LGBTQ the Modern day racism and sexism

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, & Queer rights and the Church’s response:
The Modern day racism and sexism?

It was a little more than 100 years ago that women started fighting to be seen as something other than property, something other than dirt, something other than slaves of men. And it was about 50ish years ago that blacks fought for and won their equality. We look back on these moments in history as a grand thing that we as a society are PROUD of!!! But the people that lived through that time DID NOT look at those days in such a favorable way. Especially the church! So in 50-100 years, how are we going to look back and view the LGBTQ rights movement of our modern era? Gee… could the church be wrong once again? OMG, are we about to see yet ANOTHER change in theology, and the church backtrack ONCE AGAIN on what it has been shoving down our throats for years? I’d wager: YES!

I’ve recently had several conversations with individuals where I lined out the parallels between the women’s rights movement, the black rights movement, and our modern LGBTQ! Their response was nothing more than “The difference is that the bible is very clear that homosexuality is wrong. It’s right there in black and white!” ok, but like I just pointed out to them, and what they chose to ignore is the fact that THE CHURCH USED THE BIBLE AGAINST WOMEN AND BLACKS TOO!!! It was right there in the bible in black and white… and guess what? There were more passages against women and blacks than are used today for the church’s argument against gays!

THE FACTS:

WOMEN’S SUFFERAGE

The bible WAS used by the church to fight women’s rights. You can argue that all you want. But you can NOT argue against documented history and letters and writings from Protestant Clergy. If you try to, then you are far more ignorant than I ever gave you credit for!

Ok, so you are challenging me asking “ok, big shot… the bible is clear on homosexuality, but what are the passages used by the church to vehemently argue against women’s rights?

Colossians 3:18: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:7-12 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
I Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but to be under obedience, as also sayeth the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
2 Timothy 3:1-7 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands….
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in everything.
1 Timothy 2:11-14 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
I Corinthians 11:3,4,7-9 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. … he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Exodus 21:2,7: If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Leviticus 12:1,2,5: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days

WOW, that’s a lot! The theology used in those days was basically that: The power of woman is in her dependence, flowing from the consciousness of that weakness which God has given her for her protection, and which keeps her in those departments of life that form the character of individuals and of the nation. The Old Testament treated women and slaves (especially female slaves) like non-citizens while the New Testament told women to submit to men, obey their husbands and shut their mouths when told. According to the Bible, woman was created for man.

Below in an excerpt from the New York Herald, Tuesday, October 29, 1850 [pg 4]

“The Worcester Fanatics- -Progress of Socialism, Abolition, and Infidelity.”

“It is the philosopher’s omnibus bill–it is the putting all in a lump the several experiments of reform of the Tribune reformers, with a good deal of new matter, new principles, and fundamental ideas, as put forth on the platform of the Woman’s Rights Convention, recently held in Worcester. Let the world rejoice. Lucretia Mott, Abby Kelly, Garrison, Phillips, Mrs. Rose, Fred. Douglas, Sojourner Truth, and the Widow Mercy, sitting in council day and night, backed up, heart and soul, by our glorious Greeley, have solved the problem of the age. They have squared the circle of society, and resolved the arcana of its perpetual motion. From our published reports of the proceedings, the speeches, the declarations, and the resolutions of the Worcester Convention, it will be seen that their platform is made up of all the timbers of all the philosophers and spiritual advisers of the Tribune, founded upon the strong pillars of abolition, socialism, amalgamation and infidelity, compassing all the discoveries in heaven and earth.
The new dispensation of Lucretia Mott and the philosophers, proposes:
1. To dispense with Christianity and the Bible. After an experiment of nineteen centuries, they declare the system to be a humbug.
2. To abolish the existing political and social system of society as part of the false machinery of the age.
3. To put all races, sexes and colors upon a footing of perfect equality. The convention having proved by phrenology and biology that, the sexes are equal in point of intellect, and that color is a mere difference of complexion, it is proposed to abolish the only distinction of sex by a universal adoption of breeches.
Most assuredly, this grand reformation involves, as incidentals, the abolition of slavery, black and white, the doctrine of amalgamation to its fullest extent, fun and refinement, as was never dreamed of, even by Davis, in his revelations, or by Graham, from the inspiration of bran bread and turnips. The philosophers of the Tribune have, therefore, published the Worcester platform in the capacity of the official organ of this tremendous reformation. Old things are to be done away with, and all things are to become new. Seward is to be sustained, and [President Millard] Fillmore is only to be tolerated till the advent of the new dispensation, when Lucretia Mott, Abby Kelly, Douglas, Greeley and Sojourner Truth are to rule the roost. Then, and not till then, shall we realise the jubilee of the Devil and his angels.”

