Skip to content

Homosexuality in light of the Chick Fil-A controversy and all the other debate about it

August 3, 2012

In light of all the uproar over Chick Fil-A and Gay Rights, I figured I would toss out this thought I had awhile ago, on how really to explain why the Bible seemed to be so hard on homosexuality, in light of Comprehensive Grace. (The doctrine that the condemnation of the Law, which is what is often leveled at homosexuality by religion, completely ended at the destruction of the Old Covenant Temple in AD70).

People today who veer into same sex practices from being jaded from a life of heterosexual overindulgence are generally what religious folk think of when they think of gays. Such people will better fit the description of what the Old Testament and Romans 1 are talking about. Likewise, prison rapists would be more in the vein of Sodom and Gomorrah (Which has been the basic argument that says the Bible doesn’t really condemn all homosexuality).
But none of these people are truly “gay”.

(When you listen to people’s stories, and having to “come out” among family and even in Christian communities, with all the ostracization they face ⦅in even the secular world of kids I grew up in, it was the absolute worst thing a man could be, and even today, gays are still being attacked in the black community⦆; often even being thrown out of the house by parents, they are not simply indulging in some [pleasure-oriented] “choice” they made.
Neither is it something they were simply swayed or indoctrinated into; nor for most, just some reaction from being molested, etc. Most really struggle with the identity from growing up, often as far back as elementary school! I doubt seriously they are all making all of it up —you know, just to “engage in whatever pleasure they want”, or as part of some conspiracy to bring down God’s judgment, or whatever, to “destroy America” (which is what these sort of things always seem to come down to. It’s all about their “exceptional” nation, which was not even around in Bible times!) In this vein, we’ve always heard about “the homosexual agenda” in the typical fashion of rhetoric, and while the way some have carried out “Gay pride” may go along with that assumption; it really looks like the “agenda” of the majority of them is simply to be accepted, as they work out and live with their own preferences).

Now, our problem is that in scripture, no such distinction is allowed between different people engaging in same sex practices. This is what those who insist with some justification that those scriptures are not really addressing them have been missing.

Philip Yancey’s What’s So Amazing About Grace? has a whole chapter “No Oddballs Allowed” which seeks to answer the question “What did God have against Lobster?” regarding the Levitical laws. While there are various explanations (health, pagan practices, etc), he cites a Jewish writer who points out “kosher” means “fit“, it seemed to boil down to whatever was “odd” was ruled out. Lobster is considered “fish”, but fish normally have fins and scales, but the lobster doesn’t. So it’s “odd”.

This would be the same reason why such conditions such as menstruation and even leprosy were considered “unclean”; something that has cast more disrepute on the Bible itself by the modern world, than anything else, as it’s universally known that these things are natural and not “bad”, let alone that the people suffering from them can’t help it!
I’ve hardly even heard the Church really address, let alone come up with a good answer for these two issues. (They have embarrassedly tried to ignore them, hoping they go away or everyone forgets them, but they don’t!) So the world’s judgment of the Bible stands, in the world’s minds!

But these things were simply regarded as “unfit”, under the Law (Torah); which was based on the “knowledge of good and evil” that marked man’s “fall” into “sin” in the first place. Man’s perception of life and especially things sexual was totally distorted by this (hence, the “shame” of being “naked”), and the Law that was given to address it reflected this by casting things as “unclean” (or “abominable“, even) and restricting man from them.

So as for sexual “orientation”, the “base” purpose of sex (including romantic attraction) is reproduction, and reproduction (of the organisms that have developed a differentiated sex division) relies on heterosexual union of some sort (a male sperm and a female egg; even if reduced down to test-tube fertilization or intra-uterine insemination). So homosexuality is “odd” or not “fit” in that sense. (Sorry for any offense, but can gay rights advocates admit at least this much? It is kind of acknowledged in the embracing of the term “queer” by the community, which originally meant “strange” or “odd”. It had become a pejorative epithet for gays by the time I was growing up, but at some point became integrated into LGBT’s own nomenclature).

The issue before us, regarding religion and the CG perspective, is whether God is still condemning what is “odd”; especially if there are people who genuinely couldn’t help it (neurological/hormonal disposition, which is how I see it).
That, I believe, was a part of the Law, just as every nonsectarian evangelical will readily acknowledge for the dietary laws (which, as I’ve seen noted, happen to issue from the same book, so it is remotely possible that they stand and fall together!) The same with a forbiddance of “shatnez”, the mixing of wool and linen in a garment, also from Leviticus (19:19), and frequently cited by gay rights advocates.

The entire point of the Gospel is that this Law renders EVERY single person “unfit”! No matter what we do, or how hard we try to be “fit”. Christ was the only one who could “pass” under it, and he, with His clean slate, was able to take the condemnation for everyone else’s “unfitness”.

So the answer to the issue, just like everything else regarding the Law, is Grace. Though that may still irk gay rights people, since it implies a sort of “guilt” they won’t want to accept. I believe we must keep it in the context of this “fit” principle in light of the heterosexual nature of reproduction.
The hermeneutical definition of “sin” is “missing the mark” (the Greek word “hamartos”), and what is missing the mark? The direct scriptural definition: “sin is transgression of the Law” (1 John 3:4). So when judging by the Law, (which defines marriage as heterosexual), homosexuality “misses the mark”.

So the question then becomes whether we’re under the Law. Most of the virulent anti-gay Christians are Sunday-worship observers who will then claim “we’re not under the Law but under grace (Rom. 6:14)” when confronted with the actual Sabbath (seventh day of the week) specified in the fourth commandment (or Levitical dietary laws, the pagan origins of Christian holidays, etc. The sabbatarians will themselves say this when explaining why they don’t go further and keep sacrifices or circumcision. And they will of course all agree the shatnez law is not in effect).

There’s also the mistaken belief that salvation or “sanctification” is about behavior modification, which is another way of placing salvation on keeping the Law, even though most won’t see it in those terms. (Those who profess “grace alone” usually will point to God’s Spirit “changing us” ⦅which still ends up connected to the self-effort of “daily choices”⦆, and that will be their prime argument against homosexuals). But sanctification is being “declared holy” despite our unholiness (2 Cor. 5:19), and the behavior change regiments they advocate (whether for homosexuality or any other problem people struggle with— addictions, anger, depression, etc.) are just regular human efforts (hence, them emphasizing “choices”) that are not exclusive to born again Christians. So many testify to it not really working.

They’ll also appeal to teaching on “death of the self” (or “old nature”, which would supposedly include “urges” that are contrary to the Law). But the “Death of the old self” as used in scripture actually points (especially as used by Paul) to our own attempts to keep that Law (for that was in fact Paul’s “old life” as he described it). This is what’s actually deemed “the flesh” because it’s the same source of those urges (e.g. the “fruits”), thus, why it becomes a “struggle” in the first place. Your very effort at combating certain thoughts, feelings and actions springs from the same “nature” producing them! Even with the Spirit “helping” you. (Which is generally interpreted in terms of “conscience”, which is basically reiterating the Law, which would then hopefully produce more of a motivation to change. But this ends up in practice becoming “works”). It negates grace, which is really what’s needed.
[Edit: Regarding the supposed “reparation” of a gay Christian, and another one criticized for still identifying as such, see also: ]

The next objection will be that this position “allows anyone to do anything they want, and will destroy society” (and so there’s that motive of “saving society” again). But while you could argue that was the purpose of the Law in the first place; much of the Law was “added because of transgressions until the Seed [Christ] should come” (Gal. 3:19).
There is of course some sort of rules needed, for basic human society and relationships to be able to function, in addition to man’s relationship with God, and the best place to start with that is what rabbinic Judaism has termed the 7 “Noahide laws”, which, preceding Moses and the nation of Israel, are deemed universal for man; while the rest of the Law was only for Jews. The rabbis’ list of scriptures the “Noahide Laws” were drawn from: (Idolatry: Gen. 31:19-36; Blasphemy: Gen. 3:1-4, Murder: Gen. 4.8-10-16, 6:11, 9:6, Theft: Gen. 3:6, Gen. 31:19, Forbidden sexual relationships: Gen. 19:5-7, 20.3, Establishing courts of justice: Gen. 19:1-9. [The Gates of a city were where Judges sat to convene Courts of Justice], Eating the Limb of a Living Animal: Gen. 9.4-5).
Most of these things, most people, including the LGBT community, will agree with. They are also what were pretty much reiterated in Acts 15, when the apostles were summarizing which aspects of the Law new gentile Christians should be held to, against the more judastic element in the Church, arguing for the whole Law.

One of the scripture references for “Forbidden Sexual Relationships” is the Sodom and Gomorrah story however, which the rabbis will interpret as male homosexuality (and addition to them fanning out the 7 laws into 66 ‘principles’ that rule out a lot of things, just as they fanned out the rest of the Law into a tedious 613 points, for themselves). But as has been pointed out, this is not portraying consensual relationships, but rather rape, as part of a general culture of lust and violence, and as I said earlier, would be more comparable today to the prison environment, where normally “straight” men, cut off from women for years, now go after the other men, in a rage of lust and most importantly, power. (And the other reference, in the following chapter, is about regular adultery. I’ve noted it seems the gay community is more into monogamy than the straight community now!)

Of course, stuff like pedophilia, incest and bestiality would be included. These are more universally repulsive to the human conscience. People will think (as I even did), “oh, that will be next, once this is accepted”, but children and animals are not consenting people you can have any meaningful “relationship” with, so it’s not really the same thing.
Sex is about intimacy and exploration, so close relatives should also be naturally repulsive, and if you “fall in love” with them, something’s wrong there. Unlike a whole other gender, this would specify certain individuals as objects of one’s affections, but since there are so many other individuals out there to choose from, there are so many other options besides relatives. (And according to the most conservative Bible readers, who take everything in Genesis absolutely ‘literally’, God even once allowed incest, when there were only a few people on earth; i.e. “Cain’s wife”. But it is not necessary now).

All four practices similarly fall into the “odd” category, but gender preference between consenting human adults is different from the other three.
The Law was summed up in the great quote from Hillel that Jesus adopted, “Therefore all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them” (Matthew 7:12). You cannot accuse consenting adults of violating this, unless they personally force it on you.

So in that light, you can’t even call it a “disorder” (like I once assumed it was). “Disorder” means “a confused or messy state: a lack of order or organization”. “A state or situation in which there is a lot of noise, crime, violent behavior, etc.” From there, the medical definition: “A physical or mental condition that is not normal or healthy”.
The people are able to live and function in society, while “disorder” is something that would hamper that ability (like “autism spectrum disorders“, “borderline personality disorders“, “dissociative disorders“, etc.

From here, people may think of AIDS, but while that is believed to have started from a particular homosexual practice, its spread (like all other STD’s) is from sexual profligacy (which not all homosexuals engage in; many are monogamous; and AIDS spreads just as much among heterosexuals), and homosexuality is not just about that one male-on-male act.
(People often try to prove God’s Law by arguments on “health”. Like sabbathkeepers argue the Sabbath and especially the Levitical dietary laws promote “health”, which most other Christians don’t agree with; but the shatnez law shows clearly that the whole focus of the Law was “oddness”, as that one command has no bearing on “health”).

Gays will often point out that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but Christians will counter that He did allude to ruling it out in Matt. 19:4,5 when He cited Genesis saying “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”.
This was a response to those rejecting Him, and trying to trap Him with the Law (v3). So He gave the model of original Creation, which the Law had adopted (in mandating male-female only), —but had already allowed certain other deviations (namely, in this case, divorce, and along with other things like polygamy), “because of the hardness of your hearts” (v.8).

Some at this point, will take this as proof that it is not about “The Law” (i.e. “Moses”), but rather some original universal law from Creation (and of course this will tie into their reading of Romans 1). But that is still “law”, and contrary to Grace, if it is just another set of rules people are condemned by. We are just as unable to save ourselves by “natural law”, as by the Law of Moses. And that “natural law” (along with the written Law) is actually what Paul calls “the natural man” (“the flesh”) when we employ our own efforts to be “holy” through it.
(Really, if people are condemned for not following the “original male-female pattern”, then you can argue that celibacy also runs counter to that, and likewise does not promote procreation. In fact, to Jews, it was practically seen like this, where something was wrong with you if you were unmarried. Noted, is that Jesus then mentions “eunuchs” (v.12), who obviously could not follow that “natural” pattern. Of course, with celibacy, you don’t have the pleasure associated with sex, so that’s why that’s different. Once the “fleshy pleasure” is involved, [which the “historic Church” once viewed with suspicion even in marriage anyway], then the strict “rules” must be followed, for it to be “allowed”).

Going the other way in time, they will appeal to Eph.5:31-2, which reiterates the Creation statement, and then ties it into the upcoming “marriage” of Christ and the Church. But the passage is simply instructing heterosexual marriage partners on the ‘order’ of marriage (under the Law, that is), using the headship of Christ over the Church as the model. And, though most won’t receive this, the fulfillment of this “marriage” occurred shortly at the end of the age, but of course, the Church is still waiting for it today. In any case, if this mandated a pattern everyone had to follow in their own personal lives, then, again, you couldn’t have celibacy!

So in my view now, what other people struggle with or who they’re attracted to is really their own business, or “between them and God”, as they will often say (just like if we shouldn’t be watching others having sex in a porn film, we shouldn’t be so ‘in these other people’s beds’ regarding who their partners are either!)
I’ve seen the argument blaming this on “the individual is the center of the universe, with the sovereign right to choose our identity; God is there to make us happy”, etc. (see, for example:* but I’m not even thinking of any such notion. What I’m thinking is more along the lines of God may not be there for our own personal fulfillment, but then He’s not there to grant us control other over people’s lives (even if under the guise of trying to “save” them —or the nation, or civilization, or whatever) either!

*Has a good point that much of the modern church still condemning homosexuality has this “God wants you to have your best life now” message, and are trying to say heterosexual monogamy is that “best life”, but this method is a poor argument against homosexual preferences! It then becomes one person’s word as what is “best” for them, against another’s!

Since most conservative Christians will see all gays as “outside the Church” (including those who still identify as Christians), then Paul goes as far as to say “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” (1 Cor. 5:12).
In Matthew 10:14, Jesus tells us that if anyone will not welcome us or listen to our words, we are to leave the place and “shake the dust off your feet.” (and leave them to whatever judgment is set befall them). But Christians stay and badger, which is opposite what Jesus tells us to do. (And this not just with homosexuality, but with all the “sin” they decry in the nation. If they really followed this instruction for “evangelism”, they would have left the nation by now, as much as they complain it has turned completely from God!)

So why really are they doing this?
They’ll say they’re actually “loving” the people by trying to save their souls from Hell (or to be more accurate, get them to turn from a path to damnation), but (aside even, from the often unloving hostility spewed forth in the process) it is clear in most people’s objection that there is a more selfish motivation; that they think these people’s lifestyles are not only damning their own souls, but also taking something from them (the conservative Christian) as well; and this is tied into the whole “saving the nation” goal. That the nation was “chosen”, leading to its “exceptional” morality and politics, but the sins of gays and others is bringing it down, and causing “judgment” in the form of various calamities, (and probably also the economic downturns).

But scripture makes it clear that there is no such “exceptional” physical nation (this is based on a misguided Puritan conception of “covenant theology”, even though not all hold the whole theology), and all have sinned. This betrays pride and not love for the people’s souls, and so that cannot be used as an excuse for discrimination.

And we should not be trying to hit them with the Law (when we don’t even meet its requirements), but instead love them or at least get along with them regardless. We are to “Follow [live in] peace with all men” (Heb.12:14), not be “contrary to all men” (1 Thess 2:15. And “be holy” in the first scripture is for the reader to practice himself, not to try to force on others, and thus become the excuse to being “contrary” to them).
All of this may seem like such a “liberal” cliché, but it is in harmony with the principle of grace (i.e. that God is the one who administers and enforces ⦅—and can withdraw, if He chooses⦆ the Law, not us, even if He did once use people to preach or enforce the Law).

Edit: see also

  1. This is unbelievable, but the answer is very good:

    John MacArthur on Having Gay Children: Alienate Them & Turn Them Over to Satan

  2. So the LGBT community struck a major victory with the Supreme Court decision to legalize marriage in all 50 states. Rainbows are everywhere (FB memes, FB avatars, brilliiant LED accenting on the White House, 1 WTC and Empire State, etc).
    Turned on my computer [hit with rainbow]

    And of course, the religious and political debate fires up like never before. And this, (occuring right during pride week!) the third of a trio of major victories for liberalism: the final passage of Obamacare, and the removal of the Confederate flag from many places, after the deadly rampage of a white supremacist on a black church.

    In places, I feel it ges too far, like on the heels of this, NY and other places considering banning gender binary restrooms! Just because some people’s gender might be ambiguous, everyone (including cisgendered binary individuals) would then have to share restrooms.
    I myself felt that same sex couples should not emulate heteorsexuality in getting “married” or raising children, but they apparently feel very strongly about this, and they’re not forcing me to live that way, so what else should I do regarding them?

    Here’s a comment on a blog posting regarding of the meme “Five things Jesus would say to the gay community”:

    if a person wants to change their way of living; they have to change their way of thinking. how do you change your way of thinking? everytime a homosexual thought pops into your head you have a free will choice to either entertain that thought, and dwell on that thought, making it grow so eventually you will act on it. or you can block those thoughts out and dwell on the truths found in Gods word until you act on them instead. all feellings , including homosexual feelings, are thought driven. and what you allow your mind to dwell on is a matter of choice. it will be revealed by the way you live. what if a these people don’t what to turn from this kind of life? then we have just revealed what their true problem is. its not because they cant be delivered from homosexual feelings. its because they don’t want to be delivered from homosexual feelings. its because they have made a free will choice to continue in this lifestyle. and they, if they don’t repent, will have to answer for it. our job is not to judge them, but to tell them that their is a greater love out there for them. one that they cant even imagine.

    This is all the typical “spiritual growth process” jargon, and it assumes the problem is just some “urge” to have some sort of freaky sex or something (like people compare it to adultery, drugs, drunkenness, etc. that we may get “urges” for). From what I’ve been seeing with most people, it’s more than just about sex. And if the cause might be hormonal, then it’s definitely more than just about some urge for a particular act.

    Of the “five things Jesus would say”, four of them are nice sounding statements that emphasize Jesus’ love and compassion. (“I love you”, “I understand rejection”, “I was also tempted”, “I’m here for you”), But one of them is “I want more for you”, which is to enjoy sex, as God created it, between a man and a woman.
    So the “struggle” of forcing themselves to be with the opposite sex is the “more” He wants for people. Either that, or just being celibate, most will allow. There’s even a debate as to whether Christians who have homosexual attraction but stay celibate should still be called gay, since they’re not actually “practicing” the “lifestyle”.
    (And again, this is likened to the “struggle” each of us has to go through with whatever we are doing that is sinful, like again, substance addictions).

    Of course, they don’t tell you right away it will be a struggle. The premise, as we see articulated here, is if you just make the all-important “free-will choice” and change your thinking, then you’ll change the way you live (and hypotheticaly, it should become “easier”, but this person isn’t even saying this, here!)

    The only way to make that “something more” is to say that going through the “struggle” and then going to Heaven afterward is better than “continuing in sin” and going to Hell. But then, salvation is clearly by works. Jesus’ “love” is then all tied up in better behavior; conforming it to the Law, which is what He came to save us from in the first place!

    So we should just leave the people alone. Christians’ reaction is still like that of parents whose children are rebelling, like typical statements I see such as “a culture that is moving farther and farther away from the clear teaching of Scripture about God’s purpose and design for human sexuality”. But they’re not our children. They do not answer to us!

    Another person somewhere said “Fifty years ago this kind of activity was kept in the shadows, because we were ashamed of it. Now not only are we proud of it, it has become the law of the land. Its one thing to sin, it is quite another to rub God’s nose in it.”
    They forget that God sees all those things done in the shadows (they’re the ones who couldn’t see what was in the “shadows”, and now feel it is being rubbed in their face since it’s been exposed to them), and a “nation” or any other unit of people are no less “rubbing sin in God’s face” just because their sins are hidden, and that includes even mental stuff like hatred, even if it’s not acted out in behavior. That was the entire problem with many Christians’ assessment of the past and societal changes. Those trying to “lead” others in righteousness seem not to completely understand it themselves!

    So they know how we feel, and Jesus even said if the people we preach to don’t listen, to just “shake the dust off our feet” and move on. But again, we have more at stake than just their souls; it’s about ours as well, like saving “the nation”, or “they’re going to come after our freedoms now”.

    This article which dispels some of these fears, does point out:

    Negative public opinion toward churches who oppose this move will become solidified, placing you on the losing side of the culture war on this matter.
    Now we’re getting at the heart of the matter for evangelicals. Today’s defeat in Obergefell v. Hodges signals that public opinion has shifted away from the traditional evangelical view, and it serves as an emblem of a sea change that you’ve been anticipating and lamenting for decades. This is a further indication that evangelicalism has lost some of its grip over the surrounding culture so that now those who oppose this change will be looked down upon by those who are supposed to be beneath them, not above them.

    We’re going to be considered morally deficient. Let’s admit it. We’re much more accustomed to being accused of being morally superior. They’ve said we’ve been “stand-offish” meaning better than them, now a large part of this culture thinks we are morally deficient. And we’re going to find that’s a very different way to do ministry.

    What a blow that must be!
    But these are more concerns about our own creature comforts than the other people’s souls.

    A lot of it is from the institutional nature of religion. Religious organizations employ the laws of the land to organize themselves into special tax free corporations that build their buildings and pay their “staff”. So there is the danger that this could be used as leverage to force them to accept gays or even to stop preaching against them (even if there is no definite move to do it right now.
    I would say that some do tend to cross the line, and push too much. Why would you want to be married or even have your cake baked by [or any other service performed by] someone who thinks your marriage is an evil perversion, especially when there are others who don’t think that and will perform it?)

    But that I believe is the price of the Church becoming dependent on “organization” (the Church was originally people fellowshipping in the home), and also, the Church believing it is called to reform everyone’s behavior (beyond sharing the message with them, and moving on if they decide against it).

    The “world” would be less likely to try to control the Church, if the Church didn’t pose such a threat of trying to control the world, which is not what Christ commissioned it to do! (When the Church did have such control, in the past, it led to religious dictatorship, even over other Christians, who then broke away).

    Speaking of laws, the entire battle here makes us dependent on a secular government to determine “marriage”, as has been pointed out! Christian conservatives have been a major voice criticizing too much dependence on government. (And particularly one they have seen as sliding away from God long before this decision). Yet they are essentially arguing that “marriage” is what the government allows (or even has the power to define), so if they allow it for gays, they have effectively “redefined” it, contrary to God (which actually attributes to them way too much power. It’s understandable that “secular” gays pushing for “equality” and not for scripture would put so much stock in that).
    In other words, it’s not just the government itself “playing God”, but also the Christian conservatives, who in essence say “yes, you are in the position/level of God”, but then get mad when their decisions don’t match His. Allowing others to marry then takes something away from them (like rendering their own marriages meaningless somehow), due to this universal “redefining”.

    But the US government or any of its states’ governments did not exist in Biblical times. There were no human governments at all for Adam and Eve, or the immediate generations after them, yet that was when “marriage” was first “defined”.
    The act of of coming together physically [i.e. “one flesh”] was “marriage”, not going and getting a “license”, and then standing before a govt. official and/or “minister” and repeating vows. We see coming together without the vows as “fornication”, and coming together with someone else after the vows as “adultery”, but really, the former is a technical marriage (often done to avoid the legal difficulties of the “official” union, and make it easier to break it up, and then go get someone else. That would then become “adultery”. “Fornication” in scripture was other acts; like what we call “prostitution” and “incest”).

    They’ve also been reiterating the fear that “polygamy, child molestation, etc. will be next”.
    But I have never seen any lobby for those things. They are not waiting in the wings to gain rights, so where would such a movement to “legalize” them even come from?

    I would agree with what an article like this says, but still if the people are inclined toward something other than “God’s best”, or “God’s design”, that (as those people wil themselves say) is between them and God, not something we are to try to badger them into. It’s like “I love you enough to give you ‘my best’, but you must give me what I’m due by receiving it, else, I will give you the worst”. That is not true grace, it’s coersion.


    Goes after the whole “moral” vs “ceremonlal” tactic used to divide the Law into what they will admit has been “done away”, and what they think should still be enforced today.

    So “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.” then refers to “moral law” only.

    “The first thing to note is that nowhere in the Bible are moral laws distinguished from ceremonial laws. Those are man-made designations. Christians have always allowed for Biblical “laws” to migrate from one category to another.
    It used to considered in accord with Biblical moral law for Christians to keep slaves.
    ‘Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath day’ is one of the Ten Commandments. Yet today we do not assume that no real Christians mow their lawn on Sundays, or play professional football.”

    (Let alone the fact that Sunday itself is already a total change from the actual commandment, and this is the biggest one where they will claim “we are not under the Law”. Sundaykeepers will try to use the “ceremonial law” argument, and sabbatarians will simply move the “ceremonial” line further down, to practices they admit should not be kept (like annual holy days, for Adventists, but then more radical groups believe those aren’t “ceremonial” either).

    “So when it comes to Christian moral law, what rule does remain constant? What is the standard by which Christians must ultimately judge each and every Biblical law?
    For a ready and clear answer to that question, we have only to turn to Jesus’ Great Commandment, here at Mark 12:28:
    ‘The most important commandment, answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”’
    So there is Jesus directing us to understand that if breaking a Biblical ‘law’ does not violate the Great Commandment, then that law should no longer be considered a moral law.”


    Of course, this apparently conservative source has to politicize the kind act by framing it in terms of liberals hiding it because it disproves their claims that a Christian owned company like this “hates” gays. (Though it’s true that the gesture does not necessarily prove their beliefs aren’t incorrect and therefore what people are calling hateful, even if that itself is a bit exaggerated. Still, it was a nice step in the direction of reflecting God’s Grace).

    (As the afternoon progressed, more mainstream outlets began covering the story: Funny, as the “mainstream media” ends up as the “neutral” source here, where conservatives always considered them slanted to a biased agenda).

  5. As two more milestones hit the news and net today; of the Stonewall Inn being declared a national monument for LGBT rights, and the first LGBT Miss America contestant, Ms. Missouri, and how it seems like one after another, to the utter chagin of religious conservatives.

    But what came to mind, again, is that these are first, people, who want to live out their identity without shame or discrimination, just like the rest of us. You say “it’s a shameful practice, and so they should feel shamed, and hopefully that will lead them to repentance unto salvation”. But this is judging by “the Law“, which you claim is “done away” in other areas, and seem to agree with the New Testament that “By the works of the Law shall no flesh be saved” (Rom.3:20, Gal. 2:16). Also, Jesus clearly gave a distinction between “what was said by them of old time” [under the Law] and what He was teaching now. (And though what He was saying seemed like it was even stricter than what was taught in the Law, the whole point was that no one could keep it, and thus salvation could not be by keeping it, and the system of Law would be eventually removed).
    Furthermore, you’re using it to try to ‘create/maintain order in society’, which was the function it served in Old Testament Israel only. Again, that had a specific purpose, for those people, which has since been fulfilled. America is not ancient Israel*, which was a theocracy, with the religious leaders as the appointed moral guardians, and people need to stop thinking like that.
    Then, there’s “they’re going to take over and persecute us now”, but it won’t seem like that as much if you are not badgering them at every turn. (Like they wouldn’t try to enforce acceptance if people weren’t so strongly trying to descriminate, even with services that are not private, or of course, actively persecuting. The same as happened with race).

