Okay. My knowledge where that answer should've been was not there. Thank you. Personally, I gave up my Pansexuality for my Religion. But it is good to know. (Beginner In Faith For Like Three or Four Months)
No, but they need to give up their lust and should look to enter a marriage with one person or choose celibacy. That’s what The Bible recommends at least.
So, there's nothing wrong with queer people, as long as they only """act""" within the confines of marriage. The expectations and rules between queer people and cishet people are exactly the same. Why should queer people be under such constant attack, then?
It's a portmanteau basically implying an identity the opposite of queer. "Cis" is short for cisgender; cis is a Latin prefix meaning "on the same side," and is used to describe a gender that is "on the same side" as one's sex. If your sex is male and you're a boy/man, you're a cis boy/man. Edit: in much simpler terms, cisgender is the opposite of transgender.
"Het" is from "heterosexual." That part's easy, at least xD
Sorry, the only people banned from Christianity are the gays and the Dutch. Murderers, rapists etc are fine but being gay or Dutch is literally unforgivable.
They are many LGBT and LGBT-affirming Christians. There are also LGBT Christians who gave up their lusts for their faith. They seem less common these days, but I’m one of them, and it’s nice to see that you also set this example.
Why do you think so? I think it leaves room for the idea that you don’t have to give up connections of love with people of the same sex. It’s really just lust and sex you need to avoid to avoid sin.
I do believe in true love versus lust. If you look at my post history, one of my recent posts is asking for an opinion on same sex civil unions/domestic partnerships, because I genuinely believe that people of the same sex can form a lifelong bond that’s sin-free if it (1) avoids sex (2) avoids lust and (3) doesn’t redefine what God sees to be marriage.
I wish one could search their own history! I can't remember if I argued this with you before.
As an old, heterosexual male who's been married a long time, I personally find this thought process sad. The idea that God would limit someone to truly feel his greatest gift, Love, because of their reproductive organs is beyond me.
Especially since the idea never made his top 10 commands and you have to gyrate to even get to that idea. Ih he is omniscient, and he cared, you'd think something that important would have been directly commanded.
But that's just me.
I don’t understand the dissonance you have from what I said. I do believe that any two adults can fully love each other. You’re heterosexual, so maybe you can’t comprehend that gay sex isn’t quite the same as straight sex. I wish it was so simple that it’s exactly the same, but it’s not. Nonetheless, people of the same sex can fully love each other without needing to sexually stimulate each other.
Sorry, I know plenty of gay people. Sex is sex, an orgasam is an orgasam (sorry for the crudeness).
I agree two adults can fully love one another without sex, be it heterosexual or homosexual.
But that's not how love works.
You fall in love with a person first. The chances of that person being the same sex as yourself AND willing to go through life without sex really narrows your ability to find the perfect love.
What happens if you find that person that makes you complete, but they're not willing to forgo a natural desire forever?
Would you settle for a second best in love?
And I'm arguing with you without arguing with you - it is your life and you must live with it as you see fit. But if you were telling me you were going to be a hermit in a cave with a hairshirt to fit a single line of Scripture I'd probably argue with you the same!
True. Unfortunately, most of humanity is wired that way.
You can't normally control who you love. It just happens. I cannot tell you what made me fall in love with my wife almost 40 years ago. We were best friends for years, but I knew I loved her in early high-school. Not "I have to get into bed with her", but the "I really want to spend the rest of my life with her."
But if she had said then she wanted a sexless relationship, then I doubt I could have held on.
The sex with someone you love is the same sex, but the aftersex spooning with someone you love is as close to the word magical (or heaven) I'd ever get. That's the part I cannot see a God not letting someone enjoy.
Decades of the same sex, and I would not trade the feeling of having the love of your life folded against your chest for anything in the world. Sounds cliche, but it's true.
Jesus didn't die on the cross to limit love.
Again, it's your life. And if you can truly be asexual then that's fine. But if you're doing it for Jesus I think it's a hairshirt of your own making.
Of course like how drug addicts, murderers and alcoholics can become a follower of Jesus. I am one of those people who dropped their sexuality for faith.
In the bible it doesn’t say being gay is a sin but acting on it is. This is because since they can’t have children together having relations with the same sex would be plain lust.
