Reactions to Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

[RAIDER]

Is Joel Osteen a more faithful man of God than the quiet country pastor who has served his tiny congregation with sweat, blood and tears for decades?

No, and your point is????

 

[Bruh]

Is Joel Osteen a more faithful man of God than the quiet country pastor who has served his tiny congregation with sweat, blood and tears for decades?

You are assuming Joel Osteen is righteous. Therefore he is not faithful in regards to God.

 

[Bruh]

My reaction is... if it had happened a month earlier, my daughter would not have had to move to another state to get married.  I'm glad parents will no longer see their children treated as second class citizens by the state (sadly, they will still be treated as such by family, friends and churches).

Did you believe this way before your daughter announced her decision?

I would be very heart broken and IDK what I would do.

 

[RAIDER]

My reaction is... if it had happened a month earlier, my daughter would not have had to move to another state to get married.  I'm glad parents will no longer see their children treated as second class citizens by the state (sadly, they will still be treated as such by family, friends and churches).

Did you believe this way before your daughter announced her decision?

I would be very heart broken and IDK what I would do.

I agree.  The reason I asked the question is because of what I have witnessed many times in the past (and present).  A parent takes a Biblical stand on an issue.  The family seems to follow.  A child becomes an older teen or young adult and departs from the Biblical stand.  All of a sudden the parent changes their view on what was a Biblical conviction and sides with the child.

 

[subllibrm]

Hardcore divorce opponents have often lost their conviction on the issue when their son or daughter got one.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

We've dealt with this before. Sodom was destroyed for many sins. One of those sins was homosexuality. I know you want to deflect from this truth by pointing at their other sins. Sinners and SINS got together. There is never a single sin. Its always MORE.

And yet the Bible DOESN'T say that Sodom was judged for consensual homosexual sex, much less same sex marriage.

Again. You're deflecting. Its not about a single sin. Its SINS. Even when the Scriptures deals with "SIN"... its in reference to MANY SINS. The entirety of SINS = SIN.

So you agree with me that passing a law allowing SSM is not sufficient enough to incur God's wrath.

This is part of the discourse but I fail to see what you're implying from it.

It is a fact, that because SINS aren't immediately dealt with by God, Man thinks he's getting by with it. He isn't.

What I am implying is that there is no need to fear the decision by SCOTUS (not saying you are one of the alarmists like other Christians seem to be). So for those who hit the panic button, believing the sky is falling (Franklin Graham, for one), do righteously and let God do His thing. That's all I'm saying. Again, wasn't directed to you personally but as a general observation about those who are in a panic. And my FB page is full of Christians who are.

 

[Least of These]

All of a sudden the parent changes their view on what was a Biblical conviction and sides with the child.

No different that any other "conviction", in my opinion, except that most people never have to face this one and really examine it for themselves.  We all enter the adult world having to make our own decisions about things we were always taught were unquestionably right or wrong:  women wearing pants, rock music, drinking alcohol, inter-racial marriage, dancing, divorce, etc.  We were shown Biblical "proof" of the wickedness of all these things, but as we became adults, I suspect most of us at some point were faced with choices that made it necessary to determine for ourselves what God expected from us and what pleased or displeased Him.  I put homosexuality into that group, the main difference being that most people will never have to purposely search for the answer themselves and just rely on what they've been taught.  It's easy to be absolutely rigid in your condemnation of a circumstance that will never touch you or your family.  Sadly,  those who never have to ask the question offer zero understanding to gay Christians and zero acknowledgement that there might possibly be more than one right interpretation of the proverbial "Biblical proof".

 

[RAIDER]

All of a sudden the parent changes their view on what was a Biblical conviction and sides with the child.

No different that any other "conviction", in my opinion, except that most people never have to face this one and really examine it for themselves.  We all enter the adult world having to make our own decisions about things we were always taught were unquestionably right or wrong:  women wearing pants, rock music, drinking alcohol, inter-racial marriage, dancing, divorce, etc.  We were shown Biblical "proof" of the wickedness of all these things, but as we became adults, I suspect most of us at some point were faced with choices that made it necessary to determine for ourselves what God expected from us and what pleased or displeased Him.  I put homosexuality into that group, the main difference being that most people will never have to purposely search for the answer themselves and just rely on what they've been taught.  It's easy to be absolutely rigid in your condemnation of a circumstance that will never touch you or your family.  Sadly,  those who never have to ask the question offer zero understanding to gay Christians and zero acknowledgement that there might possibly be more than one right interpretation of the proverbial "Biblical proof".

