St. Paul on Same Sex Marriage.

[John D. Brey]

So you may be suffering an inner conflict between your deeper moral sense that is open to gay marriage, and the dogma you adhere to has a prohibition on it?

Did you read the last paragraph of the thread-seeder?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

There is no irony. The glorified anointed Christian congregation (church) in heaven is raised in the divine form of God and his son Jesus Christ. They are spirits and are genderless. Humans were created with gender and to procreate. Angels do not procreate.

Case closed. Then.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

A Christian can and does have a different attitude than what I suggest. It's just anti-Christ to hold it.

From my perspective that statement could be read as something like you coming out of the closet and glorying in your homo-epistemologically wired way of thinking. And I don't mean that to be read as derogatory. I'm using it in a scientific sense. It means an epistemology that's drawn to, desires, only same-thinkers, in the same way homosexual males are drawn toward only the same gender. Anyone who isn't a same-thinker like you is "anti-Christ" to not be the same-thinker as you.

Your statement above implies that for you, anyone who thinks different, i.e., believes different than you in a binary way, isn't intellectually normal, or attractive to you. You would probably never want to see their thoughts more nakedly than you already do. It appears that that's gross to you. You probably prefer to marry your thoughts, worldview, epistemology, to same-thinkers only.

There's an argument, where same-thinkers aren't the only epistemological normal, that same-thinker intercourse, like homosexual intercourse, doesn't really produce live offspring, such that same-thinkers can only adopt the ideas of the other kinds of thinkers and put their name on it. They can co-opt non-same-thinker thoughts. But they never produce live offspring from their homo-epistemological marriages of thoughts and ideas.

If this is correct, then homo-epistemologies can only degenerate. They can't regenerate. Which is why Jesus and St. Paul might have seen that a society made up primarily of same-thought thinkers won't last to the next generation due to explosive degeneration.



John

 

[robocop (actually)]

Exegesis associated with the thread, Jesus on Same Sex Marriage (which became the essay by that name), pointed out that Jesus inferred and prophesied that his followers could know the end of the age, and of the imminence of his post apocalyptic return, when, as was the case in the antediluvian civilization, and Sodom and Gomorrah, same-sex coupling became normalized to the point of allowing marriages of persons of the same sexual gender.

Whereas Jesus said nothing about homosexuality but that when it was normalized it would be the primary sign of the end of the age, his disciple, St. Paul, put forth a theological treatise in the first chapter of his letter to the Roman's that takes a stab at why homosexuality will be the final sign marking the final decades of the end of civilization as we know it. In his deconstruction of homosexuality, he implies that a homosexual mind and mentality comes before, and is the root cause concerning, rampant biological homosexuality. Exegesis of the mid to latter part of Romans chapter one justifies the fact that St. Paul explicitly makes this claim. What he's implying is that a mind and or a society that doesn't distinguish between binary-reality versus an infinite anything goes (or merely non-binary) state of affairs, is a mind (and or society) with fatal flaws and fatal liabilities.

In Paul's thinking "male/female" is binary-reality codified in human biology (tragic though that codification, Genesis 2:21, may be).1 He's implying that rampant homosexuality is the canary in the coal-mine concerning a society or civilization that's about to implode or explode because it's opened the Pandora's box containing a kind of thought that no longer confines itself to the binary realities of the current world order. In Paul's parlance, and thinking, non-binary thought denies the limitations and realities of the current world order as though the mind, which in some sense really does transcend these limitations and liabilities, can ignore the body, and the world, and storm the gates of heaven bull-at-a-gate, ignorant, and ignoring, the realities of the body and its world.

The great irony, or paradox, is that Paul himself claims that in Christ's resurrected Church, there will be no binary gender, no male or female, such that one might wonder why a movement to be inclusive toward same-sex relationships, and non-binary identification, would be in the cross-hairs of Paul's buggy-whip rather than something he would applaud? Why does Paul demonize something that appears to be an evolutionary advance toward the state of perfection he himself dangles in front of Christians as the goal?




