|
Post by rational on Oct 5, 2014 22:20:27 GMT -5
Is there anything in the bible that speaks against same sex marriage? its speaks out against same sex behavior. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. The translations I read do not mention marriage.This is a deduction that perhaps you believe and can make in a single step. Having sex, as mentioned, does not imply being married. Being married does not imply having sex.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 0:53:09 GMT -5
Doing murder is actually ok in the bible. Providing you're following God's little voice in your head. Or, better still, if it's God Himself doing the murdering. The murder of the Egyptian firstborn children is one of the most appalling acts of mass murder in history but apparently such behaviour is perfectly acceptable. It's quite scary really. I guess if I had a choice between a God who approved of slaughtering innocent children in their beds while they slept or a God who approved of letting two men who loved each other get a little piece of paper to say they were married, heterosexual though I am, I'd probably still go for the latter one. Matt10 The Pharaoh is a hybrid race of ET greys. They are God's enemy. They enslaved God's children as slaves to serve their underworld gods. God said to Pharaoh, " Let my people go, so they can serve me." The children of Pharaoh were NOT innocence as people think! They enslave and want humans to serve them as gods.The Elite Serpent bloodline from ancient time Sumerian/Iraq, Egypt/Pharaoh, descendants from Kings/emperors through the centuries around the world: China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Mayans, Hopi/Apache American Indians, Africa, Britain, and USA.I didn't understand any of this. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 6:48:31 GMT -5
I didn't understand any of this. Matt10 Do you really want to know? Do you have an open mind? Matthew 10. I'm not asking to know anything but I do find it helpful if I understand responses directed at me, particularly in order to progress the discussion. I didn't understand any of that and whether that is due to any deficiency on my part, I'm not sure. As to whether I have an open mind or not, I like to think my mind is sufficiently open not to believe everything the bible says. I like to think my mind is sufficiently open to differentiate between those parts which are a historical record, those parts which are philosophically interesting, those parts which provide good advice for living one's life, those parts which are purely mythical and those parts which are clearly nonsensical. Regards, Matt10
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 6, 2014 8:01:21 GMT -5
I didn't understand any of this. Matt10 Do you really want to know? Do you have an open mind? Matthew 10. Be careful with this information, @matt10. Once it is revealed you will never be the same. And it might end up that you are on a list of people who will be targeted as "Knowing the unknowable" and will, at some point, die. It all started when someone decided to sequence the DNA from a lizard. To their horror they discovered gene sequences that were also found in human DNA. The first thought was "What the.... Did someone get friendly with a lizard?" But then they found that many of the matching sequences were not active in humans, sequences called DNA transposons. They spilled the beans, so to speak, when they published their findings in Nature ( Just how 'open' were marriages in your family's past?). The scientific world was startled and in an uproar. Here was proof that reptilians had mated with humans just as had been claimed for centuries. And then the coverup started. Every time someone wanted to have their DNA examined, the newly created "Board of DNA Examiners", managed by the large Greys, would have to look through the results and make modification(s) before forwarding them to the person who requested the examination. That is the reason why it takes so long to have your genetic material examined. And why the price is so high. It also explains the lack of inexpensive (less than $15.00, plus S&H) DNA sequencers on the market today. Ronco produced one but during the first airing of the late night infomercial, just before the phrase "But wait, there's more.", the lights went out and Ron Popeil, the famed recipient of the Ig Nobel Prize, was left holding a number of the RJ-11 Electronic Ancestry Tracers, which he is forbidden to sell or market, sitting out in the Ronco warehouses next to the crates of GLH-9: hair in a can. So, I ask you, are you sure you want to know? Your mind has to be so open that all reason and logical thinking will fall out. Facts should drift through your mind as if it were a sieve. And I am not talking about the Sieve of Eratosthenes! Good luck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 10:25:13 GMT -5
its speaks out against same sex behavior. Being married does not imply having sex. that would be the exception and not the rule. wasn't it the shakers or quakers that deemed having sex was a sin and now they have almost died out?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 6, 2014 10:37:09 GMT -5
