When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.

[Brian Stoffregen]

But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a "family-like" unit of society? Take the "m" word out.

But if it's just a "legal contract" (as you and Brian have argued) then why stop with two people? Why not a "civil commitment" among three or more? Why not "honor and respect" a multiple partner arrangement? Polyamorous parties are already arguing under Obergefell that their marriages should be recognized. So far, courts have resisted this. But frankly, under the Kennedy's reasoning, there is no reason not to recognize them.

Brian has stated that "nowhere in the Bible does it say that a marriage is between one man and one woman." If that is the case, then marriage is simply a social construct and ultimately meaningless.

You can't have it both ways. Either Scripture has a definition of marriage which is between one man and one woman for life or it is simply a human construct, e.g. a legal contract. If it's the latter, then marriage has no meaning and there is no reason to limit it in any way.

The Bible never defines marriage between one man and one woman. Repeatedly, it gives us examples of men having more than one wife (actually, the Bible does not have a separate word for "wife." Usually, it uses the word for "woman" with a possessive noun/pronoun: "his woman" = his wife. A man's relationship with women: whether defined as "wife," "slave," or "concubine," was that of possessing (owning) them in some way. All were "human constructs," e.g., socially accepted and respected and protected relationships.


Should another man have sex with someone's wives, slaves, or concubines; it was committing adultery; e.g., a crime against the man who "possessed" those women.


Repeatedly the NT talks of being single. Not only do we have Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians; there is also Jesus' comment that in the resurrection there will be no marriages. At least traditionally, we also have the example of Jesus (and the apostles?) that being single freed them to carry on their itinerate missionary activities without being encumbered by a family.


God's command "to be fruitful and multiply" was not practiced by Jesus, nor, as far as I understand the tradition, by the apostles. We don't have genealogies of the twelve apostles like we do with the twelve sons of Jacob.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Can we "honor" the social contracts of the secular world, and would that not include a marriage contract or at least a contact of something between two people?

We live in a pluralistic society. That means that in many aspects of life, we do not share a commonality of beliefs. But despite our disagreements over many aspects of life, we as a society need to craft ways for us to live together in our society without unduly burdening those whose beliefs differ from ours and showing at least a modicum of respect for them. In the history of our country, that has been very difficult to do and far too often that ideal has not been lived up to.

Same sex marriage is legal in the United States. While many believe that to have been a good idea and same sex marriage to be moral and right, many others believe that to be immoral and contrary to God's will. In a pluralistic society like ours, both points of view need to be respected and ways devised for people holding either belief to function in society without having their beliefs unduly burdened.

The proposed equality act seems to have abandoned that pluralistic ideal in favor of proposing that the position in favor of same sex relationships, transgenderism, and abortion be clearly the preferred position and providing that those whose beliefs dissent from those positions be burdened without recourse.

Now I can understand that those whose beliefs are not affected by the new regulations see no problem with them. They are religious and their religion is unaffected. If your religious beliefs are affected, perhaps you need to find new beliefs that will unproblematic? Easy peasy.

So yes, those of us who believe that same sex sexual relationships are contrary to God's will and immoral need to recognize that in our society such relationships are accepted and granted legal status. But we can also request that our differing beliefs be also respected and not unduly burdened simply because burdening them would be pleasing to some and easier.

How have your religious beliefs been unduly burdened? I doubt that you've been forced to officiate at a same-sex wedding; or that your church building has been forced to be a venue for such a wedding; or that the congregation has been forced to take in same-sex couples/families as members.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Our current secular culture fell into the trap of redefining marriage:  It says that marriage
is a relationship between two people who love each other.   Of course this opened the door
for homosexual marriage to fit that definition.  However, God instituted marriage as the
committed relationship between one man and one woman.   

There is only one type of marriage in God's sight.  The marriage of one man and one woman.
They are able to enjoy the companionship of the opposite sex, the opportunity to create
children, and a permanent relationship that reinforces the need to avoid the temptation
to sexual immorality.

Actually, the Bible talks about the marriage between Christ as the bridegroom and the church as the bride. The OT talks about the relationship between Israel and God as being like a marriage; turning to idols was "committing adultery" against God.


Jesus' words about marriage can be grouped in these categories:


marriage after divorce - Mt 5:32; 19:9; Mk 10:11, 12; Lu 16:18
no marriage in resurrection - Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25; Lu 20:34, 35
marriages in Noah's day - Mt 24:38; Mk 12:25; Lu 17:27
Herod's (unlawful) marriage - Mk 6:17
an excuse not to come to a feast - Lu 14:20

[RDPreus]

The Bible clearly defines marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.  If we read Genesis 1 & 2 as an historical account of the first man and the first women and we take to heart what the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 19 it is quite clear.  Jesus refers to what God has joined together in Matthew 19:6.  Marriage is God joining a man and a woman together.  With respect to same sex "marriage" we cannot say that God has joined them together.  Regardless of what the civil authorities say, same sex "marriage" is not marriage and no Christian should say that it is. 

