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in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.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

[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.

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

Completely inappropriate analogy.

Paul was addressing issues of private beliefs and religious practice. Sexual behaviors, for example, are a personal practice which, if done in private, would be covered. Similarly for marriage. Allowing freedom in these areas has no impact on others.

Segregation is a violation of others rights, directly imposing the will of one group on that of another.



THus, your comparison is completely off base.

No, Paul did not say this,

Yes he did.

Well, we will simply have to disagree on this. I am confident an objective analysis of the Greek will show my position to be more reasonable.

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

Irrelevant to this issue.

Not true. It is relevant because it shows that believers can in good conscience ignore biblical teachings if they feel it is better for the body, or at least their particular church or group.

Do you deny that different denominations have a right to change their teachings or the expectations they have for their members? That is exactly what is going on in Acts 15. And they are making a change in direct contradiction to very explicit OT teachings that, until that time, many of them believed were binding.

So, you can deny it all you want, but the precedent is very clearly relevant.

Paul described a group of idolatrous people in his day.

Independent of the gay issue.

Only if you abuse the clear context of the text.

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.

Yes, they can. See Romans 14. Saying you have to observe the Sabbath on Saturday would be a different view than saying it has to be on Sunday. So is saying you have to be baptized versus saying that is optional.

In fact, really, the problem with your position is in saying there is one right view that everyone should take. Paul says there is NOT one right view, even on what is sinful, that all believers must take. Thus, opposing views or practices can both be considered appropriate for different groups or individuals.

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

No, but God saying it does.

You do not speak for God.

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.

Not true. See Acts 15. See "I give you the keys to the kingdom." See the other precedents of "settled" views that are, in fact, not considered settled today. See Romans 14 which clearly allows believers to have substantive differences of opinion on what they might considered "settled" for themselves.

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.

Your view would be different than what the Bible says, then. What is considered sinful clearly changed from OT to NT. Paul unequivocally says it can change from believer to believer.

I would agree human nature in general does not change, but that is irrelevant.

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.

Yes, you agree with his teaching. As such, you disagree with huge numbers of your fellow believers, many of whom would consider your view archaic, disrespectful to women, etc. You may even disagree with a majority of Christians on the stated reference to women speaking in church.

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.

I am bringing up exactly what Paul wrote. You are changing the issue to 'male headship' in the church. If you would like to quote the exact verses, feel free.

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?

The OT says Saturday, very specifically. Jesus and his followers would have followed that practice.

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.

Again, are you saying you speak for God?

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 disagree with your views, but do not consider them 'wrong' except for the fact you seem to believe everyone who is Christian should have beliefs and practices in line with yours. I would never label your views heretical, nor would I attempt to suppress those views.

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

Didn't say that.

Which of the 613 OT laws do you think we need to follow?

Paul does not say only males can be clergy.

What does the husband of one wife mean?

Well, first of all bishops, elders, deacons, are not necessarily categorized as clergy. However, I'll accept that in Paul's mind, males were in general going to be the leaders in the church. I disagree that this must be required, and certainly many denominations feel the same way.

Again, if you feel the church you belong to should not allow female leaders or clergy, that is your choice. However, I reject that alternative views are 'wrong.' They are simply different, and those with that different view are free to have that view in good standing with the Lord. They do have Biblical justification for making the change.

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, if the Bible only says something once, it can be ignored? Not following you here.

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.

I am taking into account that many of the 1.5 billion Catholics do not agree with the official position.

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.

Not sure how that is relevant. It is also unclear when the first allusion to the letters of Paul as scripture occurred.

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.

Fair enough, but I also justify the alternative view 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.

Again, you seem to have a very rigid view, at odds with what some passages say, of what must be considered 'truth.'

For example, which is true? Believers must be water baptized, or not?


At any rate, we'll simply have to continue to disagree.

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.

They are simply examples to show that the Bible is not always unambiguous in its teachings.

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.

Which only highlights that laws can change. Labeling them apostate also does not change the fact they were wrong.

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?

Christians have a very long history of pointing to the gospels descriptions of the Jews as justifying persecution of the Jews. Read the trial and crucifixion scenes in the gospels. At one point the Jews in the crowd in front of Pilate say "let his blood be on our heads and on our children's heads."

