-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Would you do a point/counterpoint debate on same sex marriage?
- Thread starter Joseph M. Smith
- Start date
windcatcher
New Member
Okay.
I'll bite!
And that's the problem.
Some of these issues have a moral side.... and some also have an emotional impact on those who have strong feelings.
In an open public debate forum, such as we have here, we may express ourselves strongly, sometimes in what seems like opposition, when neither side would wish to appear as endorsing sin. This may be because we think we have room to remind each other of compassionate ways of looking at things without giving an endorsement to sin or opening up a tolerance in exercise of doctrine.
(And some of this may be driven by our own indoctrination by the humanistic influences, of which we aren't aware. I know in myself I find conflicts at times.... some of which I credit to having to subbordinate a strict moral belief to that of non-judgementalism and tolerance in the presence and acceptance of life-style in others in a secular mental health setting for so many years. Once one is exposed to the agonies of others living in sin and because of their choices, it is almost as easy to sorrow with them over the difficulties produced by their lifestyle as it seems to become difficult to condem the lifestyle itself. But the truth of my compassion for their problems and lifestyle makes my offense at their sin all the greater because it is by their choice.... regardless of how they frame it..... and I abhor both the sin and the consequences of it which devastates their lives and assaults the moral foundations of family and society.)
In this case..... we also have the owner's manual, the Bible, as our guide to instruction. If this manual had been followed by all believers, chances are we would not even be having this discussion and the impact of what we believe upon our communities and our country might have been greater if we held firm in our stand.
We are told not to give any place to sin. And there are some sins which are supposed to be removed, or those who engage in them were not to be included in society as a member of society....... and more directly, they were supposed to be judged and punished. The least that we can do in a publication which represents not only our position but more importantly the Bible is to take and keep a firm stand in agreement with the Bible:
We are not to give place to sin. We can not present debate which encourages tolerance or acceptance: The beautiful side of evil has its own voices and pr campaign. It will be heard and is heard without any assistance of a Christian publication. You think they would give 'you' equal time? Why? Many of them would tear pages and verses out of the Bible...... and slander us with names for our Biblical position...... and persecute and prosecute for hate speech! Is this what you are afraid of? You still have your liberties.... as long as you use them, even if met with challenge. But, you fail to use them because of the 'ifs' ...... and, one day, will find you lost them because of your compromise or silence.
This particular lifestyle depends upon recruitment and tolerance for its existance, and it observes no age barriers as too immature. The best stand is the moral stand of scripture...... and the age old defining of family....... which even nature is overwhemingly agreed.
If it got discussion at all beyond what the scriptures say...... it is that it opens up a pandora's box of future questions and ills...... if two of the same s*x in an open 'lifestyle' together constitute a household for taxation, insurance purposes, employment bereavement and sick leave compensation....... then what about family members living together such as brothers and/or sisters..... or parents with grown children..... or 4 college students sharing a 2 bedroom house or appartment...... with bunkbeds in each room? Just how far do we open the door for government to start making decisions and economic assumptions and responsibilities (or regulate employers to expand coverage), which change the definition of 'family', based upon the private associations and arrangements between individuals, and would these same s*x recognitions not pave the way for greater conflicts and interpretations being demanded by others?
I think it best, be it mention of the news by annoucement or editorial, or position.... take a matter of fact biblical stand and affirm the traditional family unit on the bases of Biblical teachings and morality, historical affirmations, and as the natural order ordained by God and upheld by church doctrine.
Leave the discussions to discussion boards, and better yet, these are best done between individuals who may find themselves trying to relate interpersonally and compassionately with a close member of their family, friends, or a co-worker or by the nature of their work discipline, who might, in a public discussion, appear to compromise when this is not their position at all.
As I led off, i.e., "I'll bite!"
If the remarks are not presented matter of fact and firmly backed by the Biblical stand.... then by presenting it as a 'discussion' or a pro and con, is like opening up to private interpretation or a poll, and who wins the best argument or presents the most passionate points to win the human sympathetic response will be the winner and may compromise a position which is Biblically based and should be clearly and uncompromisingly firm. Instead of taking a clear, uncompromising stand, you will increase more activity in discussions which bode no good outcome.
