Sure to cause an uproar, but hey

[EvangelicalChristian]

I TOTALLY agree! Why do you think so many Christians look at homosexuality as 'worse' and many even are pretty hateful toward homosexuals?

I'm not sure most Christians do think that.

As for their behavior, we are all humans and none of us perfect. Indeed some are hateful, but so are some who are homosexual and claim to be Christian. I don't think that straight Christians hold the patent on hate.

But I would ask you to define hate? It is not hateful for one to say "that I understand scripture to say that homosexual sex is a sin." Nor is it hateful to say that one worries about the salvation of a person who participates in homosexual sex.

I have heard both however referred to as "hateful". Indeed I have known some to claim that if you believe homosexual sex to be a sin you were not only a "hater". But also could not be considered a true Christian.

Indeed however there are hateful things uttered on this board, Unfortunately.

 

[Andreusz]

I'm not sure most Christians do think that.

Sadly, I must disagree with you. Several times in these threads, I've asked those who oppose gay marriage (because it endorses gay sex) to show me that they are also actively working to have the law changed so that straight people who have come through no-fault divorces may not legally remarry. (Matthew 19:9 makes it very clear that such remarriage is a sin.) So far, everyone has simply ignored my challenge. This suggests to me that most Christians who are happy to oppose legalization of gay unions are not worried about other forms of 'fornication'. Therefore they see homosexual sex as a worse sin than most others.

 

[KCKID]

Sadly, I must disagree with you. Several times in these threads, I've asked those who oppose gay marriage (because it endorses gay sex) to show me that they are also actively working to have the law changed so that straight people who have come through no-fault divorces may not legally remarry. (Matthew 19:9 makes it very clear that such remarriage is a sin.) So far, everyone has simply ignored my challenge. This suggests to me that most Christians who are happy to oppose legalization of gay unions are not worried about other forms of 'fornication'. Therefore they see homosexual sex as a worse sin than most others.

Andreusz, though I'm 'on your side' I must once again say that it's my understanding from the Bible that ALL second or more marriages are considered to be 'adultery' for as long as one or the other original partners remains alive. I don't see any scriptural exception whether a divorce is 'fault' or 'no-fault'. Yes, in the case of infidelity within a marriage the couple CAN 'legally' divorce; however, neither can remarry as long as both shall live. In the case of a no-fault situation, a couple cannot divorce anyway so, obviously, remarriage is out of the question. So ...a legitimate reason to divorce as in 'fault' does not give one a legitimate reason to remarry according to scripture. They are to remain single.

This gives your challenge even more strength. That is ...ANYONE that has divorced and remarried for ANY reason other than death of the original partner is committing the sin of adultery. THAT fact places many thousands (millions?) of Christians throughout the world in the precarious position of living in sin. THAT fact places many thousands (millions?) of Christians throughout the world in the precarious position of IGNORING or ACCEPTING the sins of others. Many of these people may even hold positions of authority within the church. And yet, few people bat an eye. Why?

Every once in a while we hear of a minister refusing to remarry someone but that seldom makes news. On the other hand, homosexuality has been made larger than life by the Christian Church to the exclusion of the 'adultery dilemma' - in God's eyes anyway - that affects pretty well every Christian church in the world. Obviously, many of those that accept or ignore the adulturous situations within their own and other Christian churches are at the forefront of the 'gay bashing by scripture' brigade.

Would someone 1. accept Andreusz' challenge, and 2. correct my interpretation of the scriptures WITH scriptures pertaining to divorce and remarriage if you feel that I'm wrong? I think you'll be hard pressed to do so, however.

Note. I personally have no problem with divorce and remarriage. Nor do I have a problem with homosexual unions. Neither are any of my business anyway. It's hypocrisy that I have a problem with and that IS my business.

 

[Andreusz]

Andreusz, though I'm 'on your side' I must once again say that it's my understanding from the Bible that ALL second or more marriages are considered to be 'adultery' for as long as one or the other original partners remains alive. I don't see any scriptural exception whether a divorce is 'fault' or 'no-fault'.

Hi KCKID -- nice to have someone 'on my side' -- I feel a bit beleagured here sometimes.
The reason I put 'no-fault' in these posts is Matthew 19:9:

'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery...'

It does seem to me that Jesus is saying that if you divorce your wife for fornication then you may marry again, but not in any other circumstances.

This gives your challenge even more strength.

