The Bible and gay marriage

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Is that you again jmfcst?

Yes, Admiral Motti, it is I.  Do not be too proud of your Moderator terror.  The ability to ban a poster is insignificant next to the power of Truth.  You can infract, but the weakness of your illogical Rebellion against God's word remains exposed for all to see.  And it nags at you day and night.  Why else would you bother distorting the word if the word doesn't bother you? 

And, BRTD is no different.  Even though it has been demonstrated Jesus' statements can't possible be meant to serve as an exhaustive definition for sin (since Jesus mentioned neither bestiality or witchcraft), BRTD still dishonestly brings out that same failed argument. 

But, hey, the absence of logic within both of your arguments will not cause anyone to be deceived, rather your willingness to continue to cling to arguments already shown to be illogical is a result of deception.  Likewise, the acceptance of gay marriage will not cause the downfall of marriage, rather the acceptance of it is a result of a society that already has lost respect for marriage.  For instance, nearly half of babies in the US are now born to unwed mothers. 

Your name is quite ironic, jmf.  Your "arguments" are filled with so many inaccurate assumptions and ideological nonsense that it's barely worth responding to.  I even replied to it, but deleted it shortly afterward because it was just plain unnecessary.

Anyhow, thanks for making the ban easier with your admission.  Your post has been reported.

[Torie]

Well if marriage is in the tank, then there is nothing left to "save," so what's the problem with the f****ts joining into the failed fray? Hey, maybe they might reanimate it!  There seems to be no downside here, and if Jesus truly loves us, maybe an upside. The heteros killed off marriage all by themselves without any help from us. But maybe it is time for us to "help" now in getting back into the promise land, when Dorothy was in Kansas, men wore grey flannel suits, and marriages were strong because woman were basically economically trapped (enslaved almost), no matter how much they loathed their man. What am I missing?

[Logical Shunt]

Your name is quite ironic, jmf.  Your "arguments" are filled with so many inaccurate assumptions and ideological nonsense that it's barely worth responding to.  I even replied to it, but deleted it shortly afterward because it was just plain unnecessary.

Let's assume you posting a retort to my "assumptions" is necessary.  And let's take the from the top:  I am claiming that since Jesus doesn't explicitly mention witchcraft and bestiality in the gospels, the lack of mention of homosexuality by Jesus in the gospels can not possibly be a sign that he condoned such behavior (not to mention the fact Jesus himself defined marriage as sexual union between male and female).

How is my statement logically flawed in any way?

---

Anyhow, thanks for making the ban easier with your admission.  Your post has been reported.

Obviously, I always make my sock accounts obvious.  I'm kinda like my wife's breasts - hard to conceal.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Your name is quite ironic, jmf.  Your "arguments" are filled with so many inaccurate assumptions and ideological nonsense that it's barely worth responding to.  I even replied to it, but deleted it shortly afterward because it was just plain unnecessary.

Let's assume you posting a retort to my "assumptions" is necessary.  And let's take the from the top:  I am claiming that since Jesus doesn't explicitly mention witchcraft and bestiality in the gospels, the lack of mention of homosexuality by Jesus in the gospels can not possibly be a sign that he condoned such behavior (not to mention the fact Jesus himself defined marriage as sexual union between male and female).

How is my statement logically flawed in any way?

Do you honestly need Jesus telling you that anything involving the dark arts is contrary to His message or that fornicating with an animal is akin to torture?  The burden is still on you to prove that Jesus explicitly condemned homosexuality, which you cannot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, I always make my sock accounts obvious.  I'm kinda like my wife's breasts - hard to conceal.
[/quote]

You are a creep and a pig.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Maybe it's time Christians came to peace with the fact that we don't all worship the same God.

[Logical Shunt]

Well if marriage is in the tank, then there is nothing left to "save," so what's the problem with the f****ts joining into the failed fray?  Hey, maybe they might reanimate it!  There seems to be no downside here, and if Jesus truly loves us, maybe an upside. The heteros killed off marriage all by themselves without any help from us. But maybe it is time for us to "help" now in getting into the promise land, when Dorothy was in Kansas, men wore grey flannel suits, and marriages were strong because woman were basically economically trapped (enslaved almost), no matter how much they loathed their man. What am I missing?

