We Must Reject LGBTQ Craziness Becoming America's Accepted Nor

[Westside Steve]

16 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

They are still ultimately state employees and state government is hyper sensitive to potential litigation (at least in every government org I have worked for). I have my doubts about them wanting to protect predators. 

Could be the be almost complete lack of coverage is just a coincidence

🤭

WSS

[OldBrownsFan]

CA Lawmakers Trying to Force Pastors to Embrace Pro-LGBT Ideology

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/june/ca-lawmakers-trying-to-force-pastors-to-preach-pro-lgbt-sermons

 

[MLD Woody]

Or maybe sheltering pedos is a much bigger issue in the church

[OldBrownsFan]

No matter where one turns in the culture today, the issues of homosexuality and "gender identity" are being hotly debated. The "homosexual rights" ideology continues to seek legitimization and approval—not just tolerance—of homosexual behavior, resulting in rapidly changing societal mores and values. This deeply impacts us in our day-to-day relationships with family and with fellow church members, neighbors and co-workers.

A key strategy in ushering in this uncritical acceptance and promotion of homosexuality into the wider culture has centered on churches and synagogues. Specifically, homosexual activists and their allies know that the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic found in the Bible is the last bastion of defense holding back the widespread embrace of homosexuality throughout the culture. They understand that if Bible-believing Christians and Jews can be convinced that homosexual behavior is no longer sinful in God's eyes, then the battle to fully implement their political and social goals will be won.

For example, gay strategists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, in their landmark homosexual public relations manual published in 1989, boldly encouraged gays "to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that 'justify' religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards." They go on to specify that this entails "raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings." Further, gays are called to "undermine the moral authority of homohating churches…by portraying such institutions as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology."¹

It is in this context that a propaganda campaign aimed at biblically orthodox believers has been launched, with the goal of sowing seeds of doubt about God's commands concerning homosexual behavior.

In its theological application, this campaign of misinformation is often known as "revisionist gay theology," and it's presently playing out in denomination after denomination with increasing discord. Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, a systematic questioning of clear scriptural teaching on homosexual behavior began to take place within the church – recalling the serpent's question to Eve in Genesis 3 – "Did God really say…?"²

Indeed, the Apostle Paul warns about this situation when he writes to Timothy and says:

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.³

While Paul was referring to certain false doctrines that Timothy would undoubtedly face in his ministry, this warning similarly applies to the Body of Christ today as we face a revisionist theology that – in this case – questions God's clear command to not engage in homosexual behavior.⁴

Specifically, the intended effect of revisionist gay theology is to disengage the church from the wider cultural debate about homosexuality by redefining it as God-ordained and morally permissible. And just like the serpent's temptation to Eve in the Garden, leaders in the "gay-Christian" movement are tempting us with the question: "Did God reallysay…that homosexuality is a sin?"

In general, there are several broad categories of arguments that gay revisionists are employing to cast doubt on God's Word concerning homosexual behavior:

1. Christians' prejudice against homosexuals leads them to misread biblical texts about homosexuality;
2. Scriptures that supposedly condemn homosexual behavior have actually been mistranslated;
3. Scriptures that supposedly condemn homosexual behavior have been taken out of context and do not apply to our present society.⁵

While it is not possible to offer an in-depth rebuttal to each of these sets of arguments in the scope of this article, a few general observations about revisionist theology can be made:

