2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Irreconcilable Differences of Humanistic Rules for Society

Reader comment on item: Jerusalem, Jordan, and the Jews
in response to reader comment: الاسلام دين ودولة and the OTHER and المثليين or LGBT and the bizarre relationship between the regressive left and Islam!

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Sep 21, 2020 at 17:40

Among the more contentious attitudes of determining consequences for what is considered anti-social conduct in religious settings is that of what has become known as the sector of society now know as LBGT, neutral terminology for persons that have identified themselves for the lifestyle(s) they desire to pursue for personal reasons; reasons historically that placed them in an adversarial situation in past societies for the challenge to what was considered appropriate relationships in patriarchal/matriarchal familial settings. The issues of what the LBGT represents are not new; they go back into history, farther back than what most historical records have recognized; and not without commentary as to the controversy it represents.
A significant aspect to the issues is found in the religious records and the attitudes of those who were found practicing such activities against the religious rulings; in some instances, there were dreadful consequences for having rebelled against some of the earliest laws of prohibition against such behavior. In the previous post, we are reminded of Lot, a relative of Abram, the transient believer in the Eternal Sovereign that we are told was preparing judgment for the unrepentant sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, apparently engaging in such practices; Abram was advised that those localities were endangered and Abram argued for tolerance for the sake of those who may not be involved in those practices. Abram was finally told that for the sake of just ten souls, destructions could be averted. Abram was thinking of his nephew Lot and he could be saved.
When the day of destruction arrived, the angelic entities that accompanied the Lord when visiting Abram, were on the scene when they were accosted by the people of Sodom that were targeted for their excesses as they approached them. When Lot saw and intervened, taking the 'visitors' indoors for protection-he thought he was protecting them when in reality they were there to protect him from the judgment, since Lot and his family did not represent the full ten souls of the previous days' agreement. The southeast corner of the Dead Sea still bears the scars of that day, something that should be a clue, and a modern day advisory.
Now, while realizing this is not that day, and due to the fact that in the intervening years, the Jewish Savior was put to the cross of Roman jurisdiction at the request of the religious rulers of that day; He took the penalty for sins, even the sins of the like of Sodom and Gomorrah, placing the love of God in the way of judgement for those who will repent of their sins and enter into the rest of grace and salvation. Unbelief then becomes the deadly sin; its penalty can never be defrayed if it's not accepted in the frame of love it was offered. Make no mistake, lust is not love as mankind knows it; even more, the love of God cannot be mistaken for feigned love as humans mistake it.
But a more important aspect is seen here; humanity is not the judge of such behavior when judgment is reserved to the LORD. If repentance is truly sought, not only for the act, but for the thought of it as well; it will be granted. Only in the grace of the Savior Yeshua HaMashiach does this offer of salvation give access to the heavenly path true believers seek: but the past is eliminated from judgment for those who believe and seek the LORD in such repentance. Only God can make that judgment. But make no further mistake, judgment is coming when the love of God is being rejected for the lust of pride as it is now; and turning from sinful activities is the only recourse left to keep from being caught in judgment.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Irreconcilable Differences of Humanistic Rules for Society by M Tovey

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)