgeries done to them as children. IMO, it seems they ought to have the right to make those decisions for themselves as they come to understand who they are when they are older.

 

I know that being intersex is very different than being transgender though. That's probably a different conversation.

 

 

Thank you, DesertBlossom, for pondering the question with me!  I did not know that about LDS beliefs - that is very interesting.

[Janeway]

Yes, I suppose you are right. But my conversations with non-Christians are normal whereas my (Internet) observations of conservative Christians as well as my occasional real-life interactions with them lead me to believe that they are terribly judgmental and hate-filled. We study a lot of Conquest materials here, and have personal experience with the current Conquest going on in Latin America, so I won't pretend that this doesn't color my view of these Christians.

 

I am not religious. If I were inclined to be, I would never, ever, ever, in a million years choose to be Christian. It frustrates me to no end when I see people justifying unjustifiable behavior based on some book written centuries ago. It frustrates me to no end that children in America are not educated as well as they could be because of this book and this religion. They aren't taught things because it might encourage them to question their own beliefs. So we wind up with a nation of people who not only can't think for themselves, but are taught to be unkind. :(

 

I do apologize. I know that many good people are Christians and I am sorry to lump them all together. It just makes me sad that so much time and energy is wasted justifying this with such-and-such passage, and this with another and there is so much nonsensical fighting about it. You know how most people view ancient religions, astounded that people would actually believe in it, in those gods? I am sorry to say that that is how I view Christianity. And if all Christians were good, peace loving people who celebrated all people and believed that all people were entitled to the same rights and respect, it would be one thing and I could not believe myself but at least think "well, sure, it's a fairytale, but it is a nice one." But when Christians continually mistreat others and hate and divide, sorry, but I have had enough and I can't let it go without saying anything anymore.

 

Again, my apologies to good and kind believers.

I just Googled Conquest in Latin America and could not find anything that occurred in the last 500 years. Do you have a link to this information?

[Slartibartfast]

I just Googled Conquest in Latin America and could not find anything that occurred in the last 500 years. Do you have a link to this information?

Is it this?

 

https://conquestyouthministry.com/

[Slartibartfast]

I am not sure why so many feel the need to make the thread all about themselves rather than assisting the OP.

 

If someone has NO experience or understanding of the topic why comment repeatedly?

[ebunny]

As a non christian and with my limited experience of Christianity; I was under the impression that some parts of the scriptures were meant to be taken symbolically and the others literally.

 

How does a christian decide which scripture to use, when to use it and how to use it? I see the religious ladies on this thread insisting that their position(on LGBTQ) is informed by the bible, but I get the impression that each person is quoting a different verse? ( insert the right word used to describe the passages)

Are there these many passages or verses talking about sexual orientation? What about gender orientation?

[Charlie]

Yeah, another religion has. The one that dangles gay people from roof tops and drops them or beheads them or locks them in cages and burns them to death. If I had to choose between conversion therapy or being dropped from a roof top, the conversion therapy is less violent.

 

But seriously, I just wanted to know where in the bible it says it is ok to exclude gay people, not about bashing Christianity. I know plenty of gay people who are Christians and did not have these issues. Then I moved to the south and have seen this. Wanted to know if I was missing anything. I did not ask about the Koran or Qu'oran, I am unsure how to spell it, and what it says about being gay. But now I would like to know. I want to know if those violent acts against gay people is a fundamental part of Islam or if it is just an extreme thing kept to some groups.

 

Well here's the thing, no matter what passage you find in the bible, you'll find Christians disagree on its interpretation. There are passages that say God hates gay people, and that they deserve death. This is no longer a prominent Christian belief in the US (but is increasingly so in Uganda). Most Christians will not agree the passage about deserving death applies today, for various reasons, but the passages are there nevertheless (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13). Similarly, there are passages that suggest being gay is on par with unholiness, and other things that are contrary to the ways of God (1st Timothy 1:9-10). There are passages that suggest the Christian should separate themselves from unbelievers, and then Jesus will receive them (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). There are passages that list behaviors and people to avoid, and suggest that people who don't abide by the doctrine of Christ (which Christians have yet to agree on), should not be received into the homes of Christians because these people are "partakers of evil deeds" (2nd John 1:9-11). And there's lots more.

 

Of course there are many passages that can be found to the contrary, and even these passages may be interpreted quite differently than I'm suggesting, but you're asking about passages that support a particular point of view, so that's why I'm limiting to those.

 

For another, more vitriolic and nauseating look, consider the bible verses shared by the church everyone loves to hate, Westboro Baptist. I offer these not because they're a popular church, but because they've already done the work for you. They've compiled bible verses that contribute to the idea that excluding lgbt people from the Christian's life is God's will because their immoral character is infectious and detrimental to society. Ever heard the "gay agenda?" I kid you not, people think there is a vast, demonic conspiracy to ruin America by turning people gay, which will then incur the wrath of God such that 911 9/11s wouldn't even come close to our collective punishment. I don't endorse anything they say, and I expect most Christians here would not agree on the entirety of their message (if any of it), but we've already heard rhetoric that suggests lgbt people are inherently immoral because the bible says, so clearly there exists a spectrum of opinion on the issue.

