Bible rules and gay rules.... - Marriage Builders® Forums

Where in the Bible does it say that it is against God's law to have gay marriage?

I found this via an online search.

Leviticus 18:22
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

The whole chapter

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
-Genesis 1:27 (NKJV)
"And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
-Genesis 2:18-25 (NKJV)

What Jesus taught

"And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'"
-Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)
"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'"
-Mark 10:6 (NKJV)

When Jesus was asked questions about marriage he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis that say that marriage is between male and female and is meant to be life long. He saw the creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day. And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also. While Jesus did not specifically teach on homosexuality, His establishment of the Genesis passages as the fundamental passages on marriage (even more fundamental than the Law) leaves no doubt as to the outcome.

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
-Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
-1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
-1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)

Thank-you for those passages. The gay rights movements are trying to move into some churches, and they want to be married in our church if the law will say that it is legal.

Thanks to Massachusetts for supporting and pushing that law through, now we have to face the idea that they may want your church to marry gay people. What next?

Well you can take the passages literally and say they're as appropriate in today's society as they were when they were written, or you can say they are an example of what we should strive for, or that they were written for a different society with different mores.

When I was doing my search about homosexual relations, I also found one that said that any illegitimate child should not be allowed in the church, nor any of their children, for ten generations.

So, if a church is going to ban gay marriages are they also going to refuse entry to a g-g-g-grandchild of a rape victim?

Yeah, I know... can of worms, probably doesn't belong here.

Of course you're speaking of Deuteronomy 23:2, but I would suggest caution when referring to Old Testament passages.

Maybe this will help:

Question: "Where should we, as Christians, stand on gay marriage?"

Answer: First, we have to remember what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible clearly and consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1Corinthians 6:9). God does not create a person with homosexual desires. A person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Rom 1:24-27), and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for then to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.

We also have to remember that homosexuality is just as forgivable a sin as all other sins. God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God’s love and desire to save extends to homosexuals (John 3:16; Romans 5:8). God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1Cor 6:11; 2Cor 5:17).

To give sanction to homosexual marriage would be to give approval to that lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. I belief the Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage. Marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Homosexual marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. God forbids and condemns homosexuality, so He clearly is opposed to homosexual marriage. As Christians, we are to seek to share the love of God and salvation through Christ with homosexuals. We are to be loving and kind to homosexuals, while at the same time not condoning their sinful lifestyle.

Taken from Here

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cardinal:
 Thank-you for those passages. The gay rights movements are trying to move into some churches, and they want to be married in our church if the law will say that it is legal.

Thanks to Massachusetts for supporting and pushing that law through, now we have to face the idea that they may want your church to marry gay people. What next? <hr /></blockquote>You're confusing church and state. The state of MA has every right to allow gay marriages if the citizens of that state choose to allow it.

However, every church has the right to refuse to perform marriages. In fact, many churches already refuse to perform marriages if there was sex outside of marriage, if either person to be married is not an active member of the church/religion, etc.

So while gay people can "ask" to be married in your church, all your church has to do is say, "No, our religion does not believe in homosexual marriages." The state cannot force you to perform the the marriage. Separation of church and state is a good thing.

April

I wish I were confused on this issue. Unfortunately it is a fact that the UCC is talking about this. And the fact is that the state is putting out the marriage license as the exact same license that the man and the woman recieve when married, under the laws of the state, and under the laws of God.

I do not care to talk about what is right for the state to do with this, but it is certainly not a same marriage as a man and a woman . Call it something else, a union of two, or something, but not a marriage of a man and a woman.

Our children will have to deal with so much more later, when they will be asking to approve the marriage of three people. I do feel angered by the atmosphere of permissivness that we are surely creating. I suppose that God was aware this stuff would happen. And I do think that this kind of encouragement in living will backfire on humanity.

Why stay married to your man when you can find a good woman or why stay married to your wife when you can find a good man. After all they would understand your NEEDS best being of the same. And havent you heard of this happening, friends you knew (thought you knew,).

I just think it is amazing. When an inch is given, the yard is simply assumed.

There are also many references in the letters at the end of the New Testament that condemn all kinds of illicit sexual behaviour.

Of course the Bible is also very clear in saying that we should love one another and also take the log out of our eye before we try to take the speck out of anyone elses.

Furthermore, we are also reminded that God is the only one qualified to pass judgement on sin.

dewt

Bravo Dewt!!!!

That was the best I've heard on this whole forum yet! You have more guts than I to jump in on this one.

You said exactly what I was thinking dewt! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

I agree that we ought to keep our judgements to ourselves at times. And sometimes we need to talk about issues that are demanding a decision. It is easier to avoid making a decision, of course that in itself is your decision. Avoidance kinds of decisions are usually the kinds of decisions which get us in over our heads.

You have to stand for something, or ....you will fall for anything.

I don't condemn a person with the gay lifestyle. I don't condemn people who live their lives as they will peacably and functionally in the society.

I disagree with the changing of laws that have been governing my church for hundreds of years, doors opened to all kinds of people. The church has been allowing all people in. The rules are to keep. Not to change to perversions of those rules.

I think that we honor God by living by his rules. Those rules promote healthy H/W relations and the children of these families enjoy a stable home with them.

Cardinal -

With all due respect, I always thought that a church was a house of God and that he wanted all people there. Especially those that have fallen out of grace (I don't personally think that gay's have fallen out of grace).

This is off the subject of gay marriages, but
I am a single mother with a daughter I had out of wedlock. Would we be allowed in your church?

I just always thought that it was about loving one another, which is what Jesus asks us to do.

I am in no position to get in a religious discussion but I would welcome Gay marriages in my church, and hope that it happens.

W.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cardinal:

I disagree with the changing of laws that have been governing my church for hundreds of years, doors opened to all kinds of people. The church has been allowing all people in. The rules are to keep. Not to change to perversions of those rules.
<hr /></blockquote>Weaver, did you read what I wrote?

In our church are all kinds of people. However, when we go to a church and we like it, does that give us passage to alter the Bible? These people are members.

Yes Cardinal, I read what you wrote, but not good enough I see.

I still don't understand your position... and now I am taking myself out of this discussion. Knew I never should have jumped in.

Weaver

I think this can be put in terms that many here can understand.

Unrepentant sinners are like spouses in affairs. They don't see that they are cheating on the One who loves and created them.

Churches have a responsibility to love all people because that's what God calls us to do. But that love does not extend to enabling them in their sin. To sanction an unrepentant sinner via membership is tacit acknowledgement that their continuation in sin is acceptable.

Church bodies have EVERY right to determine what is considered sinful behavior based on their interpretation of scripture.

Now, churches SHOULD accept and love REPENTANT sinners of all kinds and extend an invitation to fellowship as well.

Yes, weaver, you would be welcome in most churches. I assume that you no longer engage in the behavior that brought your beautiful daughter into this world. Your daughter is a wonderful creation of God. He would certainly never reject her becasue of the circumstances of her birth.

As a repentant FWS, I would expect that most churches would welcome me (although this has not been my experience).

So, in summary, churches can choose to exercise a type of "Plan B" when someone chooses to continue in sin. They have no obligation to enable them (e.g. allow homosexuals to marry). It is NOT loving to enable someone to continue in sin.

Consider Jesus' example...He showed love to everyone, but He took very firm positions on sin. He was quite stern with those who He knew refused to turn from their sin.

Low

My understanding is that what we want, we should not always get. My understanding is that gay people have rights to live as they will. They may become members of our church.

My belief in those rules in the Bible stand. I think that we ought to try and live by them. I think that if I wanted to change the rules in the Bible, then I either need to change something about me, or create the place of worship according to my own needs.

We should not marry two people in a church if they are not a man and a woman. It is not what the Bible teaches us to do. It seems to be saying that we need to encourage what is right, and not to condemn, but certainly not to change the vows to accomodate what people want.

Matrimonial vows are sacred and speak of a man and a woman...

These are some tough questions. Leviticus is a strange chapter, going on and on about how to sacrifice an animal to save us from sin...which I have been taught, Jesus died so we would no longer have to sacrifice animals, he was our sacrificial lamb. Throw that part out?

OK, so that is one part of Leviticus not to be used. It goes on and on about who not to "lay down" with. Right, agree with those...incest is out.

But what about Chapter 18:19
"You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation."

Huh? I have never understood this. It is a sin for 2 men to have sex...and what about 2 women having sex?

This getting really OT, but I'll add a little something else and leave it at that...

JMHO, I think many make the mistake of trying to make an "instruction manual" out of the Bible. While there is quite a bit of good "instruction", the book is more of a record of God's relationship with people. As we watch that relationship, we get insight into who God is and what kinds of things are important to him.

By watching how God instructed the Israelites, we can see that there are types of behavior that He thinks are not good. I think we should work to extrapolate that ATTITUDE to our culture.

Jesus didn't supercede any of the law...He fulfilled it. That tells me that the law and our response to it is more about faith and attitude than it is about following the rules strictly.

I think when the Bible says unruly teens should be stoned that it means He really hates to see this kind of behavior and we should deal with it strongly. Doesn't mean we should stone our teens as well.

Just my interpretation...

Low

Where do matrimonial vows come from?

Low said:
"Jesus didn't supercede any of the law...He fulfilled it. That tells me that the law and our response to it is more about faith and attitude than it is about following the rules strictly. "

And Jesus often said this instruction after rebuking, "Go and sin no more".

I think most people that are quick to judge homosexuals and condemn their "lifestyle" do not understand how much condemnation, ridicule, and self-loathing they incur. Most of the gay people I know have had these feelings since they were very young. They didn't understand how they could be feeling this way, they didn't think they were "normal", they thought that there was something wrong with them. They ask themselves, Is this a tempation? They pray, Jesus, please forgive me for feeling this way & allow me to put this "sin" away & help me become the person you want me to be each day.

They don't "want" to be gay. They don't "want" to live a life in "sin". They cry out, God, please help me! But it doesn't go away. If anything, it's even stronger the older they get. This was the case for my sister. All her life she was told that she looked like a boy & why didn't she do things other girls liked to do, why didn't she wear her hair the way other girls did, why didn't she like to wear dresses, why didn't she just go out with that boy over there? So she did the "right" thing. She dated boys, she kept praying for Jesus to remove these feelings, she prayed for God to show her what her path should be. All the while, she couldn't get rid of these feelings for girls.

She then got an age where she was lonely for a companion on earth. She knew God was there, He was guiding her but as most humans, she wanted to feel romance & love and all that She prayed and asked God if she was meant to be alone for the rest of her life because if she was, she would try to be content with that. A few months later, a woman was introduced to her through a mutual friend. They met, spent some time with each other and what my sister had intended on friendship initially escalated into something more. Did I mention that my sister had remained a virgin this whole time?

