Featured Did Jesus Ordain One Man/One Woman Marriage?

Decent logic, this one has.

Sure I do, but simple theft doesn't quite get it. I tend to look at the scale of things, how many people a certain action hurts. When we're talking about rigging the market as mentioned earlier, we're talking about millions of people, possibly hundreds of millions around the world, being badly hurt by the actions of a few.

On the other hand, I lived across the street from two lesbians for 15 years. They kept to themselves and minded their own business. I have a real hard time telling myself that their actions are worse than what the wall street insiders did in the mid 2000's. I hardly see how this statement makes me a "supporter", especially in regards to homosexuality in general.

 

Gracias.

The point I was making, corndogggy, (and that I failed to properly elucidate) was that it is not really for us to determine who has the greater sin. Jesus was once confronted by a group of people who seemingly thought that the 18 people who dies in the collapse of the Tower of Siloam were greater sinners than others in Jerusalem. Jesus quickly rebuked them by saying that all had sinned and that all needed to repent. The person who kills someone else stands as much in need of repentance as the person who stole $10 out of their mother's purse. Both actions placed a gulf between them and God. There isn't a bigger gulf in place for one than the other. We think there is, because we've placed greater punishments on people for murder than we have for theft.

 

So homosexual marriage is a sin then , correct?

 

Except that God stated to ys that while all sin is bad, sexual sins are very bad, and if one is professing jesus, they are going to bed with another man, or with a woman not their spouse, is really wicked!

God does view and judge some sins as worse then others...

 

Just out of curiosity, Dr. Bob, how are we to build points within discussion if we cannot stray from the original topic title? The issue is that the OP is a single Yes/No question. One of the first things I learned in writing (journalistic and academic) is that a Yes/No question ends discussion. It does not allow for further discussion or debate because the mere act of answering closes the door to greater discussion.

The other option is we start an individual thread for each and every non-OP point made to back up individual poster's statements. I'm not sure we would want to do that, as it would flood the forum with multiple short threads.

Please note that I'm not trying to be snarky here. I mean this sincerely. Thanks.:smilewinkgrin:

 

How can something that doesn't Biblically exist be a sin?

 

Amazing! Some actually think that just because the Bible does not recognize homosexual union as marriage, then it is not marriage and thus is not sin.

However, the act of government redefining marriage differently than what the Bible defines marriage to be IS SIN. Furthermore, any citizens who honor that act of sin by government by submitting to government authorized representatives (secular/religious) for legal and public recognition to pervert the Biblical definition IS SIN. In addition, legalization of homosexual marriage is the legalization of homosexual union which IS SIN. In addition, anyone who attends what they know to be the legalization of sin ARE SINNING as they are participating and supporting such sin by their presence.

 

The idea Christians are not to preach sin but only preach the gospel is a self-contradiction as the gospel cannot be preached apart from preaching repentance of sin. Jesus preached against sin and said "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Lk. 13:3,6). Luke represents the going with the gospel into all the world by saying "preaching REPENTANCE and REMISSION OF SINS" among all nations (Lk. 24:46).

There is no need of "good news" until you understand the bad news. There is no need of a Savior until you understand what you need to be saved from, and the angel commanded Mary to call his name Jesus because "he shall save his people FROM THEIR SINS" (Mt. 1:20). There is no need for salvation until you know what you need salvation from, and you cannot know what that is until sin is defined and recognized. Hence, to say preach Jesus and avoid preaching against sin is oxymoronic and contrary the gospel itself.

 

It isn't marriage. If it were marriage, it wouldn't be a sin.

No disagreement.

No disagreement. That's essentially saying God's definition is wrong.

The union isn't sinful. It's the disagreement with God that's sinful.

Interesting. We're not supposed to give the appearance of evil.

Would that line of thought also extend to Christians who go to bars and have a drink while other folks are getting drunk?

Would it extend to Christians who use hospitals that give abortions?

Would it extend to Christians who attend football games where folks are cussing and getting drunk?

Would it extend to Christians going to the movies and watching the beginning of a fornicative act between two unmarried folks?

Would it extend to Christians watching Duck Dynasty when they attend a church that believes baptism is essential to salvation?

