Looking for Scripture Explicitly Forbidding Same-Sex Marriage

[fallingblood]

Yes, I understand that,

Again, the idea of marriage changed. And the Bible almost doesn't even speak of marriage. What you're describing isn't a necessity, and it wasn't central. It was one possible idea, in a sea of ideas.

However, as soon as marriage arrangements had been made and the parties were engaged, they were considered bound in marriage. Lot’s daughters were still in his house, under his jurisdiction, but the men engaged to them were termed Lot’s “sons-in-law who were to take his daughters.” (Gen 19:14) Although Samson never married a certain Philistine woman but was only engaged to her, she was spoken of as his wife. (Judg 14:10, 17, 20) Mary and Joseph were not married but their betrothal was viewed as binding and needing a divorce to break it.

You're really more supporting my position. It wasn't about bringing one into a home. There were different conditions, as you pointed out here, that could lead to marriage.

Marriages were registered. Under the Law marriages, as well as births resulting from the union, were recorded in the official records of the community. For this reason we have an accurate genealogy of Jesus Christ. (Matt 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38; compare Luke 2:1-5)

How accurate can that genealogy be if Matthew and Luke's versions constantly contradict each other. From what son of David did Jesus come from? One says Nathan, the other says Solomon. Who was the father of Joseph? The two sources disagree.
[quote\
I disagree. Where I live, a well known business person has just transgendered from a husband and father of three, to a woman. Now, I'm sorry, but how doers that not mess up your children? What do they call this 'woman' now when they have called him Daddy all their lives? A child needs the balance of two parents, one male and one female. Role models are what shape future generations.[/quote] Not really evidence. Not at all. It doesn't even begin to be evidence. If those children grow up to be respectful members of society, and do great things, what would you say then?

A Christian marriage would obviously not involve drug addiction or domestic violence. If it does, it is obviously not a Christian marriage.

That's the no true Scotsman argument. Of course Christian marriages involve both. That is why many Christians get divorce. That's why the Bible allows for divorce.

I disagree.....The act that produces children, whether a couple are fertile or not, is not condemned by the Creator of the marriage arrangement. Unnatural sexual practices mock the reason why sex was given to create children and a family unit. It isn't the primary reason for the act....its purpose is noble.

If we talk about unnatural sex, using a condom is not natural. Using any sort of toy or object along with sex isn't natural. Having ones tubes tied, or a vasectomy is not natural, nor is going on the pill or other birth control methods. If sex is to create children, as you said, then having sex after one is able to conceive, having sex when one isn't fertile, having sex on any day that doesn't lead to the possibility of bearing a child would be wrong.

Leviticus 17:22...
“‘You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act."

If a Christian is gay, there is no room for him or her to practice what God condemns. There is no ambiguity there.

Do you follow all of the Jewish laws, or just the ones that agree with your view? If you're not a Jew, that law does not even apply to you. More so, Paul states that we are all sinful, but can be forgiven. Even when Paul possibly talks about homosexual acts, if you keep reading, he always says that all of those acts that he lists are forgivable, and that we should not judge others, as we are guilty of those vices as well.

Please.
What context completely reverses the explicit statement that those who live like this CAN NOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven to really mean that those who live like this CAN enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Just read the next verse. Paul states, we are all guilty of those vices, but can be forgiven. Seriously, its the very next verse that puts the whole thing into context. All you have to do is read a bit further.

This is nonsense and your reference to Greek is a red herring.
Feel free to reject what the Bible says, millions of people do, but at least be honest about what it says.

Do you study Greek? I do. I can tell you that the only time the term arsenokoitai. appears in the Bible is in that one verse. It appears no where else. Most likely, Paul coined the term. It's one that really isn't used in Christian writings, or other Greek writings at that time. Because of that, we don't fully know what the term means, and that is why it has been translated to so many different terms. At most, if we translate it based on the two words, what is being condemned is a man who takes the dominate role in male-male anal intercourse. It speaks nothing of the man who is taking the submissive role.

I also don't reject what the Bible says. If I simply rejected it, I wouldn't have studied Greek in order to know what it actually says, instead of relying on a translation.

I believe God makes it clear that marriage is rightly only between a man and a woman. Since homosexual acts are clearly condemned in the Bible, it follows naturally that nothing like homosexual "marriage" was even considered, much less sanctioned or allowed, in the Bible. (1 Corinthians 6:9,10)

Homosexual acts are not condemned and more than judging others, or gossip. If you read verse 11, Paul states, clearly, that we are all sinful, but can be forgiven.

