Is Gay Marriage Considered a Sin?

[POI]

For debate:

Is same sex marriage a sin?
If so, where does the Bible say this?
Further, why is it a sin?

[Purple Knight]

Here is how I think it might have actually happened. God caused evolution. At some point he gave homo sapiens a soul and they became homo sapiens sapiens. At some point he took two of these people, Adam and Eve and placed them in a special garden. He did not take the side or rib of Adam and create Eve.

The story of Eve coming from Adam might be trying to show us the deeper relationship between our souls. We do not have male or female souls. We only have these traits while united with out bodies. Of course, we will eventually be in our resurrected body in which will remain the sex it was before it died. So in that way, we will eternally be in male or female bodies. The soul itself though is not male or female.

Thus to ask, why did God have to create Eve as if she was created from Adam's rib is not a valid question in my beliefs. Cain got his wife from these other humans that were not Adam and Eve who were placed in the garden, no where they the children of Adam and Eve. They were the other humans that evolved.

Also, it is possible there were types of humans that never got a soul, thus they remain beasts, like a neanderthal. It would have been forbidden to sleep with such animals, beasts, which might be why the law says do not sleep with the beasts.

This scans in a couple of ways.

First, there were other people besides Adam and Eve, which is how Cain had descendants. This is canonical. How he got a wife might have been edited out or simply not mentioned but he didn't engage in parthenogenesis.

Second, a lot of people seem to use the quote from the Talmud that "Only the Jew is human," to prove Jews are racist, but it only proves they're on the same track about Adamic man being special. Special in terms of being selected by God. But they were not the first people as you might learn in Sunday school.

I count myself among those who consider it probably fiction but at very least, it's better and more consistent fiction than people are giving it credit for.

[Darwin's Hammer]

....What was the name of Michal's mother again?

We don't know for sure but its probably Ahinoam;

Wow, that is an amazing and improbable coincidence.

[JehovahsWitness]

....What was the name of Michal's mother again?

We don't know for sure but its probably Ahinoam;

Wow, that is an amazing and improbable coincidence.

Not really, there are many names that are repeated in scripture (how many Johns do'you know?) More to the point are you actually suggesting that Ahinoam the Jezreelitess (wife of David) was the same Ahinoam who was the wife of Saul? Yes or No?

JW

[Darwin's Hammer]

..Hagar was not a concubine. ... After Hagar escapes she is found by an angle who refers to her not as Abraham's wife or concubine but as Sarah's slave Gen 16:8.

GENESIS 16:3

After Aʹbram had lived for ten years in the land of Caʹnaan, Aʹbram’s wife Sarʹai took her Egyptian servant Haʹgar and gave her to her husband Aʹbram as his wife

.

If Hagar was Abraham's concubine or wife then she would have not been a slave anymore. If she had been Abraham's concubine Ishmael would not have been a slave. And if his birth had been legitimate then as the eldest son he would have been Abraham's heir. Following the birth of Isaac Sarah bid Abraham to get rid of the slave Hagar Gen 21:10. The law specifically stated that any female slave taken as a wife cannot ever be divorced or dismissed. Ishmael and Hagar were freed by Abraham when he was 14 years old and they were tossed out into he desert. It is important to note that the sons of Abraham he had through his concubines: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah were not sent away.

[JehovahsWitness]

..Hagar was not a concubine. ... After Hagar escapes she is found by an angle who refers to her not as Abraham's wife or concubine but as Sarah's slave Gen 16:8.

GENESIS 16:3

After Aʹbram had lived for ten years in the land of Caʹnaan, Aʹbram’s wife Sarʹai took her Egyptian servant Haʹgar and gave her to her husband Aʹbram as his wife

.

If Hagar was Abraham's concubine or wife {snip} ...

It's there in black and white, according to the text under discussion Hagar was indeed Abrahams WIFE, there's no "if" about it ... you claim she was not, the text says she was. If you wish to discuss slavery under the mosaic law*, feel free to start another thread but the question of whether Hagar was considered Abrahams wife is settled.



* which would not come into existence for many hundreds of years after Abraham died




JW

RELATED POSTS

Was HAGAR a sex slave?
viewtopic.php?p=1022163#p1022163

What did being a man's "property" mean to the ancient Hebrews?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p814401

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #75]

Special pleading.... All marriages are defined to be this way, by the Bible. And yet, there exists no special necessary 'creation' for any of the humans AFTER Adam. It's pretty safe to conclude the author of this passage was under the assumption that Adam was the first human. And again, I repeat, if YHWH was the information provider, and the author was the mere ghost writer, then YHWH appears clueless to actual events.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard.

What is the general or universal principle that I am making an exception to?

It is like if I point out that frogs don't talk with each other in human language even though they do in Aesop's fable of the frogs and the Ox, then you come along and claim I am special pleading.

There is no universal principle that all the books in the bible were written for the same reason. In fact, we know that is not the case.

1) "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
2) "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky."
3) "Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

This once again shows a lack of understanding of the purpose for the books in the bible. It is like quoting how the frog blew itself up bigger and bigger, then explodes, and then saying, that is not scientific. Then I explain to you, yeah because Aesop wasn't writing his fables to be scientifically accurate. He was writing interesting stories in order to teach a lesson. In the case of the frogs and the Ox it is about not destroying yourself with pride.

You do realize that the bible is a collection of many writers all writing to different audiences for different reasons, yeah?

How about you just go with what the Bible says? Meaning, Adam and Eve had many kids, over the centuries.... (i.e.)

Here is what you are asking. Hey, why not go with a non-historical writing and pretend it is history?

More wishful thinking. Kool.

So you misuse special pleading and wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking = Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality.

If I were to invent my own story that I find pleasing, it would not include anything from the OT.

[POI]

(AFG) You do realize that the bible is a collection of many writers all writing to different audiences for different reasons, yeah?

(ME) LOL. You could have many authors for Genesis. But since Adam likely did not write his own account, it would have had to been inspired by God. Like I stated prior, such authors were mere ghost writers. So mentioning what you mention here, is irrelevant.

And sure, "there's 40 authors for 66 books". But your argument, again, is still pointless here. Are you <now> trying to argue that Genesis 2 had more than one author? Further, that these differing authors just so happened to use the exact same allegory/metaphor for 'creating' (Adam <vs> wild birds)?

--- Sure, Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:19 had differing authors
--- Sure, They both just so happened to use differing analogies for 'creation', while both stating --- (the ground)
--- Sure, Genesis 2:7 actually means God plopped a 'soul' into an animal, which made him human.
--- Sure, Genesis 2:19 actually means something different -- (even though the exact same description was used) --- the ground.
--- Wait a minute, do we even know who wrote Genesis?
--- etc etc etc

You look to be performing mental gymnastics, and nothing more....

(AFG) So you misuse special pleading and wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking = Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs based on what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than on evidence, rationality, or reality.

If I were to invent my own story that I find pleasing, it would not include anything from the OT.

(ME) LOL. You are believing what is pleasing to imagine. You belief in the Christian god. And to do so, you know you have to drastically spin the tales, as written in the Bible.

If the account(s) do not align with your reality, just reject it.

******************

Back on track, to post 64 now?.?.?.?

[brunumb]

Like I stated prior, such authors were mere ghost writers.

Or the Holy Ghost writer.

[Tcg]

Homosexuality is an abomination in God's view according to the scriptures...

Why should anyone care what is presented in what you call "the scriptures?"


Tcg