Here is a Pastor’s letter:

“We invite your attention to the dangers which at present seem to threaten the female character with wide-spread and permanent injury.

The appropriate duties and influence of women are clearly stated in the New Testament. Those duties and that influence are unobstrusive and private, but the souce of mighty power. When the mild, dependent, softening influence of woman upon the sterness of man’s opinions is fully exercised, society feels the effects of it in a thousand forms. The power of woman is in her dependence, flowing from the consciousness of that weakness which God has given her for her protection, and which keeps her in those departments of life that form the character of individuals and of the nation.

There are social influences which females use in promoting piety and the great objects of Christian benevolence which we cannot too highly commend. We appreciate the unostentatious prayers and efforts of woman in advancing the cause of religion at home and abroad:–in Sabbath-schools, in leading religious inquirers to the pastors for instruction, and in all such associated effort as becomes the modesty of her sex; and earnestly hope that she may abound more and more in these labors of piety and love.

But when she assumes the place and tone of man as a public reformer, our care and protection of her seem unnecessary; we put ourselves in self-defence against her; she yields the power which God has given her for protection, and her character becomes unnatural. If the vine, whose strength and beauty is to lean upon the trellis-work and half conceal its clusters, thinks to assume the independence and the overshadowing nature of the elm, it will not only cease to bear fruit, but fall in shame and dishonor into the dust.

We cannot, therefore, but regret the mistaken conduct of those who encourage females to bear an obtrusive and ostentatious part in measures of reform, and countenance any of that sex who so far forget themselves as to itinerate in the character of public lecturers and teachers.

We especially deplore the intimate acquaintance and promiscuous conversation of females with regard to the things “which ought not to be named”; by which that modesty and delicacy which is the charm of domestic life, and which constitutes the true influence of woman in society, is consumed, and the way opened, as we apprehend, for degeneracy and ruin. We say these things, not to discourage proper influences against sin, but to secure such reformation as we believe in Scriptural, and will be permanent.”

Now, fast forward to modern day. The Church not only changed its theology on women to “Equal but different” and of course now we are seeing women teaching in the churches and holding leadership positions! But the church tries to paint a picture that the women’s sufferage movement was actually a protestant movement!!!

(Gee, this kinda sounds like what “christians” always do! Lie to make things into their idea! Kinda like all their holidays!!!)

Now, some churches do still see women holding leadership roles in the church as unacceptable, the majority of the Christian religion does not actually have a problem with it. My, oh my how the times have changed! In the late 1800s and early 1900s God made it very clear that women were NOT equal with men, and must remain silent when told to, etc, etc. Women were made FOR men, and to serve men. But in our modern era, God has apparently changed his mind!

ABOLITION

Scriptures used to back Slavery:

Exodus 21:2-11: If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Exodus 21:20-21: When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Leviticus 25:44-46: However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
2 Timothy 2:9: Exhort slaves to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
Collosians 3:22: Slaves, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;
Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

All denominations were in agreement when it came to abolishment of slavery. People could be owned and treated as property. God can give people as property just as much as he can give a chair as property. There are thousands of letters from churches stating their official stance. So many so, that I can’t put them all in here, so I’m just going to offer up a few that sum up the sentiment of all the denominations.

