Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I stand against your all too human "principles."
Are you saying David and Abraham really were not men after God's own heart--because they had multiple wives--which in at least one case God CLAIMS He GAVE to the king?
2 Samuel 12:8, God speaking--I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.
Did God then sin against His own word? He Himself GAVE those wives to David--David fell into sin when all the wives God gave Him weren't enough.
How about Moses? Moses was one of God’s big shots. It was Moses whom God called from a burning bush in Horeb to go back to Egypt for the purpose of delivering the plain message to Pharaoh, “Let my son [Israel] go, that he may serve me” (Exodus 4:23). Moses was the husband of at least three wives. Zipporah was Moses’ first wife (Exodus 2:21), the Ethiopian woman was his second wife (Numbers 12:1), and Holy Scripture mentions Hobab, the Kenite as the father of Moses’ third wife (Judges 4:11). These are three of the wives of Moses recorded in Scripture. There may have been many others that were not recorded. Moses was 80 years old when God called him to deliver Israel. It was after this age that God gave him more wives, more helpmates. When God took him away at age 120, “his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated” (Deuteronomy 34:7).
You hold onto a CULTURAL concept--and I don't think it's necessarily improper--it's just not biblical. But then a fundamentalist doesn't need something to be "biblical" in order for something to be evil in his/her eyes.
In Revelation 22:18 you got a warning for adding to scripture (it was actually meant solely for the book of Revelation, but I'm using your own beliefs against you with this)--"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book."
Just stick to the facts written in the bible. I can explain, but you believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God. You should need no explanation--it should be very plain according to your perfect book.
Except it isn't.
I personally believe that when the original bible's replicas (the original text was never found but there were copies that all had a similar form) were found, in order to translate the word from language to language, there were some misstranslations. Even in the English text, there are parts which are interpreted differently by others. For instance the scripture which explicitly states that cutting into your own skin, or doing it for the purpose of remembering the dead would be considered a sin, but from what I have gathered most modern day Christian believers interpret this differently.
The reason:
Back then what we would consider tattoos now in days was being associated with witchcraft, which gave staining your arms the label of being sinful. Now people who wear tattoos don't put tattoos for that reason. If this is true does that not leave room to interpret other "sins" in the bible?
The word translated as “fornication” in the Bible is the Greek word porneia (πορνεία). The thing is, this word does not literally translate as “premarital sex” the way the religious would like you to believe it does. In fact, it’s generally agreed that the most accurate translation of porneia is “illicit sexual activity” (or “immoral sexual activity”). Some of the more modern versions of Scripture actually do translate porneia as “sexual immorality” rather than “fornication,” which many think is a far superior way of rendering it because it raises questions for us instead of spelling out a definite answer. Porneia
Now, we could go over each occurrence of the word porneia in the New Testament, but it would be better for you go over them for yourself. Above is a link that has every occurrence of the word in the KJV where it’s translated “fornication.”
What we should do is read each passage and replace the word “fornication” with the word porneia in our minds, and then think about whether premarital sex is what the passage is definitely talking about.
You’ll find that, at least in most (if not all) cases, there’s little to no justification for making that assumption.
The truth is, the word porneia actually had multiple meanings, depending on the context it was being used in. It is believed that it spoke of sexual idolatry in some cases, referring to using temple prostitutes for fertility goddess worship. It was also used in reference to any sexual practice that was considered obscene, such as incest or bestiality. There was also a spiritual meaning to the word in some cases (the idea of worshipping other gods). The thing to take away from all this is that we can’t simply take the word and force the meaning of premarital sex onto it, despite the fact that our pastors would probably prefer we did.
If we take the term “illicit sexual activity” literally, it means sexual activity that breaks the law. Generally, here in the western world, premarital sex doesn’t break the law, and it certainly wasn’t against the law among the gentiles Paul wrote to when he told Christians to avoid porneia. In fact, it wasn’t even technically against the Mosaic law among the Jews, at least not for men. For women, it depended on how much of a bride price their fathers wanted in exchange for selling them to their future husbands. Remember, women were considered property back then among many cultures including the Jews, and virgins went for a higher price (this is also why adultery was considered wrong, because it was a violation of a man’s property rights.
Isn't there a difference between the law of the western world and the law of God ?
