LGBT Rights

dms1972 said:

In the past I prayed quite a bit at times that these parades would be well-behaved etc. But now I feel that more and more people are being taken in and I wonder should I have prayed like that, or what way one should pray about these matters? Have you any thoughts on that?

Click to expand...

If we take God's view of the LGBTQ culture, our prayers should be against it, not that the LGBTQ community would be merely well-behaved. "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance," Scripture says, but this same patient, merciful God wiped out two OT cities that were rife with homosexual sin. We should pray for the repentance and salvation of those caught up in the LGBTQ life, but also that God would aggressively withstand them. I pray, too, that God would awaken the sleeping Church in the West to its role as a vociferous champion for righteousness and the Judeo-Christian worldview, before the culture is over-run by the kind of mania and wickedness promulgated by the increasingly extreme - even fascist - "progressive" left of which the LGBTQ is a noisome part.

hedrick said:

Yup. Catholics 70% think it should be accepted to 23% think it should be discouraged. Orthodox 62% to 31%. Even Muslims are close to even (45 / 47).

Click to expand...

Kind of surprises me a little.

But in any case do you think church teaching on this should be decided by trends in the congregations, or by Christ and His Apostles?

The Bible is clear new converts are to be instructed to put off the old-self and its practices and be made new in the attitude of your minds, and to put on the new self created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. (see Ephesians 4:17 - 5:21)

These questions deserve serious answers, but I’m not sure it’s worth doing it at the tail end of a discussion with few participants left. Furthermore, I can’t give a detailed answer without violating the rules.

On the first question, I have some concerns, of at least two types.

First, most younger Christians accept homosexuality. Why? Have they thought carefully about Paul’s statements and adopted a new exegesis? How about Catholics? The impression I get from postings here is that they have not. You get moderately vague statements that the Bible and/or church tradition are out of date. But if our primary authorities are out of date, how do we make decisions?

I think there are answers to this, but I’m worried that people aren’t doing the necessary analysis, and that this failure could show up in how we approach other questions. I can’t actually present an analysis here.

Second, if old standards don’t apply in certain areas, we need new ones. I don’t think all gay sex is OK. Indeed I doubt that even a majority is. (The same is true of heterosexual sex, of course.) Because people of most of our churches are proceeding without guidance, the Church as a whole has barely even started looking at this question. The effort has started among the Catholic and mainline communities, but has neither wide participation nor wide acceptance.

hedrick said:

I agree that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no gay, lesbian or straight.

Click to expand...

I wish you didn’t add sinful deed of homosexuality to this verse. A male is a male and a female is a female, in Christ if they abide in Him, they remain one with Him. Not so with who continue to identify themselves as gay/lesbian. They are not in Christ but separate from Him.

hedrick said:

First, most younger Christians accept homosexuality. Why? Have they thought carefully about Paul’s statements and adopted a new exegesis? How about Catholics? The impression I get from postings here is that they have not. You get moderately vague statements that the Bible and/or church tradition are out of date. But if our primary authorities are out of date, how do we make decisions?

Click to expand...

Coming from an eastern religious background (Buddhism and Eastern Orthodoxy), I came to appreciate that a non-cognitive, intuitive approach to ethics was correct. And Dietrich Bonhoeffer, borrowing heavily from Heidegger's thought and his own understanding of the New Testament, came to a similar conclusion, in contradistinction to Karl Barth.

Ethics is done in an encounter by listening openly to other peoples experiences- that may mean stepping out of ones comfort zone. Justifying your behavior from a holy book is the wrong approach- that's simply avoiding the real work of being authentically vulnerable. Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself", and that's a sufficient principle alone for human ethics.

Jen35 said:

I am trying so very hard not to judge the LGBT community cause I know it's still a matter of the heart and people can still be nice and loving no matter who they are or where they come from

Click to expand...

Go back and read Romans 1. The crowd outside Lot's house has not changed its stripes.

Some unvarnished truth preached about that movement:

Newtheran said:

Go back and read Romans 1. The crowd outside Lot's house has not changed its stripes.

Some unvarnished truth preached about that movement:

Click to expand...

He'st standing in front of something that says "Alliance Defending Freedom" and yet he is protesting the rights of his fellow Americans to live free from his religious beliefs.

Just what kind of freedom does he believe in? It's not any kind of freedom I can recognize.

hedrick said:

Personal attack and conspiracy theory have no place in this discussion.