Being married does not imply having sex. that would be the exception and not the rule. wasn't it the shakers or quakers that deemed having sex was a sin and now they have almost died out? Same sex marriage would also be an exception. What's your point? The Shakers. Once the addition of children through indenture and/or adoption was ruled out they had a tough time. Last I read there were 3 left in a community in Maine. I wonder if the last alive get all the material possessions? OK - all join in: ‘Tis the gift to be simple, ’tis the gift to be free, ‘Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be…
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 11:04:04 GMT -5
that would be the exception and not the rule. wasn't it the shakers or quakers that deemed having sex was a sin and now they have almost died out? Same sex marriage would also be an exception. What's your point? The Shakers. Once the addition of children through indenture and/or adoption was ruled out they had a tough time. Last I read there were 3 left in a community in Maine. I wonder if the last alive get all the material possessions? OK - all join in: ‘Tis the gift to be simple, ’tis the gift to be free, ‘Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be… that sex is the norm for a super majority of marriages
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 6, 2014 11:32:25 GMT -5
Same sex marriage would also be an exception. What's your point? The Shakers. Once the addition of children through indenture and/or adoption was ruled out they had a tough time. Last I read there were 3 left in a community in Maine. I wonder if the last alive get all the material possessions? OK - all join in: ‘Tis the gift to be simple, ’tis the gift to be free, ‘Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be… that sex is the norm for a super majority of marriages I am not saying it isn't. The bible says nothing about excluding certain gender combinations from getting married. Some people believe the bible is against physical homosexual relationships. You are saying that because you believe the bible speaks out against people of the same gender having physical sexual relations that it also means people of the same gender should not be married. With your logic: The bible speaks out against people of either gender lying. Does this mean that people who lie, regardless of their gender, should not be married?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 6, 2014 12:59:55 GMT -5
Of course he would not have, if you're asking about the Jesus of 30 AD who was a practicing Jew. If you're asking about a fictional present-day Jesus, that's another matter. Did you ever see Jesus ruling in favour of various specifics within the Talmud or the Jewish tradition? I can think of a number of areas where he criticized Jewish practice, but not the other way. I was curious what the Talmud or Torah might say about homosexual practice, and found this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_and_JudaismA couple of paragraphs of reading indicate that the Torah was against the practice. Little comments like this one, "sexual intercourse between males as a to'eivah (something abhorred or detested) that can be subject to capital punishment under halakha (Jewish law)", convince me that the Jewish tradition was probably against homosexuality. But you already knew that as indicated by your comment. However ... I believe Jesus stayed away from messy details such as the application of the Talmud, and stuck to principles such as "Love thy neighbour". Paul definitely spoke against the practice. Personally, I think we see Jesus keeping away from social constructed norms. I guess it all depends on how you see Jesus, but if you do see him, as I do, capable of seeing through societal conventions in favour of a purer and higher ethic, then of course, he would have sanctioned same-sex marriage at the present time, as per you fictional present day Jesus. (Although, I would argue, the present day Jesus is not a fiction, but continues through his Spirit/ Comforter). If it was wrong, why didn't he say something about it then? Because I think he planted a 'mustard seed' in terms of the higher ethic I mentioned, and he knew it would take thousands of years to spread or grow in all its manifestation.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 6, 2014 13:09:32 GMT -5
that would be the exception and not the rule. wasn't it the shakers or quakers that deemed having sex was a sin and now they have almost died out? Same sex marriage would also be an exception. What's your point? The Shakers. Once the addition of children through indenture and/or adoption was ruled out they had a tough time. Last I read there were 3 left in a community in Maine. I wonder if the last alive get all the material possessions? OK - all join in: ‘Tis the gift to be simple, ’tis the gift to be free, ‘Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be… One of my favourite Christmas carols. Check out the King's Singers on youtube. And you probably know that Aaron Copland incorporated the melody into "Appalachian Spring". Warning: don't play this if you don't want to suddenly buy the King's Singers Christmas CD. www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5kffZBB7Hc
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 16:15:52 GMT -5
