Churches, Christians and Gay Rights

[rsc2a]

All people deserve equal protection under the law. As Izzy has already explained, that doesn't mean we let people violate the rights of others.

Certainly all people have equal protection under the law....the constitution applies even to serial killers.....but the perversions don't deserve protection under the law.

Did you forget your original question?

Do others who practice immorality also deserve equal protection under the law?

I said yes, then you objected.

Yes. They should not encourage or discourage marriage (or children) through preferential laws, tax breaks, or anything else except very loosely.

And, I basically agree with you about government sanctioned marriage.....but sine we live in the real world and not Libertarian Land, I'm just playing the hand I'm dealt.....

So because of that hand, you're advocating for a theocracy?

Oh yeah...you never answered the question about whose interpretation we should follow.

No. I stated that there are "other sexual relationships." That is not "immoral marriages." (Thus the fairly obvious point that you are moving the goalposts.)

As for examples: heterosexual couples shacking up, casual sexual relationships among heterosexuals, and (with your moved goalposts), marriages between believing individuals who are divorced but not on Biblical grounds. For that matter, you could even through in adulterers, just so long as it's heterosexual adultery.

I didn't move the goalposts just responded to YOUR post...which is a diversion from the issue.

Again....your original question...

Do you believe homosexualality is condemned as sin in Scripture?

...and my reply...

Yes...along with a variety of other sexual relationships that evangelical Americans are a lot less vocal about.

Entirely related (i.e. not a diversion). Remember that whole beam/speck discussion Jesus had. Which sexual sin is the most frequently beam in the Church's eye? Which sexual sin the speck?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]No evangelical I know Issa proponent of any of the things you listed.[/quote]

And again...

"a lot less vocal about" ≠ "proponent"

(Are you even reading my posts?)

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]If there was an amendment giving special status to serial fornicators, I'd vote against it......[/quote]

So tell me....who is asking for special status?

 

[Izdaari]

What in the world does the gay marriage amendment have to do with religious freedom?
I didn't know immorality was a religion.
What if bank robbers form a religion that say heists are a religious ritual?

You keep basing the argument against gay marriage on "...but the Bible says..."; and we don't live in a country with laws based on the Bible. If, at some time in the future, we became a majority Muslim country, would you be for or against Sharia Law based on the Koran? Or would you prefer we retain our American tradition of pluralism, and of not favoring one religion over another? Muslims would argue that not enforcing Sharia Law would be sanctioning immorality. Do as you would be done by.

If a religion comes along saying bank heists are a religious ritual, well, they can believe that and preach it... right up until they start violating the rights of others by stealing their stuff, at which point they're still going to jail for bank robbery. And that's as it should be, because "your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins."

I don't see any violation of anyone else's rights in a same sex couple making a formal commitment to one another, either as domestic partnership or marriage. 

I am for religious freedom, for everyone.
I am against government sanction of one religion over another.
I am also against government sanctioning immorality.

Since I'm not in charge, some governments have done both from time to time.

Alrighty.  But your first two "I am's" sometimes may conflict with your third one. :-*

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

All people deserve equal protection under the law. As Izzy has already explained, that doesn't mean we let people violate the rights of others.

Certainly all people have equal protection under the law....the constitution applies even to serial killers.....but the perversions don't deserve protection under the law.

Did you forget your original question?

Do others who practice immorality also deserve equal protection under the law?

I said yes, then you objected.

Yes. They should not encourage or discourage marriage (or children) through preferential laws, tax breaks, or anything else except very loosely.

And, I basically agree with you about government sanctioned marriage.....but sine we live in the real world and not Libertarian Land, I'm just playing the hand I'm dealt.....

So because of that hand, you're advocating for a theocracy?

Oh yeah...you never answered the question about whose interpretation we should follow.

No. I stated that there are "other sexual relationships." That is not "immoral marriages." (Thus the fairly obvious point that you are moving the goalposts.)

