The purpose of the "Gay" Crusade

[TheQuestioner]

When i was about ten years of age i attended church on a regular basis. I remember vividly that i few times in sunday school i was taught that being LGBT was horridly wrong, and also that Muslims were sad people because they put so much time and effort into the "wrong religion". Now I tried hard to believe this, but in the end even as a ten year old i couldn't, i couldn't see what was wrong with being gay, and this has got me wondering. What is the purpose of targeting and discriminating homosexuals, what would it achieve for any church base except alienate a portion of their church body? and lastly Why isn't this energy spent on something that does not alienate people and can universally be considered bad, like adultery?


please help me out it confuses me so much at times.


sorry if a similar thread exists i'm new here

[East of Eden]

Under the New Covenant, the NT specifically rejected the dietary and ceremonial laws, the moral laws were reinforced, and strengthened in the case of Jesus saying thinking about their violation is as bad as the violation itself.

I am aware of that claim. What I asked for is a way of differentiating which laws are still in effect and which ones are merely dietary and ceremonial. There are some Christians who claim that the ten commandments are to be kept, while others claim that the Sabbath is merely ceremonial. How does one differentiate? Where in the Bible does it say to differentiate?

What Christians claim the ten commandments are not to be kept?

[micatala]

I would suggest changing our views on homosexuality is as justified as these other past changes. Expecting gays to either remain celibate or to deny who they are puts, in Paul's words, a burden on them that they are not able to carry,

Actually, Paul said of some homosexuals, "Such were some of you, but you were washed by the blood of Christ." Paul's teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit, as well as examples from today, show us that it is possible for gays to change. It is always possible to do the will of God.

and that we who are heterosexual would not be able to carry either.

What do you mean here?

If you consult Acts Chapter 15 and other passages in Paul, you will find this phrase about "undue burden." For example, Paul suggest everyone should be celibate like him, but allows that some may not be able to bear that burden and they should marry, rather than "burn with lust."

We tell gays they should either remain celibate or "pretend" to be straight. This to me is a burdern heterosexuals would never put up with.

So, are you saying we should all, to the best of our ability, follow all of the Mosaic law, including hair-cutting, clothing proscriptions, etc. Note that these have never been explicitly taught against.

The dietary and ceremonial laws intended for the Old Testament theocracy of Israel were never binding on Christians, or even gentile nations contemporary with OT Israel. See Galatians. Far from having a 'gotcha' moment, you are just showing your ignorance of Christiantiy.

See McCulloch's response. I will follow up further later. Dinner calls!

[East of Eden]

If you consult Acts Chapter 15 and other passages in Paul, you will find this phrase about "undue burden." For example, Paul suggest everyone should be celibate like him, but allows that some may not be able to bear that burden and they should marry, rather than "burn with lust."

Paul is telling those not able to be celibate to get in a heterosexual marriage.

We tell gays they should either remain celibate or "pretend" to be straight. This to me is a burdern heterosexuals would never put up with.

This 'burden' is no different than that of an unmarried heterosexual Christian, or for that matter of a married heterosexual Christian who is called to resist acting on attractions to other women. Christians with same-sex attractions need to put their identity as a Christian before their identity as a 'gay' person.

See McCulloch's response. I will follow up further later. Dinner calls!

Have a good dinner. I like your sig line.

[McCulloch]

What Christians claim the ten commandments are not to be kept?

The majority of Christians do not believe that the fourth (third if you are Roman Catholic or Lutheran) commandment is to be kept.

Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

[East of Eden]

What Christians claim the ten commandments are not to be kept?

The majority of Christians do not believe that the fourth (third if you are Roman Catholic or Lutheran) commandment is to be kept.

Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

I don't think the 'majority' of Christians work on Sundays. Christian or not, Sunday is pretty much a day of liesure in the US.

[micatala]

Under the New Covenant, the NT specifically rejected the dietary and ceremonial laws, the moral laws were reinforced, and strengthened in the case of Jesus saying thinking about their violation is as bad as the violation itself.

I am aware of that claim. What I asked for is a way of differentiating which laws are still in effect and which ones are merely dietary and ceremonial. There are some Christians who claim that the ten commandments are to be kept, while others claim that the Sabbath is merely ceremonial. How does one differentiate? Where in the Bible does it say to differentiate?

