In the wake of the California Supreme Court’s audacious decision to legitimize marriage between people of the same sex, media outlets have been dominated by discussions on the topic. Frustrated by the lack of any cogent arguments defending the Judeo-Christian conception of marriage, a friend challenged me to pen a more thorough apologetic so that the church might be better equipped to offer an articulate and rational defense of this essential institution.
Over the course of the next four to six weeks, that is precisely what I will attempt to do. The battle to define marriage is not over; the church must be able to speak in more convincing terms than simply “because the Bible says …” As we proceed, I would encourage you to thoroughly process the information and arguments presented here, and even consider integrating this material into your adult Sunday school and Bible study classes. If this is not practical, you might consider hosting a “Dessert and Discussion” at your home, in which you invite members from your church to gather for the purpose of reasoning together through the nature and definition of marriage as defined by the Christian worldview, and why this definition matters.
As I have said before, the Bible is true because it is the word of God and by that authority alone, it is so. However, that is not its only evidence for being the truth. All truth claims are subject to their correspondence with reality. For example, the law of gravity issues an absolute claim to a truism. One can either accept or reject this claim, but upon testing this claim in the real world—say, by inviting the skeptic to jump off the roof—all will come face to face with the absolute truth of gravity. The same is true relative to the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage. It is what it is and when you attempt to redefine it into something it is not, there will follow the predictable splat—somewhat like the skeptic who launches himself off your roof!
Marriage is far more profound than our contemporary culture would lead us to believe. It is a lifelong commitment that restrains self-centeredness, self-indulgence, and self-gratification. It is the one relationship that effectively prepares and conditions us for living in community with others. By restraining self-centeredness and promoting love of another, marriage then becomes the foundation for social order. When this commitment labeled marriage is reduced to nothing more than a mere contract between two consenting persons, one option among many, or redefined to accommodate any type of participants [or number], it ceases to provide the same societal benefits.
Marriage is Unique The Judeo-Christian concept of marriage is as old as mankind. It serves as the very foundation of civilization itself. The marriage covenant is singularly unique in civilization; it is not simply a civil or romantic union between two people. Rather, it is an emotional, physical, and spiritual union between one man and one woman. It is emotional in the sense that two people, male and female, each with different (complementary) attributes, join together in life, assisting one another, nurturing and caring for one another, and affirming and guiding one another—in essence, completing the other. It is physical in the sense that marriage is procreative. Two separate biological beings blend together to create what neither can create on their own: children. And lastly, marriage is spiritual in the sense that we are made for this partnership that places the interest of the other (or others, in the case of children) above self—a relationship that ultimately mirrors God’s sacrificial love toward each of us and His bride: the church. Continue >>
RSS
JC,
I believe that Jesus was resurrected in His glorified body, which I don't believe was flesh and blood like ours, but yet not spirit. How do we account for Him being able to walk through a wall, and Thomas put his hand into Jesus' side. He didn't feel His side...he put his hand INTO Jesus' side. Anyone who is flesh and blood would certainly be incapable of having an open wound like that, and live.
It is utterly sad how many people disregard reality and social education for the sake of philosophy that is so ethically wrong... I've worked with homeless children, and I can honestly and morally repeat many requests for stable homes - whether it be with two hetero or homo sexual partners. So many cries and sorrowful pains I have heard from kids who just want families, any families, any adults, to love them and support them. And again, in wake of trying to mix church and state people continue to deny these seriously hurtful words of the most helpless. I've also worked with men who have lost everything because their disgraceful communities shun them in light of their coming out. and I mean everything - homes, jobs, friends, respect. Yet what I find most unacceptable is some purely wrong logic that the whole point of life is to get married and have kids. This is so, stupidly wrong. Marriage is not some golden trophy in life, nor are the goal of procreation; tell that to completely happy single men and women who chose not to marry. So, if people want to ignore the incredibly sad wishes of innocent children, the hurt and life-long struggles of socially abused innocent gays, and if people want to continue thinking that life is all about marriage and kids (godness forbid a man or woman wants a career or morally fulfilling missionary work), then I find that so disappointing.
To Hlerwin:
Beloved, I use to believe as you did. I use to think that Jesus was a man, but was resurrected in a spirit form that looked like a human, and that the disciples had gotten it confused. I also use to believe that the Bible was in no way close to the original scrolls, and like a secret, changed from generation to generation.
I use to believe that all religions led to Him, in that if somebody was deceptively led into worship of another God, that this wasn't their fault, and that God would allow that person entrance in Heaven. They thought it was Him.
I use to believe that God was uncaring and insensitive, allowing for diseases, destruction and death. I belived that we were nothing but play toys for His amusement.
------------
Beloved, you who are loved over the Angels, I was wrong, and had I continued, I would be dead and in Hell now. Only by the grace of God do I still live. I discovered this when I truly discovered Jesus, the Lamb of God. For until I had this personal, one-on-one relationship with Him, all I had was religion, and man's beliefs.
Dear one, nothing is impossible with God. For one to say that a physical resurrection never took place, one is saying that God has limitations and couldn't raise the flesh from the dead.
Beloved, the covenant that is spoken of is just that, a covenant. It's not a contract, or judicial judgement, it's a covenant. What this covenant says is that this is the way to Heaven, and this way only. The covenant says that we can freely take part in this way, or we can freely reject it. There is no twisting of arms, there is only love. There is no breaking of backs for you to join, only love. Love lures us into the covenant, and love sustains us in the covenant, for the covenant itself is based upon love.
The choice is and always has been ours to make. Do we abide in His covenant and His will, or not? This is the only choice, there are no others. I pray you will discover this yourself, for until you do, you are not one of His, but belong to the dark one instead.
hlerwin - what's the point of even believing anything to do with Christianity with your points of view? The point of Christianity is to restore the relationship between man and God which was suppose to be a permanent thing but Adam messed it up.
Christianity it to restore the relationship between us and God both here and for eternity. It's about a relationship with God.
Exactly what is the point of your beliefs if not to have a restored relationship with God?
I mean I could maybe understand them desiring a civil unuion, and maybe they could dress up and throw a kegger with friends and family after they get the legal papers signed, but why do they desire a Marriage, ceramony and all, yet at the same time try to destroy the belief systems that created Marriage in the first place?
That is true. Though I think it's still possible to use a judge or "justice of the peace", maybe deep inside they still admit the existence of God.