This woman is more spiritual than my sister. She has led my sister to read more from her Bible (they read to each other every night), they pray together, they worship together, they raise their children together. Are their children gay? No way! They have 2 girls and these two girls love boys!!!!!

My sister & her partner have been together for 3 years and those girls love the heck out of my sister. They call her Mommy ______ and would be devastated if she was taken from their life. They do not see these women as gays but rather two loving mothers who help nurture them, care for them, and show them lots of love and affection who also happen to love each other.

BTW, I don’t see it written anywhere in the Bible that Adam & Eve had a marital ceremony. I don’t remember anything about them taking vows. Does anyone know when the first recorded wedding ceremony was and who got married? Just curious.

Adam and Eve had their own set of problems, and I guess for your argument, they had zero choice over whether they would be gay or not! I guess we are lucky they felt loving toward one another.

I happen to think that it is fine for those who choose that life or are somehow found in that "predisposition", and sure do think it must feel like it is a pressure to dispel the things that seem to follow gayness as a curse.

However, the Bible says no. And if you wish to change what it says and honor your friends or families wishes to be wed in the church, then you will alter what is said in the Bible. Then you are making it into a cult which is perverse to the way of the Bible.

Last I heard, and that's been a while ago to this number has probably increased, but I have read in reputable journals that there are over 30 KNOWN variations on the 23rd chromasome...the one that determines sex, among other things.

This isn't a black and white issue, as some would like to think. What about the children that are born with BOTH sets of genitalia? The doctors and parents have no way of knowing which sex is the "appropriate" one for the child, so they have to guess. They guess, and remove one set of genitalia. What if they're wrong? What if they remove the male genitalia, and the child grows up to have male tendencies?

Consider that seriously for a moment, and then consider the possibility that there is the same type of occurances, but without "outer physical signs"...i.e. the multiple genitalia. For example, is it completely unbelievable that there could be instances where a person physically develops to resemble a woman, but on an other than physical state, possesses male tendancies? It isn't for me.

I am a Christian, and I try and live as Christ taught. To me, the most common theme among his many parables and teachings was this...That we all have enough problems and commit enough sin on our own that we should worry about making our own lives better, and making ourselves more worthy in the eyes of God, rather than waste any of our preciously little time here judging others and pointing out what we see as flaws or errors in judgement on their part.

When you are perfect, and live a sinless life, then you have the right, and the duty to judge others. Not until.

Bob

Who on this thread has judged?

There are a lot of people who seem to just be trying things out. I wonder if sexual abuse is a factor in this at all. Genetics are strong components to predispositions in many things. If it were genetic, then you would have an aunt, uncle with the same predisposition.

What is the answer? I guess some are going to rewrite their own Bible to suit their own needs.

Birth defects can be devastating to new parents. Seems like the parents are forced to choose the sex of the child, not sure what they should be doing in those cases! Waiting on it is a possibility or going with the best developed organs, if one set of organs was not well formed. Perhaps now, they may check the genetic coding and choose the sex that way.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> When you are perfect, and live a sinless life, then you have the right, and the duty to judge others. Not until.
<hr /></blockquote>Not entirely correct, Plumb Bob. let me illustrate what I mean...

A crusty old pitching coach is incapable of throwing 100 mph fast balls but he has been entrusted with developing those who can because he knows a good or bad pitch when he sees it.

The Bible often gives us enough info to be able to call "pitches" even though we aren't capable of throwing perfect pitches ourselves.

Your statement makes the assumption the he/she who is doing the judging is using themselves as the standard. Christ is the standard. I'm a former adulterer. That might make me a bit more compassionate towards adulterers but it doesn't make me any more qualified to judge adultery as wrong than anyone else. The standard was set by Christ.

So, there are those parts of a person's spirit that no man can ever judge, but the outward manifestations of that spirit - actions - are and should be routinely scrutinized by humanity.

Regarding not being able to choose one's sexual orientation...

Humans are born predisposed to all sorts of sinful behavior. We can't help it. Does that release us from the obligation to try to live right? No, the ability to choose to do what right, even when it conflicts with our base drives is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Perhaps I was born with a predisposition towards polyamory? That would mean that adultery was normal for me wouldn't it? Would anyone here be willing to support me in this supposition?

Perhaps I can convince my state to allow polygamous weddings...

Low

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> There are a lot of people who seem to just be trying things out. I wonder if sexual abuse is a factor in this at all. Genetics are strong components to predispositions in many things. If it were genetic, then you would have an aunt, uncle with the same predisposition. <hr /></blockquote>Not "Would", but "Could". It's not an absolute or a given. But I'm sure there are plenty of nephews and nieces of gay people who have an Aunt and an Uncle who have the same sexual preference.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> What is the answer? I guess some are going to rewrite their own Bible to suit their own needs <hr /></blockquote>Rewrite? Not necessarily, although it's been done thousands of times already. Which Bible do you read, Cardinal? The original? Or do you read a later translation? Are you sure, absolutely sure, that it has been interpreted correctly?

I don't think a constant examination of the meanings in the Bible, given new scientific information that we possess, which, by itself is a gift from God, is a bad thing. God gave us the brains, curiousity, and motivation to seek the truth...is it wrong to use those gifts to examine all things...including the Bible and it's meanings? Literalism seems like an awfully lazy way to go about your spiritual life.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Birth defects can be devastating to new parents. Seems like the parents are forced to choose the sex of the child, not sure what they should be doing in those cases! Waiting on it is a possibility or going with the best developed organs, if one set of organs was not well formed. Perhaps now, they may check the genetic coding and choose the sex that way. <hr /></blockquote>Waiting on it...until when?! Puberty? How do you raise the child until then...as a boy AND a girl? Underdeveloped organs aren't an indicator, otherwise what would we do with every little boy whose testicles don't drop? Assume they're to be a girl and perform the "appropriate" surgery? And, given the number of variances in the chromasomes that determine sex, it is impossible to perform a "test" to help with the determination.

That's just the point. There are millions of variables here that people either don't know about, or don't want to acknowledge, because it requires thought and introspection. It is easier to say, "Well, the Bible says this", so that you don't have to think about it. Some people use the "faith" card as a means to avoid facing tough issues.

Bob

Wow...interesting stuff. Along with being born with both sets of genitalia, there are some people that are genetically male but physically female. My psych instructor taught about that--I had never head of it before. He said that for a genetically male embryo to become physically male, the conditions have to be just right in the womb--the hormone levels in the womb have to be just right for a boy to grow male genitalia--if not, the baby will be physically female, but genetically male.

I also learned that there are specific differences between homosexuals' and heterosexuals' brains that have been studied (using PET scans I believe). Personally, I have believed for a long time that sexual preference is determined before birth in the vast majority of cases. Maybe that's why I have a problem with thinking that God frowns on homosexuality. If God creates a person that is "wired" that way, how can it be a sin? Aren't all children born innocent? And how does that come into play when the child is illegitimate?

I do think that children are innocent, and what we teach them is of all importance. We have the responsibility on our shoulders as the parents to guide them and to keep them safe. Our investment in them is the most important investment. Other than our marriage that is.

What we choose to do with our lives is up to each of us. As a WS that continue to choose his A partner, because he has fallen in love with her, and he shuns his own W and offspring! So, shall he get his rewards for that. And the family feels the pain too.

Life is not a fair game it seems. I really think that choices we make have an awful lot to do with the kind of luck we get! JMO.

This topic is interesting.....both socially,morally and legalisticlly.

I wonder......the other day I was listening to a talk radio station and this question was brought up. If GAY marriages are legalized, does that then mean a father may marry his son? or an aunt her neice? because if it is......

The GOVERNMENT is going to lose a lot of revenue!!!

Think about it.....NO MORE INHERITANCE TAX!!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

If on your dying bed...your a zillionare and want to leave your relative your money without tax burdons....MARRY THEM!!!

Do you think the Gov has thought of this TWIST to gay marriages????

Laws on this issue were written simply because of the effects on "children birthed" by close relationships....so then what would stop relatives from doing this????ie. m/m and w/w no possibilities of conceiving a child with malformations or retardation.

Marriage is becoming a non-issue in our society. That is my personal opinion. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[Teary]" title="" src="graemlins/teary.gif" />

What do you THINK ABOUT THIS???

Blessings,
Atruheart

ATH, I think that you have lost your bubble!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Atruheart, I think it's a very big leap from gay marriage to incestuous marriage. Honestly, I've never understood how people associate the two. Incest laws apply to same sex violations as much as they do opposite sex violations.

I really don't understand how making gay marriage legal denigrates marriage in general. Can two homosexuals not love each other as much as a man and a woman can? Is their capacity to love somehow less? And why should they not have the same rights to be legally united as heterosexuals?

I understand the religious standpoint, but from a legal standpoint, why should marriage (or civil union) be denied to someone because they are homosexual?

I think this is Cardinals point.....

homosexual unions perhaps, should be performed as civil ceremonies...

The Bible is quite clear in its writings regarding marriage between man and woman, so therefore, perhaps in Cardinals understanding, they should not be wed in a church that uses the Bible as its foundation....

marry? yes.....but since it is the civil laws that are being changed and not Biblical laws, then civil ceremonies might be for the best...

just an opinion of an opinion...

Dylan

That is what I did say! Thanks soulloss.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

I knew that cardinal! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

And I agree with you! I feel that the choice to perform a religious marriage ceremony should stay in the hands it is now--the minister's.

Dohkay. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by luvbird:
 Can two homosexuals not love each other as much as a man and a woman can? Is their capacity to love somehow less? <hr /></blockquote>Let’s play “Inter-changeable nuns, oops, I mean Nouns”

So - If a MAN can love a WOMAN
then why can’t:
A MAN love a MAN
A WOMAN love a WOMAN
A MAN love a SHEEP
A WOMAN love a ( ______) fill in the blank yourself – this could get interesting.

It’s a HUGE step for gay’s to be legally married – an enormous leap for a spiritual one.
Where’s it stop? Not here I’d bet (and regret). In fact, all you have to do, is sit back, wait and see.

Keep it to the JP’s, not our churches. I think that's well documented.

Ok, now I think I understand your position.

Sorry, I got a little frustrated.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Plumb Bob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> There are a lot of people who seem to just be trying things out. I wonder if sexual abuse is a factor in this at all. Genetics are strong components to predispositions in many things. If it were genetic, then you would have an aunt, uncle with the same predisposition. <hr /></blockquote>Not "Would", but "Could". It's not an absolute or a given. But I'm sure there are plenty of nephews and nieces of gay people who have an Aunt and an Uncle who have the same sexual preference.<hr /></blockquote>from dean hamer's study in the 90s:

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Hamer and colleagues studied the family
histories of 114 gay men and found that their
brothers, maternal uncles, and maternal male
cousins were more likely to be homosexual than
would be expected among the general male
population. In some families, gay relatives could
be traced back for three generations. Because the
homosexual uncles and male cousins of the gay
subjects were raised in different households, the
scientists hypothesized that a genetic factor was
involved. Furthermore, the maternal link suggested
that homosexuality might be associated with the X
chromosome, which is the sex-linked chromosome
that men inherit only from their mothers.

