Deti asked me to clarify what I meant in my last post about complementarian gay activists twisting the idea of repentance and being freed from sin. Instead of framing being freed from sin as something gays should be thankful to God for, they frame gays repenting from sin as something straight Christians should be thankful to gays for. What complementarians are doing here is framing perversion as something good, something gays deserve compensation for giving up. Rosaria Butterfield does this in her ERLC article and concludes that non gay Christians owe it to gay Christians to compensate them for the great things they left behind in the gay lifestyle (emphasis mine):
Take, for example, our Christian brothers and sisters who struggle with unchosen homosexual desires and longings, sensibilities and affections, temptations and capacities. Our brothers and sisters need the church to function as the Lord has called it to—as a family. Because Christian conversion always comes in exchange for the life you once loved, not in addition to it, people have much to lose in coming to Christ—and some people have more to lose than others. Some people have one cross, and others have ten to carry. People who live daily with unchosen homosexual desires also live with a host of unanswered questions and unfulfilled life dreams. What is your responsibility to those brothers and sisters who are in this position in life?
…
God’s people need to wake up to something. If you want to share the gospel with the LGBTQ community or anyone who will lose family and homes, the gospel must come with a house key.
The problem here is not the coordinated ERLC claim that we as members of the church are to form a new kind of family that all of us can benefit from. The problem is the twisted way it looks at perversion, at sin. From a Christian point of view gays are ensnared, trapped, in something awful. Being freed from that trap is in and of itself a profound gift. But Butterfield and her colleagues at the ERLC don’t see it that way. They see being freed from the trap as a loss, at least in our earthly lives.
Pastor Sam Allberry has the same frame of mind in his ERLC speech The Church as the Family of God: Singleness, Same-Sex Attraction, and the Hope of Hospitality. Allberry describes a gay man who is highly satisfied with his current gay relationship. The satisfied-with-being-gay man asked Allberry what would be the benefit of leaving his gay relationship and following Jesus. Allberry says he really struggled to think of a here and now answer to this question. Unspoken is his view that the man’s gay relationship is something of real value, not something terrible to be freed from:
He said to me, listen this partnership I’m in has by far been the best thing that’s happened to me. What could possibly be worth giving that up for? And I sat there for a moment and thought “Yeah that’s a good question”. And I looked at him and said “that’s a very good question.” And I remember praying “Lord that’s a really good question. A bit of air cover here would be useful”. And I could have answered it by saying “Well you get heaven. You get a relationship with God you get forgiveness of sins, those things are gloriously true. But it was a ground level here and now question, that was looking for a ground level here and now answer.
I can understand why Allberry might choose not to lead with being freed from the trap of sin and perversion right off the bat in the conversation. But Allberry speaks at length as if the happy gay man has a great point. The reality is the man doesn’t have a point at all, his conscience is seared so he can’t feel the pain that comes with his depravity. Yet Allberry never recognizes this in the speech. More importantly, what Allberry and his ERLC colleagues are doing (along with Piper and Roen) is trying to sear the consciences of non gay Christians on the subject.
Pastor Matt Chandler touched on the same theme in his own ERLC speech:
All of us have to die to ourselves. There’s no question that the invitation to come and follow Christ is the invitation to come and die (Dietrich Bonhoeffer). And yet there are some crosses that are heavier than others. Scott Sauls (a pastor in Nashville) one time talked about having this yearning for companionship while fighting for sexual purity as a single man. It was difficult, but should never be compared with those who earnestly desire that kind of companionship and sexual companionship for whom that’s simply not coming in this lifetime.
Imagine another group of Christians forming a sort of sin lobby for their favorite perversion, and claiming that they were better than other Christians because they gave up their wonderful perversion for Jesus! This is absurd, but it is the frame the ERLC is promoting.
For another example of this twisted perspective, see the conversation below between Rosaria Butterfield and ERLC President Russell Moore. Listen closely to Butterfield to try to spot any sense that she is fortunate to have been freed from her wicked life of lesbianism and gay activism. I will confess that I’ve only watched the first 15 minutes, so it is possible that Butterfield eventually recognizes that her conscience had been seared. I’ll ask my braver readers to take one for the team and listen all the way through and report back in the comments.
And then people wonder why the last place young, straight Western self-respecting men want to be on a Sunday morning is in church.
Doug Wilson takes this on in his usual blunt fashion, here:
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-sin-of-flattening-sins.html
I have to say that I think some of the attitude you see in Chandler there comes from the attitude towards celibacy often expressed by Protestant Christians. Celibacy is seen as super-human, as kind of a fate worse than actual death, as a kind of non-life — rather than, as the late Zippy liked to say, something we all have to manage at various points in our life whether we are married or not (pre-marriage, sick spouse, sick self, physical separation, etc.). Some of us may have to manage it for all of our lives for various reasons. I think that many Protestant Christians in particular see this as an exceptionally difficult – qua – virtually unbearable cross to bear, and I think that is where Chandler and similar are coming from here.
