Methodists Vote to Keep Traditional Marriage Stance

[Crazyhole]

lmfao

Unbelievable.

Literally owning another human being is not a sin, but two adults who love each other is? What a completely fuked up moral system you christians have. I wish I could have you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just trolling, but sadly you are probably serious.

How do you own another pserson?

 

[NinjaKnight]

How do you own another pserson?

Slavery is any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property. A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration.

Are you serious right now? maybe you are just trolling.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

As it relates to Christianity ... There's a laundry list of sexual sins right? Basically homosexuality is no different than hetero sex outside of marriage etc? Or is there a hierarchy?

What I'm getting at is I can get behind the idea of sexual sin impeding your relationship with God. Porn addiction, lust, promiscuity .... All of that has a very real and lasting impact on us physically, emotionally, psychologically etc. Pretty sure there are studies that would even back that up. So whether homo or hetero those same things apply and in that case I have no issue with the condemnation. My struggle is if this is a hierarchical discussion of sexual sin and if we're placing homosexual sin at the top of the list.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

How do you own another pserson?

You're getting at mental slavery... Kinda like Kanyes whole rant. And I understand your point. African slaves in America had a very strong faith structure regardless of legal chattel slavery system. You are right in that your situation does not dictate your relationship with God.

 

[Crazyhole]

You can see where problems arise then right? While you may be technically right, Christianity loses a lot of credibility with people here. Slavery (in the commonly understood sense of the word) SHOULD most definitely be considered a sin. I would find it hard to argue that enslaving another individual is less an impediment to seeking a relationship with God than homosexuality. What am I missing?

Edit: And for the record I have no desire to change the rules when it comes to Christianity. I'm completely fine with just disagreeing with it a moving on. If it means I'm not called a Christian there's ZFG on my part. Much more interested in the big picture.

Slavery is a broad term but it is defined by the worst aspects of it. If i have a loan at a bank and have to work 14 days out of a month to pay it back then it is a form of slavery. Its an agreed upon form of slavery so it isnt terribly egregious. Involuntary servitude is on the far other end of the spectrum

As it relates to Christianity ... There's a laundry list of sexual sins right? Basically homosexuality is no different than hetero sex outside of marriage etc? Or is there a hierarchy?

What I'm getting at is I can get behind the idea of sexual sin impeding your relationship with God. Porn addiction, lust, promiscuity .... All of that has a very real and lasting impact on us physically, emotionally, psychologically etc. Pretty sure there are studies that would even back that up. So whether homo or hetero those same things apply and in that case I have no issue with the condemnation. My struggle is if this is a hierarchical discussion of sexual sin and if we're placing homosexual sin at the top of the list.

I don't think so. I don't know of any church that embraces any other form of sexual immorality but holds homosexuality to a different standard. That isn't really the basis of the discussion though, its about marriage because marriage is something that a church actively participates in. Some churches have decided that sexual immorality was a social construct of the time and have decided that they dont see it as being a dictate from God. The UMC has taken the path of being more conservative in its interpretation of scripture.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

So the act itself isn't the issue since all sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin. And the science is irrelevant bc this isn't a nature vs nurture discussion. This is simply about marriage having to be between 1 man and 1 woman according to God.

 

[DaShuckster]

What I'm getting at is I can get behind the idea of sexual sin impeding your relationship with God. Porn addiction, lust, promiscuity .... All of that has a very real and lasting impact on us physically, emotionally, psychologically etc. Pretty sure there are studies that would even back that up. So whether homo or hetero those same things apply and in that case I have no issue with the condemnation.

Neither do I. But this discussion is not about extra-marital sex. It's about a same-sex couple who want to marry in their church. Even though this same-sex couple are likely employed, responsible, monogamous, perhaps interested in starting a family, and see marriage in the church as an opportunity to seek a stronger relationship with their Lord Jesus, they are denied. Is it me or is this stance about as crazy as it gets?

To deny this same-sex couple this opportunity, what are UMC leaders saying to them? If it has absolutely nothing to do with deep-seeded biases as some here claim, then what is it? The only alternative is to ignore the science and believe the Bible says this potential union is an abomination brought by Satin. Really? That's the message that our Lord Jesus Christ would convey? Really people?