Explicit evidence for a genetic link was obtained
by studying the X chromosome DNA of 40 pairs of
gay brothers. The scientists used a technique
called linkage mapping to search for patterns of
similarity in the genetic information of related
individuals. Thirty-three of the gay sibling pairs
had coinherited genetic markers in the same
chromosome region called Xq28, suggesting that 65
percent of the families studied were transmitting
a gene for homosexual orientation. ...The
scientists are also studying the families of
lesbians. Preliminary results suggest that female
sexual orientation is genetically influenced, but
DNA markers have not been detected yet.

The study is titled "A Linkage Between DNA Markers
on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation."
The authors are Dean H. Hamer, Ph.D., Stella Hu,
M.A., Victoria L. Magnuson, Ph.D., Nan Hu, M.D.,
and Angela M. L. Pattatucci, Ph.D.[/code]</blockquote>

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> So - If a MAN can love a WOMAN
then why can’t:
A MAN love a MAN
A WOMAN love a WOMAN
A MAN love a SHEEP
A WOMAN love a ( ______) fill in the blank yourself – this could get interesting. <hr /></blockquote>Traditional marriage=between 2 consenting adults.
Homosexual marriage=between 2 consenting adults.

How do you make the association between homosexuality and bestiality?

Just a few points I want to touch on.

Cardinal,
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Adam and Eve had their own set of problems, and I guess for your argument, they had zero choice over whether they would be gay or not! I guess we are lucky they felt loving toward one another.
<hr /></blockquote>I wasn't asking this because of their sexuality, I was asking because I question, who is to say if God feels that two people are married? Because of a man's law? Because a human created a marital ceremony? According to your line of thinking, a marriage is simply after you exchange vows before God. If Adam & Eve didn't do this, then they weren't married, according to your line of thinking.

Also, where did Cain get his wife? Nothing is recorded anywhere. He was banished to a foreign land & all of a sudden he had a wife. I don't remember Abraham & Sarah exchanging vows either, maybe, but it's not recorded anywhere so we really don't know. So if there's so much we don't know from the OT, then how do we know that God didn't bless a union between a w/w or m/m?

Bob hit on a very interesting subject that I myself had done some research on. He stated:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Rewrite? Not necessarily, although it's been done thousands of times already. Which Bible do you read, Cardinal? The original? Or do you read a later translation? Are you sure, absolutely sure, that it has been interpreted correctly?
<hr /></blockquote>I am not trying to rewrite the Bible as you would suggest. But I do feel that from translation to translation, some words were mistranslated, giving a whole different meaning than what was originally meant. It even states in the Bible that scripture is meant to be studied & reviewed. Have you done that or do you just take it for what it says w/o looking into the context in which it was written & to whom most of the NT letters were speaking to?

You also said:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I guess some are going to rewrite their own Bible to suit their own needs. <hr /></blockquote>It has always been this way since the beginning of time. I can remember when people were using the Bible to promote slavery, stop women from being in ministry, and that ole' "hood" clan promoting segragation. Half the time they would use scripture as their basis for their argument, quote scripture to support their stance. Did that make it right? Obviously no.

Let me also ask you, Do you feel that women belong in the home taking care of the children, keeping their mouths quiet in the church while the men do all the preaching? This was the OT law too. But then we have the account of Mary Magdalene being one of Jesus' biggest followers and btw, she, Mary, his mother and John, the beloved disciple were the only ones at his crucifixion.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I do think that children are innocent, and what we teach them is of all importance. <hr /></blockquote>I have to disagree with the statement that children are born innocent. We are all born sinners, children included. It is part of human nature. What we teach them, I agree, is very important and my parents taught my sister about God since she could walk & talk, guiding her every step. She was baptized as a disciple of Christ since she was a baby. You seem to think that she was "taught" how to be gay when she was just a little girl and I don't see how that could be when no one in our family is gay & other members of the family frowned upon her when she acknowledged it to all of us. I didn't even understand it myself when she first told me & I prayed for God to take that cup from her. But I believe God showed me that there is more there than meets the eye and thus, sent me on a journey to look for answers that I couldn't find by just "blatantly" quoting scripture.

I truly believe that unless you've walked in my sister's shoes or others similar to her situation, you cannot honestly say that what these two women feel for each other isn't love & that it's prompted by Satan.

Golly, I never said that your sister was not in love, or guided by Satan!

In my church, we don't rewrite the Bible, but read it and reflect and relate it to our lives. You take home what you will, surely some get less out of it than others. Some don't agree with it. But if you go to this church and have followed its rules, then you ought to abide by them.

The churches that I have visited in my little life all seem to be this way. Catholic churches, church at college (which was predominantly Catholic, but called non-denominational), and several varieties of Protestant churches, plus a Tabernacle. They don't ask if you are gay or a different faith, but if you become a member you can bet that they will want you to follow their basic rules! Usually those rules are obtained from their "Bible", whatever "version" that may be.

(adding in; In referance to plumbs post)
Now I am not asking you what version or interpretation you hold on your "Bible", so lay off. OK? If you want to get fresh this thread will get closed. I have not said I have condemnation or judgements of gays. I believe that the rights for civil equality is theirs. But the rights of the churches do not need to bow down to the marriage of two men and two women if they wish to keep their "rules".

At this point in time, my church is being pressured by a couple people and being loved in our church (as Jesus said to love one another- not in any sexual way mind you)- and in doing so is making precedence to change what we in our faith have held as uniquely sacred.

Loving a man if you are a man is considered "disgusting" and other referances which say No to gay marriage in church. (from the Bible, as quoted earlier in this thread- from Lev.)

If you can find any interpretation which shows support for this form of marriage in any Bible, lets hear it PLEASE. I haven't read everything in it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

adding in: I am not talking about the ancients marriage rites. I think that is an interesting topic for a new thread though...talking about our right as a church to follow our rules, not change them due to the legislative changes/potential changes. There is a seperation of church and state, but we deal with this issue anyhow, as a church.

You asked about women and jobs, and I think that women are getting the choices that they want and need at least where I live. They are ministers, and doctors and lawyers, CEO's, business owners, and SAHMs/ or Moms that want to work too. I have not a thing against any of it. I am not against people who are gay, that is their personal choice. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

[ June 11, 2004, 07:00 AM: Message edited by: cardinal ]

Never meant to "attack" you per say, Cardinal, if that's how you feel, I was just responding to some things you said. Sorry for offending you. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" /> I'm honestly being sincere in my efforts.

I just asked the question about Adam & Eve's marriage and all that because I was trying to make a point. People seem to want to not allow gays to marry in a church for all the reasons you have mentioned, following the Bible, etc. but when it comes to remarriage for some people, who have divorced for reasons other than adultery, a "legitimate M" as other's see it, are married by a minister in the church they have belonged to for years. Shouldn't these same rules apply? According to Jesus' teachings, whoever marries another after divorcing for reasons other than adultery, has committed adultery themselves. So, in essence, wouldn't they be "choosing" to live in adultery? Wouldn't this be the same thing? Yet, the churches still marry these people sometimes even having receptions in their fellowship halls.

All of this just has me very curious. Anyone see the point I'm trying to make here?

And anyone reading, please don't think that I believe all those in 2nd or subsequent marriages are living in sin, that is definitely not what I am saying. Don't slam me w/the 2x4's!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> (adding in; In referance to plumbs post)
Now I am not asking you what version or interpretation you hold on your "Bible", so lay off. OK? If you want to get fresh this thread will get closed. I have not said I have condemnation or judgements of gays. I believe that the rights for civil equality is theirs. But the rights of the churches do not need to bow down to the marriage of two men and two women if they wish to keep their "rules".
<hr /></blockquote>So, if people politely disagree with you, you intend to just stop talking, is that your point, Cardinal?

I have not been rude or "fresh". When I asked which version of the Bible you read, I was trying to point out that WE ALL READ from Bible's that have been interpreted throughout history. None of us read from the original manuscript. So when you started spouting off about "some people wanting to re-write the Bible to fit their needs", I was trying to point out that that is not a new phenomena.

Don't threaten me with shutting down a thread, simply because I ask difficult questions of you. I have not been rude, or impolite, in any of my responses.

As to being judgemental, I didn't mention anyone by name. But when we start referring to others as "sinners", then we are, in fact, being judgemental, are we not?

As I originally stated, we should all worry more about identifying the sin in our OWN lives, and dealing with it, before we ever start trying to identify all the ways OTHERS sin.

Bob

Plumb Bob, let me be clear. I have talked with you in the past here. And I do not like you. I think that you are arrogant. So, if you dislike my methods, then the feeling is mutual. You can write what you will but I have nothing to say to you at all.

A couple thoughts.
First, I believe being gay or straight is mostly about how you are born. Yes there are many bi-sexual people who can choose and environment plays a role, but I am straight and find the idea of kissing a guy as big a turn off as kissing a rat. However, some gay friends have told me the same thing about how they feel about kissing a woman. All I know is that if my mind were in a woman’s body I would be a lesbian.

Second, I think we need to remember that there is a separation of church and state. Churches, mosques, etc. can independently decide the issue of gay marriage. The government should not and is not involved. But I feel that if the state is going to recognize marriage it should not discriminate between gays, straights, blacks, Catholics or anyone else.

Personally I feel that the state should get out of the marriage business and there should be marriages recognized by the church and the government should give civil unions that provide the legal rights to gays or straight couples. Separate the issues so that the issue of government approval (which has real economic benefits) does not get caught up in the religious issue.

Separation of church and state is very important. I don't know how many are born gay. I don't know if the facts are clear, but sure as the Pope is a Catholic, there are people who are gay, and how they got that way is not my concern either. Although it is interesting.

I just would like to see my church stay together on this decision, and that the laws of the Bible be upheld as we have always been at least trying to do. To marry gay people in my church would be against it. I don't want my children to see it. I think marriage of gay people should be called a different name than what my marriage is to my husband - as a man and wife. I believe in keeping what we have intact at our church. The marriage of a man and a woman is unique.

Nowhere in the Bible are you going to find the encouragement of gayness, I think. Or someone here at MB would have come up with that passage I think.

The last thing that I was thinking is this. When you enter into a church, and you like this church, you wish to become a member. Now if you dislike the carpets, the color of the wallpaper, or something, you can change it. But when you dislike what your Bible reads, then you can't change that.