[Dan Fienen]

How have your religious beliefs been unduly burdened? I doubt that you've been forced to officiate at a same-sex wedding; or that your church building has been forced to be a venue for such a wedding; or that the congregation has been forced to take in same-sex couples/families as members.

I could mention a certain baker of whom it was demanded that he use his artistic skills to create a work expressive of something contrary to his beliefs, similarly other creative professionals. I could mention Christian based social service agencies whose contracts to provide those services were cancelled simply because they refused to operate their agency in ways that violated their stated beliefs.


Personally, I have not been burdened, but I have seen those with similar beliefs be burdened or have to defend themselves against such burdens. Or are we to be concerned about such things only when they directly affect us personally. Have you ever had your choice to obtain a abortion to rid yourself of the child that you were carrying unduly burdened? If not, then should you not be concerned if free exercise of that choice is denied others?


But this discussion is not just about what has occurred. We are also concerned here with what is being proposed the Equality Act. That has not yet become law, but some of the proposals, such as specifically exempting its provisions from the purview of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I find troubling. Do you suggest that I not concern myself until in fact I myself run afoul of the provisions of this Equality Act? Would that not be a little late to be concerned about this proposed law?

[Brian Stoffregen]

The Bible clearly defines marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.  If we read Genesis 1 & 2 as an historical account of the first man and the first women and we take to heart what the Lord Jesus says in Matthew 19 it is quite clear.  Jesus refers to what God has joined together in Matthew 19:6.  Marriage is God joining a man and a woman together.  With respect to same sex "marriage" we cannot say that God has joined them together.  Regardless of what the civil authorities say, same sex "marriage" is not marriage and no Christian should say that it is.

No where does Genesis 1 & 2 limit God to joining the man to one woman. The ancient Jews, for whom this was sacred scriptures, never interpreted it that way. Men were being joined to many women as wives, slaves, and concubines. Their children were often blessed by God.

[Brian Stoffregen]

How have your religious beliefs been unduly burdened? I doubt that you've been forced to officiate at a same-sex wedding; or that your church building has been forced to be a venue for such a wedding; or that the congregation has been forced to take in same-sex couples/families as members.

I could mention a certain baker of whom it was demanded that he use his artistic skills to create a work expressive of something contrary to his beliefs, similarly other creative professionals. I could mention Christian based social service agencies whose contracts to provide those services were cancelled simply because they refused to operate their agency in ways that violated their stated beliefs.


Personally, I have not been burdened, but I have seen those with similar beliefs be burdened or have to defend themselves against such burdens. Or are we to be concerned about such things only when they directly affect us personally. Have you ever had your choice to obtain a abortion to rid yourself of the child that you were carrying unduly burdened? If not, then should you not be concerned if free exercise of that choice is denied others?


But this discussion is not just about what has occurred. We are also concerned here with what is being proposed the Equality Act. That has not yet become law, but some of the proposals, such as specifically exempting its provisions from the purview of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I find troubling. Do you suggest that I not concern myself until in fact I myself run afoul of the provisions of this Equality Act? Would that not be a little late to be concerned about this proposed law?

The church does not rule society. The issues you brought up are about businesses, which are governed by the rules of society. As a pastor, I'm am under the rules of my church body. If I were in business, as my father was and my wife was, I would be under the rules that govern the business. My wife had to get a tax ID number. She had to file monthly tax reports - and send in the sales tax she owed the state.


If one's faith doesn't allow them to conduct business according to the rules of society, then they need to rethink their desire to be in that business.

[Steven W Bohler]

But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a "family-like" unit of society? Take the "m" word out.

No.

What happened to "love your enemies?"

First of all, I do not consider those who engage in homosexual relations to be my "enemy".  Secondly, you would define love as encouraging others to sin?  Or at least "respecting and honoring" their decision to sin?  Interesting.  Not Biblical or Christian, however.

[George Rahn]

Marriage is a social estate, created and preserved by God.  It is between one man and one woman exclusively.  Jesus reaffirms this in Mark 10:6-9.  After the fall and exile from the Garden humans have altered and formed their own constructs in defiance to God's original design.  It is the nature of sinners to do this.  Even divorce is against God's design as it only came about through a command from Moses (and not God).  There may be marriages created by human societal orders (ie. USSC) which make it a societal norm for same-sex marriages.  But this too is against God's design.

[Dan Fienen]

How have your religious beliefs been unduly burdened? I doubt that you've been forced to officiate at a same-sex wedding; or that your church building has been forced to be a venue for such a wedding; or that the congregation has been forced to take in same-sex couples/families as members.

