Questions Regarding the Creation Story

[leecappella]

I have a few questions that have come up concerning the Creation Story. This story is brought up when opposing same sex unions and used to justify that only heterosexual unions are the acceptable and permissable unions God allows. It has been said many times that just because the Creation Story has a male and female in it, then, based on that, only males and females can marry one another. Heterosexual unions only! It is argued that since no same sex union or couple is present in the Creation Story, then that means no same sex union is accepted or allowed. Do you all see the premise or foundation these reasonings are based upon? Just because cats are not mentioned in the creation story (or maybe not even in the bible itself), this does not mean they were not created, does it? Following this line of reasoning, the following questions have arisen concerning the Creation Story, and they are not necessarily related to the issue of homosexual unions:

1. GOD, ALL KNOWING? - In Genesis 2:18, God decides to make a help meet for Adam. After deciding to do this, God forms every beast of the field and every fowl of the air. This, to me, implies that God expected these animals to meet the help meet needs of Adam. However, in verse 20, we see that God still sees the need for a help meet for Adam because, obviously, the animals did not meet the expected expectation of God to be a help meet for Adam. Follow me? The question arises for me, then, that if God is all knowing, which I believe He is, why would He not see that the animals would not meet Adam's help meet needs before he created them to be Adam's help meet? It's almost as if in verse 20, God realizes that the animals didn't work, so I have to come up with something else for Adam. Wouldn't he have known this beforehand? Comments, please!

2. AN ANDROGYNOUS FIRST HUMAN? - I have read that the first human (ie. Adam) was an androgynous human (ie. male and female). The rib that God formed Eve from, in hebrew, can be translated as 'side'. So, God formed woman from Adam's side. Was it an actual rib or was it the side of Adam that was female that God used to form woman? Have any of you read anything like this before? Comments, please!

3. ALL MEN SHOULD MARRY? - Reading Genesis 2:24, it is implied that when a man leaves father and mother, he will cleave to a wife and become one flesh with her. To me, it implies that no man should be without a wife. This seemingly makes being single a sin since it (ie. being single) is not in line with God's original intent at the time of creation. Keep in mind that this thought is following along the same line of reasoning as used by those who use the Creation story to oppose same sex unions. I am approaching the text in the same manner as those who approach the Creation story to oppose same sex unions. Comments?

4. BEING 'ONE FLESH' - The 'one flesh' aspect in the Creation story has seemed to lead a lot of people to believe that only a married man and woman can be one flesh. Well, as some of you may know, Paul did not see the 'one flesh' concept as only applicable between married persons. He saw sex between unmarried persons as being a 'one flesh' thing as well, and that is likely why he opposed such sex outside of the marital union. Your thoughts!

5. PROCREATION AT ALL TIMES! - Using the same line of approach to the Creation story as used by those who use it to oppose same sex unions, it would seem evident that the 'be fruitful and multiply' command in the story is one that would result in all married persons to procreate when married. It's in the story, just like the male and female are, so why would it not be expected from married persons to have children as opposed to not having children? It could be argued that to marry without the intent of having children is to be out of the will of God and to have sex with no intent of doing so could be considered unnatural, based on this approach to the Creation story, which is similar to the approach those opposed to same sex unions use.

You see, the first humans who were brought together were male and female. So, from this, it is assumed that only males and female can 'come together' in union. The first humans were told to be 'fruitful and multiply', but, from this, is it believed that likewise all males and females who come together in union should procreate as well? The first humans were considered fit for one another because they were of the same flesh. Are not two same sex persons of the same flesh as well? The first woman was made from the first man. Like two children who come from the same parent, does this not make their relationship somewhat incestuous? Even further, if we all came from Adam and Eve, are we not related in much the same way, no matter who we end up with in marriage? Just a thought and just a question! And for the 'one flesh' aspect, I find that not because they were male and female is why they are 'one flesh', but because one came out of the other. After it is explained that the woman came out of man, the next verse says, "Therefore", which usually means because of this or because of what was just said before this verse. Comments, please! Remember also that illogical reasonings can lead to illogical conclusions.

 

[UberLutheran]

[grinning, running, ducking, and hiding]

I'm sorry: I just couldn't resist...

You forgot one thing. Since God told us to be fruitful and multiply, ANY sex (including sex within marriage) which does not have the intent of producing children should be considered "sinful".

Which is (partly) why St. Paul said, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; but she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety." 1 Timothy 2:13-15

Well, that - [sarcasm] plus the fact that women got all of humanity into this "sin" mess, so they need to pop out children as fast as they can to make up for it. No children = no salvation.[/sarcasm]

 

[leecappella]

[grinning, running, ducking, and hiding]

I'm sorry: I just couldn't resist...

