If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

This thread is a rebirth of AcidSniper's "Being against gay marriage makes you a bad Christian" thread. This is also my supported opinion.

Reader beware: this post houses mature concepts, and this thread houses otherwise mature content. The images may be PG-13, but the words are adult in nature.

Updated: April 12, 2007
Updated: April 4, 2009 (see bottom of first post for hell discussion update/concession)

If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:

• likely 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.
  
  
• judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).
  
  
• inaccurately referencing the bible and making a false case, 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. If you do, do not expect to be taken seriously.
  
  
• arguing against rights which would clearly benefit a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you. Only recognizing heterosexual unions means that homosexuals will be hurt. I wouldn't want to have to marry someone I didn't love and wasn't attracted to in order to get those nifty things like tax writeoffs, health care, adoption rights, and the dignity of legal marriage, which carries great social meaning.
  
  
• likely making a grievous error. Legal and Judaic marriage are distinct and not to be confused with one another. "To protect marriage" is not a valid reason for voting for a ban on gay marriage, as the two have nothing to do with one another. Nothing is threatened - legal or Judaic - and nobody is trying to force your church to marry gay people. Honestly, nobody cares about your particular church. If you think the rest of us do, I suggest you get over yourselves. Religious considerations have little to do with societal ones. (Especially for a bunch of Goyim. ;P)
  
  If your church dictates how you should vote, you should rethink not only your adherence to but your membership concerning a power-obsessed organization. There is strong canonical evidence (e.g., Matthew 22:21) as well as strong social evidence (e.g., the subjugation of the Gnostics, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Puritannical witch hunts) affirming the necessity of a clear line between the two.
  

You may also be under the misconceptions that marriage is a purely Christian term, or that Christian marriage is a church affair. Both are false, as marriage is a legal term, and does not mean "Christian partnership" or any other such nonsense, and marriage in the biblical sense consists of two people getting to know one another in the biblical sense, and sticking around to spend the rest of their lives with one another afterward.

There was not even a Greek or Hebrew word for homosexuality in biblical times, and just because it is used in popular mistranslations does not make it an actual part of the bible. Every word taken to mean "homosexuality" has either been twisted or misconstrued in a way that cannot reasonably be considered to be definitive.

Additionally, before you start citing Leviticus, the Mosaic Law is moot according to Acts (the Council of Jerusalem), Galatians (Paul), and Collossians 2 (Paul). If these three references are in any way correct, the Old Law no longer applies, and certainly not to non-Jews. Were your ancestors enslaved in Egypt? Did they wander in the desert? Did they do dumb things with a golden idol? Because if not, there isn't even the beginning of a case for the continuity of Mosaic Law.

And before you start quoting Romans 1, read the second post. Also, do the world a favor and note that God is the one causing people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily in retribution for the same people ignoring God.

Please observe the forum rules and subforum rules at all times.

Discussion update (4-4-2009), with little bearing on the above points: Conceding to TNG that a form of Hell is a potentially valid concept within the canon in light of Revelation (see: limne pur/lake of fire/crazy ramblings of some John person). I think we're agreed on a general distaste for Revelation as canon-worthy material.

Personally, I've never given Revelation much in the way of merit; I'm sure some new hell discussion thread will be spawned at some point. Let's hope it originates/remains in M&R this time and is suitable for public consumption.

[Elf Lord Chiewn]

This needs to be posted for reference.

Ananel

We should cover a few things first:
1) I am Christian. No matter what you think of my views below, I am a firm believer in the salvation of Christ and have been for almost all of my life.
2) I believe in the original inerrancy of Holy Scripture. In other words, God divinely inspired the apostles and prophets in the writing of the Bible, His chosen words written through their hand. I don’t feel, however, that this also means that X translation is divinely inspired. What was promised was the original Word of God. We have since kept it as well as possible, though imperfections do occur.
3) I can, though with some difficulty, read Greek and Hebrew. Much of my commentary will use words from the original language, so be prepared for this.

Now, let me summarize this argument, because the argument itself will take pages of material even at its most basic. I will post the details of the argument in future postings if necessary, assuming that I am permitted to continue to do so.

A) The Ceremonial Law of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy no longer applies. Because of what is written in the book of Galatians and Paul’s writings in the second chapter of Colossians, we have clear declarations that the ceremonial law is now in the field of Christian liberty. Paul uses a variety of examples to declare this and lists several portions of the law, following with the declaration that all of it was nailed to the Cross and has been removed. This belief is backed up further by the book of Romans and the speeches at the council of Jerusalem in Acts (Chapter 15), along with selected sayings by Christ concerning ceremonial practice. If we decide to pick and choose portions of the ceremonial law to continue in observance as God’s will without clear relation of those parts to the commandments of God referenced in Romans, James and Revelations, then we place ourselves in danger of the ban of Galatians 1:8.