Do you really want to know? Do you have an open mind? Matthew 10. Be careful with this information, @matt10. Once it is revealed you will never be the same. And it might end up that you are on a list of people who will be targeted as "Knowing the unknowable" and will, at some point, die. It all started when someone decided to sequence the DNA from a lizard. To their horror they discovered gene sequences that were also found in human DNA. The first thought was "What the.... Did someone get friendly with a lizard?" But then they found that many of the matching sequences were not active in humans, sequences called DNA transposons. They spilled the beans, so to speak, when they published their findings in Nature ( Just how 'open' were marriages in your family's past?). The scientific world was startled and in an uproar. Here was proof that reptilians had mated with humans just as had been claimed for centuries. And then the coverup started. Every time someone wanted to have their DNA examined, the newly created "Board of DNA Examiners", managed by the large Greys, would have to look through the results and make modification(s) before forwarding them to the person who requested the examination. That is the reason why it takes so long to have your genetic material examined. And why the price is so high. It also explains the lack of inexpensive (less than $15.00, plus S&H) DNA sequencers on the market today. Ronco produced one but during the first airing of the late night infomercial, just before the phrase "But wait, there's more.", the lights went out and Ron Popeil, the famed recipient of the Ig Nobel Prize, was left holding a number of the RJ-11 Electronic Ancestry Tracers, which he is forbidden to sell or market, sitting out in the Ronco warehouses next to the crates of GLH-9: hair in a can. So, I ask you, are you sure you want to know? Your mind has to be so open that all reason and logical thinking will fall out. Facts should drift through your mind as if it were a sieve. And I am not talking about the Sieve of Eratosthenes! Good luck. I'm not sure I want to know but if I did, I think I could cope. About six years ago I became part of a wider community in which reason and logical thinking regularly drifted through the minds of members as if they were sieves. Of course I'll be careful at all times and wear a suitable disguise even when I'm asleep even though death no longer worries me like it once did. I used to wake up screaming in the night fearing the grip of the grim reaper at dawn until one day I opened up my mind as wide as it could go and let all that biblical nonsense about judgement, hell and the wrath of God fall out. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 18:56:03 GMT -5
that sex is the norm for a super majority of marriages I am not saying it isn't. The bible says nothing about excluding certain gender combinations from getting married. Some people believe the bible is against physical homosexual relationships. You are saying that because you believe the bible speaks out against people of the same gender having physical sexual relations that it also means people of the same gender should not be married. With your logic: The bible speaks out against people of either gender lying. Does this mean that people who lie, regardless of their gender, should not be married? considering that most homosexuals would engage in sex if married to the same sex. they should NOT get married... your example makes no sense your mixing apples and oranges to make your point... i'd really like to see you prove that homosexuals that marry DON'T have sex other than heresay...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 6, 2014 20:34:47 GMT -5
Of course he would not have, if you're asking about the Jesus of 30 AD who was a practicing Jew. If you're asking about a fictional present-day Jesus, that's another matter. Did you ever see Jesus ruling in favour of various specifics within the Talmud or the Jewish tradition? I can think of a number of areas where he criticized Jewish practice, but not the other way. I was curious what the Talmud or Torah might say about homosexual practice, and found this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_and_JudaismA couple of paragraphs of reading indicate that the Torah was against the practice. Little comments like this one, "sexual intercourse between males as a to'eivah (something abhorred or detested) that can be subject to capital punishment under halakha (Jewish law)", convince me that the Jewish tradition was probably against homosexuality. But you already knew that as indicated by your comment. However ... I believe Jesus stayed away from messy details such as the application of the Talmud, and stuck to principles such as "Love thy neighbour". Paul definitely spoke against the practice. Personally, I think we see Jesus keeping away from social constructed norms. I guess it all depends on how you see Jesus, but if you do see him, as I do, capable of seeing through societal conventions in favour of a purer and higher ethic, then of course, he would have sanctioned same-sex marriage at the present time, as per you fictional present day Jesus. (Although, I would argue, the present day Jesus is not a fiction, but continues through his Spirit/ Comforter). If it was wrong, why didn't he say something about it then? Because I think he planted a 'mustard seed' in terms of the higher ethic I mentioned, and he knew it would take thousands of years to spread or grow in all its manifestation. "Love thy neighbor".