 

Sodomites are wicked & sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen.13:13), are violent & doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19), are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death for their vile sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), are called dogs as filthy, impudent & libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6;Phil. 3:2), produce in society mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom & fields of Gomorrah, poisoning society's mores with the poison of dragons & the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33), show their sin & shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9), are shameless & unable to blush (Jer. 6:15), workers of iniquity (Psa. 5:5), liars & murderers (Jn. 8:44), filthy & lawless (2 Pet. 2:7,8), natural brute beasts (2 Pet. 2:12), are likened unto dogs eating their own vomit, sows wallowing in their own feces (2 Pet. 2:22), will proliferate at the end of the world bringing final judgment on mankind (Lk. 17:28-30), have been finally given up by God to uncleanness to dishonor their own bodies, to vile affections, & to a reprobate mind such that they cannot think straight about anything (Rom. 1:23-28); and, unable to blush, be ashamed, or repent (Jer. 6:15), they have no hope of Heaven (Rev. 22:15). "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Heb. 10:31.

 

So maybe you can understand, if a preacher is spewing this kind of sentiment from the pulpit, not all at once but in bits and pieces, how a person might conclude that ultimately, it's in their best interest to get rid of the "partakers of evil deeds" from their midst? "At one point, and I was right there," he says, "my mom actually told this lady that she loved all of her children besides me."

 

 

 

(inb4 "not real Christians")

[Charlie]

Okay, stop the bus. Let's talk about Jesus in the New Testament. He criticized the church and its leaders and its laws. He reached out to the marginalized--the ones society and the church ignored or vilified. He said to love. Period.

 

Respectfully, I disagree. Where Yahweh in the old testament punished people who strayed with plagues and hemorrhoids, Jesus of the new testament punishes people who stray with eternal suffering. Furthermore, he says most people on earth will endure this faith. He even shares a parable about a rich man who dies and starts to suffer and wants to warn his brothers so they escape the same fate, but Jesus shows no mercy. In my opinion, the moral crime is greater for the god of the new testament because he not only punishes a person for eternity, he punishes for thought crimes (those who don't believe are already damned, John 3:18).

 

@OP, In conversations I've had with Christians, it's this desire to help their child avoid eternal suffering that inspires them to adopt and advocate what they consider to be "tough love" stance by showing an lgbt child that they won't behave in a way they believe enables sin. It's kind of like the story of Tootle the Train and all the red flags. It's just "better" when you follow the rules. Only, instead of running into red flags, the sinner will suffer for all eternity. What parent wouldn't do everything they could to avoid that, right? ss

[Charlie]

I have come to the conclusion that an awful lot of hateful nonsense promoted by the religions of the earth could be avoided if everyone just thought "WWMRD" and acted on it. What would Mr. Rogers do?

Be kind, be gracious, be friendly, be courteous, and don't be a busy body. Some people definitely did not watch enough Mr. Rogers growing up!

 

If you can manage that, my kid can live without looking over his shoulder all the time. If you can manage that, then the Bill of Rights can apply to him to. If you can manage that, he can be what he is without hurting you, and you can be you without hurting him.

 

That seems like a plan we should all be willing to live with.

 

All I can say is that as usual, I am eternally grateful my son was born to me and not most of the people I interact with IRL and online.

 

Parenthetically, I recently read that Mr. Rogers once got a letter from a little girl who asked him if he would please let her know when he was feeding his fish, as she was blind. From that day on, every time he fed his fish he mentioned it out loud.

 

:wub:

[ebunny]

Well here's the thing, no matter what passage you find in the bible, you'll find Christians disagree on its interpretation. There are passages that say God hates gay people, and that they deserve death. This is no longer a prominent Christian belief in the US (but is increasingly so in Uganda). Most Christians will not agree the passage about deserving death applies today, for various reasons, but the passages are there nevertheless (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13). Similarly, there are passages that suggest being gay is on par with unholiness, and other things that are contrary to the ways of God (1st Timothy 1:9-10). There are passages that suggest the Christian should separate themselves from unbelievers, and then Jesus will receive them (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). There are passages that list behaviors and people to avoid, and suggest that people who don't abide by the doctrine of Christ (which Christians have yet to agree on), should not be received into the homes of Christians because these people are "partakers of evil deeds" (2nd John 1:9-11). And there's lots more.

 

Of course there are many passages that can be found to the contrary, and even these passages may be interpreted quite differently than I'm suggesting, but you're asking about passages that support a particular point of view, so that's why I'm limiting to those.

