Christians: Is marriage between a man and a woman?

[PruePhillip]

We don't casually discriminate against black people any more, the way we used to.
Gotta problem with that?Tom

No, no problem at all.
The bible is about the universalism of all people. It teaches that we are all brethren,
and all "brothers." Moses himself married an Ethiopian woman. In the genealogy of
Jesus there are a few non-Jews too.
But the bible makes a distinction with adultery, divorce, pederasty, bestiality and the
like.

 

[PruePhillip]

Your response is disingenuous. So, you believe that not all love is good? Can you please support that with the Bible? If not, can you support that with any degree of reason whatsoever? Love is always good. God is Love. Or is God sometimes evil, to you?

Paraphrasing here - who said this? "Love not the world neither the things in the world,
if a man love the world the love of the Father is not in him."
I don't need "reason" to grasp that. There is much in this evil world that people love.

 

[masonlandry]

This is in our news as the Labor and Greens seek to stop religious exemption in schools.
Religious schools choosing their own staff or forcing children to attend chapel service have
been cited in the legislation.

So the right to discriminate is the right you're worried about losing? I'm not sure that's a right at all .Just something you've been allowed to do in the past when you shouldn't have been.

 

[masonlandry]

I am wary of "Greek translations" that people go into. Greek words, like English words, have multiple meanings and can be arranged to serve multiple ways.

Well since the New Testament was written in Greek, that's unavoidable isn't it . You have to use context and understanding of usage, culture, and the history surrounding the authors and audiences to fldetermine which meaning was the intended. You can't just assume one that pleases you best indiscriminately.

 

[masonlandry]

1) - The bible doesn't only mention singing with voices... on the contrary y mentions a multiplicity of instruments

In the New Testament, there are no examples of the churches using instruments in worship. While it isn't explicitly forbidden, the church of Christ is adamant about replicating the early church as closely as possible in an effort to avoid wordly influence that distracts from worship with God as the only intended audience and that might displease him. The Old Testament has many examples of instrument use, but they don't worship in the same ways as the Old Testament Hebrews because Jesus brought a new covenant. They don't use instruments for the same reason they don't use incense or sacrifice animals .

3) -Arsenokoites - can refer to slave boys but isn't limited to

In the entire Greek language, yes, but in the context of the passages which are forbidding certain behaviors, which meaning is intended becomes quite important.

But all of this is irrelevant. Once you accept Jesus Christ, He begin to reconstruct ones life and that is all types of life. In Christianity, the work of the Cross is more than sufficient even for the self-righteous.

You think the commandments of God are irrelevant? That's not what the Bible indicates as far as I can tell. While it very strongly and clearly dictates that your works don't earn your salvation, it is also clear that your works can condemn you, and that your salvation isn't an excuse to refuse to strive for perfection in the eyes of God, even knowing you will never attain anywhere near it. There are entire letters dedicated to the importance of behavior even after salvation. It's relevant if you think what god should be doing is reconstructing someone's life to make them heterosexual if that isn't actually a concern God has. And when I say you, I don't just mean you specifically, but especially those who keep trying to dictate the morality of gendered-attraction. It causes suffering for a lot of people, you know?

 

[Kenny]

In the New Testament, there are no examples of the churches using instruments in worship. While it isn't explicitly forbidden, the church of Christ is adamant about replicating the early church as closely as possible in an effort to avoid wordly influence that distracts from worship with God as the only intended audience and that might displease him. The Old Testament has many examples of instrument use, but they don't worship in the same ways as the Old Testament Hebrews because Jesus brought a new covenant. They don't use instruments for the same reason they don't use incense or sacrifice animals .

I disagree.

First, the New Covenant didn't eliminate worship styles.
Second, the NT wasn't about worship as much as living. It wasn't a compendium on worship.
Third, it is intimated that it still went on: 1 Cor 14:7 Similarly, if musical instruments, such as flutes or stringed instruments, are out of tune and don’t play the arrangement clearly, how will anyone recognize the melody?
Fourth, trumpets are used in Revelation
Last, there is absolutely nothing in the NT that says you shouldn't. King David, I would think, would not have pleased God when he played an instrument if God was against. it.

In the entire Greek language, yes, but in the context of the passages which are forbidding certain behaviors, which meaning is intended becomes quite important.

Exactly. That is why I say "not limit to".

