Anti gay quotes in the bible

Because Christians can put text on pictures too

2012.06.29 08:33 TheGreatSzalam Because Christians can put text on pictures too

Religious institutions are hilarious. Nobody knows that more than those of us who find ourselves IN them every week. Let's share our humor with others.
[link]


2018.01.25 20:50 empress_of_pinkskull Religious Fruitcake

religiousfruitcake is about the absurd, fringe elements of organized religion: the institutions and individuals who act in ways any normal person (religious or otherwise) would cringe at. (subreddit twitter handle: @rreligiousfrui1)
[link]


2013.12.08 22:01 TastyMeatPoop As a black man...

For those pretending to be what they're not, and those who hate what they are.
[link]


2024.05.22 00:01 ikieneng My fanfiction - episode 4!

My fanfiction - episode 4!
The next part is here! This episode is so long that I had to split it, and today, you're finally getting part 3 of 3.
You can find the previous episodes in the side bar! (Community info page in the app)
DISCLAIMERS (the same ones as before)
The point of this fanfiction is not to be a straight-up continuation of events with the same themes, intensity, and tone. If you go into it with those expectations, you are probably not going to like it. Rather, it’s supposed to be how I wish things went if these events were real life. The resolution you want for a real-life situation isn’t often the right choice for a show, but it can be incredibly beautiful. Think of what you’re about to read to be a separate show then.
Episode 1 of this fanfiction begins after the episode “2:00” (season 2 episode 4), so it replaces the episode “Cake” and the ones that follow it. This fanfiction expects you to have seen the entirety of seasons 1 and 2, so you should watch those first.
I myself am bursting into the story here. The narrator and me are the same. While my character is like 95% real me, don’t take events about my life described here as facts. Some aspects of my life have been changed for the story. In my head, I started writing like an “alternate me” character in 2016, fulfilling a lot of the things that I wish I had in life, adding that to my story. I’m not really from Ukraine. I speak fluent Ukrainian as a foreign language, I started learning it in 2014, and I’ve talked to tons of people from there, but I’m not from Ukraine. I also don’t have as much money as I do in the story. I wish lmao.
If you want to post your own fanfiction, feel free to do so! To get your own post flair for your fanfic, and to appear in the side bar, please message me.

Part 3 (days 3 and 4)

We’d wake up on day three, and still, nothing would be any different - we’re still locked up. We’d both feel really worried not knowing if we’ll have to forfeit our whole plan because we might run out of food and water and take the risky route - calling the police and getting ourselves into a situation where we’d have to be freed by force, which would be so dangerous because the Turners have proven that there’s nothing they’re not prepared to do to us to “get Jericho back”. Leanne would ask me “What do we do if we call the police, and Mrs. Turner comes up here and tries to hurt us?” At first, I’d insist that we start thinking about that when we do run out of food the next day, but she’d insist we should come up with a plan. I’d point at the corner on the edge of the attic facing Spruce Street, the corner that’s to one’s right when coming up into the attic,
https://preview.redd.it/knoz0zwpou1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=bd1694f292bb546ea45339ebecea7ffacfe33541
and say “Then you’d curl up and hide over there, and I’d take the radio, you’d take the metronome, and I’d sit down in front of you, shielding you, and if she gets in here before the cops do, we’ll defend ourselves. And we’d record everything on my phone. And we should probably hide behind the sofa. Maybe then, she might not notice we’re still up here at first. She’d probably be in a state of panic.” She’d look at me with sad, but touched eyes and just hug me and say thank you. I’d reply “Of course”. After some silence, I’d tell her “If anything happens to me… Please bring me back”.

She’d be touched by that, but say that if she reanimates me, the Church of Lesser Saints will come after ME as well because they’ll believe that I’ll be obligated to join. With a worried smile, I’d say “I know... But they’re probably already gonna do that, right? Because I won’t let them get to you!” We’d both nod with the same half-happy, half-worried expression. “And if things go terribly wrong and you have to bring me back, we can try again!”

I’d ask if I’m getting it right that the “great sins” they think she’s committing are not spending time with the Church and helping another family from the one that was assigned to her. She’d say yes and add that there’s a lot more they hate her for, like her “disobedient and rebellious streak”, disobeying their instructions, putting curses on people, and now, leaving the Marinos.
https://preview.redd.it/4obn4r9uou1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=1e77adafbde221c320999ba1169adb0a1c6b2b17
After a few seconds of silence (out of shock that this is how the Church of Lesser Saints frames it), I’d be like “If you disobey so many of their instructions, then...”, look her directly in the eyes, and go “Good! Keep on disobeying them! I’m actually kind of stunned that this is how they frame your actions, because that is so manipulative. Wanting to have a life where you don’t have to worry about your every step being watched and controlled, where you can actually freely explore what you believe – not what they tell you to believe, but what YOU believe, where you can do totally normal human things like listen to music, and where you can go wherever you want and make some basic decisions for yourself and work wherever you want, that doesn’t make you...” (doing the “quote-on-quote” with my hands while I say it) “quote-on-quote ‘disobedient’ or ‘rebellious’, it makes you a normal human being. If they forbid every little thing that people do that makes you happy, if you then look for happiness elsewhere, that’s on them. You can’t take every bit of joy away from people and then expect them to just deal with it. You wanting to run away, that’s the logical result of their bullshit. And you didn’t ‘leave’ the Marinos, you were taken. Don’t let them think you’re at fault in any way!” She might have never heard any verbal confirmation before that her feelings about leaving are valid, and this would be so reassuring to her. She’d tell me that whenever she did things like not be there for meals at the Church, skip assemblies, or curse people without permission, she would be brought before May and the rest of the community, get questioned about her behavior, and she’d have to self-flagellate to receive forgiveness.
https://preview.redd.it/roex7c20pu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=32cecf94a41a97e66b1c74967cb074ca89321777
I’d go really still and quiet when she mentions the self-flagellation, which she’d then explain is a frequent punishment. That would freaking break my heart... I’d ask her when was the last time she hurt herself, and it was a little less than two weeks ago, before she was forced to leave the Turners. Very carefully and quietly, I’d ask her if it would be okay if she can show me her scars and add “You do NOT have to if you’re not comfortable, PLEASE don’t do it if you’re not”, and after a second, she’d nod and show me her back. My heart would break for her even more seeing her scars, I’d just express how horrible it is that they made her do that… I’d show her some of my cut wounds from when I self-harmed, which I hadn’t done in like three and a half years at that point. I’d want her to know that way that I get the urge, that I really do, but I’d tell her that hurting oneself achieves nothing. All it does is make you feel horrible mentally and physically, and every time you do it, there’s a risk of infection and even death. I’d just tell her I understand while taking her in my arms. I’d ask her to please look me in the eyes and tell me she won’t hurt herself again, and that when she feels like doing it again, to please talk to me first. She’d quietly say “I promise” while looking me in the eyes, and after some longer embraces, we’d both smile a bit, that would make me really happy to hear! I’d ask that when we’re out of here, if we can call a doctor sometime soon and get them to look at her scars to make sure none of them are infected, if she’s comfortable enough, and she’d nod and smile at me a little bit some more.

We’d eat after that. We’d run out of tomato soup that meal, and I’d tell her that when we’re getting out of there, I’d get her all the tomato soup in the world! “We’re gonna fill a whole hotel fridge with tomato soup!” “And with Ben & Jerry’s?”, she’d ask, and I’d say yes and say that we’re probably gonna need more than one fridge. I’d say we’re gonna pick the nicest and most expensive hotel to stay at, an idea that she’d love! “You still think Allentown is a good idea?”, I’d ask her, and she’d think my reasoning from the day before makes sense and say yes. We’d look for the nicest hotel in Allentown online and see that there are “only” three-star hotels in Allentown. Leanne would ask if getting such an expensive place to stay is really okay, and I’d say “Money is not an issue, don’t worry about it” while reaching across her back and like caressing her right shoulder, looking her in the eyes, and smiling. “And besides, let’s spoil you, you fucking deserve it after all this!” We wouldn’t book anything yet because we wouldn’t know when we can get out of there yet, but looking at all those insanely nice hotels would lift our spirits a bit.

After eating the first half of that day’s rations (only two half day’s rations would be left after that…), we’d think that it would probably be a good idea if we started writing the document for the police right now. Writing it can take hours upon hours, and there’s no point in delaying the rescue to write the document after I leave if we can do it right now, so we’d begin right that moment. It would begin something like “My name is Daria Horenko, born July 30, 1999 in Odesa, Ukraine, residing in 501 Pembroke Ave, Philadelphia 19050, Pennsylvania...” (I don’t live there. I have no idea who does. Please leave them alone lmao) “...I sent this statement to my Facebook friend Liam [...] (residing in Tipperary, Ireland, using Facebook as Liam [...]) as a PDF file and told him to call the Philadelphia police and read this statement to them if I don’t come back online and confirm that I’m okay by 10 PM Philadelphia time / 3 PM London, UK time on December 22, 2022. If he is reading this to you, it probably means that there was no sign of life from me by that time, and that I’m not safe, probably kidnapped and locked up by Dorothy Turner, Sean Turner, Julian (I’m not sure about his surname, but I’m referring to Dorothy Turner’s brother - redhead, not very tall, moderately overweight) in the attic of their residence at 9780 Spruce Street, Philadelphia 19139, Pennsylvania”, and then document everything I’ve seen in chronological order and everything that Leanne has told me, with a link to our video and photographic evidence, references to DNA evidence that can probably be found in the hole in the basement if they haven’t covered it up by now, and a statement at the end saying that I’ve written it together with Leanne to make sure that everything is correct. That would take a really long time, hours for sure. But when it’s done, I’d run spell- and grammar checks on it and send it to my printer at home, to be queued for printing when I get home and turn it on. We’d also know that today (December 21) or tomorrow will be the day when we leave one way or another, so I’d schedule a text message to 911 in 30 hours from that moment. The message would say “This is a scheduled message. If you’ve received it, then Leanne Grayson (born October 13, 2001)...” (We only ever learn Leanne’s birth year from the gravestone. October 13 is Nell Tiger Free’s birthday, so October 13, 2001 being Leanne’s birthday is kind of my headcanon)
https://preview.redd.it/0hr9niq1pu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=4dbead2015781ed8beee236188b8273aac1b3fb0
“...and me (Daria Horenko, born July 30, 1999) are probably not safe, abducted and locked up against our will by Dorothy Turner, her brother Julian, and Sean Turner in the attic of their house at 9780 Spruce Street, Philadelphia 19139, Pennsylvania or somewhere else on the property. We need help immediately. The Turners should be considered dangerous and very clearly willing to use violence and intimidation. We need help NOW. Details in our prepared statement: [the link]”. Because we’re holding out hope that we won’t have to call the police from inside the attic, the document would include information on what our plan is to get Leanne (and me) out of there as safely as possible and call the police from the taxi, but that if we run out of rations, we won’t have a choice but to call the police while we’re unarmed and while the Turners still have the upper hand.

