It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christians FOR Gay Marriage... they are and always have been

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




I suppose it would be fair to say that we both can read whatever we choose into or out of the Bible.


I don't think thats an honest statement. Is it of your opinion that all interpretations of a text are equally valid?




Our Constitution demands due process and equal protection under the law. If the government is going to grant special privileges and "rights" to some, they must be granted to all. The government must also protect and ensure our inalienable right of freedom of religion. So, unlike those Christians who would impose their Christianity on me and others, I will not do the same.


Is the Bible the Word of God?




and, of course, the only commandment that Jesus gave us.


As I said to kaylaluv, there is a difference in what God requires of us now as opposed to the OT times. In OT we were not at peace with God, but the gift Christ gave us put us at peace with God. It is not my opinion that homosexuals cannot be saved. However it is my opinion that in order to be saved that have to recognize they are being sinful and that without Jesus their sin wouldn't be forgiven.




You don't need my permission or approval to believe as you wish and act accordingly, nor do gays... Likewise, I neither need nor want your approval or permission to exercise my God-given and Constitutionally protect freedom of faith and conscience.


I didn't say you don't have a right to think whatever you like, but merely wanted to discuss the topic according to scripture.




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JohnFisher





This does a good job addressing your first paragraph.
carm.org...


What a load of garbage! So, let me get this straight, according to your link, we don't stone adulterers and unruly children any more because it's a cultural thing, but adultery and sassy back talk are moral issues?! GET OUTTA TOWN!

Why didn't Jesus wash his hands after touching the sick? Was that just a cultural thing too? Or, were Jesus and friends just making it up as they went along, deciding what laws were important to keep and what laws weren't? Why do you believe it's okay to eliminate God's order of circumcision as "cultural", but maintain that homosexuality is a moral issue? Where's the logic?

Why is it okay to change the mandatory Sabbath from the 7th day, when God rested, to the 6th day, if you feel like it and if it's okay with your boss, but maintain that homosexuality is an abomination?

It used to be just fine for a man to marry as many women as he could afford, because men were supposed to spread their seed and multiply as much as possible. We don't think like that any more, culturally, and we value small families, birth control and women's reproductive choices. We consider it immoral to have children who can't be taken care of or loved.



Churches do and should accept anyone into the congregation, including homosexuals.


If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Yes, there are some churches that embrace gay marriage, just like the OP that you're rebuking. I'd imagine you'd also have some words for those pastors.

There are plenty of churches that won't think twice about what goes on with heterosexuals and won't treat them as "sinners" that need to be reproached and corrected for their life style. But the gays stand out in most churches and attract rebuke, correction and you insist that they need to change, end their relationships and remain celibate, while remarried divorcees and couples that are shacking up and living in sin, get a pass. That's just plain old Christian hypocrisy!

Whatever you say. smh



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Boadicea




I suppose it would be fair to say that we both can read whatever we choose into or out of the Bible.


I don't think thats an honest statement. Is it of your opinion that all interpretations of a text are equally valid?


How is it not honest? You yourself used the word "interpretation," which is pretty much what one reads into or out of something, in this case the Bible. Where is the dishonesty? That I did not judge the quality of those interpretations does not make it dishonest. I don't even know what you mean by "equally valid." Legally? Morally? Historically? Intellectually? Theologically? Before and under the law, yes, all interpretations are legally valid. Historically, there is much debate among scholars of the many and varied interpretations, how valid I do not know. Theologically? How many Christian denominations are there? How valid each is I do not know. My interpretation is valid to me and that's all it has to be for earthly purposes.


Is the Bible the Word of God?


The Bible is man's word of God. Inspired, motivated, and empowered by God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but through the limitations and human failings of its authors. Even when the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak.



...there is a difference in what God requires of us now as opposed to the OT times. In OT we were not at peace with God, but the gift Christ gave us put us at peace with God.


There is also a very big difference between what God requires of us and what we require of others. That same gift of peace that Jesus gave us is meant to be the same gift of peace we give others.


It is not my opinion that homosexuals cannot be saved. However it is my opinion that in order to be saved that have to recognize they are being sinful and that without Jesus their sin wouldn't be forgiven.


I'll let Jesus worry about that. Not my job. If folks aren't hurting anyone or causing problems for the rest of us, we should let them be. When people are being good to each other and loving others, we should be happy.


I didn't say you don't have a right to think whatever you like, but merely wanted to discuss the topic according to scripture.


