I don't believe in the concept of "Sin" the way the Abrahamic religions do....at all.
I certainly don't believe homosexuality is a sin,
nor do I think sex is a sin, in general,
including before marriage, or with more than one partner.
But if i was a Christian, I probably WOULD believe those things, wouldn't I?
However, this is where I would be different from my fellow Christians:
I would be extremely vocal that,
while I believed homosexuality was a sin,
I also believe, just as strongly, in not only NOT standing in the way of gay marriage or LGBT rights
...but leading the charge for LGBT rights.
And this is not just because I would be merely "tolerant",
but because it is an EXAMPLE OF MY FAITH that,
even when mankind and civic law CLEARS ALL THE OBSTACLES TO SIN out of the way
....God can still touch people's hearts.
(Everytime I see rabid Christians trying to oppose gay marriage,
all it does is send the message that they must NOT really have the faith that they say they have,
because they obviously think God needs their help in enforcing His will, in passing judgement,
and in touching people's hearts).
Jesus allowed people to choose for themselves, and I would seek to emulate His example.
We can only make our OWN moral choices.
We cannot make those choices for others...not even for our kids.
(And we should love them even if they do not make the same choices we would make,
...and leave the judging part, to God).
We should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's.
America is Caesar. Caesar is not God.
Give to Caesar, what is Caesar's. Give to America, what is America's.
America is about Freedom.
Too many Christians don't really want America to be about Freedom;
they want America to be a Christian Theocracy,
where Christian morals are enforced by law, even onto non-Christians
....which is specifically what Jesus did NOT want.
Again, Jesus allowed people to choose FOR THEMSELVES.
When the rich merchant asked Jesus, "Teacher, what do I have to do to sit at your right hand, in Heaven?" Jesus told him to give away his great accumulated worldly wealth, and simply come and follow Him....but the wealthy merchant, realizing he could NOT HAVE BOTH his wealth, AND sit at God's right hand, turned away sadly, unable to bring himself to part with all he had worked for, on this Earth.
The OBVIOUS moral of the story is then spoon-fed to us:
Jesus turned to his folllowers, after the merchant had gone, and said,
" a man cannot serve both God and Mammon. "
But there is a second moral to the story, less obvious, in Jesus ACTIONS, rather than His words:
JESUS DID NOT CHASE THE MERCHANT AND TRY TO COERCE HIM INTO CHOOSING DIFFERENTLY.
He simply let him go.
It BAFFLES me that that lesson is lost on so many Christians, today,
and it BAFFLES me that they seem to be oblivious to what it says about their lack of faith,
and it BAFFLES me that they are so clueless, after a lifetime of studying the Bible,
that they could misunderstand what was really important to Jesus
(yet I, an Agnostic and Anti-Theist, can see it).
Today, they'd see the merchant make his choice to walk away from Jesus,
and instead of letting him go, they'd chase after him and threaten to take away his spousal health benefits,
or something, to punish him for not "choosing Jesus".
They'd make it DIFFICULT for any non-Christians to live in America.
I firmly believe this is NOT what Jesus ever taught or intended.
(This is the paradox of Christianity;
this is its co-dependent, control-freak nature:
The line is very blurry, for them,
between where THEY end, and SOMEONE ELSE begins.
and this is why it thinks that by allowing gay marriage,
the church is somehow "under attack".
no-one is asking them to become gay.
but they're so controlling and confused about where the line really lays
between what is THEIR choice,
versus someone ELSE'S choice,
that they actually believe that UNLESS EVERYONE IS FORCED TO LIVE BY CHRISTIAN LAWS,
then it just HAS to be the case, that Christians SIMPLY MUST be under attack by non-Christians!!)
Jesus wants people to choose to follow Him, of their own free will,
even when they could EASILY choose the wide path of the world.
So, if I were a Christian,
Yes, of course I'd make a point of being a good ambassador of Christ,
and spreading His gospel (to those who have ears to hear)
...but I would simultaneously make the wide path EVEN WIDER for those who chose it,
believing that God could and would touch their hearts, anyway.
To me, this is a far greater demonstration of faith,
than any amount of snake-handling could ever be.
My job as a Christian is NOT to judge them, scare them, coerce them or even reject them.
Now, if GOD wants to judge, scare, coerce...or even reject them...
then that is God's prerogative, according to Christian belief.
But it is NOT my prerogative, as a Christian.
MY JOB, as a Christian, is only to love them.
That's what so many Christians fail to grasp:
That being Christian does NOT confer upon you the prerogatives of Christ.
