Marriage: On What Basis?

[Tissue]

A very large number of cultures that have had no access to the Bible have had the two-person rule in place.

'Course, there's a heckuvalot of polygamy in the Bible too.

 

[jasoncran]

yes, but those are talked about in a negative manner and the lord created adam and eve. Not adam and steve, lilith and lilith.

 

[Tissue]

yes, but those are talked about in a negative manner

No. They aren't.

and the lord created adam and eve. Not adam and steve, lilith and lilith.

So you believe that our understanding of marriage should be understood as a direct continuation of the relationship between Adam and Eve?

 

[jasoncran]

really ever known a muslim that has multiple wives. hmm
I have they fight over the man's attention and he has them live in seperate houses. Look at how leah and racheal fought over a child from jacob.

yes what the lord ordained with adam and eve should be the ideal. Yes, i realize that some wont have children by choice. But that doesnt mean the whole thing should be thrown out.

 

[Tissue]

really ever known a muslim that has multiple wives. hmm
I have they fight over the man's attention and he has them live in seperate houses. Look at how leah and racheal fought over a child from jacob.

I'm fairly certain for every case of this, you could find an equally unfortunate monogamous marriage in Scripture.

yes what the lord ordained with adam and eve should be the ideal. Yes, i realize that some wont have children by choice. But that doesnt mean the whole thing should be thrown out.

Ok. That is interesting. How far do you take that? Do you also think of the woman as created for the man? Specifically for the man? In the context of marriage?

 

[jasoncran]

When you buy a car, do you immediately yank of parts and build ones that you think are better and install them. For the sake of dabate, you have no engineering degree and limited mechanical knowledge. The car is new also.

The woman is made for the man. see the scriptures on that in the nt. Ephasians i believe. The husband is the head of the marriage as christ is the head of the church. This doesnt make the wife a slave, or less equal.

Might i suggest listening to pastor Adrian Rogers of Love Worth Finding? He does an excellent job on the roles of husband and wife.

Husband are obligated to lay down their lives for the woman. Put the wife above himself. This is biblical.

Is this followed by all? No
You have corrected me on grammar, and should we throw away Queen's english because people use ebonics?

 

[Vic C.]

The woman is made for the man. see the scriptures on that in the nt. Ephasians i believe. The husband is the head of the marriage as christ is the head of the church. This doesnt make the wife a slave, or less equal.

I say we start at the beginning. (sorry if I am repeating anything any other members posted)

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him....

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

As for having multiple wives in the OT, yes God did permit it. But take note that there never a commandment for these women (or any other women) to be with each other.

 

[Tissue]

If you admit that God permitted polygamy, why do you believe it is wrong?

 

[shad]

If you admit that God permitted polygamy, why do you believe it is wrong?

God says it is wrong but He did not punish for doing it. Being drunk is wrong but you cannot get punished for doing it. There are many things like that.

But we should be careful doing those kind things just because we dont get punish for doing it. God is looking into our hearts. We should strive to be pure in heart.
.

 

[Vic C.]

If you admit that God permitted polygamy, why do you believe it is wrong?

Because HE later decreed it to be wrong, just as HE did with incest. Jesus clarified divorce by telling us that the first marriage is binding and that entering into another marriage is adultery, let alone polygamous.

 

[GodspromisesRyes]

Because both Apologetics and Theology (the second more so than the first) are respected realms of study and inquiry, which do not base their studies on rote memorization of the best possible Bible translation as a knee-jerk response to intellectual situations.

here is my questions to you, respected by whom?many things are " respected" in this world but are they respected by God and truly faithful just godly people.I do not think that anyone would suggest that you just memorize the bible but that you study the word in great love and faith as you read, being given understanding by the Holy Ghost as you go. Walking in faith and obedience in what you hear.Men can speak forever what they reason and think makes sence to them, but only Gods word has power and eternal truth.

It is, properly speaking, IMPOSSIBLE to understand the Bible without drawing upon reason and experience. No person can understand the world except through a pair of lens. No person can understand the Bible except through a pair of lens. It is thoroughly irresponsible to attempt to interpret the Bible without drawing upon tradition.

I am being thoroughly orthodox in calling for a discussion of this matter based upon reason, experience, Scripture, and tradition. How else would one approach this topic? Anyone who thinks the Bible is the end all be all is oversimplifying; reason and experience and tradition play a role as well, though it may not be immediately recognizable.

You say it is irresponsible to attempt to interpret the bible without tradition but that is not what the word of God says. The word does not tell us to interpret the bible based on tradition but to interpret tradition based on the bible.- Tradition has always been a mixture of blessing and evil to all of Gods people.Men have always made traditions which are both good, and others which directly contridict the word of God or place laws on Gods people that He did not intend.If you were alive in Jesus day and you wanted to try to inerpret the bible based on traditions you would be utterly undone in terms of real understanding.While i am not saying that there is no good tradition, it means much that every time Jesus spoke of traditions he did not speak favorable of them and the pharsees always wanted to know why Jesus disciples did not keep the traditions.- Paul speaks to us about having delievered traditions to the church and he tells us where we find them for the most part.


