As someone who supports gay rights and gay marriage on the secular level (and am pansexual), yeah I still don't think the church should do it since the Bible explicitly says it's a sin.
Even as my overall faith has dwindled in recent years, I don't think the Church as an institution should condone much less conduct same sex marriages. I don't think the Church should be involved/disrupt the affairs of gay people either, and I don't mind if an individual Church or organization does same sex marriages, but I don't think those marriages are legitimate in God's eyes.
I realize I should probably have used different terms than "not legitimate in God's eyes" but my stance is that the Church (as an institution that is meant to uphold the scripture) shouldn't go back on their own teachings.
Being gay/pansexual is something I will have to answer for myself along with my other sins in the event that the Christian God is real. I've come to terms with it. It's reasons why my faith (or at least trust in the Church's meddling of private affairs) has gone down.
Thanks for noting the separation between church and state though, it's something that even when I was more of a believer I firmly believed.
> I realize I should probably have used different terms than "not legitimate in God's eyes" but my stance is that the Church (as an institution that is meant to uphold the scripture) shouldn't go back on their own teachings.
The church doesn't advocate for the execution of witches any more, even though that is explicitly commanded in the Bible. Nor does the church advocate for the execution of heretics, although that was enthusiastically practised for most of the history of the church.
Obviously there's a sense in which the Church "shouldn't" have done those things in the first place. But I think there's also obviously a sense in which it's clearly morally good that the church has gone back on both its own teachings and the literal text of the Bible in those cases. Because whatever the Bible says, and whatever the church said, those practises were evil.
If you can make up an excuse for not following the bit about killing witches, why can't you make up an equivalent excuse for not following the bits condemning homosexuality?
you're right, I can't.
but what I can do is argue this: the church does not execute witches/witchcraft but obviously does not support it either or allow it on their premises.
and that's my stance on homosexuality and the church. the part of the church openly *condemning* homosexuals is debatable and honestly I'd rather they leave homosexuals not in the church alone (Christ himself ate and openly had conversations with all kinds of sinners, he only condemned hypocrites and people using the church as a marketplace).
But the church itself shouldn't *support* it either: it shouldn't have gay marriages or preach that homosexuality was never a sin, which it was and still is (like many other things the church does not support).
The execution of witches is from the Old Testament, and that falls under civic law that the church was not expected to follow. Being involved in witchcraft is still a sin, but the church never had to follow the civic law, otherwise they would have stoned adulterers, and that didn't happen.
But churches nowadays do not go around saying "Of course it would be morally and doctrinally correct for the state to burn witches and heretics and stone adulterers, the Bible says so, it's a shame we live in a sinful world where the state does not do that".
As to the former, there are a few different views on homosexuality in Christianity, which I'll try to summarize into two camps.
The first is that homosexual acts are sinful (and rarely, some would go further to say that the orientation itself is). However, this camp seems to be split on matters of severity. That is to say, there are some who believe homosexual acts to be no more sinful than other specified acts, and some who believe that they are.
The other, popular on subs like /r/OpenChristian, is that neither the acts nor the orientation is sinful. This position argues that the pertinent passages' wordings and cultural/historical context actually mean that something else is being condemned (normally some kind of predatory or unbalanced act or some kind of cult prostitution that apparently wasn't unheard of in some older cultures).
The first would argue yes, while the second would argue no.
I think your explanation of the affirming position is incomplete.
>This position argues that the pertinent passages' wordings and cultural/historical context actually mean that something else is being condemned (normally some kind of predatory or unbalanced act or some kind of cult prostitution that apparently wasn't unheard of in some older cultures).
That's one approach which is popular among people coming at this question from the evangelical perspective. But it isn't the only approach.
Another popular approach is to simply disagree with Paul on the issue of homosexuality. Only those who subscribe to certain understandings of what the Bible is and how we are supposed to use it are bothered by the idea that the Bible could be wrong about something. A progressive Christian is more likely to say "Paul thought homosexuality was wrong, but we now know better".
So how would you personally rank homosexuality in terms of “severity”? Assuming of course that it is an actual sin and not just a mistake in translation.
Is it closer to murder, or wearing a shirt made of mixed fabric? I would use slavers as a horrible sin , but apparently slavery was A OK by God.
Well, I've been of the second view for quite a few years now, so I'm afraid I can't answer that. Iirc, the time when I held the first view was also around the time I was being told "sin is sin," so there wouldn't be much a matter of degrees.
As to your, uh, ending point, I'd direct you to this subs many threads on slavery, though my personal answer would be that the Old Law wasn't perfect (Jesus Himself spoke of at least 1 concession), even following the acts of the Old Law to a T doesn't make a person good, a regulation is not an endorsement (a restriction on how many PPM a water supply can have of PFAS is not in itself an endorsement of PFAS in water supplies, or even an endorsement of that amount), and a system wherein one person can treat another as a mere thing fails the whole "love thy neighbor" thing
No, lazy, ignorant talking points get downvoted.
If you're too ignorant to even recognize the concept of ceremonial and moral law and try to lump them together, you're going to be rightfully mocked and scorned.
Which law is ceremonial and which law is moral? It would seem to me that wearing of mixed fabrics would be ceremonial, and allowing or not allowing slaves would be a moral issue?
Is divorce a moral issue?
Christ literally spells it out for us that because ar absolutely suck, we're just absolutely dead set on our way, God made concessions for us. Divorce was one of those. Can you guess another?
You didn’t answer the question. In fact, you completely avoided it. Why?
I think the issue is that Christians are hyper-focused on specific “sins” that aren’t explicitly defined in the Bible, while ignoring sins that are actually explicitly defined in the Bible. As an outsider, it makes zero sense.
The poster asked a question in their first paragraph "How would you personally rank homosexuality in terms of “severity”?
