Obama On Same Sex Marriages

[aspen]

aspen2, I understand what you are saying but we just have different convictions about it. I have enjoyed our conversations though. God bless you.

Yeah - I always enjoy talking with you.

Blessings!

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,

Mark and Luke and Mathew and John quoted Jesus.

According to them, yes, and so did Paul according to Paul.

I think we are finished here.

No we are not. Christianity recognises all the Bible as the witness, you will see the historic Nicene Creed as a base statement of faith is derived from verses throughout the Bible. If you are saying only the 4 gospels can be trusted then I would suggest your beliefs are not Christian.

The only verses you have mentioned were not quotes from Jesus - they were teachings from Paul.

Not according to the texts. You are wrong. In his letters Paul identifies where he gives his own views , and the verses given were not identified as such. The verses are in accordance with the Biblical teaching throughout.

We all know that the only incidents of homosexuality in the ancient world included Masters and their slaves, teachers and their students, public sex acts in Roman bath houses, and the military.

You are mistaken. In both Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 the same sex acts are what pagans or people who have turned away from God do. That makes those who practice homosexuality pagans according to the Bible. Our Christian faith is based on God’s word and not on what different cultures thought.

There was no equality in homosexual relationships or marriage

Marriage is countenanced in scripture, homosexuality is condemned so there is no equality between the two.

or reason to consider the idea that love was involved at all.

According to the Bible there is an absence of love for God when people do same sex relations.

All sex acts outside a love relationship are perverse –

Thats the pagan view. The Bible says all sex acts outside a faithful man and woman union are sexual immorality. 1 Cor 7.

There is nothing similar at all about homosexual marriage

there is no such thing as homosexual marriage in the Biblical testimony, the Biblical testimony describes the same sex relations you refer to as homosexual marriage as sexual immorality, error and detestable to God.

Jesus, himself, said nothing about it that is recorded –

Yes His teaching does. If you don’t credit what Paul preached as from Christ then your views are not Christian.
And I don’t intend to listen to someone who hasn’t got any scripture to support what they say, deny what the scripture does say.

 

[aspen]

BMS

Not surprisingly, you didn't comprehend a word I said. Why bother breaking down my posts if all you are going to do is repeat yourself over and over again? There is nothing new here....

You are still refusing to admit that Paul is speaking an inspired message from God, rather than channeling Jesus. And you throw in a red herring by accusing me of claiming that Paul's writings are somehow not inspired? LOL - nice try.

The entire Bible is inspired by God. Not all scripture is a direct quote from Jesus.

All of this is a sad smoke screen - the fact is, Jesus did not directly speak about the topic of homosexuality.

Then you continue to deny history. Everything I said about the difference between ancient practices of homosexuality and a modern concept of homosexual marriage is valid.

No matter how you want to spin it.

So knock yourself out insinuating that I must not be a Christian because I refuse to tow the party line. You gonna insult my mother next?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,
You didn’t address a crucial point put to you, that on judgement day it might be too late if people could have been told same sex relations are a barrier to the Kingdom and weren’t. Wouldnt that be more of a problem for those who failed to tell rather than those who were not told?

Because not everyone in the US is Christian. So, IMO churches should not be forced to marry homosexual couples because it goes against Christian doctrine; however Christians do not have a copyright on marriage - all different faith groups and cultures get married in the US - homosexuals should qualify, as well.

You are mixing the secular with the Kingdom. All people are God’s creation, whether they acknowledge God or not. Democracy however gives people the right to express their views. It is democracy that allows Christians to put their pov, which is of course that homosexual ‘unions’ are error.
In the UK we have a compromise, marriage and civil partnerships, granting the same secular rights but recognising the two are anatomically opposite. Sadly the intent to call them equally marriage shows many have lost the plot and reality.

kiwimac,

At least in the US, the case of Loving vs. Virginia enshrined marriage as a human right.

The UN Declaration of human rights, articles 16 & 18 protects the right of man and woman to marry and found a family, and hold and manifest religious views. We see that there are some who can no more acknowledge what Human Rights legislation says than the Bible. Even David Cameron has been calling 'same sex marriage' a human right when article 9 of the European Union Human Rights says the same as the UN Declaration and the European judges say its not a human right.
This isnt about homsoexuals, some homosexuals believe in God's word, and some homosexuals who are non-believers are not spiritually blind and distance themselves from other gay lobbies.

aspen2,
None of the points you made were correct. I dealt with each incorrect point in turn.

You are still refusing to admit that Paul is speaking an inspired message from God, rather than channeling Jesus.

