Divorce is unbiblical

[TheGrungeDiva]

I don't want to disagree with you in a thread in which you're doing the majority of the heavy lifting on our behalf, but I think this deserves a note.

I am guessing from this and from the rest of your post that you are gay and also a Christian. If I am mistaken in that assessment, please forgive me.

In the same way that repetition of tired Scripture will not convince gays that homosexuality is sinful, the interpretations you offer will not convince the majority of Christians that homosexuality is not sinful. I don't know if some Christians will ever accept that homosexuality is "okay." The older I get, the more I think that, at least in the foreseeable future, the best we can hope for is a stalemate. There are a few churches out there who embrace gays and lesbians, and don't preach that homosexuality is sin. I used to think that, given time, more and more churches would eventually come to that same conclusion. And perhaps, given enough time, they will. There was a time when Christians taught that kings had a God-given right to rule, and one's class and caste were ordained. A poor man had no right to better himself, even if he could. Today, Christians no longer believe that. It's not that we ignore the Scripture that had been used to "support" those views -- we just understand them differently, based on our worldview. Given time, history has proven, liberals always win.

But I'm afraid that will take more time than gays have. Right now, rights are being denied. Young men and women are killing themselves because of the stigma, not just of being "sinful," but of being denied equal rights. My feeling is that we should take what steps we can when we can take them. I guess I'm more the "Martin Luther King, Jr." type than the "Malcom X" type. I'd rather fight for secular rights and allow churches to continue call it a sin, than continue fighting what seems to be a losing battle.

Does that make sense?

 

[mori]

Does that make sense?

Very much so and it's what I personally practice, but I still haven't given up on dialogue with Christians. My goal is not necessarily to get them to think it's not a sin, especially since I believe the Bible pretty clearly states it, but first to stop legislating against it in particular, then to reconsider their evangelistic and pastoral styles.

Let me put it this way - if my monk friend had just rolled over and instantly accepted that it wasn't a sin and that I should be let into communion immediately, I would have been very disappointed.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Very much so and it's what I personally practice, but I still haven't given up on dialogue with Christians. My goal is not necessarily to get them to think it's not a sin, especially since I believe the Bible pretty clearly states it, but first to stop legislating against it in particular, then to reconsider their evangelistic and pastoral styles.

Let me put it this way - if my monk friend had just rolled over and instantly accepted that it wasn't a sin and that I should be let into communion immediately, I would have been very disappointed.

May God continue to bless you in your ministry.

 

[SantoSubito]

I am guessing from this and from the rest of your post that you are gay and also a Christian. If I am mistaken in that assessment, please forgive me.

In the same way that repetition of tired Scripture will not convince gays that homosexuality is sinful, the interpretations you offer will not convince the majority of Christians that homosexuality is not sinful. I don't know if some Christians will ever accept that homosexuality is "okay." The older I get, the more I think that, at least in the foreseeable future, the best we can hope for is a stalemate. There are a few churches out there who embrace gays and lesbians, and don't preach that homosexuality is sin. I used to think that, given time, more and more churches would eventually come to that same conclusion. And perhaps, given enough time, they will. There was a time when Christians taught that kings had a God-given right to rule, and one's class and caste were ordained. A poor man had no right to better himself, even if he could. Today, Christians no longer believe that. It's not that we ignore the Scripture that had been used to "support" those views -- we just understand them differently, based on our worldview. Given time, history has proven, liberals always win.

Really there is not much hope of all (or even the majority of churches) accepting homosexuality. If the Catholic Church rejects it (which it does) then bam thats half of all Christians right there add the other Apostolic Churches and that number becomes much higher. History since the Renaissance has been constantly characterized by the struggle between Liberals and Conservatives, with many battles being fought over it. During the French Revolution for example the rural conservative Catholic population revolted to restore the monarchy (which they did for a time). In the Catholic Church for example liberal orders of monks and nuns are dwindling and dying while conservative and traditionalists orders are going gangbusters. Then there is the very real fact that liberals have much fewer children than their Conservatives counterparts.

It's a constant tug and pull and the pendulum between liberal and conservative always swings back and forth, Europe for example after years of liberal politics is starting to swing back in the conservative direction, and conservative isolationism is starting to make a come back in the West as well in the face of increasing immigration.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Really there is not much hope of all (or even the majority of churches) accepting homosexuality.

That may be true.

It's a constant tug and pull and the pendulum between liberal and conservative always swings back and forth,

Over the short term, yes, I will agree with you that the pendulum swings. But over the long-term, it is another story.

