DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Secular Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2442--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
DIR By: Kerry
Date: July 2, 2015, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Amadeus link ---
>
> Forgetting all of man's arguments for and against same sex
marriage, consider God. [First of all, of course, does He
exist?] Assuming we believe He exists and is described in
scripture what does God want of man?
>
> Why did God create men and women?
--- End Quote ---
Did He do that? I don't think so. He didn't create men and
women. He made h'adam which was both male and female, then
divided h'adam into male and female. Now there is a mystery for
you. If God wanted the two to be one, why did He divide the one
and make it two?
--- Quote ---
> Does He want people to marry with one only of each gender or
does He want something else?
>
> "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Gen
1:28
>
> "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Gen 9:1
--- End Quote ---
Being fruitful and multiplying does not require marriage. The
problem today is not a shortage of people. The problem today is
man's unwillingness to take responsibility for the earth and all
in it; and all those things were given into man's charge. Just
having lots of babies isn't enough.
--- Quote ---
> "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he
which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
>
> 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?
>
> Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Matt 19:4-6
--- End Quote ---
You know I read that and I wondered if you quoted it right. I
was sure you did, and yes you did. It was as if I had never
read that passage from Matthew carefully before. Jesus
wouldn't misquote Genesis. Adam says that, not God. THere is
something wrong with that text.
Genesis 2:3 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Now if you can, will you show me a husband and wife with only
one body? Can a man and woman merge their two bodies of flesh
and have only one body of flesh? Of course not. This does not
refer to the physical sex act at all. It refers to the act
which is often called "knowing" in the Old Testament which often
did involve the sex act but also involved merging spiritually.
It can also be seen that this cannot mean the sex act in:
Matthew 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she
be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the
scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in
marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
There is no marriage since the two became one. Male and female
form a polarity just like north and south poles in a magnet. If
you put them together, they form a unity. You can't have a
magnet with two north poles or two south poles; and no one who
is having gay sex will be able to "inherit"the kingdom while
doing that. Paul says so.
I Corinthians 6: 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
You can see there that people could be married but still fall
short in other ways. A man who gets drunk and beats his wife
is not going to inherit the kingdom because of he was married.
Indeed his sins may be worse than that of the homosexuals who if
they are not abusing the innocent are only injuring themselves.
--- Quote ---
> Man began doing his own thing rather than God's thing
according to scripture from the very first. We (men) can rewrite
the rules and have certainly done so many times over. Jesus
clearly pointed this out, I believe, in the above verses and
others. Jesus also made it clear that it was God's will that was
to be preeminent in order to please God.
--- End Quote ---
Why didn't Jesus marry then?
--- Quote ---
> Some people are not to marry as the context of Matthew 19
indicates, but among those who do marry are they not supposed to
please both God and man? Man, I believe, has failed generally in
this as in so many other things he has put his hands on...
>
> We can bring in a lot of arguments, but what really matters
for the God I know is what matters to Him.
--- End Quote ---
Let me quote it.
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born
from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were
made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is
able to receive it, let him receive it.
I honestly can't say I know how to read that completely. In
Greek the word for eunuch can have different meanings. One is
someone who is sterile. Another is someone who is castrated.
And another is a gay person. It is said that many of the
Arians were gay. The canon from the Council of Nicea against
castration may have been written aimed at the castrated clergy.
Of course, no one paid much attention to Nicea at the time. I
believe a Patriarch of Antioch was an Arian who was also
castrated.
But I can't believe we can read "have made themselves eunuchs
for the kingdom of heaven's sake" to mean someone who castrated
himself. This goes completely against the Law of Moses.
I also don't subscribe to the Catholic take on this which says
it is an endorsement of celibate clergy.
What I can buy is that perhaps some people are born gay so they
don't marry and have children. Thus they have more time and
energy to devote to God.
--- Quote ---
> If we stand in the place Paul seems to recommend without a
spouse doesn't he mean we are to find comfort and love in the
arms of God alone? Without regard to gender, have most of us
have done such a good job of pleasing both our partners and our
God?
>
> "For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man
hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another
after that.
>
> I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for
them if they abide even as I.
>
> But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better
to marry than to burn." I Cor 7:7-9
>
> So is marriage about pleasing the man (and/or the woman) or is
it about something else? What does God really want of us?
