OSC’s Our every heart

isis-goes-gay

Are gay jihad warriors waging an unholy holy war on Christmas?! Probably not, I mean. . . .no. . .no probably not, I’m open to the arguments, but have yet to find that knock-down, drag out home run argument to prove my suspicions. Nonetheless, considering how beaten and bullied people have been in recent years by campaigners for so-called “gay rights”, you’d be forgiven for thinking the above photo a reality somewhere nearer to you. As promised in an earlier article, namely The West wing’s worst side, I’ve decided to write and share with you an archived conversation of mine, one which involved me writing not one, nor two, but three bloggers and allies of the gay activist movement (do they too support Dr. Laura mocking letters and carefully constructed attack pieces against Christianity?) My initial message was sent to three separate blogs/people, dano1979blog, Carla Louise of “The Melodramatic Confessions of Carla Louise”, and lastly Rae of “Bookmark chronicals.” They had each been sent an identical message as they posted the exact same article, from there I imagined the conversation would branch into separate distinct paths, but not so, as only one writer of the three actually wanted to defend their use of the article. Let’s read their shared original together (Does it strike you as reasonable?):

Why Straight People Don’t Need To Celebrate Being Straight

Today is National Coming Out Day, a day when gay and lesbian people talk about their experiences of revealing their sexuality to their family and friends. And not to feel left out right wing wankers are rushing to troll the #Nationalcomingoutday hashtag on Twitter with the ever so insightful observation that it’s cool for gay people to be proud for being gay but not cool for straight people to demonstrate their pride in being hetrosexual.

Oh dear oh dear!

But why can’t straight people be proud of being straight? Well the answer to that is it’s not so much they can’t rather than they don’t need to.

You see being straight and hetrosexual is still considered the norm even in our supposed enlightened liberal Western societies. Gay people need things like Gay Pride and National Coming Out Day because they are still fighting against a society that considers being homosexual the norm.

They still have to fight against bigots and homophobes who preach hatred against gay people and they have to live their lives dealing with hostility from such bigots.

Straight people do not have to deal with any of that. They do not have to deal with bigots telling them that they are evil (have you ever seen a gay fundamentalist preaching that heterosexuality is an abomination?) or that their lifestyles are immoral.

This is because heterosexuality is considered “normal” in our society so heterosexuals are not judged or attacked for being straight.

The idea that straight people need to or should celebrate their sexuality is ridiculous as society already celebrates heterosexuality.

It’s celebrated in the mainstream media, look at the number of sexual images aimed at straight men vs the number of images available for gay people, and in wider society.

That’s why heterosexuals do not need to be proud of their sexuality, because they are told by society that they are the norm. And they do not need to celebrate being straight because society already celebrates heterosexuality for them.

So when you see or hear a straight person going on about celebrating being straight tell them that society already does this and their pride in being heterosexual is just not needed.

Rae, the only writer of the three to actually reply to my messages, added: As a straight person, I get pissed when people say “there should be a national day for straight people” NO. There shouldn’t be because that’s pretty much every day that isn’t reserved for the LGBTQIA+ community so sit down, shut up, and stop trying to take away from their celebration just because you feel left out. Everything isn’t about you.

“sit down, shut up,” So, if you have some honest objections to the cultural revolution going on in your schools, government and places of business, consider yourself forewarned. Undisturbed by Rae’s charming way with words, my reply began: If you and I were to write how people feeling same sex attraction/trans people “need” such days as national celebrations of their public expression of same sex attraction/perceived gender identity, that would be far from accurate, wouldn’t most reasonable people agree? It’s only needed insofar that we’re meaning to write, it’s needed so to minimise or stop what’s considered hatred of the LGBTQIA+ people groups. There’s an objective in mind, due to which there’s need. It’s not needed though outside of the objective, people who identify as same sex attracted could suffer in silence (although we would hate that), thus it’s truly “needed” in that we’re hoping to change attitudes towards these often reviled minority groups.