You forgot one thing. Since God told us to be fruitful and multiply, ANY sex (including sex within marriage) which does not have the intent of producing children should be considered "sinful".

Which is (partly) why St. Paul said, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam wasn't deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; but she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety." 1 Timothy 2:13-15

Well, that - [sarcasm] plus the fact that women got all of humanity into this "sin" mess, so they need to pop out children as fast as they can to make up for it. No children = no salvation.[/sarcasm]

me: Sorry if I didn't come right out and call it a sin, but I do believe that was implied under #5. If not, I apologize! I'm not actually calling it a sin, but in the context of what I was trying to say.....I'm sure you, and others, get my point. Thanks for the reply.

 

[UberLutheran]

me: Sorry if I didn't come right out and call it a sin, but I do believe that was implied under #5. If not, I apologize! I'm not actually calling it a sin, but in the context of what I was trying to say.....I'm sure you, and others, get my point. Thanks for the reply.

I just needed to point out that women are saved by having children, because women got us all into this mess. (I can remember the fundamentalist pastor of the church where I grew up actually saying that.)

 

[- DRA -]

I have a few questions that have come up concerning the Creation Story. This story is brought up when opposing same sex unions and used to justify that only heterosexual unions are the acceptable and permissable unions God allows. It has been said many times that just because the Creation Story has a male and female in it, then, based on that, only males and females can marry one another. Heterosexual unions only! It is argued that since no same sex union or couple is present in the Creation Story, then that means no same sex union is accepted or allowed. Do you all see the premise or foundation these reasonings are based upon? Just because cats are not mentioned in the creation story (or maybe not even in the bible itself), this does not mean they were not created, does it? Following this line of reasoning, the following questions have arisen concerning the Creation Story, and they are not necessarily related to the issue of homosexual unions:

Leecappella,

The creation account in Genesis chapter 2 indeed discusses the union of the first man and woman as they became "one flesh" (verse 24). While it is true that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, there is much more spoken about the marriage relationship and homosexuality than just in Gen. 2.

For instance, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 19. must be considered when one studies how God views certain behaviors. I have heard some say that homosexuality was not the issue in these cities. Rather, it was a lack of hospitality. There is an obvious conflict with this position and Jude's commentary on these cities (see Jude 7). Romans 1:16-28 offers a commentary on those things that are "against nature" (verse 26) and "not fitting" (verse 28). As far as homosexuality is concerned, these passages give us the indication that God is not particularly pleased by such behavior.

Jesus comments on marriage in Matthew 19:2-12.

The apostle Paul writes about abstaining from fornication (or sexual immorality) and the marriage relationship in 1 Corinthians 6:15-7:40. Paul also uses the marriage relationship as a way to illustrate to the Jews how they were free from the law of Moses (Romans 7:1-4).

The writer of Hebrews offers a brief comment about marriage in 13:3.

When we look at the overall view of God's word concerning sexual activity and marriage, we must consider all that God has said about such activities. God instituted the marriage relationship between a man and woman. He blesses that relationship. He approves of it. Those who choose an "alternate lifestyle" must have authority for what they practice (Colossians 3:17). Not finding God's approval for such activity, they must do as those in Corinth did (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Some of the Corinthians were guilty of homosexuality. Rather than continue in their activities, they ceased to engage in these activites after being washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord.

In His service,
. . . Denny

 

[leecappella]

I just needed to point out that women are saved by having children, because women got us all into this mess. (I can remember the fundamentalist pastor of the church where I grew up actually saying that.)

me: Are you saying you believe that is true or are you just saying it?

 

[- DRA -]

I have a few questions that have come up concerning the Creation Story. This story is brought up when opposing same sex unions and used to justify that only heterosexual unions are the acceptable and permissable unions God allows. It has been said many times that just because the Creation Story has a male and female in it, then, based on that, only males and females can marry one another. Heterosexual unions only! It is argued that since no same sex union or couple is present in the Creation Story, then that means no same sex union is accepted or allowed. Do you all see the premise or foundation these reasonings are based upon? Just because cats are not mentioned in the creation story (or maybe not even in the bible itself), this does not mean they were not created, does it? Following this line of reasoning, the following questions have arisen concerning the Creation Story, and they are not necessarily related to the issue of homosexual unions:

1. GOD, ALL KNOWING? - In Genesis 2:18, God decides to make a help meet for Adam. After deciding to do this, God forms every beast of the field and every fowl of the air. This, to me, implies that God expected these animals to meet the help meet needs of Adam. However, in verse 20, we see that God still sees the need for a help meet for Adam because, obviously, the animals did not meet the expected expectation of God to be a help meet for Adam. Follow me? The question arises for me, then, that if God is all knowing, which I believe He is, why would He not see that the animals would not meet Adam's help meet needs before he created them to be Adam's help meet? It's almost as if in verse 20, God realizes that the animals didn't work, so I have to come up with something else for Adam. Wouldn't he have known this beforehand? Comments, please!

