Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 346 of 1484 (802631)
03-18-2017 4:16 PM


King James and ESV 1 Corinthians 6 in its total context
The first 3 verses Faith quoted. I will take it to the end.
(this post is NOT REALLY about meat mind you)
King James
quote:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
ESV
quote:
I Corinthians
chapter 6:9-end
9
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Flee Sexual Immorality
12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for foodand God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined[d] to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, The two will become one flesh. 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin[e] a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
ESV
The issue of drinking among the vices seems to go against this whole idea that what goes inside isn't an issue. Faith wants to have it both ways.
I am really not making this an issue of flesh/meat consumption but here is a verse people will look at (Jerome used this to justify that vegetarianism is a sin and mind you that he hated the Jewish Christian Ebionites/Nazarines/ Elkesaites as well as Manicheans) to argue what Faith argued earlier. (though it is open to multiple interpretations)
Romans 14:21
quote:
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Mark 7 and Matthew 15 have a Jesus quote. The Mark version is used to justify Jesus allowing all meat to be eaten - thus annulling Leviticus and Deuteronomy - (though even modern fundamentalist scholars will admit there are other interpretations and I can show quotes when I get back to Nebraska), though modern scholars will quickly add that Jesus didn't say it and the evangelist added to it ("Mark" in c.70 A.D.). The Matthew version is generally taken to only apply to the oral law and not Leviticus or Deuteronomy's written laws.
Actually, the King James translation of Mark 7 actually didn't take it to "cleanse" all meats (like modern translations) but just referred to crapping out the food, and that translation (which is what the old Syriac said) would be compatible with Jesus actually saying it. "Cleaning: is the much better translation than "purging" or "removing" though.
quote:
Mark 7
And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Matthew only has the quote that says something like "nothing that goes into the mouth defilith, but what comes out" which scholars, like Steve Mason, say is a Semiticism which means that certain foods are less important than other sins, but still doesn't mean it isn't a sin. Similar to "mercy, not sacrifice" not ending sacrifice. He and others say Matthew only had Jesus rejecting the oral law. Not written law.
But, this is all irrelevant to an extent (except the Paul quote) because Paul didn't base his "outside the body" type of prohibitions on the clean/unclean issue.
MY POINT?
The drinking issue in Paul's I Corinthians 6 vice lists means that Faith can't really have it both ways on her "outside the body" issues (whether taken to be ceremonial issue or a table fellowship issue or whatever) THAT IS F-O-O-D!
It's all the same thing!
If food is a temporary and in essence "cultural", as opposed to "moral", issue then so is the sexual part.
That is the religious aspect.
There is also the possibility that Paul is saying that marriage issues (which are covered fully in chapter 7) as well as all other sexual issues shouldn't be made illegal by the state.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 347 of 1484 (802632)
03-18-2017 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Faith
03-18-2017 3:54 PM


Re: FYI and meat eating. as "petty"
quote:
Good grief, it isn't "just about meat!!" What Paul said about all things being lawful to him simply happens to refer back to that one passage about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Because that's where he said those very same words. But in the context of 1 Cor 6 he must be using it to refer to some view held by someone in the Corinthian Church. Since he mentions being joined to a harlot it is frequently guessed that he was dealing with the opinion that visiting prostitutes was lawful for a Christian. Not meat, visiting prostitutes. As I argued, there is so much in the Bible that makes it clear that sin cannot ever be "lawful" let alone Paul's remark in this very context that it would mean joining Christ to a harlot, which is a clear statement that it isn't lawful, there is no way to justify the lawfulness of sin from this passage, and if it doesn't suffice for you, read the reast of the Bible which should leave no doubt.
Lets ignore 1 Corinthians 8 (like verses 10-13,as well as Romans 15:1,14:14, 14:1, Galatians 6:2-3, 1 Corinthians 9 around verse 20) and look at chapter 10
quote:
1 Corinthians 10
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
....
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
....
31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
Now do you think Paul's describing drinking (to get drunk anyway) in the chapter 6 vices supports your argument about sacrifices to idols?
It is possible that Paul is speaking on multiple levels here.
You keep using special pleas to make your point.
Endless selectivity and parsing.
I admit the issue is complicated, but you didn't even want to address the complications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 3:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 4:34 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 348 of 1484 (802633)
03-18-2017 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Faith
03-18-2017 3:57 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Why would you think I think that since I've said no such thing?
I'm new to this thread, I must have misunderstood the recent discussion. It sounds like you're okay with a secular definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriage as long as Christians who run businesses can still decide who they're going to serve. And they have the right to do so because it's an act of conscience because the Bible says it's a sin.
But the Biblical definition of marriage you cited in Message 278 (Gen. 2:24, Mark 10:8, Matthew 19:5-6) doesn't say anything about homosexuality being a sin, or that gay marriage is a sin. Think it through. A man who doesn't marry doesn't "cleave to his wife" any more than a gay man does, but you do not consider it a sin to not marry. There's no Biblical pronouncement that a man can cleave only to a wife and nothing else. And the Bible says nothing about who women shall cleave to.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix Bible reference. Word typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 3:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 5:21 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 349 of 1484 (802634)
03-18-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by LamarkNewAge
03-18-2017 4:26 PM