24 So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, I am innocent of this mans blood;[k] see to it yourselves. 25 Then the people as a whole answered, His blood be on us and on our children! 26 So he released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.

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.

But the Hebrews were not. All three cultures were also very misogynistic.

[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?

Completely inappropriate analogy.

Paul was addressing issues of private beliefs and religious practice. Sexual behaviors, for example, are a personal practice which, if done in private, would be covered. Similarly for marriage. Allowing freedom in these areas has no impact on others.

Segregation is a violation of others rights, directly imposing the will of one group on that of another.

THus, your comparison is completely off base.

Nonsense, both sexual morality and how we treat others are issues God is clear on. A Christian leader has every right to reprimand someone violating those commands, as Jesus did.

Well, we will simply have to disagree on this. I am confident an objective analysis of the Greek will show my position to be more reasonable.

I've already done the objective analysis, you're wrong.

Not true. It is relevant because it shows that believers can in good conscience ignore biblical teachings if they feel it is better for the body, or at least their particular church or group.

Eve was the first one to think ignoring God's commands was a good idea.

Do you deny that different denominations have a right to change their teachings or the expectations they have for their members? That is exactly what is going on in Acts 15. And they are making a change in direct contradiction to very explicit OT teachings that, until that time, many of them believed were binding.

So, you can deny it all you want, but the precedent is very clearly relevant.

Bunk, Christians have the right to change on non-essentials, not on things expressly commanded or prohibited in the Bible. What you ignore is what was changed in Acts 15 was done by an apostle, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Have you not read the Old Testament, when Israel was in a constant cycle of apostasy and punishment for violating God's commands? The contorted justifications for sodomy remind me of Benjamin Franklin's definition of a reasonable creature: One who can come up with reasons for whatever he wants to do. That is simply a bizarre interpretation of Acts 15, you are essentially wanting to overrule God at will on a matter that He is clear on.

Only if you abuse the clear context of the text.

You are doing exactly that.

Yes, they can. See Romans 14.

That discusses disputable, or what I have called non-essential matters. I notice sodomy is missing from Paul's list of disputable matters.

Saying you have to observe the Sabbath on Saturday would be a different view than saying it has to be on Sunday. So is saying you have to be baptized versus saying that is optional.

In fact, really, the problem with your position is in saying there is one right view that everyone should take. Paul says there is NOT one right view, even on what is sinful, that all believers must take. Thus, opposing views or practices can both be considered appropriate for different groups or individuals.

Again, you completely ignore the difference between what God has been clear on and non-essentials. Am I free to ignore the Golden Rule?

You do not speak for God.

I know what He has said, I don't make it up as I go along as some here.

Not true. See Acts 15. See "I give you the keys to the kingdom." See the other precedents of "settled" views that are, in fact, not considered settled today. See Romans 14 which clearly allows believers to have substantive differences of opinion on what they might considered "settled" for themselves.

All irrelevant to God's clear teaching on sodomy.

Your view would be different than what the Bible says, then. What is considered sinful clearly changed from OT to NT.

In the New Covenant yes, on sodomy no, that is consistently condemned. In Leviticus 'men lying with men' is prohibited right next to incest and bestiality. Are the last two acts now OK also?

Paul unequivocally says it can change from believer to believer.

In non-essentials, yes.

Yes, you agree with his teaching. As such, you disagree with huge numbers of your fellow believers, many of whom would consider your view archaic, disrespectful to women, etc. You may even disagree with a majority of Christians on the stated reference to women speaking in church.

Sorry, when it comes to women church leaders you have the minority position by far. The US is only 5% of the world.

I am bringing up exactly what Paul wrote. You are changing the issue to 'male headship' in the church. If you would like to quote the exact verses, feel free.

Give me an exact reference so I know what you're saying.

The OT says Saturday, very specifically. Jesus and his followers would have followed that practice.

I asked where in the NT. The custom was changed to mark the day of Christ's resurrection. You might have a point if the NT said you must worship on Saturday, and people had changed that.

Again, are you saying you speak for God?

I am repeating what God said. Who are you speaking for?

I disagree with your views, but do not consider them 'wrong' except for the fact you seem to believe everyone who is Christian should have beliefs and practices in line with yours. I would never label your views heretical, nor would I attempt to suppress those views.