• The Bible is wholly reliable, trustworthy and true in all that it affirms. It clearly teaches the honor, dignity and value of the two sexes as created in God's image  – intentionally male and female – each bringing unique and complementary qualities to sexuality and relationships.
• Sexuality is a glorious gift from God – meant to be offered back to Him either in marriage for procreation, union and mutual delight or in celibacy for undivided devotion to Christ.
• Revisionist gay theology violates God's intentional design for gender and sexuality by saying that women don't need men and men don't need women.
• Revisionist theology places human feelings and desires above biblical truth, leading people to believe lies. Often those having a personal interest in the promotion of gay revisionist theology twist the plain teaching of Scripture to support and justify their behavior.
• Scripture begins and ends with the picture of marriage as an institution ordained by God – designed for the union of a man and a woman in a life-long, faithful, covenantal relationship. This view is affirmed by Moses, Christ, and Paul, and has been upheld through thousands of years of Judeo Christian history and tradition. Gay revisionists usually do not even attempt to address God's created intent for human sexuality, but instead twist Scripture and argue against those texts which condemn same-sex behavior.
• It remains highly unlikely that Bible translators mistranslated five references to sexual ethics in two different testaments of Scripture. Even more unlikely is the possibility that they only mistranslated Scriptures regarding homosexual behavior.
• Scriptures that testify against homosexual behavior—including Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10—are so clear and specific that they defy reinterpretation. It is intellectually dishonest to say that conservative individuals and leaders "interpret" such clear verses as "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" out of prejudice against homosexuals.
• Homosexuality in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy is mentioned in the wider context of sexual, immoral, and prohibited behaviors, all of which elaborate on the commandment, "You shall not commit adultery," prohibiting sex outside of a male-female marriage.⁶ This casts doubt on the argument that Scriptures condemning homosexuality have been taken out of context.
• References condemning homosexual behavior were addressed to highly different Ancient Near East cultures (from Hebrew to Greco-Roman) – nullifying the argument that scriptural passages against homosexuality are culturally bound and inapplicable to today's society.
• The argument that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality in the gospels is misleading and illogical for at least five reasons:

1. 1. The gospels are not more authoritative than those books of the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior. All authors of Scripture were inspired by God's Holy Spirit.⁷
   2. The gospels are not comprehensive. Some of the Bible's most important teachings—the explanation of spiritual gifts, the Priesthood of Christ, the doctrine of man's old and new nature—appear in other books of the Bible.
   3. The gospels do not claim to be a complete account of Jesus' life or teachings.  Sections of Jesus' life are not discussed in the gospels and we cannot be certain that Jesus never spoke about homosexual behavior.
   4. Scripture teaches that Jesus kept all the Law and affirmed all that the Law and the Prophets taught.⁸Undoubtedly, this would have included the affirmation of committed, monogamous male-female marriage and an unwavering condemnation of homosexual behavior. Given that all first century orthodox Jews would have held to this standard, the question of affirming homosexuality would not have been open to discussion in Jesus' day.
   5. Jesus clearly referred to heterosexuality as a standard. He specifically described God's created intent for human sexuality: "

Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.⁹

In sum, gay revisionist theology threatens to substantially alter the Christian church and biblical doctrine. When God is said to sanction what He plainly forbids, then a serious heresy is unfolding before us in bold fashion. Confronting this false doctrine lovingly – but firmly – is necessary because it demands that we confirm professing Christians in their sin, when we are biblically commanded to do just the opposite.

The author is indebted to 

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/sexuality/homosexuality-theology-and-the-church/revisionist-gay-theology-did-god-really-say

[MLD Woody]

Church: "Homos are evil, perverted sinners!"

Gay guy: "Could you not?"

Church: "Society is trying to force approval and promotion of homosexuality on me! It isn't fair!"

 

Give me a break. Christian wants and desires not being the end all be all on this country anymore isn't the same as you being persecuted or anything close...

 

 

 

Also, again, quoting the Bible to make your point is just circular logic.... But I realize that type of thinking is a cornerstone for you

[The Cysko Kid]

1 hour ago, Westside Steve said:

Hey at least it gets a lot of headlines. Unlike the following... but which group is a favorite of the mainstream media? The Catholic church or the teachers union?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-and-unions-tamp-down-news-of-children-abused-by-teachers/

 

WSS

If by abused by teachers you mean a 14 year old kid banging his 22 year old teacher it's not quite the same as a drunk old priest diddling the alter boys. 

[OldBrownsFan]

27 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

Church: "Homos are evil, perverted sinners!"

Gay guy: "Could you not?"

Church: "Society is trying to force approval and promotion of homosexuality on me! It isn't fair!"

 

Give me a break. Christian wants and desires not being the end all be all on this country anymore isn't the same as you being persecuted or anything close...

 

 

 

Also, again, quoting the Bible to make your point is just circular logic.... But I realize that type of thinking is a cornerstone for you

Church: "Homos are evil, perverted sinners!"

