Religious/Political Question

[kg_veteran]

Sturm, you're dodging an honest discussion of the issue at hand.

You can't point to ANY instance where the Bible approves of or condones homosexuality. All you can do is attempt to undermine the authority of the Bible itself.

And while we're talking about the authority of the Bible, there is a big difference between reading the Bible with an understanding of historical context so that you can fully understand the message of the Bible and trying to "interpret" the Bible to fit what you want it to say. There's also a big difference between interpreting the Bible as a whole (e.g., how Old Testament laws apply today in light of what the New Testament says) and writing off parts of the Bible you just don't want to accept.

[sturm und drang]

KG wrote:

"And while we're talking about the authority of the Bible, there is a big difference between reading the Bible with an understanding of historical context so that you can fully understand the message of the Bible and trying to "interpret" the Bible to fit what you want it to say."

KG, then what about the historical context of homosexuality? When Paul wrote to condemn it, "there were no homosexual relationships, only homosexual acts committed by force, by rank, by ownership of slaves as property, or by lustful abandon that itself abandoned God. The only homosexuality Paul knew was exploitation and debauchery. When he condemns “degrading passions,” he’s talking about compulsions so powerful they deny God. He’s talking about emotional idolatry. As Paul puts in the immediately preceding verse: “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!” The sin is idolatry, not homosexuality. Paul had no idea—he had no basis for knowing—that people of the same gender could love each other and God, that they could bind themselves each to the other as faithfully, as devoutly, as tenderly as anyone."

So just as you interpret his support of slavery in context of historical times – which the both of us do – so should you interpret the condemnation of homosexuality.

I'm not dodging an "honest discussion of the issue at hand." I believe that the Bible should be read contextually. I believe that it is very much a product of its times. Obviously, the Bible doesn't explicitly condone or promote homosexuality; the Bible (specifically the OT) spends a lot more time dwelling on the don'ts than the do's. However, I think the scant - and they are scant indeed - passages that refer to homosexuality should all be read in context of the realities of the time. Why should we justify Paul's slavery advocacy in terms of the contemporary situation, but not homosexuality? I believe that the "sin" of homosexuality must be viewed through the lens described above – and that, as such, the real sin against god is that of idolatry. Phillip Yancey's excellent book "What's So Amazing About Grace?" (a book that won the Gold Medallion Christian Book of the Year Award in 1998) delves into this idea even further.

[sike]

The only homosexuality Paul knew was exploitation and debauchery.

stop for a second. do you really believe this? If you do, let me tell you that you have just discredited one of the greatest minds of all time. Do you really want us to believe that the man who was trained by the renounded Gamaliel and who wrote most of the New Testament was completely unaware of Greek culture? Come now, lets be a little more reasonable than to make Paul so ignorant.

[u2sarajevo]

You wrote:
"there were no homosexual relationships, only homosexual acts committed by force, by rank, by ownership of slaves as property, or by lustful abandon that itself abandoned God. The only homosexuality Paul knew was exploitation and debauchery. When he condemns “degrading passions,” he’s talking about compulsions so powerful they deny God. He’s talking about emotional idolatry. As Paul puts in the immediately preceding verse: “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!” The sin is idolatry, not homosexuality. Paul had no idea—he had no basis for knowing—that people of the same gender could love each other and God, that they could bind themselves each to the other as faithfully, as devoutly, as tenderly as anyone."

So you are saying, at one point in History, no one was born homosexual but somewhere over time that changed? Doesn't that lead credence to the argument that homosexuality is not genetic? Or was it a cause of mutated gene's? How would you explain that?

And also, if the Bible is a "product of its times" and it should be read "contextually" would it be okay in Gods eyes to forgo the sacraments if you thought time has passed and made it useless?

It is my belief that in time society accepts changes. It is also my belief that God's will has never wavered. And the Bible is the word of God, therefore the words written in it are true and do not waver.

[kg_veteran]

When Paul wrote to condemn it, "there were no homosexual relationships, only homosexual acts committed by force, by rank, by ownership of slaves as property, or by lustful abandon that itself abandoned God. The only homosexuality Paul knew was exploitation and debauchery.

