Today's Ruling

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
4,760
3,103
New England
✟192,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is a breakdown in the analogy of comparing the wedding cake/photographer cases with the earlier not serving blacks situation. It would be the same IF the baker/photographer refused to work with gay people in any capacity. For example, if the baker wouldn't sell a gay person a birthday cake or donuts. Or the photographer wouldn't take pictures of two gay people together. Those I would agree are discriminatory in a business setting.

However, in these cases, the only indications is that they wouldn't serve the wedding. That is a significant difference and is indicative that it is not because the people are gay but because they believe gay marriage goes against their beliefs and do not feel they can participate.

FWIW, my personal beliefs would allow me to sell the cake or take the pictures at the wedding. But I also fully grasp how some would find that doesn't reconcile with their sincere beliefs. And that does not mean fear or loathing of the people is involved.

And again, unless the baker is also turning away the non-Christian wedding cakes, the baby shower cakes of the single mothers, refusing service to the divorced couple getting remarried to new partners, the couple who already has kids, or anybody serving pork, the whole "my morality forbids it" thing is deeply conditional.

The only time people seem to feel so compelled to follow their faith to the letter is when it gets them out of something they really don't want to do in the first place.

You find me the baker who whips out his Bible with his cake order form to ensure the people he's providing a cake to are adhering to the tenants of his faith as he sees it and not secular or non-Christian beliefs, I'll rethink my stance. But the fact is, I've yet to see the person who's rejecting a service to homosexuals as he or she does other "sinners" according to his or her faith. It's the "being gay" that seems to be the sticking point, not lack of adherence to their faith.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm certain you've heard this argument against that, but here goes: do you wear mixed clothing? What about if you die? Will your brother (if you have a brother that lived on the same property as you)....be marrying your widow? The Bible says she "cannot marry outside the family if you don't have a son" in Deut 25:5 (hopefully you don't live on the same property as your family---I guess that's the loophole there). Do you eat shellfish? For someone that has a daughter......would you be a-okay with her rapist being forced to marry her? Because both sides can play the "you pick and choose to believe what you want" game. What it *really* comes down to, though, is how one interprets the *whole* message.

Many debate the relation of the OT commands to NT believers. However, this is something spoken of in both the Old and New Testament. So I am not sure that argument does much.

And the terminology argument, while important to discussing some texts, does not address all of them either.

Romans 1 is critical in the discussion for the following reasons:

a. The way it is phrased is not dependent on a particular word definition. It describes behavior rather than naming types of people.

b. It is not referencing any OT command.

c. The context is not a local situation, but a far reaching overview of man's descent into sin. It therefore is harder to simply speak of it being some aspect of a local cultural situation that would not apply to other times or places.

It is one thing to speak of various instances that are difficult to interpret. But I haven't seen a lot of actual disagreement about what Romans 1 means.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.



This is found in the middle of an argument by Paul that all people (not just homosexuals), are alike under sin. The argument begins in 1:18, and extends to 3:21, where Paul concludes that all sin and are in need of grace.


What is there to indicate that the text means anything other that what it says? It is clearly portraying men having sex with men, or women having sex with women in a negative light. It is one example in a list of examples of the sins of humankind outlined in the section.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdmsanjose
Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
4,760
3,103
New England
✟192,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
4,760
3,103
New England
✟192,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Also, a Baptist pastor I know began marrying same sex couples too, almost immediately after the ruling. Now that people feel they have the freedom to stand up and say "I wasn't ok with this, but I feared persecution if I said as much," people are really making their positions known. I find the freedom coming from the lack of fear and the government blessed justification that it is what's right for us as a society and our country to be absolutely beautiful.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thankfully, there are some who understand that what happened isn't a loss for those of faith, but a victory for citizens of our country... Episcopalians have agreed to start marrying same sex couples. Overwhelmingly.

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2015/07/episcopalians_vote_to_allow_ga.html


I do not think the government could have done anything other than what it did. I see denying them the right to marry as being discriminatory.


My issue is with the churches who ignore plain statements of Scripture. And yes, they are plain in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdmsanjose
Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
4,760
3,103
New England
✟192,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I do not think the government could have done anything other than what it did. I see denying them the right to marry as being discriminatory.

My issue is with the churches who ignore plain statements of Scripture. And yes, they are plain in this case.

It isn't "plain" otherwise it wouldn't be debated. And there's just as much in the Bible about accepting that all of us sin, we all sin in different ways, and our sins are not to be used as weapons against each other.

The Baptist pastor who's marrying same-sex couples said this:

"I will marry same sex couples who want to be married. I am not going to turn people who come to me and ask for an audience in my church with my God away. I am not to be a barrier to people seeking Him, but a ladder. Any person who comes through my door with nothing but a desire for blessings from God, who I desperately seek blessings from in my life, will receive that along with my humble gratitude that they chose me to be the ones who deliver it to them. On my judgment day I would rather apologize for leaving the doors to God's home open too wide than apologize closing my doors too tight and rejecting an opportunity for people to see our God wants nothing more than their salvation and deliverance. I think this has taught all of us that in God anything is possible. People who were among the least of us in society for so long are now beating a path to the house of God looking for what could be the start to their path in the relationship of the Lord. I'm honored to be the catalyst for that potential journey and welcome all with open arms. I pray for them as I hope they pray for me. We are all sinners and in need of prayers."
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It isn't "plain" otherwise it wouldn't be debated.

I have yet to see a serious debate on Romans 1 that says it is not saying what it appears to say.

I have seen folks say they think Paul is not inspired. That of course is a different argument.

And there's just as much in the Bible about accepting that all of us sin, we all sin in different ways, and our sins are not to be used as weapons against each other.

The Scriptures do affirm all of us sin. They also speak about repentance from sin. How can you repent of something you do not see as sinful? And yet the Bible characterizes it as sin.

Is your argument that it is not sin, or that we should not look at the issue of sin in the church?


The Baptist pastor who's marrying same-sex couples said this:

The Baptist pastor in the portion you quoted simply gave his opinion. While I have no doubt there are pastors who will say just about anything, the historical position of Christianity is informed by the Scriptures, and they cannot just be ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdmsanjose
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Feel free to explain how Romans 1 does not mean what is seems to plainly say.

And please do not use the excuse of the rules, because you are posting pro-gay articles left and right. What are the biblical arguments that Paul was not condemning men having sex with men and women having sex with women in Romans 1?

You can present them from an academic standpoint if you like, so there is no assumption you are promoting your view.
 
Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
4,760
3,103
New England
✟192,560.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have yet to see a serious debate on Romans 1 that says it is not saying what it appears to say.

I'm not sure what Paul's statements about idolatry have to do with the issue... Since the passage ends that those who practice idolatry or the sins of indulgence deserve to die, are we to understand that because you interpret it to be about homosexuality and irrefutable, you believe homosexuals deserve to die?

I have seen folks say they think Paul is not inspired. That of course is a different argument.

Paul is no Jesus, that's for sure. But again, that's beside the point. So in a talk about idolatry, he mentioned same sex intercourse which in some versions further refined to same sex relations with children... The subtext about a discussion about idolatry by somebody who is not Jesus is not a clear enough basis or justification to deny people rights. Especially since the moral of the story was everybody is a sinner in their various sins.

Since the church is designed to be a refuge for the sinner to seek God, even if we were to think homosexuality is a sin, it's no more or less a sin than any of us act on on a daily basis. They don't slam the church door in my face ovet my sins yet we say we should over a homosexuals supposed sin?

The Scriptures do affirm all of us sin. They also speak about repentance from sin. How can you repent of something you do not see as sinful? And yet the Bible characterizes it as sin.

I'd imagine the same way you repent of sins you don't acknowledge as sin amdwillingly and repeatedly engage in, despite the Bible stating it is a sin.

Homosexuals... They're just like us. Even in matters of faith.

Is your argument that it is not sin, or that we should not look at the issue of sin in the church?

My argument is that it isn't a sin and even if it was, that is not a justification to condemn homosexuals or deny those who which to honor their presence in church the ability to do so. We all sin. That's why we need the church. To say a segment sins and thus is excluded, while opening the doors to other sinners a s welcoming them is hypocritical and against the whole point of the faith.

The Baptist pastor in the portion you quoted simply gave his opinion. While I have no doubt there are pastors who will say just about anything, the historical position of Christianity is informed by the Scriptures, and they cannot just be ignored.

And that is your opinion. You cannot keep confusing your opinion for fact and writing the rest odd that conflicts with it as false. After awhile, it seems like you're trying to justify exclusion using the Bible for reasons that are personal. For every vague passage that maybe, sort of addresses homosexuality as a sin, there are a dozen more clear, concise passages that remind us we all sin, it is our duty to not exclude or punish, judge, and remember that God is in even those who are the least among us, ie, the minority. I don't see how we can twist a rant by Paul about idolitry into proof of God's distance of homosexualiy, but ignore the countless stories and words of Jesus and how he saved the adultress, rebuked those who would harm her, walked with thieves and prostitutes, kept company with unrepentant sinners and demanded those who would judge them to instead forgive and love them as they who judge are as sin full as those they judge.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure what Paul's statements about idolatry have to do with the issue... Since the passage ends that those who practice idolatry or the sins of indulgence deserve to die, are we to understand that because you interpret it to be about homosexuality and irrefutable, you believe homosexuals deserve to die?

He lists a number of sins, which include idolatry, and women who have sexual relations with women, and men who have sexual relations with men, and a number of others:

Rom 1:29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom 1:32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.


Yes, he is indicating all of those sins merit death. And he sees grace as the solution. And I would agree. However, he also advocates in a number of places turning away from sins following salvation. And the Scriptures speak about repentance from sin.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul is no Jesus, that's for sure. But again, that's beside the point.

Since Jesus is the only one who could be, yes, that is factually accurate. However, the vast majority of Christians have held Paul to be inspired. That is why we look at what he writes.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So in a talk about idolatry, he mentioned same sex intercourse which in some versions further refined to same sex relations with children...

It is not a talk only about idolatry. It is a talk about God's wrath against mankind which for Paul started with turning away from worship to God, and then devolved from there.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
he mentioned same sex intercourse which in some versions further refined to same sex relations with children...

You would have to present actual evidence for the verse referencing sex relations with children as it does not say this:

Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Each usage of men is the same Greek word, and the reflexive "one another" is used as well, indicating no distinction such as men with boys.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The subtext about a discussion about idolatry by somebody who is not Jesus is not a clear enough basis or justification to deny people rights.

It is not a discussion only about idolatry, but about the wrath of God against humanity due to its many, varied sins.

And the "somebody who is not Jesus" is regarded as a apostle by the church, and the folks who were with Jesus also accepted him as such. He claimed to receive his message from Jesus, and Christianity has held so since that time.

Do you reject all Pauline epistles as spurious, and only accept direct words of Jesus?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Especially since the moral of the story was everybody is a sinner in their various sins.

Yes, that was exactly the moral of the story. And that would indicate it was a sin, would it not?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Since the church is designed to be a refuge for the sinner to seek God, even if we were to think homosexuality is a sin, it's no more or less a sin than any of us act on on a daily basis. They don't slam the church door in my face ovet my sins yet we say we should over a homosexuals supposed sin?

Paul slammed the church door on people for heterosexual sins as well.

1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—
1Co 5:10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
1Co 5:13 God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."


The church was a place for people to repent of sins and turn to God. Doubtless as James says we all stumble in many ways. I am certainly no exception. And in I John we are told that anyone who claims to be without sin is a liar and the truth is not in him.

However, that does not mean we can go on living in determined sin without repentance as a continual course. Paul did say to judge that. Even then the purpose was restoration. But it sometimes meant removing them from the church.


I'd imagine the same way you repent of sins you don't acknowledge as sin amdwillingly and repeatedly engage in, despite the Bible stating it is a sin.

I am not aware of any sin I am repeatedly engaging in without repentance, but if there is one I most certainly hope my church would do exactly what Paul indicates and bring it to my attention so that I may repent of it and turn away from it.


Homosexuals... They're just like us. Even in matters of faith.

Just like us in that if we continue to live in willful sin we will not inherit the kingdom of God. He wants us to be washed and sanctified:

1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My argument is that it isn't a sin

Why would Paul list it then in a series of sins, in a passage that you acknowledge was to point out the sins of all?

What is your argument for it not being a sin?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My argument is that it isn't a sin and even if it was, that is not a justification to condemn homosexuals or deny those who which to honor their presence in church the ability to do so.

Paul indicated we should put the sexual immoral out of the church, including those who persist in heterosexual immorality.

Explain why we should not accept the view of an apostle over your view.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,843
Visit site
✟868,286.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We all sin. That's why we need the church. To say a segment sins and thus is excluded, while opening the doors to other sinners a s welcoming them is hypocritical and against the whole point of the faith.

I think you are missing the point. We should not be opening the doors to anyone who does not turn away from persistent sin. Paul indicated the same. It is not just about homosexuals. I have confronted ongoing adulterers in a church I pastored as well. And they repented, went back to their wife, and that was a good thing. And those who would not, they are to be removed.

Yes we all sin. And if we do we are to repent of it, not say it is not sin and keep doing it.

1Jn 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
 
Upvote 0