If indeed people followed this rule "Love thy neighbor", (as themselves) wouldn't they want to follow what makes them happy? If being married to person they love makes them happy, shouldn't they want the same for their "neighbor?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 21:21:40 GMT -5
Did you ever see Jesus ruling in favour of various specifics within the Talmud or the Jewish tradition? I can think of a number of areas where he criticized Jewish practice, but not the other way. I was curious what the Talmud or Torah might say about homosexual practice, and found this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_and_JudaismA couple of paragraphs of reading indicate that the Torah was against the practice. Little comments like this one, "sexual intercourse between males as a to'eivah (something abhorred or detested) that can be subject to capital punishment under halakha (Jewish law)", convince me that the Jewish tradition was probably against homosexuality. But you already knew that as indicated by your comment. However ... I believe Jesus stayed away from messy details such as the application of the Talmud, and stuck to principles such as "Love thy neighbour". Paul definitely spoke against the practice. Personally, I think we see Jesus keeping away from social constructed norms. I guess it all depends on how you see Jesus, but if you do see him, as I do, capable of seeing through societal conventions in favour of a purer and higher ethic, then of course, he would have sanctioned same-sex marriage at the present time, as per you fictional present day Jesus. (Although, I would argue, the present day Jesus is not a fiction, but continues through his Spirit/ Comforter). If it was wrong, why didn't he say something about it then? Because I think he planted a 'mustard seed' in terms of the higher ethic I mentioned, and he knew it would take thousands of years to spread or grow in all its manifestation. "Love thy neighbor".
If indeed people followed this rule "Love thy neighbor", (as themselves) wouldn't they want to follow what makes them happy? If being married to person they love makes them happy, shouldn't they want the same for their "neighbor?"
i have a cousin that loves to fight anywhere anytime if i love him(i dont) with brotherly love should that "happy feeling" apply to him in his fighting? trying to hide behind brotherly love(love thy neighbor) doesn't cut it when wrong is wrong... now love can cover a multitude of sins but where do you draw the line? this is where having balance comes into play. pray for the ability to know where that line is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 5:04:19 GMT -5
Is there anything in the bible that speaks against same sex marriage? It was all lumped as "fornication", ie any sort of activity outside state sanctioned marriage of a man and woman. But this didn't just condemn homosexuals, it condemned "living together", marrying your sibling or parent; adultery etc etc etc.. But Paul certainly gave homosexuals a good spray, and the story of Sodom certainly doesn't paint gays in a good light. As for gay marriage - to this Jewish culture it was unthinkable.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 7, 2014 10:09:06 GMT -5
1) Would Jesus OK same-sex marriage? I don't believe Jesus would OK same-sex marriage. He said in Matthew 19:3-6 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
God the Father and God the Son created Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve. People can do whatever they want, it is their life but they will live with that choice for Eternity. God did not approve Gay men or Lesbians in the Old Testament God does NOT approve or allow same sex marriage in heaven.
Paul wrote in I Cor. 6:9-11 9 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. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Revelation 20:6-8 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and ladymongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Let people live the way the want to live but they must know God will NOT allow the unrepent gay, homosexuals, lesbians, fearful, Unbelievers, murders, and sinners into His heavenly kingdom.