I know you pulled this statement from the article you posted, but it doesn't comport with reality.

From Wikipedia, for example:

The earliest western documents concerning homosexual relationships come from Ancient Greece, where same-sex relationships were a societal norm, valued for their pedagogic benefits and as a means of population control.

Thus, I am quite certain, applying the correct historical context, that Paul was aware that homosexual relationships existed.

And you still haven't addressed what Jesus said. He defined marriage as a heterosexual relationship, and he condemned sexual activity outside of the marital relationship.

[sturm und drang]

Paul did know of Greek customs - and, of course, homosexuality was a behaviour, not a relationship. Master/slave. Often forced. They were extra-marital and debauched. They were anything but real, loving, equa relationships. As such, they were, as we have all no doubt read, a celebration of carnal pleasures.

With this in mind, can you contextually read a condemnation of homosexuality as idolatry, as placing corporeal needs before God? Is that what Paul is damning? Gluttony, for example, is set forth as a sin - and discussed much more frequently than homosexuality. But do we think that the true sin was being fat? Or is it placing a corporeal need before God - again, idolatry? Is that what the Bible meant? With gluttony, I believe it is so. Again, if we interpret gluttony (a mortal sin, unlike homosexuality) contextually – why not homosexuality?

I'm not being flippant. I'm interested to hear your answer to the above question.

[sike]

Paul did know of Greek customs - and, of course, homosexuality was a behaviour, not a relationship.

you are speaking with certainty things you cannot possibly know. You are too intelligent to try to posit such rediculous argument.

They were extra-marital and debauched.

I see...what a convenient argument for you.

They were anything but real, loving, equa relationships. As such, they were, as we have all no doubt read, a celebration of carnal pleasures.

so you are telling me that the only kind of homosexuality that existed was purely lust based. You know, I think we agree.

With this in mind

whoa...you say this like you've just made a truth statement...I don't think we have any need to answer the following questions until you prove your point and not merely assume it. To be honest, you have no clue as to what Paul knew or did not know...so lets stay away from absolute statemetns that seem to claim such knowledge.

can you contextually read a condemnation of homosexuality as idolatry, as placing corporeal needs before God?

let me do you a favor...you can remove the word "corporeal" and still have idolatry. To my understand, ANYTHING placed before God is an idol.

Gluttony, for example, is set forth as a sin - and discussed much more frequently than homosexuality.

once again you cannot address the issue directly so you turn to argument via comparison. Do you know that gluttony is "discussed much more frequently than homosexuality", or are you just making a random statement to help your point? Again, please note the many verses on gluttony for us.

from what I've heard, and I'm around theologicaly institutions all the time, the best argument for gluttony as a sin is the "poor stewardship" issue. It is probably unwise to compare two sins(gluttony and sexual impurity either homo or hetro) when the Bible does not do so. When we do this, we immediately step off solid ground and into the realm of pure speculation and conjecture. Which I might add he the only place your argument leaves you.

as to gluttony, there are no verses known to me that imply gluttony leads to a Christless eternity...there are however such verses for those who persist to live in sexual impurity...notice to me it is not just a homosexuality issue, its a sexual issue.

and just to be very clear, people are not reprobate and headed to Hell because they are homosexual, they are reprobate and headed to Hell because they refuse the truth of Christ and His kingdom. People do not go to Hell because they do bad stuff...people go to Hell because they know Him not. (Matthew 7:21) Homosexuals do not go to Hell because of the specific sex act they partake in any more than Adolf Hitler is in Hell right now because of his horrible acts...People spend eternity in Hell not for the stuff they did, but because of the Person (Christ) they rejected. Hell will be full of people who never killed, raped, or robbed banks...

Once again it takes more than claiming to be a "Christian" to actually be one... The Bible states this cearly in James 2

[mavsman55]

Just answer me this sturm: You want gay people to be able to marry, becuase it is a violation of one's rights if he isn't able to marry one he loves, right?

[MavKikiNYC]

I can barely contain a righteous anger when I read some of the condescending, patronizing, pharisiac, faux-piety masquerading as theological certainty in this thread.

