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in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.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

[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?

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.

And they are just as wrong coming from an activist judge, IMHO.

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.

Then let God be true and every man a liar. Real Christianity usually does cause friction with the world, Jesus said:

When I have left you, be not discouraged by the enmity of the world. Be not downcast even when fainthearted believers turn against you and join hands with the enemies of the kingdom. If the world shall hate you, you should recall that it hated me even before it hated you. If you were of this world, then would the world love its own, but because you are not, the world refuses to love you. You are in this world, but your lives are not to be worldlike. I have chosen you out of the world to represent the spirit of another world even to this world from which you have been chosen. But always remember the words I have spoken to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they dare to persecute me, they will also persecute you. If my words offend the unbelievers, so also will your words offend the ungodly. And all of this will they do to you because they believe not in me nor in Him who sent me; so will you suffer many things for the sake of my gospel. But when you endure these tribulations, you should recall that I also suffered before you for the sake of this gospel of the heavenly kingdom."

He didn't get nailed to a cross for being diplomatic. John Calvin once said something to the effect that it is impossible to truly preach the Gospel without instantly enraging the world.

IMHO it is impossible for a believer to sanction two people in a married state in what God calls an abomination, and that overturns His created order.

[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.

And they are just as wrong coming from an activist judge, IMHO.

I reject the notion that it is fair to call the, by now it must be in the dozens, judges who uphold constitutional freedoms against those who would impose their religion on others as activists.

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.

Then let God be true and every man a liar. Real Christianity usually does cause friction with the world, Jesus said:

When I have left you, be not discouraged by the enmity of the world. Be not downcast even when fainthearted believers turn against you and join hands with the enemies of the kingdom. If the world shall hate you, you should recall that it hated me even before it hated you. If you were of this world, then would the world love its own, but because you are not, the world refuses to love you. You are in this world, but your lives are not to be worldlike. I have chosen you out of the world to represent the spirit of another world even to this world from which you have been chosen. But always remember the words I have spoken to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they dare to persecute me, they will also persecute you. If my words offend the unbelievers, so also will your words offend the ungodly. And all of this will they do to you because they believe not in me nor in Him who sent me; so will you suffer many things for the sake of my gospel. But when you endure these tribulations, you should recall that I also suffered before you for the sake of this gospel of the heavenly kingdom."

He didn't get nailed to a cross for being diplomatic. John Calvin once said something to the effect that it is impossible to truly preach the Gospel without instantly enraging the world.

IMHO it is impossible for a believer to sanction two people in a married state in what God calls an abomination, and that overturns His created order.

And your opinion should be considered of no value to any other believer other than yourself. What you say here is unbiblical. You have no right to judge another person's relationship with God. Read Romans chapter 14.

Secondly, God also calls the eating of certain foods, the wearing of cloths of two fibers, and a whole host of other activities abominations, and I doubt you could find one person in a 1000 of those who call themselves Christian who shares all of God's views, as expressed in the Bible, on these matters.

Now, I support any believer interpreting scripture for themselves as it applies to them.

I have a different interpretation and it is certainly every bit as valid as your own. I won't go into the details again here, but will simply say that allowing gay marriage in no way goes against the central teachings of the gospels. In addition, there is precedent for believers at a given time changing what they consider to be sinful for themselves or for those who choose to follow their leadership. THis has been done within the Bible, and was done by overturning long-standing practices that were biblically based for the purpose of taking into account the actual effect on people in the given society.

See Acts Ch. 15.

[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?

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.

And they are just as wrong coming from an activist judge, IMHO.

I reject the notion that it is fair to call the, by now it must be in the dozens, judges who uphold constitutional freedoms against those who would impose their religion on others as activists.

Yes, there are lots of activist judges.

And your opinion should be considered of no value to any other believer other than yourself.

Perhaps, but my views on this subject are shared by the vast majority of Christians, i.e. the three largest church bodies, the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox, and most of the 70,000,000 member Anglican communion.

What you say here is unbiblical.

No it isn't, show me one passage from the Bible that shows sodomy in a positive light.

You have no right to judge another person's relationship with God. Read Romans chapter 14.

Wrongful judging is when you yourself are doing that same sin, you don't know all the facts, or if it is a gray area. Calling as sin what God has called sin isn't judging, it is a statement of fact.

Secondly, God also calls the eating of certain foods, the wearing of cloths of two fibers, and a whole host of other activities abominations, and I doubt you could find one person in a 1000 of those who call themselves Christian who shares all of God's views, as expressed in the Bible, on these matters.

No, I would bet all 1,000 Christians would say those laws applied to the OT theocracy of Israel and not to them. This issue has been settled for 2,000 years.

Now, I support any believer interpreting scripture for themselves as it applies to them.

I have a different interpretation and it is certainly every bit as valid as your own. I won't go into the details again here, but will simply say that allowing gay marriage in no way goes against the central teachings of the gospels.

OK, then you vote your conscience and I'll vote mine, and we'll let God be the judge.

In addition, there is precedent for believers at a given time changing what they consider to be sinful for themselves or for those who choose to follow their leadership. THis has been done within the Bible, and was done by overturning long-standing practices that were biblically based for the purpose of taking into account the actual effect on people in the given society.

See Acts Ch. 15.

Acts 15 dealt with those who said Christians had to keep Jewish law, as I said before, this has been settled a long time and was specifically dealt with in the NT. Homosexual activity, in contrast, was condemned both in the OT and the NT. Where is the comparable Acts 15 passage legitimatizing homosexual activity?

Paul addressed homosexual sin as it was an issue with his gentile audiences. Jesus didn't address it because it was not an issue with His Jewish audiences. I believe if Jesus did meet with a repentant gay person, He would say the say the same thing He did to the woman caught in adultery, "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more."

Note Paul in I Corinthians in reference to a list of sins including homosexuality says, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

God is still changing people today in the same way through His power.

[micatala]

What you say here is unbiblical.

No it isn't, show me one passage from the Bible that shows sodomy in a positive light.

You are leaving out what I said and the context. What is unbiblical is you judging another believers theological views, claiming that there views are somehow open to your judgment when they are in fact between each of us and the Lord. Sodomy or whatever else the issue might be is irrelevant.

So, yes, when you say:

IMHO it is impossible for a believer to sanction two people in a married state in what God calls an abomination, and that overturns His created order.

That runs counter to Romans Ch. 14. TO be fair, you did say this is your opinion. However, to say a person can't be a believer and support allowing gay people to marry is not only insulting, it is putting yourself in a place of judgment over others you have no right to take.

You have no right to judge another person's relationship with God. Read Romans chapter 14.

Wrongful judging is when you yourself are doing that same sin, you don't know all the facts, or if it is a gray area. Calling as sin what God has called sin isn't judging, it is a statement of fact.

The Bible states, in Paul's letters, that we are each responsible on our own to God for what is sinful. So, no, you do not get to interpret what is sinful for every other believer. That is unbiblical.


And, no, it is not a statement of fact. It is simply your opinion, which if applied to yourself or others who voluntarily hold you in leadership is fine.

It is not biblical to consider your opinion binding on all other believers.

Secondly, God also calls the eating of certain foods, the wearing of cloths of two fibers, and a whole host of other activities abominations, and I doubt you could find one person in a 1000 of those who call themselves Christian who shares all of God's views, as expressed in the Bible, on these matters.

No, I would bet all 1,000 Christians would say those laws applied to the OT theocracy of Israel and not to them. This issue has been settled for 2,000 years.

And yet you think that other ancient laws should be imposed on all believers. You are being inconsistent.

Now, I support any believer interpreting scripture for themselves as it applies to them.

I have a different interpretation and it is certainly every bit as valid as your own. I won't go into the details again here, but will simply say that allowing gay marriage in no way goes against the central teachings of the gospels.