We would debate whether we should include information about the Church of Lesser Saints right away or tell the police about them later because we know how that sounds, considering that this would hurt the credibility of our testimony,
https://preview.redd.it/sinvabf3pu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=e37811b53eb90cb8a066bfcb30f6244bb9f34ad4
but we’d modify the document and include the most important information about them as well, with more believable explanations - how they forced Leanne and other members to self-harm (meaning that current members or those who recently left), where they’re currently operating from in Lancaster,
https://preview.redd.it/mxbm8445pu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=1f9b5f1c671c15afce7149eeb90926c2c29b9bdb
that they faked their deaths, that they forced Leanne to leave the Turners, and the necessary lie that they took the real baby, and that Leanne hasn’t seen it since that day and doesn’t know where they’ve taken it. We’d also include names and stuff, and most importantly, reference the baptism tape and say that it shows May and George watching us from the sidewalk outside the church less than three weeks ago, and that piece of evidence would change everything in regards to investigating the Church of Lesser Saints and make the police believe us. We’d add that it’s probably among the other DVDs in the Turners’ living room, and that I’ll try to get it when leaving the building if our original plan is still going to be an option, rip the DVD at home, and add a link to the video file to the document. We’d modify the scheduled text message as well, and we’d charge both phones, mine first because the scheduled message is so important, but it’s an iPhone, so we could charge it to 100% rather quickly and then charge hers. And we’d add that we’d want the police to get Leanne’s things from the Marino estate. All her stuff being there would be further evidence that she was taken suddenly and against her will. We’d also add what number Leanne can be reached at for now with the Samsung Galaxy phone. And then, I’d send the document to Liam on all platforms where I know how to reach him, followed by a message to alert the authorities if I’m not back online confirming that we’re both okay in what’s now probably more like 29 hours, the phone number of the Philadelphia police, and caps at the beginning saying that it’s an actual emergency.

Out of nowhere, I’d ask her if she’s seen “Titanic” lmao, and with her near total isolation growing up, she wouldn’t have seen it. “I’ve only seen movies on TV”. I’d be like “I can show you lots of movies if you want! I got several subscriptions to streaming services, and also a bunch of stuff offline on an external drive at home.”
https://preview.redd.it/lr58woa7pu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=63537b149270faeebb2c3f1be9ba2af0d259e1b7
Back on talking about “Titanic”, I’d tell her it’s wonderful and so freaking romantic, albeit over-the-top at times for sure and a bit overrated. It has that glossy feeling and some superficial characters to it that all James Cameron movies have, but it’s still really wonderful. After explaining the plot to her (since she’s grown up so isolated), I’d tell her about one scene that I’m thinking about a lot from time to time - near the end of the movie, when old Rose is done telling the researchers her story, she says that she doesn’t even have a picture of Jack, and that has hit me so hard from the first time I’ve seen the movie.
https://preview.redd.it/96bgw8s8pu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=476c1a4cbee498c26a0be4651ef83258f0aa7748
She has no physical memories of him, she can never see his face again, and she can never show people what he looked like. That just rips my heart. I’d ask Leanne if we can take some pictures together. We’d look pretty horrible because we haven’t been able to shower in days, but we wouldn’t care and take them anyway and really, genuinely smile so hard. I’d send them to her email address (leanne_grayson@icloud.com, that email address is on her resume in the show),
https://preview.redd.it/frfz9e7apu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=1b65065ab622e71f52edc6e9b84a2974e7efe9cb
manually sync my gallery with iCloud, and I’d send them to Liam. I’d ask what phone she got back at the Marinos’ and if she’s got any pictures of herself in her iCloud gallery, but she’d tell me she’s rarely ever taken pictures of herself, only for the resume she applied at the Turners’ for, and I’d be like “Whaaaaat? But you’re so beautiful!”, and she’d smile hard, a bit embarrassed. I’d look her straight in the eyes and say it again and say that I mean it for real, she is so incredibly beautiful! It’s probably so rare that anyone’s ever said that to her in her entire life (her mother definitely didn’t, and given that the Church of Lesser Saints believes that anything that feels good is dangerous,
https://preview.redd.it/msylzejbpu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=b343bf8d10b86f7c731eed3c8a5204460daec4d4
it’s rather unlikely that they did), Tobe saying it in “Balloon” might even have been the only time ever…
https://preview.redd.it/jdce6tndpu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=c9edaacd72634c3dbe7dbf29abcc84f2412a10d4
I’d then add “Inside AND out!”, and she’d smile some more in a bit of embarrassment and then look me in the eyes and say “You, too, Daria!”, and as you’d expect, I’d smile so hard and even with my eyes!

It would be rather late by then, so we’d eat and listen to some more music together from the Spotify playlist I created for her and talk so much about what we’re hearing.

After dinner, she’d bring the topic up on her own (this is kind of making fun of these fan theories) - she’d tell me that some in the Church of Lesser Saints think she’s the Devil or Lilith because of her rebelliousness, and how she’s inspired doubt in some people in the Church. I’d make such a weirded-out face. After realizing she’s serious, I’d say “If you are the Devil, then hail Satan! Like, seriously, if YOU are what God is threatening will happen if we don’t follow him, then that’s literally the weakest threat I’ve ever heard of. Then God is the villain here. We need more people like you in the world!” Shy as she still is, she’d still be almost embarrassed to hear this (she’s so not used to compliments), and I’d make it clear I’m serious, that I really think she’s fricking wonderful and the sweetest, and that she clearly has a huge heart full of so much love, and that she deserves so much better than what she’s ever experienced! Almost in denial, she’d see in my eyes that I really mean it and just smile and hug me, and then, we’d both smile even more! I’d rub her back a lot in that moment and promise her again that everything will be okay. “I’ll make sure of that!”

After some more music together, knowing that tomorrow will be the day we leave, no matter which plan we’ll go with, we’d make sure we haven’t forgotten anything. Looking around, I’d realize I have to give her my earphones with a cord because the internal mic of my Samsung Galaxy S5 Mini is essentially useless. I’d tell her that when I call her the next day to tell her it’s safe to come downstairs now, she should answer the call, plug in the earphones, and then, it will take a few seconds until I can hear her, but then, it should be fine. We’d set a code phrase that I’ll mention to let her know if the Turners got me and it’s NOT safe to come down. She’d suggest “tomato soup”, and I’d smile and say yes, that’s gonna be our code phrase. “And if it IS safe to come down?”, she’d ask, and I’d suggest “ice cream”.

I’d realize that we should probably find her fresh clothes in the attic and a coat right now, so as I said, it’s not too obvious that she’s been locked up for a long time the second she walks out of the door, because if she’s in dirty clothes or nightwear, with it being obvious that she hasn’t showered in days, and I get her out of there and into a taxi to drive off while I got a gun, it would look as if I was kidnapping her, so we’d find her a nice dress and coat up there, and I’d turn around and close my eyes while she puts it on, and when she’s done, I’d tell her again that she looks amazing! 😊
https://preview.redd.it/zp5gbjwfpu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=777d2120f72b5002e2d5e5e9ffe4760ab2d5fada
And she’d smile and thank me this time, sort of the way she says it to the makeup artist at the street fair in S3E5 “Tiger” in that typical way of hers that’s so adorable for real,
https://preview.redd.it/fuu6x7ohpu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=ec5f23b8de4568996bd6e4c706ab4f95b8f98063
and she’d look in my direction and say “You look really beautiful, too!”, really shy, before peeking me in the eyes for a moment, and we’d just look at each other for a moment. “Can I have your pictures?”, she’d ask me, and I’d say yeah, open my iPhone, and select ALL pictures of myself in my gallery and send them to her email address, and send her those that are too large via a Google Drive link (iCloud isn’t great for sharing files lol), and then, I’d take her Samsung Galaxy S5 Mini, download them all (which would take a while because that phone is ancient), and set one of the pictures we’ve taken together as her wallpaper, and then set it as my wallpaper on my iPhone as well! 😊

We’d consider if there’s anything else we’ve missed. She’d mention that parts of the floor screech, especially one tile, so when I sneak out, I gotta be careful on the stairs, especially with that one tile.
https://preview.redd.it/nijqz08jpu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=6f6756ae6c304a5f5133c21ef857e0f91c6c91d7
After a few seconds, she’d ask me if we wanna book a hotel now, and I’d smile and say sure! “Did you like any hotels in particular, out of the ones we looked at?” She’d say “The one with the big jacuzzi looks great” with big eyes and enthusiasm in her voice, like she does during some of her conversations with Tobe in S3E5 “Tiger”. “You’ve ever been in a jacuzzi?”, I’d ask her, and she’d go “Nooo, but I wanna try!” in the same tone,
https://preview.redd.it/6rh2p63lpu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=987a19161b85fe5ee6a500f452c168ba7dec961b
and so, after lying down now, we’d look up which hotel she was talking about and book a two-room suite in that hotel in Allentown for three weeks. I’d add “So we can easily look out for each other, and so you’ll also have some privacy.”, and she’d smile and nod, that consideration would probably mean a lot to her.

We’d then get ready for bed. For the next day, I’d get some better clothes as well and put them on while she’s turned around with her eyes closed. I’d take the last ration of food out of my backpack, put the clothes I just took off at the bottom of it, above Leanne’s Bible (the porcelain baby and card are already in one of the other pockets), and put my phone and the chargers in another pocket. I’d look around and ask her if there’s anything else I should take with me to safeguard, and at first, she’d also look around because she wouldn’t know how to answer right away, but she’d then point at Mrs. Barrington with her face,
https://preview.redd.it/amqsh2mmpu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=12d0bfe376210a8798671d45f31e96e28037870b
and I’d be like “Well, I think she’s a little too big for my backpack, but I can talk to the police when we’re out of here, maybe we can try to get her!”, and Leanne would nod with a big smile again.

We’d lie down on the mattress and share the covers again. Just like the night before, I’d lie down on the side of the mattress that’s closer to the stairs, in case Dorothy changes her mind and tries to assault Leanne again… On the mattress, she’d suddenly hug me really tight, break into tears, and thank me over and over again, and I’d just hold her tight, say “Of course”, and assure her that everything’s gonna be okay, that we’ll get out of there tomorrow. I’d wipe some of her tears off her face 🥺 On the mattress, we’d just look each other in the eyes and both just smile more and more, and after a minute or two, she’d kiss me on the lips for a tiiiiny moment and then, we’d just smile at each other even harder! She’d say “I’m not supposed to do that” while still smiling just as hard and looking me directly in the eyes! “Says who?”, I’d reply. She goes “My aunts and uncles”, and I’d say “I don’t think they’re a reliable source!”, and we’d kiss each other some more and longer, and both feel each other’s smile on our lips, and peek at each other a few times in between 😊🥰❤️ We’d both put our arms around each other before telling each other good night and before I promise her one more time it’s all going to be okay!
https://preview.redd.it/08fqmdqspu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=477498f6f3e6260f2a0429defebf98475b14eda1
At some point during the night, she’d wake me up, and when she does, I’d realize I had a nightmare, like, not from my night terrors, and she’d tell me I had a nightmare, that I was sniffling in my sleep, and that I told her two days earlier to wake me up if this happens. Still feeling terrible (the feeling of immediate dread always takes a while to subside for me), I’d thank her. I’d ask what I was saying, and she’d say that I wasn’t speaking English. I’d consider if I should tell her for a moment, but then, I’d take a deep breath, look up for a second, and with a heavy voice, slowly say “What if we try plan A tomorrow, and I fail? I’m scared… I don’t wanna mess this up… I don’t wanna fail you…” And she’d slowly look at me and just say two words: “You haven’t!” I’d look at her and almost laugh a bit out of joy. I’d smile and just cuddle up to her a bit, and she’d do it back. I’d say I’ll try to listen to music for a while to calm down because doing something else makes it much easier for me to zone out of the feeling of dread again. “Why only you?”, she’d ask. “I don’t wanna keep you awake”, I’d say, “You need the sleep”, and she’d say “It’s okay” and just smile a bit, and so, we’d listen to some music together for about half an hour.

