Things Learned from LGBTQ+ Discussions

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

From Serenity Thread




Refresh my memory, or correct it. Is that a Jesus saying, that I don't know about? Did I miss him saying, "Love your neighbor as yourself, but only if they have Christ in them?"

Non sequitur - Serenity has Christ in her, does she not? (and of course we're to love all)

[Sons to Glory!]

I suppose the one thing we couldn't seem to get past on the other thread, was any admittance that homosexuality was off the original mark, and is therefore a sin.

To repeat myself, over & over, again & again, one more time . . . LGBTQ+ in my Bible is off the mark (i.e., "sin"). So are many things of the flesh and are talked about in scripture a lot. Man's heart is sick and produces all kinds of things which are off the mark. We need The Savior to bring us all back so we're able to fellowship freely with God and damaging things can be dealt with.

So the Bible calls us to agree with His word, confess and repent whenever fleshy things are manifested. I repeatedly used drunkenness as an example previously, because by itself drunkenness harms no one else (unless something else is committed while drunk). Yet it is called out as a sin in the Bible. If I'm a drinker, I may not like that scripture calls drunkenness a sin, yet there it is. So do I get scissors and cut out those verses? I could, but the truth is still the truth. If I'm an alcoholic, no one does me any favors by not calling it what it is!

So it seems to me, that to a homosexual who has also been regenerated with the life of Christ, there is at least some issue here. Just like if I'm a Christian who likes to get drunk. There's a damaging element, which our loving Father wants to save us from, but can't if we don't even admit that something's off. (it's a free will thing)

So can someone help me understand why it seems that Christian LGBTQ+ people don't seem to see that it's something even a little off the mark - just like other manifestations of the flesh?

Final thought here; I know that the sweeping tide of this age wants to say all kinds of things are perfectly okay or not even a tad bit off-the-mark, because it (apparently) hurts no one, etc. But the tide of the world is in contrast to the Word of God on pretty much everything!!! As Christians, we are called to be set apart from the world and to speak the truth in love to those in it.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I suppose the one thing we couldn't seem to get past on the other thread, was any admittance that homosexuality was off the original mark, and is therefore a sin.

To repeat myself, over & over, again & again, one more time . . . LGBTQ+ in my Bible is off the mark (i.e., "sin"). So are many things of the flesh and are talked about in scripture a lot. Man's heart is sick and produces all kinds of things which are off the mark. We need The Savior to bring us all back so we're able to fellowship freely with God and damaging things can be dealt with.

So the Bible calls us to agree with His word, confess and repent whenever fleshy things are manifested. I repeatedly used drunkenness as an example previously, because by itself drunkenness harms no one else (unless something else is committed while drunk). Yet it is called out as a sin in the Bible. If I'm a drinker, I may not like that scripture calls drunkenness a sin, yet there it is. So do I get scissors and cut out those verses? I could, but the truth is still the truth. If I'm an alcoholic, no one does me any favors by not calling it what it is!

So it seems to me, that to a homosexual who has also been regenerated with the life of Christ, there is at least some issue here. Just like if I'm a Christian who likes to get drunk. There's a damaging element, which our loving Father wants to save us from, but can't if we don't even admit that something's off. (it's a free will thing)

So can someone help me understand why it seems that Christian LGBTQ+ people don't seem to see that it's something even a little off the mark - just like other manifestations of the flesh?

Final thought here; I know that the sweeping tide of this age wants to say all kinds of things are perfectly okay or not even a tad bit off-the-mark, because it (apparently) hurts no one, etc. But the tide of the world is in contrast to the Word of God on pretty much everything!!! As Christians, we are called to be set apart from the world and to speak the truth in love to those in it.

It’s pretty simple. Comparing alcohol addiction to being gay or lesbian is not a good parallel comparison. Alcohol can lead to drunk driving, reckless behavior, even murder and violence. Being lgbtq in it of itself is not harmful. Just providing discomfort to white males. It is only harmful if the homosexual couple behaves like any other straight couple might- cheating, divorce etc. Have you guys ever divorced? Instead of throwing pebbles at lgbtq relationships that work and being jealous about it, why dont you guys just take a look at yourselves and your own relationships with your wives, ex-wives etc? Just take a look at this discussion right here;

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comm...tent=post_body

Gay and lesbian couples can have living successful relationships, based on prominent couple psychologist: https://www.gottman.com/about/resear...e-sex-couples/