However, as upsetting as it might be for many to read, the desires people in the LGBTQIA+ community experience are simply abhorrent desires and ways in which people define themselves, departing from both expected and experienced lifestyles of the general population. By which I’m meaning to write, they’re certainly abnormal desires, for which the people experiencing the desires are described as abnormal, that’s not necessarily to write that they’re wrong desires, since many extraordinary people are abnormal, although it’s something people who feel strongly about LGBTQIA+ rights should try and be understanding of. Surely the issue isn’t that we’re noticing our differences (what is a gay rights parade if not an attempt at celebrating difference), rather there’s an issue with how people are responding to the obvious things which are making us so distinct.


Unsure of how to understand my initial message, and imaging hatred in my words, despite my making it clear that our conversation wasn’t to do with condemning homosexual preference, Rae replies rather timidly: I’m not sure what you’re getting at here so correct me if I’ve misunderstood. Are you saying that the LGBTQIA+ community doesn’t need a day because they are a minority population? No one said it was their defining factor, but it still a part of their identity and therefore important.

Also, I disagree with your use of the term “abnormal” there is nothing wrong with being LGBTQIA+. Being “different” isn’t a bad thing but it is not synonymous with “abnormal”


In reply I answered: I’d very much enjoy clarifying. My messages aren’t meant to insist the size of some people groups either qualifies or disqualified their having a public celebration (I’d imagine that’s an awful benchmark). Rather, “need,” I’m sharing, can only properly be understood in light of an aim/desire. For example, for myself to approach you and explain “I need water!” only makes sense in light of my thirst (even my aim being to quench thirst), or an urgent desire to douse a fire etc (in short, there’s need due to our desires and aims). Nobody needs national recognition solely on account of being in the minority, you’re so unique as to be a minority of one, Rae.🙂 You’re one of a kind (as am I). That’s not to write however we’re deserving of everyone’s attention with regards to our every facet. Why therefore does same sex attraction specifically and in spite of many other facets require attention? (An answer incoming).

By way of the original article, which you’ve kindly shared, there’s an admission by the author not unlike my earlier explanation: “Gay people need things like Gay Pride and National Coming Out Day because they are still fighting against a society that considers being homosexual the norm.” To clarify, I’d imagine the original author meant to write: “a society that considers heterosexual the norm,” as opposed to “homosexual”.

Outlining both LGBTQIA+ desires, and resultant needs which are produced by their desires, the original author wrote further: “They still have to fight against bigots and homophobes who preach hatred against gay people and they have to live their lives dealing with hostility from such bigots.” Therefore, national celebrations of queer expressions of identity are, according to the original author, an indispensable tool in their fight against people who might stand in their way (involving the victory of their aims and need at the expense of who’s perceived as being their opposition).

For clarity’s sake however: I’ve not tried equating the words “abnormal” and morally “bad,” insofar as same sex attracted people are concerned (nor would I,) by abnormal I’m simply meaning to write atypical (which experiencing same sex attraction would accurately be described as). “normal” shouldn’t be use as if it were a trophy word to be won or stripped of meaning, like how many of my activist friends in the LGBTQIA+ community would prefer doing.

About your earlier reply moreover, when you’ve shared how sexual preference happens to be important, methinks you’re meaning to write “in general” sexual and romantic preferences are considered important in the life of an individual whose orientation happens to be same sex attracted. Not everyone who experiences attraction to members of the same sex/gender identifies as “gay people,” rather they’re simply people who just so happen to be same sex attracted (thus also not LGBTQIA+ activists). Just imagine people who identified with having “Asian fever,” chubby chasers and gold diggers demanding national recognition on account of people who weren’t necessarily pleased by their behaviour, wouldn’t most people rightly find parades in which scantily clad men and women publicly gorged in an epic celebration of fat to be bizarre. Yet in terms of shoehorning wildly diverse people into an LGBTQIA+ “community” which lacks any true community element appears by people to be praised, even praised because activists are weaponizing public displays and national days so to silence so-called “bigots” who dare disagree.

How exactly are people who agree with aggressive use of such national days defining the word “bigot”? In addition, how’re you yourself defining “bad,” wrong and immoral?


