Religion and LGBTQ

[TranquilMind]

People have been telling her (and me) that she needs to go with how she feels (and the mental solution that she must really be a boy) and THAT is her "true self."  I disagree that her mind or brain is correct in this assumption.

 

Anorexic people's minds convince tell them that they are fat when they are not.

Anxious people's minds tell them that everyone hates them or that there is always something to fear.

Depressed people's minds tell them that there is no reason or hope for living.

Narcissists' minds tell them that they are better and more important than everyone else.

People who self-mutilate believe their own minds that cutting and disfiguring *eases* their pain.

 

And on and on.  I don't mean for this to sound like I think she is possessed or something.  lol  I just think that our minds can get tripped up in how it reconciles fears, discomfort, confusion, anguish, etc. and come to the wrong conclusion about what needs to be fixed--or NOT fixed.

 

By the way, any argument that this isn't like other disorders because transgender people aren't hurting anyone else doesn't hold water with me.  The suicidal person isn't technically hurting anyone else.  And anyone who thinks that they can resolve their disorder by removing or adding body parts and undergoing hormone treatments that their bodies were not meant to have, can't understand that they ARE hurting someone.  (Or they don't care, but I don't think that's usually the case.)

 

You have a very legitimate question as to why we treat the one incidence differently that all other disorders where a person believes something wholeheartedly that is not objectively true. 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Anorexia, NPD (not the colloquial social media version of 'my mom has NPD), depression and anxiety are categorised as mental disorders by mental health professionals in the DSM 5.

 Gender dysphoria is considered a condition not a disorder under DSM 5.

 

Secondly, using religion as a solution for your daughters immense physical and mental torment (which I'm fairly certain she's going through) is so.....medieval.

 

Thirdly, one would, I suppose 'add' or 'remove' body parts if it is a danger to one's health.? Hysterectomy, mastectomy are just a few examples.

 

Lastly, and maybe this question is meant for christians at large- What would you do if a child is born missing an ovary or a uterus or some other reproductive organ? How would you raise him/her? and what if that upbringing clashes with how the child feels internally?

 

It was indeed a disorder in the DSM back when it was called gender identity disorder.    Now there has been a redefinition of  the disorder part to include only those  who are troubled about it and say they have dysphoria but that all others are just fine. 

 

It is still mental illness according to WHO:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-transgender-mental-illness-classification-20160729-story.html

 

Your final question is confusing.  If you have a female child who is born missing an ovary or a uterus, she merely is born with imperfect reproductive parts.  She is still a female.  ??

[TranquilMind]

OK, I do want to add something here, about the posts that have said children have been getting labeled according to the colors they like, or toys, or activities, that absolutely does happen. I am 100% for LGBTQ rights and equality, so I am not saying this as someone who is against people. I do feel people are born how they are in this. HOWEVER, during the course of raising my children, one of my older boys asked for a toy kitchen when he was 3 yrs old for Christmas. I was completely reamed for it by my husband's non-Christian relatives that it would turn him gay so do not buy him that. Later, when my son was doing ballet and other parents found out, they banned their kids from playing with my son and even went so far as to have their children switched classrooms to keep their kids away from my son. The kids still liked my son and played with him at recess, but then could not ride bikes home with him because they were not allowed to be seen with him. AND, when I posted about it on a different message board, not here, I got bombarded with messages from people insisting he needs to be placed on hormones immediately, at 7 or 8 yrs old, until he decides what gender he is and then people calling him a she. Just because he wanted to do ballet!!! Hormones will mess with a child and possibly even change their sexual preferences. You cannot pump someone full or hormones and then claim they are becoming whatever they naturally wanted to become. People came forward to tell me how they put their children as young as 6 yrs old on hormones. Doctors actually allow that.

 

In the 70's, there was a big push to make sure girls could play with Legos and cars and boys could play with dolls and kitchens.  Now, in 2010's, society has fallen back decades and now, boys can no longer play with dolls or cook, or like art, and girls better not play legos, or cars, because no "real boy" or "real girl" does things outside of their reset gender stuff or they MUST be LGBTQ.  Ironically, I just turned on PBS. They are showing a group of kids playing dress up on Daniel Tiger's neighborhood. All the kids playing dress up are girls and the boys are off in the corner with trucks or cars or something. So much for gender equality. I do not like this at all. It is not ok. Let me make it clear what I am saying... I believe LGBTQ is ok, but I do not think labelling a child because he wants to play with a doll or do ballet is ok. No child should be labeled in any way before puberty and even then, the child needs to be the one to choose the label, not dumb adults who think real boys don't do ballet.

That is just ridiculous that people wouldn't let kids play with your son because he did ballet!    It is also ridiculous to put 6 year olds on hormones. 

 

My kids are already nearly grown and I didn't experience any discord over what kind of toys they played with, and since I had boys and girls, they played with everything. 

 

I'm wondering if that kind of nonsense is filtering down to a very young age group so that they no longer even feel free to play with any toys they want because someone else might label them. That is seriously whacked.

 

But I can't imagine this would be all that new in an older group (sissy and terms like that were in use, but not until like pre-teen age).   Strange.  Kids should know nothing of all this and just be kids. 

[TranquilMind]

First of all, stop referring to them as "homosexuals" like this is Britain in the 1930s or something. The only people who use the word that way use it in a derogatory manner. It would be like me continually referring to you as a bible-thumper rather than a Christian. And yes, I'm sure you'll act like you can't understand what could possibly be wrong with calling gay people "homosexuals," but it had to be said. Again.