And 1 Corinthians doesn't really even condemn homosexuality. At most, it may condemn the man who takes a dominate role in male-male anal intercourse, but it says nothing about the other individual. Nor does it say anything about homosexuality in general.

1 Corinthians 1:26
1 Corinthians 5:11

Here, he differentiates the Disciples, even from their family.
1 Corinthians 7:12-13

He is talking to a ''specific'' audience, this is made clear throughout the entire text; hence, why some of the rules seem out of the ordinary, so forth, or very specific.

The specific audience is the churches in Corinth. He addresses the churches as a whole. The church in Corinth wrote him. In Chapter 7, he switches subjects, and answers their question. There is no specific audience. He is talking about all men and all women. In 7:8, he reaches out to all of the unmarried. I guess that is a specific audience, but not really.

There is absolutely no evidence that he is only speaking with the Disciples. He is speaking to the entire church.

 

[Desert Snake]

The specific audience is the churches in Corinth. He addresses the churches as a whole. The church in Corinth wrote him. In Chapter 7, he switches subjects, and answers their question. There is no specific audience. He is talking about all men and all women. In 7:8, he reaches out to all of the unmarried. I guess that is a specific audience, but not really.

That isn't addressing 'all the unmarried', it's specific to people /actually, of the faith, & Disciples, who shouldn't get married for some 'reason', like they can't control their adultery, etc. Immediately after, the Blessed Apostle Paul, addresses those who can, and says that it is fine to get married. Hence, what is the relevance to your statement. The verses in

1 Corinthians 7:12-13

are specific referring to those of the faith/ not of the faith, relationship. That is not ''talking to everyone''.

There is absolutely no evidence that he is only speaking with the Disciples. He is speaking to the entire church.

And you are reading things out of context, apparently. Even in the context of addressing the 'entire Church', it isn't addressing everyone.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's no secret that according the Bible god made woman for man, and that they should be together.

Genesis 2:22-24 NIV
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.​

Or that while god doesn't like the idea of men and women having sexual relations, because he created them with sexual urges, it's best that they be married.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 NIV
"1 . . .It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.​

However, there are many people who never marry and seem to be quite accepted within the Christian faith. So marriage doesn't appear to be an absolute necessity in Christian theology and in practice. It's not a deal breaker. People don't have to get married to be good Christians.

This seems to be the sum and substance of God's regard for marriage.

1) It's not mandatory.

2) But does serves to forestall "sexual immorality"​

And while the Bible says God doesn't like homosexual activities He doesn't seem to condemn people for being homosexuals. Like wise, while He doesn't like the idea of heterosexuals having sex, (1 Corinthians 7:1-2 ) He doesn't condemn them for being heterosexuals.

So God doesn't really like people having sexual relations be they homosexual or heterosexual; however, He is willing to allow heterosexuals to indulge themselves if they marry one another.

As for homosexuals and their sexual urges________________ nothing! Nothing is said one way or the other about their sexual predicament. My suspicion is that in the scheme of things homosexuals just aren't significant enough to bother mentioning. HOWEVER, it is said in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
​

which, in addressing unmarried heterosexuals, says that for the sake of one's self sexual control it is better to marry. Marriage, therefore, is treated as nothing more than a means of controlling sexual passion, which I think would reasonably apply to homosexuals as well. Marriage is but an accommodation.

In any case, unless I've missed something, . . .

There's nothing in the Bible specifically about homosexuals marrying
There's nothing in the Bible specifically about homosexuals not marrying.

The Bible is silent. So, just where do people get the idea that God is against same-sex marriage? Where is the scripture that explicitly forbids same-sex marriage?


.

If you had a math problem 4 = 2 + X, what answer would you put for X?

1. Is the claim/answer 4 false all because the equation contains an X (absence of information) or can we conclude even though we do not have the full equation (the number isn't mentioned) that doesn't mean the answer is not 4?

I'll explain after your reply.

 

[Deeje]

Lot's daughters were not Jewish.

Lot was a nephew of Abraham, which makes him a worshipper of the true God.....no? Lot's daughters were "not Jewish" but related to them....no? I understand that Israelites were direct descendants of Jacob whom God surnamed Israel. Yes?

Samson was married to her. See verses 10 and 11. The seven day feast refers to the wedding feast.

