Did Jesus Ordain One Man/One Woman Marriage?

[corndogggy]

Rev - I don't know that I would go so far as to say this post confirms that corndogggy supports homosexuality

Decent logic, this one has.

It confirms that corndog, like basically every other human being on the planet, has a graduated scale of what sin they think is worse than another. It's a common practice of trying to apply man's law to God's law. Just like some people think that doing heroin is a worse sin than smoking pot, corndog appears to belief "theft" is worse than homosexuality.

Sure I do, but simple theft doesn't quite get it. I tend to look at the scale of things, how many people a certain action hurts. When we're talking about rigging the market as mentioned earlier, we're talking about millions of people, possibly hundreds of millions around the world, being badly hurt by the actions of a few.

On the other hand, I lived across the street from two lesbians for 15 years. They kept to themselves and minded their own business. I have a real hard time telling myself that their actions are worse than what the wall street insiders did in the mid 2000's. I hardly see how this statement makes me a "supporter", especially in regards to homosexuality in general.

 

[PreachTony]

Decent logic, this one has.

Gracias.

Sure I do, but simple theft doesn't quite get it. I tend to look at the scale of things, how many people a certain action hurts. When we're talking about rigging the market as mentioned earlier, we're talking about millions of people, possibly hundreds of millions around the world, being badly hurt by the actions of a few.

On the other hand, I lived across the street from two lesbians for 15 years. They kept to themselves and minded their own business. I have a real hard time telling myself that their actions are worse than what the wall street insiders did in the mid 2000's. I hardly see how this statement makes me a "supporter", especially in regards to homosexuality in general.

The point I was making, corndogggy, (and that I failed to properly elucidate) was that it is not really for us to determine who has the greater sin. Jesus was once confronted by a group of people who seemingly thought that the 18 people who dies in the collapse of the Tower of Siloam were greater sinners than others in Jerusalem. Jesus quickly rebuked them by saying that all had sinned and that all needed to repent. The person who kills someone else stands as much in need of repentance as the person who stole $10 out of their mother's purse. Both actions placed a gulf between them and God. There isn't a bigger gulf in place for one than the other. We think there is, because we've placed greater punishments on people for murder than we have for theft.

 

[Yeshua1]

Homosexual SEX is the sin.

So homosexual marriage is a sin then , correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Decent logic, this one has.




Sure I do, but simple theft doesn't quite get it. I tend to look at the scale of things, how many people a certain action hurts. When we're talking about rigging the market as mentioned earlier, we're talking about millions of people, possibly hundreds of millions around the world, being badly hurt by the actions of a few.

On the other hand, I lived across the street from two lesbians for 15 years. They kept to themselves and minded their own business. I have a real hard time telling myself that their actions are worse than what the wall street insiders did in the mid 2000's. I hardly see how this statement makes me a "supporter", especially in regards to homosexuality in general.

Except that God stated to ys that while all sin is bad, sexual sins are very bad, and if one is professing jesus, they are going to bed with another man, or with a woman not their spouse, is really wicked!

God does view and judge some sins as worse then others...

 

[Dr. Bob]

I am keeping an eye on this thread. This is NOT a "sex" discussion. It is a simple topic.

To try to say "gluttony" or being a "capitalist" is just as evil as XYZ has NO BEARING on the topic and posts will be cut without notice. Liberal, pro-sodomite or lesbian filth will find you on the outside of the BB looking in.

Did Jesus ordain marriage for one man and one woman? THAT is the question.

 

[PreachTony]

I am keeping an eye on this thread. This is NOT a "sex" discussion. It is a simple topic.

To try to say "gluttony" or being a "capitalist" is just as evil as XYZ has NO BEARING on the topic and posts will be cut without notice. Liberal, pro-sodomite or lesbian filth will find you on the outside of the BB looking in.

Did Jesus ordain marriage for one man and one woman? THAT is the question.

Just out of curiosity, Dr. Bob, how are we to build points within discussion if we cannot stray from the original topic title? The issue is that the OP is a single Yes/No question. One of the first things I learned in writing (journalistic and academic) is that a Yes/No question ends discussion. It does not allow for further discussion or debate because the mere act of answering closes the door to greater discussion.

The other option is we start an individual thread for each and every non-OP point made to back up individual poster's statements. I'm not sure we would want to do that, as it would flood the forum with multiple short threads.

Please note that I'm not trying to be snarky here. I mean this sincerely. Thanks.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Zaac]

So homosexual marriage is a sin then , correct?

How can something that doesn't Biblically exist be a sin?

 

[righteousdude2]

What does your daughter have to say about this argument?

