Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Please input your username and password.
   
Keep me logged | Forgot your password?
Opinion|Mon, Jul. 28 2008 10:19 AM EDT

In Defense of Marriage – Part II

By S. Michael Craven|Christian Post Guest Columnist

As discussed last week, the noted anthropologist, J. D. Unwin conducted what is arguably the most exhaustive examination of sexual ethics and their affect upon society. In brief, Unwin discovered that throughout history, the state of a given society was directly related to its sexual ethic. Monogamous cultures prosper and those disinclined to restrain sex to monogamous marriage remain primitive or, if once successful, they decline. Unwin also observed that legally recognized and socially reinforced marriage was the only effective means for regulating sexual behavior. Where marriage is strictly defined and reinforced, monogamy rules.

  • Michael Craven

This assertion led many proponents of same-sex marriage (SSM) to argue that since monogamy is—according to Unwin—central to the health and prosperity of a given society, we should offer “marriage” to same-sex couples for the purpose of promoting monogamy among gays. So it seems I must address this charge before continuing in our defense of marriage.

Attempting to promote monogamy among homosexual couples by rearranging marriage ignores the fact that homosexual acts are patently obvious distortions of the human biological design. We are born biologically male or female and as such we are sexually dissimilar but in complimentary ways. The male/female sexual union works, in other words. This is true of every species on earth. Every living organism has a particular way of reproducing and rearing offspring; its anatomy is biologically designed to support that way. If one believes we are products of an evolutionary process, then homosexual acts are a deviation from the procreative design and homosexuality is therefore a genetic defect because it fails to propagate the species. If one holds to the belief that we are created, then it defies the design and intent of the Creator. Either way homosexuality violates the given design.

Gay advocates argue that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom and therefore this somehow validates or normalizes homosexual acts. While there is evidence that some animals (usually males) will, on occasion, attempt intercourse with another of the same sex, this remains an aberration, as it still fails to achieve the procreative principles inherent in that creature’s biological design. On its surface, this is a ridiculous defense. Sexual acts beyond the biological design are a perversion of human sexuality and therefore contrary to the maintenance of sexual morality.

We are reluctant to say this today because our culture has been inundated with gay-rights propaganda that carefully avoids the sexual reality of homosexual behavior. Instead the emphasis is on the so-called emotional and romantic aspects. As a result, we feel sympathetic; we may feel like we should capitulate to their demand for marriage in the name of equal treatment. However, equal treatment of persons living the homosexual lifestyle is a completely different issue than redefining marriage. No thinking Christian opposes the equal treatment of homosexuals, because they are fully human persons made in the image of God. Furthermore, gay men and women are free to have sex, experience romantic relationships, and live in whatever arrangement they choose. (Of course, there are consequences to these choices.) What is not their choice is to redefine an institution essential to the social welfare and common good such that these benefits are nullified. The demand for SSM is not about equal dignity and treatment but rather social affirmation of a particular lifestyle.

Any given thing is what it is based on its possessing certain essential characteristics, features, or qualities. For example, water is what it is by virtue of it possessing a particular chemical structure (two atoms of hydrogen combined with one of oxygen). The possession of these essential characteristics is what defines and distinguishes water from every other liquid. You might attempt to define water by some other characteristic, i.e., fluidity. However, while fluidity is certainly a characteristic of water, it is not essential to defining water. If we were to exchange the essential feature—chemical structure—for the nonessential feature, you can imagine the problems that would result. You might receive a glass of gasoline in response to a request for water! Continue »

Next Page
Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Mike2685 »
    Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    This man's arguments are nuts! "Regardless, even if children are not realized in marriage or a married couple chooses not to have children, they nonetheless participate in the same procreative acts essential to defining human sexuality; these acts are essential to what is marriage and vice versa." He then goes on to call what gays do strictly erotic...hello! If you are having sex other than for the purpose of having kids, it is for erotic self pleasure and the pleasure of your partner. I wonder how this author would feel about a married couple engaging in oral or anal sex. I also love how he talks about sexual immorality and blames that on gays, you know, because straights always behave and only have vaginal sex once they're married. These arguments are ill founded and its a shame Christianpost allows such an ignorant columnist to be featured. What's even sadder is how proud he must feel for having a 2 part article, despite being completely oblivious to the fact that it sounds like a 1920's infomerical.