As for examples: heterosexual couples shacking up, casual sexual relationships among heterosexuals, and (with your moved goalposts), marriages between believing individuals who are divorced but not on Biblical grounds. For that matter, you could even through in adulterers, just so long as it's heterosexual adultery.

I didn't move the goalposts just responded to YOUR post...which is a diversion from the issue.

Again....your original question...

Do you believe homosexualality is condemned as sin in Scripture?

...and my reply...

Yes...along with a variety of other sexual relationships that evangelical Americans are a lot less vocal about.

Entirely related (i.e. not a diversion). Remember that whole beam/speck discussion Jesus had. Which sexual sin is the most frequently beam in the Church's eye? Which sexual sin the speck?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]No evangelical I know Issa proponent of any of the things you listed.

And again...

"a lot less vocal about" ≠ "proponent"

(Are you even reading my posts?)

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]If there was an amendment giving special status to serial fornicators, I'd vote against it......[/quote]

So tell me....who is asking for special status?
[/quote]

I'm advocating a theocracy!?
Are you reading my posts?

You are diverting the issue, the reason we are discussing the gay marriage amendment is because there is a gay marriage amendment....as opposed to an amendment promoting the other issues evangelicals are less vocal about.

If there is an amendment pending that gives special status to fornicators or adulterers, ill address that issue when the time comes.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

What in the world does the gay marriage amendment have to do with religious freedom?
I didn't know immorality was a religion.
What if bank robbers form a religion that say heists are a religious ritual?

You keep basing the argument against gay marriage on "...but the Bible says..."; and we don't live in a country with laws based on the Bible. If, at some time in the future, we became a majority Muslim country, would you be for or against Sharia Law based on the Koran? Or would you prefer we retain our American tradition of pluralism, and of not favoring one religion over another? Muslims would argue that not enforcing Sharia Law would be sanctioning immorality. Do as you would be done by.

If a religion comes along saying bank heists are a religious ritual, well, they can believe that and preach it... right up until they start violating the rights of others by stealing their stuff, at which point they're still going to jail for bank robbery. And that's as it should be, because "your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins."

I don't see any violation of anyone else's rights in a same sex couple making a formal commitment to one another, either as domestic partnership or marriage. 

I am for religious freedom, for everyone.
I am against government sanction of one religion over another.
I am also against government sanctioning immorality.

Since I'm not in charge, some governments have done both from time to time.

Alrighty.  But your first two "I am's" sometimes may conflict with your third one. :-*

Many of our laws are based on the Bible....thou shalt not steal, for instance.
The government does regulate and legislate morality.....that doesnt always constitute favoring one religion over another.

Which religion does the marriage amendment favor?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The OP posted by 4everfsu about churches being forced to allow gay marriages in their buildings wouldn't be possible without sanctioning gay marriage.....but everybody knows gay marriage wouldn't affect anyone but gays.....at least that's what the gay rights advocates tell us!

 

[Izdaari]

What in the world does the gay marriage amendment have to do with religious freedom?
I didn't know immorality was a religion.
What if bank robbers form a religion that say heists are a religious ritual?

You keep basing the argument against gay marriage on "...but the Bible says..."; and we don't live in a country with laws based on the Bible. If, at some time in the future, we became a majority Muslim country, would you be for or against Sharia Law based on the Koran? Or would you prefer we retain our American tradition of pluralism, and of not favoring one religion over another? Muslims would argue that not enforcing Sharia Law would be sanctioning immorality. Do as you would be done by.

If a religion comes along saying bank heists are a religious ritual, well, they can believe that and preach it... right up until they start violating the rights of others by stealing their stuff, at which point they're still going to jail for bank robbery. And that's as it should be, because "your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins."

I don't see any violation of anyone else's rights in a same sex couple making a formal commitment to one another, either as domestic partnership or marriage. 

I am for religious freedom, for everyone.
I am against government sanction of one religion over another.
I am also against government sanctioning immorality.

Since I'm not in charge, some governments have done both from time to time.

Alrighty.  But your first two "I am's" sometimes may conflict with your third one. :-*

Many of our laws are based on the Bible....thou shalt not steal, for instance.

