Biblical Marriage

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

The topic is Biblical Marriage. 

How you interpret the bible is not important.  Following the commandment of Jesus is all that matters.

[arein0 977]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Stop banging your cranium; it is giving you a concussion. I believe homosexuality is a choice. Period. And it is a sin. I’m sorry you think I am getting mad. I am not. I don’t know more than God. To me, homosexuality is a choice so it is settled in my mind. It is not impossible to entertain that it is not a choice, however, there is no evidence of that as yet. No gay gene. I know this would be a fantastic victory for God haters everywhere because they can point to it and attempt to nullify the Bible in its entirety.  Similar to the elusive God particle. Any search from the smallest atom component to the entire universe to ultimately disprove an almighty God is the holy grail of skeptics like you. Searching fruitlessly for any reason to not feel compelled to believe and follow the Bible. That feeling which drives your desire to disprove God is actually the Holy Spirit convicting you of your rebellious spirit. You need that “proof” so you won’t be responsible for your own personal belief. Coffees response to you above also an attempt to argue basically that God messed up somehow because He created people with free will and they chose poorly. God wants us to choose Him but sometimes we make poor choices, learn from them, and move on still believing and trusting God, accepting Jesus as our Savior, and trying to live a better life. Or we harden our heart to His message under the influence of Satan and refuse to allow His righteousness and promise of salvation to enter our hearts. That is also a choice.

Sounds a lot like projection to me. Now all of the sudden I'm a skeptic? That's new, but okay. Continue judging my relationship with Christ while you yourself are also a sinner. I think there is scripture around that. You might want to start practicing what Jesus is preaching and having a relationship with Christ, instead of trying to memorize all the words to try and condemn others.

Edited June 9, 2023 by arein0

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

How you interpret the bible is not important.  Following the commandment of Jesus is all that matters.

Then jump Rex. He came up with topic. 26 pages later you are bellyaching. Keep up

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, SaltyTiger said:

Then jump Rex. He came up with topic. 26 pages later you are bellyaching. Keep up

I apologize for not participating in the manner you prefer.  However, you are missing the entire point of following Jesus.  You need to consider what is actually important.

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-origin-of-sin/

Check this out if you're inclined. 

Thanks, heres some of my issues with it. 

 

This modern approach to the origin of sin conflicts radically with the Bible in denying an original righteousness to Adam. Genesis 1:27 states that “God created man in his own image,” and this image implies personal holiness, righteousness, and thus freedom from the necessity of sin. Donald Macleod writes: “According to the Bible, man, as made by God, was upright. He was made in God’s image. He was absolutely sinless.”¹ Man became a sinner, however, when Adam succumbed to temptation in the garden. In this important sense, man sinned when Adam willed to sin in his heart. Having been forbidden by God to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17–18), Adam ate the fruit and fell into sin (Gen 3:6). Sin therefore did not originate in the human nature as God made it but resulted when Adam was tempted by the evil serpent through his wife. Once Adam had sinned, the entire human race fell with him, losing the original righteousness of creation in God’s image (Gen 6:4), sharing Adam’s guilt (Rom 5:12, 18), and becoming corrupted with sin so that henceforth each individual human originates as a sinner (Ps 51:5).

 

So being made in Gods own image is interpreted here as meaning that Adam and Eve did not have the inevitability of sin that all future humans were born with, but that, regardless, Adam still "chose" to allow sin into his heart when he was tempted. 

My hang-up is the seemingly arbitrary meaning that is being applied to the "made in gods own image" line where we attribute a certain cleanliness and perfection to Adan and Eve as being made in Gods image and being completely sinless.....yet still at the same time just as prone to temptation and sinful urges as any of us are, yet despite Adam and Eve acing exactly as all humans have, we are to believe that they were somehow still made different and "cleaner" than all of us? That they had choices that we ultimately don't have (to not ever sin)? 

