Herein I conclude a series (which will be found in toto here which is a discussion I had with, as noted, someone who self-identifies as being a Christian and who also defends abortion and LGBTQIAP+. We engaged in an interesting, complex and detailed discussion ensued which covered theology, biology, ethics, philosophy and much more.
Thanks for your response. I feel personally that you have not really tried to engage with me on an intellectual level but that may be because you’re intent on disproving a remotely liberal approach to Christian ethics that can be based on interpretations of the Bible that do not fit with your “skeptical” interpretation of the Bible. My arguments (you said all before but now some)may seem “confused” or “mixed up” to yourself but those who I’ve discussed your responses with do not seem to agree with your analysis.
I am not an adherent to fundamentalist Christian belief. I do not seek to read the Bible entirely literally. There are aspects of the Bible that do not apply rigidly in the 21st century (especially in relation to ethical issues such as slavery and racism). It’s not a crime to extend the hand of friendship and compassion and acceptance to marginalised groups within Christianity and I feel it is better to be willing to support and engage LGBTQIA+ people and women who have an abortion rather than constantly condemn them for their actions, whether you believe them to be sinful or not. Proverbs 17:17 reminds us that “a friend loves at all times. And a brother is born for adversity.” Are you really a friend if you are willing to focus on condemnation? 1:Corinthians 10:24 also refers to a Christian duty to seek good not for oneself alone, but for others too: “Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbour”. Now I may see LGBTQIA+ Christians and Christian women who have abortions as neighbours and friends, hence why those verses apply in a discussion of Christian behaviour towards LGBTQIA+ people. Nowhere in the Bible does is it made specifically clear that LGBTQIA+ people or women who have abortions are our enemy. So why focus on judgment and condemnation? I’ll come back to this discussion later on.
“Inventing a problem” is a semantic phrase deployed to avoid answering difficult questions. Difficult questions about the nature of “true” gender identity. We do not and will not know what Adam and Eve looked like pre-Fall. There is no evidence to assume their race and definitely not their nationality either. So why automatically assume we understand automatic difference genderwise. How do we know Adam and Eve before the Fall had the same reproductive organs, same chromosomal make-up as they did after the Fall? We weren’t alive at the time. Neither were the writers of Genesis. To deny that is ridiculously naïve. God may have had “be fruitful and multiply” as his first commandment but the fact remains that there is no description of how they actually could have done that pre-Fall. I did read an article by a Creationist website that suggested that had children been born in the Garden of Eden, they would have been “clones of Adam and Eve” but this may be considered conjecture. Whether Biblical writers knew “how babies are made” post-Fall or not is also pretty irrelevant in discussing abortion. We have no description of the birth process post-Fall and no children were born before the Fall. How do we know what the processes would have been like pre-Fall? Besides, if the Garden of Eden was perfect and there was no guilt, no pain, no sin before the Fall, there would have been no need for abortion anyways. The concept of Original Sin is one that is generally accepted by Christians; of course there is the reference to pain in childbirth being made universal as a consequence of Eve’s actions. Yet still there is no reference to abortion. Abortion is never explicitly recognised as a sin at this point.
As for your comment RE Eve representing only cis women…trans men can also get pregnant and give birth but because you are not prepared to recognise the existence of trans men, then in your dual gender binary mind, your comment holds true. It doesn’t in mine. C’est la vie moderne.
I do not personally believe every single part of the Bible comes directly from the mouth of God. As you’ve pointed out, the Bible is a collection of 66 books written by those who claimed to have a special relationship with God but those writers weren’t perfect or omniscient people. To some, if you mention even the idea that the Bible might have a tiny error in it you get denounced as blasphemous. However, because God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he isn’t confined to any writings, no matter how great they may be perceived. God may have inspired events in the Bible, spoken to prophets (and of course Mary) but that doesn’t mean that the words we read in the Bible written by humans is perfect. Plus there are several genres of books within the Bible (including poetry) that are read differently, in the same way we read a Jane Austen novel different from a Ted Heath poetry anthology. As Kathy Vestal states in her article “God Did Not Write The Bible”, the Bible was not written as a rule book for 21st century lives; “none of the Biblical writers anticipated that their writings would be read, and basically worshipped, thousands of years later. They wrote for a specific audience and a specific purpose”. Beliefs do shift. Kathy mentions that the Earth in Jesus’ time was considered flat whereas we now know that the earth is round. That’s really where my critique of the Deuteronomy quote comes in. I don’t think it can be as narrowly interpreted in the 21st century and certainly can’t be used to reinforce the concept of a dual gender-binary. You’re right in that in the 1st century AD and beforehand men and women both wore tunic style garments, albeit most wearing differing styles and sometimes different lengths. I do not believe that there are distinguishing differences today, unless you count bras (even then some women deliberately choose not to wear one so as to not to enforce patriarchal stereotypes). Fashions have changed and to say that a “man should look like a man”…what exactly are men meant to look like? What constituents masculinity for you? Is there something innately different fashion wise? Some straight married men wear dresses in bed and yet still go to their local Church with their kids to pray on a Sunday. Are they not “looking male enough” or is it OK for them to get away with it because it’s a fetish or they only wear dresses in private but trans, non-binary, cis men and women who choose not to adhere to stereotypes should be condemned as sinful based on clothing choice? I don’t think that God specifically denied people the right to dress how they like. They do have the right to be accepted as people of faith. Heterosexual adulterers seem to get more sympathy from Conservative Christians at times than LGBTQIA+ people. That’s a great shame.
Referring to people as “genetically defective” may show that you haven’t abandoned science entirely in pursuit of your Christian truth but only when it helps to bolster your narrative. I guess that can be said of those on the liberal and left too. The problem is that intersex peoples’ issues just aren’t dealt with in the Bible and yet they do matter and deserve to be validated as no lesser human beings than anyone else. Why should intersex people be treated any less than trans and non-binary people and cis males and females? There’s no moral argument for treating them less favourably or denying them rights and certainly not blaming them for the way God made them. They are human beings deserving of compassion and respect. I wouldn’t dream of calling an intersex person “genetically defective” to their face. Instead, I’d be wanting to let them know that God loves them and that surgical interventions on the part of a doctor to assign a sex to them when there is no medical emergency reason to carry out the operation without their consent is cruel and I’ll stand with them to help get the practice banned. That’s what being a good activist is all about and fits in with the 1 Corinthians quote I mentioned earlier. Standing with those who want to protect their right to choose how they wish to live their lives (within the confines of the law) is a positive action.