    So we should just accept this as another step in undoing the dehumanization of groups of people, and whatever happens between them and God afterward, is, as people always say, between them and God. Let it not become something else we are worried or miserable about.

    Edit: this site aims to address the issue of whether Jesus ever “mentioned” homosexuality. They ultimately point to Matt.19 when answering the Pharisees attempt to trap Him with the notion of divorce: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They also suggest that He could have skipped that part about “man and wife” and went straight to “two become one flesh”, if He wanted to be totally neutral on the issue. Divorce had only been allowed under the Law “because of the hardness of their hearts”.

    They above pointed out that “They were living in an age under the Mosaic Covenant, which explicitly condemned homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13)”. Thus “the only reasonable conclusion — especially in light of the fact that Jesus viewed the Old Testament as the very Word of God (e.g., Matt 22:43) which was infallible (John 10:35) — is that His view of homosexuality was the Old Testament’s view (i.e., God’s view) of homosexuality.”

    But that right there further identifies the condemnation as part of the Law. And of course, Jesus upheld the Law, except when pointing out its limitation for the sake of man’s sinfulness, as we see in the allowance for divorce. This says nothing about what would be the case later on, when the Law was abolished. (Again, the Law also allowed for polygamy as well, even though the original model from Creation was monogamy). What abolition of the Law meant that God would no longer “count” the transgressions of it against man.

    Now, the page is also answering a particular version of the argument that aims to get around Paul’s condemnations of it as him having “corrupted the way of life and the ideology that Jesus came to propagate”. I’m not sure how many believe like that. People who reject Paul but claim to follow Jesus usually are those who fervently advocate the Law, and realize that attempts to hold onto both it and his teachings really aren’t consistent. But perhaps, it’s to so-called “red letter Christian” types, who claim to go only by what Jesus directly said (i.e. the “red letters” in many Bibles), rather than the rest of the New Testament.
    But that is not necessary. The overlap of covenants would explain this, hence the Law was still held to some extent even after the Cross (like Paul also had someone circumcised, to appease the system, and warned his readers about their “liberty” and how it could be misconstrued as lasciviousness; and would also “deliver” people to the Law system for certain sins). The final end was the “end of the age” they were waiting for, when the Law system (Temple) would be gone for good, and full redemption finally spread. (In Romans 1, Paul is referring to the same people who pretended to keep the Law in the following chapter, but had become perverted, and in various ways, despite judging others. It’s also pointed out that Paul in the other two cited passages of 1 Cor. and 1 Tim. may have been referring more to sexual prostitution of boys than any private consensual relationship).

    Overall, when talking about how “natural” is is or isn’t, we should remember that there are two aspects of sex; reproduction and intimacy between two people. In a heteronormative pattern, the hormones lead to attraction toward intimacy with the opposite sex (and revulsion toward the same sex), which then often leads to reproduction. For gays, for some reason the hormones lead them to intimacy with the same sex, and often revulsion toward the opposite sex.** While their bodies can’t reproduce together, there’s still the intimacy part, which is the basis of their relationships. Since it is about intimacy between two people, everyone else really should not get involved with it. Again, people claim they are saving their “souls”, but what always comes out of their larger doctrinal agenda is a desire to save the “nation“, (and thus really their own egos, as the nation is what they identify with), and once people have made their decision, we should leave them alone.

    *In other, unrelated news, today’s other headline of the Britain pullout of the EU must surely be great news for the remnant of Armstrongism and other “Anglo-Israelists”, who can proclaim this as paving the way for the final fulfillment of prophecy, as Britain obviously can’t be in the EU if Britain is apart of God’s “Israel”, and the EU is Satan’s “Beast” power! Considered “heretical” by evangelical “orthodoxy”, it and the sabbatarianism of Armstrongism is really a consistent logical extension of this OT focus seen in the push against gays.

    **More scientific evidence involving chemicals:
    Homosexuality Might Develop in the Womb Due to Epigenetic Changes

  6. Ran across what I see as this amazingly brave LGBT advocate: Crystal Cheatham.

    She came from an ardent Seventh Day Adventist background (which she calls “fundamentalist”, though technically, it isn’t, as they obviously reject the chief “fundamental” doctrine you associate with fundamentalism, which is conscious eternal Hell; and also, of course, rejecting the nearly universal Sunday as the day of worship in favor of the original seventh day Sabbath. So what she means is deeply morally conservative and true to its essential doctrines).

    When her father passed away when she was 15 (Dec. 2000), this inspired her to become even more fervent in the faith. She transferred to an SDA boarding high school, and then the church’s Anderson College. At two key points, when a bunch of girls suspected she might be lesbian, when not showing interest in boys at 13, and then a roommate in college, she (reflecting on the legalism and obsessions with “sin” that even she had participated in, and then seeing how another gay person had to hide it) became disillusioned with the whole morality, and what she calls the “Purity Culture”.
    So she (an aspiring folk singer) came out, and pastor Manny Cruz at first responded with an apparent (and surprising) enthusiasm, and invited her to not only sing, but speak on it. But at the last moment, banned her from speaking, and the next day (only telling her because she asked) explained that the SDA couldn’t have a gay person speaking. (Which you would think he would have said right off the bat as it is an obvious rule the SDA shares with every other conservative denomination or sect, so this is baffling as to why he would raise her hopes like that and then dash them. Must have spoken to other leaders).

    So she broke away from the church, and turned from the rules in favor of “choosing/knowing myself”, and explored the gay community and became an activist.
    Now, she’s producing a Bible app that will provide devotionals that are inclusive of LGBT people, as well as gender neutral translations.

    What I’m taking note of is the extreme hatred in comments on various sites, and even her YouTube videos.

    Ken Ham, president of the apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis, says the Our Bible App is “biblically wrong” and misses the point of the gospel.

    “[The creators of this app] are ignoring the very heart of the message of Christianity, that we become born again (John 3:3)—become new creatures—and gain a brand-new identity when we turn to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17)!” Ham wrote in a blog post on Monday.

    “These professing believers are trying to find their identity in their sexuality and gender rather than submitting totally to Jesus Christ,” Ham continued. “But we are no longer defined by our sin when we are Christians. We are defined by Christ who lives in us.”

    [BTW, Ham, cited like some major authority here, according to some is allegedly not having that much success with his Ark museum, and blaming either atheism, or area hotel capacity:

    He’s being accused of selling it (as a for-profit venture) to a non-profit organization to avoid taxes:

    He also began bathing the ark in rainbow colors, aiming to “take the rainbow back from the gays”, but was instead mocked for it:

    “You don’t change the Bible, it changes you.”
    [Total misunderstanding of what the aim of the Gospel is. Obviously all about behavior here].

    She doesn’t have Faith, she has a belief, and a belief which is wrong. Faith can only be acted upon for Salvation (or any other promise offered by God) when a person believes the Word of God, Jesus Christ. She is ignoring the Word of God, so her Faith has died. I pray she turns from her confusion and sin before she meets the LORD in Judgement.
    Come LORD Jesus, come!

    [Faith-as-“action” error].

    “This is how you know Cheatham should call herself Legion instead, as she is filled with many demons.”

    “Some people want to do everything to assure they go to hell with all the amenities. It would be better for this woman to become an atheist or as Jesus declared, she’d be better off having a millstone hung around her neck and be drowned in the depth of the sea than to live to commit such wickedness.”

    [Here is a virtual admission that keeping the Law is what saves and not unmerited pardon (i.e. “grace”), so it would be better if you just reject Jesus and are not gay. It’s all just a ploy to “get by” with as much sin under one’s belt as possible anyway; which may be more a projection of repressed sin within themselves].

    She isn’t trying to resist sin though, she is trying to change The Bible to make it acceptable”

    “The key is ‘resisting sin’.
    From the Scriptures:
    – Let him who steals steal no longer.
    – Go and sin no more.
    – Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
    – Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.
    – What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
    – The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent
    – No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure [not engage in] it.

    Have read the scriptures. Have not found anything even remotely sounding like – Jesus loves you and He knows you can’t stop sinning, so, stop trying and stop worrying; embrace your sinfulness and don’t worry – God is OK with it.

    [These passages are drawn from a wide range of places and lumped together, but are not being viewed in light of grace vs works. (Which is why they have to come up with qualifications like “as long as you don’t want to do the sin anymore”, which their main charge here is that this motivation is being eliminated). All have in their context either being under the Law, as in the case of the pre-Cross examples, or in the post-Cross examples such as Acts and Col.3 where grace was being introduced, but they were waiting for the full fruition of it when the system of Law would be eliminated. (What’s the “good news” if in all the severity of the Law, God was actually “winking” at sin the whole time, but actually making salvation harder afterward, to the present? The higher “requirement” ⦅Luke 12:48⦆ would only be for the firstfruits of that generation who would live to see the accusing Law system, ⦅which was the very “world” or age referred to in these scriptures⦆, come down, ⦅Matt.16:28, and this was the “wrath” referred to in v.6 in Col.3⦆; not people thousands of years later, and long after special revelation and other regular intervention has ceased).

    This of course is not an accepted or commonly known doctrine, by either conservatives or liberal detractors such as the LGBT Christians. Pantelist writer Tim King points out that standard liberal theologies operate “apart from the covenantal framework of biblical eschatology” and thus “the concept of salvation is severed from its Hebraic roots, the victory of God is reinterpreted through the lens of human worth and Christ is removed as the central figure in the victory of God”, and thus “the true story of hope gives way to any number of stories and the foundation for the continued development of human society is compromised”. (“Comprehensive Grace”, Jul 30, 2002). This then is what drives or fuels the standard conservative responses.
    So it looks like the LGBT advocates are just openly “rejecting” these “clear scriptures”, but the unresolved dispute of faith vs works among the different groups, or even within evangelical understanding itself shows that something is being missed in the conservative understanding of them

    And it’s not “stop trying, and embrace your sin”; though it is stop worrying (several scriptures speaking of “anxiety” are referring to anxiety over salvation, but instead are applied to daily situations). Love is to be the motivation in living, not fear (1 John 4:18)].

    “Becoming “Born Again” is how one becomes saved per the instruction manual. It is a contract between the Creator God, YHWH and His created. One must first repent of all law breaking and WANT to sin no more. Yeshua only dies once for us. If you think you can deliberately sin and be forgiven, read the book of Hebrews. Baptism must be by full submersion in water and at an age of consent to understand the contract. If you want to be a law breaker, you were given free will to do so but dont expect YHWH to honor His side of the contract if you refuse to even try to honor yours.”

    [This is obviously some sort of sacred-name/Messianic Judaism believer, which is regarded as cultic by mainstream evangelicals, but the argument here is pretty much the same, except for the suggestion that the Cross only covers sin in the past. He died only once, so from now on, salvation is all on you. So it’s all focused on LAW; though only this type of person will openly admit it as such, and then go after his fellow moralists just the same over stuff like the sabbaths or divine names].

    The Romans passage is referring to Israelites (not “the godless”) who preach the Law to others, but commit the very same violations they judge!

    Lets see… she’s a lesbian, a 7th Day Adventist, a feminist, ethnically Zambian, descendent of slaves, a black woman. Wait! What about “fat”. She’s fat. How could she miss that line of victimization, unless of course she identifies as a “thin woman”. There is nothing new under the Sun. Twisting the Bible to conform to one’s own lifestyle rather than conforming one’s lifestyle to the Bible has gone on for years and will continue until the day the trumpet sounds.

    [What does race, and “fat” have to do with anything? It looks like those are just as much “sins” to this person, in this typical anti-“victim” conservative mindset! That is, except when they claim to be persecuted for opposing gays and other groups!]

    Check out how “christian” many of the conservative commenters are in this post:

    The more civil comment:

    There is no such thing as A homosexual Christian. There are Christians who were homosexuals before they became Christians. When a person become as a Christian, they repent of their sin and stop doing that sin.

    A Christian who was a homosexual before they became a Christian has ceased to be a homosexual.

    Jesus Christ can and does set people completely and absolutely free from the sin of homosexuality, even the desire.

    Any group that to June differently from that is no longer a Church but just a group of people that meet on Sunday morning. God is nowhere near them.

    [“Freedom” is from the penalty of the Law; for that, and its resulting fear and anxiety, are what we were held in “bondage” to! Unless the only way to be free from the penalty is to be free from the behaviors, and salvation then is from the lack of the behaviors, and thus the “work” of resisting them and keeping the Law!]

    Then, on

    girl! this is wrong!! you must go back and read the Bible properly!! remember, HOMOSEXUALITY IS SINFUL! I hope God will open your eyes to the Gospel!!!!

    What about a Bible app that represents what God wants instead of what we want? Does Christianity revolve around feelings and what our heart’s desire is, or around the Truth as it is in God’s word? Feelings and desires change, yet God’s word stands fast forever and ever. You may have heard about Coming Out Ministries. These men and women of God were people who struggled with the issues you are speaking about, and prove that God’s hand of mercy is extended to all who will grab onto it by the hand of faith, even those of the LGBT community. I would encourage all to look into these people. Understand God’s mercy and love to the wandering sinner. If you are struggling with sin, come to Jesus as you are and let Him take it from you. He longs to save all from the deceitfulness of sin, and give life more abundantly than you could ever have while in it. But don’t hold onto it, it will only lead you further from God.

    When one changes the word of God one is no longer following what God says through His written word. I do not know who you worship but it is not the God of the Bible. Please repent and follow His word, God is merciful and loving. To embrace the sin Christ died for is to make His death in vain and that goes for any since. We are to forsake the lusts of the flesh and give ourselves entirely to God. I pray you listen.

    [Notice, the only purpose of the Cross is eliminating the existence of sin, not paying its penalty. As this person then claims a ‘different God’ is involved, then their god is one whose “cross” has a totally different purpose than the one in the Biblical Gospel].

    Making a ‘Bible app’ that’s ‘inclusive’ to those who refuse to repent and are proud to live in sinful behaviors? An app that helps make sure people do not repent and reject God’s offer of eternal life? How far humanity continues to fall…

    Crystal, what Bible are you reading? What part of ‘abomination’ and ‘unnatural’ do you not understand? Satan has blinded your eyes, you need to wake up. It is no trivial thing to mess with the Word of God! It is written, if you take or ADD anything to His word YOU WILL BE CURSED! Repent, wake up to the truth of the Gospel of Christ, there is a fate worse than death for those who reject God. You can pridefully spout your twisting of Scripture but you will have to stand before the Most High God and explain why you in wilful ignore rejected His truth and instead bought into a lie of Satan AND you led others to follow after you into eternal damnation. God will not be mocked. Sin is sin AND nothing you or anyone who thinks like you can change that. It’s so sad how many read the Word of God and read ‘when men have sex with men like they would with a woman IS AN ABOMINATION, and that when the women do like the men and have sex with other women which is UNNATURAL’ AND that along with the other types of sin to include homosexuals, all will burn in a lake of fire that never goes out, that they have no rest day or night FOREVER’ AND still believe that homosexuality is alright with God proves what the Word of God says. Men and women reject God and love their wickedness more.

    Do you realize that one day you will face God??listen my dear the pleasures of this world are not worth losing your soul for you can change the Bible but the true gospel of God is eternal and can’t be corrupted .The Bible is for us human beings to know how to live with and for Jesus, anyone who fails to understand that his choices will only affect him or her and not God, will face a very miserable eternity. Better repent nowwwww!!because what you’re doing is useless. Why don’t you realize that things God considers as sins are harmful for humanity or do you think God restrictions are meant to frustrate us???.I repeat repent now!!!!LGBT are not the one to make you a place in paradise.

    [Bible i.e. Law as “instruction manual” again, for our “health” and strictly for man’s own good. Yet if you don’t comply, then this well-meaning God “punishes” you with more misery. This is the sort of teaching 1 Tim.1:7 is describing!]

    Now get this one:

    “It’s not about you, bitch! It’s about JESUS! Who the fuck do you think you are? You’d be better off worshipping Satan on the open than changing the word of God to fit your agenda.
    Altering the word of God to cater to an agenda is deadly sin. I pray for her so she may repent for such vile action, otherwise she’ll burn in hell for all eternity and deservingly so.”

    [This reminds me of the Israelites who did all sort of crazy things as reported by Josephus, in the madness that followed the ministry of Christ, which you can see beginning right when they claimed they had no king but Caesar and demanded Him to be crucified. These are actually the sort of people Paul was referring to in Romans 1, our main “clobber text” in this issue, and with all the legalism, they themselves began simultaneously manifesting the very sins the Law they followed condemned as listed in that chapter, even as they condemned others with it. (And just as prophesied here, they continued to degrade in the war following the NT period, leading to their destruction shortly after).
    Not even the LGBT advocates who attempt to deal with this passage have realized this contextual basis of it; that the whole book of Romans is addressing apostate Israel (not “godless pagans”; these people once “knew” God!) with the ultimate proof of who he is really referring to being the upcoming opening of the following chapter(2), with those doing these sinful things described there, being the very ones judging others for the same acts! Christ’s parable of the “unjust servant” (Luke 16) also drives home this same point.

    So that’s exactly what we see here, with this crudely foul language that has traditionally been (along with homosexuality and other sex acts) part of the “sin” conservative Christians condemned “the world” for (The “clobber texts” for them would be Col. 3:8 and Eph.4:29!)
    But with the Christian culture dying, just as that Israelite culture of the first century was dying (rather than either of them taking over the world as they expected), they are losing their minds, and with it, their morals, as they continue to condemn others, and don’t even realize it. Just like them being the biggest supporters of Trump and his shady minions, as illustrated perfectly by this meme:

    With homosexuality being seen as the "worst" sin, everything else pales in comparison to it (like even unbelief being "better"), and thus, these other things such as language end up becoming OK, especially in the heat of the risen emotions. Again, this is not even realized, because they are too focused on the gays, political opponents, and everybody else's behavior].

    Overall, it’s all reiterating the same “clobber texts” (starting with Rom.1, and others often assumed and not even cited, and assumed to refer to modern homosexuals) that are now starting to be answered more. (Here’s a video covering the six primary clobber texts:
    And of course, the ammunition is the “impartation” of “life change” concept (you can receive some “power” to get over these “urges” if you just ask and be willing to give up the “sin”), which is just conjecture, and neither here nor there, when it comes to being put in practice; i.e. “it worked for me, so there’s no excuse for you”. (Many who have claimed this “power” to get over or stop wanting sin, have failed. Non-Christians are capable of changing their behavior with the same “steps and principles”, when they are so motivated).

    And they’re all statements of personal offense, not “OMG, we must rescue her soul” (even if some may throw something like that in). Yet they’ll all claim it’s not hatred; their feelings toward homosexuality are “concern for their souls”; it’s what negative thing is being “done” to their beliefs, “culture”, “nation”, etc. not what bad thing will happen to her, other than something to feel avenged by; e.g. “Lord Jesus, come”, in order to hasten the judgment they are warning her of! (And of course, rescue them from all these other people’s sins).

    Greg Boyd points out how all of this sort of stuff is the work of the Accuser.

    The mistake all of this operates on, is that Satan’s role is that of a pleasure/play-time pal who leads us away from God’s Law (with God as the Accuser), just to take as many people to Hell with him as he can (as God essentially cedes the majority of man to him by allowing these “urges” and other problems to come up as “tests” and then making the path to salvation and “deliverance” so “hard”, but still holding man “accountable” to “give” God the faith and “obedience” He’s due. Satan is the one who promises to make everything “easy”, and so he is actually ‘winning’ with that).
    But Satan is the one whose very name means “Accuser”, and we can see in places like Job and Rev.12:10 that this is what he does, before God. (But these harsh Christians would apply this to themselves and say Satan is “attacking” them, by having all these gays and other “sinners” come and ruin their “godly nation”, and to so much as push back against their meanness or attempts to regain control. But Satan is therefore “accusing” them only as much as they “give him occasion” (Eph.4:27, Rom.2:24).

    Romans is addressing apostate Israelites, not “godless pagans”; these people ONCE “KNEW” God; and were the very ones judging others for the same acts they were doing! Conservative Christians in their misguided zeal today are falling into the same pattern!

    Back to the first link, above:
    “The very heart of the message of Christianity”. “The point of the gospel”. This right here is the very heart of the problem. It directly shows that the whole point of the “gospel” to them is moral reformation, with the “new birth” as some sort of force that aids us along in this. That “Christ” whom who one “identifies” with is defined in terms of behavior. This, mind you, as the official hallmark of Protestant evangelicalism is supposed to be “grace alone”.

    If grace alone is true, then these above sentiments are the real “false gospel”, and the real “changing of the Bible to suit one’s own desires” (the only difference from the homosexuals is one of majority and seniority; the “historic church” has always read the scriptures on homosexuality that way, and these “traditions” become their own “desires”), and if God was still judging by the same Law that condemned homosexuality, they would find themselves just as much condemned!

    My tweet to her on the “trunews” comments leads to this exchange:

    “Their rhetoric is all about “conformity” and behavior, and the official theology is “grace, not works“ (as they even level at the sabbath)
    They don’t realize, when they even throw stuff like “new birth” in there, that it becomes salvation by Law, which they claim to reject.”

    (I then respond “A lot of people don’t [analyze]. But I’ve always felt a need for stronger refutation of stuff like that. It sounds so convincing by the fervency alone”)

    I had thought she might be an NFP, with her nice intelligent presentation on podcasts and interviews, but this now strongly points me to ISFP. Clearly, introverted Feeling and a more Sensory rather than “big picture” (N) focus. It matters less about Bible doctrine; I just feel this is not right, and so (as all the critics are naturally charging), let’s just change things (inferior extraverted Thinking working in tandem).
    The extraverted Sensing would of course go with the musical artistry, and the associated SP “Artisan/Improviser” temperament leads to the concrete “pragmatism” of standing up for the cause and making the changes to things. (Just as pragmatic, but rather more abstract focused, my first approach is to charge into the issues with “analyzing”, based on a doctrinal “big picture”. I challenge all rebuttals logically, not letting anything pass, based on it simply “feeling” right; hence listing and refuting all these comments above).
    Her stand and all the resultant condemnation just makes my inferior extraverted Feeling scream with terror. When I read of these people’s stories of being found out by their parents, I cringe, and figure I could never have gone through all of that! So dominant introverted Thinking steps up with analysis, definitions, and challenging others on their interpretation of the Bible.

    I so identify with her coming to the same point of her being a “hypervigilant Christian” and “found ways to fill in all the gaps” regarding fundamentalist interpretations of how all this applies in real life situations; finding “creative” ways of “glossing it over” regarding God’s activity in the world (“figuring out ways that I hadn’t been faithful enough, and that’s why that thing didn’t happen, or I wasn’t applying the scripture right, or that’s just how things happen; God has a plan…”. This I struggled with tremendously, not regarding sexual orientation, but rather with coping with various difficulties in life, and usually getting cold “pat answers” like these from Christians who really don’t want to be bothered with anyone’s “struggles”. These also are actually the basis of the lines of reasoning used to say homosexuals must force themselves to go against their preference; having no excuse to “give up” with the “power” offered to them).* So, it led to finally just abandoning the whole premise (or “grand charade”, though not in the strong terms she uses
    [This made her sound like an iNtuitive, and even possibly an NT, though again, SP is pragmatic, and being also “motive focused” (or having a higher “wanted Control”) will go along with it longer, but will also step up and rebel when a realization like this is made].

    It led her in favor of choosing “finding/knowing me/myself”, with “God” then reimagined in terms of self (which these other pages, and this one: go after with “The Christian identity, a relationship with Jesus Christ, requires that one forsake himself, and take up his cross, and follow Him.
    At that impasse, according to scripture, Christians are to deny themselves and follow Jesus Christ. However, some progressive Christians are not recognizing the authority that is the eternal Word of God, and therein lies the problem.”)

    But I realized the problem was not necessarily God vs “self” [the natural straw man premise], but rather men having long ago hijacked the Word of God, and hiding behind centuries of control and a collectivized “self” lying in their agendas (again, the seniority and majority), and are just as “man-focused” as an individual’s personal feelings or wants, but easier to disguise as “objective” (and from God) in some of their interpretations of scripture.

    Of course, many of these people argue over what a “Christian” is or is not. I would skirt the chase by not even using or emphasizing the term (which I was never completely in favor of), by pointing out it was not even the official Biblical or divinely given term for the redeemed, but rather in its only three uses in the entire Bible, what others called them, often derisively.

    I kind of disagree with trying to make inroads into the organized Church to make them more accepting and inclusive, which is of course what the whole defensive-offensive stance of critics is based on. (“they’re trying to destroy us”; “We have to fight them before they take over and persecute us”, “However, instead of listening to both the Word of God and her Church elders she defied the authority of Scripture and proceeded to pull other believers down the very same path” as the latter page says).
    The organized Church was never scriptural to begin with, but was rather the authority structure men set up centuries later, at first, under the premise of dealing with persecution by the Romans, but then later becoming wed to the Empire itself, and from there, a worldly power base, including when it later fractured into Protestant “denominations”, and even “cults” (or intermediate sects like SDA) who vie against the authority of the established churches, but all still having the power base with its paid leaders, tax-exempt status, command over members, etc. regardless of how small the organization may be.

    So let them be homophobic; as she says, “Churches are shrinking these days and I can’t say I wonder why.”

    *She interprets Romans 1:26 to say the “unnatural desire” is to go against “what God made you”, including if you’re gay. So for her, that would actually be hetero sex. (1st “LHM” podcast).
    But the conservative Christians say God doesn’t “make” anyone that way. If they will even allow for the hormonal factor of orientation, then this, like other circumstances out of our control (“fate”), will be seen as “God’s will”, but thus a “test” for the one afflicted with the same sex desire, where they have to struggle against “the flesh” in order to be obedient to God’s Law. (Where the religious gays see the “fate” as evidence this is who God made them). This we see in one magazine’s attack against another lesbian Christian singer, Dejuaii Pace (even though who, unlike Crystal, has never even indulged in the lifestyle).

    Many of these LGBT’s, in their coming out stories, are suffering more like what Christ warned his followers would face in Matt.19:29. (As Christian conservatives, on one hand, call them and the rest of the liberals “snowflake SJW’s” [social justice warriors], but then turn around and claim to be “persecuted” themselves, but no one is kicking them out of houses or churches or gripping them with fear and shame, and condemning them to Hell).
    This is what proved to me that it is not just some “pleasure” they are “excusing”, as all of these critics are assuming. Why would they subject themselves to all of this condemnation, ostracization, ridicule (even among secular kids), fear and sometimes even being kicked out and disowned by the family, just for some “fun”, when they could have heterosexual “fun”? Some, under utter duress from the struggle and fear of what would happen if they came out in their religious backgrounds like this, actually ended up going as far as to break another major rule, against hetero “fornication”, to “make sure” (especially when some of these families would have rather had them fornicate and even “come out” as pregnant, than to be homosexual!), and all it did was further confirm their preference. (And then they still had to face all that scorn when they finally did come out).
    All of this is really not being thought out; only reacted to viscerally, with memorized responses and scripture proof-texting.