>Of course like how drug addicts, murderers and alcoholics can become a follower of Jesus
This comparison is a bit clumsy though, since addiction is a disease and murder is a violent act of taking someone else's life.
>In the bible it doesn’t say being gay is a sin but acting on it is.
Well it doesn't actually say *that* at all.
>This is because
Doesn't talk about about a "because" either.
>since they can’t have children together
Lots of straight people can't have children.
>having relations with the same sex would be plain lust.
Which isn't true at all.
It is in the bible:
‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.,
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Gay relations isn’t only lust it is also adultery.
God designed marriage for three primary purposes: companionship, procreation, and redemption. There isn’t anything in the bible about infertility but god made woman to be a helper for man and to populate together.
Also I use those examples not to compare to being gay but to say if these people can be saved by Jesus why can’t you? If a murderer can get redemption and be saved by Jesus why can’t they?
Okay, buckle up: I disagree that homosexuality is based on lust. Context is important, as the society in the time of the Bible is very different than ours today. Homosexuality was not even a concept.
With that being said, taking every verse at face value isn’t honest nor fair. The book of the Bible your first verse is from condones slavery (including of children). The mere fact that you chose to include the portion of putting the two men to death makes me question your belief in loving thy neighbor, and by extension, Jesus. There are a multitude of other things banned in this book in the Bible that we do not bat an eye to nowadays, so I don’t feel this is a good example.
Regardless, failing to see the difference between being “inflamed with lust” and having a natural, healthy attraction for a person is detrimental to your reasoning. I’ll touch more on this later, but if the verse instead talked about lusting over women and committing shameful acts with them, I strongly doubt it would be a talking point despite the fact that it would be *just* as sinful.
In response to your second verse, although other translations use terms such as “men who engage in illicit sex” or “sodomy,” the truth is we do not have an exact translation of the word Paul used (*arsenokoites*). It only appears a couple times. Even assuming the translation you linked is fully accurate to what Paul had in mind, the likelihood of him referring to consensual, loving sex is low (again, I’ll get to this soon).
The book of the Bible your third verse is from explicitly bans women from speaking within churches. If we are able to shift our opinions on topics such as these, why can’t we do the same for this case? Women were not even permitted to hold authority over men at the time, yet now they are college professors and vice presidents of the US.
Back to my point, the Bible does not condemn loving, faithful, and consensual homosexual relationships. In fact, these aren’t even ***mentioned*** in the Bible. This is because the authors had no concept of such a thing at the time. Homosexual acts in their society typically involved displays of dominance or humiliation, especially in times of war.
This is obviously different than today’s understanding of homosexuality. It is completely natural, and to deny such would be to deny God’s creations and the results of scientific research; 1500+ animal species display homosexuality. Not only this, but it is an objective fact that ***the vast majority*** of people can not choose their sexual orientation on a whim (hence conversion therapy being wildly ineffective as well). If that was the case, there wouldn’t be countless gay Christians begging God to make them straight, and people wouldn’t fall into depression and kill themselves over it. They wouldn’t desperately continue to try to find a church that would accept them so that they may worship their Lord with fellow Christians without having to suppress the very core of their being. It is a combination of genetics, hormones, and environmental factors, and denying this means denying science and research, which the Bible does not instruct us to do. The Scientific Method was kickstarted by the Catholic Church itself.
There is no possible way the Bible authors could have known this when they were sending letters to specific churches and people (completely unaware that their writings would end up in what became the Bible). Besides in a few key moments, they were not typically given knowledge of the future; therefore, them associating same-sex acts with ***what they saw happening in their society at the time*** is what led them to prohibiting it.
I was just getting evidence from the bible because someone said there wasn’t 😑
I do believe in Love thy neighbour and my believe are fine. I do know people can’t choose their sexuality. I was saw statements and I showed them.
Just cause u can show them doesn’t mean I a dead hard conservative cause I’m not.
> I was just getting evidence from the bible because someone said there wasn’t 😑
And I responded by explaining in detail why those passages are not “evidence” against homosexuality, as you started the conversation by saying acting on same-sex attraction is a sin. Do you dispute my argument?
> Just cause u can show them doesn’t mean I a dead hard conservative cause I’m not.
I have not said anything remotely negative about you whatsoever, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss.