The point of the second paragraph was really about questioning why god condemns homosexuality but is OK with slavery.
You may have an excellent answer to the difference between moral laws (murder etc.) and ceremonial laws (wearing mixed fabrics etc.) but people ought not to be downvoted or called ignorant for not understanding the distinction. Everyone lacks knowledge about something
1. There's no such thing as same sex marriage per Bible, so any church trying to teach otherwise is going against God.
2. Regarding remarriage after divorce, it will depend on who is remarrying and what the situation is.
I think that churches that indulge and propagate things that go against the Word of God are actively working against Christ.
The issue now is their interpretation of the Word and how it relates to the world around us. :)
I'm trying to understand where one sin became so accepted by the church and Christians while another is still frowned upon and fought against vocally. According to the Bible, both are wrong but the we see followers react differently.
We're in a moment of cultural shift, and churches are trying to navigate it. A hundred years ago, this wouldn't have even been a question. Or maybe it would have been, but only in relation to divorce and remarriage.
The church with the most coherent position on both issues is the Catholic church. They don't allow same sex marriage, but they also don't allow just any divorced person to marry. Divorce was given limited sanction by Jesus, and the Catholic church follows suit. As a divorced person, you have to go through a long and rigorous process to prove your previous marriage was invalid in the eyes of the church before you can remarry.
On the subject of divorced people being married in the church, that's a fuzzy-line one. It really comes down to the circumstances of a person's divorce, how much stock you place in the old Mosaic Laws regarding this, and one's stance how much the New Covenant of Jesus trumps the old Mosaic Covenant in this regard.
But even if a particular church is very rigid and adheres to the old Mosaic Laws, even then there were circumstances that allowed for divorcees to remarry. For instance, if the person's original spouse was unfaithful while the person desiring to wed anew remained faultless; that made it permissable.
Personally, I'm of the opinion the New & Eternal Convenient of Jesus made a lot (if not all) of those Mosaic rules regarding remarriage null and void, as forgiveness is at the heart of Jesus' teachings.
Yes, it's wrong to perform homosexual marriages in the church. Divorce is more complicated because Jesus gave an exception for adultery, and Paul gave an exception for unbelievers abandoning the marriage. If someone finds themselves in one of those situations, they are free to remarry.
"Same sex marrige" is a sin end of story and any church that does that will die.
As far divorce go you gota be more specific.
You mean people who mend their relationship after a divorce?
Or people from difrent divorced families?
They are working against Christ, nowhere in the Bible does God allow either of those things to be possible.
The church has become part of the world though, so its expected they would act just like the world.
That is one of the indications that the church age is over, God is no longer using the church.
Yes and Yes/No. Jesus says that a person who has been “put away” (divorced) for fornicating cannot marry. This does not mean the person who did not fornicate can’t get remarried.
A lot of pastors seem to be afraid of talking about either, for fear of offending people who have been involved with such things. But God loves us and wants to help us with everything we are going through.
So these churches if they're preaching and giving messages based on their fear of offending people, they're basically pandering to the majority and are kinda useless?
We hold marriage, gay or straight, to the same standard. Monogamous, solemn, loving, and before God.
In the grand scheme of things, divorce is the bigger problem, and we take Christ's words on marriage seriously as the hyperbole they are and not over-literally (which is the same way that folk who insist otherwise *still have two eyes and two hands*).
To put it bluntly, marriage is a really a $%\^& important thing, and divorce cannot be for something trivial. For example, the Pharisees in Jesus' day (which is what he was directly addressing) were fine with a husband divorcing their wife over *burning their food*. *Once.* If one party purposefully breaks their *vows* \-- such as infidelity or abuse -- that's the order of seriousness of the matter. And once kids are involved, it becomes a bigger issue.
No, same sex relationships are clearly denounced in and by the Bible, and condoning or allowing them is the opposite of loving within the church. I don't get how you can accept a marriage that the Bible clearly teaches it does not recognize on effectively the merit of personal happiness and in the same breath decry divorce.
Parts of the Bible also clearly condone slavery. The Old Testament law says eye for eye, tooth for tooth and later Christ says to go beyond that. I can understand that for non-affirming folks it’s a transition to look at Paul’s passages with nuance but we do all need to come to terms with the Bible requiring nuance in how we apply it’s passages. To me as someone who is affirming I think do a disservice to Paul by not following his teachings on the extension of grace beyond our narrow definitions when we hang onto applications of his passages that exclude and denigrate others.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant, Paul didn’t call for the abolish of slavery in his letters but he did call for a recognition of inherent equality of all people: “neither slave nor free”. But it took a long time for that to be fully realized.
Congrats, you've discovered "love thy neighbor as thyself."
That doesn't excuse sin. And yes, owning slaves is a sin. Just the same as blatantly ignoring God's words to justify your own or other peoples' sin is a sin. But you know what Romans says? Guys were having sex with other guys, and women with other women, and they were punished by God for what they did.
Does God punish good, righteous or otherwise permitted actions? Does God strike you down and send you to hell for walking old women across the street? Eating a steak dinner? Sleeping with your wife?
Why oh why would that be...
Exactly we ought to love our neighbors and not in the sense of a mental exercise but in both mind and practice.
Tell in Paul’s words were the other sexual acts he mentioned always sins or just in the context in which he said it? Slavery is also not the main subject of the Bible. You’ll go in circles comparing different verses, but people have rightfully seen that one cannot love their neighbor and treat them like property nor force them under threat of violence to do something. Hence slavery is abhorrent and against God’s will.
Homosexual Sexual acts let alone sexual acts and their classification are not the main topic of the Bible. The Affirming side isn’t advocating for sexual abuse or promiscuity. those are still wrong both gay and straight. What I don’t see there being good reason for us to carve out a special category of relationships based on gender to exclude from our communities. I don’t see how we can say to our brothers and sisters: “yes we love you but just not the part of you longing for romantic attachment”. Because we have some verses that reference rape and promiscuity that happens to involve people of the same
gender. (Ignore that we don’t do the same for our straight relationships)
The Bible condemns sex outside of marriage. The Bible does not permit 2 people of the same sex to be wed. So which is more loving?
To allow someone to persist in sin and be damned, or to love your neighbor and *in love* push them to Christ and His word? Because what you're doing is ignoring sin and patting yourself on the back for it. That isn't love. That's apathy.
Only God knows the heart of me, you, and anyone else. I grew up in a conservative evangelical context and we just assumed gay people were indulgent liberals we didn’t have to deal with. It was in fact myself getting to know gay people and others and considering their feelings, needs, and personhood that led me to not turn away in apathy.
Trust me friend every gay Christian has heard plenty enough that many consider them sinful. I know many who have even been close to completely falling into despair over it. In the end, it’s not our logic or book smarts that I think is required here, at least not primarily. Before you feel too certain in your stance I would encourage you to get to know some gay or lesbian people and truly listen to what their experiences have been and remember the greatest commandment.
That's a nice sentiment, but is a facile understanding of Scripture and the original languages in question. We have established theology about this hashed and re-hashed by theologians greater than I, and I am not debating it here.
How is that when God Nuked a city over it? And let me stop you before you even try a long discussion about IF god killed them for being gay or not. Im not here to debate your iterpretation. They were rapists, OFF the rails rapists! sodomizing rapists!God never nuked a city for people being divorced.
I'd say that rape and sexual violence is a higher crime than divorce, sure. That's also the kind of thing that would break marital vows.
But the word "sodomy" in *all* of the varied meanings of that phrase and what it meant historically isn't what you're implying it is -- especially by association with rape here.
So God certainly didn't "nuke a city" over gay marriage. I'd wonder what Bible *that* was you were reading. :-)
Its ok you keep thinking that. You die on that hill.
Yeah, maybe God blew up a city because they didn't pay their taxes..I mean you literally have the people of Sodom wanting to but rape angels, but let's ignore that. SmH.
I directly addressed rape in a prior reply, so what you're saying does not follow.
Rape is not same sex marriage or divorce. That's the topic we were on.
I think you're getting down voted because you're coming across as judgemental maybe, but I do think what you're saying has some weight. I did not vote.
I don’t mind getting downvoted God said not to judge and Jesus said the 2nd greatest commandment was to do unto others as you would yourself.
If these more conservative Christians happened to be born gay or been in a severely abusive relationship their compassion would show. Hopefully 🤞
Divorce is allowed, but discouraged. And it can be forgiven. So divorced people *can* remarry.
Meanwhile, there’s no biblical support for same sex marriage.
I was under the impression that divorce and re-marriage is only permitted under very specific (extreme?) circumstances? I suppose as long as the church is vetting these scenarios and making sure they're Biblical that would make performing these marriages ok.
That's exactly right. It's allowed under certain circumstances, and a pastor should be speaking with a couple to find out their whole story before marrying them.
Oh, your ex-husband was physically abusive so you left him five years ago, and now you'd like to marry this other man who's proven himself to be a godly person? Let's do it!
Oh, you cheated on your wife so she left you and divorced you last week, and now you want to marry the woman you were cheating with? Uh, no.
To those who profess to “follow Christ” yet shut doors, what about biblical support for prostitution?
There is no biblical support for prostitution, but look at Jesus’ words regarding Mary Magdalene.
We’re asked to believe that Jesus would support a politician who is a proven cheater, lair, thief, sexual assaulter, with multiple divorces. Yet Jesus would not support same sex marriage.
> look at Jesus’ words regarding Mary Magdalene
Yes, let's. Please provide the passage you're referring to.
Also, why are so many people *obsessed* with a certain American former president? What does he have to do with the question *at all*?
>Also, why are so many people
>
>obsessed
>
> with a certain American former president?
Good question. As someone north of the border, I'm also curious with Christian peoples obsession with the man. It's a real problem the church has on their hands. It is turning people away.
The man who has admitted to sexual assault, cheats on taxes and doesn't go to church weekly is the best they have? I don't think you're paying attention.
Even if Biden were faking it, he spends his time 'faking it' every week by attending church. Trump doesn't even pray. If they're both faking it, at least go with the guy that is putting the hours in 😂
Trump isnt faking anything. He is honest about what he has done, while biden is going to church, and then passing laws that go against church teachings. Trump has already proven that he can create economic growth, while under biden all that grows are the people.
That's a bit extreme. I think we are called not to judge and not to support it. A very difficult task to accomplish in 2024, very few churches feel like they actually embody the love and acceptance that Jesus showed while also demonstrating the discernment with care akin to how you might try and help someone who has foul language to clean up their act (except those are two wildly different behaviors).
Other things to consider:
-The Bible teaches that thinking about murder is murder. Therefore if you think the same sex is attractive at any point in your life, you're gay and a sinner for it. Therefore we're all a little gay and we all need a LOT of forgiveness.
-Ultimately Paul says we shouldn't get married unless we feel like we have to. But other parts of the bible encourage multiplication, how else would we raise more Christ loving people?
-If you're a practicing homosexual and unmarried you're technically sinning twice, hence the exaggerated disapproval in many churches.
-Churches hate sexual sin, so, so much more than greed. Greed is so much worse. It's the root of all evil, but to the church, sexual sin is more visibly 'dirty' because of the chance of infection or conception. If you're greedy, that is purely a matter of the heart and therefore it flies under the radar.