    People look at ch. 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” to justify incivility, but they never stopped and thought WHO exactly would be wielding this “sword” Christ brought. Many apparently ASSUME it’s Christ’s followers wielding the sword against the “sinners” as they aim to keep their houses, churches and nation “clean” of sin. (And after all, Christ is the one who says He “brought” the sword in the first place, isn’t He?)
    But in the actual context, it was His followers who would be faced with going back to their homes and synagogues and the nation in general, and having the authority or establishment in those institutions (who largely were the avowed enemies of Christ) oppose them and thus wield that sword, and in the name of the Law, against them. (Christ “brought” the “sword” and in effect “set” the leaders against His followers by bringing His Gospel, which was offensive to them. The Gospel was offensive to those holding onto the Law, and the Law is naturally offensive to any man who realizes he cannot keep the Law, as we seen in Romans 7. That’s the purpose of grace.
    Religion has conflated law and grace [the Gospel], so that the “gospel” is assumed to be automatically offensive to everyone but those already keeping the Law, because it’s basically defined by the Law, meaning behavior, and all the “hard” work or effort involved in changing behavior. That’s why they keep leveling these “they’re only trying to allow people to sin and get away with it” statements).

    One of the uses of the term “Christian” was 1 Pet.4:16 (and its only adoption by a scripture author) where it was a negative label one could be punished for, with others including “being a busybody” or “meddler” (v15). This is basically what anti-gay Christians are “suffering” for; not the “Christian” part, unless you define Christian as one commissioned to clean up other people’s own personal business! (Which again falls into that very category Peter says we should not be suffering for! And again, it’s not even real suffering like the above mentioned stuff, or what Christians in scripture and history actually suffered).

    So it should be pointed out that the revulsion people have toward gay relationships involves reducing relationships down to just sex to begin with (which Christians often wisely warn against in their teaching on relationships), and then [subconsciously, at least] visualizing two men or two women having sex. But are we really supposed to be visualizing anyone else having sex? So as I’ve been saying, it’s really the business of those [other] consenting adults (which is why it’s not comparable to pedophilia or bestiality, as often hurled at that).

    Along this line, another proof that these appeals to the Law today are wrong is Christ’s all too familiar statement “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets“. (Matthew 7:12)
    These people are not violating this in their preferences for relationships. And this again is why it’s not the same as killing, stealing and child molestation being made “OK” (who ever wants those things done to them?)

    But this is totally lost today on a conservative “rugged individualist” mindset fiercely defending against its loss of control over society by sneering at “victims” (meaning anyone offended by mean-spirited statements and policies), as “snowflakes”, and where doing unto others as they would not have done unto them becomes God’s mandate (in the name of “godly reproof”). This is what turns the Bible message on its ear.
    (They insist on a division of “The Church vs the world”, but this “alpha male”, “rugged individualism” is not the way of Christ or scripture, not the Kingdom, not the Gospel; it itself is of the world. The same “world” they claim has turned from God. It is conforming to the image of John Wayne rather than Jesus Christ!).

    While scripture is important, people use it to justify all of this anti-Christian, (and yes Satanic, as he again is the “accuser”) behavior. Jesus said “Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life” (John 5:39). The gays here are being condemned, primarily, for rejecting “scripture“. Yet the culture that ultimately rejected Jesus was heavily versed in scripture, and would often debate on its meanings (as we see when Jesus Himself jumped into this in the Temple at 12 years old).
    What is their real significance? “…and these are they which testify of Me“. It’s all about Him; He’s the Son of God who died for sin. The Bible is the record of His divine Plan to redeem man, and so reflects many different paradigms; some of which these critics will admit are not for them today. While the Bible is the “written Word”; He’s the “living Word”. The Bible contains the means to eternal life, and that is Jesus; not the book by itself, as all the dissenting denominations and sects that claim to be reading and following it faithfully should show us. (It can also not be repeated too much that Satan even quoted scripture, at Jesus: Matt.4:6!)

    But to some of these people, it’s better to reject Him than to be gay. Just like those people He was actually speaking to, who did reject Him and demanded Him to be crucified, would believe! Priorities are really being mixed!
    This as I point out, is becoming “contrary to all men” (1 Thess. 2:15), when we should “live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). God is not [i.e. no longer] using His followers to build these physical nations into a kingdom of behavioral perfection through the divine Law. That was a lesson written to man, who had taken the fruit of the “knowledge of Good and evil”, and was thus held up to the standard of good and evil. This is what the Gospel came to amend, not continue in some spiritualized form. So again, just leave the people alone!

    Shoutout to other brave souls with a similar “coming out as a Christian” story as Crystal:

    (Very similar awakenings in college):
    Aleia Mims (leadership coach, ltheoryexperience site; likewise questioned a lot of the “proof-texting”)
    Alicia Crosby (Center for Inclusivity, Chasing the Promise; went as far as to call someone an “abomination”)
    (Also solid religious backgrounds):
    Christina Emmanuel-DeLuna (“ButterflyAgape”; YT, Tumblr, etc.)
    Jimalion Perry (Flurt Magazine and “Rebelliouskauses” Tumblr; also knew her type, ENFP and it fits).
    Amber Cantorna (the daughter of a prominent “Focus on the Family” executive! Imagine her ordeal!)
    Ashell Smith (“LivingFree” YT, a sincere young nurse who often continues to be frustrated by the attitudes of relatives).


    The evangelical Church comes together to issue a statement of faith, that basically focuses on homosexuality. “Such a statement is needed, they say, in order to resist the spirit of the age and for the church to maintain its counter-cultural witness in a world that seems ‘bent on ruin.'”

    A whopping 254 signers, comprising just about every major ministry leader, (MacArthur, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, John Piper, J.I. Packer, R.C Sproul, James White, James Robison, Jackie Hill Perry the ex-gay rapper I’ve mentioned, etc.) and putting aside whatever lesser doctrinal differences they may have, came together to make this stand against the gays’ “lifestyle”. I have not seen this level of “unity” anywhere else in the Church!

    “The answer to the question ‘What and who is a human being?’ is the mega-ethical issue of our time. It impacts everything,” Richard Land explained to The Christian Post. Land is the president of Southern Evangelical Seminary near Charlotte, North Carolina, and is one of the Nashville Statement’s initial signatories.

    He noted that if the meaning of the human person cannot be defined in Scripture, the very Gospel is at stake.

    The Gospel is the Good News that “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their sins [transgressions of the Law] against them” (2 Cor. 5:19). Where does this other stuff come from?

    “‘Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the 21st century find themselves living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being. By and large the spirit of our age no longer discerns or delights in the beauty of God’s design for human life,’ the preamble reads.

    The problem is not with the Nashville Statement. It is with the Bible, since the statement only reaffirms what the Bible clearly teaches, namely that:
    1) God made humans male and female;
    2) marriage, as intended by God, is the lifelong union of a man and a woman;
    3) homosexual practice is always sinful in God’s sight;
    4) God offers forgiveness for all human beings through the cross of Jesus; and
    5) those who struggle with same-sex attraction or gender identity confusion can be welcomed into the Body of Christ like any other struggling individual, as long as they do not celebrate or affirm that which is wrong.”

    (Right off the bat, this last one appears to be nice, but makes it conditional on renouncing the lifestyle, and of course, anyone not welcomed into the Body of Christ is not “saved”).

    Some of the articles:

    Article 5 WE AFFIRM that the differences between male and female reproductive structures are integral to God’s design for self-conception as male or female.
    WE DENY that physical anomalies or psychological conditions nullify the God-appointed link between biological sex and self-conception as male or female.

    Article 6 WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.
    WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.

    Here, they actually make a point I have cited somewhere above, acknowledging “disorders”; meaning that a person’s sex does not always come out defined in the binary way they are insisting upon as God’s “creation”, even down to the citing of Christ’s reference of eunuchs as supporting this, as I had cited from the other side, in the OP. (One condition I haven’t even mentioned is the phenomenon, of guevedoches (“balls at twelve”; 5α-Reductase deficiency), who are born externally female with male internal gonads, but the external genitalia actually changes into male around 12 years old! Reading about this, for me cracked the whole belief that genderqueerness was always a voluntary “choice”). So, notice what they are forced to allow: “inasmuch as it may be known“. How is this reconciled with all the strong statements about “God’s creation” as we see here:

    Article 7 WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture.
    WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.

    #6 right there should show that this “old creation” as it’s often called elsewhere, is not the standard people can be judged by. (Which is what they would affirm if one used “creation” to justify violence, as there is a lot of violence in the world, and the universe; and also when counseling people suffering at the behest of the violent world or people). Most Christians at this point would argue this physical universe is indelibly “corrupted”, and God is going to undo the Fall only by destroying the universe anyway and replacing it with a new one, so why would He essentially revoke grace (forgive many other actions [without complete “overcoming” of them], but not THAT one), based on the natural pattern of this old universe?.

    Also, notice how “redemption” is tied to it as well. How is a sexual identity or preference tied to “Redemption”? —unless redemption is tied to obedience to the Law condemning those things! And if it is, then why are they eating the “swine’s flesh” and doing other things condemned by that same Law?
    (They’re likely referring to the “Christ and His Bride” concept, but inasmuch as “the Bride”, which is the Church includes many males, this is obviously spiritual, and though used as a model for literal marriages of Christians, to use this as they are in condemnation of those who deviate from it is reading too much into the analogy. For this would also condemn anyone who is celibate, as well. Meanwhile, the power wielded by many Churches, which is connected with their complaint about losing that power over the larger society, is what would actually violate the “spiritual bride of Christ” concept. It’s actually “fornicating” with some other power beside Christ!)

    Article 10 WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.
    WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

    Here they make sure go after and isolate (basically ex-communicate) anyone who even disagrees with their stand; basically like the old Catholic “anathemas” against dissenters. (If the Catholics could do all that, and ultimately be wrong to where the Protestants would see the need to break away, —and be themselves anathemized in the same way, then why do they think this really means anything, as far as establishing truth?)

    Article 12 WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ gives both merciful pardon and transforming power, and that this pardon and power enable a follower of Jesus to put to death sinful desires and to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord.
    WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ is insufficient to forgive all sexual sins and to give power for holiness to every believer who feels drawn into sexual sin.

    And of course, as always, the “power”. That force that motivates you to change your behavior; not making it “easier”, but nevertheless leaving “no excuse”, and thus somehow different from any other person who tries to grow and change behavior.
    (Another signer was D.A. Carson, who I’ve cited as addressing excellently the “emotional health gospel” regarding our often cold counseling methods, but if he agrees with this point of the statement —whose sentiment is basically the very foundation of the emotional health gospel, then will he have to adopt that ‘gospel’ when it comes to gays?)

    We see this concept again next:

    Former Lesbian Explains Why She Signed the Nashville Statement

    “I signed the Nashville Statement because my conscience compels me so, because the promises of liberty on the world’s terms are false and deceptive, and because many who currently claim to have Christ’s forgiveness and salvation must be called to account for leading good people astray with false promises and filthy lies,” she continued.

    (People are basically good, but corrupted by certain behavior or teachings. Completely undercuts the whole premise of the need for Grace, so no wonder the “gospel” becomes something else; some behavior-related mandate placed on man. Salvation then must be by one’s own effort at maintaining purity. It used to be the evangelicals criticizing the “world” on “believing man is good, but only corrupted by other things”, yet it slips into their teachings, unwittingly).

    “The issue is not primarily gay marriage,” Butterfield explains. “It’s whether ‘the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart,'” she said, referring to Hebrews 4:12.

    Butterfield recalled that she lived as a lesbian 20 years ago.

    “I delighted in my lover, our home on one of the Finger Lakes, our Golden Retrievers, and our careers. When Christ claimed me for His own, I did not stop feeling like a lesbian. I did not fall out of love with women. I was not converted out of homosexuality. I was converted out of unbelief,” she wrote.

    “Conversion to Christ did not initially change my sexual attraction for women,” she further explained. “What conversion did change immediately was my heart and mind. My mind was on fire for the Bible and I could not read enough of it or enough about it. The Gospel gave me a light that was ruinous. It ruined me for the life I had loved. The Lord’s light illumined my sin through the law and illumined my hope through Jesus and the Gospel.”

    She said she learned that sin does not lose its character as sin because we loved it. “I learned that my homosexuality was a logical consequence of the fall of man, the thumbprint of original sin on some of us. It is true that some of us are born this way. It is also true that we are all born in sin, in one way or another. We can hate our sin without hating ourselves because we who have committed our lives to Christ stand in His righteousness and not our own. Our real identity is not in the sin we battle but in the savior we embrace.”

    Basically, Christ, the “word of God”, and thus “belief”, ends up defined by sexual behavior, and this is the incentive to embark on this mental change that again, sounds so easy, but obviously isn’t, as she can testify. (And it’s only based on “what we ‘love'”, which is an inaccurate generalization or assumption). But if you just ‘get into’ the Bible (and read it in practice filtered through the assumptions of other Christians; so you must come to all the same conclusions as they do), and so appreciate Christ for offering salvation to you by motivating you to change your behavior to attain that salvation, this makes it all worth whatever “struggle” this entails.
    This seems to be what they are implying here. (And of course, the subjectivism of “it worked this way for me, so this proves it and there’s no excuse for you”).

    A textbook example of this is seen in this article: which lays out spiritual growth as a mechanical process of “discipline” and “changing your thoughts”, that really any person can do; there is really nothing supernatural about that (beyond what’s called “God’s help”, but is not really defined. It’s all framed around “sowing and reaping”, which along with the scriptural “promises” quoted, are taken from their original contexts [such as actual persecution] and turned into these broad “principles”).
    Secular “self-help” philosophies teach the same “laws”. It’s all human effortwhich is actually “the flesh” opposed to “the spirit” in scripture, (but now turned into “the wrong thoughts and desires”).

    It’s all based on the premise of a tug of war between God and Satan, with Satan trying to lead us into pleasure, and God commanding us the difficult path of resisting it. The only difference between Christians and non-Christians ends up being that the Non-Christian likely won’t use the Bible and its terms as his guide, and focus on changing certain behaviors Christians focus on, like the sexual ones; but the process is still the same. And there are “cults” who likewise profess Christ and His “power”, but are rejected as being saved due to other doctrinal differences; yet who practice and teach the same “process”; Armstrongism being one example. It was trying to practice it myself (in “struggles” over other issues) that made me realize it was not what it was being made out to be. There’s a strong “intellectual dishonesty” to it (and then this will be when they start cautioning against the intellect or “reason”).

    But this is basically the ultimate weapon against the homosexuals; what they are presumed to be “hung” by; what they are ultimately condemned for not doing, even if they say they tried. With the “power” offered, it’s so “simple”, the only possible reason someone wouldn’t do it is because they ‘love their sin’ too much; (citing John 3:19-21; not even realizing that the “condemnation” or “verdict” is the bad news, not the Good News; it was only until the end of the age He said some of his listeners would actually be able to live to see). Salvation then becomes the desire to change, and then it’s not really that simple at all, when the desire isn’t readily taken away, except by your own “daily” effort!

    It is clearly “works, and initially, they’ll say salvation does not depend on it, and when leveling it against other “sins” like “anger and bitterness”, they may or may not question salvation (but will warn of stuff like “backsliding”, or perhaps never really being saved or “sanctified” to begin with; you can see all of this addressed here: “Abundant life gospel”).
    But in the case of homosexuality, they are clearly and uncategorically denying salvation; with this “process” as ultimately what they need to do or at least agree to embark on, to be saved! (And thus, what is hidden behind “Jesus loves you as you are, and you can come and be welcomed, but He has something better for you [which is the ‘condition’ of that acceptance]”.
    They might as well just openly confess salvation by works!

    What’s so ironic, as we see here, is that when it comes to all the other things deemed wrong in the world; if it’s something man can be blamed for, such as evil against others, or the results of the “fallen nature”, THEN it proves man is overall defaulting to being not “good”. (Which then proves his need to move to reform his behavior in order to be acceptable to God).
    If it’s something man can’t be blamed for, such as natural “acts of God” (not deemed to be national “judgments” against the “sinners”) and birth defects, menstruation, (which they forget was also declared “unclean” by the same Law, and leprosy as well, etc.; or even the perspective of Christians suffering the evil of others, or if one will go as far as admit, like this writer, that people can be “born that way”) then, the universe is no longer this holy creation of God that’s perfect and exactly the way He wants it, (and we better conform to the way He created it, or else), but now rather is seen as this “fallen” temporary first cousin to hell we are waiting for Him to “return” and destroy and give us a new, [truly] perfect world. (But only if we reform our ways from the “fallen” state we received from this one —[and then, this all important matter of sexuality becomes totally moot, according to a statement of Christ; we’ll be “like angels”, so there won’t even be any sex]).
    This kind of inconsistency is what proves something is wrong in their views. (Both in the LGBT issue, and in their teachings on pain in general).

    They’ll say we are to follow nature as originally created [“very good”], before it became “corrupted” by “sin”, but the general understanding among Christians is that this universe is forever tainted, and God is obviously not restoring or fixing it now, so it becomes all about this totally new “world” we can’t even fathom. So this is really a poor argument, especially when you are making it so crucial, as to bar salvation if one errs on it (where you can still receive forgiveness while “living in” many other sins; and remember, sin isn’t just outward commission). This is instead held to be such a capital sin worse than anything else.

    (Should also be pointed out that this whole “follow God’s Creation” argument is at the center of the sabbatarian argument as to why we should still keep the original “Creation Sabbath” on the 7th day, and not move the day of worship to the first day. But again, the evangelicals will claim that point of the law is “abrogated”; some adding the so-called “eighth day” marks a new creation superseding this old one.
    It should also be mentioned that the Law allowed for polygamy, which was never rescinded, though by the time of the NT, mainstream civilization was turning away from it enough for monogamy to be used by Paul as the ideal for pastors. Hank Hanegraaf in a podcast on Islam, though, claims the Bible “renounces” it, just by showing the bad “fruits” of the polygamy of the “kings” in the OT, most notably, Solomon, of course. [And Paul’s instruction. But it wasn’t just the kings; but nearly everyone: Abraham and the rest of the patriarchs, etc.]).

    The problem I see here is essentially defining the entire faith, and scripture (and even humanity and God as Creator) by a point of personal sexual behavior. (Or basically by a point of the Law, which is by definition, what determines what’s “sinful before God” (1 John 3:4, Romans 4:15). Yes, that Law is “clearly taught” by scripture, but much of it the same Christians believe is no longer for us, outside of to learn from the record set in scripture of God’s dealing with earlier people through it.

    And we clearly see the dehumanization of people based on their personal behavior; they they have basically forsaken “what it means to be human“. Such dehumanization is usually the first step in treating them like non-humans, as we saw with the “heathens” or “savages” in the past, who were similarly condemned based on “The Bible”. These moderate, “professional” evangelical leaders may not do that, but there are plenty others on the radical right, waiting in the wings, coming out of the woodwork, on the warpath, and on the same premise of “taking back” a nation they’ve “lost”, to people like gays).

    So there’s also, the “Western culture” focus, which it ALWAYS comes back to! This article: takes this further, replaying the age-old polemic about:

    We’ve got a public school system and a public university system that for decades now, 50 years at least, has been trending away from belief in morality and belief in God.”

    And in the public square for approximately 25 to 30 years “militant secularists have controlled the narrative,” he continued, adding that Darwinism and moral relativism are now firmly established as givens in the minds of many people.

    The concept of “separation of church and state” has also been misappropriated by many atheists, who consider the voice of the Church as irrelevant in the realm of government or in the academy, the apologist argued.

    They are still used to this “rulership” over American culture; that it was THEIRS and has been “taken” from them, (and it’s all Darwin’s fault and the “secularists” following him), and that’s why everything’s messed up (including these [current headlines at press time] hurricanes, as preachers are continuing to blame on “sin”.
    I just wonder when they’ll ever learn that tying God, scripture and the Gospel to a human culture invalidates anything you say, as being based on a divine revelation to the world. You’re basically for all practical purposes admitting it’s a purely human agenda).

    Just as preachers are finally beginning to speak out hard against racism [which that same “50 years ago” was ignored, if not seen as good, when “miscegenation” was the God, Creation and humanity-denying “rejection of scripture” being condemned], now the volume is simply turned up on this other group. But as Horton said, we blew our credibility when we were “proven bigots” when the issue was not a sexual morality topic (that at least did have clear discussion in scripture).

    Speaking of Horton, whose name is also on the list of signers of this document; ironically, yet another signatory was John M. Frame, author of Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense, who I cited on my CCM page, regarding contemporary worship music critics, who “redefine Christianity by making it at every point the opposite of what they are opposing”, which matches what we see in this document he has signed. (Also, “that the opposition to CWM is not wholly based on theology, but has a strong emotional component to it, evidenced by the shoddy argumentation and sheer stubbornness. P.142″). While Frame would in this instance be in agreement with Horton, whom he disputes in the book over worship; as well as the IFB “old line fundamentalist” critics of contemporary music who are of course also naturally rabidly antigay, still, as a “new-evangelical”, seen as arguing against “scriptural truth” in the music and worship issue, as well as erring on translations, separationism, probably also “psychoheresy”, etc. (hence why none of them would sign this statement, as they don’t believe in cooperating with parachurch movements seen as “ecumenical” and full of “compromisers” on those issues), it shows the utter confusion and discord over scriptural interpretation among Christians, yet they expect everyone else to take their word that their opposition to homosexuality is totally scriptural. (Horton should also be aware that he is contradicting the excellent statements he made in Beyond Culture Wars, regarding Christians showing themselves to be the “enemies” of those they are trying to get to listen to them ⦅p.37⦆, which this statement effectively does, —and regardless of how much the signatories claim to be doing this in “love”; and that “the only important question” is “What does one believe about Christ?” rather than one’s political position ⦅p.33⦆; especially regarding Article 10, where the condemnation extends even beyond those practicing the lifestyle).

    If the “power” of the Spirit will do all of these things in our own personal lives (cure homosexuality, as well as other “addictions”, bitterness, grief; dictate our every step as to what’s right or not, etc.), then it will also teach us the same things (John 14:26; i.e. doctrinally as well as morally), so that there would be one united Body without all the doctrinal dissension (with homosexuality and other “sins” of the “world” about the only they unanimously agree on now, as we see here).

    But that’s not how it has worked in practice, so we end up with this totally “subjective” personal faith, where God teaches each of us personally, and this is the ultimate proof of His ongoing presence, activity and “work” in human lives (and thus, lack of “excuse” for others), but when we come together corporately, we find we have different beliefs we can’t resolve, where we have to “agree to disagree”; (the concept being rejected for the issue of homosexuality).
    This is precisely one of the things Horton and others have been criticizing the larger body of evangelicals for! The subjective “faith” and [“tapped in”] “power” focus where “it worked for me”, and so those for whom it didn’t work are accused of not really trying, or not having enough “faith”, is also at the heart of the increasingly popular “prosperity gospel”, also strongly rejected by Horton and some of these other leaders (and rightly so). But it’s the same exact claims; only applied to different areas of one’s life; and this, I believe, is why it was able to creep into mainstream evangelicalism and gain such a foothold so easily to begin with. You hear the same “biblical principles”, and so at first glance it sounds the same, but is simply extended further.

    So something is really not being understood correctly, regarding the power of the Spirit.
    (This should be addressed, and squared away, before using it against homosexuals or anyone else. This is part of why “the world” keeps throwing the failings of Christians back at the Church. We say it is Satan “accusing” us, but then we are very busy accusing them, but often not living up to the standards ourselves, which “gives him occasion”).

    The Church, historically, drew up statements about its beliefs about [directly] Christ and salvation, which are the center of the Gospel. Now, we draw up statements about what are really OTHER people’s behaviors; —people we already consider OUTSIDE the faith; and in conjunction with OUR “culture”, and then define Christ and scripture by these things.
    People should really step back and take a good look at this.

    The shift is clearly toward a pure “man”-focus, as much as the Church condemns the world for “turning away from God”. (Not that the Church of past centuries really had it right. For instance, the councils and statements they drew up usually led to persecution of those anathematized. The current Church is really drawing upon the foundation laid by the “historic” Western Church, after its focus became power and influence over society, which are again, human-centered motivations. This always moves it further from a God-focus than it was before).

    There’s actually a lot of bad theology here, but it won’t be recognized as such by the most conservative “apologists”, because it is the “traditional view on sexuality”, and the “traditional” understandings of what scripture says on that. But “tradition” is the problem (like it is for more “Catholic” faiths, which openly put tradition alongside scripture).

    I find this so sad, as I had grown disillusioned on how much disunity there was in the Church, and how people could take the Bible and make it say anything they want; and I’m not talking about the “cults” or the gays, but many of the factions within “orthodoxy” represented by these signers, and how they would proceed to cast each other into utter darkness (Calvinism vs Arminianism and the related “eternal security vs perseverance” being prime examples). But this issue (LGBT) is what brings them all together in such a strong show of unity. A message of condemnation of other people’s personal behavior (that shouldn’t even affect us, and being sexual, is really none of our business), mediated with only a conditional “good news” of a “grace” that’s available only if they give to God (a “hard walk” of “obedience”) first [or are willing to]. With all the other problems in the world, this is what they’re most concerned about. (And it also just happens to be timed with the 500th anniversary of Luther’s 95 theses, sparking off the Protestant Reformation!)
    (A pressing issue to me with rising costs of living is the virtual predatory nature our financial state, but many of these people are likely to think the rich deserve everything, and the poor and struggling middle class were simply “lazy”. As it is, a majority probably voted for Trump, seeing him as the nation’s savior, despite his moral character. But they continue to point at society’s “moral relativism”).

    This article: aptly points out:

    There’s a lot going on right now. Nazis are parading in the streets. Texas is underwater. North Korea just sent a projectile weapon over Japan.

    And to respond to the moral crises of our time, prominent evangelicals have released the Nashville Statement. Which is not a condemnation of White Supremacy, or a call for us to help those who are drowning, or a renewal of our peacemaking commitments. It is a 14-article document to tell people… Men are men. Women are women. And we need to adhere to our biological gender identity and be straight.

    I’m not sure why this is the moral crisis of our time. At first glance, I wasn’t sure why so many prominent Evangelicals needed reaffirm the same things that they have been saying for decades when we have a nuclear threat looming over us, families losing their homes, children going to bed hungry, and the KKK carrying torches.