Just because Lutheran priests have decided to officiate same-sex weddings in church doesn’t make them any worse or any better than evangelical or Catholic priests. You may not agree with same-sex marriage personally but you decrying Lutheran Christian priests as “fallen and pagan” won’t stop them from conducting these ceremonies. From the discussion above RE Deuteronomy I’m glad that you do agree that we are “all products of our culture”; try as we might, we are influenced by our education and social background. Yet to suggest that all people, including Lutheran priests who support same-sex marriage worship “culture like a fallen Idol?” Culture informs all of our thinking; it’s not a form of religion in itself. Perhaps it would be fruitful for you to converse with priests who carry out same-sex marriages and find out why they do it? I can only offer my opinion after all. What is clear to me is that Lutheran priests do believe in God and they still feel that God stands by them in the decisions that they make. As for your use of the Romans 12:2 quote, well you keep referring to the body of denominational belief that’s been around for 5,000 years. Conforming to patterns has been what Christians and Jews have done for ages and it has led some of them to be discriminatory and barbaric at times. I keep referring you to the witch burning but it’s not a matter to be brushed off lightly. There was nothing in the Bible that suggested that witches should be burned yet Christians in Europe used their belief to persecute women (and some men) because they feared them. Fear of the “Other” can lead to despicable action. Instead I contend that I have been “transformed by the renewal of my mind” because I’ve opened my mind and heart to compassion and understanding and acceptance of LGBTQIA+ people as being normal, wonderful people. There are Conservative MPs such as Andrew Turner here in the UK who still believe that gay people are a “threat to society” and are “wrong”. He was forced to resign for his comments because they are not acceptable in a tolerant, compassionate society. Being gay is not a sin. Engaging in homosexual acts is not a sin. Wanting to be referred to with non-binary pronouns is not a sin (and not condemned in the Bible). Besides, the word homosexuality didn’t show up in Bibles till 1946 (according to Adam Phillips’ article…I’m assuming you’ve read it as it’s been around since 2015).
You see it’s OK for you to try and make out that I do not understand Christian ethics. It’s even OK for you to try and make out I have little comprehension of Christian theology. I read your comments as a personal attack on my faith and accusing me of “violating God’s word” in a very general way was uncalled for. I’ve never denied the Nicaean Creed; it’s a central tenet of Christian belief. If I denied the Holy Trinity then I really couldn’t call myself a Christian. So it’s good that we both agree that the Creed is important. In fact it’s quite nice to agree on something isn’t it? I’m also pleased to see that you aren’t so bad as to believe that every Christian and Jew has condemned homosexuality over the past 5,000 years. It doesn’t matter whether any culture beforehand didn’t recognise same-sex marriage because to me it’s a sign of progress; in the UK society is becoming less fearful of difference sexuality wise in general. Using an appeal to cultural history to try and defend LGBTQIA+ discrimination won’t win Liberal Lutherans like me over.
You say that you do not want to restrict yourself to liberal definitions as a skeptic. I’ve not seen much in your discourse thus far that could be construed as liberal or left ideology at all. I’ve never said I rigidly adhered to a rigid liberal or left ideology or frame of mind; it almost seems as if you’ve superimposed your definition of liberalism onto me because I happen to be in favour of granting women the right to an abortion or approve of same-sex marriage alone. Are they necessarily liberal concepts only held by Christians who are left of centre? Mind you gay conservatives may be more than happy to pander to discrimination in how marriage is recognised in the eyes of God because I reckon a number of them are pro-life. That’s OK but I do not think that being pro LGBTQIA+ rights and being pro-choice makes you necessarily liberal? However, we both agree that Jesus valued the lives of others. If he didn’t he wouldn’t have healed the sick or taught his disciples and others about the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Where we disagree seems to be maybe the “how” to help others rather than “who we help”. Social change through improving legislation rights and improving freedom of choice is important to Christian activists like me. I accept that social change can be positive rather than than negative. Christians should be at the forefront of social change, not trying to hold it up.
It’s extremely important to remember that moral relativists can condemn actions. You may think we cannot but that’s because you apply an absolute standard; so you believe if I can’t condemn abortion then I wouldn’t be prepared to condemn theft or murder, for example. There’s been nothing in the answers I have given that condone acts of murder outright. There’s also been nothing in my answers that condones unprotected sex; in fact it was I who brought up the importance of providing contraception to women and men to ensure that sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy rates fall. Prevention of pregnancy is always better than a woman having to go through the traumatic experience of an abortion. Now I am grateful that you didn’t use Genesis 1:28 to argue against contraception; equally the story of Onan (Genesis 38:8-10) is problematic because it isn’t clear that it was the “spilling of the seed” that God punished Onan for or whether it was the act of using his wife for sexual pleasure. Onan was obligated to follow the law of levirate marriage (a man marrying his brother’s widow in order to “produce offspring for his brother) but since that law doesn’t apply to Christians, there’s no real Biblical criticism of contraception. I think that in the 21st century it would be difficult to argue that contraception is always bad and for men who have sex with them a condom is often seen as essential. In some respects, the argument on contraception demonstrates that ethical views do remain starkly different amongst denominations but in reality, very few Christians would openly condemn contraception. Besides, single straight and bi men should be prepared to invest in contraception too. Don’t expect women to be the only ones to take responsibility.
Again it’s important for me to point out that we practice our faith differently and that practice has come from differing interpretation. For me, delivering God’s message of hope to LGBTQIA+ people has everything to do with preparing them for the Day of Judgment. I’ve wondered before whether I’d say the same thing to a murderer without condoning their actions (because moral relativists can still do that). It would be difficult but if they repented their sin (of causing harm to others), then they are preparing themselves for that Day of Judgement and I certainly would not condemn them to their face if they were fully repentant and if not I would pray that they will repent in the future. As I do not believe same-sex acts or marriage to be a sin, there is nothing for LGBTQIA+ people to repent.
Do you think that everyone who is a “true Christian” should tell gay Christians that “they are sinning” every time they have sex means that they are “bad Christians” even though they may have donated to charity and helped poor people in their communities? They are being compassionate and I’m going to be compassionate back to them, encouraging them to prepare for the Day of Judgement knowing they will NOT be judged for their sexuality.
Going back to the issue of abortion: are you really prepared to shame Christian doctors just because they do not fit in with your interpretation of the Bible and tell them they have committed a grave sin? Are they breaking the Hippocratic Oath if they help women who have been raped by their husbands or partners or friends or strangers? It’s very easy to judge but much harder to understand. Besides, being pro-choice means that I support them because they are freeing rape survivors from the oppression and tyranny of having their vaginas patrolled by Christian bigots who would force them to bear a child against their will. If something is legal it may not make something automatically ethical, at least to you but our laws have been heavily influenced by Christian denominational ideology in the past and perhaps it is a good thing that denominational interpretations are finally being challenged.