We are all free to choose to obey secular law or God's law - Acts 5:29
Jesus did Not just use the word adultery as grounds for divorce but porneia as scriptural grounds at Matthew 19:9
I personally believe that when the original bible's replicas (the original text was never found but there were copies that all had a similar form) were found, in order to translate the word from language to language, there were some misstranslations. Even in the English text, there are parts which are interpreted differently by others. For instance the scripture which explicitly states that cutting into your own skin, or doing it for the purpose of remembering the dead would be considered a sin, but from what I have gathered most modern day Christian believers interpret this differently.
The reason:
Back then what we would consider tattoos now in days was being associated with witchcraft, which gave staining your arms the label of being sinful. Now people who wear tattoos don't put tattoos for that reason. If this is true does that not leave room to interpret other "sins" in the bible?
Where in Leviticus 19:28 B does it specify the reason for not making tatoos upon a person ?
A cut in the flesh for the dead could be one thing, whereas a tatoo marking another thing for another reason.
Both did Not have God's favor. We are Not under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law, but the law has guiding principles.
The thing being that you can't take one passage out of the Bible and make a case. It is more complicated than that. We have separation of church and state so SSM has nothing to do with a religious ceremony, the decision simply removed the ban that kept SS couples from getting a marriage license. It said nothing about the "condition" of SSM but simply that it could not be banned.
Prostitution is a sin in the Bible and in some areas, it is legal. Governmental law and Biblical law are separate in the US and if they weren't, there would no SSM. Funny how people twist the Bible and try to change the word of God which is timeless.
Where in Leviticus 19:28 B does it specify the reason for not making tatoos upon a person ?
A cut in the flesh for the dead could be one thing, whereas a tatoo marking another thing for another reason.
Both did Not have God's favor. We are Not under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law, but the law has guiding principles.
Well, can you tell us the principle involved in the shaving and haircutting injunctions that closely precede? Or do you follow those?
Well true, but in David's case we know he did not have sex with Jonathan and Saul wanted him dead for another reason. God in a box is where man wants him. He won't fit.
We know Jonathan and David did not have sex--from what source? The absence of anything stating they did?
I like that, because then you validate my argument that Jesus never spoke explicitly about MM sexual relations. Absence meaning there was no condemnation!
The thing being that you can't take one passage out of the Bible and make a case. It is more complicated than that. We have separation of church and state so SSM has nothing to do with a religious ceremony, the decision simply removed the ban that kept SS couples from getting a marriage license. It said nothing about the "condition" of SSM but simply that it could not be banned.
Prostitution is a sin in the Bible and in some areas, it is legal. Governmental law and Biblical law are separate in the US and if they weren't, there would no SSM. Funny how people twist the Bible and try to change the word of God which is timeless.
It's amazing the mental gymnastics required for some of you to interpret your holy book to echo your own bigotry.
Yet thousands of you have.
And splintered your "faith" into thousands of disparate denominations.
Not to mention the thousands of non-denominations with their own particular prejudices in play....
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,715,422 times
Reputation: 4559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
We know Jonathan and David did not have sex--from what source? The absence of anything stating they did?
I like that, because then you validate my argument that Jesus never spoke explicitly about MM sexual relations. Absence meaning there was no condemnation!
Don't forget Naomi and Ruth. Ruth loved Naomi "like Adam loved Eve" according to the Bible.
I looked, I searched, I read, I look again, I search again, and no wopheres in the bible could I find the words that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Perhaps someone better versed in Bible reading than myself could point me exactly to where it states that.
Don't forget Naomi and Ruth. Ruth loved Naomi "like Adam loved Eve" according to the Bible.
I looked, I searched, I read, I look again, I search again, and no wopheres in the bible could I find the words that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Perhaps someone better versed in Bible reading than myself could point me exactly to where it states that.
Genesis 2:24
Matthew 19
1 Corinthians 7
Romans 7:2-3
We know Jonathan and David did not have sex--from what source? The absence of anything stating they did?
I like that, because then you validate my argument that Jesus never spoke explicitly about MM sexual relations. Absence meaning there was no condemnation!
Because we have no reason to believe they were gay. David is extremely heterosexual in the Biblical account. He actually lusted so strongly for Bathsheba that he had her husband murdered so he could have her. He also refers to Jonathan has his brother, not his lover.
Your argument fails because Jesus never spoke against prostitution or bestiality so if absence means no condemnation then such actions are perfectly fine too!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