On reading the entire chapter I can see that Samson chose the woman and asked his parents to arrange a marriage. He then left and as he was traveling along a lion attacked him, but in God's strength he tore the lion in two, but didn't tell his parents what he had done. Verse 8 says he 'went back to take the woman home', which I assume is when the banquet was held. It doesn't specifically say that it was a wedding, but it does call the woman his "wife" which would have been the case even if they were still betrothed.

Religious betrothal in Judaism refers to the first part of a two stage marriage ritual. Its legally binding and requires a writ of divorce (or death) in order to end it.

Yes, it was not entered into lightly. Once a commitment was made, the couple were expected to honor it. Its a shame there is not more of that commitment today....

 

[Tumah]

Lot was a nephew of Abraham, which makes him a worshipper of the true God.....no? Lot's daughters were "not Jewish" but related to them....no? I understand that Israelites were direct descendants of Jacob whom God surnamed Israel. Yes?

I don't understand what you are saying. Ishmael and Esau were also related to Abraham. What's that got to do with anything? The Torah wasn't given until many years later. You can't derive how Jews perform marriage from pre-Mosaic times. They didn't have a Torah to follow.

On reading the entire chapter I can see that Samson chose the woman and asked his parents to arrange a marriage. He then left and as he was traveling along a lion attacked him, but in God's strength he tore the lion in two, but didn't tell his parents what he had done. Verse 8 says he 'went back to take the woman home', which I assume is when the banquet was held. It doesn't specifically say that it was a wedding, but it does call the woman his "wife" which would have been the case even if they were still betrothed.

There is no party held at a betrothal. Its held at the marriage. The 7 day party is the party that is held on the day of the wedding and for the following 6 days. That's just what it is. That's why she's called his wife. There is a word for betrothal and that word isn't used here.

Yes, it was not entered into lightly. Once a commitment was made, the couple were expected to honor it. Its a shame there is not more of that commitment today....

If by "expected to honor it, you mean "on pain of death" than yes.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Did you know women were made from men?

Do you know which gender actually has the capacity to form another living being? That's right, it's not the guys (yet).

Yes. That's how it's always worked. That's why it's called 'consummation' it consummates the marriage, makes it valid.

Didn't they also have to show the parents the bedsheets? Do you?

"'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Wasn't aware men had vaginas. If you CAN lie with a man as a man would a woman, there have been a few details missing during the dating phase of the relationship.

Christ is married to the Church which, the Church, is referred to as She.

But is actually made up of countless people, including all genders, and children. Jesus is a busy guy ...

It's no different than condemning left-handed people

I was told in a Southern Baptist first grade class to use my right hand, so if I write with my left, it still looks like a first-grader's handwriting, LOL. My mother was more blatantly told she was going to hell for using her left hand.

It's clear that HaShem doesn't tolerate sodomy, so how could it consummate a marriage? It can't possibly.

What was the legal justification for Joseph marrying the divinely knocked up tween, then? Some denominations claim she never had sex, ever. Thus, their marriage is invalid, no?

And he's the guy who created people like they are.

This is a God who had Adam test himself out on all the animals in the garden before realizing he needed a sex partner of the same species.

He dislikes adultery, cheating, and so on.

Well, that sucks, since it happens practically all the time in the bible, with God's approval, even.

 

[GodsVoice]

Do you know which gender actually has the capacity to form another living being? That's right, it's not the guys (yet).

In your world that you think is real, it takes a tiny little thing called a sperm cell to come together with another tiny little thing called an egg cell. Together, they form an object that we call a human body. It's formed in the body that was made with both male and female information but the bodies with wombs in them for the sperm and egg to grow into a little body appear to look more on the feminine side but some of those bodies that have wombs in them appear to be more masculine looking. In fact, I have seen bearded mothers.

Didn't they also have to show the parents the bedsheets? Do you?

Do you have a fascination with "bedsheets"?

Wasn't aware men had vaginas. If you CAN lie with a man as a man would a woman, there have been a few details missing during the dating phase of the relationship.


But is actually made up of countless people, including all genders, and children. Jesus is a busy guy ...


I was told in a Southern Baptist first grade class to use my right hand, so if I write with my left, it still looks like a first-grader's handwriting, LOL. My mother was more blatantly told she was going to hell for using her left hand.

There are many people who thought they were men when they were birthed into the world but now they have vaginas.