--- End Quote ---
I find I Corinthians 7 a little hard to believe. A Jew wouldn't
have written that. When Paul writes about gay sex, he often
mentions "lust." And in one passage, he gives the traditional
position of the Jews about what is expected from the husband.
A man should devote himself to pleasing his wife -- sexually and
otherwise. The man who has an unhappy wife should be
embarrassed. A man should first see to it that his wife is
satisfied sexually before taking his own pleasure. This is the
man's role. It is not the wife's job to please the man in bed,
yet in our Western and Christian society this is often what is
taught.
Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own
bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
It is said that King David kept all his wives satisfied
sexually. I would hope he did since if he didn't, he married
too many. The jealousy of Michal was unwarranted.
--- Quote ---
> Can anyone please God in a marriage to a person of the
opposite gender? Can anyone please God in a connection with a
same gender person? The answer in both cases, for man alone, is
no. We must go to God for help. We must please God. First things
first.
--- End Quote ---
I would say myself that this is true of well over 90% of all sex
acts; and I don't see much difference frankly between
heterosexual and homosexual if the man is having sex to gratify
himself and not his wife. That is being guided by lust -- and
I don't know if I agree with Paul who allegedly talks about it
better to marry than to burn -- how so? I should marry and
treat a woman as my sex toy? I'd think that would be a sin.
It is a failure to love "the other."
I also don't know about his phrase "the natural use" of woman.
That seems very unjewish to me as well as sexist.
--- Quote ---
> "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;
and all these things shall be added unto you." Matt 6:33
>
> He might add a spouse of the opposite gender to someone, but
if a same sex relationship would not please God, why would He
bless such a relationship?
--- End Quote ---
You haven't really shown how a same sex relationship displeases
God.
But with God, all things are possible. Perhaps we should not
judge so much after the flesh.
Isaiah 56:4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep
my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold
of my covenant;
5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a
place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will
give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
--- Quote ---
> People may get what they want in the flesh by making their
choices, but in the end of the matter without God what do they
have?
--- End Quote ---
I believe in reincarnation, so homosexuality does not pose that
big of a problem in my theology. I think sometimes it's better
for some people to be gay in this lifetime so they don't keep
racking up sins against the opposite sex. It may be better for
two men with similar spiritual problems concerning women to
have sex with each other -- than to marry and sin against women.
They receive in their own bodies what is just. If they had
sex with women, they would be damaging the women.
Romans 2: 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use into
that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompence of their error which was meet.
The way I read that says God made some people gay or at least
"gave them up" to it. I consider this a mercy. Until they
correct the spiritual error, it may be better for them to be
gay. I still don't know about that phrase "the natural use of
the woman" though. Paul may have had trouble writing. The
lust part is right however. A man burning with lust should
restrain himself even if married and first devote himself to
giving pleasure to his wife. If he cannot do this, he is
sinning too because he is not "cleaving" to the woman as he
ought. He is not "loving" his wife as men are commanded -- and
note that well -- men are told to love their wives while wives
are not told that. They are told to obey.
But beyond all this, we are forgetting that a man and a woman
can decide to become one and make it true. A husband and wife
cannot "join together" in the act of matrimony on their own
power. Only God can make the two one. Neither the church or
its ministers can do that, nor the government, nor the parties
themselves. But if the two devote themselves to their tasks,
they can hope God will make them "one flesh."
#Post#: 2443--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
DIR By: Poppy
Date: July 2, 2015, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Two become one when they are physically joined. Male to female
fit together naturally. Male to male or female to female do not
fit together naturally so can never be one flesh and can never
create life. Unnatural = ungodly.
#Post#: 2444--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
DIR By: Kerry
Date: July 2, 2015, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Poppy link ---
>
> Two become one when they are physically joined. Male to
female fit together naturally. Male to male or female to female
do not fit together naturally so can never be one flesh and can
never create life. Unnatural = ungodly.
>
--- End Quote ---
You have heard this said but is it true? Something isn't true
just because we've heard it said. I have yet to see a married
couple that formed one flesh. They were still two bodies of
flesh. They always "came apart" and became two again.
And if the sex act itself is what makes the two one, why did
Jesus say "what God has joined together?"
Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder.
If what you say is true, then once a man and a woman have become
one flesh, it would be a sin for them come apart. Not to go eat
or go to the bathroom or any other reason. They should stay
united in the marital embrace eternally.
And if the sex act was all it took, then fornication would work
too. They too should stayed glued together forever as one
flesh, and then I ask if we should say God had joined them
together because of the sex act? Is God behind the act of
fornication if it's heterosexual? I tell you that isn't
possible. God is not making fornicators into "one flesh".
Please think some more about this. The critical thing is, I
think, that it's God who unites the two and makes them one. A
couple can't do this on their own.
Christians probably shoudn't marry non-Christians; but what
happens if two non-Christians are legally married and one
becomes a Christian? Are they "married in the eyes of God? Did
God make them one flesh? Paul says not necessarily.
1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him
depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such
cases: but God hath called us to peace.
It never had been a true marriage in the eyes of God and if the
nonbeliever wants to leave, the Christian is under no
obligation since the marriage may have existed legally but it
didn't in God's eyes.
Nor would I say as you did earlier that marriage is between one
woman and one man. We have many cases in the Bible where men
had more than one wife.
We also have people who remarry after becoming divorced or
widowed. One of my sisters is divorced and remarried, and
another remarried after the death of her first husband. Should
I tell them they can't be considered married to their current
husbands since they aren't following the one man and one woman
rule?
As for what is natural? I wonder how you define what is
natural? Homosexuality is known to exist among many animals.
Are they being unnatural?
May I ask you what your opinions are about women being
ministers, holding spiritual authority over men, and speaking
in church?
#Post#: 2445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
DIR By: bradley
Date: July 2, 2015, 10:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry, I think you are over reaching to come to a conclusion you
feel must be true regardless of the facts. You are always free
to believe what you will, but there is just too much scripture
and nature that says otherwise in my opinion.
#Post#: 2446--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
DIR By: Poppy
Date: July 3, 2015, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even
their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural
ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations
with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men
committed shameful acts with other men, and received in
themselves the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:26-27
#Post#: 2447--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
DIR By: Kerry
Date: July 3, 2015, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Poppy link ---
>
> Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even
their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural
ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations
with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men
committed shameful acts with other men, and received in
themselves the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:26-27
>
--- End Quote ---
Do you really think I never read that verse? The question is
what does it mean?
If animals have gay sex, how can it be unnatural? Or is it
natural for animals to have gay sex but not people?
Of course, you ignored my other question about whether women
should not be ministers. Do tell us if women should stop
being ministers ands stay quiet in church and redeem themselves
by childbearing as Paul advises. In short, do you believe this
passage as true:
1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves
in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with
broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good
works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority
over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was
in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they
continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
I also believe women should never pray with their heads
uncovered. You might be surprised how conservative I am. To
me, women like Joyce Meyer are abominations. Meyer with her
short hair looks more like a man than a woman even with her
lipstick. Does Wendy Alec ever cover her head -- even when
praying? I notice this kind of thing.
I tend to be very conservative in some things. In fact, I
agree so much with you about how sex between a man and a woman
is how God intended to have man multiply, I find it
objectionable, perhaps sinful, to introduce things like
artificial insemination, implanting embyros, into human
reproduction. When you asked for people to pray about that, I
did not since I consider that a sin. I kept quiet then however
not wanting to be judgmental in a time that may have been
stressful for you; but now if you are going to judge others for
not keeping to God's method of human reproduction, then I think
maybe I need to call you on that. That is not a marriage
between one man and one woman having sex and making babies.
That is one man, one woman, some doctors and nurses and some
scientific equipment trying to make babies in a way God never
intended. I could not pray for that to succeed. Sorry.
On that point of not using fertility treatments, I agree with
the Catholic Church. On another, I disagree, namely birth
control. Is sex wrong if it can't make babies? You've said so
since you said gay sex can't make babies. If that is true,
then birth control would also be a sin since it would be
contrary to the "natural" method of things. Any kind of sex
other than typical missionary sex could also be a sin unless
there was opportunity at the last moment for sperm to meet egg.