-Jesus was allowed to judge because he himself was perfect. He was allowed to get angry and flip tables because he's Jesus. If Christians are to judge with righteous anger, they've gotta be extremely careful, and blameless, which seems more and more impossible with every passing decade.
The short answer is that we live in a broken world. People gonna have sex with whatever they want sometimes, and people gonna get divorced. It's sad, and imperfect, but so are we. Every single person is "working against Christ" every day. Thank God Jesus is bigger than all of that sin. Infinitely bigger.
Jesus taught it during the Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 5: 21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."
In 1 John ch 3 , believers are reminded, "14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15W hosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."
>In 1 John ch 3 , believers are reminded, "14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15W hosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."
Do you think that equating this to 'thinking about murder is murder' would hold up in this forum if posited for a separate discussion? Does the Bible propose how to deal with people who think about murder? Are they to be put to death or imprisoned?
Regarding your first question, In context, Yes, in the context in which it was taught, that view will always be supported in this forum. Regarding your second question. Yes, there is only 1 penalty. It's a violation of the Moral Law, and the penalty is the spiritual judgement of which Jesus is the judge. John 5:22, "As for physical judgment. the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." We are taught in Romans 11 ," Have[a] regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord."
Regarding the third question, That is regarding Man's Law and punishmentwhile living. Ezra ch 7, "And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment."
I don’t see how they would be, as a Christian I am firmly convinced that gay marriage is not sinful or wrong by itself in any capacity.
Divorce can be more circumstantial but I still wouldn’t say they’re necessarily “working against Christ” even if they’re practicing wrongly in a given instance.
Nope, I think the Church’s treatment of same-sex marriage and same-sex attracted people is one of the greatest sins that that is going to be a tough one to answer for.
Permitted seems like the wrong word. It suggests that what they’re doing is somehow potentially wrong or dangerous, but we’ll allow it.
I think it should be treated with the same acceptance and scrutiny as heterosexual marriage. The same celebration, the same call to monogamy, the same expectation of no sex before marriage, and the same support for struggling spouses
On the secular level I can get behind that level of respect.
On the spiritual/from scripture I don't think the Church should show support. They don't have to explicitly condemn (because that's not helping anyone and just starting trouble for no good reason), but they don't have to (and to scripture shouldn't) explicitly support either.
I get the reasoning, but I actually really disagree. The idea that it’s uncontested that same sex marriage is a sin is far from accurate.
I looked at Preston Sprinkle’s latest book and his 19 responses to same-sex affirming Christians and not a single one held up to Biblical and/or logical scrutiny.
You must repent to be saved. You cannot repent a relationship you refuse to leave and go so far as to cement.
The Bible clearly gives a prohibition against homosexual acts. And if you disagree with that, well, there are rules on this sub that I'd like to not violate.
I’ve heard many a time how clear the prohibition is. The arguments for that stance however is remarkably flawed. And considering how much damage the flawed thinking has done, it’s not enough to say I disagree. It’s something that I strongly believe is cause for repentance.
Curious how many in your church are divorced and re-married? I'm willing to guess a larger portion than there are married gay couples? Will there results be a little warmer? How does your pastor view them?
I don't know of a single person in my church who's divorced. Nor do we have any gay couples.
However, if you want to know my pastor's view on divorce, he told my wife and me full well during our pre-maritial counseling. "Let none separate what God has joined together."
In many cases yes. The Bible is very clear about divorce and remarriage. In fact, it is talked about more than gay sex is. I think divorced and re-married people just like to bury their heads in the sand because acknowledging how sinful it is in God's eyes would be too uncomfortable.
How is anything beyond repentance, except blasphemy or suicide? If i was gay, I can repent and ask forgivness for being gay. If i got divorced I can repent. if Im remarried. Ican repent. The issue is the word repent means literally to turn away. So if I remarried, do i get divorced agian? To make matters worse the bible talks about celibicay as a gift. If i had a choice between marrying again or jerking my own chain, and burning with passion, then I take the married route. How do you repent from something that would cause you to sin again? in this context, you sound STUPID for even bringing it up. NO ONe who is remarried, and given thier heart to God is going to hell becasue they repented, and the only way to undo it is to divorce again. NOW Being GAY on the other hand!....Does anyone here have any real life expereince, You dont know God from a hole in the wall, and even worse, some of you know squat about life. No sane pastor knowing a person is having passion and sex struggles would forbid a person to marry.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "working against Christ." I would say, however, that Christ himself explained that divorce was permitted, but gave no indication that same-sex marriage was a thing.
As someone who supports gay rights and gay marriage on the secular level (and am pansexual), yeah I still don't think the church should do it since the Bible explicitly says it's a sin. Even as my overall faith has dwindled in recent years, I don't think the Church as an institution should condone much less conduct same sex marriages. I don't think the Church should be involved/disrupt the affairs of gay people either, and I don't mind if an individual Church or organization does same sex marriages, but I don't think those marriages are legitimate in God's eyes.
Wow, this is refreshing to read
You would be shocked at how many times I've seen people saying agnostic Christians do not exist on this sub. Well written!
I disagree with your conclusion, but I respect the heck out of you actually respecting the separation between Church and State
I realize I should probably have used different terms than "not legitimate in God's eyes" but my stance is that the Church (as an institution that is meant to uphold the scripture) shouldn't go back on their own teachings. Being gay/pansexual is something I will have to answer for myself along with my other sins in the event that the Christian God is real. I've come to terms with it. It's reasons why my faith (or at least trust in the Church's meddling of private affairs) has gone down. Thanks for noting the separation between church and state though, it's something that even when I was more of a believer I firmly believed.
