But doesn’t this get to the real cause of homophobia?
That is, the haters are afraid that they might just “get to be” that which they claim to hate?!?!
(For further investigation, check out the ancient Hindu assertion that “Thou art that”, or the modern psychological principle of projection, that is, according to Britannica.com:
“…the mental process by which people attribute to others what is in their own mind.”)
I’m pretty sure all religions are false and that an omnipotent god wouldn’t need or want anyone to speak for him.
In fact, the way I see it, all of the conflicting religions in the world tend to help prove that god, if he does exist, doesn’t have any power at all, as an all powerful god would punish those who claim to be his publicists or messengers when he, by definition, must be perfectly capable of managing the press on his own.
Indeed, I suspect he, she or it would be particularly hard on those authors who say they’ve written books in his name…if only the god described in the Bible were real and could do anything on his own.
Unions have the authority to ordain. This is where the confusion comes in. The Unions have the authority but they all have a common constitution “approved” by the GC which sets out the criteria. The Divisions are an instrument of the GC. One interpretation of what was being asked was that each Union (within a Division) be allowed to determine their own local criteria for ordination (the view of the proponents of WO). The other interpretation was that by voting ‘Yes’ the authority of the Unions was to be ceded to the Division (in reality the GC). This was the view of the opponents of WO. Depending on how you viewed the proposal, it was likely you would have wanted a ‘Yes’ vote. I believe we got a ‘No’ result because many did not actually understand the proposal. This is probably the best result under the circumstances as the status quo is maintained.
Many a commentator has inferred that much changed as a result of the ‘No’ vote, when nothing changed. How much more confusing would be the outcome if it were a ‘Yes’ vote. Both sides would be claiming victory. It was a badly phrased proposal because it could be interpreted in more than one way.
The Unions had the authority before the vote, and they have it after the vote. Why participate? Because of the differing interpretations of the possible outcomes.
Babylon is a false God, taking the place of God and using human institutions and governments to enforce its commandments on the world. Those commandments are human constructs. I doubt if you wear your sideburns down to your shoulders. The most egregious sin is thinking you can save yourself by your behaviour. It completely flies in the face of grace.
We are all born of sinful flesh, but some are born with bodies that misrepresent who they are. There are millions of them on the earth. And it has been well documented that they came into the world that way. What kind of God would punish them for how they came out of the womb? But I’m relatively sure you would.
@NY_G_PA2 , Bruce Clement, of course ! The whole sphere is tangled up with numerous threatening - hidden, suppressed attempts and phantasies and dreams , them under denial and disavowal - - "if you present anything to your environment that reminds of these elements - it simply is alarming - - -
in therapies had to cope with panic attacs stimulated by such unexpected views into the unconscious - - in everydays lifes - - -
Well, it seems abundantly clear that has in fact happened. We do not actually have any way to objectively know “the truth” of Yahweh or any of the mysteries of any unseen realm as described in the received text of the bible.
If we could objectively know the truth of such things, belief in the unseen would not require faith - or even belief. In such a case there would be only one religion with one set of factual statements that everyone would agree on. Religion would essentially amount to settled science.
I am quit sure that Babylon will be revealed to be the Evangelical Churches who are the most hateful, judgmental people in our country. The likes of Jerry Falwell, his disgusting son, Pat Robertson, and Billy Graham’s son and a few of the other very judgmental people who all stood around the desk of Donald Trump and said that he had been sent by God. The very fact that all of these religious leaders have united with the secular government and were willing to accept one of the most immoral, lying, cheating, racist, narcissistic and traitorous persons to carry out their bidding, should give you clarity on this. The person they were endorsing told us who he was when the infamous Access Hollywood tape was released where Trump told us exactly who he was.
You become what you are willing to lay down with…plain and simple.
Isn’t it ironic that commenters and other Adventist “conservatives” use the same rhetoric as Evangelicals. Their focus is the things they don’t like and constantly condemn others who in their judgement are sinners. While they claim a moral high ground they are guilty of taking the name of God in vain by terrorizing LGBTQ+ and enabling those who commit acts of physical violence. The GC leadership, like Paul when Stephan was stoned, have given their tacit approval and bring shame on the cause of God.
An interesting concept you raise here. Many comfort themselves as not taking the name of God in vain because they don’t cuss, swear or otherwise invoke God in anger. They rarely stop to think how they cheapen the name of God when they take on the label Christian and live an “ungodly” life ignoring the plight of others, discriminating against the weak and outcast. Aperson who cusses and swears does much less harm to the name of God than one who misrepresents Them.
It seems to me that any religion or theology which holds that our creator is separate and apart from his, her or it’s creation, or insists that our maker has only ever communicated directly with no more than a handful of humans throughout the course of history, is an affront to our maker.
