Gay Rights and the rights of the Bible

[Tara]

Just like most Christians I am struggling with the controversy surrounding gay rights. I recently went through a "spiritual awakening" and many of my views have changed drastically. Focusing on the Gospels I am really trying to grasp the true meaning of Agape Love. This has led to a very gray area for me. I live in Austin and I have a feeling that my state is next on this political bandwagon. As a Christian I don't feel it is honorable to use the bible against gay marriage. At some point we have to seperate ourselves from our government. Our law already dictates that there is a separation between Church and State, and I personally feel this is ultimately best for the Church, if not always best for the state. I don't want the government to control the way that I believe.

The US is not, by any standards, a moral society. When it comes to sexual immorality we are proving ourselves to be beyond hypocritical. As a society we have come to accept teen pregnancy, adultery, and pre-marrital sex as the norm rather than the exception. We do not DISALLOW these people to marry and rarely call them out in our own communitites and churches. So why are we (Christians) pouncing on yet just one more form of immorality?

Gay rights are just the snowballs decent into the abyss. We allowed THESE RIGHTS the first time a divorce was granted, the first time a pregnant girl walked through school halls with pride, and the first time somebody was not fired for cheating on their spouse. Once the snowball turns into an avalanche, you are already buried.

Shouldn't we as Christians, stand up in our OWN churches and communities against divorce, infidelity and pre-marital sex rather than suicidally standing in front of the avalanche that it has created? Other people judge Christians as hypocritical because they are. By only opposing the biblical standards that they deem immoral rather than embracing the entire bible they are discrediting their own faith and the word of God. The bible has already been cited as hate literature in Canada (article) How much longer till this happens in America?

I am in no way, shape or form pro Gay Marriage so please don't argue that point because I will agree. My question, based on the biblical passages below, is what right do we have to judge others with higher standards than the ones we use to judge ourselves?

Matthew 7:5
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Matthew 5:46-48
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Like I said, this is a gray area for me, something I am truly struggling with as a Christian. Above all I am pro-bible and I am trying to balance love and judgment Hope somebody understands what I am trying to say!

~ Tara ~

[themuzicman]

The judgement being spoken of there is the judgment of an individual by another individual. Jesus does not address social issues in this way. In fact, the OT Covenant held that the people have several social judgments for adultery, homosexuality, and other crimes, and that they be able to stone them.

No, I'm not proposing that we stone homosexuals. However, on a social level, these passages do not mean that we must accept whatever anyone wants to do around us, in spite of what the Word of God says. Certainly within the Christian community, we need to decide what things we consider to be clearly sin (adultery, homosexuality being among those things) and hold up that standard as being moral and right.

Where we cross the line is when we condemn individual homosexuals, rather than showing Christian love towards them.

Michael

[Tara]

The judgement being spoken of there is the judgment of an individual by another individual. Jesus does not address social issues in this way. In fact, the OT Covenant held that the people have several social judgments for adultery, homosexuality, and other crimes, and that they be able to stone them.

No, I'm not proposing that we stone homosexuals. However, on a social level, these passages do not mean that we must accept whatever anyone wants to do around us, in spite of what the Word of God says. Certainly within the Christian community, we need to decide what things we consider to be clearly sin (adultery, homosexuality being among those things) and hold up that standard as being moral and right.

Where we cross the line is when we condemn individual homosexuals, rather than showing Christian love towards them.

Michael

I'm not really sure how that helps me with my question I hope you will expand just a little. When a group, calling themselves Christians, condemn homosexuality and yet that same group consist of divorcee's and partakers of other forms of sexual immorality, doesn't that prove that they are hypocrites? In John 8, Jesus did not condemn the adulterous woman in front of the Pharisees, He told them that whoever was without sin to throw the first stone, and then when they all left He said that He did not condemn her either. As Christians, shouldn't we do the same?

~ Tara ~

[Cowthulu]

But Jesus also told her to go now and sin no more. He did not condemn her, but neither did he condone or encourage her sin. IMO creating secular benefits for homosexual marriages is encouragement. So no, we should not condemn them, but neither should we condone their actions.

[themuzicman]

What would "not condemning" her mean, tho?

It meant that they didn't stone her! That's passing judgment and executing punishment!

I agree that there are Christians who step across this line in condemning homosexuals to death and with other statements that they make regarding what we should do to homosexuals.