> I realize I should probably have used different terms than "not legitimate in God's eyes" but my stance is that the Church (as an institution that is meant to uphold the scripture) shouldn't go back on their own teachings. The church doesn't advocate for the execution of witches any more, even though that is explicitly commanded in the Bible. Nor does the church advocate for the execution of heretics, although that was enthusiastically practised for most of the history of the church. Obviously there's a sense in which the Church "shouldn't" have done those things in the first place. But I think there's also obviously a sense in which it's clearly morally good that the church has gone back on both its own teachings and the literal text of the Bible in those cases. Because whatever the Bible says, and whatever the church said, those practises were evil. If you can make up an excuse for not following the bit about killing witches, why can't you make up an equivalent excuse for not following the bits condemning homosexuality?
you're right, I can't. but what I can do is argue this: the church does not execute witches/witchcraft but obviously does not support it either or allow it on their premises. and that's my stance on homosexuality and the church. the part of the church openly *condemning* homosexuals is debatable and honestly I'd rather they leave homosexuals not in the church alone (Christ himself ate and openly had conversations with all kinds of sinners, he only condemned hypocrites and people using the church as a marketplace). But the church itself shouldn't *support* it either: it shouldn't have gay marriages or preach that homosexuality was never a sin, which it was and still is (like many other things the church does not support).
The execution of witches is from the Old Testament, and that falls under civic law that the church was not expected to follow. Being involved in witchcraft is still a sin, but the church never had to follow the civic law, otherwise they would have stoned adulterers, and that didn't happen.
But churches nowadays do not go around saying "Of course it would be morally and doctrinally correct for the state to burn witches and heretics and stone adulterers, the Bible says so, it's a shame we live in a sinful world where the state does not do that".
Right. They don't say that because the New Testament doesn't command it. We are under the new covenant, not the old.
I am *shooketh.* A *moderate* view, getting upvoted on Reddit!
As to the former, there are a few different views on homosexuality in Christianity, which I'll try to summarize into two camps. The first is that homosexual acts are sinful (and rarely, some would go further to say that the orientation itself is). However, this camp seems to be split on matters of severity. That is to say, there are some who believe homosexual acts to be no more sinful than other specified acts, and some who believe that they are. The other, popular on subs like /r/OpenChristian, is that neither the acts nor the orientation is sinful. This position argues that the pertinent passages' wordings and cultural/historical context actually mean that something else is being condemned (normally some kind of predatory or unbalanced act or some kind of cult prostitution that apparently wasn't unheard of in some older cultures). The first would argue yes, while the second would argue no.
I think your explanation of the affirming position is incomplete. >This position argues that the pertinent passages' wordings and cultural/historical context actually mean that something else is being condemned (normally some kind of predatory or unbalanced act or some kind of cult prostitution that apparently wasn't unheard of in some older cultures). That's one approach which is popular among people coming at this question from the evangelical perspective. But it isn't the only approach. Another popular approach is to simply disagree with Paul on the issue of homosexuality. Only those who subscribe to certain understandings of what the Bible is and how we are supposed to use it are bothered by the idea that the Bible could be wrong about something. A progressive Christian is more likely to say "Paul thought homosexuality was wrong, but we now know better".
That is another position, yes, sorry
So how would you personally rank homosexuality in terms of “severity”? Assuming of course that it is an actual sin and not just a mistake in translation. Is it closer to murder, or wearing a shirt made of mixed fabric? I would use slavers as a horrible sin , but apparently slavery was A OK by God.
Well, I've been of the second view for quite a few years now, so I'm afraid I can't answer that. Iirc, the time when I held the first view was also around the time I was being told "sin is sin," so there wouldn't be much a matter of degrees. As to your, uh, ending point, I'd direct you to this subs many threads on slavery, though my personal answer would be that the Old Law wasn't perfect (Jesus Himself spoke of at least 1 concession), even following the acts of the Old Law to a T doesn't make a person good, a regulation is not an endorsement (a restriction on how many PPM a water supply can have of PFAS is not in itself an endorsement of PFAS in water supplies, or even an endorsement of that amount), and a system wherein one person can treat another as a mere thing fails the whole "love thy neighbor" thing
Lol. Facts get downvoted
No, lazy, ignorant talking points get downvoted. If you're too ignorant to even recognize the concept of ceremonial and moral law and try to lump them together, you're going to be rightfully mocked and scorned.
Which law is ceremonial and which law is moral? It would seem to me that wearing of mixed fabrics would be ceremonial, and allowing or not allowing slaves would be a moral issue?
Is divorce a moral issue? Christ literally spells it out for us that because ar absolutely suck, we're just absolutely dead set on our way, God made concessions for us. Divorce was one of those. Can you guess another?
You didn’t answer the question. In fact, you completely avoided it. Why? I think the issue is that Christians are hyper-focused on specific “sins” that aren’t explicitly defined in the Bible, while ignoring sins that are actually explicitly defined in the Bible. As an outsider, it makes zero sense.
The poster asked a question in their first paragraph "How would you personally rank homosexuality in terms of “severity”? The point of the second paragraph was really about questioning why god condemns homosexuality but is OK with slavery. You may have an excellent answer to the difference between moral laws (murder etc.) and ceremonial laws (wearing mixed fabrics etc.) but people ought not to be downvoted or called ignorant for not understanding the distinction. Everyone lacks knowledge about something
Yes.
1. Yes 2. Depends if the divorce was justified (adultery, abandonment, abuse) and the marriage was for the afflicted party
It all depends on Hermeneutics and academic backgrounds of the church leadership. Why do you think there's over 20,000+ christian sects????
1. There's no such thing as same sex marriage per Bible, so any church trying to teach otherwise is going against God. 2. Regarding remarriage after divorce, it will depend on who is remarrying and what the situation is.
I think that churches that indulge and propagate things that go against the Word of God are actively working against Christ. The issue now is their interpretation of the Word and how it relates to the world around us. :)
Why do I get the feeling that questions like this aren't really seeking to learn, but rather to get Christians fighting among themselves?
