PDA

View Full Version : Same-Sex Marriage - The Church Should not Support Them



A-Scholten
November 12th, 2015, 10:28 PM
. . . 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 themselves the due penalty for their error.


The verb here translated “gave up” is the main verb. It is an action verb. The word translated “were consumed” is a passive form. To be passive is to have something done to you or to be in a certain state etc.

According to Dr. Brownson’s understanding (Bible, Gender, Sexuality) the people referred to here in Rom. 1:27 acted in the extreme. The Emperor Caligula acted in the extreme. According to Brownson, this passage only refers to people who act in such a way as to be totally self-serving etc. It is those extreme actions and only those actions that are prohibited here. Therefore, for him, two men who promise to be faithful, monogamous for a lifetime are not what this passage prohibits.


However, since “were consumed” is a passive word, that cannot be the case. The correct meaning of verse 27 is that men did something and as a result they became something. They gave up normal relations and as a result they became consumed. They were in a state of being consumed, they did not act in a way that was consuming, extreme.

These facts are sufficient to rule out Dr. Brownson's interpretation. It is also evidence supporting the position that the Bible prohibits same-sex erotic behavior across the board.

Please comment with your thoughts and evaluation.

Thanks!

ok doser
November 13th, 2015, 07:06 AM
homosexuals should be executed

executed people can't get married

problem solved :idunno:

Quetzal
November 13th, 2015, 07:17 AM
Good news is, the church doesn't have to support them. Not much they can do about it.

bybee
November 13th, 2015, 07:35 AM
. . . 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 themselves the due penalty for their error.


The verb here translated “gave up” is the main verb. It is an action verb. The word translated “were consumed” is a passive form. To be passive is to have something done to you or to be in a certain state etc.

According to Dr. Brownson’s understanding (Bible, Gender, Sexuality) the people referred to here in Rom. 1:27 acted in the extreme. The Emperor Caligula acted in the extreme. According to Brownson, this passage only refers to people who act in such a way as to be totally self-serving etc. It is those extreme actions and only those actions that are prohibited here. Therefore, for him, two men who promise to be faithful, monogamous for a lifetime are not what this passage prohibits.


However, since “were consumed” is a passive word, that cannot be the case. The correct meaning of verse 27 is that men did something and as a result they became something. They gave up normal relations and as a result they became consumed. They were in a state of being consumed, they did not act in a way that was consuming, extreme.

These facts are sufficient to rule out Dr. Brownson's interpretation. It is also evidence supporting the position that the Bible prohibits same-sex erotic behavior across the board.

Please comment with your thoughts and evaluation.

Thanks!

If a Church is Bible based it cannot condone nor perform same sex marriage in good conscious.
Homosexuals may certainly create their own churches. And homosexuals are protected under the law and may enter into civil unions.

A-Scholten
November 13th, 2015, 07:51 AM
homosexuals should be executed

. . .

If homosexuals should be executed then we should all be executed. The sins of everyone of us have put Christ on the cross.

ok doser
November 13th, 2015, 07:53 AM
If homosexuals should be executed then we should all be executed. The sins of everyone of us have put Christ on the cross.

Do you believe that murderers should be executed?

Rapists?

Kidnappers?

Child molesters?

A-Scholten
November 13th, 2015, 07:53 AM
Good news is, the church doesn't have to support them. Not much they can do about it.

Hopefully in the US the churches will have their beliefs protected. If the government attempts to force churches to hire practicing homosexuals that would be a huge problem. If Obama had his way, the church would be forced.

Quetzal
November 13th, 2015, 08:21 AM
Hopefully in the US the churches will have their beliefs protected. If the government attempts to force churches to hire practicing homosexuals that would be a huge problem. If Obama had his way, the church would be forced.
So long as there is a legal benefit to "marriage", it should be open to homosexuals just as much as it should be open to heterosexuals. Sorry, that is just how this world works now.

bybee
November 13th, 2015, 08:25 AM
So long as there is a legal benefit to "marriage", it should be open to homosexuals just as much as it should be open to heterosexuals. Sorry, that is just how this world works now.