Science is important. We should be positive about scientific advances. That includes in the field of reproductive and womens’ health. You mention advancements in infant mortality reduction in the 19th century and yes it is indeed good that routine births now carry a very low risk of mothers developing post natal infections. Yet it’s also important to mention that attitudes towards women have also improved since the 19th century; it’s a shame that some Conservative Christians are just not prepared to accept that freedom of choice is a good thing and abortion methods advancement to make it safe is also a progressive advancement that reduces the risk of complications. Why should we not be pleased about all scientific advancements in this field? BTW, claiming I didn’t know about infant mortality medical advancements meant you made another unqualified assumption. I studied Medicine Through Time at school so was perfectly aware of how that link helped doctors understand that germs needed to be removed before assisting in surgery. Please don’t invent my ignorance.
You say that you did not hint in your previous response that you were suggesting I was supportive of embryonic experimentation. Or at least I hope that was the case. The problem I have is with you saying that doctors are all “deliberately trying to cut up aborted foetuses”. To say that all abortions involve this is cruel and not factual. Foetus is not an archaic term btw. It’s a medical one. I don’t have a problem with using medical terminology? Do you? On top of claiming I cannot do my own research, you misgender me because you’re trying to come across as morally superior. Not helping to advance your argument in my eyes.
As I understand the realities of the world in which I live and am pro-choice, I have to be willing to understand and accept that economic circumstances can be so constrained that abortion may be viewed as the final option. The mother alone should not have to bear the responsibility economically of raising a child. Nor should a woman be forced to have a child “in the hope” that it will be provided for by the father or his relatives in the future. Not every woman wants to go through the act of giving birth. However, when a woman wants to have a child after finding herself pregnant, then surely under a Conservative pro-life approach they should be provided with the economic assistance needed to help feed and clothe the child. You don’t expect the mother to give birth and then rear the child on the street, do you? Hardly charitable or compassionate. Conservative husbands who rape their wives or men who rape others just because they want to feel powerful or reaffirm their masculinity….they are disgusting pigs. They cause deliberate harm. I was orally raped by a man who thought it was OK to penetrate me against my will because he perceived me as being a lesser person than he. His actions were inexcusable. I hope he will repent his sin. Yes I can condemn rape but not all abortion based on rape being an entirely hateful act with power being taken away from a person. Because of my views RE conception I cannot hold in every case that abortion is an act of hate. That’s moral relativism for you. All I will say is that abortion, especially late term ones tend to happen for medical reasons. The law of double effect (i.e. in some cases, it may be appropriate to abort the foetus if the mother’s life is at risk) is an ethical consideration and it looks like one that you’re possibly prepared to accept, even if you’re not prepared to define it as an abortion take that as being a good step to take in our discussion and demonstrates it hasn’t been entirely fruitless.
Later on in your comment you claim that I created a false dichotomy which states that a Christian has to show understanding and acceptance of a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion or condemn her action outright. The reality of the situation is that the abortion debate is so polarised that the action taken is usually one or the other. I will not tell a woman who has been through the trauma of an abortion that she was wrong to her face. I don’t assert that “I know better”; You have to think about ethics in the real world, where tough decisions are taken everyday and responses can be very similar to the dichotomy here.
You don’t understand why Liberal Christians may mistrust (not foam mouth hate) fundamentalist Christians. Well how about years of unwarranted discrimination, most of it verbal (and in rare cases physically violent)? Just because a Christian does not approve of how a Christian trans person decides to live their life does not give them a God-given right to bully, harass and verbal abuse them, prevent them from praying or from seeking advice from an ecclesiastical representative. Christian churches must remain open and tolerant and allow LGBTQIA+ people of faith to pray in peace and free from threats of discrimination. I’m hoping that you’ll agree with me here because there are certainly no Biblical verses that should be used to give free reign to unwarranted discrimination in a place of worship.
Context matters. I am heartened to see that you no longer claim that I am completely unaware of Biblical context; I think the examples I’ve given recently clearly demonstrate that I do know of varying interpretations of passages and making an informed decision as to which interpretation sounds the most sensible to me. From my reading of your response I did think that you were reluctant to talk about male responsibility for rape in 21st century terms; you seem to believe that the virgin woman had sex with the man “of her own volition” (or free will) but I see it as an example of rape. Mosaic Law did dictate that men who had raped married women could be stoned but a virgin had to be married because it “saved face”. Having to pay for his victim through lifelong marriage is still a very poor resolution in my eyes, which is why I do not read the Bible literally. The general sense from the passage is that rape is a grave moral sin (we can agree on that) and a painful act. How can Situational Ethicists argue that rape is “beneficial’? It involves no consensual act of love. There may be progressives and relativists who argue differently to me but I will never be convinced to come to a conclusion differently from this (considering having been raped myself). Any act of rape is a moral sin. In terms of punishment, well I do not advocate the Death penalty and would never like to see it reintroduced. So for me, a prison sentence is sufficient punishment.
So you see, it’s good that we both now have admitted we don’t like to be pigeonholed but that’s what happens when it comes to discussions on gender, sexuality and religion because there is no consensus in Christian ethics. It may have looked for a thousand years that there has been consensus but that’s purely observing the views of those in charge who appointed themselves moral guardians and “set” Biblical interpretation. But as I keep repeating, we are in 2017. There’s very little agreement between Conservative and Liberal Christians on same-sex marriage, trans and non-binary rights and allowing intersex people to be referred to as normal rather than “genetically defective”. I’m not going to go over ground that has been covered rather vigorously in our previous discussions (as this is a wrap up) but I remain unconvinced that the pronouncements on marriage in Matthew 19 condemn same-sex marriage.
There’s no reference to all marriages as having to be necessarily heterosexual (let alone between a trans heterosexual person and a cis person). How we view marriage has been redefined in recent years. Gender roles are no longer as rigid as some would like them to be. Women are no longer chained to the kitchen sink washing up after a husband. Some women are the main provider in their household. Same-sex couples can now procreate in some respects (they’ve adopted for years beforehand). There’s even a procedure that allows chromosomes from sperm from both fathers to be mixed together and implanted into an egg and into a surrogate mother in order to have a child that is biologically both theirs. That’s probably not something you condone but surely it is pleasing that such couples want to bring a child into the world. If they can provide a loving and nurturing environment, where is the harm? I have no problem arguing that marriage still represents a sacred bond between consenting people who love each other. Yet it’s so funny that you would think I only cheerleader same-sex marriage. No. I celebrate marriage between any two people and as I have stated in my previous response, I’m willing to listen to arguments for polygamous and poly-amorous marriage rather than dismissing them entirely out of hand. I need to understand the reasons why people would want to enter such a marriage. There are Biblical verses that mention polygamous marriage so I’d say that perhaps the marriage is equally as loving. Mormons are notoriously polygamous (for reasons of procreation rather than companionship) and they would tell me not to judge them for their actions. I only hope they stop judging Mormons who happen to be LGBTQIA+!
