It's a perfectly good reason to kick them out of your church if that's your thing.
However here's the thing - not everyone shares the belief that homosexuality is sinful. Not even all Christian churches agree on that one. Christ doesn't seem to address it - at least that I know of and, having seen some recent studies on the matter, even if someone has a passage that says he does we can't be sure that's even what was really said.
The entire "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote, for instance, is found only in ONE document out of the massive collection which eventually became gathered together into the bible. It's appended at the end and in a different dialect that was not in use when the original document was written. By some entirely unknown and unnamed scribe. Did that phrase actually get said? Probably not.
Now that doesn't invalidate the base message, necessarily, but it means relying on specific text or phrases is dangerous because they may not be right. One biblical scholar who spent his ENTIRE LIFE studying original scripture, has a degree from the extremely reglious Moody Bible College etc. will tell you flat out that there are more discrepancies in the original biblical texts than there are WORDS in the new testament!
So did Christ ever condemn homosexuality himself? We don't know. If there is something that does lead to that conclusion there's no guarantee that the scribe writing that text didn't just tweak it in there because of their personal beliefs or to dovetail better with the story of Lot or some such.
One thing we can be at least somewhat certain of based on the original texts is that homosexuality, practice of it or lack of it is not a main theme in Christ's teachings. It just doesn't appear enough. Given the holes in the original documents and their disagreements we just cannot KNOW anything much past the 'If it came up at all, it sure didn't come up very much.'
However here's the thing - not everyone shares the belief that homosexuality is sinful. Not even all Christian churches agree on that one. Christ doesn't seem to address it - at least that I know of and, having seen some recent studies on the matter, even if someone has a passage that says he does we can't be sure that's even what was really said.
The entire "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote, for instance, is found only in ONE document out of the massive collection which eventually became gathered together into the bible. It's appended at the end and in a different dialect that was not in use when the original document was written. By some entirely unknown and unnamed scribe. Did that phrase actually get said? Probably not.
Now that doesn't invalidate the base message, necessarily, but it means relying on specific text or phrases is dangerous because they may not be right. One biblical scholar who spent his ENTIRE LIFE studying original scripture, has a degree from the extremely reglious Moody Bible College etc. will tell you flat out that there are more discrepancies in the original biblical texts than there are WORDS in the new testament!
So did Christ ever condemn homosexuality himself? We don't know. If there is something that does lead to that conclusion there's no guarantee that the scribe writing that text didn't just tweak it in there because of their personal beliefs or to dovetail better with the story of Lot or some such.
One thing we can be at least somewhat certain of based on the original texts is that homosexuality, practice of it or lack of it is not a main theme in Christ's teachings. It just doesn't appear enough. Given the holes in the original documents and their disagreements we just cannot KNOW anything much past the 'If it came up at all, it sure didn't come up very much.'
I'm trying to avoid taking doctrinal positions on gay marriage too often until I have a firmer idea on what I think that is. Scripturally, it seems to boil down to whether one thinks Pauls writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit entirely, partly, or at all, which is VERY murky, both because everything thought to have left his pen is considered canon (as opposed to the OT, where if a Prophet wanted you to think God was speaking through him he made that VERY clear) and because several of those canonical statements are that others were just Pauls opinion, not Gods command. That, and whether one thinks 1) the Holy Spirit actually provided the guidance the first Apostles asked when the issue of the Torah for Gentiles arose and 2) whether one agrees with me that when the response actually uses terms from the Torah it's using them the same way it does.
So from Christ's view, we cannot know.
Not unless He tells us directly, which I don't expect in this world. Again, I think if God encouraged gay marriage homosexuals would be able to produce, but if you pay attention it seems the Bible contains both commands AND instructions, which aren't the same. If your drill instructor says, "Private, drop and give me 50!" that's an order; if he tells you "keep carrying your rifle like that and you'll blow off a toe" you may not get a court martial when it happens, but no one's going to feel sorry for you. I can't think of any Christian churches who'll kick you out for living off lobster, but there's a good chance you'll have a stroke before you're 50. On the other hand, murder will pretty much always be a sin. I honestly don't know; I thank God I'm not gay because, while the issue still troubles me, at least I'm not directly affected by the outcome.