Either that, or maybe a priest/pastor is the only one legally allowed to perform marriage ceremonies anymore. I don't know.
Why do athiests(both gay and strait) worry so much about a religious ceromony like marriage anyway. Dont they realize that that is where it comes from? Getting married is something religious people do, thats why it normally invloves a church and a Pastor/preist/Religious professional. This goes for muslims jews and basicly every religion. Why do athiests care????
LOL, "your own heaven". I got a kick out of that. But no, there is only one heaven. But don't worry. You wont be there so you won't have to put up with Christians like me.
"If you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you will be saved...."
That leaves you out of heaven.
"For which he will answer some day."
This is the sentiment most of the world's Christians get from your kind of Christian, Prophet. I really do hope you people have your own Heaven. We certainly don't want to be stuck up there with you.
Would you have preferred that I lie to believer when he asked me?
I see that hlerwin is not a Christian. Otherwise, he would note that throughout the epistles it speaks of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Even the Gospels speak of His resurrection. So, since hlerwin doesn't believe either the Gospels nor the epistles, he has his own religion, and made God in his own image. For which he will answer some day.
Part 2
As far as the afterlife, all that Beulah Land stuff seems so human and selfish, even childish, to me. I am not interested in it. Since I really do not believe in Hell, either, I am not afraid of dying. If I ever took the trouble to change denominations, I suppose I would become a Universalist, partly because I think God would want everyone to come unto him and partly because I know so many very fine people who go to the UU church in my city. But I don't plan to move my letter. I think every church has solid believers in it - no matter what you and I might think of that sect. I realize that, as far as the wisdom of the universe goes, I am a "child." But I am not such a child that I have to believe some of the old myths that were used to "scare the natives" way back there in the long-ago Middle East. Finally, the word "relationship" may be the wrong word. In fact, I think I have a relationship with many people who are dead. I feel a strong relationship with Shakespeare, when I read him. I feel it with Richard Wagner, when I hear his music. I feel it with John Milton and Walker Percy, for instance. I am trying not to be flippant when I say this. Surely, you, believer, have felt "one" with your favorite writer, dead or alive. Even if he/she is alive, you may not have actually met this writer. But in reading, you get into another's mind and spirit. And, yes, at times that can be quite supernatural and spiritual. Often I feel the spirit leading. And it's a positive spirit (and, of course, I don't believe in that boogeyman, Satan, that some Christians love to hate). And, really finally, I guess your last remark has no response. (That was: "..unless you believe Jesus didn't die.") I don't know what to make of that part of your post. Now, I know, believer, that you radically disagree with me. I have good friends that feel about Jesus and Heaven the way you do, so I know you and your friends are not just "plain crazy," as many modern Americans might say. I also see "fruits of the Spirit" from my friends; and, though I have no way to prove it to you, they see "fruits of the Spirit" from me - or so they've told me. Is this an adequate answer?
believer wrote:
"Prophet and JC, needless to say you know that I wholeheartedly agree with you both, but if you check out my 8:24 post you will see why hlerwin I believe would choose to ignore the verses you both cited. That's why I really would like to hear his response to that post."
and the 8:24 post:
"hlerwin, since you don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ nor do you believe in the afterlife how can you have a relationship with someone who doesn't exist unless you believe Jesus didn't die?"
I was away from my computer, believer, but actually I had forgotten about your question. I was not, however, avoiding it. Let me see how to answer....
In my answer, I need to realize that I am writing to a person who does believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ and also in an afterlife. It's true, the bodily resurrection of Jesus seems unnecessary to me. (As I quoted my wonderful friend earlier, "I believe all of it except Easter.") The atonement concept seems like a very early man concept, not too different from many weird ideas held by any number of primitives around the world at one time. (Not that modern man has advanced beyond primitive man in any appreciable way....There's "nothing new under the sun," after all, and you and I still have all the needs and wants that our earliest forbears had.) I revere - even worship - Jesus for who he was. And I try to follow what instruction he left as guidelines by which to live. If he did not return from the dead, that makes no difference to me. In fact, I don't see why God would need to depart from the natural order of things.
See part 2, next.
wb, made one last check and saw your post and I thank you for your encouragement, believer
Believer, may God bless your ministry to these kids!
hey mathetes and daniel, I'll be out of pocket for the next four days, I'll be a counselor at a camp for kids whose parents are messed up on drugs. It's not a Christian camp but I'm still looking forward to see how God will use me there. So if any one is looking for me let them know and you guys be blessed as you serve Him and mathetes I hope things go great at your interview this week, know I praying for you and your wife, believer
OH MY!
I'm so sorry. It appears I'm contuing to have phone malfunctions. I think I shall bow out till I get to work Tueday. Thanks for understanding. God bless you all. B-)
First, for m's last post...he must have just clicked the submit button without putting a message there! It's the message I have to erase everytime I post!!!!
"I can't help it. I just think there are many more ways to discern the will of God other than words that have been debated over by old men's councils, then finally printed out."
Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence out there. Once again, I sight Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. The bottom line is if you were really interested in finding out about this you would have looked into Josh's books.
My guess is it goes back to not wanting the proof the Bible is actually the truth supported by history because then you would have to make the choice to accept it or reject it.
I did check. Yes forgivable is right. I did have to check though! Maybe CP could ad a spell chekc...not that we nead it!
hl,
I appreciate your honest answer. When I was introduced to Julius Wellhausen + the documentary hypothesis in college, it nearly shattered my trust in God's written Word. It took much praying, studying, + about 25 years before I came to trust it completely. I pray it will not take so many years for you.
One book that overthrows the doc. hypothesis is D.J. Wiseman's book on the tablet origins of Genesis, based on the "toledoth" phrases in Genesis + similar words used on tablets found by archeologists (I think near Sumer, tho I don't remember for certan). Check it out, when you have time, + let me know what you think.
mathetes, I'll bite what's up with your last post?
Messages that contain flames, profanity or personal attacks may be edited or removed from the forum and your access to the forum may be terminated. Click here to create a message.
Prophet and JC, needless to say you know that I wholeheartedly agree with you both, but if you check out my 8:24 post you will see why hlerwin I believe would choose to ignore the verses you both cited. That's why I really would like to hear his response to that post.