I have no problem with gays joining in marriage, just don't ask me to condone it by recognizing it.  I am going to continue to call it sin, just as I do every other sin.  

And what is this "we" business, you not...?!

[Logical Shunt]

Do you honestly need Jesus telling you that anything involving the dark arts is contrary to His message or that fornicating with an animal is akin to torture?  The burden is still on you to prove that Jesus explicitly condemned homosexuality, which you cannot.

As if fornication, as long as it doesn't involve torture, is not sin?!

So, basically, you didn't prove Jesus explicitly condemned witchcraft or bestiality, yet you claim the burden is on me to prove Jesus explicitly condemned homosexuality?  I think you've just ignored, for obvious reasons, my whole point:  Jesus explicit comments are clearly not meant to be taken as an exhaustive definition for sin, therefore Jesus didn't have to explicitly condemn any action for it to be considered a sin.

[Logical Shunt]

Maybe it's time Christians came to peace with the fact that we don't all worship the same God.

check thread title for context

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Do you honestly need Jesus telling you that anything involving the dark arts is contrary to His message or that fornicating with an animal is akin to torture?  The burden is still on you to prove that Jesus explicitly condemned homosexuality, which you cannot.

As if fornication, as long as it doesn't involve torture, is not sin?!

So, basically, you didn't prove Jesus explicitly condemned witchcraft or bestiality, yet you claim the burden is on me to prove Jesus explicitly condemned homosexuality?  I think you've just ignored, for obvious reasons, my whole point:  Jesus explicit comments are clearly not meant to be taken as an exhaustive definition for sin, therefore Jesus didn't have to explicitly condemn any action for it to be considered a sin.

No, you're missing my point.  Bestiality would obviously be immoral because, in effect, you would be coercing an animal into torturous acts.  You don't need the Bible to tell you that some things are immoral, even though many of the acts Jesus speaks against are self-evidently wrong.  Jesus spoke against things that were frequently happening at the time.  Surely there were numerous gay relationships in His time, but were they condemned?  No.  If you have a sexual interest in animals that you cannot control as a psychological disorder, I don't think that alone is grounds for condemnation, provided that you don't act on those feelings.

This is the core of my argument: homosexuality, essentially, is different from the examples you listed.  A healthy same-sex relationship by itself doesn't involve coercion, harm, or lust with the absence of love.  Loving someone, you understand, is not a sin.  Lust by itself - regardless of the genders involved - is.  I, of course, understand that your God operates differently on this.

[Logical Shunt]

Do you honestly need Jesus telling you that anything involving the dark arts is contrary to His message or that fornicating with an animal is akin to torture?  The burden is still on you to prove that Jesus explicitly condemned homosexuality, which you cannot.

As if fornication, as long as it doesn't involve torture, is not sin?!

So, basically, you didn't prove Jesus explicitly condemned witchcraft or bestiality, yet you claim the burden is on me to prove Jesus explicitly condemned homosexuality?  I think you've just ignored, for obvious reasons, my whole point:  Jesus explicit comments are clearly not meant to be taken as an exhaustive definition for sin, therefore Jesus didn't have to explicitly condemn any action for it to be considered a sin.

No, you're missing my point.  Bestiality would obviously be immoral because, in effect, you would be coercing an animal into torturous acts.  You don't need the Bible to tell you that some things are immoral, even though many of the acts Jesus speaks against are self-evidently wrong.  Jesus spoke against things that were frequently happening at the time.  Surely there were numerous gay relationships in His time, but were they condemned?  No.  If you have a sexual interest in animals that you cannot control as a psychological disorder, I don't think that alone is grounds for condemnation, provided that you don't act on those feelings.

This is the core of my argument: homosexuality, essentially, is different from the examples you listed.  A healthy same-sex relationship by itself doesn't involve coercion, harm, or lust with the absence of love.  Loving someone, you understand, is not a sin.  Lust by itself - regardless of the genders involved - is.  I, of course, understand that your God operates differently on this.