That would be nice of course .. but it seems to me there is the exception mentioned above.

Every once in a while we hear of a minister refusing to remarry someone but that seldom makes news. On the other hand, homosexuality has been made larger than life by the Christian Church to the exclusion of the 'adultery dilemma' - in God's eyes anyway - that affects pretty well every Christian church in the world. Obviously, many of those that accept or ignore the adulturous situations within their own and other Christian churches are at the forefront of the 'gay bashing by scripture' brigade.

Exactly!

 

[KCKID]

The reason I put 'no-fault' in these posts is Matthew 19:9:

'Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery...'

It does seem to me that Jesus is saying that if you divorce your wife for fornication then you may marry again, but not in any other circumstances.

I don't know. That scripture COULD read "Whosoever shall put away (divorce) his wife and shall marry another, commmitteth adultery." The "except it be for fornication" that I omitted might simply be added there to apply to fornication as being the ONLY grounds for divorce. The reason I say this is because similar passages are found in Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18. These texts say: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." The additional "except it be for fornication" is missing from both of these texts.

Then, Romans 7:2-3 tells us: Do you not know brothers - for I am speaking to men who know the law - that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, a married woman is bound to her husband for as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man."

This issue IS a bone of contention among some Christians but there are those who find it unmistakably clear that remarriage is wrong while one's partner lives ...regardless of a 'legal' divorce. They believe that divorce does not give the right to marry again. They say that to remarry is to enter a relationship of adultery.

So . . .what do we believe?

 

[Andreusz]

I don't know. That scripture COULD read "Whosoever shall put away (divorce) his wife and shall marry another, commmitteth adultery." The "except it be for fornication" that I omitted might simply be added there to apply to fornication as being the ONLY grounds for divorce. The reason I say this is because similar passages are found in Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18. These texts say: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." The additional "except it be for fornication" is missing from both of these texts.

Okay -- if your interpretation is right, then, as you said in an earlier post, it makes my case stronger. Chistians who oppose gay marriage should also be opposing remarriage after divorce. But I don't see a hint of such opposition on websites like MassResistance, MissionAmerica, or AmericansForTruth. And as far as I know, there are no marriage-after-divorce forums on this board. I wonder why?

 

[KCKID]

Okay -- if your interpretation is right, then, as you said in an earlier post, it makes my case stronger. Chistians who oppose gay marriage should also be opposing remarriage after divorce. But I don't see a hint of such opposition on websites like MassResistance, MissionAmerica, or AmericansForTruth. And as far as I know, there are no marriage-after-divorce forums on this board. I wonder why?

I wonder why indeed ...!

The truth is ...it would cause a rift within the church like has never been witnessed before. People would be leaving their churches in droves. The issue of homosexuality would slip into eventual obscurity. At least for a while.

By the way, I notice that there haven't been too many folks biting at the bit to take up your challenge! Strange that, isn't it?

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Sadly, I must disagree with you. Several times in these threads, I've asked those who oppose gay marriage (because it endorses gay sex) to show me that they are also actively working to have the law changed so that straight people who have come through no-fault divorces may not legally remarry. (Matthew 19:9 makes it very clear that such remarriage is a sin.) So far, everyone has simply ignored my challenge. This suggests to me that most Christians who are happy to oppose legalization of gay unions are not worried about other forms of 'fornication'. Therefore they see homosexual sex as a worse sin than most others.

Well first of all you are basing your assumption about "most" Christians on a very small sampling. You do realize that there are billions of Christians in the world right?

As for "actively working to have the law changed". Why assume that everyone who opposes same-sex marriages is actively doing anything? I am far too busy working, ministering and raising a family to actively work against anything.

When and if the time comes to cast a ballot (in my state they have already passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman) I will cast it, and my vote will be based upon my conscience. Until then I'll worry about what the Lord has already put on my plate. Your logic is unreasonable. Simply because a person objects to a specific sin and works to prevent the approval of that sin by their government does not obligate the individual to attempt to prevent every sin.

With that said however I don't believe it is in the Governments purview to legislate morality beyond those actions that create victims.

 

[Andreusz]

Well first of all you are basing your assumption about "most" Christians on a very small sampling. You do realize that there are billions of Christians in the world right?

Well, several people who post in this forum, especialy those who are opposed to gay marriage, seem to be very convinced that theirs is the only true voice of Christianity.

