Should Christians oppose gay civil marriage?

[EnemyPartyII]

EP2, let me ask you something. What does "do not steal" mean to you? How about "love your neighbor as yourself?" And what does it mean to not judge?

Also, a majority of Christians give in some form; money for missionary work overseas, money to support the local church, time in doing work or service projects for the church or community to help out other Christians or to spread God's Word locally or overseas, or to help Christians overseas have safe places to worship in places like China where it's outlawed. What are you doing for homosexuals who are dying for what they want? What are you doing for gays in repressed Islamic countries? Are you even thinking about them? What are you doing for gays in your country or the USA dying of AIDS? Are you thinking about them or praying for them? You said you are a loving, devout Christian.

Please be kind enough to answer all of these; I'm going somewhere with this.

I can imagine where you're going, but OK, I'll play along...

First of all, I think "stealing" is a far more concrete concept than "fornication", however, even stealing is a muteable, plastic social concept, and subject to changes in understanding. Want an example?

Income tax. In the ancient Hebrew context, income tax would be indistinguishable from theft.

"Insurance" would be considered a game of chance. However, contexts, definitions, and social norms change.

As for the whole thing about what am I doing for "gays" in other countries?

Well, I am involved in a number of programs and organisations that encourage improvements in human rights generally. I don't really do anything that specifically targets homosexual rights in other countries, because really I think its a case of generosity begins at home, and I do what I can here. More broadly, I see no difference between improving treatment of homosexuals, and improving the human rights standardas as applied to ANY misstreated group overseas, and I contribute where I can to what I see as being the most effective charities and action groups to effect such changes. Does that answer your question?

As for HIV/AIDS, firstly, I am training to be a nurse, and I directly help individuals with HIV/AIDS that way. Second, I don't believe in treating HOMOSEXUALS with HIV/AIDS, I believe in treating PEOPLE with HIV/AIDS. Through a program of adequate education and harm minimisation, we can stop the spread of HIV, whether the vector be sex, drug equipment, medically induced, or whatever. The sexuality of the carrier is irrelevant. Through providing adequate healthcare to PEOPLE in need, it is also possible to significantly improve the quality and length of life for HIV/AIDS patients, again, regardless of their sexuality.

Sexuality is irrelevant as far as HIV/AIDS is concerned.

IS that what you were looking for, or do you need to make your question more specific?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Point of order, may I take this opportunity to point out that a literal, legalist interpretation of the Bible also commands the stoning of female rape victims?

Only as a property crime.

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.” Deuteronomy 22:23-24

as you can see this rule only applies to women who belong to another man. The rapist here violated a piece of property and removed what little value it had.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Interesting how you unquestioningly accept that the 19th century meaning of the term "fornication" is an accurate interpretation of the original Hebrew.

what πορνεια originally would have meant, derived from πορνη, a prostitute or harlot. So fornication has nothing to do with extramarital or pre-marital sex (as in the use of rape to force a girl (or multiple girls) into marriage but rather the use of prostitutes. We can see Paul had a thing about this condemning it often including 1 Corinthians 6:9

 

[darkshadow]

It does so multiple times, usually as a means of forcing girls into marriage, often times these girls were prisoners of war

Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30
Zechariah 14:1-2

Actually the bible only condemns male on male rape. Strange given that it generally approves of male on female rape