While your response has answered some questions, it’s also created more.

Are “atypical” and “abnormal” not synonyms? I personally do not agree with using these terms for people who don’t abide by such a broken society’s “standards”

My comment about sexual orientation was not meant to be interpreted as “in general” It was in response to your statement about sexual preference being a defining factor. As in, I don’t believe that celebrating a part of your identity with a day makes it your defining factor.

Sexual identity and orientation are also entirely different from fetishizing someone’s race or ethnicity and labeling it “Asian fever”

While I am not a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, but an ally, from the interactions and experiences that I’ve had, it actually does seem that they are a community and support each other. If that’s not the case, I have yet to hear anyone say it.

In a nutshell I’m curious as to if you agree or disagree with the original post. I’m under the impression that you have strong feelings on this subject as you have left the same original comment on at least 3 blogs.* As a straight person I agree with the original author that straight people do not need to celebrate when they have never faced challenges surrounding their sexual orientation. Do you disagree with that?

Also, please do not point out to me that I am a minority. I know.

To answer your questions: I disagree with the idea that celebrating diverse communities is weaponizing them. I think it’s raising awareness and providing a safe space.

I think that most people think of bigots as people who do not accept identities different from their own. A lot of times this particular group is on the receiving end of unpleasant interactions from people who would be considered bigots.

Yes when you said abnormal and I interpreted as bad I was thinking “wrong”

Did I answer your questions as you intended them?


cl-pending

(The above ^^^ was a screenshot taken on the 23rd of November, over a month after originally being sent). While researching to upload this rather old conversation, I revisited Carla Louise’s blog, only to find my comment yet awaits moderation! Therefore people who aren’t me cannot see the above comment, in short, it’s not open for regular visitors. That’s an awfully long time to neglect a comment, if she doesn’t mind me writing, perhaps it’s just easier for allies of the homosexual “community” to insult, block, threaten and mock voices to the contrary, as opposed to having an actual conversation. Yet, Rae, in rather a spooky way, let slip that I’d posted my comment upon three different blogs, something she couldn’t possibly know. Let’s return to my reply: I’m curious as to how you could write I’ve posted my original observations on precisely three separate blogs, Rae. That’s not to write you’re mistaken, rather I’m curious as to how you’re aware when Carla Louise (who I have contacted) hasn’t actually green lighted my comment as of yet. Insofar as I’m aware my original comment can only be viewed by way of readers of either your blog or dano1979blog. Carla Louise, who as of your replies hasn’t posted my comment, replied by way of “F****** a” to the original article, whereas your reply was to tell people who disagreed to “shut up,” which leads into my reply.

Wouldn’t an “unpleasant interactions,” be how Pride events, however beloved of the LGBTQIA+ activists, are often described (in addition to demands of “shut up,”)? For example, an official website for the promotion of a widely visited gay event (Southern Decadence) reminded event goers how albeit they’d “get an eyeful,” for having visited the event, “. . .city laws prohibit not only public urination, but also public sex acts.” Why would people need reminding of something so plain. Wouldn’t reasonable people be rightly bothered by “Big D**k” contests and giant penis floats, in addition to other events. Aren’t such events as the above best described as “unpleasent interactions,” like how you have explained. Unpleasant interactions which for having voiced a contrary opinion over good people are promptly silenced. You’ve charitable shared how public events and dedicated holidays in favour of same sex attraction and transgenderism are “celebrations,” I’d have to again redirect our attention to the author’s original article. Activists insist events and national days are “needed,” not for celebration’s sake but rather so to battle opposition voices:

Gay people need things like Gay Pride and National Coming Out Day because they are still fighting against a society that considers being [heterosexual] the norm. They still have to fight against bigots and homophobes who preach hatred against gay people and they have to live their lives dealing with hostility from such bigots.