2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.


2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.


Just because men have considered something to be " orthodox" does not mean they are correct in the truth, many ungodly traditions can be considered orthodox. We are to be walking in faith by the word first and foremost always.

 

[Vic C.]

I forgot to add that Jesus also stated that even looking at another woman in a lustful manner is adultery.

... speaking of tradition, we should consider those were close to the Apostles. They knew NT principles well. We need to consider Apostolic tradition and their succession. Justin Martyr once condemned the Jews of his time for their polygamous ways. He wrote:

"Your imprudent and blind masters even until this time permit each man to have four or five wives. And if anyone sees a beautiful woman and desires to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob."

Many of the other Early Church Fathers did the same.

 

[Relic]

.

If you admit that God permitted polygamy, why do you believe it is wrong?

God says it is wrong but He did not punish for doing it. Being drunk is wrong but you cannot get punished for doing it. There are many things like that.

But we should be careful doing those kind things just because we dont get punish for doing it. God is looking into our hearts. We should strive to be pure in heart.
.

Oh contrary guys, there is punishment enough for each of those actions.

Polygamy shows jealousy sprouts out of it. Oh a woman’s scorn, aye? I even heard of women who have been in polygamous marriages speak of the pain of having to share a man. And the man must work all the more harder to earn a living to support the family, in more ways than one. If you don't call that punishment enough. HA! And for any man to treat woman with such little respect as to have to have more than one wife.... well, he deserves every problem that sprouts out of having such a clan. It's not a healthy situation for the family. the Lord shows the jealous Sarah and what happens when there is more than one woman and more than one woman bearing children to one man..... jealousy. Don't argue that some polygamous marriages work out just fine because it is known that many of these women are not happy... There are testimonies galore that tell of women who have hid the pain of having to share the husband and have to share a household with so many other women. Not a role model of a God intended marriage. One man for one woman is plenty enough to handle and the Lord shows us that much in the many depictions in the bible how complicated relationships get when they are not set up in line with His good willed intentions.

Also, if you drink and get drunk.... the punishment is evident... HANGOVER. and if you do it in excess.... the punishments turns into addiction. What a horrible punishment and ordeal to have to overcome.

Righteous living does not create such "personal" problems. The Lord knows we have enough problems to overcome let alone adding more to the bundle ourselves. Mans will versus the Lords will.... I'll take the Lord's will over mine anytime.

.


.

 

[shad]

.

Oh contrary guys, there is punishment enough for each of those actions.

I agree, I apologize for my hasty comments.

 

[Rick W]

What is the foundation of marriage? Nature? Theology? The prevailing majority of sexual attraction?

Can marriage be understood broadly enough to include non-heterosexual couples?

I suppose one could stretch things as broad as one needs in order to include anything one wants to include. If marriage or scripture is to be stretched to conform to the judgments of man in the name of social tolerance then I can see where that would be a lot easier than conforming society to the Word of God.

The signs of over-stretching is beginning to show already. The chasm between His Word and the desires of society is growing much wider. The bible hasn't changed. His Word hasn't moved. Society has and will continue. I suppose we can expect that rift to grow ever wider with each passing year.
Some like to say there's division in the church. That's what they see, that's what they want to believe and of course that's what they point out. But it isn't really. It's not division, it's separation. The separation of the wheat and chaff. People will follow what they choose. Others won't want to make the choice but would rather exert a lot of effort to find some kind of reconciliation.

"Can marriage be understood broadly enough to include non-heterosexual couples?"
Yes.

 

[Relic]

.


For anyone to play the devil's advocate in regards to these perverse relationships is just horrid. :bigfrown

GOD FORBID IT! The thought of it is just horrid. It sickens me to see how the media is pushing the sight of it on the tv. I have stopped watching a lot of shows on the television because of all the pushing of perverse life styles on there.

and IF it becomes the norm, God Have Mercy that it never come to that! And I pray and know the Lord will cut it short! God's timing is not ours. I believe the Lord will not allow it to continue for very long!

For people to expect it to be a blessing is like expecting a frog to turn into a prince. It just can't, and will never prove to being a God given blessing. The Lord doesn't bless sin. Those who are taken to indulge in such abhorrent things will not escape the consequences of such an indulgence. Just because there are no immediate consequences to certain choices people make does not mean there won't be consequences in the long run. The Lords timing is not mans timing. Generations to come will suffer for these things. When people IGNORE the righteousness of their Creator how can they expect a blessing from out perverse choices? Play with sin, get the consequences of sin. Sodom and Gomorah is what is trying to rise up from the bowls of the hell. It' stinks to high hell and I pray, I pray the Lord cut this horrible wickedness that is sprouting up like choke weed. Our Lord guarantees that this perversed wickedness will not last long.


.

 

[jasoncran]

i know of that consquence. I cant donate blood for the rest my life.

