Biblical Response to the Rise of Homosexuality

[wanderingone]

back to another issue - i am a wedding photographer, and based on the laws as I have read them, it is possible for a gay couple to sue me for discrimination if I refuse to service them and it is discovered that i did so because they were gay - this has happend in canada to a photographer - should i have to service gay couples?

Personally I think publicly advertised services must be available to all. I'm not checking on the law right now.. I might be more inclined to simply pass the news around that the photographer so and so used for their wedding is a bigot rather than sue.

 

[wanderingone]

Why would you do that? He has a strong conviction based on his belief. Why would you try to run him out of business just because he is doing as his conscience bids him.

Business is business, when a business doesn't give me good service then I tend to pass that on.

[/quote]

If a photographer refused to take pictures at my wedding, and someone was looking for a photographer and asks about my experiences I would say that person refused to take my pictures because____

It's not a lie, it's a fact, it's not about not forgiving, if I said "Oh they're great you should definitely consider them" that wouldn't be accurate either.

I can forgive the landlord who wouldn't rent an apartment to me, that doesn't mean I don't tell someone else what the landlord did. I have a friend with 3 children who are "biracial" her husband died a few years ago, when she goes to look at apartments the landlords don't usually see the kids... would I be just in not telling her the landlord is a bigot if I know he or she is? Would it be right to subject my friend to signing a lease with someone who might treat her horribly once he or she sees the kids.

What if that "straight" couple the bigoted photographer is willing to take pictures of has gay friends at the wedding.. will the photographer refuse to take pictures of them at the wedding? Shouldn't the couple know their photographer might have a problem with their friends of other orientations?

 

[wanderingone]

discrimination in front of the law is very different to discrimination in private practice

i can freely discriminate on (choose) who i let in my home, who i congregate with, what business i support, my friends

You can discriminate in what business you support, you might not be free to discriminate AGAINST people who want to use your business. If you can choose what business to support so can those who won't use yours.

And please, the racial thing cracks me up.. there are still a lot of people who think taxi drivers, landlords, stores, etc.. should be free to refuse service to people based on "race" people who think this should be allowed feel just as strongly about that as you do about not providing service to homosexuals.

 

[TheManeki]

btw - my church does practice discipline and restoration - we just cut off a young man for living with his girlfriend and refusing to repent and move out until married. we also discipline for adultery and unbiblical divorce, etc. It is not limited to sexual sins either, we had to discipline one for theft, and they have since repented, paied their debt and been restored. - oh and we are not some small sect - we are a large reformed baptist church

What exactly is "un-Biblical divorce"? Are we talking about the oldest accounts of Jesus' teaching (Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18), where anyone who divorces and remarries is committing adultery? Or is this Matthew's later account (5:31-32), which adds an exception for "marital unfaithfulness"? Or Paul's epistle (1 Cor 7:15-16), which adds an exception for your non-Christian spouse leaving you?

Which one do you pick, and what evidence do you have that you got the right one? If you're not careful, you could be endorsing a sinful lifestyle.

 

[wanderingone]

OBGYN's who formerly did not perform abortions, and now do...was what was in my mind.

Lisa

So? Find a new job. No opinion on the hypocrisy of working for someone who provides services you don't agree with huh?

 

[LittleNipper]

Personally I think publicly advertised services must be available to all. I'm not checking on the law right now.. I might be more inclined to simply pass the news around that the photographer so and so used for their wedding is a bigot rather than sue.

A bigot is someone who holds blindly and intolerantly to something. Clearly, if a person has studied the Bible and feels lead to not avail himself of involvement in what he sees to be error of judgment, that is not a bigot. The bigot would be the person who insists that the potographer has no right to openly live his religious beliefs openly simply because they insult the bigot.

 

[Polycarp]

Would you say it was reasonable for Trevor to boycott a photographer, and encourage others to boycott him or her, who refused to photograph mixed race marriages?

if you read my posts you will see that i do not believe hetrosexual marriages are sinful, save a few execptions (divorce and remarriage without biblical reason, aka adultery) I have done mixed race marriages.

and once again - read my posts - trevor is free to use whom he chooses and either recomend or not recomend whom he chooses - my point is that a photographer should not be required by law to service clients he does not wish to service

 

[Polycarp]

That's fine, glad to hear it, makes the hypocrisy a little less obvious until people get on a public forum and only have fits about homosexuality and don't start posts about adultery, divorce and not forgiving others their debts.

it is impossible for any one person to post on every single subject he or she may have issues with - btw have you looked at my threads - you will notice that i have been away from this forum since 2003, and just now starting to post - i have several posts on things like adultery - but have not yet posted them - so go fly a kite for awhile and you may find more interesting things

btw - would you even look for posts on adultery?

 

[Lisa0315]

So? Find a new job. No opinion on the hypocrisy of working for someone who provides services you don't agree with huh?

Oh, most of them do. I am just saying that there is a court ruling that says that people can by their conscience refuse to perform a service.

Lisa

 

[Polycarp]

What exactly is "un-Biblical divorce"? Are we talking about the oldest accounts of Jesus' teaching (Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18), where anyone who divorces and remarries is committing adultery? Or is this Matthew's later account (5:31-32), which adds an exception for "marital unfaithfulness"? Or Paul's epistle (1 Cor 7:15-16), which adds an exception for your non-Christian spouse leaving you?

Which one do you pick, and what evidence do you have that you got the right one? If you're not careful, you could be endorsing a sinful lifestyle.

in any of those cases how come same sex "committed" relationships are not mentioned, or how come in the Garden, Adam did not have the choice of a man or woman? How come every reference to marriage in the bible is between men and women? how come our relationship to Christ is imaged as a wedding between the bride (church) and groom (christ)? the only places that make reference to man on man or woman on woman are scorned and viewed as an abomination. you would think that if it were an approaved relationship it would have at least a few positive mentions in the bible

you clearly do not understand scripture, it is imposible to reconcile humanism and chrisitianty - so how can i expect you to properly exposite scripture?

 

[TheManeki]

in any of those cases how come same sex "committed" relationships are not mentioned, or how come in the Garden, Adam did not have the choice of a man or woman? How come every reference to marriage in the bible is between men and women? how come our relationship to Christ is imaged as a wedding between the bride (church) and groom (christ)? the only places that make reference to man on man or woman on woman are scorned and viewed as an abomination. you would think that if it were an approaved relationship it would have at least a few positive mentions in the bible

you clearly do not understand scripture, it is imposible to reconcile humanism and chrisitianty - so how can i expect you to properly exposite scripture?

If you cannot answer my question, next time just say so. Or ask for more time to study the subject -- I'm willing to wait for an answer.

 

[Polycarp]

TheManeki

You imply confusion where none exists, and discrepencies where none exists, and contradictions where none exists. I do not see the texts as you list them as contradicting or completing with eachother. Once again let's look at the context. The ironic thing is that these texts do not make a case for same sex marriage, in each case it is a man and a woman.

The issue is not divorce perse, but divorce and remarriage. First you have to understand what Jesus was doing in these sections - he is dealing with the religious hypocrits of his day, claiming to be righteous but living secret lives, etc. in the mark text clearly Jesus is saying that the ideal is never to divorce, however God made provisions for weak man, that were abused.

concerning the assumed differences, one there were many witnesses to the teachings of Jesus. Because one has an exception for immorality (adultery) and another does not, simply means that one author did not hear everything - we believe that is the reason for multiple accounts, God is providing the details we need to know from different sources. These sources are used by God to tell what he wills to tell nothing more and nothing less. if you had three news reporters covered the same story, each would have slightly different details.

Mark 10:1-12
1Getting up, He went from there to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan; crowds gathered around Him again, and, according to His custom, He once more began to teach them.

2Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.
3And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?"
4They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY."
5But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
6"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
7"FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9"What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
10In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again.
11And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

Matthew 5:31-32
31"It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';
32but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

now concerning paul's text - he is clearly stating that divorce is not to happen in any case. his position in this text is that if an unbelieving spouse wishes to leave, let them, but the ideal is to wait for them and pray for them and if the repent, restore the marriage, however this is one provision that God allows for those who come to faith after marriage, not before, if a christian marries a christian this exception does not apply.

1 Corinthians 7:1-16
1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6But this I say by way of concession, not of command.
7Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
8But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
9But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
12But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.
14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

i do not see any issues with these texts, nor do i see them building a case for gay marriage - but for hetrosexual marriage - curious how the above red text in the pauline epistle does not make an allowance for gay marriage, but to avoid sin each man is to be married to a wife, not another man or a women to a man, not another woman

 

[Polycarp]

also TheManeki - i don't expect you to see the truth of scripture if you reject the very source and inspiration of that text.

 

[Paulos23]

Oops, sorry, Paulos - it was late!

No worries. Figured it was something like that.

 

[TheManeki]

TheManeki

You imply confusion where none exists, and discrepencies where none exists, and contradictions where none exists. I do not see the texts as you list them as contradicting or completing with eachother. Once again let's look at the context. The ironic thing is that these texts do not make a case for same sex marriage, in each case it is a man and a woman.

The issue is not divorce perse, but divorce and remarriage. First you have to understand what Jesus was doing in these sections - he is dealing with the religious hypocrits of his day, claiming to be righteous but living secret lives, etc. in the mark text clearly Jesus is saying that the ideal is never to divorce, however God made provisions for weak man, that were abused.

concerning the assumed differences, one there were many witnesses to the teachings of Jesus. Because one has an exception for immorality (adultery) and another does not, simply means that one author did not hear everything - we believe that is the reason for multiple accounts, God is providing the details we need to know from different sources. These sources are used by God to tell what he wills to tell nothing more and nothing less. if you had three news reporters covered the same story, each would have slightly different details.

That's very interesting hypothesis, but one has to wonder then why the earlier authors would leave out such an important detail, a detail that would distinguish between what is sinful and what is not.

On the other hand, it's very telling that later writings have exceptions that the earliest gospels do not have. Many Christian scholars see this as an example of the church wrestling with Jesus' initial commandment -- divorce and remarriage is adultery, period -- and slightly adapting it to make it practical for us fallible human beings.

And this is not the only example of church doctrine evolving. In Acts, for example, people were baptized in the name of Jesus. Nowadays, it's "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." And Biblical prohibitions on usury once were interpreted as forbidding any lending at interest, but now they are interpreted as lending at excessive interest. It's just amazing how things have changed, even though many of my fellow Christians are unaware of it and vociferously deny it.

 

[LittleNipper]

That's very interesting hypothesis, but one has to wonder then why the earlier authors would leave out such an important detail, a detail that would distinguish between what is sinful and what is not.

On the other hand, it's very telling that the later gospels have an exception that the earliest gospels do not have. Many Christian scholars see this as an example of the church wrestling with Jesus' initial commandment -- divorce and remarriage is adultery, period -- and slightly adapting it to make it practical for us fallible human beings.

And this is not the only example of church doctrine evolving. In the Acts, for example, people were baptized in the name of Jesus. Nowadays, it's "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." And Biblical prohibitions on usury once were interpreted as forbidding any lending at interest, but now they are interpreted as lending at excessive interest. It's just amazing how things have changed, even though many of my fellow Christians are unaware of it and vociferously deny it.

The reality is that a Christian should realize that one is not saved by not sinning. One is saved by accepting GOD's provision for salvation. If I break even one law or evern one small part of GOD's Law, I've broken them all. So what is the point of listing every possible type of sin? The person who becomes saved becomes a transformed creature and GOD starts a work in that life. That individual will begin to recognize sin when he sees it... I believe the saved homosexual will see himself as unworthy as does the saved heterosexual. It isn't a matter of some terrible guilt trip. The truth simply becomes more and more evident as the christian grows and matures.

 

[Polycarp]

TheManeki

Biblical prohibitions on usury once were interpreted as forbidding any lending at interest, but now they are interpreted as lending at excessive interest

you are speaking as if their is unified opinion on these issues, but i would tell you that those who interpret it this way are wrong - when christians lend, they are to lend without interest, and without expecting repayment - that being said, those who borrow and do not repay are wicked (in biblical terms)

there is no lack of manipulation by the caholic church for example of the doctrines taught in scripture. one key thing, is that the catholic church has seen no need to alter the text of scripture to justify their heritical views.

the historic view is that scripture has been preserved through the ages from such manipulation by God. as i have posted, even the scripture tells us that the world will consider us foolish for our faith and hope in Christ.

I tell you with certanty that I will spend eternity heaven, not because anything i have done, said or believed, but because the to grace of the Father. That being said, I recognize his graciousnes to me and i desire to serve him each day of my life and to rid my life of things that displease Him - that is the heart motivation that should be part of the christian walk - so many are sadly mistaken that some religious work, or good deed will earn them heaven - the perpose of scripture is to show us our utter need for a savior, and to tell us about that savior

the church does not need another hypocrit, one who does one thing and claims he does not - we need to consistently witness to the faith that has been given us and passed down in the scriptures.

each man will die, and be judged, this is fact and there is only one hope of not spending eternity in hell and that is Jesus Christ

ulitmately God will be glorified in my life as well as each life that has lived, some will glorify his justice and others his mercy.

that being said - i have neglected much participating in this dicsussion - i can not continue and will be praying for several of you by name for quite some time to come.

thank you for the discussion - think what you will about my leaving the discussion, but it is time to go.

 

[Trevorocity]

As I mentioned before I don't think it necessary to involve the law in order to protest terrible business practices. Simply driving away customers and putting the business into bankruptcy will suffice as punishment. Of course said businesses can always repent and be forgiven. If they were operating as a government agent then absolutely they should be sued. And the judge should throw the book at them and they should be shamed in the press, and people should point and stare.

if you read my posts you will see that i do not believe hetrosexual marriages are sinful, save a few execptions (divorce and remarriage without biblical reason, aka adultery) I have done mixed race marriages.

and once again - read my posts - trevor is free to use whom he chooses and either recomend or not recomend whom he chooses - my point is that a photographer should not be required by law to service clients he does not wish to service

 

[Trevorocity]

That's rich coming from someone who probably supports a Federal Marriage Amendment to enforce his religious views which violates the very spirit of the First Amendment.

this is so full of hot air, and hypocritical - you criticise and claim first amendment rights when it suits you, but believe that others sould be punished for holding ideas you view as punishable

 

[Lisa0315]

That's rich coming from someone who probably supports a Federal Marriage Amendment to enforce his religious views which violates the very spirit of the First Amendment.

Your rights have not been violated until you can show evidence that homosexuality is not something that you can change. Like race.

Just because you say you are entitled to something does not mean that you are. The bottom line is most homosexuals could care less about marriage for themselves personally. Most homosexuals are NOT in a longterm monogamous relationship. GLBT's are simply attempting to legitimize their lifestyle and make it seem as if it is ordained by God. It is not.

Lisa