OK, then you vote your conscience and I'll vote mine, and we'll let God be the judge.

Which is my point, with the caveat that your vote should be overturned by the courts because it is supporting an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of some to pursue happiness as they see fit, in a way that is harming no one.

In addition, there is precedent for believers at a given time changing what they consider to be sinful for themselves or for those who choose to follow their leadership. THis has been done within the Bible, and was done by overturning long-standing practices that were biblically based for the purpose of taking into account the actual effect on people in the given society.

See Acts Ch. 15.

Acts 15 dealt with those who said Christians had to keep Jewish law, as I said before, this has been settled a long time and was specifically dealt with in the NT. Homosexual activity, in contrast, was condemned both in the OT and the NT. Where is the comparable Acts 15 passage legitimatizing homosexual activity?

Paul addressed homosexual sin as it was an issue with his gentile audiences. Jesus didn't address it because it was not an issue with His Jewish audiences. I believe if Jesus did meet with a repentant gay person, He would say the say the same thing He did to the woman caught in adultery, "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more."

Note Paul in I Corinthians in reference to a list of sins including homosexuality says, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

God is still changing people today in the same way through His power.

Paul does not necessarily refer to homosexuality per se. He is referring to practices in the context of idolatrous worship. To apply that to every homosexual today is to take his words profoundly out of context.

Secondly, you entirely miss the point by declaring the issue "settled." The whole point of Acts 15 is that theological issues are not settled for all time. Believers have the authority to change views, teachings, practices, etc. If it were not so, we would all have to be following all of the OT law.

[East of Eden]

What you say here is unbiblical.

No it isn't, show me one passage from the Bible that shows sodomy in a positive light.

You are leaving out what I said and the context. What is unbiblical is you judging another believers theological views, claiming that there views are somehow open to your judgment when they are in fact between each of us and the Lord. Sodomy or whatever else the issue might be is irrelevant.

So why did Paul correct Peter on the issue of circumcism? The church has since the beginning fought heresies, a fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of wolves in sheep's clothes in the church.

That runs counter to Romans Ch. 14. TO be fair, you did say this is your opinion. However, to say a person can't be a believer and support allowing gay people to marry is not only insulting, it is putting yourself in a place of judgment over others you have no right to take.

And you are placing yourself in a place of judgement over Scripture that you have no right to take.

The Bible states, in Paul's letters, that we are each responsible on our own to God for what is sinful. So, no, you do not get to interpret what is sinful for every other believer. That is unbiblical.

You are essentially taking the nonsensical view that is unbiblical to preach the Bible.

And, no, it is not a statement of fact. It is simply your opinion, which if applied to yourself or others who voluntarily hold you in leadership is fine.

No it isn't, the Bible is clear on homosexual activity.

And yet you think that other ancient laws should be imposed on all believers. You are being inconsistent.

No I'm not, the moral code of the OT was reinforced in the NT, including homosexuality. Did you not know that?

Which is my point, with the caveat that your vote should be overturned by the courts because it is supporting an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of some to pursue happiness as they see fit, in a way that is harming no one.

The same could be said for polygamy and other acts. And until you have a SCOTUS ruling on that in your favor, it is pure speculation.

Paul does not necessarily refer to homosexuality per se.

Yes he does.

He is referring to practices in the context of idolatrous worship. To apply that to every homosexual today is to take his words profoundly out of context.

What is taking it out of context is denying the clear meaning. Your argument is effectively refuted here: http://carm.org/does-romans-1-condemn-homosexuality

"In other words, Pauls argument is that when people abandon God and His ways to any unnatural worship (which can include any invented deity, including distortions of the true God), God can abandon them to the lusts in their heart and the unnatural sexual practice of homosexuality. Just as creation is clearly seen leaving the unbeliever without excuse (vs. 20), it is also plain (Greek: phaneros, meaning clear, vs. 19) from the way God made human bodies how sex should naturally be carried out. Man complements woman and vice versa, and this is true anatomically, physiologically, and psychologically."

Secondly, you entirely miss the point by declaring the issue "settled." The whole point of Acts 15 is that theological issues are not settled for all time. Believers have the authority to change views, teachings, practices, etc. If it were not so, we would all have to be following all of the OT law.

Following the OT law was changed in the NT. That is not the case with homosexuality. Your argument is simple proof of the Biblical prediction that in the end times some will call evil good, and good evil. There are many instances in the OT of false prophets doing this. The last book of the NT says:

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

[micatala]

What you say here is unbiblical.

No it isn't, show me one passage from the Bible that shows sodomy in a positive light.

You are leaving out what I said and the context. What is unbiblical is you judging another believers theological views, claiming that there views are somehow open to your judgment when they are in fact between each of us and the Lord. Sodomy or whatever else the issue might be is irrelevant.

So why did Paul correct Peter on the issue of circumcism? The church has since the beginning fought heresies, a fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of wolves in sheep's clothes in the church.

That runs counter to Romans Ch. 14. TO be fair, you did say this is your opinion. However, to say a person can't be a believer and support allowing gay people to marry is not only insulting, it is putting yourself in a place of judgment over others you have no right to take.

And you are placing yourself in a place of judgement over Scripture that you have no right to take.

The Bible states, in Paul's letters, that we are each responsible on our own to God for what is sinful. So, no, you do not get to interpret what is sinful for every other believer. That is unbiblical.

You are essentially taking the nonsensical view that is unbiblical to preach the Bible.

Let me clarify.

Here, and below, you make a reasonable point. I am not saying a person cannot or should not 'preach' or promote their theological views. I accept that not all Christians will agree, and am not saying that means one side is right and one side should be quiet.

However, you are going beyond simply expressing a different viewpoint among believers. You are saying a person with a view different from what you consider orthodoxy should not even be considered a believer.

That is what I am saying is unbiblical. Paul, in Romans 14, acknowledges that brothers will disagree. He acknowledges that believers can have different views and still be in right standing with God, even on what is considered sinful.

He is saying those issues are for each of us to decide in good conscience in our own relationship with God. He is saying that we should not judge each other on that relationship and on those matters of conscience. We should accept that they are believers that to their own master will stand or fall.


Yes, I disagree with many of your views.


No, I would never say another Christian, you or anyone else, was not really a Christian because they have a view that I disagree with.



That is the difference.

And, no, it is not a statement of fact. It is simply your opinion, which if applied to yourself or others who voluntarily hold you in leadership is fine.

No it isn't, the Bible is clear on homosexual activity.

If you feel that way, fine. I don't agree and have ample support, within the Bible, for allowing believers to have a different view on homosexuality today (or any day). I will again point out that if you do not accept every jot and tittle of the law, one could argue you are being inconsistent. The Bible clearly says many things, that women should not teach in church for example, that most Christians do not believe need to be followed today.

And yet you think that other ancient laws should be imposed on all believers. You are being inconsistent.

No I'm not, the moral code of the OT was reinforced in the NT, including homosexuality. Did you not know that?

That view is not unambiguously expressed in the Bible. Yes, Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, but he also sets aside several explicit teachings. Paul clearly teaches that the OT is not binding.

Do you dispute that most Christians do not follow OT law?

Which is my point, with the caveat that your vote should be overturned by the courts because it is supporting an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of some to pursue happiness as they see fit, in a way that is harming no one.

The same could be said for polygamy and other acts. And until you have a SCOTUS ruling on that in your favor, it is pure speculation.

It has not been decided, but it is not "pure speculation." There is ample legal precedent, not to mention many state and lower court rulings, that indicate where this is likely to go if and when SCOTUS does decide.

Paul does Paul does not necessarily refer to homosexuality per se.

Yes he does.

Not true. The Greek is ambiguous, but the best translation would suggest Paul had a specific context in mind, and so does the rest of that chapter.

He is referring to practices in the context of idolatrous worship. To apply that to every homosexual today is to take his words profoundly out of context.