I ask if we object to sex because the genitals don't fit into
one set of male and one set of female, how can we approve of
birth control which introduces plastic or rubber devices between
the two so the two can't become "one flesh" in your theory of
things? Wanting to have sex just for fun would be wrong,
even for a heterosexual married couple since they were trying to
get around God's will that sex produces children. Even
Catholics are really wiggling around and being intellectually
dishonest with their "natural family planning" since the
obvious purpose is to have sex without making babies.
What I see is a lot of hypocrisy. I see "married" Christians
who think nothing of breaking God's rules when it suits them but
who then rush to judge gay people for having sex that doesn't
make babies. Christians abandoned God's teachings long ago --
by making sex for themselves into mere pleasure and not
something meant to produce children. Well, if that's the
premise, why be surprised if gay people want their sex for
pleasure also given a stamp of approval?
Now what about fertility treatments? If it's acceptable in
your eyes so you can another grandchild, then why couldn't gays
also produce children that way? Some do, too. They collect
the sperm and then pay a woman to get pregnant. Or lesbians get
sperm. I see that as wrong for both gay people and straight
people; but you seem to think it's okay for straight people.
Why? Because it's what you want. That makes it right in your
eyes. Well, that's the same reason gay people want gay
marriage with artificially made babies. It's what they want, so
they see it as right. Are you any different from them then?
I fear you may be in over your head here.
#Post#: 2449--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
DIR By: bradley
Date: July 3, 2015, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Its a fallen world, for both humans and animals, and perhaps
even vegetation. It should be no wonder that even some
animals dont follow normal protocals for sex. Never the less
the "norm" is still heterosexual.
#Post#: 2451--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
DIR By: Kerry
Date: July 4, 2015, 6:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: bradley link ---
>
> Its a fallen world, for both humans and animals, and perhaps
even vegetation. It should be no wonder that even some
animals dont follow normal protocals for sex. Never the less
the "norm" is still heterosexual.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, the "normal" thing for animals in "nature" seems to be
fornication. And it seems today, with our falling marriage
rate, the humans are starting to get their lessons from
"nature."
If we want to go further down this road, we could look at pack
animals where there's a dominant male who has sex with all the
females in the herd. We could justify polygamy easily by
appealing to nature and to the Bible too. Very few mammals are
monogamous.
I don't buy the arguments that draw on nature. A stoner friend
once told me marijuana was natural and Genesis said man was
given all the herbs. I said, "Righto. It may be natural, but
so is poison ivy." Nature can teach us a lot; but you have to
have a moral sense first. Without a moral sense (based on
loving God and our neighbors), nature can also mislead us
horribly.
#Post#: 2452--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
DIR By: Poppy
Date: July 4, 2015, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Quote from: Poppy on July 03, 2015, 10:16:45 am
>
> Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even
their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural
ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations
with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men
committed shameful acts with other men, and received in
themselves the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:26-27
>
>
>
> Do you really think I never read that verse? The question is
what does it mean?
--- End Quote ---
Well it's pretty obvious to me. Natural is the way God ordained
-male to female. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Madam and
Eve.
"the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were
inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful (and
unnatural) acts with other men
You may think or say this stuff Kerry but nobody has to accept
it as being right. And before you say it, you don't have to
accept what I say either.
#Post#: 2453--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
DIR By: bradley
Date: July 4, 2015, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kerry link ---
>
> Yes, the "normal" thing for animals in "nature" seems to be
fornication. And it seems today, with our falling marriage
rate, the humans are starting to get their lessons from
"nature."
>
> If we want to go further down this road, we could look at pack
animals where there's a dominant male who has sex with all the
females in the herd. We could justify polygamy easily by
appealing to nature and to the Bible too. Very few mammals are
monogamous.
>
> I don't buy the arguments that draw on nature. A stoner
friend once told me marijuana was natural and Genesis said man
was given all the herbs. I said, "Righto. It may be natural,
but so is poison ivy." Nature can teach us a lot; but you
have to have a moral sense first. Without a moral sense (based
on loving God and our neighbors), nature can also mislead us
horribly.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hey, you are the one who brought up the fact that some animals
have same gender sex at times. I never said we should act like
animals, trying to fulfill any desire as it comes up, like a dog
humping the leg of humans. We should strive to be more
spiritual, like abstaining from sex (not love) if its not God's
will.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page