I know some LGBTQIA+ people would be cross at me for not mentioning a rather important point at the start of this thread 3 months ago. We’ve touched on the issue of repentance and agree that because we are all sinners in some way we should seek forgiveness for that sin and repent. We disagree over what constitutes a sin. I really do not assert that LGBTQIA+ people need to repent because of their sexuality or gender identity alone. To classify gay people on the same level of sinning as adulterous men is strange to me. I think it’s because sexuality is innate and God-given. It is not a choice. If that’s the case, then I find it hard to see how homosexuality or pansexuality can be so wrong as to require repentance. Unless such an act only applies to a sexual act which is what I think you may be getting at. I used to argue that being gay or bi or pan was OK as long as you didn’t engage in a sexual way. But that is censoring and restricting someone from demonstrating their love in an open way. I can’t fathom telling a happily married couple that they were as sinful as those who willingly deceive their spouses. Adultery is another difficult ethical issue and on the whole I find it difficult to understand why someone would willingly cheat on someone else. But I’d be careful of condemning every adulterous act as a sin without understanding the situation. But in your absolute definition I’d refuse to delegitimise same-sex marriage and put it on the same level of an adulterous relationship. Also, homosexual married couples are perfectly capable of praying together and attending church in a valid way. I have seen no evidence to assume that their acts of religious devotion are false; they are praying to the same God after all.
As for not accepting incestuous, bestial or pedophilic behaviour…go back to my discussion on Situational Ethics. There are laws that preclude behaviour which does necessarily inform our approach to ethical issues. Incest is banned under the law here and trying to compare gay, lesbian, pansexual, bi and trans people’s desire to have a happy relationships to paedophilic desire is disgusting and wrong.
2 Timothy affects you just as much as it affects me. I certainly do not always expect to hear what I want to hear from. Yet neither should you. You may not accept that Lutheran Christian priests will officiate same-sex marriages. It will happen regardless of your disapproval. I may not like Conservative Christians (and you) denying my right to express my gender identity in a valid way as a Christian but that’s still not going to stop them from saying it because they’ve heard it from denominational “teachers” who believe that denying trans people the right to exist as people of faith is a good thing. It makes your ears itch to hear differing interpretations but that’s the nature of being a Christian skeptic.
I don’t believe that Jesus judged those who he helped in the same way that we judge others that we may help or disagree with because we do not all judge in the same way. Jesus was unique because he was the human representation of God on Earth. “Righteous judgment” (John 7:24) means something different to me than it does to you perhaps. It could be because what I would classify as righteous judgment….i.e. choosing to intervene to help others is not the same as telling a gay person or abortion doctor that their actions are sinful to their face (which doesn’t sound that righteous). We all end up judging hypocritically in one way or another at some point in our lives but then that’s because we’re not perfect. I’ve never painted myself out to be perfect. Loving our enemy does mean being judgemental in the examples I’ve just given because it is righteous whereas the decision to chide is not. Jesus may have told us to “righteously judge” but he also taught us to try to not cast the first stone, because you know you’re not free from sin either. You accuse me of the sin of pride because I’m proud to stand up for those who are marginalised in the Christian faith. OK, perhaps I’ll own that. It’s a sin that I’m fine to be associated with. What kind of sins do you consider yourself guilty of? I’d suggest being wrongfully judgmental instead of being willing to help LGBTQIA+ people. LGBTQIA+ people should be proud of their faith. They are courageous and they are strong and they have God’s favour. I will keep using Joshua 1:9 in a positive way. That’s my choice. You condemn and chide me for it but that is fine.
Hillary Clinton has not worshiped any false idols in my eyes. I wasn’t unaware that Obama changed his mind on same-sex marriage (because you know Christians can actually do that) and I do not believe Obama or indeed Hillary did it for “electoral reasons”, even if you think that making such a point is “mind reading”. Sometimes our approach to ethical issues gets challenged and after listening to oppositional arguments, we change our mind. That’s human nature. It’s OK to admit that our beliefs and attitudes and views can change and with it, how we interpret Biblical doctrine. The Law of Double Effect (which I mentioned earlier) is one example of a change in mindset and views on abortion. Allowing women who have been raped by their husbands, partners, friends or strangers is also a factor that needs to be taken into account (another aspect to the debate which we discussed that you seemed reluctant to acknowledge unless framed in a Biblical sense). So yes I was glad Hillary changed her mind. I’m glad when anyone changes their mind from being pro-life to being pro-choice. Trying to pin me and Hillary to Sanger just because you don’t like abortion is deplorable indeed. How dare you shame those who respect a woman’s right to choose as being genocide supporters and aligning with white supremacists. I think you should be discussing that with Steve Bannon, Steve King, Marine Le Pen et al.
We far from agree on ethical issues. It seems we do not agree on doctrines either. God hasn’t revealed himself completely. That doesn’t mean that I’m trying to be some prophet by simply defending LGBTQIA+ people from being labeled as automatic sinners because of their genetic God-given disposition to love someone of the same sex or because they happen to have no gender preference. In fact you contradict/correct yourself for trying to label me as a prophet. That’s to be commended. I have always believed that as Christians our primary duty is to show love for others, whether they be friends or enemies. Being willing to take part in this discussion demonstrates that. The best approach going forward I feel is to try and encourage further conversation between the LGBTQIA+ community who are Christian and their fellow parishioners so that they better understand one another. Understanding leads to tolerance, if not complete acceptance. You’re right that we all judge even though we should not judge. We are not God. Yet when one side uses their interpretations to justify discrimination, they are going to get judged for their actions. That’s why Christianity has a number of critics and supporters and sceptics debating key ethical and theological issues. We need to look forward to a positive future.
Thanks for your response. I feel personally that you have not really tried to engage with me on an intellectual level but that may be because you are intent on disproving a remotely traditional approach to Christian ethics that can be based on interpretations of the Bible that do not fit with your “liberal” interpretation of the Bible. By the way, appealing to anonymous personages is simply dismissible as, by the way, those who I have discussed your responses with do not agree with your analysis (and I note that even then you can only say that they “do not SEEM to” so that you do not even know what they really think).