However, that doesn't mean that the blanket identification of homosexual acts as sin, and the defense of the Christian view of marriage is an unbiblical task. The church should, likewise, be identifying adultery, lying, gluttony, etc. as sin, as well, which it does.

The church is not hypocritical for saying that homosexual acts are sin, if they acknowledge that they are not yet perfect, but their desire is to be in God's will.

To the homosexual who admits that his homosexual acts are sin, we should say to them, "Go and sin no more" as well as "God loves you and wants to forgive your sins and purify you from your sinful nature."

Michael

[Tara]

But Jesus also told her to go now and sin no more. He did not condemn her, but neither did he condone or encourage her sin. IMO creating secular benefits for homosexual marriages is encouragement. So no, we should not condemn them, but neither should we condone their actions.

If this is the case, why should we allow secular benefits for adulterers, divorcees or women that have had children out of wedlock? How is that NOT hypocrisy? Gay people are not asking that churches bless their unions, they have chosen their lifestyle over church and in the US they are free to do so. But at the same time a pregnant woman and a divorcee are free to walk down the aisles of even the most conservative churches without condemnation and most Christians allow it without a second thought.

This is exactly where my struggle is coming in! How can I, as a sinner, be against gay marriage, when if judged by the same standards, I too should not have been allowed to marry?

By making this a political issue, I feel that we are irrepairably damaging Christianity and the word of God. The government is never going to protect us from immorality, they promote it because sex is a sensational topic and it sells. They will continue to promote human rights, not biblical standards and if the 'Churches' have something to say, they should preach the entire bible and apply those same standards to one and all. No matter how I look at it, both sides are wrong and as a Christian (that is not without sin) I can't help but ride the fence, if I get off - that same plank will still be in my own eye.
~ Tara ~

[elysian]

If this is the case, why should we allow secular benefits for adulterers, divorcees or women that have had children out of wedlock? How is that NOT hypocrisy? Gay people are not asking that churches bless their unions, they have chosen their lifestyle over church and in the US they are free to do so. But at the same time a pregnant woman and a divorcee are free to walk down the aisles of even the most conservative churches without condemnation and most Christians allow it without a second thought.

This is exactly where my struggle is coming in! How can I, as a sinner, be against gay marriage, when if judged by the same standards, I too should not have been allowed to marry?

By making this a political issue, I feel that we are irrepairably damaging Christianity and the word of God. The government is never going to protect us from immorality, they promote it because sex is a sensational topic and it sells. They will continue to promote human rights, not biblical standards and if the 'Churches' have something to say, they should preach the entire bible and apply those same standards to one and all. No matter how I look at it, both sides are wrong and as a Christian (that is not without sin) I can't help but ride the fence, if I get off - that same plank will still be in my own eye.
~ Tara ~

Heterosexual fornication is different in one important way: if a couple who has been sexually active before marriage gets married (and even if the woman gets pregnant before marriage) the act of repenting and then being married takes the couple from living in a state of fornication and sin to their relations and life as a married couple being made holy. Heterosexual sex within marriage is not sin.

The same idea applies to a heterosexual person who is divorced or who has turned from a life of fornication- divorce is sin in the eyes of God (believe me, as someone who has been divorced- it is sin for a reason- it is emotional and spiritual amputation.) Yet God does forgive us, and brings us to healing which can even include remarriage if there is no hope for reconciliation. Again, heterosexual sex within marriage is not sin. God created humans male and female- the female completes the male and vice-versa.

The problem with homosexual behavior is the behavior is always sinful- there is no circumstance in which homosexual sex is sanctified or condoned in Scripture. Homosexual activity is always condemned whereever it is mentioned in the Bible. There is no provision in Scripture for homosexual marriage, either.

Gay people are sinners just like us- they are in desperate need of God's grace just like every one of us. They should be welcomed in the church and should be able to find the same love and support as anyone else. However, the church has an obligation to gays not to condone or support homosexual activity. If Christians stand idly by and say "separation of church and state" we are in effect saying, "go ahead and wallow in sin, it's OK." That is not loving either.

[Cowthulu]

If this is the case, why should we allow secular benefits for adulterers, divorcees or women that have had children out of wedlock?

We do not extend these benefits to divorcees. They are no longer married, so that is not a problem or a hypocrisy. I agree though, that societal benefits should not be extended to adulterers. Those who would betray their spouse are of the lowest form of life on the planet IMO.

I also agree, that we give too many government benefits and send the wrong message. However the children should not be punished for the sins of the mother and father. The benefits extended should be for the children.