 

Second, you haven't even had limited interaction with her if literally everything you know about her is via gossip or you making wild leaps about her based on her behavior at a memorial service. Interaction generally refers to, you know, actually sitting down and talking to someone.

 

It is a medically accurate term.  So take it up with the medical profession. 

 

[TranquilMind]

I go by what you tell us in regard to your behaviors and motives.

 

As far as my opinion of you, let's just say that it has something to do with you feeling the need to comment profusely on every single LGBTQ thread despite thinking gay people are an abomination you could never, ever befriend, just so you can get in another dig at the gay and trans people on this board. I mean, we all know what you think of us. You really don't have to keep posting it in these threads over and over and over. If you have no interest at all in changing your thinking on this subject, just stay out of the threads. Why is that so hard? Do you think your god is going to punish you if you miss an opportunity to let someone know how sinful the gay is? Believe me, we know. Stand down. Take a day off.

 

Well, you are commenting too on all these threads!   

 

What the heck?  She has an opinion.  You have an opinion.  Everyone's got one.  Who are you to judge her for offering her opinions you don't like while you are simultaneously offering your own opinions?  You don't know her.  She never once told anyone how sinful he was. 

 

You stand down. 

 

[Mergath]

Well, you are commenting too on all these threads!

 

What the heck? She has an opinion. You have an opinion. Everyone's got one. Who are you to judge her for offering her opinions you don't like while you are simultaneously offering your own opinions? You don't know her. She never once told anyone how sinful he was.

 

You stand down.

 

I'm bisexual, so conversations about LGBTQ stuff actually pertain to me. She's admitted she has no experience with a gay or trans person, has no interest in learning more, and is saying things that are hurtful to people. So no, I don't think there's any point in her posting in these threads.

[Greta]

 

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.

Thank you. I still don't understand it, but I appreciate your help! To me, like you said, the first passage is simply saying that all sins require forgiveness, not that all sins are the same. And the second one seems to be about humility, not about sins being equal. So I'm still confused, but no surprise there. It's my usual state of being. :lol:

[Greta]

It is a medically accurate term. So take it up with the medical profession.

 

Why does the medical profession get to decide how gay people are referred to? Shouldn't gay people get to decide that? If we're going to use medically accurate terms, I guess we should stop saying baby and start saying fetus or infant?

[PeachyDoodle]

@ 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 don't think I'm following you here. Exodus 34 is a quick recap of the whole Law, which had already been given in detail the first time Moses was on the mountain. It is not a replacement for everything written in the chapters previous. In fact, one could make the case that the specific laws included in the chapter 34 recap are chosen to be representative of various parts of the whole Law. There are mentions of sacrifices, festivals, dietary restrictions, etc. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that boiling a kid in its mother's milk is not contained in the section of scripture commonly known as the Ten Commandments (cf. Ex. 20, Deut. 5). There are a total of 613 commands in the Mosaic Law. As the name implies only (roughly) 10 appear in the Ten Commandments. None of them are dietary laws. In fact, the Ten Commandments, as the summary of the Law, are all moral commands (with the possible exception of the Sabbath).

 

I think you misunderstand how Christians view the Mosaic Law. Just because two commands appear side by side in the Law, it doesn't mean that they both have to be upheld and obeyed by Christians. At the time they were given, God expected adherence to them all. But the book of Hebrews tells us that the ceremonial and civil commands were types and shadows -- their reality is in Christ. These have been fulfilled and are no longer necessary; only the moral aspects are universal. However, the commands are not neatly categorized in Exodus and Deuteronomy (moral, civil, ceremonial) because at the time they were written to Israel they were all relevant. Their proximity to each other in the document is irrelevant.

 

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 understand what you are saying, but wouldn't you agree that, by your definition, the morality or immorality of any idea is subjective? If I disagree that a particular idea is immoral, am I culpable for pain caused to others when I silently validate it? Why would I speak against an idea that I don't believe to be immoral?

 

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.

 

If you believe we're hardwired to defer to authority, you must have had much more compliant toddlers than I did, LOL! FTR, I didn't say that the only possible response to the conviction of the Law is belief. For many of us, the natural tendency to self-justify pushes in the other direction, so that we convince ourselves the Law doesn't apply, for whatever reason (it isn't real, it's immoral, etc.). I think we know we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I do have a question, however -- and I hope our conversation to this point has been respectful enough that you know I do not mean this with any degree of snark. If the bolded is true, then why have several posters here who have LBGT loved ones become extremely upset with other posters who were adamant that homosexuality is wrong? If it's not painful to hear from strangers, why the reaction?

 

[Katy]

Thank you. I still don't understand it, but I appreciate your help! To me, like you said, the first passage is simply saying that all sins require forgiveness, not that all sins are the same. And the second one seems to be about humility, not about sins being equal. So I'm still confused, but no surprise there. It's my usual state of being. :lol:

 

It is confusing because it's frequently misused.  It's not saying that no sins are worse than others.  It's saying that if you're guilty of one sin you've still broken the law and need grace.  So basically whether you're a huge sinner or a minor sinner, you're still a sinner who needs Jesus - so don't be self-righteous.

[Greta]

It is confusing because it's frequently misused.  It's not saying that no sins are worse than others.  It's saying that if you're guilty of one sin you've still broken the law and need grace.  So basically whether you're a huge sinner or a minor sinner, you're still a sinner who needs Jesus - so don't be self-righteous.