In other words, if like Chandler you believe that some people are “born gay” (it’s pretty obvious he believes this), then you think that they have an incredible cross to bear because they must forego romantic and physical committed relationships to which they are born to be inclined. He sees that as a tremendous cross because of the importance placed by him on heterosexual marriage, and the concomitant idea that celibacy for anyone is almost an unbearable burden. So he’s saying “let’s understand that they are bearing an incredible burden that most of us wouldn’t be able to bear, and let’s compensate them for that”.
The perspective is based on the “born gay” assumption. If you don’t have that assumption, you don’t end up where Chandler is. Many other Protestants don’t believe in “born gay”, and therefore don’t follow Chandler’s approach. If you believe in “born gay”, though, and you have Protestantism’s very low view of celibacy, you kind of end up where Chandler is. Some Catholics can avoid this approach by having a less low view of celibacy (hard but not unbearably so), but of course many Catholics advocate for pro-gay positions anyway, including many Catholic priests, many of whom are gay themselves. But I do think that you get to Chandler at the confluence of (1) born gay plus (2) celibacy is unbearable.
I think you guys don’t really get Christianity.
Christianity is about love. If you hate people for their sexual orientation (or race or religion or gender) then you are not really a Christian.
They are using Hebrews 11:24-26 about giving up the pleasures of sins for Christ. The problem is that all of us -gay or not- had sins which were deeply gratifying to the flesh which we relinquished to follow Christ:
By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 esteeming the ]reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.
To assert that this experience is uniquely jarring to gay people is to confer special status on their sin as being a part of who they are rather than an illicit behavior they engage in. So while I may give up engaging in gossip, I am not giving up the very essence of who I am. I’m just stopping a wrong behavior. Whereas giving up gay sex is to give up who you really are.
The problem is that sin is who we ALL are so no matter what the sin, we’re giving up who we are when we give it up. All they are succeeding at doing is keeping gay people from ever being able to experience true deliverance.
I think you guys don’t really get Christianity.
Christianity is about love. If you hate people for their sexual orientation (or race or religion or gender) then you are not really a Christian.
7/10 troll
What trolls say: Christianity is about love.
What the Bible says: Romans 12:9 “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.”
2 Chronicles 19:2 “Jehu the seer, the son of Hanani, went out to meet him and said to the king, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, the wrath of the Lord is on you.”
“Psalm 11:5 The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.”
You get the point
Worth posting again, lest anyone miss it. Nate Collins at Revoice said:
Is it possible that gay people today are being sent by God, like Jeremiah, to find God’s words for the church, to eat them and make them our own? To shed light on contemporary false teachings and even idolatries, not just the false teaching of the progressive sexual ethic, but other more subtle forms of false teaching? Is it possible that gender and sexual minorities who have lived lives of costly obedience are themselves a prophetic call to the church to abandon idolatrous attitudes toward the nuclear family, toward sexual pleasure? If so, we are prophets.
Shame on us! Purveyors of fudge packery are sent to set us straight.
This is truly a concerted effort.
@scott oppenheimer
You are not a Christian and if you think you are you should immediately fall on your face and pray. This is at best a child’s view. Christ was filled with love for the world. He was also strong, and acted boldly and with anger towards those who maligned God and committed blasphemy. This is what dalrock is doing. These false prophets claim to bear the name of jesus yet speak wicked misleading falsehoods.
True disciples are hated for the very reason dalrock is talking about here. As we grow closer to god and reject the things of this world we are a daily reminder that everything about this world is a twisted lie, and the things people think they need or want are filth and shadow. This realization brings pain to the unregenerate, and they want to end the pain. It is also what saves the elected.
If they don’t hate and fear you, or want what you have and are willing to throw away everything for it including their lives, then you have more growing to do. Anyone who can’t answer that question asked by the sodomite above needs to get back in the word and stop calling themself a preacher.
To be honest, the only answer is probably to move on. Pray if god puts it on you to pray for them, and if they push go ahead and share the parable of the rich young ruler. Its everything. We’re promised only the cross in this world.
Finally I will make a point of refusing to respond directly to your accusation. It’s a dishonest reframing, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Perhaps we ought not feed the troll, but it is not hatred to point out to people that they must repent of their homosexual identity and actions–quite the opposite, if we believe that homosexuality is a sin, as Christians do.
@ Heidi
” it is not hatred to point out to people that they must repent of their homosexual identity and actions–quite the opposite, if we believe that homosexuality is a sin, as Christians do.”
Their definition of “hate” is precisely what you just described. “Loving” them means making them feel good about themselves.
They hate God and love lies. That is the blunt truth.