What is taking it out of context is denying the clear meaning. Your argument is effectively refuted here: http://carm.org/does-romans-1-condemn-homosexuality

"In other words, Pauls argument is that when people abandon God and His ways to any unnatural worship (which can include any invented deity, including distortions of the true God), God can abandon them to the lusts in their heart and the unnatural sexual practice of homosexuality. Just as creation is clearly seen leaving the unbeliever without excuse (vs. 20), it is also plain (Greek: phaneros, meaning clear, vs. 19) from the way God made human bodies how sex should naturally be carried out. Man complements woman and vice versa, and this is true anatomically, physiologically, and psychologically."

This writer is adding in a great deal that Paul did not write. This argument is highly interpretive, and he is welcome to that interpretation, but this does not address that the original passage was addressing a limited context, and that the Greek word used cannot be said to refer to what we today refer to as homosexuality.

He claims " . . . shrine and homosexual prostitution certainly existed in the first century, but there is no explicit textual evidence in Romans 1 that indicates Paul is referring to that. He simply cites homosexuality as degrading, a judgment of God, and adds nothing more," but that is manifestly not the case. The entire passage is clearly in the context of idolatry. See verse 23.

23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

The entire chapter is referring to this group of people who existed in Paul's day. Sure, some of the descriptions he gives might also apply to other people, but this group is the context for Paul's remarks. Your source simply dismisses that textual evidence.





Secondly, even if one accepts this interpretation of what Paul meant, that does not mean we should consider that binding today. Again, Acts 15 gives a precedent for believers changing how they understand God's will and what should be considered sinful. If we as Christians have already, even as recorded in the Bible but also since then, set aside certain biblical teachings, and we clearly have just as James did in Acts 15, why should we not consider doing so today?

Paul wrote that women should not teach men in church. Should we also consider that binding today?




I understand your stated position is that we should follow the Bible and not engage in any practices condemned there in. I, one, don't feel you hold this position in a consistent way and, two, do not accept your premise. Paul writes that scripture is useful for teaching and doctrine. He does not say it is a rigid set of instructions and that everyone has to follow every single rule.

Secondly, you entirely miss the point by declaring the issue "settled." The whole point of Acts 15 is that theological issues are not settled for all time. Believers have the authority to change views, teachings, practices, etc. If it were not so, we would all have to be following all of the OT law.

Following the OT law was changed in the NT. That is not the case with homosexuality. Your argument is simple proof of the Biblical prediction that in the end times some will call evil good, and good evil. There are many instances in the OT of false prophets doing this. The last book of the NT says:

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Again, you miss the point.

First, your last paragraph is often understood to apply only to John's Revelation, from which it is drawn. This book was not part of the overall Bible when it was written, and very nearly did not make it into the Bible. It is, in my view, not valid to suggest this verse means believers can never have a different view than what might be expressed in the Bible, even when the Bible is unambiguous on a matter.



Secondly, just because some laws were changed in Acts 15 and some weren't, it does not follow that those that weren't must remain valid for all time. Even if James did not include homosexuality in the changes made at that time, that does not mean a modern day religious leader, or even an individual believer, can do today what James did in the first century.

[East of Eden]

What you say here is unbiblical.

No it isn't, show me one passage from the Bible that shows sodomy in a positive light.

You are leaving out what I said and the context. What is unbiblical is you judging another believers theological views, claiming that there views are somehow open to your judgment when they are in fact between each of us and the Lord. Sodomy or whatever else the issue might be is irrelevant.

So why did Paul correct Peter on the issue of circumcism? The church has since the beginning fought heresies, a fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of wolves in sheep's clothes in the church.

That runs counter to Romans Ch. 14. TO be fair, you did say this is your opinion. However, to say a person can't be a believer and support allowing gay people to marry is not only insulting, it is putting yourself in a place of judgment over others you have no right to take.

And you are placing yourself in a place of judgement over Scripture that you have no right to take.

The Bible states, in Paul's letters, that we are each responsible on our own to God for what is sinful. So, no, you do not get to interpret what is sinful for every other believer. That is unbiblical.

You are essentially taking the nonsensical view that is unbiblical to preach the Bible.

Let me clarify.

Here, and below, you make a reasonable point. I am not saying a person cannot or should not 'preach' or promote their theological views. I accept that not all Christians will agree, and am not saying that means one side is right and one side should be quiet.

However, you are going beyond simply expressing a different viewpoint among believers. You are saying a person with a view different from what you consider orthodoxy should not even be considered a believer.

That is exactly what Jesus and Paul said, Jesus said His true followers were those that did His commandments, not just those that called Him 'Lord'. People who disregard those commandments aren't his true followers. He said many will come to Him at the last day speaking of all they did for Him, and will be told, "Depart from me, I never knew you." Paul said active homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom. Having said that, God will decide these matters, not I.

That is what I am saying is unbiblical. Paul, in Romans 14, acknowledges that brothers will disagree. He acknowledges that believers can have different views and still be in right standing with God, even on what is considered sinful.

You misinterpret Romans 14, it is speaking of Christian liberty on non-essentials. It is clearly wrong to say someone is not a Christian because they take a different view on a gray area. Homosexual activity isn't a gray area. By your reasoning you can't rebuke a Christian brother for adultery, correct? Also by your reasoning how do we know God's prohibition against adultery can be can't be changed today? Maybe the Golden Rule is inoperative now? It would certainly make my life easier, lol.

As an example of a gray area, I don't think God cares whether we worship on Saturday or Sunday, so I am not going to criticize a Seventh Day Adventist for worshiping on Saturday. On that issue the Bible is silent, i.e. it is neither for nor against, it simply described what early Christians did. That is manifestly NOT the case with sodomy.

He is saying those issues are for each of us to decide in good conscience in our own relationship with God. He is saying that we should not judge each other on that relationship and on those matters of conscience. We should accept that they are believers that to their own master will stand or fall.

Again, on non-essentials, yes. As the Reformers said, in essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity.

Yes, I disagree with many of your views.


No, I would never say another Christian, you or anyone else, was not really a Christian because they have a view that I disagree with.



That is the difference.

I have been told many times by liberals and skeptics here that I am not really a Christian because of my beliefs, most recently by Danmark.

If you feel that way, fine. I don't agree and have ample support, within the Bible, for allowing believers to have a different view on homosexuality today (or any day). I will again point out that if you do not accept every jot and tittle of the law, one could argue you are being inconsistent.

I am not being inconsistent, context is everything. The dietary and ceremonial laws intended for the OT theocracy of Israel were revoked for Christians, the eternal moral law was not.

The Bible clearly says many things, that women should not teach in church for example, that most Christians do not believe need to be followed today.

Actually, most Christians numerically do believe in male clergy, including the two largest denominations, the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. Only a small minority have female clergy.

That view is not unambiguously expressed in the Bible.

Yes it is. The New Covenant is predicted in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and discussed extensively in Galatians. Once Paul corrected the 'judaizers' in the NT it ihas been a non-issue in the Church.

Yes, Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, but he also sets aside several explicit teachings. Paul clearly teaches that the OT is not binding.

Do you dispute that most Christians do not follow OT law?

Why would they?

It has not been decided, but it is not "pure speculation." There is ample legal precedent, not to mention many state and lower court rulings, that indicate where this is likely to go if and when SCOTUS does decide.

We will see, the SCOTUS has certainly erred many times before. They often do what the elites want.

This writer is adding in a great deal that Paul did not write. This argument is highly interpretive, and he is welcome to that interpretation,

I'm sorry, but the highly interpretive view is that this doesn't address homosexuality. I can't believe the Holy Spirit-guided church had it wrong for 2,000 years, only to be corrected by homosexual activists with an axe to grind today.

but this does not address that the original passage was addressing a limited context, and that the Greek word used cannot be said to refer to what we today refer to as homosexuality.