To hlerwin:
You Said: "Well, that's pretty good evidence, mathetes. I guess the truth is that I don't think that scripture is inerrant. I can't help it. I just think there are many more ways to discern the will of God other than words that have been debated over by old men's councils, then finally printed out. The art of writing is so relatively recent, but I think the "words" sometimes (not always) have a bad effect on the spirit. I know you don't agree. (And I would never try to change your mind. I'm happy that you are happy with your convictions.)"
Beloved, why do you say two contradicting things? You say that you believe in Jesus, but yet you don't believe him at the same time?
You see, dear one, Jesus and His Word, The Bible, are one in the same. If you disapprove of one, you disapprove of the other. If you accept Him, you must accept His word. Revelations 19:13 - He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God".
His name is The Word of God. If you reject The Word of God, you reject Him who is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, Jesus.
hlerwin,
You said "You really believe that you and your friends are in some sort of separate category from the rest of mankind."
I don't know....are we? Not everyone who calls themselves Christian are going to make it to heaven. Many will fall away, as we've seen already.
Jesus is coming back for a bride that is spotless and without blemish. Is that you? Is that me? I don't know. But I know it won't be a majority. And I do know that I'm going to strive to attain to the image of Christ (perfection) because I love Him...not because of some edict that has been given. You can call me ultra-holy, zealot, fundamentalist, or whatever title you wish to give me. Your opinion of me will not shake my place in the Kingdom of God one iota. If you wish to call what you do a "religion", then feel free. That's all it will be to you, and you will recieve a religious man's reward. I choose to accept Christianity as a relationship, and to live it as a relationship, and I will receive a son's reward.
hlerwin, why does it appear you're unwilling to answer my question to you in my 8:24 post to you?
Well, that's pretty good evidence, mathetes. I guess the truth is that I don't think that scripture is inerrant. I can't help it. I just think there are many more ways to discern the will of God other than words that have been debated over by old men's councils, then finally printed out. The art of writing is so relatively recent, but I think the "words" sometimes (not always) have a bad effect on the spirit. I know you don't agree. (And I would never try to change your mind. I'm happy that you are happy with your convictions.)
hlerwin,
The subset of which I spoke is the gay population which is attempting to redefine the accepted definition of marriage.
You said: "So.....here we are still living with rules set down in 342AD - not since the beginning of time. Is that right?"
Actually, the Bible says God established the 1 male+1 female definition "in the beginning." Jesus reiterated this definition in Mark 10:6-8, when He said: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one."
hlerwin,
The subset of which I spoke is the gay population which is attempting to redefine the accepted definition of marriage.
You said: "So.....here we are still living with rules set down in 342AD - not since the beginning of time. Is that right?"
Actually, the Bible says God established the 1 male+1 female definition "in the beginning." Jesus reiterated this definition in Mark 10:6-8, when He said: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one."
Daniel, I think your last two posts were "overkill." I'm not that opposed to what you believe. (And I appreciate your not taking offense at the spelling correction: that shows humility, I think, since I am very "proud" that I can, usually, spell.) But I do think some people who post on this site come across as so very smug. You really believe that you and your friends are in some sort of separate category from the rest of mankind. And I think you are not. It all seems quite human - and forgivable. (Is "forgivable" spelled correctly? Or is it "forgiveable?")
"Who's the subset?"
The religious leaders spent quite a bit of time and effort trying to trap Jesus with words. They would present a situation and then the law. Take the case of the woman caught in adultery. (First question...where was the man? After all, she wasn't committing adultery alone!) His choice was to side with the law and she would be put to death -or- defend her and He would be branded a heritic. His choice was option 3! He just started writing in the sand. Not sure what He wrote but the religious leaders went away!
The same is said with your question. There are two groups--the Godly and the ungodly. The Godly are those who live life God's way and the ungodly are those who live life in a way God doesn't want them to. Obviously, there cannot be subsets of the Godly. His way is His way. However, within the ungodly there can be quite a few subsets (also called religion).
Please note the joining of Christianity with the rational of man in these actions. Grace saves from sin. Law kills the sinner along with the sin. Only when you accept there is God's 3rd option can you understand the point of view. Do you know basic computer programming? Mankind is trapped in the 'either/or' instruction. Jesus says "the old things have passed away. Behold, new things have come." Could you imagine where computers would be if people said "there are no other options"?
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Jesus said that in SO many ways! :D
"and have agreed on your own definition of the word 'religion')"
'Our' definition came from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. It is the accepted definition of the word in the English used in America.
I may not be able to spell but I do look things up in the dictionary! The problem is non-Christians want Christianity to be just one more religion to ignore. If it were actually the relationship it claims to be then they would have an obligation to it.
Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me." He didn't give some long list of behavior or anything else. He simply explained it was the relationship with Him that restores the relationship with God.
Sorry to burst a bubble or two but the Gospels are full of Jesus cutting down those who were religious. The religious spent their time being angry with Him (and eventually plotting His death) because He dared show that religion itself was vain. After all, that would mean their standing in the community was nothing.
Who's the subset?
From Wikipedia (which is sometimes wrong), for what it's worth:
There is evidence that same sex unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history in Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Japan. Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton. The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive.
So.....here we are still living with rules set down in 342AD - not since the beginning of time. Is that right?
hlerwin,
Isn't the whole point of the discussion that a small subset of the population is attempting to redefine a term (marriage) that has consistently meant only one thing throughout the history of the world (1 man+1 woman)?
hlerwin, since you don't believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ nor do you believe in the afterlife how can you have a relationship with someone who doesn't exist unless you believe Jesus didn't die?
There's none so blind as he who will not see.
I think all of you folks have been taught that your faith is NOT "churchianity," and is not even "religion." This is nonsense, but since all of you speak the same nonsense (and have agreed on your own definition of the word "religion"), there is no arguing with you. Enjoy your "newspeak." Most of the rest of us, Christian and non-Christian alike, know the definition of "religion," and we know that Christianity is a religion. It's really not worth aguing about. I have a relationship with Jesus, too, but I do know that my religion is Christianity, no matter how a small subset of the population chooses to redefine some words they use.
Christianity = relationship
Religion = ritual
Christianity = I want to...
Religion = I have to...
Christianity = love
Religion = obligation
prophet, totally agree 110% and I would tell a person who says they are a Christian, that if you see Christianity as no more than a religion or another religion, then you may want to revisit your salvation experience to ensure it was real and genuine.