I think that you will need to change your belief, or change your church! But should not expect others to alter their belief because of your lifestyle wishes.

Cardinal-Although I fundamentally disagree with you on the issue of whether gays should be allowed to marry, I agree that each church should decide for itself and if you do not like that decision then find a new church. If the church wants to allow people to divorce and you disagree find one that agrees with you. If the church allows gays, blacks, men, ten year olds, monkeys, women or whatever to be ministers and you disagree then find a new one. Personally I feel that we should support loving couples who are loyal and committed regardless of gender or race. Unless we go the route of totalitarianism, gay people are going to commit to each other and they will have families. In the interest of recognizing of promoting healthy families, including the children of gay couples (whether adopted, step children, sperm donated or whatever) I believe we as a society should recognize those commitments and families and provide them with the same economic benefits that I as a straight person enjoy by spending $60 at the county for a marriage license. I personally do not care what you call it, as long as we do not discriminate against two consenting, competent adults who want to enter into a long term loving relationship or discriminate against the kids of gay people.

You fundamentally disagree with me, but you pretty much stated what I said with a few additions of race and monkeys..? Ok, whatever.

StandingTogether:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> So, in essence, wouldn't they be "choosing" to live in adultery? Wouldn't this be the same thing? Yet, the churches still marry these people sometimes even having receptions in their fellowship halls.

All of this just has me very curious. Anyone see the point I'm trying to make here?
<hr /></blockquote>In my opinion...yes! Yes, it is exactly the same thing, but shhhh.... let's just not talk about that k?

The point you make is crystal clear to me.

*sigh* - this topic always get me fired up.

Where I fundamentally disagree is that, while I believe churches should have the right to discriminate, I think that such discrimination is wrong.

I personally wish that all churches would marry gay people and divorced people because they can form loving long term families just as I as a straight non-divorced person.

To me it is like I think it is dumb that the Catholic faith does not allow women ministers or that it took most (all?) Christian churches so long to abandon their racism against blacks and interracial marriage (which they justified based on the Bible).

The Bible can be used by anyone to prove almost any point. Pro-gay people can point out that the Jesus was not explicitly anti-gay and that the New Testament’s message is not anti-gay and that the prohibitions against gays in the Old Testament of the same moral significance of eating pork or shellfish. For example, although I may be wrong, the Bible does not condemn slavery. There are places in the Bible that could be read to support slavery. For example, “When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.” (Exod. 21:20-21).

Jesus and Paul also did not condemn slavery and used its metaphors to make points. The views in the Bible on slavery were products of their time in which slavery was part of the fabric of society. Does that mean we should repeal the 13th amendment to the Constitution and allow slavery?

I believe a church or any person should have the right to be a racist, try to change the law to have slavery, or what ever other belief that I adamantly oppose. But just because I respect each religion’s freedom to make its own rules, does mean I agree with those rules or think that they are promoting a healthy, pro-child, pro-family society. I dream of a world in which gays are treated equally and all segments of our society choose to treat them with dignity, respect and equality.

I dream of a world in which ________ are treated equally and all segments of our society choose to treat them with dignity, respect and equality.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> OT, yet timeless.

You know what, the church that I attend is the most relaxed, non-judgemental church that there is around. I believe that God will always be in attendance at the services if we are always trying to honor him and not ourselves and our selfish desires. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Plumb Bob, let me be clear. I have talked with you in the past here. And I do not like you. I think that you are arrogant. So, if you dislike my methods, then the feeling is mutual. You can write what you will but I have nothing to say to you at all. <hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr /> I believe that God will always be in attendance at the services if we are always trying to honor him and not ourselves and our selfish desires. <hr /></blockquote>Good point, Cardinal.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by robby13:
 I dream of a world in which ________ are treated equally and all segments of our society choose to treat them with dignity, respect and equality.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> OT, yet timeless. <hr /></blockquote>Yup! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

I wonder whether it's wise to comment on this thread. I'm not a Biblical scholar; I'm not even a Christian.

I am, as far as I know, the only person on MB who's been in a same-sex union.

So.

What to say?

Mmmmmm.

In the end, cardinal, it strikes me that your conflict is between what you've seen and experienced, and the higher authority that you read in the Bible.

That's a tough, tough choice and thought process, and one that I've been through. I don't envy you having to go through it, though I've found that a careful consideration of these things -- the struggle -- can be very beneficial.

Some things you might want to think about are what's good for the two people involved, what's good for any children who are involved, what's good for society as a whole.... and who might be harmed in all the scenarios you're thinking about.

It doesn't resolve the conflict necessarily. But the more aspects of it you hold in your heart when you meditate and pray about it, the more easily answers may come.

I understand what you're saying, Cardinal. What most gays are looking for, in essence, is not necessarily being married in a church specifically per say, just the right to marry like anyone else & receive the benefits that go along with that, for instance, being able to make decisions for the children of their partner or being able to be put on health insurance, things like that. I think I pretty much agree with others that just because it becomes law, doesn't mean that a church has to abide by it. A minister has the right to say if he/she wants to marry a gay couple. Same as a priest has a right to say whether or not he will marry two people, one being Catholic & the other not. In order to marry in a Catholic church, the children have to be raised Catholic and the non-Catholic has to covert, at least, that's what happened to a man in our church. So they chose to have their ceremony somewhere else.

As far as the Bible "encouraging gayness" as you put it, no, I haven't found any, however, there is no record in the Bible of the universe being created, dinosaurs existing, cavemen, and so on. Stuff that has been proven to exist but it wasn't recorded in the Bible. Of course, I'm not done reading the whole entire thing though.

I didn't mean to imply that you condemn gays but the words "personal choice" somehow get to me because I don't believe that anyone would "choose" to be gay with all the condemnation in general that goes along with it. I do agree with you that if a church makes a decision, and someone belongs to that church, if they don't agree with the policies then they should find another church that will fit in with their belief system. Just makes common sense to me. Otherwise, you'd in essence be a "hypocrite" pretending to follow their guidelines yet practicing your own.

DP <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

[ June 12, 2004, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: cardinal ]

Thanks Just J and Standing for your responses. It is something to think about in an ever progressive world that we live in. Something about the issue is needing to get talked about and to simply accept situations, due to a docile and caring community is just not going to help us. We need to understand the perplexing problems that enter in to a set belief system. One that has never closed its doors to anyone. However it has stood on good ground which supports the ideas and feelings of a community which reads out of the Bible.

I know the arguments about interpretation, and that the Bible may not have mentioned about the dinosaurs (how could we miss that in Genesis), but I do think that the Bible is the written history of people, not of prehistoric. However if you took geology, or science study of the earth, the general sequence of events are correct, and in that time (of a couple paragraphs) those things happened , albeit with the notion of geological time added, I think we can kind of see that God's minute might be a little quicker than our minute....But this is digressing.

I think God does care about all of the people, as we as parents love our children (or should). A parent cares about the future of the children, wants them to live healthy and well. A parent would like to see their children be able to make mistakes and build on their abilities to fix them. Our resources are support systems, like churches, schools, meeting groups and parents teaching.

If you feel like what you are doing is a sin, then it is upon your shoulders to seek the better way to do or not to do what you are doing. If you feel that your doing what is right and good, then there is no questions left.

I cant deny what I have read and believe. I believe that marriage in my church is between a man and a woman. I think it would be wrong to use that church as a place to make the civil laws become realities for this church.

Here is a question. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> What if Noah picked gay animals to board the SSNoahsArk?
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> For that matter what if Adam and Eve (prototypes, were gay?)...I really believe that if it were what we were meant to be, then it would be written as least as many times as we find a married man and woman in the Bible.

All I can say is thank God people have affinity for the opposite sex!

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Here is a question. What if Noah picked gay animals to board the SSNoahsArk?
<hr /></blockquote>LOL! I've seen this in my backyard from stray dogs mostly or in alleyways, but on the Ark? Never even thought about that!!!

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> For that matter what if Adam and Eve (prototypes, were gay?)...I really believe that if it were what we were meant to be, then it would be written as least as many times as we find a married man and woman in the Bible.
<hr /></blockquote>We have to take into account that the OT stories are of people who are linked to Jesus Christ. The more I go on in life, I start to come to the...realization...perhaps that the writers were making an account of Jesus' ancestors. Every person was linked to Jesus somehow, except for some books like Psalms, Proverbs, etc. These were written BY Jesus' ancestors, i.e., David, Solomon. These books were reflections of how God had sustained them & in Proverbs example, the wisdom that Solomon had learned. That is correct, isn't it? Wasn't Proverbs written by Solomon? Just had a "2nd guess myself" moment. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

All the prophetical books were definitely proclaiming the coming of the Son of Man. And then in the NT, it focused on events that took place after Jesus died & foretells the future of mankind.

I try to remember that the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses himself, so I'm sure he received these stories by relatives perhaps? He wasn't around when these things took place so I have a pretty good inkling that it was kind of like hearing hand-me-down generation stories. I know other people probably won't agree with me on that, but that's how I view things. And my line of thinking didn't happen just like that, this is after many years of reflection & studies of the history of the Bible.

It just has me curious of how man decided to form the Bible. How did they decide of what to put in there & why? I know there are other ancient texts out there but are hidden from us. Maybe it would change things a little bit from the meaning behind the words so to speak.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> If you feel like what you are doing is a sin, then it is upon your shoulders to seek the better way to do or not to do what you are doing. If you feel that your doing what is right and good, then there is no questions left.
<hr /></blockquote>I agree. I think the point that Jesus was trying to make was that if you're a sinner as well, like everyone else, then treating others with disrespect or condemnation or being unloving towards them was out of the question. I think the reason he was so angry with the Pharisees was because of their self-righteousness. They sinned like everybody else & chose to rely on the laws of the church in order to keep others from enjoying the benefit of worship too. He wanted them to realize that EVERYONE is a sinner & has the right to worship God, same as they did.

Nice post, Standing. I wonder about this too. You said:

It just has me curious of how man decided to form the Bible. How did they decide of what to put in there & why? I know there are other ancient texts out there but are hidden from us. Maybe it would change things a little bit from the meaning behind the words so to speak.

Some have said that the order of some stories is wrong. Some have said that they are keeping secrets from us! As if we would break if we knew some truths about this material!

I think that they found the scrolls and did the best that they could with them. What we read is made in print from those who were entrusted to interpret.

I think that the health of our living is basically what the books lead us to live. If Moses thought that God wished him to record his stories, history of that family, and so on and so forth...well, there are good lessons in them. The stories are indeed fascinating, imagining the past as it was, and folks still dress in the old ways in these Biblical cities.

We need to look at our goals when we read, listen, talk about things. What is the goal when we go to church? The best thing I can think of is to honor God. It is not about our personal needs, although we do like some basic esthetics in the church - simple music, choir, and a story. With the goal to honor God.

