• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Same Sex Marrige By a Church.

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I have backed up everything I have said with scripture,
One idea that I think has gotten buried in this thread is the idea that it is not only about scripture. Now I understand from your posts that scripture is the only thing that matters to you. That is fine, that is your choice. But you don’t get to make that choice for other Christian churches. Some churches, and some individual Christians will make a deliberate choice to place more weight on the words spoken By Christ than those spoken by others.

And if you are going to be honest with us you will have to admit that you place more weight on some verses of scripture than you do others.
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
fantôme profane;1835130 said:
One idea that I think has gotten buried in this thread is the idea that it is not only about scripture. Now I understand from your posts that scripture is the only thing that matters to you. That is fine, that is your choice. But you don’t get to make that choice for other Christian churches. Some churches, and some individual Christians will make a deliberate choice to place more weight on the words spoken By Christ than those spoken by others.

And if you are going to be honest with us you will have to admit that you place more weight on some verses of scripture than you do others.

And where does CHRIST give any indication that sexual activity is something to be pursued and placed ahead of GOD.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
And where does CHRIST give any indication that sexual activity is something to be pursued and placed ahead of GOD.
Where did I suggest that?

This is what I am taking about. This is an attempt to bury the point rather than addressing it. If you don’t agree, fine. I personally don’t care. But you don’t have the right to make this decision for another Christian church, and neither does Archer.
 

LittleNipper

Well-Known Member
fantôme profane;1835146 said:
Where did I suggest that?

This is what I am taking about. This is an attempt to bury the point rather than addressing it. If you don’t agree, fine. I personally don’t care. But you don’t have the right to make this decision for another Christian church, and neither does Archer.

Well, not directly, but you do seem to indicate that some churches care mainly for what CHRIST said. I see no indication form CHRIST that sexual fulfillment of any sort is a matter to be placed above GOD, and yet this seems to be what some churches dwell on ------- (sexual fulfillment, that is).
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
fantôme profane;1835130 said:
One idea that I think has gotten buried in this thread is the idea that it is not only about scripture. Now I understand from your posts that scripture is the only thing that matters to you. That is fine, that is your choice. But you don’t get to make that choice for other Christian churches. Some churches, and some individual Christians will make a deliberate choice to place more weight on the words spoken By Christ than those spoken by others.

And if you are going to be honest with us you will have to admit that you place more weight on some verses of scripture than you do others.

I agree in most ways. So are are saying a Christian Church, honoring only the love taught by Jesus, should Condone a Homosexual union?

There is no Biblical foundation from scripture for Homosexual relations. To take one view (love only) with out the other being considered (stance against homosexuality) is to edit the Bible and therfore no linger be a Christian Church. It would be more or a Church based on some of the Christian principals would it not?
 

McBell

Unbound
There is no Biblical foundation from scripture for Homosexual relations. To take one view (love only) with out the other being considered (stance against homosexuality) is to edit the Bible and therfore no linger be a Christian Church. It would be more or a Church based on some of the Christian principals would it not?
I have already shown how you edit the Bible for your own private interpretation.

Nice try though.
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
I have edited nothing, you have shown me nothing. Please show me what I have edited. One thing at a time as I am sure you will claim nothing I posted was from the Bible.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Well, not directly, but you do seem to indicate that some churches care mainly for what CHRIST said. I see no indication form CHRIST that sexual fulfillment of any sort is a matter to be placed above GOD, and yet this seems to be what some churches dwell on ------- (sexual fulfillment, that is).

If that is what you believe, fine. For the record I don’t agree. I don’t think that same-sex marriage places sexual fulfillment above “God” any more than heterosexual marriage places sexual fulfillment above “God”. Marriage (either kind) is often about making a commitment to limit sexual activity to within the monogamous relationship, it has nothing to do with placing sexual fulfillment above “God”.

But it doesn’t matter what I think, and it doesn’t matter what you think. A church has the right to perform same-sex marriages if it chooses to, and it has the right to deny same-sex marriages if it chooses to.