  • Daniel Paul »
    Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "paul says we died to the law and are resurrected with christ to be under grace."

    Paul also wrote 'should we sin that grace may abound? May it never be!"

  • believer »
    Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hlerwin, I finally got back to your response and I really respect your total honesty, but like Daniel I don't understand why you call yourself a Christian and yet don't adhere to several of the major tenets of the Christian faith, the after life and the bodily resurrection of Christ for example. But it certainly sheds light on a number of your posts though, now they make sense considering your personal views. So thanks again for responding.

  • believer »
    Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:57 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hlerwin, camp was great the kids had a great time and they especially enjoyed when Keith Davis, a former NFLer, shared his testimony of how God had so dramatically changed his life through Christ. Of the several speakers he had their total attention and spoke to a lot of the issues they are struggling with.

  • hlerwin »
    Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Welcome back, believer. How was the camp?

    I belatedly answered the question you had for me. You can find it under "Defense of Marriage - Part 1." I replied to you on July 29th at 12:35pm.

  • wbmoore »
    Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jesus defined marriage, whether you like it or not, as between a man and a woman.

  • wbmoore »
    Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Just because you claimed something does not mean people agree with it.

    What was meant by eunuch was NOT burning with passion, and so not getting married. Eunuchs do not burn with passion for men or women.

  • wbmoore »
    Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ex 31:16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant.

    In speaking of eunuchs being blessed for keeping the Sabbath to be remembered, God was reminding them that He would remember them.

    As for slavery, Solomon was not known for not sinning. The Bible reported what happened, but this does not mean it is condoned. God allows things because of the hardness of the people's hearts.

  • feetxxxl »
    Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:14 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    YOU ARE IGNORING COMPLETELY JESUS COMMENT OF" RECEIVING THE WORD" WHICH WOULD INDICATE WHAT WAS MEANT BY "EUNUCH" IT HAS ALREADY BEEN AGREED THAT ABSENCE OF TESTES DOES NOT PRECLUDE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A MARRIAGE. BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN THOSE WHO HAVE MARRIED WHO HAD NONE, WERE PARALLIZED FROM THE WAIST DOWN, ETC .....SHOWING THAT MARRIAGE WAS ABOUT EMOTIONAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND SPIRITUAL FEELINGS BETWEEN THE 2 PEOPLE.

    Since there are many homosexuals who have had sex and reproduced, it is evident that at least some homosexuals can reproduce. Homosexual sex is when a man lies with a man or when a woman lies with a woman. God defined that as bad. God defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

    Matthew 19:3-12 reads,
    "Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

    Note that Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 as he defined marriage and at least part of its purpose. Also, Christ mentioned eunuchs in reference to abstaining from marriage - the only thing God created which allows people to 'join together'. There was no mention of homosexuality, or men laying with men.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    1 Kings 9:20 All the people left from the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (these peoples were not Israelites), 21 that is, their descendants remaining in the land, whom the Israelites could not exterminate [a] —these Solomon conscripted for his slave labor force, as it is to this day. 22 But Solomon did not make slaves of any of the Israelites; they were his fighting men, his government officials, his officers, his captains, and the commanders of his chariots and charioteers.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    4 For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant-


    which covenant do you think isaiah is referring to?

  • wbmoore »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    My post regarding the annotations of Romans 1:18-2:11 is much too long to post here as a single post. I've been reminded to keep my posts short. So if you want to read it, here it is:
    http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/romans-118-211-sin-and-righteousness/

  • believer »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet, thank you for affirming my belief that there is absolutely no scripture that presents the sexual practices of homosexuality or for that matter anything about homosexuality in a positive or affirming way which in turn affirms the belief of many that as a minimum God is opposed to the sexual practices of homosexuality since even though they were being practiced during the time of the writings of the Old and New Testament and even though we can find numerous scriptures in both the Old and New Testament that speak to the issues of marriage, family, singleness and even widowhood nothing positive can be found with regard to the issue of homosexuality and in fact it appears that there are verses that appear to condemn the sexual practices of homosexuality.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    what you are looking is a law that will sanction homosexuality. but why? paul says we died to the law and are resurrected with christ to be under grace. the law being for being conscious of loving ones neighbor as oneself. why under the new covenant, would we need another law to sanction something, when we have loving ones neighbor as oneself, as the summation of all the law. which in living, we do more than follow the law which is your concern, but by doing, we receive no righteousness, whereas, if we live the commandment we do more than follow the law..... we fulfill it.