So that is how I would be, if i were a Christian.
I certainly don't believe homosexuality is a sin,
nor do I think sex is a sin, in general,
including before marriage, or with more than one partner.
But if i was a Christian, I probably WOULD believe those things, wouldn't I?
However, this is where I would be different from my fellow Christians:
I would be extremely vocal that,
while I believed homosexuality was a sin,
I also believe, just as strongly, in not only NOT standing in the way of gay marriage or LGBT rights
...but leading the charge for LGBT rights.
And this is not just because I would be merely "tolerant",
but because it is an EXAMPLE OF MY FAITH that,
even when mankind and civic law CLEARS ALL THE OBSTACLES TO SIN out of the way
....God can still touch people's hearts.
(Everytime I see rabid Christians trying to oppose gay marriage,
all it does is send the message that they must NOT really have the faith that they say they have,
because they obviously think God needs their help in enforcing His will, in passing judgement,
and in touching people's hearts).
Jesus allowed people to choose for themselves, and I would seek to emulate His example.
We can only make our OWN moral choices.
We cannot make those choices for others...not even for our kids.
(And we should love them even if they do not make the same choices we would make,
...and leave the judging part, to God).
We should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's.
America is Caesar. Caesar is not God.
Give to Caesar, what is Caesar's. Give to America, what is America's.
America is about Freedom.
Too many Christians don't really want America to be about Freedom;
they want America to be a Christian Theocracy,
where Christian morals are enforced by law, even onto non-Christians
....which is specifically what Jesus did NOT want.
Again, Jesus allowed people to choose FOR THEMSELVES.
When the rich merchant asked Jesus, "Teacher, what do I have to do to sit at your right hand, in Heaven?" Jesus told him to give away his great accumulated worldly wealth, and simply come and follow Him....but the wealthy merchant, realizing he could NOT HAVE BOTH his wealth, AND sit at God's right hand, turned away sadly, unable to bring himself to part with all he had worked for, on this Earth.
The OBVIOUS moral of the story is then spoon-fed to us:
Jesus turned to his folllowers, after the merchant had gone, and said,
" a man cannot serve both God and Mammon. "
But there is a second moral to the story, less obvious, in Jesus ACTIONS, rather than His words:
JESUS DID NOT CHASE THE MERCHANT AND TRY TO COERCE HIM INTO CHOOSING DIFFERENTLY.
He simply let him go.
It BAFFLES me that that lesson is lost on so many Christians, today,
and it BAFFLES me that they seem to be oblivious to what it says about their lack of faith,
and it BAFFLES me that they are so clueless, after a lifetime of studying the Bible,
that they could misunderstand what was really important to Jesus
(yet I, an Agnostic and Anti-Theist, can see it).
Today, they'd see the merchant make his choice to walk away from Jesus,
and instead of letting him go, they'd chase after him and threaten to take away his spousal health benefits,
or something, to punish him for not "choosing Jesus".
They'd make it DIFFICULT for any non-Christians to live in America.
I firmly believe this is NOT what Jesus ever taught or intended.
(This is the paradox of Christianity;
this is its co-dependent, control-freak nature:
The line is very blurry, for them,
between where THEY end, and SOMEONE ELSE begins.
and this is why it thinks that by allowing gay marriage,
the church is somehow "under attack".
no-one is asking them to become gay.
but they're so controlling and confused about where the line really lays
between what is THEIR choice,
versus someone ELSE'S choice,
that they actually believe that UNLESS EVERYONE IS FORCED TO LIVE BY CHRISTIAN LAWS,
then it just HAS to be the case, that Christians SIMPLY MUST be under attack by non-Christians!!)
Jesus wants people to choose to follow Him, of their own free will,
even when they could EASILY choose the wide path of the world.
So, if I were a Christian,
Yes, of course I'd make a point of being a good ambassador of Christ,
and spreading His gospel (to those who have ears to hear)
...but I would simultaneously make the wide path EVEN WIDER for those who chose it,
believing that God could and would touch their hearts, anyway.
To me, this is a far greater demonstration of faith,
than any amount of snake-handling could ever be.
My job as a Christian is NOT to judge them, scare them, coerce them or even reject them.
Now, if GOD wants to judge, scare, coerce...or even reject them...
then that is God's prerogative, according to Christian belief.
But it is NOT my prerogative, as a Christian.
MY JOB, as a Christian, is only to love them.
That's what so many Christians fail to grasp:
That being Christian does NOT confer upon you the prerogatives of Christ.
So that is how I would be, if i were a Christian.