As I have noted, you use the term “literal” as an escape mechanism (so as to escape that which you know the Bible states) yet, I engage in hermeneutics whereby grammatical, cultural, historical, immediate and greater contexts are considered and thus, exegesis is employed. If you are correlating 21st century slavery and racism to the Bible when it deals with “slavery” and “racism” then please study some hermeneutics and history.
Hyperbole much, friend? No, it is “not a crime to extend the hand of friendship and compassion” but is deeply misguided and the line is drawn at “acceptance” (as in celebratory approbation) and for Christians such things are not based on how “I feel,” as you put it, but upon absolute ethics. Simply generalizing yet again and misapplying a proverb is hermeneutically fallacious since, as I have noted time and again, “a friend loves at all times. And a brother is born for adversity” does not mean celebrating sin. Are you really a friend if you are willing to focus on condemnation of me and your favorite generic target of “Conservative Christians”? Again (and again and again) when you state things such as “Nowhere in the Bible does is it made specifically clear that LGBTQIA+ people or women who have abortions are our enemy” you are arguing against an imaginary opponent and one who said no such thing. We have also been through this already as well: even if (even though I do not believe it) they are our enemies, we are to love them but that does in no way whatsoever mean that we are to celebratorily accept that which makes them our enemies in the first place. In fact, we are to love them because we can recognize that they are on the wrong side of God’s will: you tell them to remain there and to be proud of it as well.
If I have deployed a semantic phrase to avoid answering difficult questions then why have I answered all of yours and you have consistently avoided answering some of mine. Anyone can see that I have dealt with the issue of “true” gender more than once and yet, you keep denying the facts because they are inconvenient to you. If you cannot understand what male and female and man and woman and husband and wife and coming together physically so as to have children means than they had the same reproductive organs then you are not taking the text fr what it clearly states. Since they are called by the same terms as subsequent males/men (and then husbands) and females/women and wives and they were told to “be fruitful and multiply” then we know exactly how they did so pre-Fall: this is a one-to-one correlation. The one and only reason for you to be confused is because you recognize the facts of God’s words and rebel against them. This is why no one since those words were written could even have imagined that there is some great mystery there: now, why does your utter confusion coincide with when fallen culture decided to litigiously promulgate gender confusion?
You playing hyper-skeptic in not recognizing this is merely indicative of the fact that you have given yourself over to fallen culture 100%: these are very, very basic things. So, we know exactly what Adam and Eve looked like pre-Fall (within the context of gender) and I had already quoted the texts to you. And what race and nationality has to do with it is certainly an oddity but if you must know: there is only one race, the human race (which then split into people groups) and they hailed from Eden. God was alive at the time and He inspired the writer of Genesis: to deny that is ridiculously naïve. This is not about Literal versus whatever you feel about it de jour but about plain facts that you find inconvenient.
Now, as a perfect example of the fact of your confused and mixed up M.O. you write, “Whether Biblical writers knew ‘how babies are made’ post-Fall or not is also pretty irrelevant in discussing abortion.” Well, I agree which is why no one would confuse and mix up a contextual discussion about gender with a contextual discussion about abortion. You are, yet again, arguing against invisible and silent opponents at this point.
Interestingly, I affirmed the existence of trans men, you condemn me for opposing their chosen lifestyles and then you claim that I am “not prepared to recognize the existence of trans men” please make up your mind: am I wrong for opposing their chosen lifestyles or do I not recognize that they even exist?
Now when you refer to trans men getting pregnant you are clearly abandoning science and applying fallen cultural terminology as a pregnant trans man is a pregnant woman—a woman who may wear men’s clothes, may take hardcore pharmaceuticals, may have had surgery, etc. But, pray tell, she may wear men’s clothes, may take hardcore pharmaceuticals, may have had surgery, etc. so as to what? So as to attempt to become something that she is not. That is the very purpose of a sex “change” operation which is now aka gender “reassignment” surgery. In your gender multiplicity mind, your comment holds true. It does not in mine. Ceci n’est pas une homme.
I can plainly see that you do not personally believe every single part of the Bible comes directly from the mouth of God and I will guess as to how you go about deciding which portions are and which are not. You read it and if it goes against fallen cultures commandments de jour they are not and if you can twist them into applying to your celebratory acceptance of fallen culture they are. Of course, that the Bible’s authors “weren’t perfect or omniscient people” comes directly from the Bible so you at least take that literally.
God may not be “confined to any writings” but the manner in which we humans have been told to discern truth from falsehood is by comparison to the Bible or direct applications of its ethics. So, “none of the Biblical writers anticipated that their writings would be read…thousands of years later” really? Do you ever apply skepticism to those writers who you so love and who contradict the Bible? Are you not aware that Daniel read Jeremiah as Jeremiah’s words were meant for the future (Daniel 9:2)? Are you, in turn, not aware that Daniel was told to “shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased (Daniel 12:4)? Have you not read that “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Romans 15:4)? Are you unaware that the Ethiopian with whom Philip conversed was reading Isaiah (Acts 8:26-40)? Do you know that with regards to the woman who anointed His head, Jesus stated “Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her” (Mark 14:9)? How do you suppose we know about that? Why are you so very eager to argue against God’s word and exclusively rely on those who do so? I could go on and on: how could you believe such utter falsehoods?
Vestal did not write “that the Earth in Jesus’ time was considered flat” but noted that “it was not widely accepted at the time of Biblical writing that the earth was round” you are putting words in her mouth. And even if that her implication then I would love to see some quotations and citations to that effect: actual evidence and not mere claims that you take as dogma.
Back to my point about you deciding to ignore inconvenient truths, that is why you know what Deuteronomy states but decide to ignore it. But why, because even though you admit that “men and women” (playing into the gender binary are you?) were “wearing differing styles” you “do not believe that there are distinguishing differences today” but that is because fallen culture is making it so. Also, as a comical side note, you mention the bra: you should be aware that the TV show Seinfeld had an episode about a “bro” or “manzier” which was for men who felt they needed upper body support—mostly due to old age sagging ;o)
If you really want to know what a man should look like just ask a lesbian. I grant that this is a stereotype but stereotypes are often stereotypical because they are based on accurate generalizations. I have noticed time and again that usually within a lesbian couple one woman is playing the part of the woman and the other is playing the part of the man. That is to say that one remains feminine and one is purposefully masculine. This is somewhat like the fact that stereotypically many gay men are effeminate—and when you want to take me out of my own context please review my qualifying context. So now, why would a woman who is supposed to be attracted to women be attracted to a woman who looks like a man? Why would a man who is supposed to be attracted to men be attracted to a man who comports himself, in dress, mannerisms and inflection, like a woman? This proves to you that something has gone wrong.
