Catholic bishops: support for LGBT; ACNA bishops: condolence for LGBT

Maybe you find it impossible because you are comfortable being what you are and put that down to being the way God made you.

Have you ever considered the possibility that Gays might feel exactly as you do?

As for trans people, can you imagine how it must feel to be locked into a body that you don't feel belongs to you. I have difficulty with imagining that but I can at least believe what others who experience that tell us it's like for them.

Isn't that exactly what I have been suggesting we should do, let them do as they do?
It shouldn't be in our nature to be telling other people what to do, unless we have been given authority to do that in our vocation.
.

 

I don't think the title does 'say it all' (so perhaps the statement doesn't say it all, either?). It needs to say somewhat more if it wants to be accurate and not misleading of the truth. A more accurate title might read: "God created you, God loves you, but God hates sin. Homosexual behavior is sin. If you love God, you will try to avoid sin." However, if the Roman bishops' statement doesn't teach the latter portions, then it is defective. (Caveat: I haven't taken time to read it.)

The ACNA bishops have the right idea. I think it is incumbent upon all Christians to avoid saying things that would mislead people into believing that they may willfully and habitually sin without any exposure to God's final judgment. Moreover, Christians should actively call sin "sin." Paul took pains to warn people against habitual sins (and the warning prominently include certain sexual sins), and we should do the same.
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

"Says it all" ironically, in showing that the RC church comes short of teaching the truth whilst the Acna bishops are much better teachers here



.

When Christians oppose the trans movement, it is not an advocacy of restricting their physical freedom of movement, but a caution of the danger incurred when they take actions which go against God and against nature...

 

It depends what is meant by 'oppose' whether that is a good thing or not. By all means warn those who you think don't know any better, but we, the church are not called upon to be God's police force with the power to enforce God's law, or even to ensure the laws of nature are 'imposed' upon others. We are called to be like Christ. I don't recall him forbidding by law anyone falling in love with someone of the same sex. Of course, I think he would have advised that there are certain sexual practices that human beings should avoid, which would apply to both men and women equally. Paul advised similarly. Adultery being one they both actually mentioned. Hardness of heart being another. Mark 8:38, Matt.13:15. Rom.2:5.
.

 

I understand what you're saying when you state, we, the church are not called upon to be God's police force with the power to enforce God's law... This brings up some interesting philosophical questions, though. They are questions upon which considerable disagreement exists today (due to misunderstanding, I think). There's a common statement, "You can't legislate morality." Yet we as a society do legislate morality when we have laws forbidding such things as murder, theft, adults having relations with minors, rape, incest, and on and on. So then some folks will try to draw a distinction between acts that harm someone else and acts that don't; they would keep laws forbidding the former, but get rid of laws against things which don't (or don't seem to) harm third parties. This is sometimes regarded as a 'libertarian' viewpoint.

Of course, 'we the church' are not the same as 'we the society.' The church does not legislate anything or enforce anything (except in a theocracy). However, the question remains as to whether the church should be a 'force for good,' an influence in and upon society. And I think that is the question we really have to look at. As your statement continues, ...or even to ensure the laws of nature are 'imposed' upon others. Should the church (the people who make up Christ's body on earth) try to ensure that morality (from God's viewpoint of it) is promoted through the laws of society? And I think an excellent case in point is that of abortion. We who understand that abortion is murder have a choice; we either can try to get abortion outlawed so as to reduce the number of murdered unborn children, or we can say that we have no right to impose a godly morality upon women who want to get rid of their little 'inconveniences.' Or is that at all a choice for Christians? Do we have the latter option, legitimately? When we see innocents being slaughtered, does it please God if we sit back and do nothing? I don't think so. And so, from this one example, it can be seen that Jesus' exhortation to be light and salt in the world compels us to strive for more goodness and less violations of God's laws.

Now, some will try to carve out an exception to this principle. They will say that if sins don't harm third parties, they don't call for the church to strive against those sins. But this is a little bit tricky, because the 'libertarian' viewpoint is a secular and societal viewpoint, not a viewpoint of theology, the church, or God Himself. God does not differentiate between sins that hurt third parties and sins that hurt only the sinner. So the argument could be made that our duty to be light and salt does not stop at the door of the 'private' sinner.

