Aaha.

I see that you have a special interest in your interpretation. (And I think that's understandable.)

At the same time, your interpretation is likely to be rooted in your particular worldview. For example, your belief that you were "born gay". That's a belief you've embraced and accepted, isn't it? Then that's going to inform and shape your interpretation of many things, including scripture or that the idea that there is something wrong (unnatural, fallen, etc), or not wrong, with homosexuality.

Without going into too much detail, my own interpretations of scripture likewise are rooted in and/or are impacted by the worldview that I have. In my estimation, that worldview is grounded in and verified (supported and upheld) by scripture. Naturally, otherwise I would change it, as I affirm that scripture is an expression of God's truth. (And, I won't really elaborate on that here, as it would divert a lot from what I think are the important points your response raises.)

But aside from all of that, you bring an anecdotal argument, which I think isn't really evidence. It's a very different matter, even if the two are connected in some way.

This is a topic that requires a lot of discussion of some of the issues are to be satisfactorily (imo) addressed. But as an example (or starting point), I would put it that any Christian who insists that God hates gays has a deeply flawed view of God and truth, or scripture. It's axiomatic that God hates the sin but loves the sinner.

I would also put it out there that such people are in almost all cases (if not all) projecting their own flawed inner world on what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as an easy target. Thus, they point at the sin in their brother's (or sisters) eye, as a means to ignore, or indulge in, denial of their own.

Projecting one's own flaws, faults, inner conflicts etc, onto others is always going to generate severe problems. It multiples the problems, instead of restoring them.

But none of this means that homsexual behavior isn't sinful or not a sin. Projection in and of itself doesn't prove or mean that the target of the projection is faultless. But the practice of diverting attention (self attention or otherwise) from oneself by focusing on something going on in others, that's always problematic, and irresponsible in nature. Hence, Jesus admonition about logs and twigs.

....

Many of these people react

Yes, I very well understand the dynamic of "if God hates me, well then, I'm going to hate God" which is essentially "If God rejects me, then I'm going to reject God". But there are several faults or flaws here.

One, is God rejecting the person, or is the judgemental believer rejecting the person? The obvious answer is that it's the second.

Another problem is identification with behavior or impulses. Aka, I feel same sex attraction therefore "I AM a homosexual". A person takes on such a classification of themselves at their own peril. I say that not to proclaim foreboding on you (heaven forbid!). No, rather this is simply another example of any multitude of examples of practicing identification (aka defining oneself by identifying with a thing that is not actually one's self, or conceiving of one's value by identifying it with something that is not the true source of one's value): I am a wealthy person! I am a doctor (how dare you question my knowledge!) I am (this concept that I have chosen or adopted as my identity).

[The problem here is that in a fallen condition, we experience separation from God, and very often do not see ourselves as God sees us, or see our value as God sees it.]

They turn their back on God entirely, and that's on those Christians.

Actually, it's on both of them. Unless a person takes responsibility for his or her choices, he is essentially doomed to wander without ever finding home.

"I reject God, but that's ALL that person's fault. I have no choice!" Just like "I hit her; it was her fault, she made me" and "I'm feeling angry, and it's your fault".

This is the route that any sinner takes in order to self-justify their behavior and choices without actually acknowledging their own responsibility in the choices that they make.

And I say sinner here because we're having a discussion within the Christian context, but it's true of any person who is avoiding their own painful growth process. We fall in to a trap of not accepting responsibility for MY choices.

This is fundamental fallen human nature 101. Where did it come from? This is what Lucifer did at the fall. He came up with hundreds of justifications for his choice - his decision - to rebel against and reject God and seduce God's children in to spiritual death. He did it, and blamed God for it. But this fallen nature is rooted in a lie.

Wouldn't you prefer....?

Well, what I prefer is not really important here, is it? What's important is what God would prefer. And I think God has a LOT of preferences with regards to his children that frankly do not come about because of the choices of those children.

In my understanding of God, without going into possible nuances, or without raising all the possible caveats that there might easily be, I would say that God would prefer someone with SS attraction to not practice it, but would also prefer that someone with SS attraction practicing it would practice it in monogamous way.

But it really all depends on the circumstances.

In any case, I think we could agree that ignorance, or personal misbehavior, by judgmental people (be they Christian or not) causing others to feel unloved, not valuable, or rejected by God, well, that's caused a LOT of suffering, and is an undesirable thing.

