Condemn gay marriage, or just gay rape?

If there were changes in Patterns it was by Gods hand, not yours, there is no WE, unless you can demonstrate, like Paul and Moses, Christ and Peter, that you have such authorityIronically there were others that made the same claim in Pauls day,that they were speaking for God.Paul remindedthemhowevr, that "I came not by word only, but by power and demonstrations of the Holy Spirit""The signs of an Apostle were wrought amoung you"This was there pattern, what is yours, since you love to add to what is written This question is the same as that put to Christ. "Whos inscription is on it, they said Ceaser. Then render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers and to God what is Gods."The government will do as they see fit, for thier own reasonsEqual rights is certainly taught in the scriptures and no one here is suggesting we treat Homosexuals any different with regard to thier rightsBut now watch. This has nothing to do with what I or Jaywill may feel of it in a spiritual senseAnd as citizens we are also entitiled our rights at freedom of thought and speechIts as if you fellas want to take away our right to believe as we wish, yet maintain all the time your right to believe that such actions are perfectly acceptableIs it alright for me to believe and teach that it is spiritually wrong, if it is alright for you to believe that is ok?If the state decides, not God or me, that it must be put to the vote, do I not have a right to vote in my view, as do you?Even if it comes to the point that it does not need to be put to the vote this will havenothing to dowith the fact, that it is still not authorized by God, atleast according to the scripturesOn e needs to use thier imagination, gross misaprehension, gross assumption and faulty logic to get to that pointDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

His point is that you cannot join together what God has not joined. To demonstrate that you are correct in your assumption, you would need to provide an example of a pattern as you suggest, you would need to provide an indication that such is acceptable, you would need to provide proof that you can add to the original pattern.He did not say, For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cling tohis commited partner. Commitment is understood in the context of a God given marraige, Such as Adam and EveCan you provide me with anything aside from your assumption that you can add to what God has stated? You cant even get passed this simple point to begin to justify your assertions on Gay marraigeSince you have nothing, it would add up to nothing. Five thousand zeros (or assumptions)by themself, still add up to zeroDawn Bertot

Youve ignored everything I said and went on a emotional rant, very verbose i might add, nice verbageH, one does not have a moral platform to stand on when thier actions are the same, as the one they condemn and when humans are the only so-called standard. It all becomes subjective. There is no way around the force of that logicYour reason is controlled by emotions and attachment to the human race, because you are human. You cant see past your humanexistence, to see the subjective nonsense of condenming God, when you actions are exacally the same.The actual argument, as you call it, is irresistible in its conclusionDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Try to keep up. I'm not trying to add to any pattern. I've said repeatedly that there is no pattern as you imagine it. You haven't provided any evidence that there is. None of the prominent marriages that I mentioned from the Old Testament fit your so-called pattern. Then why is Adam and Eve the only example you can cite? One example does not constitute a pattern, yet you studiously avoid providing any others.Show us the pattern.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Sure they fit my pattern, because they involve, male and female. Can you provide one that doesnt. You see that is your problem, here is whyNow pay close attention. What God joins together has to conform to the only pattern he used, to constitue a valid union. Otherwise the statement and the union make no senseEven if this is the only illustration or pattern, you would need to show justification as to why it can be added to .I am not imagining what God did, God demonstrated and provided as a patternIf I am imagining a pattern, then it would follow logically, that this, as it is given by God is not valid as ANYTHING, if it is not atleast a patternIt would follow that God actually joins nothing together, because there is nothing there.So, is what God decreed in Gen 2 A PATTERN OF SOME SORT.? If it is not then it follows that is valid as nothing. about anythingWhen you try and remove even this in Gen 2, as some type of pattern and say it is no pattern at all, then nothing will be acceptable, not even the illustration God gave as an exampleTry and stay upwith the logic Ringo Your kidding right? Do you mean there are noother examples of male and female marraige in the bible. There are, no other patterns, besides male and femaleStay with me now on the logic, Ringo. If Gen 2 is not a pattern, then it would follow that Gay marraiges are not a pattern as well, therefore they are null and void as acceptable, because even the only illustration is not an example of a pattern according to you.You just argued gay marraige and anyother right out of existenceStrange logic my friendDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

