Churches, Christians and Gay Rights

[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.

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.

Yes, I know that one. But I don't think it's nearly as clear as you think it is.

For one thing, it does not condemn same sex relationships, but only males penetrating males. Well, that's one thing many (not all) male homosexuals do, but it's not the only way they can have sex. And it's completely silent about female homosexuality.

For another, the Law of Moses is specifically for the Israelites. It's all about being clean or unclean and not being cut off from the Jewish people, a nation of priests. Gentiles were never expected to follow it. Nor, according to Paul, are Christians. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]It has been said on this thread that homosexuality is not sin...[/quote]

Yup...missed it. I also understood where she was coming from though. And, for the verses people generally use, she's right.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...you probably missed it because you've been concentrating only on your arguments..... [/quote]

:

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]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[/quote]

Right. It's a good thing the Church takes such a firm stand on opposite-sex couples shacking up before marriage and un-Biblical divorce. It's been highly effective so far.

/sarcasm



And, actually, I think I need to clarify on something I said...

I don't think anyone has said [homosexuality is not a sin] in this thread. I certainly wouldn't have.

...I was specifically referring to homosexual acts, not same-sex attraction.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Gen 19:5  And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

The hermeneutical, contextual, and syntactical gymnastics that must be used in order to arrive at the conclusion that this was a heinous and evil act merely because it wasn't consensual is on the same absurd order as those <fundys> who would refer to this passage....


1Co 7:1  Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.


and claim that the verse forbids physical "touch" of the handholding sort.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]It has been said on this thread that homosexuality is not sin...

Yup...missed it. I also understood where she was coming from though. And, for the verses people generally use, she's right.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...you probably missed it because you've been concentrating only on your arguments..... [/quote]

:


[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]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[/quote]

Right. It's a good thing the Church takes such a firm stand on opposite-sex couples shacking up before marriage and un-Biblical divorce. It's been highly effective so far.

/sarcasm



And, actually, I think I need to clarify on something I said...

I don't think anyone has said [homosexuality is not a sin] in this thread. I certainly wouldn't have.

...I was specifically referring to homosexual acts, not same-sex attraction.
[/quote]


I Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.


Perhaps you should find another church....that takes a stand on sin.....i've been in a number of them thru the years!

 

[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.

Yes, I know that one. But I don't think it's nearly as clear as you think it is.

For one thing, it does not condemn same sex relationships, but only males penetrating males. Well, that's one thing many (not all) male homosexuals do, but it's not the only way they can have sex. And it's completely silent about female homosexuality.

For another, the Law of Moses is specifically for the Israelites. It's all about being clean or unclean and not being cut off from the Jewish people, a nation of priests. Gentiles were never expected to follow it. Nor, according to Paul, are Christians.

I believe it is pretty clear unless one chooses to try to make an excuse for why they don't accept the clear meaning.  Are you saying from your reply that the Bible has no problem with female same sex relations, but only has problems with male same sex relations.  It clearly here and elsewhere speaks of homosexual relationships as an abomination to the Lord.  You can choose not to believe it, but you cannot honestly deny what it clearly says.

As far as this adomonition only being for the Jews...you need to reread Paul's writings...he echos the biblical admonition that Christians are to have left this type of sin and walk in righteous as has already been stated in this thread.  To say that the NT doesnt teach that homosexuality is a sin unacceptable to God...is to read one's agenda or personal preference into the passage.

Doubt you will agree, but wanted to state it anyway!

 

[AresMan]

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.

Izdaari, I would have to disagree strongly with your understanding of Scripture. I believe the various passages mentioned clearly express that God condemns homosexuality as a sin (yet there are other sexual sins too). I believe it is a serious sin that God will judge on an individual level.

However, I would agree with you about the role of government. I think there is a lot of talking over each in this thread. The real issue is homosexuality itself, not just homosexual "marriage." The issue is what is the role of a government (that is not clearly under the direct theocracy of God) in dealing with "marriage." In my view, government should get out of the role of defining marriage so that it is not politicized and compromised. Marriage should be a purely Christian institution regarding a union of one man and one woman for life before God, not some legal issue whereby everyone is legally bound to accept a couple as "married" and certain businesses must align their policies to accommodate whatever the government defines. Christians should be free to celebrate the institution of marriage before God and each other without the government telling them how to handle it. They should also be free not to regard an homosexual "couple" as "married" if they so wish without the government getting on their backs. When Christians can demonstrate their view of marriage personally with solid commitments in their testimony to the world despite what they are legally allowed to do, THAT is what gets infidels to think and appreciate the Christian view of marriage. If a Christian's testimony is simply "I am just following the law of the land, tough on you!" it does nothing to convict a sinner.

Let religions practice marriage without government intervention, and regard as married or unmarried according to their religious beliefs. "Shacking up," homosexuality, and other sins will happen regardless of some legal contract. The REAL issue is morally depraved hearts and the acts of such sins, not the banner under which they are done.

