Reactions to Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

[Smellin Coffee]

"Being gay" isn't always a choice

"Being" is different than "doing".

I concur.

 

[rsc2a]

Don't t know. But modern notions of sexual orientation were completely foreign when the scriptures were being written so interpreting the passages based on that modern notion would be fallacious*.

* I was this as someone who thinks scripture clearly condemns homosexual activity.

 

[RAIDER]

Don't t know. But modern notions of sexual orientation were completely foreign when the scriptures were being written so interpreting the passages need on that modern notion would be fallacious*.

* I was this as someone who thinks scripture clearly condemns homosexual activity.

So what is your interpretation on Romans 1?

 

[Least of These]

Very well said. I'm so sorry for the hurt and pain your daughter (and by extension, you and your family) had to go through from the words and actions of others (even those that were well-meaning but missed the mark).

Thank you, SC.    Along with all the condemnation and arrogance, we've found grace in some very unexpected places.  Thanks for making the FFF one  of them. 

 

[subllibrm]

FWIW sin is genetic.

I didn't choose to be a sinner. I was born this way. No matter how hard I try I can't stop being a sinner. Now for the real kicker, God tells me to stop sinning! The bible teaches to not sin. My church preaches that I should stop sinning. Where will I get any relief from the judgement and scorn?

That is why I love Romans 8. But to see the value in that scripture I can't overlook and explain away what precedes it in chapters 1-7. Sin is forgiven when we confess it. What we see is a movement of our society towards rationalization of sin rather than agreeing with God.

 

[rsc2a]

Don't t know. But modern notions of sexual orientation were completely foreign when the scriptures were being written so interpreting the passages need on that modern notion would be fallacious*.

* I was this as someone who thinks scripture clearly condemns homosexual activity.

So what is your interpretation on Romans 1?

There's a lot in Romans 1, and the chapter itself only serves as the introduction to the rest of the letter. First there is the general introduction followed by the proclamation that Jesus, the Messiah of God, is Lord and acceptance of this leads to righteousness.

Paul then addresses the unrighteousness of the Gentile resulting from gross idolatry in spite of the fact that the truth of God is self-evident with the very fabric of creation. Because of this idolatry, God has given them over to any number of depravities.

Of course, this will segue in the next  chapters to why the Jews aren't any better. Like I said, part of a larger thought.

(Granted, I'm running largely from memory and on my phone, so I can not provide a fuller explanation conveniently.)

 

[subllibrm]

"Being gay" isn't always a choice

"Being" is different than "doing".

I concur.

I assume that a "married" homosexual couple "do". Hence the problem.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

"Being gay" isn't always a choice

"Being" is different than "doing".

I concur.

I assume that a "married" homosexual couple "do". Hence the problem.

To which I go back to my initial post that it is a matter of civil rights, not morality for which this SCOTUS rendering was made. In the essence of civil rights itself, I believe it was the correct ruling.

I didn't realize that it was SCOTUS' responsibility to order in a theocracy.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sure it is. Being heterosexual is a choice.

Do you wake up each morning and choose whether today you will be homosexual or hetero?  If that's the case, I beg you to choose, just for one day, to be gay.  You don't have to act on it, but just BE it and let your fellow Christians know what it's like.  I suspect you'll feel the same pain, horror, denial and rejection my daughter felt, and my  heart will hurt for you.  Luckily, you can switch back tomorrow; she can't.

You're being ridiculous. You can make the same argument for your daughter being a drunk or a habitual liar. Are you really that intellectually dishonest?

I DIDN'T make the choice to be homosexual. I MADE the choice to heterosexual. It is not something I turn off and on. I never claimed your daughter could turn it off and on at the drop of a hat. This still doesn't mean its not A CHOICE. Don't twist the facts.

 

[RAIDER]

Don't t know. But modern notions of sexual orientation were completely foreign when the scriptures were being written so interpreting the passages need on that modern notion would be fallacious*.

* I was this as someone who thinks scripture clearly condemns homosexual activity.

So what is your interpretation on Romans 1?