From society's view, however, the practice is not illegal and is becoming less and less marginalized each and every year that passes. Once any kind of homosexual sex was flat out illegal. The Supreme Court shot that down back in (IIRC) 1967.
Really? I thought Lawrence v. Texas did that, but I don't follow the issue closely.
Marriage is NOT a purely Christian activity. Secular people get married without any religious overtones at all (my own wedding wass purely secular - in fact we had a good friend perform the ceremony, something perfectly legal in this Province with the correct permissions filed). But even if we delve into religion, then many non-Christian religions have forms of marriage. Hindu, Sikh, Buddist, Muslim, Neo-Pagan, Ancient Pagan (of many stripes), Shinto the list goes on and on and on. Not all of those marriages even fit the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of a single man and a single woman. Indeed, in ancient Judaic tradition there are many examples of people extremely holy and beloved of God who were part of various types of plural or multiple marriages. One sect of Christianity does not 'own' the term by any stretch of the imagination.
The United States, people tend to forget, was founded under an original mandate of Freedom of Religion. It is, in fact, why the Pilgrims and many of the original settlers came to the New World in the first place! Within that mandate NO ONE has the right to place their version of marriage (or a funeral or any other sacrament or activity) above any other. LEGALLY the laws as they are should not be. Should never have been save that people are imperfect creatures at following the original Founding Father's ideals. And let's not forget that those ideals were intentionally framed in broad terms. Even their specific beliefs would need amending with the passage of time and it's certain that at least some of them knew that. Recall that when the US Constitution was written slavery was legal and women had few if any rights.
Hatemongers and bigots notwithstanding - Gay marriage is coming. It will happen, almost certainly, when the Prop 8 case finally wends its way to the Supreme Court. And so it should.
The United States, people tend to forget, was founded under an original mandate of Freedom of Religion. It is, in fact, why the Pilgrims and many of the original settlers came to the New World in the first place! Within that mandate NO ONE has the right to place their version of marriage (or a funeral or any other sacrament or activity) above any other. LEGALLY the laws as they are should not be. Should never have been save that people are imperfect creatures at following the original Founding Father's ideals. And let's not forget that those ideals were intentionally framed in broad terms. Even their specific beliefs would need amending with the passage of time and it's certain that at least some of them knew that. Recall that when the US Constitution was written slavery was legal and women had few if any rights.
Hatemongers and bigots notwithstanding - Gay marriage is coming. It will happen, almost certainly, when the Prop 8 case finally wends its way to the Supreme Court. And so it should.
It is not for us to judge who someone else may love. As Joel himself says, love cannot be coerced. Nor should it be damned simply because someone who has saddled themselves with a belief system millennia out of date can't get their minds into the twenty first century.
Love/=sex though (and I'm pretty sure marriages still have to be consummated most places. ) I like sex. A lot. But if I wouldn't drop my girl for someone else if I couldn't get it from her anymore, because I Love her a lot more than I like sex, and the impracticality or inadvisability of sex wouldn't diminish that. Which is probably a good thing given that she's 7000 miles from here right now. Sex doesn't provide the fulfillment of Love, just enhance it, a very nice but not indispensable perk.
But once again, as long as no one but consenting adults are involved, reasonable men can differ. As with abortion, my advice to those who, like me, don't like it is this: Don't do it, and stay the out of other peoples lives, if only to encourage them to return the favor.
Basically, Aisha has it right. Sure, SHE may not believe that what's going on is allowed by her religion, but as long as they don't follow that religion, well then that's all good now ain't it?
