I'm a gay man in my 30's and I quietly converted to Orthodox Christianity. I have an odd relationship with my sexuality but at this point, I would say that my faith matters more to me than my sexuality. I haven't actually renounced my sexuality, but it is a private matter, and I don't like answering a lot of questions about it...because honestly, I can't always answer them. But when I used to go to the bars, I recall the feelings of spiritual darkness that used to come with pursuing shallow sexual conquests, and it makes me shudder. So my assumption is that the behavior to put sexuality over one's relationship with God is really more what the sin of Sodom represents, rather than specifically God hating men or women who are same-sex attracted because they are same-sex attracted. At this point, I go by spiritual feeling. Perhaps if I would find genuine love in a same sex relationship, I might think it was from God. But up until this point, what I have gotten from the gay community has been extremely shallow and, not to mince words, rather demonic energy. I would rather be voluntarily celibate and in communion with God, than going to gay bars for hook-ups or in some bad quasi-abusive relationship that will inevitably fall apart. And furthermore, I've come to accept the value of celibacy in and of itself, a life of quiet scholarship and monasticism as a personal choice; our only choice in life is not just to reproduce like some kind of livestock, so that we can brag about our worldly increase. I just have aversion to shallow sexual conquest at this point and I know that I'm not the only one who feels this way. But whether I'm in a relationship with another man or not, I know that God still loves me. It's not a black/white dilemma, God does not hate gay people for being gay. However we must still pursue morality and purity at all costs, even if means we have to choose celibacy (and there are plenty of straight people who would do better to pursue that as well).
God does love you. Although I’m heterosexual I can relate to your aversion to shallow sexual encounters. If we are made in Gods image we are destined for better, for a purer form of love, sexuality and our relationship to god. Peace be with you x
Man you have a sharp pen. Why not write a book that would never be published in your lifetime. I mean you are someone who doesn't want to be known for your past but reading what you wrote i feel you are knowledgeable and someone could use your insight to great benefit.
@Bill Birkett Man I have a few issues with your post. I have read it over and again. Do you still identify as a gay man? You started quietly to make out with men, right? And now you have "converted quietly". Don't you think you can reconvert quietly? The possibility is not zilch. So seek accountability for yourself, okay? It is not an easy battle so quit treating the issue with kids gloves. But you haven't renounced your sexuality just at the moment you are at odds with it. So this can be deemed a temporary phase where your spirituality matters more than your sexuality and it could all change for the worse. Man I could go on but like someone in the comments remarked, get saved.
Identity politics exist as a result of collective interests. They will always exist as long as there are faction, the only question is who is listened to and who is ignored.
Im a son of God husband and a pastor and sexuality is very important to God for he also created that… He told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. The point of sexuality is to multiply so to say that we as Christians we shouldn’t look at lgbt community and not want to be a part of there belief is not right. Is these demonic agendas that the enemy infiltrates to bring theologians to say the stuff this man just said. Just like lgbt has a right to believe what they believe we also have right to believe what the word of God says to believe. We shouldn’t be led by our feelings but our believes as. Christians are not based on feelings but on facts. Man shouldn’t have sexual relationships with men or women shouldn’t with other women. Point blank….. there’s no way out of this my friend the world is in the condition is in cause of feelings. Process that theologically.
I dont judge you God dose, but you judge me because Im a Christian, the problem is not me it is between you and God. The Bible was written for man to understand God, it is man that has rebelled against God, anything that is contrary to Gods Word is wrong. You can justify your way out of the truth all you want but it still (according to God) dose not make what you do right.
You can justify yourselves all you want but God says its a sin (And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.)Romans 1:27. No mistake there....
No darling. God doesn't say that, you're saying that about God. You are not an objective infallible interpreter of God's will. The activities of a pagan sex cult do not bear much relevance in this discussion.
Where is the Scripture?!?! This seems a bit psychological and not Biblical. Isn’t it about denying ourself, taking up our cross and following CHRIST? Repent!!! This Gospel will be very offensive to those who are not born again. The Gospel is a perfume to those who belong to Christ and a stench to those who are perishing.
My understand is that Carl Trueman is a Presbyterian? Presbyterian's, unlike we Catholics, do not possess a Catechism or a Magisterial teaching authority. Perhaps therein is the issue?