They most clearly do.

He claims " . . . shrine and homosexual prostitution certainly existed in the first century, but there is no explicit textual evidence in Romans 1 that indicates Paul is referring to that. He simply cites homosexuality as degrading, a judgment of God, and adds nothing more," but that is manifestly not the case. The entire passage is clearly in the context of idolatry. See verse 23.

But there is no link spoken of between false gods and homosexual activity. The two may have gone together elsewhere, but not here.

Sure, some of the descriptions he gives might also apply to other people, but this group is the context for Paul's remarks. Your source simply dismisses that textual evidence.

I don't concede your point here, but even if you were right you've got a whole list of other Biblical prohibitions against homosexual activity.

Secondly, even if one accepts this interpretation of what Paul meant, that does not mean we should consider that binding today. Again, Acts 15 gives a precedent for believers changing how they understand God's will and what should be considered sinful. If we as Christians have already, even as recorded in the Bible but also since then, set aside certain biblical teachings, and we clearly have just as James did in Acts 15, why should we not consider doing so today?

Because the Bible is clear on this issue. Non-essentials can be modified according to time and culture. For instance, a lot of church music today would have been considered sinful 50 years ago. For the record, I thought such thinking was dumb back then.

Paul wrote that women should not teach men in church. Should we also consider that binding today?

IMHO, yes. Like the homosexual issue, it overthrows God's created order. I wouldn't say female clergy aren't Christian, just that they are misguided and not fully living under Christ's Lordship, in heaven they will realize their error and repent of it, and that their ministry will be impaired as a result. They have a slightly better case than the gays, in the Book of Judges for example there were female judges (although that time was also criticized as a period when everyone did what was right in his own eyes), there are no similar Biblical positive depictions of homosexual activity.

There are similarities in the push for women's ordination and gay clergy, in both cases the individual contrary to God's word says they have 'a calling' to be a minister. In actuality the individual doesn't discern the authenticity of a call, it is the church that determines that. On both issues, the majority of Christians today agree with me.

I understand your stated position is that we should follow the Bible and not engage in any practices condemned there in. I, one, don't feel you hold this position in a consistent way and, two, do not accept your premise. Paul writes that scripture is useful for teaching and doctrine. He does not say it is a rigid set of instructions and that everyone has to follow every single rule.

Just the ones the Bible is clear on.

First, your last paragraph is often understood to apply only to John's Revelation, from which it is drawn. This book was not part of the overall Bible when it was written, and very nearly did not make it into the Bible. It is, in my view, not valid to suggest this verse means believers can never have a different view than what might be expressed in the Bible, even when the Bible is unambiguous on a matter.

That is the difference between us, you sit over the Bible and judge it, I sit under the Bible and let it judge me.

Secondly, just because some laws were changed in Acts 15 and some weren't, it does not follow that those that weren't must remain valid for all time. Even if James did not include homosexuality in the changes made at that time, that does not mean a modern day religious leader, or even an individual believer, can do today what James did in the first century.

IMHO those would be considered false teachers, preaching what Paul condemned as a 'different Gospel'. It is no different today than what Jeremiah spoke of thousands of years ago:

Jer. 31:16 This is what the Lord Almighty says:

Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you;
they fill you with false hopes.
They speak visions from their own minds,
not from the mouth of the Lord.
17 They keep saying to those who despise me,
The Lord says: You will have peace.
And to all who follow the stubbornness of their hearts
they say, No harm will come to you.


Why would God say that back then, if we really have a right to edit His commands at will?

[micatala]

What you say here is unbiblical.

No it isn't, show me one passage from the Bible that shows sodomy in a positive light.

You are leaving out what I said and the context. What is unbiblical is you judging another believers theological views, claiming that there views are somehow open to your judgment when they are in fact between each of us and the Lord. Sodomy or whatever else the issue might be is irrelevant.

So why did Paul correct Peter on the issue of circumcism? The church has since the beginning fought heresies, a fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of wolves in sheep's clothes in the church.

That runs counter to Romans Ch. 14. TO be fair, you did say this is your opinion. However, to say a person can't be a believer and support allowing gay people to marry is not only insulting, it is putting yourself in a place of judgment over others you have no right to take.

And you are placing yourself in a place of judgement over Scripture that you have no right to take.

The Bible states, in Paul's letters, that we are each responsible on our own to God for what is sinful. So, no, you do not get to interpret what is sinful for every other believer. That is unbiblical.

You are essentially taking the nonsensical view that is unbiblical to preach the Bible.

Let me clarify.

Here, and below, you make a reasonable point. I am not saying a person cannot or should not 'preach' or promote their theological views. I accept that not all Christians will agree, and am not saying that means one side is right and one side should be quiet.

However, you are going beyond simply expressing a different viewpoint among believers. You are saying a person with a view different from what you consider orthodoxy should not even be considered a believer.

That is exactly what Jesus and Paul said, Jesus said His true followers were those that did His commandments, not just those that called Him 'Lord'.

Fair enough, but nowhere does Jesus say it is up to believers to tell other believers whether or not they are adequately following his teachings. God does this. Not you. Not me.

People who disregard those commandments aren't his true followers. He said many will come to Him at the last day speaking of all they did for Him, and will be told, "Depart from me, I never knew you." Paul said active homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom. Having said that, God will decide these matters, not I.

No, Paul did not say this, and even if he did, you still have Acts 15 to deal with. Paul described a group of idolatrous people in his day.

That is what I am saying is unbiblical. Paul, in Romans 14, acknowledges that brothers will disagree. He acknowledges that believers can have different views and still be in right standing with God, even on what is considered sinful.

You misinterpret Romans 14, it is speaking of Christian liberty on non-essentials. It is clearly wrong to say someone is not a Christian because they take a different view on a gray area. Homosexual activity isn't a gray area. By your reasoning you can't rebuke a Christian brother for adultery, correct? Also by your reasoning how do we know God's prohibition against adultery can be can't be changed today? Maybe the Golden Rule is inoperative now? It would certainly make my life easier, lol.

No, I may have a different interpretation, but it is not necessarily a wrong or the wrong one. You saying homosexuality is not a gray area does not make it so. Many in Paul's day said circumcision, or Sabbath observance, or all of the 600 odd laws in the OT were not gray areas. Who are you to say they are or are not for others?


Now, I accept this view presents challenges. If we can change law A, why not B, C, and D. My first response is that, well, that's reality, deal with it.

Secondly, you can go by what is ACTUALLY the central message of the gospel. It's not homosexuality anymore than it is about food or ritual observances. It is about love one another. The Golden Rule is about as central as it gets.

I would say the more central a teaching is, the more circumspect we should be in changing it, and the greater justification we should provide for doing so.

Given homosexuality is not even addressed at all in modern terms, that those places that do allude to same-sex acts are nearly all in the context of idolatry, that even those mentions are very few in number, and that, like attitudes on gender roles or food laws, can legitimately be considered archaic cultural artifacts, that topic is pretty easily seen to be non-central.

This is opposed to the very great many mentions over many books regarding love each other, being just and kind to the poor, devoting oneself in a personal way to God, etc.

I note you have not addressed Paul's teaching on women. Do you or do you not believe Christians should obey this teaching that women should not even be allowed to speak in church.

As an example of a gray area, I don't think God cares whether we worship on Saturday or Sunday, so I am not going to criticize a Seventh Day Adventist for worshiping on Saturday. On that issue the Bible is silent, i.e. it is neither for nor against, it simply described what early Christians did. That is manifestly NOT the case with sodomy.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion as it applies to yourself. I will note the Bible is NOT silent on Sabbath observance. It is very specific at certain points. It depends on your attitude to OT law. I bet there are more verses on Sabbath observance than on same-sex acts, which again, are all in the context of idolatry.