I'm not trying to suppress anyone either, I'm not a Muslim.

Which of the 613 OT laws do you think we need to follow?

The moral law as expressed in the 10 commandments for example, that was reinforced in the NT, not the dietary and ceremonial laws that were negated in the NT. Simple, really.

Well, first of all bishops, elders, deacons, are not necessarily categorized as clergy. However, I'll accept that in Paul's mind, males were in general going to be the leaders in the church. I disagree that this must be required, and certainly many denominations feel the same way.

Again, if you feel the church you belong to should not allow female leaders or clergy, that is your choice. However, I reject that alternative views are 'wrong.' They are simply different, and those with that different view are free to have that view in good standing with the Lord. They do have Biblical justification for making the change.

We disagree. I find it hard to believe the church had it wrong the first 2,000 years, including the generation that knew Jesus. What are the positive fruits of this major change? The OT was similarly specific for who could be a priest, when people took this into their own hands and violated it, there were punishments from God.

???? So, if the Bible only says something once, it can be ignored? Not following you here.

That was very probably a specific instruction for the Corinthian church. See http://www.gotquestions.org/women-silent-church.html

Note in the link there were other instances of women speaking in church.

I am taking into account that many of the 1.5 billion Catholics do not agree with the official position.

OK, and lots of people in more liberal denominations don't agree with those liberal teachings. There is very little if any dispute in the Orthodox churches on women priests and sodomy.

Not sure how that is relevant. It is also unclear when the first allusion to the letters of Paul as scripture occurred.

Huh? Paul himself referred to his writings as inspired, and Peter recognized Paul's writings as inspired. http://carm.org/bible-inspired

They are simply examples to show that the Bible is not always unambiguous in its teachings.

Sodomy is not one of those ambiguous teachings.

Which only highlights that laws can change.

By God, not fallen and finite men acting contrary to God's law.

Christians have a very long history of pointing to the gospels descriptions of the Jews as justifying persecution of the Jews. Read the trial and crucifixion scenes in the gospels. At one point the Jews in the crowd in front of Pilate say "let his blood be on our heads and on our children's heads."

And that certainly happened in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but any persecuting of the Jews was clearly contrary to the NT, i.e. the Golden Rule, 'in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek', etc.

IMHO what happened in 70 AD was a fulfillment of the parable in Mark 12:

12 Then He began to speak to them in parables: A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug out a pit for a winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went away. 2 At harvest time he sent a slave to the farmers to collect some of the fruit of the vineyard from the farmers. 3 But they took him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Again he sent another slave to them, and they[a] hit him on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 Then he sent another, and they killed that one. He also sent many others; they beat some and they killed some.

6 He still had one to send, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, They will respect my son.

7 But those tenant farmers said among themselves, This is the heir. Come, lets kill him, and the inheritance will be ours! 8 So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

9 Therefore, what will the owner[c] of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the farmers and give the vineyard to others. 10 Havent you read this Scripture:

The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone.[d]
11 This came from the Lord
and is wonderful in our eyes?[e]
12 Because they knew He had said this parable against them, they were looking for a way to arrest Him, but they were afraid of the crowd. So they left Him and went away.

But the Hebrews were not.

Paul wasn't addressing a Jewish audience in the main, which was why he discusses sodomy and Jesus did not, who mainly addressed Jews.

All three cultures were also very misogynistic.

Which was why it was new for Paul to say in Christ there is neither male nor female. From Dinesh D'Souza:

"Women had a very low status in ancient Greece and Rome, as they do today in many cultures, notably in the Muslim world. Aristotle expressed the view of many when he wrote that in men reason finds its full expression. In children, according to Aristotle, reason is present but undeveloped. In women, he wrote, reason is present but unused. Such views were common in patriarchal cultures. And of course, they were prevalent in the Jewish society in which Jesus lived. But Jesus broke the taboos. From society's point of view and even from some of his male disciple's point of view, Jesus scandalously permitted women (even of low social status) to travel with him and be part of his circle of friends and confidantes.