As I’ve explained earlier, and how that the original author appears to concede, pride events and supposedly national days which are about an extremely narrow (around 1%) subsect of sexual desires experienced amid our population have an expressed purpose which includes closeting the views of nonconformists and rebel elements against LGBTQIA+ activist viewpoints. “Bigotry” and to behave as a bigot isn’t so narrowly defined as “people who do not accept identities different from their own,” rather an accurate description of “bigot” would predate LGBTQIA+ activism and queer directories altogether. Bigots are properly defined as people who are “strongly partial to their own group, religion, race, or politics and are intolerant of those who differ.”

Through an accurate definition of what it means to practice bigotry, LGBTQIA+ activists and social justice warriors are so overbearing and vindictive as to be described as “bigots.” Activists won’t stop their parades and activities not because they’re such party animals (thus “celebrating,” isn’t an appropriate description of the “need,” for pride events), instead “weaponizing” would be wholly appropriate. Gay activists apparently cannot stand the fact that there are people who aren’t in agreement with their political and social blueprints for society (the very definition of bigotry).

Are you and I bigoted for denying someone their ideal self when they are intensely experiencing amputee’s disorder, an unfortunate desire to create an ideal self by having healthy arms and legs removed. By your earlier definition of bigot I’m inclined to reply yes. To reply in love “No, I’m not going to help you remove your arms” would be cruel and hateful by your earlier reckoning. To which you might be shocked. Yet people are removing their breasts and having a blade taken to their private parts in some similar way every year.

In answer to your question whether or not I’m in agreement with the author’s original article: Yes and no. Of course vulnerable, dearly loved people who have experienced same sex attraction have and are being insulted, abused physically, about which people outside of their circle need to be sympathetic. The problem of pain and belonging are wounds for which people want healing (though how?). “brokenness” isn’t to do with simply our society, but our every heart.

Again you have shared how because experiencing same sex attraction (by our stats) isn’t normal, and due to “brokenness” concerning our society, you’d rather refuse to use words such as abnormal and atypical. You’ve tried to buck societal “standards” by a refusal to use words accurately, which leads nicely into an earlier question of mine which you appear to have overlooked: ‘how’re you yourself defining “bad,” wrong and immoral?’ To be judge, jury and executioners of society’s brokenness based upon sheer force of opinion sounds just extraordinary.

Allow for my message to retrace our exchange ever so briefly, as you have shared how people who have experienced same sex attraction and lived out a transgender lifestyle found their identity in gayness or by body alternation. They’ve grounded identity in such facets as above. With which my reply explained how people who often experience much of the above don’t define themselves by public gayness.

1 (your message). “No one said it was their defining factor, but it still a part of their identity and therefore important.”

2 (my reply). About your earlier reply moreover, when you’ve shared how sexual preference happens to be important, methinks you’re meaning to write “in general” sexual and romantic preferences are considered important in the life of an individual whose orientation happens to be same sex attracted. Not everyone who experiences attraction to members of the same sex/gender identifies as “gay people,” rather they’re simply people who just so happen to be same sex attracted (thus also not LGBTQIA+ activists).

“in general,” would be fair, insofar that people are nuanced in how they have decided to define themselves. You yourself define “bigoted,” as people who refuse to accept how other people define their identities, due to which let’s admit to people who have experienced same sex attraction yet don’t want to define himself or herself as homosexual or lesbian. To come full circle, gay activists have “need,” need understood in light of their bigotry to silence political voices which aren’t in agreement with gay activism. Even going so far as to redefine “bigot” as “people who do not accept identities different from their own,” (so people who opposed gay and transgender activism). Under attack parades and advertisements made in the form of national days redefined as “celebrations” (which may involve merriment) these people work so to fulfill activist “needs,” an explicate need being to silence and end dissent.

To be rightly described as “community” would mean to possess shared characteristics (which LGBTQIA+ people aren’t doing to the exclusion of their heterosexual neighbours,) or shared attitudes (which aren’t shared by everyone). Therefore, people experiencing homosexual desires, lesbian desires or transgender desires aren’t to be described as “community” in any recognizable sense (unless there’s another thread by which they’re joined).