In my lifetime, I remember a time when interracial couples were publicly ridiculed. Many states even had laws on the books banning interracial marriage. Not long before that, the few people who advocated for interracial marriages were considered radical and dangerous to society. Today, while there still are individuals, and sadly even groups that advocate separatism, they are certainly in the minority, and even the most conservative PACs do their best to renounce ties with such extremists.

Just over 100 years ago, women rarely worked outside of the home unless they were from very poor families. A woman who wanted to get an education beyond high-school would be considered "uppity." A woman's job was to be a wife and mother, and there were few other choices. It was the liberal men and women who thought women should be allowed to go to school, if they want, or work outside of the home, if they so chose. And those liberals were laughed at. Today, while being a wife and mother is still a respectable calling, women are encouraged to find work outside the home. I would not say women have achieved true equality in the work place, but we are certainly closer than we were 100 years ago.

1,000 years ago, if a person developed a disease like epilepsy, he or she would often be killed because people assumed they were possessed. If you were left-handed, you were tortured, sometimes your left hand would be repeatedly broken to ensure you would favor your right hand, and you would be called a child of the Devil. All manners of deformities that are barely noticed today -- club foot, acne, even dandruff -- were seen as curses or signs of witchcraft. And yet there were a few lone voices, who tried to get people to practice sanitation and medical practices, who said disease wasn't caused by supernatural causes but by very predictable and natural causes. They were the scientists, the humanists, the liberals. They were laughed at by the status quo for centuries. But they were right. We now look back at those times as superstitious. There are still diseases we have not cured, but most of them we have learned ways to control with medicine and/or therapy.

I will agree with you that there are some things that are swinging more to the "right" now than they were 10, 20, maybe even 50 years ago. But if you look at the history of humanity, given time, the liberals always win. It's not an opinion, and it not something you have to like, but it is a fact of history.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Is this how you want to defend your suggestion that gay marriages are OK?

I have never claimed that gay marriage is "ok."

I am suggesting that it should be legal. I am defending that assertion by stating that in the US, there is a separation of church and state, and that the US has no business prohibiting things just because they're "sin". There are all sorts of things that are legal -- and ABSOLUTELY must remain so -- but are far from "ok." Smoking, drinking, gossip, divorce (which is what started this thread)... It is not the government's job to legislate morality. Laws are not to protect us from hell, but to protect us from having our rights taken away.

There was a time when a shopkeeper couldn't have hours on Sunday, because it is a sin to work on Sunday. Well, there's an example of a law that was on the books because of a religious bias, and that law needed to be removed. When everyone in the society was Christian, no one thought anything of it. But when we became a more pluralistic society, and people who weren't Christian started wanting to go shopping on Sundays, or even to keep their stores open on those days, we realized that the "no working" law was really silly, from a secular point of view. Does that mean that God took away the commandment not to work on the Sabbath? Of course not. We are still supposed to keep the Sabbath holy, as God commanded. But there is no reason to expect people who are not bound by the commandments to rest.

Is homosexuality a worse sin than working on the sabbath? If so, why? How do you get to decide which sins are worse? Working on the sabbath is one of the "Big Ten" and homosexuality is not, so you'd need to find a compelling reason for your bias. I can think of none.

 

[tribesman]

I have never claimed that gay marriage is "ok."

I am suggesting that it should be legal. I am defending that assertion by stating that in the US, there is a separation of church and state, and that the US has no business prohibiting things just because they're "sin". There are all sorts of things that are legal -- and ABSOLUTELY must remain so -- but are far from "ok." Smoking, drinking, gossip, divorce (which is what started this thread)... It is not the government's job to legislate morality. Laws are not to protect us from hell, but to protect us from having our rights taken away.

You say you think gay marriage is not OK, yet at the same time you also say it should be legal in civil society. But this equation simply don't work. And why make this difference to begin with? Sure there are those that say that some things in some issues are OK in secular society, but not in church, including gay marriage. But the consequence of such thinking is obvious. If you approve of a behavior as legitimate for others, that you yet claim to be wrong, only given due circumstance (that is, in secular society), then ultimately you will also have to approve of it without restriction, regardless of circumstance. Even in the "religious" sense. I can see the tendencies to this even in your reply to mori in post #101.