Leecappella,

Hopefully, you realize that the understanding that God did not have the foresight to "see" that Adam would not have a comparable mate before the creation just doesn't fit with the rest of Scripture. God's reply to Job in 38:1-11 helps us appreciate that God designed the earth and planned how things would work. Numerous references in the Psalms and Proverbs are made to God's wisdom, even in creation i.e. Ps. 104:24, Pr. 3:19. The O.T. prophets and their prophecies are clear evidence of God's foreknowledge and wisdom. Paul contrasts God's wisdom with man's in 1 Corinthians 1:17b - 25. Frankly, man's wisdom does not begin to measure up to God's.

As I seek to harmonize God's wisdom with what is recorded in Gen. 2:18, I credit God with the wisdom that He possesses. I believe that God knew beforehand that there would be a need for a companion for man. God recognized this with the animals, birds, etc., so it is not logical that the needs of the first man just somehow "slipped by" God. Rather, God is explaining His thought process in looking out for man and seeking his well-being from the beginning. This sequence of events in the last part of Genesis 2 also has some significance in other ways. Consider: Paul lists an order of subjection in 1 Corinthians 11:3. He follows that verse with some reasons for the subjection of women to men (verses 7-9, 11-12). The reasoning in those verses goes back to these events in Gen. 2. While this reasoning may not be popular nor well accepted today by many, it is the logic that God wants us to consider.

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

I have a few questions that have come up concerning the Creation Story. This story is brought up when opposing same sex unions and used to justify that only heterosexual unions are the acceptable and permissable unions God allows. It has been said many times that just because the Creation Story has a male and female in it, then, based on that, only males and females can marry one another. Heterosexual unions only! It is argued that since no same sex union or couple is present in the Creation Story, then that means no same sex union is accepted or allowed. Do you all see the premise or foundation these reasonings are based upon? Just because cats are not mentioned in the creation story (or maybe not even in the bible itself), this does not mean they were not created, does it? Following this line of reasoning, the following questions have arisen concerning the Creation Story, and they are not necessarily related to the issue of homosexual unions:

2. AN ANDROGYNOUS FIRST HUMAN? - I have read that the first human (ie. Adam) was an androgynous human (ie. male and female). The rib that God formed Eve from, in hebrew, can be translated as 'side'. So, God formed woman from Adam's side. Was it an actual rib or was it the side of Adam that was female that God used to form woman? Have any of you read anything like this before? Comments, please!

Leecappella,

I don't have a clue what where you read that Adam was both male and female, but I know where you didn't read it - - in the Bible account!

No, I have never read or heard anything like this before. I have heard some pretty ridiculous things before by those with bigger imaginations than I have, but this rates right up there with the best . . . or worst . . . of them (according to how you rate such things). Why not just accept the text for what it says? Why is there a need to read something into it that is not there? In fact, this very act is in violation of 1 Peter 4:11a. It says, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles [words] of God." When you consider Jesus' teaching in Matthew 21:23-27 about the two sources of authority in spiritual matters, it becomes rather obvious where the rationale for an Adam that was both male and female originated. (It did not come from God, therefore, it came from man.)

. . . Denny

 

[leecappella]

Leecappella,

The creation account in Genesis chapter 2 indeed discusses the union of the first man and woman as they became "one flesh" (verse 24). While it is true that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, there is much more spoken about the marriage relationship and homosexuality than just in Gen. 2.

For instance, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 19. must be considered when one studies how God views certain behaviors. I have heard some say that homosexuality was not the issue in these cities. Rather, it was a lack of hospitality. There is an obvious conflict with this position and Jude's commentary on these cities (see Jude 7). Romans 1:16-28 offers a commentary on those things that are "against nature" (verse 26) and "not fitting" (verse 28). As far as homosexuality is concerned, these passages give us the indication that God is not particularly pleased by such behavior.

Jesus comments on marriage in Matthew 19:2-12.

The apostle Paul writes about abstaining from fornication (or sexual immorality) and the marriage relationship in 1 Corinthians 6:15-7:40. Paul also uses the marriage relationship as a way to illustrate to the Jews how they were free from the law of Moses (Romans 7:1-4).

The writer of Hebrews offers a brief comment about marriage in 13:3.