    It also points out something I hadn’t used in the topic, Galatians 3:28. “There is no Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free. For you are all one in Jesus Christ.” (“Here and at Pentecost, Jesus and the Spirit broke down the divisions that separated and ordered us. In these verses, there’s a radical shifting of social hierarchies and gender identities”). While [now] acknowledging Jew nor Greek, and slave nor free, they will always supplement the “male/female” part “but other scriptures do say there are ‘differences’ that are to be upheld [especially about wives being submissive or not speaking in Church among those who emphasize those things], so it doesn’t really mean ‘no difference'”. But then previous generations said the same things about the other two categories!

    As I always point out, the only reconciliation between the presence of the old order and the new one in the NT is an overlap of covenants. That’s why there’s still “sin” and “judgment” mentioned there; but the principle being established was grace, which would be realized at the end of that “age”, which was “soon” and not to be stretched out over millennia.
    (Another response is called the “Denver Statement”, of the House for All Sinners & Saints, which answers each point with an affirmation and denial of their own, and adds a 15th point).

    Of course, the signers will likely at this point claim their stance is defensive against the encroachment of others; the pressure to accept gays into their churches and change the doctrine accordingly. That of course ties into the “Church” as an institution, where you’re “in” or “out”, and the “guardians” must keep the “bad” out (unless they change their practice and stop being bad), and the gays are arguing they’re not bad, and thus should be let in, and the people change their views and stop seeing them as bad. I think both sides should stop thinking of the Church this way.

    The Church was for fellowship of people, not a building; not a club for the “righteous”; not a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation; not a power base to be protected (and then try to expand and conquer everyone else, as a statement by John Piper on one of the pages even alludes to); not even a “hospital” to “fix” people (which betrays the “therapeutic” or behavior as works-focus of these views. [Christ is the “physician”, not the Church, and His “healing” is from the condemnation of the Law, not bad habits that we are only delivered from that condemnation for if we are “willing” to give them up first].
    This is reflected in a statement in the first link:

    “Like the doctor who has to give his patient a troubling cancer diagnosis, ‘we are but messengers to say here’s the bad news. The bad news is that until you’re reconciled to Christ you’re going to be out of sync with your own self,’ McCoy continued.
    ‘We’re not going to even have reconciliation within our own souls. And so if we distort that truth, we’re distorting also that whole-person salvation that Christ came to give us.'”

    This is the Church’s attempt to butter up and woo the “sinners” in with some “good” Christ will do for you, but for gays, it’s still conditioned on them undergoing the “struggle” of going against their predisposition).

    Here we clearly see the Church defined by one’s position in this matter. It’s now so easy to see Christians defined as “A group of people who are against Homosexuals based on the Bible (and also of course strict in all other sexual issues, as they have emphasized louder than anything else, for centuries)”.
    They will say it’s about “fellowship” and “love” (to each other, as well as to the “sinners” they are trying to “reach”). But it almost seems to be “fellowship” that’s nice and based on “brotherly love” within its own ranks, but whose premise is an “us vs them” (Church vs “world”) model of life.
    (And we even see some people who otherwise agree with the statement showing concern about this. This we can see here:, as well as people likewise attributing the same “secular spirit” to:

    every time an evangelical pastor remarries someone who was divorced without cause. It comes to the surface every time an evangelical couple pursues in vitro fertilization, and so undoes the ‘God-ordained link’ between the reproductive organs and the union of the couple’s love. Every time an evangelical couple ‘feels the Lord calling’ them to surrogacy, there the ‘spirit of our age’ appears. And yes, it happens every time an evangelical utters the damnable phrase, ‘Well, I’m an evangelical, which means I’m okay with contraception’—as though that were somehow a mark of evangelical identity.

    (There’s also a concern about the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood hosting this statement hosting another one that appears to fall into the old Trinitarian heresy of the “eternal subordination of the Son”! See also:
    Apparently, the connection here is that the organization or certain leaders in it want to use an “eternal functional subordination” or “eternal relationship of authority and submission” within the Godhead as the model of a husband and wife; which “gender roles” of course are also blurred by same sex marriage. [This is kind of ridiculous considering God the Father and Son are both presumed masculine; and the “marriage” of Christ and the Church is the most understandable model to use in these debates!]
    This, BTW, wouldn’t even be an issue if the “orthodox” Church was aware of the pre-Nicene view of the Godhead, where the “generation” of the Son is taken to be at His birth, and thus, the “subordinate role” or “function” implied by that term and “son” is only in His humanity, not His eternal position as “the Word”.
    It’s amazing now how this whole “traditional view of the family” will lead the Church, again, standing in such unity over homosexuality, to now begin to fracture over the Trinity of all doctrines, which is supposed to be the number one affirmation defining true believers, and [unlike homosexuality] does directly affect who God is! Again, priorities have surely been mixed!

    If either side realized the church should not be an “institution”, then we wouldn’t have this battle of people trying to invade someone’s kingdom (which perfectly parallels the ongoing major secular political controversy of immigration).

    Two other responses:

    What concerns me is the responses are basically driven by emotion far more than scripture, which is just more fuel for the critics; why they can so unabashedly say “the issue is not the statement; it’s rejection of scripture”.

    To sum up the issue:

    Condemnation of gays stems from:
    •A confusion of Law and Grace (the purpose and duration of the Law, and how it is “fulfilled”)
    -Evangelicals always recite the correct protocol on this, but in practice get sidetracked by apparent contradictions to a full unconditional grace in scripture (such as commands to “repent”), and try unsuccessfully, to harmonize them, leading to an inconsistent admixture of Law and Grace. Also tack on faulty arguments, on “nature” or denigration of institutions such as marriage, or “humanity” itself; and the ultimate infusion of political agenda into the matter (focus on “the nation” or “civilization”), to prove it’s still wrong, (in addition to its inclusion in the Law).

    •This in turn stems from misunderstanding of scriptural terms like “world”, “age” and “flesh”, and what their “end” (as the hope of the Gospel) and the associated “judgment” were (along with the contexts of scriptures like Romans and who is being described).

    •Misunderstanding or assumptions of what the “power of the Spirit” is and does (this is ultimately what gays are being condemned [and their experiences dismissed] over, so it is most important, and yet is not being questioned).

    Here is a statement of my own summing up all of this:

    1) Romans 1 (and 2) are referring to Israelites (who had received divine revelation; i.e. God “showed them”), and preached it to others, yet did the same things themselves (thus “knowing full well the condemnation”); not just any person at any time, who happens to do things contrary to the Law (other NT passages have also been answered, hermeneutically).

    2) Much of the NT’s use of “clear terms” [used against gays] such as “sin” (as something we can supposedly ‘not’ do), “holiness”, “righteousness”, “sanctification”, “washing”, etc. (that one cannot be “saved” without) are positional, not behavioral.
    Failure to understand this is what has caused much confusion over “faith vs works”, even within ‘orthodoxy’.
    “Walking in the flesh or spirit” likewise is not “indulging in sinful pleasures” versus restraining them with what’s being called “divine help”, as is commonly assumed; but rather about whether a person is trusting in their own efforts, or in Christ’s righteousness imputed to them.

    3) The lynchpin of the whole issue is the whole “impartation” of “power” concept, which pervades Christian teaching across virtually all denominations and sects, and is seen in terms of transforming our behavior supernaturally (upon a regiment of prayer, meditation and Bible study, which would then gradually change our thoughts, feelings, attitudes and finally desires), leaving gays, (or potentially anyone “struggling” with anything), “without excuse”, and presumed to be “loving their sin too much to give it up”. (And the “faith” and “prayer” part of it is also the basis of the “prosperity” or “word-faith” gospels, which are rejected by serious apologists. It’s the same claims extended to health and wealth).
    But righteousness is imputed, and the “power” of the Spirit was the “right” to be called children of God, which bore witness with their spirit. It is not about better behavior, which in practice only results from a “growth process” brought on by self-effort (that is not even exclusive to born-again Christians, and is basically faulty and subjective when used as “proof” for what others should do). “Growing” in character is of course good, but to confuse it with “sanctification”, “conversion”, “salvation”, mandatory for “passing from death to life”, etc. turns “grace” back into bona-fide works-salvation!

    4) Humanity and God as Creator are being wrongly defined in terms of humans’ sexual behavior

    5) The argument from “nature” is totally inconsistent. On one hand, gays are accused of violating God’s “holy creation” by not living according to its sexual assignments. Yet on the other hand, when dealing with the issue of pain and suffering, sin, evil, violent natural instincts in animals and manifesting in men, and even things totally beyond man’s control, including the existence of homosexuality or genderfluidity by birth (starting to be actually granted as genuine but still “sin” by many condemners), then “creation” is said to be “corrupted”, and God promising to destroy it (and replace it with a new kind of existence totally devoid of sex), and man being condemned for being “natural” rather than “spiritual”.
    (“Nature” and even “creation” were apocalyptic symbols referring to the Old Covenant system.To be “spiritual” was to be covered by Christ and our efforts or “inheritance” were what were “natural”. Much of Christianity has reversed this. The “marriage” of Christ to the Church is also, of course, not a literal physical union).

    6) The Law was directly said by Christ to be SUMMED UP in “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. This is why killing, stealing, etc. are still “sins”, and even recognized as such and punished by secular societies. All of the other points of the Biblical Law (that did not involve public morality) were “added” because man fell into “sin” (Gal.3:19), from taking upon himself the “knowledge of good and evil” (which then became the standard God held man up to), and then violating even the basic moral laws; but this, only until “the Seed” should come.

    7) Marriage “covenants” between two people are not affected by what other people do between themselves.

    8)Since the discussion of homosexuality is about intimate and consensual acts, this is why they are not the same as the obvious “sins” of killing, stealing, pedophilia, etc.
    Also, Christians usually recognize that relationships should not be reduced down to just sex, but this is what they are doing when focusing on gays.

    9) In comparing the LGBT conflict to scriptural conflict over the coming of Christ and the “sword” of disunity He brings, gays are the ones who end up “losing mothers, fathers, houses, etc.” and opposers of their lifestyle are the offended authority figures applying the pressure. (And NOT the other way around; as in Christians claiming to be the ones being “persecuted” over this and other issues!)
    So they cannot appeal to the “sword of truth”, as Christ was actually referring to a “sword” of opposition toward Himself and anyone who stands in the way of “traditional” religious establishments. Those holding His truth, while defending it, do not need to resort to such oppressive measures, for “My Kingdom is not of this world”. And most of these people are not enduring all of that just to engage in some “sinful pleasure” or to spite God.

    10) Christians claim to be acting in “love” toward gays, but the premise is a goal of trying to change them, based on what is ultimately the coercion of a fear premise (condemnation) unless a “give and take” condition (become willing to “change”, or else) is met. Unbiblical secular political agendas such as “saving” or “taking back” the “nation”, “culture” or “Western Civilization” (through outward “righteousness”) are also usually involved at the bottom of it.
    This really compromises the notion of “grace, not works”. It is the same exact error of the apostate Israelites who opposed Christ and the apostolic Church, in the name of the Law, and national “righteousness”. “True love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18).

    11) [This one is based on an uncommon view of eschatology and so will be the hardest to argue]. Deviations from sexual norms assumed by the Law may have still been seen as a “perversion” in the NT, but there was an overlap of covenants where the Law was still partly in effect. The “blessed hope” was the “SOON” end of this “age” when God’s “wrath” would be “complete”, and redemption fully realized. That is what they were “running the race” to, and it was something within their lifetimes. This “waiting period” of mixed Law, Grace and remaining condemnation (the “travailing of creation” or “old wine in new wineskins”) has been extended indefinitely in conventional teaching and used for unbiblical control (by fear) along the way. (e.g. it’s not scriptural to force a homosexual into a lifelong “struggle” against his preference, and then justify staking salvation on it by calling that “running the race” [or any other difficulty anyone else suffers, for that matter], for the end of that race was redemption itself ⦅1 Cor.9:24-27; “castaway”=reprobate⦆, and this would be clear works’ salvation, and shows the overlap of covenants).

    12) Even if you think these understandings of scripture are wrong, you cannot honestly claim “the issue is rejection of scripture” or even “revising of scripture”, “explaining away the truth so people can freely sin”, etc. (in order to bolster the argument). You have to show from the scriptures (in their original contexts, and not through “church tradition”, majority consensus, seniority, or manmade, spur of the moment doctrinal statements, which are sources that have been wrong before) where they are wrong.

    “Just leave the people alone!”

    2017/09/06 at 9:29 pm

  8. This article nails the problem:

    What I Learned From Gay Conversion Therapy

    First, it’s important to know that the people in conversion therapy don’t actually become straight. If you listen to their testimonies, they say they decided to “find their identity in Christ” rather than in their sexuality. They show pictures of themselves flouting stereotypical gender norms in “before” pictures and wearing clothes that fit within those norms in “after” pictures. They try not to engage in sex with people of the same gender, and some even date and marry people of the opposite sex. But very few in the videos say their attractions changed.

    I attended several of my gay friends’ weddings to people of the opposite sex, and I sat across from them years later when they grieved over the end of their marriage. They might have changed the way they identified, but they felt a longing for intimacy with someone of the same sex that simply could not be met by their spouses. Some white-knuckled their way through the rest of their lives in these marriages, often with secret hookups that left them deeply ashamed, sometimes suicidal. Others eventually ended their marriages, and they despaired over the pain they caused their spouses and children.

    These stories never show up in the short videos on ex-gay ministries’ websites. Ex-gay organizations create emotional short films with earnest young people who talk about hope and redemption, and then they quietly remove the videos when these very same people come out years later with the truth about themselves that they tried to suppress. In fact, that’s what happened to me.

    Also, I’ve since done a whole new page on the whole “spiritual power” concept that figures prominently in this issue (but also affects many other problems, such as “anger and bitterness”, etc)

  9. In Atheism on Trial, Louis Markos writes,

    “Yes, there is a beauty to modern tolerance and inclusivism,
    but they cannot be as easily disassociated from evil and depravity as their advocates seem to think. The gay-transgender lifestyle
    carries with it remarkably high levels of depression, substance abuse,
    and suicide not because of social scorn but because those
    who participate in it are setting themselves against
    their created nature, treating disordered desires as if they were pure fountains flowing from a pure source.”

    Given the nonstop efforts today by militant special interest groups to redefine reality, even our most basic freedoms are at stake. (See my letter this month to CRI partners.) To be fully equipped to defend these hard-won freedoms, don’t miss Atheism on Trial.

    Here is an example of rampant isolation and splitting, where homosexuality is being discussed as part of a condemnation of atheism, as if homosexuality was caused by atheism. You know: the “godless” who paved the way for it by removing the fear of religion, which kept it in the closet. Of course, the political concern of “our freedoms” always gets thrown in there. This proves it’s an “us vs them” premise, and not “concern for their souls”. They’re the “threat”, not the ones actually endangered by something.

    It also seems to attribute psychological problems to their “going against nature” rather than all the stuff parents and others put them through, like terrorizing them with Hell. The rejectors of Christ could have said something similar to those suffering the same things for Christ. For they were going against what they saw as God’s order, albeit religious and not “natural”.

    But most gay people I’ve run across are not atheist. Some, such as Crystal Cheatham, came from very devout conservative Christian backgrounds. Many are from more nominal or cultural Christian backgrounds (though still pulling out that Bible when the child is outed!) So they too are not atheist.
    So atheists continue to be the big boogeyman we split everything we don’t like onto.

    Here also is a great answer from a few years ago:

    The Myth of Christian Discrimination in the LGBT Rights Movement

    “You can’t victimize yourself in a situation you started in the first place. Christians, in general, have a hard time remembering that as we choose to oppress, due to our sincerely held religious beliefs, yet cry ‘discrimination’ when we feel a push back. ”

    Links to the article “You say you love Queer people? Prove it.”, which among other things mentions “treating us as issues instead of as human beings…thinking that if they’re not actively hating us, that counts as loving us.”

  10. Found a post from a conservative, sharing from someone else:

    «On one hand the LQBGT community demands the government and the public stay out of their bedrooms. Great! No problem.

    Then on the other hand, they’re eager to show everyone what goes on in their bedrooms and demand the government teach children about it too. But why should anyone be surprised by all this…they define themselves by behavior that should be left in private.

    Anyone who thought it was going to quiet down after the White House went rainbow was sadly mistaken. It will continue until your religious beliefs becomes a government hate crime.»

    The topic was the story:

    And adds:

    How many times have you heard activists scoff, denying there’s a “gay agenda”?

    “The Prom” tells the story of a teen girl who is kicked out of her home because she’s a homosexual. She lives with her grandmother and finds a girlfriend. These currently-identifying-lesbians just want to go to the prom together, but a horrible, bigoted woman in their town, the PTA president, would rather cancel prom than let these teens be “who they are.”

    Except of course that this narrative is a lie. God never makes any human to engage in what He has called an “abomination,” and always shows a way out for those who seek His loving, merciful transformation from lives of sin to lives of sanity and virtue.

    So we see this is used as the excuse to rebuff the control over their behavior many people seek. But the thing is, if it was a heterosexual couple kissing, we (or most of us) wouldn’t say it was displaying what goes on in the bedroom. Where did that come from, when the kissing couple is gay?
    As I’ve pointed out, in condemning them, we visualize (even if subconsciously) what they’re doing in their beds. So then, what we see here, is we project it onto an act as public as kissing.

    The whole point of “pride”, where they seem to flaunt their relationships “in everyone’s face”, is going against the suppression they had long faced. But of course, they turn it all around to themselves as the victims, of some future persecution against their “religious beliefs”. Anything that does not put them in control over others is persecution against them.
    And yet the persecution gays face, portrayed in a fictional story, is completely dismissed by what else, but the Law (that’s what labeled it an “abomination”), and a supposed “transformation” to compliance with the Law (that as I have discussed, is really not anything like what they make it out to be). Grace, and the Golden Rule summing up the intent of the Law, just do not figure at all.

    Conservative Group Rants About Same-Sex Kiss At Macy’s Parade, Twitter Reacts With Love
    “It was a family program. Not all families look the same. It’s good that all children see that.”

    See also:

  11. Dear Evangelicals, Leave LGBTQ People Alone

    Another person similar to Crystal Cheatham, is Brittany Barron, who likewise grew up in a conservative Christian culture (and eventually attended Azusa Pacific University and rose up in the church), but then fell in love with a woman (whom she’s now married), and then suddenly had to question the position of the churches. She now co-pastors New Abbey Church in Pasadena, which is biblically focused, and yet also emphasizes the value of “our stories” or personal life “narratives”.


    This is the travesty of reality, and what always happens. It always becomes an issue of “literalism”, which then makes it become an issue of the Bible and ignorance, OR no Bible, and enlightenment. This is then what constantly feeds the conservatives’ martyr syndrome; that they’re being “persecuted“ (including ostracized) for “the Faith”, which is presumably based on Bible “literalism“. The same thing happened back when racist “conservative Christian” institutions (such as BJU) were pressured to end discrimination. They staked their whole claim to “rightness“ on “The Word of God”, and may have grudgingly toned it down, but then simply buried the sentiments behind the generalized “attacks of the godless world” rhetoric. This festered underground for decades (and largely ignored by liberals and moderates), and has now thus burst out again all over the place. Of course the gays were next in line to demand equality, and so this just feeds the conservative “the godless are taking over; we’re becoming Sodom“ etc. line. Hence, why these sentiments won’t go away. And why “literalists” can ironically ignore Trump’s moral flaws, and appeal to scriptures to support it. (Heck, even stuff like flat earthism is able to revive itself under these conditions!) Everything mainstream culture says feeds all of this!
    The answer to this is the stuff I’ve been saying all along. There was the Law (which condemned same-sex, and allowed slavery), and there is Grace (God’s true and final paradigm). The Law had a particular purpose for a particular people in a particular time, and has been rescinded.
    This way, you can keep a “literal” reading of the Bible, and it shows that all this horrible stuff people can point to the OT to justify, is not what God really wants.

    So the so-called “literalists” often ignore contexts or the overall framework of the Gospel, they’re actually not really “literal”. They had claimed US slavery was from God, because slavery was in the “Bible”. But what happened to Christ changing the paradigm? Where in the NT does it ever continue the OT plan of a physical nation ruling over others? Everyone knew the “spiritual nation” mentioned in the NT superseded the physical one, so how do they maintain a new physical nation replacing the old one (and among “dispensationalists”, both the original “Jewish” nation AND the replacement “Christian” nation side by side as still in effect, alongside the “spiritual” nation of “everyone else” who believes?) And saying God cursed a whole race in Genesis, when the actual passage shows a hungover Noah uttering the curse, on one grandson (not even the ancestor of any known group alive today).
    So they weren’t “reading the Bible literally” at all!
    Likewise, Romans 1 leads into Romans 2, which clearly identifies the people he’s talking about as corrupt Israelites (not pagans), actually preaching the Law at others, but not keeping it themselves. So again, using it against gays is not “literal” either.

    Also, I’ve seen a lot of people defending homosexuality saying the Church is “silent” on “adultery”, which is one of the Ten Commandments.

    But I’ve never seen the Church as “silent on adultery”. In fact, it seemed that and “fornication” were all they talked about. Homosexuality was like just an extension of that, but wasn’t “out” as much as it is now. So anything sexual is what they focused on. (What was ignored were things like racism and the greed of capitalism —both ultimately seen as OK, if not good; the former, secretly, at least).
    But it’s like the battle against adultery was basically lost (like they really once had control over that, but as the “guardians” of society, it seems like they did), and then homosexuality became more accepted in society, that’s why the heat has been turned up on it.


    “God does have commandments, laws & standards He gives us to live by. God doesn’t change. His Word is the same yesterday, today & forever.”

    They always say that, but don’t keep all the laws given in books like Exodus and Leviticus. I found this out when inquiring as to why they don’t keep the sabbath and kosher laws. They begin saying “oh, those were abrogated at the Cross”. Yet they’re using “God changes not” in a way to suggest that everything He’s ever commanded is still mandated and can never be changed. But they in practice don’t really believe this (when it comes to other laws). They’re actually right, that the Law was given for a particular purpose that was superseded by the Cross. But it’s then wrong for them to resurrect parts of it against others. “For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” (Galatians 2:18)

    Here, someone finally goes after this from a strong Biblical perspective!

    View at

    Biblically, grace was extended to atone for one’s sins because mankind was not able to follow the law, otherwise known as the 613 commandments or rules (and you thought there were only 10) found in the Old Testament of the Bible. Those rules reflect the Old Covenant God made with His chosen people, the Israelites, who were required to follow these commandments to prevent the sinful acts of the rest of the world (anyone else who wasn’t Jewish) from infecting their culture.

    These commandments (or laws), given to them through Moses, were intended to bring awareness or consciousness of what is “sin” in Gods eyes for His chosen people. It worked. This consciousness of sin brought about harsh penalties and judgments for breaking these rules. You should give the book of Leviticus a read and find how being disrespectful to your parents, eating shellfish or pork, adultery, divorce, and other common acts Americans commit every single day, including Christians, could literally require you or your kids to be stoned to death under the law. Animals had to be sacrificed to temporarily atone for their sins and the cycle would repeat itself year after year.

    The bottom line is this — Mankind could not live up to the measure of what God defined as righteousness, creating a human dilemma. So, in His infinite wisdom, God made a NEW Covenant with mankind through Jesus Christ which freed everyone from the burden of the law and its penalty for sin. The only requirement to receive this New Covenant is your belief in Jesus and what he did on the cross.

    Fast forward to today, in this time of grace and forgiveness of sins, the church and some church leaders are unfortunately stuck somewhere between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. They mix the covenants and preach sin instead of the “Good News” of God’s gift of grace to believers. The problem with this scenario is that this obsession over sin and behavior denies the finished work of Jesus Christ. Instead of grace, which is the antidote to sin, this preoccupation with “sin” puts the burden of righteousness back on our shoulders through individual works, behavior, and pursuit of perfection. That’s not belief in a finished work. Either Jesus died for our sins or he did not. The Old Testament proves that we cannot work to earn salvation because biblical history proves that men continually fell short of God’s standard under the 613 commandments and rules of the law.

    Romans 6:14 (NLT) — Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace.

    I don’t know about you, but I refuse to continually fall from grace by believing my behavior has me saved today and condemned tomorrow. That’s not true salvation if the belief is that your behavior has more power than what Jesus did on the cross. The choice is clear… believe Jesus and receive grace or don’t believe and try to earn grace through your own human strength. I choose Jesus, because if I was still under the law, I would not be alive to write this. Under the Old Covenant, if you are guilty at one point of the law, you are guilty of all of it. There’s no easy path to salvation under the Old Covenant because everyone is born with a sin nature. Jesus was the only living being on Earth who was able to follow the law. The rest of us needed a savior!

    James 2:10 (NIV) — For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

    Christians struggle with grace because it’s hard to fathom a God, who loves us so much, that He was willing to forgive our sins in exchange for our belief in what He has already done for us through Jesus. That’s the gospel plain and simple.

    Hebrews 9:28 (NLT) — so also Christ was offered once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him.

    So, Mr. Graham, it is true that — “God does have commandments, laws & standards He gives us to live by”. However, those commandments, laws and standards “to live by” are found under the Old Covenant. Those who choose Christ are no longer under the requirements of the law found in the Old Covenant. They have the freedom and salvation extended through God’s grace for eternity. The battle over sin has been won and Jesus is not coming again to deal with our sins. He did that already on the cross. Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to make people aware of the “Good News” of God’s grace. Not to keep them enslaved over sin.

    Which covenant will you choose to live under?

  14. Checking up on a Christian debate forum I used to go onto (to see what they might be saying about Trump and the aftermath of When they See Us; but they seem to be steering clear of stuff like the latter —though there is a post of a Sean Hannity video of a black woman knocking “reparations” as some Democrat scheme, and as for Trump, there are a few topics generally on denying wrongs he is accused of), amidst the ever present conspiratorial topics on what’s being taken from them, I see several threads on LGBT (including a lesbian version of “My Little Pony” being created), and one on this article: where other conservatives are not against it enough. (This should be a clue for them, that “conservativism”, from Trump on down, is purely about empowering the rich, and will use the Christian voice to aid in this cause, but could never have cared less about the moral issues Christians have emphasized!)
    “As for the live-and-let-live libertarians, they forget that a free-market economy cannot flourish without a stable society. Homosexuality, transgenderism, and other paraphilias (sexual deviance) undermine the basic fabric of our culture, and conservatives are supposed to be protecting—read, conserving!—our culture. As for the behaviors themselves, they can lead to high incidences of disease, dysfunction, and death, along with (for transgenders) infertility.”
    (How do people’s private behaviors undermine the basic fabric of culture? You would think he was referring to AIDS, but the “high incidences of disease” are separate from that, and even those are overgenralizations, and spread of disease is more about profligacy than which gender it occurs between).

    From “The Peril of Megachurches—Political Correctness”: “But at the end of the day, we are not just shepherds, we are also watchmen. We are to uplift and encourage and also convict. There are times when the saints must be fed, and there are times when the sinners must be warned (C. H. Spurgeon). When we fail to proclaim God’s Word faithfully, we run the risk of becoming politically correct and “perverting the words of the living God” (Jeremiah 23).”