Now, the bottom line is the same as aforementioned: it is not about a dress code but about distinctions between the two genders in which the vastly overwhelming majority of all humans for all of history have been categorizable.
And so, knowing perfectly well that “God specifically denied people the right to dress how they like” you “don’t think that God specifically denied people the right to dress how they like” and when did you start thinking this? Very, very recently coinciding with when fallen culture told you so.
You then again puff up emotively by peppering your reply to a non-existing opponent with bombastic claims. Now one, but you, stated anything about intersex personages not deserving “to be validated as no lesser human beings than anyone else…denying them rights…are human beings deserving of compassion and respect.” Intersex peoples’ issues are dealt with in the Bible in the very same way that heterosexual adultery is: there are God ordained manners in which to engage in sex and ungodly manners. When one’s sex-drive is placed before obedience to God then one’s sex-drive becomes an idol.
So you “wouldn’t dream of calling an intersex person ‘genetically defective’ to their face” but you would admit that such is the case otherwise: we agree then (more on this below). It is interesting that you want to compare Lutheran priests who have decided to officiate same-sex weddings to evangelicals or Catholic priests: I compare them to God’s word. There is a reason why there is no such thing in the entire Bible nor in 5,000 years of Jewish and Christian history and that is because fallen culture very, very recently told them that it is acceptable and they agreed. So no, “decrying Lutheran Christian priests as ‘fallen and pagan’ won’t stop them” indeed, that is my point: it approbates them. I do not doubt for even one second that such “Lutheran priests do believe in God and they still feel that God stands by them” but belief do not change absolute reality nor absolute ethics. They “feel” that which they will but we are not to base our “life and doctrine” (1 Timothy 4:16), as Paul put it, upon feelings which are notoriously unreliable and tentative.
Now your correlation to the Bible’s very clear condemnation of homosexuality and abortion to witch burnings is as fallacious, as I already noted, as condemning rural people for owning guns to protect themselves from predatory animals or to hunt, because some people in urban areas use guns to commit murder. Just because some people who called themselves “Christian” committed discriminatory and barbaric actions at times does not mean that some people who called themselves “Christian” can viably celebrate homosexuality and abortion today.
Another instance of confusion is that you have been “transformed by the renewal of my mind” by fallen culture, by the way, in that you call yourself compassionate whilst celebrating when healthy human babies are dismembered to death: I asked what you call it when an organism consisting of human DNA and has a beating heart has its heart cease from beating and you decided to ignore it. In fact, I can simplify this: if an organism is composed on human DNA and you do something to purposefully keep it from continuing its growth, what do you call that? You then refer to LGBTQIAP+ people as “normal” which as I noted before is statistically inaccurate by definition and “wonderful” which I had no reason to deny and which is not the issue.
It is interesting that you wrongly assert upon your own authority that “Engaging in homosexual acts is not a sin” but I have asked you if you consider anything to be a sin and you decided to not reply. Now, another window into your M.O. is referring to when the word homosexuality was included in the Bible: well yes, English words were not in the original manuscript and, more to the point, this is not about words but about contexts, contents and concepts and the concept of homosexuality has been in the Bible all along and has been condemned all along—which you know very well.
Now, of course, I did not claim that you are “violating God’s word” (as I do every time I sin) “in a very general way” since anyone can see that the statement is contextualized by my having written very many pages worth of specific statements to you. Now, if you “denied the Holy Trinity then I really couldn’t call myself a Christian” so you are saying that Oneness Pentecostals, for example, are not Christians? Wow, who made you their judge and the theology police?
I know that “in the UK society is becoming less fearful of difference sexuality wise in general” which is why a push to normalize pedophilia is beginning to trickle out of Europe. Using an appeal to cultural history to try and defend LGBTQIAP+ celebrations will not win traditional Christians like me over.
Now, if you want to alleviate what you perceive to be me having superimposed my definition of liberalism onto you then you might try ceasing from avoiding questions you find bothersome. I asked you “Is there any biblical doctrine to which you hold? And I am not referring to how you use biblical words but then radically redefine them but actual, traditional biblical doctrines” and you ignore it and only now noted your acceptance of the Nicene Creed. But no, celebrating abortion and same-sex marriage is not held by Christians who are left of center but are held by Christians who are left of the left.
You may agree that “Jesus valued the lives of others” but you do not: by the millions. I too “accept that social change can be positive rather than negative” but that is generic and the issue is change in which direction? So yes, “Christians should be at the forefront of social change, not trying to hold it up” only when such social change is in the direction of the Godly ethos and not the fallen culture’s relativistic morals de jour.
If I were to deny that “relativists can condemn actions” is it not because I “apply an absolute standard” but the 100% opposite: it is because I grant your relativism, apply it to you and then you do not like the logical conclusion. Yes, “relativists can condemn actions” of their own subjective choosing and the next relativist can condemn the exact opposite action of their own subjective choosing.
Your celebration of abortion is absolute proof that you do, indeed, “condone acts of murder outright.” Contraception does not demonstrate “that ethical views do remain starkly different amongst denominations” but that moral views do.
No, we do not practice our faith differently due to differing interpretation: the difference is worldviews with mine being biblical and yours being fallen cultural—100% proof of this is that you only very, very, very recently began celebrating abortion and same-sex marriage and this coincided to when only very, very, very recently fallen culture began celebrating abortion and same-sex marriage.
Thus, what you are doing is ensuring that people in need of repentance do not repent and enter the Day of Judgment celebrating their sin and they will not be able to say, “But Matti had the feeling that it was okay.” No, I do not “think that everyone who is a ‘true Christian’ should tell gay Christians that ‘they are sinning’ every time they have sex means that they are ‘bad Christians.’” Rather, I think that, in love and compassion, everyone who is a “true Christian” should tell gays that “they are sinning” non-Christians since they refuse to repent every time they have sex. As for “even though they may have donated to charity and helped poor people in their communities” (which is your presumption so as to puff it up and make it look better) well, “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:20). Salvation is by grace through faith and, as noted, Paul specifies the importance of both life and doctrine: an unrepentant error in either direction shows the sorts of fruits we are producing.
Now, you specify that “they will NOT be judged for their sexuality” yet, “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Now, whatever one feels about to what all of these terms refer one thing is undeniable and that is that sexuality is part of judgement. The very next verse states, “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” so they were but are no longer meaning that they repented. But you seek to ensure that they are never washed, not sanctified, or justified because you tell them that they will NOT be judged for their sexuality, have nothing for which to repent, should be proud and celebrate.