When we look at the overall view of God's word concerning sexual activity and marriage, we must consider all that God has said about such activities. God instituted the marriage relationship between a man and woman. He blesses that relationship. He approves of it. Those who choose an "alternate lifestyle" must have authority for what they practice (Colossians 3:17). Not finding God's approval for such activity, they must do as those in Corinth did (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Some of the Corinthians were guilty of homosexuality. Rather than continue in their activities, they ceased to engage in these activites after being washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord.

In His service,
. . . Denny

me: There is no doubt that the Sodom story must be considered when studying how God views certain behaviors. If it is studied closely, one would or should notice that its context had nothing to do with love. It was rape! One should also be aware of the fact that rape is not a determining factor as to whether or not the love between two people is acceptable to God or not. That is to say, if we switch the story around and say a group of males wanted to rape two women, that context would not render all male/female relationships of love unacceptable to God...based on this one story of heterosexual rape. This is not just judgement. The Sodom story says nothing about homosexual love between two persons. It just includes an attempted homosexual rape. The two (ie. rape and love) are not synonymous with one another.

The Jude reference has nothing to do with homosexuality, unless, ofcourse, we are talking about promiscuous sex. Other than that, I don't see it. The reference to 'strange' flesh in Jude is not a reference to homosexuality. Especially, not dependent upon the definition of 'strange'. 'Strange' implies different flesh. All humans are of the same flesh, whether male or female. We are made of the same flesh. The going after of strange flesh, in my studies, implies inappropriate behavior with animals, which is going after flesh that is not human flesh (ie. of animals, angels, etc.) In Sodom's case, it was angelic flesh that was sought after. It should also be remembered what this act represented in bible days. The intent and motive behind a man having sex with another man was not a loving one by far!

Paul's use of the terms 'nature' and 'natural' is questionable. Especially, when he says nature teaches that long hair on a man is a shame. Naturally, hair grows longer, whether on a man or woman, so how is Paul defining nature? Besides, those things considered 'against nature' could be any number of things, such as sex outside of love and marriage and whatever else took place in idolatrous worship rituals, as is the context of Romans 1 (ie...and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image...).

Jesus' comment on marriage in Matthew 19 also includes his mentioning of eunuchs, which homosexuals could very well be a part of, considering its defintion is not limited to just a castrated man. I know how this would be hard to see considering you believe the bible condmens all same sex relaitonships, but it is my understanding that how you see those verses that deal with same sex acts is incorrect. They have nothing to do with love and commitment in a loving relationship/union. I mean, gee, you believe that a story of homosexual rape renders homosexual love condemned. How can the two be compared? The context of Matthew 19 is heterosexual marriage and the man's desire to leave his wife for any reason. It's not about who marriage is only for. Jesus references Genesis to establish the oneness between those who marry and that it should not be put asunder. Putting asunder is what the men Jesus were talking to were talking about.

Jesus and Paul related to people in the context that they were in. Why wouldn't the marriage relationship be used as an example? It would be understood in a society that married!

Hebrews 13:3 - Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge...I find it hard to consider a homosexual an adulterer unless he/she has cheated on the one they've committed themselves to or if they've denied God in a relationship with God. A whoremonger cannot be defined as someone who commits to another person and stays in relationship with them for life, til death do they part. That is, unless they sleep around in secret with lots of people.

As mentioned by others and myself, same sex love is not mentioned in scripture and, being so, the bible cannot be referenced in this verse or that verse to prove that love between same gendered persons is not allowed. Same sex acts were indeed done, but what was the context of those acts and the heart intent and motive behind them? Not love!

 

[- DRA -]

I have a few questions that have come up concerning the Creation Story. This story is brought up when opposing same sex unions and used to justify that only heterosexual unions are the acceptable and permissable unions God allows. It has been said many times that just because the Creation Story has a male and female in it, then, based on that, only males and females can marry one another. Heterosexual unions only! It is argued that since no same sex union or couple is present in the Creation Story, then that means no same sex union is accepted or allowed. Do you all see the premise or foundation these reasonings are based upon? Just because cats are not mentioned in the creation story (or maybe not even in the bible itself), this does not mean they were not created, does it? Following this line of reasoning, the following questions have arisen concerning the Creation Story, and they are not necessarily related to the issue of homosexual unions:

3. ALL MEN SHOULD MARRY? - Reading Genesis 2:24, it is implied that when a man leaves father and mother, he will cleave to a wife and become one flesh with her. To me, it implies that no man should be without a wife. This seemingly makes being single a sin since it (ie. being single) is not in line with God's original intent at the time of creation. Keep in mind that this thought is following along the same line of reasoning as used by those who use the Creation story to oppose same sex unions. I am approaching the text in the same manner as those who approach the Creation story to oppose same sex unions. Comments?

