Atheist evolutionists: How far will you allow yourselves of sexual perversities?

But do Christians consider all fornication to be equally bad ?In your view, is homosexuality worse than adultery as defined in Mark 10:11-12 ?

Here's the point. Many Protestant churches will carry out marriages which - according to the Gospel of Mark - are adulterous.But they will campaign against allowing civil marriages for homosexual couples.Don't you think that that shows a degree of prejudice against homosexuals, beyond simply regarding homosexual behaviour as sinful ?

{Off-topic material hidden - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle.

Then you are going to have to explain why many Protestant Churches are willing to support adultery (as in Mark 10:11-12). - but will not show the same tolerance to homosexual behaviour.

quote:

---

Im not sure exactly what you mean by they 'support adultery' If they are following the bible, then they should be viewing adultery as a disfellowshipping offence.

---

I mean exactly what I say. According to Mark 10:11-12 remarriage after divorce is adultery. Yet most Protestant Churches will actually carry out such weddings.

quote:

---

Ah ok, i see what you're saying. if they are deliberately not upholding Gods standard, then they are not being true to christianity.

---

Actually, no. I am saying that there is a clear double standard. And it's not the individuals I am criticising, but the Churches for allowing it. Especially when the Catholics do forbid such marriages.

quote:

---

but the NT does make allowance for divorce if adultery has occurred.
Matt 19:9 "I say to YOU that whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT ON THE GROUND OF FORNICATION, and marries another commits adultery

---

But Mark doesn't contain this concession. Nor does Luke (16:18).

quote:

---

...it is clear what Gods standard is as mentioned by jesus.

---

If it is so clear, why exactly do Mark and Luke both miss out the exception ? If it isn't clear to the Gospel authors, how can it be clear to you ?

quote:

---

I dont believe they missed the exception. T

---

So you are saying that someone else edited it out ? Because it isn't there. And why would both Mark and Luke have been edited in this way and not Matthew ?

quote:

---

The gospels are individual accounts and they don't all have to be completely identical to be accurate.

---

However, there is a contradiction here. So either Matthew is inaccurate in allowing the exception or both Mark and Luke are for not allowing it.

quote:

---

There is a "generic" , "religion".

---

I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about Protestant Christianity.

quote:

---

But there has to be a difference in motive, if someone wants to understand what they say, and admitt he doesn't fully know, and someone who wants to "use" scriptures to justify in-built prejudices.

---

I've seen plenty examples of the latter from "born-again" Christians. And many fundamentalists seem to hate Bible scholars, who should be an essential resource for anyone truly hoping to understand the Bible.What I don't see is any sort of answer to my point. Are you saying that the evidence I am seeing is a widespread example of Christians ignoring an inconvenient part of the Bible, while many among them go rather beyond what the Bible endorses when it comes ot homosexuality ? That a good many Christians could be described as "homophobic" ?

quote:

---

But - yes, it is very understandable why say, an atheist, might want to handwave it away as A L L completely false. My advice would be to understand the bible, after having a real-life encounter with the God of that bible, and then try and understand it.

---

I don't say that the Bible is "A L L completely false", no do I handwave away any of it (unlike fundamentalists here) - and I'm all for understanding it (unlike many fundamentalists here).

quote:

---

That's all I can say. even if I am technically wrong, the truth is all that matters to me.

---

I wish I could say that was true Mike. But sadly it isn't. You gave up on the truth, and that makes me sad.

quote:

---

It surprises me that you say that.

---

I'm afraid it's pretty obvious from your overall behaviour here.I don't want to get into a long argument over examples (because the mods don't like that) but this post is pretty telling Message 1

quote:

---

I admitted the church was biased, based on your reasoning, that they justify false marriage of straight folk, but no gay folk.

---

And I wasn't replying to the message where you said that. I was replying to the post where you made some vague comments with no clear connection to the post it was replying to (and you haven't bothered to answer my request for clarification) - and which contained some points which I consider to be quite definitely wrong.

quote:

---

But it's not as though I'm a person whom insists I am right

---

Sorry Mike, but from reading your posts I would say that you quite definitely ARE that sort of person. In fact I would say that you are the sort of person who demands that other people say that you are right - even when you happen to be wrong.

quote:

---

no im simply saying they didnt write it in just as they did not write other events that happened.

---

Except that it isn't a separate event. Nor is it an inconsequential detail. By leaving out any exceptions the authors of Mark and Luke implicitly deny the existence of any significant exceptions.

quote:

---

the gospel writers did not copy from each other, they wrote their own accounts and they did not all write the same details.

---

That's not true. Who copied who is not entirely clear, but most likely the authors of Luke and Matthew copied from Mark.