In 1835, The Charleston Baptist Association addressed a memorial to the legislature of South Carolina, which contains the following:

“The undersigned would further represent, that the said association does not consider that the holy scriptures have made the fact of slavery a question of morals at all. The Divine Author of our holy religion, in particular, found slavery a part of the existing institutions of society; with which, if not sinful, it was not his design to intermeddle, but to leave them entirely to the control of men. Adopting this, therefore, as one of the allowed arrangements of society, he made it the province of his religion only to prescribe the reciprocal duties of the relation. The question, it is believed, is purely one of political economy. It amounts, in effect, to this, Whether the operatives of a country shall be bought and sold, and themselves become property, as in this State; or whether they shall be hirelings, and their labor only become property, as in some other States: In other words, whether an employer may buy the whole time of laborers at once, of those who have a right to dispose of it, with a permanent relation of protection and care over them, or, whether he shall be restricted to buy it in certain portions only, subject to their control, and with no such permanent relation of care and protection. The right of masters to dispose of the time of their slaves has been distinctly recognized by the Creator of all things, who is surely at liberty to vest the right of property over any object in whomsoever he pleases. That the lawful possessor should retain this right at will, is no more against the laws of society and good morals, than that he should retain the personal endowments with which his Creator has blessed him, or the money and lands inherited from his ancestors, or acquired by his industry. And neither society, nor individuals, has any more authority to demand a relinquishment, without an equivalent, in the one case, than in the other. As it is a question purely of political economy, and one which in this country ii reserved to the cognizance of the State Governments severally, it is further believed, that the State of South Carolina alone [Ed. Note: a false claim] has the right to regulate the existence and condition of slavery within her territorial limits; and we should resist to the utmost every invasion of this right, come from what quarter and under whatever pretense it may.

HARMONY PRESBYTERY OF SOUTH CAROLINA:

“Whereas, sundry persons in Scotland and England, and others in the north, east, and west of our country, have denounced slavery as obnoxious to the laws of God, some of whom have presented before the general assembly of our church, and the Congress of the nation, memorials and petitions, with the avowed object of bringing into disgrace slave-holders, and abolishing the relation of master and slave:”

“And whereas, from the said proceedings, and the statements, reasonings, and circumstances connected therewith, it is most manifest that those persons ‘know not what they say, nor whereof they affirm;’ and with this ignorance discover a spirit of self-righteousness and exclusive sanctity,”

Therefore, 1. Resolved,

“That as the kingdom of our Lord is not of this world, His church as such has no right to abolish, alter, or effect any institution or ordinance of men, political or civil,”

2. Resolved: “That slavery has existed from the days of those good old slave-holders and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (who are now in the kingdom of heaven,) to the time when the apostle Paul sent a run-away home to his master, Philemon, and wrote a Christian and fraternal letter to this slave-holder, which we find still stands in the canon of the Scriptures and that slavery has existed ever since the days of the Apostle, and does now exist.”

3. Resolved: “That as the relative duties of master and slave are taught in the Scriptures, in the same manner as those of parent and child, and husband and wife, the existence of slavery itself is not opposed to the will of God; and whosoever has a conscience too tender to recognize this relation as lawful, is ‘righteous over much,’ is ‘wise above what is written,’ and has submitted his neck to the yoke of men, sacrificed his Christian liberty of conscience, and leaves the infallible word of God for the fancies and doctrines of men.”

CHARLESTON UNION PRESBYTERY:

“It is a principle which meets the views of this body, that slavery, as it exists among us, is a political institution, with which ecclesiastical judicatories have not the smallest right to interfere; and in relation to which, any such interference, especially at the present momentous crisis, would be morally wrong and fraught with the most dangerous and pernicious consequences. The sentiments which we maintain, in common with christians at the South of every denomination, are sentiments which so fully approve themselves to our consciences, are so identified with our solemn convictions of duty, that we should maintain them under any circumstances.”