You think the commandments of God are irrelevant? That's not what the Bible indicates as far as I can tell. While it very strongly and clearly dictates that your works don't earn your salvation, it is also clear that your works can condemn you, and that your salvation isn't an excuse to refuse to strive for perfection in the eyes of God, even knowing you will never attain anywhere near it. There are entire letters dedicated to the importance of behavior even after salvation. It's relevant if you think what god should be doing is reconstructing someone's life to make them heterosexual if that isn't actually a concern God has. And when I say you, I don't just mean you specifically, but especially those who keep trying to dictate the morality of gendered-attraction. It causes suffering for a lot of people, you know?

You misinterpreted what I said.

What I said is and in other words, "Your past life is irrelevant when you come to Jesus. And. God is able to change you when you accept him.

Are you saying you now live a perfect life? Or are you still relying on the mercy of God?

 

[Prestor John]

All three of which were common in the place and time where Paul was writing to Christian churches.

Paul chose those examples because they were common to those he was writing to.

There was no reason for him to mention homosexual marriage because that practice did not exist among his audience.

It is the same reason why Christ did not condemn the practice of homosexuality to the Jews, because they already condemned it.

Paul's teaching about relevant concepts at the time of his writing is no reason to assume that he would support other practices that did not then exist or were not relevant.

 

[Salvador]

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 19:1-13 - King James Version
People often challenge Christians to demonstrate what Jesus said against same same marriage. My general assumption is that He said nothing in favor of it. The point is not to be unlike Christ, but to convey the information, and let people decide how to live. In the preceeding link, Jesus refers to marriage between a man and a woman, as was the religious opinion of most Jews in His day.
This: Bible Gateway passage: Ephesians 5:22-33 - King James Version link also shows marriage between a man and a woman. The husband is shown as the head of the wife, with Christ as the Head of the Christian Church.
Another link, shown here: Bible Gateway passage: 1 Peter 3:1-7 - King James Version demonstrates that the wife is to obey the husband. Who does the obeying in a gay relationship?
Conclusion, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I am not here to force my religious beliefs on anyone, just to convey Scripture and its meaning.

What is your beliefs concerning a happily married hermaphrodite/female couple or a happily married hermaphrodite/male couple?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

God did not put Adam and Steve in the garden and tell them to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[Salvador]

God did not put Adam and Steve in the garden and tell them to be fruitful and multiply.

Two-dad babies may soon be possible.

A team of geneticists from Cambridge University and Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science have now successfully used embryonic skin stem cells to produce primordial germ cells (PCGs) Due to this stem cell research breakthrough, male couples may soon be able to have a child who is genetically related to both partners.

A scientific publication in Cell describes the role of the SOX17 gene as a key regulator of human PCGs-like cells in determining the fate of these cells. The SOX17 gene could be manipulated for 2 men to father a child together without the need of an egg donor. One of two gay father's PCGs could be extracted, and his SOX17 gene can then become modified as to induce these cells to become oocytes. Because the prospective father would have all of his relevant maternal information on his one copy of the X-chromosome, the resulting egg should be fully functional. A second father could donate his sperm to inseminate the egg, which would be carried by a surrogate mother who would carry the biological same-sex parent baby throughout gestation.

http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(14)01583-9

Haploid embryonic stem cells having only a male parent's DNA were modified to delete seven key imprinted regions. The edited haploid embryonic stem cells were then injected—along with sperm from another male mouse into an egg cell that had its female genetic material removed with the removal of the egg's nucleus. This resulted in an embryo containing only genomic DNA from the two male parents. This bi-paternal DNA crafted embryo was then transferred along with placental material to a surrogate mother who successfully carried the 2-dad mouse fetus to full term and birth.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-mouse-pups-same-sex-parents-born.html#jCp

 

[masonlandry]

I disagree.

First, the New Covenant didn't eliminate worship styles.
Second, the NT wasn't about worship as much as living. It wasn't a compendium on worship.
Third, it is intimated that it still went on: 1 Cor 14:7 Similarly, if musical instruments, such as flutes or stringed instruments, are out of tune and don’t play the arrangement clearly, how will anyone recognize the melody?
Fourth, trumpets are used in Revelation
Last, there is absolutely nothing in the NT that says you shouldn't. King David, I would think, would not have pleased God when he played an instrument if God was against. it.

Disclaimer, I disagree too, but they have an argument for every point you make. So to play devil's advocate for fun:

"In the changeover [referring to the elimination of Levitical priesthood laws, old testament laws], God omitted such things as burning incense, golden vessels, colorful tapestries, dancing before the Lord, bitter herbs, and instruments. He kept unleavened bread, the fruit of the vine, prayers, and singing. Incidental? Hardly. God always meticulously planned worship (Exodus 25–40; Leviticus 1–27). He spent more than six thousand years completing His plan for the church (Ephesians 3:11; Galatians 4:4–5) so nothing was left to happenstance.

As for the verse in 1 Corinthians, that's taken out of context. Paul is not referring to using musical instruments in worship. He is using them as a comparison, as he also uses the example of trumpets in battle. He is telling the Corinthians that speaking in tongues is useless if nobody understands what you mean, and to illustrate the point he says (paraphrasing here, of course) "it's as pointless as playing an instrument if there are no clear distinctions between the notes. In the same manner, if you speak words that are not understood, you might as well be talking to a wall." He's comparing something they do in church to something they do outside of the church to illustrate a point. Playing instruments is not a problem for them, they see nothing wrong with instruments outside of worship, they just don't use them in worship. Everyone I've ever known from the church of Christ either plays an instrument or listens to regular music outside of church. Besides that, David was explicitly an Old Testament dude, so that ignore the point completely.

None of what happens in revelation is instructive of what the early Christian church did during worship. It's an apocalyptic prophecy almost entirely comprised of symbolic imagery. You wouldn't use the mention of trumpets to sanction them as part of worship any more than Revelation would sanction marching the four horsemen through the church on Sunday morning. I already addressed the lack of forbidding it, which is ironically the entire reason I mentioned it. So that brings me back to the point.

You already disagree that something is not forbidden simply because it is not explicitly sanctioned. So why is that argument used against gay marriage?

Exactly. That is why I say "not limit to".

The context is what limits it. If I say "sorry if we were loud last night. My wife and I were having a row," There are multiple things the word "row" could mean, but the context limits it. If someone were to seriously think we meant rowing a boat through the apartment, rather than having a heated disagreement, you'd think they were short a few IQ points.

You misinterpreted what I said.

What I said is and in other words, "Your past life is irrelevant when you come to Jesus. And. God is able to change you when you accept him.

Are you saying you now live a perfect life? Or are you still relying on the mercy of God?

Sorry I misunderstood. I don't see what point that has to this discussion. We're talking about whether God is okay with marriage between people of the same sex, so I don't see what this comment has to do with the debate. If there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, it isn't something that coming to Jesus would change, because it isn't a problem.

 

[masonlandry]

God did not put Adam and Steve in the garden and tell them to be fruitful and multiply.

He didn't put you in the garden either, but I'm not gonna stone you or anything. You can see why it would be more important for the lineage of the entire Jewish ethnicity to copulate, but that doesn't apply to everyone, does it?

 

[masonlandry]

Two-dad babies may soon be possible.

A team of geneticists from Cambridge University and Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science have now successfully used embryonic skin stem cells to produce primordial germ cells (PCGs) Due to this stem cell research breakthrough, male couples may soon be able to have a child who is genetically related to both partners.

A scientific publication in Cell describes the role of the SOX17 gene as a key regulator of human PCGs-like cells in determining the fate of these cells. The SOX17 gene could be manipulated for 2 men to father a child together without the need of an egg donor. One of two gay father's PCGs could be extracted, and his SOX17 gene can then become modified as to induce these cells to become oocytes. Because the prospective father would have all of his relevant maternal information on his one copy of the X-chromosome, the resulting egg should be fully functional. A second father could donate his sperm to inseminate the egg, which would be carried by a surrogate mother who would carry the biological same-sex-parent baby throughout gestation.

http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(14)01583-9

Awesome. I wonder if the same thing can be done for two women if the X chromosome is the one they use. OF course, his has nothing to do with the morality of same-sex parents, because "multiplying" isn't a moral obligation, even for Christians. This is absolutely clear since the same author they claim condemns it also says that it's better to never marry at all. (Personally, I get the idea that Paul might have been a closet case.)

 

[masonlandry]

Paul chose those examples because they were common to those he was writing to.

There was no reason for him to mention homosexual marriage because that practice did not exist among his audience.

It is the same reason why Christ did not condemn the practice of homosexuality to the Jews, because they already condemned it.

Paul's teaching about relevant concepts at the time of his writing is no reason to assume that he would support other practices that did not then exist or were not relevant.

And the absence of a condemnation is a reason to assume that he would condemn it? That's not the reason I assume he would be okay with it, but it's definitely the reason why I object to claims that he condemned it. A loving, monogamous, same-sex marriage or relationship was probably something he'd never seen or considered, but there is no real basis for assuming either that it would be approved of or condemned based just on the Bible, which is why I advocate using our own moral judgment based on a rational consideration of the actual consequences.