But the church is a place of worship, not a place to bring the political problems of the day, unless it is to do with the spiritual wellness of the people as a group. It is not a place to be expressing our EN's, and we if we became members with the knowledge of the kind of worship/Biblical teaching, then we should not be tricky and say, "well, now I disagree with the Bible, and I want it changed to support my personal claim" ! The Bible is not a Constitution. The church is about the group of people/ honoring God. So how to do that the best that we can, so that He will be pleased with us?

I do believe that if God intended us to be representing gayness in church, then there would be any kind of written history somewhere for it. It does not occur(Gods approval of gayness) in Christianity I think, nor the Old Testament.

I don't know about other religions, Muslim sure dont allow that. Sure the punishment of it is hefty. The punishments of those Puritan folks used to be pretty harsh as well. Glad we gave those practices up.

Well, In Gods time, we will understand, something. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

ST,

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> It just has me curious of how man decided to form the Bible. How did they decide of what to put in there & why? I know there are other ancient texts out there but are hidden from us. Maybe it would change things a little bit from the meaning behind the words so to speak. <hr /></blockquote>An interesting question.

The New Testament, if you notice, is not in chronological order. It is in order of size. The largest book to the smallest, excluding Revelations.

There are over 80 KNOWN Gospels in existance. Yet the Nicean Conference, AD300, chose to include only 4? Research the Gospel of Thomas; it is very interesting. It is not in "book" form. It is a collection of quotes from Christ. It was found with the other scrolls, yet the Catholic church still labels it heresy. It makes one wonder as to the rationale behind some church decisions. It would seem that they do, in fact, think we are not able to discern the truth for ourselves.

The Gospels were not written by the people they're named after. They were written about 100 years after the death of Christ.

I am curious as to where you read that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament. I've never heard that, and would be interested in more information.

Consider also the Apocrypha...several books of the Bible that the Catholic Church considers heretical, but accepted by many Protestant churches as authentic.

It all supports my claim, in an eariler thread, that the Bible, while INSPIRED by God, was not dictated, and is subject to inquiry and interpretation. Inspired by God; Written by Man.

Bob

Bob, in answer to your question, I found this on this site: Did Moses really write Genesis?

Evidence for Moses authorship of the Pentateuch
The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, often referred to in the Bible as ‘the Law’ (Hebrew torah), is overwhelming:

Egyptian ruins. Internal evidences in the text of the Pentateuch indicate that the author was familiar with Egyptian customs, as would be expected of Moses.

Contrary to the views of Wellhausen and others, archaeological research has established that writing was indeed well known in Moses’ day. The JEDP hypothesis falsely assumes that the Iraelites waited until many centuries after the foundation of their nation before committing any of their history or laws to written form, even though their neighbours kept written records of their own history and religion from before the time of Moses.4

The author is obviously an eyewitness of the Exodus from Egypt, familiar with the geography,5 flora and fauna of the region;6 he uses several Egyptian words,7 and refers to customs that go back to the second millennium bc.8

The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.

Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7–8; 8:32–34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13.

In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Other New Testament speakers/writers said the same thing, e.g. John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28.

Does this mean that Moses wrote Genesis without reference to any previous information? Not necessarily. Genesis comprises narratives of historical events that occurred before Moses was born. Moses may very well have had access to patriarchal records and/or reliable oral traditions of these events. In that case, such records would certainly have been preserved by being written (probably on clay tablets) and handed down from father to son via the line of
Adam-Seth-Noah-Shem-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, etc.

There are 11 verses in Genesis which read, ‘These are (or ‘This is the book of’) the generations of …’ The Hebrew word toledoth translated ‘generations’ can also mean ‘origins’, ‘history’, or even ‘family history’, and each verse comes either before or after a description of historical events that involved the person named.9 The most likely explanation is that Adam, Noah, Shem, etc. each wrote an account of the events that occurred either right before or during his lifetime, and Moses, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, selected, compiled, and edited these to produce Genesis in its present cohesive form.10

Genesis does not show a progress from idolatry to monotheism, as Wellhausen’s evolutionism requires. Rather, the Bible begins with an original revelation of God, which was later rejected to the point that the Hebrew nation itself descended into idolatry and so was given over to captivity by God.

ST,

Thanks for the information, I will read it at length tomorrow.

I was mistaken in something I said earlier about the Apocrypha...the Catholic church actually recognizes it as sacred text, but it is not included in many current Protestant bible translations.

Sorry for the error.

Bob

There was a program on several years ago, regarding the "other" scrolls, and interpretations. Do any of you recall it? So many were talking about it being kind of faith rattling. That is not how I see it. I would like to understand what else was being talked about way back when! Fascinating stuff.

Do you know who deciphers these things? It is painstaking work, no doubt. Hard enough finding and preserving some old relics. My H made an excellent point which I have made before on this forum, and that is you don't have words to translate some words in other languages, and so, sadly some meanings and intonations are lost. Just look at what is interpreted and misunderstood on this forum and in the same language, there is still misunderstanding... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

However, the basic gist of things is there I believe. But what about the other stories? What about the stories passed down to cousin families of Israelites, the other religions that developed parallel to them...Many many questions!

Editing here:
Alot of the writings do seem to show that there is survival of the fitest. " Go forth and multiply!" (If you were gay, then you would not be likely to do that, which would naturally decrease that genetic trait if there is one!)

The early writings of cave dwellers are pictures on rocks, which are viewed on all parts of the world. They may have had less math and science, but they knew how to create longlasting prints of their ideas in art!

Digressing again! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

[ June 13, 2004, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: cardinal ]

Very interesting thread…thanks Cardinal. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

The following two posts is my favorite:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by StandingTogether:
People seem to want to not allow gays to marry in a church for all the reasons you have mentioned, following the Bible, etc. but when it comes to remarriage for some people, who have divorced for reasons other than adultery, a "legitimate M" as other's see it, are married by a minister in the church they have belonged to for years. Shouldn't these same rules apply? According to Jesus' teachings, whoever marries another after divorcing for reasons other than adultery, has committed adultery themselves. So, in essence, wouldn't they be "choosing" to live in adultery? Wouldn't this be the same thing? Yet, the churches still marry these people sometimes even having receptions in their fellowship halls.

All of this just has me very curious. Anyone see the point I'm trying to make here?

And anyone reading, please don't think that I believe all those in 2nd or subsequent marriages are living in sin, that is definitely not what I am saying. Don't slam me w/the 2x4's!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>AND
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jilliana:
 StandingTogether:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> So, in essence, wouldn't they be "choosing" to live in adultery? Wouldn't this be the same thing? Yet, the churches still marry these people sometimes even having receptions in their fellowship halls.

All of this just has me very curious. Anyone see the point I'm trying to make here?
<hr /></blockquote>In my opinion...yes! Yes, it is exactly the same thing, but shhhh.... let's just not talk about that k?

The point you make is crystal clear to me.<hr /></blockquote>Standing, I agree with you 100% and your point is indeed CRYSTAL CLEAR to me. The issues you've raised really made me think - thank you so much!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> Your post illustrates why I’m very, very careful to make comments or judgments about issues like this in the first place… Let God rather be the judge…

Jilliana, isn’t it interesting that no one talks about this and just keep the silence??? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

[ June 14, 2004, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Suzet* ]

This statement :

" when it comes to remarriage for some people, who have divorced for reasons other than adultery, a "legitimate M" as other's see it, are married by a minister in the church they have belonged to for years. Shouldn't these same rules apply? According to Jesus' teachings, whoever marries another after divorcing for reasons other than adultery, has committed adultery themselves ..."

MY response to this is that it is a good rule to use. If you can work like Harley puts out in his work here/on the reading site/do the work to save your marriage, then you will reap great rewards. But it takes two. Giving up is instinctive to many. And when we just give up on our sacred marriage, the price we pay is a painful feeling of loss - I would analogize this to losing a member of your body, or a dear family member whom you once loved so. There is no replacement for the divorced partner.

This sin is not something we can always avoid. Why does our Father in heaven want us to not sin? My answer is because it makes our lives better when we follow the most important rules.

As far as the rate of remarriage of divorced people in my church, well I can't recall one. The only remarriage was done in the past ten years, and it was due to the young woman had lost her H by his becoming ill and dying. Other than that seems like the marriages of people who live here and stay in this church do not remarry by default.

Remarriage does cause a lot of hectic problems. Dividing up all of your belongings, children. Doesnt it feel wrong when your marriage is in the gutter? And when it feels unreparable, if you don't do everything in your power then you will have guilt. You did not marry with the promise of ending it as soon as it was in trouble.

When a church promotes healthy marriage, and supports the family morals and ethics in a community, the community is a fairly stable one. Now, the only condemnation you will feel is when you were unable to make it. And it hurts like HE!!. Jesus teachings are promoting/encouraging the healthy life, the spiritual life. Healthful family relations are derived from a healthy marital relation. Otherwise things are goofedup for us. Just read the difficult paths of the divorced and divorcing ones.

Pain is very real when we are not on the best path.

AND these statements:

very careful to make comments or judgments about issues like this in the first place… Let God rather be the judge…

Jilliana, isn’t it interesting that no one talks about this and just keep the silence???

Lets talk! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> And when you feel like love is hurting you, why? What is going wrong? The questions of what can I do, pervade your thinking! So talk about goals and methods of fixing the painful situations, and make them better.

When we read that God says in Leviticus that a man with a man is "disgusting", what does that mean to you.

What two consenting adults do together is not always the best thing to do. What is the difference between two consenting adults and three consenting adults and so on and so forth. Permissiveness was never a cure.

Cardinal,

I agree that permissiveness is not a cure and wrong. I agree that homosexuality is a sin in God’s eyes… But to divorce and remarry (except if it happens because of adultery and/or death) is ALSO a sin in God’s eyes and ADULTERY (not my words, but God’s words & standards...) Nowhere in the Bible is written that homosexuality is a bigger sin than adultery… And if people start to judge homosexuals, they must also start to judge people who divorce and marry another… That’s why I’ve said that I’m very, very careful to make my own comments and judgments about sensitive issues like this.

[ June 14, 2004, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Suzet* ]

Suzet...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Nowhere in the Bible is written that homosexuality is a bigger sin than adultery… <hr /></blockquote>That's a wonderful point. In fact, as I read it, I recalled being told by my own pastor how "Sin is sin. There are no varying degrees in God's eyes."

There isn't a panel holding up numbers..."The judges give it a 9.5 for execution, but only a 9.2 for difficulty". We, as humans, are the ones who try and placate ourselves by telling ourselves that some sin is "less bad" than other types.