As for the churches which seem wavering towards compromise.... you maybe in a position to steer them towards a firmer resolve in holding fast to Biblical doctrine where some within them are stirring for compromise. What is the truth of your convictions on this subject and what outcome is your goal? They need your encouragement to stand firm and strong against this lifestyle. As for other churches who are stirred to leave...... what threat is that to you? Are any of us here to work the ministry of pleasing others more than pleasing God? Let 'em leave and bid them good riddance...... In their own compromise they will weave a thread that divides them and tears them assunder..... and you will be innocent having chosen not to play their game but to warn them.
So what if you are attacked? Expect such; anticipate such; put on your spiritual armor; Maintain communications with the community of faith which is Biblically sound, and reach agreements with each other to come to each others' defense....if one church or two becomes 'target' that others will rally in numbers and as witness against those who would trouble you.
Your moral stand is not against them as much as its against what they do, a sin, and what they support and what they wish to do to you and your children. You cannot make an enemy your friend. And it is not that you call them 'enemy'..... but that they consider anyone who affirms the Bible in its entirity as their 'enemy' which keeps this divide. And if you want to offer your olive leaf...... they will take it and demand more...... destroying the scriptures, compromising family structure and values, enslaving more into their lifestyle, wrecking havoc with destroyed lives in their lascivious confusions.... and leading more into perdition with their explicit parades, profanities, and orgies.
There is nothing gay or happy about their lifestyle. What they think they want...... the acceptance of others .......they will never have no matter what 'frontiers' they conquer: Cause what they are after is a spiritual hunger which only God can satisfy....... but they want God to accept them on their own terms. God is true and His Word never changes...... we either acknowledge Him or we deny Him. There's no other way.... if God is God.
I'll bite!
And that's the problem.
Some of these issues have a moral side.... and some also have an emotional impact on those who have strong feelings.
In an open public debate forum, such as we have here, we may express ourselves strongly, sometimes in what seems like opposition, when neither side would wish to appear as endorsing sin. This may be because we think we have room to remind each other of compassionate ways of looking at things without giving an endorsement to sin or opening up a tolerance in exercise of doctrine.
(And some of this may be driven by our own indoctrination by the humanistic influences, of which we aren't aware. I know in myself I find conflicts at times.... some of which I credit to having to subbordinate a strict moral belief to that of non-judgementalism and tolerance in the presence and acceptance of life-style in others in a secular mental health setting for so many years. Once one is exposed to the agonies of others living in sin and because of their choices, it is almost as easy to sorrow with them over the difficulties produced by their lifestyle as it seems to become difficult to condem the lifestyle itself. But the truth of my compassion for their problems and lifestyle makes my offense at their sin all the greater because it is by their choice.... regardless of how they frame it..... and I abhor both the sin and the consequences of it which devastates their lives and assaults the moral foundations of family and society.)
In this case..... we also have the owner's manual, the Bible, as our guide to instruction. If this manual had been followed by all believers, chances are we would not even be having this discussion and the impact of what we believe upon our communities and our country might have been greater if we held firm in our stand.
We are told not to give any place to sin. And there are some sins which are supposed to be removed, or those who engage in them were not to be included in society as a member of society....... and more directly, they were supposed to be judged and punished. The least that we can do in a publication which represents not only our position but more importantly the Bible is to take and keep a firm stand in agreement with the Bible:
We are not to give place to sin. We can not present debate which encourages tolerance or acceptance: The beautiful side of evil has its own voices and pr campaign. It will be heard and is heard without any assistance of a Christian publication. You think they would give 'you' equal time? Why? Many of them would tear pages and verses out of the Bible...... and slander us with names for our Biblical position...... and persecute and prosecute for hate speech! Is this what you are afraid of? You still have your liberties.... as long as you use them, even if met with challenge. But, you fail to use them because of the 'ifs' ...... and, one day, will find you lost them because of your compromise or silence.
This particular lifestyle depends upon recruitment and tolerance for its existance, and it observes no age barriers as too immature. The best stand is the moral stand of scripture...... and the age old defining of family....... which even nature is overwhemingly agreed.