What was the legal justification for Joseph marrying the divinely knocked up tween, then? Some denominations claim she never had sex, ever. Thus, their marriage is invalid, no?

So you believe the words in a book that was written by men?

This is a God who had Adam test himself out on all the animals in the garden before realizing he needed a sex partner of the same species.


Well, that sucks, since it happens practically all the time in the bible, with God's approval, even.

You should go to a comedy club and entertain the folks who are looking for a laugh.

 

[Nadia Faiazova]

Please, direct your attention to the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees. It written in Gospel of Matthew 19 verses 3 through 6. This should answer your question.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There aren't any.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Wasn't aware men had vaginas.

Some of us do.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

well known business person has just transgendered

"Transgender" isn't a verb.

Now, I'm sorry, but how doers that not mess up your children?

It doesn't, inherently. No more than it messed up my mom when I told her I'm really a man and began living as such. She adjusted it and accepted me as her son.

What do they call this 'woman' now when they have called him Daddy all their lives?

Mom/mommy.

A child needs the balance of two parents, one male and one female. Role models are what shape future generations.

A child needs a loving, stable home, period. The genders involved are irrelevant.

 

[atpollard]

Just read the next verse. Paul states, we are all guilty of those vices, but can be forgiven. Seriously, its the very next verse that puts the whole thing into context. All you have to do is read a bit further.

Do you study Greek? I do. I can tell you that the only time the term arsenokoitai. appears in the Bible is in that one verse. It appears no where else. Most likely, Paul coined the term. It's one that really isn't used in Christian writings, or other Greek writings at that time. Because of that, we don't fully know what the term means, and that is why it has been translated to so many different terms. At most, if we translate it based on the two words, what is being condemned is a man who takes the dominate role in male-male anal intercourse. It speaks nothing of the man who is taking the submissive role.

I also don't reject what the Bible says. If I simply rejected it, I wouldn't have studied Greek in order to know what it actually says, instead of relying on a translation.

OK, Let's fact check your statements all together as a group. First, in context:

1 Corinthians 6:7-11
[NIV] 7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[fn] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[NIV Footnote on 6:9] The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.


[NKJV] 7 Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? 8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[fn] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.


[ESV] 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers![fn]
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[fn] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[fn] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[ESV Footnote on 6:9] The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts


[RSV] 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that even your own brethren. 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.


Forget about whether or not I read Greek (barely, but I have friends with letters after their names who can answer questions on a specific word or phrase when they come up), here we have the best English rendering from four different teams of exerts presenting the verse in context for English speaking readers (like us) to comprehend what was being said.

Let's start with your suggestion and look at the next verse (1 Cor 6:11). What all of these translators observed, but you seem to have overlooked with your knowledge of Greek is the change in verb tense. In verse 10 the tense is present ... those who DO this WILL NOT inherit. In verse 11, the verb tense switches to past tense such WERE some of you.

This isn't rocket science and does not need a deep understanding of Greek. If you do it, and keep on doing it, then you are out. If you repent (turn around and change direction) and formerly did these things, but do not do them any more, then you are in the Kingdom. These acts do not disqualify anyone from repentance. They are not unforgivable. THAT is the point that you should be taking away. However, they are all sin and they are all forbidden and they all displease God and those who claim to serve God and love God, should not be doing such things.

You have taken away the wrong lesson. God is not saying that homosexuality is OK, just like greed is OK. God is saying that greed is as not acceptable to God as homosexuality is not acceptable, so we should start to take these other sins (greed, sleeping around, cheating) as seriously as God does.

If you would like to check out the Greek for yourself, have at it:

6:9 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν μὴ πλανᾶσθε οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
6:10 οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται οὐ μέθυσοι οὐ λοίδοροι οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν

You will find that I and all those other translators are correct about the verb tense.

I can tell you that the only time the term arsenokoitai. appears in the Bible is in that one verse. It appears no where else.

Not a big deal, but ...
1 Corinthians 6:9 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν μὴ πλανᾶσθε οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
1 Timothy 1:10 πόρνοις ἀρσενοκοίταις ἀνδραποδισταῖς ψεύσταις ἐπιόρκοις καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται
... so this is only 'sort of' true.

 

[fallingblood]

That isn't addressing 'all the unmarried',

And you are reading things out of context, apparently. Even in the context of addressing the 'entire Church', it isn't addressing everyone.