I provided two: David and Jonathan, Naomi and Ruth. You haven't shown where the bible says that their relationships were less valid than the male-and-female relationships that lacked commitment. God didn't decree any pattern in Genesis 2. There were only two people in Genesis 2. There was only one possible combination. The reason that Adam and Eve were created male and female was for procreation. Nobody said that gay marriage is a pattern. Forget about patterns.I don't know why it's so hard for you to undertand. The requirement for marriage in the Bible is commitment and fidelity. That's the only thing that God explicitily commanded so it stands to reason that a committed same-sex marriage is more valid than an adulterous opposite-sex marriage.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

That is not what the Bible says and it is also just another misrepresentation of what I have said.The changes in patterns were made by society and by the authors of the different stories as I have pointed out AND provided the passages IN context so that the audience could see just who was telling the truth.And yes, GOD gave me, and you, the responsibility and the capability. I even posted that passage and examples of people challenging and correcting God when his actions were to be immoral.Further, I have not only never said that I speak for God, I have said that none of us can speak for God. God is perfectly capable of speaking for Herself. Once again, that is nothing but whining and misrepresentation. Classic Biblical Christian Cult of Ignorance behavior.Do not try to claim that "Its as if you fellas want to take away our right to believe as we wish, yet maintain all the time your right to believe that such actions are perfectly acceptable".That is simply false. Go back through the thread and see how many times I have said that if YOU believe homosexuality is wrong then don't participate in homosexual activities; that if YOUR chapter of Club Christian thinks same sex marriage is wrong, then don't perform same sex marriages.The rest of the wold is perfectly capable of actually reading the Bible and my experience has been that in particular, Atheists and Agnostics quite often read it in context while Biblical Christians only read quote mines and proof texts.You are certainly entitled to YOUR interpretation of the Bible, and to even preach YOUR interpretation of the Bible. Just do not presume to speak for either Christianity or for GOD.And no, civil rights are not something that should be subject to a vote. Equal Protection under the law is affirmed as a basic human right and also under the Constitution. You do not have a right to vote on this issue.And the question remains: Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I discussed the part of the OP questioning "What the Bible truly says".As of yet I have no comment on the other portion. Others can submit their ideas. I am not obligated to cover all aspects of the OP.My burden was to talk about God's view of marriage. You can "Club Christian" all you like.Maybe, I will address the additional portion of the OP. But it will be based upon what I wrote before. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And the question remains:

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

For the same reason God created Satan. He needed somebody to bury dinosaur bones in order to test people's faith in God.

---

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

You're just endlessly shifting the goal post around to insure your demand will never be met.The pattern is established in Genesis two. It is reiterated by Christ in Mark and Matthew. And it is again reiterated by the Apostle Paul in the book of Ephesians chapter five.I think you support the unity of the Bible when it confirms your modernistic concepts. You support the disunity of the Bible when it does not.Oh, in Paul's quaification for the eldership of the church, he states the elder should be the husband of one wife. Can you point out anywhere in Scripture a male "wife" ?I cannot. Now the thing you should realize that when Paul speaks of the qualifications of eldership he is really not talking about anything above the standard. He is talking about simply coming up to the standard of normal healthy ethical humanity.Paul is sayin, in his list of qualifications for eldership, the brother should be very NORMAL and not below the acceptable moral standard.If you could site that Paul allowed room for the elder being the husband of one WIFE or other MALE husband, or MALE "wife", then I would question my interpretation.Then maybe NT is giving some ground to same sex marriage. As it stands I see no room for it.Outside, the Christian church, man's society has all the Godless experiments it likes. "If anyone is unreprovable, the husband of one wife, having believing children not accused of dissolution or unruly. For the overseer must be unreprovable as a steward of God ..." (Titus 1:6,7a)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

How is it shifting the goalposts if I ask a question and you don't answer it? I've asked you to show that there is a pattern decreed by God. All you keep doing is mindlessly chant, "There is a pattern.... There is a pattern.... There is a pattern...."I've shown that some of the most prominent marriages in the Bible have a "pattern" of adultery, ownership of women, theft, murder, putting procreation first, etc. I'm asking how you can justify that as a God-given pattern. I'm asking you why God would consider those marriages valid but committed, faithful same-sex marriages invalid. I'm asking why He commanded fidelity but said not one word against committed, faithful marriages of any kind.The goal posts haven't moved. You're just running away from them instead of toward them. No. I never support the unity of the Bible. That would be like supporting the unity of the Balkans. And he's contradicting himself:

quote:

---

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

---

At some point, Paul understood that male/female differences have no significance. He had some lapses but deep down he seems to have understood. Your idea of marriage, on the other hand, seems to be all lapse.Edited by ringo, : Changed "and" --> "but".

