Thoughts on Jesus/Bible promoting murdering homosexuals

[NeTrips]

I don't need to discuss the exact scripture. The references are there in both Luke and Matthew.

don't or can't? You made an argument with a pretty loaded claim, now either back up your argument if it is possible or retract it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So, what you're saying is that those who want to attack the Biblical view can do so, but those who want to defend the Biblical are somehow obligated to keep quiet??

Not sure how that makes sense, but, alright.

Who attacked anything? The OPer asked a question.

 

[SimplyMe]

It takes careful ignorance of Scripture to miss the standard that is set in several places, one being:

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

Except many of the men we consider to be the greatest leaders of the Old Testament had multiple wives and never are they condemned for that fact, including Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon. Also, according to Josepheus, Moses had another wife, an Ethiopian he married prior to learning he was an Israelite; she is talked about in Numbers 12.

Some claim that David's polygamy wasn't blessed by God, but that is not a fact. Instead, he had multiple wives long before he was chastised by the Lord for taking another wife, and he was chastised for using murder to get her, not for taking another wife. In fact when Nathan the prophet came to deliver God's punishment to David, 2 Samuel 12, he says that God gave David his multiple wives and that God would have given him more, that David is being punished for trying to take the wife of another man and murdering him to do it.

Solomon is another example. The Lord told him he could have multiple wives but he was to have no foreign wives, Solomon only got into trouble when he took the foreign wives who led him away from God.

One last point, the law for multiple wives is found in Exodus 21:10. Without using a logical fallacy, as you do in your previous post (argument from ignorance), where in the Bible does it revoke this scripture?

 

[NeTrips]

So, what you're saying is that those who want to attack the Biblical view can do so, but those who want to defend the Biblical are somehow obligated to keep quiet??

Not sure how that makes sense, but, alright.

no, this isn't the "just shut up", "I love this country too", or the "move to another country" thread, this is the just "leave us alone thread"....

 

[SimplyMe]

no, this isn't the "just shut up", "I love this country too", or the "move to another country" thread, this is the just "leave us alone thread"....

Wow, sounds exactly like what homosexuals want. Give us the same protections that you already have (hate crime laws, non-discrimination laws, and marriage) and leave us alone.

 

[NeTrips]

.... where in the Bible does it revoke this scripture?

Your argument assumes, because Jesus said nothing specific about polygamy, that He said nothing about heterosexuality as a standard. Jesus referred in the most specific terms to God's created intent for human sexuality, “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

Polygamy may not have been mentioned by Jesus, many other sexual variations were not, either. But He could not have spelled out the standard for sexual expression more clearly: male to female, joined as God intended them to be. He cannot be assumed to have approved of anything less

 

[NeTrips]

Wow, sounds exactly like what homosexuals want. Give us the same protections that you already have (hate crime laws, non-discrimination laws, and marriage) and leave us alone.

under the 14th amendment, these laws apply to all equally already. Neither a homosexual nor myself nor you can legally marry a parent, sibling, child, or person of the same gender.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

under the 14th amendment, these laws apply to all equally already. Neither a homosexual nor myself nor you can legally marry a parent, sibling, child, or person of the same gender.

Spot the difference between these categories? Freely consenting homosexuals wanting to marry is NOT analogous to an incestuous marriage

 

[SimplyMe]

Your argument assumes, because Jesus said nothing specific about polygamy, that He said nothing about heterosexuality as a standard. Jesus referred in the most specific terms to God's created intent for human sexuality, “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

Polygamy may not have been mentioned by Jesus, many other sexual variations were not, either. But He could not have spelled out the standard for sexual expression more clearly: male to female, joined as God intended them to be. He cannot be assumed to have approved of anything less

I'm sorry, this is an argument from ignorance (I warned you to be careful of those). In the story you mention, Christ is asked specifically about the marriage laws of the Old Testament in an attempt to trick him, specifically about divorce. In response, Christ quotes verbatim from Genesis -- in fact from the same place you quoted in a previous quotes. As such, since it has been clarified that polygamy was authorized after the Genesis quote, it is clear that Christ was not making any type of statement about polygamy. It also states they may not divorce but not that the man cannot take more wives.

Some argue that Christ even blessed polygamy. In Matthew 22 the Sadducees tempt Christ by proposing the case of a man dying. Under the law, the man's brother is to marry the woman. So, they asked whose wife is she in heaven. The argument is that if the brother is already married, his brother's widow is then his second wife -- the law was demanding polygamy if the brother was previously married. They point out that Christ never addresses the issue of the brothers possible polygamy, merely states that in heaven there is no marriage. I will admit that, for my tastes, I find this argument to be too much of an argument from ignorance.