Re: FYI and meat eating. as "petty"
Oh good grief. The point is ONLY that the words Paul used -- "All things are lawful to me" -- refer to the passage about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Those very words. That's why 1 Cor 6 is always referred to that passage. And there's nothing spiritualized about that reference, it's about actual meat that has been actually sacrificed on an altar to some demon ido/godl, and whether Christians should be concerned about actually eating that actual meat because it might associate them in their own minds with idolatry. There's no need to bring any other reference into this.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-18-2017 4:26 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by LamarkNewAge, posted 03-18-2017 6:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 350 of 1484 (802635)
03-18-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by jar
03-18-2017 4:09 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
jar writes:
No mention of marriage there Faith.
If you're referring to Matthew 19:5-6, if the translation "cleave to his wife" is correct, that does seem to be referring to marriage.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by jar, posted 03-18-2017 4:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by jar, posted 03-18-2017 4:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 357 by JonF, posted 03-18-2017 6:43 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 351 of 1484 (802636)
03-18-2017 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Percy
03-18-2017 4:34 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
You're correct.
AbE:
Kinda.
What it does say is that the guy should move outta the house; what it does not say is what constitutes a marriage.
There are though Biblical standards of what does constitute a marriage as I outlined back in Message 269 and those standards do not mention anything about it being one man and one woman.
Edited by jar, : hit wrong key, see AbE:

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Percy, posted 03-18-2017 4:34 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 352 of 1484 (802637)
03-18-2017 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Tangle
03-18-2017 3:57 PM


But I *am* on the side of LGBT folk that can see beyond their own prejudice.
Show me how Rachel and Laurel were being prejudiced.
I wish you luck with it, but if what you say is true, you need to work out who your friends are because it sounds like you need some.
I know who my friends are. They are not the people who are saying gay folk are being prejudiced against Christians when they make formal complaints to regulatory boards after being illegally harmed by them, they are not the people who call them irritating despite the fact that it was the Christians that posted their complaint, who went to the media, and who released their personal information leading to threatening correspondence, disastrous consequences for their family and living with the fear of losing their kids.
By all means disagree with something someone has done, but you stop using weasel words like 'might' and 'may' and avoiding discussing particular cases where you feel someone 'might' be doing harm; start being specific. Otherwise I can say that your 'suggestions' might be doing the harm, may be undoing the successes that you seem so concerned with - with as much weight as you have said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2017 3:57 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2017 5:55 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 353 of 1484 (802638)
03-18-2017 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Percy
03-18-2017 4:29 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Why would you think I think that since I've said no such thing?
I'm new to this thread, I must have misunderstood the recent discussion. It sounds like you're okay with a secular definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriage as long as Christians who run businesses can still decide who they're going to serve. And they have the right to do so because it's an act of conscience because the Bible says it's a sin.
But that is not what is being discussed and things are confused enough without my trying to get into the question of the validity of the law itself. It's a secular law in a secular society, a Christian can't very well ask for it to be different, and nobody is suggesting any way we get a right to be exempted from it, so it's taken for granted on this thread that we have to obey or take the consequences. The only point is that it does affect Christians who can't agree with the secular definition and that's really all there is to it, except people keep arguing that we're wrong to see it as we do, and so on and so forth.
Again, the only point on this thread is that the law legitimizing gay marriage can put strict Bible-believing Christians in the position of appearing to agree with the legitimacy of gay marriage if asked to do something that implies its legitimacy, such as make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, or arrange flowers for a gay wedding, or take photos at a gay wedding, which they cannot do because of how they/we understand God's ordinance of marriage, based on the passages I quoted.
But the Biblical definition of marriage you cited in Message 278 (Gen. 2:24, Mark 10:8, Matthew 19:5-6) doesn't say anything about homosexuality being a sin, or that gay marriage is a sin.
Everything in the Bible is to be read in the light of everything else in the Bible because it's all true and one part can't be made to contradict another part. Homosexual acts are clearly forbidden in many places in the Bible. They are treated as sin. The idea that you could somehow sanctify homosexual acts by "marriage" is at least a cruel joke from a Christian point of view.
The passage I quoted is understood to be THE definition of marriage. It covers the entirety of what constitutes marriage: man cleaves to wife (woman) and together they two, and nobody else, become "one flesh" -- which is objectified in the birth of children, if there are any, the children of course being the literal fleshly fruit of the marital union.
Think it through. A man who doesn't marry doesn't "cleave to his wife" any more than a gay man does, but you do not consider it a sin to not marry. There's no Biblical pronouncement that a man can cleave only to a wife and nothing else. And the Bible says nothing about who women shall cleave to.
  • Marriage is not required by those passages, it is merely defined.
  • The definition is complete as given: it applies to nothing other than a man and a woman.
  • Again "saying nothing" about anything isn't an argument against that "anything's" being implied. There are many passages about marriage in the Bible, many in the New Testament prescribing proper attitudes and so on. all referring to the union of one man and one woman.
However, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about it except the conservative Christians who are getting punished for refusing to violate it, which is a small number so far, but that view is shared by millions of others.
Really, the only answer to this is that yes, we are subject to the law, and yes in some circumstances we will be forced to disobey it, and yes, in that case we will be punished, giving up all businesses that cater to weddings in some cases, and yes, some people will be very happy to see us punished. Such as AZPaul who is nearly in ecstasy at the thought.
That's all there is to it. If everyone would just agree the thread could be closed.
Edited by Faith, : improve wording

