Tropical Wilds wrote,
It's turning what's actually a message about one thing and twisting it to an argument against something you have a personal issue with and applying it to Christianity when it's a message actually applied to the actions of idolatry.
I Corinthians 6 shows us that men who have sex with men have no inheritance in the kingdom of God (... and such were some of you, but now ye are washed....) It's not contingent on whether it is done in the context of idolatry. The word used there, 'arsenokoites', may be taken from the Greek of Leviticus 20, 'arsenos koiten'.
[quot]
This whole argument is negated anyway when people hold up the Bible and demand the literal meaning of it, devoid of context, and use it to illustrate that somehow homosexuality must be awful and that's why we as Christians are apparently commanded to treat it as a sin so great that it violates one's personal freedom, yet at the end of the very same passage, when it says that they are deserving of death (along with a multitude of other sins, many of which have been committed by people here I'm absolutely sure), the story changes to "Weeeeell... We can skip that part. It's not to be taken literally" despite the fact that there's no indication the passage is metaphorical instead of literal.[/quote]
Why would you assume people who take this passage seriously think like you do about it. I do believe those who have done such things are worthy of death. Adulterers are worthy of death. It takes a bit of humility for one to accept that one has done wickedness and deserves death. People who have done sins that are worthy of death can also be forgiven. David was forgiven. His iniquities were covered. The Lord did not impute his sin to him. He found grace. He had also come to a point of brokenness where he realized that he was guilty before God. He did not justify himself in his sin when he got to that point. He did not consider the Torah to be worthless, just a rule of thumb, no big deal, not mean to be taken literally. On the contrary, he realized the guilt of his sin, and he repented. And God was merciful to him and forgave him.
I believe the reason society has moved toward approving of this kind of sexual immorality is because so many people have committed sexual immorality themselves and continue to do so. It's hard for lawmakers and activitists to call homosexual immorality immoral when one is having affairs or had them and hasn't come to the realization of their sin, repented, and received grace from God. A Christian who has sinned should be humble enough to admit that the sin is indeed wicked, and though he or she deserved punishment and death, God showed mercy and grace.
As far as civil law goes, I know God gave laws to put those who engaged in homosexual behavior, beastiality, and adultery to death to the nation of Israel. Is it required of all nations to do so? I don't know. But I don't consider it unjust for a nation to put those who engage in such activities to death if there are reliable witnesses to the crime.
When you factor in that all of us, every day, intentionally or accidentally commit sins we don't believe to be sins despite their inclusion in the Bible, yet we still have a right to our marriages, our seats in our churches, and stab at salvation through the grace of God, the fact that we cut out homosexuals because of their supposed sin... It's completely hypocritical. Sin is sin is sin is sin. So their sin isn't your sin. So you find their sin makes you uncomfortable. Get over it. That's not a reason to marginalize them, say that God is against them any more than he's against your sin, or certainly deny them basic human rights as a citizen of this country. It's totally preposterous.
You have your own way of thinking here. In Matthew 18, Jesus said that if your brother sins against you, rebuke him. If he repents forgive him. If he won't hear you, take two or three others for in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. If he won't hear them, take it to the church. If he won't hear the church, let him be unto you as a heathen man and a publican. Where two or three of you, He said, are gathered in my name, there He is in the midst.
Paul told the Corinthians that when the church was gathered together with the power of the Lord Jesus, to deliver the man fornicating with his father's wife over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord. He warned that a little bit of leaven leavens the whole lump. We are also to expel the coveteous, idolators, revilers, drunkards and extortioners.
He wrote to the Galatians of restoring one overtaken in a fault in a spirit of meekness. This all lines up with what Jesus said.
If someone in the church sins, they are to repent. If not, other believers are to bring correction. If they won't hear, it is to go before the congregation. The fact that relatively few congregations practice this doesn't mean it isn't the way to do it. It is not supposed to be the case that people can live in sexual immorality, adultery, idolatry, greed, or sexual sin and be accepted as believers and be free to go to church and eat and fellowship with the saints. The church was to expel the fornicator that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
And sins are not all equal. Nowhere does the Bible teach that and there is plenty of evidence in the Bible against it.
Though, at the end of the day, this only matters in the context of homosexuals who are Christian. If their not Christian, this belief matters not even slightly as they're not bound to do any sort of repenting or apologizing for what they're doing... They're not Christian.
We are to judge those who are within. God judges those in the world. I can agree to that extent. But when the wicked rule, the people groan, and it is appropriate for believers to lament the country they live in become even more accepting of sin. But they allow doctors to murder babies in the womb and have for decades, which I would argue is much worse than this. Christians have been lamenting that for a long time, though. This gets a lot of attention because it is new.
And it's that very fact, that because Christianity rules over Christians and not non-Christians or the nation as a whole, that is why it was unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
Four judges made a foolish, politically motivated decisions. Congress needs to set some guidelines and create some penalties for judges overstepping their bounds. The words on the page of the laws mean little these days. Judges have gone way beyond interpretting the gray areas to create new precedent. The Constitution doesn't even specify that the Supreme Court has the right to declare laws unconstitutional, but even that was a gray area. Creating new laws quite different from the wording of the Constitution and written law is another matter. You wonder if the Supreme Court has to issue a bill of attainder for members of the Congress before the government will do something.
There are rights earned to us by being citizens, marriage being one of them. It's not a right earned by being a good Christian. If it were, none of us could marry.