In closing you have asked whether straight people are in need of celebratory days so to further affirm their heterosexuality. For which I’d explain that’s entirely dependant upon “need,” people who are seething against gay activism certainly are in need insofar that they would rather see an end to such aggressive displays of homosexual advertising/“awareness” raising. As explained needs are understood in light of desires and resulting aims.

You’re an altogether charitable and fine conversation partner thus far,🙂 in answer to your question as to whether you have or have not answers my questions as intended: Your sincerity shines through.


Unnerved perhaps that I’d been engaging with their points, Rae’s reply becomes increasingly abrupt and dismissive, even going so far as to excuse herself from any further discussion: Okay….. A lot of what has been said is entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. If you really must know, Carla told me about the comment and then I realized that you posted the same comment on my blog. From there, I figured that you probably posted on the original post as well and you did.

I can see that this conversation is going nowhere so if you go back to my previous response you will see that I did not overlook your question. I answered it right there at the very end.* (Let’s review that below) You, on the other hand, have not provided me with a direct answer at all and for that reason I will no longer be responding.


(1) My question: You’ve tried to buck societal “standards” by a refusal to use words accurately, which leads nicely into an earlier question of mine which you appear to have overlooked: ‘how’re you yourself defining “bad,” wrong and immoral?’ To be judge, jury and executioners of society’s brokenness based upon sheer force of opinion sounds just extraordinary.

(2) Their supposed answer (insofar as I can find one): I think that most people think of bigots as people who do not accept identities different from their own. A lot of times this particular group is on the receiving end of unpleasant interactions from people who would be considered bigots. Yes when you said abnormal and I interpreted as bad I was thinking “wrong” Did I answer your questions as you intended them? (Do you feel she answered my question?)


If you’re writing to perfectly reasonable people, people who’re sharing with you commonplace ideas and interests, and you reply, more or less: “Oh, none of the above applies, this makes no sense, words have lost all meaning!” smack yourself a few times, not hard, just enough to wake yourself up, reread the message, then, if possible, get real. Honestly it’s one of the most embarrassing things people (mostly atheists) do online: “Many thanks” My reply to Rae began: “Thanks for hosting our conversation, I’ve enjoyed myself immensely, send my best wishes to Carla Louise and co when next you’re in [secret] discussion.🙂

I’ve received no further messages from the people behind Bookmark chronicles, the melodramatic confessions or dano1979blog , which might be for the best in the case of Carla Louise over at “the melodramatic confessions of Carla Louise”, as although they felt slightly off kilter about writing to me, I’ve read their exchanges with others, especially by way of the blog “blogging theology”, they’re an unfruitful and unpleasant conversation partner (very angry, scare depth of character). Insofar as Rae goes however, they’re happy to bash and trash people, but not to understand, they were disinterested in understanding the nuances to my view or even better grasping their own rhetoric.

There’s something called “the art of conversation” which many of my atheist/activist friends often fail to appreciate, that doesn’t mean we’re not hashing out important issues, nor is it an excuse to ignore that which others find so important, it is however important in that neither of us are out to destroy the other (at least, I’m not out to do such things), there’s love and whimsy to consider when writing about so emotional and powerful a topic as the above. How have people, historically speaking, advanced their opinion concerning “gay rights”, through conversation, even conversation like the above, or through slogans, rhetoric and rage, you yourself can be the judge.

It’s not that I write such things to unseat their goals, rather I’m meaning to share when campaigners for the right to practice homosexuality play mind-reader, when they attack others as hateful and sexist and racist and whatever other phobia and ism they’re eager to sling in another’s direction, they’re guilty of exactly what they’re trying to accuse the other party of. Or as the old saying goes, when you throw mud, you don’t just get your hands dirty, you lose a lot of ground. It’s an emotive topic, no doubt, however, who the media, schools, government and campaigners are depicting as the “friends” of people experiencing same sex attraction aren’t truly so, they’re not your soft place to fall if you’re yet open to the question of the damage done by living out a same sex preference (there’s a better way).