Much worse than simply making the name of god an idle oath or swear word, this concept borders on being an unpardonable sin, as it effectively cuts one off from the source of all creativity and any possibility of making the world a better place.
I think the evangelical churches definitely will be part of that mix. They are advocating for more and more church involvement in government which should concern us all. I agree with the idea that society is getting worse but mixing religion and government never had and never will end well
Yet, you seem to be parroting the same moral outrage and finger pointing that they do. Those who will be save will not be the ones who pointed out other’s sins, nor will they be the ones who are the least sinful themselves, they will only be the ones who have put their trust and faith in Jesus and accepted His righteousness. If we truly care about the salvation of people and not just our concern about their behaviour, the way to help them is to love them as Jesus would do.
I like your post, but be aware what the commandment regarding taking the name of God in vain is purely about making a promise and doing it in God’s name, such as when entering into a legal contract, and then breaking that contract.
Today it would be similar to swearing by putting your hand on the the bible in court (which I don’t think anyone does anymore, but we still understand the meaning).
Yes love them as Jesus did is the key. But Jesus also called out their sins, right? He told the rich young man to sell what he had and follow Him. He told the woman in adultery to go and sin no more. He told Peter he was being used by Satan. He told those tempted by adultery to pluck their eyes out (metaphorically). He told those who divorce their wives that they are committing adultery. He called many of His countrymen a “crooked and perverse generation”.
He preached to repent and be baptized…He never condoned sin or told anyone it was ok to keep living lives out of harmony with His principles. He said if they loved Him to “keep His commandments”.
Jesus’ love didnt stop Him from helping people out of their sin and not simply letting them stay in sin. He loved the drunks and prostitutes but His goal was to get them out of that lifestyle. Love motivated Him to elevate them not leave them in sin. The motive is what makes the difference between judging and helping. Me helping my wife out of a drug addiction is loving her, not judging.
“He said if they loved Him to “keep His commandments”
One of which was to not judge others.
But you try to get around this by saying “But Jesus did this…” or “Jesus said that…l”
So Jesus also told you it’s ok to pick up poisonous snakes, you should go buy a sword, and that you must hate your family to be part of his “family”.
.
And did you do any of that?
IOW, you cherry pick the Bible like everyone else and claim to be acting out of love when it’s obvious that making a show of one’s purported altruism is really just another violation of Jesus many admonishments; the one about how one should do his good deeds in secret.
I would still like you to answer what sin has a transgender individual who was born with physical, documentable attributes of both male and female bodies done? There are more of them on this earth right now than the entire population of Norway. Yet you, along with the rabidly judgmental evangelicals, are attempting to wipe them out of society. Every one of them were born this way. That is an absolute. Yet you condemn them as sinners. SO exactly what sin have they committed and why are they recipients of your wrath? Not every member of the LGBTQ community can prove they came into this world that way but this particular group can. I think this deserves an answer.
Some time ago, I asked @Yoyito to explain what Jesus meant when he told his listeners that they were gods and I have yet to hear any attempt at exegesis, much less a plausible explication.
I don’t think I’ve ever said that person had committed a sin. You’re describing someone that was born with documentable attributes of male and female…I don’t see why that’s a sin and I don’t believe I ever said it was, if I’m mistaken then I apologize. You’re describing intersex individuals and that’s an extremely rare but yes a documented fact. There is no sin that I know if that they’ve committed and there is no easy or straightforward solution to their identity.
I’m not sure what wrath I’ve exhibited toward them but I don’t think I have. The issue of transgendered individuals (anatomical males or female) that identify as another gender because of what they feel in the inside is another issue. We probably don’t agree on that one but on the individuals you describe I have nothing but compassion for as they are in a very difficult position
I also would like you to answer how helping others out of their sin is judging? If you saw your married pastor out with another woman and kissing her, how would you handle that?
First, this isn’t an extremely rare group. Their number is larger than the population of Norway. Second, just because the majority of people who are transgendered (my preference, most don’t know what intersex individual means) doesn’t mean that they weren’t born that way. But it sounds like you believe that, if you can’t physically PROVE IT, that then you don’t believe them. I believe the exact opposite. I believe that since some have demonstratable gender dysphoric characteristics, that there is every reason to believe that those that don’t are also born that way. But, from what you’re saying, unless they can prove it, they are on your “sinner list”. Thank God I don’t have to live with that kind of thinking.
As for the pastor who was kissing someone other than his wife, the church I attend had that very thing happen. That paster is still in the SDA ministry. He ended up divorcing his wife and marrying the church secretary. It will have to remain between himself and God.