Click to expand...

You don't get to say what does and doesn't have a place in this discussion. Nor does your characterization of my point of view as conspiracy theory accurately describe the content of what I've written.

It is a well-established fact that Marxist ideology in one form or another has been promulgated within western universities for many decades now. It is a simple thing to trace the movements, writing, and influence of those of the Frankfurt School who were enamored of Marx's thinking as they insinuated themselves into institutions of higher education in Europe and North America (Columbia University in New York) and began to inculcate young minds with their ideological vitriol. This is not conspiracy theory but simple fact.

hedrick said:

One problem is that there is no single LGBTQ community. It ranges from people who revel in the outrageous to Christians trying to live the same kind of relationships as Christian straight couples

Click to expand...

This is not a problem the Bible recognizes since it condemns homosexuality wholesale as morally abominable.

hedrick said:

One observation I've seen from older gays is that the community has gotten tamer as more people have become "out."

Click to expand...

The Bible makes no allowances for "tame" homosexuality. All homosexuality of whatever stripe is sin. About this the Bible seems to me to be very clear. It is powerful cultural pressure working upon the Christian community coupled with widespread ignorance among Christians of the Bible and Christian doctrine that has prompted a collapse and capitulation to this sin in some corners of Christendom, not biblical ambiguity on the sinfulness of homosexuality.

hedrick said:

It was originally conjectured that almost no gays would actually want to live within marriage.

Click to expand...

Yes, I also remember the rhetoric of the homosexual community twenty-some years ago that has migrated from "we want to be left free to do as we wish in the privacy of our own bedrooms" to "publicly recognize, celebrate and serve our sexual orientation or we'll see you in court." There was a Gay Pride parade on a day, then a week-long celebration of homosexual sin and associated perversions, and now an entire month is given over to advocation of this abominable behaviour.

hedrick said:

Within the spectrum I'm sure there are Marxists. There are also plenty of straight Marxists.

Click to expand...

I did not suggest homosexuals were or were not Marxists. I pointed out only that those of a neo-Marxist bent ideologically (wittingly and unwittingly) have used the LGBTQ agenda to further their own cultural agenda.

hedrick said:

I agree that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no gay, lesbian or straight.

Click to expand...

YES, the Bible makes it clear that there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28), but this chapter is specifically referring to the context of Salvation. Whenever we take the word of God out of context we are heading for troubled water, because then we can twist it to justify sin such as living a homosexual lifestyle if we say there is neither male nor female. Someone said about the Bible that if you take a “text” out of its context, all you end up with is a “con”. The word of God is clear, it is plain, and we must work very hard on keeping it plain. We may have to work very hard in order to ensure that it says plain and not twisted, manipulated or perverted. The handling of the word of God has got to be in a straight line. It is like an arrow that is being shot in order to reach its intended target.

aiki said:

If we take God's view of the LGBTQ culture, our prayers should be against it, not that the LGBTQ community would be merely well-behaved. "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance," Scripture says, but this same patient, merciful God wiped out two OT cities that were rife with homosexual sin. We should pray for the repentance and salvation of those caught up in the LGBTQ life, but also that God would aggressively withstand them. I pray, too, that God would awaken the sleeping Church in the West to its role as a vociferous champion for righteousness and the Judeo-Christian worldview, before the culture is over-run by the kind of mania and wickedness promulgated by the increasingly extreme - even fascist - "progressive" left of which the LGBTQ is a noisome part.

Click to expand...

I’m not trying to be bracing, but for starters... The Sin Of Sodom wasn’t what is currently referred to as “Sodomy”.

It’s like people fixate on Homoerotic behavior... and miss that Angels of the Lord came as strangers to Lot... and in contrast to Abraham who had his wife prepare food and drink for them... the town of Sodom wanted to flat Gang Rape them.

See the contrast?

Here have some food. Verses... Gang Rape!

Not to be crass but “Sodomy” isn’t the predominate method of intimacy for homosexuals. I won’t fill in the blanks.

The Sin Of Sodom is specified in scripture and is more likened to the Pharisees in the final reading... Ezekiel 16:49-50

I’m not flying a rainbow flag on my car or outside my house, to support what people do with their nether regions, but biblical accuracy is far more important than Pop-Christianities opinions.

