What is marriage, and why does it preclude homosexuality? (Moved from C,P&E to DOH)

[davedjy]

I use the Amplified, the New King James, and the King James. Pick one. All of them say 'homosexuals', with the exception of the King James, which says 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. Why are you trying to twist the scriptures? Homosexuality is an abomination to God. He hates it.

If you want to even coin the word "twisting", blame the translators themselves while you're at it. Arsenokoitai has been translated as masturbators, pimps, male prostitutes, catamites, etc.:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

At the time of Martin Luther it was universally translated as those who touch.


Arguments based upon 1 Cor. 6:9 are poor at best.

Any lexicon that gives you a definition or translation of this word is a "guess" at best, as the word is unknown.

 

[mattlock73]

I actually started that a while ago; you are the second to ask it of me. See http://www.danielbridges.info/pages/gays.shtml#supevi

I read the link, and it is quite a stretch to arrive at the conclusion that they arrived at. It requires ignoring other scripture verses that detail homosexuality as sinful and requires adding to the scriptures in Mark and Galatians something that is not stated.

 

[Lupinus]

Aeth-

Your link doesn't hold water because it bases things now on things after the ressurection.

If that were true no one in the OT would have needed to make sin offerings, simply because Jesus was coming one day. If that were true murder wouldn't be sinful, as we will all be born anew anyway and as immortals.

You can't base things now on what will happen later in this case. God gave man woman, not another man. The only marrige acceptable before Gods eyes is that union God instituted for man and woman, not man and man.

 

[cheese007]

Because some are trying to make scripture say what they want it to say, rather then just listening to what it does say.

The irony is delicious.

 

[Anglian]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that the attempt to cite scripture at each other and to interpret it as we assume it should be, and to say others get it wrong, looks like the road to nowhere?

I don't know how those who hold sola scriptura get themselves out of this, because you are are so well-read and can quote away past each other.

Those of us bound by Tradition have a different problem The Tradition of the Apostolic Church is quite plain about its view on homosexuality and about the nature of marriage; so however much some of us question the need for change, we can't deny where the weight of Tradition lies.

Doesn't mean we can't discuss this, but it does mean we have an authoritative voice telling us what the Church's view is.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[AetheriusLamia]

To bring such an institution down to the level of "two people who love each other" is preposterous in the face of the history of marriage, the political nature of the institution, and the ramifications it has upon the persons involved and all of society. My spiritual and Biblical notions removed, homosexual marriage would be destructive to society, as it would mortally wound the institution of marriage, and change the face of interpersonal relationship as we know it.

How is that lowering the concepts of marriage? I do not see what is significantly different between two people raising a child, one with a penis and one with a vagina, and two people raising a child, with two penes or two vaginas. I don't understand how one of the couple having or not having a specific sexual organ could possibly harm society.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

[Concerning] happily married gay couples....they can't have children.

Shouldn't you say, haven't conspicuously birthed children?

After all, God can do anything, right? And simply because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

What a dishonor you do to gay individuals. Instead of getting them the help they need, you tell them their situation is normal, so they continue to suffer. And then they eventually die and go to hell, because of people like you telling them that it was ok. Who can people turn to for help when faced with a crisis? It seems even Christianity, which used to be a safe haven to shield us from evil, has been infiltrated by evil from within. It is truly sickening. I'm going to reveal something to you that you don't know. I have a gay brother. I love him dearly. But I am convinced what he is doing is wrong and sinful. And if he dies and goes to hell because of people like you telling him it was ok to be gay, then I will go to hell too, because I'll never bring myself to forgive someone who helped send him to hell.

What you're basically saying is that if someone unintentionally sinned and isn't aware that they've sinned, that God won't forgive them. You are coming very close to condemning others, something Jesus warned against several times.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Man didn't author the bible.

I'm sorry, but yes, men did. Men were inspired by God and the Holy Spirit, but they wrote it nonetheless. And, as has already been stated, you must look at it as such: In Paul's letters, for example, there are places in letters Paul has written to others (you cannot necessarily think of it as God speaking directly to you) Paul has said, "This is my opinion, not a teaching from Christ."

Also, something from the first page I believe you haven't grasped yet -- unless it was someone else -- just because you have an English translation of the Bible doesn't mean the English translation is accurate or valid.

And even if it is a valid translation, you must be careful of your own interpretation of it. "Abusers of themselves with mankind" does not say "homosexual" any more than "sodomite" does. And Paul chooses his words -- in Greek, not in English -- very carefully. If we are not sure to what he was referring, perhaps we were not the intended audience.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

However, Bible WAS authored for humanity in a specific cultural context, evident by the development of command and action from the OT to the NT.

Also, please bear in mind that the Bible is simply a collection of letters and writings from men over the ages that was finally compiled by the early Christian church. There were many things that were written that were not included, either because they were unnecessary, insignificant or invalid.

