How do Christian churches justify performing same-sex marriages/blessings? (recall, faith, Satan)

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

You knowingly posted Jewish law as Christianity. You also are aware that Jesus fulfilled the Law's requirements.

"the Law" is very vague. Where did Jesus say "Nevermind" each of the things I listed?

Originally Posted by jimmiej

You were doing much better when you asked why Christians don't condemn other sins with the veracity of homosexuality. Stick with that.

That's what I was doing. I thought I had made that pretty clear...

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

thanks for all the replies in this thread.

having looked over the posts it really does seem that same-sex marriage is NOT possible within a true Christian church.

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

If I'm to take your single team's logic into consideration, the rest of you should take the following into consideration as well:

Define Arsenokoites - This word NEVER referred to homosexuals in ancient usage.

where to even begin with this nonsense??

I've read through that link and it has more holes in it than a sieve.

one section says this:

Define arsenokoites. Origin, Exposition on Proverbs 7.74. The context is lusts contrary to nature, which indicates nonprocreative heterosexual sex. Historically, the phrase contrary to nature refers to nonprocreative sexual activity between men and women, not homosexuality.

so who decides on this then?

contrary to nature - seems fairly clear what this is referring to , ie: homosexuality.

what do you say to this?

[kiwimac]

Only in your opinion.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

I've read through that link and it has more holes in it than a sieve.

one section says this:

so who decides on this then?

contrary to nature - seems fairly clear what this is referring to , ie: homosexuality.

what do you say to this?

I say you must be relieved you were able to find one section (out of well over 23) you could provide a direct argument against,

that the point is simply that the word "arsenokoites" historically never referred to consensual homosexual acts between committed adults,

and that I notice you deleted the other two links I provided in the post you quoted before replying.

Saying "contrary to nature" must be referring to homosexuality specifically is quite a leap, as well.

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

whose opinion that the words 'contrary to nature' means hetero non-procreative intercourse?

seems to be the opinion of Origen.

from wikipedia:

Origen ( /ˈɒrɪdʒən/; Greek: Ὠριγένης Ōrigénēs), or Origen Adamantius (184/185 – 253/254),[1] was an early ChristianAlexandrian scholar and theologian, and one of the most distinguished writers of the early Church. As early as the fourth century, his orthodoxy was suspect, largely because he believed in the pre-existence of souls and apokatastasis, or universal reconciliation, ideas acknowledged to be beyond the pale of Christianity.[2

[kiwimac]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

where to even begin with this nonsense??

I've read through that link and it has more holes in it than a sieve.

one section says this:



so who decides on this then?

contrary to nature - seems fairly clear what this is referring to , ie: homosexuality.

what do you say to this?

You are looking at the passage through 20thC eyes. No-one in that time thought homosexuality was contrary to nature because the idea of 'natural law' took another 1000 years to develop. I would argue (and here I am informed by Boswell) that for Paul' nature' was not a question of universal truth but rather a matter of the character of a person or group. Paul argues that Jews are Jews by nature just as Gentiles are such by their nature. [Gal 2:15]; [Romans 2:27]

For Paul then nature is not a moral force. Indeed when Paul uses 'nature' it is never in the abstract but it is always someone's nature. [ Gal 4:18]

[Kenneth-Kaunda]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I say you must be relieved you were able to find one section (out of well over 23) you could provide a direct argument against,

not so , as I actually said: 'where to even begin with this nonsense?'

I just gave one example out of many - some of which I will dig up later.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

whose opinion that the words 'contrary to nature' means hetero non-procreative intercourse?

seems to be the opinion of Origen.

from wikipedia:

Okay, what is this nonsense? Throw whatever point you're trying to make in with what you're typing from now on, please.

Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda

I just gave one example out of many - some of which I will dig up later.

Save it, unless you're going to show exactly where in history "arsenokoites" ever meant homosexuals.

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

Romans 2:1

1 No matter who you are, if you judge anyone, you have no excuse. When you judge another person, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the same things.
Romans 2:1 (GW)

Joh 7:24 Do not judge according to sight, but judge righteous judgment.[SIZE=3]
[/SIZE]