The above scriptures in no way have God condoning rape. Lets look at them one by one:
1. Judges 21:10-24 - God is not even speaking in the passage, this is the Israelites who say to steal the women for the tribe of Benjamen. Just because the Israelites do something does not make it from God.
2. Numbers 31:7-18 - The virgin women who were innocent of the indecencies at Peor were spared, as the word "save" in this passage means in the Hebrew language, and taken as wives, and again it is not God speaking but Moses.
3. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 Again is speaking as taking of as wives as part of the plunder, rape not mentioned.
4. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 - This passage talks about making a woman of war, plunder as in 20:10-14, a wife and even speaks of her having a grieving period for her mother and fathers death. It also speaks about if she wants to go to let her go. That sure sounds like a forced rape to me, "you know you want it, oh you don't okay bye."
5. Judges 5:30 - This again is not God speaking, but Deborah and was a song of victory from war. It is also, in verse 30, not the Isaelites speaking but the mother of there enemy, gloating at what her son "obviously" is doing and keeping him, which he was not because he was dead.
6. Zachariah 14:1-2 You left out verse 3 and on which completes the context. Verse 3 "Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations..." These verses are speakin of Jerusalems fall and the coming of the Messiah. It is one of many Messianic Prophecies of the Bible. He is not condoning the treatment of Jersualem, otherwise he would not step into stop it himself. The verses before are even more important but I'll let you read them yourself.
Rape is mentioned in the Bible in verses like Deuteronomy 22:25-26, "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has commited no sin deserving death." Along with a few other verses in chapter 22. Oh and this is a case of a man raping a woman and it not being okay as you stated.

Slaves are slaves.
Leviticus 25:44-46 details laws about purchasing slaves including the purchasing of children and the fact that slaves are passed on as inheritance

Exodus 21:2-6 tells us that children born into slavery are slaves for life

Exodus 21:7-11 relates the rules for selling your own daughter into slavery

Exodus 21:7-11 tells us the proper way to beat and even kill slaves and how this is OK as slaves are “property”

1 Timothy 6:1-2 condemns slaves who try to free themselves and or run away from slavery

1 Timothy 6:1-2 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believeing masters are not show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit form their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them. I read of respect from both and in a lot of cases slaves were self enter slaves. That is they would come to a weathy man and ask to be there slaves, because it was a higher social class then having nothing. That is the main thing about ancient slavery, it was not against a certain race, as in ours, but more of a social standing. In Exodus 21:1-4 says about a Hebrew servant, that they are only to serve for six years and then the seventh let free with no debt, unless the servant asks to stay as a slave then they stay for life, or when the master lets them free. If a slave is bought as a wife for a son, then she becomes a daughter. In exodus 21:16 it states "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." This shows that the slave trade as in the early America's was wrong. You were not allowed to just kidnap someone and sell them into slavery.
As I have stated before slavery in ancient times was not the same. in 2 Kings 4:1 speaks of the widow talking to Elisha about the creditors coming to take her sons as slaves to pay there dead fathers debt. In Leviticus 25:39-40 says, "If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. To show I do keep in context in later verses it does speak of making foreigners as slaves, however slaves here is the same as an indentured servant, which is a debt bonding servant, as many who traveled to the America's during the 17th century. That is the Hebrew meaning for the word used here in the passage. In fact, there are several uses for the words "slave", "slavery", and "slaves" in the Hebrew language. The term slave as we know it is used in speaking of being a slave to sin.
In 2 Samuel 9:10 We even see an example of servants owning servant, something a "slave" as we know it would not be allowed to do.

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matt 5:18

Matthew 15:10-11 "Jesus called the crowd to him and said, 'Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean', but what comes out of his mouth is what makes him 'unclean'.'"
1 Timothy 4:3-5 "They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected it it is received with thanksgiving because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer"
Acts 10:10-16 "He (Peter), became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.' 'Surely not Lord!' Peter replied. 'I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.' The voice spoke to him second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."
Now I know the pasage in Acts is also regarding Pete going to the house of Cronelius and the Gentile "Pentacost".
Romans 14:14,17,20 "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself...", "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing God and approved by men.", All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that cauese someone else to stumble." Unclean food is no more, but if I was going to a friends house who was Jewish it would be wrong of me to take porkchops with me to eat, because that would be a stumbling block.In the above passages God is doing away with the concept of clean and unclean as stated in the Law.

along with the Sabbath in the New Covenant, or New Testament. Try reading the entire Bible, and putting it all in context together and not the pieces you want.

If we live under a new covenant where the commandment of Jesus is the law. How can anyone justify using Leviticus or even Paul to condemn minorities?[/quote]

Who is condeming minorities? How many times must one say this, it is not the person or the people it is the sin. In the case of homosexuality it is the physical or mental, as in lusting, act and not the person who believes they are that way. The only one who seems to be labeling is the ones who say, "That person is homosexual, they are going to Hell.", which I am not saying they are going to hell anymore then anyone else who sins. There is a difference between being homosexual and acting on it. Can someone who has acted upon that lust not go to hell? Yes, the same as all of us can. Have I sinned and deserve to go to Hell? You bet, but I was bought for a price, by the blood of Christ, and now am a slave or servant to no for him.