You aren't showing that there is any specific audience. You keep saying there is, but you haven't shown that. Maybe, those of faith, as in those in the church, are being addressed. That would also include anyone who joined the faith. Obviously, it wouldn't matter to those who aren't of the faith, because they wouldn't care what Paul said anyway.

But to those in the church of Corinth, those who accept Jesus, Paul is speaking to them all and saying don't get married. That it is better to be like him. He makes no distinction there.

OK, Let's fact check your statements all together as a group. First, in context:

Forget about whether or not I read Greek (barely, but I have friends with letters after their names who can answer questions on a specific word or phrase when they come up), here we have the best English rendering from four different teams of exerts presenting the verse in context for English speaking readers (like us) to comprehend what was being said.

It's debatable whether or not those are the best English renderings. The RSV, for instance, is outdated and was replaced by the NRSV. Besides the point though. What we do see is that there are differences as to what the key terms mean here. If we look at a larger selection of quality English Bibles, we will see that the terms are quite disagreed upon. If we look at older Bibles, we also see that the key words have been debated for quite some time.

Let's start with your suggestion and look at the next verse (1 Cor 6:11). What all of these translators observed, but you seem to have overlooked with your knowledge of Greek is the change in verb tense. In verse 10 the tense is present ... those who DO this WILL NOT inherit. In verse 11, the verb tense switches to past tense such WERE some of you.

Doesn't really change it though. The key is that we all can be washed clean. And if we look at the vice list, who can say they aren't guilty of at least one of those? Who isn't greedy from time to time? Who doesn't use abusive language from time to time? Paul, in Romans, tells us that we all sin. That is basically what that vice list is pointing out.

More so, there are Christians who are drunkards, who are thieves, adulterers, etc. Even though they accept Jesus, are they forbidden from the Kingdom of Heaven simply because they made a mistake? Are they unforgivable?

This isn't rocket science and does not need a deep understanding of Greek. If you do it, and keep on doing it, then you are out. If you repent (turn around and change direction) and formerly did these things, but do not do them any more, then you are in the Kingdom. These acts do not disqualify anyone from repentance. They are not unforgivable. THAT is the point that you should be taking away. However, they are all sin and they are all forbidden and they all displease God and those who claim to serve God and love God, should not be doing such things.

So if you backslide, or make a mistake, you're kicked out? We all sin. Even after we repent, we sin. We are all sinners. It doesn't matter if someone serves and loves G-d, they will sin. So then they are kicked out or something?

An understanding of Greek is needed here, specifically, and understanding of vice lists. The list that Paul created here is a standard vice list. He has another one in Romans. The list itself isn't meant to be a monumental list or anything. It is basically a list that shows that we all fall short. In fact, that is a message Paul preaches quite often. We all fall short.

You have taken away the wrong lesson. God is not saying that homosexuality is OK, just like greed is OK. God is saying that greed is as not acceptable to God as homosexuality is not acceptable, so we should start to take these other sins (greed, sleeping around, cheating) as seriously as God does.

The term homosexuality does not appear here though. Greek didn't have a word for homosexuality (so any translation that uses such a term is incorrect, as there is no Greek word for homosexuality). What we have here, at best, is literally a man who is in the dominate position during male to male anal intercourse. At best, that is what Paul is listing as a vice.

But it really doesn't matter, as Paul also says we all sin. We aren't expected not to sin. That is an impossibility. We are all sinners, we are all imperfect. We all make mistakes. G-d isn't holding us to the fire and demanding perfection. If G-d wanted that, G-d would have made us perfect.

The reason I believe in G-d is because I believe he is all loving. I can't believe that G-d would create humans, as imperfect, and some as homosexuals, and then condemn them. That simply doesn't make sense. And I think that is the same lesson Paul is talking about.

If you would like to check out the Greek for yourself, have at it:[/quote] I own a Greek New Testament. I've studied the Greek here. It was this verse that was the focus of a college thesis I did. I know the verse quite well. The tense really means nothing here, as I explained above.

And yes, I did forget about 1 Timothy, but it really adds nothing as it is just another vice list that doesn't help really distinguish what the word fully means. It does not mean homosexuality though, as there is no Greek word for such.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Just saying, I came to a realization years ago that just because I support LGBT marriage and so forth does not mean other people do. I also came to am realization that I can't and do not want to change another person's religion and scripture nor see it in my way all because I disagree with it.

I do know that scripture does not speak of same-sex marriage at all.