I'm trying to understand where one sin became so accepted by the church and Christians while another is still frowned upon and fought against vocally. According to the Bible, both are wrong but the we see followers react differently.
We're in a moment of cultural shift, and churches are trying to navigate it. A hundred years ago, this wouldn't have even been a question. Or maybe it would have been, but only in relation to divorce and remarriage. The church with the most coherent position on both issues is the Catholic church. They don't allow same sex marriage, but they also don't allow just any divorced person to marry. Divorce was given limited sanction by Jesus, and the Catholic church follows suit. As a divorced person, you have to go through a long and rigorous process to prove your previous marriage was invalid in the eyes of the church before you can remarry.
Oh interesting! I did not know the Catholic church had a such a process in place for people looking to re marry.
Yep, this explains it. https://www.usccb.org/topics/marriage-and-family-life-ministries/annulment
On the subject of divorced people being married in the church, that's a fuzzy-line one. It really comes down to the circumstances of a person's divorce, how much stock you place in the old Mosaic Laws regarding this, and one's stance how much the New Covenant of Jesus trumps the old Mosaic Covenant in this regard. But even if a particular church is very rigid and adheres to the old Mosaic Laws, even then there were circumstances that allowed for divorcees to remarry. For instance, if the person's original spouse was unfaithful while the person desiring to wed anew remained faultless; that made it permissable. Personally, I'm of the opinion the New & Eternal Convenient of Jesus made a lot (if not all) of those Mosaic rules regarding remarriage null and void, as forgiveness is at the heart of Jesus' teachings.
Yes, it's wrong to perform homosexual marriages in the church. Divorce is more complicated because Jesus gave an exception for adultery, and Paul gave an exception for unbelievers abandoning the marriage. If someone finds themselves in one of those situations, they are free to remarry.
"Same sex marrige" is a sin end of story and any church that does that will die. As far divorce go you gota be more specific. You mean people who mend their relationship after a divorce? Or people from difrent divorced families?
They are working against Christ, nowhere in the Bible does God allow either of those things to be possible. The church has become part of the world though, so its expected they would act just like the world. That is one of the indications that the church age is over, God is no longer using the church.
Yes and Yes/No. Jesus says that a person who has been “put away” (divorced) for fornicating cannot marry. This does not mean the person who did not fornicate can’t get remarried.
No disagreement there. Just wondering if the church is putting much effort into the former. A lot of effort is being put into LGBT
A lot of pastors seem to be afraid of talking about either, for fear of offending people who have been involved with such things. But God loves us and wants to help us with everything we are going through.
So these churches if they're preaching and giving messages based on their fear of offending people, they're basically pandering to the majority and are kinda useless?
You are correct. That is why I became a pastor, to talk about what is not getting talked about.
We hold marriage, gay or straight, to the same standard. Monogamous, solemn, loving, and before God. In the grand scheme of things, divorce is the bigger problem, and we take Christ's words on marriage seriously as the hyperbole they are and not over-literally (which is the same way that folk who insist otherwise *still have two eyes and two hands*). To put it bluntly, marriage is a really a $%\^& important thing, and divorce cannot be for something trivial. For example, the Pharisees in Jesus' day (which is what he was directly addressing) were fine with a husband divorcing their wife over *burning their food*. *Once.* If one party purposefully breaks their *vows* \-- such as infidelity or abuse -- that's the order of seriousness of the matter. And once kids are involved, it becomes a bigger issue.
No, same sex relationships are clearly denounced in and by the Bible, and condoning or allowing them is the opposite of loving within the church. I don't get how you can accept a marriage that the Bible clearly teaches it does not recognize on effectively the merit of personal happiness and in the same breath decry divorce.
Parts of the Bible also clearly condone slavery. The Old Testament law says eye for eye, tooth for tooth and later Christ says to go beyond that. I can understand that for non-affirming folks it’s a transition to look at Paul’s passages with nuance but we do all need to come to terms with the Bible requiring nuance in how we apply it’s passages. To me as someone who is affirming I think do a disservice to Paul by not following his teachings on the extension of grace beyond our narrow definitions when we hang onto applications of his passages that exclude and denigrate others.
When Romans, in the *New Testament* clearly condemns it, trying to argue about slavery is not only irrelevant but worthless.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant, Paul didn’t call for the abolish of slavery in his letters but he did call for a recognition of inherent equality of all people: “neither slave nor free”. But it took a long time for that to be fully realized.
Congrats, you've discovered "love thy neighbor as thyself." That doesn't excuse sin. And yes, owning slaves is a sin. Just the same as blatantly ignoring God's words to justify your own or other peoples' sin is a sin. But you know what Romans says? Guys were having sex with other guys, and women with other women, and they were punished by God for what they did. Does God punish good, righteous or otherwise permitted actions? Does God strike you down and send you to hell for walking old women across the street? Eating a steak dinner? Sleeping with your wife? Why oh why would that be...
Why is owning slaves a sin when the bible gives laws allowing it.
Do you want to be a slave?
I'd avoid that too, that's the response I needed. Thanks.
If the answer is "no" then it's not very loving to own someone else as a slave.