If you wanna believe in the 'homo temptations' of Satan, hey, that's your choice. I have no doubt that you'll find a church that agrees with you. But that's not my church.

 

[jt_knight]

The idea that the flesh is inherently evil and the soul is inherently good.

I don't agree with it. When God created Adam as a flesh and blood person he said it was good (Genesis 1:31). The fall of man brings total depravity affecting our physical bodies, mind, soul/spirit, intellect, will, and even our heartfelt desires and affectations (Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 1:21-25). Even your heart will deceive you (Jeremiah 17:9). That’s why personal feelings and convictions are not the final arbiter of truth.

But, that does not mean the physical is inherently evil. When Christ came to earth he came as a flesh and blood human (John 1:14). Jesus was resurrected with a physical body, not as a ghost or spirit (Luke 24:37-43). Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation so we can expect the new heavens and new earth to be physical (Colossians 1:18). Dualism can lead to abusing the body but Christians must honor the body, metaphorically speaking, as temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19).

I don’t find strong support for physical/spiritual dualism in the Bible. I suspect it may have emerged within the early church when Christians spread out from Judea/Samaria into the Greco-Roman provinces and were influenced by Greek philosophy, but I could be wrong. Even if the idea originated within Christian communities, it lacks biblical support and is properly considered heterodoxy.

 

[Crazyhole]

I don't agree with it. When God created Adam as a flesh and blood person he said it was good (Genesis 1:31). The fall of man brings total depravity affecting our physical bodies, mind, soul/spirit, intellect, will, and even our heartfelt desires and affectations (Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 1:21-25). Even your heart will deceive you (Jeremiah 17:9). That’s why personal feelings and convictions are not the final arbiter of truth.

But, that does not mean the physical is inherently evil. When Christ came to earth he came as a flesh and blood human (John 1:14). Jesus was resurrected with a physical body, not as a ghost or spirit (Luke 24:37-43). Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation so we can expect the new heavens and new earth to be physical (Colossians 1:18). Dualism can lead to abusing the body but Christians must honor the body, metaphorically speaking, as temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19).

I don’t find strong support for physical/spiritual dualism in the Bible. I suspect it may have emerged within the early church when Christians spread out from Judea/Samaria into the Greco-Roman provinces and were influenced by Greek philosophy, but I could be wrong. Even if the idea originated within Christian communities, it lacks biblical support and is properly considered heterodoxy.

I don't agree with it either, but many churches do. The basis of it is the concept of original sin, which I also don't ascribe to. It's really amazing the lengths the Catholic church has gone to in trying to rationalize it, such as the immaculate conception of Mary, infant baptism, and the dogma of confirmation.

 

[Crazyhole]

Neither do I. But this discussion is not about extra-marital sex. It's about a same-sex couple who want to marry in their church. Even though this same-sex couple are likely employed, responsible, monogamous, perhaps interested in starting a family, and see marriage in the church as an opportunity to seek a stronger relationship with their Lord Jesus, they are denied. Is it me or is this stance about as crazy as it gets?

To deny this same-sex couple this opportunity, what are UMC leaders saying to them? If it has absolutely nothing to do with deep-seeded biases as some here claim, then what is it? The only alternative is to ignore the science and believe the Bible says this potential union is an abomination brought by Satin. Really? That's the message that our Lord Jesus Christ would convey? Really people?

If you wanna believe in the 'homo temptations' of Satan, hey, that's your choice. I have no doubt that you'll find a church that agrees with you. But that's not my church.

Science is valuable in understanding of the physical universe and our physiology but it isnt necessarily something that should dictate our faith structure. Is the world flat or round? How hot is the sun? How does photosynthesis work? How does man affect the climate? How does our body work? All are things that are important questions about how God created things but none of them are things that should change our view of him or his intentions. Scientific findings can be devinely inspired, but we have to test those findings against the measure of consistency with the bible. Are they consistent, inconsistent, or indifferent in regard to the scriptures that are the basis of our faith?