I would think that not a few liberally minded denominations that today are in the frontline for gay rights indeed began this way. Arguing for civil rights and equality, all with their own political persuasion at bottom, rather than keeping their own traditional stance. The thinking here goes that since things in our societies are in constant transition, the church which interacts with and serves society, also needs to catch up and not get stuck in "outdated" views on biblical concepts. Relativism takes off under the name of "reconsidering" most important social and relational issues. All of a sudden, what respective tradition has taught on such matters for many centuries is "revised" to unrecognizability, with ever new nontraditional and unbiblical argumentation for it.

The end of it is that once you begin to accept a certain sin or sinful behavior as indifferent or even normal or acceptable, you will at least gradually, or quickly, begin to view it differently at root and in another context than before. It will eventually be justified - also in the church. That is why today we have not only ordination of openly and practising gay clergy, but even gay unions or weddings - in church. These denominations that have taken this road all started out with a liberal, "understanding", "tolerant" and "inclusive" attitude towards the issue and the people entangled with it. And they ended up making disastrous judgments and decisions, which divided their churches, they sectarianly separating themselves from what traditional christianity had been teaching on such issues since Paul brought the gospel to the gentiles.

What is at heart here if not a blurred vision of the church's relation to secular society, if not loyalty to the own political agenda and political ideas rather than their heritage let alone the gospel and its call.

 

[SantoSubito]

I have never claimed that gay marriage is "ok."

I am suggesting that it should be legal. I am defending that assertion by stating that in the US, there is a separation of church and state, and that the US has no business prohibiting things just because they're "sin". There are all sorts of things that are legal -- and ABSOLUTELY must remain so -- but are far from "ok." Smoking, drinking, gossip, divorce (which is what started this thread)... It is not the government's job to legislate morality. Laws are not to protect us from hell, but to protect us from having our rights taken away.

There was a time when a shopkeeper couldn't have hours on Sunday, because it is a sin to work on Sunday. Well, there's an example of a law that was on the books because of a religious bias, and that law needed to be removed. When everyone in the society was Christian, no one thought anything of it. But when we became a more pluralistic society, and people who weren't Christian started wanting to go shopping on Sundays, or even to keep their stores open on those days, we realized that the "no working" law was really silly, from a secular point of view. Does that mean that God took away the commandment not to work on the Sabbath? Of course not. We are still supposed to keep the Sabbath holy, as God commanded. But there is no reason to expect people who are not bound by the commandments to rest.

Is homosexuality a worse sin than working on the sabbath? If so, why? How do you get to decide which sins are worse? Working on the sabbath is one of the "Big Ten" and homosexuality is not, so you'd need to find a compelling reason for your bias. I can think of none.

The government bans all kinds of marriages on a basis that doesn't make much sense to us. Polygamy, first cousin marriages, etc. If you ask me just leave the issue to the states then each state can have it or not based on what the people of that state want.

 

[tribesman]

There was a time when a shopkeeper couldn't have hours on Sunday, because it is a sin to work on Sunday. Well, there's an example of a law that was on the books because of a religious bias, and that law needed to be removed. When everyone in the society was Christian, no one thought anything of it. But when we became a more pluralistic society, and people who weren't Christian started wanting to go shopping on Sundays, or even to keep their stores open on those days, we realized that the "no working" law was really silly, from a secular point of view. Does that mean that God took away the commandment not to work on the Sabbath? Of course not. We are still supposed to keep the Sabbath holy, as God commanded. But there is no reason to expect people who are not bound by the commandments to rest.

Is homosexuality a worse sin than working on the sabbath? If so, why? How do you get to decide which sins are worse? Working on the sabbath is one of the "Big Ten" and homosexuality is not, so you'd need to find a compelling reason for your bias. I can think of none.

We obviously have differing views on the evolution of western society and its relation to christianity. We should be reminded that virtually all western nations were founded on christian principles and with respect to God's law. That aside I believe it is a dire matter as to how we view our role in a pluralistic society in practice. My take is simply said that what is good for the church is good for all. With this said it's not said that a believer should compel a non-believer to follow any certain tenant or prospect that he do not believe is right or that non-christians should in anything be expected to act as christians. Yet we are to be leading examples rather than following imitators in our community, head rather than tail. There's no reason to have a low profile.

In the negative I see absolutely no reason for a christian to approve of something that is sinful just because the persons who are into it are not christians. That would of course include being positive about legislation that not only endorses such sin but also will lead to many negative consequences for society at large, including effecting its christianity. How can one say that something wrong is OK among the worldlings but not OK among the believers? That would be to have double standards - and loyalities.