In terms of civil unions. Yes! Citizens are free under civil law to avail themselves of that which is legal.
But the Church is quite another matter. The State is prohibited from invading the domain of the Church by the Constitution.

Quetzal
November 13th, 2015, 08:31 AM
In terms of civil unions. Yes! Citizens are free under civil law to avail themselves of that which is legal.
But the Church is quite another matter. The State is prohibited from invading the domain of the Church by the Constitution.
If every state had civil unions, I would agree with you. But they don't. (http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/civil-unions-and-domestic-partnership-statutes.aspx)

Lon
November 13th, 2015, 08:35 AM
According to Dr. Bronson... It is those extreme actions and only those actions that are prohibited here. Therefore, for him, two men who promise to be faithful, monogamous for a lifetime are not what this passage prohibits.

Please comment with your thoughts and evaluation.

Thanks!

:nono:

You are correct, he's wrong:


Genesis 2:24

Leviticus 20:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Leviticus%2020.13), Romans 1:18-32

1 Corinthians 6:13-20
Joshua 24:15 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Joshua%2024.15)
2 Corinthians 6:16-18 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2%20Corinthians%206.16-18)


Not only that, only 1% of them have gotten married since laws allowed it.

You are right to disagree with him.

iouae
November 13th, 2015, 09:50 AM
Here is a list of capital crimes under the Old Covenant.
To be completely fair, I think we should enforce them all.

Sacrificing to gods other than YHWH[1][2]
Passing children through the fire to/as Moloch
Worshiping Baal Peor[4]
False prophecy[5][6][7]
Necromancy, according to the Masoretic Text; specifically those who are masters over ghosts (Hebrew: Ba'al ob) and those who gain information from the dead (Hebrew: Yidde'oni).[8]
witchcraft in general.[12]
Blasphemy[13]
Sabbath breaking[14][15][16]
Sexual practices[edit]
Rape by a man of a betrothed woman in the countryside[17]
Being either participant in consensual sexual activity, in which a betrothed woman consensually loses her virginity to a man[18]
Adultery with a married woman.[19]
Marrying one's wife's mother[20]
Certain forms of incest, namely if it involves the father's wife or a daughter-in-law.[21] Other forms of incest receive lesser punishment; sexual activity with a sister/stepsister is given excommunication for a punishment;[22] if it involves a brother's wife or an uncle's wife it is just cursed[23] and sexual activity with an aunt that is a blood relation is merely criticized.[24]
Male on male sexual intercourse. Certain sexual activities between males (Hebrew: zakhar) involving what the Masoretic Text literally terms lie lyings (of a) woman (Hebrew: tishkav mishkvei ishah),[25][26] and the Septuagint literally terms beds [verb] the woman's/wife's bed (Greek: koimethese koiten gynaikos);[27][28] the gender of the target of the command is commonly understood to be male, but not explicitly stated. The correct translation and interpretation of this passage, and its implications for Homosexuality in Judaism and Homosexuality in Christianity, are controversial. Translations into English are wide-ranging.[29][30]
Bestiality[31][32]
Prostitution by the daughter of a priest[33]

A-Scholten
November 13th, 2015, 10:59 AM
If a Church is Bible based it cannot condone nor perform same sex marriage in good conscious.
Homosexuals may certainly create their own churches. And homosexuals are protected under the law and may enter into civil unions.

The church really needs to be able to give a good, clear answer on this topic. I am hearing more and more, from people who as far as all indications go are good solid Christians that they are beginning to think that perhaps it is OK and the church should accept, monogamous "marriages." The Devil will make in roads anywhere he can.

A-Scholten
November 13th, 2015, 11:01 AM
Do you believe that murderers should be executed?

Rapists?

Kidnappers?

Child molesters?

That is my point, I don't believe any of them should be executed. Unlike Israel, the US is not a theocracy. I do not believe that the penalty of death for homosexual actions of the OT should be enforced today.

Jose Fly
November 13th, 2015, 11:20 AM
Hopefully in the US the churches will have their beliefs protected.

Of course they will. There are churches right now that are outrageously racist, and they're allowed to believe whatever they like. It's no different for churches that are anti-gay.


If the government attempts to force churches to hire practicing homosexuals that would be a huge problem.

Religious institutions are generally exempt from anti-discrimination laws (http://www.civilrights.org/lgbt/enda/religious-exemption.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/).

genuineoriginal
November 13th, 2015, 11:27 AM
Hopefully in the US the churches will have their beliefs protected.
If my studies on End Time Prophecy is correct, the Empire of the United States of America is the beast of Revelation who will persecute the saints and overcome them.

The issue with homosexuality is merely the beginning of the criminalization of Christianity.

A-Scholten
November 13th, 2015, 12:27 PM
So long as there is a legal benefit to "marriage", it should be open to homosexuals just as much as it should be open to heterosexuals. Sorry, that is just how this world works now.

I agree essentially that our world operates that way now. My hope is that our government will allow us freedom of conscious and will not try to force Christians to i.e. accept practicing homosexuals as members in our churches. I believe we should accept non-practicing homosexuals.

flintstoned
November 15th, 2015, 11:47 AM
If a Church is Bible based it cannot condone nor perform same sex marriage in good conscious.
Homosexuals may certainly create their own churches. And homosexuals are protected under the law and may enter into civil unions.

Likewise, churches should not condone or perform second marriages for heterosexuals (with few exceptions).

A-Scholten
November 21st, 2015, 06:29 PM
However, since “were consumed” is a passive word, that cannot be the case. The correct meaning of verse 27 is that men did something and as a result they became something. They gave up normal relations and as a result they became consumed. They were in a state of being consumed, they did not act in a way that was consuming, extreme.



There have been a number of good comments and thoughts. I would be very interested in testing the understanding quoted above. Is it the correct understanding or is it somehow flawed? Does it rule out the interpretation some give that Rom. 1:27 only rules out those who commit these acts in extreme ways?

Once this has been tested by others the plan is to present it to the church Dr. Brownson belongs to for them to consider.

Thank you very much.

Rusha
November 21st, 2015, 06:59 PM
Likewise, churches should not condone or perform second marriages for heterosexuals (with few exceptions).

Well, not if they wish to be consistent.

jamie
November 21st, 2015, 09:18 PM
Does it rule out the interpretation some give that Rom. 1:27 only rules out those who commit these acts in extreme ways?


Fornication has been ruled out regardless of the sex of the persons involved.

A-Scholten
November 22nd, 2015, 07:53 AM
Fornication has been ruled out regardless of the sex of the persons involved.

The approach Dr. Brownson, and some others are taking is that monogamous, same-sex marriage should be accepted by the church. Therefore they would not see this as fornication.

jamie
November 22nd, 2015, 08:28 AM
The approach Dr. Brownson, and some others are taking is that monogamous, same-sex marriage should be accepted by the church. Therefore they would not see this as fornication.


Jesus said what God has joined together let not man put asunder.

There is nothing in the Bible to suggest God ever joined two people of the same sex together. From the very beginning of human existence it has been man and woman who God joins together.

A-Scholten
November 22nd, 2015, 09:59 AM
I agree absolutely.

Tambora
October 23rd, 2017, 01:46 PM
The issue with homosexuality is merely the beginning of the criminalization of Christianity.That's a good way to put it.

It's akin to a slap in the face of GOD ------- "We can come up with better standards of practical living that are nicer than you, GOD".

Tambora
October 23rd, 2017, 02:25 PM
Ask yourself the same question the serpent asked Eve ----- "Did GOD really say ....?"