What do you do with Romans 1?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

No different that any other "conviction", in my opinion, except that most people never have to face this one and really examine it for themselves.  We all enter the adult world having to make our own decisions about things we were always taught were unquestionably right or wrong:  women wearing pants, rock music, drinking alcohol, inter-racial marriage, dancing, divorce, etc.  We were shown Biblical "proof" of the wickedness of all these things, but as we became adults, I suspect most of us at some point were faced with choices that made it necessary to determine for ourselves what God expected from us and what pleased or displeased Him.  I put homosexuality into that group, the main difference being that most people will never have to purposely search for the answer themselves and just rely on what they've been taught.  It's easy to be absolutely rigid in your condemnation of a circumstance that will never touch you or your family.  Sadly,  those who never have to ask the question offer zero understanding to gay Christians and zero acknowledgement that there might possibly be more than one right interpretation of the proverbial "Biblical proof".

Though I am not in your shoes, I have come to see there are other hermeneutical approaches as well. In our "clobber verses", we tend to use our own view rather than seeing how else the passage might possibly be approached.

Take for example, "Blessed are the poor in Spirit" from Matthew (Sermon on the Mount) and "Blessed are the poor" from Luke (Sermon on the Plain). The American Christian whose culture is that of haughtiness and materialism, tends to lean toward Matthew's statement in regards to disciples will be blessed because of their humility. South American Christians who live in extreme poverty, hold to Luke's statement as God promising to bless the financially poor. Culture brings about a different viewpoint.

Another example is where God is portrayed in parables as a Master with bond-servants (slaves). To those affected by slavery, their perception of who God is could in essence be affected by use of this metaphor. Likewise gay people, most having been born with those inclinations, can be solid Christians and view the "clobber verses" from a completely different perspective.

Not saying this is proper hermeneutic but here is a link that does show an example of how those verses used by anti-gay folks might be perceived from a different hermeneutical context:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/what-does-the-bible-reall_b_990444.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000055

 

[praise_yeshua]

Did you believe this way before your daughter announced her decision?

Yes.  My beliefs on homosexuality changed decades ago,  as did my beliefs on a lot of things I was taught were "sin" growing up at FBC.  When my daughter told me she was gay, the whole issue just became a lot more important and personal to me, and I've become more outspoken about what I already believed.

For all of her life, my daughter chose to attend a Baptist church, private Christian high school and Bible college.  The only heartbreak for me in her "coming out" was seeing the way society in general, and Christians especially, treat her now.

I've heard similar stories several times in my life. I've had close friends go through the same thing. Even had some friends tell me.... I would change my mind if my daughter or son did the same thing. I can tell you......I wouldn't.

Right and wrong isn't based on whether our sons or daughters adhere to said principles or not.

Can I let you in a little secret. Your daughter just willing chose to be sterile. She'll never know the joy of having a child that combines her.... and the person she supposedly "love" into an offspring. While there are times this happens in life with heterosexual couples..... NONE of them would willing chose to be such.

Its a HORRIBLE decision to make. Do they have the right to make their own decision. YES. A million times over... YES. Is it right? No. Not even close.

 

[praise_yeshua]

And yet the Bible DOESN'T say that Sodom was judged for consensual homosexual sex, much less same sex marriage.

Sure it does. You just refuse to acknowledge it. The KJV uses the term "strange" flesh in the little book of Jude. The very etymology of the word "Sodom" (Which goes back over a thousand years) references homosexual sex.

So you agree with me that passing a law allowing SSM is not sufficient enough to incur God's wrath.

It might. It might not. You're trying to deflect. Its not a matter or judgement now. Its not a matter of judgement later. Homosexuals will be judged. I agree that EVERYMAN will be judged. This doesn't exclude anyone. You're trying to exclude homosexuals. You can't. Its impossible. They are included.

What I am implying is that there is no need to fear the decision by SCOTUS (not saying you are one of the alarmists like other Christians seem to be). So for those who hit the panic button, believing the sky is falling (Franklin Graham, for one), do righteously and let God do His thing. That's all I'm saying. Again, wasn't directed to you personally but as a general observation about those who are in a panic. And my FB page is full of Christians who are.

They are probably embellishing a little. You are too. Just in the opposite direction. It comes from both sides.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And yet the Bible DOESN'T say that Sodom was judged for consensual homosexual sex, much less same sex marriage.