Disagreeing with someone’s sinful life choices is not hating them. “Loving” someone by encouraging them in a life of unrepentant sin isn’t actually loving them at all.
I had a younger brother now sadly deceased. He was born an alcoholic* and clearly liked being paralytic. He found Christ. Would the same reasoning apply to his alcoholism.
* I am joking of course and neither do I believe for one moment that males are born Homosexuals.
@Scott Oppenheimer
You are right Christianity is about love. But Christianity is also about living a holy live, not through your own strength, but through the strength of the Holy Spirit. You cannot expect to not live holy, and end up to live in the presence of a Holy God. Eventually God will judge all sin.
If you hate people for their sexual orientation (or race or religion or gender) then you are not really a Christian.
I would agree with you if I read your statement very literally. As others have summarized: God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. Sin is still sin, and sin cannot be tolerated by a Holy God, but He want all people to acknowledge the truth, receive forgiveness of their sins, and then sin no more.
And the bible is quite clear that sex between people of the same sex is sin.
If I may observe: my experience of Homosexuals is entirely the opposite of the way they are presented in the media. I find them predatory and promiscuous.They love young flesh of course and given the desire of young males to experience sexuality young men are in my view at far greater risk than young females. Once infected the Homosexually inclined have the equivalent of alcoholism – for life – which is why it is called mental Aids. I am sorry to hear than churches are facilitating this behaviour.
Thanks again for another exposure of falsehood, Dalrock.
A couple of things:
-Chandler’s assertion that homosexuality is unchosen (”born this way”) has no basis in science. Forty years of scientific study bear witness to this fact.
-The early church was full of men who were former adulterers and fornicators (and at present, it still is). They gave those up for the sake of Christ because they were convinced of the eternal implications of their obedience.
-The above former sinner’s heterosexual temptation to sin IS actually genetic: the Y chromosome codes for testosterone and testosterone receptors, and therefore a sex drive.
-Butterfield needs to be aware that Christian love involves saving gays form a wicked fate. the statistics of the gay lifestyle are grim: domestic violence is double what it is in heterosexual relationships. Alcohol, drug abuse is statistically higher. Sexually transmitted disease incidence is orders of magnitude higher, resulting in a 22-year lower life expectancy. In lesbian relationships, the incidence of STIs is higher, as are obesity, mental health issues, drug abuse, alcoholism, undiagnosed cancers and violence.
-There is an epidemic of cancer of the rectum caused by Human Papilloma Virus that is killing 3600 men /year
http://www.latimes.com/sns-how-the-anal-cancer-epidemic-in-gay-and-bi-hiv-ptml
ositive-men-can-be-prevented-80358-20170926-story.html
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/anal-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.h
This is covered up by a craven press and it’s only antidote is the truth. We do our gay friends no favours by endorsing their lifestyles, even tacitly. They are setting themselves up for a lifetime of illnesses, ill health, disappointment, abuse, loneliness and a premature death. It is an act of love to tell them the truth.
Most gay men I’ve met are very promiscuous. If they are in relationships, they’re usually two way open, meaning they have sex with other men with varying degrees of frequency and disclosure. Most lesbians I’ve met are in relationships, I confess I know little about lesbian sex lives beyond the much repeated phenom of lesbian bed death.
Allberry describes a gay man who is highly satisfied with his current gay relationship.
Perhaps the problem Allberry had, was that he failed to recognize the incorrect frame. Many sins are highly satisfying. That is why they are attractive.
The problem was the other man’s focus. He chose to focus on the current pleasure, rather than on the eternal consequences of eternal punishment for rejection of God. 100 years of sinful pleasure is a poor trade for 1 billion years of suffering. The man similarly apparently assumes (perhaps correctly) that his current life of pleasure will be better than a life of self-control and self-denial.
The real problem is likely one of these:
a) The man has a short-term focus. Future consequences are irrelevant to him. I doubt this man can be convinced, as he ignores consequences.
b) The man does not believe that any god exists, that our world magically came out of nothing, with no outside intervention. I doubt this man can be convinced, as he ignores common sense and scientific principles (such as conservation of matter/energy, entropy).
c) The man does not believe that the God who created the universe is the God described in the Bible, or at least his understanding thereof. This man might be convinced. But this conversation will be focused on the Bible and historical evidence, not on the pleasantness of any particular sin.
Paul writes:
Right.
@Scott Oppenheimer
Man lying with mankind is a disgusting sin at that. This is why it’s called perversion. Lying is a perversion of the truth. Indifference is a perversion of hate (which is actually a virtue when properly manifest). Envy also, when one seeks to model good works, isn’t altogether bad.
But there is nothing good about that sin in question. It’s wretched and abusive to the body and to The Body.
Lying to your brother by telling him that the pangs of conversion and obedience are grievous is grievous in itself.