 

For another, more vitriolic and nauseating look, consider the bible verses shared by the church everyone loves to hate, Westboro Baptist. I offer these not because they're a popular church, but because they've already done the work for you. They've compiled bible verses that contribute to the idea that excluding lgbt people from the Christian's life is God's will because their immoral character is infectious and detrimental to society. Ever heard the "gay agenda?" I kid you not, people think there is a vast, demonic conspiracy to ruin America by turning people gay, which will then incur the wrath of God such that 911 9/11s wouldn't even come close to our collective punishment. I don't endorse anything they say, and I expect most Christians here would not agree on the entirety of their message (if any of it), but we've already heard rhetoric that suggests lgbt people are inherently immoral because the bible says, so clearly there exists a spectrum of opinion on the issue.

 

 

So maybe you can understand, if a preacher is spewing this kind of sentiment from the pulpit, not all at once but in bits and pieces, how a person might conclude that ultimately, it's in their best interest to get rid of the "partakers of evil deeds" from their midst? "At one point, and I was right there," he says, "my mom actually told this lady that she loved all of her children besides me."

 

 

 

(inb4 "not real Christians")

 

Thank you. I wish the members on this thread who defend their right to call LGBTQ 'sinners' would also chime in with their interpretation.

 

I wish there was an emoji to describe how utterly disheartening it is to read the above post. The amount of hate towards fellow human beings; whatever their gender and sexual orientation! 

[Charlie]

Thank you. I wish the members on this thread who defend their right to call LGBTQ 'sinners' would also chime in with their interpretation.

 

I wish there was an emoji to describe how utterly disheartening it is to read the above post. The amount of hate towards fellow human beings; whatever their gender and sexual orientation! 

 

One interpreted lgbt family members to be analogous to abusive family members. Clarification was not given upon request. To the second point, I remember watching a youtube clip of two members of WBC on some show (Russel Brand maybe?). What struck me was that they absolutely disagree with the idea that they hate anyone. They believe they are doing the loving thing by alerting people to the one thing that can save them from an eternal horror. I don't think the Christians here hate other people, although I do believe a great many Christians in general are taught to suppress empathy.

 

[ebunny]

One interpreted lgbt family members to be analogous to abusive family members. Clarification was not given upon request. To the second point, I remember watching a youtube clip of two members of WBC on some show (Russel Brand maybe?). What struck me was that they absolutely disagree with the idea that they hate anyone. They believe they are doing the loving thing by alerting people to the one thing that can save them from an eternal horror. I don't think the Christians here hate other people, although I do believe a great many Christians in general are taught to suppress empathy.

 

 

I think many Christians don't realise that denying the LGBTQ the same rights as themselves (right to love/marry/cohabit/have children/live in dignity etc) is a denial of human rights.  Either one is for granting the same and equal rights to 'all' fellow human beings or against. There is no neutral ground in human rights.

[Charlie]

I think many Christians don't realise that denying the LGBTQ the same rights as themselves (right to love/marry/cohabit/have children/live in dignity etc) is a denial of human rights.  Either one is for granting the same and equal rights to 'all' fellow human beings or against. There is no neutral ground in human rights.

 

"Liking" was not enough. I wholeheartedly agree.

[FaithManor]

Parenthetically, I recently read that Mr. Rogers once got a letter from a little girl who asked him if he would please let her know when he was feeding his fish, as she was blind. From that day on, every time he fed his fish he mentioned it out loud.

 

:wub:

He was a very precious man!

[Greta]

Parenthetically, I recently read that Mr. Rogers once got a letter from a little girl who asked him if he would please let her know when he was feeding his fish, as she was blind. From that day on, every time he fed his fish he mentioned it out loud.

 

:wub:

 

 

Aw, man, that'll make you tear up.  I think Faith was right, that we need to adopt a WWMRD philosophy!  Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, and oddly enough, Star Trek, were the tv shows from my early years that left the biggest impression on me.  Strange combination, I realize, but I think WWMSD (What Would Mr. Spock Do?) might be a good question to ponder as well.  :D

[DesertBlossom]

I think many Christians don't realise that denying the LGBTQ the same rights as themselves (right to love/marry/cohabit/have children/live in dignity etc) is a denial of human rights. Either one is for granting the same and equal rights to 'all' fellow human beings or against. There is no neutral ground in human rights.

