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in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.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

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.

I included only that much of the comment because it is a misinformed platform. That is not at all what was meant there in Acts concerning adding no further burden to the Gentiles for the evidence in the New Testament is that none of Jesus' Apostles observed that old law, Paul even scolding Peter at one point for forgetting that for a moment under the pressure of association with Jews who were having difficulty understanding that the old law was no longer their regulating force.

If Peter did not follow the law, why was it necessary for God to send him a specific vision on eating unclean animals? Read earlier in Acts where Peter visits Cornelius. He goes into a trance and sees a vision of something like a sheet coming down from heaven with all sorts of 'unclean' animals. A voice says, "rise Peter, kill and eat." Peter objects, saying "surely not Lord," saying that nothing unclean has ever passed through his lips.

Is not Peter following the law, at least until this vision occurs? Yes, he does visit a Gentile, but clearly, they had not already laid aside the law as you seem to be asserting.

they were not going to rush into Jerusalem's synagogs and force their fellow Jews to cease observing the law, but it is no sin to attend with those who do observe the law so that communication can be held with them and thus they can be gently educated to the change. So the proof relying on the disciples gathering to certain festivals and meetings is no proof.

And if you push an argument up from an imperfect base you get imperfect conclusions.

I am not sure what you are asserting here. I will stand by my previous argument. Whether Gentiles should be required to follow the Law was a huge controversy in the early church. In Acts 15, the church leaders decide the answer is, at least largely, no.

I would also suggest Paul continued to the follow the Law, even though he advocated allowing the Gentiles to be exempt. Can you find any statement in Paul's letters in which he indicates that he does not follow the Law? Perhaps he does. I am not aware of it.

[Beans]

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.

I included only that much of the comment because it is a misinformed platform. That is not at all what was meant there in Acts concerning adding no further burden to the Gentiles for the evidence in the New Testament is that none of Jesus' Apostles observed that old law, Paul even scolding Peter at one point for forgetting that for a moment under the pressure of association with Jews who were having difficulty understanding that the old law was no longer their regulating force.

If Peter did not follow the law, why was it necessary for God to send him a specific vision on eating unclean animals? Read earlier in Acts where Peter visits Cornelius. He goes into a trance and sees a vision of something like a sheet coming down from heaven with all sorts of 'unclean' animals. A voice says, "rise Peter, kill and eat." Peter objects, saying "surely not Lord," saying that nothing unclean has ever passed through his lips.

Is not Peter following the law, at least until this vision occurs? Yes, he does visit a Gentile, but clearly, they had not already laid aside the law as you seem to be asserting.

they were not going to rush into Jerusalem's synagogs and force their fellow Jews to cease observing the law, but it is no sin to attend with those who do observe the law so that communication can be held with them and thus they can be gently educated to the change. So the proof relying on the disciples gathering to certain festivals and meetings is no proof.

And if you push an argument up from an imperfect base you get imperfect conclusions.

I am not sure what you are asserting here. I will stand by my previous argument. Whether Gentiles should be required to follow the Law was a huge controversy in the early church. In Acts 15, the church leaders decide the answer is, at least largely, no.

I would also suggest Paul continued to the follow the Law, even though he advocated allowing the Gentiles to be exempt. Can you find any statement in Paul's letters in which he indicates that he does not follow the Law? Perhaps he does. I am not aware of it.

Yes, I thought that one time myself. Then I came to understand I was wrong.

I had my timing for the full coming into force of the New Covenant wrong. It did not come into full force until the Gentiles were brought in. So what we are seeing is kind of an acclamation period where it was necessary for them to consult with the holy spirit and learn what these changes actually were.

But I never intended a full length discussion of that for this thread. So I will simply say that things are not necessarily what they seem to be:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
19 "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you."

Now, if Paul yet considered himself a Jew under the Law, would he have had to, become as a Jew? Wouldn't he have already been one? yet we see above in verse 20 that he, "became as a Jew" for the sake of Jews. And we see that he became "as under the law" for the sake of those under the law.

Take your time with it and don't panic. I am willing to discuss it at greater length in a thread which is captioned to that specific purpose, if you desire to create one.

Would Paul have had to become as under the law if he considered himself to be under that law already?