I’d tell her that my sleep is so horrible (she’d say she can tell) because I don’t have my meds, and I’m really fricking looking forward to taking them again. Without them, the quality of my sleep is terrible, and it takes so long for me to fall asleep at all if I don’t take them. She’d ask if I’ve taken them for a long time, and I’d say that I haven’t taken these particular meds for long because whatever I take, my body builds up some resistance to them pretty quickly, so after a while, I always have to get new ones, but I’ve taken sleeping meds for years now. “It sounds like they’re really helping you, right?”, she’d ask, and I’d nod and say “Yeah, they really do. I’m also taking antidepressants, and they were an absolute gamechanger for me. It’s okay if I don’t take them for a few days because they don’t work in the moment, but they like rewire your brain over time, and they’re the best thing that’s ever happened to my mental health. Before I started taking them, it was so hard for me to avoid bad thoughts or resist them, like, it was hell, but ever since then, it got sooo much easier, and not letting things get to me or not letting bad things really take over me is just so much easier now.” After a while, I’d say “I was at a psychiatric clinic voluntarily for six months, but I also had nowhere else to go, and the doctors and employees really abused their power. They only intervened when there was physical violence, they didn’t intervene in any other conflicts, so because of them, the patients constantly bullied each other. My doctor switched to another department while I was there, so I got a new one, and the new one wasn’t perfect, but at least, she cared. I got really lucky to get a place at a living group for mentally ill people, which was when I could finally leave. But honestly, all my experiences with mental health professionals since then have been better. I went to a different clinic for four or five days voluntarily in 2019, and even they were far better. “That sounds scary…”, she’d say. I’d reply “It was. But things got much better after that. I had lots of setbacks, like, you know, but if you get help, it’s always better.”

After the current song’s over, we’d lie down to try and sleep again. We’d smile at each other again in bed, and I’d give her a short-ish kiss before saying good night, and we’d both smile even harder after that 😁 And we would fall asleep for good after a while (it would still take me longer than her).

In the morning, Leanne would wake me up again. She’d show me that the door is unlocked and open by a little bit now (they’re “letting” her out for a few hours…),
https://preview.redd.it/sqql9udupu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=b2505bc6f7795639777433a1897f0d31e5753d67
and we’d both just embrace and chuckle in huge joy, as we can go with plan A now, the less risky one! We’d remember to quiet down after a few seconds and whisper from then on out. I’d go to the toilet roll, take eight pieces, rip them into two bands of four pieces each, and roll each of them up into a little bunch. I’d give them to her and tell her to put them into the wall pieces of the door when she gets out (so it looks like the door is closed while it can’t actually lock) and give me an audible signal when the third floor is clear, so I’ll get out with my backpack, take out the toilet paper, and hide in her room.
https://preview.redd.it/bzze2o6wpu1d1.png?width=304&format=png&auto=webp&s=aaa155b611408db6e9960485f6f726125fc2698d
“Is there anything you want me to get from there?”, I’d ask. “No. Everything is here or at the Marinos’.” I’d go “Okay” and move on - since I’m almost definitely unable to come down to the second floor right away (I’m using American English in all of these episodes. “First floor” in American English = “ground floor” in British English; “Second floor” in American English = “first floor” in British English; “Third floor” in American English = “second floor” in British English, etc.), she’d give me a signal when coming back upstairs. We’d agree that when she comes back upstairs, if it’s safe to go to the second floor, she’d shout something, maybe in conversation, maybe some sort of cry, doesn’t matter, and if not, she’d kick something. She’d be locked upstairs again after that, so I’ll have to tell when to get further downstairs myself, which I’d do as soon as I’ve heard absolutely no sounds from inside the house for at least a few minutes. On the first floor, I’d get the DVD from March 11, 2001, and if the baptism tape isn’t clearly labeled among the tapes, I’d unplug the DVD player from the TV, turn on the player, open the DVD slot, and if the tape isn’t in there, I’d take all unlabeled tapes. I’d then listen in on the basement door for a few seconds, and if I hear no sounds from down there, I’d quietly open the basement door and go downstairs, and if no one’s there, I’d get out through the side entrance down there, out through the back gate, walk back to Spruce Street, drive my bike home, take a shower, watch the tape from March 11, 2011 like she told me I could, hide it somewhere at home, print out the document for the police, take it with me in an envelope, print out a second version of it to give to the taxi driver, so I can say “If I’m not back in an hour, please call the police for me and read this to them”. I’d then call a taxi (a taxi with a large trunk whose driver is allowed to drive to Allentown and back), load my gun, and leave for the Turners’ and get Leanne.

We’d see that Liam has replied by now. Of course, he’d be super worried, but he’s got our backs for the plan, and that would be really reassuring. We’d look each other in the eyes, and then, I’d hug her sooo tight for several seconds, and we’d have one loooong kiss (hoping it’s not the last time we see each other…) before she goes downstairs while looking back at me on the way before putting the toilet paper in the door. I’d then put on my backpack. Once Leanne loudly shouts “Mister Turner?”, that would be my signal, and I’d hide in her room for about 45 minutes before she’s “let” back upstairs and shouts “You can lock me in now, Mrs. Turner”,
https://preview.redd.it/uy9loclypu1d1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=16abd51170405f1ef3123ff22f4559642a0c0c92
which is when I’d sneak into the storage/guest room and wait. It would take like five hours until I hear nothing for a while, which is when I’d sneak onto the first floor, look around to make extra sure no one’s there, and go to the living room. I’d get the tape from March 11, 2011, and the baptism tape would be among the labeled DVDs, and I’d put it into the box of the March 11, 2011 tape (I’d put the original DVD loose in there and use the spot inside the box for the baptism tape because it’s probably more important. I then wouldn’t hear anything from the basement, so I’d slowly and quietly go down there. No one would be there, so I’d leave as planned and go home and take a shower. I’d watch the March 11, 2011 DVD. I’d be surprised to see the interaction between Leanne and Dorothy for sure, but sort of knowing her, I wouldn’t think anything bad of it. I’d actually get it because of my past celebrity crushes (which I know isn’t what she was feeling for Dorothy) and the desire to meet them, especially with Blanche. I’d get why Leanne wouldn’t want the police to see it, it would look bad for her. I’d wrap up the DVD in a thick piece of paper and tape it to the back of my closet, between the closet and the wall. I’d burn the piece of paper in the DVD case in my bathtub with a bucket of water next to me just in case. I’d test if the DVD of the baptism tape still works (it does), rip it, upload the video file to Google Drive, add it to the document for the police, cancel my printing queue, print the document (two versions of it. The one for the taxi driver would just have a short introduction at the beginning, like, that I’m the person who ordered the taxi), order the taxi, pack my things for the next couple of weeks and anything that Leanne might need, so I’d include any clothes that I think could fit her, and go to the taxi. I’d tell the driver to get me one block away from 9780 Spruce Street (which isn’t actually a real address, by the way) and wait there for me. Before leaving for the Turner house, I’d give him the envelope with his version of the letter for the police and tell him what I said I would tell him. I’d then get my backpack with the gun in it from my luggage in the trunk, and walk to the Turners’ house.

I have already "written" so much more in my head, but I've now reached the end of what I've actually written down, so it will take longer until the next episode is out now! Hope you've enjooooyed this one!
submitted by ikieneng to teamleanne [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 23:58 NickValent710 Im a Christian that doesn't Believe that gays go to hell. Is this valid?

I disagree with some of the teachings in the Bible and does that make me wrong? Like the fact that being gay is a sin or that all non Christians go to hell. Can someone help out? Thanks! 😇
submitted by NickValent710 to Christianity [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 23:52 bluer289 A Common argument from that antiwoke is "There is no reason to use a homosexual couple when a heterosexual couple works just as well."

Take this student film for example. It is about a girl who broke up with her girlfriend. Yet the chuds would say that a hetero couple would work just as well (it woukd) and that this fact somehow makes the decision worse and "taints" everything about it in "politics".
When asked why it matters they go "Well why did they chose a gay couple instead of a straight one?" Like they say the couples wouldn't matter yet it offends them because...not straight is political? That it was done to push an agenda?
But with heterosexuals "Hertosexuality is the norm in these situations thus it wouldn't be pushing any agenda!" That is what the chuds say. They think any subversion from the default is political...and honestly progressives have been pushing that narrative. Chuds simply went "oh so wants wring with the default ?" Ignoring how this is a false dilemma. Pro-gay is not anti-straight, it's anti-heteronormative. Same thing when they attack other people "They are pushing an agenda, which means the rest of the story doesn't matter". It lives rent free in their heads,
submitted by bluer289 to saltierthankrayt [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 23:51 JazzScholar Heading Towards MMSS Deployment and Efforts to Enhance the PNH . Le Nouvelliste

Roberson Alphonse
After several dozen flights funded by the USA to transport materials for the construction of the Kenyan forces' camp and to deliver armored vehicles for the PNH, Toussaint Louverture International Airport received its first commercial flight on Monday, May 20, 2024, more than two months after its closure due to repeated gang attacks.
"We received the first international flight today," revealed a source close to the headquarters of the PNH. The resumption of commercial flights, a turning point, comes amid notable progress in the security consolidation of this infrastructure, just days before the deployment of the first elements of the Kenyan police for the Multinational Security Support Mission (MSSM), learned Le Nouvelliste.
A delegation of Kenyans arrived in Haiti on Monday aboard a Sunrise Airways flight. The delegation is expected to stay in Haiti for the entire week and will meet with Haitian officials, it was learned on Monday.
Kenyan media The Star.co.ke earlier reported on Monday that a reconnaissance and advance team of about ten police officers left Kenya on Saturday night. Authorities indicated that the team was to assemble in Miami, United States, before heading to Port-au-Prince.
According to The Star.co.ke, Principal Secretary for Foreign Affairs Korir Singoei stated on Sunday that Kenya would deploy its police officers to Haiti in a few days.
The team that left Kenya on Saturday will pave the way for the deployment of a first group of around 200 police officers in the coming days, officials said. Kenya, which will lead the gang-fighting team, plans to deploy over 1,000 agents to Haiti to contribute to the mission.
The teams are part of the Rapid Deployment Unit (RDU), the Anti-Stock Theft Unit (ASTU), the General Service Unit (GSU), and the Border Patrol Unit (BPU). This is a combat-trained team that, according to authorities, can professionally handle the situation on the ground.
They have undergone training in various areas, including learning the languages spoken in Haiti.
Officials stated that they would be allowed to use, among other things, AK47 rifles for their operations.
"We don't expect them to use any other weapons they haven't handled in the past," said an official familiar with the plans, quoted by this Kenyan media outlet.
The team was expected to be in Haiti when Mr. Ruto arrived in the United States. Mr. Ruto left for the United States on Sunday evening for a week-long trip, according to this Kenyan media outlet.
The White House confirmed that President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden would welcome Mr. Ruto and his wife, First Lady Rachael Ruto, for a state visit on May 23, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United States and Kenya, according to The Star.co.ke.
USA Takes Center Stage
The United States plays a leading role in providing financial and logistical support for the deployment of the MMSS.
Last week, the head of the United States Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, said before an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. that not only was the deployment of the Kenyans on track but also that "we will be ready to go on May 23," as reported by the Miami Herald.
"We are working very, very hard," said Mr. Richardson, adding that the US military is also focused on reopening the airport and the main seaport, both of which were closed due to violence in early March. "I think everyone should have hope and be positive, and watch this (...) we will make sure that this time it is a success."
General Laura Richardson noted that the police and members of the Haitian armed forces successfully repelled attempts by armed groups to take over the airport, allowing Southcom to coordinate the arrival of dozens of American military aircraft in recent weeks to support the mission. Ms. Richardson declined to go into details, stating that she would leave it to Mr. Ruto and President Joe Biden to address the issue. The two leaders are expected to meet during Mr. Ruto's visit to the United States on May 23, which will include a state dinner at the White House.
Ms. Richardson, as reported by the Miami Herald, also made a revelation about the upcoming mission led by Kenya. There will be "a limited number of US personnel," she said, who will assist with mission logistics. Several countries in the region will provide police forces and training.
The Americans, who approved $70 million in security aid to Haiti, delivered equipment to the PNH. "The General Director of the PNH, Mr. Frantz Elbé, accompanied by members of the High Command of the PNH, received, this Sunday, May 19, 2024, at Toussaint Louverture International Airport, a batch of ten armored vehicles donated by the US Government, through the International Narcotics And Law Enforcement (INL)," the PNH noted via its Facebook page. "The reception of this batch of equipment took place in the presence of the US Ambassador to Haiti, Mr. Dennis Bruce Hankins. These (10) armored vehicles aim to contribute to strengthening the operational capabilities of the Haitian National Police to continue combating organized crime in all its forms," according to the PNH.
On May 11, 10 armored troop carriers were received by the PNH. "We are starting to receive equipment as part of substantial support from the United States to the PNH," said our source from the headquarters who did not want to go into details. "We are still in the preparation phase before entering the phase of dismantling the gangs," this source replied.
On Monday, May 20, the PNH announced that, as part of an operation on Sunday in Gressier, several criminals were apprehended, assault rifles and mobile phones were confiscated. The PNH shared a photo of two recovered assault rifles.
Challenges for the PNH
Meanwhile, gangs, through TikTok and other social media, swear they are ready for action. Yesterday, Sunday, the gangs shared images of destruction using an excavator at the Croix-des-Bouquets police station and the adjacent civilian prison, inaugurated in 2012 and built with funding of $5.7 million Canadian dollars. The gangs maintain their grip on downtown Port-au-Prince.
https://lenouvelliste.com/en/article/248249/heading-towards-mmss-deployment-and-efforts-to-enhance-the-pnh

