No need for so called "clobber passages" if:

[savedandhappy1]

Jesus only speaks of marriage, divorce, lust, fornication and adultery when it comes to a man and a woman. So why would we even need to debate the so called "clobber passages"?

We either need to go with the same standard used to say homosexuality is ok, because Jesus never spoke of it, and in doing so we would have to say that it is ok for homosexuals to divorce for no reason at all, it's ok to lust after people of the same sex, and it is ok for homosexuals to commit fornication and adultery.

Does that really make sense?

If a man and a woman become one flesh when they are joined together, according to Jesus, then what are a man and man or woman and woman? Just wondering sense Jesus only speaks of what happens when a man and a woman come together.

Matthew 19:3-6 states:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 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.


Matthew 5:31-32 states:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Matthew 19:9 states similarly:
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Here, Jesus prohibits divorce, except in a case of sexual misconduct -- "porneia" in the original Greek. Various versions of the Bible have translated "porneia" as as adultery, fornication, unchastity, unfaithfulness or marital unfaithfulness. Jesus here deviated from Jewish law, which said that a man could freely divorce his wife.

Mark 10:11-12 states: "...Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18 states: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

Matthew 5:27-28 condemns feelings of lust experienced by a man towards a woman. In the King James version, Jesus is recorded as saying: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
So can we really use the logic that Jesus never said homosexuality was wrong, and so if it wasn't important enough for Jesus to mention it then the Church shouldn't?

 

[davedjy]

We've already gone over all this before.

All of your conclusions are based upon arguments from silence.


As stated:


Matthew 19:3-6 states:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Jesus was answering the question asked about a man to put away his wife. There isn't any mention of anything else, so why would Jesus mention same sex relationships there, if that wasn't the question asked?

 

[savedandhappy1]

We've already gone over all this before.

All of your conclusions are based upon arguments from silence.


As stated:


Matthew 19:3-6 states:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

Jesus was answering the question asked about a man to put away his wife. There isn't any mention of anything else, so why would Jesus mention same sex relationships there, if that wasn't the question asked?

And if homosexuality was considered ok, why wouldn't the Pharisees tempted Him with that also? Did they believe that homosexuals wouldn't get divorced because it is the perfect match as compared to what God created in the beginning?

That's it, God messed up in the creation, and homosexuality is Him fixing His mistake.

So what about lust, fornication, adultery? Jesus again only speaks about these as related to male and female relationships..................

Really can't have it both ways, you know. Either Jesus thought it was ok because He didn't say it wasn't personnally or it wasn't mention in any of His statements about sexual matters, because it isn't.

Show me any scripture that talks about male to male or female to female rules and regulations.

We see marriage, lust, divorce, fornication and adultery only as it relates to hetrosexauls. We see bishops/pastors and deacons only as it relates to hetrosexuals.

Show me any place where homosexuality is used as an example of something good and right. Show me any scripture where they are considered and mentioned except in the so called "clobber passages".

We read where 14 of 15 Rome empire leaders had homosexual relationships, and that many even married their homosexual partners. So can't say they didn't know about loving relationships without showing proof that they didn't know how to love.

Since these things were going on to the knowledge of anyone not trap out with there flock, how come the Parisees didn't add them to the temptation?

How could Paul not be quite aware of the relationships of the leaders of Rome, and it not be a leading by the Lord to write against it?

Like we are given wisdom and understanding today so were Christ followers back then. Is there any proof that the writers of the Bible had something to gain by not letting the Lord lead them in their writings?

He blinded Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, and you don't think He would have done something if Paul would have started preaching something contrary to His ways?

 

[davedjy]

And if homosexuality was considered ok, why wouldn't the Pharisees tempted Him with that also? Did they believe that homosexuals wouldn't get divorced because it is the perfect match as compared to what God created in the beginning?

That's it, God messed up in the creation, and homosexuality is Him fixing His mistake.

So what about lust, fornication, adultery? Jesus again only speaks about these as related to male and female relationships..................

Really can't have it both ways, you know. Either Jesus thought it was ok because He didn't say it wasn't personnally or it wasn't mention in any of His statements about sexual matters, because it isn't.

Show me any scripture that talks about male to male or female to female rules and regulations.

We see marriage, lust, divorce, fornication and adultery only as it relates to hetrosexauls. We see bishops/pastors and deacons only as it relates to hetrosexuals.

Show me any place where homosexuality is used as an example of something good and right. Show me any scripture where they are considered and mentioned except in the so called "clobber passages".

We read where 14 of 15 Rome empire leaders had homosexual relationships, and that many even married their homosexual partners. So can't say they didn't know about loving relationships without showing proof that they didn't know how to love.

Since these things were going on to the knowledge of anyone not trap out with there flock, how come the Parisees didn't add them to the temptation?

How could Paul not be quite aware of the relationships of the leaders of Rome, and it not be a leading by the Lord to write against it?