John

Whatever the case, I want to show love and understanding towards LGBTQ. I don't want them commiting suicide.

 

[Eyes to See]

Do you think God has a gender?

Genders are only needed in souls, that is a breathing creature. God is not a soul, he does not need blood or air to sustain his life, he is a life-giving Spirit.

Some may ask why we refer to God as He and Father, and that is because that is what he asks us to do. God has all of the qualities of the male and female in perfection. God created the male and then he created the female as a compliment and a helper of the male. He then blessed his human creation and told them to become fruitful, in other words use their procreative powers, have sex, and multiple on the earth.

Even Jesus told us to refer to God as Father, he told us to pray this way: "Our Father in the heavens..." this is because God created man as the head of the woman. And as God is the head over all he would rightly be called Father, not Mother.

 

[Eyes to See]

Case closed. Then.




John

Even Jesus tells us that those raised to spirit life in the heavens are like the angels, they neither are married or are given in marriage:

"For in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but they are as angels in heaven."-Matthew 22:30

 

[F1fan]

Did you read the last paragraph of the thread-seeder?



John

I wouldn't take Paul's "resurrected church" as being literal so much as symbolic.

 

[F1fan]

Genders are only needed in souls, that is a breathing creature. God is not a soul, he does not need blood or air to sustain his life, he is a life-giving Spirit.

Some may ask why we refer to God as He and Father, and that is because that is what he asks us to do. God has all of the qualities of the male and female in perfection. God created the male and then he created the female as a compliment and a helper of the male. He then blessed his human creation and told them to become fruitful, in other words use their procreative powers, have sex, and multiple on the earth.

Even Jesus told us to refer to God as Father, he told us to pray this way: "Our Father in the havens..." this is because God created man as the head of the woman. And as God is the head over all he would rightly be called Father, not Mother.

Well that is confusing and contradictory.

 

[Eyes to See]

Well that is confusing and contradictory.

Seems quite simple to understand to me. I understood this as a little kid, so it can't be that confusing. I don't know what you think it contradicts, but nothing that is truthful.

 

[F1fan]

From my perspective that statement makes you homo-epistemologically wired. And I don't mean that term to be read as derogatory. I'm using it in a scientific sense. It means an epistemology that's drawn to, desires, only same-thinkers, in the same way homosexual males are drawn toward only the same gender.

Well we humans do tend to be more attracted to like-minded people. Since i value facts and reason I find those who believe in faith to not mirror my own thinking or understanding about how things are. This doesn't mean that I won't engage with them. The faith-based thinker won't be able to justify their beliefs to any rational mind.

Your statement above implies that for you, anyone who thinks different, i.e., believes different than you in a binary way, isn't intellectually normal, or attractive to you. You would never even want to see their thoughts more nakedly than you already do. It appears that that's gross to you. You'd prefer to marry your thoughts, worldview, epistemology, to same-thinkers only.

You did say you might agree with my moral and tolerant reasons for accepting gay marriage. I'm open to hear anyone argue why I'm wrong in my moral position. Thus far the rebuttal won't be moral, or tolerant, now allow freedom, nor love, so you might be stuck on my side of the issue.

There's an argument, where same-thinkers aren't the only epistemological normal, that same-thinker intercourse, like homosexual intercourse, doesn't really produce live offspring, such that same-thinkers can only adopt the ideas of the other kinds of thinkers and put their name on it.

Well sides of most moral issues aren't Coke versus Pepsi where there is an equal and arbitrary opinion. They tend to be pretty clear where one side is the correct moral position to be on, and the other some sort of obsolete prohibition via tradition. I was just asking a Muslim why it's a sin to eat pork. The answer was that it's ok to eat pork accidentally, so that means the ingestion of pork what is bad, it's just a rule. Why? Tradition. It's what God demands. Are we subject to the rule? I'm not, and I'll bet you aren't either. Either the God of Abraham and Jesus has rules that apply to us, or it doesn't

 

[F1fan]

Seems quite simple to understand to me. I understood this as a little kid, so it can't be that confusing. I don't know what you think it contradicts, but nothing that is truthful.

