Christian Reasons to Support Gay Rights

[micatala]

I offer this thread as a Christian who supports gay rights as an admittedly forward challenge to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Acts Ch. 14 and 15, Luke describes James and the other Apostles discussions which led them to exempt Gentiles from well over 99% of the Law of Moses. The main reason they did so was to avoid putting an excessive burden on Gentiles. Implicit in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.

Today, we see polls like this one that indicate many young people leaving the church or the faith because of the negative attitude displayed by many religious people towards gays and lesbians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... ign=buffer


1) Would it not make sense for Christians to lay aside anti-gay rhetoric, including quoting of Biblical verses that are claimed to condemn homosexuality, if for no other reason than it is counter-productive to evangelism?

2) Does not Jesus' own ministry, and the actions of the Apostles as described in Acts 15 give ample precedent for laying aside Biblical verses that seem to allude to homosexuality?


I will note that Christianity has by and large already set aside many precepts now seen to be archaic, including the idea that women should never speak in church, and that we should simply accept any and all governments as instituted by God and worthy of our obedience. The Declaration of Independence, in particular, repudiates this notion, outlined by Paul in his letters.

I will note that Jesus is quoted in the gospels as explicitly laying aside aspects of the law, and that he was criticized by many of his fellow believers, especially those who were arguably most religious, for doing so.

I will point out that the faith of those conservative believers rather quickly became a small minority as compared to Christianity.


It really comes down to this:

3) Is non-acceptance of homosexuality so central to Christianity that Christians should cling to traditional notions against homosexuality, or can we lay those aside as tangential to the central message of the gospel?

[Goat]

The Holy Spirit does not support sin

How do you know:

• 1. Whether or not a holy spirit exists?
  
  2. What she/he/it wants?

I don't see any evidence for the existence of a holy ghost or spirit, and even if one existed, I can't imagine a reliable way to know what it would want or believe.

Hum. I think that the holy spirit IS sin. And I got proof. (70 as matter of fact)

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 118 by YahDough]

alright I get was just trying to cover all my bases for respective readers.

Why do you have to cover your bases, Dragon? Are they getting shaky?

So how do you know that it is not an psychological manifestation of your inner consciousness?

The Holy Ghost is a He, not an "it" and He is also a "psychological manifestation" of a Christian believer's consciousness.

After all we have a two hemispheres in our brain. The communication between the two spheres can create a sense of what you are describing. which is common to most people. Extreme examples of this are people "hearing" voices when it was really just a manifestation of their brain.

Whatever. I'm not a brain surgeon. Are you?

So again how do you know?

How is it that you don't know?

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."-Jesus

Its not that my position is shaky I was just trying to be inclusive of others beliefs as well. Also since I am not that familiar with you epistemology I just thought I would include all of it. Which is really besides the point.

So if you have concluded that your personification of the "holy spirit" is just a psychological manifestation. Then you have concluded that what you perceive as "truth" is nothing more than your own personal opinions.

If you don't want to answer the question, I will just assume you can't answer the question. Simply I must conclude that your truth is no more valid than anyone elses truth and seeing as there is no way to discern between the two. I must press upon you this.

The reality of your situation is you live in a world where many differing views exist.
How do you best form a society in this world that can exist peacefully given these differing views.

It would be to institute a strong separation of church and state. So no one group will feel that another group has an unfair advantage over them in life. The reverse creates feelings of animosity and resentment it would not encourage opposing groups to fall into the fold. It would create a very hostile environment.

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 118 by YahDough]

alright I get was just trying to cover all my bases for respective readers.

Why do you have to cover your bases, Dragon? Are they getting shaky?

So how do you know that it is not an psychological manifestation of your inner consciousness?

The Holy Ghost is a He, not an "it" and He is also a "psychological manifestation" of a Christian believer's consciousness.

After all we have a two hemispheres in our brain. The communication between the two spheres can create a sense of what you are describing. which is common to most people. Extreme examples of this are people "hearing" voices when it was really just a manifestation of their brain.

Whatever. I'm not a brain surgeon. Are you?

So again how do you know?

How is it that you don't know?

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."-Jesus

So if you have concluded that your personification of the "holy spirit" is just a psychological manifestation. Then you have concluded that what you perceive as "truth" is nothing more than your own personal opinions.

I have concluded no such thing. That is your conclusion, not mine. Try understanding the psychology of reality, OK? "Personal opinions" very often get in the way of truth. As a nonbeliever I don't expect you to fully understand, but I did not want you to create a dichotomy between Spirit and Psyche (psychology)when it comes to perception of God's presence. "Our" spirit bears witness to God's Spirit that He is real. My opinion means nothing against God's truth.

The reality of your situation is you live in a world where many differing views exist.

How do you best form a society in this world that can exist peacefully given these differing views.

I say we form a society that is pleasing to our Creator. The "truth" has made our country free just as Christ said: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." We are losing that freedom by trying to please ourselves instead of God.

It would be to institute a strong separation of church and state. So no one group will feel that another group has an unfair advantage over them in life.

Please the people and forget about God, huh? That sounds like the way we are going.

The reverse creates feelings of animosity and resentment it would not encourage opposing groups to fall into the fold. It would create a very hostile environment.

Animosity and resentment from people sounds better to me than the wrath of God. Heck, I get that anyway.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 123 by YahDough]

Animosity and resentment from people sounds better to me than the wrath of God. Heck, I get that anyway.