He is saying those issues are for each of us to decide in good conscience in our own relationship with God. He is saying that we should not judge each other on that relationship and on those matters of conscience. We should accept that they are believers that to their own master will stand or fall.

Again, on non-essentials, yes. As the Reformers said, in essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity.

Again, who are you to say what is or is not non-essential for everyone else?


You alluded earlier to issues of heresy in the church. In my view, the history of the suppression of heretics is not a particularly good one. Do you think the Catholic Church was right to suppress heretics? Was the inquisition a good thing?

Yes, I disagree with many of your views.


No, I would never say another Christian, you or anyone else, was not really a Christian because they have a view that I disagree with.

Very good. We agree on this point. I will simply note your earlier statement struck me as quite at odds with what you say here.

That is the difference.

I have been told many times by liberals and skeptics here that I am not really a Christian because of my beliefs, most recently by Danmark.

I would certainly not agree with those accusations. On the other hand, if it is coming from a non-believer, then the teaching in Romans 14 does not really apply since they have not chosen to be a part of the brotherhood of believers.

If you feel that way, fine. I don't agree and have ample support, within the Bible, for allowing believers to have a different view on homosexuality today (or any day). I will again point out that if you do not accept every jot and tittle of the law, one could argue you are being inconsistent.

I am not being inconsistent, context is everything. The dietary and ceremonial laws intended for the OT theocracy of Israel were revoked for Christians, the eternal moral law was not.

If you say all of the OT law is not binding, then that is fine, and I agree. I agree context matters, and that is my argument with respect to Romans 1. I am taking Paul's context into account there. You do not seem to be. You seem to be applying it in a much, much wider context.

If you say only what is reiterated in the NT is binding, that still does not settle the issue. For one, you have not addressed Paul's teachings on women, as one example. Secondly, there is still the issue of the possibility of additional changes, which (as with women teaching in church) have been made within or even after Biblical times.

The Bible clearly says many things, that women should not teach in church for example, that most Christians do not believe need to be followed today.

Actually, most Christians numerically do believe in male clergy, including the two largest denominations, the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. Only a small minority have female clergy.

Yes, many CHristians believe this. On the other hand, huge numbers do not, including many who call themselves Catholic. In addition, even Catholics allow women to speak in church, or to teach males in Catholic Schools. Paul does not say only males can be clergy. He says women should never even be able to teach a man, and even that they should remain silent in church.


So, my point stands. Many Christians, probably most, do not follow this teaching of Paul's. We have, since his time, changed the rule, or decided to disregard it, even though it is in what we now call Scripture.

Do you agree with this change or not? If you do, how do you justify it?

That view is not unambiguously expressed in the Bible.

Yes it is. The New Covenant is predicted in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and discussed extensively in Galatians. Once Paul corrected the 'judaizers' in the NT it ihas been a non-issue in the Church.

Unambiguously would mean that all mentions that discuss the relation of the OT law to the new say the same thing. This verse does not show that. Yes, the Old and New Covenant are discussed extensively. However, there was much disagreement in the church on this issue. To say it has been a 'non-issue' in the Church simply does not take into account the long-standing controversies from that day. Even today, there are Christians who think we must follow all OT law, and most do not.

Even in Acts 15, it does not say that all the believers, even all those present at the conference, agreed with James decision. Yes, Paul correct the judaizers. That does not mean they went away or changed their minds.


There are many teachings that are ambiguously stated in the Bible.


Is divorce OK? Jesus seems to say no. The OT says it is fine. Paul does not say one way or the other that I recall.

Polygamy is allowed in the OT, and is nowhere outlawed in the NT. Monogamy is held up as an ideal, and Paul says church leaders should be monogamous, but that does not say it is banned.


Do believers have to be baptized? Not clear. Some passages suggest this is required. Certainly many Christians do not believe water baptism must be done. Were all those converted at Pentecost baptized? I don't recall that they were.

Yes, Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, but he also sets aside several explicit teachings. Paul clearly teaches that the OT is not binding.

Do you dispute that most Christians do not follow OT law?

Why would they?

I'll take this as a no.

It has not been decided, but it is not "pure speculation." There is ample legal precedent, not to mention many state and lower court rulings, that indicate where this is likely to go if and when SCOTUS does decide.

We will see, the SCOTUS has certainly erred many times before. They often do what the elites want.

I would certainly accept this statement. Certainly there are many who say that is what SCOTUS did in the Citizens United Decision.

This writer is adding in a great deal that Paul did not write. This argument is highly interpretive, and he is welcome to that interpretation,

I'm sorry, but the highly interpretive view is that this doesn't address homosexuality. I can't believe the Holy Spirit-guided church had it wrong for 2,000 years, only to be corrected by homosexual activists with an axe to grind today.

Well, God's people in the form of the Israelites evidently had many things wrong for at least a millennium.

I would say we have had the treatment of women in the church wrong for just about 2000 years as well. Why? It comes down to tradition and prejudice. The fact that we have had 2000 years of anti-gay bigotry and oppression does not, in my mind, have any weight at all regarding what is just and right.

Secondly, I reject your subjective 'homosexual activists' spin. The correct characterization is that we have enough people today who understand that the treatment of gays over history has been the result of a long-standing prejudice. The fact that we want to correct this long-standing injustice does not make us marginal in any way.



I will point out another area where the 'Holy Spirit led church' had it wrong for about 2000 years.


Anti-Semitism. This was long-standing and very pervasive in both Catholic and Protestant churches. And it DOES have a biblical basis.

but this does not address that the original passage was addressing a limited context, and that the Greek word used cannot be said to refer to what we today refer to as homosexuality.

They most clearly do.

No, not at all clear in the original Greek.

He claims " . . . shrine and homosexual prostitution certainly existed in the first century, but there is no explicit textual evidence in Romans 1 that indicates Paul is referring to that. He simply cites homosexuality as degrading, a judgment of God, and adds nothing more," but that is manifestly not the case. The entire passage is clearly in the context of idolatry. See verse 23.

But there is no link spoken of between false gods and homosexual activity. The two may have gone together elsewhere, but not here.

They are all part of the same description Paul is providing throughout this passage. To try and separate out the gay activity as somehow independent is to abuse the context entirely.


However, we can agree to disagree on that point.


Still, it is clearly within the context of the chapter to consider my interpretation as reasonable. There is the further issue of the validity of considering Paul's attitude here as similar to his attitude towards women, an artifact of the prejudices of his culture.

Sure, some of the descriptions he gives might also apply to other people, but this group is the context for Paul's remarks. Your source simply dismisses that textual evidence.

I don't concede your point here, but even if you were right you've got a whole list of other Biblical prohibitions against homosexual activity.

Again, all of those have pretty much the same context. Even Sodom and Gomorrah have that context, as well as the fact the 'sodomy' there is arguably a tangential issue.

Secondly, even if one accepts this interpretation of what Paul meant, that does not mean we should consider that binding today. Again, Acts 15 gives a precedent for believers changing how they understand God's will and what should be considered sinful. If we as Christians have already, even as recorded in the Bible but also since then, set aside certain biblical teachings, and we clearly have just as James did in Acts 15, why should we not consider doing so today?

Because the Bible is clear on this issue. Non-essentials can be modified according to time and culture. For instance, a lot of church music today would have been considered sinful 50 years ago. For the record, I thought such thinking was dumb back then.

Again, homosexuality per se is pretty clearly a non-essential. It is barely mentioned. When it is, it is in a specific context. Jesus says not one word about it at all. If you think it is essential for you not to engage in any such behavior, fine. Others are free to decide what is non-essential in a different way than you, and they have a very excellent case in this instance.

Paul wrote that women should not teach men in church. Should we also consider that binding today?