I hesitate to chime in on this thread because there are so many strong feelings. But I hope to clarify my own beliefs on this and I hope that those who disagree with be respectful of my beliefs. My goal is only to help others see my own personal point of view. I am LDS as I mentioned upthread and to understand where I am coming from, some background in our theology is probably helpful. We believe that as spirits in the "premortal" world we chose to come to this earth to be tested and we believe that families are central to God's plan. We believe gender is an eternal and essential part of who we are. We believe that God commanded us to marry and have children and that our relationships with one another can extend beyond the grave. We believe that men and women compliment each other (and not just that we can procreate) but that there are divine differences between us and that together we make a whole. We believe marriage can last for eternity. And with that we believe that children have the right to be raised by both a mother and a father in a home where they are loved and taught and provided for. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. Children learn things from their fathers they don't learn from their mothers, and visa versa. It's kind of the "best case scenario" we aim for, but we realize that all families are going to fall short of that perfect goal. That's what the atonement of Jesus Christ is for. To make up the difference because we all fall short. Couples sometime get divorced. Not all homes are as loving as they ought to be. There are children born out of wedlock. Nobody's home is perfect. Nevertheless, our goal for families is that there is a mother and a father who love each other and their children. We still teach that, even when "real life" is often messy and unpredictable and heartbreaking.

 

I don't know that acting on homosexual desires is any more a "sin" than other things I do on a daily basis. Still working on the beam in my own eye so I don't worry about others. I think we are all "broken" in a sense that we struggle with our weaknesses thanks to our DNA or our life experiences or just that we have imperfect mortal bodies while here on earth. I do think it's absolutely awful that parents would disown and turn out their LGBT children. I am sure it still happens in LDS families, but that's not a doctrine taught. In fact, one of the leading general authorities in the church has a gay brother, who was not active in the church for many years, but was still loved and accepted by his family. And I think that ought to set a great to example to members of the church. I don't think we should be turning kids out for any reason. DH has a brother who was raised LDS but whose life has ended up very different (drugs, alcohol, kids out of wedlock, divorce, etc) but he has a great relationship with his LDS family anyway. They are still close despite it all. And it should be that way, whenever possible.

 

We believe in free agency. Every person has the God given right to choose for themselves, but that we aren't necessarily free from the consequences of our actions. However, I do believe that when we follow the commandments, our lives are blessed and we find additional peace and happiness in our lives. I don't go preaching on street corners, but if asked, I wouldn't hesitate to tell someone that I believed it was worth it to abstain from sex before marriage, or to not drink alcohol, or to keep the Sabbath day holy, etc. There are a lot of things Mormons do that the world thinks is kooky. But whatever.

 

I can't imagine how difficult it would be for a gay member of the church to have to decide between living a gay lifestyle or to remain celibate or to marry someone of the opposite sex so that they could still live in harmony with the church's teachings. That seems so hard. I honestly just can't imagine. But I do hope and pray that for those that do it, find that it's worth it. I have some members of my extended family (also LDS) who believe that someday the church will accept gay marriage. I just don't know that that will happen based on our eternal perspective of God's plan for us. We believe that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. Marriage isn't just about fulfilling our own personal desires, but also about creating something much bigger than ourselves.

 

I don't know if I have expressed myself well or if I will offend anyone with what I've said. But I want to say that I believe very sincerely that God loves each one of his children perfectly and unconditionally and that only He has a complete understanding of what we each are going through and why we each make the choices (for better or worse) that we do. I think we still have a very limited understanding of the whole of God's plan for us, but I know that each of us is just as important and loved by God. I appreciate these threads because I come to understand other people's perspectives and life experiences better. I hope I can do better at loving those around me, especially those whose lives are so different from my own.

[Lawana]

And don't forget to mention the directive by the LDS church that minor children of a gay parent in a same sex relationship cannot be baptized, receive other ordinances, or later go on a mission unless the child *disavows* that same sex relationship. Very loving.

[DesertBlossom]

And don't forget to mention the directive by the LDS church that minor children of a gay parent in a same sex relationship cannot be baptized, receive other ordinances, or later go on a mission unless the child *disavows* that same sex relationship. Very loving.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of that policy. My opinions probably wouldn't change how you feel anyway so that's all I am going to say.

Edited January 25, 2017 by DesertBlossom

[Ravin]

I hesitate to chime in on this thread because there are so many strong feelings. But I hope to clarify my own beliefs on this and I hope that those who disagree with be respectful of my beliefs. My goal is only to help others see my own personal point of view. I am LDS as I mentioned upthread and to understand where I am coming from, some background in our theology is probably helpful. We believe that as spirits in the "premortal" world we chose to come to this earth to be tested and we believe that families are central to God's plan. We believe gender is an eternal and essential part of who we are. We believe that God commanded us to marry and have children and that our relationships with one another can extend beyond the grave. We believe that men and women compliment each other (and not just that we can procreate) but that there are divine differences between us and that together we make a whole. We believe marriage can last for eternity. And with that we believe that children have the right to be raised by both a mother and a father in a home where they are loved and taught and provided for. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. Children learn things from their fathers they don't learn from their mothers, and visa versa. It's kind of the "best case scenario" we aim for, but we realize that all families are going to fall short of that perfect goal. That's what the atonement of Jesus Christ is for. To make up the difference because we all fall short. Couples sometime get divorced. Not all homes are as loving as they ought to be. There are children born out of wedlock. Nobody's home is perfect. Nevertheless, our goal for families is that there is a mother and a father who love each other and their children. We still teach that, even when "real life" is often messy and unpredictable and heartbreaking.

