Flemavenger
Elf Lord Chiewn
Flemavenger
Elf Lord Chiewn
If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:
violating the Law of Agape (specifically, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9), which is at the core of Yeshua's teachings.
I love homosexuals the same way I love all my neighbors. I merely believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also love muderers, but I believe that murder is a sin.
Given this premise, I believe there is a clear distinction between considering homosexuality to be sinful and supporting the oppression of homosexuals. I hold opposition to gay marriage to be the latter.
So since I believe that homosexuality is a sin, you would claim that my opposition to gay marriage is a form of oppression. Considering that I also consider using illegal narcotics to be a sin, I suppose they could claim that by me voting to keep them illegal, I am oppressing drug addicts? By your logic, we shouldn't have laws at all.
I've got a few choice words about narcotics laws too, but that's for another debate. I have been led to believe that at least one reason behind Yeshua's new set of commandments, which are shorter, simpler, and less boring, was so that people wouldn't consistently fail at staying within the law.
By this line of thinking, fewer laws mean the people are less encumbered. Now, although divine law is ostentibly of (Hebrew National drumroll, anyone?) a higher authority, regional laws do have some consequence. Do you consider using legal narcotics to be a sin?
My question is this: since when does your appraisal of sinful acts mean secular law ought to be altered? If you think it is sinful, do not do it, but don't force the rest of us to suffer or sin.
Flemavenger
Quote:
Flemavenger
Quote:
judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).
These scriptures are subject to interpretation. Although some Christians condemn homosexuals to Hell, I do not. I feel that simply by believe homosexuality to be a sin, I am not judging anyone. If by simply believing that something is a sin I am sinning, or passing judgement, then we wouldn't be permitted to believe that anything is a sin.
While I understand how a conceptual belief might be removed from practice or action against others, I do not consider the belief in question to be accurate, or to be justification for opposing gay marriage.
And if one person is somehow harmed due to the prevalence of that belief, I consider that to be a sin.
Other Christians might harm homosexuals in the common fashion, "You are Gay therefore I condemn thee to Hell!" however I am not one of these. I merely am opposed to Gay Marriage because I consider homosexuality to be a sin, and I feel that the majority of things I consider to be sins should be illegal, wherewhich manner I shall vote. Your arguments could be used for anything that is illegal.
Perhaps they could be. I applaud you for not condemning.
If you are voting against gay marriage, I believe this to be harmful, as it is a direct action that affects others negatively.
Flemavenger
Quote:
Flemavenger
To me, this sounds like you are the one raping the Bible.
I disagree, as I am certain you expected. LDS texts and doctrine aside, I believe the bible does not support, and certainly does not explicitly dictate, the idea that homosexuality is a sin.
Actually it does in Leviticus, however most Christians no longer abide by the Mosaic Law. I feel that the scripture in Romans is abundantly clear as well that homosexuality is a "vile affection".
I consider Mosaic Law to be moot. However, I might as well mention that it only refers to man-on-man sex, and not attraction or kissing or anything else.
It also doesn't refer to lesbians, and for these reasons I do not consider it a condemnation of homosexuality.
I'll go ahead and contest that point about Romans.
Flemavenger
Quote:
Flemavenger
Quote:
raping the bible, as homosexuality is not a sin. Don't worry, we'll get to this in great detail, I'm sure. Don't even bother posting "NO UR WRONG" unless you're prepared to post verses along with your assertions.
Romans 1:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
I will stand by this scripture and I feel that Ananel's arguments against it are weak. I'm too lazy to adress his arguments in this post but I'll probably be compelled to in another post.
I'm sure we'll get into this later as well, though I believe I ought to clarify that Ananel's arguments were against common interpretations of the original text and not against the biblical text, and that I disagree with the Infallibility Doctrine. As such, I should mention that I do not consider Paul to be an exceptionally reliable source, nor do I consider his epistles, which were not written to you or me, to be especially relevant.
None of the Bible was actually written for our day. This is a major reason why our church has the Book of Mormon. The last Prophet to write in it, named Moroni, compiled it based on a vision he had where God showed him through the spirit what our day would be like. The book is far more relevant to our day than the Bible is. I actually appreciate Paul very much as a Prophet.
I think of him in a different light, but I believe some of what he wrote in his Epistles to be worthwhile.
Flemavenger
His writings are often misconstrued by mainstream Christians to claim things like "works don't matter", not understanding that Paul was speaking towards people who were trying to hold to the Mosaic Law, rather than saying works no longer matter.
I love countering that one with "faith without works is dead."
Flemavenger
Quote:
Flemavenger
Quote:
arguing against equal rights for a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you.
Though they may have offended God.
As might be reasonably expected of any man. Two wrongs do not make a right, one wrong does not make a right, and it is not the place of man to pronounce divine judgment as though he knew the mind of God.
Very true. I'm sure I'm guilty of this more often than I realize, but I feel that the world is better off with things my church considers a sin to be illegal, and this is my legal right to vote the way I choose.
I'd like to explore this. Could you elaborate as to why the illegality of what your church deems sinful causes or would cause the world to be better off?
Flemavenger
Quote:
Flemavenger
I have no rights that homosexuals do not have. I can get married, and so can they. I cannot get married to someone of my gender, and neither can they.
However, as a heterosexual, you have the legal right to marry those whom you are sexually attracted to, and those whom you desire to enter into a lifetime partnership with, whereas homosexuals are not afforded this right. This is unfair, and while it may not appear to be anti-gay at first glance, it is. Homosexuals are those most affected by this, and to the best of my knowledge there is no legal or constitutional reason why this ought to be law.
It is law because society and mainly Christianity has historically considered homosexuality to be wrong, thus they have used their legal right to vote it as such.
I consider it to be unjust, and against the foundation of not only America but of Christianity as well. Arguing that it ought to stay this way seems wrong.
Flemavenger
Anytime. Thanks for having the discussion.
Anytime.
I'm pleased with my first thread thus far.
3nodding