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

That's a better answer than I'm likely to get from Dawn, who apparently has no answer at all.I don't often dip into the Bible threads for two reasons: one, because it's like punching cotton candy--the other side has tied that poor book up with sticky threads that weave through it like fungal filaments. It isn't allowed to mean what it clearly means unless it agrees with what they already believe. Their arguments groan with the weight of the apparatus they require.Second, the other side somehow believes that a text produced by mortal men can somehow more clearly reveal the word of God than the world he created without any human intermediaries--a sexy world bursting with love in all its splendidly messy forms.Odd, that.I suspect that most literalists take God to be male, making women some castrated, hollowed-out, mutilated form of the masculine.

quote:

---

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

---

I always took this to mean that God created people in his spiritual and intellectual likeness, not that God was male, with a penis, or female, with a vagina, or hermaphroditic with both--though a goddess makes more creative sense, and that last option has a certain egalitarian appeal. I've always wondered if the virgin birth wasn't a lingering remnant of an older, matriarchal deity. We can find female creatures who give birth without help from males, but males alone cannot.If I did believe in God, I would find it the height of absurdity to believe that he cares what two of his spiritual likenesses do with their stuff. After all, what could he do with his, if he had it, that isn't banned by the Bible? The real Book of any Creator would be the unmediated Book of the World, and that is the Book of Love, and there are no chapters on the filth and shame of different flavors, just the celebration of love and respect.Or, in the words of the Mighty Moose, something like that.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Your deliberate lies will not assist your wrangling for something you know is not true. Does it say of these FRIENDS ,that David knew Jonathan, that Jonathan knew his wife David, etcYour attempts here are nothing short short of silliness.The Bible lets us know David fornicated with Bathsheeba, where does it say he fornicated with Jonathan? Please stop Ringo your reasoning is nothing short of comical God could have created any pattern he wished. It is silliness to insist that he picked from something or that he was limited in his choicesThen my logic is correct in stating that if it is not a pattern and one illustration is given in the form of Adam and Eve and this is not a pattern , it doesnt take a genius to figure out that a patTern NOT EVEN HINTED AT in Gen 2 or anywhere else, will not suffice AT ALL, to illustrate anything But Ringo, this is exacally what is needed to work in Gay Marraige, for someone or anyone to FORGET ABOUT GODS PATTERN. Im sure you would like for me to forget about it,, you did along time ago And I dont know why it is so hard for you to understand that adultry is something that happens after someone IS MARRIED. Therefore, it follows that SOMETHING ELSE must happen, to BECOME marriedCommitment wont work either. Two people living together can be commited but not married, but they cant commit adulty with or on eachother, because they are not married, regardless if they are committed to eachotherTherefore the logical conclusion is that God joins using the only pattern he gave. If its not a pattern, then there is not a pattern for anything, authorizing anythingI dont know how to make it any simplerDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

The Bible isn't explicit about a lot of people's sex lives. It's foolish to assume that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence. Heterosexual porn usually has a wider audience than homosexual porn. Couple that with the general in-the-closet nature of homosexuality at the time the Bible was written and it isn't the least bit unusaul not to find explicit mention of committed homosexual relationships. It's foolish to assume that there weren't any. Your logic is as confused and incoherent as your English. A commitment is made, a contract is signed as it were, to become married. Adultery breaks the contract. We've been through that before. A common law relationship most certainly is recognized as a marriage. You've presented no evidence that the situation was any different in the Bible. Bingo. Exactly. God didn't give us free will so that He could micro-manage our lives. The authority is our own and the responsibility is our own.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi