Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[Stan]

Well no it's not. But of course that's the way all the supernatural things behave apparently.
Still the one you've got is a really nasty piece if work, I'm glad I didn't knock it's tree over.

Well at least those that are in your imagination. No one has ever found God's tree's, but one will return in the NEW earth.

[Stan]

I'm curious just how far in the sand you are able to stick your head.

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/d ... sexuality/
Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought.

Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide.

In addition, male giraffes have also been observed engaging in homosexual behavior by rubbing their necks against each others’ bodies while ignoring the females. Yet another example is lizards of the genus Teiidae, which can copulate with both male and female mates.

Thus, not only do animals exhibit homosexuality, but the existence of this behavior is quite prevalent and may also confer certain evolutionary advantages.

Remember readers, there is no homosexuality in nature. Stan, said so.

and as usual people of your ilk ignore or gloss over words like MAY, APPARENT, SEEM, etc....

Women holding hands are NOT engaging in homosexual activities, not more than rabbits huddling or male giraffes playing. Muslim men often walk arm in arm, THAT does not make them gay. Many men kiss one another on their cheek in certain cultures, and THAT does not make them gay. You talk about using common sense, and use NONE in advocating the veracity of these type of articles.

Your head must be buried all the way up to your butt, to not see how invalid these articles are.

Homosexual behavior is the sex act, hence the word homoSEXUAL. I suggest you have another coffee or three!

[99percentatheism]

Well, you are right ...rocket science was certainly not what the ancients taught. Below are just a few of the bizarre and barbaric texts that our good buddy, Stan, claims were never tossed out.
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21
He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. -- Exodus 21:15
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17
Children who mock their parents will have their eyes plucked out by ravens and eaten by eagles. The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. -- Proverbs 30:17

Where did you find these? In the Bible correct? Obviously then they were never tossed out. They are NOT a figment of your imagination KCKID. They are still a part of the OT.

As said, the above are just a few of many such crazy 'commands of God' that Stan claims were NEVER tossed out. Stan would rather make this ludicrous claim and look rather silly to (I hope) most of us than to reject the two 'commands' in Leviticus relating to man lying with man. You see, one can't simply toss out those passages that one doesn't like but keep the others that appear to support one's agenda. This is what Stan and others ARE doing ...!

Like I said, you don't KNOW the Bible, but you do know how to find stuff IN the Bible. Have you ever heard the old saying "You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"?
The NT interprets what is valid and what is NOT in the OT. IF you know the Bible you would know that.

Do you ever question what you read, Stan? Or, as long as it appears in the Bible (a book collated by men) do you forego critical thinking and just gullibly accept all? I have no idea if Paul had a vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus; nor do you. Perhaps he did but you claim above that this story is 100% genuine simply because you read the passage. Furthermore, you expect everyone else to accept it simply because you do.

Why are you on this particular forum? You have NO faith and NO belief? The purpose of this sight as described by OTSENG, is: to engage in civil debates on anything pertaining to Christianity and religious issues between people of different persuasions. Apparently you don't get it that your views mean VERY little here for people of faith.
I believe and have faith in the Bible, apparently you have no need and any other of your senses than sight. Your lack of any kind of spiritual perception is not unique, but also not representative of most on this site. So much for your desire to discuss actual Biblical issues. You just want to denigrate people of faith.

Yet again, Stan, you say that without your knowing me personally or without knowing the extent of my theological knowledge. You're a 'print reader' or, more likely, someone that has been brainwashed by your minister without ever considering the context of the scripture or the culture of the author. You DO realize, do you not, that the Bible wasn't written this century? You don't seem to realize that it's an ancient book full of strange stories and ancient taboos that are not relative to anyone else but to whom they were written. I relate to Jesus simply because I relate to Jesus. The concept of 'doing these things for the least of my brethren', i.e. caring for the poor and the sick, the unloved, the unlovely, the persecuted, those in prison, etc. rather appeals to the decency within me. What you and yours spend your time doing is the exact opposite. I HATE your brand of Christianity because it's a sham perpetrated by self righteous bigots and blowhard narcissists.

You don't have ANY theological knowledge. You have a very limited amount of Biblical knowledge that gives you enough so-called understanding to make you seem knowledgeable but when it comes down to brass tacks you are nothing more than "a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." 1 Cor 13:1 if you care to look that up.
The Bible is as relative today as people choose to make it, and no more irrelevant that people made it 2000 or more years ago. God is timeless, and so is His Word.
The only SHAM I see is you saying you want to actually discuss anything. That you believe you have ANY decency in you when your deny God and his word just shows the blindness of you and your ilk to who and what God is all about. I have nothing more to say to you kiddo. You have been properly instructed.

It's fascinating that you would be criticized for being un-humble, but the very people that accuse you seem to be using a very haughty secular judgmentalism.

The Bible has absolutes that appear to inflict quite the cognitive dissonance in the worldy.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 967 by Stan]

When did I make excuses for others or say that I didn't believe in moral absolutes?

Your job is to follow your posts, I have enough on my plate to follow mine.
Please stop all this prevarication and either ask pointed questions or make pointed statements. All your equivocation is rather tiresome.

This coming from you? bwuahahaha

How about we discuss this choice you made to be heterosexual rather than homosexual? After all that is what you claim when you claim that homosexuals choose to be homosexual, the corollary must also be true. Well in your case of course.

I was blessed with not needing to make that decision and therefore don't believe that such a choice actually exists.

But since you do make that claim, without evidence, then you must be talking from personal experience, just as you declare the existence of your god through personal experience when there is no evidence to support such.

Why not just answer the OP the ONLY way it can be answered and that is, Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. Exactly as Jesus reaffirmed it.

Why the need for any other efforts in this thread than just saying what is pure truth.

[99percentatheism]

KCKID

Stan, responding to each item of your posts to me results in little more than a tit-for-tat game of forum ping-pong. Therefore, if you would care to debate actual scriptures that you believe pertain to this thread subject I would be more than happy to do so. Okay? I will first warn you that, contrary to what you seem to believe, I DO know my Bible as well as or perhaps even better than the next man.

Hey no problem. I was actually responding to your posts which seemed to get longer and longer.

That's right, the street runs in both directions.

My position on marriage has already been made using scriptures, so go ahead and make your position using scriptures.

Well, the truth of the matter is that you haven't provided any scriptures that support the thread title, Stan. I realize that you think that you have but you haven't.

There is only man/woman marriage in the New Testament. Not only did Jesus say that marriage is man and woman, he never uttered an LGBT word in His time on earth. You are left with another gospel to promote LGBT-ism. But not the faith delivered only once to the saints. That's for sure.

The thread title is referring to "Christian marriage" being man and woman/husband and wife. Christians are followers of Christ, are they not? They are not followers of the Torah or the Apostle Paul but Jesus.

Following the Torah is what shows us the path to Christ Jesus. That's why Jesus and the Apostles quote it so often. You can't jettison the Torah because it is hostile to LGBT activism. The gay liberation movement is outside of Bible-based life. It is as foreign to Christian truth as is Molech worship.

Jesus never referenced homosexuality at all.

He didn't have to. It was settled abomination.

Don't you think with all of this hoo-ha between the mainstream Christian Church and gay marriage that Jesus would have said SOMETHING? But He didn't.

Jesus brought us the truth. It would have been a very long mission of His if He had to show every false and counterfeit movement that mankind can invent. The truth He affirmed and reaffirmed had nothing to do with reiterating how inappropriate gay sex acts are to Christian life. It would be like Jesus preaching that S T O P meant stop.

Perhaps He meant to but it slipped His mind.

Abominations are abominations. He didn't have to go over what every Jewish person knew was an abomination. But what he did do was to reiterate marriage as immutably man and woman. That reality we have set in stone.

So, as followers of Jesus, affairs of the heart that express the love between one adult person and another - regardless of the gender - appear to be fine.

That bit of hippy-guru-free-love has nothing to do with Christian reality. It is though a perfect example of secular licentiousness. Which of course fuels and empowers gay activism.

YOU are making these claims that gay marriage is not Christian.

Because truth is important. There is no such thing as same gender marriage in the New Testament. To use your morality, you'ld think something so important would be written about firmly. But what you have in the NT shows gay behavior and worldview as antithetical to Christian truth.

Not only that, you say that gays who marry CANNOT be Christian, NOR can those that approve of gay marriage be Christians.

Those that preach another gospel have already been judged. No Bible-believing Christian needs to do anything but read the words of scripture honestly.

Seems like YOU need to provide the evidence that JESUS - NOT Paul, NOT Moses - objected to gay marriage. Provide such a text and we can debate it. I promise . .

Jesus was an orthodox Jew. That end all speculation about His changing what a marriage is. To try to force gay theology into Gospel reality is simply impossible.

You'd be better off just cruising the MCC and kicking it with your pals there.

[KCKID]

99percent, I don't know that anyone is disputing male/female relations as per the Bible. You are correct. The Bible quite clearly demonstrates that a man will dominate a woman and take that woman in marriage as his property. NOW, I think it might have been back in the 1960's that women were given equal rights to men which was a slap in the face to God because women were always intended to be subordinate to the male. So, then and there society had made up its mind to go against God and make women no longer the property of man. Some churches - if I recall - didn't like the idea of equality for women for the reasons given. Most Churches today will not ordain women as pastors or ministers or be given positions of authority because, according to Paul, it was the woman that was deceived by Satan in the Garden of Eden and women, therefore, cannot be entrusted with positions of authority. Besides that, of course, it had already been firmly entrenched in the minds of both men and women that no woman be allowed to have authority over a man. "I FORBID!" cries Paul.

