- Mar 9, 2006
- 11,279
- 1,082
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
How do you come to this conclusion? Genesis tells me it's main purpose is for love, and a close second, procreation.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As we know, marriage was about inheritance more than anything else
This poll is mainly geared towards hetero's but all are welcome to post their thoughts.
Hypothetical situation.
An openly homosexual couple join your church, are you compelled to do anything?
If anyone feels inclined to respond, I'd also like to know what your position is at your church, and also what you would do if you were the head pastor (if anything different).
By starting this discussion I am hoping to try to give some insight to fellow brethren so please use your best efforts not to completely derail the thread
"homosexual fornication", not much of a difference.
So by that token, you have freely admitted that God's Word has changed with the translations. Preposterous.
I agree, but that is a tough issue to really speak on. To be fair you'd have to address all unmarried hetero couples as well, since the days of arranged marriages are long gone.
With all of the different false doctrines floating around, as well as antichristian agendas, its hard to justify the reason for this type of weeding out, so to speak. Why dwell on the splinter when it is in the shadow of a sea of planks?
I think because in general we are more apt to single out a homosexual couple than a hetero one, solely due to our perceptions and assumptions of their relationship. The bottom line is that a hetero couple is just as likely to commit fornicative acts as a homosexual one, so I think to single them out is a very biased action. However if it spurs on a discussion of fornication addressed to the general audience, that would have some positive potential.Why would unmarried hetero couples have to be addressed? God intends for a man to be joined with a woman as one flesh, so there is no tacit approval of anything unGodly as is the case with a homosexual couple.
Because a splinter in a sea of planks is still made of wood.
Sin is sin. One doesn't become less need to be dealt with just because there is a lot of other sin.
Zaac said:You saying what you think I said doesn't make it any more true than you saying God's Word isn't His Word makes it true.
If you want to equate homosexuality with the perfroming of homosexual sex acts, be my guest. There are plenty of homosexuals in here who will chew you out for that.
I think because in general we are more apt to single out a homosexual couple than a hetero one, solely due to our perceptions and assumptions of their relationship.
The bottom line is that a hetero couple is just as likely to commit fornicative acts as a homosexual one, so I think to single them out is a very biased action.
However if it spurs on a discussion of fornication addressed to the general audience, that would have some positive potential.
Sure it doesn't, but to focus on one in particular while not equally focusing on other related ones is hypocrisy at its best.
I'm not saying we shouldn't reinforce the Truth, just that we have to be careful how we go about it.
Is this a lazy attempt to dodge the point I made?
E.G., God's Word does not change. Arsenokoitai was universally translated as "masturbator" at the time of Martin Luther, and is now translated as "male prostitute" and "homosexual" in others. God's Word does not change, and it means one thing, so there are many holes in your above statement.
If the translators are not universally agreeing on a translation, how the heck can you feel at liberty to say that we are rejecting God's Word?
I personally think many will chew you out for isolating a sex act from a valid sexual orientation. Nonetheless, the sex acts are all part of the definition of "homosexuality", anyways. Kinda hard to chew out a pro-gay debater who IS gay, over an anti-gay debater, who thinks using specific phrases will win him credibility in what is being condemned here. "Love the sinner, hate the sin", is usually what will get you chewed out, ironically enough for you to mention. Mention things like "your chosen lifestyle", and "stay celibate if you aren't attracted to a woman", "be lonely for the rest of your life, God is more important than your happiness".
I'm here arguing that homosexuality is NOT a sin, so there isn't any reason to chew me out, I'm rooting for the gays. Thank you for the laughs.
That's because God has not ordained that two people of the same sex be a couple.
They are singled out because endorsing a homosexual coupling goes against God's order and who He says a man is to be joined.
I wouldn't even see a need to address the fornication issue at that point because we don't know what they are doing. The greater issue is do we want to give the impression that same sex coupling is okay when God's expressed intent is that a man be united with a wife?
davedjy said:If the translators are not universally agreeing on a translation, how the heck can you feel at liberty to say that we are rejecting God's Word?
Watch this: Because you are.
That's because God has not ordained that two people of the same sex be a couple.
If you are assuming the texts dont speak against male-male sex, then you are a long way from what the texts say. The texts are not interpreted as speaking against male-male sex, they speak against male-male sex. If however we interpretated this as sarcasm then one could say the texts dont mean what they say, but then that would mean idolotry, adultery and the rest were ok too.Even if you make the assumption that the texts interpreted as speaking against male-male sex a.) mean what you think they mean and b.) apply universally, that's still a long way from what you're claiming here.
I find this absurd. Yes, if the Bible was talking about big red buses that would be just fine. But you are bringing to the table the assumptions that God inspired and Paul intended the particular meanings you put on the terms translated "homosexual offender," "sexual immorality," "strange flesh," "the sinfulness of Sodom," and so on. As has been explored at length for years here and elsewhere, the meaning of those terms and their proper translation is nowhere near as clear.You see
'The big red bus went up the hill'
thats what its says a big red bus went up a hill. how can I interpret that differently?
If it means the little green bus went down the hill, how is anyone else going to know what I mean?
Sorry, the Bible texts say what they say and they speak against same-sex sex.
If some dont believe the Bible texts fine but that unbelief not interpretation.
Am I correct in understanding that you believe that it would be sinful if two men (or two women) considered themselves a couple and had an emotionally and spiritually intimate relationship with one another that had no sexual element whatsoever?
I am not saying that such relationships are common, but for the sake of argument, would you hold that such a relationship is against "God's expressed intent"?
By the same token, what would you say about people who choose a lifestyle of complete celibacy?
By your reasoning wouldn't this also run contrary to "God's expressed intent . . . that a man be united with a wife?"
How does attempting to ensure that we accurately translate what Paul wrote into English equate to "rejecting God's Word"? As opposed to just trying to understand it better?
David.
I find this absurd. Yes, if the Bible was talking about big red buses that would be just fine. But you are bringing to the table the assumptions that God inspired and Paul intended the particular meanings you put on the terms translated "homosexual offender," "sexual immorality," "strange flesh," "the sinfulness of Sodom," and so on. As has been explored at length for years here and elsewhere, the meaning of those terms and their proper translation is nowhere near as clear.
Does "Bobby and Sam rode in the car to London, where they were picked up by some peelers" mean "They went in an automobile and trysted with strippers" (modern reading) or "They rode a train to London and were arrested by the police" (Victorian era reading)? What does a word that Paul coined mean? Are the implications of a connotative term like "soft" the same today as when he wrote it?
No. Your understanding would be incorrect.
I would hold that any intimate relationship that encourages a unioning other than the God ordained union of man and woman is one the Church should not endorse.
A life of complete celibacy does not encourage fornication or lust. Neither does a life of celibacy encourage an intimate relationship outside of the God ordained unioning of a man and a woman.
I'm not reasoning. I'm telling you what God's Word says. His intent is that if a man is in an intimate relationship for the purpose of unioning with someone, that person be of the opposite sex.
Knowing this, how can I as a Christian place before a congregation a relationship that encourages something other than what God prescribes?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?