I'm going to just take a guess here, but as too the bolded I think it's simple. No one is standing up arguing we should accept murder..bearing false witness...stealing...coveting your neighbors wife, etc. For those that believe homosexuality is a sin, there are a number of people and organizations standing up saying it is acceptable and EVERYONE should accept it, and the government seems to be taking the same course with some of the recent actions (same sex marriage, not calling homosexuality a sin in juvy, etc.). That's why all the talk/action on that particular topic. I would think if there was a big push by groups to sleep with your neighbors wife and the government was on board with it and seemingly trying to make it societally acceptable, there would be a big commotion from Christians about that too. But I could be wrong.

 

There's always been a tremendous social stigma against homosexuality, well before the gay rights movement gained traction in the last decade or so.

 

But even then, as to your and og's explanation that Christians are simply responding to a prevailing issue or one that the government and society are sanctioning, I can think of plenty of sins (I assume most people would agree that they are sins) that are treated similarly to how I described above, which is mostly that Christians avoid them, but don't seem fervent about stopping others from doing it.

 

I often use greed as an example because the New Testament is explicit about its nature, but I don't often see Christian groups fighting to prohibit or discourage it. Surely this is as a greedy and selfish time as there has ever been and is incentivized by any number of laws.

 

Sexual immorality, lust, and debauchery are explicitly regarded as sinful. Pornography on the internet is ubiquitous now that everyone has a high-speed connection. It's mostly free and easy to access. All new. Surely this far more influential and pervasive than homosexuality (a teenaged Christian is far more likely to be lured into a porn site than "recruited" by gay people). But there hasn't been a commensurate public outcry and rallying for votes to stop its spread.

 

Drunkenness is probably my weakest example since there has been Prohibition and a lingering number of counties are still dry, but again, its widely regarded as sinful, but I don't see Christian groups raising a call to arms to close bars and distilleries or implement legislation that would require children to be taught about its sinful nature.

 

I say all of this not to chastise Christians for not demanding more onerous laws about sins, but to show what I mean about how the ferocity homosexuality is fought in public debates seems out of proportion compared to other sins (and again, there are many Christians who debate what things are sins and to whom). If homosexuality is sinful, then why isn't it treated similarly to many other sins in Christian churches, where congregations are advised to avoid engaging in them, but not called to go to the voting booth to amend state constitutions to prohibit them? I know plenty of churches are home to adulterers, drunks, gamblers, coveters, unethical businessmen, etc., but these seem far more accepted and welcomed ("we are all sinners here") than homosexuals would be.

 

I think you are both right that my perception about this disproportionate response is because this is a "prevailing issue" right now. But I would go one step further and say that society and Christianity are not exclusive of one another. There's been a huge social stigma against homosexuality outside of Christianity that I think has amplified the religious opposition to it. For example, our society has mostly evolved to say "greed is good," thus there's not much to amplify the individualized Christian prohibitions against it and has probably weakened those prohibitions.

 

Relatedly, when society has changed I believe interpretations of Christianity have changed along with it in many ways. Oldgrappler alludes to something close to this above, citing Christian abolitionist as a force for good against slavery, but for a long time Christians and churches were resolute that slavery was God-ordained. Now that belief is considered beyond the pale. Before that, there were strong prohibitions among Christians against usury, to the point that interest bearing loans were non-existent for centuries, but this has also died off and become accepted.

Is it that "the traditional view has been wrong", or "there are other views that are right/legal/okay/worthy of inclusion"?

 

Semantics.

I guess the thing that is different in this situation is not that the minister is being told to be accepting. He's being told he can't practice his religion.

I guess the thing that is different in this situation is not that the minister is being told to be accepting. He's being told he can't practice his religion.

 

Or, perhaps, to just focus on something else. Like, perhaps, the sin that got the person in trouble to begin with. Last I checked, homosexuality wasn't illegal. A lot of the Ten Commandments are, though. They seem to be ignored in all this fury.

Edited July 29, 201511 yr by True blue (and gold)
Rule 8

Or, perhaps, to just focus on something else. Like, perhaps, the sin that got the person in trouble to begin with. Last I checked, homosexuality wasn't illegal. A lot of the Ten Commandments are, though. They seem to be ignored in all this fury.

 

You act as if the church doesn't preach against all of those things.

 

The church does preach against them every day. Those topics dominate sermons.

Edited July 29, 201511 yr by True blue (and gold)
Rule 14

There's always been a tremendous social stigma against homosexuality, well before the gay rights movement gained traction in the last decade or so.

 

But even then, as to your and og's explanation that Christians are simply responding to a prevailing issue or one that the government and society are sanctioning, I can think of plenty of sins (I assume most people would agree that they are sins) that are treated similarly to how I described above, which is mostly that Christians avoid them, but don't seem fervent about stopping others from doing it.