But even if our Christian duty did not apply to 'sins that harm only the sinner,' we should recognize that homosexual sin does not qualify for an exception because it does harm third parties. Homosexual sin necessarily involves two or more participants. I recently read an estimate that 1 in 5 adults in the US currently have an STD, and the greatest spreader of STDs (far and away) is homosexual activity. Several STDs can be lethal if not treated (or not treatable). Homosexuals statistically have far more multiple partners than heterosexuals. In addition, many people are led into homosexuality by a person who is an active homosexual.... and many of these encounters involve predation upon young, inexperienced adults and even upon under-age youths. It is well known, statistically, that boys who are molested by men are far more likely to become practitioners of homosexuality in later life than boys who have never been molested. We can see that homosexual behavior is not, per se, a 'victimless' sin. However, homosexual practices (like abortions) are no longer illegal in the US. Even though God's people are not currently able to change this status, we have an obligation to strive for positive change in laws as well as a duty to warn of the spiritual danger inherent in unrepentant, habitual sin.

 

Anarchy is no way to run a society unless every individual in that society is truly Christlike. If we all were Christlike there would be no need for law since all would have been fulfilled that Christ had come to achieve for human society. Matt.5:18.

The only alternative to the complete freedom of anarchy in sinful human society is some form of restriction upon human conduct and individual freedom of action. That much is obvious.

Christ, it would seem though, did not call upon his disciples to become the executors of God's law but rather the obedient servants of it, "In the Spirit", thus proving it's efficacy in producing a sane and healthy society in line with the way God would have individuals act toward one another.

Jesus Christ did not foresee any eradication of poverty in human society here on earth, Matt.26:11, Mk.14:7, Jn.12:8. He also did not foresee society ever employing his own methods of doing God's will, even his own brothers and disciples could not understand his policies for personal conduct or put them into effect in their society, until they received The Holy Spirit, the spirit of Christ. John.7:1-19, Phil.1:19.

It is odd therefore that many of the self same people who wish to impose 'laws' upon the people to curtail the evil they say the people may cause to others, demonstrate upon the streets, by not wearing medical masks, because the government of the people, elected by the people, have imposed upon the people the 'freedom denying' obligation to wear medical masks for the protection of other people. When such insanely, irrational hypocrisy is rife among the people, they become ungovernable by 'laws', and are in desperate need of The Holy Spirit and a sound mind. 2 Tim.1:7.
.

 

I mean this is patently false since Christ left the keys to the kingdom of heaven to his apostles (the church), instructed them to reprove the brethren and ordered them to lead people into all truth... The Epistles are essentially one long list of the apostles executing God’s law and chastising those who violated it, calling them fornicators, sodomites, adulterers...

What bible are you reading friend

 

'Thou shalt not forego thy mask'.... perhaps it's the 11th Commandment? An off-track rabbit trail if ever there was one. Not everything that harms mankind is sin. Lightning strikes and accidents of all sorts occur, with no implication of sin. Accidents that cause harm can easily be distinguished from sinful activities that cause harm. I think most of us are capable of 'separating the wheat from the chaff' in this.

 

I don't think Apostles went about calling everyone who was not a Christian, "fornicators, sodomites, adulterers...". That would not be preaching the Gospel, that would just be inviting persecution and running the risk of being hypocritically judgmental.

They warned Christian believers already in the churches that such would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, but they were told by Christ to preach The Gospel, not to go round berating all and sundry for having such low standards of behaviour. Gospel preachers are greater than John the Baptist, with a much more positive and lifebringing message of salvation resulting in salvation and repentance, not just in preparation to be receptive hearers of The Gospel of Salvation, as John the Baptist preached. Luke 7:27-28, Rom.5:8. Matt.7:1-5.

Those verses I read in the good old KJV, and didn't skip over them quickly, in an unholy hurry, to get on with being judgmental, friend.
.

 

Even separating wheat from chaff requires a sound mind though. Causing harm is a sinful activity if sensible precautions to avoid injury have been deliberatey ignored. Deut.22:8.

Refusing to take reasonable precautions, (such as not wearing a mask around vulnerable people or in enclosed populated spaces during a seriously infectious pandemic), is not caring for or about your neighbour. More like "Am I my brother's keeper?" and those were the words of a murderer. Yet, as I pointed out, such 'lawbreakers', being resistant to law themselves, call for laws to be imposed on others, yet fail to see the hypocritical irrationality of their own 'lawbreaking' behaviour.
.

 

1 Peter 4:3, “ For the time past of our life will suffice us to have done the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in licentiousness, lusts, excess of wine, reveling, carousing, and abominable idolatries”

Anyway now please now exit my thread that i started, so that I can hear thoughts from others who are actually anglican


Mod: personal references removed.