[XERXES]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
I can barely contain a righteous anger when I read some of the condescending, patronizing, pharisiac, faux-piety masquerading as theological certainty in this thread.

Actually, Kiki I would argue it is much more pharisaic to try to make God maleable to your values and lifestyle than to make your values and lifestyle maleable to God.

I know which side of this arguement you are on - and I respect that. We (I don't mean to be preseumptuous when I say "we") are simply saying that suggesting God condones homosexuality is an uninformed opinion.

[sturm und drang]

XERXES wrote:

"We (I don't mean to be preseumptuous when I say "we") are simply saying that suggesting God condones homosexuality is an uninformed opinion."

You can disagree with me all you want. I respect that.

But to call me uninformed is condescending and simply untrue. There are entire denominations – millions upon millions of devout, God-knowing Christians – who view this issue the same way I do.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: XERXES

Actually, Kiki I would argue it is much more pharisaic to try to make God maleable to your values and lifestyle than to make your values and lifestyle maleable to God.

I know which side of this arguement you are on - and I respect that. We (I don't mean to be preseumptuous when I say "we") are simply saying that suggesting God condones homosexuality is an uninformed opinion.

I'm making a conscious, deliberate effort to avoid getting into a tit-for-tat with anyone, particularly on this issue. It just spoils any kind of good holiday buzz (you know--peace, fellowship, goodwill toward fellow men, yada, yada, yada) that I can work up.

But two things to consider:

1) Check the definition of pharisaic and re-consider to whom it more aptly applies.

2) Consider the irony of having James Dean (documentedly bisexual) as your avatar.

[kg_veteran]

Kiki - I'm surprised you HAVEN'T gotten involved in this debate, and honestly it'd be nice to hear your point of view. That said, I really don't see how you can claim that anyone is being hypocritically self-righteous (pharasaical). No one is exalting themselves as righteous. We're simply talking about what the Bible (and Jesus) says about homosexuality. It's not pharasaical to tell the truth.

[mercury_rev]

A couple of years back, I got into an amicable debate with a philosophy student of mine on the doctrine of the Trinity. I argued that the Trinity is a contradiction of numerical identity, that it's impossible for the same being to be both one entity and three entities. He replied that logic can't apply to mysteries of faith such as the Trinity.

His final reply was sincere - and illustrative. I assume that many Christians subscribe to tenets that they believe defy ordinary canons of logic. I also assume that the same faith-based commitment leads many Christians to interpret Scripture as an infallible text capturing the word of God. But if Scripture's infallibility is a matter of faith, where does that leave those who don't share that faith?

More to the point: where does one draw the line between using Scripture to dictate personal mores and using Scripture to dictate political principles? Since we live in a pluralistic society, one person's "extralogical" source of faith often conflicts with another person's "heretical" beliefs. These conflicts can't remain safely ensconced in seminar rooms (or seminaries). They touch on real-world issues as diverse as abortion, ecology, distributive justice, gay marriage, etc.

Given this deep disagreement, how do we settle our disputes on the political level?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Paul did know of Greek customs - and, of course, homosexuality was a behaviour, not a relationship. Master/slave. Often forced. They were extra-marital and debauched. They were anything but real, loving, equa relationships. As such, they were, as we have all no doubt read, a celebration of carnal pleasures.

I disagree. Most relationships were pederastic (an older man and a younger man), but some had mature male mates. Either way, they were relationships and not just "behavior".

I'm still curious to hear you reconcile what Jesus said about marriage and sexuality with your views.

[Murphy3]

Given this deep disagreement, how do we settle our disputes on the political level?

Madape has a good suggestion.

[kg_veteran]

Given this deep disagreement, how do we settle our disputes on the political level?

That's pretty simple. We all try to elect candidates who reflect (and will vote according to) our beliefs.

[mercury_rev]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

That's pretty simple. We all try to elect candidates who reflect (and will vote according to) our beliefs.

Ah, but that's not so simple. "We" disagree on some pretty fundamental issues. That's the rub. The hope is that we CAN agree on enough issues to get along with each other as fellow citizens, if not as fellow humans.