That said, we cannot deny truth and responsibility of choice simply in order to make people feel comfortable. That is completely the path being taken by all those woke churches.

To give another example, if a church or preacher were to say Hey, drunkenness is not a problem! Don't worry about it! in order to ensure that people with drunken problems don't feel rejected and refuse to come to church, well, that's a lose-lose situation.

The question of homosexuality is a both a simple and a complex topic, imo. It's one that is very real and deeply personal for some people, but sadly also something easily dismissed or ignored by some who take it purely on a theoretical basis.

To God, however, the return of each and every one of his children is a deeply personal thing. And as such, any person seeking to make God happy should strive not to be too blase about the topic. But that's my opinion.

false tradition

In my view, the false tradition is how people treat their fellow man, NOT the view that God's original design is only sexual union between a man and a woman, OR the view that homoesexual behavior was introduced into the human experience from a non-God source. (MANY human behaviors have been so introduced.)

But that's my belief. So far.

I appreciate your coming back and expressing your views.

be well, fren.

Aaha.

I see that you have a special interest in your interpretation. (And I think that's understandable.)

At the same time, your interpretation is likely to be rooted in your particular worldview. For example, your belief that you were "born gay". That's a belief you've embraced and accepted, isn't it? Then that's going to inform and shape your interpretation of many things, including scripture or that the idea that there is something wrong (unnatural, fallen, etc), or not wrong, with homosexuality.

Without going into too much detail, my own interpretations of scripture likewise are rooted in and/or are impacted by the worldview that I have. In my estimation, that worldview is grounded in and verified (supported and upheld) by scripture. Naturally, otherwise I would change it, as I affirm that scripture is an expression of God's truth. (And, I won't really elaborate on that here, as it would divert a lot from what I think are the important points your response raises.)

But aside from all of that, you bring an anecdotal argument, which I think isn't really evidence. It's a very different matter, even if the two are connected in some way.

This is a topic that requires a lot of discussion of some of the issues are to be satisfactorily (imo) addressed. But as an example (or starting point), I would put it that any Christian who insists that God hates gays has a deeply flawed view of God and truth, or scripture. It's axiomatic that God hates the sin but loves the sinner.

I would also put it out there that such people are in almost all cases (if not all) projecting their own flawed inner world on what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as an easy target. Thus, they point at the sin in their brother's (or sisters) eye, as a means to ignore, or indulge in, denial of their own.

Projecting one's own flaws, faults, inner conflicts etc, onto others is always going to generate severe problems. It multiples the problems, instead of restoring them.

But none of this means that homsexual behavior isn't sinful or not a sin. Projection in and of itself doesn't prove or mean that the target of the projection is faultless. But the practice of diverting attention (self attention or otherwise) from oneself by focusing on something going on in others, that's always problematic, and irresponsible in nature. Hence, Jesus admonition about logs and twigs.

....

Many of these people react

Yes, I very well understand the dynamic of "if God hates me, well then, I'm going to hate God" which is essentially "If God rejects me, then I'm going to reject God". But there are several faults or flaws here.

One, is God rejecting the person, or is the judgemental believer rejecting the person? The obvious answer is that it's the second.

Another problem is identification with behavior or impulses. Aka, I feel same sex attraction therefore "I AM a homosexual". A person takes on such a classification of themselves at their own peril. I say that not to proclaim foreboding on you (heaven forbid!). No, rather this is simply another example of any multitude of examples of practicing identification (aka defining oneself by identifying with a thing that is not actually one's self, or conceiving of one's value by identifying it with something that is not the true source of one's value): I am a wealthy person! I am a doctor (how dare you question my knowledge!) I am (this concept that I have chosen or adopted as my identity).

[The problem here is that in a fallen condition, we experience separation from God, and very often do not see ourselves as God sees us, or see our value as God sees it.]

They turn their back on God entirely, and that's on those Christians.

Actually, it's on both of them. Unless a person takes responsibility for his or her choices, he is essentially doomed to wander without ever finding home.

"I reject God, but that's ALL that person's fault. I have no choice!" Just like "I hit her; it was her fault, she made me" and "I'm feeling angry, and it's your fault".

This is the route that any sinner takes in order to self-justify their behavior and choices without actually acknowledging their own responsibility in the choices that they make.