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Percy, posted 03-18-2017 4:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Percy, posted 03-19-2017 8:30 AM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 354 of 1484 (802639)
03-18-2017 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Modulous
03-18-2017 5:08 PM


Modulous writes:
They are not the people who are saying gay folk are being prejudiced against Christians when they make formal complaints to regulatory boards after being illegally harmed by them.
I think your emotions have got the better of you.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2017 5:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2017 8:21 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 373 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 4:31 AM Tangle has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 355 of 1484 (802640)
03-18-2017 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Faith
03-18-2017 4:34 PM


Your argument is based on 2 special pleas Faith
First, that the highly similar sentence in 1 Corinthians 6:12 to one in chapter 10 proves that chapter 6:12-13 can only be talking about the same issue as chapter 10. So chapter 10 and its issue gets to define Paul's words and entire point in 6:12. Nevermind any other possible points the standalone plain reading of chapter 6 and its text might have to show us . Nevermind that chapter 6 chronogically preceded chapter 10. If anything, chapter 10 might be a totally different reapplication of his earlier words. ,*,********,*,*********,****,,,,************************************* Second, you thus argue that the point of chapter 10 had to do with meat sacrificed to idols (it did and it generally was forbidden to be eaten but meat was temporarily still allowed to be eaten though Paul elsewhere seemed to be describing situations that indicated a permanent ban on all flesh consumption . Even the situation in chapter 10 has logic which indicates an eventual ban such as not eating certain meats that offend if others know what you do )so that must then be the point of chapter 6 especially verses 12-13. The problem is that it doesn't fit too neatly into the point of chapter 6 or at least not in an obvious way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Faith, posted 03-18-2017 4:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 356 of 1484 (802642)
03-18-2017 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Percy
03-18-2017 3:49 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
To her the Bible governs all secularism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Percy, posted 03-18-2017 3:49 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 357 of 1484 (802643)
03-18-2017 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Percy
03-18-2017 4:34 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
"Cleave" is probably the only word in the English language that is its own antonym.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Percy, posted 03-18-2017 4:34 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by ramoss, posted 03-18-2017 8:33 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 375 by Rrhain, posted 03-19-2017 4:37 AM JonF has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 358 of 1484 (802646)
03-18-2017 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Tangle
03-18-2017 5:55 PM


But I *am* on the side of LGBT folk that can see beyond their own prejudice.
Show me how Rachel and Laurel were being prejudiced...start being specific
That's what I thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2017 5:55 PM Tangle has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


(1)
Message 359 of 1484 (802647)
03-18-2017 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by JonF
03-18-2017 6:43 PM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
If you don't buckle those two beams together, the bridge will buckle under pressure

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by JonF, posted 03-18-2017 6:43 PM JonF has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 360 of 1484 (802654)
03-19-2017 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by PaulK
03-16-2017 1:22 AM


Re: No case at all
PaulK runs away:
quote:
I'm not running away.
And yet your tail is between your legs.
quote:
But really what can be said to a lying bully who thinks he gets to dictate what I meant ?
You mean you didn't write the things you wrote?
If you didn't mean it what you wrote, why did you write it? If you think you've been misinterpreted, why don't you rephrase?
Remember, everyone can see your posts. They can see me quoting you again and again. They can see you trying to pretend that you didn't write what you wrote.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by PaulK, posted 03-16-2017 1:22 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by PaulK, posted 03-19-2017 3:12 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024