mindlight said in post #1:
People who have identified as gay . . .
From a Biblical standpoint, no one should do that. For it would be like identifying as adulterous, in that acting sexually on gay affections is as much a sin as acting sexually on adulterous affections.
For Romans 1:26 is referring to lesbians, who have unnatural, sexual affections for each other:
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature . . .
And Romans 1:27 is referring to male homosexuals, commonly called "gay", who have unnatural, sexual lust for each other:
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their
lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Here the "recompence of their error" at the time that Romans 1:27 was written in the 1st century AD could have been hepatitis-type infections, but it would also include, in principle, the horrible AIDS plague in our own time.
--
It is sometimes asked: "But hasn't homosexuality been proven to be genetic?"
The answer is that even if it could be, so could alcoholism, criminal violence, and schizophrenia. Human genes in their current, fallen, corrupted state have nothing to do with proving what's moral, or what's good mental health.
But while homosexual acts are sinful (Romans 1:26-27), we too easily forget homosexual acts (Genesis 19:4-5) weren't the only sin of Sodom. For: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). How many of us Christians who love to rail against homosexuality are nonetheless "just like Sodom" with regard to our pride, our fullness of bread, our abundance of idleness, and our refusal to strengthen the hand of the poor and needy? How many of us love to place ourselves above homosexuals, even though, even if we're completely free from all sin, we will still be judged for our self-righteousness (Luke 18:9-14)?
But, at the same time, the truth must never be discounted that homosexual acts, if they aren't repented of, will, like any other unrepentant sin, keep people from ultimate salvation (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). But people aren't set free from homosexual desires, or any other sinful desires, through legal restrictions placed on them. For legal restrictions have no power against sinful desires, but can even help to revive and inflame them (Romans 7:8-9). Only Jesus Christ has the power to set people free from the sin of homosexuality, or any other sin (John 8:34-36).
The list of sins which will ultimately keep even Christians out of the Kingdom of God (if they don't repent from them) is quite long (Galatians 5:19-21), and some of these sins are common in the Church today. So why is there such a focus by some Christians on homosexuality alone? Why doesn't the Church also focus on, for example, its own very-widespread practice of divorce and 2nd-marriage adultery (Mark 10:11-12)?
mindlight said in post #1:
People who have identified as gay have demanded "marriage" equality for instance.
It is sometimes asked: "Since it is wrong for Christians to be against miscegenation, isn't it also wrong for them to be against same-sex marriage?"
The answer is No. For while the Bible isn't against miscegenation (Numbers 12), it is against homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27). So when the U.S. government struck down anti-miscegenation state laws in the southern U.S., it wasn't going against Biblical Christianity. But if the government ever forces Christians to support same-sex marriages, it will be going against the Bible. And so it will become anti-Christian, helping to prepare the way for the future Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast"), and his Satanic, one-world religion (Revelation 13:4-18).
One part of the future Antichrist's (Gnostic) religion will be to forbid marriages outright (1 Timothy 4:3). And legalizing same-sex marriage is just the first step toward this goal. For the next step will be to legalize polygamy, that is, to allow whatever number of people, whether male or female, in any combination, to enter "group marriages" (for example, consisting of 3 women, or 3 men, or 6 women and 4 men, etc.). Then the next step will be to declare the whole idea of marriage as "obsolete". Indeed, it will even be declared to be "evil" from the Gnostic (that is, the Antichrist) point of view (cf. 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7), which sees the whole idea of a physical existence, especially one which forms new people into physical bodies (that is, which forms offspring through marriages) as an abomination.
This isn't to say that all people who support same-sex marriages are Satanic Gnostics. Instead, some people could simply (yet still mistakenly) think that God supports homosexuality, just as many U.S. Southerners of old simply (yet still mistakenly) thought that God supports racism.
mindlight said in post #1:
The whole transsexual discussion is now also becoming significant.
By transsexual, do you mean the same thing as transgender?
If so, it has indeed become significant, in that the idea of it has actually gained a major foothold in liberal thought, even internationally.