 

[jt_knight]

As it relates to Christianity ... There's a laundry list of sexual sins right? Basically homosexuality is no different than hetero sex outside of marriage etc? Or is there a hierarchy?

What I'm getting at is I can get behind the idea of sexual sin impeding your relationship with God. Porn addiction, lust, promiscuity .... All of that has a very real and lasting impact on us physically, emotionally, psychologically etc. Pretty sure there are studies that would even back that up. So whether homo or hetero those same things apply and in that case I have no issue with the condemnation. My struggle is if this is a hierarchical discussion of sexual sin and if we're placing homosexual sin at the top of the list.

Correct. There is no hierarchy to sexual sin. Both homosexuality and heterosexual sin are an abuse of a very good gift created by God as a blessing for mankind. Likewise, food and rest are gifts of God but become sinful when abused (gluttony and sloth).

God does not call something sin because he wants humans to suffer but because he wants humans to flourish. That which is sinful is sinful because it destroys humans (physically, spiritually, and emotionally). God's plan from the beginning is for mankind, as the image bearers of God (Genesis 1:27), to be fruitful and multiply in order that God's image fills his creation (Gen. 1:28). From this standpoint, it makes sense why homosexual relations and non-marital heterosexual relations are incompatible with the creation ordinance.

That being said, Christians are sinners like everyone else. We don't mistreat someone because they are a sinner, we speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) in hopes that all would be reconciled to the Lord.

 

[DaShuckster]

Science is valuable in understanding of the physical universe and our physiology but it isnt necessarily something that should dictate our faith structure. Is the world flat or round? How hot is the sun? How does photosynthesis work? How does man affect the climate? How does our body work? All are things that are important questions about how God created things but none of them are things that should change our view of him or his intentions.

The ages-old notion was that all humans are strictly heterosexual and any same-sex feelings or desires was the Devil at work. If science has shown that all humans are not, in fact, heterosexual then it completely changes the way an enlightened society views homosexuality. That's why Gay marriage is now legal and why Gay individuals no longer have to hide their sexuality in the closet.

Scientific findings can be devinely inspired, but we have to test those findings against the measure of consistency with the bible.

It's true that our understanding of human sexuality has changed dramatically in my lifetime--heck, most of the key research that exists was developed since the 1970s. Are you saying we should be skeptical of this relatively new scientific research because for 3,500 years we've considered homosexuality to be an evil temptation from Satan?

 

[Crazyhole]

The ages-old notion was that all humans are strictly heterosexual and any same-sex feelings or desires was the Devil at work. If science has shown that all humans are not, in fact, heterosexual then it completely changes the way an enlightened society views homosexuality. That's why Gay marriage is now legal and why Gay individuals no longer have to hide their sexuality in the closet.



It's true that our understanding of human sexuality has changed dramatically in my lifetime--heck, most of the key research that exists was developed since the 1970s. Are you saying we should be skeptical of this relatively new scientific research because for 3,500 years we've considered homosexuality to be an evil temptation from Satan?

No not at all. Its a human condition that comes from our earthly desires. Whether that comes from our DNA or from a temptation from Satan isn't really relevant to me. I'm not suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural, because for the gay person it IS natural. And thats ok. Its not what is in a person's heart that makes something a sin, its how a person goes about acting on those feelings that creates a barrier to a persons relationship with God. Can a homosexual still have a close relationship with God? Absolutely. By doing so they are actually recieving Gods grace more than a person who lives a life of strict adherance to the law. At the same time, Paul said we shouldnt continue to sin so that Gods grace increases, and he is a pretty good authority on the topic because by his own admission he was guilty of being the worst of the worst. And yet God still received him back and he became on of the most important messengers of his word.

At the far end of the spectrum, a serial killer can still have a close relationship with God but its pretty unlikely that he would because the guilt that comes from such an act would make it pretty hard to reconcile how he chooses to indulge in a desire that God says is incompatible with his dictate to love one another. I'm certainly not equating homosexual relations with serial murder so don't get me wrong, I'm just giving the most extreme example of what a person can do and still receive Gods grace and Christ's salvation. We can go against what God wants for us and he will still receive us back if we turn our hearts away from earthly desires and towards his will for us. That doesn't change the nature of sin and science has no authority over God.