Sure it does. You just refuse to acknowledge it. The KJV uses the term "strange" flesh in the little book of Jude. The very etymology of the word "Sodom" (Which goes back over a thousand years) references homosexual sex.

"Strange flesh" can be deemed the equivalent with "strangers", more specifically, non-consensual. 

So you agree with me that passing a law allowing SSM is not sufficient enough to incur God's wrath.

It might. It might not. You're trying to deflect. Its not a matter or judgement now. Its not a matter of judgement later. Homosexuals will be judged. I agree that EVERYMAN will be judged. This doesn't exclude anyone. You're trying to exclude homosexuals. You can't. Its impossible. They are included.

The context I am referring to is the judgement of a nation, not the judgement of an individual. By not providing me with precedence, it is an admission that there is no empirical evidence that countries/cities were destroyed for same sex marriages, or even homosexuality, for that matter.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

My reaction is... if it had happened a month earlier, my daughter would not have had to move to another state to get married.  I'm glad parents will no longer see their children treated as second class citizens by the state (sadly, they will still be treated as such by family, friends and churches).

Did you believe this way before your daughter announced her decision?

I would be very heart broken and IDK what I would do.

I agree.  The reason I asked the question is because of what I have witnessed many times in the past (and present).  A parent takes a Biblical stand on an issue.  The family seems to follow.  A child becomes an older teen or young adult and departs from the Biblical stand.  All of a sudden the parent changes their view on what was a Biblical conviction and sides with the child.

"Being gay" isn't always a choice

 

[rsc2a]

Is Joel Osteen a more faithful man of God than the quiet country pastor who has served his tiny congregation with sweat, blood and tears for decades?

No, and your point is????

That God is a lot less concerned about numbers than proponents of "the world's largest sunday school".

 

[RAIDER]

"Being gay" isn't always a choice

Is being a murderer a choice?  Is being a thief a choice?  Is being a drunk a choice?

 

[RAIDER]

Is Joel Osteen a more faithful man of God than the quiet country pastor who has served his tiny congregation with sweat, blood and tears for decades?

No, and your point is????

That God is a lot less concerned about numbers than proponents of "the world's largest sunday school".

So God was not going to spare Sodom if there were 10 righteous?

 

[praise_yeshua]

"Strange flesh" can be deemed the equivalent with "strangers", more specifically, non-consensual.

I think you know differently. Either way, why are ignoring the historical use of the word "Sodom"? Is that not evidence in and of itself?

The context I am referring to is the judgement of a nation, not the judgement of an individual. By not providing me with precedence, it is an admission that there is no empirical evidence that countries/cities were destroyed for same sex marriages, or even homosexuality, for that matter.

The judgement of nations begins with the judgement of individuals. You don't have one without the other. I haven't focuses solely on homosexuality. I think its a combination of things that might bring judgement nationally. I think everyone is pretty much saying this. That this just might be the "straw" that breaks the camel's back. I don't know. I think they are probably wrong but I don't know for sure. God does what He likes in situations like this. I just pray.... God help us.

 

[rsc2a]

Or was it 100? Or 50? You do recall the story right?

If God already knows the answer to how many when Abraham tries to negotiate (1 for those that are following along), there's a good chance the point wasn't the number.

 

[praise_yeshua]

My reaction is... if it had happened a month earlier, my daughter would not have had to move to another state to get married.  I'm glad parents will no longer see their children treated as second class citizens by the state (sadly, they will still be treated as such by family, friends and churches).

Did you believe this way before your daughter announced her decision?

I would be very heart broken and IDK what I would do.

I agree.  The reason I asked the question is because of what I have witnessed many times in the past (and present).  A parent takes a Biblical stand on an issue.  The family seems to follow.  A child becomes an older teen or young adult and departs from the Biblical stand.  All of a sudden the parent changes their view on what was a Biblical conviction and sides with the child.

"Being gay" isn't always a choice

Sure it is. Being heterosexual is a choice. Doing right is a choice. Doing wrong is a choice. Doing much of anything is a choice. You'll never win this argument. Everything in this life is pretty much about choice.

Are you really saying that a person is powerless to choose their partner? Really?

 

[rsc2a]

"Strange flesh" can be deemed the equivalent with "strangers", more specifically, non-consensual.

I think you know differently. Either way, why are ignoring the historical use of the word "Sodom"? Is that not evidence in and of itself?

No, it's not.