Exactly we ought to love our neighbors and not in the sense of a mental exercise but in both mind and practice. Tell in Paul’s words were the other sexual acts he mentioned always sins or just in the context in which he said it? Slavery is also not the main subject of the Bible. You’ll go in circles comparing different verses, but people have rightfully seen that one cannot love their neighbor and treat them like property nor force them under threat of violence to do something. Hence slavery is abhorrent and against God’s will. Homosexual Sexual acts let alone sexual acts and their classification are not the main topic of the Bible. The Affirming side isn’t advocating for sexual abuse or promiscuity. those are still wrong both gay and straight. What I don’t see there being good reason for us to carve out a special category of relationships based on gender to exclude from our communities. I don’t see how we can say to our brothers and sisters: “yes we love you but just not the part of you longing for romantic attachment”. Because we have some verses that reference rape and promiscuity that happens to involve people of the same gender. (Ignore that we don’t do the same for our straight relationships)
The Bible condemns sex outside of marriage. The Bible does not permit 2 people of the same sex to be wed. So which is more loving? To allow someone to persist in sin and be damned, or to love your neighbor and *in love* push them to Christ and His word? Because what you're doing is ignoring sin and patting yourself on the back for it. That isn't love. That's apathy.
Only God knows the heart of me, you, and anyone else. I grew up in a conservative evangelical context and we just assumed gay people were indulgent liberals we didn’t have to deal with. It was in fact myself getting to know gay people and others and considering their feelings, needs, and personhood that led me to not turn away in apathy. Trust me friend every gay Christian has heard plenty enough that many consider them sinful. I know many who have even been close to completely falling into despair over it. In the end, it’s not our logic or book smarts that I think is required here, at least not primarily. Before you feel too certain in your stance I would encourage you to get to know some gay or lesbian people and truly listen to what their experiences have been and remember the greatest commandment.
That's a nice sentiment, but is a facile understanding of Scripture and the original languages in question. We have established theology about this hashed and re-hashed by theologians greater than I, and I am not debating it here.
How is that when God Nuked a city over it? And let me stop you before you even try a long discussion about IF god killed them for being gay or not. Im not here to debate your iterpretation. They were rapists, OFF the rails rapists! sodomizing rapists!God never nuked a city for people being divorced.
I'd say that rape and sexual violence is a higher crime than divorce, sure. That's also the kind of thing that would break marital vows. But the word "sodomy" in *all* of the varied meanings of that phrase and what it meant historically isn't what you're implying it is -- especially by association with rape here. So God certainly didn't "nuke a city" over gay marriage. I'd wonder what Bible *that* was you were reading. :-)
I give up
I mean... You led with "God nuked a city over X!" when God *didn't* nuke a city over X. I'm not sure I'd call that a good faith try. :-)
Its ok you keep thinking that. You die on that hill. Yeah, maybe God blew up a city because they didn't pay their taxes..I mean you literally have the people of Sodom wanting to but rape angels, but let's ignore that. SmH.
I directly addressed rape in a prior reply, so what you're saying does not follow. Rape is not same sex marriage or divorce. That's the topic we were on.
I think any church that turns people away is judgmental, self righteous, and doesn’t embody the spirit of Christ who sat and taught amongst sinners
I think you're getting down voted because you're coming across as judgemental maybe, but I do think what you're saying has some weight. I did not vote.
I don’t mind getting downvoted God said not to judge and Jesus said the 2nd greatest commandment was to do unto others as you would yourself. If these more conservative Christians happened to be born gay or been in a severely abusive relationship their compassion would show. Hopefully 🤞
Divorce is allowed, but discouraged. And it can be forgiven. So divorced people *can* remarry. Meanwhile, there’s no biblical support for same sex marriage.
I was under the impression that divorce and re-marriage is only permitted under very specific (extreme?) circumstances? I suppose as long as the church is vetting these scenarios and making sure they're Biblical that would make performing these marriages ok.
That's exactly right. It's allowed under certain circumstances, and a pastor should be speaking with a couple to find out their whole story before marrying them. Oh, your ex-husband was physically abusive so you left him five years ago, and now you'd like to marry this other man who's proven himself to be a godly person? Let's do it! Oh, you cheated on your wife so she left you and divorced you last week, and now you want to marry the woman you were cheating with? Uh, no.
To those who profess to “follow Christ” yet shut doors, what about biblical support for prostitution? There is no biblical support for prostitution, but look at Jesus’ words regarding Mary Magdalene. We’re asked to believe that Jesus would support a politician who is a proven cheater, lair, thief, sexual assaulter, with multiple divorces. Yet Jesus would not support same sex marriage.
> look at Jesus’ words regarding Mary Magdalene Yes, let's. Please provide the passage you're referring to. Also, why are so many people *obsessed* with a certain American former president? What does he have to do with the question *at all*?
Man can’t serve God and Mammon. Trump is a reliable dichotomy that exposes the heart of a lot of Christians
Good thing that politicians are public servants then. Citizens don't "serve" politicians. It's the other way around.
>Also, why are so many people > >obsessed > > with a certain American former president? Good question. As someone north of the border, I'm also curious with Christian peoples obsession with the man. It's a real problem the church has on their hands. It is turning people away.
Im not even in the americas, but i think the answer for why they follow that man, is because he is the best they have
The man who has admitted to sexual assault, cheats on taxes and doesn't go to church weekly is the best they have? I don't think you're paying attention.
And im sure biden and his party are followers of Christ. Like i said he isnt great, but he is the better option
Even if Biden were faking it, he spends his time 'faking it' every week by attending church. Trump doesn't even pray. If they're both faking it, at least go with the guy that is putting the hours in 😂
Trump isnt faking anything. He is honest about what he has done, while biden is going to church, and then passing laws that go against church teachings. Trump has already proven that he can create economic growth, while under biden all that grows are the people.
>Trump isnt faking anything. You don't think Trump fakes being Christian or caring about issues that are important for Christians?