Well like John Bray was just saying, some people prefer their like minded people.

Note I just made the point that Muslims insist that the God of Abraham says we can't eat pork. Do you eat pork? If so, why do you deny God's rule?

Does this make sense too? God ether has a rule or it doesn't.

 

[John D. Brey]

Even Jesus tells us that those raised to spirit life in the heavens are like the angels, they neither are married or are given in marriage:

"For in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but they are as angels in heaven."-Matthew 22:30

In a non-same-thinker environment I'd feel free to take a stab at interpreting Mathew 22:30 from my own context and exegetical viewpoint. But reading this thread I feel rather guarded; like Lot might have felt guarding his visitors. . . And I have no daughters to offer you as an appetizer.



John

 

[F1fan]

In a non-same-thinker environment I'd feel free to take a stab at interpreting Mathew 22:30 from my own context and education. But reading this thread I rather guarded; like Lot might have felt guarding his visitors. . . And I have no daughters to offer you as an appetizer.



John

So you are accusing the Bible of being unclear and that there are interpretations made by fallible humans that can be argued?

What use is God's Word when it comes down to fallible humans trying to figure out what it means? Everyone might be dead wrong, yet you want to follow the wrong interpretation?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Jesus and Paul implied there is no biological sex in the resurrected Church.



John

Of course there isn't. So no homosexuality.

 

[John D. Brey]

The faith-based thinker won't be able to justify their beliefs to any rational mind.

In a less same-thinker venue, I'd beg to differ with your statement. But you seem to have a lot of faith that it's the only possible reality. And since there is only one, same, reality (here at least), I dare not offer up a binary opposition to your faith in the inability of faith.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

So you are accusing the Bible of being unclear and that there are interpretations made by fallible humans that can be argued?

Absolutely.

What use is God's Word when it comes down to fallible humans trying to figure out what it means? Everyone might be dead wrong, yet you want to follow the wrong interpretation?

In a recent thread I implied that the lingua franca of the word of God is not Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic, but [drum-roll please] Interpretation.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Jesus and Paul implied there is no biological sex in the resurrected Church.​

Of course there isn't. So no homosexuality.

I only claimed there's no biological sex in heaven. There may be some form of intercourse, sex. But since there's no binary gender in heaven, there can only be homo-sex if there's sex at all. Which is what the question in the final paragraph in the thread-seeder was about.



John

 

[F1fan]

In a less same-thinker venue, I'd beg to differ with your statement. But you seem to have a lot of faith that it's the only possible reality.

Any faith I extend is in facts, observation, and reason. Any conclusion that follows from these is a natural result of a non-biased mind.

And since there is only one, same, reality (here at least), I dare not offer up a binary opposition to your faith in the inability of faith.

Thanks for acknowledging the two faiths: the reliable that is confirmed by observation, and the unreliable that allows religion to flourish in some minds.

 

[John D. Brey]

You did say you might agree with my moral and tolerant reasons for accepting gay marriage. I'm open to hear anyone argue why I'm wrong in my moral position. Thus far the rebuttal won't be moral, or tolerant, now allow freedom, nor love, so you might be stuck on my side of the issue.

Are morality and tolerance the only criteria for right thought and action? If you say yes, then we disagree since I believe it's moral to be intolerant of some activities and ideas. But of course same-thought thinkers will know that my disagreement is itself intolerant and thus immoral such that shutting down my thought isn't intolerant or immoral since I forfeit my right to protest when I put forth my first bigoted thought: disagreement with the singularity of goodness and knowing what is right.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Whatever the case, I want to show love and understanding towards LGBTQ. I don't want them commiting suicide.

You are good.




John