NARCISSISM OF GAY INCLUSIVE THEOLOGY
Against the Christian doctrine that there is no inspiration any more since the last apostle died and so there are to be no new doctrines we are expected today to pretend that the Bible can be interpreted in an affirming way for LGBT. Nowadays, you hear lies that loving committed gay relationships that involve sex are not against the Bible. The experience of many LGBT that their sexuality is an identity or part of who they are is an even bigger subject. Yet so dishonest are "Christian" LGBT allies that they don't mention that, biblically, your only identity before God is as his child and image. Erasure is a big thing. A Bible that does not say anybody is born LGBT and does not validate sexually active people for whom heterosexual monogamous style relationships are out is guilty of denying the existence of LGBT. Erasing is a form of dehumanising. LGBT "Christians" are a disgrace.
In Colossians 4:6 Paul says that our conversation must always be full of grace and seasoned with salt so that we may know how to answer everyone. Who in their right mind would say that the faith then had no problem with loving same sex relationships? The faith is clear that it was given once and for all and was sufficient from the beginning and covered all subjects. Jesus promised that his apostles would learn all things from the Holy Spirit and need nothing else.
Jesus when asked about Moses allowing divorce said its one man and one woman for life. Some make out this was only about a particular law in Deuteronomy and was about legality not morality. That allows them to say that the texts don't address gay marriage and cannot be used against it. But Jesus said Moses was forced to permit divorce and the law in Deuteronomy does not condone divorce but merely regulates it as if it were something that could not be rooted out. Jesus says Genesis with one man and one woman overrides everything else. A man locking young girls into lifelong marriage would not be okay with same sex marriage.
The argument that the apostle Paul in Romans 1 only condemns gay sex in pagan worship is desperation for he does not mention temples or pagans or anything and what about other things that were happening in pagan rites such as adulterous sex? Why just not condemn sexual rites? Singling out gay sex would mean he had a problem with gay sex not just gay sex in temples.
Read Genesis 19. The Sodom and Gomorrah legend says that the citizens sinned horribly and God went down from Heaven to make sure they were guilty of the sin - a metaphor for them getting special attention from him as if there were not worse cities in the world - that he had reason to believe they were guilty of. We are led to believe by LGBT "Christians" that the sin was inhospitality though the cities were dominated by gays. The story says God decimated the cities with fire and brimstone which implies very cruel deaths for many. Even if it was the harshness, of this penalty would indicate homophobia even if gay sex was not the sin targeted. Punishing a gay person for shoplifting and letting a hetero get away with it is indirect homophobia for it is the fact that the wrong was done by this particular person that is the problem. And the cities were in the desert so inhospitality to travellers was no real issue. Ezekiel could mean when he says they were destroyed for being inhospitable that you could not expect anybody to want to stay in cities run by gays.
Deuteronomy 23:17: "There shall be no whore of the daughters of
It is very narcissistic or deceptive of today's gays to pretend that the Bible DOES NOT want them stoned. They engage in far-fetched distortion of how Leviticus and Paul's epistle to the Romans both endorse the death of people for engaging in gay sex. The texts are simple. They go for the act of sex and nothing else. It could not be clearer.
Even if those texts only meant abusive forms of gay sex and not loving relationships why was the penalty so severe? They were stoned to death and God said he commanded this fate.
Another excuse is that the rules were motivated by attempts to have the Hebrews or Jews differentiate themselves from the surrounding nations such as decadent Canaan. The implication is that this was just about separating not moralising. But what if they were expected to be unlike the Canaanites for example because that nation accepted gay sex and witchcraft etc and that was a problem for they were sins? And why are none of the excuse makers upset that this would mean that if LGBT from Canaanite wanted refuge with the Jews they were going to be thrown to the desert wolves? Because it is about Christian liars and LGBT liars being hypocrites. Why would God ban gay sex and adultery and idols instead of just saying, "Keep your distance from Canaanites?" Simple. No need for ban after ban. It makes no sense.
Leviticus when it slams gay sex and adultery and so on merely says the other nations should not be engaging in them and neither should Israel. That says nothing about condemning them just because the other nations do them. That would not be fair.
Here are the crimes demanding execution by divine command. The execution was typically performed by stoning. A naughty daughter of a priest was however burned to death.
When you read the execution list you wonder how gays could think they would get an exemption!
Murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17,21)
Attacking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15,17)
Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
Failure to confine a dangerous animal, resulting in death (Exodus 21:28-29)
Witchcraft and sorcery (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 13:5, 1
Samuel 28:9)
Sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:16)
Doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
Incest (Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12,14,17,19-21)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22)
Homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13)
Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14,16, 23)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:20)
Perjury in capital cases (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)
False claim of a woman's virginity at time of marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
Sex between a woman pledged to be married and a man other
than her betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
Many protest against the notion that if you are gay or
homosexual or lesbian then this is your identity and part of you as a person.
They say that is absurd and leads to further absurdities. They say you should
argue that if a man is a paedophile and born that way then you should say
pedophilia is a part of who he is. They clearly then see gays and lesbians
as enabling paedophiles in the craftiest way and making them feel they are
paedophiles in principle. It is interesting that Catholics see baptism as
making you a Catholic as a person for it changes your being but what are you if
you are not baptised? You must be sub-human or just a human being!
The believers can talk about absurd consequences!
The argument that gays are gay as people seems to be based on the idea that it
is not a choice. But what if it is? Or for some anyway? Then it would be true that you were born
with the ability to become gay. So in that sense you could say that whether
chosen or not it is still what you are for it has something to do with how you
are born.
The Christians say that LGBT assume that the sex of your body has nothing to do
with a gay or lesbian identity. So a woman’s body that is unable to have sexual
intercourse with another woman does not mean her identity is that she should
seek sex with a man. What she is has nothing to do with the “language” of her
body "design". Sexuality and the body are separate issues. It does not matter
how you use your body sexually – a gay man can ignore the fact that a rectum
does not seem to be for holding a penis. The argument if correct shows why LGB
consider transgender people to be one part of the umbrella. That is why we have
LGBT.
It seems degrading to argue that the body does not matter only what we want to
do with it. It seems to be like you are using your body like a thing instead of
realising that your body is you. But the fact remains that this logic is
accepted by nobody for who believes that a husband and wife should do nothing
sexual only intercourse? Sexuality is more varied than that!
Jesus according to the Gospel of John was the Word. The Word is with God and the Word was God. And the Word became sarx flesh. Sarx means literal human meat that covers bones. This is very anatomical. Why does he not say the Word became humankind, human or man? God becomes human meat. One reason is that the author wishes to avert any suggestion that Jesus was not a material being but just a spirit or apparition so he gets almost crude and medical. If you think saying Jesus was a real human was enough and would affirm that he came to be part of humankind man and woman and child then the text can be read as affirming that you are your flesh so your chromosomes make you the person you are. If so then it is transphobic.
LGBT in general with LGBT sex and in individual cases are really saying that without a mandate from God that what they do is his will. The Bible condemns such subjectivity. That is actually a bigger threat to validation and rights than texts banning LGBT sex.
LGBT should be just affirmed. The Bible should not matter. LGBT with Bibles are just offensive.