@@liammccann8763, here we disagree. And I and Truman are both in full agreement with Luther and Huss regarding the authority and clarity of the word of God. Popes and council err. The word of God is the norm which norms all norms.
In as much as I respect some of the points CT makes, I think he is dead wrong in saying that we are gay or not depending on what feelings or emotions ' happen' to us. We have no control over what emotions we feel but we are responsible for what emotions we act on. So if you are tempted to steal and do not actually steal, are you a thief? This is quite different from lusting after something. When you lust you intentionally sustain an urge to do something and if that feeling, translated is sin, then the thought of it too is sin. But if I have a feeling to have sex with a man, and don't give in to it as many times as it comes, I don't think I should be categorized as A or B base on the emotion experienced. After all we are called to overcome temptations.Jesus was himself tempted but he did not commit to sin.
No Feelings are not sin, feelings are feelings. They're not even truly us, they're hormones and reflex. Lust is just sexual desire, or perhaps even just desire depending.
Except being gay (or straight) is not just who you “sexually desire”, it’s about who you love in a romantic relationship, in a committed relationship, in a companion for life.
Trueman is just using their own terminology. You could substitute eros with philia for rhetoric purposes as philia is regarded as more refined than eros in terms of epicureanic logic, but the argument is not ethical-aesthetical, but a sociological observation: there are new identities based on individual desires, namely, how one describes their "self". Historically speaking, homosexual behaviour has been there since ancient times in various cultures and in various contexts - recreational, religious, so homosexuality is not new per se, what is new, is the idea that people describe their "self" based on their behaviour or desires, similarly to how the idea of nation and race, which have not been a universal concept, became a integral part of certain civilisations' self-perception. You can observe a very strong religious and nationalistic identity in Judaism, a contrast to more tolerant, tribal civilisations around, but they lack a racial component; on the other hand, Nazi ideology promoted very strong racial and nationalistic identity, with religion being merely a belief or choice but not core identity. And Trueman points to the implication of such identities: attacking a mere behaviour is not the same as attacking your sense of self. I engage in many behaviours - hobbies, drinking beer, listening to certain music. Like everyone I dislike criticism but if someone would say that my music is disgusting, I would not regard it as an attack on myself. I could just be a good person with bad taste. But what if we'd say that homosexuality is disgusting? Or burn a Quran? An attack on the behaviour (or idea) becomes synonymous with attack against the person themselves. Here I see a slope, and at its end, a world where criticism and pointing out observable truths is deemed violent and oppressive.
@@danielv.5988 Being gay is not akin to a “hobby” and is not merely a “behaviour”. You’ll find all gay people, like all straight people, do not behave the same.
How deftly Trueman dodges at least part of the issue. I can define myself as a heterosexual male AND as a Christian. The definitions deal with the true me from different perspectives. It's not really that complicated. Also, did you hear him point out that the unnatural sexual desires are as sinful as unnatural sexual acts? Me neither. But, you may ask, who can condemn a person's sexual desires as sinful? But isn't the Bible full of references to "sinful desires?" Looks like Trueman is trying to leave room for bent sexual desires to be treated as legitimate, and outside the scope of Christian correction, so that folks with such desires can maintain their sexual identity while still claiming Christ as Lord. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I'm seeing here in this brief vid.
At least from my perspective after watching, I see something different. I think Trueman leaves no room for those desires to be "outside the scope of Christian correction". At 2:39 in the video, he states that our identity is that we are "united to Christ". If we are united to Christ, then we are united to the Word, and so then it is imperative that we are obedient to the Word and deny certain sexual and behavioral desires as instructed by God through His Word. We can claim any number of identities as people or define ourselves from different perspectives, but by claiming the Christian identity, that christian belongs no longer to sin, to themselves, or to any other, but to Christ. How God sees me is what matters rather that any of the multitudes of ways that I see myself.
You're right in the fact that identifying with one thing or another does not change other aspects of your identity; identity is multilayered and non-exclusive. However "unnatural desire" is a contradiction in terms. I don't know what this man believes in terms of morality on the subject but I suspect this is just a well-intentioned but woefully failed attempt at education and outreach. Love is inherently legitimate, it is the basis for out faith. There is no Law against Love(Galatians 5:22-23), it can not be a sin. Queer Christians can and do exist, trying to deny that does no one any good.