I wouldn't go that far, but it's between them and God, not the state or their neighbors. When the state starts dictating FROM religion it starts dictating ON religion, because it has to decide which religion (and sect) to use. That's precisely and explicitly what the Founding Fathers tried to prevent in the Constitution, both the Bill of Rights and the main document. That's why it specifically forbids federal officeholders being required to swear allegiance to any one faith, or even make their oaths of office to God rather than the general public. I wonder how Aishas friend would feel if the government was telling her to take the Beasts mark and worship him (but I don't wonder much. ) Just because an unfair and illegal law is working the way you want now doesn't make it right, or any less likely to bite you in the butt tomorrow.
Oh yes, on other little tidbit. For me, a combination of nature and nurture has left me pretty much incapable of faith. It's not what I would choose - because it's a very uncomfortable place to live one's life in. It is, however, honest. Were I to 'profess my belief in Christ' it would be pure hypocrisy because I am not CAPABLE of believing such a thing. I didn't choose to lack that capability. That came with the package same as blue/green/grey eyes, broad shoulders and hair that fell out way too early. It just IS.
You realize that statement contains a fair amount of faith, in the general sense, right? Last I heard, the search for the "faith gene" hadn't ended (and I ain't holding my breath) but it sounds like you're treating it like Newton treated gravity: A fact yet to be proven. People do it all the time, but it's so deeply ingrained it's usually unconscious; at this point, you can probably guess how many times I've plopped down in this chair to type one of these responses, but the only time I think to myself, Y'know, this thing is 99.99% empty space; there is a REMOTE possibility I could just fall through it is when we're having one of these conversations. Just a few hours ago I was sitting in physical therapy looking at the machines and wondering how much, if at all, the physical world resembles what our senses say it does. No way to be absolutely sure, because all the tests are every bit as self-referential as "proving" Christianity with Bible quotes (moreso, actually; a quote is either logical or not, regardless of source, and "2+2=4" doesn't become a lie just because Charles Manson says it. ) Faith accepts a preponderance of evidence rather than concrete proof, which is fortunate and practical because, ultimately, it's virtually impossible to absolutely PROVE anything. That's why I get on much better with agnostics than I do atheists; I can respect and sympathize with a man who says, "I don't know" but a man who says, "I know the unknowable" is a conceited zealot whatever his angle. I KNOW Christ is real for reasons similar to Pauls: Either it happened, or I'm a lunatic, but since God can't personally prove HIMSELF a negative (again, inability to do mutually exclusive things isn't a limitation on omnipotence, but on reality) that's not an option for the atheist.
And I'm damned/excommunicate for that inability to believe? Well, I suppose that's a good thing because if that is how it is, then I know which side I'd have been on in the war in heaven and it ain't the side that won.
Which, I believe, is a choice God regretfully allows, though you'll have a hard time convincing universalists. But either we have free will or not, and, however bad an idea it is, if one isn't free to tell God to go Cheney himself in full knowledge of what one is saying, there is no free will. Universalists will usually tell you no one would do that knowing all the facts and everyone will get an omniscient chance to repent after death; me, I figure Lucifer had all the facts and did it anyway. I don't understand it, but a basic tenet of my faith is that it IS possible.
I don't think it's inability, it's just one of the myriad examples of barriers erected between us and God by the legacy of sin in the world. You're not the first Greek to look for wisdom, y'know, but if faith were simply something you figured out on your own Grace wouldn't be a free gift to the glory of God, but your just due for accomplishments to your glory. Man can do some glorious things, but only insofar as it reflects Gods glory bestowed on us; when we go free agent... well, as you note, we aren't perfect. Because we tried to go free agent, or so the stories say.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
I may have lost a friend over same sex marriage
17/01/2010 08:03:26 AM
- 1401 Views
the problem with your friend is the "southern evangelical christian" part
17/01/2010 09:07:02 AM
- 709 Views
They believe gay marriage is ongoing unrepentant sin.
