It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

religious leaders and sermons and LGBT topics

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I guess this is the crux, isn't it.

The Bible is abundantly clear on what God's opinion of homosexuality (and other such sexual 'freedoms' outside of the union of a man and woman) is. This is stated in both the old and new testaments.

Arguments like "oh, so do you not wear two types of cloth mixed?" and "you must not eat shellfish then" aren't useful - as they mistake the civil law that was given to Israel (which was intended to set them apart from their neighbours in the Middle East, even in some unusual ways) for something that should apply to the church.

They don't apply to the church; after all, the church is not a state, nor does (or should) it operate as such. This is an entirely different law, given for an entirely different purpose, to an entirely different people. Can we learn from it? Absolutely. Does it apply to the church? No.

This is the distinction between two covenants. Paul talks about this at length in the book of Romans. Christians are not under this law, but under grace. There is freedom FROM the law, in Christ - just as there is freedom from the judgement of the law ("there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus").

Now with that said, Christians are still called to live holy lives - lives set apart from God, and distinct in their character from the lives of those around them. Yes, that means doing good works. Yes, that means loving your neighbour - but it also means "letting no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths" (Ephesians 4:29); so if you know a Christian who swears and speaks rudely, that's a problem. It also means "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2) so that we are "not conformed to the pattern of this world" (Romans 12:1). First and foremost, it means this:

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me."
- Matthew 16:24.

That means that for the Christian, living a life that imitates Jesus Christ means denial. It means "I won't live my own way, I'll live YOUR way". It means being transformed mentally, so that we think the way God thinks, we live the way we're called to live, and we act the way we're called to act.

In LGBT terms, that means honouring God's Word.
Romans 1 is abundantly clear that LGBT relationships "exchange that which is natural" for something God has simply never condoned. This same principle is all through Scripture, even to the closing book (Revelation), where homosexuals and adulterers and idolaters (read that? Gay relationships fall into the same category as people who don't put God first, or people who cheat on their wives/husbands) are outside in utter darkness.

So what does this mean for the person in the LGBT lifestyle?
You're living a life outside of God's intended purpose, in terms of your sexuality. This is the very Biblical definition of sin (living outside of God's intent).

What that means is that congratulations, you're in the same boat as every other human on the planet.

"For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)
Being LGBT is no different, then, to being an adulterer, or loving something else more than God, or looking at porn on your PC, or lying to your parents, or speaking rudely to someone, or... well, any number of other sins.

...because the reality is this. Sin is sin.
The LGBT lifestyle is no more worthy of pointing out than any other sin.
Someone mentioned earlier that they were in a "fire and brimstone" style church in which they'd never heard the LGBT movement preached against. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it certainly makes sense. Topically it takes up just a handful of verses out of over 31,000. The Bible isn't outraged against same sex marriage to any greater degree than it is any other sin. This is why we shouldn't have people holding up posters saying "GOD HATES FAGS" (not least because that's hardly loving), but preaching the truth that God hates sin - ALL OF IT - but that "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us", "the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God".

So to bring my giant wall of text to an end...
Should religious leaders preach against LGBT lifestyles? Absolutely - but in the whole context. God is no more outraged against that than he is all the other sin of mankind, and we ALL fall into that boat. That's why the Christian can, should and must love the LGBT community - not to the avoidance of discussing sin, mind you, but with the correct perspective, that we're ALL sinners, separated from God by our sin - and that despite that, Jesus Christ died to reconcile us to God.

This is why we must love our LGBT brothers and sisters. ...because they're you. They're me. They're us. ...and if you look at them and see anything other than yourself, then 1 John 1 verse 8 says you're deluded. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

So this is the crux. "Speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:16), for "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", but "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
edit on 12-7-2016 by Awen24 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Awen24




Being LGBT is no different, then, to being an adulterer, or loving something else more than God, or looking at porn on your PC, or lying to your parents, or speaking rudely to someone, or... well, any number of other sins.


Being born LGBT is NOT a sin. Being born LGBT is not the same as say being a rapist, a thief, a murderer, or worse, someone who sins against the Holy Spirit that resides within each and every innocent child, whether they were born LGBT or not.

Fortunately, your opinion is merely that. Your opinion.


And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.


edit on 12-7-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

A Eunuch isn't a gay person, it's a person without male sexual organs.


edit on 7 12 2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Awen24

When that time comes, I'll preach what the Bible states, and will not divert to the left or to the right.
Come what may.