Just like any other couple.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

It’s pretty simple. Comparing alcohol addiction to being gay or lesbian is not a good parallel comparison. Alcohol can lead to drunk driving, reckless behavior, even murder and violence. Being lgbtq in it of itself is not harmful. Just providing discomfort to white males. It is only harmful if the homosexual couple behaves like any other straight couple might- cheating, divorce etc. Have you guys ever divorced? Instead of throwing pebbles at lgbtq relationships that work and being jealous about it, why dont you guys just take a look at yourselves and your own relationships with your wives, ex-wives etc? Just take a look at this discussion right here;

https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comm...tent=post_body

Gay and lesbian couples can have living successful relationships, based on prominent couple psychologist: https://www.gottman.com/about/resear...e-sex-couples/

Just like any other couple.

I agree it's not a good comparison, and I think that a better one is a heterosexual couple in a committed relationship living together and having sex before marriage, or never getting married.

I like this as a example because its commonly done, still oftentimes looked down upon, and it also pertains directly to what has been called "the clobber verses".

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The "fornicators" and the "sexually immoral" in those verses apply directly to me, as a heterosexual, in precisely the same way "practicing homosexuality" applies to a homosexual. There is no difference. Both refer to the acts rather than to who we are as a person. Both refer to the sexual acts, and not to feelings we wish we didn't have.

These verses "clobber" me just as much as they "clobber" an LGBTQ person.

So in my example of a committed heterosexual couple, all the same arguments apply:

1. we can adopt a child and help the world
2. we aren't hurting anyone
3. we skirt what the Bible says about sexual relations in/outside the bounds of marriage
4. it "feels right"
5. it involves sex
6. it involves love
7. it involves commitment

And yet, it's also a sin. We can have something that hits all the feel good markers, that we can point to all the reasons why no one should take issue with it, and yet, the Word calls it unrighteous and contrary to sound doctrine.

Do I like it? Not necessarily. Can it be called a "living successful relationship"? Yep. But do I know what the Bible says and thus not do it? Yep.

Would you call a heterosexual couple committed, living together, having sex, adopting a child, not hurting anyone, and yet never getting married......a sin?

There's no catch behind the question. It's a simple, straightforward yes or no, for anyone reading.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I agree it's not a good comparison, and I think that a better one is a heterosexual couple in a committed relationship living together and having sex before marriage, or never getting married.

I like this as a example because its commonly done, still oftentimes looked down upon, and it also pertains directly to what has been called "the clobber verses".

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The "fornicators" and the "sexually immoral" in those verses apply directly to me, as a heterosexual, in precisely the same way "practicing homosexuality" applies to a homosexual. There is no difference. Both refer to the acts rather than to who we are as a person. Both refer to the sexual acts, and not to feelings we wish we didn't have.

These verses "clobber" me just as much as they "clobber" an LGBTQ person.

So in my example of a committed heterosexual couple, all the same arguments apply:

1. we can adopt a child and help the world
2. we aren't hurting anyone
3. we skirt what the Bible says about sexual relations in/outside the bounds of marriage
4. it "feels right"
5. it involves sex
6. it involves love
7. it involves commitment

And yet, it's also a sin. We can have something that hits all the feel good markers, that we can point to all the reasons why no one should take issue with it, and yet, the Word calls it unrighteous and contrary to sound doctrine.

Do I like it? Not necessarily. Can it be called a "living successful relationship"? Yep. But do I know what the Bible says and thus not do it? Yep.

Would you call a heterosexual couple committed, living together, having sex, adopting a child, not hurting anyone, and yet never getting married......a sin?

There's no catch behind the question. It's a simple, straightforward yes or no, for anyone reading.