Yes, we've taken some principles from it that pretty much everyone agrees on, including atheists and pagans. "Stealing is bad, ok? Don't do it!" I have no problem with that.

The government does regulate and legislate morality.....that doesnt always constitute favoring one religion over another.

It does when you base the argument for it on the scriptures of one of those religions.

Which religion does the marriage amendment favor?

Conservative Christians and Muslims, in that it makes their morality law, apparently for religious reasons, over the morality of many more liberal Christians and non-believers. And I'm not  seeing any public good in doing so, or anyone's rights being protected by it. There seems to be no argument for it, except morality based on religious belief.

And since it doesn't stop at defining marriage, which arguably the state has the right to do so long as it's in the business of legalizing marriage, but goes on to outlaw domestic partnerships also, which are not marriage, but only legal protection for the rights of same sex couples, there seems to be a clear attempt to write discrimination into law. Courts tend to take a very dim view of that. Which is why I say if it passes, it will not survive a court challenge on 14th Amendment grounds.

 

[rsc2a]

I'm advocating a theocracy!?
Are you reading my posts?

Yes, you are advocating for a theocracy. You want a country where the laws of the land are "moral" as defined by the Bible. Yet you refuse to call this a theocracy because you want to pay lip service to the idea that you are opposed to theocratic government.

If I tell you my son has an aquatic, reptilian pet with a hard bony shell, but we will not let him get a pet turtle because we don't like turtles, you'll rightly look at me like I was insane.  Because, even if we decided to call his pet a "floofin" since we anti-turtle (we're not), it wouldn't change the fact that what he had, in reality, was a turtle.

So as long as you are claiming you want a country where the government does not sanction morality (as defined by a religion), then you are proposing a theocracy, whatever you choose to call it.

And you still haven't answered the question about whose interpretation of the Bible we use when deciding what is "moral"?
(I can guess why.)

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You are diverting the issue, the reason we are discussing the gay marriage amendment is because there is a gay marriage amendment....as opposed to an amendment promoting the other issues evangelicals are less vocal about. [/quote]

So you're deliberately ignoring the words of Jesus? (e.g. plank/speck)

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]If there is an amendment pending that gives special status to fornicators or adulterers, ill address that issue when the time comes.[/quote]

Allow me to repeat myself again...

Who is asking for special status?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Are you saying that morality isn't already being defined?
All laws are based on someone's morality.....I am simply exercising my right as a citizen to express my views along with my fellow citizens.

The speck/beam argument you lamely try to make doesn't stop you from correcting your children or making other moral decisions in your life that might affect others.

And Gay Marriage is a special status for gays, one that polygamists don't enjoy.
If they receive such status/recognition, it will affect others....for instance churches who don't want to sanction immorality.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I'm advocating a theocracy!?
Are you reading my posts?

Yes, you are advocating for a theocracy. You want a country where the laws of the land are "moral" as defined by the Bible. Yet you refuse to call this a theocracy because you want to pay lip service to the idea that you are opposed to theocratic government.

If I tell you my son has an aquatic, reptilian pet with a hard bony shell, but we will not let him get a pet turtle because we don't like turtles, you'll rightly look at me like I was insane.  Because, even if we decided to call his pet a "floofin" since we anti-turtle (we're not), it wouldn't change the fact that what he had, in reality, was a turtle.

So as long as you are claiming you want a country where the government does not sanction morality (as defined by a religion), then you are proposing a theocracy, whatever you choose to call it.

And you still haven't answered the question about whose interpretation of the Bible we use when deciding what is "moral"?
(I can guess why.)

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You are diverting the issue, the reason we are discussing the gay marriage amendment is because there is a gay marriage amendment....as opposed to an amendment promoting the other issues evangelicals are less vocal about.

So you're deliberately ignoring the words of Jesus? (e.g. plank/speck)

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]If there is an amendment pending that gives special status to fornicators or adulterers, ill address that issue when the time comes.[/quote]

Allow me to repeat myself again...