submitted by JazzScholar to haiti [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 23:38 geoffsn Gave a talk on Sunday. Happy to hear thoughts on it.

Good morning sisters and brothers, fellow Saints of our aspirational Zion. I was asked to speak and allowed to decide what the topic would be. After a lot of consideration I felt inspired to speak about being Actively Engaged in a Good Cause and how that relates to the full name of the church.
I was glad when President Nelson decided to put more emphasis on the full name of the church. Not that I mind using the term Mormon, but because I do find the full name of the church to be significant. When the church was organized in 1830 it was called the Church of Christ. In 1834 the members voted to change the name of the church to the Church of the Latter-day Saints. Then in 1838 Joseph had a revelation for the name to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While this effectively combined the two previous names, it also highlights something that I think most people overlook. Namely that the church is not only Jesus’s church, but that the church also belongs to us, the Latter-day Saints. We too have ownership of the church. While this may sound strange at first, it actually also fits very well with another concept that Joseph Smith taught: Theodemocracy.
Joseph spoke of this most actively the year before his death when running for President of the United States and when the Council of Fifty was created. The idea also holds in it that while God is in charge, we also have ownership and must have a say, actively vote, propose new ideas, and generally be actively engaged in moving things forward. It is not a theocracy with a fake voting system attached like that of North Korea. However, we have largely seen our own tradition move from one in which we do things by common consent including adding to our canon or as in 1834 voting to change the name of the church, towards something much more akin to voting in North Korea. This has coincided with other shifts in which we have taken less and less ownership of our church and as a result failed to properly sustain and support our leaders.
It is unfair to our leaders for us to sit back and wait for them to do frankly most of the heavy lifting when it comes to the running and functioning of our church, stake, and ward. In the past when I’ve been in callings that required me to be overseeing the assignments of home teaching or really any other church assignments, my experience has been that occasionally some inspiration will strike for some of the assignments, but that for the majority, I felt like I was left to figure out myself what assignments seemed to make the most sense. I know that many leaders that I have spoken to on this topic have also had such experiences. When we as members speak with our leaders, share information with them, it makes it much easier to make the best decisions. Without that feedback much more is left to guesswork.
We need to support and sustain our leaders, but this becomes difficult or challenging if we bring some assumptions to the table when considering how we do this. A major one as I see it is when we put too much trust in the arm of the flesh and grant our leaders infallibility or the lesser but largely equivalent functional infallibility.
As the saying goes: “Catholics say that the Pope is infallible, but none of them believe it. Mormons say that the Prophet is fallible, but none of them believe it.” Brigham Young recognized the potential for harm in this setting and said:
"I am fearful [the Saints will] settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.” – Brigham Young 1862 General Conference (quoted in General Conference of the church in 1963 and in 1989)
And this one is also important:
"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God… would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.” – Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95
Yet does this functionally happen in the church? Do we follow this council to find out for ourselves instead of simply assuming everything from our leaders is divine? Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared:
"President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord’, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” – Millennial Star 54:191
Do we do this? When the prophet says “Thus saith the Lord” do we take the time to investigate it? Do we remember President Kimball’s reaction to Elder Benson’s talk on the “14 fundamentals of following the prophet”?
"Spencer felt concern about the talk, wanting to protect the Church against being misunderstood as espousing ultraconservative politics or an unthinking “follow the leader” mentality. The First Presidency again called Elder Benson in to discuss what he had said and asked him to make explanation to the full Quorum of the Twelve and other General Authorities… A First Presidency spokesman Don LeFevre reiterated to the press the day after the speech that it is “simply not true” that the Church President’s “word is law on all issues—including politics.” – Lengthen Your Stride – Working Draft, by Edward Kimball
I’ve had the opportunity to know some great Mormons who do take this approach, but I’ve also known many who treat quotes from church leaders like downloaded messages from God (no human filters involved).
If we can believe that God is capable of inspiring our leaders, surely we can believe God is capable of letting us know when they’re wrong. If instead we assume that their judgment is always superior to our own, perhaps we’re helping to put up a massive iron gate.
"How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?" – Dieter Uchtdorf 2012 Worldwide Leadership Training
Moses once opined “Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” We have all been confirmed members of the church and in that confirmation told to receive the Holy Ghost. It is easy to forget that when the spirit tells us something, that is a member of the Godhead speaking to us. If we can believe that God can give guidance to our leaders surely we can also believe God can give us guidance.
Another important and often overlooked point is the context to this oft quoted verse:
"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." -D&C 121:39
This statement wasn’t given in a vacuum. It is in the middle of a long discussion of priesthood and priesthood authority. This is talking specifically about priesthood leaders. When we read that “many are called but few are chosen,” we’re reading that many priesthood leaders abuse their power and only few truly honor it. The saints in Joseph’s day understood this. I think we’ve sanitized it over the years to make it seem like an aside, an intermission on the discussion of priesthood. This statement is as true now as ever. This verse, with its proper context, needs to be a lesson for us as members. We need to sustain and support our leaders. This doesn’t mean following them blindly. This doesn’t mean we must become “yes-men” to them. This does mean pray for them to be chosen instead of just called. This does mean to influence our leaders to do God’s will. Remember, one of Brigham’s concerns about us acting as if all our leaders decisions were divine is that it will “weaken the influence [we] could give to [our] leaders.”
What questions our church leaders will take to the Lord are impacted by our own openness to those things. In 1977 President Kimball expressed concern that if the Race-ban on priesthood was removed that there would be pushback from members in the American South and from some in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. When President Hinckley was asked in an interview about the Gender-ban on priesthood his response was that “there’s no agitation for it.” Until we better engage in our own history and understand how we got to where we are now it will be very difficult if not impossible for us as members to be prepared for the removal of the current gender-ban on priesthood.
Sometimes we might justify our own spiritual laziness by saying that while our leaders are fallible that God will never let them lead us astray, granting them a sort of functional infallibility. Nevermind that this was first said when my 3rd-great-grandpa President Woodruff was trying to convince members not to leave over the Manifesto. Nevermind that it means that we’re denying our leaders their agency by assuming that God removes their ability to make mistakes in their callings. Maybe some make such a statement more nuanced. Maybe they think that our leaders can make mistakes, but they won’t be majosignificant mistakes. Well, what is and isn’t significant depends a lot on who you are and how you’re being affected by it. I’m thinking that the women and children who were slaughtered in prophet-sanctioned genocide in the Bible considered that a significant mistake. I’m thinking that the thousands denied temple blessings their entire lives because of the color of their skin might consider that significant.
Let’s just recognize that few are chosen and that we need to give our leaders constructive/interactive support. We place a lot of responsibility on our leaders and they are very likely to make mistakes. Because they are human and doing their best, but as humans we all err from time to time. Recognizing the mistakes of our leaders is essential to giving them true support; it is vital to sustaining them. I would hope that we would avoid enabling or cheerleading bad decisions that friends or family are about to make. Pointing out why a decision will be or was problematic is what we expect of people who we truly love and support us, because it helps us to avoid pain and pitfalls and enables us to be our best.
Here’s a story from our little section of Salt Lake City in which members recognized the potential for mistakes and took ownership of our church. On August 23rd, 1896 Stake President Angus M. Cannon proposed a man to be the bishop of a new ward which was to be divided from the Sugar House Ward. The congregation voted against the proposed new bishop. President Angus M. Cannon then purportedly shouted "Sit down! and shut your mouths, you have no right to speak!" When Cannon engaged in a shouting match with the dissenting congregation, a ward member and policeman threatened to arrest the stake president for disturbing the peace. President Cannon more calmly repeated his attempt but was voted down "again several times." The Secretary of the First Council of the Seventy was in attendance and wrote in his journal: "I have been taught that the appointing power comes from the priesthood and the sustaining power from the people and that they have the right of sustaining or not sustaining appointees.
When it comes to being actively engaged in church endeavors our neighborhood and the general Sugar House area has done a lot. The "stake missionary program" began in the Granite Stake under President Frank Taylor in the early 1900s. It was an idea presented to President Taylor who then prayerfully considered trying it out as a stake. It proved successful and was later picked up by the General Authorities who made it a church-wide program.
The seminary program was also started in our stake after Joseph Merrill (a newly called member of the Granite Stake Presidency) felt inspired to start it and worked out agreements with the school board and got it going at the very new (at the time) Granite High School.
Also, in 1909 the Granite Stake started a monthly family home evening program. After counseling with many sisters and brothers in the stake, the Stake Presidency asked each family to spend Tuesday evening home together. All of these were local things which were eventually picked up and run at the church-wide level. We have a history in our area of being anxiously engaged and pioneering with new ideas.
While those are all instances of members, wards, and stakes starting programs for good causes in our area of Salt Lake City, they are just a few examples of Saints starting inspired efforts which were eventually accepted and promoted by the top church leaders. The relief society started when women in Nauvoo came together to do some good. The Primary program, Sunday school, Mutual Improvement Association, welfare/farming, organized genealogy efforts, and Young Adult programs all also started as members and local leaders were anxiously engaged and thereby gave influence to the top church leaders.
So as we consider how we can more actively engage in the church and look at what we can do now that would help to further the kingdom of God, I’d like to share a few things that have been on my mind which I feel would be steps which we can do now and which doesn’t require any new doctrines, revelations, or organizational adjustments from our leadership.
  1. Give leaders their agency and remove the false idol of functional infallibility
I’ve already said a lot about this. The only thing I’ll add is to encourage everyone to read and learn about our history. The church history department has been putting out a lot of new, well-researched material, and there is a very high chance that it will be different than how you learned about things over the last several decades. Interestingly, most historically thorny topics become vastly easier to deal with when we stop denying leaders agency and ability to get things wrong.
  1. Stop turning into a time capsule of the 1950s
This is really a small thing, but sometimes small things can have an outsized impact. Assuming someone comes into church for the first time, they will likely be a little weirded out because in dress and culture they walked into a time capsule of the 1950s. The Amish did this with mid-1800s, some Mennonites have as well. FLDS have with when they split in the 1930s/40s. These groups that have followed this pattern of freezing time and culture because they have been integrated into their religious practice are generally ones that are not really growing and have little-to-no impact or relevance in society. If we want to do the most good and build the most bridges, it is easier to do if we don’t continue falling into this pattern. Any efforts on our part to make our meetings look like a place that people in the public could come into and not feel out of place are steps in this direction. Dresses, suits and ties aren’t part of Christ’s gospel. Missionary clothing is changing for similar reasons. New guidelines for missionaries include allowing sisters to wear pants and Elders to go without jackets, so surely we can extend the same to our church attendance.
  1. Always speak at church as though the audience is the general public
I have many times felt like I didn’t fit in or belong at church, and many times this has been because people speaking at church have done so with the assumption that everyone in the building must share their views on a given topic. Simply imagining that a gay couple, an ex-mormon, an investigator, some in the midst of a faith crisis, and others who live in our neighborhood are in the audience will help us to make sure that as we teach our lessons, give our talks, etc. that we will do so in the most open and welcoming way possible, which frankly is how i believe Jesus would have spoken. I truly believe that if we try to do this it will drastically improve our lessons and dialogue and help to make church a place that more people want to be. It is a change that (to borrow imagery from Jesus’s parable of the sower) will be akin to tilling and prepping the soil to improve the likelihood of allowing seeds to take root.
There are near infinite ways that we can innovate and get engaged in good causes. Awake and arise, join in the cause of Zion. The aspiration of Zion is to be of one heart and one mind and have no poor among us. I think it is worth noting that being of one mind doesn’t mean agreeing on everything. It means that we are united in love; love for God and for all persons. When this is our top priority, when we worry about how our actions impact others and whether our words and actions are conveying love, we become united. I’ve been a long-time fan of Eugene England’s essay “The church is as true as the gospel.” In it he makes the case that the church is true because it is a vehicle in which we are able to actually try to put the gospel into practice. In doing so we encounter difficulties as we interact with other fallible mortals and try to navigate our interactions in a Christ-like way. We all try and this mix of imperfect people who unite in love and service can help to bring each other and others to Christ. It is my prayer that we can find ways to engage with love, and humble ourselves like little children, to change our ways as needed to come closer to Christ. I leave this with you in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
submitted by geoffsn to mormon [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 22:28 Scrybal FWIW jstlk is not a groyper. I spoke to him about Fuentes approx 7 months before he ever got perms or even thought about streaming as a side job.

