Two California lawmakers and openly gay members of the Legislature have introduced measures supporting the repeal of Proposition 8.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Stephen Chernin)Thousands of protestors gather near City Hall to rally against Proposition 8, Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008 in New York City. Rallies took place nationwide to protest the ban on same sex marriages.
On Tuesday, state Sen. Mark Leno and state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, both Democratic lawmakers from San Francisco, introduced concurrent resolutions that seek to put the California Legislature on record opposing Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage approved by 52 percent of voters last month.
The bills argue that the measure, which amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, was an illegal "constitutional revision" that should have been passed by two-thirds vote by both houses of the legislature before being submitted before voters.
But backers of the controversial measure contend it was an amendment that was legally enacted through the state's initiative process.
The non-binding resolution would put the state's lawmakers on record in support of arguments made in the lawsuits challenging Proposition 8.
Legal experts have said the resolution will unlikely affect the ruling by the California Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case in Spring 2009.
"This is the court's decision, not the Legislature's, just as whether you balance the budget is the Legislature's decision and not the court's," said Jesse Choper, the Earl Warren Professor of Public Law at UC Berkeley's School of Law, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.
Supporters of Proposition 8 accused the lawmakers of “grandstanding for the cameras.”
“You’d think that these legislators would be focused on resolving the budget deficit or improving the economy," said Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, which headed the Yes on 8 campaign. "Instead, they seem more interested in grandstanding for the cameras and thumbing their noses at voters who enacted Proposition 8 by a nearly 600,000 vote margin."
A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that the measure received its strongest support from evangelical Christians (85 percent) and Republicans (77 percent).
Andrew Pugno, general counsel of ProtectMarriage.com, said he was confident Proposition 8 will be upheld.
"The Court is not swayed by meaningless legislative resolutions that have no bearing on the outcome of the court challenges," said Pugno. “This resolution adds nothing to the debate about the validity of Proposition 8."
The bills introducing the resolutions were supported by the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Legislative Caucus and several gay rights groups including Equality California, which is behind one of the three lawsuits challenging the measure.
Forty-four state lawmakers have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The three individual cases are Strauss v. Horton, Tyler v. Horton, and San Francisco v. Horton.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign have until December 19 to submit arguments to the state Supreme Court explaining why the measure should be upheld.
In May, the California Supreme Court overturned a 2000 state law banning same-sex marriage. The passage of Proposition 8 reversed the court's ruling.
In addition to determining the validity of Proposition 8, the court is also expected to decide the fate of some 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the state.
RSS
yes i have but you ignore my answer, so that you don't have to feel guilty about what you do.
You are still not answering my question, and I think its because you know you are not a good Christian when you behave in such a foul manner.
awwww....mikey's playing peek-a-boo! "if i dont acknowlege what you said, you must not have said it"...how sweet. how cute. how infantile and lame.
and you ignore my answer, so that you don't have to feel guilty about what you do.
Again, you ignore my question and attempt to insult me rather than answer it. I doubt God is smiling down upon you right now.
boy, some people get REAL touchy when you speak the Bible to them. expecially if it contradicts their sin. nobody likes having their sin condemned.
No, what you are doing is trying to make inflammatory remarks that don't have any basis in the Bible. Do you really believe your behavior of mocking everything people say is what Jesus would do?
God tells us to judge sin. that's what im doing. so i am fine.
Funny how you ignored my question. Please answer, and then I'd be happy to respond!
tell me, with your foul lifestyle, do you truly believe you are doing as Christ wished?
You make proving your ignorance an extremely easy task. Tell me, with your foul attitude, do you truly believe you are doing as Christ wished?
yeah, that's a way of life.
That's not a way of life. Also, there are different ways to have sex, and not all in the gay community have anal or oral sex, so again, there is no gay "lifestyle."
the one way of life that you all conform to is that you have sex with someone of the same sex.
duh.
Jester, tell me then, what is the one way of life that all homosexuals conform to? Are we all promiscuous? Are we all atheist? Are we all filthy rich? I'm not sure why you are personally attacking me (funny, so much like Prophet!) when I have said nothing offensive to you. DP, I wonder how long ago she took the course and what she would think about what I have said.
I am currently on the phone with a psych professional who said she had a manditory course which included the "gay lifestyle". So, the professional educational psych community says there is a "gay lifestyle". I would go with the pros on this one.
"lifestyle" as defined by webster:
"the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture"
sounds like homosexual lifestyle to me. unless you have become your own dictionary. i've read many of your posts and it seems you come up with your own definitions on many things. i guess thats convenient. if it doesn't agree with your opinion, make up your own definition.
But if you ask them to tell you what it is, they can't! A lifestyle has to do with things like your economic status, the places you go, the friends you keep, etc. There are many, many lifestyles within the gay community, and so you can't say there is an overriding gay lifestyle. It simply isn't using the word correctly. There is a gay community, absolutely, but we have many differences among us.
"DP, there are many, many people in the gay community, and we don't all fit into the same "lifestyle." So sorry your mentality doesn't play out. "
I wrote: "Everyone has a lifestyle. It is a 'fill in the blank' with who you are as in individual or a group."
There are some things that every gay person has in common just like there are some things that all Christians have in common. For example, every Christian believes in Christ (or the term CHRISTian wouldn't mean anything). If there was nothing which gay people had in common then the term 'gay' would not apply to a group of individuals and the term 'gay' would be nothing.
Wikipedia: Gay--"The term then began to be used in reference to homosexuality, in particular, from the early 20th century, a usage that may have dated prior to the 19th century.[1] In modern English,[citation needed] gay has come to be used as an adjective (occasionally even as a noun) that refers primarily[citation needed] to homosexuality. By the end of the 20th century the word gay was recommended by major style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex"
Just for data purposes I googled "gay lifestyle"...it seems there are plenty of gays who believe there is a gay lifestyle!!!
Prop 8 is going to do for California (& the US) what Anita Bryant did for South Florida. Where is she these days, anyway?
"...we don't fulfill the law because we have to, we fulfill the law because we want to."
now there's someone who understand Kingdom principles!
I agree with you on that point jester that we are made of 75% water so naturally we run downhill. Our sin and flesh is more appealing than suffering. There is a true story that I heard though about a muslim village that was devastated by the tsunami in Indonesia. All of the homes and including the Mosque had been destroyed. Before the Tsunami, Christians missionaries had tried to convert them but where unsuccessful. After the tsunami though a group of Christians from a nearby village came and helped them rebuild. They even rebuilt their mosque for them. Also to note that during the time that they were doing this they never once taught them the Gospel. Now since the muslim religion is based heavily on the concept of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth they were stunned that the Christians who they perceived as enemies would come over and help them rebuild, including their mosque. The muslims in this village became so intrigued about why they would do this that they asked them. The Christians from the other village just simply said that they were showing the love that God showed them through Christ. After learning more the entire Muslim village eventually converted to Christianity.
It can be easy to sin but we don't fulfill the law because we have to, we fulfill the law because we want to. This is what Jesus is speaking of when he says he didn't come to abolish the law but fulfill it. As sons we do what needs to be done out of love. Why can a mother lift a car off their child when a strong firefighter might not be able too. Scientifically it is because of adrenaline but it proves a point that through love we gain strength to overcome. In part with that through love we also develop faith. I think that the opponents of prop 8 are viewing it from the perspective of a slave where as the supporters view it from the viewpoint of a son. It isn't about teaching them about the existence of the sin because obviously if they voted against it they know that we are saying that it is a sin. Rather I feel that since they have the perspective of a slave their interests are not always the same as the masters where as a son does what they can to help the father because what the father reaps they reap later as their inheritance. Changing the mindset from slave to son can not be taught through simple lecture but it almost has to be realized by the sinner. If you can remember that first moment where you understood God's love that is a very powerful moment. The holy spirit really takes over.
jester, but I think it's more than that I truly believe they have bought into the post modern mindset that says there is no absolute truth so therefore what's wrong for you may not be wrong for someone else, but the whole post modern mindset could also be a smokescreen to allow people to not have to deal with their sin, but you're totally correct in saying it's all about dealing or not dealing with our sin and I think the anger is a result of people having their sin exposed for what it is and they already know it for what it is. I mean it's not a surprise to them when someone tells them they have sin in their life and what that sin is, but it still ticks them off when somebody regardless of the person's motive does that to them, but this is not a new phenomona since it's the very thing that got John the Baptist beheaded and Stephen stoned.
the reason why they "win hearts" is because man is naturally evil in his heart. it is easier for them to accept sin, than to accept discipline. no one wants to be told that they're sinning. and i think the reason why people who aren't homosexuals are supporting their agenda is because they understand their own sin. and if they can forgo criticizing someone elses sin, then others will do the same for them. even christians are doing this.