 

[fried-chicken]

Sometimes this board delivers some pretty good laughs but every once and awhile we get a take that transcends.

@The Branch giving credit to Trump for starting the Mueller probe.

@Sir Galahad saying the Mueller probe is actually investigating Hillary Clinton.

@UCFBS saying that people think he's sexist because he played catch with his dad when he was a kid

And now

@Crazyhole saying owing a bank payment for a loan you took out is basically the same as slavery and that slavery actually isn't that bad.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Sometimes this board delivers some pretty good laughs but every once and awhile we get a take that transcends.

@The Branch giving credit to Trump for starting the Mueller probe.

@Sir Galahad saying the Mueller probe is actually investigating Hillary Clinton.

@UCFBS saying that people think he's sexist because he played catch with his dad when he was a kid

And now

@Crazyhole saying owing a bank payment for a loan you took out is basically the same as slavery and that slavery actually isn't that bad.

It really is why I love this place. People are fuking stupid, this board is an excellent example of that.

 

[Crazyhole]

Sometimes this board delivers some pretty good laughs but every once and awhile we get a take that transcends.

@The Branch giving credit to Trump for starting the Mueller probe.

@Sir Galahad saying the Mueller probe is actually investigating Hillary Clinton.

@UCFBS saying that people think he's sexist because he played catch with his dad when he was a kid

And now

@Crazyhole saying owing a bank payment for a loan you took out is basically the same as slavery and that slavery actually isn't that bad.

You are really disingenuous in your comments on a pretty regular basis.

 

[fried-chicken]

It really is why I love this place. People are fuking stupid, this board is an excellent example of that.

We need a hall of shame for takes like this.

 

[fried-chicken]

You are really disingenuous in your comments on a pretty regular basis.

Your post calling bank debt basically the same as slavery is on this very page. What's the issue, do I need to quote the other ones? I can if you want.

 

[NinjaKnight]

We need a hall of shame for takes like this.

It will just get deleted. I created a thread of all the times @UCFKnight85 told people to kill themselves on here, and he just cried like a little bitch to brandon and got it deleted. All I did was post quotes of him.

 

[Ace of Knights]

Sorry Crazy. It was an incredibly bad take when you said the parties enter it willingly. We all know that the millions of Africans that were forced into it didn’t do it willingly.

And even during medieval times, “Willingly” (and yes that deserves quotation marks because no one would do it willingly) entering into endentured servitude for protection and a hot meal during the feudal times may not be the same as slavery as we commonly think about it, but only happened because someone was bigger and stronger than others and you would be killed without it.

 

[Crazyhole]

Sorry Crazy. It was an incredibly bad take when you said the parties enter it willingly. We all know that the millions of Africans that were forced into it didn’t do it willingly.

And even during medieval times, “Willingly” (and yes that deserves quotation marks because no one would do it willingly) entering into endentured servitude for protection and a hot meal during the feudal times may not be the same as slavery as we commonly think about it, but only happened because someone was bigger and stronger than others and you would be killed without it.

I didnt suggest that slavery as we know it was a mutual agreement. At the time that God gave advice on how to handle the situation, there were in fact people that willingly entered into slavery for repayment of debt. Its curious to me that it has become a statement that people are using to vilify me. Did I ever suggest that the kind of slavery that happened in the early part of American history is ok? Clearly not because it was a disgusting practice that included things like torture and the lack of respect for basic human rights that every person should be entitled to. God clearly gave commands against such practice. He did not, however, state that a person on either side of that equation cannot still receive his grace as long as they act in a way that is respectful to the other party. People become so argumentative that they cant see past their preconceptions about anything because its easier to take the very best or very worst version of something and pass judgment on it in totality. Gay marriage can either be something that is absolutely detrimental to their faith or it can be something that they are able to work through in the search for eternal life. Slavery can be the same. Both can, but don't necessarily have to, keep a person from finding salvation.

