[quote]forlife wrote:
If it was such an unchanging standard, stalwarts like Abraham, Jacob, and King David would have followed it.[/quote]
First off, they were all human and sinners.
Second, a standard and definition that is 2000 years old (older than the English language itself) still seems pretty traditional to me.
If God specifically sanctions it, is it a sin?
[quote]forlife wrote:
If God specifically sanctions it, is it a sin?[/quote]
What I’m saying is that them as individuals and their societies were not the ideal models Christians are supposed to pattern themselves after.
If you are referring to guys like Solomon, I definitely think his polygamy constituted a sin.
Why would god need to sanction a voluntary contract?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So propensity and action are two independent things? Propensity doesn’t preclude choice and reason? Hmmm… interesting…
Brilliant.
If the action doesn’t hurt anyone, why would you prohibit it?
Pedophilia is inherently damaging. Homosexuality is not.[/quote]
Ah but you see Homosexuality IS damaging, your going against Nature !
Imagine if all the species in the world suddenly became gay it would mean THE END OF EVERY RACE…
Now can you SEE why homosexuality is NOT a good thing ?
We kind of need children, just for the continuance of the human race but no big deal…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What I’m saying is that them as individuals and their societies were not the ideal models Christians are supposed to pattern themselves after.[/quote]
How dare you speak poorly of father Abraham and Jacob, whom Jesus himself said was going to heaven!
Seriously, you can’t just dismiss their polygamy as if it wasn’t sanctioned by God. Clearly and unequivocally, it was.
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Imagine if all the species in the world suddenly became gay it would mean THE END OF EVERY RACE…
Now can you SEE why homosexuality is NOT a good thing ?
[/quote]
You know what they say about too much of a good thing…
[quote]forlife wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Imagine if all the species in the world suddenly became gay it would mean THE END OF EVERY RACE…
Now can you SEE why homosexuality is NOT a good thing ?
You know what they say about too much of a good thing…[/quote]
Well if you want the race to end, off with you i’d rather like it to continue…
[quote]300andabove wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So propensity and action are two independent things? Propensity doesn’t preclude choice and reason? Hmmm… interesting…
Brilliant.
If the action doesn’t hurt anyone, why would you prohibit it?
Pedophilia is inherently damaging. Homosexuality is not.
Ah but you see Homosexuality IS damaging, your going against Nature !
Imagine if all the species in the world suddenly became gay it would mean THE END OF EVERY RACE…
Now can you SEE why homosexuality is NOT a good thing ?
We kind of need children, just for the continuance of the human race but no big deal…[/quote]
There aren’t that many gays, and trust me the human race is ok. We’ll destory ourselves way before the whole world could possibly be gay. But if the whole world were to become Homo, that doesn’t mean children can’t be made. They have spem banks and turkey basters. And contrary to popular belief, homosexuality isn’t a disease or an epidemic. Some people are made to be attracted to the same gender. Many like to say it’s a choice, well it isn’t. I could never choose to be gay cause I know I’m attracted to women and it would be against my nature to force myself to be gay.
I think exegesis of Mark 10:5 exposes the OP’s initial argument for what it is:
[quote]At some point during his journey, Jesus’ movements were noticed by the Pharisees-who likewise may have sensed that some sort of final confrontation was inevitable. As we read in verse 2, “some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’” Again, the Pharisees are up to their old tricks. They try to trip Jesus up with a loaded question designed to expose Jesus as a lawbreaker. Since virtually everyone in first century Palestine was in agreement that divorce could be granted to husbands who did not like the conduct of their wives, we can only surmise that the Pharisees had heard somewhere along the line that Jesus’ views on the subject of divorce were much more restrictive. Since the Law of Moses allowed for divorce, if Jesus did not make such allowances, then the Pharisees could argue that Jesus was a law-breaker and perhaps subject to the death penalty. And so, in order to understand what is going on in this exchange, we need to understanding something about how the Jews of that period practiced divorce.
According to the famed Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources from the time, virtually everyone agreed that Moses allowed divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (our Old Testament lesson this morning). The only open question had to do with the grounds upon which such a divorce be granted-what did Moses mean by “indecency”. At the time of Jesus, the Rabbis interpreted the Deuteronomy passage and its reference to “indecency” to mean that if the wife’s behavior was not to liking of the husband, he could seek a divorce on the ground of “indecency” and would almost always be granted the divorce. In fact, Josephus records how he ended his own marriage. “At that time I divorced my wife, not liking her behavior.” Burn the toast, and you are gone! No alimony, no child support, no attorney’s fees! No nothing! All a husband had to do was claim “indecency.”
While there were some Jewish groups who limited the grounds for divorce to unchastity (adultery), they were outside the mainstream. Therefore, it is clear that the religion and culture of Jesus’ day was very lax toward the whole subject. The great irony is that Jesus was not under suspicion for having too lax a view of divorce, but because he had too restrictive a view. It was this suspicion of Jesus on this matter which prompted the question from the Pharisees, who Mark says “tried to test him” with their question.