I hate to disappoint certain people on this post, but true Christianity isn't a religion. It's a relationship. Yes, most of people who call themselves "Christian" would call it a religion, but that's because that's what it is to them. A series of rituals that are performed weekly.
But to those who truly know God, understand that it is about a relationship. I have yet to find a religion whose god came to earth as a man, forsook his glory and power, voluntarily offered himself to be killed by his own creation in order to get through to them the he loves them with an unending love.
So, yes, truly Christianity is a relationship. But many cheapen it to a mere religion. To me, God is alive, powerful, working, loving, speaking. To them, He is a far-off entity that is merely watching creation with no thought of intervening on the events.
pagan, pagan, pagan, pagan, pagan, pagan... I had a spelling teacher who said you just have to keep writin' it.... :-) I also do somewhat better at my home computer where I have a dictionary near by!
religion "the service or worship of God" - Websters
...yes, most religions say theirs is the only true religion. There is a religion of Christianity. It is widely practiced through church attendance, claims of beliefs and such. However, all religions are based on what you do...even what I call 'Churchianity' which is quite common in the USA.
Christianity is based on a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. It is 'a gift from God, not of works'. It is not a service or worship based 'faith'. In religion-service and worship are the cause of the religion. In true Christianity it is the effect.
This is the difference between religion and Biblical Christianity. Religion is caused by us. After the fall and sin entered into the world, we who were created to have a relationship with God no longer had that relationship. We were given a set of laws and God spoke through the prophets. Man created religion to fill the void (after all, the law wasn't enough...they had to make more) which is why when Jesus showed up the Jewish leaders had no understanding of what He was talking about. Jesus died to restore the relationship. This relationship is not earned or deserved. It is based on grace given and received; not obedience to some creed or set of rules.
This is why we believe in obedience to His word. We love Him because He first loved us.
If we accept what God has done, then we need only believe - but if we believe, then we must obey.
Christ said in Matthew 22:36-40,
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
And then Scripture also defines Love for God, - to obey God: 1 John 5:2-3
2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.
To be a Christian involves following Christ - believing in Him and obeying God.
Christ said in Matthew 7:21-23,
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Luke 5:32
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
John 8:11b "... Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
John 14:15
If you love me, you will obey what I command.
John 14:21
21 Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
Paul taught the same: Acts 26:20,
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
Peter taught the same: Acts 5:29,
Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
The author of Hebrew taught the same: Hebrews 5:9,
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.
John taught the same: 1 John 3:7-10,
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
We must love GOD more than anything and anyone - including ourselves, and we must obey him.
Every true believer of every religion claims that his religion is not a religion. It is different from those other "religions." But rest assured, Daniel, Christianity is one of the major world "religions."
And, if you plan to keep spouting the word "pagan," learn to spell it. (Five times in the last few posts is not a typo.)
"I thank God that membership in such narrow belief systems is eroding!"
So do I! The Bible says it would be a sign of His coming.
"bigotry and prejudice is eroding"--translation--belief in the Bible as written and doing what it says is becoming less and less in our society.
You still don't seem to understand. Christianity is not religion...it is a relationship. It effects all areas of your life. It is not seperate from my social life or any other part of it.
'Love your neighbor as yourself' is also eroding. Caring for other people in need is eroding. Quite frankly, all the good things the Bible says to do are disappearing on our society.
You seem to really confuse having a religious belief in Christ with being a Christian. It is simply not the same thing. It is my hope that you think about what I am saying and try to wrap your brain around it.
People claim to be American when it suits them and then turn around and hate being American. This is called being 'double minded'. The Bible talks about those who are 'double minded' when it comes to being a Christian. They are Christian when it suits them (especially the not going to hell part) but then live like they want. Holy, holy on Sunday and holy terror the rest of the week just doesn't cut it when it comes to the Biblical definition of Christianity. In fact...I would go as far as to say it is possible to approach Christianity with a pagen mindset simply to treat it as religion.
Christ died to reconsile us to the Father. He rose to restore the relationship between man and God. It's about a personal intimate relationship with God.
Daniel:
"Interesting this has happened in the past 40 years when another article here at CP lists that time period for the erosion of church attendance. Statistics are statistics."
Interesting that bigotry and prejudice is eroding along with the eroding of church attendance.
Daniel:
"Please also note all the 'empires' you listed were pagen(sic)".
"Pagan" is what "those other people do for religion" Grow up, Daniel. Name calling never solves anything. How can you people be so narrow? I thank God that membership in such narrow belief systems is eroding!
When my wife and I taught in China, I could never get my (brighter) students to admit that the People's Republic of China was a "dynasty" that would eventually pass away. I was desperate to get them to be objective, so I said that the United States of America would pass away one day, also. Still, my students could not bring themselves to agree. Of course, they were young and patriotic, and I was, of course, not hard on them about it. Surely, you, as a Biblical literalist, Daniel, don't think the U. S. will last forever. Don't the screwball preachers talk about some "islands" in scripture that might be the U. S.? I love my country, but it's not the first or the last empire that will fade away. And - Yikes! - condoning homosexuals has NOTHING to do with that.
Every empire passes away. Every dog has his day. Our American "empire" will pass away, too, Daniel. Most Americans are too ethnocentric to admit this. Societies pass away for quite normal reasons - having nothing to do with homosexuality or religion.
You named quite a few 'empires'...where are they now?
Immorality is what eats away at the fabric of society until it just plain rips. This is evident in all the 'empires' you listed that accepted homosexuality. They become nothing.
America, at one time, was looked up to by most of the known world. We did 'what was right'. We helped people. We defended people (like WWI $ WWII). In time we became less moral and less respected as a nation. Interesting this has happened in the past 40 years when another article here at CP lists that time period for the erosion of church attendance. Statistics are statistics.
Please also note all the 'empires' you listed were pagen.
From Wikipedia (which is sometimes wrong), for what it's worth:
There is evidence that same sex unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history in Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Japan. Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton. The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal. In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive.
So.....here we are still living with rules set down in 342AD - not since the beginning of time. Is that right?
As George Bernard Shaw said, "I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation." So here goes.
Craven wrote:
"The same is true relative to the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage. It is what it is and when you attempt to redefine it into something it is not, there will follow the predictable splat - somewhat like the skeptic who launches himself off your roof!"
