Same Sex Marrige By a Church.

[Archer]

No, you didn't. You showed that you think that heterosexuality is "natural" and homosexuality is "unnatural", and that you think that all homosexuals are automatically "homosexual offenders".

So this was chopped liver I guess?
[FONT=Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica]Romans 1:18-28
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."[/FONT]

 

[jnm66]

It says nothing condemning homosexuality either. Just "if you don't have self-control, marry." Not "if you don't have self-control and you're straight".

Cast yourself back to your single days. Say you found yourself "burning with passion" for another man who "burned with passion" for you right back. Deciding what to do, you flip open your Bibles to 1 Corinthians 8 and see those two verses I quoted. Would these suggest to you that you should marry or not?

Look: you didn't ask for something condoning homosexuality, you asked for something that would allow a Christian church to marry a same-sex couple. If you want us to show you a verse that says "and the Lord did decree that same-sex marriage was A-OK", well, don't hold your breath. It's not there, just as there's nothing in the Bible that condones electric lights or a three-branch style of government (though there is a fair bit that seems to look down on democracy).

What the Bible does contain is a large amount of guidance that suggests general principles to follow. If putting some thought into these principles (i.e. "interpretation" in your OP) is too much for you, well that's your problem, not mine.

BTW: I've been playing along with the rules you gave in the OP so far, but the Bible also doesn't support the "scripture alone" stance that you put on this exercise in the OP.

According to the Bible-yes there is various passages not allowing homosexuality...Genesis,Leviticus,Romans,Corinthians,etc etc....

So there is none allowing....that is why there is such an uproar here lately with various churches allowing gay ordination of pastors-homosexual marriage etc..
Any faith allowing for such is in total disregard of scripture-and should probably be avoided....

 

[MoonWater]

[FONT=Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."[/FONT]

I thought you said the old testament no longer applied.

 

[jnm66]

I thought you said the old testament no longer applied.

Christ came to fulfill the law remember.....

 

[MoonWater]

Christ came to fulfill the law remember.....

I do remember hearing some christians say that. I'm not talking about other christians though, i was responding to archer wondering why he is using leviticus when, if I remember correctly, he himself said he doesn't go by the old testament. I'm making sure I am remembering correctly that he feels the old testament no longer applies.

 

[Archer]

It does not. It does however show the mindset of those Paul was addressing. I should have said that.

I did not want to go old testament because it tells you to kill homosexuals and that is wrong under the new covenant.

But if you can find precedent for this in the old testament go ahead.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

In the first place, any reading of scripture is an interpretation of it. People who think that one reading of scripture is not an interpretation while all others are interpretations are playing childish mind games with you.

In the second place, the notion that some Christian churches "base off the bible", while others do not, is highly questionable. All Christian churches base off interpretations of the bible and sometimes off living traditions as well. So, instead of asking for Christian churches that "base off the bible", it might be more accurate to ask for Christian churches that "base off their pastor's interpretation of the bible", rather than "base off" tradition or other sources.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So this was chopped liver I guess?

No, you're just reading what you want into it. You're assuming that terms like "unnatural" and "indecent" imply blanket condemnation on homosexuality; they don't.
[FONT=arial, helvetica][/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]

Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."[/FONT]

And Leviticus 18:20 is translated: "Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period." What's your point?

Do you trim your forelocks or wear mixed fiber clothes? If not, why do you expect Mosaic Law to be binding on other people?

According to the Bible-yes there is various passages not allowing homosexuality...Genesis,Leviticus,Romans,Corinthians,etc etc....

So there is none allowing....that is why there is such an uproar here lately with various churches allowing gay ordination of pastors-homosexual marriage etc..
Any faith allowing for such is in total disregard of scripture-and should probably be avoided....

Hmm. You must have an odd Bible if your scripture does not include Matthew 12.

Or Matthew 23:23-24.

Or Romans 7.

Or 1 John 4:16.

 

[MoonWater]

It does not. It does however show the mindset of those Paul was addressing. I should have said that.

I did not want to go old testament because it tells you to kill homosexuals and that is wrong under the new covenant.

But if you can find precedent for this in the old testament go ahead.

I wasn't seeking a precedent in the old testament since you were focused on the new. I was merely wondering why you were referencing the old testament when you felt it no longer applied. A question which you answered

 

[Archer]

My views on the old testament: It was written for the Christian and to the Jew, the new testament was written to the Christian.

The likes and dislikes of God are the same but the law could not save so Christ was sacrificed for our sins and now we live under grace.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My views on the old testament: It was written for the Christian and to the Jew, the new testament was written to the Christian.

The likes and dislikes of God are the same but the law could not save so Christ was sacrificed for our sins and now we live under grace.

Ah... so you still do burnt offerings?

Because God really likes the smell of burnt offerings.

 

[Archer]

No, you're just reading what you want into it. You're assuming that terms like "unnatural" and "indecent" imply blanket condemnation on homosexuality; they don't.

[font=arial, helvetica]
And Leviticus 18:20 is translated: "Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period." What's your point?

Do you trim your forelocks or wear mixed fiber clothes? If not, why do you expect Mosaic Law to be binding on other people?


Hmm. You must have an odd Bible if your scripture does not include Matthew 12.

Or Matthew 23:23-24.

Or Romans 7.

Or 1 John 4:16.

And your point? where does it directly condone Homosexuality? it does not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And your point? where does it directly condone Homosexuality? it does not.

The same place it directly condones driving. Do you have a car?

 

[Archer]

Ah... so you still do burnt offerings?

Because God really likes the smell of burnt offerings.

Where do you come off with that statement? Are you grasping at straws? HINT: There are none in this case.

 

[Archer]

In the first place, any reading of scripture is an interpretation of it. People who think that one reading of scripture is not an interpretation while all others are interpretations are playing childish mind games with you.

In the second place, the notion that some Christian churches "base off the bible", while others do not, is highly questionable. All Christian churches base off interpretations of the bible and sometimes off living traditions as well. So, instead of asking for Christian churches that "base off the bible", it might be more accurate to ask for Christian churches that "base off their pastor's interpretation of the bible", rather than "base off" tradition or other sources.

How do you interpret what is in black any white? there is only one way to read it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where do you come off with that statement?

Leviticus. You can't swing a dead cat in Leviticus without hitting a verse about burnt offerings having a "pleasing aroma to the Lord".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you interpret what is in black any white? there is only one way to read it.

Of course!

So I assume that you do follow Jesus' advice and literally raise sheep, right?

15So when they had (T)finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you (U)love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You " He said to him, "Tend (V)My lambs."

16He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "(W)Shepherd My sheep." 17He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him (X)the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, (Y)You know all things; You know that I love You " Jesus said to him, "(Z)Tend My sheep.

 

[Sunstone]

How do you interpret what is in black any white? there is only one way to read it.

In my experience people who think things are generally black and white both lack any depth to their understanding, and lack the self-insight to know they lack any depth to their understanding. Perhaps your mileage varies.

 

[Archer]

OK guys I will check back tomorrow or perhaps later tonight so regain your composure and find me some biblical backup.

BTW: stop trying to baffle me with BS and try to blind me with some brilliance.

 

[Sunstone]

...stop trying to baffle me with BS and blind me with some brilliance.

There's no greater BS than the notion the bible can only be read one way... it would be brilliant of you if you could grasp that.