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

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Okay. I get it. It's circular logic again. The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it's God's word.

a reply to: Boadicea

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.

And without context you are absolutely correct these could all be valid interpretations of that sentence, but if someone came out and said "when he said the pig was blue that meant the pig was red" that interpretation would not be as valid as the ones you've put forth. The purpose of that was to show you that interpretations are not as subjective as people like to make them out to be. If context was added it would eliminate all of your valid intepretations and leave you with just one for example if I said "The pig is as blue as a blueberry." The only valid interpretation out of your list would become the color of the pig.

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.

It may be true that neither you nor I have the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but we can determine if what we hold to be true is actually true by determining its coherency with our daily lives and the world around us. Saying your interpretation is valid to you is no different then saying I believe this to be the case. It doesn't mean that interpretation is actually a valid(having a sound basis in logic) interpretation. The point here is what is actually true not what we think is true. You see I don't interpret the Bible. I let the Bible interpret itself. If I can't find the answer for what a passage means somewhere else in Scripture then I will begin to speculate, but I have yet to have this problem .

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.

This is recorded by four different sources as you said, but to call them errors and to say they all cannot be right seems incorrect to me. This actually seems to portray eye witness testimony very well. None of these accounts contradict one another, but they do display different portions, perhaps the real sign said "This is Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews". Each person recounted it leaving some parts out, but none were wrong. What you have here are different peoples perspectives of the same event written in Greco-roman biography. Its like if you and I were to witness a car crash. When the crash happened tires screeched a lady screamed and a man cursed then there was a collision. The cops ask us for our statement. I say I heard some tires screech and then there was a collision. You say A lady scream and a man cussed then there was a collision. Both of us are telling the cops exactly what happened from different perspectives. This is how I see the situation above.

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.

Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for sin. Sexual Immorality was one of the main reasons. I don't see how this story would change your opinion.

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).

The food laws have a symbolic meaning and the action of only eating certain ones are typifications for this symbolism.

But to focus on the message and not the messenger, while there is much truth to the words, sexual "immorality" is subjective.

I am sorry, but when referring to the Bible sexual immorality is not subjective. The Bible is clear that sex is to be between a man and a woman who are married. The Bible doesn't say sex is meant only for reproduction so. I was talking about a bible verse so you would use a biblical definition of sexual immorality. I would actually say that morals are never subjective. People may choose to call certain things moral and immoral but the truth is what is right and wrong doesn't depend our opinions of right and wrong. The moment you step into subjective morals is the moment you lose all right to complain because you cannot logically achieve moral obligations from that standpoint.

You say sexual "immorality" is subjective but then you turn right around and mention an objective moral "But God also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were forcing themselves sexually on others. That I understand. That is clearly immoral" . If sexual immorality is subjective then forcing yourself on someone cannot be "clearly immoral" it can only be immoral in your opinion.

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.

My point here is the homosexual community needs to learn thats how the legal system works. The need to call for marriage reform instead of always pleading equal rights because as you can clearly see asking for something to be equally applied will get you no where.

a reply to: windword

Okay. I get it. It's circular logic again. The Bible is God's word because the Bible says it's God's word.

First you cannot call that circular reasoning. The Bible is 66 different documents. Sourcing one document with an entirely separate document is not circular reasoning. Second I didn't say that all 66 documents were Scripture because they are Scripture. I said if something is Scripture then it is God breathed. The question then becomes what is Scripture, but you don't seem to care about that question.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

First you cannot call that circular reasoning.

Of course it is!

The Bible is 66 different documents.

And yet, "The Bible" states within its pages that all its pages are "God Breathed"..."the word of God".

The question then becomes what is Scripture, but you don't seem to care about that question.

Pffft. Keep dancing!

Scripture : the books of either the Old Testament or the New Testament or of both : the Bible

scriptures : the sacred writings of a religion
Merriam Webster

a reply to: windword

Yep, and you keep quoting Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus, not Jesus, who you clearly claimed stated that homosexuals were condemned to Hell. So, yeah, please do proved the scripture that has Jesus condemning homosexuality.

As we discussed other times, Paul was dearly loved by the entire congregation as well as the risen Christ Jesus. He received his authority directly through Jesus and his sins were forgiven by Christ Jesus. Paul was as much a spokesman for the Christ as was any of the Apostles and knew Jesus while Jesus was alive. Nevertheless the evidence that is shown is that the laws were written by God to Moses and confirmed by Jesus.