My daughter is none of your business and not the topic of this post, hotdoggy. I"m sorry, that should be corn, not hotdoggy?

But to answer your media like question, she knows the truth, she knows the way....if she remains on the highway to hell that is her decision to answer for. Now please stay on topic if that is possible?

 

[righteousdude2]

So is eating catfish / shrimp / BBQ eel in sushi... rigging markets in a monetary way, and being dishonest, but you don't ever hear about those now do you.

Deflecting is not honest debate, but your vote for same sex marriage is noted. Now stay on topic.

 

[righteousdude2]

Fried catfish is already acceptable. [/

You are on the wrong post . If you want to argue the corruption around us start your own post, and quit piggybacking on this one.

 

[righteousdude2]

I am keeping an eye on this thread. This is NOT a "sex" discussion. It is a simple topic.

To try to say "gluttony" or being a "capitalist" is just as evil as XYZ has NO BEARING on the topic and posts will be cut without notice. Liberal, pro-sodomite or lesbian filth will find you on the outside of the BB looking in.

Did Jesus ordain marriage for one man and one woman? THAT is the question.

Thanks Dr. Bob .... what you are witnessing is a typical liberal, knee jerk reaction to any attempts to discuss the Biblical view and morality on marriage. I see this a lot. Please delete the filth as necessary. Shalom!

 

[righteousdude2]

Rev - I don't know that I would go so far as to say this post confirms that corndogggy supports homosexuality, but it does confirm one thing...

It confirms that corndog, like basically every other human being on the planet, has a graduated scale of what sin they think is worse than another. It's a common practice of trying to apply man's law to God's law. Just like some people think that doing heroin is a worse sin than smoking pot, corndog appears to belief "theft" is worse than homosexuality.

AMEN! :thumbs::applause::thumbsup:

 

[righteousdude2]

I'm sorry, but the weight of another is an issue one can address in a new post under the title "Chubby men of the clothe" and the Bible? This topic is at opposite ends of any universe....

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe He did that and more!

It is my opinion that Jesus made it known to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-6 (NKJV), while addressing their question on divorce, that marriage was to be between one man and one woman! I fail to see how a believer, a sinner, an atheist, and a liberal can ignore these verses when submitting an argument against same-sex marriage!

If you include the exhaustive study on the attached link, there is little doubt that the church has this argument won. http://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality Even the other relgions of this world, Islam for one, forbids same sex relationships, calling them perversion and of the devil!

"The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (NKJV)

Okay, here's the rub .... I know we live in a sinful world, and this entire movement to elevate same-sex marriage up to the level of Holy Matrimony is only one more attempt to pull down our Christian-Judeo morals and values.

Even so, I still believe if Jesus on earth in this day and age, rather than back 2,000 years earlier, He would have had a lot to say about the attempt to make sinful marital relationships equal to the Holy Union between a man and a woman!

I know many of you will have a diverse opinion, so take it from here. You've heard my rationale for the church to protest putting marriage on the same level as perversion, so, what say you?

Amazing! Some actually think that just because the Bible does not recognize homosexual union as marriage, then it is not marriage and thus is not sin.

However, the act of government redefining marriage differently than what the Bible defines marriage to be IS SIN. Furthermore, any citizens who honor that act of sin by government by submitting to government authorized representatives (secular/religious) for legal and public recognition to pervert the Biblical definition IS SIN. In addition, legalization of homosexual marriage is the legalization of homosexual union which IS SIN. In addition, anyone who attends what they know to be the legalization of sin ARE SINNING as they are participating and supporting such sin by their presence.

 

[The Biblicist]

Amazing! Some actually think that just because the Bible does not recognize homosexual union as marriage, then it is not marriage and thus is not sin.

However, the act of government redefining marriage differently than what the Bible defines marriage to be IS SIN. Furthermore, any citizens who honor that act of sin by government by submitting to government authorized representatives (secular/religious) for legal and public recognition to pervert the Biblical definition IS SIN. In addition, legalization of homosexual marriage is the legalization of homosexual union which IS SIN. In addition, anyone who attends what they know to be the legalization of sin ARE SINNING as they are participating and supporting such sin by their presence.

The idea Christians are not to preach sin but only preach the gospel is a self-contradiction as the gospel cannot be preached apart from preaching repentance of sin. Jesus preached against sin and said "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Lk. 13:3,6). Luke represents the going with the gospel into all the world by saying "preaching REPENTANCE and REMISSION OF SINS" among all nations (Lk. 24:46).

There is no need of "good news" until you understand the bad news. There is no need of a Savior until you understand what you need to be saved from, and the angel commanded Mary to call his name Jesus because "he shall save his people FROM THEIR SINS" (Mt. 1:20). There is no need for salvation until you know what you need salvation from, and you cannot know what that is until sin is defined and recognized. Hence, to say preach Jesus and avoid preaching against sin is oxymoronic and contrary the gospel itself.