For example, I have loaned money to people who found themselves unable to pay it back so they worked that debt off. I never whipped or tortured any of them but their work was in fact a form of slavery. If I had treated them poorly, made them do hard labor that was unbefitting of the way I should treat them, then I would be guilty of denying them the basic respect and love that we should treat people with. That would have been inconsistent with Judeo-Christian values and God would have looked upon that as a sinful act. Both parties agreed that the debt would be repaid with labor and as long as the party who owed me acted in good faith in repayment of that debt and I didn't use the situation to enrich myself then nothing about it is immoral or unethical. Since we were both acting in good faith then its not something that is detrimental to either of our abilities to recieve salvation. It goes back to the idea that we cannot serve 2 masters. If we choose to serve God then regardless of our financial situation we are going to be ok in his eyes. If, on the other hand, we choose to serve our desire to get ahead on an earthly basis then we can't possibly be doing his will.

 

[Crazyhole]

Your post calling bank debt basically the same as slavery is on this very page. What's the issue, do I need to quote the other ones? I can if you want.

If you are unable to have a discussion in good will then please excuse yourself from this thread. This isnt a topic that can be resolved but until you decided to interject it was pretty respectful and honest.

 

[DaShuckster]

Its a human condition that comes from our earthly desires. Whether that comes from our DNA or from a temptation from Satan isn't really relevant to me. I'm not suggesting that homosexuality is unnatural, because for the gay person it IS natural. And thats ok. Its not what is in a person's heart that makes something a sin, its how a person goes about acting on those feelings that creates a barrier to a persons relationship with God.

So what you're saying is screw the science, as long as a homosexual doesn't actually ACT on his or her natural feelings the same way monogamous, heterosexual couples do, everything is hunkie-dorie with God?

You've just explained why such a high percentage of Catholic Priests and Nuns who take a vow of celibacy are, in fact, homosexuals. Over the centuries, it was a 'safe' way to live with the guilt and shame of their "Satanish temptations." It also was a noble way of keeping family and friends from wondering why you haven't gotten married.

Sadly, it also explains why the Catholic Church is up-to-its-ears in sexual abuse charges.

 

[Crazyhole]

So what you're saying is screw the science, as long as a homosexual doesn't actually ACT on his or her natural feelings the same way monogamous, heterosexual couples do, everything is hunkie-dorie with God?


You've just explained why such a high percentage of Catholic Priests and Nuns who take a vow of celibacy are, in fact, homosexuals. Over the centuries, it was a 'safe' way to live with the guilt and shame of their "Satanish temptations." It also was a noble way of keeping family and friends from wondering why you haven't gotten married.

Sadly, it also explains why the Catholic Church is up-to-its-ears in sexual abuse charges.

Thats not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that science can help us to understand the human condition, it shouldn't affect how we understand Gods intentions for us.

As far as Catholic priests and their propensity to commit sexual assault, I thought the same thing. It turns out that catholic officials are no more likely than the average person to commit sexual crimes. Its just that when they happen it gets more attention so it seems to be an outlier. There are approximately 450 convictions for sexual crimes every day just in America. Thats over 160,000 per year. We don't hear about the 159,999 nearly as much as we hear about the 1 that involved a Catholic priest. Its an infintenasbly small percentage of the total number of crimes

 

[ChrisKnight06]

The ages-old notion was that all humans are strictly heterosexual and any same-sex feelings or desires was the Devil at work. If science has shown that all humans are not, in fact, heterosexual then it completely changes the way an enlightened society views homosexuality. That's why Gay marriage is now legal and why Gay individuals no longer have to hide their sexuality in the closet.

So this is where I have to defend the church even though it's something I don't agree with.

Let's break this down:

- Sex outside of marriage is sin, whether homo or hetero.

- OK cool, just get married and all is well.

- According to the church, part of Gods purpose for marriage is completeness (2 halves make a whole) and fruitfulness (procreation). There are other purposes that do not necessarily require male vs female but those do.

- Church says marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is required to fill God's purpose for marriage. That it is the best setup for high functioning family units.
(What does the research show?)

