"10 Reasons God Loves Gay Christians" Time Magazine.

[Aštra’el]

Who cares what God thinks?

I certainly do.

 

[omega2xx]

Ah, the special snowflake syndrome. Gotcha.


Ah, the smug certainty.

Ah, the smug certainty from ignorance syndrome. Gotcha

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"No, I find them because they are there."

There were none in that title, but you thought you found some.

Not at all. The title of the piece is "Ten Reasons God Loves Gay Christians." One can only assume, then, that it is not ALL gay people God loves -- only the Christian ones. And that is divisive.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The list is more like an excuse to practice what God clearly condemns in his word. Since legal marriage can only scripturally take place between a man and a woman, any sexual activity outside of marriage is viewed as "fornication"....something that carried the death penalty in Israel. Since God was the author of The Law, and he does not change his standards to suit wayward humans, there is NO justification for SSM or any illicit sexual activity at all.

In Leviticus 18:22 it says.... “‘You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination." (Complete Jewish Bible) The term "go to bed" here is "shakab", which is used to denote sexual activity. If it was an "abomination" to God back then...it is still an abomination now.

Here is some other info to ponder.....

"In the early post-Flood period, men such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph showed genuine concern for God’s way, his rule of action. (Gen 18:17-19; 39:7-9; Ex 3:6) Though God gave certain specific commands to faithful men (Gen 26:5), such as the law of circumcision, there is no record of his giving them a detailed law code to observe. (Compare Deut 5:1-3.) Nonetheless, they had not only the principles and precepts of the pre-Flood period to guide them but also additional principles and precepts to be drawn from his expressions and dealings with mankind in the post-Flood period.
Thus, although God had not given a detailed law code, as he later did with the Israelites, men were not without some means for determining right and wrong conduct. Idolatry, for example, had not yet been specifically condemned by a stated law. Nonetheless, as the apostle Paul shows, such practice was inexcusable inasmuch as God’s “invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” The venerating and rendering of “sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created” was against all reason. Those following such an empty-headed course would thereafter deviate into other unrighteous practices, such as homosexuality, changing “the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature.” Again, even though no specific law had been given, such practice was obviously contrary to the way of God the Creator, as the very structure of the male and female manifested. Man, having been originally made in God’s image, had intelligence sufficient to see these things. Hence, he was responsible before God if he went contrary to God’s way; he was sinning, ‘missing the mark,’ even without a specifically stated law to charge him with guilt.—Rom 1:18-27; compare Rom 5:13.

Some clergymen argue in favor of homosexuality, claiming that Jesus never spoke against it. But is that really so? Jesus Christ declared that God’s Word is truth. (John 17:17) That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality as described at Leviticus 18:22, which reads: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.” Moreover, Jesus listed fornication and adultery among the “wicked things [that] issue forth from within and defile a man.” (Mark 7:21-23) The Greek word for fornication is a broader term than that for adultery. It describes all forms of sexual relations outside lawful marriage, including homosexuality. (Jude 7) Jesus Christ also warned his followers not to tolerate any professed Christian teacher who minimizes the seriousness of fornication.—Revelation 1:1; 2:14, 20." (Excerpts WT publications)

To use that argument, you must remember that Jesus also said (about the whole of Mosaic Law) that "not a jot or tittle will be changed..." Thus, you are not to obey ONLY Lev 18:22, but every other law in the OT. Do you? I presume you'd never, for example, toss a shrimp on the barbie...

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Not at all. The title of the piece is "Ten Reasons God Loves Gay Christians." One can only assume, then, that it is not ALL gay people God loves -- only the Christian ones. And that is divisive.

"One can only assume"

If you have horrible reading comprehension skills.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"One can only assume"

If you have horrible reading comprehension skills.

Really? So if Time posted a title like, "Ten reasons God loves white Christians," do you suppose that there'd be no hue and cry from others?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Really? So if Time posted a title like, "Ten reasons God loves white Christians," do you suppose that there'd be no hue and cry from others?

Maybe from those that can't read.

Now if it said, "God only loves white Christians" that is a different story. The title only reads that way to you, because that is the way you want to see it.

The bias is in the reader, not in the title.

 

[allright]

God loves everyone, thats why he sent Jesus.