And I say sinner here because we're having a discussion within the Christian context, but it's true of any person who is avoiding their own painful growth process. We fall in to a trap of not accepting responsibility for MY choices.

This is fundamental fallen human nature 101. Where did it come from? This is what Lucifer did at the fall. He came up with hundreds of justifications for his choice - his decision - to rebel against and reject God and seduce God's children in to spiritual death. He did it, and blamed God for it. But this fallen nature is rooted in a lie.

Wouldn't you prefer....?

Well, what I prefer is not really important here, is it? What's important is what God would prefer. And I think God has a LOT of preferences with regards to his children that frankly do not come about because of the choices of those children.

In my understanding of God, without going into possible nuances, or without raising all the possible caveats that there might easily be, I would say that God would prefer someone with SS attraction to not practice it, but would also prefer that someone with SS attraction practicing it practice it in monogamous way.

But it really all depends on the circumstances.

In any case, I think we could agree that ignorance, or personal misbehavior, by judgmental people (be they Christian or not) causing others to feel unloved, not valuable, or rejected by God, well, that's caused a LOT of suffering, and is an undesirable thing.

That said, we cannot deny truth and responsibility of choice simply in order to make people feel comfortable. That is completely the path being taken by all those woke churches.

It's a very complex topic, and one that is very real and deeply personal for some people, and sadly also something easily dismissed or ignored by some who take it purely on a theoretical basis. But to God, the return of each and every one of his children is a deeply personal thing. And as such, any person seeking to make God happy should strive not to be too blase about the topic.

false tradition

In my view, the false tradition is how people treat their fellow man, NOT that God's original design is sexual union between a man and a woman, and that homoesexual behavior was introduced into the human experience from a non-God source, just as MANY human behaviors have been.

But that's my belief. The thing is, I have plenty of logs in my own eye, and I'll be damned if I'm going to cast the first stone here.

I appreciate your coming back and expressing your views.

be well, fren.

Aaha.

I see that you have a special interest in your interpretation. (And I think that's understandable.)

At the same time, your interpretation is likely to be rooted in your particular worldview. For example, your belief that you were "born gay". That's a belief you've embraced and accepted, isn't it? Then that's going to inform and shape your interpretation of many things, including scripture or that the idea that there is something wrong (unnatural, fallen, etc), or not wrong, with homosexuality.

Without going into too much detail, my own interpretations of scripture likewise are rooted in and/or are impacted by the worldview that I have. In my estimation, that worldview is grounded in and verified (supported and upheld) by scripture. Naturally, otherwise I would change it, as I affirm that scripture is an expression of God's truth. (And, I won't really elaborate on that here, as it would divert a lot from what I think are the important points your response raises.)

But aside from all of that, you bring an anecdotal argument, which I think isn't really evidence. It's a very different matter, even if the two are connected in some way.

This is a topic that requires a lot of discussion of some of the issues are to be satisfactorily (imo) addressed. But as an example (or starting point), I would put it that any Christian who insists that God hates gays has a deeply flawed view of God and truth, or scripture. It's axiomatic that God hates the sin but loves the sinner.

I would also put it out there that such people are in almost all cases (if not all) projecting their own flawed inner world on what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as an easy target. Thus, they point at the sin in their brother's (or sisters) eye, as a means to ignore, or indulge in, denial of their own.

Projecting one's own flaws, faults, inner conflicts etc, onto others is always going to generate severe problems. It multiples the problems, instead of restoring them.

But none of this means that homsexual behavior isn't sinful or not a sin. Projection in and of itself doesn't prove or mean that the target of the projection is faultless. But the practice of diverting attention (self attention or otherwise) from oneself by focusing on something going on in others, that's always problematic, and irresponsible in nature. Hence, Jesus admonition about logs and twigs.

....

Many of these people react

Yes, I very well understand the dynamic of "if God hates me, well then, I'm going to hate God" which is essentially "If God rejects me, then I'm going to reject God". But there are several faults or flaws here.

One, is God rejecting the person, or is the judgemental believer rejecting the person? The obvious answer is that it's the second.

Another problem is identification with behavior or impulses. Aka, I feel same sex attraction therefore "I AM a homosexual". A person takes on such a classification of themselves at their own peril. I say that not to proclaim foreboding on you (heaven forbid!). No, rather this is simply another example of any multitude of examples of practicing identification (aka defining oneself by identifying with a thing that is not actually one's self, or conceiving of one's value by identifying it with something that is not the true source of one's value): I am a wealthy person! I am a doctor (how dare you question my knowledge!) I am (this concept that I have chosen or adopted as my identity).

[The problem here is that in a fallen condition, we experience separation from God, and very often do not see ourselves as God sees us, or see our value as God sees it.]

They turn their back on God entirely, and that's on those Christians.

Actually, it's on both of them. Unless a person takes responsibility for his or her choices, he is essentially doomed to wander without ever finding home.

"I reject God, but that's ALL that person's fault. I have no choice!" Just like "I hit her; it was her fault, she made me" and "I'm feeling angry, and it's your fault".

This is the route that any sinner takes in order to self-justify their behavior and choices without actually acknowledging their own choices. And I say sinner here because we're having a discussion with the Christian context, but it's true of any person who is avoiding their own painful growth process. We fall in to a trap of not accepting responsibility for MY choices.

This is fundamental fallen nature. This is what Lucifer did at the fall. he came up with hundreds of justification for his choice to rebel against and reject God and seduce God's children in to spiritual death, and blamed God for it. But its a lie.

Wouldn't you prefer....?

Well, what I prefer is not really important here, is it? What's important is what God would prefer. And I think God has a LOT of preferences with regards to his children that frankly do not come about because of the choices of those children.

In my understanding of God, without going into possible nuances, or without raising all the possible caveats that there might easily be, I would say that God would prefer someone with SS attraction to not practice it, but would also prefer that someone with SS attraction practicing it practice it in monogamous way.

But it really all depends on the circumstances.

In any case, I think we could agree that ignorance, or personal misbehavior, by judgmental people (be they Christian or not) causing others to feel unloved, not valuable, or rejected by God, well, that's caused a LOT of suffering, and is an undesirable thing.

That said, we cannot deny truth and responsibility of choice simply in order to make people feel comfortable. That is completely the path being taken by all those woke churches.

It's a very complex topic, and one that is very real and deeply personal for some people, and sadly also something easily dismissed or ignored by some who take it purely on a theoretical basis. But to God, the return of each and every one of his children is a deeply personal thing. And as such, any person seeking to make God happy should strive not to be too blase about the topic.

false tradition

In my view, the false tradition is how people treat their fellow man, NOT that God's original design is sexual union between a man and a woman, and that homoesexual behavior was introduced into the human experience from a non-God source, just as MANY human behaviors have been.

But that's my belief. The thing is, I have plenty of logs in my own eye, and I'll be damned if I'm going to cast the first stone here.

I appreciate your coming back and expressing your views.

be well, fren.

Aaha.

I see that you have a special interest in your interpretation. (And I think that's understandable.)

At the same time, your interpretation is likely to be rooted in your particular worldview. For example, your belief that you were "born gay". That's a belief you've embraced and accepted, isn't it? Then that's going to inform and shape your interpretation of many things, including scripture or that the idea that there is something wrong (unnatural, fallen, etc), or not wrong, with homosexuality.

Without going into too much detail, my own interpretations of scripture likewise are rooted in and/or are impacted by the worldview that I have. In my estimation, that worldview is grounded in and verified (supported and upheld) by scripture. Naturally, otherwise I would change it, as I affirm that scripture is an expression of God's truth. (And, I won't really elaborate on that here, as it would divert a lot from what I think are the important points your response raises.)

But aside from all of that, you bring an anecdotal argument, which I think isn't really evidence. It's a very different matter, even if the two are connected in some way.

This is a topic that requires a lot of discussion of some of the issues are to be satisfactorily (imo) addressed. But as an example (or starting point), I would put it that any Christian who insists that God hates gays has a deeply flawed view of God and truth, or scripture. It's axiomatic that God hates the sin but loves the sinner.

I would also put it out there that such people are in almost all cases (if not all) projecting their own flawed inner world on what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as an easy target. Thus, they point at the sin in their brother's (or sisters) eye, as a means to ignore, or indulge in, denial of their own.

Projecting one's own flaws, faults, inner conflicts etc, onto others is always going to generate severe problems. It multiples the problems, instead of restoring them.

But none of this means that homsexual behavior isn't sinful or not a sin. Projection in and of itself doesn't prove or mean that the target of the projection is faultless. But the practice of diverting attention (self attention or otherwise) from oneself by focusing on something going on in others, that's always problematic, and irresponsible in nature. Hence, Jesus admonition about logs and twigs.

....

Many of these people react

Yes, I very well understand the dynamic of "if God hates me, well then, I'm going to hate God" which is essentially "If God rejects me, then I'm going to reject God". But there are several faults or flaws here.

One, is God rejecting the person, or is the judgemental believer rejecting the person? The obvious answer is that it's the second.

Another problem is identification with behavior or impulses. Aka, I feel same sex attraction therefore "I AM a homosexual". A person takes on such a classification of themselves at their own peril. I say that not to proclaim foreboding on you (heaven forbid!). No, rather this is simply another example of any multitude of examples of practicing identification (aka defining oneself by identifying with a thing that is not actually one's self, or conceiving of one's value by identifying it with something that is not the true source of one's value): I am a wealthy person! I am a doctor (how dare you question my knowledge!) I am (this concept that I have chosen or adopted as my identity).

They turn their back on God entirely, and that's on those Christians.

Actually, it's on both of them. Unless a person takes responsibility for his or her choices, he is essentially doomed to wander without ever finding home.

"I reject God, but that's ALL that person's fault. I have no choice!" Just like "I hit her; it was her fault, she made me" and "I'm feeling angry, and it's your fault".

This is the route that any sinner takes in order to self-justify their behavior and choices without actually acknowledging their own choices. And I say sinner here because we're having a discussion with the Christian context, but it's true of any person who is avoiding their own painful growth process. We fall in to a trap of not accepting responsibility for MY choices.

This is fundamental fallen nature. This is what Lucifer did at the fall. he came up with hundreds of justification for his choice to rebel against and reject God and seduce God's children in to spiritual death, and blamed God for it. But its a lie.

Wouldn't you prefer....?

Well, what I prefer is not really important here, is it? What's important is what God would prefer. And I think God has a LOT of preferences with regards to his children that frankly do not come about because of the choices of those children.

In my understanding of God, without going into possible nuances, or without raising all the possible caveats that there might easily be, I would say that God would prefer someone with SS attraction to not practice it, but would also prefer that someone with SS attraction practicing it practice it in monogamous way.

But it really all depends on the circumstances.

In any case, I think we could agree that ignorance, or personal misbehavior, by judgmental people (be they Christian or not) causing others to feel unloved, not valuable, or rejected by God, well, that's caused a LOT of suffering, and is an undesirable thing.

That said, we cannot deny truth and responsibility of choice simply in order to make people feel comfortable. That is completely the path being taken by all those woke churches.

It's a very complex topic, and one that is very real and deeply personal for some people, and sadly also something easily dismissed or ignored by some who take it purely on a theoretical basis. But to God, the return of each and every one of his children is a deeply personal thing. And as such, any person seeking to make God happy should strive not to be too blase about the topic.

false tradition

In my view, the false tradition is how people treat their fellow man, NOT that God's original design is sexual union between a man and a woman, and that homoesexual behavior was introduced into the human experience from a non-God source, just as MANY human behaviors have been.

But that's my belief. The thing is, I have plenty of logs in my own eye, and I'll be damned if I'm going to cast the first stone here.

I appreciate your coming back and expressing your views.

be well, fren.

Aaha.

I see that you have a special interest in your interpretation. (And I think that's understandable.)

At the same time, your interpretation is likely to be rooted in your particular worldview. For example, your belief that you were "born gay". That's a belief you've embraced and accepted, isn't it? Then that's going to inform and shape your interpretation of many things, including scripture or that the idea that there is something wrong (unnatural, fallen, etc), or not wrong, with homosexuality.

Without going into too much detail, my own interpretations of scripture likewise are rooted in and/or are impacted by the worldview that I have. In my estimation, that worldview is grounded in and verified (supported and upheld) by scripture. Naturally, otherwise I would change it, as I affirm that scripture is an expression of God's truth. (And, I won't really elaborate on that here, as it would divert a lot from what I think are the important points your response raises.)

But aside from all of that, you bring an anecdotal argument, which I think isn't really evidence. It's a very different matter, even if the two are connected in some way.

