Posted on 08/12/2012 1:27:48 PM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
If we go too far down that line of reasoning, we could claim that Jesus approved of King Solomon's "six hundred wives who were princesses and three hundred concubines," so get with the program, Christian men!
“There is also His statement that He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, which incorporates, as it were, a great deal of Old Testament moral teaching into Christianity.”
Exactly.
Well, there is a difference in recording historic events and expressing doctrine. But your point is taken.
The truth is that we are sure that every word of Jesus was not recorded, only that which the Holy Spirit caused the authors of the gospels to remember. It was obvious to the Holy Spirit that homosexuality and marriage and “homosexual marriage” had been addressed.
Answer: It was not necessry as the conduct speaks for itself.
He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. (Matthew 19:4-5)
Matt. 5:17-19. I think that pretty well answers it.
To the extent that our analysis emphasizes "It's good because it feels good," without considering a purpose built into our creation, we're likely to go astray.
He established Natural Law by which the Universe exists, the 10 Commandments, written with the finger of God, Himself, (Exodus 31:18) and the Law of Moses (Book of Leviticus).
Christ came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17).
Homosexual behavior and promotion thereof is directly proscribed in Leviticus, a proscription affirmed directly by the Apostle Paul (Romans 1) -- the student of Jesus Christ, and something for which God directly destroyed two cities, Himself, namely Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19).
Jesus Christ established Natural Law, gave us our first, and only heterosexual parents, Adam and Eve, even as He the Creator designed them, gave us the Law of Moses, affirmed only heterosexual marriage (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Ephesians 5:31), and directly punished the perversion of practicing homosexuality (Genesis 19), even as we see Natural Law punishes the practice emotionally and physically today.
As Christ is the One who came to fulfill the Law, what more must one honestly need to hear about such a twisted notion as homosexual "marriage," unless one simply chooses to remain willingly ignorant? (II Peter 3:5).
Practicing homosexuals have been lying to themselves about themselves for so long that honesty rarely enters the discussion and willful ignorance invites the certain condemnation of Natural Law by their own choice. Paul writes that it is a sin against ones self and a sin against nature (Romans 1:26, 27).
Homosexuality destroys all that it touches.
Common sense is usually the first casualty, as one chooses to defy Natural Law.
That one needs an answer to such an obvious question, "Is It True Jesus Never Addressed Same Sex Marriage?" is evidence that the questioner does not recognize Jesus Christ as the Creator of the Universe and that He is the ultimate Law giver that allows this Universe of ours to exist at all (Colossians 1:16, 17).
For those who never read the bible, they will listen to these clowns. For those of us who do read the bible, we know what it says and that these people are blowing steam.
Maybe it's because:
THERE ISN'T SUCH A THING!
Exactly. At the time of Jesus Same sex marriage wasn’t an issue.
The fags were smart enough not to push their sickness.
Good reply.
Further when Jesus dictated the Book of Revelation to the Apostle John, He clearly stated that people who practice sexual immorality cannot qualify to receive His free gift of eternal life. This is found in Revelation 22:14.
This is also stated in similarly direct language by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 5:1-7.
Notice that Paul includes coveting in his list in Ephesians, which he defines as idolatry. In Revelation 22:14, Jesus states that those who practice idolatry are also disqualified from eternal life.
Socialism, by its very structure, is built upon coveting and theft. Socialists cannot qualify for eternal life. Sadly the vast majority of churches in this age are corrupted by socialism just as the early Church was corrupted by Gnosticism. It should come as no surprise that there is a direct philosophical trail from Valentinian Gnosticism to the theologian Hegel and then via his dialectic to Marx and socialism. In other words, socialism is the modern secular form of the same spiritual values that animated people who were drawn to Gnosticism.
see the book: Gnostic Return in Modernity, by Cyril O’Regan
We are seeing spiritual warfare in secular form being waged against humanity before our very eyes.
This Absurd concept was never in the minds of anyone until the last ten years. It is an absurdity on its face.
Now that is not the same as saying that the idea of marriage was not different in the past. Marriage for love is also a modern innovation.
As far as I know --- and somebody correct me if I'm wrong -- in Scripture there isn't a single instance of married, man-woman sex in the procreative form which is ever condemned, nor a single instance of sex in a non-procreative form, which is ever blessed.
So why do some Biblical-minded people support contracepted sex while drawing the line at homosexual sex?
Both contracepted sex and homosex treat fertility as a discarded option, a design flaw, a bug, not a feature.
I think that once you erode (via conraception) the implicit understanding that sex is connected to fertility and that that's a good thing, heterosexuality has been corrupted and homosexuality is the obvious next step.
I know that Jesus approved of sex and the union of man and woman and saw it blessed. I just don’t think he was sex-focused as much as transcendent-meaning focused. Just my interpretation.
Probably not inconceivable to God, though.
Besides, there was plenty of homosexual behavior in the ancient world. They don't call ir "Greek love" for no good reason.
Does a man divorce a sterile wife because its a sin to be with her?...if so King Henry the 8 in fact had a point with the Church
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.