Was "Re: gay marriage"

[James]

Re: gay marriage

I do believe that people that do not want the term marriage being given to
gay persons is purely because of hate. I believe that if they search
themselves they will see this. Since the US. is not a particular "one"
religion country and should separate church from state (lest it become
extremist like some Muslim countries) I think if you take religion out of
it you will see that there is nothing more to this anti-marriage for gays
thing than hatred. It used to be illegal for blacks and whites to marry,
now we have that...it used to be illegal for women and black folks to be
able to vote..now again..we have that. Time for change. Canada has equal
marriage for all adult non-related people as do many European countries
and I feel that it is time for America to come out of the darkness to the
light of fairness and loving behaviour. This is what I wish. I am not gay
but have many gay friends and I see California stepping back as a
regression to the stone ages. Yes it is a vote by the majority but the
majority doesn't always do the right thing..remember the majority were
once for slavery too. Doesn't make it right.
Bren

Why do they insist on calling a gay union a marriage? All they really
want is the same legal status as a married husband/wife pair has in
things like joint tax filing, spouse inheritance rights, etc. If they
would petition for a legal union and call it something other than a
marriage I'm sure they would not meet with such relentless objections
from the non-gay people.
Marriage for one male, one female legal union.
CoBond for two males or two females in a homosexual legal union.

Hello,

Semantics will not still change God's view of the proper intimate
sexual union between two individuals. He has made it crystal clear. Ro
1:26,27,

"26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their
women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with
passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and
receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their
error." (RSV)

Notice some key words here: "dishonorable passions", "unnatural",
"shameless acts", "error". It doesn't get much plainer than that.

Thus genuine Christians go by God's word. They believe God's only
begotten Son Jesus, who said at oh 17:17,

"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." (NIV)



Sincerely, James

If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I do
not follow all conversations in ng threads


***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses Questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

[news]

Post by James
Hello,
Semantics will not still change God's view of the proper intimate
sexual union between two individuals. He has made it crystal clear. Ro
1:26,27,

B - this is the Bible..not God.
Some believe that God is against it because the Bible mentions things that
they interpret to fit them. God is not the Bible..to believe the Bible
over God is to court idolatry.

I.M.O
Bren

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by news
B - this is the Bible..not God.
Some believe that God is against it because the Bible mentions things tha=

t

Post by news
they interpret to fit them. God is not the Bible..to believe the Bible
over God is to court idolatry.

The Scriptures ARE the Word of God. He is not a division of parts nor
this way one day, that way the next. You don't accept the plain
revelation
given so you invent, concoct all these excuses, hiding you head in the
sand hoping that its condemnation and judgment will all just go away.

Well I'm sorry, dear, it is not. The Great Day of Judgment is coming
and men will be judged according to the Law and the Gospel and their
refusal to accept and obey each... so_that_they_are_without_excuse!
And in that great day you too will be included in "and every mouth
shall
be stopped!" unless you let go of your arrogant defiance and accept
what He has made plain. Do you think Noah's flood, Sodom & Gomorrah,
Korah's judgment, all these things and more are just myth? People
try to explain them away because they don't want to think that EVERY
thought, word and deep will be held up before God in a public trial
to be judged according to His revealed will.

So go ahead, hide your head in the sand. It will not change the
true reality that judgment IS coming at the Great Day of Wrath of
the Lamb who suddenly turns into the Lion of Judah.

You keep coming here, you keep on hearing all these many
warnings, you keep on refusing to believe, all the while
up for yourself greater wrath and retribution.

Your problem is is that you do not fear God! Is this not the
height of foolishness?

[Chico]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by news
B - this is the Bible..not God.
Some believe that God is against it because the Bible mentions things tha=

t

Post by news
they interpret to fit them. God is not the Bible..to believe the Bible
over God is to court idolatry.

The Scriptures ARE the Word of God. He is not a division of parts nor
this way one day, that way the next.

No, he doesn't. But it could mean that you were wrong yesterday, wrong
today, and wrong tomorrow.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You don't accept the plain
revelation
given so you invent, concoct all these excuses, hiding you head in the
sand hoping that its condemnation and judgment will all just go away.

Well, that's an easy way to discount someone else's journey to come to know
Jesus.

Many people do not read the bible literally. They read it contextually.

The Bible is not God.

[Jani]

Post by James
Semantics will not still change God's view of the proper intimate
sexual union between two individuals. He has made it crystal clear. Ro
1:26,27,
"26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their
women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with
passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and
receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their
error." (RSV)
Notice some key words here: "dishonorable passions", "unnatural",
"shameless acts", "error". It doesn't get much plainer than that.

