Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I agree with drich0150, again this is another fundamental view you have presented which isn’t the Christian position. The NT of Jesus Christ is conveyed by the writers, including those who wrote the gospels and those like Paul who wrote the epistles. All support each others claims.
I am not kicking anything out, whatever you are suggesting about the 10 commandments of the OT law, any question of the subservience of women does not affect the truth of Jesus Christ’s NT affirmation of God creation purpose of man and woman in union.
Sorry but the word of God says woman was made for man and for this reason a man shall be united with his wife. So it cant be the same sex?
Yes. Your view simply denies what the word of God says which Jesus Christ who is the truth, affirms.
But the very same God says that we are to execute disobedient children so why are we not doing this? Why are we not doing this, Phinehas?
But, but ...Jesus taught nothing about homosexuality - either for or against - so how am I/we not conforming to Jesus' teaching on this issue? I have no idea what you are talking about, Phinehas. Do you?
The Same writer that helped establish the deity of Christ in the Book of Luke Does the Same with the Apostle Paul, in the book of Acts. To question Paul's authority is to question the Authority of Christ.
Precisely, we are not given the freedom to choose whatever we wish and it be made acceptable before God, simply because we have chose to do it. Christianity works on the principle of Sin, Repentance, and Forgiveness of that sin. This is in stark contrast to your religious beliefs that says anything is acceptable so long as I will it to be. This in No Way Shape Or Form Has Anything To Do With Christianity.
If you are looking for an honest place to "Draw the Line" Learn to Identify the Law of God.
Jesus taught that it was a sin to even Lust after another outside of a sanctified marriage.(Mt5) The Fact that a Homosexual relationship can never be sanctified before the Lord proves that all homosexual activity is a sin, a sin like all other sexual activity despite gender.
Because there is no we about it. Christians do not execute, Christians follow Christs teaching and are not to kill, there is no condemnation in Christ. You are referring to OT law and covenant. Gods creation purpose which came before OT law and remains is for man and woman in union. Your view is not the Christian position.
This creation purpose is upheld with condemnations of same sex relations which is by definition homosexuality. So yes Jesus did teach about it, He taught it is error, it was error a Sodom, in OT law in Leviticus, was error in ancient Greek culture and Roman culture and is always error.
I have quoted the Bible Polycarp1 its the word of God, Paul received what he preached from the risen Lord. If you can only see the word of God as my opinion or the apostle Pauls opinion then you havent got a basic grasp of historic apostolic Christianity. Your Anglican Communion has, see Lambeth 1.10, but you arent even in line with your won churches position.
), intellectual intimacy and all what marriages lacked. You couldn't make a woman you partner. How come? An INFERIOR human being? From the very same reason sex between men was prohibited... not to allow one to be "like a woman" (that's the Hebrew word for homosexual intercourse - lying like a woman). How could they be allowed to spit on their superior quality? Now, when we are ready to consider both the sexes equal in terms of humanity (in the very least...), everything should change. Marriages bacame relationships of character previously reserved for same sex ones - they are meant to be true partnerships in regard to the intellectual, physical and spiritual dimensions. Only men could do that for one another in the past... but now, in fever of fighting the filthy sodomites, we tend to forget about that and ignore it, while sticking to old concepts of sexual purity invented to keep the Jewish nation clean and free of any resemblance of the gentiles' practices. Not it has changed - posterity is not our eternal life, the sole purpose of it. But why, why do so many Christians live as if reproduction was everything that matters?Well... and I thought it was one of His best ideas... did he really have to sanctify it additionally?
What is possible is that it became a necessity for the human race to exist, it started to be of reproductive use only. That, if anything, is the consequence of the fall!