So...there were obviously heterosexuals having sex before marriage in Jesus' day, regardless if they "loved" each other or not.  Where does he explicitly condemn that?

So, you've painted yourself in a corner...you have to claim Jesus winked at prematial sex. Because if you claim Jesus saw premaritial sex as a sin, then it is a sin regardless if the couple "loves" each other.


But, then of course, if you claim Jesus winked at premartial sex, then you have another huge problem, for not only do you make Jesus' comments run contrary to the rest of the bible, both OT and NT, but you force Jesus to contradict himself in Mat ch19 where he used the Creation account to derive marriage as a sexual union initiated by God himself. 

You're boxed in, bro.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Do you honestly need Jesus telling you that anything involving the dark arts is contrary to His message or that fornicating with an animal is akin to torture?  The burden is still on you to prove that Jesus explicitly condemned homosexuality, which you cannot.

As if fornication, as long as it doesn't involve torture, is not sin?!

So, basically, you didn't prove Jesus explicitly condemned witchcraft or bestiality, yet you claim the burden is on me to prove Jesus explicitly condemned homosexuality?  I think you've just ignored, for obvious reasons, my whole point:  Jesus explicit comments are clearly not meant to be taken as an exhaustive definition for sin, therefore Jesus didn't have to explicitly condemn any action for it to be considered a sin.

No, you're missing my point.  Bestiality would obviously be immoral because, in effect, you would be coercing an animal into torturous acts.  You don't need the Bible to tell you that some things are immoral, even though many of the acts Jesus speaks against are self-evidently wrong.  Jesus spoke against things that were frequently happening at the time.  Surely there were numerous gay relationships in His time, but were they condemned?  No.  If you have a sexual interest in animals that you cannot control as a psychological disorder, I don't think that alone is grounds for condemnation, provided that you don't act on those feelings.

This is the core of my argument: homosexuality, essentially, is different from the examples you listed.  A healthy same-sex relationship by itself doesn't involve coercion, harm, or lust with the absence of love.  Loving someone, you understand, is not a sin.  Lust by itself - regardless of the genders involved - is.  I, of course, understand that your God operates differently on this.

So...there were obviously heterosexuals having sex before marriage in Jesus' day, regardless if they "loved" each other or not.  Where does he explicitly condemn that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People get married (not all the time, but most of the time) to signify each others' life-long commitment to each other.  Sex is meant to be shared between two people - so that they become "one flesh," which is inseparable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, as I acknowledge what He said about marriage.  And it regarded divorce, not same-sex relationships.

[memphis]

Are we now debating the legality of fornication and witchcraft? Cause that's pretty damn hilarious. I'm not even sure what witchcraft is. Shall we start burning cat ladies who like to take herbal supplements?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have no problem with gays joining in marriage, just don't ask me to condone it by recognizing it.

Since when is government recognition (or non-recognition) of something equivalent to every citizen/subject of that government recognizing (or not recognizing) it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are we now debating the legality of fornication and witchcraft? Cause that's pretty damn hilarious. I'm not even sure what witchcraft is. Shall we start burning cat ladies who like to take herbal supplements?

I'm certain that Bill Ackman would approve of doing just that.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If nobody is trying to make the argument then why have the thread? If you don't need the Bible's support to have a law, why bother analyzing the Bible to see if the two are in agreement?

Marriage is not just a legal issue.  Saying "our nation's laws shouldn't be based on the Bible" doesn't answer whether churches should officiate or recognize same-sex marriage, or whether a Christian can faithfully enter into one.  

The second item could be something that Christians or people interested in the Bible might discuss, certainly, but the idea that churches are required or forced to perform marriages that they do not approve of due to legal requirements is a bit of a boogey man, wouldn't you acknowledge?  The reason churches get in trouble for refusing to perform interracial marriages is because of the controversy that ensues when it is reported in the media, and not police barging in and requesting them to violate their religious beliefs.  This seems like something that shouldn't even need to be said, but you, perplexingly, felt as though the argument was poignant to repeat, let alone state once...