[Danmark]

On Feb. 18 the Superior Court of the State of Washington, Benton County issued a memorandum decision and order in the case involving a conflict between the religious beliefs of Arlene Stuzman [Arlene's Flowers] and a gay couple who had sought a floral arrangement for their wedding.
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFl ... ruling.pdf

I don't yet have this in a form I can cut and paste, but the Conclusion starts at page 58 and essentially ordered that she cannot discriminate by refusing to sell flowers for a same sex marriage if she holds herself out as selling wedding flowers to others.

[Danmark]

After two years, we are very pleased to have the court confirm that we were discriminated against under the law. We were hurt and saddened when we were denied service by Arlenes Flowers after doing business with them for so many years. We respect everyones beliefs, but businesses that are open to the public have an obligation to serve everyone. We appreciate the support weve gotten from people around the globe, said Freed and Ingersoll.

The Washington Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60) prohibits discrimination because of sexual orientation. It bars businesses from refusing to sell goods, merchandise, and services to any person because of their sexual orientation.

In its ruling the court said, Defendants refusal to do the flowers for Ingersoll and Freeds wedding based on her religious opposition to same sex marriage is, as a matter of law, a refusal based on Ingersoll and Freeds sexual orientation in violation of the WLAD.

In agreeing with the plaintiffs contentions, the court stated that, No Court has ever held that religiously motivated conduct, expressive or otherwise, trumps state discrimination law in public accommodations. The Defendants have provided no legal authority why it should.
https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/court- ... ir-wedding

[Beans]

On Feb. 18 the Superior Court of the State of Washington, Benton County issued a memorandum decision and order in the case involving a conflict between the religious beliefs of Arlene Stuzman [Arlene's Flowers] and a gay couple who had sought a floral arrangement for their wedding.
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ArlenesFl ... ruling.pdf

I don't yet have this in a form I can cut and paste, but the Conclusion starts at page 58 and essentially ordered that she cannot discriminate by refusing to sell flowers for a same sex marriage if she holds herself out as selling wedding flowers to others.

I quite frankly agree with the ruling. Selling flowers is just selling flowers and even if a person who did not intend at all to wed wanted to by flowers, they would likely sell to them for the profit of selling flowers.

Refusals of that nature are in my opinion extremism. And just because I don't support the right of gay marriage as being sanction by scripture does not at all mean that I cannot honor it as a secular marriage out of obedience to the laws of my state.

Yes, such refusals born of extremism are wrong. In fact they go against the Bible's counsel that Christians ought to show honor to the laws and law guardians of the lands wherein they dwell. That is the subject of Romans 13 and:

1 Peter 2:13-14 "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well."

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 223 by Danmark]

I would have to say these various court cases put to rest any debates to the contrary that we have the religious freedom to discriminate. That argument has failed continuously over the course of legal history. The current court and legal structures do not interpret the law as the right to discriminate when selling goods to the public at large.

There are also ways to discriminate legally. Like selling flowers only to christians within a specific network of churches(I say this because there are christian denominations that have gay marriage as a rite so selling to just christians is not good enough)

[Danmark]

An important fact the court clarified was that there was no discussion about whether Stutzman was asked to attend the wedding, or deliver the flowers or in anyway participate in the ceremony. The conversation never got beyond asking her to make a flower arrangement and her refusal. The parties did not materially disagree on the facts.

Side note: The only reason I knew about the decision was because I sat across from the Judge this morning at breakfast.* There were about a dozen other lawyers there, including a Court of Appeals Judge. We meet every Friday morning for an hour to discuss the latest cases. We have a very strict rule that we do not discuss our own cases that may end up in front of one of the judges.

Although, as another judge remarked, smiling, "There's an easy solution. We can recuse ourselves." Judges generally don't mind recusing themselves, especially if the case is like this one, a political hot potato.


__________________
*He's an old friend I used to battle when he was a deputy prosecutor.

[Beans]

An important fact the court clarified was that there was no discussion about whether Stutzman was asked to attend the wedding, or deliver the flowers or in anyway participate in the ceremony. The conversation never got beyond asking her to make a flower arrangement and her refusal. The parties did not materially disagree on the facts.

Side note: The only reason I knew about the decision was because I sat across from the Judge this morning at breakfast.* There were about a dozen other lawyers there, including a Court of Appeals Judge. We meet every Friday morning for an hour to discuss the latest cases. We have a very strict rule that we do not discuss our own cases that may end up in front of one of the judges.

Although, as another judge remarked, smiling, "There's an easy solution. We can recuse ourselves." Judges generally don't mind recusing themselves, especially if the case is like this one, a political hot potato.