    We seen an example of what I’ve been saying, of how Spurgeon is the model of what the Church’s preaching should be. It’s all about maintaining order, through control of “sinners” (through fear), and Christian leaders being the ones committed this position of control. It is of course, what they felt has been “taken” from them, and they want “back”. This ministry’s main message seems to be whitewashing America’s history, claiming atrocities were “the exception not the rule”, being hyped up by liberal “revisionists”.
    As I always say, you wonder how one ideology could have such a universal lockdown on “Truth”, which is the word commonly used there. This is dangerous, because any action can be justified, and is what the colonists were driving on. We can see the potential for this right here:

    From his YouTube, “Pastor Shane and Democrat Debate the Issues – A Must Hear”, right around the 12:00 mark

    “Jesus did say to treat people right but he also said repent of sin so we see homosexuality as blatant sin and God’s not going to judge us based on how we treat people, he’s going to judge us based on what we did with Jesus Christ; did we repent and believe the gospel; then from that I treat others well; and the policy of Jesus, you know his agenda; and here’s where we make the big mistake: the government cannot apply the teachings of Jesus; we’re not to turn the other cheek, the government actually is to be a terror to those who do evil”.

    Basically, what this means is however we treat people is justified, if we declare them “evil” and against Christ! People’s private business can be judged, because it’s an offense to God, (and so condemning them is an integral part of “what we did with Jesus Christ”; and “believing the gospel” as the criticism of Christians who do not condemn gays basically goes), but public abuse of others, if it can be somehow portrayed as Christ’s agenda, then becomes good. (And this is precisely what we saw with the past “morality” of America, which he claims is being maligned!)

    Everything Christ taught is overridden with this filter it is run through, and never mind that it just doesn’t match up with what we clearly saw His “agenda” was, which included reserving his harshness for the “conservative” leaders; the supposed “guardians” of the Truth of God in Israel (who should have known better, from the divine Law they pounded on everyone else, but weren’t really keeping themselves), not the “sinners”.

    Then, elsewhere, seeing this:

    “God doesn’t have a political party. But God does have commandments, laws & standards He gives us to live by. God doesn’t change. His Word is the same yesterday, today & forever.”

    Of course, this is the same old mistake of using that passage (Heb.13:8) to imply that every commandment He ever gave must always be upheld forever. Of course, the “orthodox” Christians don’t keep the sabbaths and dietary laws, and sabbatarian groups use this same passage on them! Meanwhile, none of them keep the sacrifices, or the prohibitions of mixing fabrics.
    Obviously, God can issue commandments and rescind them and give new ones, and yet He Himself is still “the same”.

    Seeing all of this just made it stand out all the more, that Christians’ focus on LGBT is a bit of an OBSESSION. (Just as they always focused on sexual matters to the detriment of other problems; this particular aspect of sex was always the worst or “ultimate”).

    Some claim it’s their “in your face” promotion of their “lifestyle” that garners all of this censure, but aside from the fact that this is a reaction to all the oppression they’ve suffered (as I’ve pointed out, they’re the ones who had been “losing mothers, fathers, houses, etc.” more than Christians in the West), it’s still fairly easy to ignore their celebrations. Even if you think they’re teaching acceptance to kids in schools (or now, making toys for children, etc), if you’re teaching your own children what you believe is right, then what are you so afraid of? You’ve already long established that “the godless world” doesn’t follow Christian morality. Many had already long withdrawn their children from public schools.
    (One person on the board goes as far to acknowledge “What people do in private should not be subject to Law, but what they do in public & what they teach our children certainly is our concern. It is God’s concern also – [2 Pet.2:6; Jude 1:7]” making the common mistake of confounding the attempted forcible sex of the Sodomites with the consensual relationships being argued for today).

    What the Christians are really upset about is the loss of their AUTHORITY; that they would have to be the ones avoiding places or the right to command morality in a land they’ve always believed is “THEIRS”, while others become more free. (The whole “the world is not our home; we are we are refugees waiting for God’s Kingdom” has fallen completely by the wayside; only to be picked up as a sort of “sour grapes” resentful reaction to scoff back at the world).

    It’s all the same conspiratorialism; the same “they’re out to get us”; it’s all about us; it’s personal offense (assumed to reflect God’s offense; despite Grace; and as political conservatives, they’re the same people calling others “snowflakes” and saying everyone else today is “too offended”).

  15. Was already planning to create a shorter version of my statements on homosexuality, but saw this article, of leaders grilling another leader they think is too ‘silent’ on the issue (as pointed out, it comes down to judging even other straight people, showing the dissension characteristic of Law-focus), and it provided the perfect outline for me.

    1. Do you believe homosexuality is inherently sinful?

    Sin is defined as transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4, Rom. 3:20). The Law did rule against homosexuality. The question now is what the Law means for us today. Other parts of the same Law in Leviticus are not kept by Christians today (here’s another one I haven’t mentioned; 21:16-23!), so the issue is whether all of the Law is still to be mandated today. In many other areas, the “historic orthodoxy” says no, but only selectively. The Law was given for a particular purpose that has ended with Christ (Galatians 3).
    (Of course, there are other things in there, such as bestiality and incest, which critics will claim will be “next” to be accepted if we don’t stick to this Law. But the reason for rejecting those things can’t be simply “because the Law says so”; there are other principles we are given, such as the “Golden Rule”, that “fulfill” [supersede] the Law, Matthew 7:12).

    2. Do you believe that the practice of the homosexual lifestyle is compatible with holy Christian living?

    Holiness (hagiasmos) is purification, which is imputed to us through Christ, and not the works of the Law. It originally was defined in terms of the Law (including in the instruction in the NT), but as a lesson showing man could not be truly holy by his own efforts. (For one example of this, we see in Eph.4, we see the goal of “the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (v.24) is “the day of redemption” (v.30), which was what they were waiting for then (Mat. 16:28), not something still in our future. That was when the condemnation of the Law would finally be eliminated).

    3. Do you believe a person who dies as a practicing homosexual but professes to be a Christian will inherit eternal life?

    Eternal life is a gift of God, not of works (Eph.2:8)

    4. Do you believe same-sex attraction is, in and of itself, an inherently sinful, unnatural, and disordered desire that must be mortified?

    The attraction is likely hormonal. We have hormonal instincts that drive us to intimacy, and even if the hormones push one in a way different from what the different reproductive organs are designed for, the desire for intimacy is still there. This is a private matter between those two people, and should not be something we try to change or coerce through fear using the Law. (The supposed “unnaturalness” of it is what’s appealed to as the ultimate proof it’s “disordered” and “sinful”, but celibacy is also “unnatural”, but not condemned).

    (5. Why have you been so silent on this subject in light of your desire to “teach the word of God?”

    I can’t really answer for her on that, but it’s likely from knowing there are people looking to pounce on them with judgment)


    So he (unlike most others) acknowledges the application to Paul’s day, but still extends it to the present. This leads to the presumption of deliberateness in today’s gays; they ‘know’ it’s wrong, but are doing it for fun, or “jadedness” or something. No matter what they say or even think. (Even with all the suffering many receive because of it, which often resembles some of what first century Christians went through, such as “losing houses and mothers and fathers”, etc. and often at the hand of Christians themselves; it’s not the Christians being persecuted this time, as many claim).
    Also, the talk of “The beauty and the authority of God are brought low” (i.e. it is such an offense to Him that they’re not “following His natural design”, but on the other hand, speak of “the sinful brokenness of the fallen world”. There is very little that goes according to the hypothetical “perfect” original creation. They believe that people can be “called” to celibacy, and that’s just as counter to “the beautiful natural order”, and would lead to the extinction of the human race just as much as homosexuality.

    As I’ve been noting, there’s an obsession here that goes beyond what scripture is actually saying. (For ultimate evidence; as mentioned in above comment, the guy who was instrumental in “conversion therapy” not too long came out himself! “Spiritual discipline” such as praying was supposed to give you the “power” to overcome it. Obviously, something is being seriously misunderstood, and so it naturally didn’t work. It wasn’t supposed to, because biblical terms and concepts were reapplied to things they ware never intended for!)
    —Because those scriptures are describing a specific group of people from that age, when there was still “special revelation”, which those people had and still “held in unrighteousness”.
    But with this obsession of theirs, they just cannot see this original meaning of those scriptures, and have to always pull them up to use as weapons against people whose actions they don’t like today. But mention sabbaths and dietary laws (whose violations were also called “abominations”), then and only then, are we “not under the Law”.

    So also, we can see where it creates the us vs them “enemy” pose, as they’re doing it just to be “against” God, and by extension, “us”. But then this is the same “world” they’re supposed to convince of God’s love. (But then Piper is Calvinist, who believe in unconditional election anyway, and their whole reading of Romans (from 1 to 9 at least) is skewed by failure to take it in the context of who Paul was actually discussing).

    Then, saw this cut and paste “pass along” on FB:

    I want to say something about the spirituality debate. You don’t believe in God? That’s OK, but why is it so important for many of you to mock those of us that do? If we’re wrong, what have we lost when we die? Nothing! How does our faith in Jesus Christ bring you any harm? You think it makes me Stupid? Gullible? Ignorant? That’s ok too. How does that affect you? If you’re wrong your consequence is far worse. I would rather live my life believing in God and serving Him, and Find out I was right, than not believe in Him and not serve Him, and find out I was wrong. Then it is too late. There is no shame in my game! I believe in Jesus Christ. He said deny and disown me before Men and I will deny and disown you before my FATHER who is in Heaven.

    That being said, I’m not infallible. I make mistakes; I sin. But THE ONLY unforgivable sin is one’s denying Christ and His sacrifice that covers all transgressions.

    Basically the “Pascal Wager” coupled with a plea of innocence, and concluding with an erroneous assumption of what the “unpardonable sin” is. All one has to do is look at what the people Christ gave the actual warning to actually did that Christ was responding to, to know what it was. He did a miracle before them, and they attributed it to “Beelzebub” (Satan).
    The evangelical church instead put this together with other scriptures on “willful sin” and “seared consciences” and then concluded that “blasphemy against the Spirit” is any ignoring of “the conscience“, either until it doesn’t “bother” you anymore, or you die before “yielding” to it. (Christ is speaking to the same people Romans is referring to, and the very limited “general revelation” and “conscience” they maintain we are left with and held to, is being treated the same as the SPECIAL revelation they had back then!)

    So salvation, as always, becomes about giving something to God, and if you don’t, then He punishes you forever. And the Pascal Wager suggests that whether it’s actually true or not, it’s better to err on the “safe side“. That’s like the final argument. (Based purely on FEAR). Yet this same evangelicalism insists salvation is “grace, not works”, and complains that the world dismisses them! (And for every “Christian“ belief system you may take, there’s always another one more ‘conservative’ that sees your brand as ‘compromising’ and unpleasing to God, so you can never determine what is truly any “safe side”).

    Once you’ve taken this ‘precaution’, then and only then does your being “human” and making “mistakes” grant you a pass.
    But as we see with the link from John Piper, the Christian belief system can be quite aggressive in attacking others, based on the notion that their [personal, mind you] life choices are an “attack“ against both them and God, and so, no such “humanity” is allowed as an “excuse“ on their part, and any “grace“ is forfeited until they change their behavior, which in itself constitutes an automatic ‘rejection’ of Christ.

    It should be easy to see why such a belief system would be very threatening to people (especially when it’s hard to prove or disprove and appeals to something as shaky as “conscience“, which they then dismiss as ‘seared’ if it doesn’t agree with their beliefs and rules). But because they claim to be promoting the “Truth“ of an angry, offended God, they can just steamroll over everyone with it, but then claim to be persecuted at the slightest pushback.

    Such a lopsided system like this, where only their “humanity” figures, (when it comes to ‘rights’, ‘grace’ and ‘benefits to civilization’; and others’ ‘humanity’ only figures when it comes to ‘sin’, ‘error’ and ‘smallness’), is NOT “Good News”! If anything, it’s the same belief system of conquerors (with their intended subjects dehumanized), and hence why it gets lumped in with other forms of “superiority“ and “discrimination” (even if the detractors’ defensive actions may cross over into discrimination as well eventually).
    So everyone is trying to censure and control others, before they control you, but the religious view is the one that starts it, both in being the once dominant view, with their need to try to ‘restore’ that, and also to ‘save’ others’ souls through it.

    • This page, criticizing Philip Yancey: says “Yes, we are all sinners, but the difference between a Christian and those marchers is that the Christian cowers under the judgment of God and repents of his sin. Those marchers revel in their sin, celebrate it, and arrogantly sing ‘Jesus loves me.'” But that’s not always true; as there were many actions (especially in the much herald past, which many today think was so righteous and want to go back to) that were sin, and the Church rationalized from scripture [often] no doubt, were not, (if not actually God’s calling). In any case, salvation is from the act of “cowering”, and thus on us (to a Calvinist, this is seen as God’s act because He is the one who makes some cower, but not others, but still “holds everyone responsible” for not cowering.

      Not sure if this latter author, a Baptist, is Calvinist or not, but the article ends on Justice, and it’s clear that this theology is operating solely under the Law [strictly from the Old Covenant], and thus doesn’t understand Grace at all; it’s all the obsessive focus on behavior, though they want to criticize Yancey’s treatments of it. As usual, fear and discomfort are a “good” thing, because it’s all about changing the behavior to make God happy. They don’t realize the point of the Gospel that superseded the Law; that if God “carries out His own promise of avenging injustice”, you just may find yourself on the receiving end of that, and not even realize you did anything to deserve it. Then, they will fall back on “grace”, but then what about those promises of “justice”? They will then probably say it falls on Christ, on the Cross. They just won’t grant that pardon to anyone who doesn’t do at least as much as they feel they had to do, in “giving” something back to God).

      This book by Yancey also happens to be the one that has the chapter “No Oddballs allowed”, which sheds light on the Law against homosexuality, which was from the same book as the laws against lobster, pork, mixed fabrics, and even lepers! You can get a sense of this chapter here:
      He never mentions homosexuality in this regard, (but rather tries to keep quiet about it, yet is nevertheless scrutinized by critics like this anyway), but the principle, carried through Acts 10 regarding “unclean gentiles” does extend to it. (Of course, the critics would put a condition on “what God has cleaned”, as being their committing to live up to the “cleanness” afterward, in their behavior. While this held in the transitional period of the New Testament, it was not the full fruition of Grace, and this “tension” between grace and de-facto works would end shortly, else, there is no real “good news”).

  17. Arguments for the condemnation of homosexuality imply salvation by “natural” behavior.
    But God gave us an earth consisting of trees and plants, and rivers and oceans. All this stuff we’ve built over it, often destroying or polluting it, is not “natural”. But no Christian sees that as going against nature and condemning man. (The closest to consistency would be groups like the Amish). One could even use a scripture from Genesis, where man is trying to construct the first skyscraper, and God is angered and stops them!

  18. I decided to contact CRI with my concerns over the political slant of some of their recent articles (especially involving Howard Zinn, and a focus on Marxism, see and I was sent links to relevant articles, trying to back up their points on the “Marxist” and “revisionist” influences of today’s “anti Judeo-Christian” (AJC) climate.

    One was on homosexuality focusing on the fictional president in a “The West Wing” episode pitting him against a representation of Dr. Laura Schlesinger.

    The article is the first time I have seen an attempt to answer the points being made of all the other practices condemned under the Levitical Law, such as working on the sabbath, handling a “pigskin” football, mixed fabrics, planting different crops side by side, and also, the idea of selling one’s youngest daughter into slavery. The apparent motive, to prove “the Bible was out of date and absurd”.

    Of course, the standard answer regarding those practices has been “the Law has been abrogated by Christ”. That has worked (in their own minds) in the defense against sabbatarianism, where it’s the latter movement that is accusing the “traditional Christian” of violating part of the Law. But now, the situation is reversed, as it’s the [“mainstream”] Christian condemning homosexuality, who now has the sabbaths and other laws wielded against them. So simply saying “the Law was abrogated at the Cross” by itself isn’t enough.
    The arguments focus on the civil penaltes, namely death (which the president in the show had leveled). America is not the theocratic nation of ancient Israel, so “there is no more warrant for killing a homosexual today than there is for killing a Sabbath breaker. In fact, the mechanisms required to carry out the death penalty under Mosaic Law are no longer extant. Ironically, the very Jews who believed that Christ was worthy of death for violating the laws of Moses had to convince the Roman authorities to crucify Him”.

    So the article gets to the point, of setting homosexuality apart from those other things condemned in Leviticus, based on the “nature” and “health” (HIV, rectal issues, etc.) arguments. This done, not in “an arbitary or capricious fashion”. but rather “He carefully defines the borders of human sexuality so that our joy may be complete”. (The familiar “Law is given for man’s happiness” argument).

    First, it says “Christ made it crystal clear that the ceremonial aspects of the law would be fulfilled through His life, death, and resurrection. He made it equally clear that the scriptural injunctions against sexual perversions — including homosexuality — were universal and enduring.” No evidence from Christ is given here, but the answer is usually his reiterating of “marriage as between one man and one woman” (also used by Hanegraaf to teach God actually “condemned” polygamy, even though it was allowed previously, and never directly rescinded in scripture). It then appeals to “the apostle Paul uses language reminiscent of Leviticus when he describes what he refers to as ‘degrading’ sexual perversions.” in good old Romans 1 (yet acknowledging “It is not clear what he meant by ‘penalty’ in his time”, but then implying “it is hard not to make a connection between his words and the health crisis we observe in our time”). Apparently, the show did not include any rebuttal to the Rom.1 argument (this hasn’t been dealt with much until more recently), so this is not addressed here.

    I find it funny that the antetypical “penalty” is not simply being assumed to be God’s own punishment of them in Hell (as most would assume), but is now being implied to be temporal (‘natural’) consequences. (Now, if we could only extend that thinking, and realize these were particular people in a particular time being described; people still fully under the Law, in fact, and facing a soon in their lifetimes judgment, and not every homosexual, or every unbeliever who ever lived).

    But still, this has gotten so far away from the main point. The real issue is using the condemnation of the Law, —under a premise of God doing it for our joy, but with a fear-based “or else” motive: “do this for your own good, or else“! It ignores what the apologists have pointed out regarding the sabbaths and the rest of the Law, that it was all for a particular purpose, in the nation of Israel. It’s not parts of the Law serving that purpose, while other parts were more “universal”. The “universal” aim of the Law was what Christ summarized in Matthew 7:12. Issues like “health” would be worked out by the people involved. Laws related to “order in society” such as against killing and stealing are enforced by every society. The Law of God was not to be used for these things (beyond OT Israel), as it ALL has been fulfilled through the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

  19. Some more truly brave souls, (for this Pride month)

    Amber Cortana
    Missed this one from about four years ago. May vaguely remember hearing something about it, though. Raised by a very prominent Focus on the Family member, and even voiced a small character in the Adventures in Odyssey show (which I remember from Christian radio, when it used to air after something we listened to on WWDJ back in our early marriage; probably the music broadcast. Seemed like a light and airy show. Don’t even think I ever realized it was from Focus on the Family). She came out at 27 (2011-2) and the family took her house keys, and said she could come over for the holidays, but her partner was banned.

    They gave all the standard accusations: to compare her to “murderers, pedophiles, and bestiality. ‘If I [the father] want to just go and marry a donkey, is that okay? Or if I see a little kid and want to have sex with them, can I just go ahead and do that and act on whatever I feel? You could even get a bunch of murderers together to form their own church and just make that all okay!’” “Like Eve, you’ve eaten the fruit from Satan. You’ve gotten in with the wrong crowd and they’ve brainwashed you. You’re putting your soul in jeopardy. I’m afraid that you’re damning yourself to hell.” (She talks about how completely sheltered she was growing up, so there was no “wrong crowd” she ever could have been exposed to! Of course, we see how salvation hangs on this, and can even be lost, though the official position of most of mainstream evangelicalism is once saved always saved. If they try to claim such a person was never saved to begin with, then it wouldn’t be becoming a homosexual that woudld “damn” them to hell; that was the default destiny [Or is it; if she was essentially repeating Eve’s part in the original Fall!?] All of the consistency of the “orthodox” evangelical doctrine goes right out the window whenever homosexuality is discussed! The reactions are 100% visceral, and they really need to look into this!)
    Even more disconcerting is: “We would have loved to walk through this with you. Even if you still arrived at the same decision, at least we would have known that we did everything we could to persuade you. But because you didn’t include us in your journey, it’s too late. You’ve already made up your mind.”
    As I have pointed out when addressing this subject, the main concern is ultimately not for the person’s own “soul” as they claim, but rather their own interests; like God is holding them responsible for the child (or “the nation’s”) decisions, and they stomping out homosexuality will earn them favor with God. We see the screwy motives again next:

    The father’s identity has been completely covered up (and she’s honoring it; and her current last name is from her partner), and they did a good job; as it’s very hard to find. Shows something seriously wrong, in that the family seems shamed and has to hide, just because of her choice. It’s from making homosexuality the worst thing a person could ever be; where even if you insist it’s a sin; other sins that aren’t sexual in nature aren’t treated this way. Even some that are aren’t. For all the talk of “pedophilia”, Josh Duggar (who is being mentioned a lot these days) isn’t being treated this badly!
    You would think her family would make it [i.e. the obviously negative to them situation] into a “testimony” or something like that, since Christians believe homosexuality is an “attack” of “Satan” on them! (This reminds me of the occasions when an IFB gets caught in a sex scandal, and the others disown him, yet still try to cover it up. It’s called “splitting”). The first thing they told her when she came out to them was not to tell anyone. It’s clear what they are interested in is their own image (“before men”); just like the religious leaders Jesus dealt with.
    Again, they claim to be the ones under “attack”, (trying to identify with the “persecuted Church” throughout history), but looking at Matt.19:29; it’s not her and other LGBT’s putting them out of the house and the family; it’s them doing that to her and countless others! They’ll say she’s not losing those things “for His sake”; but then neither does He ever tell anyone to do the oppressing for His sake. (And to reiterate, Christ mentioned a “sword”, but it was not His true followers wielding it against “the world”; but rather the “world” of corrupt religion wielding it against His followers!)

    Chelley Chelle (Dechelle Richard):
    A spunky LA comedian, who grew up Jehovah’s Witness (testifies of knocking on doors every weekend), went as far as to pretend to get engaged to a guy in the church at 17 or 18, but then was outed when her mother impersonated her to a girlfriend on the phone (!), and then left and did her own thing.

    [Sha]Nieka Richard
    A jr. high or high school teacher, originally from Texas, but recently moved to San Jose. Father was a pastor. Like Amber, still identifies as Christian.

  20. Just overheard a sermon (IAOG pastor) that focused on “sexuality”, and using the old Romans 1, made everything sound SO “clear”, like God is sitting there before us like the table or TV we might be sitting by, “showing” us everything, with the “general revelation” argument. He even dismissed those saying it was a cultural reference or something like that.
    Of course, when you question all the things in life that seem to counter that argument, like the utter coldness of the universe; the favoring of the “strong” over the “weak”, etc., then all that “clarity” goes out the window, and you get a whole bunch of surmisings about it’s man’s fault (Adam), and all the other reasons God would leave it this way (pain is good for us, etc.).
    The thing is, all of this is NOT evident from general revelation. You might be able to look at nature and get a sense of “design”, but then you won’t get a sense of “the design is, however, corrupted, and it should really be different from this”.

    Like the Florida condo collapse made me think of this again. If there had been no Fall, or in the supposed “kingdom” we are waiting for, we are promised things like this would never happen or will never happen again. But this happened because of the laws of nature; the same ones they claim Romans 1 is appealing to; in this case, oxidation (corrosion of materials due to exposure to oxygen in the form of air and water) and gravity. If this sort of disaster is impossible in the “unfallen” state, then the laws of nature are completely different. Man (and other life forms) depend on the matter making up both their bodies, and the materials they use as shelter for those bodies to stay in the form necessary to promote survival. (Our bodies must continue to pump blood to the brain, which tells the heart to beat, pumping the blood back to the brain and the rest of the body. Anything that disrupts this cycle will result in “death”. “Pain” is an alert that something might be damaging the body and threatening disruption of its processes. Buildings likewise must continue standing and not collapse on us or burn [a more rapid form of “oxidation”]).

    They might acknowledge the need of different laws in the future “kingdom”, but then it would also have to have held true in Eden. (So it’s like when Adam sinned, God got mad and threw a big tantrum by changing all the laws of the universe to make things ‘painful’ for us).
    By now, you have completely lost the “obvious from nature” argument of “God’s true will” and “attributes”, because all of that is NOT obvious anymore; it’s a hypothesis used to support a presupposed final conclusion.

    They’ll then claim the fact that we desire things to be different is proof that that was the original design, but that too is speculatory (and not expounded by this passage), and gets us to another important point. The pastor mentioned the old issue of “feelings”. People “sinning” (whether sexual practices, “orientation”, “identity”, etc.) are all going by their “feelings”, and that’s where “wickedness” comes from, and violating the [intellectual] “truth” we are “holding in unrighteousness”. But then our whole sense of an unfallen existence (again, the supposed proof that we should ‘know’ the universe is ‘fallen’) is a “feeling”! Feelings can be all over the place. So a certain act or behavior seeming “good” is one feeling, and the “guilty conscience” is another “feeling”. All you’re doing is telling people to reject one feeling for another. I’ve done that, and ended up going down wrong paths (yes, the more “moral” or “pure” ones, such as becoming a kosher sabbatarian at one point, which is regarded as “cultic” by most mainstream Christians).

    It’s true that people resisting conservative Christianity (and politics as well) often go by “feelings”. That is one thing that has fired up my writing, as a generation ago, it sounded, just from the absolutist fervor of conservatives, that they really must have been speaking absolute “truth”, and the “liberals” had no answer! (Hence, apparently, “holding the truth in unrighteousness”). Now, a shift to a different, more active and vocal younger generation, plus the conservative views by now festering into total absurdity at times from this presumption of “irrefuted truth” (Trumpism, QAnon, climate denial, etc.) has finally woken nonconservatives and moderates up.