It's pretty simple, really - if a same-sex couple wishes to get married at a church that condones it, or at a nonreligious government office, why should a church that opposes same-sex marriage have any say in the matter?  That's what the same-sex marriage debate has always been about, and not whether churches that oppose it should have to perform them.

That is not the main area of debate within the various Christian denominations.  It isn't about whether the government recognizes them or some fear they will have to perform them.  Churches are debating whether they ought to choose to recognize same-sex marriage as a social and religious institution. Marriage as a government institution is not the most relevant issue in the Christian church.

So my comment was very relevant.  This is the religion board after all.

[memphis]

The churches around here sure seem to find government recognition of gay marriages very relavant. They've made their feelings very clear about the matter.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's not clear to me that Paul's concept of what is unnatural depends on what is found in animal behavior.  Unnatural can mean what is in accord with human nature. In classical philosophy nature or physis involved telos or intrinsic purpose as much intrinsic cause. Natural can therefore mean corresponding to one's nature, and not just caused by nature.

I don’t disagree, but the two are mutual. If one is inclined to be attracted to a member of the same sex exclusively and our understanding of this is that it is caused by nature, then acting upon that is corresponding to one’s nature. I do not hold any attractions to women; there is no emotional attraction or physical attraction or any stimuli. For me to then have sex with a women I have to ignore that fact that there is no attraction. In order to maintain an erection in order to have sex I would have to resort to other means to maintain it. For me that is an unnatural use of both the physical and emotional sides of my being and is contrary to my purpose.

I can say all this now of course because I have no need to marry a woman to keep up appearances or to have children in order to either secure my legacy, my lineage and my estate. In the past (even the recent past) outwardly I would have had to do these things and any ‘dalliances’ with members of my own sex would have been considered both adulterous in nature and perhaps contrary to my ‘natural’ outward state because what was considered to be natural was determined by the political (the need to marry) so it’s worth keeping that in mind.

But I digress a little. Plato observed that; ‘Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love; all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.' The Greeks and later on, the Romans didn’t consider sexuality to be of any particular interest, certainly not in any need of categorisation.

But let's approach it from that angle. We are told that Paul co-opted stoic philosophies and themes. Looking to that; for Epictetus, it was considered preferable to maintain a will or volition; a prohairesis that is in accordance with nature. Nothing is actually considered to be good or bad or actively indifferent barring those things which are within our power to control and all that we can actually control is our own volition. Sexuality or more succinctly; sexual preference does not fall within the grounds of a something within our power to control as nature does not grant us the power to control it but arbitrarily assigns sexuality to each individual, therefore it cannot be considered good or bad. This is what we now know and therefore we must place it within the limits prescribed to it by stoic understanding. All we therefore have control over is our own volition; our sexual expression. Paul considers it to be improper for the pagans, as part of their worship to essentially indulge in sexual activities which are a misuse of their own volition because one’s volition is the only ‘thing’ that can be considered good or bad. Looking at it from another angle, Zeno of Citium considered that even things that are considered morally indifferent; i.e, things which are outside of one’s control can still have a value. Abstract ‘things’ therefore have a relative value in proportion to how they aid the natural instinct for what could loosely be considered self-preservation or more concisely, kathekon; befitting actions. It is therefore a befitting action for a person to express his sexual orientation. Why? Because nature is ‘reason’ and because virtue can only exist within the realm of reason so too can vice only exist with the rejection of reason. A rejection of my homosexuality is therefore a rejection of reason and therefore doing so would be a vice. Likewise, should a heterosexual reject his heterosexuality for the purposes of pagan worship then therefore he is exchanging reason and nature for vice. That to me seems to be Paul’s understanding of ‘exchange.’

If one were to deliberately maintain as some conservative Christians do, that all homosexual attraction and all acts that stem from it are a deliberate and conscious acts undertaken by someone away from heterosexuality which is by default ‘natural’ and therefore in reason, then one could concur that it too falls under this definition, but given what we know about sexuality (and we cannot pretend not to know it even if it seems disagreeable ) then we have to approach Paul’s condemnation cautiously and within context.