Back in April 2023, right after my grand narratives call-in with Destiny jstlk reached out to me on Discord for a chat on the topic.
We did actually disagree on Fuentes a lot, though. jstlk seemed to figure that Fuentes had the charisma and capability to eventually have significant impact on American politics and policy.
I countered by comparing Fuentes to the Ebola virus, which kills its hosts so quickly that the hosts barely ever get a chance to infect others and so propagate the virus i.e Fuentes fanboys SUCK at hiding their power levels and so tend to get ostracized pretty quickly whenever they begin to spout that bullshit (a position I'm doubling down on now that Fuentes has pretty much gone mask off as a whiny anti-American reactionary).
We talked for almost 3 hours, no memes about Jews no yelling no sarcasm, just good old-fashioned chatting about politics. My takeaway perception is that jstlk sees Fuentes as some kind of radioactive demon core that he suspects is going to go critical...so yeah, he talks/memes about it a lot.
At no point did I ever get the impression that jstlk actually liked Fuentes in any capacity. More like he was just impressed that a cat-boy loving, gay-porn watching little twerp managed to form and lead USA's most extreme far-right movement, which is frankly a reasonable thing to be impressed about.
But if at some point jstlk does come out as a fully mask off groyper then you all can mark me down as a terrible judge of character. I will take that L.
submitted by Scrybal to Destiny [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 22:28 velvetaloca Being a lesbian isn't the entirety of me.

I'm sure some of you feel the same way, but I'm curious to hear your opinions. I realized that, as gay as I look (I'm fairly masculine. You'd never miss that I'm gay), it isn't the entirety of my existence. Yes, there are days I will revel in my gayness, but that is only occasionally. I'm made up of many things. I just want to live life without constantly engaging in gay. I'm finding that a lot of lesbians seem to be a bit more opposite in this respect. Things like having only gay friends, or doing only activities that are related to the LGBTQ community.
I'm looking to meet single women, but a lot of them are the opposite of me on this.
I'm not anti gay, just enjoy not having to just be my sexuality all the time, if that makes sense. I'm so much more.
submitted by velvetaloca to LesbianActually [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 21:56 Jimmydorebot 'GET YOUR D*CK WET': Anti-Gay Republican CAUGHT In Freaky Threesomes The Kyle Kulinski Show

'GET YOUR D*CK WET': Anti-Gay Republican CAUGHT In Freaky Threesomes The Kyle Kulinski Show submitted by Jimmydorebot to jimmydoreshow [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 21:56 Gray447 Should I prioritise my happiness or my parents?

I’m trans although my dad doesn’t know it yet. Only my mum knows. He thinks I’m just gay since I like both. His reaction proved that I can’t come out as trans. He completely broke down and fell into a deep depression. He’s better now kinda but he keeps fluctuating and doing irrational things like fasting no food for three days straight in prayer. He was hit when he was younger as was the norm. My mum told him not to do it with me that I can be raised with kind words. He says that if I go the wrong way then I have abandoned him like everyone else. I will also be proving my mum wrong. He thinks I have been influenced by my friends. He keeps telling me to surround myself with good people that bring me up instead of down. He said I shouldn’t follow the white people and do what they do. I’m here because I live in a white area so all my friends are white but one but she isn’t queer so she wouldn’t provide that perspective. My best friend said I should stop listening to him but I can’t. It feels wrong. I’m sure all of us here were raised to have the utmost respect for parents so it feels wrong to go against him or to ignore him. I also feel bad because both my parents suffered a lot to get to the UK and settle down with immigration and things like that. My dad was in the Nigerian civil war as a child which is obviously awful so I don’t know what to do. The Bible is his comfort blanket. He believes that if he believes in the Bible and nothing else then he will remain faithful so I don’t think there is any chance he will change.
submitted by Gray447 to QueerWomenOfColor [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 21:44 bulletproof5fdp What exactly did The Last Jedi do to win people over? Why did those same people gush over Rian Johnson and how he made the best Star Wars film?

Still a mystery to me. The Last Jedi is an anti-Star Wars film. It doesn’t respect anything that came before. It certainly didn’t feature “the most Jedi thing ever done.”
What The Last Jedi did is usher in a fanbase that has a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of Star Wars. For example, never once before The Last Jedi did anyone proclaim that the Jedi are supposed to be pacifists that refrain from using any form of violence whatsoever. But ever since TLJ, certain fans seem to believe that Jedi are pacifists and that George Lucas “brainwashed” everyone into believe that the Jedi can use violence. Even going as far as taking Yoda’s quote from TESB completely out of context as “justification” for this claim.
submitted by bulletproof5fdp to saltierthancrait [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 21:29 MedicalFly441 After 40.

Is there a point to even try to start over? I’m tired of the way things have been but is it too late to turn sh** around? I don’t even know how or where to begin. I just know like many of you I am struggling and the cost of living is getting to expensive to even exist. I’m heavily tattooed. Gay. In the Bible Belt south. I fear there’s no point anymore. I’m divorced. No family. It’s just me and my struggling existence. Go me.
submitted by MedicalFly441 to Advice [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 20:34 RandomDood420 Is Seinfeld just modern boomer humor?

He's the king of "observational" comedy. "What's the deal with ...?" or "What marketing genius came up with ...?"
Always from a point of condescension, and now that no one finds him funny anymore, it's the audience,
Famously when he came out of retirement, he did a show at a college where he couldn't engage his audience and then said the problem with the youths is that they were all scrolling on their phones like a gay french king.
Now he's made an unfunny movie that was just skits stitched together in the service of corporations trying to sell us sugar as nutrition, and using the profits to support Anti Palestinian protests and settlements in the West Bank. He says he doesn't care what anybody says about.
He claims he's working on a new show, he's going to employ his old friend Michael Richards and said he doesn't care what anyone says about it.
He seems to be going on a lot of shows trying to tell people they are wrong about the movie and his political activism and he seems really upset that we're not agreeing with him anymore.
Can we agree that humor deriving from an outsider perspective with no context is the epitome of boomer humor or am I out in left field on this?
submitted by RandomDood420 to BoomersBeingFools [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 19:32 Emperor_Enigma Misinformation of Korean culture & "Korea Claiming everything" written by 2010 China Hush article (controlled media & online rumour that's untrue)

I think this is an important information to learn especially for Chinese user here that seek Koreans perspective/ POV on historical problem that's written by Chinese journalist.
I'm just gonna copy-paste the whole thing :
1. Cao Cao is Korean?
Rumor: Quoted from South Korea’s “Great Korea Min Bao (People Newspaper)”, Korea’s Ewha Womans University professor Zheng Zaishu said that “Cao Cao is Korean”.
Fact: January 8, 2010, South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, director of China Department spoke directly with professor Zheng Zaishu and clarified this information was entirely false. And “Great Korea Min Bao” does not exist.
2. Sun Yat-sen is Korean?
Rumor: “Chosun Libo” reported that Sungkyunkwan University Professor Pu Fenqing researched based on family genealogy and issued a report saying Sun Yat-sen is Korean.
Fact: “Chosun Libo” never reported such news, and there is no such professor called Pu Fenqing in Sungkyunkwan University. A Chinese netizen wrote a blog post on Tianya which was reposted as the facts.
3. Koreans invented Chinese characters?
Rumor: Seoul University history department professor Pu Zhengxiu claimed that Koreans first invented Chinese characters, then they migrated into the Central Plains and brought the Chinese characters into China before the Han culture was formed.
Fact: There is no professor named Pu Zhengxiu in Seoul national University. South Korean Government has never proposed to the UNESCO (United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) the cultural heritage of Chinese characters in Korea, nor did they ever consider applying. Seoul National University scholar Puwen Ji (Music) had a similar idea, but it is not the mainstream Korean academic theory.
4. Korea applied for cultural heritage of calligraphy?
Rumor: Report said South Korea combines Chinese calligraphy and Japanese calligraphy into one called the Korean “book art”, and tries to apply for cultural heritage of it.
Fact: Korean government never tried to apply for cultural heritage of Chinese calligraphy nor Korean “book art”.
5. Chinese Mythology came from Korea?
Rumor: Korea’s Ewha Womans University professor Zheng Zaishu said “Chinese Mythology came from Korea”.
Fact: In his paper Professor Zheng wrote, “Chinese mythology in its early stage may be mixing blends of many different primitives of people’s myth (of which there is the myth of Dongyi), therefore in Chinese mythology you may find traces of the lost ancient Korean mythology.”
6. Li Bai is Korean?
Rumor: Chinese media posted an article written by a Chinese scholar “Li Bai is not Korean”. The article said, “Recently, I found some information, said according to Seoul National University history department professor Kim Bingde’s research that Li Bai is a Korean decedent.” The article argued that the Li Bai is not Korean, but he was from Tianshui, Gansu province.
Fact: There is no professor named Kim Bingde in Seoul National University, also there are Korean History Department, Oriental History Department and Western History Department but no “History Department” by itself. This news came out after the dispute over “Li Bai’s hometown” between Tianshu, Gansu Province and Anlu, Hubei Province, it is likely that the article was fabricated in order to provide more fire power to claim Li Bai’s hometown.
7. Korea successfully Claimed Dragon Boat Festival in World Heritage List?
Rumor: Korea successfully applied for Dragon Boat Festival as culture heritage on the World Heritage List.
Fact: South Korea only applied for “Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity” which are the Dragon Boat Festival activities, not the Dragon Boat Festival itself. It includes dancing, shaman rituals, folk art shows and so on Korean folk festival, the only similarity is the time frame which is also held during the Dragon Boat Festival in China. In addition, the East Asia generally have the tradition of Dragon Boat Festival, during same time frame, however different content.
Controversies of cultures on the surface are mostly rumors
China does not really have much hatred towards South Korea, but because of Chinese media’s reports that Korea claims many of the Chinese cultures and history are originated in Korea, causing many Chinese people’s discontentment, but most of these reports came from China spread false rumors or slanderous messages, the mainstream Korean history and local public opinion do not have such claims
So the biggest question Is : Why do people who are “anti-Korean” keep dwelling?
  1. Media irresponsibly create rumors.
  2. The people: Relying on the “splendid cultures” for sense of security, and became over-sensitive about “stealing” cultures. The government: either Most culture disputes are driven by beneficial factors and interests.
  3. nationalism factor by government.
submitted by Emperor_Enigma to Gen_Korea [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 19:26 MWBartko Considerations on Sexual Immorality, Gender Identity, and my friends Non-Denominational Church.