You mean you'll preach what YOU interpret the bible to say. Unfortunately, interpretation is often influenced by personal bias. It's why religion is so powerful.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

A Eunuchs is also a person who can't get it up around women, and most certainly CAN be a gay person. Some men are born that way. Not all Eunuchs were castrated. The one's that were, were castrated so that they could be trusted around women. All Eunuchs still have prostates.

There was an intense society and culture among the Eunuchs.


edit on 12-7-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Some males are born without sexual organs. If a Eunuch was a man that couldn't get it up then everyone with ED would be a eunuch. It was more than castration in those days for the servants in the king's harem, they removed the penis as well.



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword

Some males are born without sexual organs. If a Eunuch was a man that couldn't get it up then everyone with ED would be a eunuch. It was more than castration in those days for the servants in the king's harem, they removed the penis as well.



Wouldn't that be something "God" wouldn't do to his people?

Without being fully whole one can not go to temple for their sacrifices...

Being born a Eunuch is not saying said person is deformed.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb... Gay

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it... And most will not... until this very age




posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword

Some males are born without sexual organs.


Reaching much?


Penile agenesis is a birth defect in humans, occurring about once in 5–6 million male births, in which a male child is born without a penis en.wikipedia.org...


You think that there were laws for men born without a penis, when the condition only occurs once in 5-6 million males? Especially since gays account for around 10% of the population.



It was more than castration in those days for the servants in the king's harem, they removed the penis as well.


I don't believe you. Citation please.


Castration (also known as gonadectomy) is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which an individual loses use of the testicles.
en.wikipedia.org...




If a Eunuch was a man that couldn't get it up then everyone with ED would be a eunuch.


There's a difference from not being able to get an erection with someone you're attracted to, and not being able to get an erection around women but achieving said erection around men.


In some ancient texts, "eunuch" may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate, or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate.
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 12-7-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz


do priests now have to circumnavigate certain verses for the sake of PC?

When I was in college I supplemented my meager funds by reading text books to blind students. One of my clients was a girl born with such bad eyes that they had to be removed shortly after birth.

I was sitting in the dorm lounge waiting for my girl friend when she noticed I was there and said ,"Would you read the Sermon on the Mount to me?"

"Sure." So I'm reading along, and then I see coming up ahead, these verses:

"22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!"

Kind of panicked me, thinking, "maybe I'll just say 'Oh, there she is now' and make a quick exit. But I swallowed, and read right through it, while watching for a reaction. Nothing, she just sat there and took it.

I'm kind of shaking just remembering it.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

People are born with defects, today just as they have been since the beginning of time. You need to show me where it says a person has to be genetically perfect to go to the temple, I've never read that in the Torah. The sacrifices did. Even in the gospels it talks about people who had been blind since birth.



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


I don't believe you. Citation please?


Sure, but believe me, I don't have time in my day to sit around and think up ways to lie to people on the Internet about male castration practices from antiquity, I truly dont.



"When the operation is about to take place, the candidate or victim--as the case may be--is placed on a kang in a sitting--or rather, reclining position. One man supports him round the waist, while two others separate his legs and hold them down firmly, to prevent any movement on his part. [...] with one sweep of the knife he is made a eunuch.

The operation is performed in this manner:--white ligatures or bandages are bound tightly round the lower part of the belly and the upper parts of the thighs, to prevent too much haemorrage. The parts about to be operated on are then bathed three times with hot pepper-water, the intended eunuch being in the reclining position as previously described. When the parts have been sufficiently bathed, the whole,--both testicles and penis--are cut off as closely as possible with a small curved knife, something in the shape of a sickle. The emasculation being effected, a pewter needle or spigot is carefully thrust into the main orifice at the root of the penis; the wound is then covered with paper saturated in cold water and is carefully bound up. After the wound is dressed the patient is made to walk about the room, supported by two of the "knifers," for two or three hours, when he is allowed to lie down.

The patient is not allowed to drink anything for three days, during which time he often suffers great agony, not only from thirst, but from intense pain, and from the impossibility of relieving nature during that period.

At the end of three days the bandage is taken off, the spigot is pulled out, and the sufferer obtains relief in the copious flow of urine which spurts out like a fountain. If this takes place satisfactorily, the patient is considered out of danger and congratulated on it; but if the unfortunate wretch cannot make water he is doomed to a death of agony, for the passages have become swollen and nothing can save him."


G.C. Stent, historian.


The place where I got the quote from also said there are two other less common ways, one is to remove the testicles only, but that person can still get an erection without testicles, and the third way which is much more rare, is where the penis is removed and the testicle left intact. They said this third method is mostly Islamic and a form of punishment only.



edit on 7 13 2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

What no linky? That's okay, I found it. www.lib.uchicago.edu...

Journa l of the Shanghai Literary and Scientific Society

He's talking about China, not the Middle East or Greece.

Here ya go.
The Ancient Roman and Talmudic Definition of Natural Eunuchs


Eunuchs were considered like women, that is, cold; therefore their fluid would normally be watery and sterile too (Generation of Animals 2.7). Applying Aristotle's reasoning that the concoction of semen by heat makes it generative, I surmise that eunuchs were deemed unable to procreate insofar as they did not feel the heat of passion during procreative acts with women. It is only if a eunuch can penetrate and reach passionate orgasm with a woman, not an easy thing for him to accomplish, that he can also implant concocted semen into her and procreate like a male -- but then he would also cease to be considered a eunuch, having in this way proven his manhood! I

If a second century eunuch could simply be a homosexual who was impotent with women, by the ninth century, the meaning of eunuch had shifted and narrowed. Byzantine emperor Leo VI no longer had to distinguish between types of eunuchs.



Returning to Ulpian's other statements about the various types of eunuchs, we recall eunuchs by nature, crushed and pounded eunuchs, and castrated eunuchs. Out of these categories, the crushed, pounded and castrated lack necessary parts of their body and are physically incapable of procreation. There is only one category left for the anatomically whole eunuchs: they are the "natural eunuchs." In D 50.16.128 natural eunuchs are mentioned first before man-made eunuchs, and in D 21.1.6.2 whole eunuchs are mentioned before anatomically deprived eunuchs.

Under Roman law, not only is it very important whether a eunuch is mutilated or anatomically whole, but the natural, whole eunuch is the true eunuch.



In the Talmud, as in Roman law, the distinction between natural eunuchs and man-made eunuchs was substantive, although it is not easy to determine whether the natural or the man-made eunuch was in a better position. Both types of eunuchs seemed to be exempted from the requirement to perform the levirate marriage or submit to chalitsah, so there was no advantage here for the natural eunuch.

If anything, the man-made eunuch seemed entitled to greater privileges than the natural eunuch, since the man-made eunuch was entitled have a child engendered in his name by his brother if he died childless. It is likely that the natural eunuch should not have married in the first place, as he was never in a state of fitness. [On later review, given that the unqualified "eunuch" is said to be exempt from levirate marriage, while the man-made eunuch is not exempt, it appears to me even more strongly that the unqualified "eunuch" is the eunuch-by-nature.]

But what is most interesting is that Rabbi Eliezer believed the natural eunuch might be cured. Here I would merely note past controversies in the United States about alleged cures for homosexuality.



"Some men by birth have a nature to turn away from women, and those who are subject to this natural constitution do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs by birth."
..... "even these are panders: they will neglect their duties and serve pleasure without suspicion, because of the common belief that they are not able to enjoy love. But the true eunuch is not the one not able, but the one not desiring to make love."
Clement (Pedagogue 3.4.26),



edit on 13-7-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

People are born with defects, today just as they have been since the beginning of time. You need to show me where it says a person has to be genetically perfect to go to the temple, I've never read that in the Torah. The sacrifices did. Even in the gospels it talks about people who had been blind since birth.


Deut 23

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord

Its far more likely to be born gay then to be born without ones sexual organs...

Which also means its more likely Jesus wasn't talking about a deformity in this case as well




posted on Jul, 13 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Anecdotally speaking, it seems quite evident that the Church bodies that have female preachers, priests, bishops, etc, are the same Church bodies that don't have a problem with LGBT.

This is a repeat of the early Hellenistic/Roman church struggle which resulted in the Forging of 1&2 Timothy, and Titus under Paul's name. Female prophets were channeling the (I assume) Christian Holy Spirit. The people who didn't approve of a living oracle of their god suppressed the women.

So now the question is: What is more important? People or properly following a book that is probably less alive than female prophets. The example of Jesus:

Mark 2
23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

25He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

27Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”


edit on 13-7-2016 by pthena because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join