Fair enough, and thank you for clarifying. Please also understand that I'm trying to stick with the premise of the OP, which includes the issue of some imposing their religious will on gays, me and others by denying equal application of marriage laws to gays.
edit on 28-6-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




You yourself used the word "interpretation," which is pretty much what one reads into or out of something, in this case the Bible.


An interpretation is the action of explaining the meaning of something. If I said "the pig is blue" one could not simply read into that and say "the pig is red" and it be considered a valid interpretation. By valid I mean does it have a sound basis in logic and fact, or rather simply put is that interpretation true.




My interpretation is valid to me and that's all it has to be for earthly purposes.


This is similar to saying that something is true for me but not for you. Truth(funny i just started a thread on this) is not subjective. The best way I can explain truth is using a boolean value. Either something is true or it false.




The Bible is man's word of God.


The Bible claims to be God-breathed. The way you worded everything it seems to me that you think the Bible has errors in it because it was made by humans. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."




There is also a very big difference between what God requires of us and what we require of others. That same gift of peace that Jesus gave us is meant to be the same gift of peace we give others.


I don't think we can give that gift. I think only Jesus can give that gift, but maybe I just misunderstood you, are you talking about spreading the word of salvation?




If folks aren't hurting anyone or causing problems for the rest of us, we should let them be.


Actually the Bible says that all sexual immorality is a sin against ones own body:

"18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

This is something God tells us to do for our own sake, not for the sake of others.




When people are being good to each other and loving others, we should be happy.


I don't think it is a sin for two guys to love each other, but when they have sexual intercourse it is a sin by biblical standards I don't think there is a way around that unless you just throw out some parts of the Bible as "error".




which includes the issue of some imposing their religious will on gays, me and others by denying equal application of marriage laws to gays.


Here is the issue and this is just from a political standpoint. Homosexual will never get anywhere with this in the legal system unless they realize that they keep asking exactly what you just asked for "equal application," but they don't recognize the meaning of such a phrase. As I told a couple of my buddies who are gay, I can't marry a man either and therefore we have equal rights. To which they responded "BUT YOU DON"T WANT TO MARRY A MAN." I replied by saying "its not about what we want, but what is equal." The application of the law is equal among all people, some people are just not happy with what is applied.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




The Bible claims to be God-breathed. The way you worded everything it seems to me that you think the Bible has errors in it because it was made by humans. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."


How can this be true if the Bible wasn't even composed or compiled at the time that Jesus supposedly said that? What Law do you think Jesus was talking about? Not eating sacrificial lamb after the 3rd day?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: windword



How can this be true if the Bible wasn't even composed or compiled at the time that Jesus supposedly said that? What Law do you think Jesus was talking about? Not eating sacrificial lamb after the 3rd day?


2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by iinspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

The bold text is translated from the word theopneustos and it literally means God-breathed. The better question is whether or not a text is indeed Scripture



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yet what Paul was talking about was not anything in the NT...

hmm...




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
This is an hour long video of an articulate young man unpacking the 6 passages that "condemn" homosexuality and how they have been misinterpreted.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Heard it before. First four minutes he defines himself by his sexual orientation. That is my main issue with the homosexual community. Straight people don't define themselves be what gender they sleep with. They don't define themselves by who their sleeping with. Who you are sleeping with has nothing to do with who you are.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Boadicea

An interpretation is the action of explaining the meaning of something. If I said "the pig is blue" one could not simply read into that and say "the pig is red" and it be considered a valid interpretation. By valid I mean does it have a sound basis in logic and fact, or rather simply put is that interpretation true.


If you say the pig is blue, I could wonder, "Hmmm... is he referring to the color of the pig? Or is he referring to the temperament of the pig? Or does he have bad grammar and is saying the pig got blew away in a storm?" If it was said/read out of the blue (haha!), then I would have no context to help me. If it was said in a conversation, I could theoretically ask you to clarify... but if it was something you wrote down and I read later, I would have to interpret it the best I could, based on what other facts I have. Was there a wind storm that blew the pig away? Or is he blue because the wind storm blew his mama away? Did the pig get caught in the cold and turn blue? Did the pig get blown into a blueberry patch and get stained blue? And if it's someone else telling me what you said, then I have to consider the purple-monkey-dishwasher phenomenon.... did the messenger garble your message? Did he misunderstand? Did he mis-translate? Did he leave something out? Did he add something extra? There is much subject to interpretation.