Who is asking for special status?
[/quote]

And, by your definition, we already have a theocracy because morality is legislated in this country every day.

 

[rsc2a]

Are you saying that morality isn't already being defined?
All laws are based on someone's morality...

And, by your definition, we already have a theocracy because morality is legislated in this country every day.

To some degree...

And largely based on common agreements on morality.



You still haven't answered....I'll ask again. (In case you can't figure out, I really want to hear your answer.)

Whose interpretation of the Bible should use to define this morality you want to base legislative action on?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I am simply exercising my right as a citizen to express my views along with my fellow citizens.[/quote]

Right. But when your "right to express your views" leads to laws infringing on freedoms belonging to others, freedoms that would not not derive anyone else of their own freedoms, why should we accept that? Furthermore, as Izzy pointed out, where do you see Jesus advocating for a legislative process to enforce morality?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The speck/beam argument you lamely try to make doesn't stop you from correcting your children or making other moral decisions in your life that might affect others.[/quote]

And, if start calling my wife names, I can fully expect my kids to ignore my admonition to stop calling either other idiots.

Until the Church on the whole starts having a better track record of keeping its pants on before marriage and staying married, we should probably not be so worried about what those outside the Church are doing. Why would you criticize your neighbors for not checking their smoke detectors every six months while your roof is on fire?

Here's a little secret. If those in the Church had more solid marriages than non-believers, remained chaste both in and out of marriage, and raised up a generation of individuals that genuinely reflected these values, we wouldn't "have to" force our views on others. They would be drawn to what we offer (i.e. our views) even though they rejected the Means by which those views are possible.

You shouldn't be worried about what those outside the Church are doing at all.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]And Gay Marriage is a special status for gays, one that polygamists don't enjoy.[/quote]

So your saying heterosexual couples receive special treatment under the law. Remember that whole "equal protection" clause?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]If they receive such status/recognition, it will affect others....for instance churches who don't want to sanction immorality.[/quote]

So we infringe on the rights of one group because it could potentially lead to the infringement of rights for a second group?

How about we do this? Not infringe on the rights of either group. Have a state-approved set of documents that provides the same legal benefits of marriage (e.g. communal property, custodial rights, etc) that any consenting adults can sign, regardless of sex of the parties and/or number of signatories. Those that want a religious ceremony can find a church willing to grant them said ceremony. Voila! You aren't infringing on the rights of either group then.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Are you saying that morality isn't already being defined?
All laws are based on someone's morality...

And, by your definition, we already have a theocracy because morality is legislated in this country every day.

To some degree...

And largely based on common agreements on morality.



You still haven't answered....I'll ask again. (In case you can't figure out, I really want to hear your answer.)

Whose interpretation of the Bible should use to define this morality you want to base legislative action on?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]I am simply exercising my right as a citizen to express my views along with my fellow citizens.

Right. But when your "right to express your views" leads to laws infringing on freedoms belonging to others, freedoms that would not not derive anyone else of their own freedoms, why should we accept that? Furthermore, as Izzy pointed out, where do you see Jesus advocating for a legislative process to enforce morality?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]The speck/beam argument you lamely try to make doesn't stop you from correcting your children or making other moral decisions in your life that might affect others.[/quote]

And, if start calling my wife names, I can fully expect my kids to ignore my admonition to stop calling either other idiots.

Until the Church on the whole starts having a better track record of keeping its pants on before marriage and staying married, we should probably not be so worried about what those outside the Church are doing. Why would you criticize your neighbors for not checking their smoke detectors every six months while your roof is on fire?

Here's a little secret. If those in the Church had more solid marriages than non-believers, remained chaste both in and out of marriage, and raised up a generation of individuals that genuinely reflected these values, we wouldn't "have to" force our views on others. They would be drawn to what we offer (i.e. our views) even though they rejected the Means by which those views are possible.