[kg_veteran]

You asked how we settle our disputes on a political level. We have a representative form of government. Everyone has values which they want to see reflected in our laws. To pass laws, a majority of representatives have to vote for them. Thus, it is that simple. If you want laws passed which reflect your values, you should vote for the person that you think will pass those laws.

[mercury_rev]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
You asked how we settle our disputes on a political level. We have a representative form of government. Everyone has values which they want to see reflected in our laws. To pass laws, a majority of representatives have to vote for them. Thus, it is that simple. If you want laws passed which reflect your values, you should vote for the person that you think will pass those laws.

Of course that's the political mechanism. Representative democracy is our decision procedure. Sadly, the level of debate informing the values that feed into that decision procedure often stall at the level of "well, it's my faith and you should believe likewise."

Perhaps I was unclear above.

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: mercury_rev

Given this deep disagreement, how do we settle our disputes on the political level?

The guy I work for is a gay man who is also pretty activist when it comes to gay causes. (He's also a strong Republican, for what it's worth.)

He belongs to the Cathedral of Hope here in Dallas, which by my understanding is the largest gay church in the US. Recently he shared with me a letter he wrote to the pastor of that church and to the local gay/lesbian newspaper. The letter was about some contradictory feelings he had when he watched the recent Gay Pride parade.

Many of the paradegoers carried signs, and a common theme in their signs was "tolerance"--gays believe that fundamental Christians are being intolerant to their lifestyle. But then he also noticed their behavior: agressive, insistent, even belligerent. It struck him that these people, the very ones demanding tolerance, were themselves being intolerant of others' deeply held views.

His recommendation was that instead of 'going all the way' in pushing for legal gay marriage, gay groups should take it one step at a time and push for universal civil unions, which provide for virtually all the same legal benefits as marriage, just without that sacred label.

Allowing civil unions seems to be something that the mainstream is willing to do. If gay groups could be satisfied with this, then perhaps this issue could be settled for the time being and all parties can feel good about things. In another ten years or so, the mainstream might be ready to accept gay marriage.

Made sense to me.

[kg_veteran]

Sadly, the level of debate informing the values that feed into that decision procedure often stall at the level of "well, it's my faith and you should believe likewise."

I see what you're saying. However, in this case, the discussion in this particular thread ended up being, "What does the Bible say about homosexuality?" That ends up being a somewhat objective topic.

[XERXES]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

I see what you're saying. However, in this case, the discussion in this particular thread ended up being, "What does the Bible say about homosexuality?" That ends up being a somewhat objective topic.

Exactly.

[sike]

Originally posted by: mercury_rev
A couple of years back, I got into an amicable debate with a philosophy student of mine on the doctrine of the Trinity. I argued that the Trinity is a contradiction of numerical identity, that it's impossible for the same being to be both one entity and three entities. He replied that logic can't apply to mysteries of faith such as the Trinity.

I think its wonderful that our little family here is D-M is so diverse...Rev, are you a college Phil. prof? I would have to say that I disagree with both you and your student in regards to the Holy Trinity. Though your argument is the one used by Muslims to point out their preceived inconsistancy in the Christian God. Now as any good philosophy teacher knows, to have a real discussion we would have to spend far too long defining our terms when we use such words as "entities" etc. I would of course disagree with the comment that the Trinity is , to use your own words, a "contradiction of numerical identity" on the basis that our God is one. All we have in Scripture makes this truth evident. As mentioned before, the Muslims look at this doctrine and confuse it as polytheism but verses such as Deuteronomy 6:4 show that the Jewish and Christian God is not seperated but rather "is one". This is off topic but if you wish we could discuss it more detail via pm.

His final reply was sincere - and illustrative.