You've mentioned it a few times, not only above but also in posts like in post#97 where you talk about the problem with "ranking" sins, and it appears you grasp the problem at hand. While it's certainly wrong to "rank" sins (since sins are categorically sins regardless and they do mean transgressing God's law and miss the mark [Jam.2:10], they do mean showing disrespect and distrust towards God, and by nature sin is the very matter that separates man from God) it is not possible to adequately interpret scripture or to get a plausible practical implication of its sin concept, in issues relating to societal life, without seeing that sins do vary much as to their penalties and consequences.

Even you are making comparisions, and asks rhetorically:

The Bible is certainly more clear against divorce than it is against homosexuality. So if we, as Christians, are saying that gay marriage should remain illegal because it goes against the Bible, why are we allowing divorce, when it also goes against the Bible? Should we not also outlaw divorce?

- post #1

(Just for the record, there is no general and categorical prohibition against divorce, it is acceptable under given biblically lawful conditions.)

Jesus spoke against wealth way more than he spoke against sexual sins. That doesn't mean promiscuity is okay, just because Jesus didn't talk about it all the time.

- post #40

So you say that eating bacon is worse than murder? Really?

- post#91

It has already been showed that things like eating bacon are sins, according to God's law. That is what the law says and it can not be altered since not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away as long as heaven and earth stands (Matt.5:17-20). If we look to the consequences of such sins and their penalties however and compare that with the sins of for example murder and homosexuality, we will find big differences. A reason for this is of course that many sins would include other sins as well and have more effect on other people and elsewhere. Hence the suitable punishment for them

As far as homosexuality is concerned it is not only said to be a sin, but an abomination. It is also mentioned as a sign of reprobation in Rom.1:18-32, where God sends this wicked behavior as a punishment for other sins. These are some factors that has convinced many Bible interpreters throughout history that the sin of homosexuality (when elevated to normative acceptance) is somewhat of a dividing line or an indicator that the final border has now been crossed the point of no return. Once this sin is embraced and legalized by society it would eventually mean the end of that society, its culture, and possibly even its people.

 

[Crazy4GODword]

I have a question.

Jesus spoke very clearly against divorce. The Bible is certainly more clear against divorce than it is against homosexuality.

So if we, as Christians, are saying that gay marriage should remain illegal because it goes against the Bible, why are we allowing divorce, when it also goes against the Bible? Should we not also outlaw divorce?

God doesn't like divorce (Malachi 2:16), but if one is unfaithful and turns, we are not under bondage of being married forever. If the person is an unbeliever and leaves, let them leave (1 Cor 7:15).

I don't recommend it, but God won't condemn you for it. If you need to be divorced then divorce. This is between you and your husband and of course the Lord.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

You say you think gay marriage is not OK, yet at the same time you also say it should be legal in civil society.

In the US, yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Stop talking in generalities and speak in specifics: Do you think it should be illegal for a shopkeeper to have his store open on Sunday? If you say "no" to this question, then why do you feel that working on the sabbath is a lesser sin than homosexuality? Why are you claiming that allowing homosexuality in secular society will "ruin civilization," but allowing people to work on the Sabbath will not? Both are condemned in Scripture. You have provided absolutely no reason for one to be acceptable and the other not. You talk around the issue, but you have not addressed it. Working on the Sabbath, in God's mind, is as bad as having gay sex. So too is it with every other sin addressed in Scripture. Why should this one sin be illegal, and all the others be legal?

Now, if you believe that all Americans should be banned from working on the Sabbath -- that the laws should go back on the books, and no business establishments should be allowed to be open (with the exception of emergency facilities, like hospitals) on The Day of the Lord -- then at least you're being consistent, but you are also being idolatrous. Because you are looking to this nation, this secular nation with its secular laws -- to save you and others from Hell. The constitution cannot save you from Hell. Man's Law cannot save you from Hell. The President of the U.S. cannot save you from Hell. Only God can save you from Hell. By passing laws making sin "illegal" just because it's sin (and for no other reason) is usurping God's power, and attempting to give it to our national leaders. I don't know about you, but as frightening as the thought is of God judging me, the thought of Barack judging me is even more frightening. At least with God, I know I have Jesus as my Advocate.

Even if you could argue that "all Christians agree" that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore it should be kept illegal, I don't want that authority in the hands of my secular leaders. I barely trust them with the power they already have, let alone giving them authority over morality. Let the Church be the authority in Sacred matters, and keep that power away from our secular leaders.