This mess in addition to being hard to read is just empty conjecture, mixed with speculation as to how people view marriage. i might add a view that scripture does not support. We are told that a man and a woman have different roles to play, one being sub servant to the other. You have confused these roles to fit your agenda. There is no point in arguing this line by line with you because this whole paragraph tells me that if you are not willing to address the scriptural issues with your doctrine on sin and forgiveness your just going to try and change the subject to something you are more comfortable arguing..Wait a second. Which human nature did Jesus redeem? The human nature an sich, which is genderless or, to put it more accurately, consists of both the aspects, or the masculine/feminine one? If he redeemed the whole human nature, we all have to be given the potential to follow in his footsteps, i.e. become full humans in his image. And is it provided only by the complementarity of sexes? How come, if the Hebrew tradition and the Christian tradition up until late centuries didn't recognize genders to be complementary, but of hierarchical nature? The teaching was that there is God, who is the perfect one, the man, made in the image of God, and there is the woman made in the image of man. If the woman was less human, which this teaching implies, than you couldn't achieve the complementarity of sexes in marriage, because your wife couldn't offer you more than you already had (except for children, of course). We find this thinking not only in the Hebrew authors, but also the Fathers of the Church. Marriage was meant for the blood to be passed on and hence it offered life after death (which the Jews didn't believe in sensu proprio). It was a socio-economic institution, not a bond of love, trust and commitment (there was commitment, but forced by blood purity reasons). The notion that marriage may be something different than merely a reproductive institution was enabled by the teachings of the New Testament that grant people eternal life as individuals. It lasted a few hundred years before it was accepted (though not by the Roman Catholic Church, which prohibits its members to marry if they can't or don't want to have children). Now we think of marriage as the last stage of a romantic relationship... which is a complete revolution! It became a combination of what it had been before (a contract between families), friendship (that couldn't develop since women were infinitely inferior to men) and romantic love (which had nothing to do with it - check the medieval poetry).
Now, if we recognise that men and women are of the same quality (basically, a human one), were created in the image of the same God and are both to be saved by Christ who redeemed the whole human nature (are to gain that nature), than we could understand the purpose of relationships as supporting the growth in full humanity, which consists of both the aspects). It's like elevating human beings to a higher level. This goal can be achieved, as I believe, both by same sex and "traditional" relationships, because we all have the parts of the puzzle - it's just the matter of putting them together... together. Friendship between men has been for centuries considered to be of much more spiritual value than any kind of inter-gender relationship, because only men were thought of as (possibly) fully human. There was love and tenderness (and not rarely the erotic dimension too
..try again..
If we were indeed working from your doctrine of: "Because i said so." Then I would be forced to agree with you. As it is this is just more personal speculation.
I will reword this for you so it reads correctly.did he really have to sanctify it additionally?
God did indeed sanctify our sexual relationships after the Fall through Marriage. Even though Sex is was NOT a Necessity for the Human Race to exist (As witnessed through the creation of Adam and Eve) it was the way God Chose for us to procreate on our own.
The consequence of the fall is the ability to choose our will over that of God's expressed will.
Agreed
Finally someone gets it!
No, that is what those who try to combine Genesis 2:24 and Leviticus 18:22 and come up with "David and Jonathan were merely casual acquaintances" imply.
But now you've gone off the deep end. You claim that sex was not invented until after the Fall, but Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply before the Fall, just as the fishes and the birds were commanded before them.
No, the "help" function is totally different from any sex function. That is why Genesis 2:24 is not about "marriage can only be a man and a woman." (Nor, incidentally, is it about two men can marry, but then, no one claims it is.) It is those who claim that it is about sex who 1) confuse "help" with sex and 2) imply that the only point in marriage is the sex.
I never contended that Genesis 2:24 is about sex (it is not). Marriage is only one possible relationship a person can have with someone who is his "help." After all, David did not marry God.
That is not my example. It is your strawman. Genesis 2 is not about sex.
You are leaving out the fact that Jonathan's soul was "knit" with David's which is an equivalent emotional commitment to a husband and wife becoming one flesh. And the facts that come from other passages that marriages and other "help" relationships involved a tangible commitment in the form of a covenant (contract) and an exchange of gifts, both of which also occur in 1 Samuel 18:1-4.