So, your sweet little picture of men and women living their lives in wedded bliss is nothing of the kind according to scripture (God). The status of women in today's marriage is NOT what God intended. HOWEVER, we all accept the present-day marriage of equality and frown upon situations of domestic violence. Domestic violence might well be the result of the wife bucking the Bible definition of the female in marriage, i.e. not being subservient to the male and not catering to his every whim. Such a woman would surely have been in line for a beating back in the good old days. THAT is what a Christian marriage should be according to the Bible. Correct?

Two males would be of equal standing and so would be ineligible to become the property of the other unless one or the other of them was a foreign slave. And THAT is why male/male, female/female relations would not be found within the pages of the Bible. It would be unthinkable. Women and slaves were the PROPERTY of the male. But, not so today ...ideally speaking, of course. So, based on the above description of scriptural marriage, Christian sanctioned gay marriage would be/SHOULD BE no different to Christian sanctioned present-day male/female marriage. Both could be seen as being 'anti-God' but changed to suit the times. Furthermore, as mentioned many times previously, gay people that choose to follow Christ should be as equal in the eyes of The Church as are divorcees and even divorcees that choose to remarry.

I doubt that 99percentatheism or Stan or whoever can make a legitimate case against what I've just said but I DO, of course, challenge them to do so.

[Stan]

It's fascinating that you would be criticized for being un-humble, but the very people that accuse you seem to be using a very haughty secular judgmentalism.
The Bible has absolutes that appear to inflict quite the cognitive dissonance in the worldy.

I have come to expect NOTHING less from people of that ilk.
Paul does address this issue for new Christians in Eph 4:14, so not surprising many unbelievers suffer much more in this regard.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 967 by Stan]

When did I make excuses for others or say that I didn't believe in moral absolutes?

Your job is to follow your posts, I have enough on my plate to follow mine.
Please stop all this prevarication and either ask pointed questions or make pointed statements. All your equivocation is rather tiresome.

This coming from you? bwuahahaha

How about we discuss this choice you made to be heterosexual rather than homosexual? After all that is what you claim when you claim that homosexuals choose to be homosexual, the corollary must also be true. Well in your case of course.

I was blessed with not needing to make that decision and therefore don't believe that such a choice actually exists.

But since you do make that claim, without evidence, then you must be talking from personal experience, just as you declare the existence of your god through personal experience when there is no evidence to support such.

Why not just answer the OP the ONLY way it can be answered and that is, Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife. Exactly as Jesus reaffirmed it.

Why the need for any other efforts in this thread than just saying what is pure truth.

I will concede that your form of christian marriage is indeed a slave owner(male)/slave(female) relationship.

But who cares?
You can hold those beliefs until the cows come home, their are laws prohibiting slavery though so be careful.

Most of the world don't care one whit what the bible says or indeed how you interpret it.

BTW who made the bible the authority for christianity?

[10CC]

So you are actually claiming that the bible made the bible the authority for christianity?

You are aware that the bible says no such thing aren't you?

Some dude called Saul claimed that scripture was useful for some things. But a whole heap of the bible was written after he is alleged to have made that comment.

What makes that stuff scripture and what makes useful=authority?

And who made Saul the sole arbiter?

BTW this Saul dude really sounds like he's preaching from inside the closet.

No, I said God did.

Actually NOT a 'whole heap'. The only books written after Paul's were Revelation and John's epistles.

The Bible does, I don't know what YOU are reading.

The SOLE arbitrator between God and man IS Jesus. Your lack of recognition or acceptance means nothing in God's grand plan.
For some reason, you think your opinion or perception influences the accuracy of the Bible, and you would be WRONG!

Are you speaking from inside your own closet?

So how did god tell you?

[KCKID]

It's fascinating that you would be criticized for being un-humble, but the very people that accuse you seem to be using a very haughty secular judgmentalism.
The Bible has absolutes that appear to inflict quite the cognitive dissonance in the worldy.

I have come to expect NOTHING less from people of that ilk.

People of that ilk ...that's an expression that you've used several times and it's intended as a derogatory term for those who don't believe as Stan believes.

Paul does address this issue for new Christians in Eph 4:14, so not surprising many unbelievers suffer much more in this regard.

My turn. It continues to amaze me that those of your particular ilk seem incapable of actually thinking or debating anything for yourselves. It's all "the Bible sez" as if merely quoting scripture wins you favor with God. There appears to be a great deal of fear behind this brand of Christianity.