 

[Zaac]

Amazing! Some actually think that just because the Bible does not recognize homosexual union as marriage, then it is not marriage and thus is not sin.

It isn't marriage. If it were marriage, it wouldn't be a sin.

However, the act of government redefining marriage differently than what the Bible defines marriage to be IS SIN.

No disagreement.

Furthermore, any citizens who honor that act of sin by government by submitting to government authorized representatives (secular/religious) for legal and public recognition to pervert the Biblical definition IS SIN.

No disagreement. That's essentially saying God's definition is wrong.

In addition, legalization of homosexual marriage is the legalization of homosexual union which IS SIN.

The union isn't sinful. It's the disagreement with God that's sinful.

In addition, anyone who attends what they know to be the legalization of sin ARE SINNING as they are participating and supporting such sin by their presence.

Interesting. We're not supposed to give the appearance of evil.

Would that line of thought also extend to Christians who go to bars and have a drink while other folks are getting drunk?

Would it extend to Christians who use hospitals that give abortions?

Would it extend to Christians who attend football games where folks are cussing and getting drunk?

Would it extend to Christians going to the movies and watching the beginning of a fornicative act between two unmarried folks?

Would it extend to Christians watching Duck Dynasty when they attend a church that believes baptism is essential to salvation?

Would it extend to Christians endorsing a Mormon for President when he rejects Jesus Christ?

 

[The Biblicist]

It isn't marriage. If it were marriage, it wouldn't be a sin.

. The ACT and RECOGNITION of that act by PARTICIPATION in that act is sin! Why? Because it is man's attempt to redefine Biblical marriage and participation is RECOGNITION of that act as marriage. Just because it is not the definition of Biblical marriage does not mean it is not the definition of government/cultural marriage. For example, fornication is not marriage either, but if government defines and legalizes fornication AS MARRIAGE, then it is marriage in the eyes of government whether the Bible recognizes it or not. Your participation would give credence to that definition which both definition and support by presence is sin.

The union isn't sinful. It's the disagreement with God that's sinful.

You must be kidding? The "union" is the ACT of homosexuality which the Bible explicitly condemns as sinful. It falls under the term "fornication" (illicit, illegal sexual behavior).

Interesting. We're not supposed to give the appearance of evil.

Would that line of thought also extend to Christians who go to bars and have a drink while other folks are getting drunk?

Would it extend to Christians who use hospitals that give abortions?

Would it extend to Christians who attend football games where folks are cussing and getting drunk?

Would it extend to Christians going to the movies and watching the beginning of a fornicative act between two unmarried folks?

Would it extend to Christians watching Duck Dynasty when they attend a church that believes baptism is essential to salvation?

Would it extend to Christians endorsing a Mormon for President when he rejects Jesus Christ?

Your mixing apples with oranges. The Bible does say AVOID all appearances of evil and attending what purports to publiclly be a Homosexual wedding is giving your vote for it by your attendance.

The hospital is not publicly advertised as an abortion clinic. If it were then yes, it would be sin to go to support a person getting an abortion. It is sin to support abortion clinics. The hospital may do abortions but that is not why it exists or why it meets in that building. If it did exist and meet in that building for that stated purpose then it would be an abortion clinic and to support a person going their for that purpose would be sin.

Bars are given for the purpose of drinking and drunkeness. So yes, attending a bar certainly does give the "appearance of evil" and you are commanded to avoid such appearances.

Football games are designed to play football. Theaters are designed to show movies. However, attending a "R" rated movie where the content violates God's law and promotes a life style that offends God and promotes sin would be sin.

The bottom line is to ask what is the meeting designed for? If it is designed to promote that which offends God, violates His law then yes it is sin to promote it by your presence.

If its design is something neither good or evil, but there are those who do things evil there and YOU DON"T but attend to promote its neither good or evil design then attendance is not sin.

 

[gigabyte71]

Interesting. We're not supposed to give the appearance of evil.

Would that line of thought also extend to Christians who go to bars and have a drink while other folks are getting drunk?

Would it extend to Christians who use hospitals that give abortions?

Would it extend to Christians who attend football games where folks are cussing and getting drunk?

Would it extend to Christians going to the movies and watching the beginning of a fornicative act between two unmarried folks?

Would it extend to Christians watching Duck Dynasty when they attend a church that believes baptism is essential to salvation?

Would it extend to Christians endorsing a Mormon for President when he rejects Jesus Christ?

Extending your list...