Paul doesn't seem to me to be saying the attraction is a conscious and deliberate act.  He is saying the attraction is a result of their idolatry. The idolatry was the choice; the impure lusts are a result that is passive from their perspective (being given over to it).  Looking at Romans as a whole, the purely volitional view of sin doesn't hold up.  Paul speaks at length about all human beings being under the power of sin, even as being enslaved to sin.  In fact, this whole passage is a prelude to that argument.  Chapter 2 begins "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

Paul's main point isn't to condemn homosexuality, or any subset of homosexual behavior, but in the course of his argument he assumes the view on homosexuality common among Jews of his time. 

[Logical Shunt]

Are we now debating the legality of fornication and witchcraft? Cause that's pretty damn hilarious. I'm not even sure what witchcraft is. Shall we start burning cat ladies who like to take herbal supplements?

No, we are debating the morality of fornication and witchcraft.  I am not saying gay marriage should be "illegal", as in arresting gays who claim to be married.  What I am saying is that I oppose the legal recognition of it.  Big difference.  Making a sin illegal means we are legislating morality, which I oppose.  Giving it legal recognition means we are condoning it, which I also oppose.  Gays are free do to what they want with whom they want and call it what they want, I don't care, just don't ask me to condone it, because I won't.

[Logical Shunt]

I have no problem with gays joining in marriage, just don't ask me to condone it by recognizing it.

Since when is government recognition (or non-recognition) of something equivalent to every citizen/subject of that government recognizing (or not recognizing) it?

since "We, the People" was penned...as in, this government is run by the people and reflects the values of the people.  Or, do you think, as individuals, we are exempt from the repercussions of the values of our government?

[afleitch]

Are we now debating the legality of fornication and witchcraft? Cause that's pretty damn hilarious. I'm not even sure what witchcraft is. Shall we start burning cat ladies who like to take herbal supplements?

No, we are debating the morality of fornication and witchcraft.  I am not saying gay marriage should be "illegal", as in arresting gays who claim to be married.  What I am saying is that I oppose the legal recognition of it.  Big difference.  Making a sin illegal means we are legislating morality, which I oppose.  Giving it legal recognition means we are condoning it, which I also oppose.  Gays are free do to what they want with whom they want and call it what they want, I don't care, just don't ask me to condone it, because I won't.

You haven't quite grasped where most people are coming from and the arguments they are making. This was never your strong point in the past decade or so, so I don't expect it to be something you've suddenly learned. It's legal to have a divorce; many divorces even. Abortion is legal too. If the law makes something legal, which you don't like, why is forcing your hand to condone it? You're not the state; your a person operating within a legal framework like the rest of us.

[Logical Shunt]

Paul doesn't seem to me to be saying the attraction is a conscious and deliberate act.  He is saying the attraction is a result of their idolatry. The idolatry was the choice; the impure lusts are a result that is passive from their perspective (being given over to it)....Paul's main point isn't to condemn homosexuality, or any subset of homosexual behavior, but in the course of his argument he assumes the view on homosexuality common among Jews of his time.  

agreed.  It's a progression: the acceptance of homosexuality was NOT the first line that was crossed in Paul's narrative, rather Paul described that MANY lines were first crossed (e.g. focusing on serving creation rather than the creator, not giving God glory, rejecting God's truth, etc)...after which, God severed their conscience so that they would accept and approve of homosexuality, even though they were aware that in scripture God decreed death to those who did such things:  "32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

So, even though homosexuality is not Paul's main point, he does walk us through all the lines that are crossed (those lines are his main point) by CHRISTIANS who condone it.  And he clearly condemns it and refers to the condemnation of it within scripture.

---

  Looking at Romans as a whole, the purely volitional view of sin doesn't hold up.  Paul speaks at length about all human beings being under the power of sin, even as being enslaved to sin.  In fact, this whole passage is a prelude to that argument.  Chapter 2 begins "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

1) The beginning of Ch 2, which brings the context of the matter to within practices of church members, is further proof he was referring to Christians in Ch 1, not pagans.