Think about it. Do you really want to give our secular leaders power over morality?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

The government bans all kinds of marriages on a basis that doesn't make much sense to us. Polygamy, first cousin marriages, etc. If you ask me just leave the issue to the states then each state can have it or not based on what the people of that state want.

Actually, this is not a bad idea, except then what happens if you're married in one state, and move to another? This has actually already come up.

Also, if you're married in the eyes of the state, but not of the federal government, there's still the issue of federal laws, like tax filing status, that need to be addressed.

But I do appreciate you thoughts and your willingness to compromise. It shows that the Spirit is with you.

 

[SantoSubito]

Actually, this is not a bad idea, except then what happens if you're married in one state, and move to another? This has actually already come up.

Usually the marriage isn't recognized as such. A Lesbian couple tried to get a divorce in Tulsa not too long ago, and the judge simply declared that they can't get a divorce since they never had a marriage in the first place.

Also, if you're married in the eyes of the state, but not of the federal government, there's still the issue of federal laws, like tax filing status, that need to be addressed.

But I do appreciate you thoughts and your willingness to compromise. It shows that the Spirit is with you.

Even though this may sound slightly Civil War-ish. If the Northern states want gay marriage fine let them have it, but leave the rest of us who don't want it out of it. Thankfully though we are no longer in a Civil War era voting conundrum where the North always has enough votes to force it's will upon the rest of the nation.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I was with you until this:

With this said it's not said that a believer should compel a non-believer to follow any certain tenant or prospect that he do not believe is right or that non-christians should in anything be expected to act as christians. Yet we are to be leading examples rather than following imitators in our community, head rather than tail. There's no reason to have a low profile.

From there, I really did try to continue, but got so confused I had no clue what you were trying to say. I think I know what you're saying, but it's so garbled I really can't be sure, and I am hesitant to respond when I don't understand you.

Let me say that I agree with you that the Church should lead by example. And yes, as Christians we should not force non-believers to practice what we do. Paul said this at least once in his Epistles (I can only think of one letter, but there may be more I'm not thinking of right now).

You seem to think that allowing gay marriage would have MORE of a negative effect on society than all of the other sins that we allow. But you are vague about what exactly that means, or what you expect. I honestly can't imagine how allowing gay people to get married would be any worse than allowing adulterers, fornicators, prostitutes, or any manner of people, to get married, when it is obvious from the words "I do" that they DON"T.

I am not being flippant here. I really don't grok this "fall of western civilization" that you and others seem to be certain will happen if and when we legalize gay marriage. Has western civilization not already fallen? Is it not already lost completely? Are we not already damned without Christ? To me, it's like you're in a boat made of swiss cheese, with one plug at the bottom, and you're saying, "No, we can't pull this one plug, or we'll sink." Honey, this ship has SUNK! The filth of sin has already infested this world beyond your ability to save, beyond the ability of the US legal system to save. Removing that plug in the bottom, or keeping it in, will not change the status of that boat. The only way you're gonna survive the flood is by Jesus. If you think that swiss cheese boat is going to save you, you're more screwed up than the gays getting married. At least they don't think their marriage will "save" them.

On the other hand, removing that plug may help some people in the here and now. This is where my allegory breaks down. Because the boat allegory only works in terms of the afterlife. With regards to gay marriage, I'm not talking about the afterlife, I'm talking about rights in THIS life. Since you believe that gays will be damned anyway, why not let them enjoy equal rights while they are in this life?

This is exactly what Christ taught. You see, the Pharisees taught that poor people were poor because it was God's punishment. They deserved their plight, as a retribution for their sins. For that reason, they would withhold charity, thinking that they were undeserving. Jesus pointed out that none of us are "deserving," and therefore it is our duty, as Christians, to feed the hungry and care for the poor. You'll notice that Jesus never said we only had to help the poor people who were also Christian. Jesus never said, "If you have two coats, and your neighbor has none, give him one of yours, but only if he's willing to work for it and not a drunkard or tweaker." There are no caveats in Jesus' command of charity. Jesus said we must extend charity to EVERYONE, whether or not they were "deserving" of it. This is why the Pharisees hated him so much -- because they only wanted to look out for the saved. They didn't want those who weren't part of the "elect" (which then was just the Jews) to have justice. Jesus reminded them that Justice came from God, and it was up to God who could receive Justice. If God wanted to grant it to everyone, that was His prerogative.

Likewise, it is not up to us to decide who gets to have God's grace and who doesn't. I am very glad I don't have to make those decisions. I leave it to God. All I am commanded to do is to care for my neighbor, even my enemy.