 

 

Ah, I see.  Thanks again!  And I agree wholeheartedly with your interpretation/conclusion!

[Heidi]

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.

You sound like abeto.

[TranquilMind]

I'm bisexual, so conversations about LGBTQ stuff actually pertain to me. She's admitted she has no experience with a gay or trans person, has no interest in learning more, and is saying things that are hurtful to people. So no, I don't think there's any point in her posting in these threads.

So only insiders in any group are welcome to comment?  And you only speak on threads where you are an insider on the topic? 

 

That's not what we do here.  We hear from all sorts of people with all sorts of perspectives and that's a good thing.    She is speaking from a position of faith on an issue that has infiltrated the Church.

 

Have you even noticed the topic of the thread?  "Religion" is in the thread title, so you should not be unduly surprised that someone speaks about that topic.

 

You are not in any position to determine who may speak and who may not. If you don't like her posts, move on. 

 

Don't tell her to stand down.

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

Why does the medical profession get to decide how gay people are referred to? Shouldn't gay people get to decide that? If we're going to use medically accurate terms, I guess we should stop saying baby and start saying fetus or infant?

Feel free, anytime you are speaking about unborn or newly born children.    Others may use the term baby, and that's ok too.

 

Haven't seen a fetus shower yet, but I guess that could happen...

 

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by TranquilMind

[Mergath]

So only insiders in any group are welcome to comment?  And you only speak on threads where you are an insider on the topic?  That's not what we do here.  We hear from all sorts of people with all sorts of perspectives and that's a good thing.    She is speaking from a position of faith on an issue that has infiltrated the Church.

 

You are not in any position to determine who may speak and who may not. If you don't like her posts, move on. 

 

Don't tell her to stand down.

 

 

And stuff like this is why people tend not to reply to your posts anymore. Something I'll be putting into practice once again starting now.

[TranquilMind]

And stuff like this is why people tend not to reply to your posts anymore. Something I'll be putting into practice once again starting now.

 

That's really sad that your only response is to attempt to insult me personally instead of backtrack on your highly illogical position that religious people should not speak out on a thread named "Religion and LGBTQ" as you did to Scarlett. 

 

SMH

 

 

[Charlie]

Why does the medical profession get to decide how gay people are referred to? Shouldn't gay people get to decide that? If we're going to use medically accurate terms, I guess we should stop saying baby and start saying fetus or infant?

 

Medical professionals are the peer reviewers for medical issues. When a claim is made, its the community of those trained and experienced in the field that determine if the claim is legit or not. Sadly, the medical community is not allowed to ever update according to new information. That's why medical schools teach about the four humors, and obstetricians still look after the development of the humble homunculus. Oh wait.

[Charlie]

I don't think I'm following you here. Exodus 34 is a quick recap of the whole Law, which had already been given in detail the first time Moses was on the mountain. It is not a replacement for everything written in the chapters previous. In fact, one could make the case that the specific laws included in the chapter 34 recap are chosen to be representative of various parts of the whole Law. There are mentions of sacrifices, festivals, dietary restrictions, etc. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that boiling a kid in its mother's milk is not contained in the section of scripture commonly known as the Ten Commandments (cf. Ex. 20, Deut. 5). There are a total of 613 commands in the Mosaic Law. As the name implies only (roughly) 10 appear in the Ten Commandments. None of them are dietary laws. In fact, the Ten Commandments, as the summary of the Law, are all moral commands (with the possible exception of the Sabbath).

 

I think you misunderstand how Christians view the Mosaic Law. Just because two commands appear side by side in the Law, it doesn't mean that they both have to be upheld and obeyed by Christians. At the time they were given, God expected adherence to them all. But the book of Hebrews tells us that the ceremonial and civil commands were types and shadows -- their reality is in Christ. These have been fulfilled and are no longer necessary; only the moral aspects are universal. However, the commands are not neatly categorized in Exodus and Deuteronomy (moral, civil, ceremonial) because at the time they were written to Israel they were all relevant. Their proximity to each other in the document is irrelevant.

 

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 understand what you are saying, but wouldn't you agree that, by your definition, the morality or immorality of any idea is subjective? If I disagree that a particular idea is immoral, am I culpable for pain caused to others when I silently validate it? Why would I speak against an idea that I don't believe to be immoral?

 

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.

 

If you believe we're hardwired to defer to authority, you must have had much more compliant toddlers than I did, LOL! FTR, I didn't say that the only possible response to the conviction of the Law is belief. For many of us, the natural tendency to self-justify pushes in the other direction, so that we convince ourselves the Law doesn't apply, for whatever reason (it isn't real, it's immoral, etc.). I think we know we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I do have a question, however -- and I hope our conversation to this point has been respectful enough that you know I do not mean this with any degree of snark. If the bolded is true, then why have several posters here who have LBGT loved ones become extremely upset with other posters who were adamant that homosexuality is wrong? If it's not painful to hear from strangers, why the reaction?

 

I'm not sure I'm tracking you with the story in Exodus. The very first sentence in chapter 34 refers to the tablets that Moses broke (in chapter 32) and that these are the replacement commandments. The idea that there are ten commandments is a popular idea based on the bible, but that's it. Wiki has more info on the different commandments and how they've been compiled and referred to in history. But I don't want to stray too far from the point - Christians identify sin differently.

 

The idea of morality being subjective is pretty clearly observable in history, cultures, and biology. There are certain core elements to morality, like fairness and empathy, but how those are expressed, or what we call moral behavior, differ according to certain variables. So maybe we're splitting hairs? I don't know. I kind of don't think so. But is this too far off point?