True, there could always be a chance that one day the hate crimes bill could be passed, but will it be passed because prop 8 wasn't in place or will it be passed because less people are biblically grounded. I think prop 8 is only attacking a symptom of arrogance. Adam and Eve were thrown out of Eden because of their arrogance and the way that God fixed that was through Christ. By sacrificing himself for the sinners Christ redeemed us. The only way to deal with this head on is a reflection of what God did for us, by showing love and compassion towards the ones we wish to save which is why Jesus also said that we should love our enemies. This means going to the homosexual community and asking what can we do for you without any preconditions just as God did for us(there are lines that you have to draw here just like you don't give a book of matches to a 5 year old). When their heart changes so does their lifestyle. But if you can't even approach a group of people because of something that we have done may it be right or wrong how can we effectively evangelize them? If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it make a sound? If we ignore this prop 8 will just be overturned eventually. The reason why the homosexuals have been gaining some support is because they have been good at winning hearts. If they are better at winning hearts than Christians that should be a wake up call to us.
i agree. as i pointed out in my post. but as we see that the constitution changes. "hate" speech may not be covered under the first amendment (see http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081203/church-ad-banned-for-being-offensive-to-gays.htm).
the day will come when speaking out against homosexuals will be illegal, under hate crimes. then we'll see who the real christians are.
No court especially the supreme court will ever uphold a lawsuit that says that churches must marry homosexuals. That is completely against the first amendment. If some liberal judge does pass it for some reason you can count on it being over turned. I don't think we need to have this fear. In a worst case scenario if by some crazy means the first amendment is gone then all that needs to happen is that the pastor refuse to marry them. If pastors are saying they will go to jail if the hate crimes bill is passed that prohibits them from saying homosexuality is a sin I think Pastors will be bold enough to go to jail over this too.
i'll include delightinthelord in that list.
and smbga
prophet
daniel paul
forgivensinner
star
online4him
but i do agree with you. believer is one of the few that can hold a decent conversation....that includes both sides of the issue.
jew,
we have a word for people like you too. "Poser"
Ah Believer, one of scarce few here who can engage in real discourse, nice to see you again too. I'll admit I was quite taken back with the passage of prop 8 but it was more work that kept me away than anything else, but enough with that.
As far as I can tell, the domestic partnership laws in CA provide many of the protections and benefits of marriage but not all. As I've said before, despite the fact that many gays would not be satisfied with a strengthened domestic partnership system where said partnerships and marriages are fungible I think it would be more than adequate. I don't care what you call it. I just want to make sure that all citizens who abide by the law are entitled to the same rights and privileges.
As for you jester, there's a word in yiddish that perfectly describes you, schmeckel.
what's gonna happen when homosexual marriages are finally "legalized" and a pastor refuses to do a gay wedding? can anyone say "lawsuit"? i'm sure that any lawsuits will end up in the circular file anyway. pastors already have the right to refuse to do weddings of anyone as it is. but for how long?
Here is the argument that I would make against prop 8. Before I start though I must say I am against Gay marriage and I believe that the church should not encourage it within it's walls, but we are not talking about the church anymore when it comes to prop 8. We are talking about everyone within the state of California, many of whom this law would apply to are not obedient Christians or even Christians at all. That creates a problem because in the end what is the point of enforcing this law on them when it serves no purpose in saving their lives to Christ. They can not be justified by observing the law according to Galations 2:16-21
know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Even Paul mentions in Romans, "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts". God did not destroy them with his wrath but he let them be. How can we do more than God and go beyond what he has done. We are then trying to change things by our own strength and abilities. The only way California will change is if we save these individuals because to the people that are not under God the law is nothing and I come back to my original point that if God's law is meaningless to them what have we accomplished. It is not preserving marriage for God's people because they are not God's people. You can not tell someone to be obedient to your father when they have no relationship to you.
sounds like your view of our heaven is the same as our view of your heaven.
there's gonna be a LOT of well-meaning and good Jews in "heaven". (yeah, i'll use that word if you want. i dont want to hurt your sensitivity by calling it what it really is. i'll get flagged for speaking the truth here.)
yes, good to have you back, I thought maybe you choked and died on the crow you had to eat after this proposition passed, just kidding of course, but seriously why not promote strong domestic partnership laws that would insure that any two people who are the primary caregivers of each other, regardless of their genders or sexual orientation or involvement, are given the same legal rights and benefits as a married heterosexual couple. Plus there is one poster who has led me to believe those very laws are in place already in California?
Ugh, the intellectual slothfulness is shining through.
The benefits are tied in with the love one spouse feels for another because those benefits, which you see as dollar signs and write offs, represents yet another means of ensuring that one's spouse is adequately provided for and can receive the best care possible. For example, medical proxy rights, those that enable a spouse to make emergency medical decisions when the afflicted spouse is unable to make those decisions himself or herself, are a benefit flowing from marriage. Imagine the dismay of a loving (and they are capable of love) gay couple with one partner dying in a hospital bed unable to speak or communicate. Absent spousal rights (or a fully executed medical proxy, which would have to be drafted by an attorney and cost money thereby imposing an undue burden) the healthy partner would not be able to give consent to a life saving operation, instead forcing the hospital to wait to obtain consent from a next of kin, who may for all we know have disowned said patient for being a homosexual. Similarly, suppose that one partner decides to leave his entire estate to his partner in his will. Absent the statutory spousal share, a challenge to the will (on the basis of incapacity or undue influence as has been done in the past with respect to homosexuals) could potentially divest the surviving partner of his entire inheritance. Neither is just about money. It is about respecting the relationship of 2 consenting, law abiding adults and affording them the same protections under law that straight couples enjoy. The gay community is looking for the protections that those benefits provide.
As for your perception of heaven, I could care less. If heaven if full of people like you it's more akin to hell, to be frank. Anyway, playing your little game, as a Jew I know I'm going to heaven anyway.
With respect to your quip about religion influencing the formation of government, oy gevalt. Let's establish something once and for all, if you want to draw upon the bible as a source of inspiration and guidance in your life that's all fine and good. In terms of the constitution and the laws of this nation the bible is IRRELEVANT. As I mentioned before, the bible seemed to be fine with slavery but we did away with that long ago. Once marriage became within the purview of the state, licensed and regulated it's religious ties were broken and it became something defined and administered by the state. As such, it's subject to the constraints of the state and federal constitutions. Ever heard of equal protection?
alex, opposition to same-sex marriage is not necessarily, if at all, about changing lives as it is defending God's original and only design for marriage. Plus one of the worst haters of Christians was Paul and look what God did with him when He got a hold of his life. To me chances of winning an antagonist to Christ is much easier than trying to win a complacent person to Christ, just ask Lee Strobel. I'm not saying we should set out to get people angry, but if that is the result of living and testifying for the Lord then we need to trust God and realize chances are the Holy Spirit is bringing conviction on that person(s) and they are not as much angry with us as they are with God's dealing with them and the sin in their life.
i wish people could go to heaven just because they're "good". but God is a holy and perfect God. and sin cannot abide in his presence. so those who practice sin will not abide with him. it's actually pretty simple.
and as for the idea of "benefits" of marriage. what kind of benefit did Abraham get from marrying Sarah? a wife. there were no tax write offs and incentives. im married. and if they were to do away with all the monetary and other benefits of marriage, i still would have gotten married. when i met my wife, i didn't see dollar signs and write offs. i saw love...unlike all the homosexuals who post on here who are worried about the benefits.
and the bible (which was in place before our constitution) defines marriage as between a man and a woman. apparently, that part of the constitution was based on a Godly standard, but now people want to change that.
