Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16102 comments on the news.yahoo.com story from Apr 27, 2009, titled Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?. In it, news.yahoo.com reports that:

The trouble they see is not just an America where general support for gay marriage will have driven a wedge between churches and the world, but between churches themselves.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at news.yahoo.com.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#14458 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The word used referred to young women who were virgins. Moreover, other passages support the full understanding.
In the case of homosexuality, all passages indicated have been historically understood as such. There are no passages that specifically contradict that understanding. Moreover, sexual morality is consistent, regardless of orientation.
Smile.
So, you don't know anything about the Bible. As though we needed confirmation.

Smirk.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14459 May 1, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop looking in the mirror when you post.
Then as now, homosexuality would have been a minority. Moreover, back then there was a far greater push to marry a woman and begat heirs. I would presume that every gay male that could manage, would force himself to marry a woman and have children. However, I have no direct evidence for that.
There is good evidence that the word translated as "eunuch" <cariyc> did not mean "castrated male", that instead it referred to those men that never had sex with women. Hmmm... In fact, given the direct contradiction be tween Deuteronomy and Isaiah, cariyc could not possibly have meant "castrated male:
Isaiah 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
56:5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
So, castrated males are forbidden entry into the congregation, yet "eunuchs" are welcomed IF they obey all of the Laws and keep the sabbaths. Think about the implications of that...
All in all, there is no reason to believe that there MUST be some sort of statement of inclusion for something that would have been a very small minority.
I particularly love Isaiah. It so consistently contradicts the Mosaic/Levitical/Deuteronomic codes when it comes to certain particulars, ALWAYS refocusing onto compassion.

Yeshua taught from the prophets, not the juridical codes.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#14460 May 1, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I particularly love Isaiah. It so consistently contradicts the Mosaic/Levitical/Deuteronomic codes when it comes to certain particulars, ALWAYS refocusing onto compassion.
Yeshua taught from the prophets, not the juridical codes.
Exactly.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#14461 May 1, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I feel your frustration. Whatcha gonna do?
The windmills won't fall no matter how many times you charge.
Carrion
Scum.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#14462 May 1, 2013
Sceptical_Mal wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey there Nanoabnormality
Freak.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#14463 May 1, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Scum.
Change your tighty whities more often.
razzmatazz

Falls City, NE

#14464 May 1, 2013
Liam R wrote:
Jesus did nothing for which I need to thank him.
<quoted text>
No, it won't. False gods have no power to do evil.
Christ died for you . You are so ignorant and blind.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14465 May 1, 2013
razzmatazz wrote:
<quoted text>Christ died for you . You are so ignorant and blind.
Yeshua was murdered BECAUSE of human cussedness and insanity, not FOR it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#14466 May 2, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I particularly love Isaiah. It so consistently contradicts the Mosaic/Levitical/Deuteronomic codes when it comes to certain particulars, ALWAYS refocusing onto compassion.
Yeshua taught from the prophets, not the juridical codes.
You clearly 'love' nothing.

Love FULFILLS the spirit of the Law instead of the letter. It does not change it.

Jesus taught from both the Law and the prophets. You lied.

Smile.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#14467 May 2, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Because YOU demand it of Him? The God of the Bible is happy with gays, just as they are. That is why the Bible celebrates the marriage between David and Johnathan.
Because He said He would.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (NKJV)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

Your lies about Jonathan and David noted.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#14468 May 2, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Mark this day down, you actually make a correct post! The Bible itself DOES indeed reveal Biblical illiteracy, and that is why you have been shown to be so incredibly ignorant of the facts regarding what the Bible really says about homosexuality.
Go tell your father Satan you were proved wrong. Your ignorance and lies noted, again.

Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV)
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#14469 May 2, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
True, but it does demonstrate that the word under discussion doesn't translate the way it was asserted.
True.....now, will you accept their relationship as a friendship....
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#14470 May 2, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, too bad you have not yet learned to read for comprehension. Jewish tradition says that having sex IS a form of marriage ceremony, as I have pointed out repeatedly. And even if that were not the case, they had already exchanged vows (traditional marriage form #2) and exchanged gifts (traditional marriage form #3). I am not going to post three whole chapters, you must read for your self - do TRY to understand what you read this time.
1 Samuel 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
<Various things happen.>
1 Samuel 20:4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.
<Various things happen.>
1 Samuel20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
And FINALLY, after all of that, we come to the first time it is mentioned that they have sex. Was it actually the first time? There is no way to know if this was actually the first time. On the other hand, it does look like this was the last time that the tragic lovers were able to be together as politics forced them apart.
As far as multiple wives, I find it sad that you would attempt to pretend that the Bible says ANYTHING, when you are so profoundly ignorant of what it says...
1 Samuel 25:42 And Abigail hasted, and arose and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that went after her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife.
25:43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives.
25:44 But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife, to Phalti the son of Laish, which was of Gallim.
For just one example. Of course, thins only mentions three of David's wives...
There IS a Commandment that mentions multiple wives as well:
Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives...
<It deals with inheritance...>
As far as a woman having multiple husbands, I have to admit that I do not know of a verse that specifically prohibits OR permits the situation. However, women WERE considered a man's property even if the Law did not spell out such a relationship.
Also, consider:

A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them.

While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, or starvation.

Having multiple wives also cause problems:

1 Kings 11:3-4

3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.

4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been.

Note: his wives TURNED his heart after other gods....and his heart was NOT FULLY devoted to the Lord his God....
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#14471 May 2, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop looking in the mirror when you post.
Then as now, homosexuality would have been a minority. Moreover, back then there was a far greater push to marry a woman and begat heirs. I would presume that every gay male that could manage, would force himself to marry a woman and have children. However, I have no direct evidence for that.
There is good evidence that the word translated as "eunuch" <cariyc> did not mean "castrated male", that instead it referred to those men that never had sex with women. Hmmm... In fact, given the direct contradiction be tween Deuteronomy and Isaiah, cariyc could not possibly have meant "castrated male:
Isaiah 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
56:5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
So, castrated males are forbidden entry into the congregation, yet "eunuchs" are welcomed IF they obey all of the Laws and keep the sabbaths. Think about the implications of that...
All in all, there is no reason to believe that there MUST be some sort of statement of inclusion for something that would have been a very small minority.
The Bible NEVER uses the words "homosexual" and "eunuch" interchangeably.

Eunuchs are NEVER referred to in Scripture as being in sin, while homosexuality is universally condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.

Matthew 19:8-12

8 Jesus replied,“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him,“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

<<<11 Jesus replied,“Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.>>>

***12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”***

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14472 May 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly 'love' nothing.
Love FULFILLS the spirit of the Law instead of the letter. It does not change it.
Jesus taught from both the Law and the prophets. You lied.
Smile.
Where?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14473 May 2, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Because He said He would.
1 Corinthians 6:9 (NKJV)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
Your lies about Jonathan and David noted.
That was not "God", but Saul.

Saul's words are not prophetic utterence.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14474 May 2, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
True.....now, will you accept their relationship as a friendship....
Not yet. That is just one source, and the linguistic analyses do not include established cultural practices, and issues surrounding euphemistic usages in their conclusions. For me, this particular view has never been an issue in gay soteriology. I simply find it an interesting and plausible argument that encourages a healthy iconoclasm regarding ossified and dead traditional perspectives.

(I have to warn you that we won't be able to continue this convo after the next few hours. I fly out in the morning and won't have time for participation on TOPIX from then on. So this is one of my last such discussion here.)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14475 May 2, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible NEVER uses the words "homosexual" and "eunuch" interchangeably.
Eunuchs are NEVER referred to in Scripture as being in sin, while homosexuality is universally condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.
Matthew 19:8-12
8 Jesus replied,“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him,“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
<<<11 Jesus replied,“Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.>>>
***12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”***
Begging the Question is a fallacy.

So are the Etymological and Historian's Fallacy.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#14476 May 2, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not "God", but Saul.
Saul's words are not prophetic utterence.
Your Satanic opinion noted and rejected. God called you "ignorant".

"the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord"

1 Corinthians 14:37-38 (NKJV)
37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be IGNORANT.

“Of Course I Can”

Since: Sep 08

Santa Fe, NM

#14477 May 2, 2013
Don't worry. God won't call you at all.

Because he doesn't exist.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA....
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Satanic opinion noted and rejected. God called you "ignorant".
"the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord"
1 Corinthians 14:37-38 (NKJV)
37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be IGNORANT.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 19 min tongangodz 7,186
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 1 hr serfs up 539
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 1 hr serfs up 167
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 3 hr too lazy to log in 980
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 4 hr Belle Sexton 34,809
News Archbishop unjustly bars lay reader for marrying 12 hr satanlovesyou 186
News In SC, Cruz, Carson, Walker fight to stand out ... Wed Your Ex 15
More from around the web