why Christians SHOULD support gay marrage.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

Yeah I bet that heading made you're head spin a bit huh? But hey! I finally got an argument here worth pushing forward (don't get me wrong, I#m bound to be only one of many that thought of this but meh!!).

Christians are, naturally, against any form of gay relationship correct? Doesn't this go against someones free will?

I can't remember the the exact part, but in the bible it talks about how when the crops have been planted (the crops being the people) and when the weeds kill off the weaker parts of the crops (people who go against the bible are those the weeds are 'killing'), it is leaving those truly worthy to join god in ever lasting praise of his name. (yay...)

So in other words. If you remove the choice to 'sin' in christian eyes, if you remove someones ability to do certain things 'just' because it goes against whatever kinda of Christianity, you're not helping one bit. You're actually being counter-productive.

So, in order to cut the weak plants down and leave only those worthy, you have to give everyone (within reason) the ability to make choices. And if that means Tim and John want to get married, who are you to deny them?

[Bryan Rosander, FL]

@Thomas W Richardson - I'm not sure what your objection is here.  The original commandments were written within a context of a levitical priesthood, which was a shadow of Jesus' current priesthood.  When Jesus "fulfilled" the law, the levitical priesthood was no longer necesssary.  Some of the commandments, however, had deeper foundations in morality outside of the the levitical priesthood.

 

For example, the Old Testament sacrifices are no longer necessary because Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial requirements himself.  Meanwhile, ignroing the commands not to murder or steal would be silly, since they are obviously wrong whether the Bible stated so or not.  As with any discussion about this stuff, there are grey areas where the answer isn't as clear.

 

Considering that there are brands of jeans specifically targeted at women, I don't see a problem with women wearing jeans in general, relative to the commandment.  Similarly, we have an issue with skirts and kilts.  While they are functionally very similar, a man could wear a kilt but not a skirt, strictly following the commandment.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Matthew 5:17.

You either have it one way or another. You either believe that whilst the laws were in fact implement by prophets, Jesus came and those very same laws are now pointless (meaning you shouldn't be using Leviticus at all). Or you believe that you should employ Leviticus and all other parts of the O.T to your daily worship. 

 

Nit picking through the laws to best suit your idea of heaven on earth, is at best, deceitful and discouraging when one regards Christian as a holder of truth. 

 

PS: Whilst I agree that Women should be allowed to use, lets say, trousers. The O.T clearly disagrees.  

 

[Bryan Rosander, FL]

This question of how to treat the Old Testament has come up several times in the Christian Nerdfighter's group. I gave a reasonably thorough response in this thread, "What do we have to follow?"

 

About the clothing issue, I think that most men's clothing is usually fine for both men and women.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

Hmm I partly agree with the premise (I can't understand why a openly gay man would be part of something that isn't really too fond of him), but at the same time I find my self disagreeing with the idea that if you are openly gay you shouldn't consider yourself a Christian.

 

For example, the teaching Jesus taught (he who is without sin cast the first stone) could be equally applied, those who judge whilst not perfect couldn't possibly claim to be a Christian could they?

 

Another part which could be applied:The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”  This verse -- Deuteronomy 22:5 -- "

 

Obviously, women who wear trousers could be said not to be Christians as well.

 

The problem is, these are all quotes from the O.T. From what I remember, Christianity was based solely on the the Teachings of Jesus, and again I haven't once found a quote from the N.T in which he bashes the gay lifestyle. 

 

If we are going to apply Leviticus to a Christianity sect (Leviticus being a O.T book), then Christians should apply the whole thing, not just bits and pieces here and there. Meaning, you guys have another six  hundred and thirteen rules which you have to obey.  

[Jo Brooke]

I totally agree. I am a Christian and I support gays rights, because I believe if you aren't a Christian you should have every right to marry someone of your same gender. But again if you are living in a gay relationship, you should not consider yourself a Christian because it is against the Bible. I understand Christians aren't perfect and we all sin, but actively pursuing a gay relationship and a relationship with God at the same time is like trying to go north and south at the same time. It just doesn't work.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

"They need to stop being religious and start acting like the Christian they claim to be, and love one another, no matter the sin."

Couldn't agree more. Who are we to judge? God is the judge, we're simply the witnesses.

"You're right that "forcing" someone to stop sinning, outside of the normal role of discipline, probably won't help. You are also right that I shouldn't be denying "Tim and John" their rights to do what they want with their bodies."

The main problem I have with putting any religious rules into governmental practice (Other than murder and theft) is how do we know that their heart is true? If they were able, would they still sin? It's those who don't sin who are more likely to fall into the lords grace, but for there to be proper judgment we have to allow people to have the same choices of what they want to do. Not force what the lord wants.

I like to think of a scenario with a school-bully sometimes, he has threatened everyone they'll get a left hook if they don't be his 'friends'. In the end, all those who didn't become pally had torture until they or the bully left. Now, change the bully to god, would he want people to pretend to believe when their heart is obviously somewhere else?

I doubt much of that is on topic, I's is kinda muddled up at the moment with revision so I'll try and come back at some point tomorrow and talk straight lol

[Bryan Rosander, FL]

The passage that I think that you are referring to is called the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, from Matthew 13:24-30,
"He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, 'Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

It was told to describe why God doesn't just judge everyone now, rather than waiting till they die or face judgement day.

You're right that "forcing" someone to stop sinning, outside of the normal role of discipline, probably won't help. You are also right that I shouldn't be denying "Tim and John" their rights to do what they want with their bodies.

I'm fine with gay people getting married, provided that concept of marriage is removed from government. I might be fine with various intermediary steps to that stage as well.

I think a stronger argument than this for Christians is to help them recognize that the definition of marriage is a Christian doctrine and that in the interest of protecting it, they should remove it from federal law as much as possible. Otherwise, they will need to keep protecting it to make sure that it matches the official doctrine exactly. That would be difficult, but I think that is where most of the political activism comes from for this issue, to protect the Biblical doctrine.

[Tomo]

I'm a Christian and fully support gay rights,but here is how the bible sees the community that people seem to be misinterpreting. God created man and woman. He made them for each other. With that course meant for them, for someone to be with their own gender would be a damage to the growth of a family, as they can not reproduce on their own. Now, what people are doing is using that as an excuse to spew hate at those who are different.

The Bible says that no sin is greater than any other, and yet people seem to be putting them on a ranking system as if you get deducted more points for a more heinous sin. They seem to think that lying and murder are two different things in the eyes of judgement. They see that these people are different, so they start to hate them, and use God as an excuse saying that he thinks their sin is worse. They are supposed to be called to hate the sin, but love the sinner. There is no magical point system. It is a yes and no situation. You are no worse for having deep anger in your heart, than these people who are only trying to love. We are all sinners. We can all be forgiven. People need to get off their religious high horse. They need to stop being religious and start acting like the Christian they claim to be, and love one another, no matter the sin.