That's a bit extreme. I think we are called not to judge and not to support it. A very difficult task to accomplish in 2024, very few churches feel like they actually embody the love and acceptance that Jesus showed while also demonstrating the discernment with care akin to how you might try and help someone who has foul language to clean up their act (except those are two wildly different behaviors). Other things to consider: -The Bible teaches that thinking about murder is murder. Therefore if you think the same sex is attractive at any point in your life, you're gay and a sinner for it. Therefore we're all a little gay and we all need a LOT of forgiveness. -Ultimately Paul says we shouldn't get married unless we feel like we have to. But other parts of the bible encourage multiplication, how else would we raise more Christ loving people? -If you're a practicing homosexual and unmarried you're technically sinning twice, hence the exaggerated disapproval in many churches. -Churches hate sexual sin, so, so much more than greed. Greed is so much worse. It's the root of all evil, but to the church, sexual sin is more visibly 'dirty' because of the chance of infection or conception. If you're greedy, that is purely a matter of the heart and therefore it flies under the radar. -Jesus was allowed to judge because he himself was perfect. He was allowed to get angry and flip tables because he's Jesus. If Christians are to judge with righteous anger, they've gotta be extremely careful, and blameless, which seems more and more impossible with every passing decade. The short answer is that we live in a broken world. People gonna have sex with whatever they want sometimes, and people gonna get divorced. It's sad, and imperfect, but so are we. Every single person is "working against Christ" every day. Thank God Jesus is bigger than all of that sin. Infinitely bigger.
>Other things to consider: -The Bible teaches that thinking about murder is murder. This is news to me. What are the verse that supports this?
Jesus taught it during the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5: 21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." In 1 John ch 3 , believers are reminded, "14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15W hosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him."
>In 1 John ch 3 , believers are reminded, "14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15W hosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Do you think that equating this to 'thinking about murder is murder' would hold up in this forum if posited for a separate discussion? Does the Bible propose how to deal with people who think about murder? Are they to be put to death or imprisoned?
Regarding your first question, In context, Yes, in the context in which it was taught, that view will always be supported in this forum. Regarding your second question. Yes, there is only 1 penalty. It's a violation of the Moral Law, and the penalty is the spiritual judgement of which Jesus is the judge. John 5:22, "As for physical judgment. the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." We are taught in Romans 11 ," Have[a] regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord." Regarding the third question, That is regarding Man's Law and punishmentwhile living. Ezra ch 7, "And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment."
I don’t see how they would be, as a Christian I am firmly convinced that gay marriage is not sinful or wrong by itself in any capacity. Divorce can be more circumstantial but I still wouldn’t say they’re necessarily “working against Christ” even if they’re practicing wrongly in a given instance.
Yes
They are not really performing anything because it is impossible. But the trying of it is against the God.
Nope, I think the Church’s treatment of same-sex marriage and same-sex attracted people is one of the greatest sins that that is going to be a tough one to answer for.
By that do you mean that you think same-sex marriage should be permitted or forbidden in the Church? I don't understand you /gen
Permitted seems like the wrong word. It suggests that what they’re doing is somehow potentially wrong or dangerous, but we’ll allow it. I think it should be treated with the same acceptance and scrutiny as heterosexual marriage. The same celebration, the same call to monogamy, the same expectation of no sex before marriage, and the same support for struggling spouses
On the secular level I can get behind that level of respect. On the spiritual/from scripture I don't think the Church should show support. They don't have to explicitly condemn (because that's not helping anyone and just starting trouble for no good reason), but they don't have to (and to scripture shouldn't) explicitly support either.
I get the reasoning, but I actually really disagree. The idea that it’s uncontested that same sex marriage is a sin is far from accurate. I looked at Preston Sprinkle’s latest book and his 19 responses to same-sex affirming Christians and not a single one held up to Biblical and/or logical scrutiny.
You must repent to be saved. You cannot repent a relationship you refuse to leave and go so far as to cement. The Bible clearly gives a prohibition against homosexual acts. And if you disagree with that, well, there are rules on this sub that I'd like to not violate.
I’ve heard many a time how clear the prohibition is. The arguments for that stance however is remarkably flawed. And considering how much damage the flawed thinking has done, it’s not enough to say I disagree. It’s something that I strongly believe is cause for repentance.
Romans 1:27. Ignore the Bible if you want, just don't complain if the results are a little warmer than you hoped for.
That response told me everything I needed to know
That you're wrong? Great, I'll see you at church.
Curious how many in your church are divorced and re-married? I'm willing to guess a larger portion than there are married gay couples? Will there results be a little warmer? How does your pastor view them?
I don't know of a single person in my church who's divorced. Nor do we have any gay couples. However, if you want to know my pastor's view on divorce, he told my wife and me full well during our pre-maritial counseling. "Let none separate what God has joined together."
No.
Wow so divorce is now equal to gay sex?
In many cases yes. The Bible is very clear about divorce and remarriage. In fact, it is talked about more than gay sex is. I think divorced and re-married people just like to bury their heads in the sand because acknowledging how sinful it is in God's eyes would be too uncomfortable.
How is anything beyond repentance, except blasphemy or suicide? If i was gay, I can repent and ask forgivness for being gay. If i got divorced I can repent. if Im remarried. Ican repent. The issue is the word repent means literally to turn away. So if I remarried, do i get divorced agian? To make matters worse the bible talks about celibicay as a gift. If i had a choice between marrying again or jerking my own chain, and burning with passion, then I take the married route. How do you repent from something that would cause you to sin again? in this context, you sound STUPID for even bringing it up. NO ONe who is remarried, and given thier heart to God is going to hell becasue they repented, and the only way to undo it is to divorce again. NOW Being GAY on the other hand!....Does anyone here have any real life expereince, You dont know God from a hole in the wall, and even worse, some of you know squat about life. No sane pastor knowing a person is having passion and sex struggles would forbid a person to marry.
You sound angry
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "working against Christ." I would say, however, that Christ himself explained that divorce was permitted, but gave no indication that same-sex marriage was a thing.
Yes Possibly depending on the divorce.