If this is the case, and most of you will find that your pastors will agree with this, unless you are members of the Seventh-day Adventist or similar denominations, then we have a big problem in the debate of homosexual sex as a sin. The problem is simple: The two clearest declarations of homosexual sex as a sin in the Bible are found in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus. If the ceremonial law no longer applies, then neither do these.

B) Sodom and Gomorrah do not pertain to homosexual sex, and the same can be said of the related story in Judges. The sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are clearly huge. Have you ever seen a city in your lives where the whole male population tried to batter down doors so that they could gang rape guests to the city? I apologize for being so blunt and almost crude, but the point is not a pleasant one, and neither is the story. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful beyond our understanding. These were foul places where such extreme forms of rape were accepted and where the closest thing to a righteous man offers up his daughters to their lusts. Further, the issue also comes up that this is a story more about the complete lack of hospitality and the brutality of the citizens. It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex.

(Note: Ezekiel 16 is the passage which refers to the sins of Sodom/Gomorrah)

C) The argument of creation (God created them Adam and Eve, so they are meant to be complimentary) suffers from a massive weakness. In chapter three of Genesis, we are told why a man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with the woman that he loves. We are told similar things in chapter five of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. However, neither passage declares that this must be the only thing. Paul also speaks elsewhere of the joys of celibacy. This indicates that marriage is not required. Without proof that homosexual sex is considered a sin, there is no reason to automatically assume that “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” is actually said in Scripture. The passages only say why heterosexual marriages occur, not that they must be the only ones.

In fact, an important point must be made. Scripture speaks clearly about the need to save sex for marriage. If the Bible has not declared homosexual sex or marriage as sinful, then we have done a vast disservice in refusing homosexual couples the right to marriage. We are, in effect, trying to force them into sinful relationships out-of-wedlock.

D) There are three passages that may speak on homosexual sex in the New Testament. Two are lists of sins, found in chapter six of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians and chapter one of his first letter to Timothy. The third, and most important, passage is found in the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans.

1) The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That’s all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the ‘bottom’ partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul’s letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the ‘top’ partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one’s neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.

2) Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.

Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one’s innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was ‘on bottom.’ Such a position degrades the citizen’s status and was considered to be a horrible thing.

Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that “shameful lusts” meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman’s understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.

Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.

My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments both for and against this.

My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don’t argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?

No. I don't think it's wrong, and I'll be happy to stand on Scripture to that effect.

[Lysia]

Posting in a legendary...


Naw, I won't go there.

[Judas L. Blackthorn]

Elf Lord Chiewn

Okay ladies and germs, this thread is a rebirth of the "Being against gay marriage makes you a bad Christian" thread. This is also my supported opinion.

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.
  
• judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).
  
• 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.
  
• arguing against equal rights for a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you.
  

You may also be under the misconceptions that marriage is a purely Christian term, or that Christian marriage is a church affair. Both are false, as marriage is a legal term, and does not mean "Christian partnership" or any other such nonsense, and marriage in the biblical sense consists of two people getting to know one another in the biblical sense, and sticking around to spend the rest of their lives with one another afterward.

There was not even a Greek or Hebrew word for homosexuality in biblical times, and just because it is used in popular mistranslations does not make it an actual part of the bible. Every word taken to mean "homosexuality" has either been twisted or misconstrued in a way that cannot reasonably be considered to be definitive.

Additionally, before you start citing Leviticus, the Mosaic Law is moot according to Yeshua. If Christianity is in any way correct, the Old Law no longer applies, and certainly not to non-Jews. Were your ancestors enslaved in Egypt? Did they wander in the desert? Did they do dumb things with a golden idol? Because if not, there isn't even the beginning of a case for the continuity of Mosaic Law.

Please observe the forum rules and subforum rules at all times.

I'm a bad Christian, but a good Satanist :-O

I'm against Gay Marriage and I'm all for protecting the sanctity of marriage.
As long as I have the right to vote, my vote will always be "NO"!

[Solon Lawgiver of Athens]

Judas L. Blackthorn

Elf Lord Chiewn

Okay ladies and germs, this thread is a rebirth of the "Being against gay marriage makes you a bad Christian" thread. This is also my supported opinion.