Okay windword lets go over this again because you have always seemed to not understand.

Moses wrote-
Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

According to the apostle John, Jesus confirmed this by saying that if you cannot accept Moses then you cannot accept Him (Jesus).
John 5:45-47
(45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. (46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. (47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
If Jesus confirmed this Levitical law by agreement with Moses then it means only one thing and that is this perversion is prohibited by Jesus’ God.

Then to better understand this, Jesus again addressed this issue.
Mat 5:17 -19
(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) 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.

I had included Paul’s teaching in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:25-27 simply to show that Christ Jesus not only verified homosexuality as an abomination to His God before His death but also verified this same abomination after His death through His Apostle Paul. So in that light it is still an abomination towards God regardless of the approval of people. A law of the people is not necessarily that of God.

This does not address the forgiveness of sin. Most all sin can be forgiven by Jesus if the sinner repents of that sin but if a sinner refuses to repent and dies in that sin, then that one falls into condemnation of God and judgement is made on that sin. It is not for me or anyone else to judge that matter.

On the same note it is not acceptable for a Christian to encourage this sin by embracing it. If one should embrace this sin then that one is as guilty as the one who is a homosexual or lesbian. You cannot have it both ways.


Every culture has the authority to exact punishment for crime. Moses had this same authority in his era. Along with this authority is the responsibility to recognize the laws of God as law. Not to obey just some of the laws but all of the laws. Most people confuse law with ordinances or by laws. Jesus included all of the laws in His ministry but He did not exact the punishment as did Moses. Moses' culture required different punishments then did the Christ Jesus simply because Jesus did not exact judgment in His ministry. He had no civil authority but did have celestial authority.

In other words Jesus taught right from wrong and this was shown as obedience to the laws of human behavior. Those laws were established by God to mankind through Moses and through Jesus both. The punishment for homosexuality in Moses' era was death. The same Law was in effect to the Hebrews in the days of Jesus but not in Rome to the Romans and like minded as the Romans. The Romans were as the U.S. is today. They embraced many gods and only selected laws of choice and the Jews were not empowered with their civil laws. We have that exact thing happening today. All said does not change the law. The people are gods to themselves.

a reply to: Seede

What about the religious laws against divorce and remarrying? That used to be a crime WAY worse than homosexuality.

a reply to: Seede

This is what you posted!

You have not addressed the theological discussion that Jesus also taught punishment in hell for sexual perversions such as homosexuality.

Jesus, if he existed, never said any such thing. You were not telling the truth. Paul can't speak for Jesus, neither does Moses and neither do you. If Jesus didn't say it in the Gospels, it's not something that Jesus supposedly said.

The Christian facts of the matter are....all unrepentant sins are equal in the eyes of (your) God, except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which I believe bigots practice everyday.

To single out homosexuality is hypocrisy. Take the log out your own eye before you criticize the perceived speck in your homosexual brothers' and sisters' eyes!

a reply to: windword

It seems to me your being willingly ignorant.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What about the religious laws against divorce and remarrying? That used to be a crime WAY worse than homosexuality.

Divorce is the same as adultery in the law and is frowned upon by Jesus also.

Luke_16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

According to the law of God there is no such thing as approved divorce except in death. There is no sin too great for repenting just as the same applies to homosexuality and lesbianism.

a reply to: Seede

Yet divorce and remarrying are not only excused but celebrated to SUCH an extent that the divorce rate in the country is at 50%, and that is BEFORE they legalized gay marriage. And as we all know the majority population is Christian, so that leaves on to believe that this is ALL Christians getting divorced. Many of which probably disapprove of Gay marriage for the very same reasons they should be disapproving of their divorces.

It's hypocritical to the extreme.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Boadicea

...if someone came out and said "when he said the pig was blue that meant the pig was red" that interpretation would not be as valid as the ones you've put forth.

Probably, but not necessarily. I would then have to ask myself if that someone knew something I don't... for example, perhaps he knows that English is that person's second language and he frequently confuses colors... of maybe he know that person likes to play games like that... perhaps that person knows he's colorblind in a way that makes him identify colors that way... perhaps he knows that person was speaking in code...