 

I don't know that acting on homosexual desires is any more a "sin" than other things I do on a daily basis. Still working on the beam in my own eye so I don't worry about others. I think we are all "broken" in a sense that we struggle with our weaknesses thanks to our DNA or our life experiences or just that we have imperfect mortal bodies while here on earth. I do think it's absolutely awful that parents would disown and turn out their LGBT children. I am sure it still happens in LDS families, but that's not a doctrine taught. In fact, one of the leading general authorities in the church has a gay brother, who was not active in the church for many years, but was still loved and accepted by his family. And I think that ought to set a great to example to members of the church. I don't think we should be turning kids out for any reason. DH has a brother who was raised LDS but whose life has ended up very different (drugs, alcohol, kids out of wedlock, divorce, etc) but he has a great relationship with his LDS family anyway. They are still close despite it all. And it should be that way, whenever possible.

 

We believe in free agency. Every person has the God given right to choose for themselves, but that we aren't necessarily free from the consequences of our actions. However, I do believe that when we follow the commandments, our lives are blessed and we find additional peace and happiness in our lives. I don't go preaching on street corners, but if asked, I wouldn't hesitate to tell someone that I believed it was worth it to abstain from sex before marriage, or to not drink alcohol, or to keep the Sabbath day holy, etc. There are a lot of things Mormons do that the world thinks is kooky. But whatever.

 

I can't imagine how difficult it would be for a gay member of the church to have to decide between living a gay lifestyle or to remain celibate or to marry someone of the opposite sex so that they could still live in harmony with the church's teachings. That seems so hard. I honestly just can't imagine. But I do hope and pray that for those that do it, find that it's worth it. I have some members of my extended family (also LDS) who believe that someday the church will accept gay marriage. I just don't know that that will happen based on our eternal perspective of God's plan for us. We believe that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. Marriage isn't just about fulfilling our own personal desires, but also about creating something much bigger than ourselves.

 

I don't know if I have expressed myself well or if I will offend anyone with what I've said. But I want to say that I believe very sincerely that God loves each one of his children perfectly and unconditionally and that only He has a complete understanding of what we each are going through and why we each make the choices (for better or worse) that we do. I think we still have a very limited understanding of the whole of God's plan for us, but I know that each of us is just as important and loved by God. I appreciate these threads because I come to understand other people's perspectives and life experiences better. I hope I can do better at loving those around me, especially those whose lives are so different from my own.

I understand what you are saying based on existing doctrine. However, doctrine (at least for active practice of the LDS church) has changed over time. Polygamy was ended by such a change. Admitting black people to the priesthood was such a change which happened fairly recently (early 1980's IIRC). Both of those changes came at a time when the change helped the growth of the LDS church. Eventually, such a change may come with respect to LGBTQ people for much the same reason.

[TravelingChris]

I don't have any problems with gay people.  I have known some who were religious.  None of the churches I ever belonged to or attended would encourage banishing a gay or transgendered family member.  It seems that I was always called to love others and treat them as I would treat myself.  My current church has God's grace as a main message.  We are all sinners and need God.  

 

Faithmanor, I can't even get my head around the thought that someone would think that in heaven they would be laughing at a relative being in hell.  THat view of heaven is so alien to me.  I think that God would not like anyone in heaven to be happy about anyone being in hell.  I mean horrible people like Osama Bin Laden and Hitler and Stalin and many others who are probably in hell according to my beliefs and that thought may make me happy while I am on earth and still a sinful person but I hope that in Heaven, i would be a better person and have more compassion.

 

To all of you with gay or transgendered children or children who are confused, my prayers go out to you. The older I get, the more empathy I seem to feel.  I am very grateful that more people seem to have supportive family members now then maybe 30 years ago..  I do want you to know that the one person I know of personally who is not getting support from her family is a college classmate of my daughter whose parents are not Christian (or anything for that matter) but where the mother is blaming the daughter for her depression.   I also know that one of my students who attended a Christian homeschooling co-op and first went to Liberty College (which my daughter didn't even apply to because it was too conservative Christian for us), came out as gay and transferred to a public university in a neighboring state.  I know this from my daughter who is facebook friends with him but don't know how the parents took it.  I think it is really hard when you fear damnation for your child but I really don't think chastisement and ridicule will bring about change of behavior.  I choose to believe that God sent his Son for us to save us and that he knows how mixed up people are.  I am hopeful that there will be a lot more people in heaven than I can even imagine.  Love seems to be the message of God and that gives me hope.  