Christianity did not contest patriarchy, but it elevated the status of women within it. The Christian prohibition of adultery - a sin viewed as equally serious for men and women - placed a moral leach on the universal double standard that commanded women to behave themselves while men did as they pleased. Unlike Judaism and Islam, which treated men and women unequally in matters of divorce, Christian rules on the matter were identical for women and men. So dignified was the position of woman in Christian marriage that women predominated in the early Christian church, as in some respects they do even today. As a result, the Romans scorned Christianity as a religion for women."

[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.

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

Completely inappropriate analogy.

Paul was addressing issues of private beliefs and religious practice. Sexual behaviors, for example, are a personal practice which, if done in private, would be covered. Similarly for marriage. Allowing freedom in these areas has no impact on others.

Segregation is a violation of others rights, directly imposing the will of one group on that of another.

THus, your comparison is completely off base.

Nonsense, both sexual morality and how we treat others are issues God is clear on. A Christian leader has every right to reprimand someone violating those commands, as Jesus did.

You are following one completely off base answer with another.


Whether or not God is "clear on" an these issues is not the point.

The point is the Government does not enforce God's will, and that the two issues are different in their impact on others.


To try and use MLK in this way to bolster your point is ridiculous. MLK was fighting egregious discrimination that included lynching, denial of voting rights, economic oppression of a whole race.

Allowing gay marriage and other gay rights oppresses no none, and denies no one their rights.

For you to compare the two situations is ludicrous.

Well, we will simply have to disagree on this. I am confident an objective analysis of the Greek will show my position to be more reasonable.

I've already done the objective analysis, you're wrong.

Objective? Right.

You can support whatever view you wish. But once again, you insist that your view is somehow the only right one, and now, the only 'objective one.' Sorry, that is simply not the case.

Not true. It is relevant because it shows that believers can in good conscience ignore biblical teachings if they feel it is better for the body, or at least their particular church or group.

Eve was the first one to think ignoring God's commands was a good idea.

Thank you for the pointless rhetorical remark. It does nothing to refute my point.

Do you deny that different denominations have a right to change their teachings or the expectations they have for their members? That is exactly what is going on in Acts 15. And they are making a change in direct contradiction to very explicit OT teachings that, until that time, many of them believed were binding.

So, you can deny it all you want, but the precedent is very clearly relevant.

Bunk, Christians have the right to change on non-essentials, not on things expressly commanded or prohibited in the Bible. What you ignore is what was changed in Acts 15 was done by an apostle, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Have you not read the Old Testament, when Israel was in a constant cycle of apostasy and punishment for violating God's commands? The contorted justifications for sodomy remind me of Benjamin Franklin's definition of a reasonable creature: One who can come up with reasons for whatever he wants to do. That is simply a bizarre interpretation of Acts 15, you are essentially wanting to overrule God at will on a matter that He is clear on.

Again, you refuse to acknowledge that your understanding of what is non-essential has zero weight with respect to any other believer.

Yes, they can. See Romans 14.

That discusses disputable, or what I have called non-essential matters. I notice sodomy is missing from Paul's list of disputable matters.

See previous comment. Not your call to decide what is non-essential for all of Christianity. That is what you are doing here.

Saying you have to observe the Sabbath on Saturday would be a different view than saying it has to be on Sunday. So is saying you have to be baptized versus saying that is optional.

In fact, really, the problem with your position is in saying there is one right view that everyone should take. Paul says there is NOT one right view, even on what is sinful, that all believers must take. Thus, opposing views or practices can both be considered appropriate for different groups or individuals.

Again, you completely ignore the difference between what God has been clear on and non-essentials. Am I free to ignore the Golden Rule?

Never said that. Already said that was about as central as it gets and pointed out why. Try again.

You do not speak for God.

I know what He has said, I don't make it up as I go along as some here.

Pointless and completely unjustified personal remark noted.

Not true. See Acts 15. See "I give you the keys to the kingdom." See the other precedents of "settled" views that are, in fact, not considered settled today. See Romans 14 which clearly allows believers to have substantive differences of opinion on what they might considered "settled" for themselves.

All irrelevant to God's clear teaching on sodomy.

If you feel so fine. Just stop trying to speak as if your view should go for everybody. Fact of the matter is, Acts 15 potentially applies to any teaching. Your 'special pleading' to try and rule out its applicability is nothing more than an attempt to deny anyone else their right to interpret scripture differently than you.

Your view would be different than what the Bible says, then. What is considered sinful clearly changed from OT to NT.