Some Christians use that type of language, not many,  most don't. Most in the church believe it is a sin like sex outside of marriage or adultery. One that needs to be repented of. You don't see many in the church calling those shacking up or committing adultery as "evil perverted sinners" but it is not condoned either. I don't see those committing those sins trying to force acceptance in the church or to say somehow the bible is wrong about adultery or sex outside of marriage.

*******************

Give me a break. Christian wants and desires not being the end all be all on this country anymore isn't the same as you being persecuted or anything close...

*******************

 I have said all along the gospel should never be forced on anyone. It is a choice one makes. On the same token I cannot condone homosexuality when the bible clearly calls it a sin and I will not have condoning of it forced on me. That is my decision to believe what God's word says about it. There are ministers who will go to jail before ever being forced to perform a gay wedding. We are not there yet but we are headed there. We are already at a point where what the bible states about homosexuality is likely considered to be hate speech.

And on issues of faith and belief and of the church I will use the bible for reference and not a calculus book.

CA Lawmakers Trying to Force Pastors to Embrace Pro-LGBT Ideology

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/june/ca-lawmakers-trying-to-force-pastors-to-preach-pro-lgbt-sermons

 

 

[Gorka]

[MLD Woody]

7 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

 

And on issues of faith and belief and of the church I will use the bible for reference and not a calculus book.

That's a shame because only one of those is repeatable and a legitimate source. 

 

You don't need to accept homosexuality, you just need to not discriminate against it. Refusing service, etc. because of someone's genetics is just that. Banning their ability to get married is that. 

 

Your religious freedom isn't a freedom to discriminate

[OldBrownsFan]

22 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

That's a shame because only one of those is repeatable and a legitimate source. (In your opinion)

 

You don't need to accept homosexuality, you just need to not discriminate against it. Refusing service, etc. because of someone's genetics is just that. Banning their ability to get married is that. 

 

Your religious freedom isn't a freedom to discriminate

Refusing service in most cases would be discrimination but not all cases. We also have religious freedoms  (for now) .  My understanding is the Christian baker did  not refuse to make a cake for the gay couple but they wanted him to decorate a cake in a way he could not in good conscience do. Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake for a Nazi supporter with a message that would be offensive to them?  The Christian florist refused to attend a gay wedding to do the flower arrangement. It was not she would not sell the gay couple flowers but her conscience would not allow her to attend the ceremony. This is what I am speaking about.

.

[The Cysko Kid]

Did the gays kill a whole bunch of christians? It's not even a comparable situation. 

[The Cysko Kid]

But no. And restraunts can also refuse service to trump supporters because it makes them uncomfortable if they want. 

If you want to open those floodgates you will have to deal with the floodwaters. 

[OldBrownsFan]

Just now, The Cysko Kid said:

Did the gays kill a whole bunch of christians? It's not even a comparable situation. 

Still a matter of conscience in both cases.

[The Cysko Kid]

Not really. It's unconscionable for Christians to be total bigots but they don't seem to have the self awareness to see it. 

[OldBrownsFan]

Just now, The Cysko Kid said:

Not really. It's unconscionable for Christians to be total bigots but they don't seem to have the self awareness to see it. 

I guess we are bigots too against people shacking up or committing adultery or any other number of sins. In that sense I guess we are just equal opportunity bigots.

[calfoxwc]

Is LGBT tyranny against Christians finally coming to an end? | Opinion ...

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/.../is-lgbt-tyranny-against-christians-finally-coming-to-a...

 

Sep 7, 2018 - September 7, 2018 (American Thinker) – Over the last ten years, the LGBT movement created a brotherhood out of its victims. I have gotten to ...

[calfoxwc]

Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing ...

 

https://www.amazon.com/Outrage-Activists-Trashing-Democracy.../dp/0895260212

 

Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage [Peter ... Judicial tyranny is enshrining "gay marriage" as law.

[calfoxwc]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0615/colon062915.php3

[Gorka]

11 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Refusing service in most cases would be discrimination but not all cases. We also have religious freedoms  (for now) .  My understanding is the Christian baker did  not refuse to make a cake for the gay couple but they wanted him to decorate a cake in a way he could not in good conscience do. Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake for a Nazi supporter with a message that would be offensive to them?  The Christian florist refused to attend a gay wedding to do the flower arrangement. It was not she would not sell the gay couple flowers but her conscience would not allow her to attend the ceremony. This is what I am speaking about.