Leecappella,

If the implication that no man should be without a wife is true, then that will harmonize with the rest of scriptures. Does it? No. Jesus was not married. The apostle Paul was not married. In fact, Paul tells us that the decision of whether or not one marries is a personal judgment (1 Corinthians 7:6-9).

I oppose homosexual relationships, but not by using the line of reasoning that you described. The marriage of a man and woman is the only relationship that I can find God's approval for. If there is Bible authority for a homosexual marriage, then I missed it completely.

. . . Denny

 

[leecappella]

I oppose homosexual relationships, but not by using the line of reasoning that you described. The marriage of a man and woman is the only relationship that I can find God's approval for. If there is Bible authority for a homosexual marriage, then I missed it completely.

. . . Denny

me: The bible says that there are records of Jesus and things He did that have not been recorded. Why do you need to see an approval of same sex relationships in the bible? There are things you are not aware of that Jesus did and said that could change your mind on things you now have established a conclusion about. Why does all things have to be in the bible for you?

 

[- DRA -]

I have a few questions that have come up concerning the Creation Story. This story is brought up when opposing same sex unions and used to justify that only heterosexual unions are the acceptable and permissable unions God allows. It has been said many times that just because the Creation Story has a male and female in it, then, based on that, only males and females can marry one another. Heterosexual unions only! It is argued that since no same sex union or couple is present in the Creation Story, then that means no same sex union is accepted or allowed. Do you all see the premise or foundation these reasonings are based upon? Just because cats are not mentioned in the creation story (or maybe not even in the bible itself), this does not mean they were not created, does it? Following this line of reasoning, the following questions have arisen concerning the Creation Story, and they are not necessarily related to the issue of homosexual unions:

4. BEING 'ONE FLESH' - The 'one flesh' aspect in the Creation story has seemed to lead a lot of people to believe that only a married man and woman can be one flesh. Well, as some of you may know, Paul did not see the 'one flesh' concept as only applicable between married persons. He saw sex between unmarried persons as being a 'one flesh' thing as well, and that is likely why he opposed such sex outside of the marital union. Your thoughts!

Leecappella,

Exactly. Gen. 2:24 is not the only place in the Bible that becoming "one flesh" is discussed. Obviously, in Gen. 2 it is discussing the phsyical union of Adam and Eve in marriage. But Paul also discusses that one might become "one flesh" outside of marriage. In 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, Paul says that a Christian that joins himself to a harlot becomes "one body" with her (NKJV-verse 16). That does not mean that their physical union makes them married, but points out that the Christian should be joined spiritually to the Lord, not physically to a harlot. The Christian should flee fornication. The Christian should use their body and spirit to glorify God, not for unlawful sexual activity.

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

I have a few questions that have come up concerning the Creation Story. This story is brought up when opposing same sex unions and used to justify that only heterosexual unions are the acceptable and permissable unions God allows. It has been said many times that just because the Creation Story has a male and female in it, then, based on that, only males and females can marry one another. Heterosexual unions only! It is argued that since no same sex union or couple is present in the Creation Story, then that means no same sex union is accepted or allowed. Do you all see the premise or foundation these reasonings are based upon? Just because cats are not mentioned in the creation story (or maybe not even in the bible itself), this does not mean they were not created, does it? Following this line of reasoning, the following questions have arisen concerning the Creation Story, and they are not necessarily related to the issue of homosexual unions:

5. PROCREATION AT ALL TIMES! - Using the same line of approach to the Creation story as used by those who use it to oppose same sex unions, it would seem evident that the 'be fruitful and multiply' command in the story is one that would result in all married persons to procreate when married. It's in the story, just like the male and female are, so why would it not be expected from married persons to have children as opposed to not having children? It could be argued that to marry without the intent of having children is to be out of the will of God and to have sex with no intent of doing so could be considered unnatural, based on this approach to the Creation story, which is similar to the approach those opposed to same sex unions use.

You see, the first humans who were brought together were male and female. So, from this, it is assumed that only males and female can 'come together' in union. The first humans were told to be 'fruitful and multiply', but, from this, is it believed that likewise all males and females who come together in union should procreate as well? The first humans were considered fit for one another because they were of the same flesh. Are not two same sex persons of the same flesh as well? The first woman was made from the first man. Like two children who come from the same parent, does this not make their relationship somewhat incestuous? Even further, if we all came from Adam and Eve, are we not related in much the same way, no matter who we end up with in marriage? Just a thought and just a question! And for the 'one flesh' aspect, I find that not because they were male and female is why they are 'one flesh', but because one came out of the other. After it is explained that the woman came out of man, the next verse says, "Therefore", which usually means because of this or because of what was just said before this verse. Comments, please! Remember also that illogical reasonings can lead to illogical conclusions.