Considerations on Sexual Immorality, Gender Identity, and my friends Non-Denominational Church.
A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement to and or reading recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.
submitted by MWBartko to TrueChristian [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 18:53 crazyDocEmmettBrown Is anyone else confused by the Protestant response to Pope Francis’ recent remarks?

I’m not confused why, as they tend to be anti-Catholic and jump like hyenas on meat on any chance to criticize the Pope.
However, how does the idea that humans are fundamentally good go against scripture?
They love quote several things that show humans are not perfectly good, commit sin, and have evil in their hearts.
All of that is true, but that isn’t what Francis is saying. He didn’t say humans are devoid of original sin, broken natures, and perfectly good.
He said humanity is fundamentally good.
Of all the Bible quotes Protestants are throwing at Catholics right now, I have not seen a single person throw out Genesis 1:31.
After God created man, he looked back at everything he created and saw that it was very good.
FUNDAMENTALLY humans are good, because God created man and saw they were very good.
If humans are not fundamentally good, that means God created man as fundamentally evil. Which speaks as a critique of God.
Instead, THE ACTUAL BIBLICAL POSITION is that humans are fundamentally good but broken via the ravages of original sin.
While I’m not confused as to their motives, I am confused as to how so many Protestants are blind to the obvious in this.
“Catholics don’t believe the Bible”, they say, but are saying God created us as fundamentally evil creatures, while ignoring Genesis 1.
Anything to tickle their anti-Catholic pickle, I guess
submitted by crazyDocEmmettBrown to Catholicism [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 18:50 Round-Still400 Mark my 16-marker revision history essay very, very brutally and honestly.

‘Hitler was solely responsible for the Holocaust’.
How far do you agree with this statement?
The Holocaust, run by the Nazi regime during World War II, resulted in the extermination of six million Jews and millions of other victims. Adolf Hitler's influence was prominent, but the genocide's execution involved numerous actors, including high-ranking Nazi officials, bystanders, and the Allied powers. I partially agree with the statement, ‘Hitler was solely responsible for the Holocaust’ as he played a crucial role in initiating the holocaust but it is wrong to deny that there weren’t any other contributors.
One person responsible for the Holocaust was Adolf Hitler, whose ideology, beliefs and orders were fundamental to the genocide. Source A states that in 1922, Hitler remarked, “As soon as I have the power... Then the Jews [in Munich] will be hanged one after another... and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!”. Source A presents a direct quote from Hitler, reflecting his early and explicit intent to exterminate Jews. While the source is reliable in providing insight into Hitler's genocidal intentions, its origin as a speech may raise questions about context and potential audience manipulation. This shows that Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust because his deep anti-Semitism and violent orders set the genocidal policies in motion. While Hitler’s ideology was the driving force, it is critical to recognise that the Holocaust's implementation relied on the cooperation and actions of others within the Nazi regime.
Another group responsible for the Holocaust was the Nazi hierarchy, including key figures such as Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich, and organisations like the SS and Einsatzgruppen. In Source B, it states Rudolf Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz, recounted, “The Fuhrer has ordered the Jewish question to be settled once and for all... Every Jew that we can lay our hands on is to be destroyed now, during the war, without exception”. Furthermore, Heydrich established the first Jewish ghetto and was chosen to administer the Final Solution at the Wannsee Conference which is stated in source E. Source B is from the memoirs of Rudolf Hoess, providing a firsthand account of orders received from Hitler. While Hoess' account is valuable for its quickness, it should be approached with caution due to potential biases or attempts to remove harshness from guilt. Source E, originating from a historical analysis, offers a researched overview of Heydrich's role, enhancing its reliability as a scholarly source. This shows they were responsible for the Holocaust because their actions and organisational skills were essential in transforming Hitler's genocidal vision into reality. While Hitler provided the ideological framework, the efficiency and dedication of Nazi officials like Himmler and Heydrich were crucial in executing the mass extermination, indicating a shared responsibility.
Another group indirectly responsible for the Holocaust was the bystanders, both within Germany and internationally, whose unbothered attitudes facilitated the genocide. In source C Martin Niemöller, a German pastor, poignantly illustrated this passivity: “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew...”. In source D A policeman testified in 1961, “I believed the propaganda that all Jews were criminals and subhumans... The thought that one should disobey or evade the order to participate in the extermination of the Jews did not enter my mind at all”. Source C, a poem by Martin Niemöller, reflects personal experiences and serves as a touching critique of society’s lack of empathy. Its reliability lies in Niemöller's firsthand experience, though its emotional tone may influence interpretation. Source D, a testimony from a policeman, offers insight into the mindset of ordinary Germans but should be critically evaluated for potential biases or attempts to shift blame. This shows they were responsible for the Holocaust because their passivity and acceptance of Nazi propaganda allowed the regime to operate without resistance. While bystanders did not actively participate in the genocide, their failure to oppose the Nazis contributed to the environment that made the Holocaust possible.
Another group indirectly responsible for the Holocaust was the Allies, whose delayed intervention and restrictive immigration policies exacerbated the situation for potential Holocaust victims. In source F Alan Farmer notes that the Allies, particularly Britain and the United States, made limited efforts to assist Jews, partly due to fears of a flood of Jewish immigrants and disbelief in the extent of the genocide. Source F, an adaptation from Alan Farmer's historical analysis, offers a scholarly critique of Allied responses to the Holocaust. Its reliability lies in Farmer's research, but interpretations may vary depending on historical context and biases. This shows they were responsible for the Holocaust because their actions and policies failed to lessen or halt the genocide when opportunities existed. While the primary focus of the Allies was defeating Nazi Germany, their insufficient response to the Holocaust underscores a shared responsibility.
In conclusion, while Adolf Hitler’s passion and dictatorial power were central to the Holocaust, the genocide was the result of factors simultaneously contributing by involving high-ranking Nazis, passive bystanders, and delayed actions by the Allies. Therefore, attributing sole responsibility to Hitler hides the broader collective actions that facilitated one of history's most horrific atrocities.
submitted by Round-Still400 to GCSE [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 18:21 dingbatthrowaway Sharing a little bit about California Jewish History

I did stumbled on this read about Californian specific Jewish history, which I found fascinating.
Here were my takeaways: - Jews were drawn to CA during the Gold Rush, and established in CA as early as 1849 - a notable chunk of the first Jewish Californians were American Sephardim who were already in the US! - Direct quote: “Jewish and civic communities developed overnight, with Jews as California's founders serving in leadership positions in the new multi-ethnic state. Without a Protestant hegemony and with little antisemitism, Jews and Jewish institutions flourished.” - By the end of the 1870s, San Francisco was where the largest Jewish population settled (this surprised me as it’s LA today!) - the Jewish population in CA increased dramatically post WW2
And this snippet:
“San Francisco's Jewish women, many the daughters and grand-daughters of the city's founders, were active in social, cultural, and philanthropic organizations. The Emanu-El Sisterhood for Personal Service, started in 1894, assisted East European immigrants and later established a settlement house for Jewish working girls. Hadassah formed a chapter in the state in 1917 to support its medical causes in Palestine, later Israel. California was also home to anti-Zionists who were active members in the American Council for Judaism , an organization committed to combating Jewish nationalism. Its large membership in California, especially San Francisco, may be attributed to an adherence to classical Reform and the view that California for them was the "Promised Land." After the establishment of the State of Israel, the community fully supported it.”
California as the Promised Land? 😏 This California Jew finds it hard to argue with.
submitted by dingbatthrowaway to JLC [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 18:09 MWBartko Considerations on Sexual Immorality, Gender Identity, and my friends Non-Denominational Church.

A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement and or reading recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.
submitted by MWBartko to Bible [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 18:06 MWBartko Considerations on Sexual Immorality, Gender Identity, and my friends Non-Denominational Church.

A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement and or reading recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.
submitted by MWBartko to Protestant [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 18:04 MWBartko Considerations on Sexual Immorality, Gender Identity, and my friends Non-Denominational Church.