My point in recognizing the history of the Bible is to highlight the fact that we must read the writings in the Bible in their corresponding historical contexts. Before we read Paul's letter to the Romans, for example, we must first understand why he was writing it, to what audience it was written, and what practices were going on at the time.

And, in the case of Romans, it seems it was idolatry, and pagan fertility cult rituals (men doing shameful things with one another: massive orgy and castration), etc.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Because heterosexuality produces offspring. The State attempts to keep its citizens happen, but actual social institutions have a purpose, and the purpose of marriage is to reproduce. Just because some heterosexual partners choose not to have children, or cannot have children, does not change the ultimate goal of the institution.

Homosexuals are completely incapable of having legitimate offspring, and thus, do not fall within the bounds of marriage as an institution.

Surely you must realize the idiocy of this argument. From your logic, then, old people and sterile people may not marry. You're also neglecting adoption entirely, as well as contraceptives (which are accepted by the majority of Protestants and Christians.)

Furthermore, God may choose to bless sterile couples, old couples, and homosexual couples with children. It is, I think, a very poor assumption that these children cannot be adopted.

I am strongly against the artificial insemination of lesbians, but most advances in medicine are seen as blessings from God (eyeglasses, wheelchairs, polio vaccines), so perhaps artificial insemination is as well.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

I actually started that a while ago; you are the second to ask it of me. See http://www.danielbridges.info/pages/gays.shtml#supevi

I read the link, and it is quite a stretch to arrive at the conclusion that they arrived at. It requires ignoring other scripture verses that detail homosexuality as sinful and requires adding to the scriptures in Mark and Galatians something that is not stated.

Actually, on that webpage I have commented on every single passage in the Bible that addresses homosexuality and marriage, and I don't see where anything I said was unfounded. Please quote me and elaborate.

I am, however, directly contradicted by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which I am claiming to be wrong (again, in that webpage.) According to Anglian, this is a bad approach, since the writings of the Church are to be held in equal value to those of the Bible.

 

[mattlock73]

How is that lowering the concepts of marriage? I do not see what is significantly different between two people raising a child, one with a penis and one with a vagina, and two people raising a child, with two penes or two vaginas. I don't understand how one of the couple having or not having a specific sexual organ could possibly harm society.

Because the family unit was designed specifically to support the needs of children, who need both a male and a female role-model growing up. You can say it doesn't matter all you want, but look at the decline in society and it's values since the decline of the traditional family structure in the 40's and I think it's self-evident where the road has led us and will continue to lead us in the future.

 

[mattlock73]

What you're basically saying is that if someone unintentionally sinned and isn't aware that they've sinned, that God won't forgive them. You are coming very close to condemning others, something Jesus warned against several times.

I don't see him as condemning anyone but himself in this case. He is citing a prime example of what Paul talks about in Romans 1:32

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression that the attempt to cite scripture at each other and to interpret it as we assume it should be, and to say others get it wrong, looks like the road to nowhere?

It's not just you.

Those of us bound by Tradition have a different problem The Tradition of the Apostolic Church is quite plain about its view on homosexuality and about the nature of marriage; so however much some of us question the need for change, we can't deny where the weight of Tradition lies.

Doesn't mean we can't discuss this, but it does mean we have an authoritative voice telling us what the Church's view is.

I've seen you bring up this problem before. Tradition is a very dangerous thing, IMO, far too easily influenced by society. Would you also hold to the Traditions that witches should be executed, slavery is unquestionably fine, interracial marriage/sex should be outlawed, left-handed people are of the Devil, going to church is the way to salvation and the Road to Heaven is paved with the bodies of Infidels?

Jesus is our high priest, God our judge. I'm all for respecting and listening to people with the extra wisdom age and study can bring. I'm all against blindly accepting what those in authority tell me, just because they are in authority.

 

[Anglian]

It's not just you.



I've seen you bring up this problem before. Tradition is a very dangerous thing, IMO, far too easily influenced by society. Would you also hold to the Traditions that witches should be executed, slavery is unquestionably fine, interracial marriage/sex should be outlawed, left-handed people are of the Devil, going to church is the way to salvation and the Road to Heaven is paved with the bodies of Infidels?

Jesus is our high priest, God our judge. I'm all for respecting and listening to people with the extra wisdom age and study can bring. I'm all against blindly accepting what those in authority tell me, just because they are in authority.

You make some excellent points here, but I wonder whether you grasp how Tradition works for the Orthodox? None of the things you mention has been declared a doctrine of the Church, and all of those opinions, which have indeed been held by individual Churches and Christians, have been left behind by the Church; indeed, in this sense one might see Tradition as something of a balance against simply being influenced by what one society thinks.

But taking your points, as I do, how do those without recourse to Tradition know whether they are following society's dictates or God's will?

In peace,

Anglian

 

[Lord_Barthok_Soc]

You make some excellent points here, but I wonder whether you grasp how Tradition works for the Orthodox? None of the things you mention has been declared a doctrine of the Church, and all of those opinions, which have indeed been held by individual Churches and Christians, have been left behind by the Church; indeed, in this sense one might see Tradition as something of a balance against simply being influenced by what one society thinks.

Having been brought up in the Greek Orthodox church, and after spending my teenage years in an officially G.O. country, I have a fair idea of what Tradition means to them. Whilst it can be a very good defence against the faith being wrongly swayed by the fads of passing generations/societies, that was more important a couple of centuries ago when people were uneducated and illiterate. Nowadays I see too many people getting lost in the Tradition and forgetting about a relationship with God, or that thing they have between their ears. (Please don't read any offence in this; I have no one on this forum in mind when I write that)

I am unfamiliar with your particular branch of orthodoxy. But most of the 'opinions' were held by entire denominations, not just individual churches and christians. Nowadays, the majority of denominations have moved on and it's only the individuals that hold onto those beliefs.

How are you differentiating between what you consider "church doctrine" and "church opinions"?

But taking your points, as I do, how do those without recourse to Tradition know whether they are following society's dictates or God's will?

How does one know anything is God's will or God's work? Through it's fruits. God works for the good of His people, mankind generally has a far more selfish agenda.

Is there ever an Ultimate answer to any question? And who can ever prove beyond human doubt that something is God's will, short of Him paying us another visit?

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Because the family unit was designed specifically to support the needs of children, who need both a male and a female role-model growing up. You can say it doesn't matter all you want, but look at the decline in society and it's values since the decline of the traditional family structure in the 40's and I think it's self-evident where the road has led us and will continue to lead us in the future.

The traditional family structure of the 40-60s is a myth; there was never a period of stable happy families. I studied these myths briefly in Introductory Sociology from late August - 15 December 2007. Single parent families, homosexuals, and unhappy marriages (with domestic violence and sexual abuse) existed then, too. The difference is that they were suppressed and everyone acted like they didn't exist, making it that much worse for those suffering.

As for needing both a male and female gender role model ... That is interesting. Studies have shown that children raised by homosexuals were not any more likely to be gay, so it seems the impact is negligible, if any impact exists.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

how do those without recourse to Tradition know whether they are following society's dictates or God's will?

I think as Protestants do: They trust that the Holy Spirit lives within them, praying to God and trusting that if they entrust their thoughts and actions to God, doing their best to honor and glorify God, that God will not let them be led astray.

A key ingredient to this is actively thinking. If one does not actively consider everything one does and compare it against the models in the Bible, which one must also actively read with an open mind (one willing to follow the Holy Spirit's guidance), one may become confused.

It's tough, though, to have this sort of faith. It's kind of like jumping from a cliff and praying God will blow you onto a bed of pillows, rather than of nails.

I'm going to schedule an appointment with my priest. You may be correct: I may not be able to continue calling myself a Roman Catholic. If that means accepting every Church teaching ... I must resolve this issue, because I do not wish to profess something false, if I am in fact not Catholic.

 

[mattlock73]

The traditional family structure of the 40-60s is a myth; there was never a period of stable happy families. I studied these myths briefly in Introductory Sociology from late August - 15 December 2007. Single parent families, homosexuals, and unhappy marriages (with domestic violence and sexual abuse) existed then, too. The difference is that they were suppressed and everyone acted like they didn't exist, making it that much worse for those suffering.

I never said life was idyllic. Never said there weren't issues. But look at the values of society since the 40's and tell me things have gotten better and not worse. This, in my opinion as well as scores of others (Dr Dobson immediately comes to mind) is a direct result of the breakdown of the family unit.

As for needing both a male and female gender role model ... That is interesting. Studies have shown that children raised by homosexuals were not any more likely to be gay, so it seems the impact is negligible, if any impact exists.

I am not talking about the child becoming gay, but while we're on the subject, here is an excerpt from an article by the NY Times:
On the hot topic of sexual orientation, the only long-term study of lesbian-headed families reports 64 percent of the young adult children saying they've considered same-sex relationships (compared to 17 percent with heterosexual parents)—although there is no statistical difference between the number in both groups who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.*

What I am talking about is best outlined here:

Children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to experience gender and sexual confusion, more likely to become promiscuous and more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior. They are also at greater risk of losing a parent to AIDS, substance abuse or suicide.


Children raised in a stable, married, heterosexual home do better than children raised in any other type of household. They are healthier physically and emotionally, do better academically, experience less poverty and commit fewer crimes.


Children need both a mother and a father. Why? Sociologist David Popenoe of Rutgers University has done extensive research on the different functions that mothers and fathers play in their children's lives. His studies show that while fathers tend to stress competition, challenge, initiative and risk-taking, mothers stress emotional security and personal safety. When disciplining, mothers provide important flexibility and sympathy, while fathers provide predictability and consistency. By nature, same-sex couples are unable to provide one-half of this equation.