- In order to get married in the church you either have a monogamous hetero relationship or you don't get married in the church.

The only solution is to either dispute what God said about man and woman or go against what He said and change doctrine.

One can think the church is wrong, call them bigoted etc and all that is fine.

This is why I find it so important to have the church and state separation. The church should recognize wtf they want , regardless of how wrong-headed it might be but you should damn sure be able to enter in to a legally protected agreement with any other consenting adult and receive the same rights and benefits as everyone else.

Do you dispute what God prescribes for marriage or not? If not then what is your argument as it relates to homosexual MARRIAGE in the church?

 

[DaShuckster]

Thats not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that science can help us to understand the human condition...

I wholeheartedly agree. It's reassures homosexuals and bisexuals that after centuries of guilt, they finally know they were 'born the way they are' the same as heterosexuals.

...it shouldn't affect how we understand Gods intentions for us.

It shouldn't? If it's not something an individual can control (i.e. skin color, gender, sexual orientation), why should it?

 

[Crazyhole]

I wholeheartedly agree. It's reassures homosexuals and bisexuals that after centuries of guilt, they finally know they were 'born the way they are' the same as heterosexuals.


It shouldn't? If it's not something an individual can control (i.e. skin color, gender, sexual orientation), why should it?

If there was something in the bible that stated that one gender is superior to another or that one race was superior to another then it would be more applicable. While societal norms have changed in regard to those things and churches have adapted to that truth, nothing about it is antithetical to the bible. At the very furthest conservative view of things, some churches disqualify women from leadership roles like the church of Christ, they dont view women as being a lower class of person than a man. They have just interpreted what Paul said in a very strict manner and have chose to not change their faith structure on societal norms. I don't agree with it, but I respect their steadfast interpretation of scripture. Homosexuality is a little bit different because it is explicitly addressed in the bible so its a harder hurdle to overcome. Some churches like the episcopalian church have made that leap, and if they find that their reinterpretation of the bible is based on divine inspiration then I have no problem with their decision. If it is just based on what society or science tells us and they disregard the bible in favor of it then I dont think its a wise decision on their part to make that change.

I know you would prefer the Methodist church to change their doctrine about gay marriage, but do you think that other churches that you don't attend should adopt that same practice? Has something compelled you to the point of saying that churches who don't embrace gay marriage are being heretical or is it just a matter of wanting to feel like the church that you attend holds your same beliefs?

I ask that not as a leading question but as a sincere inquiry. Just coming from my own personal experience, I'm comfortable in going to most of the different denominational churches because I still feel that the intent is to worship God. Probably the only major denominations that I dont feel comfortable with is the fringe Pentecostal churches that by any measure have gone off the rails and the Mormon religion, who have accepting teachings that are IMO contrary to the bible in enough ways that I cant accept it. Even the 7th day Adventists, as different as my opinions are with them, I feel are worshipping God in good faith.

 

[DaShuckster]

I know you would prefer the Methodist church to change their doctrine about gay marriage, but do you think that other churches that you don't attend should adopt that same practice?

Yes.

Has something compelled you to the point of saying that churches who don't embrace gay marriage are being heretical or is it just a matter of wanting to feel like the church that you attend holds your same beliefs?

I think I've done a decent job of articulating why I believe churches, particularly my United Methodist Church, should embrace gay marriage. The UMC tagline is "Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors" for crying out loud. It seems awfully heretical to see it otherwise.

But I also realize that some demominations take a fundamentalist hard line so if they want to continue discriminating against gays, that's certainly their right. Heck, the Catholic Church has been discriminating against women since its founding.

 

[jt_knight]

I think I've done a decent job of articulating why I believe churches, particularly my United Methodist Church, should embrace gay marriage. The UMC tagline is "Open Hearts. Open Minds. Open Doors" for crying out loud. It seems awfully heretical to see it otherwise.

Perhaps the problem of incongruency lies with UMC's tagline and not the Bible.