The verses you pointed out with the words “homosexuality” in it, the word “arsenokoitai” shows up in two different verses in the bible, but it was not translated to mean “homosexual” until 1946. “Arsenokoitai” in greek (the language New Testament was written in) meant men having sexual relationships with boy slaves. so of course it was sexual immorality. it was never meant used to equate two men or two women in a commited respectful relationship. So the entire premise for the rest of the paragraphs underneath is wrong, thus the argument doesnt hold up.
See below on a scholar’s view regarding this matter:

“Anyway, I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” Then we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.” So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word) and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
I then grabbed my facsimile copy of Martin Luther’s original German translation from 1534. My friend is reading through it for me and he says, “Ed, this says the same thing!” They use the word knabenschander. Knaben is boy, schander is molester. This word “boy molesters” for the most part carried through the next several centuries of German Bible translations. Knabenschander is also in 1 Timothy 1:10. So the interesting thing is, I asked if they ever changed the word arsenokoitai to homosexual in modern translations. So my friend found it and told me, “The first time homosexual appears in a German translation is 1983.” To me that was a little suspect because of what was happening in culture in the 1970s. Also because the Germans were the ones who created the word homosexual in 1862, they had all the history, research, and understanding to change it if they saw fit; however, they did not change it until 1983. If anyone was going to put the word homosexual in the Bible, the Germans should have been the first to do it!”

There is a gay agenda, but not for what people think of it today. They used mistranslations to condemn gay sex in general.

Source: https://um-insight.net/perspectives/...-in-the-bible/

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

The verses you pointed out with the words “homosexuality” in it, ...

Nice dodge of the question. My question to you still stands.

I'll respond about arsenokoitai a little later when I have more time.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Nice dodge of the question. My question to you still stands.

I'll respond about arsenokoitai a little later when I have more time.

The Greek word "arsenokoitai" is a compound word composed of "arsen" (Strong's #730) which indicates a male, and "koitas" which is a bed or mat. There are verses which use arsen when referring to the birth of a male baby, a male child, and a male adult. As such, "arsen," without further context, does not provide any definite information about the age of the male, as it is in the English language. Arsen is only gender specific, without reference to age.

Thus, using only the strict wording of 1 Cor 6 and 1 Tim 1, we don't know specifically whether this act is adult with adult or adult with child. Since no caveats are included in scripture for male adult with male adult, none should be assumed, which refutes the entire basis of the article referenced by Serenity and her "German" friend.

Romans 1.27 also addresses male with male sex. The context never indicates that one party is a child or a victim, rather that both males "burned in their lust toward one another." Obviously both males could be adults or mature minors, old enough to lust passionately.

Trapped, I rushed these comments out, so please confirm, correct, or expand on anything I wrote here.

[SerenityLives]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Nice dodge of the question. My question to you still stands.

I'll respond about arsenokoitai a little later when I have more time.

I was merely pointing out the policability of the verses you use to lead up to your questions. I’m not a bible literalist and the bible literalists in here only think the only Christians are Christians who look and think like them.

So no, I have different points of view on each of your questions

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I suppose the one thing we couldn't seem to get past on the other thread, was any admittance that homosexuality was off the original mark, and is therefore a sin.

To repeat myself, over & over, again & again, one more time . . . LGBTQ+ in my Bible is off the mark (i.e., "sin"). So are many things of the flesh and are talked about in scripture a lot. Man's heart is sick and produces all kinds of things which are off the mark. We need The Savior to bring us all back so we're able to fellowship freely with God and damaging things can be dealt with.

So the Bible calls us to agree with His word, confess and repent whenever fleshy things are manifested. I repeatedly used drunkenness as an example previously, because by itself drunkenness harms no one else (unless something else is committed while drunk). Yet it is called out as a sin in the Bible. If I'm a drinker, I may not like that scripture calls drunkenness a sin, yet there it is. So do I get scissors and cut out those verses? I could, but the truth is still the truth. If I'm an alcoholic, no one does me any favors by not calling it what it is!

So it seems to me, that to a homosexual who has also been regenerated with the life of Christ, there is at least some issue here. Just like if I'm a Christian who likes to get drunk. There's a damaging element, which our loving Father wants to save us from, but can't if we don't even admit that something's off. (it's a free will thing)

So can someone help me understand why it seems that Christian LGBTQ+ people don't seem to see that it's something even a little off the mark - just like other manifestations of the flesh?

Final thought here; I know that the sweeping tide of this age wants to say all kinds of things are perfectly okay or not even a tad bit off-the-mark, because it (apparently) hurts no one, etc. But the tide of the world is in contrast to the Word of God on pretty much everything!!! As Christians, we are called to be set apart from the world and to speak the truth in love to those in it.

First of all your post is off the mark. Alcohol is not off the mark in the Bible. Jesus turned the water into fine wine, and lots of it. And it makes glad the heart of man. Plus it was used as medicine back then.