Jester, fair enough. I'll admit that I've lost all respect for Christianity, with a few rare exceptions, since stumbling across this site. The viewpoints and, more to the point, the "rationalizations" (and I use the term loosely since rarely is there reason involved) behind those viewpoints are incredibly disturbing. The often professed goal of moral legislation requiring all to live under the strictures of Christianity is proving and will ultimately prove to be the grave hubris that inflames anti-Christian sentiment.
But getting down to business, let's pick up the "what are they losing" line of argument. For starters, they're losing out on the legal benefits attached to marriage, such as interspoual tax-free transfers, medical proxy rights, inheritance rights, and numerous others. Absent an equally forceful push from Christians to create a separate but equal system of legal benefits you are indeed depriving them of something. Moreover, there is the tangential issue of respect and acknowledgment of their relationship (which for me is not the most salient point but is often a sticking point within the gay community).
As for "protecting the sanctity of marriage" you miss the major point that religion lost all right over marriage and how it is defined when it became a state institution. It is the STATE that issues marriage licenses not the CHURCH. Religious institutions merely conduct a ceremony which is incidental to the status and benefits of marriage. Sorry to say that once that happened "g-d's design for marriage" went out the window and was instead replaced by the constitutions (state and federal) which govern all things within their respective spheres.
As for my Judaism, [insert expletive here] you. Seriously. Pardon me if in my religious education I was taught to value the spirit of the teachings rather than the verbatim verse and more importantly to value and accept "good" individual regardless of their sexual orientation. My congregation includes a number of gays who are cherished members of my religious community. Judaism is focused on questioning the teachings, testing them against the world and reaching the conclusion of what is right rather than blindly obeying the text as written. Talmudic scholars have been discussing Jewish law and ethics for almost 2 thousand years, not just thumbing to a page and saying "Aha!" Biblical literalism is simply the basest form of intellectual and spiritual laziness.
jew,
i've read enough of your posts to know that you never had any respect for christianity. and christians are just using their rights to do what they need to do. if i'm not mistaken, this country is a democracy. take away our right to decide, then it becomes a dictatorship or socialistic.
are we taking away their right to love? no. are we taking away their right have sex? no. are we taking away their right to eat wherever they want? no. are we taking away their right to work or own a business? no.
we are just protecting God's design of what marriage is. you may be a jew by birth and heritage, but you are not a jew by spirit.
See, the problem that all of you fail to recognize is that the root of the outrage over Prop 8 is that the rights of others are being determined based upon what YOU believe. Frankly, what respect I had for the Christian community has been dashed by this entire ordeal. While I disagree with you all regarding the abortion issue, I nonetheless respected the underlying motivation, preserving the lives of unborn children. Here, however, there's no upside. Gays will continue to have relationships, cohabitate, and even raise children despite this egregious abortion of the federal and state constitution. The real result of this is that hard fought, equal rights have been repealed merely to fit in with tangential beliefs in the bible. If the Christian community spend even half as much time working to assist the poor and needy as it does combating the gays the world would be a far better place.
Bottom line, while the bible is the centerpiece of your lives you have to recognize and respect that there are others out there who find it irrelevant and wholly non-binding. Scale back the missionary quest of bringing the WORD to the unrepentant masses and perhaps the public image of Christians will change drastically. As I've often commented, it's about the carrot and not the stick. Taking away people's constitutional rights is using the stick and results in what we have here, mass outrage and backlash. Instead, offer what you have to say on the issue, in a discrete and respectful manner (i.e. not publicly calling gays abominations against g-d or taking out ads to that effect) and if they choose not to subscribe to your way of thinking leave them to their own devices.
oh mike. don't go postal on us. homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle.
DP, there are many, many people in the gay community, and we don't all fit into the same "lifestyle." So sorry your mentality doesn't play out.
"There is no "lifestyle" to being gay."
You misunderstand. Everyone has a lifestyle. It is a 'fill in the blank' with who you are as in individual or a group. When we think of the Amish 'lifestyle' it brings pictures to mind of simple living and the things like the morals, values and such that guide their community.
When it comes to the gay lifestyle one of the items would be same-sex attraction and same-sex physical relationships. This is one of the things which define the 'gay lifestyle' just like here big pickups with big tires, a gun rack and a nascar sticker in the window is part of the 'red-neck lifestyle'.
Just FYI, the def of what lifestyle means comes from the dictionary. It's just what the application of the word to the concept means.
Alex12,
For those who KNOW who Christ is and his claims; they will be held accountable. The scriptures also teach that the Lord considers WHERE one was born and WHAT one knows. For example, consider the following passages -
I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there. And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her. The LORD shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there. Selah (Psalms 87:4-6).
For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel (Romans 2:11-16).
Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? (Romans 2:26).
Peace
yes the Bible is pretty straightforward. men having sex with men is a sin. women having sex with women is a sin. now THAT is pretty straight forward.
Yes Romans is pretty straight forward for Christians but what about non Christians that do not know of God or his glory?
Romans 1 is actually pretty straight forward . . .
I find the developments in CA over prop 8 to be very interesting. I think there are a lot of hard questions that we should be asking ourselves as Christians from watching this. I was recently talking to someone who is connected with many organizations in California and he noted that the homosexual reaction to the church has been very fierce. Some pastors have been forced to hire bodyguards while other churches are being defaced. It is very sad that this is happening and we all know that we take the narrow gate and not the wide gate when we become Christians. Yet there were some questions that popped up that made me think about how constructive prop 8 is when it comes to saving lives to Christ within in the Homosexual community. How can we teach obedience to God when we are hated, and lastly are we more focused on changing lives through the law or through the gospel.
I am interested to hear everyones take on this. I am not saying this to challenge what is right or what is wrong rather asking a general opinion on the issue.
Right, you know, cause the Bible was always so straight forward when explaining things.
Romans 1 isn't talking about orgies, otherwise it would have said so.
Mike22685--
The Greek word for effeminate also refers to "of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness." And lewdness, defined by Websters is "the unlawful indulgence of lust; fornication, or adultery."
I realize you are trying to characterize that your relationship with your partner is not based on lust, but based on the Greek and Websters definition, not mine, they describe clearly what effeminate/homosexual means.
I have neither assumed nor implied anything of your sex life or your relationship with/to God.
Scripture says, "If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth." (1 John 1:6).
One cannot live willfully in sin against God, claiming, for example, their homosexuality isn't sin and say they are a Christian. Can they? How can a person walk with Christ and still believe they are born of the Spirit of God?
Romans is talking about homosexual relationships.
KT, unless you follow each and every law of Lev. then we need to throw out that reference. Romans, historically, is talking about men sleeping with younger boys as a right of passage, which was a Pagan ritual, and therefore looked upon as shameful from St. Paul. Also, what I have is not lust, it is love for my partner. In Corinthians, the word homosexual was later added in. The direct translation, as prophet and I were discussing, was "effeminate" which is nonsensical as not all homosexuals are effeminate and it is not considered sinful for a man to perform in a ballet, get his hair highlighted, or cry at the drop of a hat, all of which are considered effeminate. You also assume too much about my sex life and my relationship with God, neither of which you are qualified to do.
Prophet, we are not talking about cannibalistic cultures, we are talking about American culture and our moral values certainly steer us clear of killing one another.
Mike22685--
What is misleading, vague or uncertain regarding the following:
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion." Leviticus 18:22-23
"Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Romans 1:27
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
That is quite simple to understand and in no way could any of these verses be misinterpreted as man's own will and not God's.
What is to listen to about finding acceptance with a homosexual lifestyle? The health risks for contracting anal cancer are quite evident, even for heterosexuals, just look it up.
Phyiscally and spiritually it is deadly and I think when Christians speak out to homosexuals, warning them of God's judgment, not exclusively for being homosexual, but because of their violation of His Commandments, which everyone has violated, they think Christians are judging them according to their homosexuality and that is not entirely true.
Homosexuals will argue that those verses are being used too literally and yet, from the same mouth they'll say God is love and we're demonstrating His love in our relationship. Homosexuals don't want the Bible to be used by Christians, but they don't mind using it themselves, to justify their homosexuality as good in their own eyes as well as God's, because God is a loving God.
Look, I'm not casting stones here, because I'm a sinner too. The only difference in my life is that I've recognized that Jesus Christ died for my sins, I'm saved by His blood and His death on the cross satisfied God's punishment for my sins.
I could never satisfy God's anger for sin, but Jesus did.