In the New Covenant yes, on sodomy no, that is consistently condemned. In Leviticus 'men lying with men' is prohibited right next to incest and bestiality. Are the last two acts now OK also?

Your opinion, one. Secondly, the freedom of believers to have their own relationship with God, and to define that relationship, did not stop in the first century.


You have already said some OT laws are not binding (see below).

In the OT law, it specifically says ALL the commands are to be obeyed.

If you do not obey or do not think even one needs to be obeyed then you are already picking and choosing. I support your right to do so. I am only saying you should allow the rest of us the same privilege.

Paul unequivocally says it can change from believer to believer.

In non-essentials, yes.

See above. To me, prohibitions on gay sex, like banning women from speaking in church or wearing cloths of two fibers, or any of a host of the OT law are non-essential. If you count some of these as essential for you, fine.

Yes, you agree with his teaching. As such, you disagree with huge numbers of your fellow believers, many of whom would consider your view archaic, disrespectful to women, etc. You may even disagree with a majority of Christians on the stated reference to women speaking in church.

Sorry, when it comes to women church leaders you have the minority position by far. The US is only 5% of the world.

Well, you have not shown that, but be that as it may, millions have that view. Even this week, the Anglican church decided to allow women bishops.

Thus, we have ample, ample precedent, over and over, of CHristians changing Biblical teachings to the present day. Again, if you disagree with those individual decisions, fine. Belong to a church that agrees with you.

But your opinion has no bearing on the rest of us. We have every reason to feel we are within God's will and in good standing, as you do.



It's not for you to say either way.

Again, are you saying you speak for God?

I am repeating what God said. Who are you speaking for?

You are giving your understanding of what the Bible says. I am doing the same, and I am claiming my freedom as a believer to view the Bible as I see fit.

I note that Paul writes in Timothy that the Bible is inspired and useful for teaching and doctrine. It does not say we must be slavishly and unthinkingly in line with every verse.

By the way, Paul is not God.

Which of the 613 OT laws do you think we need to follow?

The moral law as expressed in the 10 commandments for example, that was reinforced in the NT, not the dietary and ceremonial laws that were negated in the NT. Simple, really.

If it were simple, we wouldn't have thousands of denominations with many varying views on the OT and the NT and everything in between.

Well, first of all bishops, elders, deacons, are not necessarily categorized as clergy. However, I'll accept that in Paul's mind, males were in general going to be the leaders in the church. I disagree that this must be required, and certainly many denominations feel the same way.

Again, if you feel the church you belong to should not allow female leaders or clergy, that is your choice. However, I reject that alternative views are 'wrong.' They are simply different, and those with that different view are free to have that view in good standing with the Lord. They do have Biblical justification for making the change.

We disagree. I find it hard to believe the church had it wrong the first 2,000 years, including the generation that knew Jesus. What are the positive fruits of this major change? The OT was similarly specific for who could be a priest, when people took this into their own hands and violated it, there were punishments from God.

What were the positive fruits of the actions of James and others in Acts 15? Would you say there were any?

???? So, if the Bible only says something once, it can be ignored? Not following you here.

That was very probably a specific instruction for the Corinthian church. See http://www.gotquestions.org/women-silent-church.html

Note in the link there were other instances of women speaking in church.

And herein you have provided an example of why it is not so simple as you claim.

The prohibition is very clear.
Yes, there are other verses which seem to differ with these.

One way to approach this discrepancy is to assume the Bible is entirely self-consistent and to try and reconcile the verses. This author has made some assumptions to this end.

The other is to accept the Bible is not entirely self-consistent.

Either way, this author's explanation does not negate the clear teaching in the one verse.

Not sure how that is relevant. It is also unclear when the first allusion to the letters of Paul as scripture occurred.

Huh? Paul himself referred to his writings as inspired, and Peter recognized Paul's writings as inspired. http://carm.org/bible-inspired

Peter does refer to Paul as Scripture. Did Paul do so?

They are simply examples to show that the Bible is not always unambiguous in its teachings.

Sodomy is not one of those ambiguous teachings.

Your opinion has been clear. I do not accept this statement. Paul coined a brand new term in Greek for what he was talking about, rather than using a more well-known term. For that reason alone, his writing is ambiguous. Secondly, even if it were true, there is still Acts 15 and other precedents.

