Is "being born this way" an acceptable justificati

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #101

Post by DanieltheDragon »

MuffMaYne wrote: [Replying to post 96 by DanieltheDragon]

OF course theres only one standard and its the one thats written down. Thats all thats required to prove theres no my or your standard. Now how you would prove that you could read the Bible and come to the conclusion that same sex marriage is okay? idk. You've yet to provide anything because there is nothing. The Bible makes it clear what marriage is and its between a man and a woman, so even if a person was "born this way" at the very least they'd be guilty of out of marriage sex.
You keep repeating this but it is a fact that there are different bibles using different manuscripts and have different books in them. There are over 40,000 denominations with a wide swath of differing and conflicting beliefs. If there was a standard you would not see this. The standard you claim exists only exists in your mind.

As I pointed out earlier the verse you and King and priest say is the standard for marriage is ambiguous at best and refers to divorce. It doesn't say all men will leave their father and mothers it says a man. The context here being the question asked of Jesus

"Is it lawful for a man to leave his wife"

Jesus was not asked to comment on gay or plural marriage. He was asked about one wife and one husband. He answered in kind. It does not prohibit gay marriage talk about gay marriage or reference gay marriage in anyway. More to the point it does not mandate anything. It simply exists as an observation about what it means to be married.

Find me a verse that prohibits gay marriage or plural marriage.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #102

Post by KingandPriest »

DanieltheDragon wrote:
Jesus was not asked to comment on gay or plural marriage. He was asked about one wife and one husband. He answered in kind. It does not prohibit gay marriage talk about gay marriage or reference gay marriage in anyway. More to the point it does not mandate anything. It simply exists as an observation about what it means to be married.

Find me a verse that prohibits gay marriage or plural marriage.
Here is the same verse again:
Matthew 19:3-6

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?�

4“Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b ? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.�
So here Jesus point those who questioned him back to the original intent of marriage which God set in the beginning.
1.Jesus points out the God made them male and female.
(So this clarifies which gender supports which role, and shows only heterosexual unions were inteded)
2. The man (singular) will be united to his wife. And the 2 (1+1=2) will become one.
(This eliminates polygamy)

Just because Jesus was not asked to comment on gay marriage (which didn't exist in that era or area), this does not mean it was not addressed. By pointing to the original design, all other combinations which could be conceived are mute.

Imagine this example, a person wants to build a home. They ask the architect can they just put the water pipes and electrical cords in any configuration they wish. The architect replies that although they have the ability, it goes against the original design and can/will lead to problems down the line. The options are to:
(a)follow the architects design, trusting that the architect has far more knowledge about proper structural and integral design,
or
(b) do what they want and live with the potential consequences

Homosexual marriage, polygamy, bestiality, etc are all choices a person makes to go against the design of the architect.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #103

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 101 by KingandPriest]
1.Jesus points out the God made them male and female.
(So this clarifies which gender supports which role, and shows only heterosexual unions were inteded)
2. The man (singular) will be united to his wife. And the 2 (1+1=2) will become one.
(This eliminates polygamy)

Just because Jesus was not asked to comment on gay marriage (which didn't exist in that era or area), this does not mean it was not addressed. By pointing to the original design, all other combinations which could be conceived are mute.
1. I would hope Jesus a believer in God would suggest God created man and women. This observation does not clarify the intent of all unions. You simply inferred that into the text. I.e. Your interpretation. This does not show only heterosexual unions. It simply observes that a man may leave his parents and be united with a female. Beyond that is inference on your part or anyone's part.

Again to be clear. Anything beyond a man may leave his parents to be married with a woman is beyond the text.

2. Your math is wrong 1+1=2 is correct but it's the wrong equation. Because 2 does not equal 1 and the text clearly states the 1 man and 1 woman will become 1 so the correct equation is 1x1=1. Now I don't mean to get pedantic but if the man and woman become one then we are back to dealing with one unit again why not multiply another 1x1x1=1 so we are still at one flesh! Heck let's try 1x1x1x1x1x1=1. Oh my goodness it doesn't rule out polygamy!

You are inferring beyond scripture King and priest your interpreting it one way while other people can interpret it other ways.

Oh and btw gay marriage existed in the Roman Empire. It wasn't banned until Christianity was the official Roman religion....
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #104

Post by KingandPriest »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 101 by KingandPriest]
1.Jesus points out the God made them male and female.
(So this clarifies which gender supports which role, and shows only heterosexual unions were inteded)
2. The man (singular) will be united to his wife. And the 2 (1+1=2) will become one.
(This eliminates polygamy)