Like we are given wisdom and understanding today so were Christ followers back then. Is there any proof that the writers of the Bible had something to gain by not letting the Lord lead them in their writings?

He blinded Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, and you don't think He would have done something if Paul would have started preaching something contrary to His ways?

How do you know for sure that they didn't tempt Him with that also? you don't.
As stated, arguments from silence aren't good ones either way. "Homosexual relationships are wrong because they aren't mentioned", or "homosexual relationships are OK because they aren't mentioned" = same faulty notion spelled out.


Do we know for fact Jesus never spoke about these issues just because they aren't in the Bible? no.

 

[davedjy]

because Jesus never spoke of it, and in doing so we would have to say that it is ok for homosexuals to divorce for no reason at all, it's ok to lust after people of the same sex, and it is ok for homosexuals to commit fornication and adultery.

If Jesus never mentioned it, why would you say it's automatically OK?
Weren't you the one that said that pornography isn't mentioned in the Bible, yet it is sinful to view?
Under that same logic, one could say anything not mentioned in the Bible is automatically OK.

 

[savedandhappy1]

How do you know for sure that they didn't tempt Him with that also? you don't.

So we use silence to back our ways, but then we say.........

As stated, arguments from silence aren't good ones either way. "Homosexual relationships are wrong because they aren't mentioned", or "homosexual relationships are OK because they aren't mentioned" = same faulty notion spelled out.

.......that silence is a faulty notion.

Do we know for fact Jesus never spoke about these issues just because they aren't in the Bible? no.

Then we say that the lack of proof that He didn't say anything about the issue..............isn't silence and......

I could list alot of the other things that aren't mentioned in the Bible as Jesus speaking about them, but it wouldn't do any good because someone can only see if they want to see. They can only hear if they want to hear, and sadly nm.

Good Day All.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Because obviously, if it's not mentioned it must be wrong. Don't fall for that politically correct joke. If I say mankind am I ONLY referring to men? Of course not. But it's rather pointless to repeat "man, woman, transvestite, androgynous..." when "mankind" makes the same assertion.

Also: maybe because the homosexuality condemned in the Bible is purely sexual with nothing else attached to it, the Pharisee's felt no need to mention it. Remember that in the time of the Pharisee's, the teachers of religious law didn't necessarily agree on a single interpretation. They debated about it just as much as we do today; that was how up and coming students chose their teacher.

The "wrong by silence" theory, is flawed in so many ways. You can make practically ANYTHING a sin by saying it's not in the Bible. Watch: "The Bible never mentions computers, so computers must be sinful to use." That's the same basic argument. Or even something less modern: "The Bible never clarifies how we should use the Earth aside from growing food, so we must not be able to use it."

 

[Zaac]

Jesus only speaks of marriage, divorce, lust, fornication and adultery when it comes to a man and a woman. So why would we even need to debate the so called "clobber passages"?

We either need to go with the same standard used to say homosexuality is ok, because Jesus never spoke of it, and in doing so we would have to say that it is ok for homosexuals to divorce for no reason at all, it's ok to lust after people of the same sex, and it is ok for homosexuals to commit fornication and adultery.

Does that really make sense?

If a man and a woman become one flesh when they are joined together, according to Jesus, then what are a man and man or woman and woman? Just wondering sense Jesus only speaks of what happens when a man and a woman come together.

Matthew 19:3-6 states:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 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.


Matthew 5:31-32 states:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Matthew 19:9 states similarly:
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Here, Jesus prohibits divorce, except in a case of sexual misconduct -- "porneia" in the original Greek. Various versions of the Bible have translated "porneia" as as adultery, fornication, unchastity, unfaithfulness or marital unfaithfulness. Jesus here deviated from Jewish law, which said that a man could freely divorce his wife.

Mark 10:11-12 states: "...Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Luke 16:18 states: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

Matthew 5:27-28 condemns feelings of lust experienced by a man towards a woman. In the King James version, Jesus is recorded as saying: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."
So can we really use the logic that Jesus never said homosexuality was wrong, and so if it wasn't important enough for Jesus to mention it then the Church shouldn't?

Yep. That's why the only way for them to justify the sin of homosexual fornication is to sytematically attempt to undo God's Word by calling into question word translations and attempting to redefine marriage.

The devil likes to imitate that which is of God and that's what they are attempting to do.

But Gods people aren't fooled.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Yep. That's why the only way for them to justify the sin of homosexual fornication is to sytematically attempt to undo God's Word by calling into question word translations and attempting to redefine marriage.

The devil likes to imitate that which is of God and that's what they are attempting to do.

But Gods people aren't fooled.

Apparently they are. Fooled by their own bias anyway.

That's why tolerance is considered the same as condoning when really it doesn't mean that. It just means you accept that other people may think differently.

 

[savedandhappy1]

If Jesus never mentioned it, why would you say it's automatically OK?

I'm not the one saying that. I am making a point, which I am pretty sure you know.

Weren't you the one that said that pornography isn't mentioned in the Bible, yet it is sinful to view?

