Bible Study Bible & homosexual marriage

[OzSpen]

Here's an interesting article by Darrel L Bock, The Bible and Same-Sex Marriage: 6 Common but Mistaken Claims.

How do you respond to these? Are they valid arguments?

Oz

 

[Ph8th]

Does the word abomination mean anything to you? I am not going to read your link but will offer you a good read that might clear up any questions you might have in Rom 1:18-28.

peter

 

[Douglas Summers]

Here's an interesting article by Darrel L Bock, The Bible and Same-Sex Marriage: 6 Common but Mistaken Claims.

How do you respond to these? Are they valid arguments?

Oz

Hi Oz, There is no need to respond, the Scriptures are clear about homosexuality. It is an abomination to God, even as it is to us that have His Spirit.

In Christ
Douglas Summers

 

[reba]

Claim 1: Jesus didn’t speak about same-sex marriage, so he’s at least neutral if not open to it. What Jesus doesn’t condemn, we shouldn’t condemn.

This is an argument from silence, but the silence doesn’t take place in a vacuum. Jesus addresses and defines marriage in Matthew 19:4–6and Mark 10:6–9 using both Genesis 1:26–27 and Genesis 2:24 to parse it out. Here Jesus defines and affirms marriage as between a man and a woman, a reflection of the fact that God made us male and female to care for creation together. With this definition, same-sex marriage is excluded. Had Jesus wished to extend the right of marriage beyond this definition, here was his opportunity. But he didn’t take it.

 

[Edward]

That article seems like a bunch of circular logic to me.

 

[jasonc]

It's nothing unbiblical there just an apology that is biblical. I do disagree with the statement of there was never an acceptance of gays.then there was.egypt,Babylon Greece simply never called it gay marriage but it was common for men to have boy lovers at the age 13

 

[OzSpen]

Does the word abomination mean anything to you? I am not going to read your link but will offer you a good read that might clear up any questions you might have Romans:18-28

peter

Does the word abomination mean anything to you? I am not going to read your link but will offer you a good read that might clear up any questions you might have Romans:18-28

peter

Peter,

It's a shame that you would not read the content of the link I gave because that was the basis of my post. Was Darrel Bock making a fair assessment of the Bible's claims.

Sorry that you don't want to engage with me on this.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

That article seems like a bunch of circular logic to me.

Please explain.

 

[Christ_empowered]

Thanks for the link. Sometimes, I think anti-gay marriage people get a bad image. We're seen as bigoted, narrow-minded and, increasingly, "ignorant" of The Scriptures and basic theology.

I found the article to be well-written and solidly based on The Bible. I think pro-gay marriage theology is...well...not acceptable. To say, for instance, that sodomy is "different" now than in ancient cultures and therefore the Scriptures don't apply, is a little bit...ridiculous. Sodomy is sodomy, and sodomy is forbidden. Plus, based on my experiences as a former homogay, I don't think gay relationships have changed all that much, honestly.

 

[Edward]

Please explain.

Well, like #1. Jesus was silent on it so it must be ok. #2, the OT allowed all sorts of stuff like incest and multiple wives and so forth so since the premise is true, the conclusion must be also...lol. Like that. It's just looking for loopholes like man is prone to do. Nothing in that article even hinted towards same sex anything being ok.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz, There is no need to respond, the Scriptures are clear about homosexuality. It is an abomination to God, even as it is to us that have His Spirit.

In Christ
Douglas Summers

However, were Darrel Bock's arguments valid or not?

 

[Free]

Here's an interesting article by Darrel L Bock, The Bible and Same-Sex Marriage: 6 Common but Mistaken Claims.

How do you respond to these? Are they valid arguments?

Oz

They all seem like valid arguments. I would just add something to the fifth point: I think that procreation is a valid argument. The fact that some couples either choose not to have children or cannot does not mean that the argument is invalid.

 

[OzSpen]

Well, like #1. Jesus was silent on it so it must be ok. #2, the OT allowed all sorts of stuff like incest and multiple wives and so forth so since the premise is true, the conclusion must be also...lol. Like that. It's just looking for loopholes like man is prone to do. Nothing in that article even hinted towards same sex anything being ok.

I agree that there was nothing to support same-sex 'anything' in the arguments presented in that article.

However, as Bock showed, there was no need for Jesus to oppose homosexuality because what he affirmed was heterosexual union. Homosexuality is excluded because of the exclusivity of heterosexual relationships.