  • wbmoore »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    But even if God WAS talking about homosexuals when he mentioned eunuch (which I doubt, but I'm willing to entertain),
    Isaiah 56:3-5 reads,
    3 Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people." And let not any eunuch complain, "I am only a dry tree." 4 For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant- 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.

    Note that the eunuch was to do what pleases God and hold fast to His covenant to get an everlasting name. So, again, belief, love, obedience are what was required for the eunuch to not have to worry about having an everlasting name - which is what is required to have eternal life. And such a person would have to refrain from sin, which includes homosexual sex, since Isaiah was written after the law of Moses defined some of the things God hates in a concrete fashion.

  • wbmoore »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Now, some people would like to think that God was speaking euphemistically when he spoke of how Eunuchs might inherit an everlasting name. Personally, while I think it might be possible that that is the case, I doubt it. The reason is that sex between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is repeatedly mentioned as a sin. Plus, I think its clear that where God mentioned eunuch, he was speaking about those who can not reproduce.

    A eunuch was someone who was missing testicles. He could be a man who is castrated. Or he could be a man who is missing testicles by some process other than castration, such as crushing, or by atrophy due to illness, or one who was simply born without testicles. Such a eunuch would be, technically speaking, not castrated. But he would still be a eunuch. Such a person does not burn with sexual passion - for men or women.

    Since there are many homosexuals who have had sex and reproduced, it is evident that at least some homosexuals can reproduce. Homosexual sex is when a man lies with a man or when a woman lies with a woman. God defined that as bad. God defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

    Matthew 19:3-12 reads,
    "Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

    Note that Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 as he defined marriage and at least part of its purpose. Also, Christ mentioned eunuchs in reference to abstaining from marriage - the only thing God created which allows people to 'join together'. There was no mention of homosexuality, or men laying with men.

  • wbmoore »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Do not confuse regulation of an activity for support of said activity. The Bible does not suggest slavery is good, but regulates abuse.

    Yes, there are cases where God says to not takes slaves from within the family of God, that slaves must come from outside Israel. There were limitations of how one could treat a slave. Hebrews might be able to be "bought", but had to go free on the seventh year (the sabbath year) - Ex 21:2.

    However, if you examine the Old Testament, much of what has been translated as slavery was in fact indentured servitude. This is where someone has to work to pay off debt - sounds like credit today.

    While some might have used the Bible to try to indicate that what we think of as actual slavery is condoned, in fact the Word of God indicates that slavery as we understand it is a bad thing. In 1 Timothy 1:6-11, Paul equated slave traders to murders.

    1 Timothy 1:6-11
    6 Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. 8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers - and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

    Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:21 to get out of slavery if you could.
    Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you - although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

    In Philemon, Paul wrote that Onesimus was no longer a slave and that Philemon should charge anything to Paul's account.

    15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good - 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord. 17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back = not to mention that you owe me your very self

    So no, God does not condone slavery.

    In conjunction with the New Testament, the church has condemned slavery as well.

    In 1435 (almost 60 years before the "New World" was discovered), Pope Eugene IV condemned slavery in Sicut Dudum. Again, Pope Paul III: Sublimis Deus, 1537, and then again by Pope Gregory XVI: In Supremo, 1839.

  • believer »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet, per usual your avoiding the question by chasing a rabbit. So does that mean that there is no passage of scripture that speaks to the sexual practices of homosexuality or even the homosexual lifestyle in a positive way?

  • Daniel Paul »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "a sancttion or condemnation of specific acts is the law.

    law(dictionary definition)all the rules of conduct established and enforced by authority. "

    Jesus didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

  • Daniel Paul »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "DO YOU SEEE THE WORD "ONLY" IN THIS SCRIPTURE......... NO ...AGAIN YOU ARE ADDING IT."

    So, your saying a man can marry a female monkey because Jesus didn't specify they had to both be human. Please tell me you see the clear folly of your arguement!!!

    The signs say 'right turn or red' or 'no right turn on red'. Please note that none of them say 'after stop'. So, is it OK to turn right on red without stopping at the red light?

    You are grasping at paper straws....