Homosexuality is in the Law of Stone and despite many misreadings of Romans 1, Romans 2:1-2 and James 2:8-10 stand as staunch warnings to Christendom. In other words... if Jesus Blood can’t Atone for Sin that is listed in the 613 (Deuteronomy 31:26 ; Leviticus 19:17-18) we’re all up the creek without a paddle.

Behold... the most under-viewed text in biblical History that needs immediate attention... Ezekiel 16:49-50

Grip Docility said:

I’m not trying to be bracing, but for starters... The Sin Of Sodom wasn’t what is currently referred to as “Sodomy”.

It’s like people fixate on Homoerotic behavior... and miss that Angels of the Lord came as strangers to Lot... and in contrast to Abraham who had his wife prepare food and drink for them... the town of Sodom wanted to flat Gang Rape them.

See the contrast?

Here have some food. Verses... Gang Rape!

Not to be crass but “Sodomy” isn’t the predominate method of intimacy for homosexuals. I won’t fill in the blanks.

The Sin Of Sodom is specified in scripture and is more likened to the Pharisees in the final reading... Ezekiel 16:49-50

I’m not flying a rainbow flag on my car or outside my house, to support what people do with their nether regions, but biblical accuracy is far more important than Pop-Christianities opinions.

Click to expand...

I'm not promoting "pop Christian opinions." Scripture is very clear that God judged Sodom because of the sexual deviancy of the people of the city, not merely because they lacked hospitality.

The account (Genesis 19) of how the men - young and old - of Sodom (not the women) came to Lot's house to rape the visitors that the Sodomites thought were male (Genesis 19:5), attempting to do so even after they were blinded by the angels visiting Lot, reveals the great sin of Sodom. Their manic and perverted sexual lust is the only wickedness in view in the account of Genesis 19. What's more, Ezekiel refers to this abominable behaviour in verse 50 of chapter 16:

50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Does God anywhere in Scripture say explicitly, "Being inhospitable is an abomination to me"? No. But He does say this about the attempted sexual perversion described in the account of Genesis 19 of the men of Sodom:

Leviticus 18:22
22 You shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

It seems very clear to me, then, that the "abomination" mentioned in Ezekiel 16:50 is the sin described in Leviticus 17 and 20 and attempted by the men of Sodom in the account of Genesis 19 and is the primary (though, not the only) sin for which God rained down upon them fire and brimstone.

This is confirmed in Scripture in Jude 7:

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

So, again, no I'm not just espousing "pop Christianity," but an entirely biblical view of the sin of Sodom. I would suggest to you that you've been the one guilty of offering "pop Christianity" - or, at least, a modern version of it concerning homosexuality that is derived more from secular culture than from the Bible.

aiki said:

I'm not promoting "pop Christian opinions." Scripture is very clear that God judged Sodom because of the sexual deviancy of the people of the city, not merely because they lacked hospitality.

The account (Genesis 19) of how the men - young and old - of Sodom (not the women) came to Lot's house to rape the visitors that the Sodomites thought were male (Genesis 19:5), attempting to do so even after they were blinded by the angels visiting Lot, reveals the great sin of Sodom. Their manic and perverted sexual lust is the only wickedness in view in the account of Genesis 19. What's more, Ezekiel refers to this abominable behaviour in verse 50 of chapter 16:

50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Does God anywhere in Scripture say explicitly, "Being inhospitable is an abomination to me"? No. But He does say this about the attempted sexual perversion described in the account of Genesis 19 of the men of Sodom:

Leviticus 18:22
22 You shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

It seems very clear to me, then, that the "abomination" mentioned in Ezekiel 16:50 is the sin described in Leviticus 17 and 20 and attempted by the men of Sodom in the account of Genesis 19 and is the primary (though, not the only) sin for which God rained down upon them fire and brimstone.

This is confirmed in Scripture in Jude 7:

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

So, again, no I'm not just espousing "pop Christianity," but an entirely biblical view of the sin of Sodom. I would suggest to you that you've been the one guilty of offering "pop Christianity" - or, at least, a modern version of it concerning homosexuality that is derived more from secular culture than from the Bible.

Click to expand...

Did Jesus crucify the sins of the old covenant in His flesh? Is the old covenant in place for any other reason than to show mankind's need for Jesus Christ's work of Salvation?

What do Romans 2:1-2 and James 2:8-10 say on the matter?