Here’s where the geography enters in and why we know that the Pharisees were up to no good. Jesus and his disciples are now in Herod’s territory in Perea, east of the Jordan River. This is the same area where John the Baptist had spoken out loudly and repeatedly against Herod’s divorce some years earlier. The Pharisees very likely assumed (and even hoped) that if Jesus likewise began preaching against divorce, he may indeed get himself in trouble with Herod, who had put John the Baptist to death for doing the same thing. If Jesus preached against divorce and called Herod to task, Herod might act, thereby arresting Jesus and making life much easier for the Pharisees. Once again, Jesus demonstrates that he’s not about to fall into the Pharisees? poorly planned trap.
Instead of being tripped up by the question, Jesus directs them back to Scripture, forcing them to explain how their own current practices of easy divorce jibes with the biblical passages they think gives them permission to do what they have been doing. According to verse 3, Jesus simply asked them, “‘What did Moses command you?’” The Pharisees responded to Jesus by quoting back to him Deuteronomy 24. “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”
In verse 5, Jesus tells the Pharisees that reason why Moses granted this “was because your hearts were hard {that is Israel’ hearts} {so} that Moses wrote you this law.?” In other words, Moses permitted divorce on a very narrow ground (indecency), because the people were rejecting the law of God due to unbelief. Moses was faced with the reality of sin and the need to deal with the circumstances at hand.
Notice too that Moses required that the wife was to be given to a certificate of divorce. This meant that should her husband divorce her, she was to be legally released from the marriage and was therefore was free to remarry. Divorce was never sanctioned by Moses. Moses was forced to deal with the fact that it happened because people are sinful. Furthermore, he built a provision into the law to protect the wife from the whims of her husband, a provision which, if applied, surely lowered the divorce rate. If a husband finds something about his wife which he considers “indecent” and he seeks to divorces her, he had better realize that should he do so, she is free to leave and can even remarry. She might indeed find that the grass was greener and the husband would lose her for good should he seek a divorce.
Jesus reminds the Pharisees that a bill of divorce was granted by Moses solely because people’s hearts were hard (sinful). Divorce was never God’s purpose and the lax attitudes of the Pharisees about the sanctity of marriage only demonstrated that they were every bit as hard-hearted as were the Jews to whom Moses had originally granted this exception. Jesus also reminds the Pharisees of God’s true intention for marriage, an important part of the equation which they had conveniently overlooked. “'But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’” Jesus sees the creation account as reflecting God’s true purpose for marriage. The exception granted by Moses was exactly that?an exception because the reality of sin prompted the promulgation of the decree of Deuteronomy 24. Moses never overturned the original purpose for marriage. He made provision because people were sinful and Moses was especially concerned to provide for the protection of wives who burned toast.
According to Jesus, then, the creation account in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 is God’s standard for marriage, despite the Pharisees virtually trumping the creation account with their emphasis upon the exception. If the Pharisees want to appeal to Deuteronomy 24, they had better implement all of it, and provide for protection for woman and ensure that some indecency" actually exists. But no, their interpretation of this passage shows how lax they had become, even though they saw themselves as defenders of the Torah and they believed that Jesus is the one who did not uphold the law. Despite all the talk about upholding the law, these guys are thorough-going antinomians.
In appealing to the creation account, Jesus is making the point that marriage (and the marital union) has been established and blessed by God from the very beginning. Let me put it this way. God establishes marriage as the foundation of society. God also says that sex is good, which is why he made two sexes and sanctions their union as “one flesh.” The sanctity of marriage is also the reason why sex before marriage is sin fornication), why sex outside of marriage is sin (adultery), and why homosexuality is sin, it is a violation of the natural order (to put it bluntly, the parts don’t fit). God made us as sexual beings (male and female). He created marriage as that place where we are to be fruitful (enjoy our sexuality) so as to multiply (propagate) and preserve the race.
Jesus speaks of marriage as a divinely-ordained union between two people who become one flesh. In saying this, Jesus is directly challenging the lax attitude of the Rabbis, who allowed a husband to divorce his wife (and thereby destroy that union which God sanctions), solely on the basis of a husband’s whim, requiring no legal protection (as Moses did) for the wife. Because God has joined these two people together as husband and wife and pronounces them “one flesh,” Jesus says, “let no man divide them.” But the casual division of this union is exactly the thing that the Pharisees were sanctioning, if not
condoning. Once again, Jesus confounds the Pharisees from the very same Scripture they claim to be defending. They are no match for Jesus.