(p.s. can you name me some of these churches that dwell on sexual fulfillment? If I could find one of these I might consider going to church ;))
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
There is no Biblical foundation from scripture for Homosexual relations. To take one view (love only) with out the other being considered (stance against homosexuality) is to edit the Bible and therfore no linger be a Christian Church. It would be more or a Church based on some of the Christian principals would it not?
But when a stance against homosexuality conflicts with a stance in favour of love, what other choice do you have? No matter what, you're either throwing away Jesus' words or Paul's.
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
Can anyone show me doctrine (not interpretations and scholarly opinion) that allow a Christian church (bases off of the Bible) to marry a same sex couple?

This is not about opinion it is about scripture only.

So the answer I see to this constantly is it does not matter or they can interpret as they chose to, or it is none of your business what others do.

So after days and nothing Biblical to allow for it I must assume that it cant be answered.

Let the Churches do as they please, the way I see it in the end we are all sinners and will all stand for our deeds. If I am wrong, I will be held accountable. I am not though, what are the ramifications of that?
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I agree in most ways. So are are saying a Christian Church, honoring only the love taught by Jesus, should Condone a Homosexual union?
I am not saying “should” or “should not”. It is not my place to make such judgements. I am only saying “must be allowed to”.

There is no Biblical foundation from scripture for Homosexual relations. To take one view (love only) with out the other being considered (stance against homosexuality) is to edit the Bible and therfore no linger be a Christian Church. It would be more or a Church based on some of the Christian principals would it not?
Well that is a different debate. Exactly what is required to define a church as a Christian church? And who decides this? And again I don’t think that it is your place to make this determination for another church. It seems to me that if they are following the teachings of Christ (as they understand them) and wish to be referred to as a Christian church then we should refer to them as a Christian Church. I have seen many debates on this board on whether the Catholics are really Christians, or whether the Mormons are really Christians. And I can tell you that seeing these debates as a outsider reflects very poorly on Christianity. Do you really want to get into one of those kind of debates?
 
Last edited:

McBell

Unbound
I have edited nothing, you have shown me nothing. Please show me what I have edited. One thing at a time as I am sure you will claim nothing I posted was from the Bible.
I have clearly shown that you have edited the Biblical definition of 'fornication' to fit your private interpretation.
In fact, you have pointedly avoided the post where I point it out.

You also have not shown a single verse that commands the ban of any type of marriage, let alone same sex marriage.

So here you are basically saying that if the Bible does not specifically allow something, then that something is not allowed.

Problem is that you are not fooling anyone despite all your bravado.
 

McBell

Unbound
This is not about opinion it is about scripture only.
Listen Fish-Hunter,
it has been said already that there is no verse that states what you ask for.

It has also been pointed out that you cannot find a verse that commands that same sex couples are not to be married.

It has also been pointed out that yes, you do use private interpretation, despite all your Bible Only non-sense.
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
fantôme profane;1835212 said:
I am not saying “should” or “should not”. It is not my place to make such judgements. I am only saying “must be allowed to”.


Well that is a different debate. Exactly what is required to define a church as a Christian church? And who decides this? And again I don’t think that it is your place to make this determination for another church. It seems to me that if they are following the teachings of Christ (as they understand them) and wish to be referred to as a Christian church then we should refer to them as a Christian Church. I have seen many debates on this board on whether the Catholics are really Christians, or whether the Mormons are really Christians. And I can tell you that seeing these debates as a outsider reflects very poorly on Christianity. Do you really want to get into one of those kind of debates?

And that is why we have Atheists and Agnostics.

Have you ever tried to explain some of the crap to a kid? When you children are hit with everything but the kitchen sink at school? I guess I will just tell her to tote the old line, no problem. It is really Ok though she will be home schooled next year, not because of religious beliefs but because the local HS's suck.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You can love someone without condoning their actions.
OTOH, intentionally hurting someone is often a sign of lack of love.