There's a lot in Romans 1, and the chapter itself only serves as the introduction to the rest of the letter. First there is the general introduction followed by the proclamation that Jesus, the Messiah of God, is Lord and acceptance of this leads to righteousness.

Paul then addresses the unrighteousness of the Gentile resulting from gross idolatry in spite of the fact that the truth of God is self-evident with the very fabric of creation. Because of this idolatry, God has given them over to any number of depravities.

Of course, this will segue in the next  chapters to why the Jews aren't any better. Like I said, part of a larger thought.

(Granted, I'm running largely from memory and on my phone, so I can not provide a fuller explanation conveniently.)

Here, maybe this will refresh your memory.

Romans 8

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[praise_yeshua]

What do you do with Romans 1?

I accept that there are other interpretations of Paul's message, and believe that the application of it as anti-gay is incorrect.  I know that answer isn't sufficient for most Baptists/Christians, but is it any different than coming to the conclusion that Deut. 22:5 doesn't mean women wearing pants is a sin?  Except that most people will have to decide about wearing pants, but will never have to decide about being gay.

There is no other interpretation. NONE. If you think you have a handle on this "other" interpretation... by all means.... present it.

Sterility is the bane of homosexual behavior. Nature should teach you something.

 

[rsc2a]

Don't t know. But modern notions of sexual orientation were completely foreign when the scriptures were being written so interpreting the passages need on that modern notion would be fallacious*.

* I was this as someone who thinks scripture clearly condemns homosexual activity.

So what is your interpretation on Romans 1?

There's a lot in Romans 1, and the chapter itself only serves as the introduction to the rest of the letter. First there is the general introduction followed by the proclamation that Jesus, the Messiah of God, is Lord and acceptance of this leads to righteousness.

Paul then addresses the unrighteousness of the Gentile resulting from gross idolatry in spite of the fact that the truth of God is self-evident with the very fabric of creation. Because of this idolatry, God has given them over to any number of depravities.

Of course, this will segue in the next  chapters to why the Jews aren't any better. Like I said, part of a larger thought.

(Granted, I'm running largely from memory and on my phone, so I can not provide a fuller explanation conveniently.)

Here, maybe this will refresh your memory.

Romans 8

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Yes. You should read the introduction, finish the chapter, then keep reading if you actually want to understand the passage instead of simply having a proof text to beat people up with.

 

[RAIDER]

Here, maybe this will refresh your memory.

Romans 8

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Yes. You should read the introduction, finish the chapter, then keep reading if you actually want to understand the passage instead of simply having a proof text to beat people up with.

You can read the whole chapter and the whole book.  It will not change the Biblical fact that homosexuality is wicked!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Don't t know. But modern notions of sexual orientation were completely foreign when the scriptures were being written so interpreting the passages need on that modern notion would be fallacious*.

* I was this as someone who thinks scripture clearly condemns homosexual activity.

So what is your interpretation on Romans 1?

There's a lot in Romans 1, and the chapter itself only serves as the introduction to the rest of the letter. First there is the general introduction followed by the proclamation that Jesus, the Messiah of God, is Lord and acceptance of this leads to righteousness.

Paul then addresses the unrighteousness of the Gentile resulting from gross idolatry in spite of the fact that the truth of God is self-evident with the very fabric of creation. Because of this idolatry, God has given them over to any number of depravities.

Of course, this will segue in the next  chapters to why the Jews aren't any better. Like I said, part of a larger thought.

(Granted, I'm running largely from memory and on my phone, so I can not provide a fuller explanation conveniently.)

Here, maybe this will refresh your memory.

Romans 8

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Again, this is not my hermeneutic but how it is viewed by this pro-gay Presbyterian minister. Whether you agree with him or not, he is able to make a legitimate case for his side:

Romans 1:26-28

Good news ladies! Up until now, all of this clobbering has been about the guys. In Romans, you get to join in. Lucky you.