...and I would add "unfortunate". Though I understand the young man's desire to defend his faith, he may not have given enough thought to the question at hand. Now I don't know if you are a pre-modern, modern, or postmodern philosopher, Rev, but from these comments, it sounds as if you are fairly modern: "I assume that many Christians subscribe to tenets that they believe defy ordinary canons of logic. " It sounds to me as if you believe in the absolute truth of logic, am I mistaken? More to the point, If God is the creator of all things (someone/thing had to get this stuff there right? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] ), then He is certainly the God of logic as well. Though I am not so quick to appeal to mystery as your student, I am fairly certain that God works in the realm of the logically consistant. And that He Himself IS the being that perfect logic springs from. Though I in no way argue that man has to comprehind the outworkings of his logic, just like children do not understand the logic of advanced mathematics, I do believe that in His eternal mind all things make perfect sense. He is not, as some more radical theologians would say, a "God of confusion" or chaos.

I assume that many Christians subscribe to tenets that they believe defy ordinary canons of logic.

not this one, as stated before just because something is not understood does not make it illogical.

I also assume that the same faith-based commitment leads many Christians to interpret Scripture as an infallible text capturing the word of God.

actually the Bible claims this for itself: 2 Timothy 3:16. We either choose to belive its claim or not.

But if Scripture's infallibility is a matter of faith, where does that leave those who don't share that faith?

it leaves them lost without personal relationship to God.

More to the point: where does one draw the line between using Scripture to dictate personal mores and using Scripture to dictate political principles?

For me, and most followers of Christ, thier personal convictions and their political principles flow from the same source: their interpretation of Christ's word.

Since we live in a pluralistic society, one person's "extralogical" source of faith often conflicts with another person's "heretical" beliefs.

Once again, I might say that I do not believe my self or my beliefs to in any way illogical or "extralogical"...fantastic though they be, I believe them to be the truth.

These conflicts can't remain safely ensconced in seminar rooms (or seminaries). They touch on real-world issues as diverse as abortion, ecology, distributive justice, gay marriage, etc.

I believe personally, that the convictions of the mind are worthless if they only stay in the classroom and do not touch the real world. As a follower of Christ, it is easily understood that he wanted us to take his "good news" to every corner of the "real world".

Given this deep disagreement, how do we settle our disputes on the political level?

as kg said, we vote for those who represent our beliefs most closely.

[sike]

Rev said: The hope is that we CAN agree on enough issues to get along with each other as fellow citizens, if not as fellow humans.

Not that the church has done a good job of this, but if we agree or not should not be the issue for Christians...we are commanded to love all. Not to agree with all, but to love. Sadly and admittedly, the church has often forgotten this.

[chumdawg]

not this one, as stated before just because something is not understood does not make it illogical.

But one problem with this. Isn't it clear that the bible is an attempt to teach? Isn't that the whole point? And doesn't it use logic itself in its teachings?

So the question would be: why make an attempt to teach someone something that he can never understand? Further, why create a species without the ability to comprehend certain things, and then try to teach them those very things?

Why are we so quick to explain things away with something like "man does not have to comprehend the outworkings of God's logic"? Because if that's the case--if there are things that are just too subtle for us to ever grasp--then as far as we know we could be missing the ENTIRE boat, now couldn't we? Through our inability to appreciate the "outworkings," we could be interpreting this whole thing the wrong way, in our underdeveloped minds, could we not?

[u2sarajevo]

Chum: There are two things at play in your questions you raised....

1. What sike was referring to was the Triune God that is composed of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost.

2. The laws set forth in the New and Old Testament are not beyond our capability to comprehend.

[chumdawg]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo

2. The laws set forth in the New and Old Testament are not beyond our capability to comprehend.

So it would be the source of authority behind those laws that may be beyond our capability to comprehend?

[u2sarajevo]

I guess. Although I don't find it difficult comprehending the "source". The "source" being the Triune God.

[chumdawg]

I'm just trying to figure out where the dividing line is between accepting theological arguments on the basis of their logic (we know God created this all because it had to get here somewhere, right?) and accepting them for what they are on the basis that, like a child faced with understanding advanced mathematics, our knowledge of logic won't suffice in this case.

[sike]

First off let me remind you that I did say that God is a being who by His vary nature is logical...some might even say "IS LOGIC", but I digress..

So the question would be: why make an attempt to teach someone something that he can never understand?

I'm not sure I agree with this thought. The Bible as far as I can tell is a very logical book filled with very logical commands and teachings...you want something illogical, go read Derrida [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Further, why create a species without the ability to comprehend certain things, and then try to teach them those very things?