The purpose of that was to show you that interpretations are not as subjective as people like to make them out to be. If context was added it would eliminate all of your valid intepretations and leave you with just one for example if I said "The pig is as blue as a blueberry." The only valid interpretation out of your list would become the color of the pig.

Well, of course contexts helps!!! But no one can know ALL details, and even known details can be omitted without malice or ill intentions, so there is still room for interpretation. Even if you said, "The pig is as blue as a blueberry," if I don't know that he was in that berry patch, but I do know that he lost his mama, I might consider it a metaphor, like, "The pig is green with envy." Or maybe you do mean it metaphorically, but since I do know he was in that berry patch, I take it literally. And this is all assuming, of course, that no one is lying or deliberately misrepresenting the truth to fulfill an agenda. (That's not directed at you!)

Saying your interpretation is valid to you is no different then saying I believe this to be the case. It doesn't mean that interpretation is actually a valid(having a sound basis in logic) interpretation. The point here is what is actually true not what we think is true.

There is soooooo much I want to say to this, and I'm having trouble finding the words. Hmmm.... I agree in theory that we must live the "truths" we find and we will know how right we are by the fruits of our labors. And I agree that what we interpret in one passage cannot be true if not supported by other passages. That means that as a Christian, I must -- MUST -- interpret every passage in terms of how it is or is not supported by Jesus Himself in other passages. What did Jesus teach? First, foremost and primarily, He taught us to love one another. He taught us not to judge because we are all less than perfect. He taught us that we who cannot understand all earthly things cannot understand Heavenly things. He taught us that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. So what do I know? That I have neither the wisdom nor the authority to judge others...

None of these accounts contradict one another, but they do display different portions, perhaps the real sign said "This is Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews". Each person recounted it leaving some parts out, but none were wrong. What you have here are different peoples perspectives of the same event written in Greco-roman biography.

Exactly. None intended to mislead or omit pertinent details, but they did. Even John states that his record is incomplete of necessity. We don't know what we don't know... and therefore are not qualified to judge.

Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed for sin. Sexual Immorality was one of the main reasons. I don't see how this story would change your opinion.

The only sexual immorality specific named was rape, and yet it has long been portrayed as a punishment for sodomy. Conveniently, we are also talking about people who were destroyed -- dead men tell no tales -- and thus easily misconstrued for other purposes. I actually find it disturbing that the rape aspect is ignored, as is the despicable offering of his daughter to the mob to protect the strangers... There were much bigger problems in Sodom than whatever consenting adults were doing.

The food laws have a symbolic meaning and the action of only eating certain ones are typifications for this symbolism.

Please don't take this personally, but those are weasel words. Too often Christians (and others of course) explain away discrepancies and contradictions with that oh-so-subjective, "Oh, this is symbolic but that is literal," and too often in the most arrogant manner as if the final authority. This is EXACTLY why everything is subject to interpretation, and it's up to each of us to use our own minds and reasoning and experience to understand the best we can and live accordingly.

I am sorry, but when referring to the Bible sexual immorality is not subjective. The Bible is clear that sex is to be between a man and a woman who are married.

Actually, no. The word "adultery" in OT times only referred to married women having sex with someone other than her husband, mostly to guarantee legitimate heirs. It did not apply to men or single women.

The Bible doesn't say sex is meant only for reproduction so.

No, it does not. But that was the custom and the law.

I was talking about a bible verse so you would use a biblical definition of sexual immorality. I would actually say that morals are never subjective. People may choose to call certain things moral and immoral but the truth is what is right and wrong doesn't depend our opinions of right and wrong.

Here is a list of the specific sexual immoralities in the Bible.

So is it still immoral for a virgin not to bleed upon losing her virginity? Is rape only immoral when it's a betrothed female? Are sexual relations during menstruation still immoral?

You say sexual "immorality" is subjective but then you turn right around and mention an objective moral "But God also destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because the inhabitants were forcing themselves sexually on others. That I understand. That is clearly immoral" . If sexual immorality is subjective then forcing yourself on someone cannot be "clearly immoral" it can only be immoral in your opinion.

Apparently the author of Deuteronomy agreed... He didn't seem to have a problem with rape -- unless it was a betrothed female, and then no doubt only because of the perceived wrongdoing to her future husband. I clearly see rape as immoral and will live accordingly, regardless of what Deuteronomy says.