No, I am not prepared to shame Christian doctors just because they do not fit in with your interpretation of the Bible and tell them they have committed a grave sin? Rather, they should be ashamed of themselves for calling themselves “Christian” and “doctors” and make living by causing the death of healthy babies within the wombs of healthy mothers. I see that you are desperate to play the PR marketing campaign game of crying “WHAT ABOUT RAPE!?!?!” but we have been through this a number of times already: you celebrate abortion at any time for any reason. Are they breaking the Hippocratic Oath if they cause a healthy baby within a healthy mother to stop living? It is very easy to judge but much harder to understand what it is like being dismembered to death or being melted to death with a liquid solution. Those millions upon millions of babies are under the tyranny of having their bodies patrolled by Liberal Christian bigots who would force them to die for someone else’s decisions.
If there is anything I love it is honesty: even when it betrays deep error. You imply a disagreement with the fact that legal does not necessarily equal ethical and open a window into your worldview which is that fallen culture comes first and theology second. You want denominational interpretations challenged and changed so that laws will be challenged and changed so that they will align with your subjective fallen cultural worldview. Indeed, it is as I pinpointed it long ago: your worldview is premised upon fallen culture de jour and you then employ that premise as the lens via which you (mis)interpret the Bible. Friend, you have got it 100% backwards but this explains why you deny just about every traditional biblical Christian doctrine, why you attack Christians, why you rely on outrageous claims so long as they attack the Bible, God and Christians, etc.
Sir, it is literally impossible for “abortion methods advancement to make it safe” as the very purpose is to cause death. Yet, your only concern is women and you care not for millions upon millions of babies. BTW, it is very telling that you so emotively react to my simply stating, “you appear to be unaware” as a reasoned reply would be “Indeed, I was already aware” and then maybe add, “Even though the Bible’s authors were ignorant, archaic, not as enlightened as I,” etc.
I am curious as to why you placed quotations marks in the statement “The problem I have is with you saying that doctors are all ‘deliberately trying to cut up aborted foetuses’” when that quotation is of your own invention: you misquote me because you are trying to come across as morally superior. Not helping to advance your argument in my eyes.
Interestingly, you seem to put forth a veneer of science even whilst ignoring that we scientifically know that life begins at conception. Moreover, you ignore cause and effect: I am pro-choice when defined as that every woman has the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant: once she is pregnant it is a whole other matter. You state, “Not every woman wants to go through the act of giving birth” but you say nothing about how she got pregnant in the first place, besides your one-liner emotive talking point about rape. I am referring to the 99% other cases, so why say nothing about not engaging the act which is known to result in pregnancy when one does not want to get pregnant? Because you follow fallen culture’s lead and it is all about sex thus, have as much sex as you want with as many temporary sex partners de jour and if the cause leads to the effect of pregnancy then murder your very own baby.
It is also fascinating that you are so saturated with pure hatred that even though I already pointed it out you, once again, can only, solely and exclusively imagine “Conservative husbands who rape their wives” and not “Liberal husbands” or “Non-gender specific husbands” or anyone else. Someone once told me that “Fear of the ‘Other’ can lead to despicable action” and to “fear” I will add “hatred” and also there are Liberals who still believe that Conservatives are a “threat to society” and are “wrong” and you are one of these Liberals.
Agreed “Christian churches must remain open and tolerant and allow LGBTQIA+ people of faith to pray in peace and free from threats of discrimination” but the Bible calls on us to deal with the sins of those who call themselves Christians. LGBTQIAP+ are not a special class of personages and so “Christian churches must remain open and tolerant and allow heterosexual adulterers of faith to pray in peace and free from threats of discrimination” even whilst guiding them to pray for forgiveness. Recall that “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife” and the church was like you, they celebrated their Liberal views, “And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.” Yet, “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5) that utterly contradicts your entire endeavor. However, note that after being turned over to Satan “if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Galatians 6:1). You only do the being puffed up, not mourning and glorying portion. You assert that “homosexual married couples are perfectly capable of praying together and attending church in a valid way” but you have just been provided with as close as you can get to “evidence to assume that their acts of religious devotion are false.” Although, you specified that “their acts of religious devotion are [not] false” since “they are praying to the same God after all” yet, when they violate God’s will and claim that God accepts that, they are devoted to a false god made in their own image. Since there are people “whose God is their belly” (Philippians 3:19) then there are surely people “whose God is their” well, just below the belly.
Friend, I am heartbroken that you were orally raped and the term disgusting pig does not go far enough to describe the monster who did that to you, I am so very grieved to learn this. The fact that you hope he will repent is quite admirable.
We agree in that we both “cannot hold in every case that abortion is an act of hate” (yet, with “hate” being an emotive qualifying term you just inserted into that discussion). Yet, when a woman’s life is at risk they go to a hospital, they do not make an appointment at an abortuary. As for late term abortions: where I live it is a simple option for that which you celebrate which is for any reason (read as “excuse”) whatsoever. Now, how could you say that “it may be appropriate to abort the foetus if the mother’s life is at risk” is “one that you’re possibly prepared to accept” when I am the one who made that point in the first place?
You then prove my claim of a false dichotomy since you offer either “understanding and acceptance” or “condemn her action outright” yet, my middle way of splitting the horns of that illogical dilemma is to be understanding and condemn but not acceptance (and certainly not celebrate). Now, some adults who murder adults do so as a relatively spontaneous and un-meditated “act of passion” but many others would say that they had “good” reasons and why do you never, not even once, apply “ethics in the real world” to a living healthy human baby?
It is interesting that you state “Context matters” but then admit that it all comes down to “which interpretation sounds the most sensible to me” which is about as far from hermeneutics as you can get. We already know that which interpretation sounds the most sensible to you is whichever misinterpretation celebrated fallen culture and contradicts God’s word.
Friend, I am unsure as to why you keep bringing up rape (although there may be psychological reasons) and why would I be reluctant to talk about male responsibility for rape in 21st century terms: the male is 100% guilty—period (as is the woman when she is the rapist).
Now, you see the Deuteronomy text (the one you selectively decided to quote) as an example of rape because it gave you a chance to besmirch the Bible and before pretending that you did not do so, here is a direct quotation of you regarding a commandment of God, “disgusting.”
If you want to know how “Situational Ethicists argue that rape is ‘beneficial’” you will have to ask those situational ethicists who have argued as much.
There is a consensus in Christian ethics but, by definition, there is no consensus in Christian morals. Yes, we are in 2017 and next year you may find yourself celebrating that which today you thought unimaginable and will say “It’s 2018.”
