A wonderful response to biblical objections to homosexuality.

[Drich]

Bullshit. Early jewish marriage contracts were exactly that. Contracts for the sale of property by the family of the bride to the family of the groom.
Marriage in ancient times was a negotiated match involving an agreement on conditions, payment of a bridal price, and the groom's

Maybe you or maybe it's the web site you picked that does the lion's share of your thinking for you, either way one/both of you don't seem to understand the term 'sanctified.'

Here I looked it up for you: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanctify

Pay close attention to definition 2 or even 3b.

Now I know the dictionary does not tell you how or what to think about this word and that it only tells you what the word means, my hope is that you still have one or two brain cells set aside for independent thought. If you do apply definition two or three B to the act of marriage. Which would make a Sanctified marriage a moral or righteous act before God, if you prefer definition two it makes marriage the place where the restrictions of sex are lifted.

How or why marriage happens has nothing to do with its sanctification. This allows me to flush the rest of your argument because it is based on your definition of sanctification and not what God has intended.

Sorry, Minnie maybe you can regather your thoughts and try again.

---

Didn't Jesus say he came to fulfil, not abolish or change the OT?

What does fulfill mean in this context?

[Bad Wolf]

Drich, if you think homosexuals are sinning on purpose and by choice, then why don't you try it? And if you are right, it proves you are right once and for all. Don't worry about the sinning part, god will forgive you probably.....
Cue excuses as to why he won't turn gay to prove a point in 3.2.1.

[Minimalist]

Drippy, you fucking idiot, it's a contract for a sale of property. Get it? Women were property. They'd sell a fucking cow in the same breath.
There is no "sanctity." That's some shit invented by pious quacks to con morons like you.

[Drich]

Drippy, you fucking idiot, it's a contract for a sale of property. Get it? Women were property. They'd sell a fucking cow in the same breath.

which also was legal.. Get it yet?

There is no "sanctity." That's some shit invented by pious quacks to con morons like you.

Sanctification simply mean legal before God. Nothing else. The church puts a holy ceremonial spin on the word, but the word itself simply mean permissible. Let me bottom line it for you old sport, God made a marriage (whatever the circumstance) legal before Him. It is only in this context that sex is not a sin.

So again, is there a context in which homosexual marriage Sanctified before God in the old or New Testament? Absolutely not. Therefore homosexual sex is always a sin before God.

[LastPoet]

Sanctification simply mean legal before God. Nothing else.

So it means nothing and nothing else?

[Drich]

Drich, if you think homosexuals are sinning on purpose and by choice, then why don't you try it?

Because we all (Christian and non Christian alike) sin by choice with or without trying.
Paul in Romans 7 says we are all slaves to sin, and nothing we can say or do will ever change that, that is why Christ died on the cross.. Not so we can pretend that we have stopped sinning, but that we can find attonement for the sins we can not help but do. On both sides of our conversion.

And if you are right, it proves you are right once and for all. Don't worry about the sinning part, god will forgive you probably.....
Cue excuses as to why he won't turn gay to prove a point in 3.2.1.

In my younger days I struggled with sexual purity, and even now I know if I do not intentionally avoid those problem areas in my life I could fall back into sexual sin. My sins were of the hetero nature, but as defined and classified in scripture they were still considered sexual sin. (Much how lust and adultery are synomous or hate and murder) to God they are the same sins. When classifying sexual sin all sin found outside the confines of a Sanctified marriage share the same classification. Which mean whether your sexual sin of choice is homo or hetero in nature it warrants the same Hell without atonement. Like wise whether your sexual sin is homo or hetero in nature the same atonement will forgive it.

The identification of sin is to point to everyone at every step of this life whether saved or not that we are always in sin and need an on going attonement.. Likewise we must I turn provide an on going forgiveness for those who sin against us.

---

Sanctification simply mean legal before God. Nothing else.

So it means nothing and nothing else?

In the context I was speaking..

[Lek]

[quote='Drich' pid='586605' dateline='1390147977']
Given that Jesus said approximately nothing about homosexuality, the only call to any action you have against them is in the old testament, and hence, either one stones gay people if they're dead set on enforcing biblical responses against them, or they shut the fuck up and let god sort it out in the afterlife.

My point still stands.

Here's what the bible says about homosexual relations in the book of Romans, Chap 1: "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." That 's from the NIV version of the new testament. Jesus did announce that we are no longer under the laws of the old testament. That includes stoning practicing homosexuals. But the underlying moral principles are still pertinent. He did command us to love our neighbors. I do love homosexuals. Heck, I even love Democrats.

[Esquilax]

drich's interpretation is simply known as Christianity. I do not know of any Christian who see himself as being bound by all the rules and regulations of OT Judaism.
As such clearly in John 8 Jesus clearly states what we should do about people found in sexual sin concerning stoning. The context is very clear and speaks exactly to this particular situation. You and apparently the gay rock woman don't seem to understand the basics of biblical Christianity.

Great, so you agree with me that political opponents of marriage equality don't have a biblical basis for their beliefs. Gotcha.