If it got discussion at all beyond what the scriptures say...... it is that it opens up a pandora's box of future questions and ills...... if two of the same s*x in an open 'lifestyle' together constitute a household for taxation, insurance purposes, employment bereavement and sick leave compensation....... then what about family members living together such as brothers and/or sisters..... or parents with grown children..... or 4 college students sharing a 2 bedroom house or appartment...... with bunkbeds in each room? Just how far do we open the door for government to start making decisions and economic assumptions and responsibilities (or regulate employers to expand coverage), which change the definition of 'family', based upon the private associations and arrangements between individuals, and would these same s*x recognitions not pave the way for greater conflicts and interpretations being demanded by others?
I think it best, be it mention of the news by annoucement or editorial, or position.... take a matter of fact biblical stand and affirm the traditional family unit on the bases of Biblical teachings and morality, historical affirmations, and as the natural order ordained by God and upheld by church doctrine.
Leave the discussions to discussion boards, and better yet, these are best done between individuals who may find themselves trying to relate interpersonally and compassionately with a close member of their family, friends, or a co-worker or by the nature of their work discipline, who might, in a public discussion, appear to compromise when this is not their position at all.
As I led off, i.e., "I'll bite!"
If the remarks are not presented matter of fact and firmly backed by the Biblical stand.... then by presenting it as a 'discussion' or a pro and con, is like opening up to private interpretation or a poll, and who wins the best argument or presents the most passionate points to win the human sympathetic response will be the winner and may compromise a position which is Biblically based and should be clearly and uncompromisingly firm. Instead of taking a clear, uncompromising stand, you will increase more activity in discussions which bode no good outcome.
As for the churches which seem wavering towards compromise.... you maybe in a position to steer them towards a firmer resolve in holding fast to Biblical doctrine where some within them are stirring for compromise. What is the truth of your convictions on this subject and what outcome is your goal? They need your encouragement to stand firm and strong against this lifestyle. As for other churches who are stirred to leave...... what threat is that to you? Are any of us here to work the ministry of pleasing others more than pleasing God? Let 'em leave and bid them good riddance...... In their own compromise they will weave a thread that divides them and tears them assunder..... and you will be innocent having chosen not to play their game but to warn them.
So what if you are attacked? Expect such; anticipate such; put on your spiritual armor; Maintain communications with the community of faith which is Biblically sound, and reach agreements with each other to come to each others' defense....if one church or two becomes 'target' that others will rally in numbers and as witness against those who would trouble you.
Your moral stand is not against them as much as its against what they do, a sin, and what they support and what they wish to do to you and your children. You cannot make an enemy your friend. And it is not that you call them 'enemy'..... but that they consider anyone who affirms the Bible in its entirity as their 'enemy' which keeps this divide. And if you want to offer your olive leaf...... they will take it and demand more...... destroying the scriptures, compromising family structure and values, enslaving more into their lifestyle, wrecking havoc with destroyed lives in their lascivious confusions.... and leading more into perdition with their explicit parades, profanities, and orgies.
There is nothing gay or happy about their lifestyle. What they think they want...... the acceptance of others .......they will never have no matter what 'frontiers' they conquer: Cause what they are after is a spiritual hunger which only God can satisfy....... but they want God to accept them on their own terms. God is true and His Word never changes...... we either acknowledge Him or we deny Him. There's no other way.... if God is God.
I say the best thing to do is, “Stand up and be a man of God and call a sin, a sin.” Mathew 5:10-13.
The very word and meaning of “marriage” is/should be a sacred institution, one ordained by God, is/was traditionalized by the Church, later to have government regulations concerning protection and ethics, but no matter, the roots of this holy union and its foundations are clear as to the origin. Let the homosexuals call their union something else, a domestic partnership, union or whatever, but the union and meaning of the phrase “marriage” has Christian principles at its very roots. The word “marriage” is taken and has meaning!
Surely, one (a pastor) can not give his blessings to a union which God says is sinful in one of the most direct ways, calling it an abomination, and a man of God can be right in supporting such a union within the blessings of a church.