A good friend of mine from a fairly conservative evangelical background is considering becoming a pastor at his non-denominational church. As part of the evaluation process, they asked him to write a paper on these topics that he is not an expert on.
He asked for my opinion and I offered to share it online to solicit constructive criticism, notes of encouragement, and or reading recommendations on these topics.
I believe his goal is to be faithful to the scriptures, loving to those outside the church, and challenging to those inside the church, as most of us could do better.
What he wrote is in the quotation marks below.
“1: Scope of the Issue
Sexual immorality has become a besetting and ubiquitous issue in our culture and in our churches. While many aspects of it are not novel or unique to this time and have clear scriptural input, there are others that bring challenges to our church for which we don’t have obvious precedent. The main point of these comments is to try and answer three questions with some degree of specificity: (1) how do we make ourselves a place where people who do not know Christ will feel welcome to come and learn of Him regardless of where they come from, (2) how do we pastorally care for people who have come in to the church with pre-existing circumstances related to sexual immorality, and (3) how do we equip our members to represent Christ to those in their lives that are dealing with these issues. We want to do this in a way that does not “walk a tight rope” or compromise to appease, but honors Scripture in its commands to both show compassion and exhort and correct. We must recognize that every individual circumstance is unique, and many will require careful and prayerful consideration, but this is meant to give a framework for that consideration.
2: Scriptural Basis for Corporate Response
There are many references we can point to that discuss and define sexual immorality throughout Scripture and many of these will be used below as we consider specific examples and situations. Let us start, however, by looking at passages that deal with corporate response rather than individual sin. It is clear that the Corinthian church had significant issues in this area, and much of Paul’s first letter was devoted to it. In chapter 5, Paul states that when sexual immorality is discovered in the church we should “mourn” over it and “not to associate with immoral people.” Importantly, he also makes clear in vv. 9-13 that these comments only apply to those “who bears the name of brother.” He explicitly writes, “not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world…for what have I to do with judging outsiders?” This is key in informing our response to those who are not members of the church. If it is our desire to see sinners come through our doors and come to know our Savior through our ministry, then we must be welcoming, accepting them where they are. This is not to say we hide or compromise the biblical position, but it is not an issue on which we want to filter people at the door. There are three categories of people in sexual sin that we need to form a response for. First, those just coming to the church who have not committed to it – these should be treated the same as any we are reaching out to with Christ’s love. They need Jesus, not behavioral change. Next, those who have recently joined the church but have pre-existing sexual sin patterns. This can and should be addressed with patience, dignity, and love. There are often many sin areas in the life of a new believer, and it is prudent to discern how and when to address each of them. Lastly, those who have been members in the church for some amount of time and fall into sexual sin. This is the group that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. While sex within marriage is a private issue, sexual sin cannot be a taboo topic. It needs to be addressed regularly and clearly. We need close enough relationships within the church that such problems do not fester in the dark. We must avoid the typical church pattern to vilify the first group, never see the second group, and pretend the third group doesn’t exist until it all blows up in scandal. May it never be.
3: Consistency Issue
There is a tendency in our Christian culture to treat some sexual sins as worse than others. Like the Corinthians, some things we seem to have accepted as just ubiquitous parts of our culture. Knowing the prevalence of promiscuity and fornication among teens and single adults and usage of pornography even within the church, we tend to address these as issues of indwelling sin, similar to anger or fear of man, with offers of accountability and understanding when someone falls. By contrast, when it comes to homosexuality or adultery, it is often a church discipline issue. We view homosexual marriage as a major problem, but remarriage after a non-biblical divorce is rarely addressed. These inconsistencies lead to stigmatization and polarization and should have no place in the church. The criterion for escalation should be unrepentance, not the nature of the sexual sin. It is clear from 1 Corinthians that all should be taken seriously, but none should be vilified above others.
4: Culture and Identity
The major underlying problem with many of the sexual sin and gender issues is that they have come to be culturally bound up with people’s identities. This is not a new phenomenon and is not unique to this issue. As far back as Acts 19, you see people becoming “enraged” because Paul had threatened the Ephesians’ cultural identity as worshipers of Artemis. People continue to find their primary identities in their employment, hobbies, sports teams, or families rather than Christ. None of these should be accepted, but none should be reviled either. If a person does not know Jesus, they are dead. How they identify themselves is of no concern. Once they have been made alive, they can be taught that “whose” they are is more important than “who” they are. All identity outside of Christ is not sinful, but if it takes paramount importance, it may become so. A person who recognizes a tendency toward same sex attraction may label themselves as gay or lesbian. This should not be considered a sin issue unless it becomes, for them, their defining characteristic or leads to sinful actions. We should recognize the difficulty of this struggle and support such a person rather than get hung up on labels. There must be clear distinction between identifying same sex attraction and engaging in homosexual behavior. These should be the guiding principles underlying everything that follows are regards individual cases.
5: Public Facing Information, Guests, and New Attendees
Considering what we have discussed, and Paul’s assertion in 1 Corinthians 5 that we ought to reserve judgment on sexual immorality to those we call brother, I would submit that public facing information regarding the church (i.e. website, app, etc) should not publish a position on sexual immorality, marriage, and gender identity. Doing so effectively places the filter at the door so that people who do not know Christ may be turned away from it. This is not tantamount to tacit approval. In appropriate contexts within the church, these topics should still be discussed and addressed, but I do not believe it is consistent with a biblical treatment of unbelievers to place it in a public facing forum. If we have guests or new regular attendees who appear to be engaged in a cohabitating or fornicating relationship, a homosexual relationship, or other sexual sin, this should not be a priority to address unless we have discerned that they are believers and join the church. Even then, it is important to draw a distinction between someone who deals with same-sex attraction and someone who engages in homosexual behavior. The next seven points are meant to discuss, in broad terms, how we should address those who join the church with pre-existing relationships or identity issues:
6: Promiscuity, Cohabitation – Hebrews 13:4, 1 Cor 7:1-2, Ex 22:16
Much of the biblical discussion on promiscuity is by inference. Clearly, sex was meant to be inseparably linked to marriage and outside of that context should be considered immoral. For those who join the church already in a sexual relationship who are unmarried we should apply Exodus 22:16 and encourage them to marry as soon as possible. If they do not wish to marry, they should be encouraged to separate. Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 7:2 that marriage is the best remedy for “temptation to sexual immorality.”
7: Adultery, Divorce and Remarriage – Matt 5:32, Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11
This issue is given much more explicit biblical instruction but is often glossed over in our Christian culture due to the messy landscape of divorces and remarriages. In cases where non-biblical divorce has occurred, if reconciliation is possible, this should be pursued. If reconciliation is impossible because one or more parties have remarried, it would not be sensible to divorce again in order to achieve reconciliation. The principle to apply here, I believe, is from 1 Cor 7:17-24 summarized in verse 20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” This is not an ideal circumstance, but it is the best way forward in an imperfect world. Of note, polygamy was common in the culture of the early church, and while not ideal, was accepted by the church, as evidenced by the qualifications for elder to be “a husband of but one wife.” We have polygamous cultures even within our local community and if they came to Christ, we should not counsel them to divorce all but one wife and thus disrupt their social structure. It is not ideal and would disqualify them from eldership, but they should remain as they are. Whether marriage after unbiblical divorce in the past disqualifies a man from eldership is a case-by case question for the eldership.
8: Pornography, Sensuality, and Lust – Lev 18:6-18, Matt 5:28
As mentioned above, use of pornography has reached a high saturation point within our culture and within our church. While once thought of as simply a male issue, there is a growing trend toward gender parity in pornography usage. It is an issue that should be discussed with some frequency within our church. For those that join the church and view pornography regularly, it needs to be made clear that while the world has largely destigmatized it, it is still sexual immorality. Furthermore, this isn’t just limited to nudity and pornography, but any sensuality that leads to looking at someone “with lustful intent” is the heart equivalent of adultery according to Matt 5:28. In our culture, it is not possible to avoid such things by just turning away. We need to address the heart issues of idolatry, selfishness, and satisfaction in Christ. Practically, how should we deal with those who have on-going struggles with pornography, sensuality and lust? Should this preclude them from eldership? From deaconship? Taken strictly, this would preclude nearly all men from eldership. These require individual evaluation from the elders, but a guiding principle should be, if the person is repentant and there is evidence of growth in their life, we should consider more responsibility and continued discipleship.
9: Homosexuality – Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:8-11
From the above references and others, it is evident that homosexual behavior is sexual sin. We cannot equivocate on that point. As we have discussed above, if a person who is already a believer and in the church and struggles with same sex attraction, we should approach them as we would handle anyone who is sexually attracted to someone to whom they are not married. If such a person decides that homosexuality is not sinful and begins sexually immoral activity, we should deal with them in the same way as any member who falls into unrepentant sin and go through the processes of correction and, if necessary, of church discipline. It is important that we draw a distinction between same sex attraction and homosexual behavior. We can do tremendous harm by demonizing same sex attraction and creating a taboo around it. A person who is struggling to abstain from homosexual behavior should be supported and encouraged. I believe Paul’s strong statements about not associating with sexually immoral people applies to those who remain unrepentant. Much more nuanced is the issue of how we address those that join the church already in a homosexual relationship. What about the married homosexual couple who join the church with their adopted child? Should we break up their family? I believe, in this case, the same principle should apply as to those who have gone through an unbiblical divorce in the past. We should apply 1 Cor 7:20: “Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” We can recognize that this is not ideal, but it is the best we can do in a fallen world just as we do with someone who is married after unbiblical divorce. Whether should apply to a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship who are not legally married would be an individual discussion with the elders. Again, these are nuanced cases that will need individual prayer, discussion, and discernment. I believe a great deal more patience is called for when a new believer joins the church that has a history or present reality of homosexuality, even if they are unrepentant at first, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, than we would demonstrate to a person who has been in the church for a period of time and then decides to pursue a homosexual relationship.
10: Bisexuality – Heb 13:4
Bisexual attraction is no more or less of an issue than anyone who finds that they are sexually attracted to someone other than their spouse. This is not a rare or unique circumstance, even within the church. Someone who is practicing bisexuality is, by definition, not confining sex to the marriage bed, and this, therefore, qualifies as sexual immorality. The issue, here again, is one of identity and cultural acceptance. If a person “identifies as bisexual,” the real issue is not the bisexuality, but the fact that they identify themselves primarily by their sexual desires, and not by Christ. It would be equally a problem if they “identified as heterosexual” and that was seen as their defining characteristic. If such a person were to join the church, our priority should be in helping them see their identity in Christ rather than focusing on renouncing their sexual preference.
11: Transgenderism/Non-binarism – Psalm 139: 13-15
It should be noted that the next two points should not be considered in the category of sexual immorality, but as they are connected to the same cultural moment will be discussed here. It should further be remarked that transgenderism is a modern issue with no direct reference in Scripture. It is a challenging issue that often falls prey to oversimplification and scapegoating. It is not sufficient to simply state that a person should identify with their born gender. There are those born with ambiguous genitalia and those born with sex chromosome abnormalities such that “born gender” is not necessarily accurate. These occur with a frequency of 1 in 448 births on average which is not particularly rare. The majority of people who consider themselves to be transgender do not fall into these categories, but the fact remains that these categories exist. Unless we plan to embark on genetic testing, we must be careful how we assert someone’s gender assignment. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that much of the gender confusion in our culture is due to a distortion of biblically accurate masculinity and femininity in our culture of which the church has been widely supportive for generations. Many transgender and non-binary individuals consider themselves so because they do not fit into the traditional boxes our culture has created for the genders. The church can start by recognizing that these boxes are incorrect. We can also acknowledge that gender differences and roles are far less important than most human cultures perceive. Christ himself challenged many gender norms in his ministry and Paul maintains “…there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28b) It is much more difficult to recognize this issue as a sin issue than many of the above concerns. If someone wishes to be addressed by different pronouns than they once did or dress differently than they once did, this does not amount to immorality. Once again, this can be an idolatrous identity issue if the person sees it as the central characteristic of their lives. There is often an inherent pride in asserting that such a person does not feel they fit in the body created for them, but if they come to love Jesus and understand and believe that they are “fearfully and wonderfully made” then this issue may become moot. Whether or not they revert to dressing differently or using pronouns they did when they were younger is largely immaterial. This also addresses the issue of people who may have undergone permanent physical changes. While we should not endorse such modification if it is being considered, there is no reason to reverse such a thing in order to return to a base state. We must recognize that this is a group that has a high propensity toward mental health concerns, instability, and suicidality. They need love, support and prayer, not scapegoating and extra-biblical expectations of conforming to a cultural norm. We must further note that this group as well as the homosexual group have often experienced psychological and even physical harm from others in our culture, sometimes in the name of Christ. We must foster an environment of champions physical and psychological safety for these people.
12: Asexuality – 1 Cor 7:25-38
Asexuality also should not be considered sexual immorality. There is, in fact, wide support in Paul’s letters such as in 1 Cor 7 for people, if they are able, to remain unmarried and be “anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” We tend to champion the model of the nuclear family in our Christian culture, but Paul sees chaste singleness as a better way. There should be no pressure from the church to make sure that single people pair off and get married because it is expected of them. As this state has been culturally identified with the LGBTQIA movement, it is seen on the same spectrum as the sexual immorality and gender issues discussed above, but it is not. It can still fall prey to the same issue of an idolatrous identity as some of the above issues, but it need not be so.
13: Glass Ceiling
In the event that God sees fit to bring people from these subgroups into our church, there would inevitably be a glass ceiling. The question is at what point. The four logical points are: regular attender, member, deacon, and elder. Regardless of their background or position, all should be welcome to be a regular attender. It is also clear, from the biblical requirements for eldership, that on-going problems or engagement in any of the sexual sins would disqualify them from that post. The middle two are less clear. I would submit that the bar for membership should be very low. This step, in my opinion, is when they would “bear the name of brother” and not before. Even if they disagree about the sinful nature of homosexuality, this should not disallow them from becoming members as long as they agree to submit to the churches position and not cause division. Allowing them to become members gives us the pastoral authority to speak into their lives, and we would hope that over time the Spirit would work in their hearts to convince them of the truth. Putting such a person in a deacon role would probably not be wise but would need to be evaluated prayerfully on a case-by-case basis. The difficulty here is that, while a position on homosexuality is not a salvific issue and should not be considered a core doctrine in the same way as the deity of Christ, for example, it is a sin issue. There is a limit to how far we can “agree to disagree” and still uphold our duty to root out sin in our midst. Once again, we should also distinguish between a struggle with same sex attraction and engagement in homosexual behavior when we consider our response. There is also a glass ceiling when it comes to marriage. While I believe we should not break up existing homosexual marriages, we should not participate in creating them. The marriage covenant between a man and woman was created, in part, to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph 5). This should not be co-opted to excuse or normalize immorality.
14: Nuance and Edge Cases
The above outline is by no means meant to be exhaustive or definitive. It is meant to provide a lens, supported by scripture, through which we can view these issues and consider corporate and pastoral responses. It should inform how we view the people that walk through the door from a wide range of backgrounds and how we equip those in our church to be Christ’s ambassadors to those in our community. Every person and circumstance, history and baggage will be different, and any non-nuanced position would be inherently evil. I pray we have many opportunities to talk, think and pray through specific situations that God would bless us with the chance to be a part of. What an honor it would be to be used to reach into broken lives like these with the Gospel of Grace.
15: Action Steps
As we consider practical and philosophical ways of responding to the above, I believe we should start from a position of corporate repentance. If we wish to truly reach out and touch the lives of broken people in need of a Savior who live a life of same sex attraction or gender dysphoria, we need to begin by recognizing that a great deal of harm, emotional and physical, has been inflicted on this group by the Church for generations. There are homeless people living in our area who were kicked out of their homes by parents holding a Bible. There are those who have been subjected to horrific methods that amount to torture under the guise of “Conversion Therapy” from Christian organizations. The only “conversion” we should concern ourselves with is to a regenerate heart. Attempting to change someone’s sexual attraction is very much beside the point. We cannot hope to be a place where such people can hear about Jesus unless they feel safe to enter our doors. We must also fight the tendency to consider sin in this area as something worse than others, even in non-Christians. James 2 says “…For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it….So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” As we consider corporate and pastoral responses to the argument above, we must start by removing our own planks and repenting for the historical actions of the Church.
Practical steps that we could consider taking would include: removing the statements from the website about marriage and sexuality, especially directly under our Core Beliefs. Again, this is not meant to hide or equivocate on the truth, but not to set such a barrier before someone even walks through our door. Secondly, we should consider how to address these topics within the church. A Sunday morning sermon is not ideal as it is time limited and a unidirectional conversation. A small group course format would be a consideration. We need to equip parents and family members of adolescents, teens, and adults with language to talk about these things in loving, humble, God-honoring ways. In the longer term, we need to consider how we can make our church a place where people would feel comfortable inviting friends and family who look, think and act differently than we do. We need to find a way of projecting safety and inclusion even in our public facing information. This isn’t a balancing act where we must make it clear early and often that we “love the sinner but hate the sin” as the saying goes. We just need to love the sinner. Dealing with the sin can come later God-willing. A third application point is to be mindful of what we say and what we allow to be said without being checked. Certainly, joking at the expense of those who are dealing with these issues is unacceptable, but we also need to work to avoid getting dragged in to pseudo-political discussions on bathroom issues, sports issues or other divisive concerns that have no bearing on the church.
I recognize that these proposals have the potential to divide the church. There are some who may leave the body over these sorts of changes. I would argue that it is our responsibility to them as well as to the unreached in our community to have those discussions and risk some of them leaving over it. These are not all things we should change overnight but after ample opportunities for discussions and prayer.
16: Conclusion – Mark 2:15-17
At its core, these are not issues of who someone loves, sexual attraction, or even specific sex acts. The core is idolatry and identity. When acceptance by others, self-determination, or physical pleasure become the central force driving our lives then we have become idolators. Though our idols take on different shapes, the struggles in this space are shared by all. Whether you are identified by your profession, your family, or your gender identity, you are not being identified by your Master. Building fences around or within the church because someone sins in a different way than us cannot be allowed. Making the excuse that we are somehow “protecting our children” by shielding them from people in our community who desperately need a Savior will not show our children who Jesus is. Within the church, we cannot be afraid to “speak the truth in love.” We need not and cannot shy away from sin in the church, but we must recognize that the Spirit works in each of our lives. Often this happens over a period of time. We should be prepared to walk alongside our brothers and sisters in this journey for as long as they need.
There is a significant correlation between this community and their relationship with religious groups, and the “tax collectors and sinners” that Jesus sought out in His ministry and their relationship with the religious leaders of the day. Our heart should reflect His. Jesus responded: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17) If our church was filled with transgender people and gay families that loved Jesus, God would be glorified.”
Thank you in advance for any constructive criticism, notes of encouragement and or reading recommendations on these topics that I can pass along.
submitted by MWBartko to Christianity [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 16:54 Big_Jon_Wallace The Case Against a Palestinian State