How is that NOT hypocrisy?

Human beings are hypocritical as a whole. If you apply this criteria it is amazing you ever leave your house. How many police men have you seen speeding then get a ticket yourself. Because someone else does something wrong we don't toss the baby out with the bath water. If we are doing things wrong concerning adultry and other subjects it does not mean we should condone and encourage all immorallity, it means we need to work harder on the other areas.

Gay people are not asking that churches bless their unions, they have chosen their lifestyle over church and in the US they are free to do so. But at the same time a pregnant woman and a divorcee are free to walk down the aisles of even the most conservative churches without condemnation and most Christians allow it without a second thought.

And it is wrong for churchs to turn people away because of their sin. That is the point of what Jesus is saying. It would be worse though to tell them their sin is A'ok. They must go and sin no more.

This is exactly where my struggle is coming in! How can I, as a sinner, be against gay marriage, when if judged by the same standards, I too should not have been allowed to marry?

You are taking the wrong angle. Homosexuals can take vows all they want. However secular marriage creates benefits that encourage behavior. The secular institution of marriage was created to encourage that behavior.

By making this a political issue, I feel that we are irrepairably damaging Christianity and the word of God.

Telling them to sin no more is what the word of God says. How is that damaging. Maybe you are confusing secular marriage benefits with rights?

The government is never going to protect us from immorality, they promote it because sex is a sensational topic and it sells.

And it is up to us as members of the society to change that. Giving in on the homosexual issue does not fix anything, it just continues the downward slide.

I understand your feelings. There is a part of me that feels the government should get out of the business of morality altogether. The problem is morality is very pervasive.

They will continue to promote human rights, not biblical standards and if the 'Churches' have something to say, they should preach the entire bible and apply those same standards to one and all. No matter how I look at it, both sides are wrong and as a Christian (that is not without sin) I can't help but ride the fence, if I get off - that same plank will still be in my own eye.
~ Tara ~

Being imperfect does not mean you cannot call a sin a sin. If you encourage that sin then you are doing no better.

[Tara]

We do not extend these benefits to divorcees. They are no longer married, so that is not a problem or a hypocrisy. I agree though, that societal benefits should not be extended to adulterers. Those who would betray their spouse are of the lowest form of life on the planet IMO.

I also agree, that we give too many government benefits and send the wrong message. However the children should not be punished for the sins of the mother and father. The benefits extended should be for the children.



Human beings are hypocritical as a whole. If you apply this criteria it is amazing you ever leave your house. How many police men have you seen speeding then get a ticket yourself. Because someone else does something wrong we don't toss the baby out with the bath water. If we are doing things wrong concerning adultry and other subjects it does not mean we should condone and encourage all immorallity, it means we need to work harder on the other areas.



And it is wrong for churchs to turn people away because of their sin. That is the point of what Jesus is saying. It would be worse though to tell them their sin is A'ok. They must go and sin no more.



You are taking the wrong angle. Homosexuals can take vows all they want. However secular marriage creates benefits that encourage behavior. The secular institution of marriage was created to encourage that behavior.



Telling them to sin no more is what the word of God says. How is that damaging. Maybe you are confusing secular marriage benefits with rights?



And it is up to us as members of the society to change that. Giving in on the homosexual issue does not fix anything, it just continues the downward slide.

I understand your feelings. There is a part of me that feels the government should get out of the business of morality altogether. The problem is morality is very pervasive.



Being imperfect does not mean you cannot call a sin a sin. If you encourage that sin then you are doing no better.

Your POV has greatly helped! Thank you You are right that my angle was wrong concerning churches, by encouraging a pregnant woman or a divorcee to marry, we are at the same time encouraging them to sin no more. Whereas in a gay union, that is encouraging them to sin some more That settles the hypocrisy of church issue for me, but I still have a problem with the bible being used as a political ping-pong. If the government is not going to uphold all moral laws of the bible, they should not pick out one immorality and use it for political gain. There is either seperation of church and state - or there is not. Is marriage a religious institution or a human right? If it is religious (which it is to me) then only marriages in churches should be considered legal. If it is a human right than all marriages should be acceptable. Any enlightenment on that issue LOL??? I usually try not to get involved in politics, but of course seperation of Church and State is a sensitive issue for me

~ Tara ~


John 12:47

As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

[Snarf]