Frankly, I do not even understand the reasoning for homosexual couples to even what to call their union a “marriage” other than it being of ignorance in Biblical righteousness, rebellion toward the authority of God, or resentment toward what Christians hold dear as a sacred tradition, established by the Church and the Word of God, which excludes their idealism that they can claim the same type of union. They can’t have the same thing before God; they may have a right to government regulatory and social civil rights to have a union which allows them equal protection and rights in “their union” but they do not have a right to call it a “marriage” and the church has no business performing and/or giving its blessings to such a union before God.
The very word and meaning of “marriage” is/should be a sacred institution, one ordained by God, is/was traditionalized by the Church, later to have government regulations concerning protection and ethics, but no matter, the roots of this holy union and its foundations are clear as to the origin. Let the homosexuals call their union something else, a domestic partnership, union or whatever, but the union and meaning of the phrase “marriage” has Christian principles at its very roots. The word “marriage” is taken and has meaning!
Surely, one (a pastor) can not give his blessings to a union which God says is sinful in one of the most direct ways, calling it an abomination, and a man of God can be right in supporting such a union within the blessings of a church.
Frankly, I do not even understand the reasoning for homosexual couples to even what to call their union a “marriage” other than it being of ignorance in Biblical righteousness, rebellion toward the authority of God, or resentment toward what Christians hold dear as a sacred tradition, established by the Church and the Word of God, which excludes their idealism that they can claim the same type of union. They can’t have the same thing before God; they may have a right to government regulatory and social civil rights to have a union which allows them equal protection and rights in “their union” but they do not have a right to call it a “marriage” and the church has no business performing and/or giving its blessings to such a union before God.
Last edited by a moderator:
A true debate can only happen when there is the possibility of both sides being either right or wrong. In the case of same-sex marriage (or homsexuality period), there is NO possibility of it being right. It is sin and condemned by God, and it is unnatural.
First...this has nothing to do with the thread at hand, but I'll bite anyway.
Nothing was stopping your friend from purchasing a medical plan outside the company for his mother. I can't put my mother on my company medical plan either. I can't put my father on it. I can't put my sisters on it. Should I then have to put all them all welfare? You are a confused and delusional person.
Well, that figures.
I'm trying to figure out why you post on a Christian board...you hold such a low opinion of God's Word...Romans 1:26 for one.
But of course...you don't believe the Word of God...so why should quoting Scripture matter to you?
If it were up to me, I'd ban you yesterday. You have no business posting on a Christian message board.
He fits the exact bill for posting rule #5:
Absurdities? Billwald is made up of nothing but absurdities.
Their first objective will be to try and convince you that the three sexual orientations -- heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality -- are all morally neutral. They say the real sins are homophobia, and sexual acts which are unsafe, non-consensual, manipulative and/or without commitment.
They then go about spinning what they refer to as the 'clobber passages' in the New Testament.
Romans 1
1 Corinthians 6
Translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9 from various versions of the Bible
1 Timothy 1
Other books: Matthew, John & Jude
They say there is the possible meanings of the Greek word "arsenokoitai" (arsenokoitai) in I Cor. 6:9-10 (KJV) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind", Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." They ask "what does "arsenokoitai" really mean?" then answer, "nobody knows for certain."
Joseph M. Smith
New Member
Well, if we do this, we will see what lines of argument the pro-same-sex marriage people use. My suspicion is that it will be either general statements about love trumping all other things (you know, I Cor 13), or that it will be about civil rights rather than spiritual values.
If it is the latter line of argument, however, then some may stipulate that they would not perform same-sex marriages, but would acknowledge the civil rights of those who wish the protections that marriage affords. As one of you has suggested, this could lead us into an interesting discussion of church and state issues. For what it is worth, when I do weddings (and yes, they have all been opposite-sex!), I do not say, "By the authority vested in me by the District of Columbia ...". I am acting in the name of Christ and His church, not the state, at least in my own mind. But of course there is the obligation to keep the marriage laws.
We shall see what our larger staff and/or elected leaders think before we proceed.
If it is the latter line of argument, however, then some may stipulate that they would not perform same-sex marriages, but would acknowledge the civil rights of those who wish the protections that marriage affords. As one of you has suggested, this could lead us into an interesting discussion of church and state issues. For what it is worth, when I do weddings (and yes, they have all been opposite-sex!), I do not say, "By the authority vested in me by the District of Columbia ...". I am acting in the name of Christ and His church, not the state, at least in my own mind. But of course there is the obligation to keep the marriage laws.