You also have not shown a single verse that commands the ban of any type of marriage, let alone same sex marriage.
However, early on in the thread, I showed a passage that called those who prohibit people from marrying "hypocritical liars" who follow "deceiving demons" and whose "consciences have been seared as with a hot iron". ;)
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Seems to me no failure, however you are welcome to feel that way!

I just have some questions. What do you mean by fail? I have backed up everything I have said with scripture, yet you challenge me for more? Do you have a counterpoint that has not been covered pertaining to the topic of this thread? Do you even care?

What you are missing is that your argument is inconsistent. For example, you tell us we need to regard Paul's views as important as Jesus', because he is authorized to speak for God. Obviously, that's your interpretation. Then you tell us that you don't believe in interpretation, just the words in black and white. But you do. You only believe in your interpretation, which you call not interpreting. But it is. Your interpretation is just an interpretation, and not even a well-founded one. You're not fluent in any of the original languages of the Bible, and not even aware of the many translation problems, some of them insuperable.

In particular, there is a lot of controversy as to what is actually prohibited by any of the verses you cite. There is no ancient Hebrew word for "homosexual," so what we know for sure is that the word "homosexual", when used in translation, is at best a guess. Many scholars believe it actually refers to male temple prostitution, and that is what is prohibited, not homosexuality at all. I don't know, I'm not an expert, but I know there's an issue. You don't even know that.

Further, you keep citing Leviticus, which you yourself reject. Again, your argument contradicts itself. And what do we know about arguments that contradict themselves? They're wrong. Faulty. In other words, FAIL.

Finally, you keep ignoring the important fact that one half of what you're talking about--the female half--is not prohibited at all. I'm guessing that you're male, and to you women don't exist or matter. But we do. And neither our marriages nor our sex is prohibited. You might invent that it is, but that would be more than interpretation; it would be plain old making stuff up. Which is the exact opposite of what you're arguing for. Again--your argument contradicts itself.

That's why it's one big FAIL.
 

McBell

Unbound
However, early on in the thread, I showed a passage that called those who prohibit people from marrying "hypocritical liars" who follow "deceiving demons" and whose "consciences have been seared as with a hot iron". ;)
Great, now he has to ignore it again....
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
For context:
“The Greek word for ‘fornication’ (porneia) could include any sexual sin committed after the betrothal contract. …In Biblical usage, ‘fornication’ can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21). Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28).” (Dr. Henry M. Morris)

John 18:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

1 Cor. 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

1 Cor 6:13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

1 Cor 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1 Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1 Cor 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

2 Cor 12:21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

1 Thess 4:3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Rev 2:14
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

Rev 2:20-21 N
otwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

Rev 9:21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

Rev 17:2,4 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Now I did not put these biblical references with their surrounding text (too much space) but it is referenced and if you care to take a read you will find I am not incorrect in defining fornication as a sexual act in the original post that I was criticized about.



Mathew 19:3-9

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Definition: voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.

Note this also as to who Jesus spoke in the case of marriage man and woman as it was in the beginning. Not 2 people but a man and a woman!

Now if you don't mind please do not accuse me of being un-Biblical.

Even your definition covers adultery.

I will go further.the 1990 edition of the dictionary of word origins ISBN 1-55970-133-1
Fornication Latin fornix denoted an 'arch' or 'vault' and hence came to be used in the late republican period vaulted underground dwellings where the dregs of roman society - tramps, prostitutes, petty criminals, etc - lived. Early Christian writers home in on the prostitutes, and employed the term with the specific meaning 'brothel', whence the verb fornicari 'have elicit sexual intercorse' and it's derivitive fornicatio, source of English fornication.

The New Strong's Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words ISBN 0-7852-4676-2:

page 103 under Fornication
zanah, to commit adultery
taznuwth, harlotry
ekporneuo, to fornicate
porneia, sexual immorality
porneuo, to indulge unlawful lust

Any questions? these definitions are what was being spoken about as they are from the original languages and from that time frame.

I wish for you to stop making yourself look like a fool

I answered with Biblical quotes, Bible dictionary quote's and the words origin with the ISBN#'s to boot. Yet you say what I have posted is not Biblical.
 
Top