You shouldn't be worried about what those outside the Church are doing at all.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]And Gay Marriage is a special status for gays, one that polygamists don't enjoy.[/quote]

So your saying heterosexual couples receive special treatment under the law. Remember that whole "equal protection" clause?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]If they receive such status/recognition, it will affect others....for instance churches who don't want to sanction immorality.[/quote]

So we infringe on the rights of one group because it could potentially lead to the infringement of rights for a second group?

How about we do this? Not infringe on the rights of either group. Have a state-approved set of documents that provides the same legal benefits of marriage (e.g. communal property, custodial rights, etc) that any consenting adults can sign, regardless of sex of the parties and/or number of signatories. Those that want a religious ceremony can find a church willing to grant them said ceremony. Voila! You aren't infringing on the rights of either group then.
[/quote]


The question that you seem to believe is the end all to this argument....who's standard of decency do we use....is a question that has been into play since the first law was passed.

Who's standard do we use now?
The answer that has been used commonly is the standard of decency or sometimes the community standard of decency.
I certainly do not propose a Bible based theocracy, although that is th standard I try to adhere to in my life. I would propose that the standard of decency concerning gay marriage recognition will be decided in the May referendum.

As to hypocrisy in the church, I offer no claim that it doesn't exist.....but it has always existed....sadly so.

The hay marriage amendment WILL NOT CHANGE any law in our state, it will add existing law to our state constitution. We do not live in Libertarian La La Land....we live in the real, imperfect world....in an imperfect system.

I will vote YES on the amendment on May 8 as will my fellow Tar Heels and will live with the results...because that's our political system.

You brilliant arguments to the contrary have not changed my mind...just as my similarly brilliant arguments haven't changed yours.

 

[Bob]

 
Again....your original question...

Do you believe homosexualality is condemned as sin in Scripture?

...and my reply...

Yes...along with a variety of other sexual relationships that evangelical Americans are a lot less vocal about.

Entirely related (i.e. not a diversion). Remember that whole beam/speck discussion Jesus had. Which sexual sin is the most frequently beam in the Church's eye? Which sexual sin the speck?

If you are trying to show that homosexuality is no worse than adultery, you are wrong.

I can do the same kind of exegetical gymnastics and show that homosexuality is worse. Your method of not stating your position, but asking leading, and even possibly loaded, questions is juvenile.

Look at Romans 1.

It depicts a downward spiral of people who reject the knowledge of God. At the bottom of the trajectory is homosexuality. Unless somehow you are going to play the homosexual advocate's card of saying that this is only speaking of non-monogamous homosexual sin.  Then you are in a wildly liberal category that is another thing altogether.  Nevertheless, according to Romans, homosexuality is the point where the human heart is the most perverse, and must be addressed in a diffferent way than adultery.

 

[Aviator]

Why do homosexuals want to "get married" in the first place?  My guess would be that it is either for societal acceptance or for the economic advantages.  In either case, churches should take a public stand against it since it is clearly condemned in the Bible.

(Did someone really say homosexuality is not condemned as a sin in the Bible?)

On the other hand, I don't really get the virulent opposition a lot of believers have against homosexuals in general.  It's as if they are really afraid that they will "catch" it.

As for what churches should have done in Nazi Germany, I would think the best course of action would have been to remain neutral outwardly and try to help the persecuted Jews secretly.  Taking a public stand against Nazi atrocities probably would have resulted in a very short life expectancy for the church.

 

[rsc2a]

 
Again....your original question...

Do you believe homosexualality is condemned as sin in Scripture?

...and my reply...

Yes...along with a variety of other sexual relationships that evangelical Americans are a lot less vocal about.

Entirely related (i.e. not a diversion). Remember that whole beam/speck discussion Jesus had. Which sexual sin is the most frequently beam in the Church's eye? Which sexual sin the speck?

If you are trying to show that homosexuality is no worse than adultery, you are wrong.

No...I'm simply saying that people in the Church are really good about screaming about the sexual sins (i.e. homosexuality) of those outside the Church while turning a blind eye to those sexual sins for those inside the Church (i.e. shacking up and rampant divorce/adultery).