 

[Salvador]

Awesome. I wonder if the same thing can be done for two women if the X chromosome is the one they use. OF course, his has nothing to do with the morality of same-sex parents, because "multiplying" isn't a moral obligation, even for Christians. This is absolutely clear since the same author they claim condemns it also says that it's better to never marry at all. (Personally, I get the idea that Paul might have been a closet case.)

Three regions, those involved with genetic imprinting, were removed from a haploid embryonic stem cell with the use of genetic editing from CRISPR/Cas9. This edited stem cell from one female mouse was then put into the egg of another female mouse. This procedure using genetic editing to remove genetic imprinting from haploid embryonic stem cells that were then transferred from one female mouse into the egg of another female mouse resulted in the birth of healthy female mice having the DNA of two biological female parents. ...

 

[Prestor John]

And the absence of a condemnation is a reason to assume that he would condemn it? That's not the reason I assume he would be okay with it, but it's definitely the reason why I object to claims that he condemned it. A loving, monogamous, same-sex marriage or relationship was probably something he'd never seen or considered, but there is no real basis for assuming either that it would be approved of or condemned based just on the Bible, which is why I advocate using our own moral judgment based on a rational consideration of the actual consequences.

The Lord expressly condemned homosexuality and other sexual practices in the Levitical Law.

He claimed that those sins were what led Him to destroy the people of Canaan with the invasion of Israel.

How many times does the Lord need to condemn homosexual behavior?

Does each new Apostle or Prophet need to reinstate and reaffirm all past revelations?

The Lord Jesus Christ did not come to Earth to reveal and clarify every aspect of the Law and commandments. He had more important things to do.

Paul, in like manner, had not been called to be an Apostle to repeat everything God and all other past prophets had said.

Homosexuality and other sexual sins are nation-destroyers and "actual consequences" can be seen everywhere if we are willing to look.

 

[Kenny]

Disclaimer, I disagree too, but they have an argument for every point you make. So to play devil's advocate for fun:

"In the changeover [referring to the elimination of Levitical priesthood laws, old testament laws], God omitted such things as burning incense, golden vessels, colorful tapestries, dancing before the Lord, bitter herbs, and instruments. He kept unleavened bread, the fruit of the vine, prayers, and singing. Incidental? Hardly. God always meticulously planned worship (Exodus 25–40; Leviticus 1–27). He spent more than six thousand years completing His plan for the church (Ephesians 3:11; Galatians 4:4–5) so nothing was left to happenstance.

Relevance? As you noted, some things were kept and only some things were not. Solomon had musicians and the presence of God was so strong that they couldn't stand to minister.

Nothing is mentioned about stopping musical instruments for the use of glorifying God.

Those things that were no longer necessary were those things that Jesus Christ fulfilled.

As for the verse in 1 Corinthians, that's taken out of context. Paul is not referring to using musical instruments in worship. He is using them as a comparison, as he also uses the example of trumpets in battle. He is telling the Corinthians that speaking in tongues is useless if nobody understands what you mean, and to illustrate the point he says (paraphrasing here, of course) "it's as pointless as playing an instrument if there are no clear distinctions between the notes. In the same manner, if you speak words that are not understood, you might as well be talking to a wall." He's comparing something they do in church to something they do outside of the church to illustrate a point. Playing instruments is not a problem for them, they see nothing wrong with instruments outside of worship, they just don't use them in worship. Everyone I've ever known from the church of Christ either plays an instrument or listens to regular music outside of church. Besides that, David was explicitly an Old Testament dude, so that ignore the point completely.

1) The fact he used it gave the understanding that it was being used.
2) They preached from the OT so your "dude" statement is irrelevant.
3) The fact that "musical instruments" is ingrained in humans ought to give us a clue.

None of what happens in revelation is instructive of what the early Christian church did during worship. It's an apocalyptic prophecy almost entirely comprised of symbolic imagery. You wouldn't use the mention of trumpets to sanction them as part of worship any more than Revelation would sanction marching the four horsemen through the church on Sunday morning. I already addressed the lack of forbidding it, which is ironically the entire reason I mentioned it. So that brings me back to the point.

You already disagree that something is not forbidden simply because it is not explicitly sanctioned. So why is that argument used against gay marriage?

You brought up music... not I. And if A=B and C=D doesn't mean A=D thus four horsemen marching on Sunday morning is irrelevant.

The argument is simply that there are multiplicity of scriptures that say "don't". My point is that we ALL have things in our lives that are "don'ts" and thus we have grace and a Savior to forgive and change us. That too many people harp on "homosexuality" at the expense of looking at their own logs.

Sorry I misunderstood. I don't see what point that has to this discussion. We're talking about whether God is okay with marriage between people of the same sex, so I don't see what this comment has to do with the debate. If there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, it isn't something that coming to Jesus would change, because it isn't a problem.