Just because Jesus was not asked to comment on gay marriage (which didn't exist in that era or area), this does not mean it was not addressed. By pointing to the original design, all other combinations which could be conceived are mute.
1. I would hope Jesus a believer in God would suggest God created man and women. This observation does not clarify the intent of all unions. You simply inferred that into the text. I.e. Your interpretation. This does not show only heterosexual unions. It simply observes that a man may leave his parents and be united with a female. Beyond that is inference on your part or anyone's part.
The question he was posed with was about marriage. Jesus pointed to the design for marriage. You can try and find loopholes for the purpose of self convenience but it does not change what he said. All I did was point out what was written. In what manner can you turn "the man will be united to his wife" to approval of non-hetero marriages?
DanieltheDragon wrote: Again to be clear. Anything beyond a man may leave his parents to be married with a woman is beyond the text.
I agree. There is no way to show that this supports any other marriage outside of a male female relationship.
DanieltheDragon wrote: 2. Your math is wrong 1+1=2 is correct but it's the wrong equation. Because 2 does not equal 1 and the text clearly states the 1 man and 1 woman will become 1 so the correct equation is 1x1=1.
The text does not state or imply that 2 = 1. It states the two become one. This implies that a process occurs overtime where the two distinct persons "become" one.
The word two is actually in the statement, so you cannot ignore it or change it for convenience.
DanieltheDragon wrote:Now I don't mean to get pedantic but if the man and woman become one then we are back to dealing with one unit again why not multiply another 1x1x1=1 so we are still at one flesh! Heck let's try 1x1x1x1x1x1=1. Oh my goodness it doesn't rule out polygamy!
Only if you change the text to fit your statement. You are trying to make it seem as if the union makes them one automatically. The word become clearly shows a process is involved, so the 1x1=1 analogy fails. In fact it fails for 2 reasons. Physically the wife and husband do not become a single person, but they become a single unit (family). Additionally, you ignore the singular language used to speak of the man and his wife.
DanieltheDragon wrote: You are inferring beyond scripture King and priest your interpreting it one way while other people can interpret it other ways.
I agree, people can make up interpretations all the time. That does not make it true.
DanieltheDragon wrote:Oh and btw gay marriage existed in the Roman Empire. It wasn't banned until Christianity was the official Roman religion....
I know it existed in the roman empire which is why my statements were specific to the area and culture present in Israel.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #105

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to KingandPriest]
The question he was posed with was about marriage. Jesus pointed to the design for marriage. You can try and find loopholes for the purpose of self convenience but it does not change what he said. All I did was point out what was written. In what manner can you turn "the man will be united to his wife" to approval of non-hetero marriages?
Jesus did not point out the "design" for marriage. He simply made an observation of what a marriage can look like. You forget the question he asked of him was leading. Meaning that we have to take into account he was responding to the specific circumstance posed to him. Hence we can't infer much beyond his original statement this excludes any prescriptions or blueprints for what marriage is. He was simply responding to the issue of divorce between a man and a woman.

I am not finding loopholes I am simply pointing out the limitations of what you can infer from the scripture. That to go beyond what is said is simply adding your personal opinion to the issue.

I did not say this scripture said it approves of gay marriage I specifically pointed out it does not prohibit gay marriage.
I agree. There is no way to show that this supports any other marriage outside of a male female relationship.
To reiterate for the sake of easier reading comprehension, I did not say this verse supports gay marriage rather I said it does not prohibit.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #106

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 103 by KingandPriest]
The text does not state or imply that 2 = 1. It states the two become one. This implies that a process occurs overtime where the two distinct persons "become" one.
The word two is actually in the statement, so you cannot ignore it or change it for convenience.
I did not say the text implied 2=1. I said the text said two will become one. Which is why your 1+1=2 makes no sense whatsoever. It does put say each individual will become two.

I recognized two is in the statement it says two will become one.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #107

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 103 by KingandPriest]
Only if you change the text to fit your statement. You are trying to make it seem as if the union makes them one automatically. The word become clearly shows a process is involved, so the 1x1=1 analogy fails. In fact it fails for 2 reasons. Physically the wife and husband do not become a single person, but they become a single unit (family). Additionally, you ignore the singular language used to speak of the man and his wife.
1. I did not say they become automatically
2. I did show a process 1 X 1 there is a process of multiplying
3. It doesn't say they become one family unit. You just made that up. It says they become one flesh. Whether this refers to a family unit a child or spiritual Union is all personal opinion.
4.I did not ignore the singular language. It seems like your contorting your own arguments in on themselves at this point.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #108

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 103 by KingandPriest]
I know it existed in the Roman Empire which is why my statements were specific to the area and culture present in Israel.
You can't retcon your way out of this. Your statements were not specific but general and the culture present in Israel was the Roman Empire.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #109

Post by KingandPriest »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 103 by KingandPriest]
I know it existed in the Roman Empire which is why my statements were specific to the area and culture present in Israel.
You can't retcon your way out of this. Your statements were not specific but general and the culture present in Israel was the Roman Empire.
So the roman empire worshiped Jehovah and centered their weeks and seasons based on the Torah?

I think not. There may have been homosexual relationships present in Israel. This I do not contest. Marriage however for the Jewish people was handled by the priests not the roman empire.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #110

Post by DanieltheDragon »

KingandPriest wrote:
DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 103 by KingandPriest]
I know it existed in the Roman Empire which is why my statements were specific to the area and culture present in Israel.
You can't retcon your way out of this. Your statements were not specific but general and the culture present in Israel was the Roman Empire.
So the roman empire worshiped Jehovah and centered their weeks and seasons based on the Torah?

I think not. There may have been homosexual relationships present in Israel. This I do not contest. Marriage however for the Jewish people was handled by the priests not the roman empire.
You said it did not exist in that era or area. Moreover Roman Judea was not exclusively Jewish. While it had Jews who lived there not everyone was Jewish. Moreover you seem to be saying that this only applies to Jewish people, wasn't Jesus suppos d to be speaking more globally?

Regardless this doesn't change the fact that you are interpreting the verse. Whether your right or wrong makes no difference to the fact that your scripture can be interpreted in different ways. Hence there is no standard. Let me make an easy example for you to digest.



A+3+C=10

A and c can mean many different things here if I said a equals 1 and c equals 6 my interpretation would not be wrong. If you said A equals 3 and C equals 4 you would not be wrong to interpret that way. Even if the real answerwas A equals 2 and C equals 5.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

Post Reply