Resolved,

“That in the opinion of this Presbytery, the holding of slaves, so far from being a SIN in the sight of God, is nowhere condemned in his holy word; that it is in accordance with the example, or consistent with the precepts of patriarchs, apostles, and prophets, and that it is compatible with the most fraternal regard to the best good of those servants whom God may have committed to our charge; and that, therefore, they who assume the contrary position, and lay it down as a fundamental principle in morals and religion, that all slave-holding is wrong, proceed upon false principles.”

Ellen White’s words given to her by God
(Ellen White was a prolific author and was a major voice of “christians” during her life)

It is Satan’s plan to call minds to the study of the color line. If his suggestions are heeded, there will be diversity of opinion and great confusion. No one is capable of clearly defining the proper position of the colored people. Men may advance theories, but I assure you that it will not do for us to follow human theories. So far as possible the color line question should be allowed to rest.” (Testimonies for the Church, Volume Nine, page 213 paragraph 4-page 214 paragraph 0.)

Ok, you get the picture. After abolishment of slavery finally won, the later repression of freed black slaves received just as much biblical and Christian support as slavery itself. One of the passages used was the “sin of Ham” or “the curse of Canaan.”

We read in Genesis, chapter nine, that Noah’s son Ham comes upon him sleeping off a drinking binge and sees his father naked. Instead of covering him, he runs and tells his brothers. Shem and Japheth, the “good” brothers, return and cover their father. In retaliation for Ham’s “sinful act” of seeing his father nude, Noah puts a curse on his grandson (Ham’s son) Canaan: ?Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers” (Gen 9:25).

Over time, this curse came to be interpreted that Ham was literally “burnt,” and that all his descendants had black skin, marking them as slaves with a convenient color-coded label for subservience. When and how this gained widespread acceptance is questionable, but anti-slavery religious and political leaders have worked to refute it for more than a century. Today, biblical scholars note that the ancient Hebrew word “ham” does not have to be translated as “burnt” or “black” – but there is unfortunately little consensus on how the name and passage should be interpreted. Further complicating matters is the position of some Afrocentrists that Ham, although not actually cursed (despite what the Bible says!) was indeed black, as were many other characters in the Bible. Once again, people end up reading the passage as supporting their own racial assumptions.

In addition to this, there was a small movement you may have heard of called the Klu Klux Klan. This movement was actually fueled by the Protestants. Many Klansmen were not only members of churches, but the leaders of the klan, were actually members of leadership and clergy in churches and national governing bodies of denominations.

Too few people realize that the KKK was founded as a Christian organization and still sees itself in terms of defending true Christianity. Especially in the earliest days, Klansmen openly recruited in churches (white and segregated, of course), attracting members from all strata of society, including the clergy.

Although Klan ceremonies have varied greatly, one common form will include an American flag, a cross, and a Bible opened to Romans 12, exhorting christians to “godly conduct, godly nature.” Also common is a sword representing the war against all enemies of the Christian life an the American “Christian Nation.” Opening and closing prayers may often include “The living Christ is a Klansman’s criterion of character.” The origin of a burning cross is unclear – it may stem from the ancient Scottish tradition of burning a cross on a hill to call together the clans, or it may be representative of spreading the light of the True Cross in an effort to promote Christian faith.

So, why does the KKK burn the cross then? Isn’t that sacrilegious? Well, the official stance of the KKK was: “As a constant reminder that CHRIST is our criterion of character, and his teachings our rule of life blood bought, holy, sanctified and sublime.” And remember, the KKK was not a small movement of people, so you can’t really say “oh well they were just a small group of people that called themselves “christian” but really weren’t “christian.” You can’t say that because it was in fact a huge movement! And a HUGE chunk of the “christian” faith. That TRULY thought they were right, and had God on their side. And you can’t really discount someone as non-christian just because they don’t adhere to YOUR principals… If you maintain that argument, then NOONE in the world is a “real christian.” Because not every “christian” agrees.