For the record, I would never, EVER vote for a bill or amendment that confers upon homosexuals a legal status of "married." EVER.
I have voted for a state amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Since the Constitution defaults such an issue to state levels, it is constitutionally acceptable. I would prefer that government get out of the definition of marriage altogether, but to me such an amendment is acceptable for the time being.
I cannot support a federal amendment to the Constitution defining marriage for reasons listed above. If such an amendment were to pass, I would also fear that radical liberals would fight such a sweeping law to the Supreme court, which would allow an activist judge to interpret in such a way as to allow homosexuals a "back door" into the wording of the law, legalizing homosexual "marriage" in all states.

When Christians think that every little thing has to be an issue of law, it can come back to bite them. Laws that try to deal with personal things rather than acts of aggression turn infidels into martyrs for their cause. It allows them more ammunition to sear their consciences with a hot iron. The duty of Christians is to preach the gospel freely and purely (and not by legal force). Only God can change the hearts of people dead in trespasses and sins. Only God can rid a person of homosexuality itself, which is the real problem.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]It has been said on this thread that homosexuality is not sin...

Yup...missed it. I also understood where she was coming from though. And, for the verses people generally use, she's right.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...you probably missed it because you've been concentrating only on your arguments.....

:


[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]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[/quote]

Right. It's a good thing the Church takes such a firm stand on opposite-sex couples shacking up before marriage and un-Biblical divorce. It's been highly effective so far.

/sarcasm



And, actually, I think I need to clarify on something I said...

I don't think anyone has said [homosexuality is not a sin] in this thread. I certainly wouldn't have.

...I was specifically referring to homosexual acts, not same-sex attraction.
[/quote]


I Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.


Perhaps you should find another church....that takes a stand on sin.....i've been in a number of them thru the years!
[/quote]

Good thing evangelicals are as outspoken against fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and coveters as they are against homosexuals.  :

Oh yeah...that's right. Some sins are more acceptable than others, especially those sins we struggle with ourselves.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]It has been said on this thread that homosexuality is not sin...

Yup...missed it. I also understood where she was coming from though. And, for the verses people generally use, she's right.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]...you probably missed it because you've been concentrating only on your arguments.....

:


[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]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

Right. It's a good thing the Church takes such a firm stand on opposite-sex couples shacking up before marriage and un-Biblical divorce. It's been highly effective so far.

/sarcasm



And, actually, I think I need to clarify on something I said...

I don't think anyone has said [homosexuality is not a sin] in this thread. I certainly wouldn't have.

...I was specifically referring to homosexual acts, not same-sex attraction.
[/quote]


I Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.


Perhaps you should find another church....that takes a stand on sin.....i've been in a number of them thru the years!
[/quote]

Good thing evangelicals are as outspoken against fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and coveters as they are against homosexuals.  :

Oh yeah...that's right. Some sins are more acceptable than others, especially those sins we struggle with ourselves.
[/quote]

Are you confessing your church's sin of being soft on such sins, because it doesn't apply to all churches by any means....

And the sin you struggle with....let me know what it is and I'll post a sermon denouncing it.....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The Marriage Amendment from a different perspective.
Is it a moral issue or simply a political issue that churches should stay away from?
(Also posted on the 666).

In NC, we vote on the Marriage Amendment on May 8. The amendment would add he traditional definition of marriage into our state constitution. A YES vote is for the amendment and, according to the pro gay rights coalition, a vote for hate and discrimination.

Many evangelical churches have publicly endorsed a no position or they are avoiding the subject like the plague.
Their point is that by public opposition, they ostracize many and would be branded as hate and discrimination churches in the communities they are trying to reach with the Gospel.
I somewhat understand that position.

Our church has taken an approach somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
We have informed our people and encouraged them to vote yes....but we have also taken the approach that we should love homosexuals while condemning the sin of homosexuality. The same approach we take toward liars, adulterers and drug abuse.

If the church refuses to publicly stand against sin in order to reach sinners, what's the point?

What do you believe our approach should be?

I think our approach should be the Biblical approach to speak the TRUTH in LOVE.
I can readily see how some call us haters because of the language we use and the attitudes we convey. I have a couple of gay friends and one gay family member and was embarrassed at some of the tactics used during the amendment debate.

And at the same time, the other side used vitriol and hate speech all the while preaching tolerance and diversity.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

And the amendment passed with almost 70% of the vote.
And, the NO forces spent millions in the state...to no avail.

 

[AresMan]

And the amendment passed with almost 70% of the vote.
And, the NO forces spent millions in the state...to no avail.

Good luck to the folks in NC. I pray that God works in the hearts of people there to learn the truth about real marriage in God's eyes.

 

[Izdaari]

And the amendment passed with almost 70% of the vote.
And, the NO forces spent millions in the state...to no avail.

I am not surprised. NC is NC.  :

 

[OZZY]

And the amendment passed with almost 70% of the vote.
And, the NO forces spent millions in the state...to no avail.

I am not surprised. NC is NC.  :

Yes it is , a conservative state that values the  biblical view of marriage ,not a bad place to call home!???????

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]

Good thing evangelicals are as outspoken against fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and coveters as they are against homosexuals.  :

Oh yeah...that's right. Some sins are more acceptable than others, especially those sins we struggle with ourselves.