What Christians claim the ten commandments are not to be kept?

To me, the point is not whether Christians should follow these as a matter of faith, but whether they should be made into law. Only two of the 10 are commonly made into law, murder and stealing. Maybe you could say the honor your father and mother is to some small extent in that parents are legally responsible for their children, but really, this goes the other way. No one hauls children into court for "not honoring" their parents unless this is accompanied by blatantly illegal (e.g. violent) activity. Lying is not illegal except in certain well-defined circumstances.




Would East of Eden support making all 10 commandments into the law of the land?

[McCulloch]

What Christians claim the ten commandments are not to be kept?

The majority of Christians do not believe that the fourth (third if you are Roman Catholic or Lutheran) commandment is to be kept.

Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

I don't think the 'majority' of Christians work on Sundays. Christian or not, Sunday is pretty much a day of leisure in the US.

Sunday is not the Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week. The Sabbath is the seventh. But even if Sunday were to be considered the Christian Sabbath, most Christians still work on Sunday. They may refrain from gainful employment (except church employees) but they certainly do not stop working.

[East of Eden]

What Christians claim the ten commandments are not to be kept?

The majority of Christians do not believe that the fourth (third if you are Roman Catholic or Lutheran) commandment is to be kept.

Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.

I don't think the 'majority' of Christians work on Sundays. Christian or not, Sunday is pretty much a day of leisure in the US.

Sunday is not the Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week. The Sabbath is the seventh. But even if Sunday were to be considered the Christian Sabbath, most Christians still work on Sunday. They may refrain from gainful employment (except church employees) but they certainly do not stop working.

They do treat it as a special day, and as you said, most do no gainful employment.

[East of Eden]

Under the New Covenant, the NT specifically rejected the dietary and ceremonial laws, the moral laws were reinforced, and strengthened in the case of Jesus saying thinking about their violation is as bad as the violation itself.

I am aware of that claim. What I asked for is a way of differentiating which laws are still in effect and which ones are merely dietary and ceremonial. There are some Christians who claim that the ten commandments are to be kept, while others claim that the Sabbath is merely ceremonial. How does one differentiate? Where in the Bible does it say to differentiate?

What Christians claim the ten commandments are not to be kept?

To me, the point is not whether Christians should follow these as a matter of faith, but whether they should be made into law. Only two of the 10 are commonly made into law, murder and stealing. Maybe you could say the honor your father and mother is to some small extent in that parents are legally responsible for their children, but really, this goes the other way. No one hauls children into court for "not honoring" their parents unless this is accompanied by blatantly illegal (e.g. violent) activity. Lying is not illegal except in certain well-defined circumstances.




Would East of Eden support making all 10 commandments into the law of the land?

If the majority of Americans wanted them to be.

[McCulloch]

They do treat it [Sunday] as a special day, and as you said, most do no gainful employment.

But they are not keeping the commandment. The fourth commandment says to not do any work on the seventh day. Most Christians treat Sunday as somewhat special. It is not the same thing, for two reasons: it is the wrong day, they still do work.

Would East of Eden support making all 10 commandments into the law of the land?

If the majority of Americans wanted them to be.

Clearly East of Eden does not agree with the US Constitution.

To recap (Protestant standard counting) :

1. Do not have any other gods before me.
   
   The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
   
   Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state.
   
   Clearly, making the first commandment part of the law would be a violation of the First Amendment.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
   
   First Amendment violation (Freedom of Religion).
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
   
   First Amendment violation (Freedom of Speech).
4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it.
   
   First Amendment violation (Freedom of Religion). Making this into law would make criminals out of all but the seventh-day Christians and the Jews.
5. Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
   
   Somewhat vague, unenforceable, and probably not a good idea.
6. You shall not murder
   
   No argument.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
   
   No argument, but should be a civil not criminal matter.
8. You shall not steal.
   
   No argument.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
   
   Already included to a degree in libel and slander laws.
10. You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
    
    East of Eden apparently wants the US to implement thought crimes.

My attempt to tie this theme to the OP:
It seems as though those who oppose the state recognition of same sex marriage do so based on their religious principles. However, if they were to hold those principles consistently, they should be advocating that all of the Biblical laws, even the ones that they routinely disobey, should have the force of law. Right?