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in their decision was the issue that expecting everyone to follow these traditional rules, rules that many saw as outdated, would be a drag on the new movement.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

[Wissing]

I've posted potentially embarrassing details about my personal life once already, Danmark. I shouldn't have to repost the same thing twice. Let them read for themselves. It's not so difficult just to scroll up.

Happy good Friday to you though!


And haven, if all you mean by "support" is voting... I don't intend to legislate against gays. I would vote for something like the Utah compromise. But that's not nearly sufficient. There's more to life than rooting for your favorite big movement. Each of us must show compassion on an individual basis. The post histories of some of the people on this site demonstrate that politics can consume all of one's time. We don't have time for both.

[Danmark]

I've posted potentially embarrassing details about my personal life once already, Danmark. I shouldn't have to repost the same thing twice. Let them read for themselves. It's not so difficult just to scroll up.

Happy good Friday to you though!


And haven, if all you mean by "support" is voting... I don't intend to legislate against gays. I would vote for something like the Utah compromise. But that's not nearly sufficient. There's more to life than rooting for your favorite big movement. Each of us must show compassion on an individual basis. The post histories of some of the people on this site demonstrate that politics can consume all of one's time. We don't have time for both.

I thought you'd appreciate a personal note rather than a moderator comment for a 'one-liner' post that added nothing to the debate.
And...
You've missed the point entirely. Your personal circumstances are simply not relevant to the argument. Referring to them changes nothing. Should a sightless person want the world to be blind?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 276 by Clownboat]

You assume that I hold sex dear to me? Then you shame me?

Please read back a few posts.

Perhaps there is some confusion. In hopes of clearing this up:

Do you hold the idea (whether you actively participate in such activities now or plan to in the future) of having sex with the person you love, as something dear (valuable, important, etc...)?

Having sex with my wife, the person I love, is something I hold dear. To claim that (for example) people with a different skin color or sexual orientation or religions affiliation should not be doing something that I happen to hold dear for myself is not something I think another human should do or be proud of.

This was a direct response to this question you asked:
" What can I do to appease your demand for political rights, if only to gain the privilege of discussing the heavier matters?"

The answer was, don't hold back something from others that you hold dear for yourself. I assume you understand now? If not, please elucidate.

[Wissing]

I personally believe that sex has an intended purpose and that it is best to be used for that purpose.

I was wrong to imply that I know what's best. That I have the solution. That gays struggling to reconcile their attractions with tradition have only one option. I lean towards abstinence because I know what it's like. But you're right, I probably won't keep that up forever. Furthermore, Jesus was not speaking necessarily about gays when he said eunuchs are blessed. This is a stretch of what the scripture says, which I have interpreted loosely based on my own experience and my own feeble understanding.

My apologies.

[SailingCyclops]

I offer this thread as a Christian who supports gay rights as an admittedly forward challenge to my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Why does this present a special challenge to Christians? Don't Christians have a sense of fairness? Of tolerance? Of accepting people of different life styles? What makes them particularly intolerant? Perhaps it's their book of horrors which is at the core of their bigotry?

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?

The many contradictions in the bible indicate the bible is in severe conflict with itself on many important issues. This fact is impossible for some Christians to accept. So, they "lay aside" what is not palatable to them, selecting what they like, trashing or explaining away the verses they don't like. They should trash it all as unreliable, not just the verses they disagree with.

"Laying aside verses" and/or emphasizing verses is exactly why heads are rolling in the Middle East today. "Laying aside verses" is what allows one to interpret the bible to say anything they want it to say.

The fact is the bible says and mandates a lot of horrific things as well as some humane things. Some will selectively accept some things and lay aside the rest, others will cleave to other verses which say the complete opposite. Relying on this terrible kluge of nonsense called the bible, is at the core of the Christian gay problem, not which parts of the kluge you happen to believe and follow.

Muslims are completely justified by their holy book to murder all non believers who refuse to convert. Christians are totally justified in their holy book to be total homophobes, intolerant, and misogynistic, being proud and vociferous about it. The trouble is deeply woven into the holy books themselves, which can be interpreted to mean practically anything by quote mining.

It's all dangerous uncivilized garbage!!!

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to Danmark]

Hello Damark,

This is an answer to post # 267.

In reference to your quote from the Bible:

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material."

You ask, "Tell me Earl, is this command from God true for all time?
If so, please tell me why."

The prohibitions you mentioned are not for this dispensation.

You and I are not bound by the scripture that forbids the mixture of fabrics for clothes. Neither are you or I bound to the Jewish diet, to worship on Saturdays, etc. Even though based on the Decalogue (supposedly), the law books downtown contain the laws you and I live by in our cities. So were many of the laws in the OT for the Jews as a society. The gospel that began with Jesus dying on the cross set the Jews as well as us all free from dependence laws and ordinance for a good standing with God.