If you want it that way, all the power to you. There is enough scripture to say otherwise. But there is grace for those who come to Him.

 

[masonlandry]

The Lord expressly condemned homosexuality and other sexual practices in the Levitical Law.

He claimed that those sins were what led Him to destroy the people of Canaan with the invasion of Israel.

How many times does the Lord need to condemn homosexual behavior?

Does each new Apostle or Prophet need to reinstate and reaffirm all past revelations?

The Lord Jesus Christ did not come to Earth to reveal and clarify every aspect of the Law and commandments. He had more important things to do.

Paul, in like manner, had not been called to be an Apostle to repeat everything God and all other past prophets had said.

Homosexuality and other sexual sins are nation-destroyers and "actual consequences" can be seen everywhere if we are willing to look.

God condemned many things in Levitical law that are not condemned under the new covenant. He also demanded many things that are no longer required. We aren't bound by the old law. God also demanded the complete genocide of many tribes because they were pagans, and commanded them wiped out so that the Israelites would not be influenced by their idolatry and the relgious influence. If you are going to claim that it was because of homosexuality, you'll need to support that. Not even the sins of Sodom and Gemmorah had anything to do with a relationship between two men or two women, they were condemned before they demanded to rape two angels, and even that in itself is not a sin of being gay, it's the rape of God's angels! Every single instance used as "clobber passages" against gay people are ambiguous and cannot be justly supported as a condemnation of a homosexual relationship within the same moral constraints that bind a heterosexual relationship.

It is indeed the case that the old law was done away with, and it was made clear in the New Testament what we are to follow and what we are no longer bound by.

"Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” (RSV Romans 13:8-10)

I'd challenge you to provide any "consequence" of a loving, monogamous relationship between same-sex partners, and to justify a real link between the relationship and the consequence. None of this idiotic "God sent a hurricane because of gays" non seqitur.

 

[Windwalker]

Paraphrasing here - who said this? "Love not the world neither the things in the world,

1 Jn. 2:15. That you would interpret this as an injunction to hate homosexuals says to me that you are distorting scripture to suit your cultural biases. What John is saying here is do not love the world like you should your love to God. It means don't cling to this world, but 'lay up your treasures in heaven'.

This is in perfect accord with Jesus' commandment to you and everyone else, to love God first, with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, in order for you to fulfill Jesus' second and equally important commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself". Obviously, the focus of your relationship with God is not so you get your toys when you die, but that through knowing God's love in yourself, you are now about live and be God's love in the world, and to the world. "On these two commandments depends all the fulfillment of all scripture", says Jesus Christ.

Everything in the NT points to this. It's tragic at this moment you think God is ok with you hating the world and all who are in it, except of course for those who meet up with your approval, which you yourself inherited from your culture. It's a good thing God doesn't think that way about you!

if a man love the world the love of the Father is not in him."

Again, this is a distortion of meaning in you using this to justify your biases against others. Obviously Christians are supposed to love others. Why are you against this? Did a homosexual threaten you somehow? Or to ask that another way, does homosexuality personally threaten you somehow, that you need to make it an enemy of yourself, to turn it into a dark demon hiding in the corner of your room scaring you at night, that it might escape and destroy the world you live in?

I don't need "reason" to grasp that. There is much in this evil world that people love.

I said that a homosexual person who loves someone of their same biological gender, is in fact loving another person. It sound's to me that they are fulfilling Jesus' command to love, while you are not. Love is never evil. Loving another person is not evil. Hating them is what is evil. Denying love is evil. Suppressing love is evil. Not loving another person is what is evil. That's what Love does, and Is.

 

[PruePhillip]

Love is never evil. Good is never bad.

Firstly, issues of love don't involve homosexuality because the practice was
scarcely recognized in the OT, and largely associated with Roman and Grecian
times.
If you love the wrong things, it is evil. Yes.
Not sure what 'good is never bad' means. Sorry.
In the bible homosexuals were simply killed. No question about that.
I see homosexuality in the same vein as adultery, divorce, pederasty, polygamy etc..
With these you can easily love the wrong person, or persons.
And loving porn? Everyone loves it now. It's grown another 5% in popularity in the
last 12 months.
My REAL ISSUE with homosexuality is the lies. People said decriminalizing homo-
sexuality wouldn't lead to gay marriage and teaching it in schools. Wrong. Last year
in Australia people said legalizing gay marriage won't lead to loss of religious freedom.
Wrong. So what am I ultimately going to have to give up for gays, and transsexuals,
and pederasts and the like?