Until next time, my friends, I’ve got some scholarly research to do, as the activists are preparing even now more powerful arguments against my articles!

dd24fe86-52e7-4f1b-83f7-154cf498496e

― T. C. M 😯

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “OSC’s Our every heart

  1. Brilliant post- I enjoyed reading it. My first reaction to a lot of what Rae said was “gah!!!” I really liked your point about people weaponising lgbt people- personally i find this is very much the case- they are used to attack what is deemed “normal” in society, which they want to pretend doesn’t exist (hence their issue with the term abnormal) hence the fact that it is now becoming the case that heterosexuality does need to be defended. To be blunt, I am a fairly liberal person and don’t actually care if people are gay, but have been called a homophobe on numerous occasions because i am a woman and have said “no I have no desire to be with another woman” (sometimes in stronger terms, but the jist is always “you do what you want and I’ll do what I want”) I find it sad that it has come this point and just thought I’d share that as another perspective

    Liked by 1 person

    • The conversations really are where my heart is. 🙂 I do love ’em, as for Rae, yeah, they’re I’d imagine so bright, caring, yet when the subject of homosexuality arises they’re simply on autopilot, instead of carefully reading other points of view they shoehorn everything into a narrow bigots vs. victim divide, that’s what identity politics can do to otherwise intelligent people, I’d imagine. I’ve added a few LGBTQIA+ bloggers to my follow list recently so that they might provide a fresh perspective, maybe even to reply to some of my pointed observations, thus far, no takers are coming forward.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Update to my previous comment on here- just been harangued by Rae on twitter for saying I didn’t care about people’s race/sexuality/gender in a post- thought you’d like to know- she’s a bit crackers really, dunno how you dealt with her to be honest

      Liked by 1 person

      • That’s fairly extreme a reaction of hers considering many many people share your viewpoint, Rae must hold an awful lot of the planet in contempt, not to mention the earthier minority groups and cultures in which homosexual behaviours are yet controversial or frowned upon. And here I thought “love wins” (what happened?)

        Liked by 1 person

      • haha yes, just a bit- I just think for some people nothing is really good enough. The whole thing was a bit like a pantomime really, with her saying “you’re privileged!” and me saying “no I’m not”. I’m sure you found her arguments just as “productive” and circular 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • Well I’m just so white, that must be “bad” somehow, maybe my riches, which are made up of dog-eared books mostly, were gathered by my slave trading forefathers! They were white too! (it’s all coming together now). In fact, coming from Irish decent, there’s a greater possibility my family themselves were once owned or used in some sort of manual laborer capacity. The attempted destruction of Irish culture and heritage, even their religious identity, hasn’t been much of a hobby-horse for people in the mainstream culture however. Yet there the Irish are, smiling, having an altogether grand time, no “check your privilege!” or other ridiculous catchphrases. Honestly, people who write such things in seriousness might just need parental supervision.

        Liked by 1 person

      • hahaha I know right! 😉 Most of my ancestors were busy being pushed from one end of the Pale of Settlement to the other- so they were all super privileged 😉 No you see- if you’re white, you can’t be oppressed 😉 – it’s that “power + privilege” nonsense (never mind that it’s the same logic the Nazis used to persecute Jews) But you’re right we should all hang our heads in shame 😉 dear dear dear- completely agree!

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Arguing with idiots is somewhat akin to fishing with hand grenades. If you do it right, it’s a complete slaughter killing the good along with the bad. if you get it wrong, you frag yourself. In the end, while it can be entertaining, one has to question the value of casting pearls before swine.

    Like

    • I’d consider your observation of pearls before swine suitable, Artisanal, only however if you and I were funnelling the conversation through an uncomfortably narrow context, one in which we’re discussing simply myself exchanging simply another poster in an impenetrable vacuum of their “scepticism.” Or as the old saying goes, to paraphrase, when you share truth with people uninterested in the truth, you’ve only succeeded in adding to their reason for misinterpretation. Obviously there’s a kind of gold standard conversation which believers may desire having, yet, totally aside from such an exchange as that, I’d write an apparently unsuccessful conversation, at the least, can be illustrative for the believing community’s sakes, as it’s showcasing hardness of heart in such a way as to encourage/edify.