 

You ask, "If I disagree that a particular idea is immoral, am I culpable for pain caused to others when I silently validate it? Why would I speak against an idea that I don't believe to be immoral? Well, while the answer to your question is, in my opinion, no, but I don't think it applies here. There are literally pages of explanations why applying a certain belief is harmful in this very thread. It's hard to accept a claim of ignorance in this case.

 

The Milgram experiment is probably the most well known study that supports the idea that humans instinctively defer to authority. Your problem toddlers (and mine) are explained by the fact we're also hard wired to explore, experiment, and act autonomously!

 

You ask, "If the bolded is true, then why have several posters here who have LBGT loved ones become extremely upset with other posters who were adamant that homosexuality is wrong? If it's not painful to hear from strangers, why the reaction?" I can't answer for others, but I imagine it's for the same reason you educate your children and do what you can to see them not get hurt but to succeed - empathy. Read some stories by lgbt people who grew up in Christian homes that sought to "correct" lgbt behavior, and you'll see why people are upset. Real people get hurt real bad because people are convinced their hostile behaviors justified.

 

And finally, I too have enjoyed this exchange. I hope you understand I don't mean to present any hostility. If it looks like I'm angry and accusatory, it's not my intent. Truly I believe that if we got together over hot chocolate, we'd find each other quite pleasant company. These questions are fun to discuss, I think, and now that my kids are older, I find fewer opportunities to do this. So thank you for keeping me company!

[LucyStoner]

There are actually around the same number of intersex infants born (with ambiguous sex organs or internal reproductive organs that do not match the sex they were assumed to be at birth) as there are natural redheads. 1.7% vs. 1-2% of the world's population.

 

So if one believes in God, you can't actually conclude that God makes all people either male OR female.

[Spryte]

There are actually around the same number of intersex infants born (with ambiguous sex organs or internal reproductive organs that do not match the sex they were assumed to be at birth) as there are natural redheads. 1.7% vs. 1-2% of the world's population.

 

So if one believes in God, you can't actually conclude that God makes all people either male OR female.

Yes. This is true. Chances are high that every person here knows someone who is intersex. Honestly, one would never know, unless someone trusted you with that info.

[ebunny]

/snip

 

/snip

 

/snip

 

Thank you, and I get the gist and the implications of what you all are saying; although you come from different sub-groups of christianity (?). I was a bit lost when someone up thread mentioned LDS as they're not a widely known group in my country.

 

See, here's the thing. I grew up in a very socio-culturally and economically diverse city with an attitude of 'live and let live'. Place it in a secular country where religion and constitutional rights exist fairly comfortably without infringing on the scope of one another.

 

I had a neighbour growing up who, in hindsight, was gay. He and his partner lived and behaved like a regular married couple (20+ years ago) I think I was 9? 10?  when I naively asked my mother about it. She shut me down pretty quickly and told me to mind my own business.  :D. AFAIK and remember, our behaviour towards this couple didn't change in any way. They continued to stay a part of the community enjoying the same rights as anyone else.

 

Now, I'm aware that my context is likely very different from yours (christian members); but I'm curious as to how do you respond to a situation where you have a neighbor who is LGBTQ or your child has a friend who is LGBTQ?

 

ETA: Please don't misunderstand my curiosity of micro-interactions in your family and community. I'm merely trying to figure out if you (specific you) can take a non-discriminatory approach wrt LGBTQ despite your religious beliefs.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Ebunny

[TranquilMind]

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.

 

You aren't going to like this answer, but you asked so I will answer.  Anyone who doesn't like it or doesn't want to read scripture on this question can move on.

 

  Why is it important?  Because it is bigger than just "me and mine" and me being happy.  It affects our whole nation.  It affects the bloodline of the parties involved and even eternity.   It doesn't matter what I personally think. 

 

The entire chapter of Leviticus 18 also applies to us, as moral law continues forever, though ceremonial law ceased when the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 

 

That entire chapter defines practices that will drive out the inhabitants of the land :  adultery, child sacrifice (some call abortion this), homosexuality, and bestiality.

 

It's pretty serious stuff to God, though in this post-believing culture we just laugh and mock people who take God's Word seriously.

 

Here it is (TRIGGER Warning- scripture coming):

God speaking to Israel (and all believers to come):

 

And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor's wife and so make yourself unclean with her. ²¹ You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. ²² You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. ²³ And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

 

²⁴ â€œDo not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, ²⁵ and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. ²⁶ But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you ²⁷ (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), ²⁸ lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. ²⁹ For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people.

 

It's one thing if and when people themselves sin; they can always repent and seek forgiveness, but when a society itself enacts laws promoting iniquity, that's a dangerous place to be. 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

Excepting you are taking the position of the oppressed, when the topic is the oppression of somebody else...in the context of this thread, it would be the LGBTQ youth who would need comforted by the reminder that Jesus loves them even when the religious people cast them out and call them evil.

 

I'm not doing taking the position of the oppressed.  I'm simply stating what occurs. 

And yes, Jesus does love everyone and want everyone to "come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth."

 

Jesus also says, "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and not do what I tell you?"  ALL of scripture is profitable for teaching, preaching, and rebuke. 

No one is casting anyone out. 

 

[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.

I did say precisely that.  You must not be reading my posts, in your rush to condemnation.

