The Washing Post: How Sodomy Rode into the Church on the Back of Luther-Calvin Adultery
“A question to conservative Christians on gay marriage: Why draw the line here? Many traditionalist Christians view homosexual relationships as sinful. I think they are wrong, but I acknowledge that this is a long-held view. Yet many of the same Christians also view adultery as a sin. Jesus was tough on divorce. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder,” he says in Matthew’s Gospel.
But unless I am missing something, we do not see court cases from website designers or florists or bakers about refusing to do business with people in their second or third marriages. We do not see the same ferocious response to adultery as we do to same-sex relationships. Heck, conservative Christians in large numbers were happy to put aside their moral qualms and vote twice for a serial adulterer. Why the selective forgiveness? Why the call to boycott only this one perceived sin?” Washington Post
—--------------------------
The question is why the cakemeister refused to make a wedding cake for sodomite marriage, but will make one for divorce-adultery remarriage. More broadly, why would a “good church” allow divorced-remarried” people to become members, but turn away sodomites. Because, as everyone who has read the Bible knows, sodomites and adulterers will share the same space in Hell. So why keep them separate on earth?
Because divorce-adultery may be sin, but it is not against Nature. Christians can be sinners, but they will not “sin against Nature.”
Divorce-adultery is not an obvious sin. How do you know if a couple is divorce-remarried? But what example is it to children if two men show up with children and claim to be married? "Avoid the appearance of evil."
The divorce-remarried are forgiven when they repent, and though they may not be able to become deacons and may suffer loss of reward, if they are saved, they are forgiven. But how do married sodomites repent without repenting of their sin?
The divorce-remarried sayings of Jesus have, since the time of Luther and Calvin, been seen as “exaggerated speech” and cannot to be taken literally, whereas, the Bible is very explicit on the Abomination.
Few people can comprehend how divorce-remarriage can be Hugh Hefner adultery. These people get remarried so as not to commit adultery. So how could Jesus call it adultery? Again, Jesus spoke when people still had to obey the Law, and were not yet under Grace. Jesus came to fulfill the Law because sinful man could not, so a believer is exempt from the Law. Which is why Luther could recommend polygamy to those in his church who could not keep the 7th Commandment.
There is “no exception clause” for sodomite marriage which would allow them to stay remarried and remain members of a “good church.”
Divorce-remarriage doesn’t seem wrong. Why would God punish you for making a mistake?
Believers are under Grace. What’s done is done. Once remarried, you would have to divorce again, and two wrongs don’t make a right. Whereas “against Nature” could never be under Grace, because how could anything that looks so sinful be under grace without repentance and forsaking such a monstrous sin, compared to which divorce-remarriage “is it not a little one?”
Seven out of the nine Supreme Justices were taught that divorce-remarriage is “a permanent state of adultery.” This was the teaching of the Church until Luther and Calvin introduced divorce as just another sin, and remarriage not even a sin. If a murderer could murder seven times seventy and be forgiven why not a serial adulterer. Repent and move on. The Grace of the Cross is sufficient to pay for all the sins of the World a million times over. So why get hung up on one sin: the sin of divorce-adultery? If you sin, confess and move on. And because no Christian is ever perfect, why would divorce-remarriage adultery make them unsaved? Are you perfect? No? Or is your imperfectness more holy than divorce-remarried sin? Are you saying you can be saved while cuddling little sins, but cannot be saved for refusing to repent of bigger sins? Why then could you not remain a saved adulterer? Is a person saved by not committing adultery? But then he is saved by keeping the 7th Commandment. If you apply Grace at every stage, you will not get into these contradictions. The fact that you keep mentioning repentance when talking about salvation, Luther would say, shows that you do not understand Grace. To put the point beyond dispute, he cried out: “Sin boldly to show the sufficiency of Grace.”
Seven out of the nine Justices would have to agree with the point the Washington Post is making here. Which is: if you can participate in an adulterous remarriage (which is contrary to Scripture), then why would conscience prevent you from accommodating sodomite marriage?
Evangelicals cast the Bible aside to accommodate adultery. The Washington Post is all for that. But now Evangelicals turn around and draw the line at their own sin. “Thus far shalt thou come and no further.” Luther and Calvin redefined adultery by tricking the Bible to get an “outcome based” result. But now the fire has leaped its bounds and is devouring their sanctuaries. Sodomites are only asking for the same permissions Luther and Calvin granted their followers: improvise the Bible as you go by redefining sin, and, where this becomes laughable, take refuge in Grace. But how is it, the Washington Post asks, that Grace is sufficient to cover Christian adultery, but not Christian sodomy? Is there such a thing as Christian sodomy? Is there such a thing as Christian adultery? These are the questions the Washington Post asks of the “good church.”
What is the Post doing here? What Paul does in Romans 2, applying Critical Sin Theory (he shows how cooking the Law works: thou that sayest a man should not commit sodomy, dost thou commit adultery? "The name of God is blasphemed" because they had tricked the Scripture to accommodate their own sins, while targeting those of others. Long before the world "sodomite" became hateful and offensive, Protestants tricked the word "adultery" by watering it down to "marital unfaithfulness," mistakes were made," "improper relationship," "compromising situation," etc. Trump, says the Post, is a "serial adulterer" (but they would never print the word "sodomy"). So here you have the Left sticking to the old-fashioned term, which Protestants forsook when it became too judgmental. Watch them cringe when you say "adultery." But the Left will hiss them away from the debating table for using the old-fashioned term "sodomy." There you have the doomed Culture War in a nutshell. You would not use the word "adulterer" among Evangelicals without being seen as a meanspirited and hateful person. And so Gay rode into the church on the backs of Mistake, Unfaithful, and Improper. Where adultery is whittled down, sodomy is belittled. "Is it not a little one?" It was big enough to make it on God's list of cities to be destroyed. Lot passed into Sodom through little Zoar, and through it into the cave on the way out. Here's the abrupt version: "I wouldn't take a shoe latchet from you." That's the unvexed version, the equivalent of Joseph's advice to Jacob: "tell Pharaoh that Israelites are shepherds" to make sure the Egyptians keep their distance because "they consider a shepherd to be an abomination." No one ever got entangled in a Cultural War with "the foolishness of the Cross." It didn't get Abraham many visitors, which is why he was so exited when God and the angels stopped by. The NY Times will refuse to engage in a Cultural War with you if you keep referring to their "trans youth" by their Biblical name: sodomites. Children are confused and curious because they hear their parents use the NY Time's dictionary when referring to the Abomination. Now the hottest trend is Drag Queens reading children's books in public libraries. On the other hand, with divorce-remarriage become a rite of passage, no child could possible tell you what "Thou shalt not commit adultery" means in the Bible. Why, the Washington Post asks, are parents afraid to expose their children to sodomites, but sing the praises of serial adulterers? Marxist Critical Theory is a tool to expose hypocrisy within a system by exposing its intentional, structural, and camouflaged contradictions. "The sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God," need only be watered down to become dull and "of none effect." Imagine the uproar if vexed Lot had called the people of Sodom, "sodomites." "Judgmental," they sneered. He forgot that he's no more than an immigrant, and now wants to be "a judge." Until the nights of violence, he assumed he had fit in. Abraham had faith and spoke with rebuke. When Lot finally spoke, his in-laws and the "brethren" outside scoffed.
In short, what the Washington Post is saying is that the adulterous pot is calling the sodomist kettle black.
"The A.C.L.U and other advocacy groups filed a federal civil rights complaint against the Keller school district, arguing that banning books about gender fluidity creates “a pervasively hostile atmosphere for L.G.B.T.Q.+ students." NY Times
By "students" they mean children. "Gender fluid" children. "Gender fluidity" is now the latest fad in Hollywood, especially among women. But if children are "gender fluid" they must be nurtured accordingly. Here's where the men in dresses come in: Groomer. Texas and Florida are turning themselves inside out trying to control the fad. You might as well try to clean up TV. What used be called "sodomite" is now "cute." They're going after books and school boards. Missing? Teachers. Were all grade school teachers shipped in from Blue States? If not, why don't these Bible Belters get up in class and call a somite a sodomite, from one end of the List to the next. When the Serpent ordered me to swear in court I said, "I will not," looked down at my Bible and said, for it is written, "But I say unto you, swear not at all, but let communication Yea, yea, Nay, nay." "Then do it some other way," she hissed, for Satan doesn't mind which gods your swear by (she tried to get me to use whittled down swearing ("affirm"). Again I said, "I will not, as it is written, my Yea shall stand for my Yea and my Nay for my Nay." Calvin and Luther would have had me burned at the stake for that. "I believe, and therefore, I have spoken." "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ." These Evangelical cowards show their spiritual bankruptcy by their silence. How many teachers have gotten into trouble for speaking their mind? Either they have all been shipped in from Blue States, or they are not so much as "vexed" by "gender fluidity." Are these teachers "born again-saved" after the manner of Clinton-Bush? The educational system is a third of the government. But I haven't heard of a single instance of a Christian being dismissed for speaking what they believe. Likely, the depth of their faith matches that of their preachers, who howl for Big Government to create morality in the classroom. But the morality in the classroom, as the Washington Post points out, matches the morality of the church, because an adulterer (see how quickly Paul deconstructs Temple religion with Common Sense theory) cannot rebuke a sodomite. Wokeness is but another version of the washed sow, the woke pot calling the washed kettle black. But how did so many Critical Woke Teachers get into Texas/Florida classrooms? This is the born again "once saved always saved" choir we're talking about here. How many can DeSantis name who have suffered for righteousness sake, not counting the costs? None. They're all too busy counting their pensions. Put one person of a sound mind in one of these mega schools and see what happens. They're being woke, afraid of being cancelled and cast out of the synagogue. The same hypocrisy that you see on the Left. A sharp rebuke by Abraham sent the king of Sodom flying.
Remember Christian Conversion Therapy a decade ago. They even tried it on adulterers (the Atlanta killer was in the program). Snipping at twigs, when the ax needs to be laid to the root of the tree. They made them twice the children of Hell then themselves. It's what you get when you bring the washed sow into the church, and wonder why the church needs tidying from one end the other. A person who does not repent when he believes is no more than a washed sow.