Which only highlights that laws can change.

By God, not fallen and finite men acting contrary to God's law.

Did you not read Acts 15? Did not men change the law?

Christians have a very long history of pointing to the gospels descriptions of the Jews as justifying persecution of the Jews. Read the trial and crucifixion scenes in the gospels. At one point the Jews in the crowd in front of Pilate say "let his blood be on our heads and on our children's heads."

And that certainly happened in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, but any persecuting of the Jews was clearly contrary to the NT, i.e. the Golden Rule, 'in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek', etc.

Fair enough, but again, what you are doing is simply trumping one verse with some others, under the assumption that the Bible is entirely unambiguous and self-consistent. Now, we can debate that point elsewhere, but any assertions you make regarding the nature of the Bible and how it is to be understood are themselves interpretive assumptions.

[East of Eden]

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?

Completely inappropriate analogy.

Paul was addressing issues of private beliefs and religious practice. Sexual behaviors, for example, are a personal practice which, if done in private, would be covered. Similarly for marriage. Allowing freedom in these areas has no impact on others.

Segregation is a violation of others rights, directly imposing the will of one group on that of another.

THus, your comparison is completely off base.

Nonsense, both sexual morality and how we treat others are issues God is clear on. A Christian leader has every right to reprimand someone violating those commands, as Jesus did.

You are following one completely off base answer with another.


Whether or not God is "clear on" an these issues is not the point.

It is according to the title of your OP.

The point is the Government does not enforce God's will

Never said it does, but people are free to vote for or against gay marriage for whatever reason.

and that the two issues are different in their impact on others.


To try and use MLK in this way to bolster your point is ridiculous. MLK was fighting egregious discrimination that included lynching, denial of voting rights, economic oppression of a whole race.

Allowing gay marriage and other gay rights oppresses no none, and denies no one their rights.

For you to compare the two situations is ludicrous.

Nonsense, my point wasn't about which is worse (a red herring), but to counter your point that it is wrong for a Christian to point out to another Christian that they aren't following God's commands.

Objective? Right.

You can support whatever view you wish. But once again, you insist that your view is somehow the only right one, and now, the only 'objective one.' Sorry, that is simply not the case.

Don't tell me, only your view can be objective, right? With the contortions you've done here I'd say not.

Thank you for the pointless rhetorical remark. It does nothing to refute my point.

We disagree. Answer my question, why was it wrong for Eve to overrule one of God's command using her reason?

Again, you refuse to acknowledge that your understanding of what is non-essential has zero weight with respect to any other believer.

Except that mine on this issue are shared by the vast majority of Christians both now and throughout history. That counts for something. Why should your opinion have weight with anyone?

See previous comment. Not your call to decide what is non-essential for all of Christianity. That is what you are doing here.

And so are you. Do you have a point?

Never said that. Already said that was about as central as it gets and pointed out why. Try again.

Why is that more central than God's rules on sodomy? Because you like it more?

If you feel so fine. Just stop trying to speak as if your view should go for everybody.

After you.

Fact of the matter is, Acts 15 potentially applies to any teaching.

Nonsense, those were clearly 'disputable' areas as Paul said, you can't extend that to an area the Bible is clear about.

Your 'special pleading' to try and rule out its applicability is nothing more than an attempt to deny anyone else their right to interpret scripture differently than you.

I prefer to call it 'context'.

Your opinion, one. Secondly, the freedom of believers to have their own relationship with God, and to define that relationship, did not stop in the first century.


You have already said some OT laws are not binding (see below).

In the OT law, it specifically says ALL the commands are to be obeyed.

If you do not obey or do not think even one needs to be obeyed then you are already picking and choosing. I support your right to do so. I am only saying you should allow the rest of us the same privilege.

Dodge noted on my incest and bestiality questions.

See above. To me, prohibitions on gay sex, like banning women from speaking in church or wearing cloths of two fibers, or any of a host of the OT law are non-essential. If you count some of these as essential for you, fine.

Were the fiber laws reinstated in the NT as prohibitions against sodomy were? Hint, they were rejected as obsolete, see Galatians.

Well, you have not shown that, but be that as it may, millions have that view. Even this week, the Anglican church decided to allow women bishops.

