PinkStar wrote:I didn't side step it, I pointed out that HOW just because the Bible doesn't say doesn't mean its a sin.
There are alot of different types of marriages described just in the Bible. Some of them we most certain wouldn't agree with today:
- marriage by special creation: Adam and Eve, Gen 2.22 (Who else could they marry? A sheep?)
- marriage to whomever they chose: Sons of God and daughters of men, Gen 1.1-3 (Male and female marriage is only one type, not a subdivision based on ethnicity after all Moses, a Hebrew, was married to an Ethiopian. God struck Miriam with leprosy until she repented of her prejudice over this marriage.)
- marriage of a master to a slave to bear children (polygamous) Abraham and Hagar, Gen 16.1-4; (and Gen 30.3-12 for Jacob) (Barren wives could according to tradition give her husband her slave as a concubine to produce an heir, how is this a different type of marriage as it is still a man and a woman?)
- ?implicit marriage by incest?: Lot and his daughters, Gen 19.30- (Fornication is not marriage and is later condemned in the Law. BTW, the consequences of these unions were a major cause of trouble for the Israelites.)
- marriage after having never met: Isaac and Rebekah, Gen 24 (Arranged marriage was the norm until recent change in some cultures. Arranged marriages are still common in this world.)
- marriage to upset parents: Esau to Canaanites, Gen 28.8-9 (Still a marriage between male and female, you are bringing up motivation not differing types of male/female marriage.)
- marriage by barter and treachery: Jacob and Leah, Gen 29.18-25 (Again male and female, and although polygamy is now banned in Western nations it is still practiced in others cultures where wives are bought.)
- marriage by barter (polygamous): Jacob and Rachel, Gen 29.26-30 (already covered)
- marriage to one's aunt: Amram and Jochabed, Ex 6.20 (Moses' parents) (Incest was later condemned in the Law.)
- marriage of a slave to a woman chosen by the master. when the slave's time is up, the woman becomes the master's wife, and the slaves children becomes the master's children: Ex 21.4-6 (Better read that one again, it does not state the master becomes the husband, it states the master is responsible for the welfare of his slaves.)
- marriage by a conquering army of the women of the conquered country: Dt 21.10-14 (again marriage between man and women.)
- if a man *dislikes* his new bride and her parent's can't prove her virginity, she is to be stones: Dt 22.13-21 (Stoning was the penalty for adultery. How is this a differing type of marriage?)
- marriage by rape: Dt 22.28-29 (A law to protect a women who was raped, this makes the man responsible for his actions and is still a marriage between a man and a woman.)
- requirement of marriage to a dead husband's brother: Dt 25.5-10 (This was to give the brother an heir and did not constitute marriage. A widow needed children to care for her in old age. An early type of Social Security.)
- daughter given as a prize to a victor: Josh 15.16-17 (Another arranged marriage and you left out David and Saul’s daughter Michal, which is a union that preceded David’s disobedience to the Law. Deut 17:14-17 "When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,' 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman. 16 Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.' 17 "Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself. Solomon really goofed here, didn’t he? This can also show that God did not approve of polygamy for any reason. Also, polygamy served a useful social purpose in ancient and some modern cultures.)
- marriage by kidnapping: Judges 21.20-23 This allowed the tribe of Dan to continue as a tribe since the other 11 tribes were attempting to commit genocide, which was the result of Judges 19 and was a way to wage peace.)
As I understand your reasoning any sexual union is a form of marriage? I see a lot of adultery, fornication, and ancient traditions listed above however, I do not see a marriage between 2 men or 2 women.
The same reason I said earlier, it applies to everyone. They where talking to straight people so there going to describe straght people and they were showing how what they are doing goes against the Royal Law.
You are still side stepping my question and basically proving my point! They were talking to STRAIGHT people, where are the guidelines for GAY people? You keep bringing up the “Royal Law” with a constant sexual connotation is love merely sex to you?
>>The 10% used by gay activists for the number of gay men and lesbian women is a figure used for political reasons. Gay activists have publicly stated the truth of this years ago. The number has never been that high. >>
I know thats why I said the most. If its lesser than it proves my point even further.
How?
>>Yes, I believe the Bible is inerrant and cannot be changed since "God is the same today, yesterday, and forever." >>
Yes God doesn't change but mans view and interpretation of a book that has been copied reprinted over and over does. That phrase doesn't relate in any way to how the Bible can't change. God's word is the wisdom of the Holy Spirit and Jesus is the word manifest in the flesh. Not ink on pages.
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Ink on pages is called communication, not interpretation. The Bible is to be understood not interpreted for personal theology.
Misinterpreting the camel and the needle most certainly would change that warning Jesus is trying to tell us.
Matt 19:24
[A camel] Instead of kameelon (NT:2574), camel, six MSS. read kamilon, cable, a mere gloss inserted by some who did not know that the other was a proverb common enough among the people of the east.
There is an expression similar to this in the Koran. "The impious, who in his arrogance shall accuse our doctrine of falsity, shall find the gates of heaven shut: nor shall he enter there till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle. It is thus that we shall recompense the wicked." Al KORAN. Surat 7 verse 37.
It was also a mode of expression common among the Jews, and signified a thing impossible. Hence, this proverb: A camel in Media dances in a cabe; a measure which held about three pints. Again, No man sees a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant passing through the eye of a needle. Because these are impossible things. "Rabbi Shesheth answered Rabbi Amram, who had advanced an absurdity, Perhaps thou art one of the Pembidithians who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle; that is, says the Aruch, 'who speak things impossible.'" See Lightfoot and Schoettgen on this place.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft)
Jesus himself corrected passages in the old testament with wisdom that didn't come from the Bible. Only son and only begotten son gives two different philosophies and hating your family is most certainly a change Biblical, doctrinal, truth.