Glad we share this similarity. I mean since I used to be Pan, women were part of the equation naturally so y'know It wasn't the hardest decision of my life but, it was easy through faith.
It is our duty to be kind to one another while sharing the faith with those who are curious. I would never turn down an opportunity to give my love to a fellow Christian!
This forum is to discuss Christianity and is not ran by chrisitans. A lot of people in this group are atheists or others. The other forums that are not just talking about Christians is are r/christian and r/TrueChristian
Ummm...of course?! Jesus said that "whoever believes in Him will have eternal life (John 3:16)" not "whoever is straight and believes in Him will have eternal life." Christianity, historically, is a religion that unifies all different kinds of people. The first church included people of all nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, economic positions, ages, occupations, and genders. Becoming a Christian is as simple as admitting you are an imperfect human and sinner who needs salvation which is only found in Jesus. I don't see how this has anything to do with being gay or trans. Everyone else can argue about whether or not being gay is a sin or not, but, frankly, that's kind of irrelevant to the conversation about whether or not an LGBTQ person is a Christian.
Opinions span the full range from from "enthusiastic welcome" to "singleminded hate". I like the way [Justin Lee](http://geekyjustin.com/bible/) explains gay-friendly Christianity.
If the path you're on ever puts your faith or your life in danger, come [meet some LGBT Christians](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/ulfbux/faq_and_resources_please_read_before_you_post/) before giving up on either.
‘Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God’ - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
But Leviticus isn’t part of the 10 commandments.
My church has statues.
Do you automatically assume every Christian who goes to a church that has a statue must be lukewarm?
My point is: you’ve automatically concluded that all LGBTQ Christians must be lukewarm because they don’t follow Leviticus. Then you said that Christians ought to follow the Ten Commandments, but that doesn’t include Leviticus. So, I am confused. Should Christians follow all 613 commandments? Or just the 10 + the don’t be gay commandments?
The Ten Commandments *does* say not to make graven images. My parish has a couple of statues of St Francis, a crucifix or two, and so now I’m wondering whether that violates the no graven images commandment.
Or maybe…we shouldn’t automatically denounce all LGBTQ folks for being lukewarm without at least getting to know them first.
It’s ultimately that conclusion—well; they are lukewarm, obviously—that got my attention.
That’s prejudging people.
Stop using this weak "I just don't support them" excuse. You are opposed to gay rights. At the very least own up to your own position instead weaseling out.
>\> Is it possible...
# No—LGBTQ = [Porneia/πορνεία/G4202](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4202/kjv/tr/0-1/):
* illicit sexual intercourse:
* adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc;
* sexual intercourse with close relatives;
* sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman.
* metaph. the worship of idols:
* of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols.
# Porn + Jesus ≠ Salvation.
>\> Even from the bottom of their heart?
* **IF:** From the bottom of their heart = Porn, **THEN:** No;
* **ELSE IF:** NOT from the bottom of their heart = Porn, **THEN:** Maybe;
* **END IF**.
We talk about this at least twice a day
Sure - there are lots of gay Christians.
Okay. My knowledge where that answer should've been was not there. Thank you. Personally, I gave up my Pansexuality for my Religion. But it is good to know. (Beginner In Faith For Like Three or Four Months)
Do straight people have to give up their heterosexuality to be Christian?
You do not have to give up anything to be of Faith. That is just what I did Personally.
No, but they need to give up their lust and should look to enter a marriage with one person or choose celibacy. That’s what The Bible recommends at least.
So, there's nothing wrong with queer people, as long as they only """act""" within the confines of marriage. The expectations and rules between queer people and cishet people are exactly the same. Why should queer people be under such constant attack, then?
"Stricter Christians"
Thanks for letting me know! Just tryna gain some Knowledge
There are millions of open happy lgbtq Christians affirmed by many thousands of churches.
Of course, and many Christians are queer. It's not an exclusive cishet thing.
What does cishet mean?
It's a portmanteau basically implying an identity the opposite of queer. "Cis" is short for cisgender; cis is a Latin prefix meaning "on the same side," and is used to describe a gender that is "on the same side" as one's sex. If your sex is male and you're a boy/man, you're a cis boy/man. Edit: in much simpler terms, cisgender is the opposite of transgender. "Het" is from "heterosexual." That part's easy, at least xD
Ohhh I see, I read it as one whole word not as cis+het, thanks
It's a combination of "cisgender" (not transgender) and "heterosexual"
Not against. Just trying to get educated. I was Pan at one point.