I don't see this happening in the Bible either. My comment before was based upon the nature of God...which God Himself does not fully explain. Ancient philolophers (and many theologians) often thought of God as an unknowable force, who is only revealed or comprehinded at His own choosing. When you tell a Child that 12 x 12 = 144 they do not comprehind its logic, but it is still perfectly true. It is my belief that most of the person and nature of the infinite God is unknown to us, we know only what He has choosen to reveal. And from what I can tell, it is all logical. But does the fact that I, finite as I am, cannot comprehind the depths of God make Him somehow illogical? Not any more than toddler cannot comprehind 12 x 12 = 144. I use this silly mathematical illustration because I can remember a time that I did not know 12 x 12 = 144, but I do now and in the same way, I believe I will one day know much more about my God.

Why are we so quick to explain things away with something like "man does not have to comprehend the outworkings of God's logic"?

simply because He is higher than we are. We will not understand all His ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). Just like I would not comprehind a round table discussion on advacded nuclear dynamics or like American Indians thought that firearms were magic of the white man or like most every alien movie where the aliens have super advanced technology...its not understood because it is beyond the hearers level of understanding. My limits do not make anything said at the science geek round table untrue...they simply point out my limits. It is perfectly logical to believe that God, if eternal and infinite, will not be fully understood by we the temporal and finite.

Because if that's the case--if there are things that are just too subtle for us to ever grasp--then as far as we know we could be missing the ENTIRE boat, now couldn't we?

except its very much like a teacher of advanced mathematics stooping down to teach a child the truth of 2+2=4. Though the teacher could easily go beyond the understanding of the child, he believes that it is important to take his time to explain truth in a way the child can understand. You are definitely correct, chum, when you say that some get it wrong, but that is not because it is too difficult(that is another discussion for another time), God has made it simple. Some do miss "the ENTIRE boat" but it is not because God has made it too subtle.

Through our inability to appreciate the "outworkings," we could be interpreting this whole thing the wrong way, in our underdeveloped minds, could we not?

Millions do, but once again it is not because God is overly subtle. To be clear, the phrase you keep quoting will be rightly sited only in regards to one having a FULL knowledge of God's will and workings...not at all to meant to discribe the clearly expressed and revealed will of God in the Scripture.

great thoughts dawg...

[sike]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
I'm just trying to figure out where the dividing line is between accepting theological arguments on the basis of their logic (we know God created this all because it had to get here somewhere, right?) and accepting them for what they are on the basis that, like a child faced with understanding advanced mathematics, our knowledge of logic won't suffice in this case.

then you are on a good path dawg! It is very often the thinking of these types of thoughts that people find the Truth.

[mavsman55]

From a liberal point of view, gays should be able to marry because in some way, shape or form, it is a right of theirs to marry and who are we to take that right away from them?

If this was true, why is incest still illegal? Should man not be able to marry anyone he/she loves?

[jacktruth]

I’m not a bible scholar or a historian. I’m also not homosexual. However, I simply cannot see how a person can read through the New Testament and get the impression that homosexuality is acceptable to God. There are just way too many direct condemnations of the practice. Every effort I have read to make any other interpretation is far far reaching.

The issue of what the church should do about it is a little more discussion worthy. God does not want homosexuals leading the church. But he also doesn’t want adulterers, drunkards, etc to lead the church. The Gospel pretty much requires people to turn from their sinful ways and begin walking in the ways of God. That applies to every way of sinfulness, of course. And unfortunately, it can take years and years for people to get away from their sins. God certainly loves homosexuals as much as he loves everybody else. The church does need to do a better job of not spotlighting homosexuals as it does. That is the same with society, really. We really should accept that homosexuality is one of the things those who don’t know God will tend to do. It really shouldn’t offend us more than liars, thieves, slouches, coveters, adulterers, etc. . . One of my best friends is a drug user. He can’t get away from it because he doesn’t know God or accept God. Why would I expect that he will conform to the ways of God? It’s unreasonable.