We shall see what our larger staff and/or elected leaders think before we proceed.
windcatcher
New Member
If you go further than taking a firm Biblical stand and open to a discussion of two sides....imho, you're making a mistake.
JonMarc stated it very clearly,
It may be that you are not clearly convinced on these issues or that someone or something is guiding your decision other than the posted opinions expressed here.
Reality is... opinions and polling people doesn't matter..... It is God's will and opinion which counts. I hope you're seeking Him through all of this.
JonMarc stated it very clearly,
You seem bent on opening a forum for discussion as though there was no final word already to be trusted.
It may be that you are not clearly convinced on these issues or that someone or something is guiding your decision other than the posted opinions expressed here.
Reality is... opinions and polling people doesn't matter..... It is God's will and opinion which counts. I hope you're seeking Him through all of this.
Last edited by a moderator:
'The other side' wants you to think that they are interested in listening to what God's word says about same-sex relations. They are not. Within no time you are labeled a homophobe and your interpretation of the bible is considered bigotry.
One of the first things the 'other side' will want you to believe is that
'the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing'. The following is taken from a debate I was engaged in on the passages in God's word prohibiting homosexual relations:
"If heroes of the Christian faith could change their minds about the meaning of certain biblical texts, shouldn't we be prepared to reconsider our own interpretations of these ancient words when the Holy Spirit opens our minds and hearts to new truth? That's why we study the Bible prayerfully, seeking the Spirit of Truth, God's loving Spirit, to help us understand and apply these words to our lives."
"On the night he was betrayed, Jesus told his disciples he was going away from them for a while, but that the Father would send them a "Comforter," an "Advocate," the "Holy Spirit" who would "teach them all things."
"I believe with all my heart that the Holy Spirit is still teaching us. When we reconsider the texts that are used by some people to condemn God's gay children, we must fervently seek the Holy Spirit's guidance, or we risk being misled by our own prejudices."
One of the first things the 'other side' will want you to believe is that
'the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing'. The following is taken from a debate I was engaged in on the passages in God's word prohibiting homosexual relations:
"If heroes of the Christian faith could change their minds about the meaning of certain biblical texts, shouldn't we be prepared to reconsider our own interpretations of these ancient words when the Holy Spirit opens our minds and hearts to new truth? That's why we study the Bible prayerfully, seeking the Spirit of Truth, God's loving Spirit, to help us understand and apply these words to our lives."
"On the night he was betrayed, Jesus told his disciples he was going away from them for a while, but that the Father would send them a "Comforter," an "Advocate," the "Holy Spirit" who would "teach them all things."
"I believe with all my heart that the Holy Spirit is still teaching us. When we reconsider the texts that are used by some people to condemn God's gay children, we must fervently seek the Holy Spirit's guidance, or we risk being misled by our own prejudices."
windcatcher
New Member
iow, if I correctly understand what lori4dogs is presenting,
The homosoxual side will be essentially saying to disregard the Biblical cannon which we already have as our guide..... which the church has established as being complete for many centuries..... and not only question its authority but also rewrite new passages and identify the standard as obsolete and prejudicial.
When the Bible clearly teaches that God never changes and his word faileth not..... why should a publication or its editorial staff place God's word in a position of debate..... or allow arguments to change God's Word?
And, if the consequence of this debate results in someone changing the Word of God on these points..... what other established words may be changed to suit the doctrines of men? And, once changing the Word becomes a permission, at what point does it cease to be reliable? And if the Bible is altered so that it is no longer reliable, upon what Word can our faith be established? And if faith cannot be extablished because we've allowed enemies to change the Word and corrupt it....... how then can we know what is true and for what purpose does faith serve (if not to know and trust God and His promises to us, its revealing the Savior and direction for our life in him)?
As stated earlier, your concerns about 'balance' are unfounded. The parties with which you are concerned already have their well funded and well exposed forums for advocacy. Expose their lies and their own intolerances and rebellion and their offences for what they are. If they call you names..... What of it? If you are a homophobe, their saying so doesn't make it so merely because of your Biblical stand. But if they are afraid of Biblical truth 'as it is written' then they are bibliophobes.