Are you confessing your church's sin of being soft on such sins, because it doesn't apply to all churches by any means....

And the sin you struggle with....let me know what it is and I'll post a sermon denouncing it.....
[/quote]

Way to miss the point.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

And the amendment passed with almost 70% of the vote.
And, the NO forces spent millions in the state...to no avail.

I am not surprised. NC is NC.  :

How do you explain the other 30 states that have similar amendments?
Common sense is my take....

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=rsc2a]

Good thing evangelicals are as outspoken against fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and coveters as they are against homosexuals.  :

Oh yeah...that's right. Some sins are more acceptable than others, especially those sins we struggle with ourselves.

Are you confessing your church's sin of being soft on such sins, because it doesn't apply to all churches by any means....

And the sin you struggle with....let me know what it is and I'll post a sermon denouncing it.....

Way to miss the point.
[/quote]

I didn't miss your point, it was like a soap bubble.....nothing to it!

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=rsc2a]

Good thing evangelicals are as outspoken against fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and coveters as they are against homosexuals.  :

Oh yeah...that's right. Some sins are more acceptable than others, especially those sins we struggle with ourselves.

Are you confessing your church's sin of being soft on such sins, because it doesn't apply to all churches by any means....

And the sin you struggle with....let me know what it is and I'll post a sermon denouncing it.....

Way to miss the point.

I didn't miss your point, it was like a soap bubble.....nothing to it!
[/quote]

Six threads on homosexuality on the top two pages. One thread on premarital sex. None on idolatry. One kinda-sorta on adultery (with the primary emphasis on homosexuality). None on coveting.

Which ones are the more common struggles Christians have? Are the thread topics proportionate to this? Why is this?

 

[Reformed Guy]

[quote author=rsc2a]

Good thing evangelicals are as outspoken against fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and coveters as they are against homosexuals.  :

Oh yeah...that's right. Some sins are more acceptable than others, especially those sins we struggle with ourselves.

Are you confessing your church's sin of being soft on such sins, because it doesn't apply to all churches by any means....

And the sin you struggle with....let me know what it is and I'll post a sermon denouncing it.....

Way to miss the point.

I didn't miss your point, it was like a soap bubble.....nothing to it!

Six threads on homosexuality on the top two pages. One thread on premarital sex. None on idolatry. One kinda-sorta on adultery (with the primary emphasis on homosexuality). None on coveting.

Which ones are the more common struggles Christians have? Are the thread topics proportionate to this? Why is this?
[/quote]

FWIW, I adhere to the traditional Reformed view that rulers have the duty to uphold and enforce the first table of the Law, as well as the second.

As expressed in the Belgic Confession of Faith:

Article 36: The Civil Government

We believe that because of the depravity of the human race our good God has ordained kings, princes, and civil officers.  He wants the world to be governed by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that everything may be conducted in good order among human beings.

For that purpose he has placed the sword in the hands of the government, to punish evil people and protect the good.

And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God's law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship.

They should do this while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them, with the means belonging to them.

And the government's task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.

Moreover everyone, regardless of status, condition, or rank, must be subject to the government, and pay taxes, and hold its representatives in honor and respect, and obey them in all things that are not in conflict with God's Word, praying for them that the Lord may be willing to lead them in all their ways and that we may live a peaceful and quiet life in all piety and decency.

And on this matter we denounce the Anabaptists, other anarchists, and in general all those who want to reject the authorities and civil officers and to subvert justice by introducing common ownership of goods and corrupting the moral order that God has established among human beings.

 

[Reformed Guy]

In spite of all the whining to the contrary, with the passage of this admendment the perverts, sodomites and lesbians of NC have exactly the same "rights" as everyone else in regards to marriage-- they have the "right" to be married just as anyone else by finding a suitable partner of the opposite sex, which is the only marriage recognized in the eyes of our Supreme Authority.

Nothing to be churned up about.  Should be relieved that we don't follow our Creator's precription for dealing with their crimes.  A momentary respite from coming damnation is all that it is, but is the all the peace they get in their God-less eternity.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

[quote author=rsc2a]

Good thing evangelicals are as outspoken against fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and coveters as they are against homosexuals.  :

Oh yeah...that's right. Some sins are more acceptable than others, especially those sins we struggle with ourselves.

Are you confessing your church's sin of being soft on such sins, because it doesn't apply to all churches by any means....

And the sin you struggle with....let me know what it is and I'll post a sermon denouncing it.....

Way to miss the point.

I didn't miss your point, it was like a soap bubble.....nothing to it!

Six threads on homosexuality on the top two pages. One thread on premarital sex. None on idolatry. One kinda-sorta on adultery (with the primary emphasis on homosexuality). None on coveting.

Which ones are the more common struggles Christians have? Are the thread topics proportionate to this? Why is this?
[/quote]

Speaking of missing the point.....what do thread topics on the forum have to do with the price of coffee at Starbucks? According to your logic, we should poll the congregation before preparing sermon material!