[Lawana]

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of that policy. My opinions probably wouldn't change how you feel anyway so that's all I am going to say.

I am capable of reading the explanation provided by the church. If there is some further super secret reason, please do tell.

 

And yes, I do have feelings about the policy. The fact remains, however it is spun, that the policy is a deliberate, systematic exclusion of children.

 

The same policy does not apply to children living in an openly adulterous household, for example, even though adultery is considered the worst sin second only to murder. Nope. Just gay and polygamous.

[Katy]

Just wanted to throw this in.  I am far from the first person to wonder if Paul was gay.  I came up with this idea in high school (the first time I read the New Testament it seemed pretty obvious to me), but since then I've learned it's a question that's been asked by theologians for quite some time.  Here's one book exerpt on the topic:  http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/2004/04/was-the-apostle-paul-gay.aspx

[Charlie]

Referring to the idea that homosexuality is no more or less a "sin" than any other behavior is big part of the problem, imo. Most sins are considered sins because they negatively affect people. Despite years of trying to justify being lgbt as a personal or social problem, many Christians have yet to come up with any reason to denounce such behavior other than it offends God. So when I hear the argument that homosexuality is a sin like any other, I interpret them saying they really don't consider the practical meaning of "sin," they're allowing themselves not to think about the effects of telling people their sexuality is abhorrent, they're just following orders. A good soldier doesn't question his orders after all, he follows them. When I hear "no sin is worse than any other," I hear a Christian give themselves permission to not consider the moral ramifications of their own behavior.

[6packofun]

Most sins are considered sins because they negatively affect people. 

 

Nope. That's more of a secular morality: if you can't find any way that this action hurts another person, according to how I define "hurt", you can't prove it's wrong.  

 

As with the Bible (and since sin is a biblical concept), it starts with God, not people and what they want or value.  Because we tend to want and value the wrong things.  (Not always; that's not what the doctrine of total depravity says--or sufficient depravity, as Dallas Willard said, "I believe that every human being is sufficiently depraved that when we get to heaven, no one will be able to say, 'I merited this.'")

 

I gotta run out the door or else I'd get into what sin is a bit further.  lol  Yes, we can sin against one another, but EVERY sin is also a sin against God.

[Charlie]

Nope. That's more of a secular morality: if you can't find any way that this action hurts another person, according to how I define "hurt", you can't prove it's wrong.  

 

As with the Bible (and since sin is a biblical concept), it starts with God, not people and what they want or value.  Because we tend to want and value the wrong things.  (Not always; that's not what the doctrine of total depravity says--or sufficient depravity, as Dallas Willard said, "I believe that every human being is sufficiently depraved that when we get to heaven, no one will be able to say, 'I merited this.'")

 

I gotta run out the door or else I'd get into what sin is a bit further.  lol  Yes, we can sin against one another, but EVERY sin is also a sin against God.

 

Well of course it starts with God. Without God and the bible "sin" wouldn't be a thing. Behavior would be explained in other ways. Behaviors that were named in the bible as sins have been demoted when it became unarguable they don't negatively affect people. Nobody cares about the sin of boiling a baby goat in its own milk anymore. It's so irrelevant that most Christians don't know it's one of their "ten" commandments. Slavery isn't considered a sin in the bible, whereas it is today, because it's unarguably immoral according to modern standards. So yes, it starts with the bible, and yes secular morality influences Christian morality. That's why this last decade has seen a reversal in terms of Christian views about lgbt - the influence is very real, it inspires change within Christian churches.

 

If you can define "sin" in such a way that all Christians agree, it'll be the first in 2000 years. Observably, it usually validates the individual Christian's own personal moral outlook. So when I hear people who don't condemn homosexuality but try and encourage people to not quite accept homosexuality, it would appear like they haven't quite figured out their own moral stance on the issue, but are hedging their bets just in case. That's why I agree with previous posters that suggest in 20-50 years lgbt will not even be a blip on the moral radar in Churches - the debate will be over by then. In the meantime, real people are getting really hurt while many real Christians sit back and give themselves permission to not think about it.

 

 

edit: I'm a little concerned that my first sentence sounds like I'm rolling my eyes. I promise I'm not! I hope it doesn't come across that way to anyone, because I really don't feel that way and I don't want to give that impression! ack! [/social anxiety]

Edited January 25, 2017 by Charlie

[Katy]

Nope. That's more of a secular morality: if you can't find any way that this action hurts another person, according to how I define "hurt", you can't prove it's wrong.  

 

As with the Bible (and since sin is a biblical concept), it starts with God, not people and what they want or value.  Because we tend to want and value the wrong things.  (Not always; that's not what the doctrine of total depravity says--or sufficient depravity, as Dallas Willard said, "I believe that every human being is sufficiently depraved that when we get to heaven, no one will be able to say, 'I merited this.'")