      Consider, for example, how many believing people might recognize pearls, as opposed to swine, who cannot, yet, they’re unequipped to actually share one with another. They’re with want to share their love of Christ gently and with respect, nonetheless, to do so appears to them a mammoth undertaking (thus our conversations can be instructive also). Or consider another worthwhile reason, in a markedly more post-Christian culture, many believers might muse, even going so far as to write “Good! That’ll separate the men from the boys.” as in they’re happy to shed their nominal cousins to an outright apostasy, because they’re holiday Christians or nominal Christians or however they’re described. Though having shed such an asset what’s happened is that Christians, they’ve lost an altogether useful buffer, a kind of mark of credibility or trustworthiness which now, being absent, causes Christians to appear as if they’re something of a dangerous subclass of undesirables. Due that we’re involved in meeting more swine than ever before. An unbelieving culture geared towards religious belief in itself has some good purpose, sadly that too is widely lost.

      It’s interesting to me how you’ve highlighted arguing with idiots as entertaining, for it’s entertainment in my mind which, just so long as it’s somehow Christian oriented, serves to act as another kind of buffer, much like I’ve already mentioned. For example, you and I may or may not enjoy contemporary Christian music because there’s a certain sort of vagueness to it, it’s not in some quarters particularly Christian, even verging more in the direction of a nebulous love song than worship, yet, it’s exactly that sort of buffer which can facilitate certain people, people who can receive God’s grace, into receiving just that. Insofar as other writers being idiotic goes, I’d add they’re probably far smarter than given credit, instead they’re selectively daft, just switching off their critical thought so to deny certain truths they find unpalatable. They’re people who not only believe wholesale some of the most absurdly misappropriated Bible verses, but also are so aware as to shout “Context, context!” when people rightly point towards violent Quranic material. Insofar as I’m concerned, there’s more cunning and greater “intelligence” involved in their ways of life than my own, that’s truly bothersome. For perhaps more robust an attack upon my views I’d ask that you look into my conversations on faith, in addition to the “wacky world” posts, they’re in the OSC category. I’d very much enjoy your take on how they’ve panned out.

      Like

      • Welllll….

        My problem with the context of the conversation about LGBTQ is rather definitional in nature and it all devolves from the implementation of the way of Baalam in the early church by those who engaged in the sin of the Nicolaitans.

        In plain language, the “leadership” of the early church took over and established an elevated clergy that was supposedly “in authority” over the rest of the people. That was the sin of the Nicolaitans. They implemented the way of Baalam by polluting the church with sexual sin by instituting adultery within the church. This was done by changing the definition of what made a person married.

        While the very early church was persecuted by the Romans, it wasn’t long before the church became the official religion and it’s a little-known fact, but the early church then turned around and started persecuting the pagans. I’m not talking about feeding them to the lions or using them for torches to light the garden parties, I’m talking about confiscation of their property and that sort of thing.

        What were the pagans to do? Well, if you can’t beat them, join them! And they did. Augustine of Hippo, a “former” Manichean and Jerome, a “former” Stoic philosopher were two of the most influential of the “early church fathers.” What Augustine and Jerome had in common was a hatred of sexual pleasure. They considered it to be the most evil and foul of all things, and even within marriage they considered sex to be a sin, a “necessary evil.”

        They completely threw out the Biblical instruction on sex and marriage, replacing it with a combination of pagan belief, Roman law and Stoic philosophy. Their opinions were extremely influential and were adopted as doctrine by the leaders of the church. That, of course, is a historical fact that has a great deal of bearing on my original point.

        The fundamental doctrine that came out of the “sex is evil” point of view was that men and women were to be held to the same standard of sexual morality, which meant “no sex.”

        That doctrine, the idea that men and women have the same standard of sexual morality is a lie and it formed the moral foundation of the philosophy of equalism. Today that philosophy is known as feminism. Feminism cannot be defeated until the moral foundation, created by the church, is destroyed.

        Because of what has happened, the church has no power because it wallows in sin with the majority of those in the congregation living in adultery.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s