@@Grokford I presume what you meant to say was that "There is no law against Love" - which is some truly horrible Biblical interpretation. Have you read the rest of the Holy Book? It gives everywhere strong evidence regarding the Creator's intent in making mankind as sexual beings. So does the book of nature. importing one's favorite sin into "love" is the devil's game, thoroughly.
@@HonestlyNow4Real I have read the Bible, I have a degree in biblical studies if you care about such things. And if this passage: ““But the fruit of the Spirit is *love,* joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. *Against such things there is no law.* ” Galatians 5:22-23 Can not be incorporated into your understanding of the Bible then your understanding needs to change. Ignoring the passages you don’t like isn’t good interpretational practice either so if you have some way that this passage can be compatible with an anti-gay interpretation then by all means, be my guest and share.
It seems that one of the things which the sexual revolution school of thought is claiming by stating that love = love, is that Eros = Philos = Agape. If that were true, then animal rescue and animal stir frying would actually be the same things. They both involve attractions, desire, and activity. If someone says they love them some chicken, why should we care what they mean by love chickens? If love was equal to love, then gravity would actually be the same as a Mother’s love, because gravity is an attraction between bodies, and a mother waking in the middle of the night to care for her child is a coming together of bodies, so…same=same=same, right? Seems like a mantra for an age of consumerism.
This is all just straw men and ambiguity fallacies. Sexual revolution or not, Queer people are still operating in opposition to the compartamentalization of our identities into a sexual category.
I don't think Carl Trueman is shying away from calling sexual immorality sin, but he is instead arguing that this rise in redefining a persons entire being has been a new development in the history of the human race. This redefinition of self being inherently based in sexuality gives way to acts of sexual immorality, just as a wrong understanding of God's grace gives way to abusing grace. Now as Christians we should combat false ideologies, as Paul said in Colossians 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." In this case the philosophy would be this Freudian idea that our feelings and sexual desires are what constitutes us. I think we shouldn't tolerate empty, deceitful philosophy or sin. That's a really good question to ask ourselves to regularly check. "Am I tolerating an identity, or a sin?"
@@josiahhoward6885 That's a backwards understanding of what's happened. Queer people exist as a category because they were defined into that box by straight people on the basis of their sexuality. The separation is artificial and it is imposed on Queer people against our will. It should be eliminated, not just because it is false, but because it is harmful. Defining it in terms of immorality is not less a perpetuation of the false distinction. There is no law against Love( Galatians 5:22-23), Love is not a sin.
I have a pet horse and love it,can I get married to it and have sex with it? Why not? If “marriage” between two men is acceptable ,why stop there? I know two men who love one woman ,why can’t they all be married together? The permutations are numerous “as long as they love each other” it’s all ok. The answer is Biblical revelation has revealed what is good and what is evil in God’s eyes. The judgement of God awaits all people and He will be “just” in His decisions. Either be in rebellion against your creator or ask for forgiveness through Jesus Christ.
The issue is not discretion it's disease and rape also children being treated like they're fragile cause everyone must be treated as a sheet of glass it either cuts you or it chip's or even shatters if offended. I'm sure either way someone will be offended.
The difference between two men being with each other sexually and a man/woman and an animal is that the animal (like a child) doesn’t have the mental development to be able to make an informed decision over something so serious, as such they’re being taken advantage of. As far as the 3-way couple I agree, what it all is (in my opinion) is cheapening the sanctity of marriage, which was traditionally defined as a contractual obligation between a man and a woman with the main purpose of raising a family together. Let me ask you something, and I hope this doesn’t come off as though I am trying to challenge you because I simply want to have a discussion. I consider myself a Christian and having a gay brother (who is a non believer but otherwise a very charitable, kind person) I consider myself to be indifferent toward the entire situation. I neither approve of it nor judge people who engage in it because I don’t feel that it is my place to judge (that right belongs to God only) I simply treat everyone with love and respect as much as I possibly can. Anyway what I want to ask for anyone reading, hopefully another Christian, is whether you think God would judge a gay couple who is raising a child in an atmosphere of love, support and kindness more harshly than He would judge a straight couple who are alcoholics, negligent and abusive toward the child?