Now, let's talk about the clobber verses in the OT, particularly in Leviticus 18. Can they be trusted? And even more, can the OT God be trusted?

The key book in the OT to determine that is, the book of Job. The book of Job depicts God as completely untrustworthy. I think it's so clear to anyone with an objective brain that there's no point to do a exegesis on the book, and how God acted in it ... or is depicted in it.

So if the book of Job depicts God as untrustworthy, how much can we trust the book of Leviticus ; a book that doesn't apply to us? That's why we ignore most of the book, except the clobber verses. We hetero's like those verses. But the food verses are ignored by Christians. The Jews still keep them. It's called keeping kosher. But even they don't stone people like Leviticus advises. That's because the OT God can't be trusted.

The OT God is off the mark.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

First of all your post is off the mark. Alcohol is not off the mark in the Bible. Jesus turned the water into fine wine, and lots of it. And it makes glad the heart of man. Plus it was used as medicine back then.

Now, let's talk about the clobber verses in the OT, particularly in Leviticus 18. Can they be trusted? And even more, can the OT God be trusted?

The key book in the OT to determine that is, the book of Job. The book of Job depicts God as completely untrustworthy. I think it's so clear to anyone with an objective brain that there's no point to do a exegesis on the book, and how God acted in it ... or is depicted in it.

So if the book of Job depicts God as untrustworthy, how much can we trust the book of Leviticus ; a book that doesn't apply to us? That's why we ignore most of the book, except the clobber verses. We hetero's like those verses. But the food verses are ignored by Christians. The Jews still keep them. It's called keeping kosher. But even they don't stone people like Leviticus advises. That's because the OT God can't be trusted.

The OT God is off the mark.

Hard to have effective fellowship with a Christian who doesn't seem to like or trust God, or believe in much of scripture!

I NEVER said alcohol was the problem and that's certainly a Strawman! But the excess thereof - getting drunk - that is what scripture talks about, right?

Originally Posted by Trapped

I agree it's not a good comparison, and I think that a better one is a heterosexual couple in a committed relationship living together and having sex before marriage, or never getting married. Yes, this is a better comparison - thanks!

I like this as a example because its commonly done, still oftentimes looked down upon, and it also pertains directly to what has been called "the clobber verses".

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

1 Timothy 1:10
for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

The "fornicators" and the "sexually immoral" in those verses apply directly to me, as a heterosexual, in precisely the same way "practicing homosexuality" applies to a homosexual. There is no difference. Both refer to the acts rather than to who we are as a person. Both refer to the sexual acts, and not to feelings we wish we didn't have.

These verses "clobber" me just as much as they "clobber" an LGBTQ person.

So in my example of a committed heterosexual couple, all the same arguments apply:

1. we can adopt a child and help the world
2. we aren't hurting anyone
3. we skirt what the Bible says about sexual relations in/outside the bounds of marriage
4. it "feels right"
5. it involves sex
6. it involves love
7. it involves commitment

And yet, it's also a sin. We can have something that hits all the feel good markers, that we can point to all the reasons why no one should take issue with it, and yet, the Word calls it unrighteous and contrary to sound doctrine. AMEN

Do I like it? Not necessarily. Can it be called a "living successful relationship"? Yep. But do I know what the Bible says and thus not do it? Yep.

Would you call a heterosexual couple committed, living together, having sex, adopting a child, not hurting anyone, and yet never getting married......a sin?

There's no catch behind the question. It's a simple, straightforward yes or no, for anyone reading.

Thanks for that Trapped - makes the point I was trying to make much clearer. There's been a lot of dancing around and around this . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And even more, can the OT God be trusted?

The key book in the OT to determine that is, the book of Job. The book of Job depicts God as completely untrustworthy. I think it's so clear to anyone with an objective brain that there's no point to do a exegesis on the book, and how God acted in it ... or is depicted in it.

So if the book of Job depicts God as untrustworthy, how much can we trust the book of Leviticus ; a book that doesn't apply to us? That's because the OT God can't be trusted.

The OT God is off the mark.

Can you provide disclaimers in your signature that your opinions in no way reflect those of the rest of the members on this forum?