 

It apply to ME, my children, everyone,  not just to that other guy over there while I do what I want.   What God said is wrong, is wrong.    I don't "think things about people".  I think the Word of the Lord is true and applies to all. 

 

You can't seem to separate principles from people in your urgency to be offended.  I wish you could. 

[TranquilMind]

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).

 

 

Your interpretation is not correct.  Jesus is not approving this outcome while telling the parable, but merely relating the outcome of the man's CHOICE. 

 

 The rich man in the parable is speaking to Abraham, not Jesus. The prophets were sent, and they would not hear.  Jesus was sent, and they would not hear HIM, God in the flesh,  either.   He's simply explaining the end result of that choice.  We all make a choice in this life. 

 

Luke 16

 

 â€œThere was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. ²⁰ And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, ²¹ who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores. ²² The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham.^[g] The rich man also died and was buried. ²³ In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.^{[h] 24} He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ ²⁵ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. ²⁶ Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’ ²⁷ He said, ‘Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house— ²⁸ for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’ ²⁹ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’ ³⁰ He said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ ³¹ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’â€

 

 

 

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Ebunny, mine is a Christian household. We are committed to what my husband calls "a policy of non-aggression" toward people of every demographic, *because* we are Christians. Gay neighbors, relatives, and friends are welcome in our home and in our lives. We would not belong to a church or homeschool group that shuns or persecutes LGBTQ youth.

 

My son, the future interfaith chaplain, is now affiliated with a liberal, progressive denomination of Christianity, because he wants the moral authority of that perspective behind him as he serves the community, especially regarding social justice issues.

 

Another son, who intends to be a pastor of a congregation, said yesterday that he will choose his denominational ordination based on whether there is any record of that group's political oppression of anyone, whether in the USA or as "missionaries" abroad. He is likely to follow his brother into the same denomination.

 

There are liberal Christians. Our ranks are growing daily, as the oppressive agendas of fundamentalists become more exposed. I think many religious people have a "live and let live" policy, until they find out that their fellow church people don't think that at ALL and would control everyone if they had the chance. When you figure that out, there's no choice but to join liberal churches.

 

My family is not alone in this shift. We honestly didn't know about political activities of missionaries persecuting people in Africa, or about dominionist agendas in fundamentalist churches, until fairly recently. But now we can't UN-know. My dh and I are thankful that we never supported churches with these agendas, but we regret that our older kids were not raised in more progressive churches. But they are voluntarily joining progressive churches now, as adults.

[quark]

I have been remiss and thanked only a few of you when I should have thanked everyone. This thread has been upsetting, gut-wrenching and yet also very fascinating to me. So informative. Thank you all for taking the time to contribute. Although I feel so old some days I realize I am just more and more ignorant but something just hit me reading through this thread...I also feel very confident now! So absolutely sure and glad now about a decision I made some time ago in my distant past.

 

I try to keep an open mind and listen to all views but admit that I become too emotionally involved and invested to the extent that it stops me from analyzing certain ideas rationally/ neutrally. But wow, I actually feel much more comfortable with my life decisions now. For a very brief but very intense period in my past, religion affected my life very deeply. I give as much as I possibly can to the people I love but this was one thing holding me back. I think a part of me has felt guilty for some time but I am now incredibly glad that I trusted my gut and did not budge.

[Katy]

God is homosexual.  Have you noticed that he is attracted to men?  His first human creation was a man!  God created Adam first--not Eve.  Now, if I were God I'd create a beautiful woman first especially after having been alone for eternity!  But no, God created a man.  Then God keeps contacting men throughout history like Noah, Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed, St. Paul, etc.  When he wanted to contact a woman he didn't do it himself he sent the angel Gabriel to talk to Mary.  God is attracted to men which is the definition of homosexuality.  Armed with that knowledge I would take what the church says about gays with a grain of salt.

 

Why do you assume God has a gender?

[mathnerd]

Because 99.9% of people who believe in God believes he is masculine.

Not true in every religion (I am including non-christian religions and the 6+ billion population, not continental US only).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by mathnerd

[fraidycat]

Why do you assume God has a gender?

Well, there's that whole "Father" thing...

[Katy]

Because 99.9% of people who believe in God believes he is masculine.

 

I was raised Christian and I was taught that God is without gender, and that God split his essence so that both male and female together are made in God's image.  That we use masculine pronouns only because until very recently English tended to default to masculine pronouns, not because it in anyway indicated who God is.

 

 

ETA:  This was in a Wisconsin Synod (the strict one without female pastors) Lutheran church.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Katy

[liber]

God is homosexual.  Have you noticed that he is attracted to men?  His first human creation was a man!  God created Adam first--not Eve.  Now, if I were God I'd create a beautiful woman first especially after having been alone for eternity!  But no, God created a man.  Then God keeps contacting men throughout history like Noah, Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed, St. Paul, etc.  When he wanted to contact a woman he didn't do it himself he sent the angel Gabriel to talk to Mary.  God is attracted to men which is the definition of homosexuality.  Armed with that knowledge I would take what the church says about gays with a grain of salt.

 

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.  lol  I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the absurdness of it.  Talk about being grossly misinformed about Christianity.

 

[Ravin]

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. 

 

 

Your reproductive organs don't designate what you are. The doctor does after looking at them. Not the same thing. It is a system that works 99% of the time, and that's fine.

 

Intersex conditions which cause "some anomaly" in the reproductive organs which is obvious enough to call in an expert at birth occurs in 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. About 1 in 100 people have bodies which differ from standard male and female (same link). That isn't rare at all. It's as common as identical twins.

