Secular gay activists have worked for decades to remove the taboo from homosexuality. “Loud and Proud” is their motto, and now Christian gay activists are doing the same work in conservative churches. Eve Tushnet writes in There’s a Place for Us: Revoice and Gay Christian Futures
There is a future for you in the Church which is not isolated, silent, and shamed, but rich in love and fruitfulness. Whereas almost all the advice and theology I’d heard up until that point had two components: 1) Here’s what you can’t do; and 2) Have you tried being straight? Have better desires!
Rachel Gilson at The Gospel Coalition is preparing a space for loud and proud gays in the conservative church. The first step of course is to give gays trusted access to our children:
Lily was crushed. She’d told just a member of her church her secret, and the member warned her that if anyone else found out, she would probably lose her position teaching the youth. What was this secret so deadly that she would be warned to hide it?
Lily is same-sex attracted.
Neither the struggle nor the terror is uncommon. How, then, do we create an environment in our churches, small groups, and families where we can even have this conversation, where Lily can share her struggle without fear?
We must also repent of seeing homosexuality as taboo:
Ask the Spirit of God to help you identify false stereotypes you may hold. Read a good book like Messy Grace by Caleb Kaltenbach [read TGC’s review], or check out the excellent materials at Living Out. Repent and confess anything the Lord brings to mind.
…You may be the key to helping other Christians recognize ways they’ve been (wrongly) off-putting while trying to (rightly) hold to Scripture’s truth about sexual morality.
Notice that she is linking to familiar names. The Living Out organization is run by Pastor Sam Allberry, and the book review she links to is by Rosaria Butterfield:
Messy Grace threw me back to another time and place. After the first paragraph, I realized I am a stakeholder in this story. Many years ago, if my lesbian partner and I had adopted or given birth to a son, we would’ve raised him the same way Caleb’s mom and partner raised him. We would’ve wanted the best for our son, and we would’ve committed ourselves to raising him in the egalitarian norms of the LGBT community, teaching him to keep a wide and watchful distance from Christians, those people who despised us. We would’ve taken him to gay pride marches so that he could’ve experienced the fun, humor, culture, and political commitments of those who attend. And if our teenage son had “come out” to us as a Bible-believing Christian, we would’ve feared for his life and ours. Our sense of rejection and betrayal would’ve been acute. How could the child we raised turn against us like this? How could he become the worst of our enemies?
The unspoken assumption in all of this is that taboos are unChristian, and if we destroy them nothing bad will happen. As Larry Kummer says, social justice warriors are like monkeys at the controls of a nuclear power plant, furiously spinning the dials with little understanding of the machinery. But are Christians really forbidden to treat homosexuality as a taboo and shameful? Ephesians 5:3-12 tells us that it is shameful to even speak* of sexual immorality (ESV):
3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.
Romans 1:21-27 makes this even clearer (ESV):
21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
The other unspoken assumption is that taboos don’t serve any useful purpose so we can safely dispense with them. But this is foolish. Taboos aren’t just punitive, they are protective. I think the real assumption is that we can pretend to destroy the taboo but young people will know we aren’t really serious. Either way, this foolishness is compounded by our foolishness in encouraging women to delay marriage. We expect young men to patiently prepare a decade or more for their daughter of the king. Most probably will, but in the internet age with both secular and Christian culture in agreement that homosexuality isn’t taboo, there is a great deal of mischief that will snare at least some of them (NSFW).
It is worth noting as well that homosexuality isn’t the only taboo Christians will be pushed to erase. In our new world the only taboo is the idea of a taboo. Today the push for conservative Christians is to be more open minded regarding Same Sex Attraction (SSA), but as we’ve seen each SJW victory sets the stage for the next one. If gays need a safe space to be “not ok” in our churches, clearly those who experience other unchosen attractions will deserve this as well. How long before conservative Christians need to apologize to the GSA community for our current hatefulness?
A taboo too far?
This phenomenon is known as GSA – Genetic Sexual Attraction Syndrome…
Some of the public conversations now turn to whether incestuous unions – where they are consensual and between adults – should be tolerated and decriminalised. Indeed, in Sweden half-sibling marriage is already legal and the jurisdictions of some other countries, too, do not penalise such acts.
Media stories only portray heterosexual familial partnerships, however, so there’s precious little coverage on brothers or male close family relations who’ve experienced GSA after a period of separation. That’s not to say it hasn’t happened, of course, but the coverage says a great deal about such being a cultural “taboo too far” for us. By contrast, popular cultural representations of heterosexual sibling incest is often eroticised, with the woman frequently portrayed as a feminine ideal: beautiful and sexy. In such story lines, incestuous relationships function to add an extra thrill of the illicit.
H/T Ace of Spades.
*As commenter Paul notes, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t rebuke such immorality.
On the subject of GSA.
I was adopted at birth. At the age of 36 I met my biological parents, seperately. Largely because of genetic information I needed to know.
At the pre introduction counsel, mandated here in Ontario, one of the things they warned us about, besides all the upchurn of emotion, was genetic sexual attraction.
Basically it was explained like this. We all are attracted to people like ourselves physically. Dark hair to dark hair, tall to tall, Scots to Scots. Also many mannerisms, speech patterns are genetic. The speed, rythm and choice of words. We sound alike. Even the pheremones given off are linked.
They warned us that normally familiarity overrides all this. Blunts it.
At adoption reunions, especially for opposite sex adults, it all adds up to a complete stranger “who just gets me.” They finish my sentences after a day. They look like me. They know me. They smell so good.
Could it be… My soulmate?
No dumbass, its the parent you haven’t seen before. Its genetic.
Even after all the warning they said 1 in 5 situations got out of hand. Either something happened or the parties had to distance because of the reaction.
I felt it. Here was an old cougarish lady but somehow she has an allure. (Shakes head) jesus its my ma.
Hell my wife sat there the first time she met my older brother. Just stared. “Christ, I never saw him before but he taslks like you. Even does thast thing you do to piss me off.”
GSA among adoptees is a real thing. I could see it amongst siblings seperated by divorce then reunited.
It is a danger modern society has to deal with.
With defined parantege, no adoption and no divorce it was never an issue before.
Seperation of genetic family just didn’t happen so GSA was never a thing.
Aint modern progress great!
“Ask the Spirit of God to help you identify false stereotypes you may hold.” I have yet to find a stereotype that was false. Stereotypes come about because of people observing reality. I’m Italian-American. 100 percent of the stereotypes about us are true. They might not apply to me personally, but they do to the group. People need to realize this. It might be unpleasant, but the truth often is. If you made it to age 30 without realizing this about stereotypes, you’re an idiot, not matter what race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual persuasion you are.
@Dalrock : Ephesians 5:3-12 tells us that it is shameful to even speak of sexual immorality
That’s not what the text is saying. If it was, Paul would not himself even dare to mention homosexuality, let alone condemn it.
Matthew Henry is commenting likewise:
“Let it not be once named among you – That is, let it not exist; let there be no occasion for mentioning such a thing among you; let it be wholly unknown. This cannot mean that it is wrong to “mention” these vices for the purpose of rebuking them, or cautioning those in danger of committing them – for Paul himself in this manner mentions them here, and frequently elsewhere – but that they should not “exist” among them.”
Gill:
“let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; that is, neither one or other of them; the sense is, that they should not be committed; so that there might be no occasion to speak of them, even though with abhorrence, as if there were no such vices in being; and much less should they be named with pleasure, and pleaded for”
So it’s not shameful to speak about it, but it is something shameful to speak about.
And again, the texts are clearly condemning homosexual acts, and the indulging in homosexual lust, which is different from people struggling with same sex attraction.
The problem I have with declaring talking about a certain disposition or tendency or feeling, as a taboo, that it effectively kills any addressing of the topic, as well as makes it impossible to have people talk about their inner feelings in a pastoral context. It doesn’t allow us to effectively prepare for and equip others to similarly withstand feelings to turn into actions. Nor does it give the opportunity to explore deeper issues that might be causing such feelings.
I get your point Paul. I’ll do some wordsmithing.
Edit: I’ve added an asterisk.
@mgtowhorseman
This is why genetic relatives especially siblings and other close relatives are meant to be raised together. So that the Westernmarck effect kicks in and prevents the GSA phenomenon from occurring.
Broken families may exacerbate the problems that you mentioned.
Yet again, we see this need to have access to other people’s children. If there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia, why do they care about spending time with children? If the Family Guy style homosexual pedophile is merely a negative stereotype, you would think they would want to stay miles away from unrelated children. It’s utterly bizarre for an adult to have such a fixation.
@Dalrock
”this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t rebuke such immortality.”
immorality*
[D: Thanks! Fixed.]
@Brian K
It really is striking. It comes up all the time in the articles on the subject. I think the most innocent explanation is the obsession with removing the shame/taboo. If they can get us to prove to our kids that it isn’t taboo by exposing them to loud and proud gays they know the next generation will lack the “ick” reaction we experience.
The scary thing is that we are several years in to this and there isn’t a meaningful backlash. Note how many commenters here in the men’s sphere had a favorable impression of Rosaria Butterfield when I started the series.
Homosexuality (and its cousin Transgenderism) are the only sins I can think of that are actually celebrated and considered cause for “pride”. Are there any others?
@Dalrock Indeed. The acceptance of this encroachment into Christian spaces is chilling. And there is a thin line between propagandizing children to eliminate the “ick factor” (which I think comes from witnessing behavior contrary to God’s natural order), and straight up grooming them. In either case, Matthew 18:6 comes to mind.
I think you’re spot on about the protective function of taboos. I have a female friend who goes to an awful evanjellyfish mega church. She has a friend who identifies both as a lesbian and a Christian. My friend swears that her lesbian friend acknowledges her activity to be sinful, and is truly repentant. I can’t help but thinking that if she had grown up in the 1950’s, she likely would never been tempted to experiment with that lifestyle, and would have probably married young, had babies, and lived the natural life that the Cultural Marxists have made obsolete.
@Robert What A few years ago, those were the only sins that people associated with pride (which is itself a sin.) The cultural rot has deepened now, with slut walks, “no slut shaming”, and sex positive feminism. Fornication in general is now seen as empowering. And the “no body shaming” crowd is celebrating gluttony. What a time to be alive.
The terrifying thing to me is how many people we can see that are starting to accept the narrative of accepting those that identify as homosexual. Even here, among those of us who are trying to stay informed on these issues, there is already a separation occuring between those who will eventually accept it and those who will resist it. It’s fascinating to watch and terrifying at the same time.
Pingback: Loud and proud complementarians: No more taboos. | Reaction Times
Brian K,
Yet again, we see this need to have access to other people’s children. If there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia,
There IS a link. All major religions have known this for centuries.
Romans Ch 1 paints for us a picture of what happens when a culture denies God.
First, God gives them over to a sexual revolution (Rom 1:24-25), then God gives them over to a homosexual revolution (Rom 1:26-27), then God gives them over to “a depraved mind” (Rom 1:28).
Our culture went through a sexual revolution about 60 years ago, a homosexual revolution about 20 years ago, and is now in the “depraved mind” stage. Once in the “depraved mind” stage, Pandora’s box opens, and every form of perversion becomes normal, as it was in Rome and Greece, and in Canaan before that.
The first time I read Leviticus 18, I remember thinking “why would anyone need to be told those things are wrong? Isn’t it obvious? Obviously, no, it’s not obvious. Because the Canaanites did all those things, and that’s the reason God kicked them out of the land. And the Israelites followed suit, and that’s why God kicked them out of the land.
Everything in Leviticus 18 will be normalized. Plus, all kind of abominations that weren’t possible back then.
Dalrock,
If you want to know what’s next, listen to what they say. What do these homosexual activists demand from Christians? Access to your children. Why? Look at the RCC and the current travails of its members. The lavender mafia wanted access to youth, and having obtained it sexually exploited the children of the flock. GSA is not the end game, acceptance of homosexual pedophilia is the end game.
@Anon Oh, I know there’s a link. I’m old enough to remember a time when it was common knowledge that you keep the kids away from the flamboyant “confirmed bachelor” down the street. As I recall, the Boy Scouts ban on sodomite scout masters came after 1,500 pedophilic incidents over a 20 year period. These days, virtue signaling lunatics are dressing their sons in drag and parading them before pedophiles at sodomite strip clubs. Seared consciences and reprobate minds abound.
Remember, the, uh, North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association used to be a pretty mainstream sodomite rights group. They got to march in the sodomy pride parades and everything. The leaders of the movement knew that they had to hide the pedos for the propaganda to do it’s job. Soon they’ll be able to let the monsters back out of the closet. The culture is almost “pozzed” enough.
@ Brian K
One link between pedophilia and homosexuality is that homosexuality has to be normalized before pedophilia can be normalized. In fact, homosexuality had to be normalized before transgenderism could be normalized, and transgenderism had to be normalized before pedophilia could be normalized.
Now that transgenderism is being normalized, pedophilia will fall right into place.
Think about it. If it’s moral for a 12-year-old boy to consent to a 35-year-old surgeon cutting off his genitals, what logical objection is there to a 12-year-old boy consenting to that same 35-year-old surgeon fondling his genitals? What’s worse, more life-changing, more permanent; cutting off a 12-year-old boy’s genitals, or fondling them?
The justification for pedophilia is built into transgenderism, just as the justification for transgenderism is built into homosexuality.
And so, inevitably, we now have 11-year-old drag queens dancing for money at gay bars.
Read the comments, if you dare.
But hey, homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia. We can be sure, because the perverts told us so.
@okrahead
Agreed. I used GSA as an example of the taboos that are being eroded, but it isn’t the end game. The end game is to erase them all, and the same logic being applied by Christians on SSA will be applied on every other taboo in the future, including cross dressing, beastiality, cuckoldry, and pedophilia. The assault is on the idea of a taboo, along with promoting the idea that heterosexuality and the nuclear family are ‘idols’. This last part is the Christianization of the sjw cis/hetero privilege, and I’ll cover a bit of it in a future post.
Any buyer?
“We live in a culture that often equates beauty and energy with youth. But we’d like to turn that way of thinking on its head. We believe women can be smart and sassy, beautiful and confident ― and that they can continue to shake things up in the world around them ― whether they’re 50 or 75 or 100…”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/11-middle-aged-women-strip-down-to-reclaim-sexy-on-their-own-terms_us_56d1d0c9e4b0871f60eb9da8
^ The above link shared is NSFW. And you might see things you didn’t want to see neither.
@Oscar: Excellent points. The transgender movement was bad enough when it was just mentally ill (and probably demonically possessed) adults demanding not only access to cancer causing hormone treatments, and maiming surgeries, to look like their delusion tell them they should, but also that we pretend that they actually are what they pretend to be. It’s the equivalent of giving the guy at the mental asylum who thinks he’s Napoleon plastic surgery to look more like Napoleon, and then passing a law that says everyone has to address him as emperor.
Once the drag queens started showing up in public libraries and schools, and the leftists started “transitioning” their children, any sane society would have swiftly put a stop to it. It’s a clear case of sexualization of children. It all started with the lie that “it’s okay to be gay.”
I could not be angry at our Lord if he took to fire and brimstone and destroyed us all. This is sick, twisted, demented, cruel, callous, unGodly, despicable, ghastly and inhuman. It makes me angry.
Children deserve to be brought up without being entrapped by this insanity, why are ‘Churches’ promoting this shit towards children? That’s evil.
They’re talking to most innocent of us and giving them straight to evil without a second thought.
Sorry, that’s ‘They’re taking….’
The assault is on the idea of a taboo, along with promoting the idea that heterosexuality and the nuclear family are ‘idols’. This last part is the Christianization of the sjw cis/hetero privilege, and I’ll cover a bit of it in a future post.
Not sure where this fits in all that, but …
I unfortunately saw Wreck-It Ralph 2, Ralph Breaks the Internet, and it had a part that clearly taught that a relationship with a woman is not for life, and that only insecure primitive men want a woman bound to them like that.
Tonight I saw Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, and it also taught that a relationship with a woman is most likely a temporary thing, and only a washed-up fool of a man would keep trying to stay with that one woman for life.
I don’t think those two children’s movies both coming out with that same, completely unnecessary, horrible and despair inducing “adult” theme could be a coincidence. Satan’s minions are up to evil again. It seems like they are trying to make male/female marriage look like more of a guaranteed trap than it already has become. Like they don’t even want kids to ever start dreaming of having a good marriage that lasts for life. They painted lasting marriage as constricting to women and a selfish desire of men. Which will inevitably lead to people giving up on what was once the natural use of the opposite sex. With every inch of ground that the Feminazi’s & their White Knights gain, I’m more open to getting a sex-bot/sex-doll and just praying for the end of this evil world, and God’s return.
My wife acted like she would help me happily while we were dating, but on our honeymoon she made it clear that our marriage was only going to be about her, and the instant it wasn’t all about her, it was going to be over! And for 16 years the “church” has been shitting on me for objecting to that arrangement.
Anyhow, I’ve tried to enlist my wife’s new church (she switched again) in trying to talk some sense into her, I came down pretty heavy on the cunt worshipping cowards hoping to force some sort of reaction out of them. The cuck-leader they had has now left, so we’ll have to see if there is a saved soul there who will do right by me and my children. Please pray for my situation, my wife is a slave to her sin and seems completely blinded to righteousness Vs evil.
I have a few general thoughts.
One, this is why you don’t compromise on what the Bible says. Once you throw out (not so) small stuff, the precedent has been set; the Bible can be reinterpreted or outright ignored whenever you don’t like what you read. All you need is the culture to alter enough to where it seems acceptable. We’re here today because of compromises made a century ago on things that would seem trivial most, but they were ultimately rooted in a rejection of what God commanded.
Two, it’s easy to see why God had such severe penalties for Israelites who engaged in degeneracy. It cannot be tolerated. If you allow it in your community, it spreads like a plague. I’m not fond of a theocracy, but I appreciate the idea that a community has to expel or remove anyone who doesn’t adhere to its moral codes or would seek to undermine it.
Three, those of us who are still opposed to this stuff should remember that such behavior was going on in Israel when prophets like Elijah were around. He felt alone enough to want to die, but God reassured him that there were three thousand other Hebrews who hadn’t turned astray. It is the same with us. We will witness entire denominations abandon God and the Bible and turn to immorality. Major theologians and church leaders will preach heresies that will astound us, even at this point in the game. It will get much worse. But that doesn’t mean we give up. We keep going. The fight isn’t over; in the end God will prevail and justice will be meted out to those who had the power and responsibility to preach the truth and instead told lies.
I suddenly appreciate the meaning of God’s instruction to leave vengeance to him. What he has in store for apostates and heretics who aid in the abuse of children as we’re seeing will be much worse than anything man can inflict. Death will not bring these people peace.
@ Dalrock
“I think the most innocent explanation is the obsession with removing the shame/taboo. If they can get us to prove to our kids that it isn’t taboo by exposing them to loud and proud gays they know the next generation will lack the “ick” reaction we experience.”
That is the most innocent explanation, but not the most likely. But we want to believe the innocent one because the likely one is too terrifying to accept instinctively.
@ Brian K
True, but a sane society would’ve never had drag queens showing up in public libraries in the first place. We’re living in a culture that God has given up to “a depraved mind”, which is, by definition, insane.
Actually, it started long before that. Remember, according to Romans 1, a culture has to go through three stages before it reaches the “depraved mind” stage.
1. Reject God
2. Sexual revolution
3. Homosexual revolution
Our culture began rejecting God when “liberal” theologians began asking “did God really say?” Sound familiar?
Because marriage is the only God-ordained place for sex, marriage had to be undermined before the sexual revolution could take place. False teachings about “mutual submission” (a result of “did God really say?” theology) took care of that. No fault divorce, child support and alimony made it official.
Rampant divorce, adultery and promiscuity in the Church killed the Church’s moral authority when criticizing the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution paved the way for the homosexual revolution, which led to the “depraved mind”, which is where we are now.
They want access to children so that they can convert them into homosexuals, it’s that simple. In my late teens and early twenties I was big into acting and I was a member of a well known theater company in Australia. Most of the men were gay and one took pity on me early on and sat me down for a talk which was a series of warnings.
Essentially he outlined the more common tactics that homos used to seduce and convert young men. They know that many young men are sexually frustrated and susceptible to falling for lustful passions, and never forget that as defined in the bible homosexuality is a sin of passion.
One common tactic was to get a young man drunk or stoned or a combination of both to the extent that he passed out in the home of a gay man. The gay man would then strip him and put him in his bed, but otherwise wouldn’t touch him. In the morning the young man would wake up, naked and in the bed of another man with the other man naked who would inform him that he was the best that he had ever had. With nobody to observe and with temptation right there and almost no barriers remaining the success rate was apparently astoundingly high.
Now imagine the susceptibility of very young teenage men with all of the confusion around sexuality and sex that naturally occurs at that age.
These people are evil.
By the way, during the gay marriage debate in Australia last year before the law was passed I outlined some of these tactics on Australia’s best known right wing blog. The commenters who are otherwise as conservative as they come, refused outright to believe what I was saying, accusing me of making things up.
We have gone so far in lock step with the homos that any revelation as to their true nature is too confronting for ordinary people.
Nick Mgtow: “We live in a culture that often equates beauty and energy with youth. But we’d like to turn that way of thinking on its head. We believe women can be smart and sassy, beautiful and confident ― and that they can continue to shake things up in the world around them ― whether they’re 50 or 75 or 100…”
Well, they’re partially correct. Women can be sassy at any age. Sitcoms are full of sassy females of every age. From sassy little grrrl power brats, to sassy old yentas.
But as “sassy” means being foul mouthed, insolent, insulting, bitchy, and verbally abusive, the bizarre part is that we’re supposed to celebrate and admire this.
This is the current narrative, and it’s actually been around for a while. And it’s being pushed everywhere. I am so withdrawn from the current culture that I feel like I’m Amish:
@Robert What
Female rebellion. And for a longer time than homosexuality and transgenderism too.
“Lily is same-sex attracted….It will cost her her position as youth leader….”
Well, yeah.
I live in Australia. IF any adult has to work with children, s/he has to undergo a Working With Children Check (WWCC), required by law. As churches have had Royal Commissions (the equivalent of federal inquiry) into Child Abuse here, they are even more strict.
It seems that Christians in particular and conservatives in general can’t win: If you don’t allow the perverts near your children, you are a bigot. If you allow the and they do “what comes naturally” to them, you get sued and class actions against you.
And why is it that women have this perverse desire to encourage homosexuality anyway? I know of very few men who endorse it, but huge numbers of women. Is it because men are binary but women fluid?
Perhaps you could take all the arguments that you can find on how the churches need to accept homosexuality and simply substitute the word “cannibalism”.
How could any right-thinking progressive Christian refute the arguments that worked so well for homosexuals?
Sharkly,
“Please pray for my situation, my wife is a slave to her sin and seems completely blinded to righteousness Vs evil.”
I will continue to pray for you and your wife.
@ Brian K
That “Napoleon” analogy was the best I’ve yet seen. With your permission I will use it regularly.
And why is it that women have this perverse desire to encourage homosexuality anyway? I know of very few men who endorse it, but huge numbers of women. Is it because men are binary but women fluid?
In part, yes.
IMO, it’s a few things —
1. As you say, women are fluid, and basically all bisexual at least latently, so there is more natural sympathy;
2. Women do not have the same “ick” factor we do about gay sex between men, many women actually find it erotic and hot (in addition to finding lesbian sex erotic and hot);
3. For feminist women, gay men are natural allies because they share a common “enemy” (straight men), and “someone who has the same enemy as me is my friend”;
4. Women like gay men as friends, because they can provide “guy services” to them without the woman having to worry about the guy being attracted to them or hitting on them (remember, for many attractive women, who get hit on a lot, the ideal world would be where all the unattractive men are gay so that they aren’t constantly hitting on her and annoying her).
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler — not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.
(1 Cor. 5:9–13 NAS95)
Regarding trannies, I have heard it said: You have a right to your delusion. You do not have a right to my participating in your delusion.”
RPL,
The problem is that allowing them to live in their delusion has been a direct cause of them forcing their delusion on us. Allowing it impacts too much and requires some level of acceptance.
This is what happens when you let evil have an active voice in society.
Mentally ill actress Rose McGowan, and her “gender fluid partner,” have released a video demonstrating the predatory nature of the Christmas song, “Baby It’s Cold Outside”: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/12/rose-mcgowan-and-partner-reenact-baby-its-cold-outside-in-bizarre-video/
Actress Rose McGowan has reenacted “Baby It’s Cold Outside” in a bizarre video with her gender fluid partner Rain Dove.
The #MeToo activist released the video in hopes of proving that the lyrics are no longer acceptable to her delicate sensibilities.
The Dean Martin holiday favorite is performed in spoken word, while McGowan plays the woman and Dove portrays a predatory man.
The description goes on to argue that the holiday classic is “deemed controversial and sexist by many.” They also note that several radio stations have pulled the song after listeners “wrote angry letters.”
“So, we decided to make a video reflecting a scene in which many believe the song represents in modern day. Even though Frank Lesser may have felt the song was progressive at the time in which he wrote it- it wouldnt be considered appropriate today to be so persistent after someone says no. …
[Dean] Martin’s daughter Deana Martin has blasted the ridiculous outrage.
A little off-topic levity for y’all.
What we got here is another case of the Churchianity of Feminism would rather celebrate sexual perversion than the virtue of chastity.
From the Catholic catechism (which some of our laity/clergy should read again)
Chastity and homosexuality
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
(CCC 2357-2359)
@wodansthane You have my permission to spread my Napoleon analogy far and wide. It’s my gift to the world.
@Oscar I’m glad to see others discovering the brilliance of Lutheran Satire. Do yourself a favor and watch all of the Conal and Donal videos.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. WRONG!
Here is your NABRE Catholic Bible right back at you:
1 Corinthians 7:2 but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
It doesn’t say make them celibate priests, and surround them with naïve altar boys. But let me know how that is working out for the Catholic church. I’d be interested to know what kind of fruit is born from leaving God’s word to try your own new tradition. I suspect bad things may come from this homosexual priest idea. Let me know, earl, how applying this crazy idea works. God says to give them what he created them to enjoy, not to feed their deviance, or even test their ability to remain sinless while subject to constant temptation that is not good for them.
Genesis 2:18 (NABRE) The Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.
I just got a bad feeling that making faggots priests and telling them to stay celibate, is not going to work out as holy and righteous for the Catholic church, than if they counselled these men to get back straight like God created them. Am I on the right track men? Do any of the rest of you suspect they may suffer as a result of the stupidity of making faggots into their priests? /S
The RCC approach does seem to be adopting the language and ideology of the enemy. Treating homosexuality as an immutable, instead condition is a big part of the problem. Homosexuality is activity, sinful activity, that sinners led by the flesh may be tempted into. The whole concept of exclusive homosexuality seems to be relatively new. Even in Ancient Greece and Rome, most of the sodomites still married and had children. As for the celibate priesthood, it goes against Paul’s dictates regarding the qualifications for preachers of the Word, which state that such a man should be a “husband of one wife.”
* That should have read “immutable, innate condition.”
Which is why the catechism says: “It [homosexuality]has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.” and “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”
and “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most [men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies] a trial.”
Then by your understanding of Paul’s dictate, Paul wasn’t qualified to preach. “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. (1 Cor. 7:8).
Do you even know what chastity means?
‘Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.’
It doesn’t mean…no sex for you evah. It means the proper use of your sexuality…in marriage with your lawfully married complimentary sexed spouse. To have same sex attraction or perform things like sodomy are sinful and offend against the virtue of chastity.
Celibacy is giving up marriage for the Kingdom of Heaven…a sacrifice of another kind. Hence you also give up sex because if it is not in marriage it’s a sin.
Correction…having same sex attraction is a disordered attraction and can lead to occasion of sin…hence it’s a trial for those who have it.
The act itself is sinful.
Reblogged this on A Life Un-Lived and commented:
I am astonished by how much I agree with what’s posted by this Christian blogger, Dalrock, who I’d all but forgotten until Heartiste featured his blog.
My wife is Christian, so I try to stay aware of what’s ailing the remnant of the Christian church. I very much appreciate what Dalrock and the commentators are doing here. Most of what’s alleged to be Christian in the USA isn’t, so it’s nice to see evidence of the “7,000.”
@Ernst Schreiber Consider that immediately after that line in Corinthians, Paul acknowledges that many are not cut out for celibacy, and this should seek a wife. Whether or not being married is a requirement for preachers of the Word, it’s clear that remaining unmarried is most certainly not a requirement. Forced celibacy for RCC priests is a man made tradition not drawn from scripture. Also, there is some reason to believe that Paul may have been a widower. My pastor is of that belief. It would have been virtually unheard of for a single man to land a seat Sanhedrin in first century Roman Judea. Regardless, Paul uses the phrase “husband of one wife” multiple times in Timothy and Titus to describe an “overseer”, and even mentions that the man’s children should be believers. Clearly, marriage is not forbidden to preachers.
*thus should seek a wife
Was it forced when Christ said…”For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:12 There’s the Scripture on it.
Canon Law on it
Can. 277 §1 Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, and are therefore bound to celibacy. Celibacy is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can more easily remain close to Christ with an undivided heart, and can dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and their neighbor.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_PX.HTM
Saying that celibacy is forced upon a man entering the priesthood is like saying that monogamy is forced upon man entering into matrimony.
You should investigate the topic better Earl. The RCC only added celibacy for priests when they were losing too much church land in inheritance. It was not that way from the beginning. Your supposed “1st pope” Peter (he wasn’t) was married for certain as well.
Earl, the question isn’t whether there are those who feel they can better serve the Kingdom in celibacy for whatever reason, the question is whether celibacy is a requirement for preachers. It clearly is not:
“Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”
1 Timothy 3:2-5 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1ti.3.2-5.esv
@earl
Of “elders/overseers” the following is required:
“Now the overseer is to be [..] faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, [..] able to teach, [..] He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, [..] (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
It is clear the elder/overseer can be married, must take care his children obey him, else how he can take care of the church? He should be able to teach, that is, instruct others in the faith, and rebuke false teachings.
Celibacy can therefore not be a requirement for leaders of the church. The RCC is wrong here.
@Brian K : we were thinking about exactly the same thing at the same time…
@earl
tl;dr: “Intact men lust. Fornication is forbidden. A man may copulate only with a woman he weds.”
—
I hesitated to respond, but I’m motivated by mistakes on your part. Celibacy as practiced by most Christian denominations isn’t Biblically based.
First, among Christian denominations there’s a “race to the bottom” to condone the sinner DESPITE the sin. That’s bizarre approach to adopt with regard to acts which earn eternal hellfire (not that any Christian believes himself undeserving of hellfire sans his god’s grace). While there may be more and less grave sins, the Bible is consistent regarding the dangers of tolerating sensual couplings between men. Jesus cautioned that lusting for a married woman is equivalent to adultery, and so one man lusting for another man is equivalent to sensual congress with between men. While I expect Christians will sanction “sins of the heart” less rigorously than observable sinful acts, it is hypocritical for Christians to treat a particular sin as an acceptable expression of Christian faith. Nor do I accept the premise that Christians take new members “as they are” and without repentance, especially with a sin which demonstrably endangers them and their children.
Second, the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19, explicitly relates Jesus’ instructions regarding the “option” of celibacy. His disciples, upon hearing that a man may not divorce his wife for any reason but adultery, exclaimed, “It is better not to marry.” Christians often interpret Jesus response as an encouragement to celibacy for unmarried men (and women) who can refrain from sexuality and devote themselves to the Church, but Jesus is far more demanding of men who would avoid marriage. Jesus told his disciples they have one of two options: either a man may marry or he may remove his penis. I don’t think penis removal is intended any more than Jesus intended to tell a man cut off his hand or pluck out his eye: it is, instead, an admonition against avoiding marriage.
Taken together, these are instructions to every man 1) to comprehend that he is made to lust and 2) that the best direction of that lust is to a woman which he weds.
Are any of you guys even Catholic?
I could not be angry at our Lord if he took to fire and brimstone and destroyed us all. This is sick, twisted, demented, cruel, callous, unGodly, despicable, ghastly and inhuman. It makes me angry.
I’ve always been grateful, for humanity’s sake, to not be God or to have any of His power. The last thing I understand is His patience and mercy, for if I were Him, all human life on this planet would have been destroyed millennia ago, and in a manner that would have made man’s worst collective atrocities seem like acts of mercy by comparison.
It seems that Christians in particular and conservatives in general can’t win: If you don’t allow the perverts near your children, you are a bigot. If you allow the and they do “what comes naturally” to them, you get sued and class actions against you.
I think that throughout the West in general, and here in the USSA in particular, the church has brought this demeaning inconvenience upon itself through its obsequious deference to Caesar, usually at the expense of the faith. Either they are sufficiently lacking in faith to not trust God to have their backs, or they simply never put any serious faith in Him to begin with. Whatever the case, their “reward” from the State is abuse, derision, and marginalization. Hopefully they’re satisfied.
@earl Are any of you guys even Catholic?
I’m Catholic, just not of the Roman kind.
@Earl I’m a Confessional Lutheran. So catholic in the small c, non-Roman, meaning of the word.
Here’s the history of how celibate clergy came in the Catholic church.
https://religionnews.com/2014/04/25/married-priests-next-pope-francis-reform-agenda/
And I’m sure this is the highlight I’ll bring here.
‘Protestant leaders later ridiculed and attacked the discipline of clerical celibacy. In response, the Council of Trent in its Doctrine on the Sacrament of Orders (1563) admitted that celibacy was not a divine law, but stipulated that the Church had the authority to impose celibacy as a discipline. While holding celibacy in high regard, the Church did not diminish the sanctity of marriage or marital love. Moreover, the Council asserted that celibacy was not impossible to live but at the same time recognized that celibates needed the grace of God to do so.
So Eastern rite?
Off topic, but hilarious. Oscar posted a video from the Brilliant Lutheran Satire earlier. Here’s the latest:
@ Brian K
“She goes to one of those churches with all the robes and candles that don’t actually believe in anything.”
“Episcopalian!”
Hilarious!
Man is made to sin? That doesn’t seem fair.
I realized the link I posted wasn;t where the quote came from. It’s this link.
http://catholicstraightanswers.com/why-does-the-church-mandate-that-priests-be-celibate/
Ernst Schreiber @ 7:33 pm:
“Man is made to sin? That doesn’t seem fair.”
“For God has bound all men to disobedience that He may have mercy upon them all.” Romans 11:32.
Fair’s got nothing to do with it. God wants to be our hero and that can’t happen if we don’t need a hero.
My point was sin was a consequence of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. We are not “made” to sin.
Man is made to sin? That doesn’t seem fair.
Job 5:7 Yet man is born to trouble as surely as sparks fly upward. (said by Eliphaz the Temanite)(= not necessarily correct)
Do you even know what chastity means?
Apparently it has a separate meaning from its connotation of celibacy, which I switched it for, but even so, I stand by my whole misbegotten comment and the delightful crusade against the Papists that has ensued.
Are any of you guys even Catholic?
Is this another vocabulary test? No, I’m a straight Christian. LOL
I may not think “papal bull” is the same thing you think it is, but I’m not wrong. LOL
The homo-chatechism that you posted above, reads like it was written by one of the gay priests.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. … Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Why not just tell them to put all abominable queer thoughts out of their mind and straighten back up into the man God made them to be? It isn’t a trial, it is a sin they are indulging in, by entertaining evil thoughts and vile imaginations. “disordered”? It isn’t like they goofed up a math problem, it is just flat crazy and abominably gross too. Now we are supposed to trust in the self-mastery of the mentally depraved and not exercise any discrimination of our own? “should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection”? HUH? No! They should immediately repent and turn from their faggotry and twisted thinking. Quit ass-fucking this instant! Then you can try attaining perfection tomorrow. That shit is some bad advice from a faggot who wants an excuse to continue on in his sin, with acceptance, respect, and all the other undue shit he is demanding.
I’m glad I picked the church that was more overrun with Feminism than faggotry.
Earl,
“Catholic” means universal. That is why I call it the RCC (Roman Catholic Church). All Christians are part of the universal (catholic) church.
I was raised in the RCC and even confirmed. I suspect I would be considered a heretic by some.
I’m just curious if you’d advise an alcoholic or drug addict to just man up, repent of his addiction and twisted thinking and stop boozing/shooting up this instant!
@”Ernst Schrieber”
Ernest would tell him to keep it up! After all it is working so well, right?
just curious; can someone quote a text from the Catholic Church here without people going out on tangents about unrelated subjects?
and does that include the Bible? :p
OT :
Woman loses $300K to Nigerian romance scam.
Homosexuals will never have a place in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course they may have a place in the caricature religious establishments all over the land, but never in the Church of Christ. These perverts are forever cast out, unless they repent of their fornications and other perversions, and embrace the Gospel of salvation with true humility and brokenness of heart.
Have better desires!
Why the sarcasm? Isn’t that the ethical message of the Gospels in a nutshell? Seems appropriate that a woman named ‘Eve’ puts her desires above God.
Again did you even read the definition of chastity? It’s the virtue you develop by mastering your disordered sexual passions with the grace of God.
The sexual perversion of sodomy isn’t anymore ‘special’ than any other sexual perversion. All the perversions under the rainbow flag offend against the virtue of chastity.
You’d be considered lapse.
‘A lapsed Catholic is a baptized Catholic who is non-practicing. Such a person may still identify as a Catholic and remains a Catholic according to canon law.’
But what church do you go to?
All of this, as discussed previously, was ushered in by pedestalization of women and twisting of Scripture which God intended to govern relationships for the good of society.
Even the fundamentalist superstars of yore were in on the act. In McGee’s case he still is, he has a huge following and his “Bible Bus” is broadcast worldwide.
https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/thru-the-bible-with-j-vernon-mcgee/listen/proverbs-19-732397.html
Forward to 13:00. A snippet:
“She’s not to obey! Where’d you get that idea that she’s to obey you? She’s to submit herself to ya, of course, provided you’re the right kind of a man and if you’re not I don’t think God’s asked her to submit herself…”
@Spike: “And why is it that women have this perverse desire to encourage homosexuality anyway? I know of very few men who endorse it, but huge numbers of women. Is it because men are binary but women fluid?”
The reasons given shortly after your comment I think sum it up: Gays are allies against masculinity, and they are useful but nonthreatening (unless they are trans, and look more beautiful).
Of course, many men consider lesbianism hot, but not for the same reasons (and probably don’t encourage it). I think it’s mainly a stray thought of “Wow! If they are that way with a woman, think what it would be like with a guy like me!”
earl — “But what church do you go to?”
He goes to this one right here.
I’m just curious if you’d advise an alcoholic or drug addict to just man up, repent of his addiction and twisted thinking and stop boozing/shooting up this instant!
That’s where I’d start. Like Jesus:
John 8:11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”
“Go, and sin no more.” is good and Godly advice. You are thereby both condemning the acts as sin, and telling them to “stop it”.
The sexual perversion of sodomy isn’t anymore ‘special’ than any other sexual perversion. All the perversions under the rainbow flag offend against the virtue of chastity. Wrong!
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Matthew Henry said this about the preceding passage:
The unnatural lusts of sodomy and bestiality (sins not to be mentioned without horror) were to be punished with death, as they are at this day by our law, Lev. 20:13, 15, 16. Even the beast that was thus abused was to be killed with the sinner, who was thereby openly put to the greater shame: and the villainy was thus represented as in the highest degree execrable and abominable, all occasions of the remembrance or mention of it being to be taken away. Even the unseasonable use of the marriage, if presumptuous, and in contempt of the law, would expose the offenders to the just judgment of God: they shall be cut off, Lev. 20:18. For this is the will of God, that every man should possess his vessel (and the wife is called the weaker vessel) in sanctification and honor, as becomes saints.
Adultery is abominable enough, but faggotry is a whole level of worse evil, it is an unnatural and blasphemous desecration of the image of God(man) and a disgusting thing that makes those without a seared conscience want to wretch and heave at its shameful evil.
But what church do you go to?
I don’t go to church, I am the church!
And Christ is the only head of our church.
1 Corinthians 11:3 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
Great…now look go back to Scripture and look at the results of any other sexual perversion that happens. Start with coitus interruptus, adultery, fornication, etc. You’ll find they all end the same…death.
I don’t even know why you are debating me about informing homos they should practice chastity. That was my point to begin with.
Might want to look up in Scripture where Christ established His church. It’s in there. I don’t think it was on Sharkly.
Ernst Schreiber @ December 23, 2018 at 8:31 pm:
“My point was sin was a consequence of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. We are not “made” to sin.”
Circular logic. Sin can’t be a consequence of disobedience when disobedience is sin. God wanted the Fall to happen. He engineered Adam & Eve with sin in their heart. The sin had no opportunity to act until the Law was given, that’s all. Romans 7:7-25
Had God not wanted humanity to Fall, He could either have prevented it or nuked Adam, Eve & Satan to start over… both easier solutions than the Crucifixion.
I don’t even know why you are debating me about informing homos they should practice chastity. That was my point to begin with.
Because, like Dalrock is trying to point out, it matters how you stand against a thing. If you give up the first hundred yards to the enemy and then try to fight as you’re being pushed off the cliff, or across the goal line, with weaker objections, and in ways that have always lost before, then you’re missing the best opportunities to fully preserve and defend your beliefs.
I’m not debating you, earl, I’m debating the weak and compromised crap you copied and posted, before you began waving the rainbow flag and implying all sexual sins are equal. Satan would like you to believe that.
Had a dirty thought? Might as well go anally rape a child. Earl says its all the same.
God is just. There are degrees of sin and degrees of punishment throughout the Bible.
John 19:11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”
I’m not saying that the church is based upon myself, earl. The church is based upon a living cornerstone, Christ. We base our belief upon the revealed word of God. However, I have a copy of God’s word, and it tells me that I am responsible directly to Christ the only mediator between myself and His Father.
The church as we have known it for centuries, with full time paid staff and theology schools, is in stage four cancer, with zero hope of God’s healing. The coming church of Christ is individual men, unencumbered by women, searching Scripture –Christ– for themselves and applying the Word to their lives, then those men coming together, as iron sharpening iron, in Spirit and Truth, in unity of that Word, Christ, free from the effeminate church that we have all come to know and more and more hate: Luke 14:26.
Merry Christmas everyone
When can we dispense with the formalities and start engaging in public beastiality while sacrificing children age 1 – 14 to moloch on cut stone altars?
2tkatchev
This is a subtle problem with the gay comlementarian approach. What they are doing is carefully leaving room for gay Christians to embrace their gay identity so long as they remain chaste (or at least try to). The real objection to restorative therapy isn’t a fear that it won’t work, but fear that it will work. They don’t want to truly let it go. This is true even for some who claim to have changed their desires to heterosexual. Notice how deeply invested Rosarita Butterfield still is in the gay identity, despite being married to a man.
We can’t promise gays that God will change their desires back to natural desires. But they should want to have this fixed. Yet insisting on this point requires them to repent of the whole gay identity, not just repent of gay lusts (and acts) when they happen.
@ Dalrock
That’s it.
The modern argument is that we shouldn’t teach sodomites to ask the Holy Spirit to change their desires, because their desires are innate, a part of who they are, and therefore immutable.
But every sin is a part of who we are. We have a sinful nature. We don’t just sin, we are sinners by nature. We’re called to crucify that nature.
I know former thieves who no longer desire to steal.
I know former drunks who no longer desire to drink.
I know former brawlers who no longer desire to beat people up.
I know former whore mongers who no longer desire to screw every woman in sight.
That’s the transforming power of the Gospel.
Why should sodomy be any different?
The “Christians” who deny these principles deny the transforming power of the Gospel.
There are differences in view here between “trad to very trad Protestants”, “official Catholicism”, and Orthodoxy on this issue.
Trad to very trad Protestants seem to take the view that homosexuality is an act or a habit that can be overcome, like any other bad habit, but is not an intrinsic orientation (I think this is the view being expressed by . The Catholic view (of the Catholic church itself, not of all of its members obviously) is that people who engage in homosexuality are a mixture of (a) people who choose to do so for various reasons regardless of their attractions, (b) people who had environmental or other influences (molestation and so on) that influenced their sexual development towards same sex behaviors and developed same sex attractions as a result and (c) people who, at the time they become sexually attracted at all, are sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to the same sex without any obvious choice or environmental influence at play. These are different cases, and the official Catholic view deals with them differently as a pastoral matter (attempts to change may bear fruit with (a) and (b) but generally not with (c)), while as a matter of moral theology sees same sex attractions as being “fundamentally disordered”, regardless of their basis, and homosexual acts to be serious sin. Orthodox, as is often the case, tend not to slice the sausage as finely as Western Christians do, and tend to view homosexual acts as sinful, while the homosexual inclination is viewed as a sinful inclination that may or may not be susceptible to being removed, while affirming that acting out on the inclination can certainly be refrained from with prayer, fasting and grace.
Merry Christmas everyone! May we all be blessed by the risen Lord who sits at the right hand of the Father, who bought our salvation with His precious blood, shed on the cross, because He obediently lay off His live, given to Him in the incarnation, which we now all celebrate.
Novaseeker, I think we are talking about two different things. I can’t find the link now but one of the conservative Christian gay activists described why the idea of becoming straight was so off putting. The argument was something to the effect of imagine if someone told you you should be attracted to your best friend. Many, if not most, of these activists don’t want to become straight. They would rather remain gay and celibate. I’m saying they should want the “gayness” gone, all the way, whether or not they are actually able to change it.
All sin is equally offensive to God. Some things bring greater judgment however. Hiding behind, “but you aren’t perfect and therefore can’t say anything,” is idiocy and contrary to God’s Word.
Many, if not most, of these activists don’t want to become straight. They would rather remain gay and celibate. I’m saying they should want the “gayness” gone, all the way, whether or not they are actually able to change it.
If they can’t actually become straight, though, I would think that it would be more productive for them to focus on avoiding sin rather than feeling terrible about not being able to change something that they can’t change. That’s why that’s a critical issue. If they are one of the folks who can change their desire vectors, that’s one thing, but if they are in the smaller group that can’t, it seems like it would be best for them to accept their “defect”, but work towards not acting on it. I agree that advocating it as an identity isn’t a great thing, but there is a line between that, on the one hand, and then telling people who are in the “can’t change” category that they should be very focused on wanting to be different, even though they can’t be. I mean it seems like it’s stretching things on a human level to prove a point on a moral theological level, and I am not sure that is very wise, from an Orthodox pastoral perspective (I know that the trad Protestant perspective differs). If some people have a birth defect that makes them gay, it doesn’t seem very productive for them to spend a lot of energy wishing that they didn’t have their defect and that they could make it go away.
Working to stop desiring sin is a great help in learning to overcome it. Not the only thing, but an important part. That is why not seeking to change that desire is not bright.
Amen sipcode, you said it better than I could.
Thanks Dalrock and Oscar, you also said it better than I could.
Thanks Novaseeker for that helpful background information.
BillyS, all sin is not equally offensive to God, but Merry Christmas. I’ll argue that some other day. And yes, it is idiotic to say only the sinless Christ is allowed to address the sins of others. How was Christian correction and church discipline intended to be carried out if not by other sinners? Satan’s false teachers preach licentiousness. For example, Catholic priest says: “Stay gay, just keep out of the shit, mostly, sort of gradually, if it isn’t too much trouble, and your self-powered self-mastery is working well today. Good luck! Call my rectory and leave a message if you’re feeling weak, and If you’re feeling really weak, here’s my mobile number, and I’ll bring some SSA priest buddies and a couple altar boys by, if we can snatch them on short notice.”
Novaseeker,
I don’t believe God creates men as an abomination to himself. He creates men in his own image. I think all SSA(Same Sex Attraction) is evil, and comes as a result of some evil being allowed to fester.
When I was younger I read bodybuilding magazines, and I even admired many of the men’s physiques, but there was still zero sexual interest, it just was not naturally there to develop. I would think even if it had been there, I would have chosen to suppress it, until it was gone. For SSA to be there is wrong in the first place, and is likely the result of some sort of child molestation. Then I believe the child would have to be coached or encouraged by some person or group to continue furthering this SSA, until they got self-blinded and conscience-seared to the point where they felt like their shame was a God-given natural part of them. But it is all a lie of Satan. No man is born so full of faggotry that he cannot live holy and develop his more natural affections while renouncing and repenting of all sinful and abominable thinking.
Shark –
People are born with birth defects.
All sin not covered by the Blood of Jesus will send you to hell Sharkly. All sin is currently covered by the Blood of Jesus though. (See 2 Cor 5:19)
Would you like just a little bird excrement in your coffee? God won’t take any. It is all “just as bad” in that sense.
Ultimate punishments may vary, but that is a different issue. Even the smallest failure under The Law caused an individual to be guilty of the entire Law, for example.
One need only research Exodus International and its destruction from within caused by the politickin’ -popular -flavor of the month -rocketed -up -the -ladder Golden Boy director. He then directed it into the ground and provided the same spin we hear today. He used all the proper evangelicalese buzz words and syntax. Now the complementarians have learned from experience and we get more of the same.
http://alanchambers.org/category/exodus-international/
@mgtowhorseman, Thanks for sharing. Fascinating story.
“Let’s face it. Everything
Below the waist is
Kaputt!”
~ “I’m So Tired”, cabaret song in Blazing Saddles.
😏
I have long believed– and still do– that ingratitude is really one of the key first steps in that skid. Not only “and neither were they thankful,” but in Ezekiel when he says “this was the sin of your sister Sodom,” it isn’t homosexuality but pride, self-indulgence, and disregard for suffering, all symptoms of an entitlement attitude. Culturally, that sounds more like the Baby Boom years of ’45 to ’63 or so than the Free-Love sexual-revolution years of Woodstock and the like. At least to me it does.
If I’m right, even the most starched-shirt conservative success story, supposing they did rewind the culture to Ward Cleaver settings and Mayberry values, would not be off our slippery slope. And they’d have to play Sisyphus all over again a few years later.
He didn’t SAY they’re called to celibacy, sexual abstinence, but to chastity, which means sexual purity. One may be celibate without chastity (hello porno), but one (or rather two) may in holy wedlock be fully chaste without celibacy.
It ALSO commands “Do not forsake the fellowshipping of one with another, as is the habit of some.” You can’t go it alone. As cute a recruitment line as the “Army of One” campaign was, it was a lie as well, and of the same sort. You need to find a sound bible-believing church and make yourself– and your wife and kids if and when you can– a part of it. Join the congregation. Tithe your paycheck there. Submit to their doctrines: research denominational position statements as part of your search. I suggest a good Reformed church like the PCA, RCA, or OPC, or confessional Lutherans like LCMS or WELS. Otherwise you’re behind enemy lines without a supply chain or reinforcements.
@Sharkly
There is good reason why Paul wrote about the revealing of the Sons of God and the redemption of creation subject to corruption.
Birth defects are part of that corruption. As are chronic diseases.
While meeting with like-minded Christians is a great idea (tough to achieve though), the Hebrews reference was talking about Jews who were going to forsake gathering with Christians to go back to Judaism. It was not talking about being in any specific church service.
There is no Scriptural command to attend a physical building in order either to worship God, or to maintain a worship service. It can be, and is, done anywhere. I don’t counsel Christians to enter physical churches any more, as it’s sending lambs to the shearing, and few ‘pastors’ are actually anointed to teach.
Nor does God require any intermediaries for those seeking to worship or love Him.
The gratitude thing, yep, it’s near the top o the list. Almost all my conservations now with Father or Jeshua are about me thanking or praising, this thing and that. It’s second-nature now. In America, a vast sense of entitlement and expected privilege reigns supreme, and this ties-in to the instant topic of homosexuality. With no gratitude/humility towards God and fellow creatures, I’m entitled by ‘civil rights’ to be whatever I desire, including going Pro Homo.
I don’t have to be thankful to God for making me a healthy hetero male; I am empowered to change or alter whatever I wish. I then explain away my rebellion, solipsism, responsibility and cowardice by claiming I was born this way, and thus am entitled not to question or change. Easy peasy.
Hey, my own sins and faults are numerous, but I do not advocate for their wider expression in the world. I limit them to extent possible, and seek to extinguish them altogether. If you want to chap God to the max, then just take pride in your sins, play Lucifer’s song, say it’s good for everybody. You’ll get a call from Him soon.
He knows we are weak; He knows we are sinners. But our taking pride in our offenses — calling them ‘good’ and ‘progress’ and advocating for their wider dispersal — that one will get your ass fried permanent.
My main problem with the homosexual movements trying to infect the evangelical (and other) churches is that they somehow see themselves as “heroic” for putting aside their sexual desires – desires that they see as good in themselves but forbidden by God.
All of us who started out enslaved to sin (and that is every believer) were the same way. When we renounced our sinful ways for God’s path we put aside those desires, but didn’t necessarily learn at first to despise them, and may even have considered our new self-control as heroic (and this is often echoed by churches that welcome the “new convert”). It is only as God draws us in and closer to himself that we begin to see sin for what it is, and what it does to the sinners involved. And we begin to see what it was doing to us, and it turns our stomach.
But in the modern “evangelical” homosexual movement, it seems that the leaders are content to stop short of abhorring the sin, and want the church to congratulate them for obeying God against their (good) impulses. And woe to anyone that calls such sin disgusting, or describes what it actually consists of. They become “haters”. That is actually the correct word – we should hate all sins, and especially those we commit against our own bodies.
Seems like many people have bought into those horrid lyrics of Debby Boone’s big hit: “It can’t be wrong, when it feels so right.” (Debby styled herself mostly as a Christian singer).
I predict this will fail. Mainline groups are full of unbelievers, but conservative confessions are not, and homosexual acts are quite clearly condemned in both OT and NT for this movement to make any headway. They are also spiritually tone deaf: loud and proud? In a faith that extols the virtues of humility and self-effacing modesty? I know the evangelical groups tend to shift with the times to some extent, but they have limits, and this movement is about to run up against them. Epic misjudgment.
Are oral treats with your married wife sinful? Discuss.
People are not robots devoid of choice. There are many celibate people about with the same sex drive as anyone else, some of them life-long. People choosing to engage in homosexual acts, for whatever reason, have one place in the church: repentant. That’s it. Not “gay advocate,” not leadership, not teacher, not anything else whatsoever period. Just repentant.
Allow me to share these two videos:
1. “The terrible fraud of ‘transgender medicine” by Quentin Van Meter, MD, FCP (pediatric endocrinologist) and Fellow of the American College of Pediatricians and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Dr. Quentin was a physician in the Johns Hopkins Univ. Hospital group where “transgender medicine” was developed describes the lies, bad medicine, and fraud behind that movement. https://youtu.be/6mtQ1geeD_c
2. “Understanding gender ideology — the propaganda of the sexual revolution” by Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse of the Ruth Institute. How feminism, sexuality, homosexuality, transgenderism, and more are being told to and forced on the public. https://youtu.be/PY_IKqr4Tnw
OT
The Blue Pill is strong in this one:
Quite disappointed as I thought this fellow and Michael Foster (@thisisfoster on Twitter) might be allies in the war on “Christian” feminism. Mr. Foster does have truths to tell and is a good example of a masculine pastor. Nonetheless, if you cannot admit to yourself females have original sin, you can’t move forward.
My response:
The full article on the It’s Good to be a Man facebook site was even worse.
Framing of the theory of AWALT as he does is dishonest, as that was pretty deeply hashed out quite a while ago here and at The Rational Male. Bnonn has either not done his research or is lying. The point of AWALT is to understand that all females, just like all males, have the potential for deep depravity, and to help men get over the idea that their woman is some pure special snowflake untempted by sin the way ever other person in the world is. AWALT does not mean that no woman can be saved, just that they will be tempted and many will give in (just like men). The idea is to develop an understanding of what a woman’s biology naturally compels her to do.
The dishonesty in that article is pretty disappointing.
Some time back there was an article or comment from Rollo where he predicted that some Christian would try to sanitize and package red pill theory for the average christian. Looks like he was right.
Another thing that Bnonn states is that Red Pill Christians are a cult. There are several problems with this, one being, where is this imaginary group? From what I can tell there is no real groupthink in this part of the internet, because everyone I read that talks about these issues has a different take on it.
Dalrock has his understanding of this issues which he talks about here.
Deep Strengths blog has a different christian perspective.
Scott’s blog had some different takes.
Sigma frame is not in lock step with either.
Donalgraeme has more of a catholic single man’s view.
Zippy had quite different opinions.
Cane Caldo doesn’t agree about everything.
Vox Day is very opinionated, and different.
Wintery Knight is also quite opinionated, but doesn’t always agree with the others.
The idea of cultish behaviour is demonstrably false, which can be understood simply by perusing these blogs at length and observing disagreement. To my knowledge none of them say they are a “red pill christian” either. Looks like the main thing they have in common is the search for truth.
Red pill theories are not enough to base ones life around, but they are a valuable test to apply to pastors in this age of feminist supremacy. If a pastor has the courage to be honest about the issues we talk about here, it is an indication that they want to know and follow truth even if it is painful.
If they (or we) are more afraid of losing women’s approval than they are of losing God’s approval they are not good leaders.