This is a topic that requires a lot of discussion of some of the issues are to be satisfactorily (imo) addressed. But as an example (or starting point), I would put it that any Christian who insists that God hates gays has a deeply flawed view of God and truth, or scripture. It's axiomatic that God hates the sin but loves the sinner.

I would also put it out there that such people are in almost all cases (if not all) projecting their own flawed inner world on what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as an easy target. Thus, they point at the sin in their brother's (or sisters) eye, as a means to ignore, or indulge in, denial of their own.

Projecting one's own flaws, faults, inner conflicts etc, onto others is always going to generate severe problems. It multiples the problems, instead of restoring them.

But none of this means that homsexual behavior isn't sinful or not a sin. Projection in and of itself doesn't prove or mean that the target of the projection is faultless. But the practice of diverting attention (self attention or otherwise) from oneself by focusing on something going on in others, that's always problematic, and irresponsible in nature. Hence, Jesus admonition about logs and twigs.

....

Many of these people react

Yes, I very well understand the dynamic of "if God hates me, well then, I'm going to hate God" which is essentially "If God rejects me, then I'm going to reject God". But there are several faults or flaws here.

One, is God rejecting the person, or is the judgemental believer rejecting the person? The obvious answer is that it's the second.

Another problem is identification with behavior or impulses. Aka, I feel same sex attraction therefore "I AM a homosexual". A person takes on such a classification of themselves at their own peril. I say that not to proclaim foreboding on you (heaven forbid!). No, rather this is simply another example of any multitude of examples of practicing identification (aka defining oneself and value by identifying with a thing that is not actually one's self): I am a wealthy person! I am a doctor (how dare you question my knowledge!) I am (this concept that I have chosen or adopted as my identity).

They turn their back on God entirely, and that's on those Christians.

Actually, it's on both of them. Unless a person takes responsibility for his or her choices, he is essentially doomed to wander without ever finding home.

"I reject God, but that's ALL that person's fault. I have no choice!" Just like "I hit her; it was her fault, she made me" and "I'm feeling angry, and it's your fault".

This is the route that any sinner takes in order to self-justify their behavior and choices without actually acknowledging their own choices. And I say sinner here because we're having a discussion with the Christian context, but it's true of any person who is avoiding their own painful growth process. We fall in to a trap of not accepting responsibility for MY choices.

This is fundamental fallen nature. This is what Lucifer did at the fall. he came up with hundreds of justification for his choice to rebel against and reject God and seduce God's children in to spiritual death, and blamed God for it. But its a lie.

Wouldn't you prefer....?

Well, what I prefer is not really important here, is it? What's important is what God would prefer. And I think God has a LOT of preferences with regards to his children that frankly do not come about because of the choices of those children.

In my understanding of God, without going into possible nuances, or without raising all the possible caveats that there might easily be, I would say that God would prefer someone with SS attraction to not practice it, but would also prefer that someone with SS attraction practicing it practice it in monogamous way.

But it really all depends on the circumstances.

In any case, I think we could agree that ignorance, or personal misbehavior, by judgmental people (be they Christian or not) causing others to feel unloved, not valuable, or rejected by God, well, that's caused a LOT of suffering, and is an undesirable thing.

That said, we cannot deny truth and responsibility of choice simply in order to make people feel comfortable. That is completely the path being taken by all those woke churches.

It's a very complex topic, and one that is very real and deeply personal for some people, and sadly also something easily dismissed or ignored by some who take it purely on a theoretical basis. But to God, the return of each and every one of his children is a deeply personal thing. And as such, any person seeking to make God happy should strive not to be too blase about the topic.

false tradition

In my view, the false tradition is how people treat their fellow man, NOT that God's original design is sexual union between a man and a woman, and that homoesexual behavior was introduced into the human experience from a non-God source, just as MANY human behaviors have been.

But that's my belief. The thing is, I have plenty of logs in my own eye, and I'll be damned if I'm going to cast the first stone here.

I appreciate your coming back and expressing your views.

be well, fren.

Aaha.

I see that you have a special interest in your interpretation. (And I think that's understandable.)

At the same time, your interpretation is likely to be rooted in your particular worldview. For example, your belief that you were "born gay". That's a belief you've embraced and accepted, isn't it? Then that's going to inform and shape your interpretation of many things, including scripture or that the idea that there is something wrong (unnatural, fallen, etc), or not wrong, with homosexuality.