I believe in the government giving the same equal rights and the same rules for legal marriage for all of it's citizens. I think most American Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin feel the same way. I don't think so-called 'sexual orientation' should be a basis for the government discriminating against people getting married. If an elibible man or woman struggles with same-sex desires, he or she should be allowed to marry any eligible member of the opposite sex just like anyone else, but just as a matter of fairness, a person should let their potential husband or wife know before the proposal is accepted.
The blessing in all of this is that, sooner rather than later, this will be like those who used the Bible as a reason to rail against the civil rights movement. The height of it was less than 60 years ago and despite an entire segment of the nation being against it (the same one against this ruling, actually), you can't find many people who say "I wasn't for the civil rights movement or the granting Black Americans equal protections and rights under the law." Everybody was always a champion for the movement because to be anything else made you an ignorant bigot. Nobody was the relative of a racist who fought against the black community.
There is a big difference. The Bible does not say, "Thou shalt not be dark-skinned." A man from Africa believed the Gospel and was baptized before a European Italian heard it. I don't think what you say is true anyway. There are many people from that generation who would tell you they weren't for the Civil Rights movement. Most people aren't politicians.
In 60 years, you'll never admit that you were against gay rights and Link Jr. will be on here talking about how his family was one of the early champions of gay civil rights, just like everybody else. We've already seen it...
I don't believe or accept your evil curse of my son, who isn't called Link Jr, btw, but he studies the word of God and knows that marriage is to be between a man and a woman and that he is to abstain from sex until marriage, if he chooses to marry.
When he's president one day, we'll see what he says.
Companies and people came out in light of the ruling, now that they had the power to do so, to celebrate the ruling when this time last year these companies wouldn't have dreamed of coming out in support of the same-sex community.
Companies have been supporting this evil for some time, even letting go or refusing to hire Christians who held to historical, Biblical beliefs on the issue in some cases. Chick-Fil-A's president had the boldness to offer a tame statement in favor of traditional marriage and homosexuals were outraged.
It's turning what's actually a message about one thing and twisting it to an argument against something you have a personal issue with and applying it to Christianity when it's a message actually applied to the actions of idolatry.
This whole argument is negated anyway when people hold up the Bible and demand the literal meaning of it, devoid of context, and use it to illustrate that somehow homosexuality must be awful and that's why we as Christians are apparently commanded to treat it as a sin so great that it violates one's personal freedom, yet at the end of the very same passage, when it says that they are deserving of death (along with a multitude of other sins, many of which have been committed by people here I'm absolutely sure), the story changes to "Weeeeell... We can skip that part. It's not to be taken literally" despite the fact that there's no indication the passage is metaphorical instead of literal.
The lesson here is we skip the beginning, when it provides the context of idolatry to the transgressions, we skip the end when it says they, and other sinners, deserve to die for their sins as the result of idolatry because it's apparently a metaphor, but we pick out that one little section in the middle to prove irrevocably that because Paul had an issue with what idolatrous people did because of their idolatry, that must mean that God himself wants us to completely marginalize an entire segment of people because their "sin" is non-idolatrous homosexuality.
When you factor in that all of us, every day, intentionally or accidentally commit sins we don't believe to be sins despite their inclusion in the Bible, yet we still have a right to our marriages, our seats in our churches, and stab at salvation through the grace of God, the fact that we cut out homosexuals because of their supposed sin... It's completely hypocritical. Sin is sin is sin is sin. So their sin isn't your sin. So you find their sin makes you uncomfortable. Get over it. That's not a reason to marginalize them, say that God is against them any more than he's against your sin, or certainly deny them basic human rights as a citizen of this country. It's totally preposterous.
Though, at the end of the day, this only matters in the context of homosexuals who are Christian. If their not Christian, this belief matters not even slightly as they're not bound to do any sort of repenting or apologizing for what they're doing... They're not Christian. Just like you don't go and apologize or justify yourself and your faith to Muslims because you don't follow that faith, non-Christian homosexuals don't need to apologize or justify themselves to Christians because they don't follow our faith. It's only pride and selfishness that says that those who're not Christian need to explain to Christians why they should be allowed do or be or think or follow anything. Non-Christians owe you nothing in the way of an explanation, and you have no business telling them how to conduct themselves to be in accordance of your faith. Worry more about what you're doing to please God through your faith and behavior, and less about what your non-Christian neighbor needs to do to please your God.
And it's that very fact, that because Christianity rules over Christians and not non-Christians or the nation as a whole, that is why it was unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marry. There are rights earned to us by being citizens, marriage being one of them. It's not a right earned by being a good Christian. If it were, none of us could marry.
The blessing in all of this is that, sooner rather than later, this will be like those who used the Bible as a reason to rail against the civil rights movement. The height of it was less than 60 years ago and despite an entire segment of the nation being against it (the same one against this ruling, actually), you can't find many people who say "I wasn't for the civil rights movement or the granting Black Americans equal protections and rights under the law." Everybody was always a champion for the movement because to be anything else made you an ignorant bigot. Nobody was the relative of a racist who fought against the black community. In 60 years, you'll never admit that you were against gay rights and Link Jr. will be on here talking about how his family was one of the early champions of gay civil rights, just like everybody else. We've already seen it... Companies and people came out in light of the ruling, now that they had the power to do so, to celebrate the ruling when this time last year these companies wouldn't have dreamed of coming out in support of the same-sex community.[/QUOTE]