IMHO, yes. Like the homosexual issue, it overthrows God's created order. I wouldn't say female clergy aren't Christian, just that they are misguided and not fully living under Christ's Lordship, in heaven they will realize their error and repent of it, and that their ministry will be impaired as a result. They have a slightly better case than the gays, in the Book of Judges for example there were female judges (although that time was also criticized as a period when everyone did what was right in his own eyes), there are no similar Biblical positive depictions of homosexual activity.

There are similarities in the push for women's ordination and gay clergy, in both cases the individual contrary to God's word says they have 'a calling' to be a minister. In actuality the individual doesn't discern the authenticity of a call, it is the church that determines that. On both issues, the majority of Christians today agree with me.

I appreciate your straightforward answer.

As far as the church determining the 'authenticity' of the call, each church is, just like each believer, free to determine their own understandings. For those who voluntarily put themselves under the leadership of that church, I have no argument.


Where I object is when one church body decides their rules are what everyone else also needs to follow, that their discernment is the only correct one.

As far as the majority of CHristians, I dispute that assertion with respect to women as noted above, and even if it were so, again, so what. The majority can be and has been wrong before. Most Christians at one point were very anti-Semitic. They thought the earth was the center of the universe (and yes, there are theological implications for changing that view), they thought Jesus would have long ago already have come.

First, your last paragraph is often understood to apply only to John's Revelation, from which it is drawn. This book was not part of the overall Bible when it was written, and very nearly did not make it into the Bible. It is, in my view, not valid to suggest this verse means believers can never have a different view than what might be expressed in the Bible, even when the Bible is unambiguous on a matter.

That is the difference between us, you sit over the Bible and judge it, I sit under the Bible and let it judge me.

We both interpret the Bible, just in different ways.

Secondly, just because some laws were changed in Acts 15 and some weren't, it does not follow that those that weren't must remain valid for all time. Even if James did not include homosexuality in the changes made at that time, that does not mean a modern day religious leader, or even an individual believer, can do today what James did in the first century.

IMHO those would be considered false teachers, preaching what Paul condemned as a 'different Gospel'.

Then, the solution is for you to avoid following teachers you think are false. Others should be considered free to make their own judgments on the teachers they choose to follow. In addition, this does not address the precedent. In essence, following your argument, you could say James and even Paul are false teachers on these grounds as compared to what Jesus said.


Note one other passage. God gave Peter (or perhaps all of us) the keys to the kingdom of even. He explicitly said a human or humans had the capacity to bind or loose things on earth and on heaven.

[East of Eden]

What you say here is unbiblical.

No it isn't, show me one passage from the Bible that shows sodomy in a positive light.

You are leaving out what I said and the context. What is unbiblical is you judging another believers theological views, claiming that there views are somehow open to your judgment when they are in fact between each of us and the Lord. Sodomy or whatever else the issue might be is irrelevant.

So why did Paul correct Peter on the issue of circumcism? The church has since the beginning fought heresies, a fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of wolves in sheep's clothes in the church.

That runs counter to Romans Ch. 14. TO be fair, you did say this is your opinion. However, to say a person can't be a believer and support allowing gay people to marry is not only insulting, it is putting yourself in a place of judgment over others you have no right to take.

And you are placing yourself in a place of judgement over Scripture that you have no right to take.

The Bible states, in Paul's letters, that we are each responsible on our own to God for what is sinful. So, no, you do not get to interpret what is sinful for every other believer. That is unbiblical.

You are essentially taking the nonsensical view that is unbiblical to preach the Bible.

Let me clarify.

Here, and below, you make a reasonable point. I am not saying a person cannot or should not 'preach' or promote their theological views. I accept that not all Christians will agree, and am not saying that means one side is right and one side should be quiet.

However, you are going beyond simply expressing a different viewpoint among believers. You are saying a person with a view different from what you consider orthodoxy should not even be considered a believer.

That is exactly what Jesus and Paul said, Jesus said His true followers were those that did His commandments, not just those that called Him 'Lord'.

Fair enough, but nowhere does Jesus say it is up to believers to tell other believers whether or not they are adequately following his teachings. God does this. Not you. Not me.

Since Jesus went to Heaven, it IS our job. See the Great Commission. Was it wrong for ML King to tell segregationist Christians that they weren't adequately following Jesus' teachings?

No, Paul did not say this,

Yes he did.

and even if he did, you still have Acts 15 to deal with.

Irrelevant to this conversation. An apostle inspired by the Holy Spirit is a whole different thing than men today contradicting inspired Scripture

Paul described a group of idolatrous people in his day.

That had nothing to do with homosexuality.

No, I may have a different interpretation, but it is not necessarily a wrong or the wrong one.

Two opposing interpretations can't both be right.

You saying homosexuality is not a gray area does not make it so.

And neither does your claiming it is make it so.

Many in Paul's day said circumcision, or Sabbath observance, or all of the 600 odd laws in the OT were not gray areas. Who are you to say they are or are not for others?

I can say that because it was settled by God's inspired Word. Who are you to question Him. We shouldn't put a question mark where God has put a period. Eve was the first one to think that a good idea.

Now, I accept this view presents challenges. If we can change law A, why not B, C, and D. My first response is that, well, that's reality, deal with it.

Secondly, you can go by what is ACTUALLY the central message of the gospel. It's not homosexuality anymore than it is about food or ritual observances.

I never claimed the gay issue was THE central issue, but it is an area where God has spoken. His intention from the beginning (per Jesus) for sex was one man and one woman in a lifelong married state. Martin Luther said something to the effect that if you preach the Gospel in all areas except the one that is being challenged in your day, you aren't really preaching the Gospel.

It is about love one another. The Golden Rule is about as central as it gets.

What if someone says the Golden Rule is passe today? Love is a part of God's being, but so is justice. IMHO the central part of Jesus' ministry was reconciling sinful man to God through faith in His atoning death on the cross.

I would say the more central a teaching is, the more circumspect we should be in changing it, and the greater justification we should provide for doing so.

Given homosexuality is not even addressed at all in modern terms, that those places that do allude to same-sex acts are nearly all in the context of idolatry, that even those mentions are very few in number, and that, like attitudes on gender roles or food laws, can legitimately be considered archaic cultural artifacts, that topic is pretty easily seen to be non-central.

Nonsense, ancient or modern terms, sin and human nature don't change.

This is opposed to the very great many mentions over many books regarding love each other, being just and kind to the poor, devoting oneself in a personal way to God, etc.

I note you have not addressed Paul's teaching on women. Do you or do you not believe Christians should obey this teaching that women should not even be allowed to speak in church.

I've addressed this, and you're bringing up a different question. I believe in the male headship in home and church, as far as the instance where Paul said women shouldn't speak at all in church that was most likely cultural pertaining to that situation.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion as it applies to yourself. I will note the Bible is NOT silent on Sabbath observance.

Where does the NT say Christians MUST worship in Sundays?

It is very specific at certain points. It depends on your attitude to OT law. I bet there are more verses on Sabbath observance than on same-sex acts, which again, are all in the context of idolatry.

No it isn't, where was the idolatry in Sodom?

Again, who are you to say what is or is not non-essential for everyone else?

I would start with the creeds, and go on to say an issue like sodomy that is consistently addressed throughout the Bible is an essential. You want to face Judgement Day saying you know more than God, knock yourself out.

You alluded earlier to issues of heresy in the church. In my view, the history of the suppression of heretics is not a particularly good one. Do you think the Catholic Church was right to suppress heretics? Was the inquisition a good thing?

Never said that, please don't ask me to defend a position I didn't take. Jesus and Paul clearly spoke out against false doctrine, and the Council of Nicea dealt with heresies. It will always be needed as long as Satan is active subverting the church. He is doing so today on the gay issue, IMHO.

I would certainly not agree with those accusations. On the other hand, if it is coming from a non-believer, then the teaching in Romans 14 does not really apply since they have not chosen to be a part of the brotherhood of believers.