Would it extend to Christians going to a grocery store that sells beer and wine?

Would it extend to Christians shopping online at outlets that sell 'adult' material?

Would it extend to Christians attending a wedding of unbelievers where alcohol and rock and roll music is?

Would it extend to Christians attending a restaurant where gluttony is promoted?

Would it extend to Christians shopping at big girl shops where overweight and fat are targeted?

I have been a member of churches where only sins that weren't prevalent in that congregation were preached against. There needs to be some consistency, and if there isn't, it is for the purpose of taking the eye of yourself. And it can't be taught as a 'fault' but rather as a 'sin'.

 

[Zaac]

Extending your list...

Would it extend to Christians going to a grocery store that sells beer and wine?

Would it extend to Christians shopping online at outlets that sell 'adult' material?

Would it extend to Christians attending a wedding of unbelievers where alcohol and rock and roll music is?

Would it extend to Christians attending a restaurant where gluttony is promoted?

Would it extend to Christians shopping at big girl shops where overweight and fat are targeted?

I have been a member of churches where only sins that weren't prevalent in that congregation were preached against. There needs to be some consistency, and if there isn't, it is for the purpose of taking the eye of yourself. And it can't be taught as a 'fault' but rather as a 'sin'.

:thumbs: :applause:

 

[Zaac]

. The ACT and RECOGNITION of that act by PARTICIPATION in that act is sin! Why? Because it is man's attempt to redefine Biblical marriage and participation is RECOGNITION of that act as marriage.

Since when did recognition of a sin become sin? You may be crossing into creating new sins.

Just because it is not the definition of Biblical marriage does not mean it is not the definition of government/cultural marriage.

But you've already agreed this "redefining" is a sin. SO marriage remains what God says it is. You're not sinning just because you think you're getting married. The sin rests in disagreeing with what God says is marriage.

Pretending to get married after the government sins and tries to redefine marriage does not make that pretense a sin.

For example, fornication is not marriage either, but if government defines and legalizes fornication AS MARRIAGE, then it is marriage in the eyes of government whether the Bible recognizes it or not. Your participation would give credence to that definition which both definition and support by presence is sin.

That makes no sense. God has already defined fornication. The government attempting to redefine it doesn't create a new sin. It would still be fornication.

You must be kidding? The "union" is the ACT of homosexuality which the Bible explicitly condemns as sinful. It falls under the term "fornication" (illicit, illegal sexual behavior).

Hold your horses. I thought you were referring to the "marriage" as the "union".

Your mixing apples with oranges. The Bible does say AVOID all appearances of evil and attending what purports to publiclly be a Homosexual wedding is giving your vote for it by your attendance.

How is that mixing apples with oranges?

The hospital is not publicly advertised as an abortion clinic.

So what? Bars aren't publicly advertised as a place to go and get drunk.

If it were then yes, it would be sin to go to support a person getting an abortion.

Huh? What does advertising a hospital as an abortion clinic have to do with it being sinful to support a person getting an abortion? The latter would be sinful in itself. It didn't become sinful because the hospital is advertised as an abortion clinic.

It is sin to support abortion clinics. The hospital may do abortions but that is not why it exists or why it meets in that building.

Stop authoring confusion. The hospital exists to perform "hospital" duties. One of those duties is performing abortions.

If it did exist and meet in that building for that stated purpose then it would be an abortion clinic and to support a person going their for that purpose would be sin.

Again, stop authoring confusion. The same thing gets done in a hospital that gets done in abortion clinics. It may be a lot rarer in the hospitals, but a lot of them do still perform abortions.

Bars are given for the purpose of drinking and drunkeness. So yes, attending a bar certainly does give the "appearance of evil" and you are commanded to avoid such appearances.

But according to your previous logic with the hospital, unless the bar is advertising its purpose as a place to drink and get drunk, it shouldn't apply.

Football games are designed to play football.

They are designed to entertain. And part of that entertainment is folks cussing and drinking.

Theaters are designed to show movies.

They are designed to entertain. And part of that entertainment, generally PG-13 and up, includes unmarried people lusting and implied fornicating.

However, attending a "R" rated movie where the content violates God's law and promotes a life style that offends God and promotes sin would be sin.

Why wouldn't that apply for the reasons I mentioned above?

The bottom line is to ask what is the meeting designed for? If it is designed to promote that which offends God, violates His law then yes it is sin to promote it by your presence.

What meeting? Hospitals are designed to perform medical procedures of which an abortion qualifies.

If its design is something neither good or evil, but there are those who do things evil there and YOU DON"T but attend to promote its neither good or evil design then attendance is not sin.

See this type of confusion is why we should limit calling sin those things that God calls sin.