 

[follower of Christ]

Can marriage be understood broadly enough to include non-heterosexual couples?

No.


Homosexuality

1.0
"abusers of themselves with mankind"

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)

It doesnt get any clearer than that. Regardless of what else is going on the ACT of men being with men sexually is 'shameful'.
For idolatry God gave them over to their perverse desires and vile affections, but vile these affections ARE REGARDLESS of how they came to be !

And also;

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
(1Ti 1:10 KJV)

G733
(1Co 6:9 KJV)

G733
G733
????????????
arsenokoit?s
Thayer Definition:
1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G730 and G2845

which is from :


G2845
?????
koit?
koy'-tay
From G2749; a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm: - bed, chambering, X conceive.


G730
?????, ?????
arrh?n arsen
ar'-hrane, ar'-sane
Probably from G142; male (as stronger for lifting): - male, man.

The word speaks for itself. Its no wonder Strongs and Thayers both believe this word is about homosexuals...especially given the rest of scripture on the matter.


And here we have the Mosaic Law, GODS law, which forbids men having sex with men like one does a woman.

(Lev 18:22 KJV) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

(Lev 20:13 KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Perfectly consistent...


2.0
Romans 1:26-27 - Vile Affections

In Romans 1 the state of the persons in Romans there is a RESULT of their idolatry.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:26-27 KJV)

BECAUSE of their idolatry God gave them up TO their vile affections...the affections/desires themselves ARE vile/sinful.
One doesnt have to commit idolatry to commit sexual sin, so the connection between the two, while it DOES exist in Romans 1, doesnt necessarily have to exist in EVERY other instance.

In Romans 1:26 above we see that these were turned over to 'vile affections'.

For this causeG1223 G5124 GodG2316 gave them upG3860 G846 untoG1519 vileG819 affections:G3806...
(Rom 1:26 KJV+)

Here are the definitions of these words.

Vile
G819
??????
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

NT usage;
G819
??????
atimia
Total KJV Occurrences: 7
dishonour, 4
Rom_9:21, 1Co_15:43, 2Co_6:8, 2Ti_2:20
reproach, 1
2Co_11:21
shame, 1
1Co_11:14
vile, 1
Rom_1:26


Affections
G3806
?????
pathos
path'-os
From the alternate of G3958; properly suffering (“pathosâ€), that is, (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence): - (inordinate) affection, lust.

NT usage;
G3806
?????
pathos
Total KJV Occurrences: 4
affection, 1
Col_3:5
affections, 1
Rom_1:26
inordinate, 1
Col_3:5
lust, 1
1Th_4:5

As you can see the usage of each word in the new testament is quite consistent.

These were given over to these vile affections, and what does the scripture show that these 'vile affections' were being defined as ?

...vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly...

It is VERY clear that burning with lust for those of the same gender and acting out on that lust is what this 'vile affection'...otherwise the statement has no meaning.


Homosexuality is a sin and therefore the gay christian needs to abstain from that sin. To WILLFULLY continue in it would seem to lead one into the predicament mentioned in Hebrews 10.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Heb 10)

Obviously based on the context of the chapter and the entire book this isnt speaking about merely sinning otherwise we'd ALL be in this position, but very clearly there is some point where our WILLFULL sin shows that we have trampled the Son underfoot and spit in the face of the Spirit of Grace.


3.0

Same passage, different part.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(Rom 1:24-27 KJV)

The context is clear enough that men gave up what was natural with the woman and turned to one another in their lusts.

As in my other thread we can easily conclude that while God DID turn them over to this sin seemingly for their idolatries, the ACTS themselves are shown as
-unclean
-dishonour
-vile
-unseemly
-error

Here are the definitions of these words (as shown above in red).
These show the overall TONE of the acts these are involved in;

unclean
G167
?????????
akatharsia
ak-ath-ar-see'-ah
From G169; impurity (the quality), physically or morally: - uncleanness.

dishonor
G818
???????
atimaz?
at-im-ad'-zo
From G820; to render infamous, that is, (by implication) contemn or maltreat: - despise, dishonour, suffer shame, entreat shamefully.

vile
G819
??????
atimia
at-ee-mee'-ah
From G820; infamy, that is, (subjectively) comparative indignity, (objectively) disgrace: - dishonour, reproach, shame, vile.

unseemly
G808
??????????
asch?mosun?
as-kay-mos-oo'-nay
From G809; an indecency; by implication the pudenda: - shame, that which is unseemly.

error
G4106
?????
plan?
plan'-ay
Feminine of G4108 (as abstraction); objectively fraudulence; subjectively a straying from orthodoxy or piety: - deceit, to deceive, delusion, error.

So we see in this part of the passage that God has given them up to this 'uncleaness'.

God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Regardless of whether they were involved in this act PRIOR to God turning them over to it or not it is quite CLEAR that these acts themselves are all of the things listed above else scripture is quite erroneous to begin with.
These acts being defined as men and woman leaving the natural and lusting after those of the same gender and carrying out those lusts into actions.