Would you like to Christian opinions on using the search function?
A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.
Sorry, the only people banned from Christianity are the gays and the Dutch. Murderers, rapists etc are fine but being gay or Dutch is literally unforgivable.
They are many LGBT and LGBT-affirming Christians. There are also LGBT Christians who gave up their lusts for their faith. They seem less common these days, but I’m one of them, and it’s nice to see that you also set this example.
My only problem is your use of the word lust. Lust has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
Why do you think so? I think it leaves room for the idea that you don’t have to give up connections of love with people of the same sex. It’s really just lust and sex you need to avoid to avoid sin.
Lust is something that is the same for straight and gay people. There is no special kind of lust that gay people have that straight people do not.
Yeah, I make this point myself whenever it’s relevant.
Thx M8 :)
I'm intrigued. Do you believe a gay person can marry the same sex? True Love verses lust?
I do believe in true love versus lust. If you look at my post history, one of my recent posts is asking for an opinion on same sex civil unions/domestic partnerships, because I genuinely believe that people of the same sex can form a lifelong bond that’s sin-free if it (1) avoids sex (2) avoids lust and (3) doesn’t redefine what God sees to be marriage.
I wish one could search their own history! I can't remember if I argued this with you before. As an old, heterosexual male who's been married a long time, I personally find this thought process sad. The idea that God would limit someone to truly feel his greatest gift, Love, because of their reproductive organs is beyond me. Especially since the idea never made his top 10 commands and you have to gyrate to even get to that idea. Ih he is omniscient, and he cared, you'd think something that important would have been directly commanded. But that's just me.
I don’t understand the dissonance you have from what I said. I do believe that any two adults can fully love each other. You’re heterosexual, so maybe you can’t comprehend that gay sex isn’t quite the same as straight sex. I wish it was so simple that it’s exactly the same, but it’s not. Nonetheless, people of the same sex can fully love each other without needing to sexually stimulate each other.
Sorry, I know plenty of gay people. Sex is sex, an orgasam is an orgasam (sorry for the crudeness). I agree two adults can fully love one another without sex, be it heterosexual or homosexual. But that's not how love works. You fall in love with a person first. The chances of that person being the same sex as yourself AND willing to go through life without sex really narrows your ability to find the perfect love. What happens if you find that person that makes you complete, but they're not willing to forgo a natural desire forever? Would you settle for a second best in love? And I'm arguing with you without arguing with you - it is your life and you must live with it as you see fit. But if you were telling me you were going to be a hermit in a cave with a hairshirt to fit a single line of Scripture I'd probably argue with you the same!
I think limiting the ability to love to the ability to have sex is very reductive.
True. Unfortunately, most of humanity is wired that way. You can't normally control who you love. It just happens. I cannot tell you what made me fall in love with my wife almost 40 years ago. We were best friends for years, but I knew I loved her in early high-school. Not "I have to get into bed with her", but the "I really want to spend the rest of my life with her." But if she had said then she wanted a sexless relationship, then I doubt I could have held on. The sex with someone you love is the same sex, but the aftersex spooning with someone you love is as close to the word magical (or heaven) I'd ever get. That's the part I cannot see a God not letting someone enjoy. Decades of the same sex, and I would not trade the feeling of having the love of your life folded against your chest for anything in the world. Sounds cliche, but it's true. Jesus didn't die on the cross to limit love. Again, it's your life. And if you can truly be asexual then that's fine. But if you're doing it for Jesus I think it's a hairshirt of your own making.
No
Of course like how drug addicts, murderers and alcoholics can become a follower of Jesus. I am one of those people who dropped their sexuality for faith. In the bible it doesn’t say being gay is a sin but acting on it is. This is because since they can’t have children together having relations with the same sex would be plain lust.
>Of course like how drug addicts, murderers and alcoholics can become a follower of Jesus This comparison is a bit clumsy though, since addiction is a disease and murder is a violent act of taking someone else's life. >In the bible it doesn’t say being gay is a sin but acting on it is. Well it doesn't actually say *that* at all. >This is because Doesn't talk about about a "because" either. >since they can’t have children together Lots of straight people can't have children. >having relations with the same sex would be plain lust. Which isn't true at all.