I'm not sure how you're equating this with marriage laws - the people
described could have been married or unmarried, and the point is that their
own natural inclinations were changed, as punishment for other offences. And
I doubt if most Christians today would subscribe to 'God's laws' about
marriage which are based on the economic value of women.

Jani

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by Jani
I'm not sure how you're equating this with marriage laws - the people
described could have been married or unmarried, and the point is that the=

ir

Post by Jani
own natural inclinations were changed, as punishment for other offences. =

And

Post by Jani
I doubt if most Christians today would subscribe to 'God's laws' about
marriage which are based on the economic value of women.

Take a gander at 2 Pet 2 or Jude. It's pretty evident that
homosexuality is a rebellion against God and His established
dominions. Like the angels of Gen 6 : 1-4, Sodom and
Gomorrah transgressed God's design. "Strange flesh"
in Jude 8 is eteras sopkos, literally that which is different
from normal. Like in Rom 1, different not in sexuality
but in normacy. It is normal for a man and a woman
to be intimate but not for two men nor two women. In
fact, Paul teaches that moral decline can be measured
by *even* the women falling away into lesbianism.

There simply is no biblical support for the homo-
sexual life style.

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Let me be clear that I'm not one of those who thinks all the passages
about homosexuality are just misinterpretations. I think it's pretty
clear that Paul was opposed.

But Jude 7 (not 8) seems like an odd text. The context is a discussion
of the misbehavior of angels. That makes it look like the offense was
lusting after angels.

Similarly 2 Pet 2:10. The inhabitants of Sodom were guilty of depraved
lust whether you think homosexuality is wrong or not. The episode with
the visitors was the rape of guests, after all.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
But Jude 7 (not 8) seems like an odd text. The context is a discussion
of the misbehavior of angels.

The context is apostasy. It is the only book in the bible that
is 100% dedicated to apostasy. It is about those who come
up close to the truth but then fall away. . . and yet, don't leave
the assembly but remain therein. One cannot study Jude
without also studying 2 Pet 2:2, which, for my money, was
written prior to Jude. Peter used the future tense in 2:1
(though he switches to present tense in 2:10) when he
writes, "there will also be false teachers among you." Jude
on the other hand presents them as already in the
assembly and active opponents to the apostles, to their
authority, to the authorities that they have set up in the
local assemblies & to the law of the gospel. They are
antinomian. They are licentious in character.

Jude lists numerous characteristics of the apostate
by which the believer can discern who they are when
they reveal themselves.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
That makes it look like the offense was
lusting after angels.

Jude 6 does not refer to Gen 19 but Gen 6.
Jude 7 refers to Gen 19.

Also, the angels came in the form of men. Even
after being struck blind, their whole craving was
singular as the text notes when they continued to
seek entrance into Lot's home in order to rape
these angelic men. Their sin certainly wasn't
being inhospitable. 1 & 2 Enoch and Josephus
are to be read when seeking an understanding
of both these writer's cultural understanding.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Similarly 2 Pet 2:10. The inhabitants of Sodom were guilty of depraved
lust whether you think homosexuality is wrong or not. The episode with
the visitors was the rape of guests, after all.

But you have not addressed the word issue of
my original post. Jude's use of heteras sarkos.
Heteros is of course used in the word heterosexual.
Basically it means "different" or as Jude employes
it, "abnormal." He is referring to atypical sexual
relations, i.e. anything other than male/female.
"Gross immorality" is a hapax legomenon but
Peter's commentary is anything but unique in
2:1-3, 12-15 & 18. (cp 1 P 4:3) Peter makes it
quite clear that apostates are ruled by their
"lower" nature in insatiable appetites.

2 Pet 2:10 is very interesting when one takes
the time to translate it him/herself. The TDNT
really adds light to this verse. "Desires" spill
over into action. Lit.: desiring corruption or
desiring defilement. This is why they "despise
authority" because authority places a restraint
on their fulfillment of their desires.

I presently teaching a class on Jude, never
imagining that it would extract such a labor in
exegesis. Jude and Peter simply call their
readers to "remember" but for us there is a
great deal of research and indoctrination to
be sought after.

When considering the whole of scripture and
acknowledging that no scripture contradicts
another, especially in regards to basic doctrine
and moral expression, to deny scriptural con-
demnation of homosexuality is inexcusable
except for the purpose of "despising authority."

Do you have an answer for heteras sarkos?