@Emperor Constantine
Bnonn Tennant is an odd one. He claims to pull his ideas from the text, however he always seems to pull hard for team Blue Pill, although sometimes he finds very Red Pill stuff in the Bible, and is not afraid to post it. I assume many of his Bible beliefs are arrived at independently and didn’t come prepackaged from a seminary. I like reading his site, even though some of his explanations are long and boring. Some topics he seems 100% right, other topics he seems 75% wrong. But he occasionally spits out something I haven’t heard before in all my years. So I filter through his work for the occasional unique thought that he is prone to. Like I do with some other folks, I’m working on him, sharing Red Pill Bible bits occasionally hoping to sharpen him. Maybe one of these days I’ll start my own blog and do what he does, only redder.
@Damn Crackers
No, “oral treats” are not sinful with your won wife. Why would you even think that? 🙄
Well….. Unless “oral treats” refer to edible marijuana, they are not sinful. And it is not even clear Marijuana is sinful, even if I oppose its use vehemently. It is a life-destroying drug that saps enthusiasm and intelligence.
@ mikesmith says:
December 26, 2018 at 7:41 pm
That depends on what you mean by “fail”, which depends on the goal.
True, but both the Old and New Testaments make it clear that wives should submit to their husbands, and plenty of “conservative confessions” have a hard time preaching that truth. They often twist the meaning of the word “submission” (hupotasso) to make it more palatable to modern feminist women, or they preach non-existent “mutual submission”.
Those issues are related to the acceptance of homosexuality. Once you’ve performed the mental gymnastics, and rhetorical contortions necessary to accept “mutual submission”, you’re all warmed up to perform the mental gymnastics and rhetorical contortions necessary to accept homosexuality.
See above. It’s all mental gymnastics and rhetorical contortions.
You’re so far behind the curve that the perverts have lapped you multiple times, and you think they’re just now catching up to you. Perversions that were unthinkable 40 years ago are celebrated in the church today, and the pace at which they’re being accepted is accelerating. That means that perversions that are unthinkable today will be celebrated in the church 20 years from now.
Acceptance of homosexuality in most churches is a foregone conclusion. Now they’re working on transgenderism, and soon it’ll be pedophilia, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, etc.
As a whole, the church is being conformed to the world, as opposed to being transformed by the renewing of their minds.
@Hmmm
I have known a few alcoholics. Some were able to get dried out via a 12-step plan. Typically that required them to stay away from old friends, relations and even old living quarters in order to form new friendships and habits. Neuroplasticity is a factor. What Revoice et al are asking for is sort of like an alky coming to church but insisting he gets to keep a brown paper bag with him at all times. “No, you can’t look inside my brown paper bag, but I assure you it’s just water. Not vodka But I won’t let you peek!!”. Who would go along with that? I doubt anyone would. So…
This is a good place for a plug for Biology of Desire which is a book about addiction[1] not sex, but dopamine hits are dopamine hits, neural pathways are neural pathways, and so forth.
@Emperor Constantine
I think I recall a commenter in a few places, possibly here, named “Bnonn” from a few years ago. Same person?
[1] The author is a neurology doctor. He discusses parts of the brain such as the amygdala, the anterior cingular cortex, etc. in the context of 4 cases studies (heroin, meth, pills, alcohol) of people who rewired their brains away from addiction. The fact that the author himself was addicted makes the book more interesting.
My little brother was alcoholic. He undertook the 12 step plan. He said to me that people suppose that alcoholics have little will-power but that in fact they tend to have far stronger will-power than most people – at least when it comes to alcohol. It must have been awful for him – and he said that he did not even like the taste of the drink. Destroyed his life; killed him.
To my mind the promotion by the Globo-homo elite of Homosexuality is as evil as would be the promotion of Alcoholism and with similar results – early death, depravity and childlessness.
As a whole, the church is being conformed to the world, as opposed to being transformed by the renewing of their minds.
This appears to me now obvious. Would it have seemed so in the recent past when I did not have the benefit of material from the Manosphere and its commenters? I’m really not sure, but maybe. I was uneasy without knowing specifically what drove that. Now I know specifically.
Which brings me in a roundabout fashion to Monsieur Bnonn, to whom I have been introduced in this thread by Emperor Constantine.
Warning: Random screed follows.
I have no reason to doubt that is his photo I see accompanying his commentary. Compared to me he is young. He claims that “there are lots of folks calling themselves red pill Christians”, before going on to explain how they are wrong. Let me hazard that I am a more seasoned life veteran than he, and have been to many more churches, in many more states and countries than he. I’ll just make that claim and anyone can disregard it, but work from your own experiences. Amongst the dozens and dozens of men I have personally met that would claim Christianity, most of them men superior to me in good works and Biblical knowledge, the number that called themselves red pill Christians was and remains exactly zero. By their behaviors and words they confirm that even the term might be alien to them. Bnonn has read a bit in the Christian Manosphere, and this is where he formulated the claim, though that in fact does not represent a large number of men.
Of course I am only one observer, so that is not a data set, and “lots of folks” can be whatever he wants it to be.
In military parlance, Bnonn is a counter-counter measure (CCM, a real operational term, confirming everything you were thinking and eye rolling). The measure, or action, is the work done to modify ancient truths so that they are more palatable to modern church goers. The counter measure (CM) is provided by Dalrock and like minded men, exposing the effort to water down these truths. Bnonn would undermine, disprove, or otherwise negate the effects of the Christian Manosphere if possible. The cycle has no end because every countermeasure breeds another.
What are his influences? What are his motivations?
Are oral treats with your married wife sinful? Discuss.
Without being vulgar, generally Protestants have no problem with it. I understand Catholics don’t either – provided the activity doesn’t end there, so to speak. I’m not sure what the Orthodox think.
The Bible does not directly address it, although you can try to read things into Onan or the Song of Solomon. To some extent your own conscience guided by the Holy Spirit, church tradition and the wisdom of those before us will have to be taken into account.
I have heard some say that if one partner gives the other “oral treats”, but the other partner will not reciprocate, that is a sure sign of selfishness. That seems correct to me.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. (Matthew 7:12)
@Sharkly
Presumably you would say the same with regard to Pegging?
“The Bible does not directly address it, although you can try to read things into Onan or the Song of Solomon.”
Many pastors have used the former to scare young men away from painting the ceiling, but Onan’s transgression was his disobeying a direct order, not wasting the proverbial seed.
A guilty conscience brought on by religion is a terrible thing.
“I have long believed– and still do– that ingratitude is really one of the key first steps in that skid. Not only “and neither were they thankful,” but in Ezekiel when he says “this was the sin of your sister Sodom,” it isn’t homosexuality but pride, self-indulgence, and disregard for suffering, all symptoms of an entitlement attitude.”
Careful there. That’s what the LGBQT (and LGBQT lites like TGC, Allberry, etc.) want you to believe. The book of Jude makes it very clear what else was involved:
“7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” (Verse 7)
Also, your recommendation of the PCA as a solid denom is very shaky at this point. There are some strong individual churches, but they’re the ones who allowed the Revoice conference and are also giving in to feminism on many fronts. The basic attitude is “as long as our actual pastor isn’t a woman and the gays are celibate, it’s all cool.”
“But in the modern “evangelical” homosexual movement, it seems that the leaders are content to stop short of abhorring the sin, and want the church to congratulate them for obeying God against their (good) impulses. And woe to anyone that calls such sin disgusting, or describes what it actually consists of. They become “haters”. That is actually the correct word – we should hate all sins, and especially those we commit against our own bodies.”
Yep, a lot of us pointed that out during the Revoice mess. Imagine saying “My core identity is that of an adulterer/womanizer/porn addict/racist/etc., which I can celebrate as long as I don’t act out on my impulses.” That’s exactly what the Revoice crowd is trying to do. They even had a session titled “What Queer Treasures Will We Find in the New Jerusalem?”. Appalling.
Emperor Constantine @TRPConstantine
Actually it’s contempt for modern women’s behavior, which is driven by open hypergamy rather than what the Lord wants. It’s sad when Blue/Purple Pill Christian men can’t get past their own chivalry & admit their female idol worship & denial of female original sin. @RationalMale
PREACH ON, BROTHER! 🙂 Glad you engaged that Beta cuck. 🙂 *Thumbs up*
Pingback: I wonder who he has in mind? | Dalrock
Pingback: Christian hospitality requires gay sex. | Dalrock
Pingback: Weak men will screw feminism up. | Dalrock