@@a-ron7457 Hi, lots of questions to answer. The first thing I would like to state is the Bible is the inerrant word of God. We are to follow God’s law , and try and glorify His name. Let’s start with the last question first. You ask “Do I think God would judge a gay couple who is raising a child in an atmosphere of love,support and kindness more harshly than He would judge a straight couple who are alcoholics,negligent and abusive towards the child?” The gay couple and the straight couple are both in rebellion against God and unless they repent and turn to Christ as their saviour ,and put their faith in Christ they will receive the just punishment. Trying to clash two sinful situations together and try and declare one is “better” than the other ( were you trying to put that across?) is not the way to approach it. The hostility to God’s law only leads to chaos and misery, and both parties will be subject to God’s wrath . They both need a change of heart.
@@a-ron7457 Think you were hoping for a different reply A-Ron. You post - “ I consider myself a Christian and having a gay brother(who is a non believer but otherwise a very charitable ,kind person) I consider myself to be indifferent to the entire situation.I neither approve of it nor judge who engage in it because I don’t feel that it is my place to judge ( that right belongs to God only)” The Bible is clear on a man lying with a man and a woman lying with a woman- it is an abomination in His sight. Maybe you should re-examine your indifference to your position? By the way ,I don’t consider myself a Christian-I am a Christian.
More BS. You can not down play an intricate part of a person's identity that is responsible for much of the person's life choices and trajectory. If this was true we would not have any marriages or families.
You are looking at personal identity from an objective point of view, but Trueman is talking about the idea self-perception. Parts of your self-perception could be objective externalities like nationality and sex. Another part could be your political or religious beliefs. Here we see a self-perception that is based on desires and feelings. Are desires and feelings part of our decision making? No doubt. The question really is, do we view feelings as what defines our very essence? So if someone hurts my feelings, criticises my desires, do I think they are harming something of rather accessorial value , or is it an attack on my very being, perhaps on the concept of humanity?
@@danielv.5988 I would say yes. Because our very essence is not devoid of our feelings or desires. Feelings and desires are not chosen, they just are.They are there for a purpose. They provide cues and act as if they are the lights on car dashboard. The mistake is assuming that feelings and desires are simply a self-perception. People, especially men have been taught to suppress their feelings because to be emotional is to be associated with the feminine. This is detrimental to one's mental health.
@@NC-vz6ui In ancient Greek philosophy, you can see how the Stoics & the Hedonists took different stances and it has to do with epistemological differences. In the conservative mindset, which is based on ideas like tradition (an externality) or the concept of an "absolute truth", feelings don't play much of a role. Also you can change your feelings through cognitive change hence CBT DBT etc. So the question really is, how important they are, and it's up to debate. What I mean by self-perception is not the feelings themselves but what is your own definition of your identity. E.g in some ancient cultures people could have homosexual behaviour but wouldn't identify as "homosexuals". Nowadays desires & experiences are a huge deal of the modern identity. And that has an implication, because if it's your identity, it's extremely important. In my opinion we should have a good balance between feelings & wants, and resilience / delaying gratification etc. When feelings become the identity they become cemented and not always in a helpful way.
@@danielv.5988 I would disagree with you on the conservative mindset. Feelings play a huge role, although always denied publicly. Fear is the main driver.
@@NC-vz6ui Yes I think I didn't phrase it correctly. What I meant is that the conservative premise, on paper, denies "feelings". But sure they are driven by things like fear, nostalgia, being low on openness to experience etc. etc.
I'm a gay man in my 30's and I quietly converted to Orthodox Christianity. I have an odd relationship with my sexuality but at this point, I would say that my faith matters more to me than my sexuality. I haven't actually renounced my sexuality, but it is a private matter, and I don't like answering a lot of questions about it...because honestly, I can't always answer them. But when I used to go to the bars, I recall the feelings of spiritual darkness that used to come with pursuing shallow sexual conquests, and it makes me shudder. So my assumption is that the behavior to put sexuality over one's relationship with God is really more what the sin of Sodom represents, rather than specifically God hating men or women who are same-sex attracted because they are same-sex attracted.