.

That's really not a good analogy. I don't think one even exists.  But I could understand how baking a gay cake or photographing a gay wedding would make them feel like they have become participants in something they are vehemently opposed to due to their religious beliefs.  

Let's just say they should have a choice...all you libs like that word right?

 

[The Cysko Kid]

Christians trying so hard to get into the victim heirarchy. They look at Muslims and say "why not us?" 

Well it's because people have been the victims of you guys being garbage for a long long time. No one feels sorry for you that you're finally getting called on things like bullying the weak and marginalized. 

[Gorka]

15 minutes ago, The Cysko Kid said:

Not really. It's unconscionable for Christians to be total bigots but they don't seem to have the self awareness to see it. 

"Total bigots?" Don't go full libtard on us dude.

[Gorka]

1 minute ago, The Cysko Kid said:

Christians trying so hard to get into the victim heirarchy. They look at Muslims and say "why not us?" 

Well it's because people have been the victims of you guys being garbage for a long long time. No one feels sorry for you that you're finally getting called on things like bullying the weak and marginalized. 

Sigh. You've gone full libtard.

[The Cysko Kid]

Except I'm not. Like at all. I just don't respect Christians in the slightest. No respect for them or god or Jesus or muhammad for that matter. 

[The Cysko Kid]

Given the choice between a whole bunch of loud flamboyant gays floating around or a whole bunch of christians thumping their little Bibles I'll take the homos every time. 

[OldBrownsFan]

6 minutes ago, Gorka said:

That's really not a good analogy. I don't think one even exists.  But I could understand how baking a gay cake or photographing a gay wedding would make them feel like they have become participants in something they are vehemently opposed to due to their religious beliefs.  

Let's just say they should have a choice...all you libs like that word right?

 

"would make them feel like they have become participants in something they are vehemently opposed to due to their religious beliefs."

**************************

It is a matter of conscience. As much as I like Trump if he came out tomorrow on the pro abortion side of the argument he would lose my vote.  I made up my mind years ago I would never vote for anyone who was pro choice, not even for a dog catcher. My conscience will not permit it.

[calfoxwc]

6 minutes ago, The Cysko Kid said:

Given the choice between a whole bunch of loud flamboyant gays floating around or a whole bunch of christians thumping their little Bibles I'll take the homos every time. 

yep, full liberal dump-America-and-turn-it-upside down, inside-out, and bass ackwards.

[tiamat63]

18 minutes ago, The Cysko Kid said:

Given the choice between a whole bunch of loud flamboyant gays floating around or a whole bunch of christians thumping their little Bibles I'll take the homos every time. 

I'd venture a guess that the homos probably have more booze so...    

Unless the opposition is Catholic.  Them people can Draaaaaaank. 

[tiamat63]

19 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

"would make them feel like they have become participants in something they are vehemently opposed to due to their religious beliefs."

**************************

It is a matter of conscience. As much as I like Trump if he came out tomorrow on the pro abortion side of the argument he would lose my vote.  I made up my mind years ago I would never vote for anyone who was pro choice, not even for a dog catcher. My conscience will not permit it.

To make this clear, you're pro-government regulation for a social issue. 

"Conservative" Indeed.    You need not explain further. 

[MLD Woody]

58 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Refusing service in most cases would be discrimination but not all cases. We also have religious freedoms  (for now) .  My understanding is the Christian baker did  not refuse to make a cake for the gay couple but they wanted him to decorate a cake in a way he could not in good conscience do. Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake for a Nazi supporter with a message that would be offensive to them?  The Christian florist refused to attend a gay wedding to do the flower arrangement. It was not she would not sell the gay couple flowers but her conscience would not allow her to attend the ceremony. This is what I am speaking about.

.

Being a Nazi is a political choice. And they probably want literal hate speech on their cake.

Your sexual orientation is not a choice. And they aren't asking for any hate speech on a cake

[Westside Steve]

2 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

To make this clear, you're pro-government regulation for a social issue. 

"Conservative" Indeed.    You need not explain further. 

Actually conservative doesn't equal Anarchy even though that's one way of looking at it. I guess. 

WSS