And if gays aren't your enemies, who is?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

God doesn't like divorce (Malachi 2:16), but if one is unfaithful and turns, we are not under bondage of being married forever. If the person is an unbeliever and leaves, let them leave (1 Cor 7:15).

I don't recommend it, but God won't condemn you for it. If you need to be divorced then divorce. This is between you and your husband and of course the Lord.

I like your response. I think this is how we should respond in every situation. We know what Scripture says. We know what "should" be. From there, it is between the sinner and God, and not up to us to decide.

 

[tribesman]

In the US, yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Stop talking in generalities and speak in specifics: Do you think it should be illegal for a shopkeeper to have his store open on Sunday? If you say "no" to this question, then why do you feel that working on the sabbath is a lesser sin than homosexuality? Why are you claiming that allowing homosexuality in secular society will "ruin civilization," but allowing people to work on the Sabbath will not? Both are condemned in Scripture. You have provided absolutely no reason for one to be acceptable and the other not. You talk around the issue, but you have not addressed it. Working on the Sabbath, in God's mind, is as bad as having gay sex. So too is it with every other sin addressed in Scripture. Why should this one sin be illegal, and all the others be legal?

Well, I have already responded to examplified specifics, the issue of unclean meats was one. As for sabbath-breaking, well, yes, the principle remains the same. Of course. You might be assuming things here about my views that are wrong. I have not claimed that it is acceptable with "business as usuals" on the sabbath. And also here I see no reason for a christian to approve of labor and services (that are not absolutely necessary) on that day. No doubt secular society would not agree with that position, but christians should not be in favor of that. On the contrary they ought to be in favor of upheld sunday (or 7th day) laws, if such exists. I have said it before and I can say it again: the more civil law is based on the Bible, the better. I am not singling out homosexuality in this regard, I would be against any and all legislation that will mean the approval of any sin.

Now, if you believe that all Americans should be banned from working on the Sabbath -- that the laws should go back on the books, and no business establishments should be allowed to be open (with the exception of emergency facilities, like hospitals) on The Day of the Lord -- then at least you're being consistent, but you are also being idolatrous. Because you are looking to this nation, this secular nation with its secular laws -- to save you and others from Hell. The constitution cannot save you from Hell. Man's Law cannot save you from Hell. The President of the U.S. cannot save you from Hell. Only God can save you from Hell. By passing laws making sin "illegal" just because it's sin (and for no other reason) is usurping God's power, and attempting to give it to our national leaders. I don't know about you, but as frightening as the thought is of God judging me, the thought of Barack judging me is even more frightening. At least with God, I know I have Jesus as my Advocate.

Hey, I guess you have not understood me too well in all. Your accusation of "idolatry" here either comes from pure ignorance or presumptous ideas taken from the blue. Your turning of things and going into other fields does in any case not serve any better for understanding me thinks. Why not ask me closer how I view these things your mentioning than just assuming my view on them from nowhere? And why complicate things? Of course I do not believe that the state can serve the purpose of saving people from hell. Such nonsense I just find ridiculous..Nor do I believe that civil legislation will serve any such purpose in itself. I consider such ideas as not only alien to what we have been discussing here but also plainly absurd. I don't know of any christian tradition who holds to such beliefs

What I am saying is simply that christians ought not be supportive of any laws that leads to the breaking of God's law plus having seriously negative impact on the society in which they live. Why? Because it serves nothing good for none. So if a christian have the opportunity to have his voice heard in such matters (if that is possible, which is not always the case) then he should be responsible rather than irresponsible and make a difference for the better, not the worse. And by the way, I am not american, I've just lived in the US for a time. I do not even live in the western world, I live in the eastern world that belongs to the third world. You just can't take it for granted that the whole world is centered around the US and blindly follows all its ideals and ways of life.

Even if you could argue that "all Christians agree" that homosexuality is a sin, and therefore it should be kept illegal, I don't want that authority in the hands of my secular leaders. I barely trust them with the power they already have, let alone giving them authority over morality. Let the Church be the authority in Sacred matters, and keep that power away from our secular leaders.

Think about it. Do you really want to give our secular leaders power over morality?

Probably we have widely different views on the state and its relation to christianity. I do not see the state as an institution that is necessary evil in itself and that should be avoided as much as possible. It also has no exalted status by itself. It will become that which occupies it, i e those who govern it. If evil people are at the ruling boards in it then what you get are bad things. But, even at its best, the non-theocratic state has the weaknesses that all civil entities have. Even if it may have many christians among its ranks it still is not the church itself nor can it be seen as an extension of it. It should be there to help and direct people in timely matters and hopefully advance laws and values that are good enough to make society just and prosperous. What christians should be concerned about here is not the positive that the state may achieve, but the negative, as when the state wants to pass legislation that will mean significant negative effects on many fronts.