Bob

So, Gods rules are important to you? And if they are, then we just simply should try to abide by his "standards" or laws. So, when we are encouraging others, we ought to have the values in our heart and minds...And in particular, when a teacher teaches, a parent teaches, or a minister or whoever is in charge is teaching...We should keep that in mind. Yes, sin is sin. And we should try to not do it...

I think that God knows that we will make sins in our lives. The goals seem to be to work toward doing things better. As a parent knows their children will make mistakes (how we learn good lessons sometimes), the parent wants the child to know that they are going to be doing well, if they will work toward the better behaviors that make the life they live more wholesome, and fulfilled.

It is counterproductive to teach a child that any behavior that they do is ok. They do need to learn that when we apply boundaries in our behaviors, and understand them, that the life is going to be better, stable. We learn quite alot through mistakes.

Decisions that we make in life or avoid in life, have a direct correlation to what we get out of our life.

Ok...if sin is sin, and no sin is greater than another, then why the 10 commandments? Why break it up into Leviticus, the 10 commandments, and so on and so on....? Interestingly,
adultery is mentioned in the 10 commandments, but homosexuality is not.

Here's a clip taken from an article I was reading:

"It is ironic that "gay" and "adultery" are both involved here, causing confusion. Both words' meanings have been altered from historic definitions. The "Gay '90s" of the 19th century meant something quite different from the "Gay '90s" of the 20th century! And the ancient meaning of "adultery" is quite different from its misunderstood use today.

Therewith lies both great confusion and irony. After all, historically, the very first use of the written word, "adultery," appears in the Bible. It is in the seventh of the Ten Commandments. Moses, a devout and holy man of God with two wives, was the first to write "adultery," Exodus 20:14. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

But polygamous Moses did not write it in English. "Adultery" is translated from the original Hebrew word, "na`aph." It means "woman who breaks wedlock," a married woman having coitus with any man other than her husband. "Na`aph," therefore, explains how so many of the Bible's heroes were polygamous without committing adultery. None of their wives were breaking their wedlock to a husband."

Ok, well where in the Bible does it talk at all, other than with disgrace re. man and man or woman and woman in any kind of union/marriage type.

The ideas are not part of the texts at all. It only refers to it as being bad. Find something which supports or encourages this kind of unity. If you will find it, I am all for listening, otherwise it is all about what the people of today want for the political challenge. What a consenting adult "grouping" wishes for , should that be what our Bible is all about? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> ... otherwise it is all about what the people of today want for the political challenge. What a consenting adult "grouping" wishes for , should that be what our Bible is all about? <hr /></blockquote>Boy do I agree with you here Cardinal! In reading some of the Bible, it frightens me to think that some wish to use biblical concepts and scripture to push their political agenda.

It's a far cry from what religion and spirituality means to me.

Whenever this topic comes up ...it consumes me. Not quite sure why. Anyways, thought I'd share a link that I'm reading:

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

I used to read the Bible a lot when I was growing up. When I was a teen, and then in my twenties. I read it because it seemed to be a good foundation. Nobody forced me to read it. I went to a church growing up. I grew up and went to many many churches, of friends. The Bible used in all of them.

I like the understandings. I don't stress over condemnation etc. But believe that if we are doing what it says we should strive to do, then life just goes better. I am saying this from my personal experience. When I did not do what it says I ought to do, then I did pay some consequences.

All in all I believe that my understandings are the biggest reason for our success in marriage. I believe that boundaries are things that we learn. When we fiddle around with them and test those boundaries out, see if stretching them works...I personally found out how painful that this was.

Rules are good. The parental role is important. We are responsible for what we encourage when we are in that role.

I read the article and believe that questioning the Apostle Paul's words is questioning the validity of the Holy Bible. Freud, the father of psychology was not a Christian did not believe in God from what I have read about him, therefore, I do not hold psychology up to same standard as the Holy Bible.

I found this link and it's commentary to be contrary to what I read in the Holy Bible.

I do remember that Satan knows the bible very well and will distort the truth to make people become tempted to sin.

Cardinal, <blockquote>quote:<hr />So, Gods rules are important to you? And if they are, then we just simply should try to abide by his "standards" or laws.<hr /></blockquote>Because Gods rules are important to me and I want to live a God-feared life, I try to abide by all his laws; “standards” and values for my OWN life without judging others… That’s not to say I don’t have a clear knowledge between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, but God also prohibits us judging others since we all are sinners.

My husband is bi-sexual but feeling more homosexual (lets not use the word gay...its a travesty...most of them are miserable)than hetreosexual at the moment. as religious man and a biblical scholar he recognises that to act on these feelings would be sinful. He also says that if he finally decides to live a homosexual lifestyle that he would NEVER enter into a same sex marriage. Civil union is another thing but marriage is of an esscence about families. All homosexuality has done to my family is break it up.....

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Suzet*:
 Cardinal, <blockquote>quote:<hr />So, Gods rules are important to you? And if they are, then we just simply should try to abide by his "standards" or laws.<hr /></blockquote>Because Gods rules are important to me and I want to live a God-feared life, I try to abide by all his laws; “standards” and values for my OWN life without judging others… That’s not to say I don’t have a clear knowledge between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, but God also prohibits us judging others since we all are sinners. <hr /></blockquote>So is that to say, that in the church we should change the Bible so as to be tolerant of Gay Marriage, and not to judge?

Debbra, that is a sad antithesis of what can happen with a family and one who professes to be gay. I have seen some things in my career that are just so sad.

The nurturing of a family, doing what is Godly and then the belief/claim to this espousement of gayness, or the need to cross dress or to become a transvestite is clearly an ugly situation, painful to all who are dependant upon the marriage. Not unlike the phases of a "normal" A, you go through the pains of devastation and attempt to recover.

It is confusing at best. I hope that your situation is getting the counseling that you require.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />That’s not to say I don’t have a clear knowledge between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, but God also prohibits us judging others since we all are sinners. [/QB]<hr /></blockquote>But if we acknowledge right from wrong, isn't that judgement?

Is "judging" a sin as in "Thou Shalt Not Judge?" Where is that in the Bible? So juries are all sinners? Judges are all sinners doomed to hell? Or will God forgive them for judging murderers and pedophiles and putting them in prison?

Am I going to hell for saying that Hitler was an evil man? [a judgement]

The truth is that we, of course, are mandated to judge. We are mandated to judge right from wrong according to God's standard, using righteous judgement. If we didn't, then evil would thrive, which would sure make the devil happy.

Our prisons are full of people who can't judge right from wrong.

God judges man's souls and we judge his actions, according to God's standards.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Ephesians 5:11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

1 Corinthians 6:2-4 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!

And the most BASTARDIZED, TWISTED scripture in the Bible:

Matthew 7:1-5

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Mel's note: and who wouldn't WANT to be judged with righteous "judgement?" I sure would!]

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Notice how different the meaning is when that passage is read in it's intended context? See, it never tells us not to judge, rather it tells us not to be HYPOCRITES, huge difference.

[ June 15, 2004, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cardinal:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Suzet*:
 Cardinal, <blockquote>quote:<hr />So, Gods rules are important to you? And if they are, then we just simply should try to abide by his "standards" or laws.<hr /></blockquote>Because Gods rules are important to me and I want to live a God-feared life, I try to abide by all his laws; “standards” and values for my OWN life without judging others… That’s not to say I don’t have a clear knowledge between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, but God also prohibits us judging others since we all are sinners. <hr /></blockquote>So is that to say, that in the church we should change the Bible so as to be tolerant of Gay Marriage, and not to judge? <hr /></blockquote>No Cardinal, that’s not what I’ve said… What I have said originally is that if people want to judge homosexuals, they must also judge people who divorce and remarry for other reasons than adultery. A religious person who accepts the one (adultery), but condemn the other (homosexuality), is practicing double standards because divorce and remarriage IS adultery in God’s eyes.

Cardinal, you must understand, I don’t approve homosexuality at all, but I also don’t judge and condemn homosexual people. In fact, I have great sympathy and compassion for homosexual people who want to live a God-feared life but haven’t chosen their own sexual orientation.

[ June 15, 2004, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Suzet* ]

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Does anyone anywhere have Biblical support for gay marriage - This is my repeated question throughout this thread.

So...
"So is that to say, that in the church we should change the Bible so as to be tolerant of Gay Marriage, and not to judge? "

Should gays be married in a church that believes in the Holy Bible ?
Where does the Holy Bible talk about homosexuality, and what does it say about that ?
What is the force pushing this change in our churches ?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cardinal:
 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Does anyone anywhere have Biblical support for gay marriage - This is my repeated question throughout this thread. <hr /></blockquote>Cardinal, you won't find ANY Biblical support for gay marriages anywhere in the Bible. At the same time you won't find ANY Biblical support for other EQUAL sins (like divorce and remarriage) anywhere in the Bible either...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cardinal:
 So...
"So is that to say, that in the church we should change the Bible so as to be tolerant of Gay Marriage, and not to judge? "

Should gays be married in a church that believes in the Holy Bible ?
Where does the Holy Bible talk about homosexuality, and what does it say about that ?
What is the force pushing this change in our churches ? <hr /></blockquote>Cardinal, here is my opinion on your questions:

1. No, gays should NOT marry in church that believes in the Holy Bible and neither should divorced people. Like I've said, a religious person can't accept the one sin and condemn the other...this is called double standards.

2. Homosexuality IS a sin in God's eyes...and so is divorce and remarriage (adultery)... The same with ALL the other sins. All sins are equal and wrong in God's eyes...

3. The same force that wants to approve other sins as well...

[ June 15, 2004, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Suzet* ]

I agree with you Suzet, !

I pray that the churches will research this more. I am a little worried about this.

Suzet...

I was with you up until this last post.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />and so is divorce and remarriage (adultery)... <hr /></blockquote>So, you're not willing to judge others, but....

I am glad that the God that I believe in is willing to forgive ALL sin, regardless of it's nature, as long as we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and ask earnestly for forgiveness.

I'm glad that the God I believe in won't condemn some woman to Hell because she gets a divorce from a man who beats the holy hell out of her and her children, and then molests the children at night. And the same woman who, after suffering such abuse, finds a loving man, who will fully embody the spirit of 1Corinthians 13, and in another act of SIN commits to marrying this man.

But, we're not being judgemental here. And that's a good thing. Isn't it?

And Melody...as a Christian, I seem to remember some quote about "Let the one amongst you who is WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone."

I'm out.

