-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Monotheistic non-trinitarian LGBTQ affirming religions?
- Thread starter Karolina
- Start date
Monotheistic non-trinitarian LGBTQ affirming religions?
Hmmm...seems like a tall order.....
Can I ask why affirming LGBTQ is important? We've got the non-trinitarian aspect but can there be tolerance for something that God's word so roundly and specifically condemns?
JW's have some who identify as any of those categories, but we do not condone the behaviors that go with the identification and they know it. Those who have such tendencies are welcome in our congregations but they have some decisions to make.....being 'gay' (or any of the other letters) is not any more sinful than any other quirk of our present imperfect nature.....no one can help their sexual orientation, but one cannot practice what God says is immoral. Why is it wrong?
It has to do with what sex is for. God designed sex in humans to be moral and only to be practiced in scriptural marriage. All sex outside of marriage (regardless of gender) is immoral, according to God's laws. In all of nature we see that sex is designed for reproduction, not just pleasure....it is a strong drive to ensure the survival of any species, but only humans have laws to govern their behavior.
To eliminate the design to concentrate on the pleasure is disrespectful to God whose laws have always stressed sexual morality.
Can you argue with that?
Hmmm...seems like a tall order.....
Can I ask why affirming LGBTQ is important? We've got the non-trinitarian aspect but can there be tolerance for something that God's word so roundly and specifically condemns?
JW's have some who identify as any of those categories, but we do not condone the behaviors that go with the identification and they know it. Those who have such tendencies are welcome in our congregations but they have some decisions to make.....being 'gay' (or any of the other letters) is not any more sinful than any other quirk of our present imperfect nature.....no one can help their sexual orientation, but one cannot practice what God says is immoral. Why is it wrong?
It has to do with what sex is for. God designed sex in humans to be moral and only to be practiced in scriptural marriage. All sex outside of marriage (regardless of gender) is immoral, according to God's laws. In all of nature we see that sex is designed for reproduction, not just pleasure....it is a strong drive to ensure the survival of any species, but only humans have laws to govern their behavior.
To eliminate the design to concentrate on the pleasure is disrespectful to God whose laws have always stressed sexual morality.
Can you argue with that?
Karolina
Member
A tall order, indeed, I'm finding 
The interpretation of Scripture is at issue. Traditional, orthodox interpretations agree with what you state here. But there are other interpretations, ones that take into account the culture of the times, etc. The 30,000 Christian denominations clearly show that within Christianity, interpretation of Scripture is not at all unanimous. I don't want to enter into a debate about my understanding of God's unconditional love for all, or how marriage in the Hebrew Scriptures often resembled harems, etc. Abraham himself had a son with his concubine... so this idea that marriage has always been viewed as between one woman and one man throughout the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is actually a fallacy. The best counter-argument that is still quite succinct is this: God created male and female, just like He created light and darkness, water and land, etc etc. The existence of the two polar opposites does not mean that there is nothing in between. This explanation was given to affirm transgender Christians, but the idea is still a nice one (for me, anyway). If marriage is only for the propagation of the species, then no heterosexual married couples should even be engaged in intercourse during the woman's infertile period, and all Christians should have as many children as possible or alternately remain celibate after having the desired amount of children. Just saying.
God bless
The interpretation of Scripture is at issue. Traditional, orthodox interpretations agree with what you state here. But there are other interpretations, ones that take into account the culture of the times, etc. The 30,000 Christian denominations clearly show that within Christianity, interpretation of Scripture is not at all unanimous. I don't want to enter into a debate about my understanding of God's unconditional love for all, or how marriage in the Hebrew Scriptures often resembled harems, etc. Abraham himself had a son with his concubine... so this idea that marriage has always been viewed as between one woman and one man throughout the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is actually a fallacy. The best counter-argument that is still quite succinct is this: God created male and female, just like He created light and darkness, water and land, etc etc. The existence of the two polar opposites does not mean that there is nothing in between. This explanation was given to affirm transgender Christians, but the idea is still a nice one (for me, anyway). If marriage is only for the propagation of the species, then no heterosexual married couples should even be engaged in intercourse during the woman's infertile period, and all Christians should have as many children as possible or alternately remain celibate after having the desired amount of children. Just saying.
God bless
eik
Active Member
Unitarian Universalism (UU) and the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) do not insist on any scriptural beliefs as such, and would be deemed heretical by most denominations (they seem to embody the very essence of the word "heresy"), and can be described as non-trinitarian LGBTQ without aspersion. However please don't suppose I am personally classifying them as in any sense Christian. I do not believe they are. To be a Christian means to follow Christ, and to follow Christ means to obey his commands, a primary command being not to "continue to sin" 1 John 3:9, where sin includes, for New Testament saints, refraining from LGBTQ (e.g. in 1Cor 6:9).