. [/quote No sinners? Must be a pretty lonely place, this heaven you have created. Guess you don't believe in grace. My understanding is that we will be judges based on unrepented sin, but not necessarily denied entrance to heaven. ]
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 7, 2014 11:28:38 GMT -5
considering that most homosexuals would engage in sex if married to the same sex. they should NOT get married...[/quote[]The question I asked was whether the bible spoke out against same sex marriages. So far the answer has been "No. Whether same sex marriages result in sexual activity speaks no more to not getting married than asking whether heterosexual marriages result in lying. Prohibition against lying is one of the 10 commandments. The fact that people in a heterosexual marriage might lie does not mean they should not get married. Perhaps it makes little sense to you because you equate marriage with sexual activity. Remember the original question - does the bible speak out against same sex marriages? If your only support is a prohibition against men lying with other men as they do with women - what about females in a same sex marriage? Or relationship, for that matter? I didn't say they didn't have sex. I said that just because they marry does not mean they do have sex. And just because they are not married does not mean they don't have sex. Of course, I cannot prove that they do not have sex just like you can't prove that they all do. Consider this from Psychology Today: In broader terms, it is estimated that anywhere between fifteen and twenty percent of marriages are sexless. Newsweek quotes a poll that estimates 15 to 20 percent of couples are in a sexless marriage. The New York Times reported that about 15 percent of married couples are in a sexless marriage. So, on the assumption that homosexuals and heterosexuals are humans, both groups enjoy platonic marriages. Does the bible OK same sex marriage for the 15-20% of couples who are in a sexless marriages?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Oct 7, 2014 13:47:56 GMT -5
What I meant was there will be ONLY REPENTANT sinners be in heaven. Jesus said Ye must be BORN AGAIN here on the earth NOW! Don't wait after death to Repent because it will be too later. So if someone sins (lies about how fat they are) and then gets run over by a bus and dies, they are going to be denied entrance in to heaven? Being born again accepting Christ) doesn't mean you aren't going to sin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 14:36:35 GMT -5
considering that most homosexuals would engage in sex if married to the same sex. they should NOT get married...[/quote[]The question I asked was whether the bible spoke out against same sex marriages. So far the answer has been "No. Whether same sex marriages result in sexual activity speaks no more to not getting married than asking whether heterosexual marriages result in lying. Prohibition against lying is one of the 10 commandments. The fact that people in a heterosexual marriage might lie does not mean they should not get married. Perhaps it makes little sense to you because you equate marriage with sexual activity. Remember the original question - does the bible speak out against same sex marriages? If your only support is a prohibition against men lying with other men as they do with women - what about females in a same sex marriage? Or relationship, for that matter? I didn't say they didn't have sex. I said that just because they marry does not mean they do have sex. And just because they are not married does not mean they don't have sex. Of course, I cannot prove that they do not have sex just like you can't prove that they all do. Consider this from Psychology Today: In broader terms, it is estimated that anywhere between fifteen and twenty percent of marriages are sexless. Newsweek quotes a poll that estimates 15 to 20 percent of couples are in a sexless marriage. The New York Times reported that about 15 percent of married couples are in a sexless marriage. So, on the assumption that homosexuals and heterosexuals are humans, both groups enjoy platonic marriages. Does the bible OK same sex marriage for the 15-20% of couples who are in a sexless marriages? same sex for women is covered in romans 1:26-27
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 15:27:33 GMT -5
Is the notion of " the sanctity of marriage" nul and void in same sex Marriages? Has it any relevance at all spiritually? it is said that the first sanctity of marriage is the procreation of children. Is it therefore possible that Jesus might very well have serious reservations about such marriages.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 7, 2014 15:42:06 GMT -5
Is the notion of " the sanctity of marriage" nul and void in same sex Marriages? Has it any relevance at all spiritually? it is said that the first sanctity of marriage is the procreation of children. Is it therefore possible that Jesus might very well have serious reservations about such marriages. Who said that the that the first sanctity of marriage is the procreation of children?
That is the crazyist of all the crazy excuses I have heard to be against same sex marriage ! Full Definition of SANCTITY
1 : holiness of life and character : godliness 2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights
The procreation of children is first & foremost a biological factor.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 7, 2014 16:00:25 GMT -5
"Love thy neighbor".