__________________
*He's an old friend I used to battle when he was a deputy prosecutor.

Even that would have been OK. It is just doing one's job. The only criteria would be the answer to the question, "Am I harming myself or someone else by doing this?"

We see Namaan was allowed of God to go way beyond what most today would allow: 2 Kings 5:18-19 "In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing. And he said unto him, Go in peace. So he departed from him a little way."

[micatala]

[Replying to Beans]

I think Paul is simply explaining his tactics, and you are reading a lot more into what he is saying here. I think Paul is saying that people are free to follow the law or not. The other Apostles are not on board with that message until the Council in Jerusalem. Peter has inklings of it through his vision. At the Council, he, and ultimately James, agrees that the Gentiles do not need to follow the Law.

If you are making the case that they had all stopped following the Law much earlier, I don't see that the evidence supports that. But my argument is not really based on exactly when that evolution occurred. It is based simply on the fact that it DID occur. Christians, after Jesus was gone, took matters into their own hands to change what would be considered orthodox belief and practice.

Now, you could make the case that Jesus did this himself, and that the Apostles were simply slow to catch on. Jesus' statements on the law are actually somewhat ambiguous.

In addition, I think we need to take into account that the gospels are commonly acknowledged to have been written after Paul's letters, and this would also apply to Acts, as it is really the second volume of Luke's gospel. Thus, they may have been colored by the fact that the Council in Jerusalem had already occurred.

In any case, whenever it happened and whoever you want to give responsibility for the change, the fact is there was a change in attitude toward the Law. Whether this happened 'at the time' of the New Covenant, however you assign that time, the change happened. Thus, I think we have precedent for additional changes.

[Beans]

[Replying to Beans]

I think Paul is simply explaining his tactics, and you are reading a lot more into what he is saying here. I think Paul is saying that people are free to follow the law or not. The other Apostles are not on board with that message until the Council in Jerusalem. Peter has inklings of it through his vision. At the Council, he, and ultimately James, agrees that the Gentiles do not need to follow the Law.

If you are making the case that they had all stopped following the Law much earlier, I don't see that the evidence supports that. But my argument is not really based on exactly when that evolution occurred. It is based simply on the fact that it DID occur. Christians, after Jesus was gone, took matters into their own hands to change what would be considered orthodox belief and practice.

Now, you could make the case that Jesus did this himself, and that the Apostles were simply slow to catch on. Jesus' statements on the law are actually somewhat ambiguous.

In addition, I think we need to take into account that the gospels are commonly acknowledged to have been written after Paul's letters, and this would also apply to Acts, as it is really the second volume of Luke's gospel. Thus, they may have been colored by the fact that the Council in Jerusalem had already occurred.

In any case, whenever it happened and whoever you want to give responsibility for the change, the fact is there was a change in attitude toward the Law. Whether this happened 'at the time' of the New Covenant, however you assign that time, the change happened. Thus, I think we have precedent for additional changes.

"I think".

If the verse were alone what I base my understanding of that verse upon then I would agree that I also was just thinking it to mean what I said. But that is not what my understanding of that verse is based upon. I presented it alone simply because it addresses a topic that is off from the topic of this thread and I therefore did not desire here to go into a fuller discussion of it.

I sense that this thought concerning the Old Law being fully ended is a very sensitive issue for some people and my heart does feel for them.

Hebrews 8:8-9 "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord."

Be sure you really want to know this before you ask me to proceed any further.

But I will add this much for you here and now:

Romans 7:1-3 "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."

Paul is there saying that it would be an adulteress relationship to observe the Old Law Covenant and be party to the New Covenant at the same time. If you know the law you should know that without Paul or myself having to tell you.

Romans 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.'

That is yet just skimming the surface. As I said, Be sure you really want to know this before you ask me to proceed any further.

I can see where a Trinity believer would miss this understanding as they would believe Israel left one covenant with God (by a figurative divorce) to marry God again under a new covenant. Or, as the law forbids remarrying one you divorce, they might conclude that the first and the second apply together, which is what Paul and Jesus directly address as adultery. Why? The first covenant must be figuratively died to as it was with God and they needed to be set completely free from it to enter the New Covenant where one must "be married to another" as Paul points out in Romans 7:4. Therefore as the New Covenant is the marriage to Christ that proves Christ is not God but rather, he is by law another husband.

Only dying to a marriage covenant sets one totally free to marry again. Not so with divorce. And the one dying to it cannot come back alive to it or they remain bound to it and only it.

I have to laugh at myself as I almost botched that. LOL