My interpretation is valid to me and that's all it has to be for earthly purposes.



This is similar to saying that something is true for me but not for you. Truth(funny i just started a thread on this) is not subjective. The best way I can explain truth is using a boolean value. Either something is true or it false.


Not at all. This is saying that neither you nor I have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so we have to interpret what we do know the best we can and live accordingly (earthly purposes), knowing full well that we will have to face the consequences for our actions (spiritual purposes). Our interpretations are valid to us in determining how we are going to live our lives. I cannot impose mine on you... you cannot impose yours on me.


The Bible is man's word of God.



The Bible claims to be God-breathed. The way you worded everything it seems to me that you think the Bible has errors in it because it was made by humans. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."


Yes... and yes... and yes. What did the sign say on the cross above Jesus' head? Did it say, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews?" (Matt 27:37) Or did it say, "The King of the Jews?" (Mark 15:26) Or did it say, "This is the King of the Jews?" (Luke 23:28) Or did it say, "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews?" (John 19:19) All four are recorded in the gospels. All four cannot be right. Perhaps none of them are right. We do not know. We only know that there are contradictions, discrepancies, and errors in the Bible.




There is also a very big difference between what God requires of us and what we require of others. That same gift of peace that Jesus gave us is meant to be the same gift of peace we give others.



I don't think we can give that gift. I think only Jesus can give that gift, but maybe I just misunderstood you, are you talking about spreading the word of salvation?


Of course we can give that gift!!! In a multitude of ways!!! The same way we can and must share the love that Jesus shared with us. "We love because Jesus loved us first." Sharing the peace and love with others that Jesus gave to us is the very epitome of being a Christian. We cannot follow Jesus... we cannot love Jesus... if we do not live as Jesus taught us to live by his example.



If folks aren't hurting anyone or causing problems for the rest of us, we should let them be.



Actually the Bible says that all sexual immorality is a sin against ones own body... [snip]... This is something God tells us to do for our own sake, not for the sake of others.


Technically, this is something Saul of Tarsus said and I have very serious doubts about his self-proclaimed apostleship. But to focus on the message and not the messenger, while there is much truth to the words, sexual "immorality" is subjective. For example, the Hebrew belief that sex should only be engaged in for reproductive purposes. The Hebrews also maintained Temple prostitutes to satisfy the lust of men to protect the purity of the wife and the marriage bed. Today, I don't think anyone would suggest that sexual relations for non-reproductive purposes is immoral... and most people would not consider adultery acceptable -- even with temple approved prostitutes! Context is everything. But God also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were forcing themselves sexually on others. That I understand. That is clearly immoral. So, again, whatever two consenting adults do (sexually or otherwise) is between them and God -- not us. If they are not hurting anyone, let them be.



When people are being good to each other and loving others, we should be happy.



I don't think it is a sin for two guys to love each other, but when they have sexual intercourse it is a sin by biblical standards I don't think there is a way around that unless you just throw out some parts of the Bible as "error".


There was a time I would have agreed. Today, not so much. In large part because I better understand the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Also because I understand how other Biblical "abominations" may have been forbidden in previous times for a very good reason that does not apply today (such as not eating pork or shellfish), and because much of what was allowed then is absolutely unacceptable to me today (selling one's daughter into slavery for example). Also because I have a better understanding of how external factors can alter/affect our physiological sexual organs/processes and functions. God created us in His image... God made it possible for our bodies -- and therefore our hearts and minds -- to be thus affected in His image... and God don't make no junk. There is a reason for this. I don't understand all the whys and wherefores and His ultimate purpose, but I don't need to. For now, it's enough for me to know that Jesus told me to love everyone as He loved us.



which includes the issue of some imposing their religious will on gays, me and others by denying equal application of marriage laws to gays.



As I told a couple of my buddies who are gay, I can't marry a man either and therefore we have equal rights. To which they responded "BUT YOU DON"T WANT TO MARRY A MAN." I replied by saying "its not about what we want, but what is equal." The application of the law is equal among all people, some people are just not happy with what is applied.


This is like saying, "Only blond-haired and blue-eyed folks can get married," then saying it's fair because it's applied equally to all people... i.e., no dark/red haired people can get married. If the law is inherently unfair, then equal application of that unfair law does not make it right.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Great thread, and I agree. For instance, the majority of the Democratic party is Christian. Clearly THEY all support gay marriage (or at least most of them).