There are people out there, that outside the law, do not feel it's wrong to steal or rape. The only "conscience" they have is the law. So, to say that man's morals say such and such is wrong.
Over 150 million people died in the past 100 years because some people's morals said that religion is evil and should be exterminated.
Does that go along with the morality that some tribes have that it's okay to be cannibals? So, then killing and eating another human is ok.
I think you misunderstand my post. God instilled in each of us a sense of morality and what is fundamentally right and wrong. Without ever reading a Bible, you would know it is wrong to kill someone else out of rage. Unfortunately, people such as yourself have interpreted the Bible according to their own will and claim it to be God's because they are too proud to admit they could possibly be wrong and listen to the other side.
Actually, there are only two moral standards. Man's and God's. God's moral standard says that the homosexual lifestyle is a sin.
Homosexuality is nothing different than sexual or chemical addictions. They all need deliverance.
DP, that is laughable! There are many, many moral standards. Some have promiscuous sex, some have sworn off sex, some are in committed relationships, some are Christian, some are atheist, some are jewish, some are muslim, some are filthy rich, some are dirt poor. There is no "lifestyle" to being gay. I HATE the use of that word to describe the gay community.
"Will someone please tell me what the gay "lifestyle" is?!? I have asked many times and never gotten an answer."
I already did...it fell off about 4 pages ago!
lifestyle--"the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group."
Therefore, the gay lifestyle is a mode of living which reflects, in this case, the the habits, attitudes and moral standards of being gay.
Will someone please tell me what the gay "lifestyle" is?!? I have asked many times and never gotten an answer.
delight, totally agree secular humanism is destroying what's left of morals and values in our country and there are many parents who haven't got a clue what's going on in the schools and unfortunately it appears very few of them care.
kt, I totally agree with your view of civil unions and never thought in any way you were a supporter of same-sex marriage.
But I firmly support domestic partnerships because having worked in hospice with AIDS patients who were homosexual, as much as I disagree with the sexual practices of that lifestyle there was no doubt of the love and compassion they had for their terminally ill partner and that they deserved to have the same legal rights and benefits of married heterosexual couples so they could provide the care necessary to the patient, plus I personally know other people who are living in the same house who serve as primary care-givers for each other who need and deserve those things as well and there is no sexual involvement between the two whatsoever. I think to allow for same-sex marriages/unions is totally wrong but to not allow for strong domestic partnership laws is coldhearted on our part.
Absolutely KT, I think we opened the door to same sex marriage precisely when we allowed for co-habitiation rights...a very slippery slope.
What concerns me is when the government allows gays to knock the door off the hinges by allowing same-sex marriage...what's next?
I did a lot of reading about New Age Philosphy when I was a new Christian and heard a quote from one of the New Age proponents stating something to the effect;
If we can ifluence the school children at a very young age then we will ave effectively promoted New Age Philosophy in to the mainstream acceptance. Of course, they all think we are going to evolve into more enlightened beings and form a new world order; I think the same stategy used by NA is now being employed by the radical gays and their supporters.
I think that is the agenda, indoctrination and final excision of the Judeo-Christian God from the mainstream.
It worked in our schools with New Age philosophy, our kids can't think critically, they aren't able to see the absolute from temporal and are very gulliable and pliable to deception.
We cannot change the course of the boat, we can hold back the tide, though.
Believer...
I live in Rockland County now, only about 35-minutes NW of NYC.
DITL...
NYS is a mostly democratic party state and it was announced in February 2008 that the state would recognize marriage licenses from out of state couples, including same-sex marriages (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/nyregion/02samesex.html)
So, MA and CT are the only states to allow same-sex marriages, right?
By the way, I'm only asking these questions to understand the political agenda better. I oppose same-sex marriage completely and think that granting civil unions, is not beneficial either. It's like giving an inch and then wanting a yard.
Believer,
I totally agree with you on that...when I was a baby Christian I thought Jesus to be rather harsh (silly me) with His words.
Now I understand 'righteous indignation' and while it is not a sin to be angry, I just to be sure I don't sin in my anger.
I think I got close to that line in my dealings with Rusty or gs as you know him. I got a bit hot under the collar when he said "I cannot...obey God." Several times he said that and I felt the frustration rise, because he had claimed Christianity and yet felt justified to comment about the 'mormons not understanding homosexuals'. It's a tough sin, dude, but life's short, hells hot, eternity is a long time, see yourself as a homosexual but BE celebate. I don't think that is too much for God to ask of us!
kt, what part of NY do you reside in, I was born and raised in Rochester and my last pastorate was in Philadelphia, just north of Watertown. Plus I so wish we could get more people on board with the domestic partnership idea in order to protect marriage as we know it while giving people the same legal rights and benefits as married heterosexual couples which in many cases I truly believe they deserve.
delight, while I agree it's inappropriate as well as an ineffective witness to use an in your face approach to witnessing with regards to confronting unbelievers about their sin, I think it's different when a person who professes to be a believer flaunts their sin or sinful lifestyle in a forum such as this and while we need to confront them in a Christ-like manner we indeed need to confront them as Christ confronted the religious leaders of His day who in essence were doing the same thing only disguising it under the guise of religious perogative and position.
Boy, KT if it is something that is being considered in New York (and why not!) then I hope for a grass roots action committee put together in defense of Marriage, if at all possible.
Most of the comments and questions here on this forum is an excellent 'non-religious' way to start:
What would the definition of marriage under these circumstances?
What is marriage's function?
Where would the line be drawn regarding others who wish to marry untraditionally?
In what ways would the NY school district be changed to reflect this new change.
What right as a parent would you have to opt out of this curriculum?
I am not a political animal but living in AZ where we proactively defined marriage in our propostition, much like prop 8 which passed and since we are a land of cactus and not fruit's and nuts, we recieved no backlash. A good way to start in preparation for this assault on our rights is just to start a conversation with your friends, family and church to make them aware of the true issues; get a dialog of sorts going so that people will not be in the voting booth and say, "what the heck, no skin off my nose if gays marry, it won't affect me, let 'em have the right, I'll go ahead and mark my support because I'm such a nice guy and politically correct, too."
I really think that the majority of voters have not taken time to consider what the ramifications of what seems so simple an issue from the outside, but what it will how it will affect the law of the land, overall.
I think that once the voting public understands that it's not a simple issue and realizes there already is protection of rights for unmarried co-habitation, then they will vote against this assalt on marriage. Don't you?
You know, KT in my book that would be a conflict of interest...but we are using the world's playbook and if bias was even an issue under consideration by the world, then most of the media would have to be indicted, as well. Not gonna happen.
Prophet asks; "What is considered "accusing them unjustly of their sin"?
Simply this; we as Christians are not to shame individual non christians for their sin...it is God's responsibility to judge those outside the church as stated in 1 Cor 5:11,12.
The comment was made that some brothers are scaring non christians off this forum by pointing out their sin instead of loving them. That's all...irony, again?
Again, it is a different story pointing to the sins of a society...by standing up for God's Righteousness.
DITL...
I agree with your statements. I live in NY and there has been some speculation that NYS will be targeted next to push for legal recognition of homosexuals to be able to marry.
Another question that I have is, wouldn't it be a conflict somehow for Sen. Mark Leno and state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, both of CA and openly homosexual, to be leading this initiative to repeal Prop 8? Doesn't their personal sexual lifestyle as homosexuals, conflict with the nature of their attempt to see Prop 8 repealed? Doesn't it create a bias?
The homosexual agenda will not stop until Christianity is quieted for good.
Would Chevy make a "Mustang"? Would Ford make a "Cobalt"?
The name "marriage" is taken. GET YOUR OWN TERM!!!!
Delight,
What is considered "accusing them unjustly of their sin"?
Hi ktmichaelson
Well said and I concur with you completely on all of your thoughts here. To answer your question (from my best ability) regarding the Domestic Partners Act as covering the 'rights' of unmarried partnership, I think the agenda of those dissatisfied with only the Act is much larger than any desire to be recognized as "married". The homosexual community wants societial approval and are going to some great lengths to push it over on us.