Without going into too much detail, my own interpretations of scripture likewise are rooted in and/or are impacted by the worldview that I have. In my estimation, that worldview is grounded in and verified (supported and upheld) by scripture. Naturally, otherwise I would change it, as I affirm that scripture is an expression of God's truth. (And, I won't really elaborate on that here, as it would divert a lot from what I think are the important points your response raises.)

But aside from all of that, you bring an anecdotal argument, which I think isn't really evidence. It's a very different matter, even if the two are connected in some way.

This is a topic that requires a lot of discussion of some of the issues are to be satisfactorily (imo) addressed. But as an example (or starting point), I would put it that any Christian who insists that God hates gays has a deeply flawed view of God and truth, or scripture. It's axiomatic that God hates the sin but loves the sinner.

I would also put it out there that such people are in almost all cases (if not all) projecting their own flawed inner world on what they perceive, rightly or wrongly, as an easy target. Thus, they point at the sin in their brother's (or sisters) eye, as a means to ignore, or indulge in, denial of their own.

Project one's own flaws, faults, inner conflicts etc, onto others is always going to generate severe problems. It multiples the problems, instead of restoring them.

But none of this means that homsexual behavior isn't sinful or not a sin.

Yes, I very well understand the dynamic of "if God hates me, well then, I'm going to hate God" which is essentially "If God rejects me, then I'm going to reject God". But there are several faults or flaws here.

One, is God rejecting the person, or is the judgemental believer rejecting the person? The obvious answer is that it's the second.

Another problem is identification with behavior or impulses. Aka, I feel same sex attraction therefore "I AM a homosexual". A person takes on such a classification of themselves at their own peril. I say that not to proclaim foreboding on you (heaven forbid!). No, rather this is simply another example of any multitude of examples of practicing identification (aka defining oneself and value by identifying with a thing that is not actually one's self): I am a wealthy person! I am a doctor (how dare you question my knowledge!) I am (this concept that I have chosen or adopted as my identity).

They turn their back on God entirely, and that's on those Christians.

Actually, it's on both of them. Unless a person takes responsibility for his or her choices, he is essentially doomed to wander without ever finding home.

"I reject God, but that's ALL that person's fault. I have no choice!" Just like "I hit her; it was her fault, she made me" and "I'm feeling angry, and it's your fault".

This is the route that any sinner takes in order to self-justify their behavior and choices without actually acknowledging their own choices. And I say sinner here because we're having a discussion with the Christian context, but it's true of any person who is avoiding their own painful growth process. We fall in to a trap of not accepting responsibility for MY choices.

This is fundamental fallen nature. This is what Lucifer did at the fall. he came up with hundreds of justification for his choice to rebel against and reject God and seduce God's children in to spiritual death, and blamed God for it. But its a lie.

Wouldn't you prefer....?

Well, what I prefer is not really important here, is it? What's important is what God would prefer. And I think God has a LOT of preferences with regards to his children that frankly do not come about because of the choices of those children.

In my understanding of God, without going into possible nuances, or without raising all the possible caveats that there might easily be, I would say that God would prefer someone with SS attraction to not practice it, but would also prefer that someone with SS attraction practicing it practice it in monogamous way.

But it really all depends on the circumstances.

In any case, I think we could agree that ignorance, or personal misbehavior, by judgmental people (be they Christian or not) causing others to feel unloved, not valuable, or rejected by God, well, that's caused a LOT of suffering, and is an undesirable thing.

That said, we cannot deny truth and responsibility of choice simply in order to make people feel comfortable. That is completely the path being taken by all those woke churches.

It's a very complex topic, and one that is very real and deeply personal for some people, and sadly also something easily dismissed or ignored by some who take it purely on a theoretical basis. But to God, the return of each and every one of his children is a deeply personal thing. And as such, any person seeking to make God happy should strive not to be too blase about the topic.

false tradition

In my view, the false tradition is how people treat their fellow man, NOT that God's original design is sexual union between a man and a woman, and that homoesexual behavior was introduced into the human experience from a non-God source, just as MANY human behaviors have been.

But that's my belief. The thing is, I have plenty of logs in my own eye, and I'll be damned if I'm going to cast the first stone here.

I appreciate your coming back and expressing your views.

be well, fren.