Why is it that you skipped Ezekiel 16:49 ?

Have you studied the Laws implications in comparison to God's words of Spiritual adultery that He charged Israel with time and time again, using such colorful phrases as "harlot"?

So as Jude 1:9 says, I will not connect these spiritual dots... but I implore you to read Romans 2:1-2 and James 2:8-10 on this matter. I do this out of Love.

All Love in Jesus Christ to you.

Jen35 said:

Look, I'm not trying to knock anything out or people's beliefs on things. I really don't even care what others do unless it's really bothering me, however I must speak on something, I was browsing google and saw so much stuff on LBGT rights, why does it seem so widespread now? Like what's going on? I know for sure no one on this Earth was born that way, it seems more like some trend now then what's really being put out there. I am trying so very hard not to judge the LGBT community cause I know it's still a matter of the heart and people can still be nice and loving no matter who they are or where they come from, but where does all this come from? Wouldn't it seem more right for a man and a woman to brag about thier rights of having met in some foreign place started a relationship and how excited they be carrying thier precious newborn baby into a world so fitting, a world where God started creation with a man and a woman and not the other way around? I'm just saying...why is it so prideful...I really don't care but it's not just something to do cause everyone else is doing cause i know diseases can come about that way too which is also affecting this place ..

Click to expand...

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." - Matthew 7:12

-CryptoLutheran

Grip Docility said:

Did Jesus crucify the sins of the old covenant in His flesh? Is the old covenant in place for any other reason than to show mankind's need for Jesus Christ's work of Salvation?

What do Romans 2:1-2 and James 2:8-10 say on the matter?

Why is it that you skipped Ezekiel 16:49 ?

Have you studied the Laws implications in comparison to God's words of Spiritual adultery that He charged Israel with time and time again, using such colorful phrases as "harlot"?

So as Jude 1:9 says, I will not connect these spiritual dots... but I implore you to read Romans 2:1-2 and James 2:8-10 on this matter. I do this out of Love.

All Love in Jesus Christ to you.

Click to expand...

I am well aware of the content of all of these passages. They do nothing to diminish or alter what I've explained about the sin of Sodom.

What many people fail to recognize is that Deuteronomy comes long after all 4 previous books of the Law... the Pentateuch... Moses... and Deuteronomy 31:26 caps off this book of the Law.

Contained in between Genesis and Deuteronomy are all of the 613 commands.

I firmly believe the adulterous at Jesus feet witnessed God incarnate etch Leviticus 19:17-18 into the very dust of the Earth the Son had formed Adam from. The very "finger" that wrote the 10, wrote the NEW COMMAND into the dust of the earth.

There is a mega important point here as even the stone hearted Pharisees knew to drop their stones.

aiki said:

I am well aware of the content of all of these passages. They do nothing to diminish or alter what I've explained about the sin of Sodom.

Click to expand...

But there is... you are exalting the lesser laws above the GREATEST law. In the very charge against Sodom... God says this...

Ezekiel 16:49 Now this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, plenty of food, and comfortable security, but didn't support the poor and needy.

You have already hammered at all the old covenant implications... now I'm attempting to emphasize the new covenant.

I'm asking you again... what does James 2:8-10 and Romans 2:1-2 say... especially with Romans 2 following Romans 1?

Grip Docility said:

I firmly believe the adulterous at Jesus feet witnessed Jesus etch Leviticus 19:17-18 into the very dust of the Earth the Son had formed Adam from.

There is a mega important point here as even the stone hearted Pharisees knew to drop their stones.

Click to expand...

Well, whatever you firmly believe about what Jesus may have written in the dust - even though Scripture never tells us what it is he wrote - Jesus does says to the women "Go and sin no more." He was not willing to stone her to death, but he did not let her leave with the impression that her sin could continue.

aiki said:

Well, whatever you firmly believe about what Jesus may have written in the dust - even though Scripture never tells us what it is he wrote - Jesus does says to the women "Go and sin no more." He was not willing to stone her to death, but he did not let her leave with the impression that her sin could continue.

Click to expand...

Mankind does not "sin no more". Mankind can "unbelieve" no more. By the very magnification of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount, a single wayward thought is counted as transgression of the full Pentateuch. Jesus made a statement that did not encourage the woman to continue sinning, but in the full context of John, bound to Jesus imploring the woman to no longer commit the "Sin of the World"... UNBELIEF.