Is God as easily tempted or capable of sin as Adam and eve were? If not, why not if Adam and Eve were truly made in his own image as interpreted here? Adam and eve were born with flaws and temptations and thus were obviously not completely born "in gods own image" 

 

In answering questions as to the origin of sin, while we can affirm many important truths, we nonetheless stand before what Herman Bavinck called “the greatest enigma of life and the heaviest cross for the intellect to bear.”⁷ When considered as an explanation for the world as we know it, sin makes perfect sense: indeed, without a doctrine of the fall of mankind, the history of the world is incomprehensible. Yet, considering the biblical data about sin itself, when we ask how beings created as wholly good by God—such as the angel Satan and the man Adam—could will to sin, all answers escape us. Attempts to rationalize the origin of sin run aground against the essential irrationality of the creature rebelling against the Creator. This irrationality afflicts not merely the originating sins of ancient history but also every sin that we commit today. When the Christian bitterly asks, “Why did I sin?” there are descriptions—because of temptation, because of remaining indwelling sin, etc.—but there are no true explanations for the origin of any sin."

 

And this is where I'm at. The original and explanation of sin makes 100% sense from a story and narrative perspective, but to me from a real, living, all powerful God perspective.... it just doesn't make sense. And ultimately I know that that's where Christians have to just turn to "well, we don't have all the answers and just have to have faith that none of this contradicts itself and that what the bible says is fully true."

The problem I've had as my life has progressed is that I  no longer view the Bible as proof or authoritative enough to justify the faith that it demands of me. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The problem I've had as my life has progressed is that I  no longer view the Bible as proof or authoritative enough to justify the faith that it demands of me. 

I think the struggle isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are theological doctrines that I may never settle on. For example, the origin of sin, predestination, free will, etc. I would say, though, these are not "fundamental" tenants of the faith. Hopefully we both continue asking questions and searching for answers. 

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

18 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I apologize for not participating in the manner you prefer.  However, you are missing the entire point of following Jesus.  You need to consider what is actually important.

I very kindly asked you to take your grievance up with the OP. There you go being judgmental once again.

[homersapien 11,440]

19 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

I care when the science is actually scientific.

So, I take it you have reviewed the literature on scientific inquiry into the question?

[homersapien 11,440]

19 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

God makes mistakes?

Nah, he just deals some people a "poor hand".  God is sadistic that way.

[homersapien 11,440]

19 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

God makes mistakes?

He won't recognize logic.  At least if it contradicts his theism.

[homersapien 11,440]

16 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

In the interest of fairness, we can go back a couple centuries at minimum to discuss Godless men and women for that matter. Kind of a wash if you will. 

How many of those did you vote for president of our country?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

How many of those did you vote for president of our country?

Two. George W. Bush twice and Barack Obama once.

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I seriously don't understand how you can conclude that scientific theory proves there is no God. 

In your mind, does it simply have to be the story as the old testament relays?

If so, ICHY is right about you.  You worship a book.  A book thousands of years old, written by men and is basically nothing but myths.

(Not that you don't have a right to do so, at least in this country. )

You are reaching now. We have discussed this previously and you should know my feelings. You can go back and refresh if you wish. I don’t feel the need.

ICHY is a hypocrite that perpetually judges and insults people that disagree with him. 

[homersapien 11,440]

16 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Science has not proven that there is no God. Something created your “ Big Boom”. 

Never said otherwise Salty (as you undoubtedly realize).  If fact, just the opposite.

But the subject is whether or not God created homosexuals. Science has demonstrated that homosexuality is natural - a part of nature.

So, if one believes that God created everything (nature), then by definition, He created homosexuality.

Some on this forum are just too wedded to the Old Testament to accept this.   This is why they would be better served (intellectually) to recognize most of this ancient manuscript is mythical.

 

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Never said otherwise Salty (as you undoubtedly realize).  If fact, just the opposite.

But the subject is whether or not God created homosexuals. Science has demonstrated that homosexuality is natural - a part of nature.

So, if one believes that God created everything (nature), then by definition, He created homosexuality.

Some on this forum are just too wedded to the Old Testament to accept this.   This is why they would be better served (intellectually) to recognize most of this ancient manuscript is mythical.

 

This horse has been ridden. 