Romans is the one place the Bible speaks specifically about a female-female sex act. If you listen to Bible Thumpin’ Gay Bashers, you’d be surprised to learn that, while the counts vary on how many places the Bible directly address heterosexual relationships, it is a lot. Then again, compared to the precisely one verse the Bible has about female-female sex, even two is one hundred percent more.

The number of heterosexually oriented verses isn’t exactly clear. One thing is really clear, there’s plenty of them and, much like the Levitical purity code, we’ve managed to ignore many of them. So, if you aren’t also denouncing the divorced, then get off your lesbian judging high-horse, because otherwise you are just picking and choosing who to judge out of your own accord, and then quoting the one Bible verse that seems to support your choice. And even then, as we will see, it doesn’t actually support your argument. It actually does just the opposite.

In Romans, we have the most extensive discussion of same-sex intercourse in the Bible, a whole two seemingly specific verses – astounding.

There are plenty of approaches to understanding what Paul is trying to teach us in these texts. Any good exegesis ultimately points to the reality that what Paul is talking about and what people who use these verses as clobber verses want Paul to be talking about aren’t the same thing. That is, this is not about homosexual people having consenting homosexual relationships.

One convincing analysis of these texts looks at the fact that one of the most prevalent forms of same-sex sex in the Greco-Roman world was male prostitution which frequently involved boys. In that analysis, the texts become a condemnation of pederasty and prostitution, things of which most Christians (conservative to liberal) disapprove even today. There is also the perspective that Paul’s pointing to same sex intercourse as being idolatrous could be referring to the practices of priests and priestesses of Mediterranean fertility gods who regularly practiced that type of prostitution but elevated it, within a religious context, to the state of idolatry. Those approaches are valid and mostly convincing perspectives, but they do require a small leap of logic to arrive at their conclusions. Much less of a leap of logic, mind you, than believing that these texts are about something of which people at that time had absolutely no comprehension, but slight conjecture all the same.

The analysis that I find the most convincing concerns itself with the word “natural.” It is the word that has led many to speak of LGBTQ behavior as “unnatural” acts even though they occur throughout nature (in one study they were found in more than fifteen-hundred species).

As it turns out, the word is actually not “natural.” Not surprisingly, Paul did not speak English. While Paul performed a number of miraculous things, speaking English (which wasn’t around even in its earliest Prehistoric Old English form yet) was not one of them. Not to bore you too much, but the word Paul used was the Greek word, physikos. (Now that didn’t hurt too much, did it?).

It’s important to know the word in Greek because when it is translated into English, it loses a little of its original meaning. Without even knowing it, Lady GaGa has provided a better modern and contextual translation of physikos than the frequently used translation of “normal.” We will get to that in a minute. It doesn’t mean “natural” or “nature” so much as it means “produced by nature.” Those who use these verses as clobber verses tend to understand “natural” to mean something closer to “normal” than “produced by nature.” Not surprisingly, they also then define what is and isn’t “normal” based on their personal biases rather than on science or the reality of the world around them (e.g.: “I think gay people make me feel creepy, so I  henceforth do hereby dub it as an act of not-natural.”).

In reality, physikos has more to do with how things naturally occur in God’s Creation.  At this point, you may have begun to guess that physikos is based on the same root word from which we get the word “physics” which is, of course, the study of the realities of nature. Conveniently, the way Paul uses physikos here in Romans, it also means something very similar to “the realities of nature.” It is concerned with what is of our nature and not with what is defined as acceptable. That is to say, Paul is concerned with how God created something or someone to be. He is concerned with people going against their nature or in the words of Lady GaGa herself, if they are “born that way” he’s concerned with them behaving as if they were not.

That is the sin here in Romans, acting against the very nature of who God created you to be. In this case he seems to be addressing the idea of a same-sex sex act in which at least one of the two are not attracted to someone of the same sex; they just are not born that way.

Understood this way, it would be equally sinful for someone who is only attracted to someone of the same sex to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. It goes against their nature; they just weren’t born that way. Ironically, those telling LGBTQ folk that these verses mean they have to stop being LGBTQ folk are actually telling them to commit the very sin against which these verses warn, going against their nature. God has a wicked sense of humor.