 

[tribesman]

From there, I really did try to continue, but got so confused I had no clue what you were trying to say. I think I know what you're saying, but it's so garbled I really can't be sure, and I am hesitant to respond when I don't understand you.

Let me say that I agree with you that the Church should lead by example. And yes, as Christians we should not force non-believers to practice what we do. Paul said this at least once in his Epistles (I can only think of one letter, but there may be more I'm not thinking of right now).

You seem to think that allowing gay marriage would have MORE of a negative effect on society than all of the other sins that we allow. But you are vague about what exactly that means, or what you expect. I honestly can't imagine how allowing gay people to get married would be any worse than allowing adulterers, fornicators, prostitutes, or any manner of people, to get married, when it is obvious from the words "I do" that they DON"T.

Yes, I see that there are some things where you didn't really get my point. But as for going there again about "more" negative effect on allowance of certain sins would just be to repeating ourselves. Sin is sin, but as shown, different sins do have different consequences and means different punishments/penalties. As for homosexuality, it is not only negatively mentioned as a sin in scripture, something which must be taken into account. Let's get back to the practical however, I believe you are asking the wrong kind of questions to start with. The issue at hand is not as much about what a christian can do in and for his society in the positive, because that really depends upon many factors and circumstances, here it is about a christian's position in the negative towards a societal acceptance of an alien lifestyle. My take is simple, if christians have any chance of having any say at all in such an issue, then they are to be resoundingly and resolutely against it. Anything else would be detrimental to our cause.

Surely so much sins are accepted in secular society and so much of watered down and compromising politically correct christianity have just accepted the evolution of the "order" of such things as something normal. But the last thing an infested society like that needs are christians who are positive to gay marriage. And like I said it makes absolutely no sense to say that it is not "OK" as such, but yet in civil society it is still "OK". There is only a matter of time before you will openly endorse it in church life. If it has not already occurred. Am I totally wrong if I guess that your denomination are either considering the "blessing" of same sex unions or do you already do them? And how do you think one should interpret your words in your post to mori (post#101) other than that you at least are uncertain as to whether if you actually consider outlived homosexuality a sin, after all. I quote:

...I don't know if some Christians will ever accept that homosexuality is "okay." The older I get, the more I think that, at least in the foreseeable future, the best we can hope for is a stalemate. There are a few churches out there who embrace gays and lesbians, and don't preach that homosexuality is sin. I used to think that, given time, more and more churches would eventually come to that same conclusion. And perhaps, given enough time, they will. There was a time when Christians taught that kings had a God-given right to rule, and one's class and caste were ordained. A poor man had no right to better himself, even if he could. Today, Christians no longer believe that. It's not that we ignore the Scripture that had been used to "support" those views -- we just understand them differently, based on our worldview. Given time, history has proven, liberals always win...

Par for the course, you are comparing social injustice with sexual deviance. The prior loyalty is to your political ideals and worldview?

I am not being flippant here. I really don't grok this "fall of western civilization" that you and others seem to be certain will happen if and when we legalize gay marriage. Has western civilization not already fallen? Is it not already lost completely? Are we not already damned without Christ? To me, it's like you're in a boat made of swiss cheese, with one plug at the bottom, and you're saying, "No, we can't pull this one plug, or we'll sink." Honey, this ship has SUNK! The filth of sin has already infested this world beyond your ability to save, beyond the ability of the US legal system to save. Removing that plug in the bottom, or keeping it in, will not change the status of that boat. The only way you're gonna survive the flood is by Jesus. If you think that swiss cheese boat is going to save you, you're more screwed up than the gays getting married. At least they don't think their marriage will "save" them.

I have not said anything about the "fall of western civilization". If you want to answer my views, fine, but then at least quote me correctly. The negative consequences will categorically and undiscriminately without exception come upon ANY society ANYWHERE which justifies same-sex unions or marriages or giving such an approved status of any kind. Regarding the fall of western civilisation, yes, such I believe is going on. But I am sure you and I have very different views on the reasons for it, remembering the other posts where we have touched this subject. Yet think about where the civilisation of the west came from. It came from christianity! Once secularism, liberalism, pluralism and modernist democracy sprang up, western christendom has been ever declining and today's apostate version of it is mostly an political ally with the former.