When and if the time comes to cast a ballot (in my state they have already passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman) I will cast it, and my vote will be based upon my conscience. Until then I'll worry about what the Lord has already put on my plate. Your logic is unreasonable. Simply because a person objects to a specific sin and works to prevent the approval of that sin by their government does not obligate the individual to attempt to prevent every sin.

Some people are working actively to prevent gay marriage -- e.g. the people behind MassResistance. Why are they focusing on this 'sin', when the government has already made it possible for people to indulge in another 'sin' (remarriage after divorce) which is much more common? And I think that if people are going to vote to curtail gay people's rights, then out of consistency they should vote to curtail divorced people's rights, as the 'sins' are both forms of 'fornication'.

And why are there no threads about remarriage after divorce on this board, while a lot of people are very eager to convince others that gay marriage is wrong? I suspect it's because people pretend they hate all sins equally, while actually they have an especial hatred for homosexuality.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Well, several people who post in this forum, especialy those who are opposed to gay marriage, seem to be very convinced that theirs is the only true voice of Christianity.

Indeed

Some people are working actively to prevent gay marriage -- e.g. the people behind MassResistance. Why are they focusing on this 'sin', when the government has already made it possible for people to indulge in another 'sin' (remarriage after divorce) which is much more common?

I suppose you would have to ask them. I don't know that any of their members post here, but I suppose it's possible. But again I repeat it is a logical fallacy to assume that one must "actively oppose" all sin to justify opposing any particular sin.

And I think that if people are going to vote to curtail gay people's rights, then out of consistency they should vote to curtail divorced people's rights, as the 'sins' are both forms of 'fornication'.

And you have the right to hold that opinion. Just as others have the right to hold one different than yours.

And why are there no threads about remarriage after divorce on this board, while a lot of people are very eager to convince others that gay marriage is wrong? I suspect it's because people pretend they hate all sins equally, while actually they have an especial hatred for homosexuality.

I would guess because many feel there is little chance of preventing the remarriage of divorced persons, but they do feel there is the possibility of preventing same sex marriage.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I'm not sure most Christians do think that.

As for their behavior, we are all humans and none of us perfect. Indeed some are hateful, but so are some who are homosexual and claim to be Christian. I don't think that straight Christians hold the patent on hate.

But I would ask you to define hate? It is not hateful for one to say "that I understand scripture to say that homosexual sex is a sin." Nor is it hateful to say that one worries about the salvation of a person who participates in homosexual sex.

Is it hateful to tell an African American “I understand scripture to say that racial equality is a sin."?

it hateful to tell an African American that one worries about his/her salvation because he/she defies the word of God by pretending to be equal to whites?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Well first of all you are basing your assumption about "most" Christians on a very small sampling. You do realize that there are billions of Christians in the world right?

As for "actively working to have the law changed". Why assume that everyone who opposes same-sex marriages is actively doing anything? I am far too busy working, ministering and raising a family to actively work against anything.

When and if the time comes to cast a ballot (in my state they have already passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman) I will cast it, and my vote will be based upon my conscience. Until then I'll worry about what the Lord has already put on my plate. Your logic is unreasonable. Simply because a person objects to a specific sin and works to prevent the approval of that sin by their government does not obligate the individual to attempt to prevent every sin.

With that said however I don't believe it is in the Governments purview to legislate morality beyond those actions that create victims.

Then maybe you would respond to an activity that takes little effort. Since you are so busy.

You mark yourself as a republican. DO you support John McCain? Even though he is an adulterer? Even though after his first wife was in a car accident and in McCain’s words “gained a lot of weight” he started having sex with a woman half his age? Even though he divorced his first wife, the mother of his children, the woman who stayed faithful to him during the five years he was a POW to marry the woman he was sleeping around with?
Will you cast your ballot for an adulterer?

Or do you vote your “conscience” only when it applies to minorities?

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Then maybe you would respond to an activity that takes little effort. Since you are so busy.

You mark yourself as a republican. DO you support John McCain? Even though he is an adulterer? Even though after his first wife was in a car accident and in McCain’s words “gained a lot of weight” he started having sex with a woman half his age? Even though he divorced his first wife, the mother of his children, the woman who stayed faithful to him during the five years he was a POW to marry the woman he was sleeping around with?
Will you cast your ballot for an adulterer?

Or do you vote your “conscience” only when it applies to minorities?

