Social Media Posts for Pride Month? (For Christians)

[URA]

Actually it is political in that homosexuals and their advocates seek to influence society along certain lines which leads to sin. Why isn't it enough that I want nothing to do with these people? Do I have to support them in their political efforts as they seek to undermine the normative sexual ethos of society?

Should we love our enemies more than fellow Christians? Whose interest should we be operating in?

I would prefer a Constantine to a Maxentius or most political figures that rule us today. They may not be the model and they are guilty of sin but at least they would reform society in a direction which is geared towards Christianity. We should not as Christians take the commandment to love our enemies as enabling them or supporting their rights. This is a modern liberal concept that the historic Church never participated in.

First & foremost, the premise of this thread is not what you're suggesting we're saying. The premise is to 1) love others, and 2) reject sin. What you keep bringing up, that any way we've mentioned about loving the LGBT people is accepting their sin, is one of the ideologies I've mentioned working against.

You mentioned a few times to simply walk away from the issue...and perhaps this issue doesn't show up on your front porch, the way it does for others. But assuming it does...say, you meet someone at work who "identifies" as the other gender, or perhaps a man introduces you to his boyfriend...how do you propose a Christian should handle the situation when it is no longer avoidable? Perhaps hearing your perspective on this will help us all converse a little better.

 

[PloverWing]

Should we love our enemies more than fellow Christians? Whose interest should we be operating in?

You speak as though Liberal Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians are warring tribes fighting over limited territory, as though it's impossible to have a world in which Liberal Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians can both practice their faith freely. I disagree.

You know, when I talk about defending the rights of religious minorities, I have you in mind as well. Eastern Orthodoxy is a minority among Christians in the United States, and a minority among our general population. But if the US government started closing Orthodox churches or monasteries, I would speak up to defend you.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You want "nothing to do" with fellow human beings who are having massive difficulties in their lives. Y'know, I think it's a big stretch to equate being available or being willing to have compassion for other people with, as you said, "enabling them."

Alright, is this universal for everyone or just Homosexuals and transgenders?

I didn't say that you have to support them in their political efforts or agree with them. But you do have to learn how to listen, so that if there's any way to understand why they're at where they're at spiritually (and sexually), you can then offer the appropriate helping hand rather than simply berating them for their sins.

I don't go around berating homosexuals. I understand their perspective and disagree. I realize also that I likely can't convince them and want nothing to do with them.

How do you interpret the verses in Ephesians 6 where Paul says that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood ..."?

I interpret it to mean we wrestle against spiritual entities. This does not mean that we ignore the political process and support those who would undermine a normative vision for society. Would you do this for everyone, regardless of who they are and what they believe or just LGBT people? Is there is a limit?

Again, you're trying to make this an either or situation. That's not what this is? Are you familiar with Richard Wurmbrand by chance? I'm not asking if you agree with his theology. I'm simply asking if you're familiar with who he is and what he went through?

Nope.

And, again, I never said that enabling others for sin is the alternative to what you're asserting. Apparently, you're not familiar with how vociferously I denounce Hugh Hefner's Philosophy. If you understood that, then you'd understand my own view better. If people are going to be 'denounced' and charged with rampant, egregious sins and destructive philosophy, I'd start with that which has been most promoted among those who are straight people, among those who have accommodated Hefner's type of Hedonism (and the corporate structures that have more than amply enabled his views on life and sex) BEFORE we begin to point trenchantly at those in the LGBTQ+ side of the sexual continuum.

I don't actually dissagree. We need to focus on the hedonism of normal people and ignore marginal issues like LGBT to begin with. As a group they simply don't matter and our time and energy could be better spent on countering the culture of the sexual revolution.

We who are straight need to clean up our own damned houses first.

I don't disagree, hence why I don't care about the LGBT, their interests nor do I seek them out especially. Where do we disagree?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You speak as though Liberal Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians are warring tribes fighting over limited territory, as though it's impossible to have a world in which Liberal Christians and Eastern Orthodox Christians can both practice their faith freely. I disagree.

Well we are fundamentally different. Liberal Christians, as far as I can tell buy completely into the sexual revolution and justify it. This includes LGBT and it's no wonder you are seeking to argue that we must defend LGBT whereas I am saying we should simply ignore them because their worldview is counter to authentic Christian teaching. Seeking to accommodate them can only corrupt the Church, which is exactly what has happened to your own Church which regards the rainbow flag as more sacred than the cross.

You know, when I talk about defending the rights of religious minorities, I have you in mind as well. Eastern Orthodoxy is a minority among Christians in the United States, and a minority among our general population. But if the US government started closing Orthodox churches or monasteries, I would speak up to defend you.