Jesus uses this challenge of the Pharisees as a basis to instruct his disciples when they are alone. As we learn in verse 10, “When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.” It must have been a shock to the twelve that Jesus so completely disagreed with such a widely-held rabbinic teaching. Jesus now gives his disciples the proper interpretation of the divorce exception in Deuteronomy 24. Jesus “answered, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.’” Notice that Jesus is speaking specifically about the case at hand and the issue raised by the teaching of the Pharisees, specifically their use (indeed misuse) of Deuteronomy 24. Those men who get a divorce on the grounds of “indecency” (burned toast) as currently practiced by the Pharisees, commit adultery should they take another wife. The same holds true for women. Thus Jesus upholds the absolute
command of God from Exodus 20:14 enshrined in the Ten Commandments-“You shall not commit adultery”-something the Pharisees completely overlooked. Jesus is crystal clear about this. Marriage is to be seen as a permanent institution, spouses are to be faithful to one another, and divorce (i.e., ending the marriage) is not only the result of sin, it can lead to further sin (adultery). Notice too that Jesus places both husband and wife under the exact same legal and moral obligations?a remarkable thing in the first century, in effect, exposing the pro-husband interpretation of the Pharisees which denied the rights to be granted to the wife in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
Jesus exposes how those most vocal about defending the law (the Pharisees), are actually undermining it with their lax attitude and their oral tradition.[/quote]
So there you have it. Those trying to make us believe that there are many different types of Biblically-sanctioned marriages have an irrefutable argument against them.
Why should the Bible have anything to do with a function of the state?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Why should the Bible have anything to do with a function of the state?[/quote]
Where did I say it should?
Not directed at you personally, I’m just confused as to why we’re quoting the Bible.
Ok, let me get this STRAIGHT! Forlife is arguing that polygamy is bad, then he turns around and says it is good because it is sanctioned by God. Of course it is only bad when he refers to his previous faith. Which he could not embrace any longer, because he chose to be with a man rather than his wife. Now, the person who made the decision is not bad, but God is bad, because God made rules and he does not want to follow them.
Sounds like the little boy who was caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar. If he ignores Mom or Dad, who just walked around the corner and caught him taking cookies without permission, they will not be there, and he will not have to answer for his misdeeds.
Second, he is arguing that Homosexuality is not bad, and he argues that numerous studies have been conducted to isolate the gene, which causes people to be gay. Now, if you think about it, why are these studies being done? It could not possibly be because anyone wants to find what is WRONG with Gays. It can’t possibly be because people want to find out how to cure being Gay. It can’t possibly be that the natural instinct of the human race is to find the weak link and fix it. I’m not a very smart man, but hey, I’m just throwing this out there.
Finally, I don’t recall reading anything anywhere, nd believe me I have studied a lot of different materials, both supporting and against the Mormon Religion, but I have never read anything about Joseph Smith taking wives from other men. I have read that he was a supporter of Polygamy and that he himself had many wives, yet never have I heard about him stealing other mens wives. Don’t understand that one, but I guess if you can’t be right just throw up a smoke screen to deflect the attention from yourself to something else.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I don’t care as long as polygamists are left alone too.
Isn’t marriage just a contractual bond between two people? Why does government (i.e, the courts) need to become involved in that unless a party member breaks the contract?
Contract with whomever you want. Call it whatever you want.[/quote]
this. I personally am only against subsidizing gay marriage (and straight marriage for that matter). The benefits involved with a marriage contract make being a couple easier in society. I don’t give a fuck if you’re gay or not, it would suck big time if your loved one was in the hospital and you couldn’t see them or whatever.
Easy solution: some bureaucrats draft a paper with the contract, and you can recieve it by going to some govt building, showing your IDs, background check for otehr existing unions, sign the paper, get a copy, leave.
This issue, should be a non issue.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Not directed at you personally, I’m just confused as to why we’re quoting the Bible.[/quote]
Because Forlife, the OP did. Most, if not all of us, stick to secular arguements when debating homosexual marriage. However, he seems to be infatuted with the religious view recently.
I see.
[quote]forlife wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Seriously, besides some absolute and utter crackpot of a doctor, provide me with ONE source of evidence for that.
[b]In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski and his colleagues at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in the first-ever study combining the entire human genome for genetic determinants of sexual orientation, identified several stretches of DNA that appeared to be linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes.
The bottom line, according to Mustanski, is that ?genes play an important role? in determining whether or not men are gay or straight.[/b]
I could provide dozens of other studies, but that will suffice.
[/quote]
This study certainly does not suffice. All Dr. Mustanski can say, without bias, is that he “appears” to have found an association, which is so far removed from substantiating cause and effect, only someone desperate would cite it for that purpose.
We are left with the obvious male/female sexual anatomy- heterosexual. Of course, human love adds a lot on top of that, but it’s still the basis of sexual love.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
I’ll admit to it. As long as you’ll admit that it remains heterosexual.
Heterosexual within the Christian tradition yes, but not one man and one woman like the fundies claim.
[/quote]
Yes, marriage is heterosexual. I think for the issue at hand, that’s all that needs to be said.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Not directed at you personally, I’m just confused as to why we’re quoting the Bible.
Because Forlife, the OP did. Most, if not all of us, stick to secular arguements when debating homosexual marriage. However, he seems to be infatuted with the religious view recently. [/quote]
Thank you.
It amazes me that people like to take various passages completely out of their covenantal context in Scripture. All of the Law has been fulfilled, which is why we don’t keep any of the typological aspects of it thanks to its fulfillment in Jesus. Christians aren’t marching down to Jerusalem every year and offering grain and animal sacrifices, are we? For the same reason, we don’t keep the ceremonial or civil aspects of the Mosaic Law: they’ve been FULFILLED. Jesus was the true Israel.