  • feetxxxl »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    a sancttion or condemnation of specific acts is the law.

    law(dictionary definition)all the rules of conduct established and enforced by authority.

  • believer »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet, not at all, I'm looking for anyone to show me a positive word of any kind from the Word of God that specifically condones or endorses the sexual practices of homosexuality.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    what you are looking is a law that will sanction homosexuality. but paul says we died to the law and are resurrected with christ to be under grace. the law being for being conscious of loving ones neighbor as oneself. why under the new covenant would we need another law to sanction something, when we have loving ones neighbor as oneself, as the summation of all the law. which in living, we do more than follow the law which is your concern, and by doing we receive no righteousness, whereas if we live the commandment we do more than follow the law we fulfill it.

  • believer »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet, you need to consider a career in politics since your so good at beating around the bush and chasing rabbits, but in the end the issue remains the same you can't find any scriptural support to condone the sexual practices of homosexuality or even to support the homosexual lifestyle, even though the Bible speaks clearly in the Old and New Testament to the issues of marriage, the roles of husbands and wives, the family, the role of parents, singleness, and even to the care of widows and yet not one word that condones or encourages homosexuality and yet it was an ongoing practice in both Old and New Testament times.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 3:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "And Paul did address the issue of slavary as known in his day. It is called the Book of Philemon. So now it is your turn to respond to my question".

    my recollection was that it was your understanding that god did not regulate or determine the revealing of his truth according to the thinking of man.

    does your above statement mean thatyour understanding is that when christ said "i have more tell you, which you now could not bear." that god reveals truth to man as man becomes able to embrace the truth. in the same way that a parent may speak in truths to a child of one nature when he is small and speak truths of another nature when the child is in his teens and of a different awareness.


    so in essence are you saying it wasnt a sin in the time of philemon.

    was it a sin when in 300ad, the pope made it illegal for one white man to enslave another white man?.

    was a sin when the jesuits priest in the 1500's suggested to rome that black slaves be brought to the southern hemisphere because of the indios preferred death, to enslavement.

    was it a sin when pope innocent vlll in the 1600's offered the ethnic slaves to his friends, he himself had received as a gift.


    or did it become a sin when 2 million men died it in a civil war. to expunge it in the 1800's

    and when god's truth finally revealed to man that ethnic slavery was an intolerable sin, just how did god reveal it?

    could it have been when god revealed to man the untruthful denegation man was putting on others of a different ethnicity.

    this..............in spite of what was written in lev and similar verses in the old testament.


    was it when he revealed to man that every individual apart from man was his neighbor, and that enslavement came against loving ones neighbor as oneself..

    and when, where, and how did god reveal that.

    thru reasoning of the scriptures as revealed by the holy spirit, thru the witnessing of the spirit of men of different ethnics, one to another , thru fellowship relationships in everyday living................witnessing what god had made.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    this is the scripture

    4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 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."

    7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

    8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

    10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

    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."


    this is your comment

    feet, Matthew 19 says absolutely nothing about the issue of homosexuality. Because someone cannot or does not desire to have sex with someone of the opposite sex does not make them a homosexual. Jesus set the ideal for marriage when He shared that it was to be a life long commitment, but He also realized that unfortunately because of sin there would be exceptions to the rule. God's desire is that none should perish but that all everyone should inherit eternal life, but because many people reject Jesus Christ not everyone will inherit eternal life.



    where does jesus say that this is the father's ideal for marriage anything else is a sin?

    it does say that some people were given the word of a male female one flesh marital relationship. my understanding is that given the word is that marrying a particular person of the opposite sex becomes the desire of ones heart.
    CONTINUED

  • feetxxxl »
    Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i say desire of ones heart, otherwise, from where else would the commiment for marrying come.
    the desire of their heart arising out of an attraction to the opposite sex, since early childhood.

    however there is another group who were not given the word. getting married to the opposite sex was never the desire of their heart. they instead, never had an attraction to the opposite sex, but instead have had an attraction to the same sex since early childhood. the desire of their heart was have a one flesh marital relationship to one of the same sex.

    jesus says there are those who are not given the word of a
    one flesh marital relationship. he does not say what other word, those who are not given this word, might be given. this group includes more than just homosexuals. it includes all who may chose to not marry for myriad psychological and emotional reasons that has nothing to do with gender but merely with the specific type of individual.

