Posted on 06/07/2021 12:57:35 PM PDT by ealgeone
A journey which unveils the mystery of how theology, history, culture, and politics led to a Biblical mistranslation, the man who tried to stop it, and the impassioned academic crusade of the LGBTQIA+ Christian community-driven to discover the truth.
1946 reveals the ground-breaking research of Kathy Baldock, a Christian Conservative LGBTQIA+ activist and Ed Oxford, an LGBTQIA+ theologian, in their quest to, discover what factors ignited the anti-gay movement within American conservative Christians. The filmmaker, Sharon “Rocky” Roggio, started this pursuit in an effort to find common ground, within scripture, for her and her conservative father, Pastor Sal Roggio. What has been discovered along the way stands the chance to profoundly change the language of inclusion and to better the lives of both conservative Christians and the LGBTQIA+ people they love. The removal of the LGBTQIA+ person from the sin category is akin to this century’s abolition of racial discrimination and the passing of women’s suffrage. There are two sides of history to stand on.
(Excerpt) Read more at wmm.com ...
We are born with instincts. Think of one born with an altered or damaged set of instincts.
As an unrelated afterthought, think of one born with one blue and the other green, clearly a biological "irregularity".
Have a nice evening.
I am trying to examine and understand the issue of homosexuality from a non-biblical perspective for at least a couple of reasons.
First, I am not qualified to discuss much beyond the "Judge not" admonition and secondly I believe the matter can be resolved primarily as a matter of science.
IMO, much of the confusion, even on this thread, may result from the fact that many are reluctant to recognize the larger group is divided at a minimum between those who make a bad choice and those who through no fault of their own are unable to make any choice at all.
Thanks again for your post.
Why do you make such assertions? The first is, as an assertion, is the type of wanton wishful accusations you are likely to find on liberal anti-theist sites, and is a real stretch.
'Shakspeare', which divides into four and six letters, thus '46'. The 46th word from the beginning of Psalm 46 is "shake" and the 46th word from the end (omitting the liturgical mark "Selah") is "spear" ("speare" in the original spelling). - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_46
Bible code anyone?
A similar version (being refuted): if you count down 46 words from the top (not counting the title) you read the word “shake,” then, if you omit the word “selah” and count 46 words from the bottom you find the word “spear.” Voilà! Shakespeare must have tinkered with the text and subtly added his signature. How else could one account for all of these 46s to work out so well? To top it all off, William Shakespeare is an anagram of “Here was I, like a psalm.” (Did Shakespeare Slip His Name in Psalm 46? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.)
The second of your assertions is an old accusation and which is debated, but it is irrelevant to the overall integrity of the KJV. Which only condemns sodomy.
That the focus of these prohomosexual polemicists is a somewhat unclear word when the rest of Scripture only condemns homosexual relations wherever it manifestly deals with them testifies to their reliance upon sophistry.
Ok, one blue eye and one green eye. {;^)
Or, a male body and a female brain/emotions.
Does a predisposition to alcohol sanction abuse of the latter? We are all born with a nature predisposed to sin, some more in regard to list for sins of the flesh, others for power and others for properties, and God blesses us with all, in His order, but which does not sanction the misuse of what He gave us. If one is of homosexual inclination then they should seek deliverance or live in continency (you will not die), like as others who have defects due to the Fall and hereditary must.
Hope you have a nice evening as well.
The dominant belief that The Law, including the Commandments were “nailed to the Cross’ would necessarily make it so the actions banned by it, were now forgiven if you only accept Christs sacrifice. If you can claim one of the 10 null and void, then all must also be forgiven if one only accepts the gift of forgiveness and is sprinkled with a little water.
That would mean that to live as a homosexual or deviant, is just another choice and the Church has no business banning that which Christ forgives.
I don’t believe that myself, but it is logical.
I saw that as well, but then I re-read the text and believe the writer meant that this ‘team’ was the first to explicitly use the term ‘homosexual’ in a translation of the Bible...................