These same people claim that a previous story in Matthew 22 also is a story of polygamy, the story of the 10 virgins. In this case, the virgins are waiting for the bridegroom so they may marry him.

 

[SimplyMe]

under the 14th amendment, these laws apply to all equally already. Neither a homosexual nor myself nor you can legally marry a parent, sibling, child, or person of the same gender.

So I assume that Loving v. Virginia was a wrong decision, after all, each race was free to marry a person of the same race so all people were treated equally. Right?

But again, if you are just going to leave homosexuals alone (as you are wanting them to do with you), what do you care about if and whom they marry? I must have missed where homosexuals attempted (or succeeded) in passing constitutional amendments to limit the rights of others.

 

[Kaelestis721]

Some ppl seem to have a personal stake in this >_>

Anyways, I don't understand where homosexuality is really of anybody's concern other then the homosexuals. Maybe I've missed something. I understand that some ppl view it as a sin (which I'll admit I'm not versed enough to argue for or against), and that they want to "RID THE WORLD OF SIN". But didn't Jesus seemed to have spent far more of his time preaching to others and helping those in need rather then hunting down 'sinners' and trying to convert them or cast them into hell?

Maybe it's just me, but I'd say we should try to love and understand all those around us and help them regardless of whether or not we perceive them as an 'enemy' rather then go around making life a bit harder for them.

 

[Phred]

don't or can't? You made an argument with a pretty loaded claim, now either back up your argument if it is possible or retract it.

So when you're arguing for your points your knowledge of the Bible is unequaled. When you find that your points are being argued against suddenly that knowledge dries up. Seems almost dishonest to me. However, since you insist.

Most are from the NT but I've included a few from Leviticus just for you. I can, if you like, rain quotes down upon you not only condoning slavery but instructing you on specifically HOW to own and treat slaves.

Timothy 6:1-2 Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is
no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping

Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle,
but also to the froward.

Titus 2:9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in
all things; not answering again;

Luke 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

Luke 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the
unbelievers.

Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

Matthew 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

Leviticus 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Leviticus 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they
shall be your possession.

Leviticus 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

 

[Obsequey]

If there is a question to be asked...then it should be asked and recieved with open ears.

If there is an answer to a question it should be recieved with an equally open ear...in my humble opinion.

Anyways, I've always been lead to believe that Jesus taught us all the love and understand...not to persecute. What a person does with him or her own self that does not openly affect others should not concern anyone but themselves. We shouldn't be the ones to judge.

Your argument assumes, because Jesus said nothing specific about polygamy, that He said nothing about heterosexuality as a standard. Jesus referred in the most specific terms to God's created intent for human sexuality, “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

1 + 1 = Baby. "Man and woman become one flesh" isn't a commandment stating that this is the only acceptable relationship and it certainly isn't some "mystical" mergence of a man and woman's body into one spiritual flesh. "One flesh" is simply the baby that comes after the deed. Of course, only male and female can make this happen.

Some ppl seem to have a personal stake in this >_>

Anyways, I don't understand where homosexuality is really of anybody's concern other then the homosexuals. Maybe I've missed something. I understand that some ppl view it as a sin (which I'll admit I'm not versed enough to argue for or against), and that they want to "RID THE WORLD OF SIN". But didn't Jesus seemed to have spent far more of his time preaching to others and helping those in need rather then hunting down 'sinners' and trying to convert them or cast them into hell?

Maybe it's just me, but I'd say we should try to love and understand all those around us and help them regardless of whether or not we perceive them as an 'enemy' rather then go around making life a bit harder for them.

 

[NeTrips]

So then you also think we should own slaves? Jesus tells us about them and certainly doesn't condemn them. It takes a careful ignorance of scripture to miss that too.

(emphasis mine)

I just wanted to be sure to include the original argument proposed so we are clear that I am not defending slavery as you try to impute. It is true that the verses you quote are not condemning of slavery, but neither are they promoting any standard. They speak to how slave and master should relate to each other. But consider the God inspired words of Philemon 9-19:

Phm 1:9 Yet for love's sake I rather beseech [thee], being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. 10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: 11 Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: 12 Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: 13 Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: 14 But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. 15 For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; 16 Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? 17 ¶ If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself. 18 If he hath wronged thee, or oweth [thee] ought, put that on mine account; 19 I Paul have written [it] with mine own hand, I will repay [it]: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.

paraphasing, From prison, Paul wrote to a friend whose slave had run away, had met Paul, and had come to faith. Paul appealed to his friend on the basis of their relationship to welcome the slave back not as a slave but as a brother. He offered to repay any loss from his own pocket.