This is incorrect. Of the 4 gospel writers Luke almost certainly never witnessed Jesus firsthand, according to Paul, he, Paul did ( Galatians 1) What Paul preached he recieved from the risen Lord and not from men. Mark was probably aided in his gospel by Peter, whose epistle afirms Paul's teaching.
So your point is incorrect, Paul's writing is as much 'channelling' Jesus as anything else in the NT.

All of this is a sad smoke screen - the fact is, Jesus did not directly speak about the topic of homosexuality.

Which is irrelvant as pointed out before unless your point is anything Jesus didn't mention is acceptable. So is imprisoning gays ok with you, Jesus never said it wasnt?

Besides, by affirming God's creation purpose of man and woman in faithful union, and indeed offering only celibacy (Matthew 19) did Jesus not directly exclude homosexuality?

Then you continue to deny history. Everything I said about the difference between ancient practices of homosexuality and a modern concept of homosexual marriage is valid.

Then you deny God and His word, your assesment of the Roman and Greek cultural views is widely accepted as correct, I didnt say it was wrong, what I pointed out was all cultures in the Bible where it occured, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, Rome, Greece, are addressed to show the error of men with men instead of women.

No matter how you want to spin it.

Its not spin, its what the Bible says as opposed to what you are claiming.

So knock yourself out insinuating that I must not be a Christian because I refuse to tow the party line. You gonna insult my mother next?

By definition to be a believer one has to believe, and by definition of Christian belief it is the Biblical testimony. Nor did I say you werent a Christian, I said your views arent. Dont falsey accuse me of spin when its you doing all the spin.

Ancient Greeks and Romans didn't think same sex relationships were sinful - it was common practice. So much so, that Paul included the practice of same sex relationships as 'worldly' along with a whole list of other worldly traits that Christians never remember to mention.

The lists of sins given throughout the NT are the same, whether in Matthew 15 for example or Romans 1. The sexual immorality so often cited in the NT is all sexual activity apart from (1 Cor 7, Matthew 19) faithful man and woman, but is sometimes described specifically such as incest (1 Cor 5) adultery (Matt 19) and same sex acts (Romans 1)
Quite why people have an issue when same sex acts are cited and not adultery or incest indicates they arent necssarily convinced that same sex acts are wrong even if they may say they are.

 

[aspen]

Aspen2,
You didn’t address a crucial point put to you, that on judgement day it might be too late if people could have been told same sex relations are a barrier to the Kingdom and weren’t. Wouldnt that be more of a problem for those who failed to tell rather than those who were not told?
You are mixing the secular with the Kingdom. All people are God’s creation, whether they acknowledge God or not. Democracy however gives people the right to express their views. It is democracy that allows Christians to put their pov, which is of course that homosexual ‘unions’ are error.
In the UK we have a compromise, marriage and civil partnerships, granting the same secular rights but recognising the two are anatomically opposite. Sadly the intent to call them equally marriage shows many have lost the plot and reality.

Show me one homosexual that does not know that conservative Christian doctrine condemns homosexual behavior and I will be the first to tell them. God gives everyone the freedom to be redeemed or not. He also give homosexuals the freedom to behave in any manner they choose to behave.

None of the points you made were correct. I dealt with each incorrect point in turn.

According to whom? How can you make a judgment about this when you head is in the sand? I cannot force you to look at history - it is up to you.

This is incorrect. Of the 4 gospel writers Luke almost certainly never witnessed Jesus firsthand, according to Paul, he, Paul did ( Galatians 1) What Paul preached he recieved from the risen Lord and not from men. Mark was probably aided in his gospel by Peter, whose epistle afirms Paul's teaching.
So your point is incorrect, Paul's writing is as much 'channelling' Jesus as anything else in the NT.

Once again, Jesus never directly mentioned anything about homosexuality. Paul only mentioned in in a long list of other worldly practices to make a larger point - as a Christian we need to reject the ways of the world. Even if your point is correct - that Paul was merely writing Jesus's message to the world directly - and you are most certainly not correct - it is irrelevant because Paul was condemning all practices of the world - the sins themselves were not the point.

Unless you can produce a verse, which contains the words "Jesus told the crowd" or "Jesus told the disciples" that equal homosexual partnerships / marriages are sinful and will result in damnation, you are wasting your time.


Which is irrelvant as pointed out before unless your point is anything Jesus didn't mention is acceptable. So is imprisoning gays ok with you, Jesus never said it wasnt?

My point is that Jesus never addressed the subject of homosexuality - that is it. I've never claimed anything more. I've also stated that homosexuality is a sin.

Besides, by affirming God's creation purpose of man and woman in faithful union, and indeed offering only celibacy (Matthew 19) did Jesus not directly exclude homosexuality?

Only if He also excludes couples who are infertile or unable to have children for other reasons.