But now, if you fast forward to our modern age, slavery and racism are despised by the church! …well, most of them at least (see pic to the left)… All men are equal. (Unless the black man wants to marry a white woman… of course then that changes things a little bit, as God doesn’t want us to mix the races, but merely live in harmony… that one hasn’t been fully worked out by God just yet I guess…) but I digress. Well, you get the picture. “christians” and their church have always used the bible, and “god” to back up their personal beliefs… but then of course God changes his mind after society changes.

So taking all of this evidence into account, I fail to see how the church’s stance on LGBTQs is any different than the sexist church of the late 1800s early 1900s, or the racist church of the 1920s through 1960s. How will society and the church view the LGBTQ rights movement in 100 years? The evidence suggests that they’ll probably view it in the same light as the gender and race equality movements. And I would wager that ONCE AGAIN, the church’s theology will change, and they’ll even try to make it look like the church even was the one pushing hard for LGBTQ equal rights!

LESBIAN, GAY BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, & QUEER RIGHTS

The Verses utilized by “christians”:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

Wow… yeah, it does sound like pretty damning evidence that God hates homosexuals… but there are MANY arguments as to how these verses are being used either out of context, or simply interpreted wrong. Gee, that sounds kinda like all the verses for racism and sexism, and how the modern church views their old use is out of context or misinterpretation. Not to mention there is actual manuscript evidence and PROOF that biblical texts have been altered. Oh, and what about Authorship? We still have no clue who wrote Mark or Acts, and other books are debated about as well. How exactly did the counsel of Trent decide what books should be included? Oh yeah… by majority vote. That doesn’t sound at all like a group of elites trying to control the masses! And why did they wait 1500 years to put the canon together? And then there’s the matter of Paul. Dude had a hallucination, then wrote a majority of the Old Testament… hmmm… pretty sure Joseph Smith did that exact same thing with the Mormon Religion. “christians” maintain that the Mormons are crazy! Umm, Hello “christians”, have you read your bible lately? The Mormon story isn’t any crazier than yours! Oh yeah, and remember the 1 Corinthians verse I cited above? “christians” love to stop right there at that verse… because the VERY NEXT VERSE also states: 1 Corinthians 6:11 – “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” But that doesn’t help their argument to much, so they just decide to stop there, and not continue to that verse.

“What homosexuals and homosexuality are, is an evil abomination in the eyes of God, a blemish on the face of God’s creation.”

If homosexuality is such a huge deal to God, and such a horrid abomination, why didn’t Jesus ever mention it? Not one time does he mention how homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of heaven! He did specifically mention selling all your things and giving to the poor, he did mention riches on earth, he did mention judging others, he did chastise people for thinking they were better than other people. Jesus mentioned a LOT of abominable subjects specifically. But he never touched on homosexuality… not ONE time. Paul is the only NT writer condemning homosexuals, Paul was also never married, Paul also talked a lot about a “thorn” in his side… This “secret sin” he had… was Paul a closeted self-loathing homosexual? Lol… that would be funny if the only reason that “christians” hate homosexuals is because Paul hated himself and decided to stand against it? Meh, I don’t know, nor do you. It’s fun to think about, but it doesn’t matter… but the main point is: that out of all the things Jesus took issue with, VEHEMENTLY spoke out against, and named with specificity, he NEVER once mentioned homosexuality! But yet he hates it right? I’m raising the bullshit flag on that argument… the conclusion does not make any logical sense when one looks at the premises.

I could offer up many arguments for homosexuality, but that’s not at all the point of this blog.