If indeed people followed this rule "Love thy neighbor", (as themselves) wouldn't they want to follow what makes them happy? If being married to person they love makes them happy, shouldn't they want the same for their "neighbor?"
i have a cousin that loves to fight anywhere anytime if i love him(i dont) with brotherly love should that "happy feeling" apply to him in hi s fighting? trying to hide behind brotherly love(love thy neighbor) doesn't cut it when wrong is wrong... now love can cover a multitude of sins but where do you draw the line? this is where having balance comes into play. pray for the ability to know where that line is.
Wally, Where does allowing "same sex" to marriage, hurt you or anyone else like fighting does?
Are you hurt if a gay couple get marry?
Would you need medical help for your wounds?
NO
One thing that certainly is happening to you, - you are NOT "Loving thy neighbor" as yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 16:21:00 GMT -5
i have a cousin that loves to fight anywhere anytime if i love him(i dont) with brotherly love should that "happy feeling" apply to him in hi s fighting? trying to hide behind brotherly love(love thy neighbor) doesn't cut it when wrong is wrong... now love can cover a multitude of sins but where do you draw the line? this is where having balance comes into play. pray for the ability to know where that line is.
Wally, Where does allowing "same sex" to marriage, hurt you or anyone else like fighting does?
Are you hurt if a gay couple get marry?
Would you need medical help for your wounds?
NO
One thing that certainly is happening to you, - you are NOT "Loving thy neighbor" as yourself. spiritual damage to our families, friends and country/nation EVERYTHING has a cost to it...i know you don't believe that we have spirits but i do and i will continue to speak out against bad behavior as defined by the bible...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 16:37:57 GMT -5
Is the notion of " the sanctity of marriage" nul and void in same sex Marriages? Has it any relevance at all spiritually? it is said that the first sanctity of marriage is the procreation of children. Is it therefore possible that Jesus might very well have serious reservations about such marriages. Who said that the that the first sanctity of marriage is the procreation of children?
That is the crazyist of all the crazy excuses I have heard to be against same sex marriage ! Full Definition of SANCTITY
1 : holiness of life and character : godliness 2n a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights
The procreation of children is first & foremost a biological factor.
Unfortunately I misquoted it, but here is what I was thinking about: Position Paper on the Sanctity of Marriage - Evangelical ... www.epc.org/about-the-epc/position-papers/sanctity-of-marriage/The Glory of God: Marriage exists first and foremost to glorify God. ... marriage relationship is also for procreation and moral teaching of children (Deuteronomy ... By the way my post was not making an excuse to be against same sex marriages I was just suggesting the possibility might exists why Jesus might not Ok such marriages.. Do you know for certain that that possibility does not exist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 16:39:55 GMT -5
No sinners? Must be a pretty lonely place, this heaven you have created. Guess you don't believe in grace. My understanding is that we will be judges based on unrepented sin, but not necessarily denied entrance to heaven. Scott, it's reassuring to know that you recognise that people create their own concepts of heaven with different people creating different, though often similar, versions of heaven. Versions which tend to reflect their own personal beliefs. This may explain the countless religious arguments about the nature of heaven and who will inherit its kingdom. It only takes a small step to begin to understand that people also create their own versions of hell, with each version determining who goes to it. When I foolishly adhered to the 2x2 belief system I believed that pretty much everyone would go to hell except those who believed as I did, although I wasn't quite convinced about myself. Of course once you've created your own version of heaven and your own version hell, it doesn't take much of a leap to start creating your own version of God and then your own version of Jesus and ultimately your own version of truth. And once these are created your version can easily become the only true version and everyone else's false. I hope this makes sense. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 7, 2014 22:23:09 GMT -5
Unfortunately I misquoted it, but here is what I was thinking about: Position Paper on the Sanctity of Marriage - Evangelical ... www.epc.org/about-the-epc/position-papers/sanctity-of-marriage/The Glory of God: Marriage exists first and foremost to glorify God. ... marriage relationship is also for procreation and moral teaching of children (Deuteronomy ... By the way my post was not making an excuse to be against same sex marriages I was just suggesting the possibility might exists why Jesus might not Ok such marriages.. Do you know for certain that that possibility does not exist? This is where the "position paper" that you cited came from :
The EPC is both evangelical and Presbyterian, rooted in the Protestant Reformation and especially the theological and pastoral work of John Calvin. "We are evangelical in our zeal for the Gospel, as well as, evangelism, missions and living obediently as followers of Jesus. At the same time, we are rooted deeply in the Protestant Reformation and especially the theological and pastoral work of John Calvin. "
"For this reason, marriage exists also for our good in the following ways.