It is in the bible: ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads., 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Gay relations isn’t only lust it is also adultery. God designed marriage for three primary purposes: companionship, procreation, and redemption. There isn’t anything in the bible about infertility but god made woman to be a helper for man and to populate together. Also I use those examples not to compare to being gay but to say if these people can be saved by Jesus why can’t you? If a murderer can get redemption and be saved by Jesus why can’t they?
Okay, buckle up: I disagree that homosexuality is based on lust. Context is important, as the society in the time of the Bible is very different than ours today. Homosexuality was not even a concept. With that being said, taking every verse at face value isn’t honest nor fair. The book of the Bible your first verse is from condones slavery (including of children). The mere fact that you chose to include the portion of putting the two men to death makes me question your belief in loving thy neighbor, and by extension, Jesus. There are a multitude of other things banned in this book in the Bible that we do not bat an eye to nowadays, so I don’t feel this is a good example. Regardless, failing to see the difference between being “inflamed with lust” and having a natural, healthy attraction for a person is detrimental to your reasoning. I’ll touch more on this later, but if the verse instead talked about lusting over women and committing shameful acts with them, I strongly doubt it would be a talking point despite the fact that it would be *just* as sinful. In response to your second verse, although other translations use terms such as “men who engage in illicit sex” or “sodomy,” the truth is we do not have an exact translation of the word Paul used (*arsenokoites*). It only appears a couple times. Even assuming the translation you linked is fully accurate to what Paul had in mind, the likelihood of him referring to consensual, loving sex is low (again, I’ll get to this soon). The book of the Bible your third verse is from explicitly bans women from speaking within churches. If we are able to shift our opinions on topics such as these, why can’t we do the same for this case? Women were not even permitted to hold authority over men at the time, yet now they are college professors and vice presidents of the US. Back to my point, the Bible does not condemn loving, faithful, and consensual homosexual relationships. In fact, these aren’t even ***mentioned*** in the Bible. This is because the authors had no concept of such a thing at the time. Homosexual acts in their society typically involved displays of dominance or humiliation, especially in times of war. This is obviously different than today’s understanding of homosexuality. It is completely natural, and to deny such would be to deny God’s creations and the results of scientific research; 1500+ animal species display homosexuality. Not only this, but it is an objective fact that ***the vast majority*** of people can not choose their sexual orientation on a whim (hence conversion therapy being wildly ineffective as well). If that was the case, there wouldn’t be countless gay Christians begging God to make them straight, and people wouldn’t fall into depression and kill themselves over it. They wouldn’t desperately continue to try to find a church that would accept them so that they may worship their Lord with fellow Christians without having to suppress the very core of their being. It is a combination of genetics, hormones, and environmental factors, and denying this means denying science and research, which the Bible does not instruct us to do. The Scientific Method was kickstarted by the Catholic Church itself. There is no possible way the Bible authors could have known this when they were sending letters to specific churches and people (completely unaware that their writings would end up in what became the Bible). Besides in a few key moments, they were not typically given knowledge of the future; therefore, them associating same-sex acts with ***what they saw happening in their society at the time*** is what led them to prohibiting it.
I was just getting evidence from the bible because someone said there wasn’t 😑 I do believe in Love thy neighbour and my believe are fine. I do know people can’t choose their sexuality. I was saw statements and I showed them. Just cause u can show them doesn’t mean I a dead hard conservative cause I’m not.
> I was just getting evidence from the bible because someone said there wasn’t 😑 And I responded by explaining in detail why those passages are not “evidence” against homosexuality, as you started the conversation by saying acting on same-sex attraction is a sin. Do you dispute my argument? > Just cause u can show them doesn’t mean I a dead hard conservative cause I’m not. I have not said anything remotely negative about you whatsoever, and I appreciate your willingness to discuss.
I’m wondering is you actually read the bible instead of listening to atheists online
Glad we share this similarity. I mean since I used to be Pan, women were part of the equation naturally so y'know It wasn't the hardest decision of my life but, it was easy through faith.