This is a dangerous line of thinking. Willing to accept a known quantitative value out of fear of an unknown quantitative value. What's worse is these feelings of animosity and resentment inevitably lead to violence. you can look at

Ireland
Iran
Syria
Uganda
Serbia
Rwanda

You would be willing to promote this type of violence just so you can have a government declare your particular version of Christianity?

Quote:
It would be to institute a strong separation of church and state. So no one group will feel that another group has an unfair advantage over them in life.


Please the people and forget about God, huh? That sounds like the way we are going.

seems you forget that we already have a strong separation of church and state already in place. You haven't forgotten about god have you? An all powerful supreme being does not need a government to recognize him/her/it.

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 123 by YahDough]

You would be willing to promote this type of violence just so you can have a government declare your particular version of Christianity?

No. I do not promote violence and it is not about my "version of Christianity". We are supposed to have a government by, for, and of the people. But if some 80% of the people claim to be Christians, there should be a declaration that our God is the LORD. I think we should have a third party Christian moderates. Or maybe the US should establish a King like England who will declare stuff that needs to be declared without having to get politically involved.

seems you forget that we already have a strong separation of church and state already in place. You haven't forgotten about god have you? An all powerful supreme being does not need a government to recognize him/her/it.

If we bring the LORD with us in our affairs of the state we should do fine. But if we forget about God and promote things that He hates, like sodomy, I think we can kiss our freedom goodbye.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 125 by YahDough]

Except you are forgetting that according to Romans 13 there is no government that god has not established. SO if there is a government that tolerates sodomy it was instituted by god.

I am not saying necessarily that you would directly promote violence. I am saying that your position inevitably leads to violence.

This is a gov by the people and for the people and the majority supports gay marriage. a recent poll in Alabama of all places showed 51% were in favor of gay marriage.

[Nickman]

I offer this thread as a Christian who supports gay rights as an admittedly forward challenge to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

In Acts Ch. 14 and 15, Luke describes James and the other Apostles discussions which led them to exempt Gentiles from well over 99% of the Law of Moses. The main reason they did so was to avoid putting an excessive burden on Gentiles. Implicit in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.

Today, we see polls like this one that indicate many young people leaving the church or the faith because of the negative attitude displayed by many religious people towards gays and lesbians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/2 ... ign=buffer


1) Would it not make sense for Christians to lay aside anti-gay rhetoric, including quoting of Biblical verses that are claimed to condemn homosexuality, if for no other reason than it is counter-productive to evangelism?

2) Does not Jesus' own ministry, and the actions of the Apostles as described in Acts 15 give ample precedent for laying aside Biblical verses that seem to allude to homosexuality?


I will note that Christianity has by and large already set aside many precepts now seen to be archaic, including the idea that women should never speak in church, and that we should simply accept any and all governments as instituted by God and worthy of our obedience. The Declaration of Independence, in particular, repudiates this notion, outlined by Paul in his letters.

I will note that Jesus is quoted in the gospels as explicitly laying aside aspects of the law, and that he was criticized by many of his fellow believers, especially those who were arguably most religious, for doing so.

I will point out that the faith of those conservative believers rather quickly became a small minority as compared to Christianity.


It really comes down to this:

3) Is non-acceptance of homosexuality so central to Christianity that Christians should cling to traditional notions against homosexuality, or can we lay those aside as tangential to the central message of the gospel?

This may have been said already. I didn't read 13 pages, but Christians who accept homosexuals as equals are those who are ahead of the mainstream, and who have more sympathy, and empathy than their peers. The Bible is explicitly against homosexuality. Christians who accept homosexuals as equals, are either personally moved, or moved by less than personal reasons.

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 125 by YahDough]

Except you are forgetting that according to Romans 13 there is no government that god has not established. SO if there is a government that tolerates sodomy it was instituted by god.

I'm going to call that a "circle spin." You're repeating yourself with a bad spin. But again you used a small "g" for the god of this world so I accept it as valid enough. But it is foolish, especially for an atheist, to suggest that every bad law or decision made by a government was the LORD's will. C'mon Dragon....you can do better than that.

I am not saying necessarily that you would directly promote violence. I am saying that your position inevitably leads to violence.

And I am saying a nation that sets legal liberties which go against the Creators rules is in danger of something greater than violence: Destruction.

This is a gov by the people and for the people and the majority supports gay marriage. a recent poll in Alabama of all places showed 51% were in favor of gay marriage.

If the majority of people in a country reject the LORD's word, we have a democratic nation in decline.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 128 by YahDough]

Not a bad spin just reiterating my position on the matter. Rom 13 is clear I am not going to debate that.

Your claims of destruction and decline are purely based on heresay and unless you have statistical data to back up your claim. I must consider it erroneous.

I could equally claim a government that doesn't recognize the FSM will be destroyed and fall into decline. How do we determine what is right and what is wrong? Or do we throw out both erroneous claims and use the best statistical data?

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 128 by YahDough]

Not a bad spin just reiterating my position on the matter. Rom 13 is clear I am not going to debate that.

Then you lose the debate regarding that issue, which you would lose anyway.

Your claims of destruction and decline are purely based on heresay and unless you have statistical data to back up your claim. I must consider it erroneous.

No problem. Israel is the best example. Their nation was torn apart several times and the people went into captivity/slavery by Babylon and Assyria for leaving God's commands. And they were God's chosen people to begin with. The Roman empire is another good example of what God does to nations that fall into self indulgence and sin. I see the US going in a similar direction. Don't you?

I could equally claim a government that doesn't recognize the FSM will be destroyed and fall into decline. How do we determine what is right and what is wrong? Or do we throw out both erroneous claims and use the best statistical data?

Yes, but that would be a lie.