However when asked if only a few people would be saved his answer was yes

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I do not think Time magazine has the right to decide what God likes. Only the Bible can claim that.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Oh come on guys im buddhist and even i know the bible is against homosexuality, ot and nt.

Lets not BS ourselves.

People have been BSing themselves ever since they decided they could speak for God. If the Bible is the word of God then there is no one in this world that can rightfully claim it condemns homosexuality, as then they would be speaking for God. It is nothing but the purest human ego that could conclude one can know the will of God and can speak on behalf God. And if each person is free to experience the word of God for themselves, then no one can tell you what the Bible means but yourself and God.

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality, as it is really just a book; words on a page; it is the people that hold the Bible that are condemning homosexuality. They are the wolves and the Bible is their "sheep's clothing."

Matthew 7:15 ""Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I do not think Time magazine has the right to decide what God likes. Only the Bible can claim that.

If people have the right to decide God does not like gays, then Time Magazine has the right to decide God loves gay Christians.

 

[Ubon]

People have been BSing themselves ever since they decided they could speak for God. If the Bible is the word of God then there is no one in this world that can rightfully claim it condemns homosexuality, as then they would be speaking for God. It is nothing but the purest human ego that could conclude one can know the will of God and can speak on behalf God. And if each person is free to experience the word of God for themselves, then no one can tell you what the Bible means but yourself and God.

The Bible does not condemn homosexuality, as it is really just a book; words on a page; it is the people that hold the Bible that are condemning homosexuality. They are the wolves and the Bible is their "sheep's clothing."

Matthew 7:15 ""Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

The bible is just a book but it certainly is a book that condemns homosexuality.

You say if the bible is the word of god no one can say he condemns homosexuality, why not when its clearly written in the bible several times.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Maybe from those that can't read.

Now if it said, "God only loves white Christians" that is a different story. The title only reads that way to you, because that is the way you want to see it.

The bias is in the reader, not in the title.

I'm terribly sorry, but I must still disagree. As someone who loves language I know how it can be used -- both to dissemble (to hide what you might want to say, even when you say a lot), but also to speak volumes with few words. (I am terrible at that latter -- that's best left to the poets and playwrights, not to hack writers like me.) But trust me, I can read.

When anybody goes to the effort of qualification of subject matter, they are doing so because they in some way differentiate. If I say, "I'm very fond of green asparagus," the fact that I have not said anything about the white variety is still telling. And the fact is, white asparagus -- by nature of its production -- is different, and I do not enjoy it nearly as much.

And therein lies the issue -- if I am speaking of asparagus in general, there's no need for me to differentiate, but if I do, then it is clear that I have a reason for doing so, and that alters my meaning. In the US, there are several kinds of voters -- Democrats, Republicans, independents, and probably more. The person who says, "we need all voters to get out and vote" is saying something quite different from "we need all Republican voters to get out and vote." That is why you differentiate.

Now, one problem with the header in this thread is that both the word "gay" and "Christian" can be used as nouns and as adjectives. It would be possible to say "God loves gays" or "God loves Christians" or "God loves gay Christians" or God loves Christian gays." All of these have quite different nuances, and the writer chooses which formulation she wants in order to convey something of their underlying thought. This is often quite subtle, but if the writer is any good at her craft at all, then the onus of receiving the message is not only on the reader -- the writer has a lot to do with it.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The bible is just a book but it certainly is a book that condemns homosexuality.

You say if the bible is the word of god no one can say he condemns homosexuality, why not when its clearly written in the bible several times.

I have never once had a Bible walk up to me and tell me homosexuality is a sin. I also don't think any of these anti-homosexual posts made on these forums are being typed out by a Bible.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I'm terribly sorry, but I must still disagree. As someone who loves language I know how it can be used -- both to dissemble (to hide what you might want to say, even when you say a lot), but also to speak volumes with few words. (I am terrible at that latter -- that's best left to the poets and playwrights, not to hack writers like me.) But trust me, I can read.

When anybody goes to the effort of qualification of subject matter, they are doing so because they in some way differentiate. If I say, "I'm very fond of green asparagus," the fact that I have not said anything about the white variety is still telling. And the fact is, white asparagus -- by nature of its production -- is different, and I do not enjoy it nearly as much.