2) And Romans does NOT leave the believer enslaved to sin, as if we are all hopeless in our servanthood to sin.  Rather in Ch 8, Paul states serving the Spirit of God will free you from being a servant of sin, which is best summarrized in the following:

Rom 8:13 "If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."

as Jesus said, John 8:34 “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed."

[Logical Shunt]

You haven't quite grasped where most people are coming from and the arguments they are making. This was never your strong point in the past decade or so, so I don't expect it to be something you've suddenly learned. It's legal to have a divorce; many divorces even. Abortion is legal too. If the law makes something legal, which you don't like, why is forcing your hand to condone it? You're not the state; your a person operating within a legal framework like the rest of us.

There are legitimate reasons for divorce, so let's set that aside.  But the attitude of:  hey, if it doesn't work out I'll just divorce and find someone else, is also destroying this society.  People view marriage by what it can do for them, not what they can give someone else.  The abuse The rate of divorce is a reflection to how selfish our society has become.

As to abortion - I think our government's consent to the murder of 50 million children since '73, 99% were killed simply because they were "inconvenient", has done great damage to the our national conscience.  Instead of holding the lives of innocents as sacred, we sacrifice them to improve our own lifestyles.  Basically, it is no different to the bible's description of people allowing their children to be burned alive in sacrifice to Baal.  Pleasure is what our society holds sacred, if it feels good, do it, doesnt matter what it involves.

[Logical Shunt]

Also, many of you are ignoring what is coming down the pipe...so let me lay it out for you:

1) Homosexuality will be legally accepted and laws past to outlaw discrimination against gays.

2) Gays will then show up at churches and demand to be accepted into its proceedings.  When they are shown the exit door, they will file a lawsuit.  All they need is to find is a judge who is willing to allow the suit to proceed to trial, and regardless of the verdict, 95% of churches will not being able to afford the cost of a trial (The vast majority of churches are small congregation that scrape by just to keep the doors open).

Example:  Gay couple shows up at a small church.  They sit down in a pew, hold hands and kiss.  The ushers ask them to leave due to their homosexual behavior (just as our church would).  And once they leave, they file a lawsuit claiming discrimination since heterosexuals who held hands and kissed each other were not asked to leave.  They find a judge friendly to their cause, who allows the suit to proceed to trial.  Trial costs, regardless of verdict, force church to close.

Take the above scenario, print it out, tape it to your wall.  It's coming, and VERY SOON!

[afleitch]

Take the above scenario, print it out, tape it to your wall.  It's coming, and VERY SOON!

'And soon the n-ggers will be in the White House too!!'

Your scenario is so very flawed with respect to the First Amendment I don't even know where to begin. And homosexuality with respect to behaviour is legally accepted in the decision handed out in Lawrence v Texas, so I don't think that's going to be something coming down the pipe so to speak.

I think you're frightened of the world changing around you. I feel very sorry for you and hope you find peace.

[Logical Shunt]

'And soon the n-ggers will be in the White House too!!'

That's ok, n-ggers are over at my white house all the time.  I find it rather enjoyable, even preferable.

---

Your scenario is so very flawed with respect to the First Amendment I don't even know where to begin. And homosexuality with respect to behaviour is legally accepted in the decision handed out in Lawrence v Texas, so I don't think that's going to be something coming down the pipe so to speak.

I'm was referring to antidiscrimination laws...and regardless of the merits in relation to the First Amendment, all it takes is a friendly judge to allow a suit to go to trial.  The church will go broke long before a verdict is reached.

---

I think you're frightened of the world changing around you. I feel very sorry for you and hope you find peace.

Who is frightened, the one who attempts to distort the scriptures, or the one who doesn't distort the scriptures?  And our church already has plans to meet LATE EDIT without within our homes, like the early church did, when the government forces us to close our doors over this issue.  It's no biggie for us, we'll just keep on keepin on.