If what you’re doing is an affront to Father Yahweh’s statue, law, commandment, and charge – then knock it the fuck off – stupid. How’s that for love? 🙂
Repentance is disobedience leaving the body. The pain of repentance from sodomy is good. Congratulations.
Joe Dallas does excellent work.
http://ex-gaytruth.com/encyclopedia/joe-dallas/
And, be prepared for Alan Chambers to possibly resurface, he who took down Exodus International.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/the-man-who-dismantled-the-ex-gay-ministry/408970/
The Biblical concept of “love” is highly misunderstood. Modern people think that love is a squishy, gooey, sentimental, feel-good emotion. It’s all about making others feel warm & gooey, accepted, affirmed, validated, yada yada.
As I understand it, Christian “love” refers to behavior. How we treat others. Love often means telling others the Hard Truths they need to hear for their benefit and salvation. A loving doctor does not tell a sick patient that he is in awesome health. He tells the sick patient about his ugly disease, and the painful treatment that must follow.
Scott Oppenheimer said :
I think you guys don’t really get Christianity.
Note that when someone makes a vastly off-base accusation, that is always projection on the part of the accuser. The correct response is to merely counterattack, rather than to defend oneself in the slightest from the projection that has taken the form of an accusation.
I believe that homosexuality is a genetic tendency that homosexuals are born with.
Why?
i) Why would someone who isn’t born that way want to be gay? In most societies over most centuries, being gay carried many penalties (including the death penalty). Even in societies where a death penalty was not the custom, a homosexual was certain to be socially ostracized, denied employment, etc.
Hence, no one who wasn’t born gay would actually choose this undesirable status. Note that despite the glorification of homosexuality in near-collapse democracies, the percentage of men who are gay is not increasing beyond the expected 3%.
ii) Biologically, it makes sense. The evolutionary process generates some genetic waste matter, and thus some people have to be designated wastebaskets of this waste matter. By making some people gay, the wastematter is removed from the gene pool without the wastebaskets reproducing and propagating that pollution. The viscerally unappealing (or even revolting) appearance and voice tonality of gay man also supports this trend. The fact that normal people are disgusted by the sight of two men kissing is because biologically, these two people are wastebaskets, and their interactions comprise a disease vector. AIDS evolved for this reason – to speed up the elimination process of genetic waste, as have other diseases that specifically affect gay men.
These developments clearly align with what I’ve seen at a particular church in my part of the country (SF Bay Area). A few years ago, this church formally announced that they would accept unrepentant non-celibate homosexuals in their church membership. Consistent with the complementarians quoted here, their reasoning was that asking gays to repent was requesting them to give up “something of great value”, clearly missing the bigger picture on the value of Christ’s sacrifice and our redemption from sin.
I suppose this church is even further along than the complementarians here, since they’ve officially embraced open homosexuality, rather than just rewarding repentant gays with access to the church’s children and barbecue parties.
The most shocking and saddening thing about this is the rapid pace of this church’s deterioration. 20 years ago, it was a vibrant, biblically-focused and growing church in a historically un-churched city. About 10 years ago, this church renounced its PCA heritage, and shortly afterward embraced the ordination of women. And then 4 years ago, it’s open embrace of non-celibate homosexuals.
My own church is thankfully still on the biblically-focused part of that progression (if you can call it that), but there have already been rumblings among some women and white-knight men that are pushing for allowing female elders and pastors. Given how essentially all of Western society (especially today’s churchgoing men) is highly vulnerable to cave to women’s whims, is there any way to hold them off indefinitely?
Pingback: Perversion is love, and love wins. | Reaction Times
Celibacy is frustrating, not unbearable. Weak people give in out of wedlock. Strong people don’t. If Matt chandler had half a clue, he’d realize all Christians are called to at least a temporarily celibate life- before marriage. Lifetime celibacy is a gift, and rare.
I have no mercy for this argument, because it is bs.
@thedeti
Lesbians can be equally predatory. I think it has something to do with how physically ugly most of them are; if you want an attractive girlfriend, you’ve got to flip a straight woman. But I also know women who have embraced lesbianism as a lifestyle choice outside of a situation like that. All of them will justify it with “I realized at X point in my life that I’ve always been gay”. I think this is far more common among lesbians than gay men. I also know a few who were victims of sexual abuse.
Lesbians tend to be emotional, lack filters, and highly reactive. It’s like, with no man there, some emotional stability is gone. Relationships start fast and can end very badly. The joke is “what does a lesbian bring to a second date? A u-haul.”
Chastity is sex within marriage and celibacy out of marriage. Its not hard.
MGTOWs dont find is impossible or too difficult.
AGAPE is what is described in scripture by its very nature it is holy and is both Justice and Mercy.
@Spike Chandler’s assertion that homosexuality is unchosen (”born this way”) has no basis in science. Forty years of scientific study bear witness to this fact.