Nice try but no I am not voting for McCain. Nor am I voting for Obama. I am registered Republican, but I take very seriously my vote and have been known not only to vote for 3rd party candidates but also to cross the aisle and vote Democrat.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Nice try but no I am not voting for McCain. Nor am I voting for Obama. I am registered Republican, but I take very seriously my vote and have been known not only to vote for 3rd party candidates but also to cross the aisle and vote Democrat.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Is it hateful to tell an African American “I understand scripture to say that racial equality is a sin."?

it hateful to tell an African American that one worries about his/her salvation because he/she defies the word of God by pretending to be equal to whites?

Let's be clear about this having sex is a behavior, who you have sex with, except for the case of rape, is a choice. I am not however arguing that Sexual Orientation is a choice. I believe the evidence is pretty clear that orientation is not a choice.

Race is not a choice. (Really kind of a misnomer as there really aren't different races amongst the human race) Yes I am familiar with your theory that African Americans are hated because those that hate, hate them because they pretend to be white. I just don't believe it holds up. It certainly doesn't match my experience or my education. Indeed as far as I know the most popular theory for the reason for hating different races is due to a perceived inferiority. This type of hatred would exist regardless of whether the races fought for equality or not.


And finally I would add that although the comments you ask for comment on would be made in ignorance, they do not necessarily indicate hatred. People who hate African Americans may hold those positions. But it is possible to hold those positions and have no hatred whatsoever, just ignorance.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The only think I hate in this thread is false accusations about hatred.
The key is those who are against same-sex unions are loving and for love, because God is love and God is good and one cannot please God by doing the opposite of what He wants.

 

[BigBadWlf]

The only think I hate in this thread is false accusations about hatred.

Since FundamentalistJohn wont answer my questions maybe you will:

Is it hateful to tell an African American “I understand scripture to say that racial equality is a sin."?

Is it hateful to tell an African American that one worries about his/her salvation because he/she defies the word of God by pretending to be equal to whites?

Your post would indicate that you think such behavior is not hateful at all

The key is those who are against same-sex unions are loving and for love, because God is love and God is good and one cannot please God by doing the opposite of what He wants.

Can’t the same claim be made about racists. That is is loving of them to be against civil rights and for Jim Crow? That it is out of love that they fought for segregating and fought to keep lynching legal? after all racists are only follwoing God's law.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Actaully most Christians dont look at homosexual practice as a worse sin, this is usually a claim made by those who support homosexual unions.

Says the guy with thousands of anti-homosexual posts, and none condemning rape, theft, idolatry etc, etc...

If all sins are equal, why so much concentration on this particular one?

 

[KCKID]

Says the guy with thousands of anti-homosexual posts, and none condemning rape, theft, idolatry etc, etc...

If all sins are equal, why so much concentration on this particular one?

There's an obsession with sex and homosexuality that defies reason ...particularly if one is a Christian it would seem. The first thing a Christian thinks when they hear the word 'homosexual' is 'sex'. And, they can't shake the thought of equating one with the other. 'They' probably even picture it in their mind. Two homosexuals are not together because they are in love, they are together solely for sex. I mean, we all know this. Two heterosexuals, however, choose to be together for 'love' ...even if it be 'adulteress love'. Adultery is generally associated with heterosexuals so that immediately lessens the 'sin value' of such a relationship. And, 'they' probably DON'T picture this in their minds at all.

If you hadn't noticed, it's a strange and an illogical world we live in. Don't attempt to make too much sense out of it.

 

[FundamentalistJohn]

Since FundamentalistJohn wont answer my questions maybe you will:

I did answer your question, immediately above the post I am quoting here.

My answer is basically these comments could be used by people who hate African Americans but they could just as easily be used by people who are simply ignorant. Being ignorant may not be pretty, but it sure isn't hateful. So without knowing the context and the person using the comments it is impossible to say that the comments are or are not hateful.

I also pointed out that there is a difference between a behavior (the choice of who and what type a sex a person has) and race. I also discounted your belief that people hate African Americans because they think they are equal, most Sociological studies I have read on the issue come to the conclusion that the hatred is based on a perceived inferiority. These studies also agree with my own personal experience. So I will accept them as accurate unless overwhelming evidence can be presented to prove otherwise.

I would also like to make it clear that I believe there is overwhelming evidence that homosexual orientation is not a choice one makes.

I think that pretty much covers my answer. Just because you don't like the answer don't claim that one wasn't given.