And therein lies the issue -- if I am speaking of asparagus in general, there's no need for me to differentiate, but if I do, then it is clear that I have a reason for doing so, and that alters my meaning. In the US, there are several kinds of voters -- Democrats, Republicans, independents, and probably more. The person who says, "we need all voters to get out and vote" is saying something quite different from "we need all Republican voters to get out and vote." That is why you differentiate.

Now, one problem with the header in this thread is that both the word "gay" and "Christian" can be used as nouns and as adjectives. It would be possible to say "God loves gays" or "God loves Christians" or "God loves gay Christians" or God loves Christian gays." All of these have quite different nuances, and the writer chooses which formulation she wants in order to convey something of their underlying thought. This is often quite subtle, but if the writer is any good at her craft at all, then the onus of receiving the message is not only on the reader -- the writer has a lot to do with it.

First off this is not what the thread is about; you are derailing the thread.

Now you said. "One can only assume, then, that it is not ALL gay people God loves -- only the Christian ones."

But clearly I read it a different way than you did, but we both read the same exact words. So the only obvious answer to why we both read it differently is because of reader bias, and not because the words magically shifted from one reader to the next.

That is all I am going to say on this, I mean it is common sense, so please stay on topic in this thread. If you want to move this discussion somewhere else go for it.

 

[Ubon]

I have never once had a Bible walk up to me and tell me homosexuality is a sin. I also don't think any of these anti-homosexual posts made on these forums are being typed out by a Bible.

Are you serious.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Are you serious.

Yes, I very much doubt any poster here is a Bible. Do you disagree?

 

[Ubon]

Yes, I very much doubt any poster here is a Bible. Do you disagree?

I thought your last post was strange and possibly the worst post i have read, until i read your next post

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I thought your last post was strange and possibly the worst post i have read, until i read your next post

And how is this post doing? Opinions from people I'll never meet and don't know anything about are really important to me, so please tell me.

 

[Deeje]

To use that argument, you must remember that Jesus also said (about the whole of Mosaic Law) that "not a jot or tittle will be changed..." Thus, you are not to obey ONLY Lev 18:22, but every other law in the OT. Do you? I presume you'd never, for example, toss a shrimp on the barbie...

Never was one to toss a shrimp on the barbie really....we call them prawns anyway.

But to address your point....Jesus said he came to 'fulfill the law', not to 'destroy' it. He said that the whole law could be summed up in just two.......to 'love God with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves'. (Matthew 22:34-40) That is the 'law of love' that replaced the Mosaic Law and the "old covenant" mediated through Moses. The "new covenant" mediated by Jesus Christ kept the principles of the law, but dispensed with the rituals. (which were pictorial of a much bigger picture anyway.)

The apostles showed what was "necessary" for all Christians, both Jews and Gentiles.....
"For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things:  to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality." (Acts 15:28, 29)

The apostle Paul wrote in Romans 9 &10.....

"28...Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Although the number of the sons of Israel may be as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved. 28 For Jehovah will make an accounting on the earth, concluding it and cutting it short.” 29 Also, just as Isaiah foretold: “Unless Jehovah of armies had left an offspring to us, we should have become just like Sodʹom, and we should have resembled Go·morʹrah.”
30 What are we to say, then? That people of the nations, although not pursuing righteousness, attained righteousness, the righteousness that results from faith; 31 but Israel, although pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain to that law. 32 For what reason? Because they pursued it, not by faith, but as by works. They stumbled over the “stone of stumbling”; 33 as it is written: “Look! I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, but the one who rests his faith on it will not be disappointed.”

10 Brothers, the goodwill of my heart and my supplication to God for them are indeed for their salvation. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge. 3 For because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness."

Israel had every opportunity to gain salvation and take their rightful place in the Kingdom of God, but they stumbled over the "rock of offense", Jesus the Messiah. They had a zeal for God, (like that demonstrated by Saul of Tarsus) but it wasn't based on accurate knowledge.....why? Because the Pharisees had corrupted the teachings of the scriptures and substituted their own rigid interpretation with oral traditions that Jesus said invalidated the scriptures. (Matthew 15:3-9) They got so caught up in legalism and their own elevated status, that they lost sight of the more important aspects of the law....those promoted by Jesus. Hence 'the law of love' concentrated on what the Pharisees lacked.....love, mercy, forgiveness and human compassion. Jesus emphasized all three.

Christ was the "end of the law" but not the end of the principles upon which it was founded.