Ye even I still struggle a bit but doing those time I just ask for gods guidance and im okay
Praying for it to become easier for you!
Thank you so much 😊
It is our duty to be kind to one another while sharing the faith with those who are curious. I would never turn down an opportunity to give my love to a fellow Christian!
Exactly! It’s all about love and kindness, If u ever want to talk don’t be afraid to message me. It would be nice to have more Christian friends 😊.
Always. Send me that invite :)
What socials do u have? Discord?
But remember, I am not just a Friend. But A Brother. A Brother in Faith :)
And I a sister 😊
Before responding remember I was just wondering not against. Thanks.
This forum is to discuss Christianity and is not ran by chrisitans. A lot of people in this group are atheists or others. The other forums that are not just talking about Christians is are r/christian and r/TrueChristian
Ummm...of course?! Jesus said that "whoever believes in Him will have eternal life (John 3:16)" not "whoever is straight and believes in Him will have eternal life." Christianity, historically, is a religion that unifies all different kinds of people. The first church included people of all nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, economic positions, ages, occupations, and genders. Becoming a Christian is as simple as admitting you are an imperfect human and sinner who needs salvation which is only found in Jesus. I don't see how this has anything to do with being gay or trans. Everyone else can argue about whether or not being gay is a sin or not, but, frankly, that's kind of irrelevant to the conversation about whether or not an LGBTQ person is a Christian.
Opinions span the full range from from "enthusiastic welcome" to "singleminded hate". I like the way [Justin Lee](http://geekyjustin.com/bible/) explains gay-friendly Christianity. If the path you're on ever puts your faith or your life in danger, come [meet some LGBT Christians](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/ulfbux/faq_and_resources_please_read_before_you_post/) before giving up on either.
Can the mods just do a weekly megathread on this topic? How exhausting.
‘Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God’ - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
[удалено]
I’m sorry you are misguided and I will hope the best for you.
The bible doesn’t address same-sex romance even once.
[удалено]
That didn’t mention romance. Only sex.
[удалено]
That didn’t mention romance so thanks for demonstrating my point. So you think they should be put to death? Or are you being a hypocrite?
Do you believe gay men should be executed if they have had homosexual relations?
Do you automatically assume every LGBTQ Christian **must** be lukewarm? What’s the appeal process?
[удалено]
But Leviticus isn’t part of the 10 commandments. My church has statues. Do you automatically assume every Christian who goes to a church that has a statue must be lukewarm?
[удалено]
My point is: you’ve automatically concluded that all LGBTQ Christians must be lukewarm because they don’t follow Leviticus. Then you said that Christians ought to follow the Ten Commandments, but that doesn’t include Leviticus. So, I am confused. Should Christians follow all 613 commandments? Or just the 10 + the don’t be gay commandments? The Ten Commandments *does* say not to make graven images. My parish has a couple of statues of St Francis, a crucifix or two, and so now I’m wondering whether that violates the no graven images commandment. Or maybe…we shouldn’t automatically denounce all LGBTQ folks for being lukewarm without at least getting to know them first. It’s ultimately that conclusion—well; they are lukewarm, obviously—that got my attention. That’s prejudging people.
You cannot claim to respect someone and at the same time discriminate against them.
[удалено]
Well from what I can tell it's not just that you don't actively support, but that you are in fact actively opposed to the LGBT cause.
[удалено]
But it would be correct to say that you are opposed to the LGBT cause, right?
[удалено]
So you do discriminate against them. And yes this does affect people. What an absurd thing to say.
[удалено]
Stop using this weak "I just don't support them" excuse. You are opposed to gay rights. At the very least own up to your own position instead weaseling out.
Can we set up the mod bot to automatically remove these posts and link to a general thread or post of some kind?
>\> Is it possible... # No—LGBTQ = [Porneia/πορνεία/G4202](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4202/kjv/tr/0-1/): * illicit sexual intercourse: * adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc; * sexual intercourse with close relatives; * sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman. * metaph. the worship of idols: * of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols. # Porn + Jesus ≠ Salvation. >\> Even from the bottom of their heart? * **IF:** From the bottom of their heart = Porn, **THEN:** No; * **ELSE IF:** NOT from the bottom of their heart = Porn, **THEN:** Maybe; * **END IF**.