Is the ability to procreate the only requirement for the "model" marriage?

[BarneyFife]

No, I'm not interested in reaching those that have already been deceived.

That's admirable.

.

 

[JohnDB]

You seem to be operating on a caricature of same sex couples that doesn't match reality.
Do you really not know any LGBT people? (dogs to you)

I saw a video the other day of a gay couple that had been married for 50 years.
Do you not have any gay people in Tennessee? Maybe you treat them like lepers?

I gave you the scriptures. Not my personal opinions...but yet you attack me personally. What is wrong with you?
Biblical literature is extremely clear on the subject of homosexuality....it's a curse that results from sin while being a sin in and of itself.

You asked about marriage...I gave an answer.
Then out of left field you turn this into a conversation about homosexuality and I gave you the reply of what the scriptures say.

Now you are saying that scriptures are wrong....which in essence is saying God is wrong.

Why are you here?
To what purpose?
This is a Christian Forum. If you are a homosexual you have to know that Christianity does not accept the homosexual perversion as an acceptable lifestyle. So why come here? To convert people to atheism? To turn their backs on God and embrace a sinful lifestyle?

There is no such things as a homosexual Christian or an Atheist Christian. They are two things diametrically opposed.

Narrow is the gate that leads to life and FEW find it. Broad is the gate that leads to death. The masses always find that path.


As for me personally?
I do not hang out with homosexuals. First off there aren't many around. Secondly, I have had nothing, nada, zero in common with those I have met with which to base a friendship upon. I have, and will continue to have, a radically different lifestyle, ideals, goals, pursuits than homosexuals do.
I have worked with a few over the years and kept my relationships with them strictly professional...
I don't persecute them. No need! They are self destructive all by themselves.

 

[Illuminator]

Adam and Eve's marriage = PASS or FAIL?

Is this really the model for marriage? A&E.
The result of this relationship was the Fall of humankind. FAIL.
(assuming we take the Genesis record as literal)

Adam failed as a husband and Eve failed as a wife. FAIL.
(although I think Eve was set up by bad leadership from Adam)

Example: Eve told the serpent that they were
not allowed "to touch" the forbidden fruit. Where did that come from?
God told Adam that he was not allowed to eat.
Nothing (in the text) was said about not touching.

Therefore Adam was caught in his misstatement to Eve. (he added to God;s word) FAIL.
The serpent could easily disprove that death would not come from touching the fruit.
And Adam stood by and said nothing. FAIL.

Eve decided to take the fruit and eat based on here discussion with the serpent.
She did not consult with her husband. FAIL. And Adam followed her lead. FAIL.

Do we really want to declare A&E's failed relationship as God's model for marriage?
Perhaps we should look elsewhere? Open to suggestions.

Is the ability to procreate the only requirement for the "model" marriage?

/

No.

It’s not uncommon for Catholics to hear, from secular skeptics and Protestants alike, that the Catholic Church is obsessed with sexual sin.

The secular sexual ethic generally doesn’t go much further than “Love is love” or “Do what feels good as long as you don’t hurt anyone.” Any other moral notion attached to how we use our bodies is incomprehensible at best and, at worst, part of a cynical plan to control people’s lives.

Some Protestants reject traditional biblical morality as flawed—archaic, unscientific, rooted in historical prejudices—and replace it with more flexible interpretations of the scriptural texts. Others don’t want to play so fast and loose with the Bible but still, as most conservative Evangelicals do, break with the Church when it comes to divorce and contraception and increasingly show themselves open to rethinking fornication and homosexuality.

Five Reasons Why Sex is a Big Deal

It’s not uncommon for Catholics to hear, from secula...

www.catholic.com

 

[St. SteVen]

This is a Christian Forum. If you are a homosexual you have to know that Christianity does not accept the homosexual perversion as an acceptable lifestyle.

I explained where I am coming from on LGBT in this topic OP. (opening post)

WWJD with LGBTQ?

Christians tend to treat LGBTQ as if it is a singular thing. It's not. It's a very complex subject that the church has, for the most part, swept under the rug. Those who have stepped up to be inclusive have taken the heat for it. And there is even a broad spectrum of how inclusion can play out...

www.christianityboard.com

/

 

[St. SteVen]

You asked about marriage...I gave an answer.
Then out of left field you turn this into a conversation about homosexuality and I gave you the reply of what the scriptures say.