Because these texts have been used so much to address homosexuality, it was important to address the issue directly, but the worst thing we could do is to think it is primarily about homosexuality. It is not.

Immediately following verse 28, Paul provides an extensive list of sins. It is so extensive that we all fall into at least one of the categories. “So there you have it,” says Paul, “we all sin. Don’t try to deny it.” And let’s face it, we all go against who we know we were created to be. How many times have you done something, felt guilt or shame, and then said, “I shouldn’t have done that. That’s not who I am.”?

As Paul says in the very next chapter, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” As he also says to start that chapter, “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thegodarticle/2011/10/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing/

 

[Least of These]

You're being ridiculous. You can make the same argument for your daughter being a drunk or a habitual liar. Are you really that intellectually dishonest?

I DIDN'T make the choice to be homosexual. I MADE the choice to heterosexual. It is not something I turn off and on. I never claimed your daughter could turn it off and on at the drop of a hat. This still doesn't mean its not A CHOICE. Don't twist the facts.

I'm  not being dishonest or ridiculous - it's a simple and sincere question.  When, exactly, did you choose to be heterosexual?  What made you choose?  What options did you consider?  How did you know which you wanted?  Why can't you turn it off and on?  Why do you think these are silly questions?

Best I can figure is that you are confusing sexual acts with sexual orientation.  On the former, I agree - people do choose if, when and with whom they have sex.  But if being gay is a choice, it stands to reason that anyone could choose it at any time... including you.

 

[Least of These]

There is no other interpretation. NONE. If you think you have a handle on this "other" interpretation... by all means.... present it.

Now, I believe, YOU are the one being intellectually dishonest. I think we both know that you won't entertain any other interpretation than what you've already embraced, so why ask for mine?  Can I also assume, then, that you agree with the strict IFBx Biblically supported teachings?  It's fine with me if you do- I have no desire to get you or anyone to agree with me.  But to pretend that the concept of different understandings of Bible passages doesn't exist is silly.

 

[rsc2a]

SC - that argument you quoted is absurd.

 

[subllibrm]

"Being gay" isn't always a choice

"Being" is different than "doing".

I concur.

I assume that a "married" homosexual couple "do". Hence the problem.

To which I go back to my initial post that it is a matter of civil rights, not morality for which this SCOTUS rendering was made. In the essence of civil rights itself, I believe it was the correct ruling.

I didn't realize that it was SCOTUS' responsibility to order in a theocracy.

I am talking about the idea that we must accept the lifestyle. Christians insisting that we should overlook it.

IDK about what SCOTUS did. You could see that coming a mile away. I am concerned about the bad theology that wants to find a loophole to see this as okay. Make a statement that homosexual activity is sin and you will get accused of "cherry picking" verses from the old testament. Or that Paul was dealing with a specific culture in a specific time. I don't need the OT or Paul to see Jesus defined marriage very clearly. And Christians who want to overlook His teaching on the subject are not doing it out a love for scripture but out of a need to justify their own behavior (or that of a loved one).

Dan, this is exactly what you have done on this very thread.

 

[rsc2a]

Here, maybe this will refresh your memory.

Romans 8

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Yes. You should read the introduction, finish the chapter, then keep reading if you actually want to understand the passage instead of simply having a proof text to beat people up with.

You can read the whole chapter and the whole book.  It will not change the Biblical fact that homosexuality is wicked!

So are pride, greed and gluttony. But you don't see "Christian" groups formed to attack people with those shortfalls. Are you kidding? Those are celebrated in churches across this great land.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There is no other interpretation. NONE. If you think you have a handle on this "other" interpretation... by all means.... present it.

Now, I believe, YOU are the one being intellectually dishonest. I think we both know that you won't entertain any other interpretation than what you've already embraced, so why ask for mine?  Can I also assume, then, that you agree with the strict IFBx Biblically supported teachings?  It's fine with me if you do- I have no desire to get you or anyone to agree with me.  But to pretend that the concept of different understandings of Bible passages doesn't exist is silly.

Sure I will. Make the argument. Don't assume anything.