The situation today in the west combined with massive apostasy, revivalism of paganism plus massive influx of non-christian religions and its settlers puts the remaining traditional christians there at an alarming balance. In that situation christians should "not follow a multitude to do evil" (Exo.23:2) but rather, whenever possible, make a positive stand for the values and heritage that once made their countries prosperous. The former blessings of the "christian west" is turning over into curses because of its apostasy and lukewarmness (Mal.2:2). Heresies and false teachers abound as a result. It is time to show seriousness with repentance, not to say "OK" to more sin, just because nearly any and all other sins are viewed as "OK" by the big crowd. That would only be the straw that broke the camel's back.

On the other hand, removing that plug may help some people in the here and now. This is where my allegory breaks down. Because the boat allegory only works in terms of the afterlife. With regards to gay marriage, I'm not talking about the afterlife, I'm talking about rights in THIS life. Since you believe that gays will be damned anyway, why not let them enjoy equal rights while they are in this life? This is exactly what Christ taught.

Not wholly sure I get you here. Are you saying that Christ taught that we should approve of sinful lifestyles since such people would be lost anyway?

You see, the Pharisees taught that poor people were poor because it was God's punishment. They deserved their plight, as a retribution for their sins. For that reason, they would withhold charity, thinking that they were undeserving...This is why the Pharisees hated him so much -- because they only wanted to look out for the saved. They didn't want those who weren't part of the "elect" (which then was just the Jews) to have justice. Jesus reminded them that Justice came from God, and it was up to God who could receive Justice. If God wanted to grant it to everyone, that was His prerogative.

.Where did you get this notion from about the thinking of the pharisees? Sources?

Jesus pointed out that none of us are "deserving," and therefore it is our duty, as Christians, to feed the hungry and care for the poor. You'll notice that Jesus never said we only had to help the poor people who were also Christian. Jesus never said, "If you have two coats, and your neighbor has none, give him one of yours, but only if he's willing to work for it and not a drunkard or tweaker." There are no caveats in Jesus' command of charity. Jesus said we must extend charity to EVERYONE, whether or not they were "deserving" of it.

Here we are in agreement. But it must be said that christians have their number one loyalty and priority towards their brethren (1Tim.5.8).

Likewise, it is not up to us to decide who gets to have God's grace and who doesn't. I am very glad I don't have to make those decisions. I leave it to God. All I am commanded to do is to care for my neighbor, even my enemy.

And if gays aren't your enemies, who is?

If you want to care for your neighbor and even your enemy, then do not justify their sin in any way, shape or form. Rather reprove them. Simple. If you did wrong, you would like that someone who knew you did wrong and who also knew what was better for you to do, should tell you that. That would be to apply the golden rule, i e to do to others as you would have them do to you. To do the opposite, would be the opposite.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

And by the way, I am not american, I've just lived in the US for a time. I do not even live in the western world, I live in the eastern world that belongs to the third world. You just can't take it for granted that the whole world is centered around the US and blindly follows all its ideals and ways of life.

You are right: I was assuming that you were referring to the US, and that was wrong of me. I suspect the difficulty I have understanding your grammar also stems from this -- I'm guessing English is not your native language.

I cannot say what laws should or should not be passed in other countries. Not being a citizen of any other country, I have no right to say such, or to have an opinion one way or another what any other country does.

I don't know what your citizenship is, either. If you do not have citizenship or even legal alien residency in the US, then really, you have no right to say what laws the US should or should not pass, either. You absolutely may (and, I would argue, should) fight for what you think is right in your home country, whatever that might be. And any country you live in for long enough to establish legal residency, such as a school or work visa, would similarly be valid. But if you're just a visitor, you have no more right to tell us what to do. It's as rude as going over to someone's house and then insulting their decorating. If you don't like it, then don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.

 

[kayem77]

This thread is not glorifying God, it seems like the only purpose of this thread is to prove who is right and who is wrong .It's ridiculous...christians shouldn't act like that towards other, let alone towards their own brothers and sisters. We are supposed to know better aren't we?
God bless.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

This thread is not glorifying God, it seems like the only purpose of this thread is to prove who is right and who is wrong .It's ridiculous...christians shouldn't act like that towards other, let alone towards their own brothers and sisters. We are supposed to know better aren't we?
God bless.

I don't think you read the whole thread. Actually, I thought most of the discussion on this thread was very polite and kind, especially considering the subject matter.