One of the claims used against LGBT is that A&E were God's design for marriage.
Ability to procreate seems to be the only requirement. You agreed that there should be more.
I can see why you would see this as bait and switch.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Narrow is the gate that leads to life and FEW find it. Broad is the gate that leads to death. The masses always find that path.

I hope you don't believe that is about salvation, but most do, unfortunately.
Would God make sport of us by playing a high-stakes game with our souls?
A puzzle to solve with our eternal destination at risk? "Few there be that find it."

If our interpretation of scripture sidesteps common sense, did we get it right?

We've all heard the vacuous mantra: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." What does this communicate parenthetically? "It doesn't need to make sense, I just need to accept it." ??? (with a shrug?) Do we really need to check our brain at the door when we go to church? There are...

www.christianityboard.com

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Why are you here?
To what purpose?
This is a Christian Forum.

I bring challenges.
I am re-evaluating a lot of things.

Do you see the forum as a glad-handing echo chamber?

.

 

[St. SteVen]

As for me personally?
I do not hang out with homosexuals. First off there aren't many around. Secondly, I have had nothing, nada, zero in common with those I have met with which to base a friendship upon. I have, and will continue to have, a radically different lifestyle, ideals, goals, pursuits than homosexuals do.
I have worked with a few over the years and kept my relationships with them strictly professional...
I don't persecute them. No need! They are self destructive all by themselves.

This is something I am trying to address on the forums.
The way that Christians look down on others. This attitude of superiority.

/

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Example: Eve told the serpent that they were
not allowed "to touch" the forbidden fruit. Where did that come from?
God told Adam that he was not allowed to eat.
Nothing (in the text) was said about not touching.

Therefore Adam was caught in his misstatement to Eve. (he added to God;s word) FAIL.
The serpent could easily disprove that death would not come from touching the fruit.
And Adam stood by and said nothing. FAIL.

Here’s an odd passage …why did Jesus tell Mary not to touch Him?
John 20:11-17 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, [12] And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. [13] And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. [14] And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. [17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Here’s an odd passage …why did Jesus tell Mary not to touch Him?
John 20:11-17 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, [12] And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. [13] And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. [14] And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. [17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

2 Corinthians 6:16-18 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? for you are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [17] Wherefore come out from among them, and be you separate, says the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, [18] And will be a Father unto you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Colossians 2:20-23 Wherefore if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are you subject to ordinances, [21] (Touch not; taste not; handle not; [22] Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? [23] Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

 

[BarneyFife]

I bring challenges.
I am re-evaluating a lot of things.

Do you see the forum as a glad-handing echo chamber?

.

Pardon me but the way you approach Scripture with regard to re-evaluating seems to be more confident, suggesting past tense—re-evaluated—rather than present—re-evaluating.

Perhaps I'm assuming too much.

In any case, there might be a happy medium somewhere between glad-handing and skepticism, dare I suggest such a thing.

Would an echo chamber be okay if it was filled with re-evaluationist challenges?

I've never thought that salvation was an arbitrary, odds-based game. On the other hand, I've never questioned that the Matthew 7 and Luke 13 passages were about salvation (especially since verse 23 of the latter literally poses the question) and that doing nothing will not secure it to ourselves. Being saved is a gift but it has a cost, both to Christ and His benefactors. Otherwise the instruction to count that cost wouldn't appear in Christ's teachings.

As to the OP, the creation account is dotted with complimentary dististinctions. Light and darkness, day and night, heavens and earth, land and sea, work and rest, and, finally, male and female.

In the beginning there were no marriages that didn't produce children and there were never intended to be. Sin is what caused marriages to be childless before any man had the idea to lie with another man, as with a woman.

There is no "model" marriage.

There is only marriage.

.

 

[St. SteVen]

Here’s an odd passage …why did Jesus tell Mary not to touch Him?

Interesting. Thanks.
Very odd indeed.
Later Jesus asked Thomas to touch him.
Had he ascended to the Father by then?
Did he ascend again at his Ascension?
Was he ascended in the time between?

/

 

[BarneyFife]

This is something I am trying to address on the forums.
The way that Christians look down on others. This attitude of superiority.

/

Sometimes Christians feel as though other Christians are looking down on them. Suggestions that they might be members of glad-handing echo chambers might be seen by some as such. I've done it myself, so, just sayin'.

.

 

[St. SteVen]

Pardon me but the way you approach Scripture with regard to re-evaluating seems to be more confident, suggesting past tense—re-evaluated—rather than present—re-evaluating.

Perhaps I'm assuming too much.

Good question/observation. Still a work in progress.
I am pretty solid on a few things that are in stark contrast to the mainstream.