In a state where this legislation is approved, granting same sex marriage, then the public school system's curriculum is amended to include teaching our children that same sex marriage and traditional marriage are one in the same; both equally valid. The problem then comes in; since this is a legally recognized marriage then the schools teach this and as a parent you no longer have the right to withdraw your child from this teaching; in fact as a parent you are not even notified of the fact that your child is now being indocrined against YOUR BELIEFS. If you're interested just google "mass legal school gay" and see how many stories pop up. Check out the video of the parents who started the lawsuit as they cannot be heard by the school district to affect their child's education; it's heartbreaking to see rights taken away from parents and now they try to rectify this via the court system.
The state of California made the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act a law in 2003. So my question is, why is this law insufficient to homosexuals or why should the state Supreme Court of California, permit the voter approved state ban on same-sex marriage to be overturned?
There has been a great dialogue here, but it has been sidetracked a bit.
In addition, I have to agree with a few other commentators here, I haven't read of any condemnation toward anyone in these posts since I posted my comment the other day.
Did Becky go away because a valid legal point was made and she could not defend her argument? Did Mike 22685 go away because the truth was spoken to him in love?
I don't think anyone has claimed to know any of the commentators here so well to judge them. That is not happening here, at least from what I've read.
Those who are Christians will do all they can to win sinners to Christ and we'll do so in a manner that brings glory and honor to God who saved us, while not compromising the truth of the Scriptures.
Of Course, Propphet, non christians are sinners, we all are. The difference is between non and Christians is that the Christian willfully puts to death sin by crucifying the flesh daily; being dead to sin and alive to Christ. The non christian has no desire or strength in which to do that.
What is meant here is that we are not chasing off true seekers who happen to be non christian by accusing them unjustly of their sin as it was suggested by brother, Phileo.
You were being ironic? Right, Prophet?
Since the Word " Christian " refers to one who is a follower of Christ, A " Non-Christian " would refer to one who is " Not " a follower of Christ.
Those who do not Follow The teaching and doctrines of Jesus Christ, and who do not accept Him as their personal Savour, Are by all " Biblical " account, Sinners.
And God will determin who has not Ministered or spoken in Love.
Man in His fallen state in not able to judge rightly on the subject.
Phileo,
Thanks for sharing your concerns and council on how to lovingly handle non-believers; I agree with many of your points, however, consider that some not all who visit this site are not genuine truth seekers. A few purposefully seek to undermine the gospel and its message at any cost. So, we should not shun away from proclaiming the truth because we might step on a few toes . . . yes, let us lovingly share the truth but also defend it when under attack.
Also, your perception of fellow believers here may need to be re-examined; they are not motivated by (hatred or anger) as you suggest.
Peace
Daniel Paul, Yeah, I know, it happens now-and-again.
"referring is quite humorous ~ anyone remember Joe..."
I thought my sense of humor was a bit off...! Yikes!
"DP made a very gental inquiry and she refused to answer."
Actually, I haven't seen her back yet so I don't know if she 'refused' or if she just hasn't come back yet. Either way...
COME BACK BECKY!!! SAY SOMETHING!!! please...?
"No one is calling non-christians sinners here as you have suggested..."
If non-Christians aren't sinners....what are they?
Hey, Forgiven, thanks for the comic relief! Gotta love how the Lord uses His people!
Phileo,
Thanks for the food for thought. How would you have answered back to Becky?
DP made a very gental inquiry and she refused to answer. What words would you have chosen to engage her and make personal contact? Please lead by example.
Funny thing, I notice most of us ask questions and we get no answers...and later on we see them posting on another thread saying the same things.
Look, it's easy to be critical and find fault but I think it's unfair of you to say everyone "jumped" to answer along with other sins you see in your brothers and have exaggerated in hopes to, what...shame them?
No one is calling non-christians sinners here as you have suggested; nor bashed anyone with the Bible. If quoting scripture is considered bashing by you, I think you ought to reconsider it.
As far as the number of people to respond when she wrote; three. It wasn't a concentrated effort to gang up, a lot of times when posting there is a time lag as you may have experienced.
Your wonderful points are all valid but please get off the soap box, okay?
No disrespect, it's just that this whole "becky" referring is quite humorous ~ anyone remember Joe...you know him as Joe the Plumber. Ha Ha. Just found alittle humor in it. Sorry, if I've offended.
DITL - with regards to how do we know when to cease jumping into the fray with pointless debate, let me suggest to you that rather then directly confront relative truth with scripture, why not ask a question that counters their argument or question. When someone like Becky shows up here and starts asking questions that incite negative feelings I would suggest to you that you counter that question with a question of your own relating to truth and scripture. Also, don't give them anything to point to against our testimony. We just ask them the questions, and let them answer them themselves. I see a lot of that tactic with Jesus in scripture. A lot of times he was asked questions, and just countered their question with questions of his own, or he told parables to get his point across. And if I am not mistaken, the only time Jesus directly answered questions was to either the Pharisees or to the Apostles - those who were either religious or believed in him. To those that did not know who he was or did not believe he would deflect their arguments. Even with the Pharisees he many times knew they were trying to trap him, so he simply deflected their arrogant questions with question of his own.
So often we get into a trap of trying to win an argument or settle a debate, when in reality we shouldn't be focusing on the argument, but on the motive behind the argument. If someone comes in vehemently arguing in favor of gay marriage why should be take the bait and allow them to incite our hatred and anger at them due to their ignorance of the bigger picture. Instead, I would imagine that Jesus would approach those with the gay agenda similar to how he approached the Samaritan woman at the well. He offers her eternal life and love, and then he points out to her the need for her to turn from her sexually sinful lifestyle. Unfortunately for us, Jesus has divine knowledge that he used to work in the heart of the Samaritan woman. That's why it's so important to get to know someone personally before attempting to persuade them that Jesus Christ has something they should want.
And that's the key - do they want something that we have? Because right now, they look at us and call us hypocrites and hate filled homophobes. Perhaps rather then confronting them in self-righteousness we need to get to know them first with the love of Jesus, and then we can melt their hearts and then their sin can be confronted.
A extremely difficult task, trying to minister to non-believers over the internet. This is truly Satan's tool if we allow him to gain even a foothold in our thoughts and attitudes.
Some more food for thought anyway.
What you may be seeing, Phileo, on these posts when you said in an earlier post we are "scaring" away some of the posters could simply be the posters themselves realizing they have no valid points to argue and they go away.
Still, many more stay on, not being swayed by the truth but to continue on with same old arguments and getting the same answers which they choose to repeatedly ignore. You've got to wonder after these as to why they continue.
Are they seeking the truth or are they merely arguing?
And what is the line for us as Christians in possible violation of the scripture that speaks directly and says to avoid foolish debates and not be quarlesome?
I don't know. I read the CP for over a year before posting my thoughts and considered my participation in the posts could easily lead there. I do not continue to address the posters who have continually ignored better answers than I could give, just so that I am not in a position to argue endlessly.
I generally am blunt and to the point, I get in and get out and not belabor a point just to be 'right'.
It is truly an act of love to tell the neighbor their house is burning down. If they don't seem to hear, you become more ardent in your warning. If they still refuse to hear, you speak the truth plainly and if they choose to burn with the house, you cannot say they haven't been warned.
**As far as Becky; are you suggesting because everyone "jumped' down her throat that she lost her only way into the kingdom? We just messed up her eternal destination? If Becky was seeking she would have answered Believer's inquiry and that's why I waited when she didn't come back before I made the comment about her not understanding moral absolutes, which she was quite clear about.
The Liberal's "Living-Breathing Document" hard at work.
Daniel Paul - would you rather be right in heaven, or right on earth?
We have to remind ourselves that this is a spiritual battle, and not a physical one. Don't let the hatred of the gay agenda taint your walk in the Spirit. We must continue to show love, and not allow the enemy to gain a foothold in our thoughts and actions.
It's extremely difficult to sit there and take slander and lies from the enemy, and not be able to fight back, but ultimately I continue to remind myself that Jesus will do the talking on judgment day.
I've read the end of the book, we have the victory.
DITL - to answer your question about Becky, "I guess we'll never know."
All I saw was her presenting her opinion, albeit contrary to what scripture teaches, and a bunch of people jumping down her throat about it.
There's more then one way to dialogue with someone who may not get scripture. But jumping down someone's throat over ANY issue doesn't do any good. Now she's gone, and may never return. What if this was our only opportunity to share with her the love of Christ? What if our words here caused her to abandon the calling of the Holy Spirit?