Leecappella,

In point #5 of your post you are focusing on an area that you perceive as an area of inconsistent reasoning by those who oppose same sex unions. While it is true that any of us who study the Bible should be consistent with our reasoning, just because one is inconsistent in an area does not prove that the opposing position is correct. Each line of reasoning must stand on its own - - it will either be in harmony with Scripture . . . or it won't be.

The command to "be fruitful and multiply" was given in Gen. 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1,7. If procreation was the only reason for sexual relations, then that reasoning would agree with other scriptures. I suggest that you read 1 Corinthinans 7:1-9 to determine if this is the case. Actually, the context starts back in 6:15.

I believe that the marriage of a man and a woman is the marriage relationship that God ordained in the beginning. I don't have to assume that is what God intended, I can study "All Scripture" (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and determine God's view of same sex sexual activity (see previous posts).

I view the meaning of "one flesh" differently that you do. I suggest that two things be considered:
1.) The latter part of Gen. 2:24 - - "they shall become one flesh" (NKJV). Notice that the future tense is used. Consider: even though Eve was made from Adam's flesh, their becoming "one flesh" is still future.
2.) Adam "knew" Eve (Gen. 4:1). This coming together of a man and woman sexually is what Paul said made them "one flesh" in 1 Corinthians 6:16.

True. Many fail to realize today in a world of continuing bigotry and racial intolerance that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve . . . as well as Noah and his wife (all of the other genealogies were destroyed during the flood).

True. Illogical reasoning can lead to illogical conclusions. That is why we are admonished to be like the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11.

In His service,
. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

me: The bible says that there are records of Jesus and things He did that have not been recorded. Why do you need to see an approval of same sex relationships in the bible? There are things you are not aware of that Jesus did and said that could change your mind on things you now have established a conclusion about. Why does all things have to be in the bible for you?

Leecappella,

John 20:30-31 says, "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. " (NKJV) This passage tells me that Jesus indeed performed many signs that are not recorded. Why not? Because we have enough events recorded to produce faith.

In order to accept and approve of same sex relationships, I need the same thing that you need - - authority for it (Colossians 3:17; see also Matt. 21:23-27). We know when God instituted marriage it was between the first man and first woman, and we should be able to determine that God does not approve of same sex sexual relations i.e. Gen. 19 & Jude 7, Romans 1. Peter admonishes God's people to "speak as the oracles [word] of God" (1 Peter 4:11a). Since I find God's sanction and approval for marriage between a man and a woman (Gen. 2, Matt. 19, and numerous Old and New Testament examples), and condemnation for same sex relationships (Gen. 19 & Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 6:9-11), it is not a hard choice for me to determine what I should practice, teach, accept, and approve of.

. . . Denny

 

[MissFirerose]

Leecappella,

If the implication that no man should be without a wife is true, then that will harmonize with the rest of scriptures. Does it? No. Jesus was not married. The apostle Paul was not married. In fact, Paul tells us that the decision of whether or not one marries is a personal judgment (1 Corinthians 7:6-9).

I oppose homosexual relationships, but not by using the line of reasoning that you described. The marriage of a man and woman is the only relationship that I can find God's approval for. If there is Bible authority for a homosexual marriage, then I missed it completely.

. . . Denny

Actually, the Bible supports at least eight types of marriages, two of which include a rapist marrying his victim and polygamy. Do you support these?

 

[- DRA -]

Actually, the Bible supports at least eight types of marriages, two of which include a rapist marrying his victim and polygamy. Do you support these?

Miss,

I'm not sure of your use of the word "support." Could you explain what you mean?

I can think of an example where a leader of God's people committed adultery, and then had the woman's husband killed in battle. While the Bible records the account of this deed, I do not find that God "supported" or approved of such action. Rather, I find where God sent a prophet to this leader to warn him about his actions.

I cannot think of an example where God "supported" rape. You'll have to help me out on this one.

God once allowed polygamy. There are a number of O.T. examples to demonstrate this. However, I do not find any evidence to suggest that any of these extra "spouses" were of a same sex type. Do you? As for polygamy, Jesus offers some insight into what God intended for marriage from the beginning (Matt. 19:3-12). Paul also speaks about marriage in Rom. 7:1-3. I tend to think of polygamy much like idolatry - - God overlooked some things, but now "commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). One thing is for sure, bishops and deacons can not be polygamists (1 Tim. 3:2, 12).