Christ's silence is not permission, as Christ only endorses sex with in the context of a Sanctified marriage. Bottom line there is no context where homosexual marriage has been Sanctified by God In the The new or Old Testament. And, as with any sin outside the confines of a Sanctified marriage, homosexual sex is a sexually based sin just like every other sexually based sin.

I'm not arguing that your bigoted little religion doesn't see homosexuality as a sin; I know that it does. I'm arguing that, as you seem to agree, there's no point in the bible where any of its key speakers ever commands that the way to deal with homosexuals is to prevent them from marrying and to discriminate in a political sense. It's either stone them, or it's nothing.

You say gay marriage hasn't been sanctified by god, and that's fine; I'd also point out that neither has the computer you're writing on. One doesn't need god's permission for every last little thing, because the bible doesn't have everything that ever will be in it. Moreover, even if you do find gay marriage a sin... isn't it you people who always say that god gave us all the free will to sin if we want to?

You bring up John 8, which is great; since you aren't casting first stones, and you have no other verse to back up this kind of discrimination, I guess you're pro-marriage equality, then?

Here's what the bible says about homosexual relations in the book of Romans, Chap 1: "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." That 's from the NIV version of the new testament. Jesus did announce that we are no longer under the laws of the old testament. That includes stoning practicing homosexuals. But the underlying moral principles are still pertinent. He did command us to love our neighbors. I do love homosexuals. Heck, I even love Democrats.

But you'd agree that there's no point in the bible where it says "thou shalt prevent the gays from marrying," yes? And so there's no biblical basis for doing so today, despite the claims of those that do?

That's the point of the stoning thing, guys: you have exactly one recommended course of action against homosexuals in the bible, so there's no possible way one can refer to it as a justification for moving against them politically.

[Drich]

drich's interpretation is simply known as Christianity. I do not know of any Christian who see himself as being bound by all the rules and regulations of OT Judaism.
As such clearly in John 8 Jesus clearly states what we should do about people found in sexual sin concerning stoning. The context is very clear and speaks exactly to this particular situation. You and apparently the gay rock woman don't seem to understand the basics of biblical Christianity.

Great, so you agree with me that political opponents of marriage equality don't have a biblical basis for their beliefs. Gotcha.

what are you talking about seriously? I was speaking to the reason why the city consul man would not stone a gay woman as a Christian. I have absolutely no idea how you got your above comment from what I wrote.

I'm not arguing that your bigoted little religion doesn't see homosexuality as a sin; I know that it does. I'm arguing that, as you seem to agree, there's no point in the bible where any of its key speakers ever commands that the way to deal with homosexuals is to prevent them from marrying and to discriminate in a political sense. It's either stone them, or it's nothing.

when did you start on this point? Your initial rebuttal had nothing to do with this. Or is this what you last post was about? Is that why you last post created a strawman and made a left turn that had nothing to do with anything I have said?

Because again the reason the Christian did not stone that woman is because in John 8 when a woman caught in a sexual sin was brought to Jesus to be stoned he said " he who is without sin cast the first stone." Meaning Christians are not in a position to kill someone for their sins. Why because we are all in sin all the time just like the woman who was caught in a sexual sin or the gay woman with the rock or any other gay or straight person. Christ was teaching us we are all in The same boat!

You say gay marriage hasn't been sanctified by god, and that's fine; I'd also point out that neither has the computer you're writing on.

has it been ever bann by God? Homosexuality has hence the reason for the rock the gay woman brought to the city consul meeting.

One doesn't need god's permission for every last little thing, because the bible doesn't have everything that ever will be in it.

but sex is one of those things the bible does lock down, which means you do have to reconcile your behavior with the bible concerning all aspects of sex.

Moreover, even if you do find gay marriage a sin... isn't it you people who always say that god gave us all the free will to sin if we want to?

ah, no. You'll actually like this better. The biblE says we do not have free will, that we are slaves to sin and will be doomed to be a sinner. This includes forbidden herto and homosexual sex. Which again is why Christ died, to help those looking to redeem themselves from those sins.

You bring up John 8, which is great; since you aren't casting first stones, and you have no other verse to back up this kind of discrimination, I guess you're pro-marriage equality, then?

what kind of discrimation are you referring?

Here's what the bible says about homosexual relations in the book of Romans, Chap 1: "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." That 's from the NIV version of the new testament. Jesus did announce that we are no longer under the laws of the old testament. That includes stoning practicing homosexuals. But the underlying moral principles are still pertinent. He did command us to love our neighbors. I do love homosexuals. Heck, I even love Democrats.

But you'd agree that there's no point in the bible where it says "thou shalt prevent the gays from marrying," yes? And so there's no biblical basis for doing so today, despite the claims of those that do?

That's the point of the stoning thing, guys: you have exactly one recommended course of action against homosexuals in the bible, so there's no possible way one can refer to it as a justification for moving against them politically.
[/quote]

[Ryantology]

drich's interpretation is simply known as Christianity.

An interpretation in which pride is apparently no longer a sin.

I do not know of any Christian who see himself as being bound by all the rules and regulations of OT Judaism.

Of course not, because none of you are willing to do what your god commands of you, so you just convince yourselves that the only parts that apply to you are the ones you feel like following.

Better hope your God agrees with Drichstianity, because otherwise, your hell is going to be all of us laughing at you. Forever.