The story of Job in the Book of Job is truly incredible to all of those who endeavor to walk by faith. To those without faith in God, it appears as gibberish and foolishness. And that, my friend, also summarizes the entire story of the Bible. Paul's words here quoting Isaiah make this point abundantly clear:

"For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will reject the understanding of the experts. Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in God's wisdom, the world thru wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached." -- (I Cor. 1.19-21)

Jesus Himself is the Message of God. Our Savior Jesus Christ, the One you regularly mock and criticize on this forum became weak and foolish and despised and even cursed in order to save all men, including you.

At least those who decide to believe the "foolish" message of the Bible. It's up to you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Can you provide disclaimers in your signature that your opinions in no way reflect those of the rest of the members on this forum?

The story of Job in the Book of Job is truly incredible to all of those who endeavor to walk by faith. To those without faith in God, it appears as gibberish and foolishness. And that, my friend, also summarizes the entire story of the Bible. Paul's words here quoting Isaiah make this point abundantly clear:

"For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will reject the understanding of the experts. Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in God's wisdom, the world thru wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of the message preached." -- (I Cor. 1.19-21)

Jesus Himself is the Message of God. Our Savior Jesus Christ, the One you regularly mock and criticize on this forum became weak and foolish and despised and even cursed in order to save all men, including you.

At least those who decide to believe the "foolish" message of the Bible. It's up to you.

You say all that in support of the homophobic verses in Leviticus 18?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

You say all that in support of the homophobic verses in Leviticus 18?

I said all that in response to your comments here:

And even more, can the OT God be trusted?

The key book in the OT to determine that is, the book of Job. The book of Job depicts God as completely untrustworthy. I think it's so clear to anyone with an objective brain that there's no point to do a exegesis on the book, and how God acted in it ... or is depicted in it.

So if the book of Job depicts God as untrustworthy, how much can we trust the book of Leviticus ; a book that doesn't apply to us? That's because the OT God can't be trusted.

The OT God is off the mark.

[Sons to Glory!]

So while you two (Ohio, awareness) go down an apparent rabbit hole with each other once more, hopefully someone from the LGBTQ+ community will answer what Trapped and myself have put forth, which is the question we keep going around & around on and never gets answered directly. The responses I've seen on it so far falls basically into, "If it feels so good, how can it be wrong?" arena. Or another incredible response I've seen is, "Homosexuality is not off the mark in any way and is actually God's intention."

It was even inferred that if we don't completely accept 100% that all LGBTQ+ is normal and part of God's grand design, then we are haters. This is a total Strawman argument and patently false. As Christians with Christ in us, we love everyone - He came to die for sinners & enemies of God, of which we all were (and still sin sometimes). However, what is in the Bible is God's truth, and we must speak the truth in love accordingly, right?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I said all that in response to your comments here:

And even more, can the OT God be trusted?

The key book in the OT to determine that is, the book of Job. The book of Job depicts God as completely untrustworthy. I think it's so clear to anyone with an objective brain that there's no point to do a exegesis on the book, and how God acted in it ... or is depicted in it.

So if the book of Job depicts God as untrustworthy, how much can we trust the book of Leviticus ; a book that doesn't apply to us? That's because the OT God can't be trusted.

The OT God is off the mark.

What I said about God in the book of Job can be proven, using the same book.

Now God being off the mark? That's a subjective judgement. And it's difficult to explain. I look at it this way : We assume, with just a few verses, that we know what God approves of or not. But God is like your wife or husband, even with years of talking you still don't know all that's in him or her's mind, and really like many other systems of him or her's fleshly person. That's just the way it is, like it or not.

I like the Bible. It's a great book, and to me as well, is entertaining. For most of my life I looked at it like it's divine. Then I grew up, and began to see it as a human book.

Today I look at it in human terms and values. So I read Leviticus 18 with modern day human values. And a lot of chapter 18 makes sense, like sleeping with kinsmen, and kinswomen -- incest. And those statements in chap 18, match what we know about genetics today. But I don't see the homophobia verses as such. Genetics today disproves that homosexuality is just a choice that God can judge.

I personally see 18 as lacking all of God's thinking on the matter ; like the author(s) failed to write at the end, something like, "Love conquers all." Which means God realized that love between same sexes, overrides such condemnatory statements. Then God wouldn't be off the mark. We just don't know the mind of God.

And if how Job depicts God is accurate, then, God is a trickster God ... and all bets are off. God could mean Leviticus 18 ... or not. And looking a genetic evidence today, He doesn't.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Non sequitur - Serenity has Christ in her, does she not? (and of course we're to love all)

Good answer.