You must be referring to the Church of England, a part of the 70,000,000 Anglican Communion. There are more Anglican's in church on Sunday in Nigeria than in the UK, the US, and Canada combined, and they don't even ordain women as priests in Nigeria. My own Anglican group does not and will not ordain women bishops. http://anglicanchurch.net/

Thus, we have ample, ample precedent, over and over, of CHristians changing Biblical teachings to the present day.

As far as changes being made in areas where God has spoken, yes, there are a lot of apostate 'Christians' today, just as there were lots of apostates in OT Israel. God punished such rebellion with some of the same events we are dealing with today, drought, wars that didn't go so well, and a bad economy. I don't think it is a coincidence.

Again, if you disagree with those individual decisions, fine. Belong to a church that agrees with you.

But your opinion has no bearing on the rest of us. We have every reason to feel we are within God's will and in good standing, as you do.

Nobody is stopping you from thinking what you want, we are allowed to give our opinions on this forum, aren't we?

You are giving your understanding of what the Bible says. I am doing the same, and I am claiming my freedom as a believer to view the Bible as I see fit.

OK, I think you're wrong.

I note that Paul writes in Timothy that the Bible is inspired and useful for teaching and doctrine. It does not say we must be slavishly and unthinkingly in line with every verse.

Interesting you use that word, Paul called himself a 'slave' to Christ.

By the way, Paul is not God.

Didn't say he was, although his writings were inspired by God.

If it were simple, we wouldn't have thousands of denominations with many varying views on the OT and the NT and everything in between.

I don't care if they have different views on disputable issues, but IMHO easily 90%+ of the denominations agree on the essentials of the faith, as expressed in the creeds for instance. And the vast majority agree on sodomy.

What were the positive fruits of the actions of James and others in Acts 15? Would you say there were any?

I don't see Acts 15 as being in any way relevant to the OP.

And herein you have provided an example of why it is not so simple as you claim.

The prohibition is very clear.
Yes, there are other verses which seem to differ with these.

Which is more reason that this was a location-specific injunction.

Peter does refer to Paul as Scripture. Did Paul do so?

Here are a few:

"If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I AM WRITING to you IS THE LORDS COMMAND. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored." 1 Corinthians 14:37-38

"since you are demanding proof THAT CHRIST IS SPEAKING THROUGH ME. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you". This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority - the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down." 2 Corinthians 13:3, 10

"For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles " Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me BY REVELATION, as I have already WRITTEN briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to Gods holy apostles and prophets." Ephesians 3:1-5

"Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE LORD JESUS ... Therefore, he who rejects THIS INSTRUCTION does not reject man BUT GOD, who gives you his Holy Spirit." 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2, 8

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you HEARD from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, BUT AS IT ACTUALLY IS, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." 1 Thessalonians 2:13

Your opinion has been clear. I do not accept this statement. Paul coined a brand new term in Greek for what he was talking about, rather than using a more well-known term. For that reason alone, his writing is ambiguous. Secondly, even if it were true, there is still Acts 15 and other precedents.

I've already said Acts 15 is irrelevant to this discussion, Scripture and tradition are clearly against homosexual practice.

[Clownboat]

I've already said Acts 15 is irrelevant to this discussion, Scripture and tradition are clearly against homosexual practice.

I can only assume that you consider yourself an authority and that you find the words you say as convincing. Great, when thinking to yourself. Not so convincing from the outside, believe me.

Acts 15 is not irrelevant and to say traditions are clearly against homosexual practice is also wrong as has been shown here.

[East of Eden]

I've already said Acts 15 is irrelevant to this discussion, Scripture and tradition are clearly against homosexual practice.

I can only assume that you consider yourself an authority

No, God's word found in the Bible is the authority.

and that you find the words you say as convincing. Great, when thinking to yourself. Not so convincing from the outside, believe me.

As Micatala and I have already discussed, it is irrelevant what a non-Christians thinks about this.

Acts 15 is not irrelevant and to say traditions are clearly against homosexual practice is also wrong as has been shown here.

No it isn't, and show me a single positive Biblical depiction of sodomy.

[Clownboat]

I can only assume that you consider yourself an authority

No, God's word found in the Bible is the authority.