Wouldn't you rather see Becky in the Kingdom of Heaven after having an opportunity to winsomely explain the Gospel to her, versus seeing her in eternal damnation due to the fact that she never was able to connect with a believer who could lovingly explain the Gospel to her in a way that she would be receptive to.
Honestly, I don't know Becky, and maybe I'm wrong about the whole thing, but her example I think is a good one to ponder over, and to take a look in the mirror over and ask ourselves if we are serving Christ, or doing the devils work in Christ's name by perhaps permanently proving to non-believers that Christians are just cold-hearted legalists who want nothing but to shove truth down their throats at all costs.
Frankly, I'm missing where we've actually done something good here, with regards to Becky anyway.
Perhaps our words will give her pause to consider the truth, but I got the impression that the blinders hadn't been removed yet, do we were essentially "casting our pearls before swine". Got to get the "swine" out of the mudpit and give it a bath before we can then "cast our pearls" their way.
Ultimately we are simply debating semantics. Certainly nothing wrong with this, as I think it never hurts to have a healthy discussion, and to constantly check our hearts and motives in everything we do for the glory of God.
"I am also sick of people claiming gays are the intolerant ones "
I'm sick of the pro-gay agenda claiming religious people are intollerant, slapping little old ladies during demonstrations, sueing people because they hold to the Christian belief of one man and one woman is what marriage is and disturbing the peace during church services.
It seems that gays can even break the law and that's OK because "Gay is OK" but how dare we be Christians.
correction "the same old answers back to folks who do NOT wish to engage in the truth."
Phileo,
I totally agree with your many valid points you make in your posts. There is a balance and you and I are that.
In your post back to me where you read and judged incorrectly my words as if you were looking for offense or a point of argument is a direct action that voilates the same code you are holding me to.
Nontheless, I see through many of these arguments to get to the heart of the matter rather than to rehash the same old answers back to folks who do wish to enagage in the truth. I come from a different propsective and the only ones I am very stern are those who SAY they are Christians but defend and flaunt their sin here on these in direct opposition to the Word of God.
As far as Becky goes; do you believe she was here to seek truth or rather to make an ill-informed comment on an issue she really doesn't understand: ABSOLUTE VALUES.
The Body of Christ has many members and many functions. Let's all do our part and not be so critical of our brothers when we are Co-Heirs in Christ.
DITL - what you just posted goes against everything Paul speaks about in Galatians 5:22-26. And it's almost as if you are saying that by using too much of the "fruits of the Spirit" that we then become "mealy mouthed".
I would argue that if we are within the fruit of the Spirit, and as Paul says, to which there is no law. Jesus even rebuked Peter for cutting off the ear of the soldier that was coming to arrest him, saying to him, "Those that live by the sword die by the sword."
Also, I can never learn anything from someone with an opposing viewpoint if I simply put up my hand and beat them over the head with scripture and telling them they are wrong.
As I stated previously - there is a balance between grace and legalism. That is what we constantly have to strive for. But the way I am reading your most recent post I just get a sense of a lot of pride in your words. Again, it's words, so I have no way of measuring your intent or tone, but the way it reads is that we should be like the Zealots and go after Rome, and burn down the opposition. I can't subscribe to that point of view, nor did Jesus.
1 Corinthians 13 tells us that love never fails. That chapter also tells us that even if we have all the knowledge in the world, it won't matter if we don't love. You can choose to call it whatever you wish, but I think scripture is pretty clear that unless we love first everything else is futile and we will have lost whatever chance we had of reaching those that come preaching sin.
And yes, I believe it is possible to reach someone who is even a gay anarchist, cursing the name of God, etc. I've read testimony of Mafiosos coming to Christ, simply because someone finally showed them love. Everyone is redeemable, but no one will ever come to Christ at gunpoint or through condemnation.
And honestly, I would rather error on the side of love then I would error on the side of the law. And I see a lot of scripture that addresses this sort of attitude and example. The Pharisees were brutally blasted by Jesus, and they were legally right in their approach most of the time.
I pray every day that God would soften my heart and work in me to reach out to those that would persecute the name of Christ. Just use me Lord as your vessel, and let the words I speak be from the Holy Spirit, and not my own.
To God be the glory!
Phileo,
I agree with you to a point:
We are speaking about the same Jesus who told the woman caught in adultery to "sin no more" and I see no scriptural support to say she was a Christian at the time He spoke those words.
We do speak of the same Jesus who called the Pharisees a brood of vipers, dead man's bones etc. etc.?
And the tone of Paul's teachings could sound quite stern (unloving) as well..."you foolish Galations".
How much of those words would you censor in the Bible by your standard of measurement of what love should be?
What I don't see; Jesus or Paul saying the same things over and over again to an unhearing audience. I don't see much molly-coddling here in the Bible or the idea that we must be "nice" in the world's meaning.
I think we should all agree that a lot of the problem we are having in this society is because we are oo lenient; too "loving". The truth is not spoken in this world much because the Truth Sayers are being blasted as "intolerant", even by their own.
You don't think evil has equal time in the overall Press-Coverage? We should give them time here in the CP to spout heresies and give little encouraging 'thumbs-up" when they say something cute?
If being mealy-mouthed and tolerant is a virtue to you then so be it. No one who disputes here against the Christians still standing for a voice is ever won over. Instead most of the opposition continue on arguing their points of view, over and over again, until those heresies are rote. Is it good to be a CP patsy; rolling over to entertain foolish arguments until they are won over by our 'love'? And, allowing them to articulate more and more the hateful things they say about our God and the Bible until the become so hopelessly lost in their vain viewpoint as to dis-believe and die spiritually.
I think this Forum has room for different communication styles and God is faithful enough to use all of it. Perhaps we shouldn't be like them, arguing among ourselves especially over personality flaws we may not like. What do you think?
phileo, I love a good fight as long as we're all willing to fight fair and at times we do not and it's at those times we need to hold ourselves accountable to doing the right thing and acknowledge our wrong doing and call it what it is sin and most times as you noted the sin of pride, but at the same time this is a great forum to discuss issues that are impacting our culture and churches and in some cases having a serious impact on the cause of Christ in our nation and world. And while I agree we may have come down to hard on "becky" I also believe it may have been more a matter of numbers as opposed to how she was challenged. So I think that all of us on both sides of the aisle need to be cautious and as empathetic as possible as we consider how we'll respond to other posters.
Phileo,
I will contemplate all your words, although, I believe we may be in agrument just that something may be lost in translation.
DITL - while I believe we are in the same "camp" my purpose and motivation for posting here is to look at the news articles and hold them up to the light of scripture. Then I comment on where I think scripture speaks to this issue.
It does bother me though when those that come in here and have an alternate point of view get run off strictly due to legalism. Trust me, I'm guilty as charged of that on more occasions then I care to admit to. It is to that that I would simply remind everyone here that even if we are correct scripturally on any particular matter does not mean our hearts are in the right place with the person we are speaking to, or admonishing here.
I reflect on John 8, where the Pharisees had caught the woman in adultery. What does Jesus do? He writes in the dirt and ignores the cried to stone here, and redirects the crowd to examine their own hearts and their own sin.
What's the point there? I think Jesus is telling us, that even if we are 100% certain someone else has sinned, that we should be extremely careful in our motivations towards condemning others, in or out of the church. I constantly have to ask myself what my motivations are for accusing someone else of sin, or of holding views that would seem to be obviously unscriptural. Am I looking to pick a fight and win an argument, or am I more concerned with seeing someone seek out Christ and ultimately come to salvation.
Unfortunately I have spent many long hours hashing out issues like this on the internet, knowing that I was right on an issue, while growing hostile with my "opponent". While I certainly was right on the issue, I was wrong with the person, and the heart.
Judging myself only here, I simply submit to you that the message should never usurp the heart. Just like Jesus did on various occasions. He looked inside a person's heart, which was pure in motive, and usurped even their sinful state.
Sad to say that I have spent more time being a "Pharisee" to the Gospel, which means I am too legalistic and ignoring the heart of the matter.
And yes, it's a slippery slope to go down. There is a difficult balance between legalism and grace. My goal is to find the middle ground and stay there. But it's a daily challenge, and never a battle to be won, thanks to the constant spiritual warfare we are engaged in.
