Good move by the band with that Facebook post... a lot of Christians genuinely believe homosexuality is a sin, and those people obviously struggle with how that belief conflicts with other tenets of their religion. What this guy expressed is a statement of hate to a lot of us, but not to them. Their post was basically the best and only PR damage control they could do.
there's a bunch of history behind the Bible that not many take the time to study. It's not picking or choosing, Leviticus was written exclusively to the high priests of Levi because they were the few who could enter the Holy of Holies. They were different. We're not meant to apply it so extremely to our lives as some of you use as arguments, because that need for total purity vanished with Jesus's death. People are going to sin. It's okay, it's covered. Back then it wasn't..cue the sacrifices and altars as compensation.
I didn't mean to sound condescending, I was genuinely frustrated.
But in this case we're talking pretty much solely about 1Corinthians 6? And I guess Romans 1.
So just to clarify, what's your religio-political stance here? No need to get into the politics if you're not comfortable, but for the sake of clarity I just wanna know where you stand on the severity and consequences of homosexuality.
I get that one popular school of thought is that New Testament followers can cite Jesus's sacrifice and sort of let sins like homosexuality go... but what's the policy on someone who commits a sin like that freely and without any intent to reform? I ask this totally genuinely, because I'm realizing that I don't really know the answer.
If you watch Espn enough when a pro athlete goes on twitter an acts a fool. They usually bring out good old Herm Edwards. And he goes on the well they should put a delay on twitter so you can let your mind process what you just put on twitter. So that way you have a chance to delete and not make yourself look like a asshole.
I love me some Herm, but I do make a pretty solid effort to ignore a lot of their analysis segments
As far as severity and consequences go..I can't really say. It's not my place. Real followers aren't called to judge, we're called to love and live as Jesus did in Matthew 22:39. If people really want to talk about God, they'll let you know. There's never a reason to push any belief..which is why I said Mike should kick it down a few notches.
The policy on someone committing a sin like that freely? Dunno, I mean Daniel was a man after God's own heart, and he still had sex with another guy's wife before having him killed to cover it up. Pretty sure in that moment he didn't have much intent to reform either, but the grace was still there. Great things happened down the road when he chose to accept it. I think in the end it all depends on the individual's choice to accept that grace.
(for defending your faith in the best way possible)
The opinion that Mr. Reynolds holds has been used to oppress various people over various centuries.
The opinion that Mr. Reynolds holds is predicated on something that may very well be a piece of fiction (an issue exacerbated by the fact that these opinions are being used to dictate laws and govern people and the way they are allowed to live).
The opinion that Mr. Reynolds holds is literally demonstrably wrong. Gay Christians exist, therefore Mike Reynolds is an idiot.
The opinion that we the people hold has not been used to oppress various people over various centuries.
The opinion that we the people hold is not predicated on a piece of fiction.
The opinion that we the people hold is not literally demonstrably wrong. Gay Christians exist, therefore we are justified in calling him an idiot.
I don't 100% know why I'm doing this because I passionately disagree with these tweets and actually find your post quite funny, but you're at least partially wrong on all three counts. I don't feel like going through all three though, so I'll just mention the bit about gay Christians (why are people capitalizing Gay so much in this thread, btw?) because it's shocking how many people keep saying "there are gay Christians, you lose" as if it makes any sense.
Mike Reynolds clearly has a subjective view of Christianity which prescribes some particular criteria for being a "true Christian." Following his criteria, one "who loves his sin" is not a true Christian, and there are millions upon millions of people who share this belief. He throws in that pinch of gaybashing and it makes him morally wrong to me and you... but that's a totally allowable version of his faith, and treating it like a straw man doesn't serve to progress gay rights or tolerance in similar Christians' eyes.
Indeed he does, and that view is demonstrably wrong. I understand the "You're not a true Christian if you give in to those desires" line of thinking, but simply having them? No. Unless of course the biological mechanism that causes homosexuality also causes Christian apostasy.
But he didn't say anything about distinguishing between having the desires and acting upon them. I also doubt very much that he meant that having the desire disqualifies you, because he likely believes homosexuality is a choice.
Buuuuut I can see where your line of thinking is coming from. I just felt like it was splitting hairs unnecessarily and ineffectively, but I guess it really isn't a big deal.
I wanted to highlight your conversation because I think it's a great example of a respectful conversation and discourse that should be happening more. Bully, to you two. Also, I want to jump in cause I'm an annoying fuck who loves to have his contribution heard way too much.
The literal/non-literal issue is sorta misleading. Do I think that the writer of some OT stuff concerning the law was being literal. Probably. Do I think the Earth was created in 6 days and a talking snake was the reason for humanity's overall depravity? It's possible, but I don't think that is how the story is supposed to be read (clarification: I am not saying the Devil doesn't exist). People often use that question to relate belief that sounds ridiculous in a modern context, but that includes stuff that is downright wacky (like a donkey talking) and stuff that just seems really harsh in our society. I think it's important to differentiate between the two. And in terms of what you believe in full, in part, or not at all, it's about what you're reading, who's it for, what's the purpose, who's in by, and what's the geo/politcial/historical background. Essentially, context.
From what I know about the law (not a lot), we have to realize it was for a nation that had it's identity centered around the covenant that God established with them. Israel was representative of their God, and so their morals and values were written to reflect that. However, anything that was written was also written for the sake of preventing outside influence from other societies, mostly morally. I believe this partly explains the harsh consequences of most of the commands. So I don't necessarily look at those commands and take them literally. I understand the intention of them for Israel morally and politically, but have to always remember them in the context of THEIR covenant and see how that affects and relates to the new covenant that some of the prophets spoke about, and the one that the gospel writers argue Jesus established.
In terms of Corinthians and Romans, it is safe to assume that Paul did not think of homosexuality as reconcilable with God and relates it with other forms of immorality (from a Judeo-Christian perspective). I'm currently not too sure about any sort implications the Romans passage has on the view of the Roman Empire (which would be incredibly subversive). The lowest level of interpretation is that he is speaking of the depravity of man in a comprehensive generalized way. Once again it is to exhort a sense of differentness to his community versus what society deems moral. I realize that that in and of itself can be seen as offensive to the LGBT community and I don't deny that. However I do not see the correlation between that passage and political action that prevents marriage rights for that community. Paul's conclusion of his retort on society's morality isn't to change society, but to make sure individual and community Christian morality is not influenced by society's. Now, in our age most of the time those values are going to overlap, but that doesn't mean we force our agenda when they don't. There is for sure a call for advocacy though and I think it's incredibly important, mostly when it comes to human trafficking and slavery, fair trade, and the economic model that wealth is built on in the West.
Thanks for the compliment and your input :)
I cited the Romans and Corinthians lines because they're just some of the few passages which I know deal with homosexuality in the first place hahah. You're right that the portion from Romans probably has a lesser bearing on anyone's political arguments and beliefs, though I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Christians aren't likely to take that passage and have its highly intolerant tone affect their politics the same way that the other oft-cited passages (which all mention some consequences of homosexuality) do.
Only slightly related... I like the way that you're so flexible with understanding the context of the time period the OT would have been written in while also retaining most or all of the Bible's moral teaching in a pretty rational and comprehensive way. You don't see that too often.