 

I gotta run out the door or else I'd get into what sin is a bit further.  lol  Yes, we can sin against one another, but EVERY sin is also a sin against God.

 

I disagree that it is secular morality at all.  When you have a tiny desert tribe of people struggling to survive, having as many babies as possible is good for all.  It's arguably possible that the whole reason for the law is to ensure as many children as possible, while also avoiding intermingling with Greek and Roman cultures.  Creating a cultural and moral disdain for homosexuality would be another way to ensure avoiding having children abandon the their own culture for another.

 

These days Christians are in no way in danger of dying out, and you can create babies in a lot of ways.  The same "harm" factors do not apply.

[PeachyDoodle]

Well of course it starts with God. Without God and the bible "sin" wouldn't be a thing. Behavior would be explained in other ways. Behaviors that were named in the bible as sins have been demoted when it became unarguable they don't negatively affect people. Nobody cares about the sin of boiling a baby goat in its own milk anymore. It's so irrelevant that most Christians don't know it's one of their "ten" commandments. Slavery isn't considered a sin in the bible, whereas it is today, because it's unarguably immoral according to modern standards. So yes, it starts with the bible, and yes secular morality influences Christian morality. That's why this last decade has seen a reversal in terms of Christian views about lgbt - the influence is very real, it inspires change within Christian churches.

 

If you can define "sin" in such a way that all Christians agree, it'll be the first in 2000 years. Observably, it usually validates the individual Christian's own personal moral outlook. So when I hear people who don't condemn homosexuality but try and encourage people to not quite accept homosexuality, it would appear like they haven't quite figured out their own moral stance on the issue, but are hedging their bets just in case. That's why I agree with previous posters that suggest in 20-50 years lgbt will not even be a blip on the moral radar in Churches - the debate will be over by then. In the meantime, real people are getting really hurt while many real Christians sit back and give themselves permission to not think about it.

 

Boiling a kid in it's mother's milk, while part of the Mosaic Law, is not part of the Ten Commandments. Christians have never held to the Jewish civil and ceremonials laws, which were fulfilled by Christ. A huge part of the New Testament is devoted to this discussion. The abolition of the Jewish dietary laws is specifically commanded by Christ himself in Acts 10.

 

This is in no way an example of Christians "demoting" sins because of their lack of negative effect on others.

 

While we are always conscious of how our sins affect our neighbor, sin is first and foremost a breaking of God's Law, and an act of rebellion against God. The Ten Commandments are divided into two tables: the second deals with acts against our neighbor (murder, theft, adultery), but the first deals specifically with sins against God (idolatry, misuse of God's name, honor of the Sabbath), and these are considered paramount. When King David sinned by committing adultery and then murder, he confessed to God, "Against you, you only, have I sinned" (Ps 51:4). While David's acts clearly caused harm to at least two other people (the adultery was at least partially coerced -- who can refuse the king? -- and the murder is obvious), he recognizes that first and foremost he has offended God. It is precisely our justification, being made right with God by his forgiveness in Christ, that frees us to focus on loving and serving our neighbors.

 

Slavery is an interesting example, because, unlike homosexuality, it is a case of Christians actually becoming more stringent in their morality than the Bible would demand. Slavery itself is not prohibited in scripture, although certainly many of the abhorrent trappings that accompanied it in the early years of American history are. I think you are right that there is a shift towards acceptance of homosexuality in the church, but given its clear prohibition in scripture, I'm not sure that issue will ever have the universal consensus that slavery has.

 

As to people being hurt in the meantime: I can only speak for myself here, and I realize that for some anything I say will be considered disingenuous. There's not much I can do about that. But I do not desire to cause harm or pain to anyone, and certainly would not inflict it intentionally. Well, that's not entirely true. I certainly HAVE inflicted pain intentionally, when I am angry, or hurt, or otherwise lashing out. I know the depths of my own depravity. But what I mean to say is that I do not harbor any ill will towards anyone, based on their sexual orientation.

 

That said, some of the pain that SSA people feel (and I'm speculating, based on discussion here and elsewhere) may sometimes be caused by their being brought face to face with God's Law. Usually that comes through Christians who proclaim that Law, but I'm sure there are other avenues. And the declaration that one is a sinner, and in rebellious violation of God's Law, is painful. Actually, the Law is designed to be painful, on purpose. Its function is to drive us to despair of ever being what God would have us to be.

 

What we forget is that the Law doesn't have the last word. Christ does. And Christ has fulfilled the Law on our behalf and bled and died for our transgressions. God is not angry with us -- quite the opposite! God looks upon us with unbelievable favor and is pleased with us, because of what Christ has done. We need only to repent and believe.

