This is a widely debated topic now , not just for the World but for Chuch and Christians.

Views: 509

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Gerald:

 

Your game playing of "dodge ball" isn't working.I have seen Justice Kagan speak about her answer at her hearings on at least 8 occasions and she said what she meant, and meant what she said! Nothing has changed. She is correct in her assertion that "THERE IS NO RIGHT TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION." What is hard about that for you?

 

Do you think that our Founding Fathers were thinking of two men possibly being "married" in the 21st century when they created the Constitution back in the Colonial period of the 1700's? Now, answer this question gain: Since you say that you are a "Christian minister" and that you represent God's way to people, would you marry and give a blessing, approval, and sanction to same sex "marriage?" Are you willing to be in direct opposition to the heart of God on this, and other moral issues? Does man's laws supersede God's authority in your mind? Just answer the questions; they're really not that difficult. I'll be waiting.

"Law is morality writ large, including morality derived from religious principles. To expect people to divorce their beliefs from their actions as statesmen is to posit a species of human beings that doesn't exist and never will. All law reflects someone's beliefs. The question is "Whose?"" (Charles "Chuck" Colson)
Chuck Colson anti-gay Chuck. Use your own words.
Chuck Colson knows natural from the unnatural and normal from the perverted! See, my own words!
Your own words about Chuck lol.   Give it up Wayne.
The question of same sex marriage is best explained by Jesus as He answered the Pharisee's question of marriage in the resurrection; Luke provides the richest detail concerning marriage and singleness in Jesus’ response. He responds: “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God (Luke 20:34-36).” The statement is a critical clarification. Marriage is an institution for this age and not for the age of the resurrection. Verse 36 explains why marriage is no longer necessary in the age of resurrection, “for they cannot die anymore.” The implication is that one of the primary functions of marriage, to provide for the continued existence of the species, is no longer necessary in the age to come. Jesus’ statement appears disconcertingly shocking at this point. For beyond the procreative function of marriage, surely he was aware of the joy and fulfilment that marriage brings through intimacy and companionship, and the practical transforming value of learning to love another who is different! Yet it is apparent that in Jesus’ eschatological understanding of the new creation, intimacy and companionship are restored in such a fashion that the unique provision of these things through the marital relationship is no longer required. Even more wonderful relationships are a feature of eternity.

Because the kingdom which Jesus is announcing is not built through physical procreation, nor is mortality present within it, marriage will no longer be necessary in the consummated kingdom of God. Nor will it be needed for sake of intimacy and companionship in the advent of the perfected order of the new creation. Thus the place and necessity of marriage radically change in the movement from the people of God in the Old Testament to the coming of the kingdom of God which Jesus announces.

 Also to make another point, in the Middle East there is a way of life that is like unto homosexuality in that the men (age 13 and above) use a saying similar to this: "boys are for fun, women are to be honored!" The logic behind this saying goes back centuries in Middle Eastern culture (commonly referred to as Eunuchs in some societies). The thought process for the saying revolves around sexual activity/prowess, the men had fun with boys (none of which are considered homosexual) and they honored/revered their women and reserved sexual activity with women for the purpose of procreation only.

So in an effort to answer the initial question, I feel that same sex marriage has no value nor debate as it relates to the church. As Jesus answered similar questions: marriage is for this age (Earthly), not for the age to come Revelation 21:1-4. So it really matters not what sin or series of sins we commit or go through on this earth, on judgement day all will be wreckoned with. So in closing, we must adhere to the Jesus' counsel on love: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and spirit and love your neighbor as you love yourself, therein lies ALL of the Law of Moses!  

Steven:

 

In a word or two, Rubbish and nonsense! Same sex marriage is a perversion that the culture is trying to force on the society and even the Christian church. Therefore, the church of the living God must stand up for the God-ordained institution of marriage, which is without question, a union and covenant between one man and one woman! The church is the "Bride" of Christ as He does not have a "Husband".

That is your opinion but easily undressed.  You say the union is between one man and one woman however that is not what we saw in the Bible, nor did God object to it.

Gerald:

 

Show me one example of a so-called "gay marriage" in the Scripture. Not ten, just one. Now I am asking point blank: are you a Homosexual man? That's not a Rocket Science type of question, just a "yes or no" type of question.

You may have missed this part:

 

"The argument from silence is not effective. yes, you are not going to find a promotion of gay marriage in the Bible because, for the most part, the ancients would not understand the concept (and since many Jews believed that the only purpose of sex was to have a child, one can see why a homosexual relationship would not be considered; so unless you wish to claim that the only reason to have sex is to have children. don't run to a biblical marriage line".

 

I said that some time ago.  You are running out of things to say to a point that you recycling your arguments.  Let it go.  You are playing smoke screens.  Your argument was not worth a dang giggity and so you are playing the character card.  Sit down and let it go. 

Gerald:

 

You're a coward, pure and simple! Why do you always run from the issue. There is no gay marriage in the bible because the CREATOR knew what He was doing and what He purposed when He "Created Male and Female" and told THEM to "Be fruitful and Multiply".

 

There's no wiggle room for you, Gerald. Deal with the Biblical text with integrity, and stop trying to find same sex marriage in the Bible just to give homosexuals a justification to continue to reject God and live according to their own dictates. So are YOU a homosexual? Is your church filled with homosexuals?

 

Still waiting on the answer!

You mean "that is not all we saw in the Bible." Obviously, you're not claiming that there were no monogamous marriages in scripture. You're arguing that there were many polygynous (one husband, multiple wives) marriages, and God did not object to them.

 

Some may argue that if God tolerated another marital model besides heterosexual monogamy, He may yet tolerate other marital models. But isn't this a logical fallacy? All we can safely conclude is that God ordained heterosexual monogamy in the Garden of Eden, and that He tolerated polygyny among the patriarchs and early Israelites.

 

 

 

RSS

© 2022   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service