I could mention a certain baker of whom it was demanded that he use his artistic skills to create a work expressive of something contrary to his beliefs, similarly other creative professionals. I could mention Christian based social service agencies whose contracts to provide those services were cancelled simply because they refused to operate their agency in ways that violated their stated beliefs.


Personally, I have not been burdened, but I have seen those with similar beliefs be burdened or have to defend themselves against such burdens. Or are we to be concerned about such things only when they directly affect us personally. Have you ever had your choice to obtain a abortion to rid yourself of the child that you were carrying unduly burdened? If not, then should you not be concerned if free exercise of that choice is denied others?


But this discussion is not just about what has occurred. We are also concerned here with what is being proposed the Equality Act. That has not yet become law, but some of the proposals, such as specifically exempting its provisions from the purview of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, I find troubling. Do you suggest that I not concern myself until in fact I myself run afoul of the provisions of this Equality Act? Would that not be a little late to be concerned about this proposed law?

The church does not rule society. The issues you brought up are about businesses, which are governed by the rules of society. As a pastor, I'm am under the rules of my church body. If I were in business, as my father was and my wife was, I would be under the rules that govern the business. My wife had to get a tax ID number. She had to file monthly tax reports - and send in the sales tax she owed the state.


If one's faith doesn't allow them to conduct business according to the rules of society, then they need to rethink their desire to be in that business.

I have never said that church should rule society. Do the First Amendment Rights for freedom of religion only apply to organized churches? Do you maintain that my religious beliefs should only apply to my conduct in church and that when I am in society my religious beliefs should be set aside and have no influence on how I behave or conduct my business?


In her business dealings, conducted according to applicable laws, does your wife still believe that should should conduct herself as a Christian, as she understands what acting as a Christian to mean? Or does she leave her faith behind when she enters her business?


What is the scope of the freedoms recognized in the First Amendment? Do they only apply when we are doing specifically religious things like worshipping. Is religion under the Constitution to be eliminated from the rest of our lives as American Citizens?

[Weedon]

My $.02. This is not worth discussing with those who fall under 2 Thes. 2:11,12.

[Brian Stoffregen]

But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a "family-like" unit of society? Take the "m" word out.

No.

What happened to "love your enemies?"

First of all, I do not consider those who engage in homosexual relations to be my "enemy".  Secondly, you would define love as encouraging others to sin?  Or at least "respecting and honoring" their decision to sin?  Interesting.  Not Biblical or Christian, however.

Falling in love with someone of the same sex and wanting to spend the rest of one's life with them because there's something in the brain that leads one to be more attracted to them than others is a sin?


I can't recall that I've ever encouraged anyone to have sex.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Marriage is a social estate, created and preserved by God.  It is between one man and one woman exclusively.  Jesus reaffirms this in Mark 10:6-9.  After the fall and exile from the Garden humans have altered and formed their own constructs in defiance to God's original design.  It is the nature of sinners to do this.  Even divorce is against God's design as it only came about through a command from Moses (and not God).  There may be marriages created by human societal orders (ie. USSC) which make it a societal norm for same-sex marriages.  But this too is against God's design.

I'll remind you again, that the Old Testament does not have a word for "marriage." Rather, the Hebrew uses possession terms; usually, "to take a woman" to describe the transference from father to husband. The only word for husbands (besides "man") is ba`al, which means "to rule over" or "to own/possess". Thus, whatever relationship the first humans had in the garden, and the humans afterwards, was not seen in the same way that we view "marriage." The only words they used to describe the relationship was those related to property ownership.

[peter_speckhard]

But can you respect and honor a civil commitment between two people, that agreement forming a family (or if you prefer) a "family-like" unit of society? Take the "m" word out.

No.

What happened to "love your enemies?"

First of all, I do not consider those who engage in homosexual relations to be my "enemy".  Secondly, you would define love as encouraging others to sin?  Or at least "respecting and honoring" their decision to sin?  Interesting.  Not Biblical or Christian, however.

Falling in love with someone of the same sex and wanting to spend the rest of one's life with them because there's something in the brain that leads one to be more attracted to them than others is a sin?


I can't recall that I've ever encouraged anyone to have sex.

Yes, if you take the sex out of homosexuality and all the erotic reasons one knows whether one is attracted to people of the same sec or opposite sex, there is nothing objectionable at all about two people loving each other and living together. There is also no reason for the state to recognize it or for the people involved to monogamous or faithful. When it comes to sexless love, the more the merrier.

[Steven W Bohler]

My $.02. This is not worth discussing with those who fall under 2 Thes. 2:11,12.

'

I think Rev. Weedon may be right.  Sadly.