My point here is the homosexual community needs to learn thats how the legal system works. The need to call for marriage reform instead of always pleading equal rights because as you can clearly see asking for something to be equally applied will get you no where.

No, everyone needs to understand the corruptions in the legal system and fix it. Obviously, many people are happy to blow off equal rights... and, obviously, many of us will fight for them, because it's the right thing to do.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

It seems to me your being willingly ignorant.

I believe your argument goes something like this.

Even though Jesus never condemned homosexuality, the Bible does. The Bible is ALL truth and the "Word of God", because it says so, so therefore, Jesus would have agreed with it, even if the Bible doesn't record such an agreement. Therefore, Jesus condemned homosexuality.

But, you logic doesn't hold water, as I've illustrated in previous posts in this thread HERE

a reply to: windword

Jesus, if he existed, never said any such thing. You were not telling the truth. Paul can't speak for Jesus, neither does Moses and neither do you. If Jesus didn't say it in the Gospels, it's not something that Jesus supposedly said.

But Jesus did say it in the gospels through John.
John 5:46-47 (46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. (47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Jesus said in the Gospel of John that if you do not believe in Moses' writings you can not believe Him. Now Windword that is as clear as light. If Moses wrote or authored Leviticus then that is the writings of Moses and Jesus said that if you do not accept the writings of Moses then you do not accept Jesus. A lower grade school child could understand that. And you can not?

Paul is another matter. Paul is accepted by the first Jewish Christian congregation as well as the Roman congregations. He was chosen as a spokesman for Christ Jesus and by Christ Jesus according to the book of Acts. Perhaps not accepted by you but from the onset of Christianity he was vessel of Christ Jesus. Paul was a rabbi of the Sanhedrin and was on the seat of judgment of Christ Jesus. Paul also was in authority of the Sanhedrin in the death of Stephen. I realize that this angers you so will drop it there but that is the belief of some.

I did not single out homosexuality. The op singled out homosexuality. I simply decided to discuss the cons of acceptance of this sin. That is what an open forum is for. I stand with Christ Jesus on this matter who teaches that it is a abomination to God.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yet divorce and remarrying are not only excused but celebrated to SUCH an extent that the divorce rate in the country is at 50%, and that is BEFORE they legalized gay marriage. And as we all know the majority population is Christian, so that leaves on to believe that this is ALL Christians getting divorced. Many of which probably disapprove of Gay marriage for the very same reasons they should be disapproving of their divorces. It's hypocritical to the extreme.

I do not disagree with what you have said except that it is not Just Christians getting divorced. Yes you are right in that it is hypocritical to accept one and reject the other. Marriage has become a civil matter in our culture because the national laws have made it into a civil matter of legality in almost all aspects of life. Married people cannot own independently today with out a nuptial agreement prior to the marriage and that only applies to certain specific things.

Gay marriage is nothing more than tying legal affairs to both parties just the same as any other marriage. To my belief it is not by God but by civil law that most all marriages are performed today. Regardless of whether they are performed by religions it is still a civil affair. To the civil authorities a justice of the peace is just as valid as a Catholic priest. But that is only my opinion and not meant to discredit other people. I would not want anyone to suffer or be killed over my beliefs but I still must accept both divorce and homosexuality as sin.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yet divorce and remarrying are not only excused but celebrated to SUCH an extent that the divorce rate in the country is at 50%, and that is BEFORE they legalized gay marriage. And as we all know the majority population is Christian, so that leaves on to believe that this is ALL Christians getting divorced. Many of which probably disapprove of Gay marriage for the very same reasons they should be disapproving of their divorces. It's hypocritical to the extreme.

I do not disagree with what you have said except that it is not Just Christians getting divorced. Yes you are right in that it is hypocritical to accept one and reject the other. Marriage has become a civil matter in our culture because the national laws have made it into a civil matter of legality in almost all aspects of life. Married people cannot own independently today with out a nuptial agreement prior to the marriage and that only applies to certain specific things.

I know it isn't just Christians getting divorced, but Christians are the ones that are supposed to care about it. Why would I mention Atheists getting divorced? They don't think there is some divine retribution after death for misbehaving during life.