Bob

Cardinal, I’m glad you understand now what I’ve been trying to say! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

(NS: I have sent you a response to my thread “Romantic love in M on your questions of yesterday. Please take a look if you have time. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Blessings,
Suzet

Plumb Bob,

I agree with everything you say and I’m with you 100%! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> When I used the statement: “divorce and remarriage is adultery” I didn’t judge at all… If you read my posts very carefully you will see that I’ve said divorce and remarriage is adultery in GOD’s eyes. I was using God’s standard, not mine! But as you’ve said, God IS willing to forgive ALL sin, regardless of it's nature, as long as we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and ask earnestly for forgiveness. SO true! However, THE SAME forgiveness is available for homosexuals and we as sinners can’t condemn and judge them. As you've said "Let the one amongst you who is WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone." <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

What is it about following rules. Our sinful nature does not want to follow them. Even if our lives are going to be better for this. When we obey rules, we have boundaries.

Plumb Bob,

I'm not sure if you was talking about yourself as well when you referred to woman in abusing marriages, but if so, I want to say I’m so sorry about your past experiences and I’m sorry if you misunderstood my last post. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" /> What you’ve been going through is really sad. However, I really think your experience shows how important it is NOT to judge other people, because we don’t know their circumstances… I have great sympathy and compassion for your situation (and other woman or men in similar circumstances), but equally I have empathy and compassion for homosexuals who want to live a God-feared life but struggle because of their sexual orientation... I don’t talk about homosexuals or bisexuals who choose living that way, I’m talking about homosexuals who was really born that way and can’t help their sexual orientation... Just as people can’t judge you for divorcing your abusing H and marrying a loving man, how can they judge a homosexual who needs a loving, supportive life-partner next to his/her side and don’t want to go through life alone??? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

[ June 15, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Suzet* ]

Not sure how many of you read the article I posted, but I just wanted to highlight a few good points:

Clearly we regard certain rules, especially in the Old Testament, as no longer binding. Other things we regard as binding, including legislation in the Old Testament that is not mentioned at all in the New. What is our principle of selection here?

For example; virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:

incest
rape
adultery
intercourse with animals

But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:

intercourse during menstruation
celibacy
exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
naming sexual organs
nudity (under certain conditions)
masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
birth control (some Christians still forbid this)

And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not.

Likewise, the bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn:

prostitution
slavery
polygamy
levirate marriage
sex with slaves
concubinage
treatment of women as property
very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)

So how do we determine which parts of the Bible are antiquated and to be thrown away, and which are to be kept?

If you take the Bible as the word of God and you are going to argue "nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality/gay marriage supported", then in my mind, you must also argue that it was wrong to outlaw slavery, polygamy, and that because the Bible supports these concepts, we should re-instate them. To not do so, would be going against the Word of God and "contradicting the Bible".

If you take the Bible as the word of God, you should be consistent and take it in its entirety. Particularily, if you are using it to condemn or justify certain human behaviours.

On the other hand, if you see the Bible as a mysterious, ancient text containing many good stories that convey certain standards and guidelines, some of which are still applicable today, some obviously, which are not, then I think the gay marriage issue needs a little perspective.

Given that gay relationships will always exist, what possible social goal is advanced by passing on our antiquated fears to our children, and by framing the law to encourage those relationships to be unfaithful, undeveloped, and insecure?

Jilliana, you are not a believer in the Bible, correct? As I have read what you write and preach yourself, all I see is another individual who has confusion about her own personal beliefs.

I do not feel confused about what is good for myself and my family. The church that we have is supportive to honoring God, not slavery or any other odd thing.

I grew up in this church, went to other churches as I matured, and came back to this church. I have learned a lot. And it has made life good to use the rules and the boundaries which I have personally learned. Thank you very much for your responses to my thread.

Cardinal:

At this point in my life, I suppose you would be correct in stating I am not a believer in the Bible. However, I am reading and learning.

I sometimes feel confused about what is good for me and my family, but like to think I make some pretty good decisions based on the information available to me at the time. Sometimes it is interesting to reflect back on why I make certain decisions and have certain beliefs. I almost always learn something in the process.

Rules and boundaries...yes I have also learned about rules and boundaries, some stemming from the Bible and some stemming from life experiences. I still have much to learn, and I find along the way, beliefs and rules have evolved and changed, and generally speaking, in my experience, that has been a good thing.

Your welcome...for my input. Are you being sincere?

LOL Jilliana, sure and I am receptive to respectful argument most of the time that is! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

I hope you find what you are looking for.

I understand that a lot of religions are like pollutants to the mind, which seems to be derived from the arrogant kind of fire and brimstone preaching.

I recognize the plight of some folks who will never be the same from that damage. Organized religions seem to want to control. Control of the masses....so some say...

When we look at the Old Testament, there was some sin going on in it - just as today we have the some of the same sins going on. I don't see the sins being encouraged as you seem to believe Jilliana.

What I see is a preparation in spiritual manner...History has sin, and today has sin.

What we encourage in a church is a big thing to me. I believe that if you are the teacher, then your teaching is from truth, goodness and will perpetuate good behavior - both to yourself and to your neighbor.

In the church there needs to be rules, just as a household needs rules, and a marriage needs rules. It is human nature to not want to always follow them, and sometimes in instances it is near impossible to follow them.

But the idea is to try to honor God, to do our best.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Plumb Bob:

But, we're not being judgemental here. And that's a good thing. Isn't it?

And Melody...as a Christian, I seem to remember some quote about "Let the one amongst you who is WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone."

I'm out.

Bob <hr /></blockquote>So does this somehow mean that we are not supposed to judge right from wrong, Bob? Is judging right from wrong a SIN in your view? Can you back that up biblically?

Perhaps you could explain how that is especially when the rest of the Bible MANDATES that we ARE supposed to judge? How would you explain that glaring discrepancy?

I have been avoiding this thread since day one but I can resist no longer.

I don't think the issue of Gay marriage is a religious issue. Granted, I do believe that homosexuality is a sin.

How is two gay people getting married different from a thief and a prostitute getting married? Should we stop all marriages between people who live an "immoral" life.

The church seems to be fighting the institutuion of marriage when it should be fighting the sacrement of marriage. I can't find where it says that the church has to recognize gay marriages if the state does.

So am I for Gay marriage...doesn't bother me in the slightest, honestly.

"Marriage" has been diluted, bastardized and disrespected for a long time and noone seemed to notice too much. Hell, My wife and I can (and did) go to Las Vegas on a Friday night at 1130, got a marriage license without showing any ID, drove to Cupid's wedding chapel and got married.

The church recognizes that, all 50 states do too. I doubt that this is exactly what God had in mind for marriage when he joined us together.

My father-in-law is a Captain and has the ability to perform legal marriages. He did one two weeks ago but not as a ship's captain but as an ordained minister in the "Reformed Spritualist" religion. Once again recognized by the state as a legal and binding marriage.

I have a friend who is getting an annulment through the Catholic church( and a divorce through the state). They have been married for 8 years and have a daughter. I asked about the whole annulment thing..an explanation if you will. Bottom line, I guess, is to avoid the whole divorce thing, so that if she gets remarried it can be in a church and recognized by the church. 20 years ago the Catholic church approved less than 500 annulments in the states each year, this year it will be in the tens of thousands.

I guess what I am trying to say is I think that this whole argument of Gay marriage is futile. As it was said, you don't have to let the cermony be performed in your church. Gay marriage is a symptom, not the problem.

Someone mentioned judging.... If I see some one steal, I can say that is wrong. I can say beating your kid, being a pedophile, practicing homosexuality is wrong and adulterer is wrong (myself included). I, myself, didn't say these were wrong God told us all that they were.

I can't believe I am posting this.

Doug

Sin is sin right? Is no sin greater than another?

I'd like to use this example because it is so ridiculous. The famous "wearing clothes woven out of two different fabrics" sin. In theory, doesn't this sin not hold the same weight as homosexuality...if sin is sin?

Do we hold protests to halt production and fabrication of a poly/cotton blend? Do we ostracize those that choose to wear the poly/cotton blend? Or do we, as Bible believers choose to only purchase 100% cotton garments? Why do we not hold such fabric protests but hold homosexuality protests?

Why do we not protest the adultering employees familial benfits package rights?

Why such passion with the homosexual issue? What is it about this sin that gives it more weight than the poly blend wearing individual, or the adulterous heterosexual employee?

Suzet,

Please don't worry about offending me or anything like that. I guess I was worried that you were "going over to the dark side". As I read your posts, I was appreciative of another voice seeming to suggest that God gave us brains to use. We are to use these to discern right from wrong; including proper and improper interpretations of the Bible. If you read through this entire thread you will see that I am a Christian (albeit not a very good one by some standards), who believes that judgement is something that we should all practice upon ourselves to a much greater extent than we do others. I grow eternally tired of those who seem to want to use themselves as the grand example of how others should act; others who think that because they have concluded, via THEIR interpretation of the Bible, what is right and wrong, and therefore they have the right to tell everyone else what is right and wrong.

Everyone's life is different, as is everyone's relationship to God. The "rules" for my relationship with God are as unique as my relationship with God. So are yours, and Cardinals, and whoever's.

So, please, don't worry about my past. I haven't been abusive to my W or kids, nor was I a victim. I used that scenario as an example that there will always be conditions, to a rational person, that will permit otherwise improper decisions.

ML,

I believe I've made my point. Civil judgement (i.e. crime) is a civil matter; judging someone's worth in the eyes of God is another matter. The two aren't the same thing, and I don't think anyone would argue that they are.

Also, the issue has been raised of whether churches should allow change in issues like this. It all depends on your belief system, and your church. Some believe all decision should come from the top down. They have "prophets, seers, and revelators" who are the ones who speak to God on our behalf. Others believe that ALL members are able to represent themselves before God, and therefore, a concensus of membership should be allowable to altar church law.

Bob

I’d like to dispel any lingering proclivity among respondents here that hermaphroditic birth defects are common. Depending upon the source, you can find that it has been recorded since antiquity, however there’s no more than 350-450 cases of this in history.

Is it hereditary, or is it people acting out on the own sexual curiosity? In your grandparent’s age, I think vastly fewer people acted out on those feelings than today, and they seemed to get along fine in life.

What this all boils down to for me, is today’s permissiveness of bad and even abnormal behaviors is taking us down the slippery slope. Yes the bible defines adultery more disciplined than today’s common man. Ask yourself, why do we have divorce rates the highest in recorded history?

Will passing this law throughout the country change the % population of homosexuality? My guess is it’s about to increase.

The laws will open up the churches to this, and undoubtedly, some will allow this ceremony to become the new “norm”. Once the thrill factor for this is gone, our human sexuality will again need to be “trumped up” to satisfy more elaborate curiosities.

I hope I’m wrong, but this is too reminiscent of Sodom and Gomorrah.

OOOKay. Wow. I am going to work now. But please continue!!!

Sooo how do you feel about sex changes? LOL <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Is that ok too?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Plumb Bob:


ML,

I believe I've made my point. Civil judgement (i.e. crime) is a civil matter; judging someone's worth in the eyes of God is another matter. The two aren't the same thing, and I don't think anyone would argue that they are.