Only son and only begotten son? Please clarify? As to hate are you referring to Luke 14:25-35?
25 Now great multitudes were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27 "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it? 29 "Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30 saying,' This man began to build and was not able to finish.' 31 "Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and take counsel whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 "Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks terms of peace. 33 "So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. 34 "Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned? 35 "It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Jesus is not telling us to hate anyone, He is telling us to count the cost of following Him since He also said: Matthew 10:34-39
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 "For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 "He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it.
Following Jesus has caused major problems for many people who came from Judaism and other faiths. Here Christ states that loving Him is more important than loving your neighbor or family, which takes us back to the Great Commandment upon which the “Royal Law” is based.
Christians held that the sun revolves around the Earth and the Earth was flat until the late 1600's. Friar Giordano Bruno was even burned at the stake for suggesting that the earth traveled around the sun. They gave the same aurgunment there giving now, which is because the Bible says so.
Many ancients believed the earth was the center of the universe, not just Christians. Where does the Bible say the sun revolves around the earth? In fact the Bible states the earth is a circle (Job 26:10, Prov 8:27). Lack of scientific knowledge prior to the Renaissance has nothing to do with Biblical truth. Give me an example of where Jesus corrected the OT. In the Sermon on the Mount He added motivation to the discipline of the Law, which is not a correction it is a clarification.
They also interpreted the Bible as saying inter racial marriage is wrong until a hundred years ago. If those don't change Biblical doctrine truth I don't know what does. Any of these would instead cause to sin and think there following Gods Law.
Personal interpretation and prejudice is still being used by many to void or add to Biblical truths. I will again point you to 2 Peter 1:20-21.
>>>God created us male and female, end of story>>>
Its not end of story because there are a rainbow of sexes out there. There are intersexuals with working parts. Just look under the skirt of anyone who claims to be intersexual. Please look at my TG info page that has articles that describes intersexuals. Genesis was describing the beginning.
sex
sex (seks) noun
1.a. The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions. b. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.
2.Females or males considered as a group.
3.The condition or character of being female or male; the physiological, functional, and psychological differences that distinguish the female and the male. See Usage Note at gender.
4.The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.
5.Sexual intercourse.
6.The genitalia.
noun, attributive.
Often used to modify another noun: sex education; sex crimes.
verb, transitive
sexed, sex·ing, sex·es
1.To determine the sex of (an organism, especially a hatching chicken).
2.Slang. a. To arouse sexually. Often used with up. b. To increase the appeal or attractiveness of. Often used with up.
[Middle English, from Latin sexus.]
Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Gender or sex is based on physical characteristics not mental attitude. You are using modern psychology to interpret the Bible. In my 60 years I have met many transsexuals, transvestites, etc. and what you share on your site is not supported by Scripture. If you are referring to hermaphrodites, they are an extremely rare genetic abnormality and unfortunately there are many genetic abnormalities in human births.
>>Jesus taught more on hell than He did on love. Yes, we are told to love our neighbors as the opposite is hate and we are not to hate anyone, not even our enemies.>>
Yes I agree with you and your point would be? Loving your enemies is one of the many ways you Love your neighbor as yourself. Hate is what causes sin because its the opposite of Love. Spreading bad things against something that can have Love (like homosexuality) spreads hate. Like the man that said the sun revolved around the earth.
I can call homosexuality a sin no different than adultery and still (and do) love the homosexual.
>>You appeal to logic, yet is it logical to even believe that God exists? Human logic is made foolish by God’s truth!>>>
Yes it is logical, the existence of Life and Love itself is proof of a higher mind and the spiritual awarness in every human being that can only be seen beyond the eye. When I am healed when I am sick, when the answer comes to me when I ask and have faith, wisdom that I know didn't come from me. God is always there for those who seek him even if its not apparant to you.
You are now appealing to faith not logic.
Your simply denying alot of things without saying why. Theres no way around the word "entire".
I have been very clear as to why I believe what I believe and my belief is based on understanding the Bible, not modern semantics, psychology and personal philosophy. Well, all I can say is you are equating sexual union with love, which would allow adultery, fornication, rape, etc. as permissible. Love is not sex although sex can involve love. But sex can also be nothing more than lust and satisfying ones libido by any available method.
The word-translated love for the “Royal Law” is agapao, which is NEVER used in the Bible for a sexual union.
agapaoo, agapoo;
a. to love, to be full of good-will and exhibit the same: Luke 7:47; 1 John 4:7 f;
b. with the accusative of the person, to have a preference for, wish well to, regard the welfare of
c. used often in the First Epistle of John of the love of Christians toward one another;
d. used of the benevolence which God, in providing salvation for men, has exhibited by sending his Son to them and giving him up to death
e. used of the love which led Christ, in procuring human salvation, to undergo sufferings and death, Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2;
f. used of the love with which God regards Christ, John 3:35;
g. When used of love to a master, God or Christ, the word involves the idea of affectionate reverence, prompt obedience, grateful recognition of benefits received
h. With an accusative of the thing agapaoo denotes to take pleasure in the thing, prize it above other things, be unwilling to abandon it or do without it
i. to welcome with desire, long for 2 Tim 4:8
j. Concerning the unique proof of love which Jesus gave the apostles by washing their feet, John 13:1
k. John 17:26; Eph 2:4
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 2000 by Biblesoft)
Jesus understood man’s inability to “agapao” as He would have liked. This can be shown in John 21:15f where Jesus asks Peter twice if he “agapao” Him and Peter twice stated he “phileo” Jesus. The third time Jesus asked this of Peter He came down to Peter’s level and used the word “phileo”.
The “Royal Law” has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with intimacy with God and Christ in the Holy Spirit.