Agreed, it is irrelevant what a non-believer thinks of my Christian walk.

If you say all of the OT law is not binding, then that is fine, and I agree.

I'm not saying that, just the Jewish dietary and ceremonial law, and punishments intended for the OT theocracy of Israel. They did not even apply to surrounding gentile nations of the time, let alone Christians today.

I agree context matters, and that is my argument with respect to Romans 1. I am taking Paul's context into account there. You do not seem to be. You seem to be applying it in a much, much wider context.

If you say only what is reiterated in the NT is binding, that still does not settle the issue. For one, you have not addressed Paul's teachings on women, as one example.

Yes I have, several times.

Secondly, there is still the issue of the possibility of additional changes, which (as with women teaching in church) have been made within or even after Biblical times.

And I think that change wrong. Even within the Anglican communion, women priests are officially in a time of 'reception', in other words it isn't a done deal.

Yes, many CHristians believe this. On the other hand, huge numbers do not, including many who call themselves Catholic.

And there are lots of conservatives in more liberal denominations who don't agree with official teaching.

In addition, even Catholics allow women to speak in church, or to teach males in Catholic Schools.

Yes, they are teaching minors, not adults.

Paul does not say only males can be clergy.

Huh? He says the pastor should be the husband of one wife.

He says women should never even be able to teach a man, and even that they should remain silent in church.

Already discussed. If you think the Bible is so wrong, why are you even a Christian?

So, my point stands. Many Christians, probably most, do not follow this teaching of Paul's. We have, since his time, changed the rule, or decided to disregard it, even though it is in what we now call Scripture.

Do you agree with this change or not? If you do, how do you justify it?

In regards to women leaders in church, no, and I justify it by God's word. To repeat, the majority of Christians agree with me. Catholics and Orthodox total about 1.5 billion, let's say a third of the 800 million Protestants agree with you, you're vastly outnumbered.

Unambiguously would mean that all mentions that discuss the relation of the OT law to the new say the same thing. This verse does not show that. Yes, the Old and New Covenant are discussed extensively. However, there was much disagreement in the church on this issue. To say it has been a 'non-issue' in the Church simply does not take into account the long-standing controversies from that day.

And those controversies were dealt with by apostles who wrote the NT by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and early church councils. Christians have been eating pork for a long time.

Even today, there are Christians who think we must follow all OT law, and most do not.

Very few, and what they want to eat is their business.

Even in Acts 15, it does not say that all the believers, even all those present at the conference, agreed with James decision. Yes, Paul correct the judaizers. That does not mean they went away or changed their minds.

Never said they did, but it did establish the truth. Not everyone accepts it, as seen on this forum.

There are many teachings that are ambiguously stated in the Bible.


Is divorce OK? Jesus seems to say no.

In the case of adultery only.

The OT says it is fine.

It doesn't say it is 'fine', Jesus said Moses permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts, but that from the beginning it wasn't God's plan.

Paul does not say one way or the other that I recall.

https://bible.org/article/teachings-paul-divorce-part-1

Polygamy is allowed in the OT, and is nowhere outlawed in the NT. Monogamy is held up as an ideal, and Paul says church leaders should be monogamous, but that does not say it is banned.

A good explanation of that issue here: http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

Do believers have to be baptized? Not clear. Some passages suggest this is required. Certainly many Christians do not believe water baptism must be done. Were all those converted at Pentecost baptized? I don't recall that they were.

You're raising a flurry of red herrings which have nothing to do with sodomy.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:19 20)

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. . . .Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2:41, 47)

I would certainly accept this statement. Certainly there are many who say that is what SCOTUS did in the Citizens United Decision.

I would say that one was decided contrary to what the elites wanted.

Well, God's people in the form of the Israelites evidently had many things wrong for at least a millennium.

In their apostate periods, yes. Because the OT laws aren't applical today doesn't mean they were wrong for that time.

I would say we have had the treatment of women in the church wrong for just about 2000 years as well. Why? It comes down to tradition and prejudice.

Women were treated very well in Christianity, so much so that the Romans derided our faith as a religion of women. "In Christ there is neither male nor female."

The fact that we have had 2000 years of anti-gay bigotry and oppression does not, in my mind, have any weight at all regarding what is just and right.

Who is arguing for bigotry and oppression, and you really have to have some chutzpah to call God's views on sodomy in that way.

Secondly, I reject your subjective 'homosexual activists' spin. The correct characterization is that we have enough people today who understand that the treatment of gays over history has been the result of a long-standing prejudice. The fact that we want to correct this long-standing injustice does not make us marginal in any way.

We disagree.

I will point out another area where the 'Holy Spirit led church' had it wrong for about 2000 years.


Anti-Semitism. This was long-standing and very pervasive in both Catholic and Protestant churches. And it DOES have a biblical basis.

Not in any official teaching, and what teaching of Jesus (a Jew) were they following? Where does the NT or OT say to be anti-Jewish, for pete's sake?

They are all part of the same description Paul is providing throughout this passage. To try and separate out the gay activity as somehow independent is to abuse the context entirely.


However, we can agree to disagree on that point.


Still, it is clearly within the context of the chapter to consider my interpretation as reasonable. There is the further issue of the validity of considering Paul's attitude here as similar to his attitude towards women, an artifact of the prejudices of his culture.

What prejudices of his culture? The ancient pagan world was very accepting of sodomy, Paul's writings went against the prevailing Greek and Roman views.

Again, all of those have pretty much the same context. Even Sodom and Gomorrah have that context, as well as the fact the 'sodomy' there is arguably a tangential issue.

Huh? 'Hand the men over so we can have sex with them' is a tangenital issue?

Again, homosexuality per se is pretty clearly a non-essential. It is barely mentioned. When it is, it is in a specific context. Jesus says not one word about it at all.

Because it wasn't an issue with His Jewish audiences, it was with the people Paul was writing to. Jesus didn't mention pedophilia either.

If you think it is essential for you not to engage in any such behavior, fine. Others are free to decide what is non-essential in a different way than you, and they have a very excellent case in this instance.

Again we disagree. IMHO many Christians are putting their identity as someone with same-sex feelings ahead if their identity as a Christian.

I appreciate your straightforward answer.

As far as the church determining the 'authenticity' of the call, each church is, just like each believer, free to determine their own understandings. For those who voluntarily put themselves under the leadership of that church, I have no argument.


Where I object is when one church body decides their rules are what everyone else also needs to follow, that their discernment is the only correct one.

As far as the majority of CHristians, I dispute that assertion with respect to women as noted above, and even if it were so, again, so what. The majority can be and has been wrong before. Most Christians at one point were very anti-Semitic. They thought the earth was the center of the universe

You're comparing issues the Bible was silent on or taught against (see the Golden Rule) with one the Bible is clear on.

We both interpret the Bible, just in different ways.

Again, two contrary interpretations can't both be true.

Note one other passage. God gave Peter (or perhaps all of us) the keys to the kingdom of even. He explicitly said a human or humans had the capacity to bind or loose things on earth and on heaven.

You have no right to contradict God. That quote to Peter was simply a declarative one.

[East of Eden]

What you say here is unbiblical.

No it isn't, show me one passage from the Bible that shows sodomy in a positive light.

You are leaving out what I said and the context. What is unbiblical is you judging another believers theological views, claiming that there views are somehow open to your judgment when they are in fact between each of us and the Lord. Sodomy or whatever else the issue might be is irrelevant.

So why did Paul correct Peter on the issue of circumcism? The church has since the beginning fought heresies, a fulfillment of Jesus' prediction of wolves in sheep's clothes in the church.

That runs counter to Romans Ch. 14. TO be fair, you did say this is your opinion. However, to say a person can't be a believer and support allowing gay people to marry is not only insulting, it is putting yourself in a place of judgment over others you have no right to take.