<hr /></blockquote>Bob, perhaps you should clarify your point then because I am responding to your remark to my post about judging with "he who casts the first stone......"

What WAS your point if not that we aren't supposed to judge?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Plumb Bob:
 It all depends on your belief system, and your church. Some believe all decision should come from the top down. They have "prophets, seers, and revelators" who are the ones who speak to God on our behalf. Others believe that ALL members are able to represent themselves before God, and therefore, a concensus of membership should be allowable to altar church law.

Bob <hr /></blockquote>Unless a church has the belief that their duty is to abide by the Bible and stick to its teachings, then they are apostates. Jesus warned over and over again about teaching man's law in place of God's law. This was his main complaint againt the Pharisees. There can never be a consensus of man who can change God's law and Word. A prophet's validity is to be measured by 2 things: if the prophecy came true and IF it concurred with the Word of God.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Is it hereditary, or is it people acting out on the own sexual curiosity? In your grandparent’s age, I think vastly fewer people acted out on those feelings than today, and they seemed to get along fine in life.
<hr /></blockquote>They didn't acknowledge these feelings because they would have been ostracized and outed from their communities & "labeled". Pretty much the same thing as when teenage girls got pregnant in the 50's and 60's. They were "sent off" to a different town because they were the "town trash" & the parents wanted to keep it quiet from "the neighbors". The problem is, they didn't "get along fine in life". Why do you think so many married men & women have "come out" after years of marriage? Because they are tired of hiding who they really are.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Will passing this law throughout the country change the % population of homosexuality? My guess is it’s about to increase.
<hr /></blockquote>I don't understand. Why would the homosexual population increase because of a marriage law? This statement makes me think that somehow people think it's "cool" to be a homosexual? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> Most homosexuals I know do not think it's "cool", they would very much like to be like "everyone else" so they wouldn't have so many stereotypes, judgments, condemnation, ridicule thrown their way.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I hope I’m wrong, but this is too reminiscent of Sodom and Gomorrah <hr /></blockquote>I wondered when it was going to get to this. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

ML,

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Jesus warned over and over again about teaching man's law in place of God's law. This was his main complaint againt the Pharisees. <hr /></blockquote>Was it? I thought his main complaint against them was the fact that they were trying to hold all the scriptural laws over people's heads so the "sinners" wouldn't be able to come in to the synagogue to worship. Jesus made it point clear to them that they were sinners like everybody else & had no right to stop others from entering the temple because of rules & regulations. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

I think the point others miss is the fact that we could follow all of God's rules to the tee, but if we don't have Jesus Christ in our lives, if we aren't living in His spirit, then we may as well prepare our way to that deep, dark pit.

So is it true that we don't like to follow a couple rules in this book called the Holy Bible? And if I whine enough about what MY NEEDS are, or a group of peoples needs are, lobbying for it if you will, then I will substantiate my claim and get what I want because I need it. And sure I feel bad about what my need is, that I have to change the Bible and all, but so it is. I believe in Jesus and so he will forgive me for all of this rearranging of wording to suit my own and my good friends and family needs ( bio needs...?)

After all it is just rules and regulations!

Rules shmules, just do it...And so many are. They are proud of it, in your face/not ashamed. It is being sold rapidly to all ages, sexes and whether it is genetic does not seem to matter. To make this legal and also a part of Christian fabric is a goal of the "party" here. I resent the political agenda of it, and the fact that it is pretty much a sale.

It is in the media, the children's music, the magazines...It is a hype and a sale. If you buy it, best wishes to you.

I like what Debbras son said..."If you sit at the Barbers long enough, you WILL get a hair cut". Cute.

I think that there is stability in abiding by the rules or at least in the trying to abide by them. Making slight of "rules and regulations" shows a flippant ungodly attitude. Intentional misuse of the Holy Bible does seem to have the odor of Sodom and Gomorrah.

.

It seems to me that even Christ taught that rational thought and judgement needed to be used when interpreting scripture. The pharisees took the word literally, and Christ showed them they were wrong, at least in the case below...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> 1: At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.
2: But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath."
3: He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him:
4: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?
5: Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?
6: I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.
7: And if you had known what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless.
8: For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath."
9: And he went on from there, and entered their synagogue.
10: And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?" so that they might accuse him.
11: He said to them, "What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?
12: Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath. "

<hr /></blockquote>Christ, himself, acknowledged that sometimes following the written word is less important than doing what is right.

It is a good idea to check in with the conscience now and again. If you have one, it will keep you from the real kinds of sin, including adultery, fornication, and other ungodly things.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Plumb Bob:
It seems to me that even Christ taught that rational thought and judgement needed to be used when interpreting scripture. The pharisees took the word literally, and Christ showed them they were wrong, at least in the case below...<hr /></blockquote>Christ taught that we are supposed to understand and abide by his Word and REJECT anything that conflicts with it. The Pharisees replaced God's Law with man's law, that was his complaint about them, NOT that they didn't use rational thought and judgement to understand his word.

They did not CARE to understand God's Word, they cared to understand MAN'S word, which is an abomination to God. So God doesn't care about the "consensus" of man, he cares that man understand HIS WORD.

Matthew 15
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Colossians 2:8
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Christ, himself, acknowledged that sometimes following the written word is less important than doing what is right. <hr /></blockquote>He was arguing against LEGALISM in the example you gave. NOT against his own Word. He was certainly not saying that man should ever replace God's law with his own philosophies. He warned again and again against false doctrines.

Galatians 1 7-9
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

[ June 15, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]

Melody Lane...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> He was arguing against LEGALISM in the example you gave. NOT against his own Word. He was certainly not saying that man should ever replace God's law with his own philosophies. He warned again and again against false doctrines. <hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr /> The Pharisees replaced God's Law with man's law, that was his complaint about them, NOT that they didn't use rational thought and judgement to understand his word. <hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr /> They did not CARE to understand God's Word, they cared to understand MAN'S word, which is an abomination to God. So God doesn't care about the "consensus" of man, he cares that man understand HIS WORD. <hr /></blockquote>Okay, this is getting too weird for me, but I have to reply one more time.

The Pharisee's were arguing law...JEWISH LAW, which was, and is, based on God's word...the first five books of the Bible.

From Halley's Bible Handbook...

"The Pharisees

The two main parties within the Judaism of Jesus' day were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. As Hellenism began to encroach on the religious life of the Jews, the unavoidable question was how the Law of God should be applied in the new circumstances. The Pharisees took the Scriptures and believed it was their responsibility to determine how the Law [of God] should be applied to the new conditions and how it should, if necessary, be reinterpreted.
... the Pharisees in effect disinvited all who did not live by the same standards as they, which was most people. It was especially this exclusivism that Jesus objected to in the Pharisees; by using only standards of external behavior to measure people's relationship with God, they failed to realize that it is what it inside a person that counts, and that they therefore needed God's grace as much as the worst sinner. It was this external religion that made it very difficult for them to believe in Jesus (who did not do all the things the Pharisees felt a religious person should do)."

In regards to the scripture from my previous post, Halley has this to say...

"The healing on the Sabbath of the man who had a shriveled hand so irritated the Pharisees and Herodians (influential members of the political party that supported King Herod, with whom the Pharisees would normally have nothing to do) that they laid plans to kill Jesus. To these professional religionists, a common deed of kindness on the Sabbath was a terrible crime, let alone this very uncommon deed."

The Pharisees, ML, were arguing legalism, but religious legalism. They were the enforcers of Jewish law, not civil law. Civil law was under the control of the Romans. Why else would they have had to take Christ before Pontius Pilate?

The Pharisees were arguing that the commandment of keeping the Sabbath holy was paramount to anything else, including doing good deeds, and Christ was trying to show them that even the Commandments allowed for interpretation.

Bob

Bob, how does any of that address the issue at hand, which is that God expects us to follow His Word and not that of man? Showing examples of legalism certainly does not mean that we have LICENSE to go to the opposite extreme and make it up as we go along according to a "consensus" of MAN. Both extremes are heresy.

Jesus RAILED against such heresy as you can see above. I have shown you scripture after scripture, using JESUS' own words, demonstrating this point in refutation of your remark that:

"It all depends on your belief system, and your church. Some believe all decision should come from the top down. They have "prophets, seers, and revelators" who are the ones who speak to God on our behalf. Others believe that ALL members are able to represent themselves before God, and therefore, a concensus of membership should be allowable to altar church law."

We can sit here and argue about the meaning of legalism [there is no such thing as "religious legalism", legalism is legalism], but that doesn't change the fact that we don't have license to "alter" church law or God's Word. It is not "altering" the law to not follow it legalistically, it was never intended to be followed as such.

Your example of the Pharisees and the Sabbath does not in any way refute that point. It simply shows the OPPOSITE extreme and both extremes miss the point, which is that those who love Him follow the spirit of the law. They don't follow the letter of the law, nor do they IGNORE the law.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Your example of the Pharisees and the Sabbath does not in any way refute that point. It simply shows the OPPOSITE extreme and both extremes miss the point, which is that those who love Him follow the spirit of the law. They don't follow the letter of the law, nor do they IGNORE the law. <hr /></blockquote>I believe my point has been made, because your last sentance expresses EXACTLY what I've been saying all through this entire post. And that is that
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> those who love Him follow the spirit of the law. They don't follow the letter of the law, nor do they IGNORE the law. <hr /></blockquote>I agree completely. What I don't agree with is the stance by some that there is not room for anyone who is unwilling to abide COMPLETELY by the letter of the law, and there have been several posts here stating just that.

I believe that we should all do our best to abide by God's law...but that involves more than just reading it. It involves introspection and examination of the very circumstance at hand. It involved rational thought processes, not just blind obediance to any one given scripture. But ultimately, you are correct...we should all strive to live according to God's law. I think that most of us do...and, I think that most of us also fall amazingly short.

All praise to our loving and forgiving God, that He can see and know our hearts, even when we disagree on semantics and practice.

Good luck on your walk. I feel I've kicked this horse enough now.

Bob

What a church is about is honoring God. It is not honorable to do the things that are considered immoral, disgusting and deplorable.

When I reread the first page of this thread, it sums it up. The topic is about Bible rules and gay rules. The support is not for gay marriage and gay marriage does not belong in a church where the passages read as Robbie quoted from the Holy Bible.

It is a sad state of affairs when the people who claim to honor God will turn on their heels and purposefully do the things which are against what our church has strived to do in the past. Our church never scorned, but opens its doors to all. In return, the folks who enter those doors - come and go have been able to honor God equally.

But, now is the demands being made upon my little church. It stands for the day and the future. It will change the course for it. Knowing that God is the father, we will purposefully ignore His Book, and do as we wish.

Sounds like more of the way of things to come. Who's domain is it anyway.

THE END.