As the war in Gaza drags on, and casualty numbers continue to climb, it's becoming clear that the two state solution isn't going to work. With peace far away, we need to start discussing as a community the possibility that the Palestinians simply won't have their own state. Ironically, a lot of the same arguments the Palestinians and their allies have presented against Israel/Zionism can also be turned against them. I would like to lay out my case against a Palestinian state here. Consider the following:
  1. Palestine will be an theocratic oppressive undemocratic ethnostate. As stated in its Constitution, Palestine will not be a state for all its citizens but will explicitly and legally favor Arab Muslims and oppress everyone else. It will almost certainly follow its neighbors to become a dictatorship that repressive the civil rights of its people and will be especially cruel to minorities, including gays and women. If you don't believe me, just ask Salman Rushdie who reiterated this obvious truth just yesterday. A Palestinian state would also be racist and discriminatory against non-Palestinians, just like all nation states with a national character. What good liberal or leftist would support the creation of a state like that?
  2. Self-determination doesn't mean statehood. Palestinians, like all peoples, have the right of self-determination under international law. However, self-determination doesn't mean they necessarily get to have their own state to rule as they please. Just to take Wikipedia for example: "The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, nor what the outcome should be (whether independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or full assimilation), however, and the right of self-determination does not necessarily include a right to an independent state for every ethnic group within a former colonial territory." Link. Peter Beinart, a prominent ally of Palestine, argued that no state has the right to exist and that no one has a right to a state. If that is true for the Israelis, it must also be true the Palestinians do not have a "right" to their own state and it's not a violation of their rights for them not to get one. Which leads me to my next point:
  3. Not every group gets their own state. As Mehdi Hassan, arguing against Zionism in an Intelligence Squared debate pointed out, not every nation or national group has their own state or is realistically going to get one. The most notable group seeking statehood are the Kurds, but there are plenty of others like Catalonians, Rohinga, Nubians, Roma, and Tibetans. You may find this to be unjust, but the reality is that not every nation on earth can have independence and their own little ethnostate. There is no reason why Palestinians should be exempt from this. For them not to get their own state would simply be treating them as equal to those other groups, and again, it's not a violation of their rights.
  4. Statehood at the expense of others. Palestinians have often argued that Zionism is inherently unjust because it can only happen at the expense of the local Arabs, i.e. themselves. The same principle is now being applied in reverse: Palestinian nationalism has absolutely come at great cost to Israelis, as it has killed thousands of Israelis and cost the Israeli government billions of dollars. The Palestinians also want to create their own state in the historical ancestral Jewish homeland of Judea and Samaria, and insist that half a million Israelis must be expelled from their homes in order to accomplish this. Palestinian nationalism has also come at an even greater cost to Palestinians: tens of thousands have died in their fruitless quest to create an oppressive Arabist ethnostate. And that isn't even getting into the Jordanians and Lebanese who have been killed in Palestine-inspired civil wars. How many more will have to die before the toxic ideology known as Palestinian nationalism is abandoned in favor of alternative solutions?
  5. The Palestinians are safe and better treated elsewhere. This is again echoing what pro-Palestinians say about Israelis. The simple reality is that one of the least safe places for a Palestinian to be in the world right now is in Palestine, especially in Gaza. The Palestinians will tell us every day how mean and awful and evil the Israeli occupation is to them. The logical solution then, since negotiating a peace treaty doesn't seem to be working out, is for the Palestinians to go elsewhere where they are treated better! Palestinians are getting along perfectly well in the United States and Chile. They are mistreated in the Arab states like Jordan and Lebanon, but clearly their lives are better there than under the genocidal Zionist bootheel. They already live in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, and it is the obligation of the international community to resettle refugees where they are safe (i.e. not Palestine). So it seems to me that the clear solution is to give up on the idea of Palestinian nationalism and start thinking about performing a population transfer to another country where the Palestinians can get along as a well treated minority with equal rights. And if you think that's ethnic cleansing, let me remind you that as I said above the Palestinians insist that half a million Israelis be expelled from their homes in order to create a Palestinian state. So it seems like what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
So with this in mind, it is clear to me that the international community needs to come out against a Palestinian state and begin pressuring the Palestinian people to give up their pursuit of the dangerous, toxic ideology known as Palestinian nationalism. What do you think?
submitted by Big_Jon_Wallace to lonerbox [link] [comments]


2024.05.21 16:37 IkazuchiRaikou CisHet Branding Ideas

CisHet Logo:
CisHet Flag:
Slogans:
Beliefs Of The CisHet:
CisHet Anthem:
"I swear by my might, I swear by might, homosexuality will go away..."
CisHet's Rally Cry:
"The six stripes are going down, homophobes are number one!"
Subscription Services:
CisHet Website:
Sections: About Us, News, Blogs, Stories, Events
Miscellaneous Content: CisHet Memes, CisHet Poems, CisHet Stories, CisHet Songs (AI generated Anti-LGBTQ songs), CisHet Rants, CisHet Chibi (Homophobic gacha images), CisHet Transracism (Hate towards Transracials/RCTA Community), CisHet Voyage (Articles about Anti-LGBTQI2+ Countries such as Malaysia, Poland and Russia).
News Anchor:
Education:
Religion:
Muslims, Christians, Atheists, etc. unite against LGBTQI2+. If someone reads the Quran or the Bible, they will be rewarded by being homophobic. Additionally, CisHet is Pro-Palestine and votes for Trump.
Goals:
Destruction of Hindu temple (To express how much we hate LGBTQI2+).
Conversion therapy.
CisHet workshops.
Allies:
Superstraight, Homophobes, Homophobic Dog, Fetrah, TrueCisgender, AntiTransPolitics and ExLGBT.
Enemies: Nimrod, Osama Bin Laden, Judith Butler, Hitler, Thamud, Abu Lahab, Pharoah, Stalin, Kim Jong Un, Rebecca, UmbraDoodles, Joe Biden, Travis Scott and XXTentacion.
CisHet Clothing & Mug Ideas:
Reasons To Be Cishet:
submitted by IkazuchiRaikou to Homophobes_ [link] [comments]


http://activeproperty.pl/