All churches should be open to anyone who desires to know God and grow in their faith. But we know God and worship him on his terms, not our own. Honoring Christ as Lord is not closed minded or having a closed heart. It's being obedient to the one we claim to follow. The easy thing to do is deny the authority of scripture when it conflicts with popular opinion but then why call ourselves Christians? May as well just become a humanist and affirm what we agree with and ignore what we don't.

I don't say this to disrespect your faith. It's clear you desire to love God and love others. I have the same desire. But the issue of "gay marriage" happens to be the primary issue forcing believers to reevaluate where they stand on the issue of ultimate authority.

 

[DaShuckster]

The easy thing to do is deny the authority of scripture when it conflicts with popular opinion but then why call ourselves Christians?

Being a true Christian means following the authority of Old Testament scripture? Really???

You're the Bible expert, not me. But wasn't the Old Testament Law given to the nation of Israel, not Christians?

Is the Old Testament law binding on Christians today? I thought that when Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law. (I'm not usually into quoting scripture, but I can if you'd like.)

Being a Christian means you are changed on the inside--not controlled by the outside. It means your heart has been changed to the presence of God. I don't recall it saying diddily-squat about treating Gays as second-class citizens of the faith.

... the issue of "gay marriage" happens to be the primary issue forcing believers to reevaluate where they stand on the issue of ultimate authority.

Yep, when it comes to the authority of the Bible's New Testament versus the Old Testament. I know as a Christian where I stand.

 

[jt_knight]

Is the Old Testament law binding on Christians today?

Yep, when it comes to the authority of the Bible's New Testament versus the Old Testament. I know as a Christian where I stand.

The problem of discontinuity between the OT and NT is that Jesus quoted the Old Testament scriptures approximately 78 times from 15 different books. The apostles quoted from the old testament hundreds of more times in their relatively brief writings. The NT covers about 1/5 of the OT yet much of it is quoting from the old. Clearly Jesus and the disciples viewed the law and the prophets (OT) as authoritative. The church agrees and that's why the christian Bible includes both testaments.

I would urge you, as a brother in Christ, to take seriously Jesus' words from the sermon on the mount when he says that the not one word of the law will pass away until heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5:17-18). And if anyone sets aside one of these commands, they will be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Mat. 5:19).

We can love everyone without denying the Word of God. In fact, only by the Word of God does it make sense to love everyone.

 

[DaShuckster]

I would urge you, as a brother in Christ, to take seriously Jesus' words from the sermon on the mount when he says that the not one word of the law will pass away until heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5:17-18). And if anyone sets aside one of these commands, they will be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Mat. 5:19).

Funny you should bring up this particular passage since it's been a source of wide-spread confusion among Christians because it contradicts other things Jesus said.

I've made it crystal clear I'm no Biblical scholar, but people who are have pointed to scripture in an effort to clarify the true meaning of the Coming of Christ. I would urge you, as a brother in Christ, to consider it.

Galatians 3:23-25
"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Romans 10:4
"Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."
Ephesians 2:15
"by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,"

I'm not really interested in a back-and-forth scripture battle. The bottom line is that there are MANY ways to interpret God's Word. No one will convince me that if Jesus Christ were alive today that he'd be agreeing with you that treating Gays as second-class citizens of the faith would be the righteous path for Christians to take.

 

[jt_knight]

Funny you should bring up this particular passage since it's been a source of wide-spread confusion among Christians because it contradicts other things Jesus said.

I've made it crystal clear I'm no Biblical scholar, but people who are have pointed to scripture in an effort to clarify the true meaning of the Coming of Christ. I would urge you, as a brother in Christ, to consider it.

Galatians 3:23-25
"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Romans 10:4
"Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."
Ephesians 2:15
"by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,"

I'm not really interested in a back-and-forth scripture battle. The bottom line is that there are MANY ways to interpret God's Word. No one will convince me that if Jesus Christ were alive today that he'd be agreeing with you that treating Gays as second-class citizens of the faith would be the righteous path for Christians to take.

Yes and amen to the scriptures you cited. We are no longer under law but under grace. But grace does not transform that which was sinful under the law to no longer being sinful. It just means we don't have to make atonement for our sin by the shedding of blood (as required by the law) b/c Christ is the once and for all atonement for the sins of the world. Example: murder and theft are still sinful, as are sexual sins. They lead to suffering, not human flourishing.