 

[darkshadow]

Point of order, may I take this opportunity to point out that a literal, legalist interpretation of the Bible also commands the stoning of female rape victims?

Deuteronomy 22:25-26 "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
The only time the woman was stoned was in cases were it was consensual sex.

 

[darkshadow]

I never realized that being a slave could be such fun.

Don't remember saying it was, but food on your table is better then nothing. As in the case of Biblical slavery it was more indentured servants, and not slaves. Its stated in the Bible, wait never mind.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Deuteronomy 22:25-26 "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
The only time the woman was stoned was in cases were it was consensual sex.

It is the definition of consentual sex that is the problem here...

Any woman having sex with a proscribed man who doesn't scream out is said to have "consented".

Thus, every 13 year old assaulted by a trusted authority figure? consented, and should be stoned.

Thus every woman told "tell anyone and i come back and kill you and your family", consented, and should be stoned.

Thus every woman raped at knife point, consented, and should be stoned.

Thus every woman told "no one will believe you, I'm an important community leader and you're some worthless scrubber" consented, and should be stoned.

I look forward to the upcoming rape apologetic.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Don't remember saying it was, but food on your table is better then nothing. As in the case of Biblical slavery it was more indentured servants, and not slaves. Its stated in the Bible, wait never mind.

So you'd be happy being born into "indentured servitude", would you?

 

[joel1]

God did not design humans to be homosexuals.

amen! its not his image

with the gays he just musta been distracted with something else. there didnt use to be so many gays, so its prolly cause now hes too distracted with all the other sins goin on these days that the gays keep getting made which is too bad

 

[EnemyPartyII]

amen! its not his image

with the gays he just musta been distracted with something else. there didnt use to be so many gays, so its prolly cause now hes too distracted with all the other sins goin on these days that the gays keep getting made which is too bad

Poe is fail.

(FYI, homosexuality is a constant 5% of any representative human population)

 

[Andreusz]

amen! its not his image

with the gays he just musta been distracted with something else. there didnt use to be so many gays, so its prolly cause now hes too distracted with all the other sins goin on these days that the gays keep getting made which is too bad

Hang on, isn't God supposed to be omniscient? How can he get distracted? And omnipotent? How can he make mistakes?

I don't think there are any more gay people, proportionately, than in earlier times. I think that people just feel more comfortable with acknowledging their feelings.

 

[darkshadow]

It is the definition of consentual sex that is the problem here...

Any woman having sex with a proscribed man who doesn't scream out is said to have "consented".

Thus, every 13 year old assaulted by a trusted authority figure? consented, and should be stoned.

Thus every woman told "tell anyone and i come back and kill you and your family", consented, and should be stoned.

Thus every woman raped at knife point, consented, and should be stoned.

Thus every woman told "no one will believe you, I'm an important community leader and you're some worthless scrubber" consented, and should be stoned.

I look forward to the upcoming rape apologetic.

.
con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents 1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent.
2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion.
n.1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission.
2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action:

No where in this definition is said about a 13 year old girl, or someone at knife point. Stop twisting my words like you do the Word. You are confusing adultery with rape, and there is a BIG difference. By the way were is your scripture that says, "If a woman is raped and does not cry out stone her." I don't see it here maybe it was deleted by accident?

 

[darkshadow]

So you'd be happy being born into "indentured servitude", would you?

Better then death on the streets. You know your comment is awfully bigoted, saying that someone who is poor, or has to work as a servant is less of a person. That's not very nice or logical.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Better then death on the streets. You know your comment is awfully bigoted, saying that someone who is poor, or has to work as a servant is less of a person. That's not very nice or logical.

No... I think YOU are saying that, by trying to justify slavery of any form.

Being a servant is fine. I have a problem with being a servant who is not FREE TO LEAVE

Indeed, the very idea of someone being indentured (enslaved) is to say that they are of less value or inherent right than someone who is free.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

.
con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents 1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent.
2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion.
n.1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission.
2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action:

No where in this definition is said about a 13 year old girl, or someone at knife point. Stop twisting my words like you do the Word. You are confusing adultery with rape, and there is a BIG difference. By the way were is your scripture that says, "If a woman is raped and does not cry out stone her." I don't see it here maybe it was deleted by accident?

No, I'm not. What is the Biblical definition of a woman who consents?

Deuteronomy23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife.

Well, if she is in a city when it occurs, any woman who does not cry out.

answer me this...

Betrothed 13 year old, raped at knife point by her stepfather, does not cry out, even though potential help was near by.

Using ONLY what the Bible says... does she consent? Does she deserve to be stoned to death?

 

[joel1]

Better then death on the streets. You know your comment is awfully bigoted, saying that someone who is poor, or has to work as a servant is less of a person. That's not very nice or logical.

i dont know what this has to do with god and gays but its something i know about for once
look, every job is done by people and people will do what they can to get what they deserve for their labor

if people are under terms they didnt agre to then they will def take action by organizing and may be doing a work stopage to leverage and negotiate. its the way people work and its the balance of things

nobody can be force to a job by someone threatening to kill or torture them. that wouldnt be fair at all thats slavery!! look at what the hebrews did to the egyptians. they were a union endorsed by god

joel
local 17 longshoremen

 

[KCKID]

God did not design humans to be homosexuals

amen! its not his image

This always tickles me. That a spiritual being would resemble a sexual human being is a rather preposterous notion. I often think that our mentality is no more advanced than that of a South Sea Islander a thousand years ago.

Wake up guys ...the world needs you!

 

[Dogbean]

I can imagine where you're going, but OK, I'll play along...

First of all, I think "stealing" is a far more concrete concept than "fornication", however, even stealing is a muteable, plastic social concept, and subject to changes in understanding. Want an example?

Income tax. In the ancient Hebrew context, income tax would be indistinguishable from theft.

"Insurance" would be considered a game of chance. However, contexts, definitions, and social norms change.

As for the whole thing about what am I doing for "gays" in other countries?

Well, I am involved in a number of programs and organisations that encourage improvements in human rights generally. I don't really do anything that specifically targets homosexual rights in other countries, because really I think its a case of generosity begins at home, and I do what I can here. More broadly, I see no difference between improving treatment of homosexuals, and improving the human rights standardas as applied to ANY misstreated group overseas, and I contribute where I can to what I see as being the most effective charities and action groups to effect such changes. Does that answer your question?

As for HIV/AIDS, firstly, I am training to be a nurse, and I directly help individuals with HIV/AIDS that way. Second, I don't believe in treating HOMOSEXUALS with HIV/AIDS, I believe in treating PEOPLE with HIV/AIDS. Through a program of adequate education and harm minimisation, we can stop the spread of HIV, whether the vector be sex, drug equipment, medically induced, or whatever. The sexuality of the carrier is irrelevant. Through providing adequate healthcare to PEOPLE in need, it is also possible to significantly improve the quality and length of life for HIV/AIDS patients, again, regardless of their sexuality.

Sexuality is irrelevant as far as HIV/AIDS is concerned.

IS that what you were looking for, or do you need to make your question more specific?

Ok, so you're not really doing much to help out gays in other countries, but I am somewhat impressed with your answer. But regardless, gays are dying in other countries, being tortured and stuff, and you don't really seem to care about it, so long as you directly are not threatened. I would just imagine that a group of people (the GLBT community) who is so passionate about doing what they do and defending it would be more interested in helping others like them around the world who are much worse off than they are in America or other developed countries. But you are not. This is a difference that separates you from Bible believing Christians. When countries are repressing people, who's the first to be there to help? Christian organizations. When there is a disaster and people are starving or dying, who's usually the first ones there other than the Red Cross? Churches and Christian organizations. We even send people to China, where most Christianity is outlawed. I know a family that moved to China to do God's work! So while you treat AIDS patients in hospitals, that is simply part of your job, not your belief system. You are not going above and beyond the duties of your job. And that is pretty much the point I wanted to make there.

As for the first part of my post, you have proven my point. Nobody has a problem with stealing. Nobody has a problem with love your neighbor, or do not judge others. My point is this: these commandments, as well as the passages about homosexual sex are all clear. But passages on fornication and homosexual sex are always twisted around into a way to make it sound like God endorses those acts. People really stretch it to try to use passages on gay sex and fornication and it's far more easy to just interpret them for what they are. Nobody is twisting the stealing, loving, or judging passages. Why? Because these are not sins that people really want to hold onto. And here is another personal example to prove my point. My brother is a born again Christian too. But he likes to use profanity. And one day I confronted him with it, showing him clear passages that indicate that God does not want believers to have a dirty mouth. He came up with the most ridiculous arguement I ever heard, stretching really far to try to use those passages to actually back up what he was doing rather than just confess his sin and give it up.

What am I trying to say here? People holding onto sin will go to great lengths to try to justify it, even twisting the passages that actually condemn the sin in a vain attempt to say the sin is Biblically acceptable. To these people, they have believed it so long that it's tough to take when someone comes along and confronts them with the very passages they think are in dispute, someone who's judgement is not clouded by some kind of agenda.

You probably think I'm making no sense here, and I fully expect that. I just hope that I plant a seed that God waters in time, and only God can convict you of your sin, not another person like me. But did you ever consider that God is speaking to you through me?

Rock on, EP2, and other self professed gay Christians. I hope this helps.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ok, so you're not really doing much to help out gays in other countries,

I do what I can to help PEOPLE. I don't believe in distinguishing between people who need help based on their sexuality. homosexuals and heterosexuals in need are equally deserving.

but I am somewhat impressed with your answer.

I do what I can. Thankyou.

But regardless, gays are dying in other countries, being tortured and stuff, and you don't really seem to care about it, so long as you directly are not threatened.

Of course I care about it. I suggest that I probably do at least as much about it as you do for persecuted minorities in other countries.

would just imagine that a group of people (the GLBT community) who is so passionate about doing what they do and defending it would be more interested in helping others like them around the world who are much worse off than they are in America or other developed countries. But you are not. This is a difference that separates you from Bible believing Christians.

*Doubletake* What are you doing for persecuted Christians in Iran that I'm not doing for persecuted homosexuals in Iran?

When there is a disaster and people are starving or dying, who's usually the first ones there other than the Red Cross? Churches and Christian organizations.

And about 5% of the aid workers will be homosexual. Homosexuality is an orientation, not a charity organisation.

So while you treat AIDS patients in hospitals, that is simply part of your job, not your belief system. You are not going above and beyond the duties of your job. And that is pretty much the point I wanted to make there.

again... homosexuality is NOT a "belief system" so criticising homosexuals for not treating other homosexuals as a religious group treats others is a bit like criticising brunettes for not treating other brunettes the same way as Budhists treat other Budhists... they really aren't comparable in that way, so I don't see why you want to force such a comparison.

There are homosexual Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, etc, the same way there are blonde Christians, Hindus Muslims, Wiccans, whatever.

My point is this: these commandments, as well as the passages about homosexual sex are all clear. But passages on fornication and homosexual sex are always twisted around into a way to make it sound like God endorses those acts.

I disagree, and I can find you any number of Biblical scholars who will disagree with you over the specifics of a translation on just about any "commandment". Just look at the discussion over "thou shalt not kill". I twist nothing, I simply try to appreciate the background and context in which things were written, and understand that the time and cultural norms are different, and that MUST be taken into account.

People really stretch it to try to use passages on gay sex and fornication and it's far more easy to just interpret them for what they are.

Easy, but not necesarily correct. What you think the Bible says about homosexuality is NOT the universal interpretation, nor is it the only one in history (e.g. Martin Luther interpreted arsenokroite as "masturbator)"

And here is another personal example to prove my point. My brother is a born again Christian too. But he likes to use profanity. And one day I confronted him with it, showing him clear passages that indicate that God does not want believers to have a dirty mouth. He came up with the most ridiculous arguement I ever heard, stretching really far to try to use those passages to actually back up what he was doing rather than just confess his sin and give it up.

Did it ever occur to you that his interpretation may be correct and you may be mistaken? I'm not saying he is, it just appears that you never consider the possibility that it is YOU that have an error of understanding.

What am I trying to say here? People holding onto sin will go to great lengths to try to justify it, even twisting the passages that actually condemn the sin in a vain attempt to say the sin is Biblically acceptable.

Well thats certainly not what I'm doing. I make the point that no accurate translation, in context, of any part of the Bible, condemns consentual, monogomous homosexual unions, but thats not twisting anything.

To these people, they have believed it so long that it's tough to take when someone comes along and confronts them with the very passages they think are in dispute, someone who's judgement is not clouded by some kind of agenda.

Irony alert... please, consider, just for a moment.... how long have YOU believed that homosexuality is wrong, and how tough is it for you to consider someone elses ideas on the subject that differ to your own/ Its all well and good to claim that other people go to great lengths to keep believing what they already believe, but are YOU prepared to consider you are guilty of the same behaviour?

You probably think I'm making no sense here, and I fully expect that.

I don't understand why you think homosexuals should be out working for the good of other homosexuals, any more than blondes should be out working for the good of other blondes. But I understand the rest of what you say. I don't agree with you is all.

just hope that I plant a seed that God waters in time, and only God can convict you of your sin, not another person like me. But did you ever consider that God is speaking to you through me?

Right back atcha. I hope that by telling people homosexuals are just normal, natural, everyday people who want to make their way in the world best they can and just make it through the day, same as everyone else, then maybe it will, over time, lead to wider acceptance. Did you ever consider that God might be speaking to you through me?

Rock on, EP2, and other self professed gay Christians. I hope this helps.

Always happy to have a friendly and responsive discussion. Cheers.

 

[Dogbean]

EP2,
We can go round and round with this "my interpretation is right, yours is wrong" until the end of our existance and get nowhere. I am clearly rooted in God's Word, standing on the foundation, and you are clearly holding on to what you think is right, and neither of us is going to budge anytime soon. I certainly am not going to budge in my lifetime. I don't know how to explain it but I know I'm right. But I am unable to convince you, and as I said I hope I just planted a seed.

But think about this......we have two interpretations butting heads here. One, mine, is a simple, literal, face value interpretation, simply reading what it says and going with it. Your interpretation involves stretching things, diving into original languages, speculation on what the original earthly authors intended, playing with words and meanings, making it vague until you get the ideas you want, rather than objectivly just looking at it and coming up with a conclusion. Realize the average reader and the average Christian is not a Bible scholar, or a student of Greek, or a linguist. The average person is just someone like me, reading the Bible and taking it for what it says.

Who do you think God wrote the Bible for? God wanted to have his Words on paper for Christians to have a practical, easy to follow manual for how to know Him and walk with Him. So do you think He'd write it in such a way as to require a scholar to interpret it?

I was brought up in a Christian home. I know my mum is saved but not so sure about my dad. I know one of my brothers is saved, but my other two brothers I'm sure are not. There came a point where I just read the Word, and then accepted Christ; no pressure, no forced interpretations, nobody ramming it down my throat. After that, through study of the Scriptures, my mind was illuminated as the Word says happens when you have the Holy Spirit. When you read something you just take it for what it is, no stretching or scholarly interpretation is required for the average person to follow Christ. But to a person holding onto a sin, they are going to take the passages that deal with their sin and do everything they can to stretch it to say what they want, and that is what you and other gay Christians are doing. It's a little easier to talk to you because you know the Bible and somewhat respect it. At least I'm not dealing with an atheist here, because we have no common ground.

If you were a technical writer working for an electronics company, and you were tasked with writing an instruction manual for some type of gadget that people were going to buy, would you write it in a complicated way full of jargon, requiring someone with an electronics degree to understand it? Or would you write it for the average joe schmoe to understand?

Just think about that when you think about your interpretation going against mine. Do you get what I'm saying here? I don't expect you to change your mind, but I hope you see what I'm saying.