No, that’s not true. Science has not been able to find a genetic cause for same sex attraction, and it is still unclear how same sex attraction develops. Same sex attraction cannot simply be classified as a “chosen” response.
@Anon I believe that homosexuality is a genetic tendency that homosexuals are born with.
Research on development of same sex attraction in identical twins have shown only a limited correlation between twins to develop SSA. It therefore is most likely not genetically caused.
Christianity is about love.
No. Christianity is about following Christ.
I don’t know what you mean by “lurve”, but plainly it’s something where Christ comes a distant second.
Disclaimer: I’d appreciate it if the women here would not read what I next write unless their husband or if not married, their father reads it first and then decides how and if to explain it to them.
Most women who read the above would probably be amused or in some cases offended “I’m no wimpy little flower!”. No my dears, that level of sensitivity is part of your job to cultivate. Even if we do not have a quality, we should at least attempt to go through the motions to show our respect for what God wants of us for our own good .
Begin-
The Atlantic has an article reporting on an experiment done where a device known as a plesmograph was used to measure blood flow into the reproductive organs of men and women. The men and women who volunteered for this experiment came from a variety of backgrounds and some self identified as gay and others as straight
The participants were shown a variety of images and videos of various people and even animals engaging in sex, as well as sexually neutral imagery to establish a baseline
The men generally were aroused by what they claimed to be aroused by. Straight men with heterosexual sex, gay men homosexual sex
The women on the other hand, were turned on by EVERYTHING. It didn’t matter what they were shown, it didn’t even matter if it was bonobos. It didn’t matter if they said they were gay or straight, ALL of it got them going.
Now here is the interesting part, when asked if the image or video caused arousal, the women would answer according to their stated preference
Now this means they were all collectively lying to the researchers (I know a few people will laugh at that), or, and far more likely, they didn’t want to acknowledge their own desires, bc their physical desires contradicted what they truly believe they need or should do.
What this tells us, is that we men have been basing our understanding of women on faulty information. And do not realize that while the women may be afraid of our physical strength, they have just as much reason to fear their own emotions.
Fear is interesting. It’s a gift that God have us to warn us of something that requires care and attention, as well as prayer. I am afraid to lose a job, fire the gun wrong, mess up with giving advice. We need thought, prayer, good friends, care and training to assess and deal with situations things that we fear to be harmed by.
With regards to women, it makes sense. Passion is often portrayed as a fire. A fire is something that can destroy and something which can create, it is an element of great change.
When a blacksmith makes a sword, he uses a fire. In literature the greater the forging the greater the flame. How much more so when forging a bond? When forging the body for a new soul to inhabit in the physical world?
The flame for a child, for a life would have to be something akin to a nuclear reactor and just as easily something which if not handled with thought, insight, and courage, can burn up everything
There are no “lesbians” in the sense that we consider gay men. There are no “straight” women either at least in that sense.
What does exist are women. Some good, some bad. Some misguided, some with a good common sense.
The conclusion is that contrary to the baseless assertions of the “sexual liberators”, the reality is that exposing women to a debased culture debases then. That precisely bc of their heightened sensitivity to reproduction, we have to rethink what we are asking them to do.
Is it really wise to ask a young woman to wait until her mid twenties to engage in reproduction? Is it wise to allow a young woman to engage in reproduction with any human as she wills, so long as she uses “protection”? (“Protection” from creating new life, what a disgusting vile society we have)
The former is to ask her to do go completely against her own nature and desires, we will be lucky if she does not develop neurosis. The latter is to turn her into an animal. One day in Cancun should display that. Or ask some of the professional dating coaches what they have observed in Ibiza, ask them about the “good girls” they have met.
We are living in a world based on unnatural delusions. Men who arrogantly added to God’s word in ways He clearly never intended and we are all paying a hefty price.
Great post, and Novaseekers clarification illuminates perfectly as always.
The “cross to bear” in the modern Christians worldview is “not having an outlet for your sexuality–EVER” (Gasp).
This is an uber cross to bear. And therefore should be recognized and showered with praise at all times.
It’s just like the time Saint George was executed for not bowing down to the emperor.
It also has an extra helping of “hypocrisy.” To the one hearing that they simply must channel their energy elsewhere it sounds like “too bad for you, gay person. I get to do all the things you aren’t allowed to do with my spouse and you are just SOL. Keep praying for strength and stuff.”
“Most gay men I’ve met are very promiscuous.”
The World Health Organization had estimated that gay men are 19 times more likely to contract HIV than the “typical” population. They’re walking Petri dishes.