Did you support shutting down Churches during Covid?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You mentioned a few times to simply walk away from the issue...and perhaps this issue doesn't show up on your front porch, the way it does for others. But assuming it does...say, you meet someone at work who "identifies" as the other gender, or perhaps a man introduces you to his boyfriend...how do you propose a Christian should handle the situation when it is no longer avoidable? Perhaps hearing your perspective on this will help us all converse a little better.

I would be polite but keep separate from them. Like I said, want nothing to do with them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Alright, is this universal for everyone or just Homosexuals and transgenders?

I'm pretty sure Jesus meant for it to be universally applied, as best as possible.

I don't go around berating homosexuals. I understand their perspective and disagree. I realize also that I likely can't convince them and want nothing to do with them.

I'm not really seeing the cause and effect between 1) not being able to convince them, on one hand, and 2) having nothing to do with them.

Having "nothing to do with them" seems like a play---and not necessarily an accurate one---upon a few of the things Paul said in Ephesians 5 (5:11). Yes, there are a few things in life that we should stand firm against in reproof. You and I just disagree with where the nexus of that reproof is to be centered and prioritized. Or it seems to me that is partly where we disagree.

I interpret it to mean we wrestle against spiritual entities. This does not mean that we ignore the political process and support those who would undermine a normative vision for society. Would you do this for everyone, regardless of who they are and what they believe or just LGBT people? Is there is a limit?

I have a different way of dealing with what people like to promote as "normative visions for society," and it's one that I really don't see Christians applying.

Nope.

You might read Richard Wurmbrand's book, Tortured for Christ, if you ever get the chance to someday.

I don't actually dissagree. We need to focus on the hedonism of normal people and ignore marginal issues like LGBT to begin with. As a group they simply don't matter and our time and energy could be better spent on countering the culture of the sexual revolution.

Every human being matters.

I don't disagree, hence why I don't care about the LGBT, their interests nor do I seek them out especially. Where do we disagree?

I care about people; but I will apply the heaviest critical scrutiny to their philosophies when and where it's more useful and appropriate to do so.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm pretty sure Jesus meant for it to be universally applied, as best as possible.

Should we have such outreach to pedophiles? Invite them into our churches and let them fully participate? What about men with serious problems of violence or drug use? If our outreach and acceptance is universal and we must equally treat all the same then we open ourselves and our communities to be destroyed from within.

I'm not really seeing the cause and effect between 1) not being able to convince them, on one hand, and 2) having nothing to do with them.

If you can't actually achieve a beneficial end why bother? Would you for instance expend more energy on a hopeless cause or something that is more likely to produce results?

I have a different way of dealing with what people like to promote as "normative visions for society," and it's one that I really don't see Christians applying.

You might read Richard Wurmbrand's book, Tortured for Christ, if you ever get the chance to someday.

I probably won't.

Every human being matters.

Yes, but it doesn't mean we have to expend more energy towards those who run counter to us.

I care about people; but I will apply the heaviest critical scrutiny to their philosophies when and where it's more useful and appropriate to do so.

As do I, but we as humans are limited, we ourselves are subject to passions and we shouldn't do what might hurt us for the benefit of others. If we have friends, comrades and brothers and sisters, it makes more sense to put their interests first and work for them more than it does the working for the rights of people who would undermine that community. Why should I put my energy towards dealing with LGBT when I should be dealing with myself and my own failings? Bettering my own community and those closest to me? Is it wrong to put the Church and my family first?

 

[Apple Sky]

This is Satan's game, he's even stolen the Rainbow from God, so I say, pray for them & let God be the Judge.

King James Bible
And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

 

[PloverWing]

Well we are fundamentally different.

Yes, that is quite clear.

I think we have reached a) the limit of what can be discussed on CF regarding LGBT issues, and b) the limit of what is productive for the two of us to discuss, given that you want to live under a government that favors one religion and I want to live under a government that does not favor any one religion.

Returning to the point of the original post, even where people disagree, it is often possible to find some intermediate ground where there are points of agreement. "I disagree with you, but I will not harm you" is one potential point of agreement.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Should we have such outreach to pedophiles? Invite them into our churches and let them fully participate? What about men with serious problems of violence or drug use? If our outreach and acceptance is universal and we must equally treat all the same then we open ourselves and our communities to be destroyed from within.

Sure. We should have outreach to pedophiles, mainly because I'm pretty sure that in the case of people with that particular problem, outside of prison, we wouldn't know them to be any different from anyone else in our daily interactions. And if King David and his son are any example for us, even 'righteous' and 'wise' people can do dastardly things. We're going to have a difficult time discerning who is who.

But if I knew outright that a person was a pedophile, you can be sure I'd engage him (her?) in that reference if he/she were to bring it up in conversation, especially so if he (she?) began to preach to me about its supposed legitimacy as an outlook-on-life.

If you can't actually achieve a beneficial end why bother? Would you for instance expend more energy on a hopeless cause or something that is more likely to produce results?