    But I listen to this pastor, who is basically a “new-evangelical” charismatic, and he sounds so conservative, and would be called a “fundamentalist” by most secular people today. But to the real “fundamentalists” (IFB’s and old-line Reformed types), while they may agree perfectly on sexuality and the Romans 1 interpretation, he and his movement are also going by “feelings” just as much, in using modern music, worship, Bible translations, counseling techniques and terms, a less “offensive” preaching style and focus (the pastor even mentioned this regarding sexuality, though emphasizing still not telling others “nice sounding lies”) and especially the charismatic gifts. The IFB’s will use similar arguments against these things, and even blame these modern pastors for the same “ungodliness” in the world they’re preaching against, for abandoning the old ways, that supposedly kept the rest of society in line. On my psychology page, I cite an ES Williams, (who was cited by David Cloud on the issue of all psychological problems being caused by “sin”), and I recently saw his name again in an article about what he calls the “New Calvinists”, (the new evangelicals, basically, and Williams is apparently some kind of old-line Reformed type) and their portrayals of Heaven being too “pleasing” to us, and thus based on the “flesh” (and hence, “feelings”), when Heaven is really only for God’s pleasure. So then, it’s not even “pie in the sky when you die” anymore, and the only benefit of salvation is escaping Hell (which is of course by election), so that God can experience pleasure by Himself with us in His presence; whatever this “pleasure” entails. (The traditional portrayal of “Heavenly bliss” was already largely inexplicable; now they’re making it even more way above our heads. I imagine part of it might be the eternal torture of the wicked, as others have clearly claimed. This, mind you, is what they believe the “GOOD NEWS” is. I guess it’s “good news” only to God!)
    Of course these modern “old-liners” would be accused by Churches from hundreds of years ago for some of the same things. They were even more conservative on music, worship, recreation, sexual behavior even in marriage, and also Church control. Where does it end? They cannot all be right; but they could possibly all be wrong. The common denominator (the one thing they agree on) is trying to use the Law to control people’s behavior (the pastor mentioned how much God desires to completely manage our lives, with that special emphasis on sex)*. All of their trying to stoke guilt to lead to repentance, is what else, but “feelings”. (But I guess it’s the less pleasantness of some feelings that indicate they are the “truth”!)
    But the real “objective truth” is, that the context of Romans is Israelites, who were under the Law through which God “showed Himself”, but preached it to others while falling into violations of it themselves. Trying to use the passage otherwise, (in spite of the admissions in other times and places that things are NOT so “clear”; including the final answer of the need for “faith”, interpreted as belief without tangible evidence)**, is pure gaslighting, [and that] clear and simple!

    *They usually avoid the term “control” or even “manage”, and make it sound more “intimate”, like “He wants all of you” or “your whole life”. But again, it always boils down the inordinate focus on sex, rather than what Christ said “fulfilled the Law” (Matt.7:12). Man basically projects his own obsessions onto God, and this is actually what the whole Law itself was framed around, as shown by it also declaring the “natural”, guilt-free conditions of menstruation and leprosy as “unclean”, and thus why it should be clear the Law was against us as Paul said, and not to be simply rehashed (with only those obviously problematic portions excised) and continued to be pushed onto others.

    **(In actuality, “faith” [pistis], which is often interpreted that way [i.e. belief in lieu of absolute evidence], and others will add “trust” [which includes having good attitudes when things are painful, etc.] and yet others, “action” [which now turns “faith” back into pure “works”] really means “conviction”. This makes Heb.11 more clear; conviction is the substance of things hoped for; the way “faith” is commonly portrayed, it would read a tautological “now hope is the substance of things hoped for” and shows as far as “pleasing God”, alludes to a special revelation people had, just as Romans 1 is pointing to; conviction is not something we just conjure up in ourselves with almost no clear revelation).

    I should reiterate, one argument (which he touched on), that heterosexual sex is really a reflection of something “heavenly”. Often cited is the “marriage between Christ and the Church”, based on Eph.5:32 (and to some extent, 1 Cor.6:15-6, 2Cor.11:2). Paul is in Ephesians telling husbands to love their wives. If this meant that every single person must reenact Christ’s marriage to the Church in their own sex life, then celibacy would violate it just as much as homosexuality! If Christ had done that and not “married” (or betrothed) the Church, we would have been left without redemption! And it too is just as contrary to the natural order. If everyone was celibate, the human race would have died out. Of course, the Church has traditionally said the celibate is “married to Christ”, but that doesn’t make sense, when the entire Church is to be married to Him. (They might be able to be more ‘devoted’ to Him, but that’s not the same thing). The real reason celibacy is the one “deviancy” from both the natural and spiritual order allowed, is because it’s the one that doesn’t involve gratifying sexual pleasure. (You can do it by yourself, but then that is of course preached against). So once again, pleasure is the obsessive focus in the teaching. As I’ve said elsewhere, all of existence is a tug of war (between God and man [and Satan]) around pleasure! That’s what it really is all about.

    • Some thoughts I had long had, and finally got to use them, in a comment on this Medium article touching upon the issue of “natural” arguments in Christian philosophy.

      I myself used to assume “unnatural” was the ultimate proof of “ungodly”, as in the case of homosexuality. But then, I realized God gave us a lush green earth, and we’ve built much of it up into concrete wastelands, and Western Christians are often the foremost at defending this as “advanced civilization”, rather than seeing it as ungodly (and this “proven” by all the natural problems it’s caused; like the way they took AIDS as the ultimate proof against homosexuality).

      If they were consistent, they would all be like the Amish, and one could even take God’s opposition to the Tower of Babel as solid scriptural “proof” modern skyscrapers are ungodly.

      Meanwhile, they go on to claim this whole “nature” is “corrupted”, and set to be “destroyed” and replaced. So then, why would “natural’ vs “unnatural” be so important? (The physical world is not actually what the “Fall” was about, but that’s another story).

      Church “philosophers” like Aquinas and especially Augustine [mentioned in the article] brought a lot of confusion into the Church, and their followers often are the biggest critics of their opponents (both secular and even other Christians they accuse of deviating from scriptural truth) for using “human philosophy”.

      A few more brave LGBT souls for this pride month!

      Ayesha Tisdale and Samiyah Alexander
      A Muslim couple, from Ohio, and now living in Florida. Inbetween, they moved to different countries around the world, such as Egypt, Thailand and Mexico, staying from a few months, and moving on.

      Naya Z
      A Ghanian raised in London who stood her ground and prayed to God for 3 years, and He told her He loved her as she was. She’s very versatile, doing photography, food and a branch of criminology called “victimology” (which focuses on the victims of crime).

  21. The Problem with “Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner”
    View at

  22. Great article that nails why “Gay pride” (which at times has seemd to get ‘in your face”in expressing themelves) isn’t actually making the straight, Christian world the “persecuted” ones.

    Why Is Sexuality Such A Big Deal?

    Here’s a great one comparing the different relationship, regarding what’s most important:

    The Straight Relationship. The Gay Relationship.
    God’s shocking blueprint
    View at

  23. Here, a good point is made about the whole “Don’t Say Gay” issue:

    View at

    Makes the point that I realize is the key to the issue. Completely sexualizing other people! Growing up heteronormative, it was easy to fall into the common homophobic environment and its assumptions. What happens is that when we hear even the idea of a same sex couple, we tend to put ourselves in their place and envision everything up to sexual activity, and then end up projecting our own aversion to the same sex onto them and react accordingly, thinking they must be ‘sick’ or ‘depraved’ or something, because that’s how we would have to be to go against our own desire like that.

    But the problem is, as they used to put it, our own “dirty minds“. Even Christians in “purity“ teaching should think, should they be envisioning people; any people, having sex? It’s their own private business. When discussing hetero relationships they say sex is just one part of it, and it should be so much more than that. But when looking at a same sex couple, they reduce relationship down to nothing but sex. Even for children, now.

  24. So Jackie Hill Perry is supposed to be the shining example of the “power of God” in curing homosexuality, but according to this blog that’s still not enough, because she “still has homosexual desires. In fact, at the core of Perry’s main message is the assertion that God does not (or probably will not) change the hearts of homosexuals when he saves them.”, plus, she got involved with ministries that “teach that Same-Sex Attraction is not a sin unless acted upon (Jesus would disagree). …they have stated that God doesn’t necessarily desire to sanctify homosexuals.” This is just like the magazine linked here: that condemned Dejuaii Pace for the same reason, even though she was being celibate.
    If that weren’t enough:

    “Perry…still carries herself in a ‘butch’ sort of way.
    If twenty women were in a room with Jackie Hill Perry and were asked which one was probably a lesbian, most would point quickly to Perry, who still carries herself with the mannerisms of one not yet ‘freed indeed’ by the Holy Spirit.”

    There we see all of this hinges on the typical behavioral definition of “sanctification”. They do the same thing to even Michael Horton, here: appealing to “the transforming power of the supernatural gospel of Christ”, that is being “rejected” and “refuted”.

    Do they even know what “supernatural” means? Again, if you were to ask them to describe it, it would only be a list of mechanical, self-willed “steps” done in “faith”, while the pull of the “old desire” remains in place, and you feel no relief at all; at least not right away. This is what they are condemning even those who appeal to the same concept over, but differing only in semantics. One says “I still have the desires, but the Spirit is leading me to resist them, in obedience”, and the other denies you still have the desires at all (if you really are “sanctified” by “the Spirit”), even though the magazine that attacked Pace admitted you don’t “get over” them that easily.
    If it was really “supernatural” in the way they are presuming, as soon as you prayed, the desire would vanish, and that would be the “simple act” that separates those willing to just make that “simple choice”, from those who “loved their sin too much”. When Christ healed someone by that “power of the Spirit”, they were instantly healed. There was no “lifelong struggle” to “believe they were healed” and act like it, for the rest of their life! But at this point, they will claim God leaves it to be so hard, as a “test”. Since they are so obviously denying sanctification (and the presence of the Spirit altogether), and salvation based on this, then salvation is clearly in the willing and efforts of the hard “work” of passing this ‘test’! (What the “power” of the Spirit unto sanctification is, is the “right” to be called children of God (John 1:12; Rom.8:16), which of course, would be instant, and is what Christian LGBT-identifying people are in fact claiming! There is no justification in scripture for changing it into anything else; any hard “process”; that’s only people trying to forcefit the concept into their skewed behavior-control schemes!)

    Meanwhile, movements like this are being exposed as having all sorts of child molestation, that are covered up, the victims shamed, and if exposed, then appealing to “grace”, or them deciding whether the offenders should be disowned (isolated and split off) or not!

    We also see the typical right-wing politics, where she’s criticized for “denounc[ing] the United states”, and for being a “Social Justice” advocate, and mentions are made of “Critical Race Theory”, and the common modern Rightist tactic of “our Leftist opponents are the real modern day racists/slavers”:

    “The white men who run The Gospel Coalition have put Perry forward like a slave on their auction block, trading her from one platform to another because of her useful demographic traits.”

    “Perry also fit some Critical Race Theory into her post, lambasting theologically sound preachers for ‘white supremacy’ for quoting from slave-owning church leaders of the 18th or 19th Century.
    ‘Hey, you have no business complaining about me hanging out with Bethel heretics if you quote Whitefield, you white supremacists!’

    This ministry’s whole attack is basically “guilt by association”; as we see them doing right here with Perry. Yet, when someone turns it back on them, and presumes guilt based on association with “racists”; that’s completely invalid, as those quoting them were “theologically sound”!

    This illustrates the problem of this sort of movement. Only they determine what is theologically “sound” or “false” (and “sinful” or “sanctified”), and what disqualifies (or doesn’t disqualify) one from being “sound”; and what’s determinant, or doesn’t figure at all.
    The slant is always in one definite direction: the “American Christian culture” of the past was God’s Truth, and our model of the true Gospel, and any criticism of it is against Christ. The race issue just doesn’t matter; it’s only a tool of the ungodly “woke” crowd anyway.
    If CRT, etc. is so wrong, they need to prove the racial doctrines it’s responding to are in fact Biblical. Those leaders of the past had proof-texts they used to justify it. But no one is talking about this. The Right has by now completely taken a “colorblind” position that tries to blame racism on the Left anyway, and “biblical” arguments like “the Curse of Ham” just didn’t exist, or were just some small “aberration”.

  25. Further summarized thoughts on the issue:

    Male and female are ARCHETYPES (ruling patterns, that got framed around the physical bodies and the societal roles that stemmed from them), and each person has both inside, but for some people, certain archetypes (complexes) become more activated, for various reasons.

    (The archetypal nature of gender is likely why many lesbian couples retain the “traditional” image of one feminine and one masculine partner, even wearing a “groom” outfit in the wedding. It’s not that they “really want” a man, or “might as well” just go and be with one. Presenting masculine and physically being a biological man are two totally different things for the partner)

    The insistence on binary identification=Cartesian dualism

    God/Christ says “male and female, made He them”, but while it’s clear that there is currently a hard, binary element in reproduction, still, there is variation in the BEARERS of these elements; e.g. intersexuals, etc.

    Here is an example of this line of reasoning:

    Jesus and the New Testament writers absolutely did, in no uncertain terms, confine God-approved sex to a monogamous marriage between one man and one woman. By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited to, one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one woman, three men and three women, one man and another man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.

    “Condemnation” from total silence (the “regulative principle”); just like Church of Christ and Primitive Baptists saying NT scriptures mentioning “singing” is a FORBIDDANCE of musical instruments in Church. If we believe you, why shouldn’t we believe them? Or other groups forbidding holidays and birthdays?

    The issue with me isn’t about something I want to do, or that everyone should totally embrace everything people do; it’s that we can’t just leave the people alone; we have to badger and try to get them to become straight (and to some, even being celibate, or even a hetero marriage isn’t enough; they must have every inkling of the feelings wiped out of them to be considered “sanctified“), and now, this is considered the very “Gospel”, and we are totally obsessed with it. There are many things people do that are not in line with “original creation”; why are we making such a big deal out of this one?
    Even if you insist on using Romans 1; that passage never tells us to do all the stuff we’ve been doing: to say or do anything to the people being described, to “take a stand” against them, to complain about them, etc.
    This is clearly more of a case of personal offense and aversion (or at least a “cultural” collectivization of personal offense) than any concern for either God or the people’s souls.

    That God is SO protective of the binary genders that ‘violating’ them in any way is the utter capital offense the Church has made it out to be, is an assumption (and one often borne out of neuroses and repression; i.e. classic “shadow projection”)
    To repeat, God gave us this green earth, and we’ve polluted it; and the most conservative tend to be anti-environmentalist; insisting all the pollution we’re pumping into the air is not only OK (and even ‘good’ as far as exercising man’s “dominion” over the earth, and the “productivity” of capitalism), but is apparently not having any negative effect. They don’t condemn what’s [obviously] not “natural” then!
    You could just as well use the Tower of Babel story as ‘solid’ scriptural proof God FORBIDS skyscrapers, or by extension, any modern human development!)

    They will even say stuff like tampering with the gender roles and assignments “strikes at the very Being of God”. Yet the Church believes God “cursed” this current creation, and made everything about sex and reproduction (and all of life in general) difficult as a result of it, and the promise is to fix it by abolishing current nature altogether and giving us a totally new kind of existence with new bodies that that do not experience sex at all. How then is this current creation so integral to His very being or at least THAT important, as it is being made out?

    Christ’s “marriage” to the Church does not imply everyone has to enact the hetero pairing in their lives in order to honor Him. Else, celibacy would be just as “sinful”. (It can also be considered just as “unnatural“).
    I’m not going to say that “eunuchs” is referring to gays or trans, as some have been doing, but it does show Christ appending to the ideal male/female relationship something that is technically “unnatural” (and even if self-imposed).
    (But because there’s no sexual pleasure involved, and that is the whole hangup, that’s why that is assumed to be accepted, though among ancient Jews [and maybe some modern ones, still], it was actually frowned upon as well).

    The Reformation was about the definition of Gospel, and we’ve wasted the 500th anniversary of the Reformation making this issue just as much “the Gospel” (and the vast majority consider all LGBT people as outside the faith, so why are you going against them?)

    Any sexual “deviation” (including if granted as not a ‘choice’) is condemned by Christians based on a doctrine called “impartation”. There were historically three different means of salvation in the Church. The Catholics had “infusion”, where God sheds His “Grace” on you through the physical “sacraments” such as baptism and “Eucharist”. Most Protestants condemned this as “works salvation”, and officially held to the biblical position of “imputation”, where God looks at you and sees Christ’s righteousness instead of your actual behavior.
    But in practice, they still insisted God’s aim was to fix our behavior (i.e. they wanted to maintain CONTROL over people), so they came up with this concept that IF you’ve really been “saved”, you will show it through “changed” behavior (considered part of “regeneration” or “new life”), and that this is supernaturally “imparted” to us by the Holy Spirit. (It involves the “works” of behavior reform, but since “God” is really doing it, it’s considered “Grace”). So anyone who does not, at least after some amount of time, show these “fruits” in their life, can be questioned as to whether they have “really” been “regenerated”, and thus “saved”. So LGBT people, who are no longer even trying to change (even if they once tried), are then seen as completely rejecting “the Power” offered them by God, and thus rejecting Christ, and therefore forfeiting salvation.
    Even when someone does refrain from the behavior, it is not enough for some:
    Dejuaii Pace (remained celibate; condemned by “eewmagazine”)
    Jackie Hill Perry (went as far as to MARRY A MAN, under the premise of “surrender”, and is the darling of the “ex-gay” movement, but hasn’t renounced the “identity” enough for some i.e. “biblethumpingwingnut“)

    The “impartation” concept is in practice never what they make it out to be. (God just “changes” your thoughts and desires). When they begin breaking it down, they end up describing a regiment of “daily” EFFORTS such as Bible study (but only filtered through their “historic orthodox” interpretations of it in subjects such as this), prayer (but only the “answers” that line up with the common interpretation), meditation, resisting, “rebuking”, praying against (etc.) every unacceptable “thought”, “feeling”, “urge”, etc. that comes up. It’s clearly a mechanical program that any other religion and even nonreligious people can do. And it still often doesn;t work for the supposedly “regenerate”, like when they “fall” (which will then be blamed on them letting up on the rigrous effort. At what point do they think it becomes pure “works”?) And to insist that salvation (or the “life change” that grants or is [required] “evidence” of it) depends on this is clearly “works salvation” every bit as much as the Catholic and other religions’ rituals!

    The “power” granted to us by the Spirit (exousia, not dynamis, ischys or kratos) is “bear[ing] witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (John 1:12 , Rom.8:16)

    [scruptural uses of dynamis:
    Gospel is power of God unto salvation Rom.1:16
    abound in hope through the power of the Spirit 15:13
    preaching of Cross is power 1Cor.:18, 24, 2:4-5
    power to deliver one to Satan 5:4
    approving ourselves…by the power of God 2Cor.6:7
    power to usward Eph 1:19
    power that works in us 3:20
    strengthened with all might Col.1:11
    work of faith with power 2Th.1:11
    spirit of power and sound mind 2Th.1:8
    denying the power 2Tim.3:5
    divine power has given us all things 2Pet.1:3

    “dynamis” is most often power ascribed to God that we benefit from; and not as much about what we do. Nowhere does it imply anything about getting over “problems” the way it is assumed today]

    Being solidly straight, I never had to experience judgment over sexual orientation or identity, but I did, over “anger and bitterness” (much of it over my “incel” frustrations and autistic issues!) and had the same passages (along with the “I’ll pray for you” copout finally being challenged now) lobbed at me when I went to them for help.

    Rom.1-2 (the chief NT “clobber text”) referring to those who claim to KEEP the Law, but do the same things themselves.

    Of course, the primary OT text, Leviticus, also condemned “unclean foods“, mixed fabrics; and menstruation and even leprosy were considered “unclean“, and the Church insists all of these were “abrogated at the Cross”.


    “It is little wonder that antagonism against Christianity is so often connected with issues of sexuality. Christianity affirms one foundational difference, namely the distinction between God and his creation. The male/female distinction is the capstone of all the other distinctions God put into the universe (such as land and sea, night and day, etc.).”

    The reason why antagonism against Christianity is so often connected with issues of sexuality is because the Church had become so utterly OBSESSED with sexuality (starting with Augustine, basically), ignoring all sorts of other evils in the world while focusing on that as determining society’s overall godliness or ungodliness. This really stood out to me when I entered adolescence and became aware of social issues. And this, while all sorts of sexual abuses were occuring (including toward children, and yes, often the same sex) in the shadows (and being shared now, usually when the victims have grown up).
    This is what was often rationalized with this unbiblical ASSUMPTION that sexuality is the “capstone” of creation. (Which is just projecting man’s own obsession onto God. The article appeals to the “mystery” mentioned in Eph.5:31-2, but then if this were the blueprint every person must live out in their own lives; it would rule out celibacy as well, in addition to remarriage of widows!)

    So you can favor destroying the “green” nature God created through pollution, overdevelopment, etc. and that just doesn’t matter, while harassing people over their own private lives. You can spend the 500th anniversary of the Reformation going against these people right as all sorts of other evils and disasters are making headlines. It’s like all the Church cares about! Something’s wrong with that! It shows a problem within the people waging this war themselves; like they must be struggling with issues of sexuality themselves (as is evident when some of them do end up in sexual scandals).

    (Interestingly, where most Christians in the past have held the 1960’s as when American sociery became “anti-God”, this one sees it as favorable until 1994, and then neutral 1994-2014, and antagonistic, 2014 and beyond! Of course, the end result is the same as what the earlier Christians said, of coming “persecution”)

    On the other hand, I also saw a video by James White (aomin) on the key Greek term arsenokoites, and I’m sorry, but he has the edge there. The term literally means “male[arseno] coitus”. He even suggests the reason that both arsenokoites and malakos [“effeminate”] were mentioned, is because one was what the modern community would call the “top”, and the other was the “bottom”, and Paul was making sure to condemn both!
    So I don’t agree with all of the scripture exegeses LGBT advocates have been making (like some will try to argue even Leviticus is not really condemning homosexuality!) The best argument is that Leviticus was the Law, and the “New Testament” was the transition period where the Law still had some authority over the people. (This would last, until “the Kingdom” began, when the Law and its condemnation was completely removed, which would be in their lifetimes, not thousands of years later).

    But in conjunction with that:

    “The Reformed faith teaches that the moral law of God has three uses. The first is to convict of sin and drive the repentant sinner to the Lord Jesus Christ. The second use of the law is to restrain lawlessness in society. The third use is to function as the rule of life for the believer. One of the most famous statements of this truth comes from the Puritan Samuel Bolton in The True Bounds of Christian Freedom: ‘The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.’[]
    The Puritan way of thinking and conduct is diametrically opposed to the ways of New Calvinism.”

    And herein lies the common assumptions, of “restraining lawlessness in society”! (Didn’t work when the Puritans decided they could steal [lands, bodies/freedom, etc.] and kill, and all the other evils of the colonial days; it showed the law could be spun and manipulated to justify anything, just as the Israelites of Christ’s day had done; they just justified other sins than the ones they condemn modern society and Christians for), and the admission that the Law is the “end”; the ultimate goal that even the “gospel” is pointing to! In fact, the Law is the start and finish! (They have completely voided everything Paul took such pains to teach. The Galatians were right all along! Of course, all of this will only work with an “unconditional election” that presumably makes the Law possible —and for certain people!)

  27. To start, I have recently, in putting together this new OP, found that there are actually names for the different levels of LGBTQ position in the issue:

    “Side A” is totally affirming
    “Side B” is basically the modern view that you can hold the identity, but just don’t indulge in it.
    “Side X” would be the “ex-gay” movement (Perry, “reparation therapy” advocates, etc.)
    “Side Y”, is the most critical position, focusing on the concept of our “identity”, and so would be the ones as I’ve been pointing out, criticizing sides B and even X as “denying the power of the spirit” if they don’t eradicate every inkling of gayness.

    The site also says “It should be said that Side A has no scriptural basis whatsoever”, even though it listed their scriptural arguments and didn’t even refute them there. It adds: “The other Sides have varying degrees of biblical support. It is up to Christians to study, pray, and decide for themselves whether Side B, Side X, Side Y, or somewhere in between, best represents their convictions.”
    Yet even with this somewhat limited “tolerant” approach, the different sides still accuse each other of being unscriptural; namely the more strict position to the less strict! Side B in particular thinks it is being reasonably “balanced” and “sensible”, but this only garners criticisms of “compromise” from Sides X and Y, but also charges of being “just as homophobic as X and Y” by the LGBTQs themselves! They end up pleasing nobody! The only thing agreed on by sides B, X and Y is condemning Side A!)

    Now, a comment I made here (on Christians using “natural” arguments in apologetics, including on homosexuality) has a response.
    I had said:

    I myself used to assume “unnatural” was the ultimate proof of “ungodly”, as in the case of homosexuality. But then, I realized God gave us a lush green earth, and we’ve built much of it up into concrete wastelands, and Western Christians are often the foremost at defending this as “advanced civilization”, rather than seeing it as ungodly (and “proven” by all the natural problems it’s caused; like the way they took AIDS as the ultimate proof against homosexuality).

    If they were consistent, they would all be like the Amish, and one could even take God’s opposition to the Tower of Babel as solid scriptural “proof” modern skyscrapers are ungodly.

    Meanwhile, they go on to claim this whole “nature” is “corrupted”, and set to be “destroyed” and replaced. So then, why would “natural’ vs “unnatural” be so important? (The physical world is not actually what the “Fall” was about, but that’s another story).

    Church “philosophers” like Aquinas and especially Augustine brought a lot of confusion into the Church, and their followers often are the biggest critics of their opponents for using “human philosophy”.

    So then:

    The ultimate proof against all sexual sin, including homosexuality is the Word of God, not the potential consequences of it, but taking some of these as confirmatory measures that the Word of God is especially right wouldn’t be the ultimate proof, but additional confirmation, especially that Romans 1 predicts, that sexual sin, particularly men with men, women leaving the natural use of women, those people that do deviate from that natural norm will receive the recompense (consequence) of their error (sin), which was meet (fit). “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.” Of course the LGBT community has to play literary gymnastics to get around this verse.

    ///take God’s opposition to the Tower of Babel as solid scriptural “proof” modern skyscrapers are ungodly./// Humans tend to extrapolate, but scripture denotes that the Tower of Babel was built as a measure of pride and power for humanity in opposition to God’s will, so although we can’t say that the building of a skyscraper is in itself a sinful thing, liking it to the tower, since God’s Word doesn’t tell us to make that analogy to all big buildings, from the principle of the tower, and prescriptions and warnings in the Word, we could know that anything we wrought for power and pride reasons that are leaving God out for man’s own reasons, would probably be sinful, so we shouldn’t do it. The biblical principle is “whether ye eat, drink, or whatsoever ye do, do it all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10). Mankind in general with our sinful nature doesn’t follow this principle, so there are all kinds of things we do that would be self motivated, selfish, powercraving and sinful. If one builds or creates anything with it being a sign of their power, strength, autonomy, leaving God and his will out, then it would be a rebellious action, whatever it was.