I remain unconvinced that the pronouncements on marriage in Matthew 19 allow same-sex marriage and the reason as to why everyone in 2,000 was unconvinced is not because you are the greatest Bible scholar to come along in two millennia: it is because fallen culture told you otherwise and you accepted it dogmatically.
Now, how can you say that “There’s no reference to all marriages as having to be necessarily heterosexual” when every single biblical marriages are heterosexual: as well as every marriage in any and all cultures throughout history up until mere years ago, “How we view marriage has been redefined in recent years” as you put it and it has done so due to fallen culture which rebels against God and gets “Christians” to join in that rebellion.
This is why your collective worldview is the worship of sex: sex at any cost, sex even when it leads to abortion, sex even when it results in violating God’s created order.
And as for violating God’s created order: you prove this 100%. You refer to same-sex partners who adopt and why do they do so? Because they cannot have children naturally. Also, the chromosome procedures you describe are employed for what reason? Because they cannot have children naturally.
Now, I am unsure how you conclude that you “only cheerleader same-sex marriage” but I will note yet again that you are narrow mindedly restrictive and oppressive since you “celebrate marriage between any two people.” In other words, you are just a version of those Conservative Christians that you hate so very much. I can make the exact same arguments for polygamous and poly-amorous marriages that you make for same-sex marriage (and better ones at that) and I can do like you and besmirch anyone who dares to disagree. BTW: how is it any of your business why people would want to enter such a marriage? Because they feel like! Because they decided that such would be their expression of love! (at least that is how you argue for same-sex marriage). You are censoring and restricting someone from demonstrating their love in an open way: and you call yourself compassionate.
Again we encounter your subjectivism as you go by what “is strange to me” but that is irrelevant. If generic “sexuality is innate and God-given” then you have to accept bestiality, incest, etc. Rather, “sexuality is innate and God-given” and God has provided the parameters wherein to express that sexuality. Also, it most certainly is a choice, otherwise it is called rape. And, pedophiles would also state that it is not a choice but they were born that way. That is why for decades there have been pedophile support groups which make arguments in favor of it, they celebrate it, they rationalize it—they may even say “It’s 2017.”
Thus, your further subjective “I find it hard to see…” is a non sequitur based on a faulty premise. And so I do not go about “censoring and restricting” but God does: and you know it.
Now, I would wonder about your theologically based anthropology when you state that you “find it difficult to understand why someone would willingly cheat on someone else.” Humans are fallen and then the fact is that, for example, I am attracted to women (plural). Yet, I am marriage to one woman (singular). This does not mean that I am not longer attracted to women (plural) but I am committed (the actual definition of “love”) to one woman (singular) and so I restrict myself in obedience to God’s will. Thus, by definition God’s order for sexuality demands restriction.
Now, you know that the Bible condemns every adulterous act as a sin but you do not because you consider your situationally subjective morals to be superior to God’s word. Well, I will simply point out the fact that every single person who has ever committed adultery can tell you that they were justified in doing so due to the situation (another nail in the situationalists’ coffin).
It is interesting that you narrow-mindedly condemn incest merely because “Incest is banned under the law” so you may have change denominational interpretations so as to change laws so as to allow people who love each other to be freed from your oppression of them—it’s 2017! Also, I did not compare LGBTQIAP+ sex to pedophilic desire—as anyone can see.
Back to your subjectivism that “‘Righteous judgment’ (John 7:24) means something different to me than it does to you perhaps” is not, I repeat not, valid. The contexts, contents and concepts within the Bible tells us what it means we can judge but not judging according to appearances (such as your situationalism) and to not judge hypocritically. And when I condemn same-sex marriage and abortion I am not “judging hypocritically” because I am not in a same-sex marriage and have not had nor celebrate abortion: this is basic logic. Hypocrisy is condemning that which you also do and not condemning that which you do not do even whilst not being perfect yourself.
Now, I do not accuse you of the sin of pride: the Bible does, so take it up with God—in repentance. Yet, you admit to being fine to be associated with sin. Please recall to “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22). So you see, all along you have been playing this game of pretending that it is all matters of differing interpretations. Yet, we now have irrefutable proof that one Christian can quote the Bible to another Christian, the other Christian can agree with the Bible’s statement and yet, they can, in essence say, “I DON’T CARE WHAT GOD SAYS BECAUSE FALLEN CULTURE IS MY TRUE GOD AND I LOVE MY SIN!!!!”
Your affirmation that you will continue abusing Joshua 1:9 as being applicable to your prideful celebration of LGBTQIAP+, same-sex marriage and abortion proves that your interest is not “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) but rejecting correction and saying whatever is convenient for you at any given time: you are openly misleading people.
Subjectivism again in stating “Hillary Clinton has not worshiped any false idols in my eyes” but your eyes do not count but facts do. Beside you affirmed that you were open to accepting polytheistic idolaters as being Christin so what do you care?
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image…Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them” (Exodus 20:4-5). Is this clear enough? Do not make them so as to serve them. Well, I put together an image just for you: can you see Clinton and also Obama serving images and see that Obama keeps many different idols in his pockets including a Hindu monkey god:
You may subjectively decide to ignore that Obama changed his mind for “electoral reasons” but just look at the calendar. The fact is that you prefers to claim that I am “mind reading” rather than recognizing that politicians are what they are speaks volumes: you do not even realize when you are being taken advantage of by a professional manipulator. Wait a minute now, how is it deplorable to pin you and Clinton to Sanger when she idolizes Sanger and you idolize Clinton: and all three of you agree on the virtue of murdering healthy babies? The fact that Sanger was a White supremacists is a simple fact: if you do not like it then do not support that which she promulgated in order to carry her White supremacism into action and also condemn Clinton for idolizing her.
How do you know that LGBTQIAP+ personages have God-given genetics? In fact, you should be aware that there is a multifaceted campaign, of which you are a part, to purposefully cause gender confusion. Another side note is that many homosexuals were molested as children so that it is more psychology than genetics. And, by the way, I in no way labeled you a prophet: please actually read what I actually wrote (also, FYI: there are false prophets). Also, as per my previous statements and those within this comment: how could you write “You’re right that we all judge even though we should not judge” when I stated the 100% exact opposite? Please actually read what I actually wrote. When one side uses their interpretations to justify discrimination, they are going to get judged for their actions. That is why Christianity has a number of critics and supporters and skeptics debating key ethical and theological issues. We need to look forward to a positive future.
And that, as they say, was that as Matti no longer replied.
For more details, see my relevant books.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.