Just because God allowed polygamy during O.T. times does not prove that God allowed homosexuality. In fact, that reasoning defies Gen. 19 and Jude's commentary on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 7).

. . . Denny

 

[SolomonVII]

Actually, the Bible supports at least eight types of marriages, two of which include a rapist marrying his victim and polygamy. Do you support these?

The point about the rapist is an interesting one. If for example a woman becomes pregnant through the act of rape, should the rapists be held to be at least financially responsible for the upbringing of the child? There may be a case for this. On the other hand, women in western society have become too independant for this to be practical anymore
it may also be useful to look at this from the point of view of the mores that may have existed at the time. There are for example many case in which rape victims become disowned and shunned by their own families because the rape has brought a dishonor upon the family. There have been such examples of this in the Serbian mass rapes of Albanians, and similar cases among Middle eastern peoples as well where rape victims are even killed for being rape victims by their own families. The ancient belief was that sexual feelings that a man feels for a woman were somehow caused by the woman and so the woman is therefore somehow responsible. (Apparently, it is not just an ancient belief).
In cases such as these, where a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, has no means to financially supporting herself and her baby, and may be abandoned by her own family, or even stoned for adultery, it becomes more clear that by stating in these cases a man is obligated to marry the woman, an appeal is being made to a higher morality than the one that existed.
Even in these case, the Bible is demonstrating that not just procreation, but providing an adequate social support network for the upkeep of the family is the higher good, and the ultimate value of human sexuality.

 

[leecappella]

Leecappella,

John 20:30-31 says, "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. " (NKJV) This passage tells me that Jesus indeed performed many signs that are not recorded. Why not? Because we have enough events recorded to produce faith.

In order to accept and approve of same sex relationships, I need the same thing that you need - - authority for it (Colossians 3:17; see also Matt. 21:23-27). We know when God instituted marriage it was between the first man and first woman, and we should be able to determine that God does not approve of same sex sexual relations i.e. Gen. 19 & Jude 7, Romans 1. Peter admonishes God's people to "speak as the oracles [word] of God" (1 Peter 4:11a). Since I find God's sanction and approval for marriage between a man and a woman (Gen. 2, Matt. 19, and numerous Old and New Testament examples), and condemnation for same sex relationships (Gen. 19 & Rom. 1, 1 Cor. 6:9-11), it is not a hard choice for me to determine what I should practice, teach, accept, and approve of.

. . . Denny

me: Fortunately, this discussion is not directly about having faith or the lack thereof. It is about whether or not God approves of two people who love one another and who commit to one another in union and who happen to be of the same gender. I don't feel that just because this specific issue is not dealt with in scripture that it should be automatically assumed that God does not approve of such relationships. You reference Genesis 19 to show that same sex relationships are disapproved of. Genesis 19 has nothing to do with same sex relationships, but rather the issue of rape and how one treats his neighbor. This rape relationship is not the type of relationship I am advocating or in support of. If the two were equivalent, I would agree, but they are not. Certainly a man raping a woman is no equivalent with a man and a woman in a committed union! Jude 7 does not oppose same sex relaitonships because its reference is on 'different' or strange flesh. Look up the greek definition for 'strange flesh'. This is in reference to angelic flesh, which the two men disguised as angels were made of. Two same sex persons who love each other are not seeking strange or different flesh. They, like all humans, are made of the same flesh: human! And Romans one is simply so ambiguous in detail and exact meaning, you would have to be there to know exactly what Paul was describing specifically. My guess is sex outside the confines of marriage between two persons only within the context of idolatrous practices. This is not an attack on same sex relationships, but on any and all sex outside of marriage. As far as what Paul considered natural and unnatural, he deemed long hair on men a shame because of nature. By nature, hair becomes long in time. That cannot be unnatural. My guess is that Paul defined nature in a different way than you are reading into Romans one. My study of 1Corinthians 6:9 does not lead me to believe that all same sex relationships are being spoken of.

 

[leecappella]

In regards to this thread, I think I should state that the examples presented in my initial posting were presented based on a foundational premise that some chrisitans use when reading the bible. Using this premise leads them to certain conclusion that seem illogical. I have simply taken the use of said premise and came up with other questions and comments that have resulted in what could be deemed more illogical conclusion. I don't believe that I have stated that these conclusions all constitute my belief, based on this premise. My point was to show how illogical conclusion can result from a premise that is used by some who use that premise to oppose same sex relationships.