I respect your wish to no longer go back and forth on this issue. I may respond to other comments but I would agree this discussion has likely run its course. Grace and peace, brother.

 

[DaShuckster]

Yes and amen to the scriptures you cited. We are no longer under law but under grace. But grace does not transform that which was sinful under the law to no longer being sinful. It just means we don't have to make atonement for our sin by the shedding of blood (as required by the law) b/c Christ is the once and for all atonement for the sins of the world.

This discussion reminds me of a Supreme Court decision regarding an issue our Founding Fathers would never have fathomed. So what does the SCOTUS do in these cases? They attempt to determine 'the spirit' of the Founding Fathers as it applies to the Modern World we all live in.

If you examine the way the Bible views "sexual immorality," it's all about deviant practices (adultery, premarital sex, prostitution, etc.) that take an individual away from a holy state.
Before we knew how human sexuality worked, that most definitely included homosexuality. But now that we know it's a natural human condition and now that we have legalized Gay marriage, it falls snugly into the category that the church used to hold exclusively for male-female unions.

Jesus viewed sex as a wonderful gift -- within the confines of a monogamous marriage. Given that, it's pretty apparent how Jesus would view this matter if he were with us today. If a Gay person follows the same righteous path as a Heterosexual person when it comes to pursuing love and marriage, the person is not being 'immoral' in the eyes of God.

 

[Crazyhole]

This discussion reminds me of a Supreme Court decision regarding an issue our Founding Fathers would never have fathomed. So what does the SCOTUS do in these cases? They attempt to determine 'the spirit' of the Founding Fathers as it applies to the Modern World we all live in.

If you examine the way the Bible views "sexual immorality," it's all about deviant practices (adultery, premarital sex, prostitution, etc.) that take an individual away from a holy state.
Before we knew how human sexuality worked, that most definitely included homosexuality. But now that we know it's a natural human condition and now that we have legalized Gay marriage, it falls snugly into the category that the church used to hold exclusively for male-female unions.

Jesus viewed sex as a wonderful gift -- within the confines of a monogamous marriage. Given that, it's pretty apparent how Jesus would view this matter if he were with us today. If a Gay person follows the same righteous path as a Heterosexual person when it comes to pursuing love and marriage, the person is not being 'immoral' in the eyes of God.

The difference is that God doesn't exist in time and the founding fathers did. There is nothing that God, and Jesus by direct extension, wasnt able to fathom. Our interpretation can change but Gods intent was eternal. The only thing that has changed in regards to homosexuality is that instead of a physical atonement being needed to free us of the judgment of our sins, we now have a spiritual atonement for it. While the hebrews had to sacrifice the imperfect, God sacrificed the perfect for us to cover ALL sins.

 

[Crazyhole]

The difference is that God doesn't exist in time and the founding fathers did. There is nothing that God, and Jesus by direct extension, wasnt able to fathom. Our interpretation can change but Gods intent was eternal. The only thing that has changed in regards to homosexuality is that instead of a physical atonement being needed to free us of the judgment of our sins, we now have a spiritual atonement for it. While the hebrews had to sacrifice the imperfect, God sacrificed the perfect for us to cover ALL sins.

This is a tangent, but the above directly relates to why Moloch worship was considered possibly the greatest heresy of all. They were killing newly born babies and sacrificing what is the closest thing to perfection to another god. Abortion and infanticide are on that same level, but instead of sacrifing them to another god, we are sacrificing them to the world or ourselves.

 

[Crazyhole]

And yes I do think there are literal other gods.

 

[NinjaKnight]

And yes I do think there are literal other gods.

this board is amazing

 

[Crazyhole]

this board is amazing

At least the heretics in the bible were worshipping other gods. You seem to just worship yourself

 

[NinjaKnight]

At least the heretics in the bible were worshipping other gods. You seem to just worship yourself

Aaaand right to personal attacks when people call out the batshit literally insane stuff people post on here. Way to keep the stereotype alive.