You see, just like with everything else in life, history, pop-culture, etc, the “christian” religion wants to have complete control over ALL people and their actions. They have no other motive. They pretend they are concerned about your “ever-living soul.” They act all nice to your face, but as soon as you turn your back, they turn on you, condemn you, gossip about you, and just plain old plot against you! If you don’t believe and act EXACTLY as they line out, you are basically a heretic! Oh, god forbid I ever challenge the religious status-quo (even though Jesus did that his whole life). But do that today and “christians” react in the EXACT SAME WAY that the Pharisees and Sadducees did when Jesus challenged them! Coincidence? I think not! The Pharisees and Sadducees controlled everything; Christians control their “sheep.” Neither group wants to lose this control, and yes! It is ALL about the control, otherwise there wouldn’t be such a dogmatic opposition to their opponents. They see any little tiny difference of opinion as a “threat” and they react accordingly! If they weren’t threatened, they would not take such a huge issue with it. If they ran the government, they would put you to death for not conforming to their ways. Hell they’ve been in charge of governments in the past, and that is EXACTLY what they DID do!

Oh, and guess what America, you need to wake the FUCK up cause right now, they are trying to go against America’s constitution and everything this nation was founded upon so they can take over the American government too! Then they can REALLY control you! (Yeah, they don’t want to obey that whole “obey the law of the land” thing) They like to use the bible when it benefits them, but ignore the shit that hinders their agenda!

People in General are selfish, and most all people just want power and control. The really clever ones use religion to attain this power and control! So you see, “christians” ARE the 21st Century Pharisees and Sadducees! (https://boggsism.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/the-21st-century-pharisees-and-sadducees/)

IN CONCLUSION

Basically, I’ve laid out all this evidence before you, and went on this diatribe purely to show you how, indeed, the modern day LGBTQ rights movement right now and the condemnation from the “christians” of the world is nothing new. We’ve seen it at LEAST twice before. As you can see, the parallels are quite compelling. “christians” demand that their opinions are ULTIMATE TRUTH! God is unchanging and unshakable! Truth is Truth, and that’s just how it is! Ok… well it’s VERY evident your “truth” changes with culture. “christian” theology changes over time. This either makes you a liar because you know your “truth” is not “truth”, or means that you are simply mistaken about what “truth” is, or simply means that your “truth” is not “truth” but merely subjective opinion. I opt to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that it’s number 3. Unfortunately some people are actually in that first category, and are pulling the wool over your eyes to force you into category 3. Our modern world is NO different than 100 years ago when theology changed about women, and 50 years ago when theology changed about black people.

Chances are that you don’t have it all totally figured out! At least give room for the possibility that you could be misinformed! “christians” have been wrong before, maybe they’re wrong again. There IS a possibility of this! Stop being so damn arrogant to think that you have it all figured out!

More than likely, the theology on LGBTQ rights will change as the culture changes. It’s happened before, and it will happen again. And in 50 or 100 years, it will be the church that pushed for LGBTQ rights and the church will have lead the LGBTQ rights movement. Just hide and watch!

…and they my friends, are what is wrong with our world!

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “LGBTQ the Modern day racism and sexism

  1. Very well done.
    Now, I’ll admit – the heathen in me loves the first picture you attached & find it rather stimulating. So, needless to say, as with both of my divorces, I won’t be getting (i.e. inheriting) shit from the kingdom……..

    The common thread, as I see it, is men – predominantly white, greedy, powerful men taking every opportunity they can to keep everyone under their thumb. With so many differences in all of the religions being practiced, that one similarity seems to hold true in all of their faiths. I do hope that, as time goes by, it’s more accepted to NOT be biased against someone for any reason other than the fact that the person’s a waste of space due to character flaws & that it becomes “cool” to be open minded. Those with open minds & hearts still catch too much hell from the other side of the ballpark, which I think is why so many choose to remain silent. Fear of what others might think keeps too many in the closet but the tides are turning, slowly, but surely.

  2. Pingback: The bible and LGBTQ « boggsism

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: