Friday, July 2, 2021

Same sex attraction and celebate Christians

To be blunt, I don't care.  I don't particularly care what your sinful desires happen to be.  We all have them.  We all have temptations.  We all struggle with temptations.  On our better days, we overcome them.  Some heroic believers actually find ways to live a life without succumbing to their greater temptations, and more power to them.  If that's the case here, then hats off.  

What many believers don't do, however, is jump up on a table, proclaim our temptations to the world, and then seem to expect ... something?  What?  Kudos?  Praise and adoration?  Treatment as if we're the only people in history to overcome sin?  I don't know.

I do reject the post-Freudian basis of the entire Sexual Revolution, as well as its chief offspring the LGBTQ movement. That is, the idea that beyond all other things we are first and foremost defined by our sexuality.  I feel that would probably seem strange to even the most sexually broad cultures in history up until the 19th Century.  Nor do I see how embracing that view has benefited humanity over the last century or so.

Likewise, I reject the idea common in the Sexual Revolution/AIDS Era that, unlike food, water and oxygen, we must have sex at all times or we'll end up like Belloq at the end of Raiders of he Lost Ark

I also don't imagine the entire LGBTQ community is a giant monolith of clones.  I actually believe the reasons why people have various desires and attractions and identities might just be varied and complex, and sometimes different for different people.  As much as I risk offending the sensitivities of the progressive prophet Lady Gaga, I mean I don't think everyone with various non-heterosexual desires and identities are necessarily 'born that way.' 

Furthermore, I reject the idea that history is defined by Group A oppressing Group B, and in this case no Jew in Auschwitz ever experienced true terrors of hate and evil like a wealthy celebrity in Hollywood who has same sex attraction.  Or at least this template is true for now when convenient; subject to change at a moment's notice when no longer convenient. 

Oh, and I also believe gender exists and sexuality and childbirth are somehow related. Call me a radical. 

As for the young woman above, I couldn't care less what her inner temptations are.  Nor upon hearing of them, since she apparently insists we all hear of them, do I define her by those temptations.  May God not treat us as we increasingly treat ourselves in order to justify aligning with the catastrophes of modern progressive agendas and ideologies. 

Whatever her struggles or anyone's struggles are, that's for them.  If she seeks help and openness about her struggles with others, then there are times and places for that.  If she didn't run about declaring her desires and attractions, however, people would have no reason to think anything about her.  After all, if she's celibate it's not as if she's out sexually involved with women or marrying them or anything.  

Yet this is, and has been, a common tactic among progressives for years.  Jump up, kick down our doors, declare something new to be true, insist we all think about that something the way they insist we think about it, and then accuse us of somehow imposing our values on them or judging them if we don't.  It's stupid and false, and yet I've seen it used for decades to devastating effect. 


  1. Sin cannot be in the presence of God. Trying to bring it to him would be like trying to throw a cup of mud onto the sun. You won't darken the star, the mud will just be consumed and burned away.

    I often want to ask modern folk, imagine your sin being burned away by God's Holy Presence. What would be left standing? So many seem to define themselves by their sin, it almost seems like there would be nothing else left standing if it was all burned away.

    1. I get the feeling that those who insist the Church has been wrong about such topics imagine that it has been wrong about a great many other topics as well.

  2. Homosexuality among men and women is correlated with exhibitionism. You shouldn't be giving people positive feedback for that.

  3. "I'm tempted to bash your head in, but notice how by my great restraint I am not doing it."

    "You know, honey, I find the babysitter really, really attractive. I can't keep her out of my mind. But no worries; I'm not cheating on you."

    "By the way, colonel, the other day I was thinking how easily I could smuggle a USB drive past security -- I have thought out the perfect plan -- and how much the Chinese might pay me for the files I could provide them. Didn't do it, of course."

    1. Absolutely spot on. The problem I see is the same I saw among mainline Protestant denominations, in which they drew lines between the modern acceptable sins, and yet condemned certain sins still condemned by the left. I kid you not, there were some who would condemn you for leaving your wife - unless they found out you left her for a gay lover. Then it was fine. Even heroic. So your above examples might work, but might not, depending on the demographic group in question.

    2. Liberal discourse, whether or not it makes use of a religious idiom, is ultimately a discussion of status as determined by the word-merchant element. There are liberals who do not think this way, but they are a relict set. Deviance trumps normality, the interests and viewpoints of women trump those of men, blacks trump everyone else, hispanics trump everyone but blacks, Orientals and East Indians trump whites (FWIW), and so forth. Homosexuals and feminists have now been shoved down a notch in favor of 'trans-sexuals' and Jews have seen their status lowered as well. Everything turns on who you're evaluating and who you are.

      Note, in ordinary discourse (from which mainline protestants do not dissent), when a woman initiates a divorce de facto or de jure, it's treated as a weather event. Popular culture and mass entertainment focus on the man who abandons his wife and children, even though that scenario is the least common among modes of family dissolution. Critics of the culture of evangelical congregations (e.g. Mr. Dalrock) maintain that the assumptions of the evangelical chatterati and clergy do not differ from those of the secular culture on this point, they just make use of an evangelical idiom in elucidating upon it.

    3. I was thinking more about how it is very often a really, really bad idea to talk openly and in detail about temptations. At its best, this will plant suspicions and damage trust. At its worst, it is floating an option to see if it will be condemned or condoned. Most people know that, at least in certain situations. Regardless of how you feel about censorship, part of growing up is developing an internal censor that keeps you from blurting out every thought that crosses your mind.

    4. Speaking of which, this was passed on to me by a friend.


Let me know your thoughts