It does speak of heterosexual marriage, forming a union between the two, receiving blessings from god, and by example of many, and many of husband and wives (not including their concubines since that's normal in that time period and not considered wives), it dawned on me that why would I assume scripture is talking about something that is not mentioned in the Bible?

Why would I assume the scripture supports (or condones, if you like) anything that's not written in scripture?

That's like arguing why does "2 + X = 4" Why can't it equal 5? One because that's not how the equation is set up, and two, if it were five, it would change the equation but that's not what is written. Hence why other "equations" are set up to mirror this one. It's not the same; but, there it is. (To me): Accept it or not.

Does it forbid same-sex marriage? Not explicitly, no. It does indirectly. It says that male/male and female/female relations performed "just as male/female (male/female union/marriage) relations is forbidden;" they (male/male and female/female) are considered promiscuity.

So, according to the Bible, if LGB want to get married, they cannot have sex which, to many LGB Christians, consummates a marriage to be a marriage.

Ephesians 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." Wraps up the marriage part. Why would I consider same-sex marriage is right in scripture when all verses directly are pointed to it is not?

But is actually made up of countless people, including all genders, and children. Jesus is a busy guy.

I never looked into it, but this is why the Church is considered the Bride of Christ. It says that the Church is, how do I say, subordinate to Christ and as such, She acts as a bride to Christ/Eucharist. So the body of Christ (the people) as a whole are considered the Bride of Christ and they are subordinate to Christ/Eucharist because they've taken the sacraments and are in a constant state of repentance.

There are many examples probably in the Torah, Quran, and Bahai scripture too that talks about marriage or union is between male/female only. It's a culture thing.

Unless a LGBT Christian is having issues about it, I don't see how it morally affects people because they can't change it. I just wish US laws would not keep in law what I just said above thus keeping us from having our legal and religious rights to marry.

 

[atpollard]

An understanding of Greek is needed here, specifically, and understanding of vice lists. The list that Paul created here is a standard vice list. He has another one in Romans. The list itself isn't meant to be a monumental list or anything. It is basically a list that shows that we all fall short. In fact, that is a message Paul preaches quite often. We all fall short.

1 Corinthians 6:9
KJV Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
NKJV Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
NLT Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God?
NIV Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?
ESV Or do you not know that the unrighteous[fn] will not inherit the kingdom of God?
HCSB Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom?
RVR60 ¿No sabéis que los injustos no heredarán el reino de Dios?
NASB Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
NET Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
RSV Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
ASV Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
YLT have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit?
DBY Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
WEB Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
HNV Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God?

1 Corinthians 6:11
KJV And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NLT Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
NIV And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
ESV And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
HCSB And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
RVR60 Y esto erais algunos; mas ya habéis sido lavados, ya habéis sido santificados, ya habéis sido justificados en el nombre del Señor Jesús, y por el Espíritu de nuestro Dios.
NASB Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
NET Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
RSV And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
ASV And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.
YLT And certain of you were these! but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were declared righteous, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God.
DBY And these things were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
WEB And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
HNV Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Yeshua, and in the Spirit of our God.

With all due respect, your Greek is failing you. You are not seeing the forest for the trees!
Being an alcoholic is not a sin, but if someone lives a life best described as 'drunkenness', then THEY should be taking a hard look at themselves and seeing if James warnings about having a dead, ineffectual faith might be applicable.

Being a homosexual or heterosexual isn't a sin, but if someone lives a life best described as 'sexual immorality' (whether that takes the form of heterosexual fornication/adultery or homosexual "arsenokoitai" [man-bed] is irrelevant), then THEY should be taking a hard look at themselves and seeing if James warnings about having a dead, ineffectual faith might be applicable.

Being tempted to say things that are not true, do things that are dishonest or take things that do not belong to you is not a sin, but if someone lives a life best described as 'liar' or 'cheat' or 'thief', then THEY should be taking a hard look at themselves and seeing if James warnings about having a dead, ineffectual faith might be applicable.

The unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God and it is dangerous for you to tell them otherwise when you have read what God has said and know it is not as ambiguous as you claim.
Believe what you want, I have pointed out the truth. The matter is between you and God.

You can have the last word ...

 

[fallingblood]

With all due respect, your Greek is failing you. You are not seeing the forest for the trees!
Being an alcoholic is not a sin, but if someone lives a life best described as 'drunkenness', then THEY should be taking a hard look at themselves and seeing if James warnings about having a dead, ineffectual faith might be applicable.