At this point, I go by spiritual feeling. Perhaps if I would find genuine love in a same sex relationship, I might think it was from God. But up until this point, what I have gotten from the gay community has been extremely shallow and, not to mince words, rather demonic energy. I would rather be voluntarily celibate and in communion with God, than going to gay bars for hook-ups or in some bad quasi-abusive relationship that will inevitably fall apart. And furthermore, I've come to accept the value of celibacy in and of itself, a life of quiet scholarship and monasticism as a personal choice; our only choice in life is not just to reproduce like some kind of livestock, so that we can brag about our worldly increase. I just have aversion to shallow sexual conquest at this point and I know that I'm not the only one who feels this way. But whether I'm in a relationship with another man or not, I know that God still loves me. It's not a black/white dilemma, God does not hate gay people for being gay. However we must still pursue morality and purity at all costs, even if means we have to choose celibacy (and there are plenty of straight people who would do better to pursue that as well).
God does love you. Although I’m heterosexual I can relate to your aversion to shallow sexual encounters. If we are made in Gods image we are destined for better, for a purer form of love, sexuality and our relationship to god. Peace be with you x
Man you have a sharp pen. Why not write a book that would never be published in your lifetime. I mean you are someone who doesn't want to be known for your past but reading what you wrote i feel you are knowledgeable and someone could use your insight to great benefit.
@Bill Birkett
Man I have a few issues with your post. I have read it over and again.
Do you still identify as a gay man?
You started quietly to make out with men, right? And now you have "converted quietly". Don't you think you can reconvert quietly? The possibility is not zilch. So seek accountability for yourself, okay? It is not an easy battle so quit treating the issue with kids gloves. But you haven't renounced your sexuality just at the moment you are at odds with it. So this can be deemed a temporary phase where your spirituality matters more than your sexuality and it could all change for the worse.
Man I could go on but like
someone in the comments remarked, get saved.
@@kofipapa2886 you don't know what it's like to be gay, but fortunately I don't have to respond to your supposed Christian love.
Hello, Bill. Please take a look of “living waters” Ray Comfort’s videos about man&man sex. May Lord bless you and give you new sight
This man has given me hope that there is a path back from the Identity politics.
Identity politics exist as a result of collective interests. They will always exist as long as there are faction, the only question is who is listened to and who is ignored.
If I got to choose someone as a dinner guest, it would be this guy. I could listen to him all day.
Im a son of God husband and a pastor and sexuality is very important to God for he also created that… He told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. The point of sexuality is to multiply so to say that we as Christians we shouldn’t look at lgbt community and not want to be a part of there belief is not right. Is these demonic agendas that the enemy infiltrates to bring theologians to say the stuff this man just said. Just like lgbt has a right to believe what they believe we also have right to believe what the word of God says to believe. We shouldn’t be led by our feelings but our believes as. Christians are not based on feelings but on facts. Man shouldn’t have sexual relationships with men or women shouldn’t with other women. Point blank….. there’s no way out of this my friend the world is in the condition is in cause of feelings. Process that theologically.
I dont judge you God dose, but you judge me because Im a Christian, the problem is not me it is between you and God. The Bible was written for man to understand God, it is man that has rebelled against God, anything that is contrary to Gods Word is wrong. You can justify your way out of the truth all you want but it still (according to God) dose not make what you do right.
You can justify yourselves all you want but God says its a sin (And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.)Romans 1:27. No mistake there....
No darling.
God doesn't say that, you're saying that about God.
You are not an objective infallible interpreter of God's will.
The activities of a pagan sex cult do not bear much relevance in this discussion.
Where is the Scripture?!?! This seems a bit psychological and not Biblical. Isn’t it about denying ourself, taking up our cross and following CHRIST? Repent!!! This Gospel will be very offensive to those who are not born again. The Gospel is a perfume to those who belong to Christ and a stench to those who are perishing.
I think you misunderstood Truman. But to verify what he said, you can start by reading Genesis 1-2.
Blessings.
My understand is that Carl Trueman is a Presbyterian? Presbyterian's, unlike we Catholics, do not possess a Catechism or a Magisterial teaching authority. Perhaps therein is the issue?