In any case, there might be a happy medium somewhere between glad-handing and skepticism, dare I suggest such a thing.

Would an echo chamber be okay if it was filled with re-evaluationist challenges?

Sure.
Of course the typical "glad-handing echo chamber" doesn't allow for skepticism. (taboo)

There is no "model" marriage.

I was challenge the idea that A&E were God's model for marriage.
Interesting to see how dysfunctional it was, even before the Fall.
Adam was already failing at being a leader and husband before his first bite.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Sometimes Christians feel as though other Christians are looking down on them. Suggestions that they might be members of glad-handing echo chambers might be seen by some as such. I've done it myself, so, just sayin'.

.

Meant as a lateral observation. Not as looking down.
Though some may perceive it that way. Good point.

/

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Interesting. Thanks.
Very odd indeed.
Later Jesus asked Thomas to touch him.
Had he ascended to the Father by then?
Did he ascend again at his Ascension?
Was he ascended in the time between?

/

Agree very odd. I did think of His telling Thomas to handle Him. And I also thought of His telling them unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part of me. In discussions of the woman saying “we were told not to touch” the unclean thing? or “we were told not to eat” the unclean thing? I’m not sure if we are correct in whether it’s to not eat, or not touch, or to not handle …the fruit from that one tree in the midst. They all seem like something I would (not) want to do whether handling it, touching it, or eating it —of that which is not Christ.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Agree very odd. I did think of His telling Thomas to handle Him. And I also thought of His telling them unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part of me. In discussions of the woman saying “we were told not to touch” the unclean thing? or “we were told not to eat” the unclean thing? I’m not sure if we are correct in whether it’s to not eat, or not touch, or to not handle …the fruit from that one tree in the midst. They all seem like something I would (not) want to do whether handling it, touching it, or eating it —of that which is not Christ.

Like for example…you can lust after another man’s wife as long as you don’t handle her or touch her. It’s the handling or the touching that makes it adultery. The action. We say this (or I’ve heard it said) that it’s the “not touching” of that which is desirable. That’s what she said.

 

[Deborah_]

Adam and Eve's marriage = PASS or FAIL?

Is this really the model for marriage? A&E.
The result of this relationship was the Fall of humankind. FAIL.
(assuming we take the Genesis record as literal)

Adam failed as a husband and Eve failed as a wife. FAIL.
(although I think Eve was set up by bad leadership from Adam)

Example: Eve told the serpent that they were
not allowed "to touch" the forbidden fruit. Where did that come from?
God told Adam that he was not allowed to eat.
Nothing (in the text) was said about not touching.

Therefore Adam was caught in his misstatement to Eve. (he added to God;s word) FAIL.
The serpent could easily disprove that death would not come from touching the fruit.
And Adam stood by and said nothing. FAIL.

Eve decided to take the fruit and eat based on here discussion with the serpent.
She did not consult with her husband. FAIL. And Adam followed her lead. FAIL.

Do we really want to declare A&E's failed relationship as God's model for marriage?
Perhaps we should look elsewhere? Open to suggestions.

Is the ability to procreate the only requirement for the "model" marriage?

/

I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the success or failure of Adam and Eve's marriage. Their failure was in their relationship with God.

In Genesis 4 we read that - despite the trauma of being exiled from Eden - they set about fulfilling their commission to multiply and fill the earth. That's commitment and tenacity for you! If their eldest son went 'off the rails', that's not necessarily a judgement on their parenting skills. It happens all the time, to good Christian parents! Nevertheless, they went on having children! On the evidence of Genesis, I would rate their marriage as very successful.

NONE of the daughters are mentioned. Who was Cain's wife?

Adam and Eve had many children, not just the three named sons. And I doubt very much that they had no children at all between Abel's birth and his murder; they're just irrelevant to the story and therefore not mentioned. Daughters are specifically referred to in Genesis 5:4.

 

[St. SteVen]

I’m not sure if we are correct in whether it’s to not eat, or not touch, or to not handle

My point was that God had not said anything to that effect.
It seems that Adam added that to the communication with his wife.
The serpent used that against them. Asking about what God "really said".

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Like for example…you can lust after another man’s wife as long as you don’t handle her or touch her. It’s the handling or the touching that makes it adultery. The action. We say this (or I’ve heard it said) that it’s the “not touching” of that which is desirable. That’s what she said.

But Jesus said the lust for wanting to have (own her?) was adultery in his heart.

Matthew 5:28 NIV
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully
has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

/