 

Transgender people are found in the population at about the same rate.  This makes sense if you consider that the brain is part of the body and differences can occur in it just as they can in reproductive organs.

 

Deciding a person is "male" or "female" based on the WHOLE person makes more sense than just looking selectively at their reproductive organs, because gender is factored into a lot more than the simple act of physical reproduction. 

 

It used to be common belief that a whole host of conditions and disorders such as epilepsy, cancer, the Black Death, etc. were because of sin or demon possession or some wrongness in the soul of the person. Over time we have come to understand both that some differences aren't really a problem unless society makes them a problem (e.g., left handedness, same sex attraction, nonconforming gender identity), and that many differences are uncommon but natural occurrences rather than disorders and that many conditions once condemned as signs of immorality/spiritual weakness are physical disorders of the body--of which the brain is one organ.

 

More Christians are coming around to realize that condemning someone for a naturally occurring variation in their person misses the mark, just as most have come around to recognize that physical infirmities and disorders are not the fault of a person or the result of moral failings.

[Ravin]

 

Here it is (TRIGGER Warning- scripture coming):

 

 

You obviously don't know what trigger warnings are actually for. Anyone who experiences trauma at simply reading Bible verses isn't going to look in this thread in the first place. 

[TranquilMind]

Your reproductive organs don't designate what you are. The doctor does after looking at them. Not the same thing. It is a system that works 99% of the time, and that's fine.

 

Intersex conditions which cause "some anomaly" in the reproductive organs which is obvious enough to call in an expert at birth occurs in 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. About 1 in 100 people have bodies which differ from standard male and female (same link). That isn't rare at all. It's as common as identical twins.

 

Transgender people are found in the population at about the same rate.  This makes sense if you consider that the brain is part of the body and differences can occur in it just as they can in reproductive organs.

 

Deciding a person is "male" or "female" based on the WHOLE person makes more sense than just looking selectively at their reproductive organs, because gender is factored into a lot more than the simple act of physical reproduction. 

 

It used to be common belief that a whole host of conditions and disorders such as epilepsy, cancer, the Black Death, etc. were because of sin or demon possession or some wrongness in the soul of the person. Over time we have come to understand both that some differences aren't really a problem unless society makes them a problem (e.g., left handedness, same sex attraction, nonconforming gender identity), and that many differences are uncommon but natural occurrences rather than disorders and that many conditions once condemned as signs of immorality/spiritual weakness are physical disorders of the body--of which the brain is one organ.

 

More Christians are coming around to realize that condemning someone for a naturally occurring variation in their person misses the mark, just as most have come around to recognize that physical infirmities and disorders are not the fault of a person or the result of moral failings.

All right.  I appreciate your input. 

Since you are one of the more rational responders here, who can respond to a post or topic with information in your realm of experience/expertise instead of attacks, I'd like to directly ask you a question that someone upthread asked without receiving any actual answers.

 

Here was the question (paraphrasing as it is not in front of me):  Why do we understand that a thin person with anorexia who sees himself as obese, or a guy who thinks he is Superman, Jesus, or a giraffe is suffering from a mental disorder, but a guy who thinks he is a woman should merely be accommodated without question. 

 

All cases are contrary to the evidence.    

 

I would really like to know where this dividing line is between immediate acceptance/approval and seeing it as a mental disorder. 

That was a good question and no one answered it. 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by TranquilMind

[Veritaserum]

You obviously don't know what trigger warnings are actually for. Anyone who experiences trauma at simply reading Bible verses isn't going to look in this thread in the first place.

I think it was a dig at people who use or appreciate trigger warnings--in the same vein as the term "snowflake."

 

When someone has the Truth of God's Word :rolleyes:, they don't feel a need to be sensitive. They don't care if "the truth" hurts because they feel like they are doing a service to the d*mned souls they're preaching to. :sad:

[TranquilMind]

You obviously don't know what trigger warnings are actually for. Anyone who experiences trauma at simply reading Bible verses isn't going to look in this thread in the first place. 

Well, someone could stumble upon it, expecting only the usual round of anti-religious bias that tends to occur here.  Just making a note. 

[Ravin]

You aren't going to like this answer, but you asked so I will answer.  Anyone who doesn't like it or doesn't want to read scripture on this question can move on.

 

  Why is it important?  Because it is bigger than just "me and mine" and me being happy.  It affects our whole nation.  It affects the bloodline of the parties involved and even eternity.   It doesn't matter what I personally think. 

 

The entire chapter of Leviticus 18 also applies to us, as moral law continues forever, though ceremonial law ceased when the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 

 

That entire chapter defines practices that will drive out the inhabitants of the land :  adultery, child sacrifice (some call abortion this), homosexuality, and bestiality.

 

It's pretty serious stuff to God, though in this post-believing culture we just laugh and mock people who take God's Word seriously.

 

Here it is (TRIGGER Warning- scripture coming):

God speaking to Israel (and all believers to come):

 

And you shall not lie sexually with your neighbor's wife and so make yourself unclean with her. ²¹ You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord. ²² You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. ²³ And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.

 

²⁴ â€œDo not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, ²⁵ and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. ²⁶ But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you ²⁷ (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), ²⁸ lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. ²⁹ For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people.

 

It's one thing if and when people themselves sin; they can always repent and seek forgiveness, but when a society itself enacts laws promoting iniquity, that's a dangerous place to be. 

 

The first 19 verses are about who you aren't allowed to look at naked. Including in verse 19, any woman who is on her period, which is referred to as "customary impurity" in NKJV.