Companionship: Genesis 2:18a teaches that "it is not good for a man to be alone." Therefore, from the beginning God called men and women to promote mutual care and friendship within their marriage relationship.
Mutual Assistance: Genesis 2:18b adds "I will make a helper suitable for him," reminding us that we are to be a help to one another in the marriage relationship. Also, each husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her (Ephesians 5:25).
The Bearing, Nurturing & Training of Children:
Promoting the Stability of Society: When marriage, the foundational human relationship, is degraded, the family unit disintegrates and the fabric of any nation unravels (cf. Genesis 2).
Affirming the Proper Context of Human Sexuality: Hebrews 13:4 clearly teaches that sexual intimacy should be reserved for a man and a woman within the covenant of marriage.
Promoting the Stability of Society: When marriage, the foundational human relationship, is degraded, the family unit disintegrates and the fabric of any nation unravels (cf. Genesis 2).
Affirming the Proper Context of Human Sexuality: Hebrews 13:4 clearly teaches that sexual intimacy should be reserved for a man and a woman within the covenant of marriage." There is only one partial truth in that list. The exception of bearing ( but can & do nurture them can train)children.
Other wise there are absolutely NO so-called reasons for denying same sex marriage.
These are the only so-called "reasons " other than, of course, the supposed The Glory of God: Marriage exists first and foremost to glorify God.
[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 8, 2014 0:01:25 GMT -5
same sex for women is covered in romans 1:26-27 Again, focused on the physical sexual act and no mention of marriage. Some people find homosexual sex fulfilling. Some people find sex with animals fulfilling. Some people find sex with groups fulfilling. These have little to do with marriage. Caution - BEWARE of TANGENT!!!It seems god is concerned about what parts of what people interact with what parts of other people. Apparently god didn't like the design of the human penis and asked people to make the post production modifications.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 8, 2014 10:40:21 GMT -5
Did you ever see Jesus ruling in favour of various specifics within the Talmud or the Jewish tradition? I can think of a number of areas where he criticized Jewish practice, but not the other way. I was curious what the Talmud or Torah might say about homosexual practice, and found this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_and_JudaismA couple of paragraphs of reading indicate that the Torah was against the practice. Little comments like this one, "sexual intercourse between males as a to'eivah (something abhorred or detested) that can be subject to capital punishment under halakha (Jewish law)", convince me that the Jewish tradition was probably against homosexuality. But you already knew that as indicated by your comment. However ... I believe Jesus stayed away from messy details such as the application of the Talmud, and stuck to principles such as "Love thy neighbour". Paul definitely spoke against the practice. Personally, I think we see Jesus keeping away from social constructed norms. I guess it all depends on how you see Jesus, but if you do see him, as I do, capable of seeing through societal conventions in favour of a purer and higher ethic, then of course, he would have sanctioned same-sex marriage at the present time, as per you fictional present day Jesus. (Although, I would argue, the present day Jesus is not a fiction, but continues through his Spirit/ Comforter). If it was wrong, why didn't he say something about it then? Because I think he planted a 'mustard seed' in terms of the higher ethic I mentioned, and he knew it would take thousands of years to spread or grow in all its manifestation. "Love thy neighbor".
If indeed people followed this rule "Love thy neighbor", (as themselves) wouldn't they want to follow what makes them happy? If being married to person they love makes them happy, shouldn't they want the same for their "neighbor?"
You want my neighbour to marry my wife? I don't think so.
|
|