Then you deny God and His word, your assesment of the Roman and Greek cultural views is widely accepted as correct, I didnt say it was wrong, what I pointed out was all cultures in the Bible where it occured, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, Rome, Greece, are addressed to show the error of men with men instead of women.

How am I denying God and His Word? Because I do not believe people who reject the Bible should be forced to comply with it? God allows it - is He denying His word too?

Its not spin, its what the Bible says as opposed to what you are claiming.

It is the literal, conservative interpretation of the verses. Another mistake literalists make is with

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Jesus is not talking about a camel passing through a sewing needle - even though it looks like the Bible is saying it clearly. He is talking about a city gate into Jerusalem called 'the needle', where camels had to get down on their knees and crawl through the gate. Knowing what Jesus is actually talking about means the difference between damnation and possible salvation for rich people! It is reckless and anti-intellectual to claim that the Bible clearly states whatever the most literal interpretation might look like.

By definition to be a believer one has to believe, and by definition of Christian belief it is the Biblical testimony. Nor did I say you werent a Christian, I said your views arent. Dont falsey accuse me of spin when its you doing all the spin.

So the Bible saves? According to that erroneous definition, how can I be viewed as a Christian if my views are not Christians and I reject the teaching of Paul?

The fact is, I believe the entire Bible is inspired from God (except the end of Mark 16, and the story of the stoning of the women). Jesus is my savior - He has justified me and He is sanctifying my soul to one day love unconditionally as a citizen of Heaven. Doctrine is a hobby - loving God and neighbor is what we are called to do as Christians.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Aspen2,

According to whom?

According to what the Biblical testimony says.

How can you make a judgment about this when you head is in the sand? I cannot force you to look at history - it is up to you.

The Biblical testimony as the revelation from God addresses the believers in cultures where this practice occurs and warns against it as error. I am looking at history, I am pointing you to what God’s word says about it at various historical times.

Once again, Jesus never directly mentioned anything about homosexuality.

once again, Jesus never wrote any of the New Testament so on that basis Jesus never said anything directly about anything.

Paul

Paul was one of the NT writers and Paul received what he preached, not from man but from the risen Lord.

Even if your point is correct –

It is, read Galatians 1. When Paul writes his own views he announces it such as 1 Cor 7:8-10.

it is irrelevant because Paul was condemning all practices of the world - the sins themselves were not the point.

The sins were just as much the point.

Unless you can produce a verse, which contains the words "Jesus told the crowd" or "Jesus told the disciples" that equal homosexual partnerships / marriages are sinful and will result in damnation, you are wasting your time.

Unless you can produce a verse that says Jesus told the crowd that paedophilia is wrong I will assume you think its ok.
When you come to acknowledge that the Bible throughout excludes and condemns same sex relations you will cease looking for references to ‘homosexual partnerships’ in it.

My point is that Jesus never addressed the subject of homosexuality - that is it.

Unless you are interested in my point I shall not be interested in yours. I am willing to be interested in yours. Are you willing to be interested in mine? If so it is that Jesus does address the subject of homosexuality through His NT writers. Romans 1, 1 Cor 6. If you say its not from Jesus then one must question your beliefs as not Christian.
Let me ask you. If you doubt Paul’s letters when Peter and Luke affirm the teaching in them, how can the gospels be reliable for you?

Only if He also excludes couples who are infertile or unable to have children for other reasons.

Nonsense. Man and women DOES directly exclude man and man, it is subjective whether it might exclude infertile man and woman. You are making your assumptions equal with established facts. And when it specifically says man and woman, why would you choose to use the word ‘couples’ ? Couples implies it could be man and man.

How am I denying God and His Word?

Because its not about cultures, its about God’s word; all cultures in the Bible where it occured, Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, Rome, Greece, are addressed by reference to it being error.

It is the literal, conservative interpretation of the verses.

No, it is the holistic Biblical understanding of all the exclusions and condemnations of men with men instead of women. The alternative is outright and utter rejection of the Bible.

So the Bible saves? According to that erroneous definition,

But I didnt say that, you did. Jesus saves, but as the Bible records how Jesus saves, it would be a misleading to say the Bible doesn’t save. Faith comes by hearing the message Romans 10.

can I be viewed as a Christian if my views are not Christians and I reject the teaching of Paul?

Yes. Yes because you are rejecting the revelation from Jesus that Paul preached, the teaching of Paul is where he announces it such as 1 Cor 7:8-10

Finally, show me one homosexual that does not know that conservative Christian doctrine condemns homosexual behavior and I will be the first to tell them.

The Biblical testimony says what it says, people either believe it or they dont, it matters not whether they are ‘homosexual’ or ‘heterosexual’

 

[aspen]

How am I rejecting what Paul says? I've already said that homosexuality is a sin.

 

[brightmorningstar]

aspen2,
What Jesus says you mean. or what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John say?