 

[- DRA -]

me: Fortunately, this discussion is not directly about having faith or the lack thereof. It is about whether or not God approves of two people who love one another and who commit to one another in union and who happen to be of the same gender. I don't feel that just because this specific issue is not dealt with in scripture that it should be automatically assumed that God does not approve of such relationships. You reference Genesis 19 to show that same sex relationships are disapproved of. Genesis 19 has nothing to do with same sex relationships, but rather the issue of rape and how one treats his neighbor. This rape relationship is not the type of relationship I am advocating or in support of. If the two were equivalent, I would agree, but they are not. Certainly a man raping a woman is no equivalent with a man and a woman in a committed union! Jude 7 does not oppose same sex relaitonships because its reference is on 'different' or strange flesh. Look up the greek definition for 'strange flesh'. This is in reference to angelic flesh, which the two men disguised as angels were made of. Two same sex persons who love each other are not seeking strange or different flesh. They, like all humans, are made of the same flesh: human! And Romans one is simply so ambiguous in detail and exact meaning, you would have to be there to know exactly what Paul was describing specifically. My guess is sex outside the confines of marriage between two persons only within the context of idolatrous practices. This is not an attack on same sex relationships, but on any and all sex outside of marriage. As far as what Paul considered natural and unnatural, he deemed long hair on men a shame because of nature. By nature, hair becomes long in time. That cannot be unnatural. My guess is that Paul defined nature in a different way than you are reading into Romans one. My study of 1Corinthians 6:9 does not lead me to believe that all same sex relationships are being spoken of.

Lee,

I can see where rape and how you treat your neighbor are issues in Gen. 19. But I still think that you are missing the point of Jude's commentary on this event. Christians are "to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (verse 3). But certain men crept in, unnoticed and ungodly, who turn God's grace into licentiousness and deny God and Jesus (verse 4). The Lord saved the Israelites from Egypt, but then destroyed those who did not believe Him (verse 5). Even angels who did not keep their proper place are reserved for judgment (condemnation) in verse 6. Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth "as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" in verse 7. Why? . . . because "having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh." While I do not believe that God approves of rape or mistreating visitors, I do not see those particular issues being singled out in this passage. What I see is the ungodly desire for sexual immorality and going after strange flesh. Obviously, this unharnessed desire for unlawful sexual relations led these men to attempt rape to fulfill their desires.

I am not sure what Greek reference source you are using to define "strange flesh" in Jude 7. I looked in Strong's at the Greek words: heteros is the word for strange, and sarx is the word for flesh. I did not find the definition that you suggested. These same Greek words are used elsewhere in the N.T. Perhaps, you can help me understand what I am missing. I believe that the men of Sodom saw what they perceived to be men entering Sodom in Gen. 19. Their ungodly desire for fornication and "strange flesh" led them to desire what they saw - - men - - men that they were sexually attracted to.

Jude 7 is a comdemnation concerning fornication and going after strange flesh. Perhaps, as you re-study the definition of strange flesh you can also study this general term that includes all unlawful sexual activity.

Now, concerning Romans 1. Let's start at verse 18. The wrath of God is God's anger. God is angry with the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. God had revealed certain of His characteristics to them since the creation of the world (vs. 19-20) - - see also Psalm 19:1-6. These ungodly and unrighteous people knew God, they did not glorify Him (vs. 21). The ungodly and unrighteous professed to be wise, but they became fools - - they made idols (vs. 22-23). Therefore (in light of the previous points) God gave then up to their lusts (vs. 24). As a result, these ungodly and unrighteous people exchanged the truth of God for the lie (vs. 25). God gave them up to their passions. Their women exchanged the "natural use" for what is "against nature" (vs. 26). Likewise (in the same manner) the men left the "natural use of the woman," and "burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful" (vs. 27). Since they did not like to retain God in their knowledge (or mind), God gave them over to a "debased mind" (vs. 28). The debased mind leads to many possible ungodly acts and behaviors (vs. 29-31). The consequences of such behaviors are clearly spelled out - - "those who practice such things are worthy of death" (vs. 32). I really don't see what is so ambiguous about verses 26-27. They directly relate to the discussion prompted by this thread. It should be very clear what is going on in those verses. Also, verses 29-31 cannot be ignored. The consequences of "those who practice such things" are the same as the consequences of those who practice the unlawful activities in verses 26-27.

I suggest that you re-think your understanding of 1 Cor. 11:14-15. What Paul says (under direct guidance of the Holy Spirit) that nature teaches, nature teaches. Nature teaches us that long hair is a dishonor to a man, but an honor to a woman. Because of what nature teaches, men maintain shorter hair than women (generally speaking). It has nothing to do with the fact that hair grows on both genders at about the same rate. Or if it does, I missed it totally.

. . . Denny