Why do Christians accept adulterers' weddings but not same-sex weddings? (tradition, Eve)
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.
Read that bible a little better. It says marrying sisters is wrong, but it happened in the bible. It doesn't say one man and one woman when David, Solomon, Jacob, Lamech, and others didn't understand "ONE." So one man one woman is nothing but an invention in your head since it doesn't play out that way in that literal bible. Or maybe those extra wives were simply "spiritual" and not real?
You don't even realize that the minimized g-d you worship is because you are bound with fear; fear, because if He judges the flesh, yours is subject to it and you know it. Men love darkness because their deeds are evil. There's your example. Peace
So can you give an example what the flesh hates about the nature and character of God?. You cannot can you?, it is just an another illusion you believe.
I want a verse where God or the authors directly say that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Unambiguous definition. Not simply tolerating and regulating the practice, but a definition. You got one of those? I didn't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbbi1
I do. Male and female, created He them from Genesis 1. Jesus even said from the beginning it was so, when confronted with the question about adultery, as in marriage is between one man and one woman. Peace
I KNEW somebody would do that! When I read that reply, I literally laughed out loud.
In response to Jeffbase40 asking for a direct and simple statement from the Bible approving of slavery, I asked for a direct and simple definition. One so unambiguous that nobody could misinterpret it. Not simply saying something exists, but an unmistakable definition.
Creating them male and female is not in any way, shape, or form a clean and unmistakable definition of marriage.
Jesus was talking about divorce. The term divorce, by definition, assumes that a marriage exists. His words about one condition for divorce in no way imply that the marriage under discussion was the one and only way a marriage could exist.
That's because, just as there is no clear and unambiguous statement approving of slavery, there is no Bible citation that is a clear and unmistakable DEFINITION of a marriage anywhere in the Bible. To say otherwise is an attempt to interpret and twist to words to say something they don't say.
I KNEW somebody would do that! When I read that reply, I literally laughed out loud.
In response to Jeffbase40 asking for a direct and simple statement from the Bible approving of slavery, I asked for a direct and simple definition. One so unambiguous that nobody could misinterpret it. Not simply saying something exists, but an unmistakable definition.
Creating them male and female is not in any way, shape, or form a clean and unmistakable definition of marriage.
Jesus was talking about divorce. The term divorce, by definition, assumes that a marriage exists. His words about one condition for divorce in no way imply that the marriage under discussion was the one and only way a marriage could exist.
That's because, just as there is no clear and unambiguous statement approving of slavery, there is no Bible citation that is a clear and unmistakable DEFINITION of a marriage anywhere in the Bible. To say otherwise is an attempt to interpret and twist to words to say something they don't say.
I don't see how the Bible could be any more clear on the subject. If you take every single verse regarding marriage, there is not a single mention of gay marriage. Like Proverbs 18:22. If God intended for homosexual couples to exist as well, the verse would have mentioned a wife of a wife or husband of a husband also. Ephesians 5:22-33 also gives clear direction of the roles of HUSBAND and WIFE in a marriage. No exceptions.
Having "gay friends" sounds exactly like my racist father who had "black friends," but dad never considered himself racist. He just didn't think school busing was right, nor employee quotas after most of the nation had denied employment for many blacks in all but the basest jobs. He wasn't afraid of the "N" word either--but he had black friends!
I'd bet my molars that you don't spend time telling your "gay friends" you think it is immoral for them to marry and that if they have sex with their same gender God is going to punish them for it.
Yes, I'm sure you have "gay friends."
I don't have gay friends or black friends or Asian friends. I have friends--period.
Learn the that the Love of God is the greatest gift---and give it to everyone. Until then you are but a clanging cymbal and a resounding gong.
.
I don't see how the Bible could be any more clear on the subject. If you take every single verse regarding marriage, there is not a single mention of gay marriage. Like Proverbs 18:22. If God intended for homosexual couples to exist as well, the verse would have mentioned a wife of a wife or husband of a husband also. Ephesians 5:22-33 also gives clear direction of the roles of HUSBAND and WIFE in a marriage. No exceptions.
Nothing in there is even remotely close to being a DEFINITION. I think it is amazing that you feel qualified to know what God intended, and know what he WOULD have done.
I KNEW somebody would do that! When I read that reply, I literally laughed out loud.
In response to Jeffbase40 asking for a direct and simple statement from the Bible approving of slavery, I asked for a direct and simple definition. One so unambiguous that nobody could misinterpret it. Not simply saying something exists, but an unmistakable definition.
Creating them male and female is not in any way, shape, or form a clean and unmistakable definition of marriage.
Jesus was talking about divorce. The term divorce, by definition, assumes that a marriage exists. His words about one condition for divorce in no way imply that the marriage under discussion was the one and only way a marriage could exist.
That's because, just as there is no clear and unambiguous statement approving of slavery, there is no Bible citation that is a clear and unmistakable DEFINITION of a marriage anywhere in the Bible. To say otherwise is an attempt to interpret and twist to words to say something they don't say.
No, He said FROM THE BEGINNING it was so, as in one man and one woman, and G-d put them together. THAT is what was "so" from the beginning of time, as spelled out in Genesis, and He said let no man put asunder what G-D has put together (male and female), and that includes other men putting it asunder. No where did He put together two men. Her name was Eve, not Steve. If you don't accept the scriptures as a foundation, that's one thing and entirely up to you, but don't try to twist their meaning into something that isn't there.
And no, Jesus was not talking about divorce, the Pharisees were, because Adam and Eve were not "married", yet that is the example He cited as "from the beginning". The whole thing has a foundation in covenant principles, even reflected in the creation, and the construction of the Tabernacle, our other two witnesses, which are irrefutable. Peace
Read that bible a little better. It says marrying sisters is wrong, but it happened in the bible. It doesn't say one man and one woman when David, Solomon, Jacob, Lamech, and others didn't understand "ONE." So one man one woman is nothing but an invention in your head since it doesn't play out that way in that literal bible. Or maybe those extra wives were simply "spiritual" and not real?
Half sisters, get your story straight. And again, Jesus said in the beginning it was so and defined what "so" is by Genesis. The fact that men ignored what He said at times should not come as a shock to YOU, now should it? Peace
No, He said FROM THE BEGINNING it was so, as in one man and one woman, and G-d put them together. THAT is what was "so" from the beginning of time, as spelled out in Genesis, and He said let no man put asunder what G-D has put together (male and female), and that includes other men putting it asunder. No where did He put together two men. Her name was Eve, not Steve. If you don't accept the scriptures as a foundation, that's one thing and entirely up to you, but don't try to twist their meaning into something that isn't there.
And no, Jesus was not talking about divorce the Pharisees were, because Adam and Eve were not "married", yet that is the example He cited as "from the beginning". Peace
I haven't twisted anything. Not a single word. On the other hand, you seem to be reading a lot more into those words that what is actually there.
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.
lol Peace
