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in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.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?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 130 by YahDough]

Israel is a bad example for these reasons.

1. it was an english territory that was decidedly given to the jewish peoples because no one wanted all the refugees from german states after WW2

2. It was propped up by secular nations

3. Isreal is a secular nation.

The roman empire only went into decline AFTER they declared the christian religion as the one true religion.

Statistically the nations with the highest % of christians also have the highest murder rates.
Christian nations also don't fair well economically compared to secular nations.

It seems to me declaring the Lord as a staple of your government spells doom for your nation.

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 131 by DanieltheDragon]

Your ignorance of history, especially the history I described is disturbing. Who are you? My history is not very good, but yours is appalling.

You sound like a US enemy trying to disrupt the blessings our country has received as a Christian nation by supporting things the LORD hates.

What kind of an agenda are you on?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 132 by YahDough]

The decline of the Roman Empire is one of the events traditionally marking the end of Classical Antiquity and the beginning of the European Middle Ages. Throughout the 5th century

the Roman empire was declared christian in the 4th century. the decline did not begin until the 5th century. It is simple math 4 comes before 5 it was declared a christian empire by Constantine the Great in the 4th century the decline began in the 5th century it is a very simple correlation.

On 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[9] and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel," a state independent upon the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine, 15 May 1948

Israel is indeed a secular state but it affords many religious priviledges to people of the Jewish faith.

Now you can look at what this favoritism does in fact do. Just look at the violence as a result of feeling that one group has an unfair advantage over another....


please don't insult me again. It was un-civil and arrogant, I don't appreciate it.

As for murder rates compare the global demographics for religion vs global murder rates. Nations with the highest level of christian demographics have the highest murder rates. Again simple math available to everyone including yourself.

[YahDough]

[Replying to post 133 by DanieltheDragon]
I'm sorry you felt insulted.

But the Christianity of Constantine's Rome is questionable at best. It was Rome's attempt to take power over the Christians and subvert the religion. That's why it fell. That's similar to the US today.

And as for the nation of Israel, I was describing the early pre Christ Israel. Babylonia and Assyria, (as well as the Romans later) conquered the nation because Israel lost the blessing from our LORD for their sins.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to YahDough]

Hey your qualification wasn't a particular brand of Christianity was it.

Irregardless nation states that have declared a particular belief as the on true belief or a state religion without fail will always find violence as a result of it. There have been plenty of secular nations that enjoy peace and prosperity.

On the nation of Israel I don't see us agreeing here either I don't accept the biblical account as remotely accurate and I cant consider it as good enough evidence to convince me one way or the other. To me it is mythological and I am not going to bring myth into this debate. I would also not use Homer's illiad either.

[YahDough]

[Replying to YahDough]

Hey your qualification wasn't a particular brand of Christianity was it.

Yes it was. It's the Christianity where Christ is the head of the church.

Col:1:18: And He (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

On the nation of Israel I don't see us agreeing here either I don't accept the biblical account as remotely accurate and I cant consider it as good enough evidence to convince me one way or the other. To me it is mythological and I am not going to bring myth into this debate. I would also not use Homer's illiad either.

You are saying you won't bring "myth" into the debate. What I am hearing is you won't bring "truth" into the debate. Just as you reject the Gospel of Christ, so it appears you reject significant history that led up to the Gospel.

But since you won't even debate this truth that you have deemed a myth, I consider myself the winner of our controversy and subsequently this debate. I am happy about that since this thread is getting tedious and a bit derailed. Adios for now, Dragon.

Of course you will protest. I understand.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 136 by YahDough]

Look if you want to declare yourself a winner to make yourself feel better fine. I am not going to protest that I am not debating to "win" as some do. I enjoy debate to learn.

What you haven't explained sadly is

1. supporting data that your particular truth would lead to a successful nation
2. How you have precisely concluded that your truth is the truth


You have explained

1. Accepting gay marriage will lead to the destruction of the nation state that does this.

with regards to what you have explained the only supporting evidence you have provided is the bible. All data has shown the bible to be very very wrong on the issue.

Countries that have gay marriage legalized have suffered no side effects of instability as a result. The Roman empire enjoyed its greatest success while gay marriage was legal. Same for ancient china. States that have legalized gay marriage have not come to destruction. The roman empire began to decline when it banned gay marriage. Canada has had an incredibly stable economy and has enjoyed great peace. What you have explained has no evidence based support.

The bible is statistically wrong here and I disregard it as a viable source for data.

The burden of proof lies with you to show me the bible is indeed truth.

I would like to learn more about your position and if you have any data to support it I would be willing to look at it.

I understand if you want to bow out. If you want me to tell you. you won to boost your self-esteem I will give that to you because I don't care about winning I like to learn about people and what motivates them. From what I gather I still have no clue what your "truth" is and why you think it should be reasonable for anyone to believe its "truth"

[East of Eden]

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?

I thought you were against Biblically-based reasons for law?

[bluethread]

Number 1 is primarily an appeal to evangelism over integrity. Also, Number 3 is an appeal to minimalizing of the Scriptures.

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.

This is the meat of the argument and, for Christianity, is quite legitimate. The passages you refer to may have been interpreted that way by Christians, but those interpretations do not fit the context of the passages, IMO. Therefore, they may be good reasons why Christian's should be accepting of homosexuality, but they are not good reasons for those who hold to the one law approach to the Scriptures.

[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?

I thought you were against Biblically-based reasons for law?

A fair question.


Although I have stated this before, let me clarify.


I do not think that laws which are primarily motivated by religion, or which have the primary effect of promoting a religious view, should be enacted into law.


However, I accept that individual citizens can vote, promote laws, engage in public debate, etc., with pretty much any motivation at all, including a religious one.

When a majority in a given jurisdiction are successful in getting a religiously motivated law, or one promoting a religious view, passed, it is up to the courts to rectify that situation.




My argument above addresses why I think it is a bad idea for Christians to be motivated to work against gay marriage, and provides a theological justification for accepting gay marriage in a religious sense.



I would not offer this as a legal argument regarding what the laws governing gay marriage should be. I think that legal argument is easy to make, and the success of numerous cases in recent years overturning bans on gay marriage largely make the same arguments that I have been making on this forum for probably close to a decade.


Rather, here I am simply trying to persuade my fellow believers to voluntarily give up their opposition to legalizing gay marriage. I think it is bad for the reputation of Christianity to continue that opposition.