    so if this group includes a myriad of individuals, why is it so important that jesus make specific reference to one specific part of that group?

    jesus did say you will know them by their fruit. and paul said the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, kindness,goodness, gentleness, self-control,faithfulness, and patience.

    if in embracing these in the one flesh homosexual marital relationship, the relationship is stengthened, as with the opposite sex one flesh marital relationship, in devotion , fidelity, and in commitment as well as affirming those in both kinds of relationships, and in additon reaffirms their relationship in christ, then both one flesh relationships are of christ.

    again......................... you will recognixze them by their fruit.

    and because in this reaffirmation and the reaffirming their relationship in christ it also is in alignment and parallels loving ones neighbor as oneself. ....................marriage being a special neighbor relationship, because one loves them also as he loves himself, this shows in an additional way, it is of christ

  • believer »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet, Matthew 19 says absolutely nothing about the issue of homosexuality. Because someone cannot or does not desire to have sex with someone of the opposite sex does not make them a homosexual. Jesus set the ideal for marriage when He shared that it was to be a life long commitment, but He also realized that unfortunately because of sin there would be exceptions to the rule. God's desire is that none should perish but that all everyone should inherit eternal life, but because many people reject Jesus Christ not everyone will inherit eternal life.

  • believer »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet, I did answer your question when I said you were right Jesus did not say only when He defined marriage as between one man and one woman. And Paul did address the issue of slavary as known in his day. It is called the Book of Philemon. So now it is your turn to respond to my question.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    no like in:

    feetxxxl Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:52 am : 0 : 0 Flag Delete
    feet,
    Instead of challenging me, why not try answering me? I did ask you a question:
    Jesus stated that God intended marriage to be 1 man + 1 woman for life (Mark 10:5-9). Are you saying Jesus got it wrong?

    DO YOU SEEE THE WORD "ONLY" IN THIS SCRIPTURE......... NO ...AGAIN YOU ARE ADDING IT.

    WE ALREADY KNOW JESUS SPOKE ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY IN MATT 19.

    WE KNOW THAT JESUS DID SO MANY THINGS THAT IT WOULD FILL MORE BOOKS THAN WE COULD READ. INSTEAD THE HOLY SPIRIT CHOSE CERTTAIN THINGS TO BE WRITTEN. NO HUMAN MIND KNOWS THE REASON FOR THESE CHOICES.

    JUST BECAUSE A CERTAIN THING WAS NOT WRITTEN DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT OF GOD.

    why didnt christ or paul say that ethnic slavery was an intolerable evil. rather than letting history take 1800 years to discover it.

  • believer »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet, I should consider reading the whole thread or like all the other pro-homosexual advocates you can't find any scripture that supports your view without taking them totally out of there original context?

  • feetxxxl »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer you should consider reading the entire thread before asking a question.

  • believer »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet, agreed Christ did not say only, but would you please show me in the Word of God where the sexual practices of homosexuality are either condoned or encouraged. Please don't try to use the phileo relationship of either David and Jonathan or Naomi and Ruth since neither was an eros relationship and both could quite possibly have been agape relationships. And before you say well the Bible doesn't speak to all matters, please consider the fact that both the Old and New Testament talk to the issues of marriage, the role of the husband and wife, it talks to the issues of the family, it even talks to singleness and widowhood, but yet not a single positive statement about the homosexual lifestyle let alone the sexual practices of the homosexual lifestyle. But I'm all ears to anything in the Word of God that you can show me.

  • Daniel Paul »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "perfect love drives out all fear"

    perfect love is the love which drives out all sin as well. There is not enough room for the love of God and sin in the same person. One will push the other out.

  • Daniel Paul »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "words that convicts but the holy spirit thru those words"

    The problem is that sin can sear the ability to hear that conviction. The Bible clearly warns of that. The Holy Spirit would not write one thing and then change it. Truth be known, you would even throw the Bible to the wayside wouldn't you?

    When one is convinced they are innocent there is nothing that can be told to them that will change their minds.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    it is not scripture's or my or another person's words that convicts but the holy spirit thru those words.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    it doesnt need all.............it is merely depicting the fear "that has to do with punishment."

  • mathetes »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    You "shouted" at me: "DO YOU SEEE THE WORD "ONLY" IN THIS SCRIPTURE......... NO ...AGAIN YOU ARE ADDING IT."
    Later you wrote:
    "yet scripture says perfect love drives out all fear, and fear has to do with punishment."

    This is what the Bible actually says in 1 John 4:18 - "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love."

    Did you see the word "all" in that verse?
    You practice not only immorality but also hypocrisy. Repent!

  • feetxxxl »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 4:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    yes, BELIEF IN CHRIST it is a relationship. butALL of you dont honor the relationship of any other believer if they dont have the same understanding of the law that you do. instead you sell punishment and guilt. you dont see the plank in your own eye from your own judgement.

    you dont trust the holy spirit that lives inside each believer, to convict him of god's truth. because you credit yourselves with knowing the mind of god. consequently you credit your understanding of the truth as god's truth.

    the relationship that you sell is a god who if you dont get one of his laws right will crush you. you are filled with a fear of punishment................" if i believe wrong about a certain law i will be punished."

    yet scripture says perfect love drives out all fear, and fear has to do with punishment.


    you attempt to dominate the conversation with your fear, which you mask with judgement and condemnation.

    christ lives in each believer. but you give no accounting for it. in fact you say the believer is not a christian because "he does not honor my interpretation of the law." this is your fellowship. and still you credit yourselves with walking in the light.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 4:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Romans 1:27 "the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men"

    ROMANS SAY THAT THEY ABANDONED RELATIONSHIPS OUT OF SHAMEBASED LUST. (NIV)

    SO YOUR CONTENTION IS THAT ALL HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONS ARE ABOUT SHAMEBASED LUST.

    YOU KNOW LUST........WHERE THERE IS LUST.....THE ONLY COMMITMENT IS TO THE LUST, OTHER PERSONS ARE MERELY TO SATIATE THE LUST. IT IS THE ANTITHESIS OF HUMAN BONDING, WHERE COMMITMENT IS TO ANOTHER FOR A SHARED COMMITTED LIFE TOGETHER.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,
    Instead of challenging me, why not try answering me? I did ask you a question:
    Jesus stated that God intended marriage to be 1 man + 1 woman for life (Mark 10:5-9). Are you saying Jesus got it wrong?

    DO YOU SEEE THE WORD "ONLY" IN THIS SCRIPTURE......... NO ...AGAIN YOU ARE ADDING IT.

    WE ALREADY KNOW JESUS SPOKE ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY IN MATT 19.

    WE KNOW THAT JESUS DID SO MANY THINGS THAT IT WOULD FILL MORE BOOKS THAN WE COULD READ. INSTEAD THE HOLY SPIRIT CHOSE CERTTAIN THINGS TO BE WRITTEN. NO HUMAN MIND KNOWS THE REASON FOR THESE CHOICES.

    JUST BECAUSE A CERTAIN THING WAS NOT WRITTEN DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT OF GOD.

  • feetxxxl »
    Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Let me break it down:

    1. By putting your desires above WHAT I THINK IS GODGodâ??s you are putting yourself, a created creature, in the place of MY CONCEPT AND UNDERSTANDING OF God in your life.

    2. By refusing to accept MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I BELIEVE God has said about homosexual sex being a sin, you are refusing to honor MY CONCEPT OF God.

    3. By ignoring MY UNDERSTANDING OF His word (or pretending it does not say what it in fact does say), you are being WHAT I BELIEVE IS ungodly, and suppressing MY UNDERSTANDING OF the truth.

    4. By saying that your thoughts on the subject are more important THAN MY CONCEPT OF Godâ??s thoughts on it, you are exchanging MY UNDERSTANDIONG OF THE truth of God for your own thoughts.

    5. If you want to DO WHAT I CONSIDER A sin and ignore MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS God, you are certainly free to do so. God will eventually give you more and more OF MY UNDERSTANDING of it, until you reap what you sow??????????? When anything takes the place of MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS OF God in your life (whether its a TV, a job, a person, yourself, your desires, your fears, money, fame, a carved idol, etc), then you, ACCORDING TO MY UNDERSTANDING are sinning. If you continue to do so, you are hardening your heart TO MY UNDERSTANDING AND CONCEPT OF God. God ACCORDING TO MY UNDERSTANDING will eventually give you over to that sin - He will eventually harden your heart.

    6. THE THING THAT I THINK IS sin will eventually move from a personal hidden thing to a public thing, to a thing where you approve of others doing your sin.

    7. And THE THING THAT I THINK IS your sin will cause you to do other unrighteous things.

    NOW TRY IT WITH ANNOTATION.

  • argyle86 »
    Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

  • wbmoore »
    Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    feet,

    About Romans. We've had this discussion. You choose to pretend God is wrong. That's up to you.

    The answer is in Romans 1:18-32. Yes, Paul starts out sying there are people who denied the truth of God and exchanged a lie for the truth. They were dealt with by being given over to the sinful desires of their hearts, including homosexuality. Homosexuals are doing the same thing.

    Let me break it down:

    1. By putting your desires above God’s you are putting yourself, a created creature, in the place of God in your life.

    2. By refusing to accept what God has said about homosexual sex being a sin, you are refusing to honor God.

    3. By ignoring His word (or pretending it does not say what it in fact does say), you are being ungodly, and suppressing the truth.

    4. By saying that your thoughts on the subject are more important that God’s thoughts on it, you are exchanging the truth of God for your own thoughts.

    5. If you want to sin and ignore God, you are certainly free to do so. God will eventually give you more and more of it, until you reap what you sow. When anything takes the place of God in your life (whether its a TV, a job, a person, yourself, your desires, your fears, money, fame, a carved idol, etc), then you are sinning. If you continue to do so, you are hardening your heart. God will eventually give you over to that sin - He will eventually harden your heart.

    6. Your sin will eventually move from a personal hidden thing to a public thing, to a thing where you approve of others doing your sin.

    7. And your sin will cause you to do other unrighteous things.

    Now, this goes against what Christ said were the two greatest commands because if you truly loved God OR your neighbor OR yourself, you will love God with all your strength, mind, and spirit. You would be obedient to GOD rather than thinking your thoughts and feelings should take precedence over what God has said. Also, you would not lead your neighbor into sin if you truly loved them or yourself.

    But instead, you choose to argue and justify rather than Love and Obey.

    Christ is only the savior for those who trust in His saving work — and if He is, then they will obey Him, If they do not obey, then that is evidence that He is not their savior.

    Hebrews 5:9,
    And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.

    No obedience = no repentance = no salvation = ticket to hell.

  • mathetes »
    Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:49 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    hl,

    Thannks for stopping by, but you've already made ypur opinion clear: you choose to believe the verses that make you feel good and explain away or ignore the rest.

    I know feet has a brain, but he's using it to rationalize sin as okay, instead of loving God with it, along with his heart and soul and strength.

  • Daniel Paul »
    Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "paul doesnt say it is obvious to those who have been trained"

    He also plainly said abandoning the function of woman and doing the men with men thing was wrong. It's no doubt you have a problem with obvious.

    You seem to delete words from the Bible. Exactly how much more clear would you have liked Paul to have been on the subject. Romans is quite clear. If you are going to site Paul as being right then you have to accept where he says men with men is indecent. The words used in those verses are clearly sexual and used a sexual context in other passages.

  • Daniel Paul »
    Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Yep...but which head are you thinking with? I don't even want to address the feet thing....

  • Daniel Paul »
    Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "the fruit of homosexual bonding in some cases has been loving nurturing homes for raising children"

    ...and so it was in Sodom.

    "another example of rational thought attempting to have a discussion with subjective belief."

    Romans 1:27 "the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men"

    The greek word translated 'desire' is Strongs Greek Dictionary of the NT listed #3715 (orexis) "excitement of the mind; lust" which comes from the root word listed 3713 (orgomai) "desire".

    Exactly how is that subjective? Sounds right clear! Sounds like your "caring loving relationship" to me.
    Do you not desire your partner? Does your mind get excited at the thought of being with him? (her?)

    Yes it's the same feeling as a heterosexual relationship! The only difference is the Bible says it's sin....

  • hlerwin »
    Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Because God gave feet a brain, mathetes.

    I have begun to wonder what some people on this bulletin board have done with their brains - if they had a good one to start with.

  • mathetes »
    Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    feet,
    You said, "jesus said you will recognize them by their fruit."

    From here it looks like you are picking to listen to some things Jesus said, and ignoring other things He said. Why is that?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
More Opinion
Advertisement
CP Shopping
Shopping Home>>
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
CP BOOK
CP Books Home>>
Double Minds
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links