Gay marriage is nothing more than tying legal affairs to both parties just the same as any other marriage. To my belief it is not by God but by civil law that most all marriages are performed today. Regardless of whether they are performed by religions it is still a civil affair. To the civil authorities a justice of the peace is just as valid as a Catholic priest. But that is only my opinion and not meant to discredit other people. I would not want anyone to suffer or be killed over my beliefs but I still must accept both divorce and homosexuality as sin.

Right, and as long as it is a civil affair, then gays can get married. Get marriage out of the state (which, by the way, racist Christians are responsible for putting it in the state's hands) then you don't have to worry about gays getting married.

a reply to: windword

I don't think anything you've said really holds any merit thats why your not getting a response from me...

a reply to: Seede

Now Windword that is as clear as light. If Moses wrote or authored Leviticus then that is the writings of Moses and Jesus said that if you do not accept the writings of Moses then you do not accept Jesus.

So, why don't you Christians honor ALL of the Levitical laws? Why are you cherry picking which one you'll choose to follow/enforce and which one's you'll choose to discard?

Nope, Seed, you're basing which laws you choose to follow/enforce based on your own personal bias, not on scripture. Now go enjoy your bacon cheeseburger!

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

I don't think anything you've said really holds any merit thats why your not getting a response from me...

Ditto!

In Matthew 5 Yahoshua clearly stated he was speaking of “the law” and right after that explained what the the law was and it wasn’t the law of men of old( Moses) as the Jews or the present day Christians believe at all.

“You have heard that it was said by men of old , You shall not commit adultery:BUT I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart”.

That is not the law of Moses and neither are any of the other things he said in this discourse.He was stating what the “law” really was.The religious perceive the law as rules and regulations to be followed like an instruction manual to “interpret” how they choose but use ZERO reason because they seek to justify their own perversion.Many of the religious believe committing adultery is against the law but it is okay(natural) to “lust” as long as you don’t do and yet Yahoshua will completely disagree with them.The religious want a “law” that they can manipulate to fit their agenda yet Yahoshua says that is not how the law is perfected(fulfilled.).

“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. 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.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.For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven”

Yahoshua said he came to “fulfill” the law and the prophets.The religious believe this is “the bible”(when they have no idea what was written).The word fulfill is translated from the Greek word pleroo which means to make complete to consummate to perfect.Yahoshua did not say the “law and the prophets were perfected he said the opposite and then preceded to state why.

The fact is Christianity is COMPLETELY blind to facts like these.Yahoshua clearly stated those who “relax” (accept the imperfections) and teaches those unfulfilled laws will be called the least in the kingdom of the heavens and they are akin to the scribes and pharisees(who pervert the true law by their religious beliefs) which is EXACTLY what Christianity has done …but even more so!!.They extrapolate scriptures and pervert them into the doctrines of men then say “Jesus said it”.That is the worst perversion possible.

This is the kind of foolishness many Christians propagate. They abuse the scriptures to condemn others when it is THEM Yahoshua is speaking of as being perverts!Yahoshua clearly stated who these ‘Christians” were when he warned the disciples.

“Do not be deceived. For MANY will come in my name and say they are christ and will deceive many”.

That is as clear and concise statement of the coming of Christianity ever stated YET Christianity believes it’s about someone else!The fact is ....it is Christianity that “teaches” false doctrine and perverts the gospel of Yahoshua.History has proven over and over again the perverse nature of Christianity yet they are blind to it and believe THEY ALONE are the forgiven (but are not free at all!) and “saved” ones and everyone else is going to hell!! That is the ultimate perversion and is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit that will not be forgiven (which means freed from bondage) in this age nor the next.

Many Christians prove this fact of their extreme perversion over and over again. Some of those Christians are writing on this thread.They have no truthful answers to these statements made by Yahoshua except their Christian rhetoric which is nothing more than the perversion of truth.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Right, and as long as it is a civil affair, then gays can get married. Get marriage out of the state (which, by the way, racist Christians are responsible for putting it in the state's hands) then you don't have to worry about gays getting married.

Absolutely gays can get married by civil law but not by God's law can that civil marriage ever be honored. As far as the law against homosexual marriage is concerned, that law is not racist as you spout. It is a law given to the Hebrews by their God and sanctified by the Christ of the God who gave the law. If you believe that the law is racist then you have a problem with the one who issued the law. Race has nothing to do with this discussion and to call it racist is untrue and not in fair debate. As for myself I will honor the laws of God and His Begotten Son over the civil laws against God.