17/01/2010 12:04:58 PM
- 718 Views
God your a moron.
17/01/2010 09:10:17 PM
- 657 Views
That was remarkably unconstructive.
18/01/2010 12:13:45 AM
- 532 Views
youll have to excuse Adam, he is a Heathen, its not his fault *NM*
18/01/2010 06:26:34 AM
- 257 Views
Ad hominems w/o substance are never excusable, especially in one who knows beter: They're forfeits.
18/01/2010 06:39:33 AM
- 556 Views
<shrug> They can believe that all that they like
18/01/2010 08:07:28 PM
- 623 Views
And live accordingly. Just like everyone else.
18/01/2010 11:10:51 PM
- 632 Views
You can't use logic in an irrational argument.
17/01/2010 10:12:11 AM
- 609 Views
LOL... *NM*
18/01/2010 05:21:14 AM
- 338 Views
You and Adam are being equally unconstructive.
18/01/2010 06:21:45 AM
- 535 Views
First, I'm nothing at all like Adam.
18/01/2010 06:33:54 AM
- 597 Views
I was similarly unclear what prompted the comments, but I only needed you to elaborate a little.
18/01/2010 07:37:43 AM
- 698 Views
Not much of a friend then. Good ridance to bad friends. *NM*
17/01/2010 08:51:02 PM
- 409 Views
I agree. A friend who can't respect differences of opinion is no friend at all. *NM*
17/01/2010 09:11:33 PM
- 268 Views
seriously. *NM*
17/01/2010 10:46:17 PM
- 228 Views
Only because such sentiment is my pet peeve...condemning exclusivity is hypocritical. *NM*
19/01/2010 12:37:37 AM
- 297 Views
It forces other people to accept THEIR ideology that same sex unions are legitimate.
18/01/2010 01:49:20 AM
- 702 Views
I would assume, then, that you don't support any government-mandated health care?
18/01/2010 02:07:40 AM
- 534 Views
Correct
18/01/2010 04:29:04 AM
- 618 Views
Although I disagree with the vast majority of your arguments,
18/01/2010 08:50:09 AM
- 611 Views
Thank you.
20/01/2010 01:47:34 AM
- 761 Views
Please tell me you have a source for that quotation. Other than me.
21/01/2010 12:31:27 PM
- 621 Views
It's GK Chesterton! What the hell are you going on about?
27/01/2010 02:41:00 AM
- 500 Views
we do not exist in a free market.
18/01/2010 04:09:37 AM
- 540 Views
And that's bad. Since when has the correct response to oppression been "accept further oppression"? *NM*
18/01/2010 04:30:44 AM
- 276 Views
I am simply pointing out your arguments do not apply to the present economic environment.
18/01/2010 04:46:04 AM
- 496 Views
That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 04:19:57 AM
- 572 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 04:41:27 AM
- 593 Views
Re: That's utter nonsense.
18/01/2010 07:15:50 AM
- 660 Views
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
18/01/2010 07:49:27 AM
- 566 Views
I really dont like the idea of a black person marrying a white person
18/01/2010 06:36:26 AM
- 647 Views
That's such an amusing argument
18/01/2010 08:17:15 PM
- 536 Views
And you're fairly appalling in either pretending to misunderstand free markets or in your stupidity
27/01/2010 03:00:21 AM
- 729 Views
I'm against people with pasta based nicknames on fantasy forums *NM*
19/01/2010 03:03:31 PM
- 234 Views
cannoli is a pastry *NM*
19/01/2010 07:25:04 PM
- 213 Views
I have no problem with people with pastry based names, just pasta
21/01/2010 12:28:44 AM
- 487 Views
you acept your friends with their warts or you don't
18/01/2010 06:45:13 PM
- 643 Views
I think you missed who was the one to walk out *NM*
18/01/2010 08:01:25 PM
- 206 Views
I don't think it was that clear
18/01/2010 10:01:32 PM
- 557 Views