Would it extend to Christians endorsing a Mormon for President when he rejects Jesus Christ?

 

. The ACT and RECOGNITION of that act by PARTICIPATION in that act is sin! Why? Because it is man's attempt to redefine Biblical marriage and participation is RECOGNITION of that act as marriage. Just because it is not the definition of Biblical marriage does not mean it is not the definition of government/cultural marriage. For example, fornication is not marriage either, but if government defines and legalizes fornication AS MARRIAGE, then it is marriage in the eyes of government whether the Bible recognizes it or not. Your participation would give credence to that definition which both definition and support by presence is sin.

You must be kidding? The "union" is the ACT of homosexuality which the Bible explicitly condemns as sinful. It falls under the term "fornication" (illicit, illegal sexual behavior).

Your mixing apples with oranges. The Bible does say AVOID all appearances of evil and attending what purports to publiclly be a Homosexual wedding is giving your vote for it by your attendance.

The hospital is not publicly advertised as an abortion clinic. If it were then yes, it would be sin to go to support a person getting an abortion. It is sin to support abortion clinics. The hospital may do abortions but that is not why it exists or why it meets in that building. If it did exist and meet in that building for that stated purpose then it would be an abortion clinic and to support a person going their for that purpose would be sin.

Bars are given for the purpose of drinking and drunkeness. So yes, attending a bar certainly does give the "appearance of evil" and you are commanded to avoid such appearances.

Football games are designed to play football. Theaters are designed to show movies. However, attending a "R" rated movie where the content violates God's law and promotes a life style that offends God and promotes sin would be sin.

The bottom line is to ask what is the meeting designed for? If it is designed to promote that which offends God, violates His law then yes it is sin to promote it by your presence.

If its design is something neither good or evil, but there are those who do things evil there and YOU DON"T but attend to promote its neither good or evil design then attendance is not sin.

 

Extending your list...

Would it extend to Christians going to a grocery store that sells beer and wine?

Would it extend to Christians shopping online at outlets that sell 'adult' material?

Would it extend to Christians attending a wedding of unbelievers where alcohol and rock and roll music is?

Would it extend to Christians attending a restaurant where gluttony is promoted?

Would it extend to Christians shopping at big girl shops where overweight and fat are targeted?

I have been a member of churches where only sins that weren't prevalent in that congregation were preached against. There needs to be some consistency, and if there isn't, it is for the purpose of taking the eye of yourself. And it can't be taught as a 'fault' but rather as a 'sin'.

 

:thumbs: :applause:

 

Since when did recognition of a sin become sin? You may be crossing into creating new sins.

But you've already agreed this "redefining" is a sin. SO marriage remains what God says it is. You're not sinning just because you think you're getting married. The sin rests in disagreeing with what God says is marriage.

Pretending to get married after the government sins and tries to redefine marriage does not make that pretense a sin.

That makes no sense. God has already defined fornication. The government attempting to redefine it doesn't create a new sin. It would still be fornication.

Hold your horses. I thought you were referring to the "marriage" as the "union".

How is that mixing apples with oranges?

So what? Bars aren't publicly advertised as a place to go and get drunk.

Huh? What does advertising a hospital as an abortion clinic have to do with it being sinful to support a person getting an abortion? The latter would be sinful in itself. It didn't become sinful because the hospital is advertised as an abortion clinic.

Stop authoring confusion. The hospital exists to perform "hospital" duties. One of those duties is performing abortions.

Again, stop authoring confusion. The same thing gets done in a hospital that gets done in abortion clinics. It may be a lot rarer in the hospitals, but a lot of them do still perform abortions.

But according to your previous logic with the hospital, unless the bar is advertising its purpose as a place to drink and get drunk, it shouldn't apply.

They are designed to entertain. And part of that entertainment is folks cussing and drinking.

They are designed to entertain. And part of that entertainment, generally PG-13 and up, includes unmarried people lusting and implied fornicating.

Why wouldn't that apply for the reasons I mentioned above?

What meeting? Hospitals are designed to perform medical procedures of which an abortion qualifies.

See this type of confusion is why we should limit calling sin those things that God calls sin.