 

I understand some Torah scholars who have looked at verse 22 interpret it strictly as forbidding a specific type of act and that is all. Not all gay people engage in that particular act, and it doesn't say anything about women lying with women (and is clearly directed at men; arguably none of these rules apply to women at all except verse 23, just men).

 

This chapter is about emphasizing cultural patterns of kinship and marriage and sexual taboos, which are also culture-specific. They are about telling the Israelites not t o be like their neighbors to maintain their cultural distinctiveness. That isn't the same thing as morality, and can arguably be tossed out with the rest of the cultural rules about diet and clothing, etc. 

[Veritaserum]

All right. I appreciate your input.

Since you are one of the more rational responders here, who can respond to a post or topic with information in your realm of experience/expertise instead of attacks, I'd like to directly ask you a question that someone upthread asked without receiving any actual answers.

 

Here was the question (paraphrasing as it is not in front of me): Why do we understand that a thin person with anorexia who sees himself as obese, or a guy who thinks he is Superman, Jesus, or a giraffe is suffering from a mental disorder, but a guy who thinks he is a woman should merely be accommodated without question.

 

All cases are contrary to the evidence.

 

I would really like to know where this dividing line is between immediate acceptance/approval and seeing it as a mental disorder.

That was a good question and no one answered it.

In my experience as the parent of a transgender person, there is not an immediate acceptance. It's a process. It takes time. It takes thought. We sought the help of a psychologist who worked with our child to explore this issue. We did switch to a different (gender neutral) name at our child's request about a month into this exploratory time because it helped our child feel more comfortable.

 

Here we are more than two years later. We are only now pursuing a legal name change because my child has chosen to transition socially as well as medically. It was not a quick process. It was thoughtful and careful and deliberate. In order to treat the mental health problems caused by gender dysphoria, medical transition was necessary. It is not necessary in every case. Many transgender people opt not to pursue it.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Veritaserum

[Ravin]

All right.  I appreciate your input. 

Since you are one of the more rational responders here, who can respond to a post or topic with information in your realm of experience/expertise instead of attacks, I'd like to directly ask you a question that someone upthread asked without receiving any actual answers.

 

Here was the question (paraphrasing as it is not in front of me):  Why do we understand that a thin person with anorexia who sees himself as obese, or a guy who thinks he is Superman, Jesus, or a giraffe is suffering from a mental disorder, but a guy who thinks he is a woman should merely be accommodated without question. 

 

All cases are contrary to the evidence.    

 

I would really like to know where this dividing line is between immediate acceptance/approval and seeing it as a mental disorder. 

That was a good question and no one answered it. 

 

Actually, I did answer this upthread. This blogger lays it out quite thoroughly:

 

http://roygbiv.jezebel.com/stop-confusing-gender-dysphoria-with-body-dysmorphia-al-1583049920

[TranquilMind]

The first 19 verses are about who you aren't allowed to look at naked. Including in verse 19, any woman who is on her period, which is referred to as "customary impurity" in NKJV.

 

I understand some Torah scholars who have looked at verse 22 interpret it strictly as forbidding a specific type of act and that is all. Not all gay people engage in that particular act, and it doesn't say anything about women lying with women (and is clearly directed at men; arguably none of these rules apply to women at all except verse 23, just men).

 

This chapter is about emphasizing cultural patterns of kinship and marriage and sexual taboos, which are also culture-specific. They are about telling the Israelites not t o be like their neighbors to maintain their cultural distinctiveness. That isn't the same thing as morality, and can arguably be tossed out with the rest of the cultural rules about diet and clothing, etc. 

 

The chapter is an explanation of moral law concerning inappropriate sexual relationships, moral law which continues for all time in the church age, just like marriage.  You can try to minimize its current relevance or say it is only about "not looking at people naked", but that is not accurate.

 

Yes, of course it all applies to women as well, as does scripture apply to women anytime "man" or "mankind" is mentioned, with the few exceptions where it specifically addresses literal men and women and children ("Men love their wives as Christ loved the church, women, respect your husband, children obey your parents).  Who is having these babies that are being sacrificed?  Women.  If it says that man should not lie with man, it doesn't mean that women can do the same with impunity.  In fact, that is specifically addressed too, over in Romans 1, lest anyone attempt to argue that it only applies to men. 

 

Yes, it is instructing the Israelites to shun the practices of the neighbors, because it will bring destruction into God's chosen people.  What are the neighbors doing?   The chapter is pretty clear about that. 

 

[TravelingChris]

I don't have any problems with dealing with gay people.  As to trans people, I haven't any experience except situations like passing one on the street but I would still  treat such a person with respect.  

 

My version of Christianity commands me to treat others well even if they don't treat you well.  So I had no problems living in a gay neighborhood for a while.  I have no problems with my children being friends with a gay person.  I wouldn't be one of those who couldn't make a cake for a gay wedding (if I was making wedding cakes, which I am not).  Personally,  I think I would have more in common with a committed gay couple than a promiscuous straight person.  But I will treat all nicely.  

 

Currently I don't have much contact with gay people. But I have had more in the past and I never felt compelled to denounce them or anything like that.  I had gay friends in the past (college, work) but my life now is much more limited in social interactions so no current friends like that.  

 

 

Oh  and I don't view God as a male- he is so much beyond us.

 

I do know one person who I know was born intersex because she self disclosed about it years ago.  I would think most people who were born like that don't discuss it usually.