Your POV has greatly helped! Thank you You are right that my angle was wrong concerning churches, by encouraging a pregnant woman or a divorcee to marry, we are at the same time encouraging them to sin no more. Whereas in a gay union, that is encouraging them to sin some more That settles the hypocrisy of church issue for me, but I still have a problem with the bible being used as a political ping-pong. If the government is not going to uphold all moral laws of the bible, they should not pick out one immorality and use it for political gain. There is either seperation of church and state - or there is not. Is marriage a religious institution or a human right? If it is religious (which it is to me) then only marriages in churches should be considered legal. If it is a human right than all marriages should be acceptable. Any enlightenment on that issue LOL??? I usually try not to get involved in politics, but of course seperation of Church and State is a sensitive issue for me

~ Tara ~


John 12:47

As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

The overriding issue with respect to laws is this: the US is not a theocracy. "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion." A law based on religion is part of that religion. therefore, passing a law because of a religious argument is establishing a regulation from religion as the law of the land, and this is in contradiction to the first Amendment.

At one time, conservative Christians condoned slavery and believed that racially mixed marriages were also abominable sins. Would you want to uphold these as laws?

[Christianotaku]

law based on religion is part of that religion.

noooooooooo wrong your taking it out of context and bending it to your own little will...

[Blemonds]

"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion." ?

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.. Sheesh you liberals have a short attention span. The First amendment can't hold your attention long enough for you to read the whole thing.

Anyone ever wonder why liberals don't apply their 1st amendment logic to the entire amendment which would force the government to treat freedom of speech the same as freedom of religion. In other words, free speech could not be practiced in government facilities.

[ChristianTrader]

I understand your feelings. There is a part of me that feels the government should get out of the business of morality altogether. The problem is morality is very pervasive.

It is impossible for government to get out of the business of legislating morality, for all laws are an attempt to legislate some someone's (or some group's) point of view on the morality of an issue.

The only question is which philosophical/religious viewpoint will be enforced. There really is no such thing as neutrality in this area.

CT

[ChristianTrader]

Your POV has greatly helped! Thank you You are right that my angle was wrong concerning churches, by encouraging a pregnant woman or a divorcee to marry, we are at the same time encouraging them to sin no more. Whereas in a gay union, that is encouraging them to sin some more That settles the hypocrisy of church issue for me, but I still have a problem with the bible being used as a political ping-pong. If the government is not going to uphold all moral laws of the bible, they should not pick out one immorality and use it for political gain.

You are correct that government should not pick and choose. They should enforce all of God's law. However until they do, it is better to enforce more than less. Also we are a country that has a representative form of government. If the people believe that this is the way it should be then what right do the elites have to decide otherwise?

There is either seperation of church and state - or there is not. Is marriage a religious institution or a human right?

Marriage being religious or a human right cannot be seperated. One decides religious/philosophically if it is basic human right and if it is a human right if it extends to same sex couples. Once you come to the conclusion there, then you can proceed without many problems.

If it is religious (which it is to me) then only marriages in churches should be considered legal. If it is a human right than all marriages should be acceptable. Any enlightenment on that issue LOL??? I usually try not to get involved in politics, but of course seperation of Church and State is a sensitive issue for me

~ Tara ~

One thing is first coming to an conclusion of what you believe seperation of church and state means. For example, the issue of abortion. Lets say that one is a Christian and believes that abortion at any stage is murder. Could one then say, I am going to seperate my Christian views from my voting (or if I am elected official, my various bills)? No, one could not do so, without giving up their Christian beliefs. Now what seperation of Church and state in the Bible meant was that one government officials did not run the church and church officials did not run the government. However both spheres had the same moral viewpoint.

John 12:47

As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

One thing that needs to be pointed out before this passage is addressed is

Matthew 5:17-19
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [18] For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. [19] Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus did not come to overthrow the laws of Moses (which were from God so could also be called the laws of God).

Next, concerning John 12:47, Jesus did not come to judge the world and that does not conflict with Matthew 5:17-19. According, to Paul, the judging and punishment was the role of the civil magistrate which is God's minister/servant.

Romans 13:3-4
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.


CT

[Snarf]

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.. Sheesh you liberals have a short attention span. The First amendment can't hold your attention long enough for you to read the whole thing.

Anyone ever wonder why liberals don't apply their 1st amendment logic to the entire amendment which would force the government to treat freedom of speech the same as freedom of religion. In other words, free speech could not be practiced in government facilities.

When has the government prohibited Christians from practicing our religion?