And you are placing yourself in a place of judgement over Scripture that you have no right to take.

The Bible states, in Paul's letters, that we are each responsible on our own to God for what is sinful. So, no, you do not get to interpret what is sinful for every other believer. That is unbiblical.

You are essentially taking the nonsensical view that is unbiblical to preach the Bible.

Let me clarify.

Here, and below, you make a reasonable point. I am not saying a person cannot or should not 'preach' or promote their theological views. I accept that not all Christians will agree, and am not saying that means one side is right and one side should be quiet.

However, you are going beyond simply expressing a different viewpoint among believers. You are saying a person with a view different from what you consider orthodoxy should not even be considered a believer.

That is exactly what Jesus and Paul said, Jesus said His true followers were those that did His commandments, not just those that called Him 'Lord'.

Fair enough, but nowhere does Jesus say it is up to believers to tell other believers whether or not they are adequately following his teachings. God does this. Not you. Not me.

We are His instruments. Was Dr. King wrong to say segregationist Christians were wrong?

No, Paul did not say this,

Yes he did.

and even if he did, you still have Acts 15 to deal with.

Irrelevant to this issue.

Paul described a group of idolatrous people in his day.

Independent of the gay issue.

No, I may have a different interpretation, but it is not necessarily a wrong or the wrong one.

Two opposing views can't both be right.

You saying homosexuality is not a gray area does not make it so.

No, but God saying it does.

Many in Paul's day said circumcision, or Sabbath observance, or all of the 600 odd laws in the OT were not gray areas. Who are you to say they are or are not for others?

Because the Bible settled it.

Secondly, you can go by what is ACTUALLY the central message of the gospel. It's not homosexuality anymore than it is about food or ritual observances. It is about love one another. The Golden Rule is about as central as it gets.

I would say the more central a teaching is, the more circumspect we should be in changing it, and the greater justification we should provide for doing so.

Never said it was the central issue, but it is an issue today. Martin Luther said something to the effect that if you preach the Gospel in all areas except what is being challenged today you aren't really preaching the Gospel. IMHO the central mission of Jesus was to reconcile sinners to God through faith in His atoning death on the cross.

Given homosexuality is not even addressed at all in modern terms, that those places that do allude to same-sex acts are nearly all in the context of idolatry, that even those mentions are very few in number, and that, like attitudes on gender roles or food laws, can legitimately be considered archaic cultural artifacts, that topic is pretty easily seen to be non-central.

Ancient or modern, sin and human nature don't change.

This is opposed to the very great many mentions over many books regarding love each other, being just and kind to the poor, devoting oneself in a personal way to God, etc.

I note you have not addressed Paul's teaching on women.

Yes I have several times.

Do you or do you not believe Christians should obey this teaching that women should not even be allowed to speak in church.

You're bringing up a different issue. I believe in male headship in the church, the idea of not speaking is arguably pertinent to one instance.

Again, you are welcome to your opinion as it applies to yourself. I will note the Bible is NOT silent on Sabbath observance. It is very specific at certain points. It depends on your attitude to OT law. I bet there are more verses on Sabbath observance than on same-sex acts, which again, are all in the context of idolatry.

Where does the NT say you MUST worship on Sundays?

Again, who are you to say what is or is not non-essential for everyone else?

It is essential the servant not be greater than the master.

You alluded earlier to issues of heresy in the church. In my view, the history of the suppression of heretics is not a particularly good one. Do you think the Catholic Church was right to suppress heretics? Was the inquisition a good thing?

Never argued for those, they went against Jesus' teachings. Jesus, Paul and early church councils addressed heresy. It will be needed as long as Satan is active trying to subvert the church. You think my views are wrong, correct?

I would certainly not agree with those accusations. On the other hand, if it is coming from a non-believer, then the teaching in Romans 14 does not really apply since they have not chosen to be a part of the brotherhood of believers.

Agreed, a non-Christian has no right to correct a Christian.

If you say all of the OT law is not binding, then that is fine, and I agree.

Didn't say that.

If you say only what is reiterated in the NT is binding, that still does not settle the issue. For one, you have not addressed Paul's teachings on women, as one example.

Yes I have.

Secondly, there is still the issue of the possibility of additional changes, which (as with women teaching in church) have been made within or even after Biblical times.

I disagree with those changes.

Yes, many CHristians believe this. On the other hand, huge numbers do not, including many who call themselves Catholic.

And many in liberal churches are more conservative than official teaching.

In addition, even Catholics allow women to speak in church, or to teach males in Catholic Schools.

Minors, not adults.

Paul does not say only males can be clergy.

What does the husband of one wife mean?

He says women should never even be able to teach a man, and even that they should remain silent in church.

In one particular instance.

So, my point stands. Many Christians, probably most,

Wrong, you have 1.5 billion catholic and orthodox, even if a third of the 800 protestants agree with you ,you're still a minority.

do not follow this teaching of Paul's. We have, since his time, changed the rule, or decided to disregard it, even though it is in what we now call Scripture.

It was called scripture since the time Paul wrote it.

Do you agree with this change or not? If you do, how do you justify it?

No I don't and I justify it by God's Word.

Even in Acts 15, it does not say that all the believers, even all those present at the conference, agreed with James decision. Yes, Paul correct the judaizers. That does not mean they went away or changed their minds.

Never said they did, but it did establish truth.

There are many teachings that are ambiguously stated in the Bible.


Is divorce OK? Jesus seems to say no. The OT says it is fine. Paul does not say one way or the other that I recall.

Polygamy is allowed in the OT, and is nowhere outlawed in the NT. Monogamy is held up as an ideal, and Paul says church leaders should be monogamous, but that does not say it is banned.


Do believers have to be baptized? Not clear. Some passages suggest this is required. Certainly many Christians do not believe water baptism must be done. Were all those converted at Pentecost baptized? I don't recall that they were.

You're bringing up a whole bunch of red herrings. Why are you a Christian if you think the Bible so wrong? I"m gone til Monday, but there are easy answers to your points.

I would certainly accept this statement. Certainly there are many who say that is what SCOTUS did in the Citizens United Decision.

That one went against what the elites wanted.

Well, God's people in the form of the Israelites evidently had many things wrong for at least a millennium.

Only in their apostate times, those laws were right for them at that time.

I will point out another area where the 'Holy Spirit led church' had it wrong for about 2000 years.


Anti-Semitism. This was long-standing and very pervasive in both Catholic and Protestant churches. And it DOES have a biblical basis.

Cite?

They are all part of the same description Paul is providing throughout this passage. To try and separate out the gay activity as somehow independent is to abuse the context entirely.


However, we can agree to disagree on that point.


Still, it is clearly within the context of the chapter to consider my interpretation as reasonable. There is the further issue of the validity of considering Paul's attitude here as similar to his attitude towards women, an artifact of the prejudices of his culture.

What prejudices? Ancient Greece and Rome were very accepting of sodomy.

Again, all of those have pretty much the same context. Even Sodom and Gomorrah have that context, as well as the fact the 'sodomy' there is arguably a tangential issue.

Huh? Hand over the men so we can have sex with them is tangential?

I appreciate your straightforward answer.

As far as the church determining the 'authenticity' of the call, each church is, just like each believer, free to determine their own understandings. For those who voluntarily put themselves under the leadership of that church, I have no argument.


Where I object is when one church body decides their rules are what everyone else also needs to follow, that their discernment is the only correct one.

As far as the majority of CHristians, I dispute that assertion with respect to women as noted above, and even if it were so, again, so what. The majority can be and has been wrong before. Most Christians at one point were very anti-Semitic. They thought the earth was the center of the universe (and yes, there are theological implications for changing that view),

You're comparing issues the Bible is silent on or speaks against with a clear teaching on sodomy throughout the Bible.

We both interpret the Bible, just in different ways.

Both ways can't be right.

I'm out til Monday.