So when you're arguing for your points your knowledge of the Bible is unequaled. When you find that your points are being argued against suddenly that knowledge dries up. Seems almost dishonest to me. However, since you insist.

Not at all, just trying to get you into the Word since we know that God's word does not return void.

As for the OT quotes, The word ebed, however, denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher officials). Thus the term ebed is sometimes translated as “servant.” The term was used as a sign of servility in reference to oneself when addressing persons of higher rank. The same term was also used in the figurative meaning “the slave (or servant) of God.” Thus, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, prophets, David, Solomon and other kings are regularly called slaves of Yahweh (Exod 32:13; Lev 25:55; 1 Sam 3:9; Ezra 9:11, etc.). Similarly, all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called slaves of their kings, including even wives, sons, and brothers of the latter (1 Sam 17:8; 29:3; 2 Sam 19:5, etc.). Addressing Moses and prophets, the Israelites called themselves their slaves (Num 32:25; 1 Sam 12:19, etc.). Ruth refers to herself as a slave girl of her relative Boaz (Ruth 3:9). Being a vassal of the Philistine king Achish, David called himself his slave (1 Sam 28:2). It is natural that the same vague and inexplicitly formulated social terminology characteristic of the culture and time is also used in the Bible in relation to the subjects of foreign rulers. For example, courtiers of an Aramean ruler or the soldiers of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II were considered slaves of their monarchs (2 Kgs 6:11; 24:10–11). It is natural that kings of Judah depending on more powerful rulers of neighboring countries were considered their slaves. Thus, Ahaz is referred to as a slave of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 16:7). In modern translations of the Bible ebed/doulos and several other similar terms are rendered “slave” as well as “servant,” “attendant,” etc. Such translations, however, might create some confusion and give the incorrect impression that special terms for the designation of servants and slaves are attested in the Bible…However, selecting the proper meaning from such a broad metaphorical application of the term designating a general dependence rarely presents great difficulty. For example, Abimelech, king of Gerar, called up his slaves and told them his dream (Gen 20:8). Apparently, these “slaves” were royal courtiers and officials. Abraham gathered 318 of his slaves, born in his household, in order to recover his kinsman Lot who had been captured by Chedorlaomer and three Mesopotamian kings (Gen 14:14). At least, a part of these persons constituted freeborn members of Abraham’s family. Upon ascending the throne of Judah, Amaziah executed his slaves who had murdered his father, the former king (2 Chr 25:3). These slaves were certainly royal dignitaries.

 

[NeTrips]

"One flesh" is simply the baby that comes after the deed.

I've never heard this interpretation before, that "shall become one flesh" equates to "shall make a baby".

Can you direct me to resources where this reasoning can be examined?

 

[xapis]

I've never heard this interpretation before, that "shall become one flesh" equates to "shall make a baby".

Can you direct me to resources where this reasoning can be examined?

...love those atheist Bible commentators.

 

[Phred]

I just wanted to be sure to include the original argument proposed so we are clear that I am not defending slavery as you try to impute. It is true that the verses you quote are not condemning of slavery, but neither are they promoting any standard. They speak to how slave and master should relate to each other.

The Bible clearly states that slavery is to be condoned. And not by Paul but by God himself. Surely you can see that. Don't forget:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]KJV: The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.[/FONT]

Even I can make sense of it... or so it promises. I don't need you or anyone else to parse it for me.

So if you wish to make these circumstantial arguments about what you think God intended... that's great. Please remember two things... first is that not everyone believes in your deity. So your conclusions don't apply to all of us. Second, it's your interpretation. So you're setting yourself up as a god yourself. I for one can live without you in that role, thanks anyway.

 

[HypnoToad]

The Bible clearly states that slavery is to be condoned. And not by Paul but by God himself. Surely you can see that.

But like I asked, where does it say we "should" own slaves (as you imply)?

Do you not understand the difference between "allow" and "require"? Scripture allowed it under certain circumstances, but it does not require it.

 

[NeTrips]

The Bible clearly states that slavery is to be condoned.

Quote the verse that says "I, God, condone slavery and wish it to continue." Or Homosexuality since that was the point of the OP before your posts.

 

[NeTrips]

...love those atheist Bible commentators.

At least they're getting into the Word!