I've posted the verses numerous times where Paul clearly tells us it is not our place to judge non-believers yet we are to judge those in the Church. Funny how people seem to think it's okay to ignore this clear instruction so they can feel more holy than "them", after all thankfully they are not like "us".

[quote author=Bob]I can do the same kind of exegetical gymnastics and show that homosexuality is worse. Your method of not stating your position, but asking leading, and even possibly loaded, questions is juvenile.[/quote]

Nice strawman. I haven't claim that one is worse than the other (as you did below...I'll show you why you are wrong in a minute.)

I have stated my position, often and clearly. We are not called to judge non-believers. We are called to remove the beam from our own eye before we start dealing with others' specks, and even in then, we are not called to judge non-believers. That would pertain to when we confront those in the Church about their sins. And, as I've pointed out numerous times, those in the Church have willfully blind to the sexual sin rampant inside the Church while deliberately seeking out (and harassing) non-believers for their sexual sins.

And, in case you missed it, here is my position: we are not called to judge non-believers.



As for whether or not my questions are loaded, they aren't loaded at all. The answers (or lack thereof) are just so obvious that it shows how weak the opposing argument is.

[quote author=Bob]Look at Romans 1.[/quote]

Let's do that...

[quote author=Bob]It depicts a downward spiral of people who reject the knowledge of God. At the bottom of the trajectory is homosexuality. Unless somehow you are going to play the homosexual advocate's card of saying that this is only speaking of non-monogamous homosexual sin.  Then you are in a wildly liberal category that is another thing altogether.  Nevertheless, according to Romans, homosexuality is the point where the human heart is the most perverse, and must be addressed in a diffferent way than adultery.[/quote]

You need to keep reading...

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 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.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 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. (Romans 1:18-32 ESV)

...the downward spiral doesn't stop at homosexuality. I underlined the end of the trajectory. So, to use your (erroneous) argument, the point where humanity would be most perverse would be those who are full of strife, malice, gossip, boasting, those who are disobedient to their parents, slander, ruthlessness, etc...

(Of course, I think your entire line of thinking regarding this passage is wrong, so I wouldn't even read it this way.)

 

[rsc2a]

Why do homosexuals want to "get married" in the first place?  My guess would be that it is either for societal acceptance or for the economic advantages.  In either case, churches should take a public stand against it since it is clearly condemned in the Bible.

I don't think it's for societal acceptance because those that are accepting of homosexuality will be accepting regardless of whether a couple is married or not. And, those that are opposed to homosexuality will be opposed regardless of whether a couple is "married" or not.

As far as economic advantage, I don't think they want advantage as much as they want economic equality.

[quote author=Aviator](Did someone really say homosexuality is not condemned as a sin in the Bible?)[/quote]

I don't think anyone has said that in this thread. I certainly wouldn't have.

[quote author=Aviator]On the other hand, I don't really get the virulent opposition a lot of believers have against homosexuals in general.  It's as if they are really afraid that they will "catch" it.[/quote]

This.

 

[Bob]

You tire me.  Your long, rambling, boring posts aren't worth quoting.  Hardly anyone reads them.

My argument is not erroneous, just because it doesn't fit your thesis.  I know there is more to the passage, but homosexuality is definitely a the bottom of the spiral.

In regard to your "Of course, I think your entire line of thinking regarding this passage is wrong, so I wouldn't even read it this way."  Well I think that your entire line of thinking is wrong.  I have many scholarly opinions who support me, and many conservative evangelicals read it exactly how I read it.  I guess, though, you are just so far above everyone else that just stating that you disagree with how I read it is supposed to sway everyone.  Whatever.

 

[rsc2a]

My argument is not erroneous, just because it doesn't fit your thesis.  I know there is more to the passage, but homosexuality is definitely a the bottom of the spiral.

Let me re-phrase that for you:

"I know the passage doesn't stop there and describes further depravity, but it doesn't fit my biases, so I'm going to cut it off before we get to that part and call this section in the middle  'the bottom'."