I was just thinking of an unfortunate though once most popular pop-star presently languishing at Her Mejesty’s Pleasure and his crime was to be in possession of certain porn which thirty years ago was entirely legal to own. That reminded me that a mere twenty-five years ago I was in the Court of Appeal in The Strand (London) where we were appealing from the Uxbridge Magistrates (i.e. London Heathrow) against the seizure of a couple of soft-porn Gay Mags brought in with our man’s luggage from Germany. The Justices of Appeal were having none of our reasoned arguments as to why the law was as we suggested and upheld the confiscation – that took all afternoon. These days would any Judge so decide for fear of a headline in tomorrow’s Daily Mail. ‘Homophobic Judge confiscates Gay Mag’?
Lesbians tend to be emotional, lack filters, and highly reactive. It’s like, with no man there, some emotional stability is gone. Relationships start fast and can end very badly.
Yes, it’s the flip side of gay men. With lesbians, the lack of men leads to a hyper-emotional, fast-track to intimacy pressure cooker. With gay men, the lack of women leads to a sexual free-for-all. It’s because in each case the sex is able to indulge itself without the “check” of the other sex being present.
This post really interested me because I think it touches on a fundamental problem in the Christian church as a whole. The Church is the most appealing to people who have nothing to lose by joining it. The gay guy is partially right; some people have more to lose than others. Counting sin as something lost is warped, but it is true that the time, money, effort, and commitment of going to chuch do not involve the same sacrifices for everybody. A bum off the street joining and immediately getting free food, clothes, and housing is a lot different than a man with a life and family and job joining. Yes, relative to the infinite gains of salvation the differences in cost are basically zero but infinity is a hard concept to grasp. Tangible things you give up, including non-sins like time and money, arent.
I’m not advocating the church accept sexually active homosexuals. Trying to become more inclusive is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen if there is to be a revival in the Church in America. Exclude them. Make the Church more exclusive. If it were more exclusive it would be more attractive. Especially to men. A club with zero barriers to entry is no fun to join.
Females are pan-sexual creatures. Read some literature, women ain’t something new.
Re homosexual men being ultra-promiscuous: I read somewhere that 43% of adult male homosexuals in the U.S. have had over 500 sexual partners. Likewise, even when in longterm relationships, they average 12 partners a year outside it. The homos want to redefine marriage beyond just allowing same-sex, pedophiliac, etc. as okie-dokie; they also are infuriated by the idea that sexual exclusivity could be expected in marriage.
He said to me, listen this drug trade I’m in has by far been the best thing that’s happened to me. What could possibly be worth giving that up for?
He said to me, listen this fraud scheme I’m in has by far been the best thing that’s happened to me. What could possibly be worth giving that up for?
He said to me, listen this affair I’m in has by far been the best thing that’s happened to me. What could possibly be worth giving that up for?
He said to me, listen this atheists group I’m in has by far been the best thing that’s happened to me. What could possibly be worth giving that up for?
He said to me, listen this prostitution racket I’m in has by far been the best thing that’s happened to me. What could possibly be worth giving that up for?
He said to me, listen this tax evasion scheme I’m in has by far been the best thing that’s happened to me. What could possibly be worth giving that up for?
He said to me, listen this burglary ring I’m in has by far been the best thing that’s happened to me. What could possibly be worth giving that up for?
————————————————————————————-
I could do this all day and some people out in the world could nod in agreement. It’s nonsense repackaged as empathy.
Cane,
He doesn’t realize what all he really has. He only sees the good parts, or at least only admits those.
People generally don’t come to Jesus unless they see a need in their life. Catering otherwise is idiotic.
It’s because in each case the sex is able to indulge itself without the “check” of the other sex being present.
Their very definition of themselves, “who they are,” depends on a behavior pattern – not a culture, an ethnicity, a geographical region, or any other historically conventional definition. Guaranteed recipe for self-destruction and instability.
Genes are less like an instruction book and more like computer code. It is a bunch of ‘if’ statements.
There are genetic traits associated with narcissism in women that drive increased focus on their own attractiveness and attracting men. This would provide a reproduction advantage.
The genes could be carried by their sons but be turned off in the presence of testosterone. But testosterone levels have been dropping every year. So the modern environment produces more gay men.
And then there is sexual imprinting or aversion based on abuse growing up. Disproportionate amount of abuse growing up among gays.
Also disproportionate amount of other mental illnesses.
Cane,
Heresy works there too.
Note that It’s Heresy to speak of such things from a homosexual’s view as well. Or Feminist. Or leftist, etc. Indeed, it’s Heresy to Satan to speak of God’s law and desire for humans.
Which puts into perspective which side they’re on.
@Anons : The genes could be carried by their sons but be turned off in the presence of testosterone.
That’s why I mentioned research on identical twins; these have identical genes and the same chemicals flowing through their blood during pregnancy. Only after birth the differences kick in.
Born with it or not makes not one bit of difference.
Pingback: Can Christians be gay? | Σ Frame
I watched the Rosario Butterfield video (Secret thoughts of an unlikely convert) in it’s entirety. She gets it. She’s not articulating it in the same manner as 1 Timothy 4, but she’s essentially saying that her conscience was seared and it took a lot of work and time to fix things. I don’t know if the fellow interviewing her gets it, nor anyone else in the ERLC PMRC whatever that group is. But Mrs. Butterfield knows what she’s about.
I’m reading all of these comments about her and others giving up their life of sin (which Butterfield openly admits that she wasn’t struggling with at all before her conversion)… I gotta tell you guys, I wish I had something like that to give up for Christ. If I were gay and managed to find an enjoyable life bangin’ dudes… it’s more than what I got now. As a heterosexual, moderately conservative Christian man…. I got SHIT!
No conservative woman wants to submit to me. No egalitarian woman wants to “collaborate” with me. All of you who call yourselves red pilled know exactly why, I don’t have to explain it to you. I can only wish I was gay because at least then I’d be getting laid and thus meeting a basic biological need. Say nothing about a proper long term marriage. But I was unfortunate enough to be born attracted to the opposite sex and we all know where that road leads in this day and age.
Folks in the manosphere debate about whether being gay is a choice or not. Whether the church is cucked (BTW I really hate that word) or has given itself over to cultural Marxism or whatever. All these words mean shit to me. Here’s the real deal:
Like a little kid who acts up because angry attention is better than no attention, people embrace perversion because our society won’t let them have nominal, Biblical sexual relations within the context of a marriage – genuine marriage, not this government/media based perversion that is called marriage today. Men are gay because they aren’t allowed good wives. Women are lesbian because they aren’t allowed good husbands. They don’t even know what the real deal looks like. They genuinely believe that there is no joy to be found in heterosexual symbiosis. Gee, I wonder why?
Celibate priests abuse kids because they are required to be celibate. As others here have said, that’s a hell of a cross to bear. Hot teachers bang their underage students for the same reason. Is this not why Paul said it is better to marry than to burn?
Ah, but a lot of these folks are “married” despite their perversions. What was I thinking?
God bless you all for not standing for the acceptance of perversion in church. But you’ve got to understand, we live in such a perverse society that perversion is all people have. It’s better than nothing, or so it seems to someone who has nothing. What the hell are we even supposed to do?
@Scott Oppenheimer refects a very modern view of Christianity,: if you really loved you would approve of my sinful behaviour. Also confounding disapproval with hate.
What is this “unchosen” word she keeps using? Does she mean “unindulged,” “unwanted,” or “by no fault of their own”? It colors, if not changes, the meaning of her intimations in the quoted passages…
17:20…”…much common grace…” I think she is mistaken. Jesus underscored his teaching that His disciples should love their enemies with the statement that even the Gentiles – the godless – love those who love them. But calling that “common grace” elevates to nobility what Jesus said any pagan can do.
25:10…”…I did not say that…” Yes, you did; just now. She may be trying to be funny…but there is a grim tone to her humor. She throws this well-meaning lady under the bus, publicly, for what the lady meant to keep private for Rosaria’s sake. Up until this point, I would have been willing to doubt Dalrock’s analysis; but the arrogance of this lady…
@The Question says: “And then people wonder why the last place young, straight Western self-respecting men want to be on a Sunday morning is in church.”
That and others that get pushed into dating whores and post-Wall reformed sluts who attend that same church (or other church by someone there knows that woman). Sadly one of the reasons I have been slacking in my church attendance lately.
My fairly young conservative church pastor died and they replaced it with a Beta cuck type. I went to a new church and saw the similar nonsense… except this church was pushing SJ garbage like Acts when the “Believers shared their possessions” and they never say how this practice caused the Church in Jerusalem to almost collapse due to poverty. 🙄
The favorite passage of Christian Marxists is Acts 4:32-36, where “The Believers Share Their Possessions”. The result? The church in Jerusalem became so desperately poor Paul had to do a collection for them later on.
The Christian Marxists never read the next part in Acts 5:4 where Peter which says “Didn’t it [the field] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
Socialism has never worked, even when tried in a Christian setting, be it in early Church or during the first disastrous year of the Pilgrims, or in Soviet Union.
And yet moronic leftist “Pastors” teach garbage like this, even in a highly conservative area like the one I live in.
@AnonS says: “There are genetic traits associated with narcissism in women that drive increased focus on their own attractiveness and attracting men. This would provide a reproduction advantage.”
True to a minor extent. Yes, while mental illness and physical genetic defects are genetic traits, bad behavioral ones are learned.
Behavioral traits are actually socially learned/programmed, however. Yes, there is a small genetic component, but the survival mechanism in women (narcissism, “War Bride Syndrome”, Solipsism, etc) are all survival tools women developed over time.
Think about the “reproductive advantage” you mentioned, for women to make themselves more attractive has vanished from most modern women, who are fat, rude, are lazy, loud, make themselves ugly on purpose, dress horribly, etc. have you been to a feminist hellholes in Scandinavia lately, for instance? I was in Sweden ~ 2.5 years ago with a client, and let me tell you, the hot blondes with long hair you would hope for and except have been massively been replaced by facially-pierced, thick, angry, head shaven head freakazoids. Think Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, not some guy’s fantasy.
Scandinavian societies are a feminist hellhole to the likes you cannot even fathom in America today. The guys are ultra-Beta (and I saw this beta dude issue with teenager Scandinavian makes back in 1990s when I was teen as well) and the women there are a mix of Wanda Sikes and Amy Schumer. Simply put, Berkeley, CA is filled with feminist love-doves compared to what I saw in Sweden, which was a real life hellhole.
Roosh said same even worst things about Denmark back in 2012, which I agree, Denmark is actually worse then Sweden, if you can believe it: https://www.rooshv.com/danish-girls-are-ugly-and-fat
The female attractiveness for reproductive advantage you mention has been socially reprogrammed. Not by genetics, but by culture. DNA/genetics have nothing to do with it; it is socially learned, dude.
Otherwise, homosexuality would be a “genetic trait”, when we all know that is a lifestyle choice.
Sincere thanks to Will S for pointing out that Russell Moore is a tool of George Soros.
How many Southern Baptists are aware of this and what it implies?
Anyone associated with 1930s Nazi sympathizer and collaborator George Soros is evil by definition.
Soros has orchestrated financial crisis that hurt poor people terribly all over the world, financed Marxism throughout Eastern and Central Europe, and planned and funded the Islamic invasion of Europe started in 2010. This is just what we know for a fact. There are implications/accusations that Soros was involved in triggering 2008 financial crisis right before election, a crisis where millions lost their homes; that he instigated and financed parts of the disastrous “Arab Spring”, and funded the current “migrant caravan” stuck in Tijuana thanks to Trump.
Soros is the financier of evil. This guy has caused more suffering and promoted more evil worldwide then any human being since the 1910-1960s Communists did.
I am going to partially defend Butterfield and the ERLC crowd here.
Butterfield was a lesbian. Female sexuality is nowhere near as intensely physical as male. Many women have left being lesbians with ease. Milo Yiannopolus (sp?) takes it to the extreme of saying that lesbians do not exist and there is much truth in that. For Butterfield and most lesbians it is much more about loss of community than of physical sexuality. Someone here mentioned “lesbian bed death” and that is another manifestation of the same fact that female sexuality is not as intensely physical. This is why Paul finds it astonishing that even women have left the natural order, and in fact, there’s always far fewer lesbians than homosexual men. Butterfield was won over by a couple who patiently showed her errors but in a kind fashion. She saw a kinder community.
The manner in which God created me, and shaped me, makes me far more interested in telling the Truth than in doing so kindly or in Love. I do agree that the ERLC have gone over the line; but perhaps not as badly on this issue. The fact is the here and now is a tremendous burden. I personally lost a 13 million inheritance because of my refusal to compromise my belief in Christ about 5 years ago (my parents disowned me because I would not approve of my earthly father performing abortions, said nothing negative, but would not approve). I could go on about what I have “lost” in this world. I understand that some have more to lose than others; which is why I partially support what they say. When you see someone lose a tight community and even risking their life (such as coming out of Islam or a cult) perhaps we ought to be especially welcome.
However this is what Butterfield and ERLC get wrong. When I “lost” that inheritance, I thanked them for disowning me. I became very happy. I no longer have to honor my parents or relate to them because they have formally declared I am not their son. My last words to my earthly mother were to thank her for setting me free. As many here have written, to gain Christ is so much more than anything anyone could lose that it is right to ask if they understand how blessed they are to have “lost” things of this world. Saul of Tarsus listed all the many things he lost by becoming Paul. Then he states they were all “copros” which properly translated is a foul street word for excrement, in comparison to his gain. This is where I cannot defend them. While we ought to be especially hospitable to one who bears a heavier cross, we ought to meet any of their complaints with a reminder that they murmur against God. To look at the “loss” of anything in this world, including sexual expression, as a burden is in fact to be ungrateful and diminish the gift one receives. To live is Christ and to die is gain. Former homosexuals should be kindly told to be grateful or leave. Those who claim to be celibate homosexuals ought be told to repent of making an evil sick sexual orientation a part of their identity and if they don’t shown the door.
However, God is in control. He often has used those who are deeply theologically flawed to win many (eg Wesley). The problem for me is that all the major denominations have become so compromised that I no longer find any where I fit. So I stay in the PCA and continue to remind them what Scripture says; whether they listen or for the most part, do not.
Pingback: The special Christian sodomite club. – Adam Piggott