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.
  
• judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).
  
• 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.
  
• arguing against equal rights for a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you.
  

You may also be under the misconceptions that marriage is a purely Christian term, or that Christian marriage is a church affair. Both are false, as marriage is a legal term, and does not mean "Christian partnership" or any other such nonsense, and marriage in the biblical sense consists of two people getting to know one another in the biblical sense, and sticking around to spend the rest of their lives with one another afterward.

There was not even a Greek or Hebrew word for homosexuality in biblical times, and just because it is used in popular mistranslations does not make it an actual part of the bible. Every word taken to mean "homosexuality" has either been twisted or misconstrued in a way that cannot reasonably be considered to be definitive.

Additionally, before you start citing Leviticus, the Mosaic Law is moot according to Yeshua. If Christianity is in any way correct, the Old Law no longer applies, and certainly not to non-Jews. Were your ancestors enslaved in Egypt? Did they wander in the desert? Did they do dumb things with a golden idol? Because if not, there isn't even the beginning of a case for the continuity of Mosaic Law.

Please observe the forum rules and subforum rules at all times.

I'm a bad Christian, but a good Satanist :-O

I'm against Gay Marriage and I'm all for protecting the sanctity of marriage.
As long as I have the right to vote, my vote will always be "NO"!

no? one gay marriage?
based on what evidence?
prove that gay marraige invalidates the sanctity of marriage and you have a point. until then this is all hogwash.

[AciDSniper]

Judas L. Blackthorn

I'm a bad Christian, but a good Satanist :-O

I'm against Gay Marriage and I'm all for protecting the sanctity of marriage.
As long as I have the right to vote, my vote will always be "NO"!

Interesting, could you expand upon your reasoning?

[O n y x]

I think all of those are really good points, and it's really good of you to spread the word around. The thing is, is that there are a lot of people who disagree with homosexuality who aren't even Christian at all, they can't understand how someone can be attracted to the same sex...And then there are many who are Christians who diagree with homosexuality but not necessarily because they are Christian, they just don't like the idea of it, and will probably use Christianity as an excuse. So you can see how there is a high population of people who disagree with gay marriages, and this population may be Christian but that might not be the real reason behind it. Of course, I'm not speaking for everyone.

But anyway, I don't think it's for me or you to judge whether someone is a bad Christian based on a belief like that.

[ty_ping]

Yanno there`s that topic that marshal has that`s kind of getting into this because it`s quite broad...

Anyway...
*Shakes Elf*
WHY FOR ARE YOU NOT QUITE MY AWSOMESAUCE? HUH?

gah suxk

anyway Agreed agreed and agreed. Albit Ananel`s thesis could use an update since parts of it have been gone over and Ananel as ceeded a few points.

[RonnieRoswell]

I may not agree with it but at the same time I am not going to judge a person for it. If they want to be gay, then I say let them by all means but at the same time I don't agree.

[IceDust3]

So I agree with most of the stuff that you said, but are you not judging your fellow man right now by calling them a bad Christian? Gay is gay we all have something that is untrue about are selves...and no one on this earth can 'cast the first stone' either way...but others see things quite differently and are entitled to ...based on the teaching and beliefs...

that was a mouth-full...sorry for the ramble sweatdrop

[jaden kendam]

IceDust3

Gay is gay we all have something that is untrue about are selves...:

Prove that being gay is untrue. Also, what the heck do you mean by untrue?

[Calmer]

You don't seem to distinguish between marriage as a legal term and a social construct, and the Christian form of marriage as a religious term and construct. Or are you saying that some of the vows taken within many Christian marital situations (including, I believe, that God blesses the union, and the relationship created between God and the couple) are just made up by the pastors? Are you going to address, for example, its position as a Sacrament, in the case of the Catholic Church?

Although some Christians do wish for non-heterosexual unions to be prevented from happening altogether in their countries (and therefore refer to marriage as a 'Christian institution' hence the straw man), there's a lot more concern about the types of marriage allowed within their denomination.

It would, after all, be ridiculous to put Churches in a position where they must bless marriages that their religions do not approve of, be they remarriages of legally (but not religiously) divorced Christians, or of non-heterosexual nature.

(edited for clarification)

[bluewolfcub]

RonnieRoswell

If they want to be gay, then I say let them by all means but at the same time I don't agree.

People don't generally WANT to be gay unless they're emo attention whores.
So... your point kinda doesn't work

[Morluna]

I'm glad to see this is back.