@@liammccann8763 this is wrong. Check the Westminster confession of 1647 and the Shorter and Larger catechisms.
@@Parks179-h I stand corrected regarding catechism. That does leave the issue of no Magisterium however.
@@liammccann8763, here we disagree. And I and Truman are both in full agreement with Luther and Huss regarding the authority and clarity of the word of God.
Popes and council err. The word of God is the norm which norms all norms.
In as much as I respect some of the points CT makes, I think he is dead wrong in saying that we are gay or not depending on what feelings or emotions ' happen' to us. We have no control over what emotions we feel but we are responsible for what emotions we act on. So if you are tempted to steal and do not actually steal, are you a thief? This is quite different from lusting after something. When you lust you intentionally sustain an urge to do something and if that feeling, translated is sin, then the thought of it too is sin. But if I have a feeling to have sex with a man, and don't give in to it as many times as it comes, I don't think I should be categorized as A or B base on the emotion experienced.
After all we are called to overcome temptations.Jesus was himself tempted but he did not commit to sin.
No
Feelings are not sin, feelings are feelings. They're not even truly us, they're hormones and reflex.
Lust is just sexual desire, or perhaps even just desire depending.
Except being gay (or straight) is not just who you “sexually desire”, it’s about who you love in a romantic relationship, in a committed relationship, in a companion for life.
Trueman is just using their own terminology. You could substitute eros with philia for rhetoric purposes as philia is regarded as more refined than eros in terms of epicureanic logic, but the argument is not ethical-aesthetical, but a sociological observation: there are new identities based on individual desires, namely, how one describes their "self".
Historically speaking, homosexual behaviour has been there since ancient times in various cultures and in various contexts - recreational, religious, so homosexuality is not new per se, what is new, is the idea that people describe their "self" based on their behaviour or desires, similarly to how the idea of nation and race, which have not been a universal concept, became a integral part of certain civilisations' self-perception.
You can observe a very strong religious and nationalistic identity in Judaism, a contrast to more tolerant, tribal civilisations around, but they lack a racial component; on the other hand, Nazi ideology promoted very strong racial and nationalistic identity, with religion being merely a belief or choice but not core identity.
And Trueman points to the implication of such identities: attacking a mere behaviour is not the same as attacking your sense of self. I engage in many behaviours - hobbies, drinking beer, listening to certain music. Like everyone I dislike criticism but if someone would say that my music is disgusting, I would not regard it as an attack on myself. I could just be a good person with bad taste. But what if we'd say that homosexuality is disgusting? Or burn a Quran? An attack on the behaviour (or idea) becomes synonymous with attack against the person themselves. Here I see a slope, and at its end, a world where criticism and pointing out observable truths is deemed violent and oppressive.
@@danielv.5988 Being gay is not akin to a “hobby” and is not merely a “behaviour”. You’ll find all gay people, like all straight people, do not behave the same.
How deftly Trueman dodges at least part of the issue. I can define myself as a heterosexual male AND as a Christian. The definitions deal with the true me from different perspectives. It's not really that complicated.
Also, did you hear him point out that the unnatural sexual desires are as sinful as unnatural sexual acts? Me neither.
But, you may ask, who can condemn a person's sexual desires as sinful? But isn't the Bible full of references to "sinful desires?"
Looks like Trueman is trying to leave room for bent sexual desires to be treated as legitimate, and outside the scope of Christian correction, so that folks with such desires can maintain their sexual identity while still claiming Christ as Lord.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I'm seeing here in this brief vid.
At least from my perspective after watching, I see something different.
I think Trueman leaves no room for those desires to be "outside the scope of Christian correction". At 2:39 in the video, he states that our identity is that we are "united to Christ". If we are united to Christ, then we are united to the Word, and so then it is imperative that we are obedient to the Word and deny certain sexual and behavioral desires as instructed by God through His Word.
We can claim any number of identities as people or define ourselves from different perspectives, but by claiming the Christian identity, that christian belongs no longer to sin, to themselves, or to any other, but to Christ. How God sees me is what matters rather that any of the multitudes of ways that I see myself.
You're right in the fact that identifying with one thing or another does not change other aspects of your identity; identity is multilayered and non-exclusive.
However "unnatural desire" is a contradiction in terms.
I don't know what this man believes in terms of morality on the subject but I suspect this is just a well-intentioned but woefully failed attempt at education and outreach.
Love is inherently legitimate, it is the basis for out faith. There is no Law against Love(Galatians 5:22-23), it can not be a sin.
Queer Christians can and do exist, trying to deny that does no one any good.
@@Grokford I presume what you meant to say was that "There is no law against Love" - which is some truly horrible Biblical interpretation. Have you read the rest of the Holy Book? It gives everywhere strong evidence regarding the Creator's intent in making mankind as sexual beings. So does the book of nature. importing one's favorite sin into "love" is the devil's game, thoroughly.
@@HonestlyNow4Real
I have read the Bible, I have a degree in biblical studies if you care about such things.
And if this passage:
““But the fruit of the Spirit is *love,* joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. *Against such things there is no law.* ”
Galatians 5:22-23
Can not be incorporated into your understanding of the Bible then your understanding needs to change.
Ignoring the passages you don’t like isn’t good interpretational practice either so if you have some way that this passage can be compatible with an anti-gay interpretation then by all means, be my guest and share.
It seems that one of the things which the sexual revolution school of thought is claiming by stating that love = love, is that Eros = Philos = Agape.
If that were true, then animal rescue and animal stir frying would actually be the same things. They both involve attractions, desire, and activity. If someone says they love them some chicken, why should we care what they mean by love chickens?
If love was equal to love, then gravity would actually be the same as a Mother’s love, because gravity is an attraction between bodies, and a mother waking in the middle of the night to care for her child is a coming together of bodies, so…same=same=same, right? Seems like a mantra for an age of consumerism.
This is all just straw men and ambiguity fallacies.
Sexual revolution or not, Queer people are still operating in opposition to the compartamentalization of our identities into a sexual category.
Thank you for digging a little deeper than the shallow treatment that is often forced upon us.
Carl Truman is a brilliant Historian and Theologian.
Are you tolerating identity….or sin?
I don't think Carl Trueman is shying away from calling sexual immorality sin, but he is instead arguing that this rise in redefining a persons entire being has been a new development in the history of the human race. This redefinition of self being inherently based in sexuality gives way to acts of sexual immorality, just as a wrong understanding of God's grace gives way to abusing grace.
Now as Christians we should combat false ideologies, as Paul said in Colossians 2:8 "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." In this case the philosophy would be this Freudian idea that our feelings and sexual desires are what constitutes us. I think we shouldn't tolerate empty, deceitful philosophy or sin. That's a really good question to ask ourselves to regularly check. "Am I tolerating an identity, or a sin?"
@@josiahhoward6885 That's a backwards understanding of what's happened.
Queer people exist as a category because they were defined into that box by straight people on the basis of their sexuality.
The separation is artificial and it is imposed on Queer people against our will.
It should be eliminated, not just because it is false, but because it is harmful. Defining it in terms of immorality is not less a perpetuation of the false distinction.
There is no law against Love( Galatians 5:22-23), Love is not a sin.
I have a pet horse and love it,can I get married to it and have sex with it?
Why not?
If “marriage” between two men is acceptable ,why stop there?
I know two men who love one woman ,why can’t they all be married together?
The permutations are numerous “as long as they love each other” it’s all ok.
The answer is Biblical revelation has revealed what is good and what is evil in God’s eyes.
The judgement of God awaits all people and He will be “just” in His decisions.
Either be in rebellion against your creator or ask for forgiveness through Jesus Christ.
The issue is not discretion it's disease and rape also children being treated like they're fragile cause everyone must be treated as a sheet of glass it either cuts you or it chip's or even shatters if offended. I'm sure either way someone will be offended.
@@epic6434 what are you actually saying?
The difference between two men being with each other sexually and a man/woman and an animal is that the animal (like a child) doesn’t have the mental development to be able to make an informed decision over something so serious, as such they’re being taken advantage of.
As far as the 3-way couple I agree, what it all is (in my opinion) is cheapening the sanctity of marriage, which was traditionally defined as a contractual obligation between a man and a woman with the main purpose of raising a family together.
Let me ask you something, and I hope this doesn’t come off as though I am trying to challenge you because I simply want to have a discussion. I consider myself a Christian and having a gay brother (who is a non believer but otherwise a very charitable, kind person) I consider myself to be indifferent toward the entire situation. I neither approve of it nor judge people who engage in it because I don’t feel that it is my place to judge (that right belongs to God only) I simply treat everyone with love and respect as much as I possibly can.
Anyway what I want to ask for anyone reading, hopefully another Christian, is whether you think God would judge a gay couple who is raising a child in an atmosphere of love, support and kindness more harshly than He would judge a straight couple who are alcoholics, negligent and abusive toward the child?
@@a-ron7457 Hi, lots of questions to answer. The first thing I would like to state is the Bible is the inerrant word of God. We are to follow God’s law , and try and glorify His name.
Let’s start with the last question first. You ask “Do I think God would judge a gay couple who is raising a child in an atmosphere of love,support and kindness more harshly than He would judge a straight couple who are alcoholics,negligent and abusive towards the child?”
The gay couple and the straight couple are both in rebellion against God and unless they repent and turn to Christ as their saviour ,and put their faith in Christ they will receive the just punishment.
Trying to clash two sinful situations together and try and declare one is “better” than the other ( were you trying to put that across?) is not the way to approach it.
The hostility to God’s law only leads to chaos and misery, and both parties will be subject to God’s wrath . They both need a change of heart.
@@a-ron7457 Think you were hoping for a different reply A-Ron.
You post - “ I consider myself a Christian and having a gay brother(who is a non believer but otherwise a very charitable ,kind person) I consider myself to be indifferent to the entire situation.I neither approve of it nor judge who engage in it because I don’t feel that it is my place to judge ( that right belongs to God only)”
The Bible is clear on a man lying with a man and a woman lying with a woman- it is an abomination in His sight. Maybe you should re-examine your indifference to your position?
By the way ,I don’t consider myself a Christian-I am a Christian.
More BS. You can not down play an intricate part of a person's identity that is responsible for much of the person's life choices and trajectory. If this was true we would not have any marriages or families.
You are looking at personal identity from an objective point of view, but Trueman is talking about the idea self-perception. Parts of your self-perception could be objective externalities like nationality and sex. Another part could be your political or religious beliefs. Here we see a self-perception that is based on desires and feelings. Are desires and feelings part of our decision making? No doubt. The question really is, do we view feelings as what defines our very essence? So if someone hurts my feelings, criticises my desires, do I think they are harming something of rather accessorial value , or is it an attack on my very being, perhaps on the concept of humanity?
@@danielv.5988 I would say yes. Because our very essence is not devoid of our feelings or desires. Feelings and desires are not chosen, they just are.They are there for a purpose. They provide cues and act as if they are the lights on car dashboard. The mistake is assuming that feelings and desires are simply a self-perception. People, especially men have been taught to suppress their feelings because to be emotional is to be associated with the feminine. This is detrimental to one's mental health.
@@NC-vz6ui In ancient Greek philosophy, you can see how the Stoics & the Hedonists took different stances and it has to do with epistemological differences. In the conservative mindset, which is based on ideas like tradition (an externality) or the concept of an "absolute truth", feelings don't play much of a role. Also you can change your feelings through cognitive change hence CBT DBT etc. So the question really is, how important they are, and it's up to debate.
What I mean by self-perception is not the feelings themselves but what is your own definition of your identity. E.g in some ancient cultures people could have homosexual behaviour but wouldn't identify as "homosexuals". Nowadays desires & experiences are a huge deal of the modern identity. And that has an implication, because if it's your identity, it's extremely important.
In my opinion we should have a good balance between feelings & wants, and resilience / delaying gratification etc. When feelings become the identity they become cemented and not always in a helpful way.
@@danielv.5988 I would disagree with you on the conservative mindset. Feelings play a huge role, although always denied publicly. Fear is the main driver.
@@NC-vz6ui Yes I think I didn't phrase it correctly. What I meant is that the conservative premise, on paper, denies "feelings". But sure they are driven by things like fear, nostalgia, being low on openness to experience etc. etc.
Fantastic!
Transness is not a sexual desire. This guy need to stop.
What is your point Lauren.
"Transness" is not even a problem.