Of course there were sinful aberrations in the OT, but sinful actions do not exclude the necessity of righteous actions. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see Jesus affirming polygamy, polyandry, etc.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

They all seem like valid arguments. I would just add something to the fifth point: I think that procreation is a valid argument. The fact that some couples either choose not to have children or cannot does not mean that the argument is invalid.

Well said. The fact that there are those who live a life of singleness does not destroy heterosexual marriage. My wife and I drive an 88-year-old man to church every Sunday. He has been a bachelor all of his life. I asked his younger sister if he had ever had a girlfriend and she said he had one once but his mother objected to her so he has remained single all of these years.

His being a bachelor all of his life does not discount Jesus' and the OT's affirmation of heterosexuality as the norm.

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks for the link. Sometimes, I think anti-gay marriage people get a bad image. We're seen as bigoted, narrow-minded and, increasingly, "ignorant" of The Scriptures and basic theology.

I found the article to be well-written and solidly based on The Bible. I think pro-gay marriage theology is...well...not acceptable. To say, for instance, that sodomy is "different" now than in ancient cultures and therefore the Scriptures don't apply, is a little bit...ridiculous. Sodomy is sodomy, and sodomy is forbidden. Plus, based on my experiences as a former homogay, I don't think gay relationships have changed all that much, honestly.

Thanks so much for your encouragement and you know the situation from the other side. In my 34 years as a counsellor and counselling manager, I have counselled my share of gays. Many (not all) who came to me for counsel did not like the gay lifestyle. I'm also one of those non-politically correct guys who ran groups for homosexual blokes who wanted to leave the homosexual lifestyle behind and move to new life in Christ.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Claim 1: Jesus didn’t speak about same-sex marriage, so he’s at least neutral if not open to it. What Jesus doesn’t condemn, we shouldn’t condemn.

This is an argument from silence, but the silence doesn’t take place in a vacuum. Jesus addresses and defines marriage in Matthew 19:4–6and Mark 10:6–9 using both Genesis 1:26–27 and Genesis 2:24 to parse it out. Here Jesus defines and affirms marriage as between a man and a woman, a reflection of the fact that God made us male and female to care for creation together. With this definition, same-sex marriage is excluded. Had Jesus wished to extend the right of marriage beyond this definition, here was his opportunity. But he didn’t take it.

So, are you affirming this as an accurate view of marriage, based on Scripture?

 

[Ph8th]

Peter,

It's a shame that you would not read the content of the link I gave because that was the basis of my post. Was Darrel Bock making a fair assessment of the Bible's claims.

Sorry that you don't want to engage with me on this.

Oz

Brother I do not need to eat manure to know it is not good. The title of your post / both post was enough.
Had you read Rom 1:18-28 you would have read that by condoning the acts of those who are doing them you are guilty of the same.
peter

2 Timothy 2:16 (NASB)
16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,

 

[Free]

Brother I do not need to eat manure to know it is not good. The title of your post / both post was enough.
Had you read Rom 1:18-28 you would have read that by condoning the acts of those who are doing them you are guilty of the same.
peter

2 Timothy 2:16 (NASB)
16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for [a]it will lead to further ungodliness,

What you're saying effectively then is that the Bible is manure. It's a shame that one has an opinion, and what an opinion, on something that they haven't read.

 

[Edward]

I agree that there was nothing to support same-sex 'anything' in the arguments presented in that article.

However, as Bock showed, there was no need for Jesus to oppose homosexuality because what he affirmed was heterosexual union. Homosexuality is excluded because of the exclusivity of heterosexual relationships.

Of course there were sinful aberrations in the OT, but sinful actions do not exclude the necessity of righteous actions. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see Jesus affirming polygamy, polyandry, etc.

Oz

I'm in general agreement with you here brother. But the statement about polygamy and so forth was loosely stated in effort to stick to the topic at hand. Polygamy happened, incest happened, but was largely necessary (like after the flood), to accomplish Gods plan. All of that is pretty detailed and would pretty much need it's own thread so I said it like that. I don't see Jesus condoning any of that stuff either. ;)

 

[Edward]

Brother I do not need to eat manure to know it is not good. The title of your post / both post was enough.
Had you read Rom 18-28 you would have read that by condoning the acts of those who are doing them you are guilty of the same.
peter

2 Timothy 2:16 (NASB)
16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for [a]it will lead to further ungodliness,

This is a good point and a significant point for our hetrosexual Brothers and Sisters to understand. My understanding is that Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed not for the sin, but for the public's condoning it.