Sometimes, our influence as Christians will be done on a micro-scale rather than a macro-scale. You might keep that in mind. Just because we can't see large, immediate, positive responses toward the Christian Faith doesn't mean we haven't had any useful effect upon those we interact with. It might be that all we do that little cliche thing where we "plant a seed" that God will make grow in due time. Our job as Christians should be to make safe social harbors in which people don't feel psychologically threatened and, thus, provide them with facilitation toward renewal toward Christ.

I probably won't.

Just know that he spent quite a long time as a Christian in Communist prisons and was tortured. Somehow, he retained his faith through all of that.

Yes, but it doesn't mean we have to expend more energy towards those who run counter to us.

So, you wouldn't pray for those who have run counter to you, at the very least?

As do I, but we as humans are limited, we ourselves are subject to passions and we shouldn't do what might hurt us for the benefit of others. If we have friends, comrades and brothers and sisters, it makes more sense to put their interests first and work for them more than it does the working for the rights of people who would undermine that community. Why should I put my energy towards dealing with LGBT when I should be dealing with myself and my own failings? Bettering my own community and those closest to me? Is it wrong to put the Church and my family first?

So, you can't even simply be friendly to those individuals in public who clearly identify as LGBTQ+? What if you're at, say, a restaurant and being served by a waiter who is of that orientation? You can't simply be respectful and friendly to them at the least?

 

[URA]

I would be polite but keep separate from them. Like I said, want nothing to do with them.

Politeness is a good start.

If I may ask...what other kinds of sinners do you want nothing to do with? And what kinds of sinners do you allow to be with you?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes, that is quite clear.

I think we have reached a) the limit of what can be discussed on CF regarding LGBT issues, and b) the limit of what is productive for the two of us to discuss, given that you want to live under a government that favors one religion and I want to live under a government that does not favor any one religion.

I agree. You want to live in a society where Christianity is marginalized as a cultural force and has little to no impact on society, allowing any and all ideologies to participate. I would prefer a society wherein Christianity is at the head and is the dominant value. We can of course discuss this, why you prefer a more Godless society in line with Episcopalian values which are non-distinct from the current liberal political order which is dominant but I suspect you don't want to.

Returning to the point of the original post, even where people disagree, it is often possible to find some intermediate ground where there are points of agreement. "I disagree with you, but I will not harm you" is one potential point of agreement.

Yet that is exactly what you had a problem with. It was not enough that I as a Christian didn't want anything to do with LGBT. I must support and advocate for them. Do you believe Christians must support LGBT or not?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Politeness is a good start.

If I may ask...what other kinds of sinners do you want nothing to do with? And what kinds of sinners do you allow to be with you?

Let me reverse the question. Let's say you encounter a National Socialist. Would you say you have to engage them politely and be nice to them?

 

[PloverWing]

Do you believe Christians must support LGBT or not?

There are two senses of the word "support", and they should not be confused.

Meaning #1: I believe that Christians must work for the good of all people, and not their harm, because our Lord commands it.

Meaning #2: I recognize that the moral status of same-sex relationships is an issue about which Christians disagree. I am content to acknowledge this as one of many areas in which Christians disagree. People can disagree with each other and still be faithful Christians.

I agree. You want to live in a society where Christianity is marginalized as a cultural force and has little to no impact on society, allowing any and all ideologies to participate. I would prefer a society wherein Christianity is at the head and is the dominant value. We can of course discuss this, why you prefer a more Godless society in line with Episcopalian values which are non-distinct from the current liberal political order which is dominant but I suspect you don't want to.

I want to live in a society where no one is persecuted for their religious faith. Baptists, Catholics, and Quakers all experienced persecution in England and in the American colonies as the Reformation was working itself out. I do not want to see this happen again.

And: Some of this persecution happened in places where my religion, Anglican Christianity, was the established religion. I do not ever, ever want to see my church be an agent of religious persecution again.

Finally: I don't want to see Anglican churches full of people who are grudgingly there because if they don't go to my church they'll be fined or imprisoned. That can't possibly be good for encouraging people to develop a genuine, lively faith.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There are two senses of the word "support", and they should not be confused.

Meaning #1: I believe that Christians must work for the good of all people, and not their harm, because our Lord commands it.

Meaning #2: I recognize that the moral status of same-sex relationships is an issue about which Christians disagree. I am content to acknowledge this as one of many areas in which Christians disagree. People can disagree with each other and still be faithful Christians.

Does working for the good for someone mean protecting their right to practice an action or thing and have it publicly recognized? This is where we have a fundamentally different understanding of the good and it is not my duty to enable or support a community if their practice and beliefs run counter to my own, especially if said community will work against my own interests. This may be different since you're an Episcopalian and have adopted the sexual revolution (or a large part of it) but you might understand if I used a group you did not like and they worked counter to your values. I don't believe we can disagree on this issue and be faithful Christians. Either Christianity has a standard that the Episcopalian Church violates or it doesn't and historic Christianity was wrong since it's inception until modern progressive gay and lesbian critics taught us the truth of human sexuality.