Please consider the Scriptures below that are applicable to all of us now:

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (John 34, 35).�

As long as one lives by the first and second commandment to love God and his Neighbor, he has no heart to break the others. Daily prayer and confession daily delivers him from his daily wrongs because of human nature that must be daily dealt with.


People live in two or more different worlds when it comes to worldview. All are at war with the Biblical worldview of peace. They may support evolution, humanism, etc., and are manifestations of one making himself or another the ultimate ruler instead of God. The Biblical worldview of course supports the truth that God is Creator, His word (the Bible) is pure, and that God is the Sovereign ruler and giver of our rights. Worldview is the engine that drives major decisions. Ball players do not wear pieces of the opposing team’s uniform. Incompatibilities of worldviews are the things that keep people warring against each other.

Here are some helpful links:

http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/do-levitic ... ed-fabrics -----

http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-11.htm

(Go to the “Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary“ at the bottom of the page)


https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bib ... -mere-men/


Take care,
Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 268 by dianaiad]

To the Moderator:

In reference to the statement, “using the bible as an authoritative source text in "Politics and Religion" isn't a good idea, and is against the rules,�

I hope that I am not seen as trying to push anyone’s dogma or doctrine and that my use of scripture is not seen as trying to be preachy-preachy. Such is none of my purpose.

But if really I care about those with whom I talk, shouldn’t I share with them the purest possible truth that guarantees their satisfaction, freedom and justice for all? Sometime there is a need to talk about unfamiliar hardware under the hood to best describe a problem with the car to the customer. I as a child cried when my mother applied antiseptic to a sore that stung.

What is the use of any claim on the witness stand that’s not based what’s written? Can the judge use it? If a governmental system is based on rights endowed by the Creator and that “governments are instated among men to secure these (God given) rights,� shouldn’t I be free to discuss vital precepts of the giver of our rights?

My use of Biblical truth as the foundation for my discussion is only an effort to uplift, uphold, and honor those that I speak to.


Take care,
Earl

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 268 by dianaiad]

To the Moderator:

In reference to the statement, “using the bible as an authoritative source text in "Politics and Religion" isn't a good idea, and is against the rules,�

I hope that I am not seen as trying to push anyone’s dogma or doctrine and that my use of scripture is not seen as trying to be preachy-preachy. Such is none of my purpose.

But if really I care about those with whom I talk, shouldn’t I share with them the purest possible truth that guarantees their satisfaction, freedom and justice for all? Sometime there is a need to talk about unfamiliar hardware under the hood to best describe a problem with the car to the customer. I as a child cried when my mother applied antiseptic to a sore that stung.

What is the use of any claim on the witness stand that’s not based what’s written? Can the judge use it? If a governmental system is based on rights endowed by the Creator and that “governments are instated among men to secure these (God given) rights,� shouldn’t I be free to discuss vital precepts of the giver of our rights?

My use of Biblical truth as the foundation for my discussion is only an effort to uplift, uphold, and honor those that I speak to.


Take care,
Earl

Moderator Comment

Earl, this should probably be a "warning" rather than a comment because you are preaching again, tho' gently. It's still against the rules. You are also violating the rule against responding to moderator posts. Please review the rules. If you want to make a case for justifying the preaching of what you consider to be THE way to live or think, you can do that in the comment section. Responding to moderator comments gets the debate off its topic, which is about supporting gay rights.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to Danmark]

Hello Damark,

This is a reply to post #286.

You said in it, "...you are preaching again, tho' gently. It's still against the rules.

OK. May I then ask if you please take with you memory of the things I shared with you by my “breaking the rules� so that they may bless you? I only wanted to leave nothing unturned about the discussed subject to you or any other that's reading.

May I also ask that if preaching is bad, why are things like "tolerance" (tolerance of what based on what?) and "woman's rights" politically preached to all of us so strongly? Isn't that also preaching?

Take care,
Earl

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Danmark]

Hello Damark,

This is a reply to post #286.

You said in it, "...you are preaching again, tho' gently. It's still against the rules.

OK. May I then ask if you please take with you memory of the things I shared with you by my “breaking the rules� so that they may bless you? I only wanted to leave nothing unturned about the discussed subject to you or any other that's reading.

May I also ask that if preaching is bad, why are things like "tolerance" (tolerance of what based on what?) and "woman's rights" politically preached to all of us so strongly? Isn't that also preaching?

Take care,
Earl

This is a debate site, not a pulpit.
Pulpits are for preaching, debates sites are for... well, you take a guess.