I wrote:
It is at this point where Mr. Craven lays down the rules for "winning" his argument. He ceases to be objective. He has excluded all marriages outside of the Judeo-Christian type. Of course, he will "win" his point! This is just like China saying to Taiwan: "We can have discussions, but first you must affirm that Taiwan is part of China." "Well, gee," says Taiwan, "I thought that was our point for discussion." Once Craven changes the point (Who, in fact, can really be "married?"), it's clear he will succeed in making his "Christian" claim.
i dont understand your emphasis on lev. under the new covenant we are led by the spirit according to paul.
the law under the new covenant now being for conscious....conscious about loving ones neighbor as oneself, the summation of all the law.
the fulfillment of the law being love. this is all out of romans
the love scripture is talking about is, the love that is god, by which he first loved us, and we returned that love to him and in that love, loved ourselves and our neighbors.
would we not both agree that if david had loved his neighbor as he loved himself he would not have stepped into what he did with bathsheba.
since the summation of all the law is loving ones neighbor as oneself, couldn't we assume that all sin is that which comes against this commandment.
that being the case, how does homosexuality or homosexual marriage?
and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men â?? persons rendered incapable by others. (Those who were castrated for the purpose of serving in the service of royalty to prevent sexual relations with the same)
and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavenâ??s sake â?? persons who, to do Godâ??s work better, deliberately choose this state. Such was Paul (1Co_7:7).
He that is able to receive it, let him receive it â?? â??He who feels this to be his proper vocation, let him embrace itâ??; which, of course, is as much as to say - â??he only.â?? Thus, all are left free in this matter
jesus gave a spiritual message for all time not just for the time it was spoken. therefore eunuch will have many meanings depending on the era which it is embraced.
we all agree that jesus spoke tothe people thru their culture, when he gave his teachiongs and parables. why would not the holy spirit in speaking to believers thru scripture, not also do the same.
when jesus spoke , he spoke of the spiritual. jesus's teaching regarding eunuchs in 30 ad would also speak to those whose spirit condition in the 21 st century,.was similar.
MATT 19:5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
1 cor6:15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."[a] 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
jesus is describing a bonded relationship of marriage between opposite sexes. the marital bonded relationship involves sexual intimacy. my understanding is that" given the word " is to receive something from without that becomes the desire of ones heart..........a desire of ones heart that is ordained by god.
verses 11-12 is about those who are not given this word. one is whose nature from the time of birth is such that they are not given this word. it could be those who chose not marry but instead remain single, and it could also include those who are without attraction to the opposite sex, but instead to the same sex. surely we have all heard a very large percent of those who are gay, give testimony that they were attracted to the same sex since early childhood. that they have no recollection of ever being attracted to the opposite sex.
matt19: 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
if the" word has not been given " then the one flesh man woman bonded marital relattionship can not be accepted.
the second category is that others cannot accept this word because of what society has effected on them. castration can be one, but also trauma of early sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse can also be another way one is effected by society. certain kinds of dedication can also be effected by society for personnal callings apart from the spiritial can also be another condition.
in other words there are a number of conditions under these two categories that the desire of ones heart may not be a heterosexual marital bonded relationship.
surely we would agree that no one should marry unless it is the desire of ones heart, otherwise where is the commitment that is necesary to sustain the marriage.
CONTINUED
"Again, friend, you need to go back and study a little deeper and stay away from those false teachers who are leading you to hell."
And you, friend, need to stop worrying so much about what other people do. Don't be such a busybody.
3)
And what you have done is what every single erring person before you has done ( including Me Obama recently) with Leviticus and that is to take the Levitical Law and use it to excuse your sin. These laws were FOR the Hebrews specifically, BUT the PRINCIPLES surrounding the laws are still valid – the sin of homosexuality, of adultery, of divination, of blasphemy, et al. “They were given specifically to the Israelites, during the “Old Covenant”, not to modern believers, who live under the “New Covenant”. Once Christ accomplished His work on the cross, He fulfilled the law and most of what is listed above ceased to be in force.”
“Historical perspective is especially important when reading Leviticus. Modern society enjoys a level of technological and social stability that ancient peoples did not. Actions that have little effect on modern society might have been dangerously harmful in millennia past. In the days of the ancient Israelites, the survival of your family depended on all of the families around you working towards the same goals, by the same rules, and without undermining the system. Adultery was not merely a moral problem in that day. Undermining the family threatened the safety and welfare of the entire culture.”
The laws of Leviticus were not especially cruel for their time; in fact, the emphasis on truth, order, and evidence set the Israelites ahead of their more volatile neighbors.
Leviticus 20:12-16 - "Death penalty for sins of incest, sodomy, bestiality"
See above about cultural stability and God’s purpose for the law. These kinds of actions were allowed, and even encouraged, by some surrounding nations. Much of this was because of their worship of false gods. God made it clear that these actions were not only immoral, but abhorrent. There was to be no mixing of immoral pagan practices with God’s commandments. These kinds of sins also created the kind of dangerous instability that threatened Israelite culture.
Again, friend, you need to go back and study a little deeper and stay away from those false teachers who are leading you to hell.
2)
You are trying to impose a scripture out of context. Again, Jesus is referring to marriage and abstinence from marriage based on specific circumstances, whether physical or for divinely appointed reasons. Where you get homosexuality out of this is beyond me!
there are teachings by mother teresa where she says to her attending nuns to embrace christ because it is he who they are now bonded with.
OK, so? They aren’t bonded in MARRIAGE!! They are bonded to Him as believers! It is a slave term. Rather than being bound by the world and sin, Christians are now, in Christ, bound to Him as His children. That is probably what she is referring to. And it’s not exclusive to Mother Teresa. The Apostle Paul is the one who first used it: 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.
feetxxxl,
1)
surely there are a multitude of incidences where couples who have married where one pardner was without testes or had a similiar situation because of spinal paralysis. this shows that active testes is not the criteria of receiving the word("Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given) instead it is the it is the emotional, psychological, and feelings shared by the two people to be married.
WRONG! You have both taken this scripture out of its obvious context AND you are imposing your own false theology over it.
Mat 19:10 The disciples say unto him, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.
that is, “In this view of marriage, surely it must prove a snare rather than a blessing, and had better be avoided altogether.”
Mat 19:11 But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.
that is, “That the unmarried state is better, is a saying not for everyone, and indeed only for such as it is divinely intended for.” But who are these? they would naturally ask; and this our Lord proceeds to tell them in three particulars.
Mat 19:12 For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother’s womb — persons constitutionally either incapable of or indisposed to marriage. (Those BORN unable to be married for whatever reason)
and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men — persons rendered incapable by others. (Those who were castrated for the purpose of serving in the service of royalty to prevent sexual relations with the same)
and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake — persons who, to do God’s work better, deliberately choose this state. Such was Paul (1Co_7:7).
He that is able to receive it, let him receive it — “He who feels this to be his proper vocation, let him embrace it”; which, of course, is as much as to say - “he only.” Thus, all are left free in this matter
jesus gave a spiritual message for all time not just for the time it was spoken. therefore eunuch will have many meanings depending on the era which it is embraced.
WRONG AGAIN!
Mal 3:6 “For I, Jehovah, change not…”
And I re-post:
"The same is true relative to the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage. It is what it is and when you attempt to redefine it into something it is not, there will follow the predictable splat somewhat like the skeptic who launches himself off your roof!"
It is at this point where Mr. Craven lays down the rules for "winning" his argument. He ceases to be objective. He has excluded all marriages outside of the Judeo-Christian type. Of course, he will "win" his point! This is just like China saying to Taiwan: "We can have discussions, but first you must affirm that Taiwan is part of China." "Well, gee," says Taiwan, "I thought that was our point for discussion." Once Craven changes the point (Who, in fact, can really be "married?"), it's clear he will succeed in making his "Christian" claim.
Imagine discussing eunuchs to try and discern God's plan for us in 2005! And some of these people say "God's Word" is timeless?!?
feetxxxl,
You have so perverted the Word and confused it, brother, you might want to go back and do some more in depth study, because your theology is waaaaayyy outside Christian doctrine.
First, you equate eunuchs with homosexuals. You err. (And I wouldn't use Wikipedia as an authority on much of anything scriptural by the way)
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
surely there are a multitude of incidences where couples who have married where one pardner was without testes or had a similiar situation because of spinal paralysis. this shows that active testes is not the criteria of receiving the word("Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given) instead it is the it is the emotional, psychological, and feelings shared by the two people to be married.
Eunuchs were those men who were put in high positions of authority in palaces who would "have the care of the bed or bedchamber; particularly in the apartments of queens and princesses." Furthermore, "there were some who voluntarily abstained from marriage for the kingdom of heavenâ??s sake - that is, that they might devote themselves entirely to the proper business of religion. Perhaps he refers here to the Essenes, a sect of the Jews (see the notes at Mat_3:7), who held that marriage was unsuitable to their condition; who had no children of their own, but perpetuated their sect by adopting the poor children of others. Eunuchs were employed chiefly in attending on the females or in the harem."
jesus gave a spiritual message for all time not just for the time it was spoken. therefore eunuch will have many meanings depending on the era which it is embraced. the determination is not according to the physical , but instead the spiritual. the spiritual is.... that there were those because of birth who were not given the word. in addition there were those because of the way they were effected by society they also did not receive the word of a heterosexual one flesh bonded marital relationship.
CONTINUED
Second you are wrong again about some were "NOT given the man woman one flesh word." Where do you get this??
Jesus is talking about those dedicated solely to the ministry rather than to raising a family who abstain from marriage. LIKE A MOTHER TERESA. She spent her life totally devoted to the orphans of Calcutta.
To leap into a comparison of this passage with homosexuality is not only bad theology it's just downright dishonest.
again.........11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[c]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
"but only to those it has been given" then jesus lists the three that it has not been given to. in god's creatiion of them, he has not given this to them, as a desire of their heart. instead it is to have a bonded relationship with the holy spirit.
there are teachings by mother teresa where she says to her attending nuns to embrace christ because it is he who they are now bonded with.
Thirdly, you attempt to equate God's love with the sin of homosexuality. God is not schizophrenic. What He calls an abomination or a sin, is indeed a sin. He is not swayed by public opinion polls or cultural norms. He is God and He changes not.
Love is only something that first extends FROM God to us. Even in marriage, GOD is each persons highest love. NOT THE SPOUSE. GOD IS. WHEN and only WHEN God is our highest priority, we can then LOVE perfectly those around us. When we pervert that tripartite relationship between me, my spouse, and God, we destroy the very essence of love. Because love extends from God first. GOD IS LOVE.
I really think you need to stop listening to the purveyors of false doctrine found in the homosexual community and start listening to God's Word.
in the kjv in lev and deut "abomination " is used 30 times here are some of them
Leviticus 11:12
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:13
And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Leviticus 11:42
Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
the rest is hard to understand. under the new covenant the triune god lives in each believer. its his love that speaks to our hearts that we in turn love ourselves, our neighbor(everybody else including spouse........the difference with a spouse is that we forsake all others.) christ said to love one another as i have loved you. it is speaking of the heart of a servant.............. the greatest among you will be your servant.
if you are so convinced that homosexuality is a sin please explain how it comes against the commandment of loving ones neighbor as oneself which paul says is the summation of all the law?
surely if it is an abomination, then this would be more than obvious.
or is it your understanding that it violates god's order. that under the new covenant we are led by" order" rather than the spirit as paul said.
tpique1 said:
"God is not schizophrenic. What He calls an abomination or a sin, is indeed a sin. He is not swayed by public opinion polls or cultural norms. He is God and He changes not."
I've really nothing to add to this. I just liked it a lot and thought it should be said again :)
feetxxxl,
You have so perverted the Word and confused it, brother, you might want to go back and do some more in depth study, because your theology is waaaaayyy outside Christian doctrine.
First, you equate eunuchs with homosexuals. You err. (And I wouldn't use Wikipedia as an authority on much of anything scriptural by the way)
Eunuchs were those men who were put in high positions of authority in palaces who would "have the care of the bed or bedchamber; particularly in the apartments of queens and princesses." Furthermore, "there were some who voluntarily abstained from marriage for the kingdom of heaven’s sake - that is, that they might devote themselves entirely to the proper business of religion. Perhaps he refers here to the Essenes, a sect of the Jews (see the notes at Mat_3:7), who held that marriage was unsuitable to their condition; who had no children of their own, but perpetuated their sect by adopting the poor children of others. Eunuchs were employed chiefly in attending on the females or in the harem."
Second you are wrong again about some were "NOT given the man woman one flesh word." Where do you get this??
Jesus is talking about those dedicated solely to the ministry rather than to raising a family who abstain from marriage. LIKE A MOTHER TERESA. She spent her life totally devoted to the orphans of Calcutta.
To leap into a comparison of this passage with homosexuality is not only bad theology it's just downright dishonest.
Thirdly, you attempt to equate God's love with the sin of homosexuality. God is not schizophrenic. What He calls an abomination or a sin, is indeed a sin. He is not swayed by public opinion polls or cultural norms. He is God and He changes not.
Love is only something that first extends FROM God to us. Even in marriage, GOD is each persons highest love. NOT THE SPOUSE. GOD IS. WHEN and only WHEN God is our highest priority, we can then LOVE perfectly those around us. When we pervert that tripartite relationship between me, my spouse, and God, we destroy the very essence of love. Because love extends from God first. GOD IS LOVE.
I really think you need to stop listening to the purveyors of false doctrine found in the homosexual community and start listening to God's Word.
hlerwin,
I wasn't responding to you, but to someone else's post. Sorry for the confusion.
I said, "OK, you win!" Don't you believe everything you read? I mean, your arguments make so much real sense, they are pretty hard to dismiss. Christ needs more soldiers like you, tpique.
GOD IS GOD. NOT MAN, NOT CULTURE!
God dictates the parameters of His creation. If same sex relationships are sin according to God, then they are sin.
What do you think? You're going to stand before God with some loophole?? God said repent! Homosexuality is an abomination because it perverts the God's created order.
It also perverts the spiritual nature of Christ to His Church. Christ is seen as the bridegroom and His Church is the Bride (feminine).
When you pervert marriage, you pervert not only the God ordained union between a man and a woman, you pervert the spiritual component as well - the image of Christ as the bridegroom coming back for a spotless bride.
READ YOUR BIBLE:
Matthew 19:4-6 Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, FOR THIS CAUSE SHALL A MAN LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Such an intelligent, appealing comment, tpique.... OK, you win.
God's Word is true whether you can test it or not. You can't scientifically prove that God created the earth in 6 days, but the Word of God says He did, and since He's not a man that He should lie, and He has proven Himself reliable in other areas, therefore He can be trusted when He claims He created in 6 days. Only mankind are liars and can't be trusted. God does not fit into mankind's box.
"If this is not practical, you might consider hosting a “Dessert and Discussion” at your home, in which you invite members from your church to gather for the purpose of reasoning together through the nature and definition of marriage as defined by the Christian worldview, and why this definition matters."
This comment is revealing. Cravens's audience is mostly (practically all) middle-class, suburban, conventional Amercan "Christians" who have Tupperware parties, Amway gatherings and "Dessert and Discussion" home events for soul winning (and patting one another on the back, so secure in the fact that "We are right.").
I had not read mistereks's comment befoer I posted, by he was right. Here's his first comment on this column again:
"There is almost nothing written here about the value of marriage that couldn't also apply to same-sex civil unions. Same-sex couples support each other, are complementary to each other (just not in traditional terms of procreative plumbing), care for each other, etc.
The only argument remaining to deny marriage equality is the religious/moral one. And that simply doesn't hold water, Constitutionally-speaking."
Still, I like the way this guy writes. He just needs to broaden his "sample groups" in his "marriage" study.
"The same is true relative to the Judeo-Christian definition of marriage. It is what it is and when you attempt to redefine it into something it is not, there will follow the predictable splat—somewhat like the skeptic who launches himself off your roof!"
It is at this point where Mr. Craven lays down the rules for "winning" his argument. He ceases to be objective. He has excluded all marriages outside of the Judeo-Christian type. Of course, he will "win" his point! This is just like China saying to Taiwan: "We can have discussions, but first you must affirm that Taiwan is part of China." "Well, gee," says Taiwan, "I thought that was our point for discussion." Once Craven changes the point (Who, in fact, can really be "married?"), it's clear he will succeed in making his "Christian" claim.
mistereks, but it does biblically speaking.
I posted this as a reply to someone on another thread but it applies here:
Two men cannot share love "in its perfect form", because God did not design it that way. That perfect love he reserved for a husband and his wife, it exists between a man and a woman. What you are engaging in is a corruption of what God intended, and it is exactly why the Apostle Paul condemns homosexuality repeatedly (and I know the underlying Koine Greek and I have numerous Greek Lexicons, so don't tell me that the Greek doesn't really mean homosexual - it does. There was no exact word for "homosexuality" in Greek, because such relations weren't accepted as equal to male and female relations - but Paul uses the words for men who engage in sexual relations as either the active or passive partner - that was the only way he *could* describe homosexuality in Koine Greek).
"malebed" does not mean homosexual. and the reason the term creates so much controversity is because there are other terms that were commonly used for that kind of behavior, that paul did not use. the fact that he created his own word indicates he pointing to a specific that wasnt commonly acknowledged. as to what that is , is not clear. translators in england attempted to assume that clarity by making the transposition from "defiling oneself with mankind".
they were also influenced by king henry''s 1500's law that punished acts of sodomy with hanging. it remained on the books for 400 years. translators were also influenced by the state. being, there was no sepereration between church and state. the king of england was head of the church of england.
what is interesting is the translators made their transposition from" defiling oneself with mankind" absent any reference material or any written explanation.
CONTINUED
God created them "male and female", and anything outside of that is abomination. It is spoken in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New Testament repeatedly (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy). Stop lying to yourself, you know the truth, just as every person walking the planet does. This is why homosexuality has *always* been a cultural taboo, in every culture throughout history (even the Greeks did not accept it like revisionist historians would like one to believe). The natural law is written in man's heart, as Paul says. People know right from wrong instinctively, and it is why homosexuality inspires revulsion in the majority of people in the majority of cultures in the majority of countries - and it always has.
because scripture says one thing is true does not exclude another if it is not mentioned.
why would jesus have sent the holy spirit to convict all of the truth if all the truth was already known
why would jesus have said i have more to tell you that you canot now bear.
why didnt jesus also say that ethnic slavery was an intolerable evil. it was the church who was directly responsible for its 1800 year existance. it was a jesuit priest who recommended bringing black slaves to the southern hemisphere to take the place of the indio slaves because of their high mortality rate.
it has not always been a cultural taboo. many cultures accepted it and some even elevated it above heterosexuality..so much for your revulsion explanation.
wikipedia gives a very wide in depth historical description of its existence. i dont rember any use of the word revulsion.
CONTINUED
There can be nothing of "God" in a homosexual relationship, it is only deception. It is listening to false teaching with itching ears if someone is telling you otherwise. It is not a lifestyle that can ever reflect God's glory or his intention and will - that makes it against God, and that makes it perverse. Abomination. That's why that word was used.
if god is love, agape love and agape love is in the relationship.................mutual respect, trust, and devotion..............................then god is in the relationship.
if there isa spirit of love (agape), joy, peace, kindness, gentleness, patience,self-control(commitment).goodness, faithfulness then the spirit of christ is in the relationship.
if these are in the relationship and in the persons of that relationship, then the relatioship is fo god. did not jesus say you will know them by there fruit(fruit of the spirit)
i find it interesting how you exclude christ from all your deliverations about homosexuality. we know that christ has put in authority over all things and has been given judgement over all things. would not that mean, that what ever god does he does thru the spirit of christ.
CONTINUED
Jesus didn't speak about "homosexuality" because it wasn't even necessary to discuss it. It was a non-issue. A non-starter. It was a cultural taboo in Judaism from the beginning and would never have been accepted - it was a stoning offense in Jewish Law. Jesus didn't speak about it for the same reason he didn't speak about necrophilia or bestiality. He *didn't have to*. It was *assumed* (or presumed). The only argument that could be made for homosexuality in that context would have been if Jesus *specifically* said something that argued for it - which would have been overturning Mosaic Law. Sort of like how he modified the understanding of the Sabbath, or the Fourth Commandment, etc. But he never did. Because Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, and he would have accepted exactly what God said about homosexuality - that it was abomination.
jesus definitely spoke of homosexuality. matthew 19:11-12
wikipedia
A eunuch (IPA: /Ë?juË?.nÉ?k/) is a castrated man, in particular one castrated early enough to have major hormonal consequences; the term usually refers to those castrated in order to perform a specific social function, as was common in many societies of the past. The earliest records for intentional castration to produce eunuchs are from the Sumerian city of Lagash in the twenty first century BC.[citation needed] Over the millennia since, they have performed a wide variety of functions in many different cultures such as courtiers or equivalent domestics, treble singers, religious specialists, government officials, military commanders, and guardians of women or harem servants. In some translations of ancient texts, individuals identified as eunuchs seem to include men who were impotent with women, those we would now call transgender or homosexual, and those who were simply celibate.
jesus said because of ones nature from birth there were those who were NOT given the man woman one flesh word. he also said that because what was effected on them by society hey were NOT given this same word.
the fulfillment of the law is love. since homosexual bonding is about love, agape love, because it embraces the fruit of the spirit, the things that jesus said, that by them we would recognize what was of him, then homosexual relations are of him.
have you ever considered that it is not the orientation, but instead the spirit that is of that relationship that determines if it is of god or not?
CONTINUED
The only option open to a homosexual who truly loves God and wishes to serve him, is to struggle against their sinful inclination and to remain celibate. Anything else is sin.
the option of those who believe that god either allowed them to be or made them that way, is to not allow temselves to be fed the guilt of the world that leads to death, but to love themselves in the same way that god first loved them and which they returned to him in their glorification of him.
I posted this as a reply to someone on another thread but it applies here:
Two men cannot share love "in its perfect form", because God did not design it that way. That perfect love he reserved for a husband and his wife, it exists between a man and a woman. What you are engaging in is a corruption of what God intended, and it is exactly why the Apostle Paul condemns homosexuality repeatedly (and I know the underlying Koine Greek and I have numerous Greek Lexicons, so don't tell me that the Greek doesn't really mean homosexual - it does. There was no exact word for "homosexuality" in Greek, because such relations weren't accepted as equal to male and female relations - but Paul uses the words for men who engage in sexual relations as either the active or passive partner - that was the only way he *could* describe homosexuality in Koine Greek).
God created them "male and female", and anything outside of that is abomination. It is spoken in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New Testament repeatedly (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy). Stop lying to yourself, you know the truth, just as every person walking the planet does. This is why homosexuality has *always* been a cultural taboo, in every culture throughout history (even the Greeks did not accept it like revisionist historians would like one to believe). The natural law is written in man's heart, as Paul says. People know right from wrong instinctively, and it is why homosexuality inspires revulsion in the majority of people in the majority of cultures in the majority of countries - and it always has.
There can be nothing of "God" in a homosexual relationship, it is only deception. It is listening to false teaching with itching ears if someone is telling you otherwise. It is not a lifestyle that can ever reflect God's glory or his intention and will - that makes it against God, and that makes it perverse. Abomination. That's why that word was used.
Jesus didn't speak about "homosexuality" because it wasn't even necessary to discuss it. It was a non-issue. A non-starter. It was a cultural taboo in Judaism from the beginning and would never have been accepted - it was a stoning offense in Jewish Law. Jesus didn't speak about it for the same reason he didn't speak about necrophilia or bestiality. He *didn't have to*. It was *assumed* (or presumed). The only argument that could be made for homosexuality in that context would have been if Jesus *specifically* said something that argued for it - which would have been overturning Mosaic Law. Sort of like how he modified the understanding of the Sabbath, or the Fourth Commandment, etc. But he never did. Because Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, and he would have accepted exactly what God said about homosexuality - that it was abomination.
The only option open to a homosexual who truly loves God and wishes to serve him, is to struggle against their sinful inclination and to remain celibate. Anything else is sin.
first of all adoption is spritually procreative. surely we hold higher the spiritual over the physical, in that we ourselves are adopted.
second he has avoided explaining why it can be only male and female?
if spiritually homosexuals can do everything that heterosexuals can do in marriage, how can their marriages be any less?
doesnt deeming it anything less come against everything pauls said in romans of our being led by the spirit.
how does antiquity have anything to do with the truth. god wiped out 2000 years of eating rules with a single incident.
There is almost nothing written here about the value of marriage that couldn't also apply to same-sex civil unions. Same-sex couples support each other, are complementary to each other (just not in traditional terms of procreative plumbing), care for each other, etc.
The only argument remaining to deny marriage equality is the religious/moral one. And that simply doesn't hold water, Constitutionally-speaking.
Excellent article, thank you.Praise be to our LORD AND MASTER JESUS CHRIST