[Greta]

Forgive me for breaking in with a question that doesn't contribute to the progress of the conversation. But I would really like to know when/where/how this belief that all sin is equal originated. There are several passages of the Bible that rank some as worse than others. Christ himself singled out one particular sin as unforgivable. And he warned us very clearly that we will be judged on the basis of how we treat those in need, which would seem to indicate that the sin of apathy/indifference is a pretty darn bad one. So I don't really understand this belief.

 

Again, sorry for the side-track, but thanks in advance if anyone would like to clear up my confusion. :-)

[TranquilMind]

So you have some sins that you see as human mistakes but this one is wholly umreconciliable.

 

I understand you. I just disagree with you. Your position is as immoral and repugnant to me as the mere existence of gay people is to you.

 

You twisted Scarlett's words there and then flung the same sort of judgment you are decrying. 

 

[Katy]

Forgive me for breaking in with a question that doesn't contribute to the progress of the conversation. But I would really like to know when/where/how this belief that all sin is equal originated. There are several passages of the Bible that rank some as worse than others. Christ himself singled out one particular sin as unforgivable. And he warned us very clearly that we will be judged on the basis of how we treat those in need, which would seem to indicate that the sin of apathy/indifference is a pretty darn bad one. So I don't really understand this belief.

 

Again, sorry for the side-track, but thanks in advance if anyone would like to clear up my confusion. :-)

 

Paul.  James 2:10-

 

New International Version

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

 

 

 

ETA:  To me this isn't an example of no sin being worse than any others, but of the need for all to experience grace.

 

Another example is the parable Jesus gave about the pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14), where the one who was justified was not the one who followed the law, but the one who asked for mercy.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Katy

[TranquilMind]

The lie is that reproductive organs are more important than the brain and fundamental parts of one's sense of self.

 

They aren't more important. Reproductive organs just designate what you are, a male or a female (leaving aside the extreme rare incidences of being born with some anomaly in this area). 

 

That is why the doctor announces that you have given birth to a boy or a girl.  I'm sure many here would rather he say, "Well, you have a baby.  I am sure this baby will tell you some day what it is. Looks like a male child but what do I know?"

But that's nuts. 

 

[Charlie]

@ PeachyDoodle, in the events written in Exodus chapter 34, the writer states: " The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai." So Moses went up the second time with two more stone tablets. The lord came down in a cloud and stood there telling Moses what to write. "Then the Lord said: “I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the Lord, will do for you.  Obey what I command you today." He goes on to talk about not making treaties with Canaanites, don't make idols, celebrate the festival of unleavened bread, redeem all firstborn males, including animals (?), rest on the Sabbath, and finally do not cook a young goat in it's mother's milk. "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel'.â€

 

The boiling command is secured between statements of the lord telling Moses this is the commandment he is making with them. These are the new commandments written down on stone, the one replacing the stone that broke at the bottom of the mountain. If the goat doesn't count, neither would keeping the Sabbath or the celebration of unleavened bread (which evolves, through the "last supper" to modern communion or eucharist).

 

I understand what you say about hurting people by accident on purpose. I think we can all relate. We all lash out when feeling defensive or vulnerable, and sometimes a sharp word can feel like a safety line in the heat of the moment. I don't think these necessarily reveal the overall intent of the person, impulsive behaviors are just that - impulsive and sometimes get away from our rational intentions. But I'm talking about hurting people, or refusing to help when possible, by virtue of keeping quiet or silently validating an immoral idea, knowing its effects bring pain to others, or dismissing them.

 

I disagree that God's law is painful. I don't feel an ounce of pain rejecting it. I'm happy to blaspheme against the holy spirit and have never felt an ounce of discomfort. Most of the people I know offline and on feel this way. In a world of 7 billion people, it would appear the majority don't feel pain, or else they'd be Christian too. I would argue the pain you observe is a result of the cognitive conflict that occurs when one is faced with two diametrically opposing, but very deeply felt forces of cognition. One the one hand, we're hard wired to defer to authority from infancy. We're hard wired to seek approval in our behaviors and flee those who break rules (unless they're quite charismatic and produce rewards too great to reject). This process is observable in some really interesting ways. On the other hand, we cannot deny what we perceive, and that includes internal stimuli. Being told homosexuality is abhorrent is painful only if those people close to you think that. Otherwise, we'd see a universal response to homosexuality that reflects this pain, not overwhelmingly in conservative religious communities almost exclusively.

[Lawana]

I think that is why the whole religion thing is so problematic in this case. Variation in sexuality and gender differences are seen primarily as an affront to a god and his laws, and people holding this belief have no problem proclaiming "Sinner!" despite the real harm it causes real people. And it is justified by a *belief*, not shared by all. No evidence of the type that can be recognized by those outside the belief system. But the condemnation of this human variance, which cannot be divorced from its effects on real people, is supposed to be tolerated, respected, codified into civil law. The effects on actual people can be dismissed, in favor of the assurance that those holding the beliefs are pleasing to their god.