[quote author=Bob]In regard to your "Of course, I think your entire line of thinking regarding this passage is wrong, so I wouldn't even read it this way."  Well I think that your entire line of thinking is wrong.  I have many scholarly opinions who support me, and many conservative evangelicals read it exactly how I read it.  I guess, though, you are just so far above everyone else that just stating that you disagree with how I read it is supposed to sway everyone.  Whatever.
[/quote]

I could pretty much guarantee that I intentionally seek out the viewpoints of a wider cross-section of Christianity when I am considering a particular passage/interpretation.

In fact, I know I do by your own words: "...many conservative evangelicals..."

Ha! And here is where you'd be wrong...I am very much a believer in solo Scriptura but consider Tradition to be a vital element in interpretation. I have a major problem with "lone rangers" who think they have a direct line to God that makes their own personal interpretations the only correct ones.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Why do homosexuals want to "get married" in the first place?  My guess would be that it is either for societal acceptance or for the economic advantages.  In either case, churches should take a public stand against it since it is clearly condemned in the Bible.

I don't think it's for societal acceptance because those that are accepting of homosexuality will be accepting regardless of whether a couple is married or not. And, those that are opposed to homosexuality will be opposed regardless of whether a couple is "married" or not.

As far as economic advantage, I don't think they want advantage as much as they want economic equality.

[quote author=Aviator](Did someone really say homosexuality is not condemned as a sin in the Bible?)

I don't think anyone has said that in this thread. I certainly wouldn't have.

[quote author=Aviator]On the other hand, I don't really get the virulent opposition a lot of believers have against homosexuals in general.  It's as if they are really afraid that they will "catch" it.[/quote]

This.
[/quote]

It has been said on this thread that homosexuality is not sin....you probably missed it because you've been concentrating only on your arguments.....

And that's where this whole argument is headed, acceptance of homosexuality and all the life style entails into the cultural mainstream....and God help the church or Christian who would dare take a Biblical stand on the issue.

Because Biblical = intolerant/hate monger

 

[Izdaari]

It has been said on this thread that homosexuality is not sin....you probably missed it because you've been concentrating only on your arguments.....

And that's where this whole argument is headed, acceptance of homosexuality and all the life style entails into the cultural mainstream....and God help the church or Christian who would dare take a Biblical stand on the issue.

Because Biblical = intolerant/hate monger

Not exactly. I was the one who said it, but that isn't exactly what I said. The question that was asked of me is "does Scripture condemn homosexuality as sin?"... and I had to say no, because the passages generally thought to do that have translation and context issues. I find in them condemnation as sin of raping visitors to one's city, definitely not proper hospitality; of employing pagan temple prostitutes (sometimes of the same sex); and of men using or being male sex slaves. But not of homosexuality per se. I can find no clear condemnation of that in Scripture; there are some murky things that maybe can be interpreted that way, but also maybe not that way. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't sin, just that I can't find a clear Scriptural condemnation of it.

 

[T-Bone]

It has been said on this thread that homosexuality is not sin....you probably missed it because you've been concentrating only on your arguments.....

And that's where this whole argument is headed, acceptance of homosexuality and all the life style entails into the cultural mainstream....and God help the church or Christian who would dare take a Biblical stand on the issue.

Because Biblical = intolerant/hate monger

Not exactly. I was the one who said it, but that isn't exactly what I said. The question that was asked of me is "does Scripture condemn homosexuality as sin?"... and I had to say no, because the passages generally thought to do that have translation and context issues. I find in them condemnation as sin of raping visitors to one's city, definitely not proper hospitality; of employing pagan temple prostitutes (sometimes of the same sex); and of men using or being male sex slaves. But not of homosexuality per se. I can find no clear condemnation of that in Scripture; there are some murky things that maybe can be interpreted that way, but also maybe not that way. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't sin, just that I can't find a clear Scriptural condemnation of it.

Let me share then this one that is clear as can be...just for clarity purposes...Leviticus 18: 22..."You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."  NKJV---there is one that condemns it in the Scripture.