Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 3, 2022

July 27

To R. Scott Clark and his short article that describes the CDC webpage for those in the LGBTQ community as a taxpayer supported recruitment page for the LGBTQ community. This appeared in Heidelblog

Providing an information webpage that addresses LGBTQ health issues qualifies as recruiting? Or is the above mentioned CDC webpage about LGBTQ health issues being used as a wedge issue by those who would like to manipulate public opinion and work to marginalize the the LGBTQ community?

Clark should visit that page and tell us if he was ever recruited before implying wrongdoing. After all, the Commandment that prohibits bearing false witness against one's neighbors demands that we are careful about what we say about others.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 1

To Rosaria Butterfield and her talk about the lies that the current age is tell us Christians about sexual orientation and gender identity. This was posted in Heidelblog.

Rosaria Butterfield, who is a champion for Biblical sexual values for some religiously conservative Christians simply because of her lesbian past and previously held self-described radical views, spoke on Christianity and both sexual identity and gender orientation. Her talk starts at around the 43 minute mark. Though I agree with many of her views on what constitutes Biblical sexual values, I struggle with what is suggested and even implied by what she says about Christianity and both sexual orientation and gender identity.

First, what is implied by Butterfield's statement that we have codified lies into laws when talking about the legalization of same-sex marriage? Does Butterfield wish to imply that our laws must only be based on the Scriptures? If so, then there goes the freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. If so, then religiously conservative Christianity has set itself as an arch enemy of Democracy. For even if she doesn't intend to say so, Butterfield is implying the need for theonomy. For the laws we have are sometimes based on worldly ideas from people who have traded in what they know about God for lies. That is because society is made up of believers and unbelievers. And the only way to escape those lies is to base all of our laws solely on the Scriptures.

We might ask Butterfield whether she wants us to return to the good old days when homosexual acts were criminalized and  homosexuals could be harassed on or fired from their jobs because of the sexual orientation. If that is what she wants, then she knows much more about heteronormativity than she seems to admit to. I assume here that she opposes the legalization of violence against people because of their sexual orientation even though that was a part of the good old days of heteronomativity. But Butterfield gives a strong impression that those in the LGBT community should not be treated as equals in society. In fact, she gives a strong impression that those in the LGBT community should be harshly marginalized by society. Of course, being harshly marginalized by society is not how she came to faith in Christ.

We must also address what Butterfield says about nature. Why? Because we need to distinguish between nature as God designed it from nature in its current fallen state. We know that nature is in a fallen state because the Bible tells us so. But we can also determine that from observation because homosexuality is practiced in hundreds, if not over 1,000, species--in reality it is bisexuality that is practiced--in contrast to how God designed nature for His creatures. The existence of those who are intersex is also proof that nature was already fallen because nature's original design from Genesis 1 and 2 says that God made us male and female. And though only a small percentage of people are born intersex, we cannot pretend that they do not exist because they are so few. They are people like the rest of us. So while we can see from the Scriptures and nature God's design for us, fallen nature is giving us some opposing opinions.

And so despite what nature tells us on the outside about someone, we really don't know what nature is telling them on the inside. And so we shouldn't assume what nature is telling each person on the inside. Therefore, we should not assume how much one's biological sex influencing a person about their gender identity. At the same time, Butterfield is correct and the LGBT community is wrong in conflating gender identity, which is psychological, with biological sex, which is physical.

Also, what did the SF gay choir want to do to our children according to what they sang as shown in the video? Wasn't it clearly stated that they want to teach them to tolerate those in the LGBT community? They weren't singing about seducing children. In addition, couldn't every para church youth ministry make the same claim that they are coming for our children even though they are coming to teach religion?

The struggle we religiously conservative Christians have is to distinguish what we can't allow and must say in our evangelism and to each other in our churches about sex from what we can allow in and must support in society. To not make that distinction is to imply that the duty for Christians is to base our nation's laws only on the Scriptures. And even there, do the New Testament Scriptures teach us by word or example to impose Biblical sexual mores on society?

Also, repentance is essential. But  we can easily fall into the trap of perfectionism by expecting Christians to fully repent of all their sins. I don't think Butterfield believes that we Christians fully repent of all of our sins. But she does seem to believe that all Christians who struggle with homosexuality and/or gender dysphoria can fully repent of that particular sin.

As we listen to Butterfield speak, which starts around 43 minutes into the video and please listen to her, look to see if there is a certain rigidity in Butterfield's current thinking in her talking about sexual orientation and gender identity. Because if there is such a rigidity, then perhaps Butterfield is employing the same kind of thinking now which she used when she was a lesbian and was a professor with radical views. And thus the only reason why her views are different now, despite using the same kind of thinking, is because she is using a different starting point and different set of assumptions, some that are Scriptural and some that are not.