You are arguing something that I have no problem with. Argue the tense of the two sentences. It doesn't matter, as I explained above. The one portion of what I said that you quoted dealt with vice lists, not tenses. And to understand vice lists, as Paul uses them, some knowledge of Greek is needed in order to put it into context.

I didn't say anything about alcoholism. I said drunkard. Someone who is habitually drunk. That would qualify as being an alcoholic, but I used the term drunkard.

And the verse doesn't say what you are implying. It is simply saying that if you're a drunkard, you're committing a vice. It doesn't say that if your life is best described as being a drunkard, you have a problem. Nope. It made it much more simple. If you're a drunkard, regardless of other factors, you have a problem.

Being a homosexual or heterosexual isn't a sin, but if someone lives a life best described as 'sexual immorality' (whether that takes the form of heterosexual fornication/adultery or homosexual "arsenokoitai" [man-bed] is irrelevant), then THEY should be taking a hard look at themselves and seeing if James warnings about having a dead, ineffectual faith might be applicable.

So a homosexual can inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who are sexually immoral, who are greedy, who are sinful can enter the kingdom of heaven, and there is no problem. I agree.

Also, no one is defined by one action. No one's life is best described by one vice. Someone who is LGBT isn't best described by the type of sex they have. That is a ridiculous idea. A man who choose to have male anal intercourse (that doesn't mean they are gay), isn't best described by that action. If someone would happen to center their life around that one action, yes, they should take a hard look at themselves, but that really never happens.

Being tempted to say things that are not true, do things that are dishonest or take things that do not belong to you is not a sin, but if someone lives a life best described as 'liar' or 'cheat' or 'thief', then THEY should be taking a hard look at themselves and seeing if James warnings about having a dead, ineffectual faith might be applicable.

I wasn't talking about being tempted to do anything (and Jesus may disagree with you anyway). But lets be honest. You are a sinner. I'm a sinner. We all sin. But do those sins really best describe who we are? Not at all. So your argument really is nonsensical.

The unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God and it is dangerous for you to tell them otherwise when you have read what God has said and know it is not as ambiguous as you claim.
Believe what you want, I have pointed out the truth. The matter is between you and God.

You can have the last word ...

But as you argued, the unrighteous seems to be those who lives are best described by some sort of vice. That really is never the case. From what you're saying, it would seem that the unrighteous aren't those who sin, because their lives aren't best described by that sin. So where is the problem with telling people, who are sinners, as we all are, that they will inherit the Kingdom of G-d? I see no problem with that.

You have point out your truth. Truth is subjective. I think the argument you laid out is plagued by one large hole, and thus there is no reason for me to accept it. If you could present that your truth is based on evidence, or a sound argument, I would reconsider my view point.

 

[fallingblood]

No, you're reading this incorrectly. The advice is not to 'not get married', it is specific advice addressed to people who were not planning on getting married, or should not be married /adultery so forth/.
1 Corinthians 7:7-8
Not being married, for Paul, is a good thing, and he gives the advice that it can be a good thing.
That is completely different from generally 'telling people to not get married', as you have interpreted these verses, /contextually.

Hence , this is specific.

I think we have to look at the verse in complete context. Chapter 7 begins a completely knew thought and thus reverts to the original audience of the letter. That is the church in Corinth, those who are sanctified in Christ, and all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is who Paul addresses the letter to, and that is his audience.

The reason for writing the letter is because members of the church of Corinth had questions. Paul addresses those issues throughout the letter. In chapter 7, he addresses one question specifically, and even quotes part of it. The issue about whether or not it is well for a man not to touch a woman. There are no particular groups being singled out here, but the question is addressed to Paul, and it is about every man in the church and in the faith.

Paul first addresses the married, and he isn't necessarily happy with his argument here, he calls it a concession, and then states that he wishes all were like him. As in, single and not sexually active. Paul is talking about all in the faith. He would rather people be single, and not sexually active.

Paul then addresses the unmarried and widows. Paul does not say that they aren't planning to be married. He simply addresses those who aren't married or are widows, and specifically says that it is better for them not to get married, and be like he is.

His argument, and he says this is for all churches, is that one should remain in the state that they are. That is, if you aren't married, whether you want to marry or not, don't do it. If you're married, don't get divorced. If you're a virgin, stay that way. In fact, Paul specifically states, in verse 27, that if you aren't married, do not seek to be. He even goes as far as to say that those who are married should act as if they were not (he's talking about sex here).

Why? Because of an impending crisis. That crisis was that the end of time was nearing. As he said, it had grown short, and the present form of the world was passing away. Thus, there was no time to bother with getting married, or having sex, or worrying about such.

He praises those who aren't married, because they can focus on the matter of the Lord, and not about their spouses. He sees this as the ideal state, and states that he who refrains from marriage will do better.

No where in Corinthians 7 does he state the is only talking to those who are unmarried and don't want to be married. He says the best thing to do for those unmarried is to remain unmarried. That they shouldn't seek marriage.

The only exception is if they can't control their sexual desires, and then instead of sinning, they should get married. The whole purpose for that marriage is so that sin isn't committed by sex outside of marriage. But even then, he states that those married should act as if they weren't married, as in, they shouldn't worry about sex. Instead, they should be focused on the end times, which was drawing near.

 

[Deeje]

I don't understand what you are saying. Ishmael and Esau were also related to Abraham. What's that got to do with anything? The Torah wasn't given until many years later. You can't derive how Jews perform marriage from pre-Mosaic times. They didn't have a Torah to follow.

I understand that too...but there is no angelic deliverance of Ishmael or Esau mentioned in scripture is there? That pretty much makes those who retained belief in the true God, were still regarded as servants of his before Israel was formed into a nation.

Lot's daughters had children by means of their own father because they were stuck in a mountainous wilderness after the destruction of Sodom, with no marriage prospects and they wanted to preserve seed from their father. It was really a noble gesture and getting their father drunk demonstrates that he would not have impregnated his daughters by choice. They were not punished by God because no laws on incest were yet written.
Nations that descended from Lots daughters later became enemies of Israel.

There is no party held at a betrothal. Its held at the marriage. The 7 day party is the party that is held on the day of the wedding and for the following 6 days. That's just what it is. That's why she's called his wife. There is a word for betrothal and that word isn't used here.

Wasn't Samson in Philistine territory and wasn't the feast held according to their customs, not Israel's? (Judges 14:10-11)

If by "expected to honor it, you mean "on pain of death" than yes.

Wasn't that to prevent entering into marriage lightly? Choosing a mate was to be done carefully, because God hates divorce. (Mal 2:14-16)

Among the Jews the engagement was regarded as so binding that if the marriage should not take place because of a change of mind on the part of the bridegroom or for some justifiable reason, the young woman could not be married to another until she was freed by due process of law, that is, by a certificate of divorce.

If the engaged girl committed fornication with another man during the time of her engagement to her bridegroom, she was judged an adulteress and sentenced to death. (Deut 22:23, 24) Even if a man had relations with a slave girl designated for another man but not yet redeemed, or freed, both parties were guilty and were punished. However, they were not to be put to death because she had not been set free. (Leviticus 19:20-22) It sounds like a complicated system, but designed to promote the seriousness of the marriage arrangement in the eyes of God.

 

[Sonofason]

Rather than trying to box God into a corner, why not admit your sin, and seek God's forgiveness? You already know what is right...just admit you can't do it.

 

[Deeje]

"Transgender" isn't a verb.

This person is not a verb either. His wife has stuck with "him", I guess for the sake of the children. Going from "Daddy" to "Maddy" has got to mess with a child's mind. I knew "him" before and now when I see "her" I just feel very uncomfortable.
Don't get me wrong, I feel for this person, but wish he had waited for his children to be of an age where it would have been less difficult for them where everyone knows him/her.

It doesn't, inherently. No more than it messed up my mom when I told her I'm really a man and began living as such. She adjusted it and accepted me as her son.

Its not the adjustment of the adult we need to consider.....its the young child, too immature to understand, and the impact that full recognition will make when full understanding comes. Also kids can cop a tremendous amount of bullying over something like that. Are a parent's gender issues more important than the psychological damage of no longer having "Mommy" and a "Daddy" but having two same sex parents?

A child needs a loving, stable home, period. The genders involved are irrelevant.

I couldn't agree more.....but gender does matter when you mess with the role models.
Having an Aunty and a Mommy who are fleshly sisters, or a Dad and Uncle, fleshly brothers raising children together is way different to having two parents of one gender who act like husband and wife. Role models shape children. It alters perceptions. They need the balance of male and female role models, not one parent replacing a male or female in a "couple" and tipping things on a weird angle. Imbalance doesn't benefit anyone. God created man and woman to create a family.