Phileo, you are right; I do rake when someone comes after me just to have an argument.
Are we on the same side of the issue?
Forgivensinner - When Jesus stood before the courts he was silent, except to confirm that he was the Messiah. He was silent otherwise.
Translation - whatever you say to me doesn't matter in a spiritual realm. Jesus was being obedient to the Father unto death.
Yes - challenge fellow Christians that are sinning and are in leadership that are wrong.
No - challenge non-believers of their sin.
That's all I'm saying honestly. The key to my argument is to remain winsome and in love, no matter the circumstances. We are certainly called on to hold fellow believers accountable for their actions, no matter what it is.
Unfortunately there is too often a propensity to go into the public square as a Christian and give the media, and non-believers of the world fuel for their fire in condemning the church.
DITL - my apologies. I misread what you wrote. No need to rake me over the coals for an honest mistake however.
Phileo,
I would agree that we are not to tell anyone they are wrong, but that is not necessarily the case.
Government officials can very well be Christians with christian values or even perhaps someone waiting to be convicting by the Holy spirit. All I am suggesting is that we can and do have the right to express God's Truth to a panel of folks seeking only to hear the arguments in order to make an intellictual and sometimes moral decision.
Phileo,
No tar or feathers, here.
Although, when Jesus was before government officials, did He not speak God's Truth before them? Or did any of the Apostles or disciples not speak God's truth before government officials?
I agree with you, it's simply that when we must stand before government, we must speak God's Truth. And I might go alittle further to say, we do have the right to speak before government officials, relay God's truths and as you wrote allow the Holy Spirit to work.
What's that saying...nothing ventured nothing gained.
Ah, Phileo,
So quick to type so many words in your defense of an intellectual argument and so quick to read through my post as though you actually understood what I was saying.
1Cr 5:12 "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside"
If you would read what I wrote I am judging the sin of those who SAY they are on the inside, not the ones the outside; we expect them to sin, we can't change them by reforming their habits without God and I don't believe anyone here tries to do this.
Rather than be so quick to get your point across you should try reading with comphrension.
You say, "I agree that it is very scary should one day the homosexual agenda be taught in schools"
Should ONE DAY? That DAY is HERE...you must've been sleeping. Look at Mass. legal battle for parents trying to have a say in what's being taught to their children.
Just to clarify...WHO is going to Court the Christians or the Homosexuals???
Also, in response to your comment of "Who wants to be told they are wrong" isn't that just what the Holy Spirit does when He convicts? Isn't that what we tell our children when the wrongly touch a hot stove? Where are you thinking that no love is being shown...perhaps you speak of a warm fuzzy kind of love and not the warning kind of love; which is the love that serves mankind and not the other. The kind of love, say, Paul had for the church. Is Paul sinning too?
"But going into a public square, among non-Christians and telling them they are all going to hell..." NO ONE here is condoning that or even doing that!
Try to fit your argument into the facts abd it'll be better for all of us.
DITL - with regards to your "Additionally" post I would submit to you 1 Cor 12, where Paul talks about not worrying about those OUTSIDE the church and their sin. If they don't know the TRUTH, how can they know they are sinning? I would suggest to you that this is a pointless venture, which is why Paul says this in scripture. Sure, once they come to Christ and know the truth, then we can gently point out to them their need to repent, but ultimately we have to submit to the will of the Father, and allow the Holy Spirit to do the work. But going into a public square, among non-Christians and telling them they are all going to hell in a handbasket is a surefire way to have each and every one of them reject the Gospel.
Who wants to be told they are wrong, versus who wants to be told that God loves them and died for them? We share with them the love, and then we correctly tell them that they need to repent of their sins.
Heck, there are sins I have committed long after I was born again that I was not even aware were sins, even long after I was saved. My life is a slow process of acknowledgement of the Gospel, and I learn new things every day that the Holy Spirit reveals to me.
Trust me, I used to fervently aspire to the same opinions that you hold. But the Holy Spirit raised this issue to me and I discovered that I was prideful, and wrong, and had to repent of this before God.
I'm not suggesting you are sinning, as that is between you and God. But for me this was the sin of pride, among others.
DITL - can I suggest a link for you to check out? http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/1020
That is John MacArthur's take on Christianity and Politics, which I firmly agree with.
I would simply disagree with you on several points.
1. Far be it for me to assume that I can "allow" anything bad to happen in the culture by fighting it with the Gospel. Your words suggest to me that we have any say in the matter in how the outcome is determined. For me that speaks to pride in the fact that I think I can control the outcome that God has already put into place.
2. You are correct that we are to be SALT and LIGHT in the world. In no way am suggesting that we go into some "holy huddle" and give up the fight. However, our battle is a spiritual one, and not a physical one.
Our challenge is to preach the Gospel in truth and love. Our challenge to reach people for Christ in a winsome way. And yes, I agree that it is very scary should one day the homosexual agenda be taught in the public schools. That is a battle I am not sure how to engage in. However, I put my faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and submit to His will for my life. That good and perfect will that will overcome all evil. Through prayer, fasting, and devotion to the Word of God I will remain victorious through Jesus Christ. It is His power and His will that shall be done, and not my own.
It has been very hard for me to agree with what John MacArthur says in his article above (as well as the three parts that follow it), but I agree with him. ultimately, if we continue to wage a physical battle through confrontation of evil through the courts and ballot box we risk alienating the very audience we are commanded to reach for the Gospel.
I also believe that scripture speaks to this attitude of humility and suffering through Isaiah 42:1-4, which is quoted in Matthew 12:18-21, which says:
"18“Look at my Servant,
whom I have chosen.
He is my Beloved,
and I am very pleased with him.
I will put my Spirit upon him,
and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
19He will not fight or shout;
he will not raise his voice in public.
20He will not crush those who are weak,
or quench the smallest hope,
until he brings full justice with his final victory.
21And his name will be the hope
of all the world.â€Â
Additionally,
We are not 'bashing' non-christians for their sin. We are rightly pointing out the sin of homosexuality to those who say they are Christians here on this post and yet feel justified in indulging their homosexual lust.
If the Holy Spirit wants to convict the world He can...but He uses Submitted Christians in partnership with Him to convict the world...and sometimes the light invading the darkness is painful for those who want to hide in the dark.
Phileo,
With all due respect, may I point out that it is not the Christians fighting with the courts, rather it is the homosexuals who are oppressing the voice of the people via the court system.
You would have us believe that Jesus, since He wasn't involved with politics during His earthly ministry, would not desire for His children to hold back this present darkness by holding out His Standard in the world. We are called to be SALT and LIGHT.
It doesn't serve God to have small children being indoctrinated into the 'doctrine of demons'in the public school system dis-regarding the sanctity of His design in marriage.
For my part, I would rather err on the side of holding up His standard as one day I will have to give account. I can't just do the 'holy huddle' thing and lay back and say, 'well, I'm saved' and allow the world and especially the children to be decieved without a mutter from the Christian community. We are not to cover our light with a basket. We cannot hope to save the world but we are called to be Salt and Light and to work for justice in this world where we can.
To sit back idley and allow the leaven to spead is not what God would sanction. It could be YOUR child educated against YOUR MORAL BELIEFS if you allow the darkness to continue to swallow the decency of society. You got to draw the line somewhere.
To do as you suggest would be a dereliction of duty and shows indifference, not love to our fellow man.
With a few exceptions there is some good spirited debate here.
Becky has been scared away by a mob of Pharisees. And Mike is soon to follow. (sarcasm implied)
Several things stick out in my mind here. 1. This is a civil law decision, and not a church law decision. In this case the majority rules and the measure was passed. But what would happen if we went to Mississippi, or Alabama, and voted on a law to reintroduce Jim Crow laws and segregationist ideas today? I use that reference, not to get into a debate about the merits or evils of segregation, but to make a point about "majority rules" decisions. This is why we have the courts in place to correct any unconstitutional rulings, or rulings that would inflict harm on a minority group or peoples.
2. When did Jesus ever challenge Roman authority? When did Jesus ever confront the civil authorities and challenge their laws? Read through scripture and I think you'll find that Jesus actually did the opposite. He said to "Give to Caesar what is Caesars, and give to God what is God's". He also looked Pilate straight in the eyes and told him, "You have no authority other then that which has been handed down from my Father in Heaven". Jesus never resisted authority or challenged it, but simply didn't concern himself with civil matters, because His agenda was of a spiritual nature, and not to change the government.