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

You are reaching now. We have discussed this previously and you should know my feelings. You can go back and refresh if you wish. I don’t feel the need.

ICHY is a hypocrite that perpetually judges and insults people that disagree with him. 

No I am not  reaching, I made a mistake and completely misinterpreted your OP.  I should have read it more carefully.  My apologies.

So, I deleted it and since revised my response accordingly.

ICHY doesn't judge anyone.  He calls it like he sees it.  (And I - for one - think he's mostly spot on.) 

If you think he's "judging" you, that says more about you than it does him.  You are totally missing his point.  He is focused on the message of Christ.  The rest of you are apparently focused on an ancient text (pharisees).

The condemnation of homosexuality as a sin is a perfect example.

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

5 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

This horse has been ridden. 

Which is why I wondered why you resurrected it.

(No pun intended)

[homersapien 11,440]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

But the man was born with a desire to have sexual relationships with animals. You say we should approve men who desire sexual relations with other men on ground that God created it, yes? Why can’t the same be true for men inclined to bestiality? How about incest? I could keep going….

Got any evidence for that? 

Evidence of homosexuality as natural is abundant but there is no evidence that bestiality is, or even any reason to postulate it is.

Thus, the analogy has no basis in logic. It's completely specious.  

Edited June 9, 2023 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,654]

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

It is not impossible to entertain that it is not a choice, however, there is no evidence of that as yet. No gay gene. 

So you think there has to be a gene that dictates every preference a person has? 

I don't like peas. I'm sure my mom would have loved to have known this while I was growing up.

2 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

I know this would be a fantastic victory for God haters everywhere because they can point to it and attempt to nullify the Bible in its entirety.  Similar to the elusive God particle. Any search from the smallest atom component to the entire universe to ultimately disprove an almighty God is the holy grail of skeptics like you.

Um...that wasn't the purpose of the search, and finding it doesn't disprove God. At all. You're just buying into another spoon-fed narrative that people are trying to destroy religion.

[homersapien 11,440]

18 hours ago, creed said:

I believe we need to be careful with the term "God created xyz (Billy/Bob)". The bible only specifies he created Adam and Eve. Now maybe God created others but its not specifically stated. What we do know is after Adam and Eve, humans were procreated as the result of "normal" or "non-normal relations" between a woman and a man. That is until the 20th century when science allow for procreating without any "relations" between a woman and a man.

Nevertheless, homosexuality has always existed in humans, likely at the same rate it does today.

It has also existed in other species.  And in some instances it may have even played an evolutionary advantage.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/study-reveals-potential-evolutionary-role-for-same-sex-attraction.html#:~:text=One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call,genetic prospects by being “helpers in the nest.”

[homersapien 11,440]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Okay. You’ve explained your premise clearly. I’m exploring it. I’ll ask it again:

What if a person has a burning lust for lower animals? Should Christians then approve that person engaging in bestiality on ground that it is not abnormal for that person?

Certainly not on that grounds (basis).

Psychopaths - and evil people in general - undoubtedly exist naturally or "normally".  That doesn't mean Christians - or anyone else for that matter - should "accept" them.

 

[homersapien 11,440]

16 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Believing in God is hardly “deep religious beliefs” but whatever. I don’t oppose gay rights. Who does? The question was about Biblical marriage and the answer is clear. Whether you choose to believe it or not.

Well, that's at least a glimmer of progress I suppose. 

Just stick to your lane and we'll all get along just fine, even if we don't like each other.

[homersapien 11,440]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So, as long as they don’t procreate, all is okay?

Who cares?  Why should we care?

Who are they hurting? 

 

[homersapien 11,440]

16 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Let’s make it easier then. What if the two men in your example were brothers? Approval or not, and why?

Why is an incest relation about lust, but a homosexual relation not? 

Who cares?  Why should we care?

Who's being hurt?

[homersapien 11,440]

17 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Homosexual sodomy was against the law for years. Do you see why the “what the law allows” argument isn’t a good one?

Do you think that was appropriate? 

Would you make homosexuality illegal today?

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by homersapien