And you gave yourself the authority to make this claim? If not, then who? If you cannot identify the source of this authority, then I must continue to assume that you do in fact consider yourself an authority which of course is not all that impressive.

and that you find the words you say as convincing. Great, when thinking to yourself. Not so convincing from the outside, believe me.

As Micatala and I have already discussed, it is irrelevant what a non-Christians thinks about this.

I'm not surprised to hear a Christian say such a thing. You would, I hope understand that I do in fact find it relevant no matter what you claim.

Acts 15 is not irrelevant and to say traditions are clearly against homosexual practice is also wrong as has been shown here.

No it isn't, and show me a single positive Biblical depiction of sodomy.

My statement is correct (tradition is not clear) by the fact that we are having a discussion about said tradition. If it was clear, we would not be having said discussion.

I'm not aware of a positive Biblical depiction of sodomy. It's too bad that you need the Bible to tell you if consenting same sex adults deserve the same rights as the rest of us or not though. Perhaps it is the Bible that is the cause...

Does the Bible depict sleeping in a good light? Perhaps you should stop? Or, start using your mind instead of an ancient book. I know you can do it. See Acts 15.

[East of Eden]

I can only assume that you consider yourself an authority

No, God's word found in the Bible is the authority.

And you gave yourself the authority to make this claim? If not, then who? If you cannot identify the source of this authority, then I must continue to assume that you do in fact consider yourself an authority which of course is not all that impressive.

and that you find the words you say as convincing. Great, when thinking to yourself. Not so convincing from the outside, believe me.

As Micatala and I have already discussed, it is irrelevant what a non-Christians thinks about this.

I'm not surprised to hear a Christian say such a thing. You would, I hope understand that I do in fact find it relevant no matter what you claim.

Acts 15 is not irrelevant and to say traditions are clearly against homosexual practice is also wrong as has been shown here.

No it isn't, and show me a single positive Biblical depiction of sodomy.

My statement is correct (tradition is not clear) by the fact that we are having a discussion about said tradition. If it was clear, we would not be having said discussion.

If you are gay, let me ask you a question, if you were convinced the Bible prohibited sodomy, would you change your behavior?

I'm not aware of a positive Biblical depiction of sodomy. It's too bad that you need the Bible to tell you if consenting same sex adults deserve the same rights as the rest of us or not though.

I don't think rights should be granted based on sexual deviancy.

Perhaps it is the Bible that is the cause...

Does the Bible depict sleeping in a good light?

Proverbs 3:24English Standard Version (ESV)

24 If you lie down, you will not be afraid;
when you lie down, your sleep will be sweet.

Perhaps you should stop? Or, start using your mind instead of an ancient book.

Better an ancient truth than a new lie.

I know you can do it. See Acts 15.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[Clownboat]

If you are gay, let me ask you a question, if you were convinced the Bible prohibited sodomy, would you change your behavior?

I'm not, but it's as if you are asking someone to stop from being a biological creature. Seems unreasonable IMO.

I don't think rights should be granted based on sexual deviancy.

I have yet to hear anyone make such an argument.

Perhaps it is the Bible that is the cause...

Does the Bible depict sleeping in a good light?

Proverbs 3:24English Standard Version (ESV)

24 If you lie down, you will not be afraid;
when you lie down, your sleep will be sweet.

This seems false as not all sleeps are sweet. Either way, sleep was just one of thousands of examples. I would imagine the readers understand my point.

Perhaps you should stop? Or, start using your mind instead of an ancient book.

Better an ancient truth than a new lie.

This is meaningless due to the fact you cannot show your ancient superstition to be true.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

You keep saying that, but that will not make it true.

[bluethread]

If you are gay, let me ask you a question, if you were convinced the Bible prohibited sodomy, would you change your behavior?

I'm not, but it's as if you are asking someone to stop from being a biological creature. Seems unreasonable IMO.

Now that there appears to be a lull in the book you two are publishing, I will attempt to enter the fray. There are many biological urges that are limited. Just because one is hungry does not mean that one should be permitted to eat anything. Different cultures restrict biological functions in many ways. That just happens to be something that Adonai's people do not do, from what I see in the Scriptures.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

You keep saying that, but that will not make it true.

EoE may not to explain why Acts 15 is not relevant, but I will entertain your premise. Specifically, how do you believe is Acts 15 relevant?