 

[Laura Corin]

TranquilMind, on 24 Jan 2017 - 8:30 PM, said:

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?

 

(Brought down here because you must have missed it above).

[TranquilMind]

In my experience as the parent of a transgender person, there is not an immediate acceptance. It's a process. It takes time. It takes thought. We sought the help of a psychologist who worked with our child to explore this issue. We did switch to a different (gender neutral) name at our child's request about a month into this exploratory time because it helped our child feel more comfortable.

 

Here we are more than two years later. We are only now pursuing a legal name change because my child has chosen to transition socially as well as medically. It was not a quick process. It was thoughtful and careful and deliberate. In order to treat the mental health problems caused by gender dysphoria, medical transition was necessary. It is not necessary in every case. Many transgender people opt not to pursue it.

 

I appreciate your input.  You zoomed in on the word "merely" in "merely accommodate", but you didn't really answer the question I asked.  Maybe your intention was only to share your own experience that you didn't accept it immediately, but it took a month to switch names. 

 

But here is my question (actually, the question of the poster upthread who asked it, to no avail):

 

Why is it that this view that contradicts biology and reality is given precedence as reality,  but we don't give precedence if the person is convinced  he is Superman or Jesus or an animal or someone else?  We call the latter disordered and attempt to treat it. 

 

I'm trying to figure out who decided this must be accepted but not other things that are equally without basis in biology or fact. 

 

 

[TranquilMind]

 

TranquilMind, on 24 Jan 2017 - 8:30 PM, said:

 

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?

 

(Brought down here because you must have missed it above).

 

I do not understand your question.  What are you asking?

 

You mentioned you married a man who was divorced from another woman because she had committed adultery and asked me if that was scriptural.  I explained what scripture said on that topic.

 

What are you asking; maybe you should rephrase? 

 

Do you think that biblical principles were not relevant because your husband and his wife were not believers?   It is a spiritual law, so it is always relevant, whether you know it or care or not, just like "reaping and sowing".   That law is in practice for all regardless of whether you understand it or not or know it or not.

 

 

[Laura Corin]

I do not understand your question.  What are you asking?

 

You mentioned you married a man who was divorced from another woman because she had committed adultery and asked me if that was scriptural.  I explained what scripture said on that topic.

 

What are you asking; maybe you should rephrase? 

 

Do you think that biblical principles were not relevant because your husband and his wife were not believers?   It is a spiritual law, so it is always relevant, whether you know it or care or not, just like "reaping and sowing".   That law is in practice for all regardless of whether you understand it or not or know it or not.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear.  The verse that you quoted talked about it being allowed for a believer to divorce a spouse if they were an unbeliever (rather than an adulterer).  That didn't seem to apply to the case we were discussing.  So I was just wondering if there was another verse that applied.

[TranquilMind]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear.  The verse that you quoted talked about it being allowed for a believer to divorce a spouse if they were an unbeliever (rather than an adulterer).  That didn't seem to apply to the case we were discussing.  So I was just wondering if there was another verse that applied.

 

Matthew 5:31  Jesus talking:   “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

 

[Laura Corin]

Matthew 5:31  Jesus talking:   “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

 

Okay.  Thanks.  That clears it up for me.  

 

How do you and your church feel in general about divorced people who remarry?  Is there are process of declaring publicly or to an official the reason for the divorce so that they are accepted into the church and not suspected of adultery?

[TranquilMind]

Okay.  Thanks.  That clears it up for me.  

 

How do you and your church feel in general about divorced people who remarry?  Is there are process of declaring publicly or to an official the reason for the divorce so that they are accepted into the church and not suspected of adultery?

How do I feel?  I feel that it is between the person and God. 

 

He knows if he is in sin or not for his actions. The conscience combined with biblical truth is a powerful force.  If so, he needs to make it right insofar as possible. Obviously, if people have remarried others, it's not going to be restored. 

 

I haven't seen any sort of official process like you describe.  I have seen people publicly repent of things of their own volition during times people decided to share things, this being among them (and often drug use or other things from whom the Lord set them free).   

[Corraleno]

I'm trying to figure out who decided this must be accepted but not other things that are equally without basis in biology or fact. 

 

And I'm trying to figure out why you assume that genitals are "biological facts" and brains are not. :confused1:

 

The development of fetal brains and genitals in utero is influenced by multiple hormones at different times; both are the result of biological processes, and sometimes things happen that change the normal course of those biological processes. Studies have clearly shown actual, physical, biological differences in the brains of gay and straight men. People who are born intersex are not "biologically" one sex and "culturally" another — they are biologically intersex. And sometimes the biology of the brain does not match the biology of the genitals. Insisting that a person's brain has no bearing on their actual identity, and that their identity must be 100% determined by their genitals, is bizarre. Descartes never said "I have a penis, therefore I am."

 

Why is it that this view that contradicts biology and reality is given precedence as reality,  but we don't give precedence if the person is convinced  he is Superman or Jesus or an animal or someone else?  We call the latter disordered and attempt to treat it. 

 

Animals, deities, and superheroes are not human. A human being cannot physically be a giraffe or a superhero or a deity, therefore someone who believes they are one of those things is clearly delusional. But human beings can physically, biologically, be male or female or, in some cases, a combination of both, whether that is due to indetermine genitalia or a mismatch between the sex of the brain and the sex of the reproductive organs. If one's brain doesn't match one's genitals, that is due to a glitch in fetal development, not mental illness or delusion.

SaveSave