I want to live in a society where no one is persecuted for their religious faith. Baptists, Catholics, and Quakers all experienced persecution in England and in the American colonies as the Reformation was working itself out. I do not want to see this happen again.

You live in a secular society where God and Christianity does not matter and where your Church conforms to the dominant public morality and through it being inoffensive it becomes irrelevant. Persecution or targeting by government is not something only Christian societies do, it is something secular liberal democracies do as well. You were likely behind said persecution when Churches sought to remain open during Covid or maybe when Justin Trudeau punished the Truckers. The only difference is the target of government force, that is it is directed against your true enemies, people who place the faith above the established governmental authorities.

And: Some of this persecution happened in places where my religion, Anglican Christianity, was the established religion. I do not ever, ever want to see my church be an agent of religious persecution again.

You would rather see it die, which thankfully it is. I mean as a model for how to destroy oneself as a Church the COE is not one I would encourage anyone follow.

Finally: I don't want to see Anglican churches full of people who are grudgingly there because if they don't go to my church they'll be fined or imprisoned. That can't possibly be good for encouraging people to develop a genuine, lively faith.

I wouldn't force anyone to come to Church but I would not let the public square be dominated by a secular liberal moral code.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does working for the good for someone mean protecting their right to practice an action or thing and have it publicly recognized? This is where we have a fundamentally different understanding of the good and it is not my duty to enable or support a community if their practice and beliefs run counter to my own, especially if said community will work against my own interests. This may be different since you're an Episcopalian and have adopted the sexual revolution (or a large part of it) but you might understand if I used a group you did not like and they worked counter to your values. I don't believe we can disagree on this issue and be faithful Christians. Either Christianity has a standard that the Episcopalian Church violates or it doesn't and historic Christianity was wrong since it's inception until modern progressive gay and lesbian critics taught us the truth of human sexuality.



You live in a secular society where God and Christianity does not matter and where your Church conforms to the dominant public morality and through it being inoffensive it becomes irrelevant. Persecution or targeting by government is not something only Christian societies do, it is something secular liberal democracies do as well. You were likely behind said persecution when Churches sought to remain open during Covid or maybe when Justin Trudeau punished the Truckers. The only difference is the target of government force, that is it is directed against your true enemies, people who place the faith above the established governmental authorities.


You would rather see it die, which thankfully it is. I mean as a model for how to destroy oneself as a Church the COE is not one I would encourage anyone follow.


I wouldn't force anyone to come to Church but I would not let the public square be dominated by a secular liberal moral code.

Perhaps some of the difference between us here isn't only in personal dispositions toward other people, but also in that we each have differing views on Eschatology.

You, in your Orthodox view, seem to operate with the idea that "we can do something significant about the world's sin, legally and politically."

I, on the other hand, sadly to say, have a more.....................................fatalist view of Eschatology, one that neither panders to political agendas of any sort, Left or Right, nor sees any clear answers or divine direction in hitching the Church up to the Empire. The Byzantine Empire worked for a while, and that may have been due to some level of Divine Providence, but those days are seemingly over and have been for several hundred years already.

 

[ralliann]

Perhaps some of the difference between us here isn't only in personal dispositions toward other people, but also in that we each have differing views on Eschatology.

Other people includes your fellow in Christ.

You, in your Orthodox view, seem to operate with the idea that "we can do something significant about the world's sin, legally and politically."

I, on the other hand, sadly to say, have a more.....................................fatalist view of Eschatology, one that neither panders to political agendas of any sort, Left or Right, nor sees any clear answers or divine direction in hitching the Church up to the Empire. The Byzantine Empire worked for a while, and that may have been due to some level of Divine Providence, but those days are seemingly over and have been for several hundred years already.

Are you badgering your brother in Christ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Other people includes your fellow in Christ.

Are you badgering your fellow in Christ?

There's zero way in which my statements can be construed as "badgering." If you think I am, then you're probably misunderstanding me.

 

[ralliann]

There's zero way in which my statements can be construed as "badgering." If you think I am, then you're probably misunderstanding me.

You two disagree concerning the issues of LGTQ. It appears you two also disagree on a response as Christians, or as the Church..... This appears to be the basics of it. He thinks it ought to be ignored, but it seems this is not a Godly option in the eyes of some today....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You two disagree concerning the issues of LGTQ. It appears you two also disagree on a response as Christians, or as the Church..... This appears to be the basics of it. He thinks it ought to be ignored, but it seems this is not a Godly option in the eyes of some today....

And what is your present understanding of my position, Ralliann??