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Thank you!

I can't watch vids on this computer, so I'll have to watch it later, but I look forward to it.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Heard it before. First four minutes he defines himself by his sexual orientation. That is my main issue with the homosexual community. Straight people don't define themselves be what gender they sleep with. They don't define themselves by who their sleeping with. Who you are sleeping with has nothing to do with who you are.


I understand what you are saying... and I agree to a certain extent... As heterosexuals, we are the norm. No one questions our sexual desires because most other people have the same desires (i.e., opposite sex attractions). But when all us hetero folks look at those who are different and point fingers and cast aspersions and pass judgment, and on and on and on, WE force them to act and react from their position of homosexuality. Much like racial issues. Most White people don't think of themselves in terms of being "White" until someone makes it an issue. For Blacks and other minorities, it is the White people making that distinction that put them in that position.

From my perspective, it's the heteros who need to stop defining others by who they are sleeping with.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Great thread, and I agree. For instance, the majority of the Democratic party is Christian. Clearly THEY all support gay marriage (or at least most of them).


Thank you... and thank you. I'm glad you like the thread. I'm also happy that one of your threads helped inspire this one. Specifically, I've been so disheartened at the typical portrayal of Christians that I felt compelled to provide a different perspective. Be the change, right??? I don't think I'm the best one to do so... but I can't complain if I'm not willing to be the difference.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Well remember, it's always the loudest that get the most attention. Unfortunately, the way things work is that when you are happy and satisfied, there is no reason to yell and scream, but when you are upset and feel slighted, you yell and scream all the time. This causes your group to be associated with the worst of your group's opinions. Not to mention, it gives those opinions more media exposure, so also helps to spread them.

I always try to maintain a balanced perspective. I understand that not all Christians are like this. I even see it as such: Christianity would SUPPORT Socialism. Yet, time and again we see Christians talking about how it is the tool of evil. Even with gay marriage, Christianity originally married gay couples. Naturally there still has to be Christians who believe these things.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword



How can this be true if the Bible wasn't even composed or compiled at the time that Jesus supposedly said that? What Law do you think Jesus was talking about? Not eating sacrificial lamb after the 3rd day?


2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by iinspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

The bold text is translated from the word theopneustos and it literally means God-breathed. The better question is whether or not a text is indeed Scripture


So you think that these passages were talking about their own authors, their own authors declaring their own writing to be equally as Holy as the book of Isaiah, say?

Rule of thumb, if someone has to tell you that their writings are "God breathed" they're probably full of sh!t.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Well remember, it's always the loudest that get the most attention. Unfortunately, the way things work is that when you are happy and satisfied, there is no reason to yell and scream, but when you are upset and feel slightest, you yell and scream all the time. This causes the worst of your group to be associated with such opinions. Not to mention, it gives those opinions more media exposure, so also helps to spread them.


I'll try not to yell and scream... sometimes even whispers can be deafening. All I can do is stand firm in my faith and keep fighting the good fight.

Slow and steady wins the race!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




So you think that these passages were talking about their own authors, their own authors declaring their own writing to be equally as Holy as the book of Isaiah, say?


I mean the passage I quoted is not complicated all scripture is god-breathed. If it is Scripture it was written by God thru men.

This is the only time theopneustos is used so the only person that would have done this would be Paul, but there are a plethora of verses that mention the longevity of God's word. Proverbs has a good test for determining what God's word is:

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar."

If something a text says it not true, you can take it with pretty good authority that it did not come from God. If prophecy is in the text and its not 100% accurate then i'd say you can take it on good authority that it did not come from God.




Rule of thumb, if someone has to tell you that their writings are "God breathed" they're probably full of sh!t.


Technically speaking if what I have quoted from 2 timothy 3 is a Scripture and is true its not the man telling me these writings are God-breathed but God himself.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

This is why I insist over and over on this website that I don't like the religion, but I have nothing against the people who worship it. There certainly ARE people who take the message it is SUPPOSED to be saying to heart and try to practice it.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

This is why I insist over and over on this website that I don't like the religion, but I have nothing against the people who worship it. There certainly ARE people who take the message it is SUPPOSED to be saying to heart and try to practice it.


Thank you! That made me smile. I think the same about people of other faiths (including no faith) in that one does not need faith to be a good and loving and righteous person (like the "Good Samaritan")... and faith alone does not necessarily make one a good and loving and righteous person. Everything is what we make of it.



new topics




 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join