Warning: This post contains material of a religious nature. If you are unable to handle this topic stop reading now.
In the past, I’ve been cautioned about writing about religion. However, I am not the one who started down this path. When a candidate running for President brings it up it needs to be addressed.
Recently Pete Buttigieg made some interesting judgments during the climate change town halls on CNN. Tucker Carlson brought up a great point on hypocrisy. That is what the whole “Do not judge..” thing addresses. People often confuse this with simply not judging. However, later we are told to “judge correctly.” The whole “Do not judge” message from Jesus is about judging in a hypocritical way. We should always avoid that but it doesn’t mean we cannot make a correct judgment.
Here is a link to the video from Tucker Carlson so you can understand what we are talking about.
Hmm, for a liberal gay man to say “If you believe God is watching….” makes my head spin. Pete says he is a Christian, Episcopalian to be precise. Jesus said “Do not judge so that you will not be judged…. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” Tucker makes a good point about the hypocrisy of Pete flying private jets while preaching on climate change. Frankly, I thought Tucker was heading towards the issue of being openly gay and then preaching to us. Again, not busting him for being gay, just wondering how he feels compelled to then preach to us by involking “God is watching”.
How does Pete arrive at what God thinks of as sin? I have no clue! It is certainly not from the Bible. If one would argue his basis is the Bible then does he miss the parts about homosexuality? I’m not condemning gays. At the same time do not cherry-pick parts of Christian teaching you like and throw out others.
So, if Pete believes God is watching (his words, not mine) then does he realize the God is watching him? I wonder. Again, not busting on any particular sin but that is like the pot calling the kettle black. We are all sinners and all sin separates us from God according to the Bible. So, I advise Pete to simply skip the sermon and get to the point. If he wants to really improve things relating to air pollution, and we all should, then he needs to talk to China, Russia, India and many others who can really make a difference. Oh, and stop flying on private jets! He is not even polling at 5%.
Frankly, I never understood the various stances on sexual lifestyles now promoted by liberal churches, in this case, Episcopal. Maybe someone can comment on that.
Comment and follow us on X – Click Here
Discover more from Veterans for Trump
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Again, well said! You and I MSGT will never understand the blatant hypocrisy of the “Do as We say NOT as We Do crowd!” Mayor Petey is a fool if he believes his own lies, especially his latest LIE that “the bible justifies abortion until the time an unborn child takes its’ first breath!”
Navyman Norm – Petty Officer First Class-USN
I was recently asked to write a brief treatise on the stance of the Episcopal Church with regard to their inclusion of LGBTQ individuals. Please note this is not a condemnation, but it is in fact a research paper on WHY they now accept these individuals. The stance of the Church has been in the past to shun such individuals as God speaks of such people in Romans Chapter One. I thought it rather interesting that when the Church uses scripture to support this claim, they NEVER mention Romans 1. The Church believes that the Bible is “ the inspired Word of God” and yet they blatantly support an idea that God himself despises. I would like to deal with each of the Scriptures that the Episcopalians whom are self-described “Protestant yet catholic” use to support the inclusion of LGBTQ individuals. Prior to 1976, the Church had no such view.
Supporting Scriptures
John 3:16 is used to show that God accepts all persons and has forgiven “the world”. However, what was meant by the word “world”? This is probably the most quoted (and often misinterpreted) verse in Scripture. The Greek word we translate as “world” here is Cosmos, and at the time of that writing, there were no less than 9 different meanings to this Greek word. the question I would have for an Episcopalian pastor would be: “ What meaning out of the 9 possible was meant?” The fact is, the word Cosmos is seldom to mean “All inclusive” and the use of this verse does the church no good in their justification of accepting (and ordaining) of homosexuals.
Psalm 119:13-14 is used to support the idea that God actually created these people as homosexuals. As such, their goal here is to say that the Almighty “made” these people gay. This is such a distortion and again flies in the face of Romans Chapter 1. God clearly states He despises homosexuality, so why would He create them as homosexuals, and then condemn them? Again, a poor reference to support their self-imposed “acceptance” despite the fact, that God condemned Sodom(y) and Gomorrah for these very sins. Their claim is that sexual orientation and gender identity are components of a person’s personality and as such, puts the blame on God!
Acts 10:28 is used (out of context) that we (humans) should not call unclean what God has called clean. This read in context clearly is talking about salvation as Peter believed the Gospel was for Jews only. God is saying here that what Peter thought to be unclean (Gentiles), God has made “clean”, God was talking here about whom the Gospel was intended for, both Jew AND Gentile. This can be understood in context. The church here does what a lot of churches seem to do, use one verse to support their claim and do not present the verse as it appears in context of that chapter.
Acts 8:27 is used to make one believe that the “eunuch” baptized by apostles was also homosexual. But was he? Let’s look at the meaning of the word in the original Greek. A eunuch is a man who has been castrated, especially (in the past) one employed to guard the women’s living areas at an oriental court.
an ineffectual person.
“a nation of political eunuchs”
Origin
Where in that definition is the word “homosexual” ? Again, an attempt to convince others that God loves gays because the “eunuch” was gay (at least in THEIR interpretation). Nowhere in the reference is God speaking about gay people. Eunuchs were not gay, they were castrated to insure they did not molest the women they were commissioned to guard.
Genesis 2:18 this reference that “it is not good for man to be alone” and here God creates a woman to be Adams partner. Why do we have Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve? Again, a one verse reference not viewed or read in context. They claim here that heterosexual marriage was merely an example rather than a definition of the marriage relationship. Genesis 2:24 also states that: this is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife (not husband) they become one flesh.”
Matthew 19:5 is again used to support their anti-biblical beliefs. “So, they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate. This again is with reference to the man and woman spoken of in Genesis, Adam and Eve. How then can they be using this to support homosexuality?
Leviticus 18:22 God says: “Do not have sexual with a man, as one lies down with a woman.” How do they foolishly attempt to go around the clear meaning here, that God despises homosexuality? Well they claim that since God was referencing incest previously, that God here is merely saying “Don’t have sex with relatives”. This bastardized belief is but a blatant attempt not at proper interpretation, but rather used to support THEIR self-made doctrine and negate the word of God.
While I can cite more scripture to support my thesis that God hates homosexuality, I would merely ask the reader to read Romans 1. I do believe that God can teach any of us the true meanings of His word. I do not believe that He left us to create our own doctrine (especially when it is in direct contradiction to the stated Word.