Who uses the RSV?
Episcopalians...................
As you know, this is a difficult question. How SHOULD society react? With compassion and firm boundaries. (addressed in other posts) How DOES society/human nature react? Pursuant to our own self-interest and fears, as usual.
It is difficult if not impossible to enact "love the sinner, hate the sin" when the sinner immediately rejects your efforts to reach out as soon as they realize you don't condone their sin. (For instance, I love my gay friends but utterly reject gay "marriage." For them, to reject gay marriage is the equivalent of rejecting them.)
This is a serious obstacle. Ideas on how to overcome it? I also think that the labeled person has to be open to possibility that someone might love them but reject their sin. How many LGBTQ+s do you know that are?
I do believe the fires of division have been stoked to quite a blaze in recent years.
Probably why I left that church
How SHOULD society react? With compassion and firm boundaries.
Again, the community appears to be divided primarily between those who by virtue of the circumstances of their birth have no immediate choice in the matter and those who chose their behavior. So each part of your answer fits nicely into one or the other of those two groups.
There appears to be at least two models of therapy. The key for society then, is to identify which of the two groups a particular individual is a part of. With a careful approach that should not be difficult.
When an individual "immediately rejects your efforts to reach out as soon as they realize you don't condone their sin", it is probably wisest to not lead with biblical verses.
I endorse setting firm boundaries for the "choice" segment. Unfortunately, society is proceeding from a weak position in that regard due to the many liberal, indeed anti-MAGA forces that have caused it to embrace among other things, same-sex marriage.
We may not be fully on the same page here. The origin of same-sex attraction is not important. Behavior is what matters and it seems to me that anyone from either of your groups could choose abherrent behavior.
When an individual "immediately rejects your efforts to reach out as soon as they realize you don't condone their sin", it is probably wisest to not lead with biblical verses.
True, but it is a moral issue. If you chose not to appeal to Scripture, you would have to appeal to something, natural law maybe. It can be done.
It also occurs to me that this happens most of the time when talking to liberals - as soon as they realize you don't agree with them, they cover their ears and run screaming from the room.
The origin is indeed the core issue.
IMO, behavior is their concern. The only time it becomes our concern is when that behavior becomes public or they insist we treat them as of the opposite sex; or they insist we spend our tax dollars via the schools to promote our acceptance (there are likely more, but those jump out).
Again, the one eye blue and one eye green scenario, biological mistakes happen.
The born homosexual looks in a mirror and states "that is a mistake". Imagine society trying to convince that individual they actually are of the opposite sex. The success of the argument will, IMO, depend on significantly more than a verbal discussion.
Finally, as I noted upthread, I am confident a large segment of the "born" group, if not all, would seriously consider taking a "magic pill" (or any other demonstrably successful therapy), if they were reasonably certain it would resolve their dilemma.
But this is precisely the issue, if you are asking what society should do. Society doesn't need to do anything unless their behavior presents a threat to norms.
The born homosexual….
I don't believe there is such a thing. And I have the pleasure of acquaintance and friendship with many gay men and a few of other stripes.
Society doesn't need to do anything unless their behavior presents a threat to norms.
Arguably their behavior is presenting a threat to our cultural norms in the form of bathroom choice at the elementary school level and same-sex marriage. Our "authorities" are in the grooming business.
It is a given that society does do a lot of things for struggling folks who present no threat. In this instance, provision of therapy for those that seek it would seem a good thing. (And sure the hell no ban on such therapy.)
I don't believe there is such a thing [as a "born" homosexual].
You might then find it interesting to ask certain of your friends if they were born with their sexual inclination. I imagine many will find it convenient to respond affirmatively - "I am what I am", etc.
You might then ask if they would have any interest in focusing that inclination more naturally, and that is a Y or N question. With that, one could begin to more accurately identify those in the "choice" group.
Have a nice day.
Most of them think this. I do not share this view.
Homosexuals’ next move.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.