    ///Meanwhile, they go on to claim this whole “nature” is “corrupted”, and set to be “destroyed” and replaced. /// Not sure you are a Christian here given you attack them; however, Romans 8 and 2 Peter 3 makes it clear this creation will be destroyed, so it is not what we say that matters, but what God’s Word says. “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness”

    // So then, why would “natural’ vs “unnatural” be so important?// Your question is rhetorical, suggesting that this is not a proper contrast to make, but the Word of God makes it, perhaps you are not a Bible believer, I don’t know, but Scripture makes it. “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.” (Romans 1:27). Leaving the natural use of the women, Paul implies, is a bad thing. Hence, the idea is that nature is correct, the way God intended it biologically for us to express our bodies intimately in that context. Hence, you don’t understand the nuances of natural and what is meant by it. It is used differently depending on context, as many of the terms we use today are; there is nothing inherently wrong, or contradictory in doing so. So for example, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14). So let’s put it together. God creates the universe, nature, man sins, so God curses creation (Genesis 3), it affects nature, so it is subject to degeneration and death, including animals, thus animals no longer behave in ideal ways in many instances the way they would if there was no curse and fall, but now are a dog-eat-dog instinct, and other behaviors which weren’t necessarily going to manifest, all caused by the fall. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). So death not only passes to man, but death comes into the world period, so it affects all of creation, so much that it needs to be restored and will at the end of the world when Christ comes again, but when he restores it, he has to destroy this corrupt universe by fire and recreate it in a new heavens and earth, that will never be subject to death and sin and corruption and only those who are saved, knowing Christ will dwell there, while the unbelievers will have to pay for their sin outside under eternal damnation. However, God original creation (nature) as God created it was all good (Genesis 1), so there was no imperfection before the fall, no death, pain, suffering, no evil, no corruption; so God’s creation in its initial condition and all of the nature in creation was very good, but after sin, it messed it up some so it needs restoration, which comes at end of world, but even in its fallen state, we still can learn of God’s ideal ways he created nature, since there are many remains of the good in his creation, so we have beautiful flowers, wonderful trees, great seas, amazing animals, etc. all of which point us to God’s design and existence. “ For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” (Romans 1:20). Hence, nature, even though corrupted, we still can learn of many of God’s truths, so nature in that sense still has vestiges of good and that includes in biology and biological attractions, which normally are opposite sex attractions, in fact, those are the means that God allows procreation, so aside from asexual reproduction that is the manner he used to allow life forms to come to be, with male, female sexual relationships, so in that sense it is natural; homosexual relations don’t procreate, so are not the natural measures for life, and by and large the attractions are hetero, so in that sense natural too, but when people start lusting after same sex relations, they are going against natural according to what the apostle Paul says in that sense, so he uses that example to show the sinful depravity of mankind, who he says have these lusts because of their unthankfulness and idolatry of putting the creation/creature (man) ahead of God; when we do that we enhance lust for the wrong things and so we sin, and hence the consequences of death. ‘For the wages of sin is death..” God commands us to repent and surrender our lives to Christ, who died for our sins, so we wouldn’t have to go to hell if we receive him as Lord and Savior, so we can get into the new heavens and earth, after God destroys this creation, which is still good, but not perfect; it’s corrupt and we have bodies and universe that are natural and there still remains many good things in them, and but because of our sinful nature, they are subject to physical corruption and death and they are also our body is a sin factory naturally now, something not part of God’s original creation of them in their initial natural state, so now naturally due to the sinful nature,, in that sense, the natural man is bad since he in his sinful nature doesn’t receive the spiritual things of God’s word as they are foolishness’ to him. So in the sense of God’s original biology pre-sin and even post fall for the good that remains in our biology, natural is good, but in the sense that our bodies got a sinful nature, so reject God, natural is a bad thing. The sense of natural in Romans 1 with sexual biology natural and creation is good and unnatural is bad. It just depends on his focus, so too it depends on our focus or context of how we are using nature, the distinction being over the original intention of biology by God, vs. the fallen nature due to our sin. There is no contradiction or inconsistency when we discern the contextual sense of natural.

    I have noted that conservative Christians often bounce back and forth between “Because the Bible says so”, and “natural” arguments, and one fills in for the other when the other turns out not to be strong enough; when in reality, one or the other (particularly scripture) should suffice on its own, if the argument being drawn from it were really strong enough. “Old line fundamanentalists” have done the same exact thing when trying to prove contemporary music (including Christian) is “ungodly”. Yes, one can be taken as “confirming” the other, but this often ends up as being filtered through “confirmation bias”.

    Yes, in this comment, I have not made known my full range of beliefs (sorry if I sound too critical of “Christians”, but I feel they are the ones who are quick to “other” people who deviate on certain doctrines many agree on), but I hold something caled the “fulfilled view” which is an extension of “preterism” (the view that all of those scruptures on future judgment, such as Peter) have been fulfilled already, and were describing the end of the old “age” (“world”) of the Old Covenant system, when the Temple was destroyed in AD70. Christ had said all of this would occur while some of His listeners were still living (Matt.16:28), and the real “gymnastics” has been the standard “futurist” Christians extending this somehow to our future, thousands of years later!
    So the Law may have condemned homosexuality, just like it condemned pork and shellfish as food, working on the 7th day sabbath, mixed fabrics, and even menstruation and leprosy were considered “unclean”.

    So then Romans 1 is describing people under this Law (they were “SHOWN” all “that may be known of God”; this is SPECIAL, not “general” revelation!) who did these things, and continue into chapter 2 (where Paul directly addresses who he’s speaking to in v17), they even went as far as to judge over these things, as they still did them themselves (v1-3, 21-23; sound familiar today?) THAT is what was so odious! Neither LGBT critics, nor even defenders, have picked up this important context to the passage! (And this “overlap” is clearly seen in v7, where works are clearly tied to salvation.* Paul later in the book shows that salvation must be by grace, but the dispensations of works and grace were overlapping, and one had to choose grace (through faith in Christ) to be saved, until the Old age ended. The problem has been the later Church extending this “tension” of the two ages to the present!

    *(I will be taking more note of Romans 2:7, after reading this article which cites numerous Church fathers using this and other verses to prove Hell, and the Catholic/Orthodox Church certainly takes these as evidence of salvation by works! [Or interpreting “Grace” as basically synonymous with works]. This is why in Protestantism and the numerous sects it has spawned, there is such dispute in both “faith vs works”, as well as “eternal security vs perserverance”. It’s not understanding the overlap of covenants that leads to this unresolvable confusion!)

    As for skyscrapers, people could argue that they naturally are born out of man’s pride and power. Building taller and taller ones has even been surmised as some phallic symbol! So someone arguing against them would have just as seemingly “strong” a “scriptural” argument, and that what we’re doing today is the same as what the original Babel builders were doing —if nothing more than on a subconscious level, like they argue regarding other sins, or “man’s sinfulness” in general! It would be the same cyclical argument as music; where the element being criticized is treated as if it causes the sin, but when this is challenged, then the argument switches to the element being borne of sin!

    And while hetero is the norm, there are still many things that fall outside that norm, like intersexuality. You may ascribe that to “the Fall”, but these are people, who are more than just aggregates of “fallen” natural elements. And then, in the final “perfect” state, most believe there won’t even be sex at all, according to what Christ told the Sadducees. That’s part of why I mentioned the whole thing about “nature” being “corrupted”. I wasn’t ignoring the “nuances” of what “natural” means. So then the hetero “norm” can’t be all that we have made it out to be, at least to the extent of condemning people for not conforming to it).

    Meanwhile, on Twitter, there was another post poking fun at Ken Ham’s rainbow-bathed ark, and I commented:

    Look at it this way; the Law (Leviticus, etc.) may have condemned homosexual acts, but the “rainbow” of Noah, being about God’s promise to mankind (Grace), foreshadowed the removal of condemnation, which was by the Law (and which still had some authority in NT times).

    Someone with the word “discernment’ in his name responded:

    “Sure, do mental gymnastics to avoid the fact of sin.”
    [So we see, this “gymnastics” term is going to be tossed back and forth a lot in this issue!]

    I point out that People telling us to keep the sabbaths and dietary laws say the same thing. The Law was given for a particular purpose, which was filled in Christ. We think its purpose was to control behavior through fear, but that didn’t work under the OC, and that was the lesson of the Gospel.

    “If you think that’s the lesson of the gospel, you’re missing a lot – Matthew 10:28 is just one of many that directly contradicts what you’re saying here, and the NT had plenty to say about sexual immorality.”

    Christ is saying that to His disciples, and note v23! The “end” occurred in their lifetimes (also, esp. 16:28) The NT period was an overlap of the covenants, and we have only extended this indefinitely (hence all the ongoing condemnation), but the Old was to end back then.

    • This takes me back to over a decade ago, on Christian forums, where some people (especially those aiming to correct others over the Law) produce massive walls of text (one comment, over 5000 words!), as if this indicates some sort of theological/scriptural depth. I can no longer break these things down point by point (and this now takes place on a narrow Medium comment space), but with my new set of beliefs, can issue sorter (relatively) summaries of the whole issue, as the traditionalists are operating off of a small number of common fallacies and assumptions.
      It any case, it sharpens my own arguments, seeing how they will be responded to!
      [Edit: it just became too much to quote the whole comments as I had started to do above, so I’ll just include the prominent points.]

      {•To my mentioning how Christians are quick to “other” people; responds with how the left, (including “communists”, etc) “cancel” people they disagree with;
      •”You are siding with what much of the world is saying; red flags should go up right there for you, given what the Bible says about the world; conformity to the world is not good biblically, especially when it is saying Christians have been wrong, yet siding with LGBT, abortion, global warming and all the other things the progressives are for, cancelling others who disagree is conforming to the world.”
      •”There are those who externally identify as Christians but have never truly surrendered their life to Christ as Lord and Savior. But because Jesus is included in some way they think it is true Christianity; it is not. It makes me very suspicious of those who claim Christian status, yet are siding with so many traditional anti-Christian doctrines.
      Seriously, how many homosexuals do you think have surrendered to Christ? If not, they are under the law, including the guilt for breaking God’s sexual prohibiitons as we all would be, being unsaved
      •Preterism is false doctrine: “when Jesus is talking about the temple destruction prophecy, it has different nuances”. “Yet, this is the foundation you use to justify homosexuality; if the foundation crumbles, there is no basis for the doctrines built upon it.”
      •More on universality of Law, typical split between “moral” and “ceremonial”, and how Rom.1 is for everyone; “doesn’t even mention those ceremonial laws of the Mosaic covenant, there is nothing from Paul about mixing fabrics, leprosy law, sacrificial, dietary laws, and ye you erroneously concluded that the homosexuality mention was akin to those type of prohibitions”, which were strictly to “to give them and us pictures of the need for separation from sin or holiness and Christ’s atoning death”]

      We need to be careful that we don’t give ascendency and authority of our strong sexual urges, so we start reinterpreting scripture to justify it; that would be ad hoc and probably take us down a wrong path, especially given the powerful drives of sex. Keep in mine the LGBT community has really fought against the biblical worldview, so I would venture to say many of them don’t probably know the Lord, but when we put our passions/desires above God’s Word, then we become willing servants to them, rather than to Christ, something Romans 6 as believers we need not be anylonger, given our new identity in Christ being new creatures, thus sin not having to have dominion over us, thus us not having to yield to them. Our theology should not be formed by our sexual practices and desires, but our sexual urges and doctrines should be informed by our theology. LGBT has done the former. But this violates the spirit of Romans 6, since they are servants to their sexuality. That is not God’s will for anybody. We don’t have ot act on urges, whether natural or unnatural. Let the Word be authority over urges because it is from God and it is right.

      As far as intersexuality is concerned, it is a result of the fall, because sin corrupts nature, but even with such, there is a definite means to tell biologically, even Richard Dawkins knew there are only 2 sexes, male and female, you got the Y chromosome (male) or not. There is no other option. There are other characteristics that may blend, but there is definitely in all people a prominence of one set of sexual features over another and given the genetics of x,y chromosomes, there is a definite true gender. Also, we don’t judge these things by abnormalities. Jesus, Moses, Paul all mentioned only 2 genders with humans, and I quoted them, “from the beginning.. God created them male and female..” He didn’t say male, female, trans, pans, cis, intersex. I’m sure you will come up with literary gymnastics to get around that too, but I could do the same thing then. I could justify polygamy, adultery, murder, rape, incest or anything else I want if I twist scripture to my liking, I could even justify gay bashing, racism, etc. by doing twisting scripture. We need to be careful we don’t dodge and dance about some obvious teachings because our own sinful tendencies to rather not be that way.

      Talk about “foundations”; your whole argument (and the traditional view) is all based on an assumption of this division between “moral“ and “ceremonial” law, with only the ceremonial ending, and the moral being universal. But Paul makes no such distiction. When addressing the Law he was contrasting to Grace, he mentions the Ten Commandments (the universal “moral” and “spiritual“ commands). He shows that all any of it does for sinners is condemn. Making it Law by “conscience”, the same thing. Nothing has changed since Christ, then. It’s the fear method of “fix your behavior, or else!” It’s not grace, and not based on love. (And leaders like Calvin go on to say such fear based acquiescence doesn’t save anyway, but they continue to insist on using fear).
      And sure enough, you have condemned these people, and have denied or seriously questioned that any of them might be following Christ or “surrendered” to God, based on that point of the Law. So, salvation then is by the works of the “moral” rather than the “ceremonial” law. (All people have done is try to change it to “evidence” of salvation rather than ‘gaining’ salvation, but that ends up as semantics). The result is exactly the same! The vast majority of man condemned, even if they profess faith in Christ!

      What fulfilled the Law was “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. A same sex couple is not violating this. Ignoring this and going back to point by point specific commands to condemn people and expect that fear of condemnation is what will maintain moral order is the common assumption. But it doesn’t work. People still sin, and even those preaching against sin will bend the rules and condone all manner of evil; but even there, many will still fall). And again, this is exactly what the Israelites under the Law were doing, and Paul was discussing in Romans.

      Yes, Rom. 1 and 2 leads to 3 building up his point that ALL have sinned, but it was the Israelites who were claiming to keep the Law and thus not be “sinners” like the Gentiles, and thus judged others with it, while still breaking it themselves. (And thus were ultimately, just another slice of humanity, subject to the same fallen condition), That was the point Paul was making.

      And then, you’re perpetually at war with the world, as you even seem to advocate. Yet, when the world fights back, you claim to be persecuted, even though it is not real persecution like in the Bible. So just them pushing back is seen as them making war and opposing God, and we’re left with this ‘presuppositional’ stance that “We’re just right, now do as we say; you’re the villains here!” as if “sin” has made them forfeit even having the right to push back against people trying to control their behavior. This is what people feel threatened by, and why their response is often “cancellation”. You claim the world is taking the offensive against you, but then based on this, many Christians take a counteroffensive, yet try to frame it as defensive, yet the whole claim by many is “you godless have taken our nation/culture, and we’re taking it back!”
      Sorry, that’s not like the faithful in the Bible, but rather more like those Israelites who opposed Christ, trying to defend their “kingdom”. Many Christians have shown that the reason they are so fixated on homosexuals and their private lives is not so such trying to save their souls, but rather saving “the nation“, including from them. (“They’re causing God to remove our blessings”, etc.)

      And BTW, our allegiance is to be to Christ and His Word, not to an institution called “Christianity“ or “Christendom” that is not even named as such in scripture. That’s why I criticize “them” [but sometimes do include myself with them as “us”/“our”]. The way some preach, we need to ask who’s side THEY are on. Especially with the lack of unity in other areas, and which they all claim are based on “clear scriptural teaching”, and even “nature”, as the whole criticism of CCM by the fundamentalists, I mentioned. And even the “global warming” issue is “against Christ?” Talk about a “nature” argument! All the pollution for the sake of capitalism, is not only OK, and on God’s side, but has no effect on the environment at all! And I guess Trump is on God’s side too, since many Christians favor him; and opposing him is against God, right?
      The Israelites likely felt Christ was siding with the “the ungodly world” of gentiles and errant countrymen and half-breeds, rather than they, as “God’s chosen people“! ”The world” is not just about “nonChristian” morality and beliefs, but rather ANY focus on man and his righteousness, and compared to others.
      BTW also, I’m solidly straight, and so not trying to justify giving in to any “urges”; and also lifelong monogamous, and was celibate until marriage as well. I’ve rigorously followed “morality” and used to believe like you, but then saw how many of these people also tried to force themselves to be straight, and how sinful all of us still are, no matter how hard we try, or which points of the Law we struggle with.

      As for multiple fulfillment, I used to believe in that, and with a variant called “idealism”, some things can loosely apply, but Christ said the end of the age He described was coming in their lifetimes. He wasn’t talking over them, to us centuries later. The disunity and confusion in the Church (with all special revelation removed, and everyone arguing different things from the same scriptures and accusing even each other of sin) should show that age was never supposed to go on for this long.
      And if sex is only for this life, it still disproves the argument making its assignments universal, when by your own admission, they’re temporary. The only thing that is universal (regarding God) is love.

      [continues; insists “homosexual love is lust”, and throws in their high suicide and drug use rates, and how the Law and the Gospel is for man’s own [practical] good. “The best way to show kindness is give them the gospel…so they can be free or sexual sin’s bondage, which is hurting them in many unforeseen ways, whether they realize it or not. If they reject the gospel then we can’t ultimately help them, neither can God since they would have rejected God’s solution for sin in favor of sexaul pleasure, which then becomes an idol. This is not just true for their sin, but all people’s sin, including other types of sexual sin that is rampant in our society.”]

      Your whole argument is framed on concepts like “permitted”, “allowed”, and forbidden “pleasures”, which is still thinking legalistically, and you’re still making an unbiblical division of “moral” and “ceremonial” law, when Paul in Romans 7 discusses the “oldness of the letter”, and how it brings “death”, and this is not just a “ceremonial” law, as the example he gives is: “I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (v.7). Why? He continues i v 8: “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.” (so yes, “sin is transgression of the Law”). This is precisely what your argument misses, thinking preaching a “moral” law at others is the way to “love” them (which insinutes they will be saved by obeying it; hence, you’re doing them such a big favor!) Paul shows, this only makes the people all the more rebellious against it. They are then more likely to be lost, if God didn’t step in with real grace!

      Your argument is that lawgiving (by God) is “loving” us, and lawkeeping (by us, often in practice motivated by fear of judgment) is “loving” Him; but what kind of love is “Do this for your own good; or else!”? (It’s more like human dysfunctional parenting, rather than God).
      My argument regarding the Law is about “condemnation”; not the “pleasures” it forbade. (A person can deny all the pleasures, and still end up condemned, right?) People are going to indulge in those things regardless. Even those who try to keep the Law will struggle and fall. Everyone would be lost if judged this way! (which is why I bring up the different Church groups judging even each other; hence the lack of unity. All the Lawkeeping in the world is not solving this! ) You can still Love God and obey Him youself, without placing everyone else under such a burden!

      Again, you (and all others arguing your position) are hung up on what’s “permitted”, like God has called you to police everyone’s behavior. (I for one thing never even mentioned fornication, adultery, abortion, etc. You just threw every form of “pleasure” or “freedom” into the pot, as that’s what this is about).

      Also, “Homosexual sex is not love, it is lust.”; you cannot determine that for them, and you’re the one making the orientation all about just “sex”. Once again, this total focus all on “pleasure”. Again, the church is totally hung up on this, when it comes to other people. Something is totally wrong with that. It looks like people are trying to repress something within themselves, (as we see when you have “reparations therapy” advocates coming out as gay themselves eventually, and people falling into child molestation). If one does struggle with that, it’s one thing, but it is unfair (and certainly not from God) to project that onto other people!

      And the higher suicide, depression, guilt, shame, fear is from the incredible pressure put on them by others, especially Christian families. Them knowing and dreading what’s going to happen if they come out, and trying to hide, and even conform (some “pleasure” they are engaging in; all just to fulfil an “urge”!) Children are even thrown out of their houses at young ages! While well off Christians in the US complain of being “persecuted” or “cancelled”, many LGBT people are suffering closer to that. And then, as I said, many of them go and try to be straight, still to no avail! Some parents even essentially pimp them out to try to make them straight! A top Focus on the Family leader threw his daughter out and completely covered up any connection to her. Why, if it’s her “sin”, and not his? If anything, you would think he would all the more put that out there as a “testimony” of a big “trial” he had to suffer.

      But across the board, we see this inordinate obsession with this. You can not tell me this is what God wants, from His people! The objection I have been voicing is not as much about them, and their “pleasures”, but about the Church, and its obsession! (And which I’m expected to go along with. I was against this even back when I did use to condemn homosexuality!)

      Somewhere in there, I add:
      What Paul is describing there is not a homosexual ORIENTATION (which is what the debate today is about). These were STRAIGHT people, and ones who claimed to keep the Law, and even preached it to others (ch.2) then falling into the practices, strictly out of “lust”; CONTRARY to their normal orientation. That was what was so odious. It’s more comparable to people today who preach against it and then fall into it themselves. Or like the whole prison rape scenario, where normally straight men turn on each other. The problem is, that we’ve generalized this to everyone else (in an obsessive fashion), and not listened to the individual people’s own accounts of coming out.

      Continuing on Law, then:

      Your whole principle then must hinge on the fact that LGBT isn’t truly a bad thing, but Paul makes it clear it is in every sense of the word with his negative description of it, unlike any of the ceremonial laws. You are dispensationalizing Paul’s description of LGBT, but he speaks of it in in current negative terms, not something negative of the past only. So your whole basis for rejecting the moral law is to save homosexuality only, but it fails, and if your whole basis of your theology to claim we don’t have to obey specific moral laws of God in our current dispensation is to exempt LGBT, then your theology is flowing around homosexuality, rather than your views of homosexuallity flowing from theology. This is clearly idolatry in the way you are interpreting scripture. You simply don’t have any other motive to claim laws of God are not binding us. If it was only murder, rape, etc. you would be fine with the moral law, but it is because LGBT was mentioned in the context of other morally bad things that you changed your theology. That is not a sound hermeneutical foundation.

      I already explained that the people described there are not really gay in the sense of [most of] the people we’re talking about today. So it’s not just about the “past” (the covenants), but also, a particular group of people (who were actually not truly “LGBT”) in a particular situation (under the written Law, preaching it to others, but breaking it themselves), that Paul was addressing there.

      You’re still fixating on “permission” and “not have to obey” now, even though I don’t think I even ever spoke in those terms. The only thing I’m “dispensationalizing” is the condemnation of the Law. (So you explained correctly that Paul says it is “good”, but since we are sinful, it can only bring something bad to us). And the Law being our tutor is not about continuously judging ourselves and others with it to find Christ or ‘see our need for salvation’, as you appear to be implying now. Paul is explaining WHY it was given in the first place. Paul and the others of his day were the ones coming out from under the Old Covenant, and brought to Christ through it. So then, “AFTER faith is come, we are NO LONGER under a tutor.” (v.25) Salvation is “finished”.

      As for knowing one is sinful and needs Christ, there is when “conscience” (with or without the Law) enters the picture, as described in the next chapter. (Recall, our whole problem from the Fall stems from shame, and the felt need to cover ourselves]. But that’s not going to give the written details we are discussing; conscience will basically be the bare essence: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. That’s why “stealing, killing”, etc. would still be “sin” [i.e. “missing the mark”]. Who wants those things done to them? (But many “Judeo-Christians” following the Law have still managed to find loopholes to justify doing those things, and people today even claim they were ‘godly’ because of stuff like outward sexual morality! That’s another reason “the letter” is shown to be ineffectual).

      You’re being really presumptuous in telling me the only reason I believe this is to “exempt” LGBT and wouldn’t believe it if it were only about murder, rape, etc. WOW! My position does spring from theology, as I believed like you, and then judged myself by the Law and found I never measured up. I never did [nearly] ANY of those things you keep mentioning [except lying, lazy of course], but if we were still judged by behaviors, I would still be lost! I would catch myself thinking as if I weren’t as bad as murderers, rapists, etc. (yes, it’s so easy to apply the Law to them!), and even homosexuals, but then realized this was self-righteousness. I eventually realized full, true grace, and only well after that, did my view on homosexuals change, out of consistency. (And especially when I went and listened some of their testimonies. And unlike some who opposite of what you accused me of; only seem to hold onto the Law because of homosexuality and other sexual behaviors, but otherwise say wholesale it’s “abrogated”. Again, you’re really caught up in this “allowing sin” thing).

      So in that way, “the Law brought me to Christ” In an individual sense), as you said, but in this age, I never should have been placing myself under the Law like that to begin with; but then I was following the conventional teachings (as well as aberrant groups such as the sabbatarians, which really aren’t as different as one may think, in some aspects of this issue)!

      Again, you’re hung up on this thing about someone trying to get LGBTs “off the hook”, but thats coming from you; not me —or them either!

      GRACE is that even though there may be “ideal” ways God wants us to behave, or an ideal “natural” design, NONE of us measures up to them. Then, we try to separate diferent ways in which we fail to measure up, and claim some (namely, the ones we know we’re guilty of) are forgivable, while others forfeit any prospect of salvation, until you obey the Law! That’s what this issue is about!

      Now, poses a “question”:

      Please keep your conversation limited to my main question’s answer, not the rhetorical ones after it and let’s focus on that. If there is no answer you can provide, then for me the debate is effectively over in respect to justifying the actions and fantasies regarding homosexuality, irrespective of those other issues of the current application of the law, Christians judging and so forth, I have a main question and some follow up questions rhetorically posed and if you can answer the main question successfully biblically without begging the question, being arbitrary or gong outside of the Bible for your rationale, it would be helpful to your argument, which is where is there a biblical exception for regulation regarding sex and marriage as delineated throughout the Bible, but particularly with Jesus and Paul’s mandates on those subjects (Mark 10: 6-10 and 1 cor 6:18-7:2) based on on an exceptional group, such as being “gay” or “homosexual”, or a group “being born that way” so they are now exempt?

      So why is it everybody else, except them, or all instances, but that? Why can’t I be exempt if they are? Why can’t I join them so I could be exempt, so to do whatever I Iike sexually too as they are able to do?

      The subject of Paul’s discussion is a group of people; people who ONCE KNEW God (v21). The world of “lost” gentiles are considered “not knowing” God. (1 Thess.4:5) Chapter 2 continues the discussion, and he then directly reveals that he’s talking about carnal Israel. (v17; and then afterwards saying they were judging others with commandments of the Law, but not keeping it themselves, and then mentioning circumcision as well). You’re focused on behaviors, but Paul is focusing on people, and then mentioning behavior they were engaging in, in supporting his point.

      Your question is totally moot, because as I keep saying, you’re completely fixated on “exemptions” and “justifying the actions and fantasies regarding homosexuality”. I never said any of this. You’re completely missing the point, because this fixation is blinding you (and many others) to it, and you end up “reading” stuff that is not even there!

      The last thing I said in the last comment was “GRACE is that even though there may be ‘ideal’ ways God wants us to behave, or an ideal “natural” design, NONE of us measures up to them. Then, we try to separate different ways in which we fail to measure up, and claim some (namely, the ones we know we’re guilty of) are forgivable, while others forfeit any prospect of salvation, until you obey the Law! That’s what this issue is about!” (And I had mentioned ways people preaching the Law end up finding loopholes, and they are the ones who match your example of what Christ saud about the fifth commandment. This is a perfect case in Paul’s point, of them preaching the Law while violating it themselves!

      So you (and others) are the ones who have singled homosexuality out with these fixations (and frankly, obsession with it), not me. You’re coming at the issue from the wrong direction. It’s not “exempting” one group, the Gospel is grace being given to ALL!

      (It’s those who think they’re keeping the right parts of the Law, or “trying”, and then and only then are sins forgiven, who are exempting themselves, and this is where the fixation on thinking everyone else is trying to get over and be “exempt” comes from!)