 

I often use greed as an example because the New Testament is explicit about its nature, but I don't often see Christian groups fighting to prohibit or discourage it. Surely this is as a greedy and selfish time as there has ever been and is incentivized by any number of laws.

 

Sexual immorality, lust, and debauchery are explicitly regarded as sinful. Pornography on the internet is ubiquitous now that everyone has a high-speed connection. It's mostly free and easy to access. All new. Surely this far more influential and pervasive than homosexuality (a teenaged Christian is far more likely to be lured into a porn site than "recruited" by gay people). But there hasn't been a commensurate public outcry and rallying for votes to stop its spread.

 

Drunkenness is probably my weakest example since there has been Prohibition and a lingering number of counties are still dry, but again, its widely regarded as sinful, but I don't see Christian groups raising a call to arms to close bars and distilleries or implement legislation that would require children to be taught about its sinful nature.

 

I say all of this not to chastise Christians for not demanding more onerous laws about sins, but to show what I mean about how the ferocity homosexuality is fought in public debates seems out of proportion compared to other sins (and again, there are many Christians who debate what things are sins and to whom). If homosexuality is sinful, then why isn't it treated similarly to many other sins in Christian churches, where congregations are advised to avoid engaging in them, but not called to go to the voting booth to amend state constitutions to prohibit them? I know plenty of churches are home to adulterers, drunks, gamblers, coveters, unethical businessmen, etc., but these seem far more accepted and welcomed ("we are all sinners here") than homosexuals would be.

 

I think you are both right that my perception about this disproportionate response is because this is a "prevailing issue" right now. But I would go one step further and say that society and Christianity are not exclusive of one another. There's been a huge social stigma against homosexuality outside of Christianity that I think has amplified the religious opposition to it. For example, our society has mostly evolved to say "greed is good," thus there's not much to amplify the individualized Christian prohibitions against it and has probably weakened those prohibitions.

 

Relatedly, when society has changed I believe interpretations of Christianity have changed along with it in many ways. Oldgrappler alludes to something close to this above, citing Christian abolitionist as a force for good against slavery, but for a long time Christians and churches were resolute that slavery was God-ordained. Now that belief is considered beyond the pale. Before that, there were strong prohibitions among Christians against usury, to the point that interest bearing loans were non-existent for centuries, but this has also died off and become accepted.

 

As is often the case, you make some very excellent points--and truthful points. I am in complete agreement with you that a large segment of Christians have elevated homosexuality to a place the Bible does not elevate it, treating it as if it's some sort of super-sin. While I think we're hearing more of it lately because of the Supreme Court ruling, it's honestly been an unfortunate trend among many Christian circles for years. While the Bible is clear in identifying homosexuality as sinful behavior, it doesn't differentiate it from other sexual sins. Many Christians, however, do treat it differently. They grab their megaphones when homosexuality is discussed, but are oddly silent when it comes to other sexual sins (unbiblical divorce, premarital sex, etc.). That type of thinking, from my perspective, is a serious, serious inconsistency. While I can't say for sure why so many do this, my guess is that homosexuality is an easy sin for them to avoid. The other sexual sins, however, they are very guilty of (and probably the other sins you mention as well, such as greed).

 

However, I am also of the opinion that there are Christians who support the homosexual lifestyle/gay marriage decision that are equally as inconsistent. Just as those on the other side are quick throw out the Leviticus condemnation of homosexuality, these folks throw out their usual verses too. "Do not judge or you to will be judged" is a popular one, but these folks fail to read/cite the rest of the verse where Jesus calls for removing the plank from the eye so that one can see clearly to remove the other person's speck. At the end of the day, the goal is to have speck-free and plank-free eyes. "You who are without sin cast the first stone." This is the dumbest verse some point to, in my opinion, because I haven't heard anyone calling for homosexuals to be stoned to death, which is what the adulterous woman in John 8 was facing. But again, they fail to read the rest of Jesus' statement, where he tells the adulterous woman to leave her "life of sin." Jesus spared her life, refused to condemn her, but he was clear in stating that her lifestyle was one of sin and she needed to stop ASAP. We usually don't hear that part though.

 

To be clear, I recognize that I have been inconsistent in my beliefs, but it's something I'm trying to improve upon. When a person makes an argument for or against something, and the person is using the Bible to form those beliefs, he or she needs to ensure that they have formed an opinion from all of Scripture and not just snippets of it. But I think both sides are guilty of just that--using snippets instead of the whole picture.

To be clear, I recognize that I have been inconsistent in my beliefs, but it's something I'm trying to improve upon. When a person makes an argument for or against something, and the person is using the Bible to form those beliefs, he or she needs to ensure that they have formed an opinion from all of Scripture and not just snippets of it. But I think both sides are guilty of just that--using snippets instead of the whole picture.

 

I definitely agree. I also think it can be difficult to interpret, or at least different people might come away with different interpretations, which is why its important to study and discuss with others.