This was discussed with the woman at the well, as well.

By scripture, a single transgression of any of the 613, or for the less Judeo root studied... the 10 ... brings the full weight of the Law on our shoulders... if we are this (Galatians 5:4).

I will spell it out...

Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by the law are alienated from Christ; you have fallen from grace!

James 2:8 If you really carry out the royal law prescribed in Scripture, Love your neighbor as yourself , you are doing well.
9 But if you show favoritism, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever keeps the entire law, yet fails in one point, is guilty of [breaking it] all.

Romans 2:1 Therefore, anyone of you who judges is without excuse. For when you judge another, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the same things.
2 We know that God's judgment on those who do such things is based on the truth.
3 Do you really think-anyone of you who judges those who do such things yet do the same-that you will escape God's judgment?

Romans 1 is a favorite go to passage for pop Christianity because it carnally reads the verse while ignoring its easily studied context throughout ALL of scripture. In the reading the Men with Men and Women with Women portion is bound to the stone law... Yet the same writer that wrote "Cast out the Slave woman and her Son"... wrote Romans 1.

There is reason to study this matter out further that... if someone doesn't mind Spiritually condemning an entire group of Sinners Jesus died for (1 John 2:2)... could at the very least avoid condemning themselves, by not ignoring clear scriptural warnings.

James 2:8-10 and Romans 2:1-2 plainly state that by carnally judging humanity with Moses... (Jewish name for the Law which spans the Pentateuch)... a person becomes guilty of all sin of the Law.

Randomly connecting the dots... Homosexuality is in the Law... thus carnally judging Homosexuals per the Sin of the Law... makes the very judge guilty of Homosexuality in the eyes of God.

This pertains to this parable...

Matthew 18:21 Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how many times could my brother sin against me and I forgive him? As many as seven times?"
22 "I tell you, not as many as seven," Jesus said to him, "but 70 times seven.
23 For this reason, the kingdom of heaven can be compared to a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves.
24 When he began to settle accounts, one who owed 10,000 talentswas brought before him.
25 Since he had no way to pay it back, his master commanded that he, his wife, his children, and everything he had be sold to pay the debt.
26 "At this, the slave fell facedown before him and said, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you everything!'
27 Then the master of that slave had compassion, released him, and forgave him the loan.
28 "But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him 100 denarii. He grabbed him, started choking him, and said, 'Pay what you owe!'
29"At this, his fellow slave fell down and began begging him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
30 But he wasn't willing. On the contrary, he went and threw him into prison until he could pay what was owed.
31 When the other slaves saw what had taken place, they were deeply distressed and went and reported to their master everything that had happened.
32 "Then, after he had summoned him, his master said to him, 'You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me.
33 Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?'
34 And his master got angry and handed him over to the jailers until he could pay everything that was owed.
35 So My heavenly Father will also do to you if each of you does not forgive his brother from his heart."

Grip Docility said:

I'm asking you again... what does James 2:8-10 and Romans 2:1-2 say... especially with Romans 2 following Romans 1?

Click to expand...

You asserted my views on the sin of Sodom were mere "pop Christianity." I demonstrated that they were not. Whatever other doctrinal agenda you have in this thread, the great sin of Sodom was the sin of homosexuality. Both the Old and New Testament make this clear.

Jesus told us to "judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24) He spoke also of trying to remove from another the mote in their eye while having a beam in one's own eye (Matthew 7:1-5). But he does not forbid removing the mote, only doing so when one has a beam yet in one's own eye. Paul has the same standard when it comes to judging. He does not say never to judge, but only to refrain from judging in others those things of which one is guilty. So it is that imperfect Paul wrote to Timothy to "reprove, rebuke and exhort" (2 Timothy 2:4) those under his spiritual authority and care and chastised the Corinthian church sharply for their sinful conduct (1 Corinthians 3, 5, 6 & 11).

No thinking, moral person can escape making judgments about a whole host of things every day, including making moral judgments. In fact, when Paul says to the Romans "don't judge hypocritically" he is at that moment making a judgment upon the hypocritical judgment of his readers at the church in Rome. It is...irrational, then, to urge people not to judge. All that the Bible allows us to urge upon each other in this regard is to avoid judging others hypocritically. I am not guilty of the sin of homosexuality so I do not contravene this rule concerning making moral judgments about the homosexual conduct of others.