But, in reality, there is no such thing as transgenderism, just as there is no such thing as transracialism.
As an example, imagine that a white man walks into an all-black, inner-city neighborhood, and is surrounded by some black men.
"What are you doing here, cracker?"
"I'm not a cracker. I'm a proud black man."
"No, you aren't. Look at your face. You're a white man."
"My face doesn't matter. What matters is I identify as black. So I am black."
"No, you aren't. But you are crazy. Now get out of here and leave us alone. You're scaring the children with your crazy talk."
And they could escort him out of the neighborhood and tell him never to return.
Now imagine a different example, where a man walks naked into a girls' locker room filled with girls. They all start screaming when they see him.
"Don't scream. I'm a girl too."
"No, you aren't! Look at your... your thing. You're a man!"
"My thing doesn't matter. What matters is I identify as a girl. So I am a girl."
"Help! Help! A crazy man is here!"
The girls' coach could then rush in.
"You need to get out of here."
"But I identify as a girl."
"Sorry, mate.
God has identified you as a man. Also, the police are on their way."
The man could then be arrested and thrown into jail, or into an insane asylum.
--
Someone might ask: "But what about the man's feelings that he is a girl?"
They are just a neurotic fantasy, just as it would be a neurotic fantasy for a white man to say that he is a black man. It is absurd on its face.
Also, transgenderism is a type of homosexuality: wanting to have sex with the same gender that you are, but pretending that you are of the opposite gender.
Because homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), transgenderism is a sin.
--
Someone might ask: "But what about diversity?"
God loves diversity, which is proven by all of the different colors, heights, weights, and personalities of the people whom He has created. But diversity doesn't mean that a man is actually a woman just because he feels like one. He is still a man. But there can be diversity within maleness, ranging from the ultra-macho male to the ultra-effeminate male. The latter can still identify as male, for he can simply be one type of male within a diverse range. It is absurd for transgenderism to claim to be for "diversity" while it railroads people into sexual stereotypes.
mindlight said in post #1:
Jihadists religious identity demands a certain violent lifestyle that they inflict on the rest of us.
This brings to mind that instead of spending billions of dollars on physical weapons and soldiers to fight ISIS, the world should be spending all that money on
ideological warfare against ISIS (and its ilk), defeating its very ideology of violence in the minds of its leaders and recruits. For the pen is mightier than the sword.
And the Mother of all Ideological Bombs against ISIS (and its ilk) would be an all-out, worldwide promotion of
Islamic Pacifism, supported and maintained by highly-respected Islamic scholars all around the world who aren't terrorists.
But, sadly, the U.S. will never go for any such campaign. For its government is controlled by the Military-Industrial Complex, which makes hundreds of billions of dollars every year off of continual warfare, formerly against Communism, and now against Islamic terrorism. This Complex absolutely
loves ISIS (and its ilk), for it continually fills their bank accounts to overflowing.
Just another proof that:
1 Timothy 6:10 . . . the love of money is the root of all evil . . .
mindlight said in post #1:
A Jordanian or Egyptian living in Israel identifies as a Palestinian even though there has never been such a place.
There has been such a place, but there hasn't been any such genetic identity.
For the Palestinians are simply Arabs, not their own race which needs their own nation-state. They can live on any Arab land within the truly gigantic Arab territory stretching all the way from Oman to Morocco. And this Arab territory includes Jordan and Egypt.
--
Also, regarding vehement, anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian persons:
Why should someone become hyper-concerned about the Israelis' dispossession of such a small sliver of the Arabs' total land, which stretches all the way from Oman to Morocco? Why not also become hyper-concerned about, for example, the U.S.'s and Canada's dispossession of almost all of the American Indians' land, stretching across North America? Or Australia's and New Zealand's dispossession of almost all of the aborigines' land? Also, why would someone completely reject the Jews' ancestral/historical/Biblical claim to the land of Canaan? Is it possible that anti-Semitism is involved in some way? Why can't the Jews have even such a small piece of land for themselves, especially in light of what happened to them in the Holocaust?