      [Goes into the “general revelation” aspect of the Rom.1 argument. Even acknowleges we are “all over the place”, and seems to want to end the discussion, but resumes, and keeps writing these long comments]

      I am not condemn people for having urges, but it is sinful to act or lust on them, whatever capacity it be. [later edited out]” You don’t like me emphasizing the homosexual thing over other things, but there is a reason for that, to me and many Christians symbolize the rejction of the biblial worldview, you might not like that we believe this, but we do. Of course, with the acceptance of premarital sex, society went naturally towards other sexual sins, porn, homoseuality, and so many others, you name it, we got it, so it may not have started with homosexuality in our culture, but it progressed to it. It is a signs of the time. Sorry you don’t like my emphasis on it, but I do believe it is symbolic of our ongoing rejection of the biblical ideals. Yes, grace is important, focusing on that, I get it, we are in a fallen world, so focus on Christ, but honestly, we don’t have to like sin or what’s going on in the world. God never told us to lay off our upsetness toward sin, and LGBT is not the only sin obviously, there are many others, you might think Christians like myself are too fixated on that issue, thus become judgemental, but it is hard to sit back and see society crumble before our eyes and say nothing. You have your focus, but I have the freedom to have mine. If I am upset by it, then I could be, that’s my personality.

      So as figures, you appeal to “general revelation”, as proving the passage is addressing all sinners for all times. But general revelation, while giving evidence of an “intelligent designer” does not IN ITSELF point to a SPECIFIC “personal” entity, who is “Father”, and has specific rules He wants us to follow, and has a Son who died to forgive us when we break those laws. All of that is from special and then scriptural revelation. Once you have those revelations, THEN you can recognize His glories in the created order, as being from Him.
      People can often point out how many things in life/the universe seem to contradict this, such as how violent and amoral the universe can be, and then we’re forced to acknowledge this and go from this passage speaking of what’s “SEEN”, to say it’s “fallen”, and citing another scripture saying to NOT look at what’s “seen”. Then we even say, there’s no physical “certainty”; it’s by “FAITH”. But by now, you’ve gone way beyond that “general revelation” premise back into something that can only be determined by scriptural revelation. (This only makes sense under Augustine and Calvin’s belief that God confounds the evidence to deceive the “reprobates”). The people there are not being condemed for lack of “faith” in the “UNseen”.

      The CONTEXT of Romans (you have to look AFTER the passage in question too) is people given SPECIAL revelation; being “SHOWN” something, which can be SEEN. They were given the Law, so the SPOTLIGHT in the Gospel story was on THEM, and yet they broke the Law they were given and acted like every other group of men (that’s why their behaviors are mentioned there), and that was the whole lesson of the Gospel. (The Law system was shortly after removed, and THAT is why we cannot condemn people today for everything that was included in the Law. That’s why the general principle that remains is the Golden Rule, and still, we cannot place salvation on it, for it would still be by “works”).

      The sexual overfocus comes from a Christendom heavily influenced by the likes of Augustine, who projected his own guilt from his preconversion life into the Gospel (instead of letting the Gospel remove his guilt). So by the time of our modern societies, the Church figured it had sin under control through fear (condemnation) preaching, but it went to unbiblical extremes, (sex even IN hetero marriage was at one point still seen as ‘dirty’ and society was seen as “godly” based on its “modesty” while all sorts of other evils were condoned) and the general society got tired of it and rebelled. So then all forms of sexual behavior became accepted, and the Church reacted to this loss of their POWER, and homosexuality was simply “the last taboo” that has come to the fore now. That is the progression you have addressed. But the Church was not biblical the whole time, because of trying to control sin through fear and shame (which were the original RESULTS of the Fall; not the cures to them!)

      “The Spirit will fix your behavior” (and then you’ll have the right to claim salvation) is salvation by works. And in practice, it never works out the way it sounds. The fact you mention how “hard” it is [i.e. “struggle”], shows that. So it becomes about “struggling” with it for the rest of your life, and then you’ve basically “proven” yourself fit for Heaven. And now, you have the “Side A/B/X/Y” system, where no matter how hard you try (even to be an “X” and enter a hetero marriage), someone will still come along and say you’re not “straight” enough, and thus “denying the power of the Spirit”. You, for example, appear to advocate Side B; “just resist the urges”, but Side Y will still accuse you of “denying the power” for granting it to people to still have them. Everyone is trying to clean out sin in others, and that is not what the Gospel calls us to do. If “grace” is about “hard” work, then it is NO MORE GRACE.
      The “power” of the Spirit was the RIGHT to be children of God, even while yet sinners, (and with others come and rub the “sin” in through the Law). “Walking in the Spirit” means trusting in Christ’s forgiveness, and not in your own works, which are what’s of the “flesh”, and thus leads to this endless “struggle”, while we condemn others.

      General revelation is the first step, so all do know God in a sense from it, but yes, you do need special revelation for details, but general revelation is enough with conscience for us all to know God, and have known him. That is it is sufficient in the sense that from it, it should cause one to seek the Lord, glorify the creator, seek his ways, that is if we didn’t have a sinful nature, we all would, hands down from those 2 things alone, and even with a sinful nature, creation, conscience, should easily drive men to seek the Lord, and as such, there is where God reveals his truth more clearly (Jer 29:13), as we seek God with whole heart, we will find him, and thus God will then reveal the special revelation from the Word of God, to provide for us all of the finetuned details we need to safely have a relationship with God, thus God makes himself known by many avenues, specifically creation, conscience, the word, holy spirit, congregation of lord (OT-Israel, nt-church), Paul starts with general revelation, to make the point we knew God in the sense of what has been revealed from it, even without a person specifically having access to a special revelation, even though one is available. Yet he faults humanity for our response, not glorifying God, not being thankful, etc. However, if we respond correctly, then yes special revelation is there for the taking, so God uses both, but even if a peson doesn’t have a Bible, he still should know, or has known in his conscience, heart, but bad responses suppress the knowledge of the truth. But once we go that path, Jew or gentile, then or now, we will go toward sin, and Paul gives a list of them, including sexual sin, but if we by God’s grace, and his plan of salvation draw us and we respond via free will/ or predestination, or whatever means special revelation is there to fill in the gap, and special revelation (the Bible) gives us clear authentication that creation and conscience indeed points to God, so we have written verbal testimony to confirm our original inclinations, and yes you do need special revelation as confirmatory evidence that what you perceived in creation and with conscience truly was on the right track

      The second point is where our impasse is, for I believe what you describe for believers has now been expanded to the rest of the world. That was the “Blessed Hope”, the total removal of all condemnation. What we call the “New Testament” is really the “transition” period, where we have a “tension” between the old and the new existing side by side, with the Old “passing away”; where grace was being established, and they had a “deposit” (“earnest”) on it, but still had to manually “get” themselves “covered“, like in the OT, but now through “faith” in Christ, and showing it through behavior. This was to last “shortly” (to “the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel”), and extending it for thousands of years has caused nothing but confusion. For all special revelation has been removed, and yet other forms of revelation still do not clear this up but have made everything more cloudy, as I shall explain. Saying the “falling away” is now, presumes the Church had it all together throughout history (based on select “commandments” people imagine were actually being obeyed, like the sexual ones), but history itself shows otherwise.
      And I know that I’m the one “out in left field” on this one, but then the majority has been wrong before in the Church.

      Your “progressive revelation” (the “steps”) is still this “give and take” situation (DO something to GET something; ultimately, salvation, from God), and thus. is still, ultimately, a form of “works” (especially, again, when people STILL speak of it being “hard”).
      And I don’t think even this “general revelation” or even conscience necessarily gives any sense of a need to “call out” to anyone, and besides, when people do call out, they often get “answered” by some other “god” (which usually is shaped by what others around them already believe), or even some aberrant form of the Chistian God. The “cults” will all say the same things you’re saying, yet believe vastly different “gospels” and christologies. Then, you all just accuse each other of “not really” calling out to God, because you just wanted to “hold onto your sin”, or “human reason”, etc.

      This shows to me (and the rest of the world) that “general revelation” is totally futile. As for conscience, people teaching this will quickly dismiss it as ‘unbiblical’ or even claim it is “seared” when it doesn’t measure up to their convictions (again, the fundamentalists do this to the new evangelicals all the time). It can be too “weak” (overly strict) as well. So that’s even MORE ambiguous and problematic! If THIS is what God is holding man up to, then He really is setting it up to condemn the majority of man, and there are some, notably among the radical Calvinists, who essentially believe that (for it “glorifies” Him).
      The Golden Rule is actually less “arbitrary” or ambiguous than these other means, which can easily be spun and skewed as I have been showing.

      The ultimate proof in my own experience, is that it was both “conscience” and even “general revelation” that told me deep down inside that I had no warrant to be telling others they were going to Hell for not believing, and holding that position (i.e. the mandate tell people that) was largely out of my own guilt, self-righteousness and frustration at the world. The scriptural term “shortly” spoke against a still “future” end of the physical world. So perhaps other instances of what were assumed to be “clear scripture“ (such as “turn or burn” for all men in all times) were still being misunderstood. I fought against all this inside for over 20 years (and steadily asking God for “the truth”) until stumbling across this more biblical view (at first, debating against it!) that fit together those unanswered points and explained the whole thing much better than the conventional views. I was the one who felt like I was “suppressing the truth” in trying to hold onto evangelical “orthodoxy” all those years.
      You’ll have to now say that was the “flesh” or the devil, but now you’ve lost your whole “progressive revelation” argument. So then as I said, anyone else can call out and receive just about any “answer”. Anyone can just come and say something like that about someone else’s inner dialogue; and “YOU KNOW the Truth, which [happens to be] what I believe”. Neither side can prove or disprove it to the other; you can only “presuppose” based on your preconceived beliefs (which are also read into scripture!). It then gets into “gaslighting” (trying to get people to question their own experience of reality).

      Just like you say the church has “compromised” with the world, but others more strict than you will say the same thing about you. Who’s right? You may say ignore them and just listen to what God “says” to you, and the scriptures, and that’s what I’ve done. But you’ll say my conclusion is not strict enough, so I didn’t “really“ do those things, and we’re right back to where we’ve started!

      (And much of the “compromise” charge is about “modern preachers” abandoning the fear/shame approach, but what I said there was that those were the immediate REACTION to the Fall and not its cure, so the people leveling charges of “compromise“, and even blaming that for all the church’s problems, are way off base!
      The assumption regarding the current purpose of the Law and conscience is that all of life is a tug of war between God and man over behavior and particularly “pleasure”, with God’s entire purpose being to fix man’s behavior, so he can be essentially worthy of Heaven. The “difficulty” of all of this is plugged into it, like it was some form of partial punishment of our “sinfulness”, and “grace” is that if we go through it and give [this effort of the “will”] back to God, we can be spared from the full punishment. Hence, we still sin and are otherwise “imperfect”, such as all the disunity and quarreling, but as long as we’re “trying”, we show we’re ‘saved’, as then and only then does God “not count” our sins against us; —which is still an effort based system.
      All of this completely misunderstands what the Fall was really about, and again, the proof of this is this mechanical “process“ of being “changed“ in strictly behavioral terms. It ignores the “positional” nature of justification evangelical Protestantism claims to believe in).

      Romans 1 on the other hand says that “ALL THAT CAN BE KNOWN OF GOD” was “SHOWN” to them. This is not describing ambiguous “natural” evidence, and them simply not “calling out to Him” from that. It is more than just a “sense” of God! All that you described is NOT what is described there at all. It’s not them starting out NOT knowing, and then simply failing to ask to be “shown” more. So this is clearly SPECIAL revelation, and people have reinterpreted it as general in trying to come up with a stronger “empirical” argument against modern skeptics who say it can’t be proven.

      There is also common misconception on “the letter vs the spirit“, that “the letter” only represents the [literal] written Law (including the “ceremonial” parts we say are abolished), while the “spirit“ is “the Law written in our hearts”. But that really is still part of what Paul classifies under “the letter“, because he says the letter “kills”/brings death, while the spirit gives life. From the way you and others use “the spirit”, it’s what ultimately condemns us, and even more than the written commandments! (Esp. when you take Matt.7 into account). This “spirit of the law” (which in that verbatim form is actually a secular term and not biblical), ends up becoming “letter to the tenth power”! So it too is still ultimately “death“ to sinful man.

      I believe “the spirit” in contrast to “the letter” is to break out of this cycle I described above, and really trust in total “grace”, where the Spirit bears witness with our spirit we are children of God, and gives us that “right” (i.e. the “power”), despite our behavior, efforts, progress, right beliefs, etc. and religion’s accusations of us not believing or doing the right things to be “saved”. In 2 Cor.3, Paul now applies the “stone vs flesh” heart concept to the Law vs the Spirit. (v.3) Where before in the original prophecy of Ezekiel this was taken from, the “Spirit”-changed “hearts of flesh” would [hypothetically] be able to keep the “statutes and ordinances” [Law]; it is now revealed that the Law itself was what kept the hearts as stone in the first place! (And this was seen even more clearly in Rom. 7).
      We have both conscience, as well as civil law to maintain “order in society” (and of course, they are still imperfect, and people will still do whatever they want). Trying to use the divine Law and Gospel for that purpose [I’m speaking of “order”, not mere “conviction” at this point] misunderstands the purpose they were given, and has caused nothing but problems (even if it may have appeared to create “revivals” for short periods. They were fear-based and always led eventually to worse revolts).

      If all of you were understanding these things right, then there would be a unity in the professing Christian world. Either the Spirit and universal conscience will teach you the SAME things; the “One Truth”, or you cannot honestly use the concept to preach condemnation to the nonChristian world (for not having or obeying “the Spirit”), and that’s part of what convinces them that it’s just another human system (almost like as if “general revelation” were actually pointing the other direction! See how it can’t be trusted?). It is inconsistent to say “Oh, well, these lesser issues, God lets us have our disputes, but these OTHER ‘fundamental’ issues is what God has ‘shown’ all of us ‘all truth’ in”. No one even agrees on what the “fundamentals” are.
      The total removal of special revelation is what has shown me that it is because God’s Plan is truly complete. That’s the “Good News”; all of this other stuff is bad news!

      Now here we get an echo of that Reformed guy who criticized Horton’s Beyond Culture Wars, saying “so what if the wicked are offended by the Law?”

      ///•it doesn’t matter what the unsaved take is on it, or even our finite, sinful take onit is; it is God’s perspective that matters

      •You are getting too caught up on people’s potential response is; immaterial, it is ideally what God says it is, creation/conscience/HS external wooing/church’s witness is enough

      •You are misunderstanding. Creation reveals God’s existence, qualities, power, justice, thus it says nothing of you or anybody’s personal views regarding condemnation or hell;

      •The Word rightly understood works on conscience for finetuning.if not finetuned, the conscience still would be sufficient for condemnation based on general principles in which it knows, but could yield misapplication of those general moral law principles if misinformed;
      [blame “deemphasis of scripture, and pressure to conform to culture”,progressive Christianity, and being “without the finetuning agent of the full scope of scripture, or the whole council of God.”]

      •On your way of looking at things it implies that God either doesn’t exist or if he does, he can’t or doesn’t have influence over people…
      I can’t speak to other’s experiences, but only say what the Bible says, irrespective of other people’s even “Christians” points of view, that truth is discernible, we could know it, there is a right and wrong, and I can only speak to God’s true doctrines he has revealed to me
      However, even without special revelation or varying levels of it, as some would have less than others, God has shown it to them clearly enough, not ambiguously, enough for them to seek the Lord///

      People’s (“others”) “take on it“ or “responses” DO matter, because it is PEOPLE who are coming and saying all this stuff about God and salvation/condemnation, and it is PEOPLE we expect to hear us (and respond accordingly), and who’s perception we are making decisive in their own condemnation; whether of nature, conscience, or also (most importantly in this discussion), scripture. You yourself even admitted “revealed TO ME. Note that!
      God is no longer speaking directly from the mountaintop, or the cool of the Garden. (THAT is “unambiguous”; let’s not blur the meaning of the word). It’s all coming from and filtered by MEN and their INTERPRETATIONS of nature, conscience, “tidbits” of revelation passed down, and especially, scripture. And they are ALL skewed by their internal biases and preconceptions (or basically, their “sinfulness”). And they all (among the Christians) will claim that they have the Spirit guiding them, and have “rightly divided the Word of God”, and anyone with lesser convictions than theirs, are “deemphasizing scripture”. So as I’ve said, we’re right back to where we started.

      So if conscience “not so fine tuned” only condemns, then all we have is everyone potentially still under condemnation, with no objective way to determine who is right; who has truly “sought” God and had more truth revealed; who is rightly dividing the Word of God, and ultimately, who is saved. There is no Gospel (“Good News”), then. All anyone can do is maintain their perspective, and that they have found the whole truth and others are “misinformed”, based on what was “revealed” to THEM. And that’s what we see in the world and the Church.

      So it’s not that God doesn’t exist or doesn’t influence, but that MAN’s arguments for Him, as justifications of saying others are condemned, aren’t working. And there must be a reason in God’s plan of salvation for this.
      The scriptures you cite give the “ideal” (as you even admittedly call it). But the whole point of the revelation is that man never lives up to the ideals, right? So even a passage like the one in Hebrews and Jeremiah (addressed to Israel) must not be being understood right. Look at the “fruits”: everyone is claiming to have the Law written on their hearts, yet there’s no unity; only accusing each other of error. So that too is an ideal we don’t live up to, and thus can’t be used to say that others are “misinformed”,or showing that they are ‘lost’. I could justly appeal to this as the ultimate “general revelation”; of God “showing” us the doctrine is wrong (and its scripture “proof-texts”) are NOT being “rightly divided”!

      “Law in the heart” is STILL “Law”; and it still “kills” when you say “I have the Law on my heart, so [I prove] I’m ‘saved’; and others don’t, so they’re ‘lost’”! It’s still the “give and take” of “DO this, to GET that [salvation] from God”. Regardless of what you maintain “this” really is or is not; ALL of man STILL fails at it!
      So then that was not the final part of the Plan but itself was another phase of it, (and the whole theme of Hebrews is the “overlap” of covenants, with the old not fully passed yet at that point).

      And if 1 John 3:9 isn’t positional, then this is precisely what still produces that IN PRACTICE “cycle” of condemnation, in trying to live up to this hypothetical impossible “cannot/does not sin” ideal. You mentioned both a “saved” and “not TRULY saved” person going through that same cycle, but for different reasons, and that is another example of the confusion I’m addressing. Man and his works are still mixed up with determining salvation, even if you insist they’re not what do the actual saving. So there will be no clear way of either of them knowing whether they are “truly” saved or not. –that is, until they clean up their behavior, or at least try harder at it. (See where that is going?)
      “Sin” originally means “missing the mark”, and the whole point is that Christ is the only one who hit the mark, so the passage is saying we cannot miss the mark. So this “regeneration” is not about “behavior”, with the Spirit helping us keep the commandments better (and something God must be “allowed” to do, at that!). If it was, the world could justly demand more than what they’re seeing from people who preach this.

      BTW, actually people have misread Laodicea according to our modern connotations of what “lukewarm” means; like “hot”=“good” and “cold”=“bad”; so “lukewarm”=“lackadaisical” or “riding the fence”. Suffice it to say, their vice was not “compromise” (Christ scolded other churches for that), but rather thinking “I am rich and in need of nothing”. I see many people criticizing ‘compromise’ falling into that attitude more (even if they walk around saying “I’m a lowly sinner”)!

      [I also should have addressed from before the notion that ambiguous evidence (such as intersexuality, the violent nature of the unverse, etc). is from “the Fall”. These things of course are taken by the world as “natural” (i.e. “general revelation”) proofs of evolution. This would assume “the Fall” is from God getting mad at Adam’s sin and then striking the universe with these things. (Which is a generalization of God telling them that thorns would grow, and chilbirth and sustenance would become difficult). If this were so, then it makes God the author of these things, and still disproves the whole “natural” argument being used against the LGBT community. How can these things be so “offensive” to Him, if He imposed them on the world?
      So right there, who are people going to “call out” to, if all of this is assumed to point to the identity or character of the Creator? (Of course, Augustine, Calvin and others fit that right into their “reprobation” and “election” doctrines; that He “holds man accountable” for ambiguous hypothetical evidence man really can’t discern for himself without a[n individual] special calling).]

      • I see where he created his own article, apparently addressing this debate:

        It focuses on “those who are pretending to be homosexual” versus those “truly gay”; and how could they be “pretending when they were actually doing it”. “Romans 1 reference of homosexuality…is for everybody else, except the ones actually doing it“.
        —Which is not the way I put things. (And he’s addressing “the LGBT side”, and I haven’t really seen anyone expounding the passage as much as I’ve attempted to do). Clearly, the people being described were pictured as “burned in their lust one to another and had pleasure in it” (as he cited), which no; is not “pretending”, and I never claimed it was pretending; but nevertheless, it was not their true orientation.

        “The biblical worldview does not necessarily or even usually group people in the criteria the world does.”
        Correct, which is why it won’t go into any “exemption” of different orientations. That wasn’t the issue being addressed then. Just like the earth being a globe, and not at the center of the universe, and just like menstruation being a natural process and leprosy being an unfortunate condition, and not really “unclean”, but it was man in his sinful state that obsessed over these things (even beyond Israel and the scriptures), so they were included in the Law, as “unclean”. As Paul said, the uncleanness was not in the Law itself, but rather within man. So the law of “taste not, touch not…” (Col.2:21) was given to man for the sake of conscience.

        Failure to understand this has been to basically affirm to the world that God really did declare physical processes to actually be “unclean” in themselves, and the world takes their word for it and from there slams the Bible authors as just “a bunch of ancient goat herders who knew nothing about natural processes and diseases”. (And yet, you’re in the same breath arguing God made nature “good”, and condemns people for deviating from its patterns in any way! Things that involve no pleasure, such as menstruation and leprosy; well those, God can lift the “unclean” prohibitions on; but only those!)

        Again, they were starting out under the Law of the Old Covenant, which was focused on one group of people (that God had started His plan with, to expand to the world later).

        “The condemnation is against behavior and thoughts, not arbitrary man-made groupings, like LGBT people vs. straight people”(“…unless you can show that there is a gay identity that the Bible identifies, and exempts”). But again, I didn’t say that either. The condemnation is against behavior of people under the Law, who engaged in the behavior strictly out of lust. People engaging in it for other reasons (like their hormones draw them to the same sex, and they still have a desire to be intimate with someone, so they go for who they are drawn to), did not figure. God was not teaching anyone this; the point at that time was the Gospel, which started with “The Jew first, and then the Gentile” (v16, 2:9-10)

        “He uses the word they, but doesn’t distinguish who they were, except is focused on the behavior, and condemns”

        Actually, he does distinguish who they were, but you have to keep reading, into the next chapter, where it becomes clear.

        But why should the Bible or Paul condemn these over that, temporarily engaging in those particular behaviors, if homosexuality isn’t wrong in the first place? What would be the point of even making it a point that it was men with men working that which is unseemly, or women doing that which was against nature? Every indication is that it was a negative thing to be doing specifically, the men with men and unnatural use with women. Otherwise, it would never have been mentioned in those terms or even pointed out as if those particular manners of sexual mode were wrong or unnatural. So even if they weren’t “truly gay” why would Paul have a problem with them acting on “homosexual impulses” within them? Why not just condemn them for having lust in general without referencing the unseemly and unnatural nature of same sex affections? His point is that they were doing these types of sexual enterprises, that it was unseemly for men to be with men and unnatural for women to be with women.

        Because it’s a combination of the Law condemning things that are “odd” (as Philip Yancey has discussed), which is why the Law included pigs (ruminant-like hoofs but not diet), rabbits (ruminant-like diet, but not paws), shellfish and skinfish (fins, but no scales) as “unclean”, along with leprosy, mixed fabrics, and unequal yoking of animals) and the people were doing this other “odd” thing prohibited by the same Law, but purely out of lust. So lust is what is being condemned, and lust can lead to all sorts of things, including stuff you wouldn’t otherwise have engaged in.

        Part of Grace is removing the Law’s judgments of what is “odd”. With leprosy and menstruation, the Law declared unclean other things people couldn’t help, and this is also removed.
        Man’s fallen state is about shame, which is what causes him to obsess over certain things, and God framed the Law around this. That’s why many of these things were condemned. And God’s “wrath” was that the people He gave the Law to didn’t learn the lesson, but instead became self-righteous, judging others as they still had the same tendencies themselves.

        {Debate swings back and forth between the original Law commands (which don’t mention particular circustances), and Paul’s appeal to “nature” (which does specify particular instances) [original OT Law, and NT references]. Because it’s assumed orientation is something the people can help/“choose”, this supposedly sets it apart from the other prohibitions. But the Law commands are what have passed, so you shouldn’t condemn people based on that, while Romans is about the hypocrisy of people still preaching it while falling into it themselves.
        Also answer will swing between whether ‘condemnation’ and end of age was future or back then [and unconditional grace is now] as proof of view, or the “nature“ argument}

        Other points I could add:
        physis/physikos is just like our word “nature” in that it can refer to the literal physical world, but is also used in such ways as “the nature of God”. So this is describing, as I said STRAIGHT people going against their orientation (“nature”) to engage in those acts out of lust. (Same with the original Sodom and Gomorrha). Most of the people today did not start out as oversexed heteros, and then got “jaded” and switched over. Many knew when they were young. In fact, any “straight“-ness they engaged in, they were forcing themselves —against their “nature“!

        Cyclical argument. All homosexuality MUST be from jaded “lust” because Rom.1 says so. Rom.1 MUST be referring to all homosexuals because it is from “lust”.

        It can never be emphasized too much that they teach we “know the truth” by “conscience”, but when opposing doctrines such as Hell and reprobation, then counter that our sense of justice is “corrupted”. Of course, that’s when they will come up with “if you really seek Him”, then He will “fix” your perspective. But this hasn’t worked with them, given all the division on various points.

        As for pedophilia, incest and bestiality, we cannot use those things (whose hypothetical “acceptance” has not even happened) to argue using the Law to instill fear to prevent the “downward moral spiral” (which doesn’t even work anyway). Society will have to deal with then if it ever comes to be. (As it stands, those things have never had the underground support homosexuality had).
        Arguing from a premise of preventing future “degradation”, to these things is very presumptuous; crediting their opposition to sexual behavior for controlling public morality (which is of course what they wish they could do, and complain about the steady loss of this power; hence, by their own admission, they are not controlling people’s behavior).
        This whole notion of course is based on Christ telling us to be “the salt of the earth” (Matt.5:13-16). But that does not say how well any given professing “Christian” society actually lived up to it! (It’s really something that can only be applied by each individual, with it being unlikely enough of them will follow suit enough to shape all of “society”). With all the evils condoned in the old “Christian” civilization, and how they would even bend their morals with flimsy proof-texted reasoning to justify supporting someone immoral like Trump as “God’s man” for the nation, they really were never as much of a “moral” force as they think!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Next Step: the Transgender Debate | "ERIPEDIA"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: