Taking God's Name in Vain

[FindingaWay]

[


Homosexuality is a socio/cultural construct. Biblically speaking sin is regarding a person's conduct. For example, I am attracted to the opposite sex (and that's not a sin), but if I act on it outside of marriage, then I'm sinning (that would be adultery).

Another example... I am attracted to the same sex (and that's not a sin), but if I act on it outside of marriage, then I'm sinning (that would be adultery).

 

[Texas Lynn]

Another example... I am attracted to the same sex (and that's not a sin), but if I act on it outside of marriage, then I'm sinning (that would be adultery).

A lot of Christians do not believe this is so. The evidence otherwise is certainly lacking.

 

[MercyBurst]

[/size]

Sounds pretty nice, but I eschew vanity.



To some besmitten by irrational fears LGBTs are convenient boogey men & womyns.



See? Irrationality!

The afterlife isn't rational based on the 5 senses, but I believe it is for real. I believe hell is a real place. I don't want anybody to go there.

 

[MercyBurst]

Another example... I am attracted to the same sex (and that's not a sin), but if I act on it outside of marriage, then I'm sinning (that would be adultery).

A state's blessing on marriage doesn't change morality anymore than when the Roe V. Wade decision made abortion "morally ok".

 

[kiwimac]

To assert as the OP has done that a GLBT Christian who calls themselves a "Gay Christian" is taking the Lord's name in vain is simply wrong.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The afterlife isn't rational based on the 5 senses, but I believe it is for real. I believe hell is a real place. I don't want anybody to go there.

It would certainly be a better place than a hebbin with an evil god.

A "god" which would send LGBT folk there would be unworthy to worship and his hebbin would be slum populated only by the most evil of humanity.

 

[OllieFranz]

Homosexuality is a socio/cultural construct. Biblically speaking sin is regarding a person's conduct. For example, I am attracted to the opposite sex (and that's not a sin), but if I act on it outside of marriage, then I'm sinning (that would be adultery).

God is more interested in shaping our character rather than just fencing in our actions. In the Decalogue (Exodus 20:2-17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21), after the commandments against adultery and theft come the commandment(s) against coveting.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
....
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5:21-22; 5:27-28
​

Under the New Covenant, we are no longer subject to the law, but are counted as righteous. It is nothing that we did. There is nothing we could have done to obtain righteousness on our own ("All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" -- Rom 3:23). It is the free gift of God made available to us through faith. (See Eph 2:8).

We are nolonger under the Law. But that does not mean we are free to sin with impunity:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Romans 6:1-7
​

I don't believe that there is any disagreement between gay Christians and fundamentalist Christians on the above. It is only over the specific issue of exactly what the so-called "clobber passages" forbid. (And whether we are still under the Law for those actions)

Being gay does not excuse sexual immorality, but sex is not in itself inherently immoral; it can be proper when done in the right time and place with the right person -- with a covenanted spouse. And this is true whether the spouse is the opposite sex or the same sex.

And Paul gives us specific instructions on what to do when Christians honestly disagree on whether an action is sinful or not: those who believe it is not sinful are not to be a stumbling block for those who believe it is a sin and who are fighting the temptation. Those who believe that it is a sin are to leave their brothers to God's judgment:

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
.....
He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
.....
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Romans 14:4, 6, 10

​

It is quite likely that calling oneself a Christian when one is not is, indeed, a form of taking His Name in vain (see Matt 7:21-23). But that is between them and God.

 

[OllieFranz]

A state's blessing on marriage doesn't change morality anymore than when the Roe V. Wade decision made abortion "morally ok".

Neither does a state witholding a "blessing," as with the Lovings (Loving vs Virginia). They were married whether the state voided their marriage or not. A marriage is just valid between a Black and a White as it is between two Blacks or two Whites.

So are covenanted families whether the couple are one man and one woman or two men, or two women.

 

[Leah]

And yet gay and lesbian Christians abound.

Just as there are black Christians and handicapped Christians and Hispanic Christians and geriatric Christians

What's a geriatric christan? Never heard of that term before.

Also, are black, handicapped, and hispanic christians an odd sort of people to you? How come you didn't include white christians in your statement?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Name one gay Christian that claims to be born again.

I think there are a lot of us here, myself included, who've been very forthright about it.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

I have a serious question for you and the rest. How would you like this inscription on your tomb stone?

"Here lies ______ who lived his/her life for Jesus as a same-sex practicing gay/lesbian Christian, and told us there is no need to repent of it"

It makes me shudder.....

Utter fixation and obsession with gay sex...again!!!
I'm going to keep calling you on it until you repent of it.
Perhaps then you'll shudder less.

 

[MercyBurst]

Being gay does not excuse sexual immorality, but sex is not in itself inherently immoral; it can be proper when done in the right time and place with the right person -- with a covenanted spouse. And this is true whether the spouse is the opposite sex or the same sex.

I'm sure you believe it is ok, but there are no biblical precedents for a gay marriage. It's just you joining hands with other gays and redefining morality as you redefine marriage. There are biblical precedents for stoning gays to death, however. Now we are under grace, and the penalty is not required, but that doesn't change morality.

And Paul gives us specific instructions on what to do when Christians honestly disagree on whether an action is sinful or not: those who believe it is not sinful are not to be a stumbling block for those who believe it is a sin and who are fighting the temptation. Those who believe that it is a sin are to leave their brothers to God's judgment:

I took the liberty of re-quoting the Romans 14 verses in context:

14 But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Hence, advocating gay sex to those it offends is NOT LOVE, even as Paul said.

It is quite likely that calling oneself a Christian when one is not is, indeed, a form of taking His Name in vain (see Matt 7:21-23). But that is between them and God.

Why do it if there is no need for it?

 

[MercyBurst]

Neither does a state witholding a "blessing," as with the Lovings (Loving vs Virginia). They were married whether the state voided their marriage or not. A marriage is just valid between a Black and a White as it is between two Blacks or two Whites.

Moses married a black (ethiopian) woman. It must have been morally ok then.

So are covenanted families whether the couple are one man and one woman or two men, or two women.

Not according to Moses. The Mosaic law required same sex practitioners to be stoned. Perhaps two gays married back then, and got a double-stoning at the wedding-reception. Other than that I can't think of a reason for gay marriage in the OT.

 

[MercyBurst]

Utter fixation and obsession with gay sex...again!!!

I'm fixated on the thought of people going to the eternal abyss. It's because of what I believe. I believe hell is a real place and real people are going there. I don't want that to happen.

I'm going to keep calling you on it until you repent of it.

I feel I should continue to hope and pray that people don't end up in hell. I think any Christian should feel the same way. Maybe this bothers you. Maybe you are close to seeing this for yourself.

Perhaps then you'll shudder less.

I asked a serious question. Instead of judging me in my death, why not judge yourself in your own death?

Do you want to be remembered as an unrepentent "Gay Christian" that was never born again? One that told others they need to have gay sex just like God made them?

What kind of testimony would this be after you die? Seriously.

 

[Polycarp1]

I'm fixated on the thought of people going to the eternal abyss. It's because of what I believe. I believe hell is a real place and real people are going there. I don't want that to happen.



I feel I should continue to hope and pray that people don't end up in hell. I think any Christian should feel the same way. Maybe this bothers you. Maybe you are close to seeing this for yourself.



I asked a serious question. Instead of judging me in my death, why not judge yourself in your own death?

Do you want to be remembered as an unrepentent "Gay Christian" that was never born again? One that told others they need to have gay sex just like God made them?

What kind of testimony would this be after you die? Seriously.

Under the rules of this board the contents of this post, accusing another Christian of not being a Christian, should earn you an infraction. Instead, I'd like to answer it. Chalice Thunder is a member in good standing of my communion, born again according to the tenets of our faith, and by his own witness chaste. Your allegations redound on you, sir, and you owe him an apology, and your, my, and his Lord an act of repentance. What kind of "Christian" are you? If born again by the Spirit, why do you not display the fruits of the spirit in your posting? I see little or no evidence of love, joy, peace, patience, lovingkindness. gentleness, or self-control in them. Do you not know that by your own acts in condemning the faith of others according to your theology, you too stand in peril of the judgment? In the Parable of the Unjust Steward, Jesus shows that as we have been freely given grace, an unearned and undeserved remission of due punishment, we too are to render that to others, and if we condemn, we too are to be condemned.


Oh, and for your reference: my member title is sarcastic, referring to posts by (former? inactive?) member Zaac in which he kept referring to me as "author of confusion." Like the followers of Jesus mockingly called 'Christians' I decided to lay claim to an insult directed at me and wear it proudly. This was, by the way, in a thread you were quite active in.

 

[BAFRIEND]

I was thinking about God's name and keeping it HOLY. It's His business ALONE to judge sinners, and He told us not to take His name in vain. Shouldn't we honor His request?

using the expression “judge not unless you be judged” in attempt to bring the gay lifestyle into acceptance, thus destroying the foundation of the Christian Church.
In revelations chapter 2, Jesus praised the Church of Ephesus for not tolerating wicked men and here we see Paul’s urging:
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer (1 Tim 1-3)
Here we see that Jesus and the Apostles required it of Christians to discern and judge the lifestyles of others. Jesus told his followers to follow the narrow and Paul tells us not to associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but who is sexually immoral.
We can judge others on the basis of using the Word of God. It is called discernment when we judge the actions of others negatively when the Bible itself calls that action a sin:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders … (1Cor 6:9)

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

While I do think that people often misuse the verses about not judging, I do think they are often relevant. When we condemn others for not repenting of sins that they do not see as sins, we condemn ourselves for any sins of which we ourselves are not aware.

 

[Texas Lynn]

using the expression “judge not unless you be judged” in attempt to bring the gay lifestyle into acceptance, thus destroying the foundation of the Christian Church.

If that means acceptance of LGBT people would destroy the Christian Church then such an evil church deserves destruction immediately. The term "gay lifestyle" is an unfortunate characterization seeking to trivialize others' capacities to love and should not be used.

 

[kiwimac]

Under the rules of this board the contents of this post, accusing another Christian of not being a Christian, should earn you an infraction. Instead, I'd like to answer it. Chalice Thunder is a member in good standing of my communion, born again according to the tenets of our faith, and by his own witness chaste. Your allegations redound on you, sir, and you owe him an apology, and your, my, and his Lord an act of repentance. What kind of "Christian" are you? If born again by the Spirit, why do you not display the fruits of the spirit in your posting? I see little or no evidence of love, joy, peace, patience, lovingkindness. gentleness, or self-control in them. Do you not know that by your own acts in condemning the faith of others according to your theology, you too stand in peril of the judgment? In the Parable of the Unjust Steward, Jesus shows that as we have been freely given grace, an unearned and undeserved remission of due punishment, we too are to render that to others, and if we condemn, we too are to be condemned.


Oh, and for your reference: my member title is sarcastic, referring to posts by (former? inactive?) member Zaac in which he kept referring to me as "author of confusion." Like the followers of Jesus mockingly called 'Christians' I decided to lay claim to an insult directed at me and wear it proudly. This was, by the way, in a thread you were quite active in.

QFT!

 

[brightmorningstar]

Under the rules of this board the contents of this post, accusing another Christian of not being a Christian, should earn you an infraction.

What if a board member accuses another poster's beliefs as indicating they weren’t Christian? Should the board member who makes the accusation get an infraction for this for implying those beliefs were somehow not Christian? (especially where a number of other board members share those same beliefs.)