I have mentioned several things that Jesus didn't mention as examples, but don't remember if pornography was one of them or not.

Under that same logic, one could say anything not mentioned in the Bible is automatically OK.

That is what alot of us have been trying to point out to those who use the Jesus didn't mention it so it wasn't a problem to Him excuse.

Glad to see someone finally got it.

 

[davedjy]

So we use silence to back our ways, but then we say.........

I'm not using an argument from silence to back my viewpoint, I'm saying, how do you know He wasn't tempted with that also? My point is that by asking YOU the question, you cannot answer one way or the other.

Then we say that the lack of proof that He didn't say anything about the issue..............isn't silence and......

I could list alot of the other things that aren't mentioned in the Bible as Jesus speaking about them, but it wouldn't do any good because someone can only see if they want to see. They can only hear if they want to hear, and sadly nm.

Good Day All.

Interesting, your whole argument is one from silence, yet you are saying that I want to hear only what I want to hear? that is pretty ironic, coming from the fact that every argument you made on this thread is based upon an argument from silence.

Esp. that quote where the Pharisees asked Jesus the question "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?".
The question was specific, so it got a specific answer regarding what man was to do w/his wife. You might as well say that leaves out anything else off topic that wasn't asked of Jesus, like Steak dinners are sinful under that logic.

 

[davedjy]

That is what alot of us have been trying to point out to those who use the Jesus didn't mention it so it wasn't a problem to Him excuse.

Glad to see someone finally got it.

You are saying that automatically anything not mentioned is automatically "OK" with Jesus, so therefore it couldn't be true, it would have to be mentioned. Nobody is arguing that point but you, such as same sex divorce, and lust. I already showed you why that argument doesn't work.

You still don't see why your argument doesn't work though?

 

[Brieuse]

Yep. That's why the only way for them to justify the sin of homosexual fornication is to sytematically attempt to undo God's Word by calling into question word translations and attempting to redefine marriage.

The devil likes to imitate that which is of God and that's what they are attempting to do.

But Gods people aren't fooled.

Nope, we aren't fooled at all.

 

[davedjy]

Yep. That's why the only way for them to justify the sin of homosexual fornication is to sytematically attempt to undo God's Word by calling into question word translations and attempting to redefine marriage.

The devil likes to imitate that which is of God and that's what they are attempting to do.

But Gods people aren't fooled.

Yet, you cannot prove that marriage is defined ONLY by the genders involved, or that same sex marriage "redefines" marriage at all. Your argument is just as valid as the OP's...it's one from silence, so it doesn't work either. You also cannot prove that homosexual sex is defined as "fornication" at all.

 

[davedjy]

Nope, we aren't fooled at all.

No, we aren't. To be fooled we would have to buy one of many of their arguments from silence.

 

[Brieuse]

No, we aren't. To be fooled we would have to buy one of many of their arguments from silence.

eggs actly

 

[Zaac]

Apparently they are. Fooled by their own bias anyway.

That's why tolerance is considered the same as condoning when really it doesn't mean that. It just means you accept that other people may think differently.

God hasn't called me to be tolerant of lies.

 

[Brieuse]

God hasn't called me to be tolerant of lies.

Me neither.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Because obviously, if it's not mentioned it must be wrong. Don't fall for that politically correct joke. If I say mankind am I ONLY referring to men? Of course not. But it's rather pointless to repeat "man, woman, transvestite, androgynous..." when "mankind" makes the same assertion.

Also: maybe because the homosexuality condemned in the Bible is purely sexual with nothing else attached to it, the Pharisee's felt no need to mention it. Remember that in the time of the Pharisee's, the teachers of religious law didn't necessarily agree on a single interpretation. They debated about it just as much as we do today; that was how up and coming students chose their teacher.

The "wrong by silence" theory, is flawed in so many ways. You can make practically ANYTHING a sin by saying it's not in the Bible. Watch: "The Bible never mentions computers, so computers must be sinful to use." That's the same basic argument. Or even something less modern: "The Bible never clarifies how we should use the Earth aside from growing food, so we must not be able to use it."

This is almost funny.

One of the main reasons given by many here is Jesus didn't mention it so it was important enough for Him to mention so it is not a sin. Yet, when they are shown how that reasoning can be used, then suddenly nobody was using it, and I'm using it to try and prove my point, oh brother.

Like I said to davidjy, it is nice to see people are finally seeing how that logic doesn't work. The only way it would be nicer is if they wouldn't try and pretend they never believed it or used it, and/or try and say I was seriously using it to proof my point.

So now homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, some of us need to make up our minds.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Apparently they are. Fooled by their own bias anyway.

That's why tolerance is considered the same as condoning when really it doesn't mean that. It just means you accept that other people may think differently.

Hmmmmmmmm, ok who here has ever said that people don't think differently?

I know that tolerance doesn't mean condoning someones sin, but again I see you saying what we who are called haters and bigots have been saying all along.

Boy, this is really getting confusing, and the author is................