Now before I get tarred and feathered and cast out with the sodomites, let me be clear that I agree that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be tolerated WITHIN the walls of the church. But something tells me that I don't think Jesus wouldn't be wasting 2 seconds of his time fighting with the courts or people willing to allow a law that contradicts what scripture says. Because Jesus seperated politics and government from his spiritual agenda.
Yes, as Christians we should exercise our right to vote, and voice our opinion in public. But we also need to remind ourselves that people won't be drawn to a Gospel that bashes them over the head with their sin, but first by the love of Jesus. Once they recognize God, then we can allow the Holy Spirit to convict them of their sin.
I agree with you Believer.
kt, I've been saying the same thing all along, if the issue is legal rights and benefits as the same-sex proponents argue, then why not strengthen domestic partnership laws to ensure that any two people sharing the same domicile together and being the primary caregiver of each other receive all the same legal rights and benefits as a married heterosexual couple. But they are not satisfied with that because in truth it's all about having the homosexual lifestyle accepted as a legitmate lifestyle.
Mike22685 --
The civil rights issue was passed with the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, so why is it necessary to see a homosexual relationship recognized like a heterosexual marriage?
Homosexuals claim it is about civil rights, but it is not, instead it is a priority agenda of homosexuals to see their relationship recognized like a heterosexual marriage, at whatever cost.
Why then aren't those guilty of child sodomy then petitioning for their behavior legalized? They could claim civil rights issue for them couldn't they?
Laws have been established to punish sodomizers and while there is no punishment by the courts for homosexual relationships, there is an eternal punishment that awaits the homosexual, the sodomizer, the thief, the liars, the blasphemer...all who have sinned against God and have not repented before Him and who have not been born again by His Spirit.
Man was not created to have sex with little children, nor was a man or a woman created (designed) to have sex with a person of the same sex.
I am truly amazed how many people attempted to read Becky like a book. She seemed incredibly nice to me, and you're going to assert she must not be a Christian because her views are different from yours? You all need to wake up and realize Christianity is a much wider brush than you think and everyone is struggling to get by. Just because someone has different beliefs does not give you the right to decide they are not a Christian.
I am also sick of people claiming gays are the intolerant ones since we're trying to overturn a democratic vote. Civil rights should not be put to a majority vote, because in a democracy the minority is protected from majority rule by a system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court, not the "gay agenda" overturned the first vote because they decided it was unconstitutional, and it is my prayer they will do it again.
becky, I take it you're not a Christian, but that being said let me ask you as I've several others who are in favor of same-sex marriage, if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land what will the new definition of marriage be or can there even be one?
to all homosexual
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Amplified Bible)
9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
"Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals? "
My dad taught marriage and family life since before I was born and still does premaritial counseling in his early 80's! So, here is your answer from quite an authority. I'll translate it....
If you don't change your oil in your car you will ruin your engine. If you don't keep good tires on your car you will end up in a wreck when you leave the road. In short, when you don't follow the rules for car care you will end up in a mess.
The same is true of marriage. First, you have to accept the rules for it set down by the manufacturer. Then you have to follow those recommendations and stick to the rules. Those rules are spelled out in the Bible.
1) marriage is between one man and one woman
2) the commitment is to God-your spouse is the object of that commitment. Therefore nothing they can say or do should be a basis for divorce.
3) Marriage is a living example of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Christ gave up His place in heaven to come and die for us. Our ring vows for my wedding said that each of us "give up the life we have without you to live life with you." In short, after the wedding I no longer have a life without my wife and she does not without me. Our Pastor has said that when people are committed to staying in the boat they are more willing to start to bail out the water....
When marriage is just between two people is when things really get messed up.
beckysawyer --
What is the church doing to homosexuals? Homosexuality has been a sin since the days of the Bible, more than 2,000 years ago, which of course is no different from murder, rape, sodomy, adultery or stealing, etc.
The state of CA already has a law, the Domestic Partners Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, which recognizes legal rights for homosexuals similar to heterosexual married couples.
The people of CA voted on this proposition where it was largely supported by those who are members of a church. Why should those who voted YES on 8 and go to church, be accused of any wrong-doing when they were merely exercising their right to vote?
If the ban on same-sex marriage was supported by the people in 2000 and in 2008, why should the ban be overturned because homosexuals didn't like the outcome? So, because they didn't get their way, they want to see the law changed so they are happy?
I disagree.
The people voted twice stating that marriage is between one man and one woman.
DelightntheLord,
That was forthright but humorous . . . forgive me for chuckling . . .
This topic is a diffucult one to take on. But I believe that if you are a christian and Christ is your lord and savior and you believe the Bible is the infalliable word of God then you have no other choice than to say that homosexuality is a sin and no sin (any sin period) should be condoned. That being said I belive that we need to treat all sin the same, no sinner is worse than anyone else, that includes those covered by the grace of God. We as christians mess up on a daily basis, the only difference is we are forgiven by the blood of Christ. I believe that we can and should take a stand and state that we believe that marriage is only and should only be between a man and a woman; but we also need to remember to love the sinner and hate the sin. I will never allow my children to see someone being treated like they are less than human. We all need to treat those around us as we wish to be treated, but we need to stand against sin, whether it be in our lives or those around us or both. The Bible is clear: God is love, but God is also justice and we can't fulfill His standards, that is why He sent Christ to cleanse ALL of us from our sins and flesh. We all need His mercy and grace daily, even us christians, especially us christians. So let us as christians live lives of love and mercy and grace coupled with the standard against sin that God has set the example for us through Christ.
With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling.
Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
Hi, Becky...welcome.
" I want my children to grow up respecting all people, not calling God's other children "
Here's the catch. Not all humans are Gods children. If that were the case then why have Christianity at all? Why would Jesus die? Why would there be a hell? Why would there even be a Bible for that matter? Why couldn't everyone just do whatever they wanted and it be OK? Why have laws?
The truth is it's not what the church is doing to the gays. It's what the gays are forcing on the church and how they are violating the Christian faith in court. In AZ a christian photographer didn't feel comfortable photographing a same-sex union so the gals sued him. His religious beliefs didn't matter. In fact, they were the target of the law suit. The gals won on 'discrimination'. So the courts now say Christians must respect gays but gays don't have to respect Christians. It's horrible what the anti-'Christian civil rights' camp aka the pro-gay groups are doing to people.
Aren't you tired of it?
becky,
Do you believe the Scriptures to be Gods Word?
I'm sorry, becky,
Allow me to reword that...
What do you believe God says about marriage?
becky,
What do you believe God thinks about marriage?
That's a story. Everyone knows that law was put there to keep gays from getting married. They are finally standing up for themselves and the churches just don't like it. I voted against it, and so did a lot of others. I'm not interested in the way churches hurt people any more.
becky,
The prop was simply a measure to keep marriage defined in the Constitution as between a man and a woman. Folks, christian and non-christian, voted to keep that definition. It is the gay folks trying to redefine marriage as contained in the Constitution.
No, I wouldn't. I want my children to grow up respecting all people, not calling God's other children 'abominations'. And if God decides one of my children will be gay, I want them to have positive role models, not awful laws against them.
becky,
Perhaps, you would feel differently if your child in kindergarten were being taught about same sex unions . . .
I think it's horrible what the churches are doing to the gays. Why would they try to pass such an awful law? When will they let them live their lives in peace? I would fight too, if I were them.
It is ironic that the only people displaying hatred and violence are those holding signs about hatred. The only people screaming and displaying hatred are those trying to overturn a democratic vote.
I hope the people that assaulted that woman holding the cross are prosecuted for their violence caught on tape. And to hear the people on the newscast report on that violent act by saying "there is lots of hatred on both sides". LOL That woman holding the cross was not harming anyone. She was not screaming frantically like the people spewing hatred and assaulting her. It just shows you how corrupt the media is.
And if they overturn Prop 8 - which was a higher percentage win than Obama's victory - will Obama give up his seat? I mean - if you set a precedent that the votes of the people don't count, then an even slimmer victory like Obama's must be overturned as well. If you are being consistent.
It is an Abomination for man to lay with man, and woman with woman. God's Word's not mine.