However, government endorsement of homosexual marriage is something that doesn’t currently exist and I have yet to see a convincing argument why it should. It’s just like any government debate. At one point, the country did not have income taxes, but somewhere, some people made a good case that we needed it eventually we got it. Right now, there is a heated discussion in my town about red light cameras. There are pros and cons on either side. But not enough people have been convinced it is the right thing, so it has not passed. The Cowboys stadium in Arlington—they convinced people that there was a benefit to the population to building it, so it passed. Homosexual marriage advocates have not made the case and have been soundly defeated and don’t seem to be making any headway. In fact, they are actually losing ground. 10 years ago, there were no Defense of Marriage Acts. There were no constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Now nearly every state has a DOMA and 14-15 states have constitutional amendments against gay marriage. I personally get tired of the comparisons to slavery. This country is a thousand times more educated about civil rights than it was since Lincoln. The current older voting population grew up with MLK and during countless movements to give equal rights to blacks. The younger voting generation has been inundated and reinforced in our educational system with correct thinking about minority relations and civil rights, yet the homosexual marriage issue is still losing ground. People just don’t buy the argument that it is a fundamental right because it is not a convincing argument.

I think that the fascinating thing is that people are so determined to get the Bible on their side. Why? If the Bible calls homosexuality a sin (which it clearly does) and people disagree, why do those people still considered the Bible an authority? If you have to work so hard to darken even a light shadow on that the Bible’s intention, why? Why don’t people just dismiss the Bible and move on to something else.

The Bible is a stumbling block. Anybody who reads it can tell that there is something about it that is different from any other book. It carries a heavy weight and authority. If you can get it to say what you want it to say, you possibly have the creator of the universe on your side.

If that is the case, why is it so hard to convince people just to read it and take it at it’s word?

Just read it like you would your favorite magazine and do what it says. Don’t spend your life attempting to twist it into your favor. It’s not a reasonable thing to do.

My personal view regarding Christianity and the view does not only come from the Bible but from the history of this nation. The American colonies were established by people who wanted to practice and spread the Christian religion and to escape it’s persecution. Early documents are full of references to this. In all of the early writings, when the work “religion” was used it was intended to distinguish denominations of Christianity, not different religions. The point being that this nation represents Christianity like Israel represents Judaism and many other nations represent Islam. We are the world’s voice for Christianity and I intend to do all that I can to keep it that way. The Red Cross—started by Christian. Hospitals—how many are named after saints or are started by church denominations. The Salvation Army—meeting the emergency needs of this country is a church! God’s purpose for this country is clear. That is why the people of this country fund an overwhelming majority of Christian missionaries in this world. We are in every country on this planet spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I want our taxes low so I can give more. I want this country to lift up the 10 commandments and to stand up for Biblical morality and character. I want for other Countries to see us as the heart and soul of Christianity. That is my America and that is what I will fight to my death for.

Thank you.

[mavsman55]

That was an awesome post dude. There is no way I can add to that.

[XERXES]

And unfortunately, it can take years and years for people to get away from their sins.

Or one moment of enlightenment.

The church does need to do a better job of not spotlighting homosexuals as it does. That is the same with society, really

I concur with this point.

In fact, they are actually losing ground. 10 years ago, there were no Defense of Marriage Acts. There were no constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Now nearly every state has a DOMA and 14-15 states have constitutional amendments against gay marriage.

I think you can ake an arguement for a moral "reawakening" of America. Especially, in light of the results of last month's election. Americans, in general, have always been led by a strong moral compass- and it seems as though the sleeping giant has been roused.

I think that the fascinating thing is that people are so determined to get the Bible on their side. Why? If the Bible calls homosexuality a sin (which it clearly does) and people disagree, why do those people still considered the Bible an authority? If you have to work so hard to darken even a light shadow on that the Bible’s intention, why? Why don’t people just dismiss the Bible and move on to something else.

This is a great point. People want their cake and to eat it too. The fact is that you cannot believe that the Bilble is the God-beathed, Holy, inspired Word of God and justify moral deviancy (aka: Sin). Many people try, but its a slippery slope...and the two schools of thought are diametrically-opposed to one another.