Mar 252014
 

As is often been the case in my life, Dr. J.I. Packer lays it out better than anyone.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/rEMUn4KEVe8[/youtube]

  129 Responses to “Why I Can’t Affirm Gay Marriage”

  1. James (who is most admired in my book) makes claims at the onset of his argument that are false. Homosexuality is nowhere in the gospel. His argument from that point forward is invalid.

    The end.

  2. Not the end.
    Define the Gospel.
    If it is that Christ has come to save sinners from sin, then Packer is right.
    You will pick a different screen name.

  3. I guess that depends on which gospel. The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ as described in John Chapter 1, or Paul.

    And that is where the argument ends for me.

    Resume normality.

  4. These posts are not Ribo’s.
    The argument ends there for you because you have no hope of making an actual exegetical argument for what you are saying.
    You hope that of you say it loud enough and refuse to dialog that it will magically become fact.
    Now that your scriptures are whittled down to one chapter that makes your task all the more difficult.

  5. The God of the Universe is described in John 1. Paul is not that god. Nor does he make the gospel.

    Jesus is the Gospel.

    But what we have evolved into is a people who dictate that the didactic interpret the narrative. So we can exclude whomever we want from the family because we have Paul.

  6. I’m going to change the name on your posting to Anon.
    If you lift that moniker again you will be moderated.
    The reality is that you can’t make a biblical argument for your case using the whole counsel of Scripture, so you must chop it down to avoid anything that refutes you.
    Can’t dialog with someone wielding scissors.

  7. Paul never said he was God.
    Jesus is not the Gospel, though that’s a catchy phrase.
    The Gospel is the announcement of what Jesus has accomplished.

  8. Paul whipped out the scissors. It was not me. Peter proclaimed him equal to “scriptures”. Not me.

    You say, “The Gospel is the announcement of what Jesus has accomplished” but you believe that the didactic interprets the narrative. Translation, only Paul can lead us to Christ.

    There is one mediator between God and man. Paul ain’t it. He never claimed to be. He wrote to very specific people in a specific culture and context. He did not write to you. But you dictate that Jesus (The One True God) is only validated/interpreted through a mortal shaded by a lifetime of law.

    So you are correct. I reject what you call the whole council of God.

  9. And with that…

    I leave it to Steve and MLD to trash.

  10. Anon,
    It isn’t hard to figure out who you are.
    Can’t you just give Michael a break for a little?

  11. It’s not who you think it is. I’ll answer this one when I get home.

  12. I didn’t mean RB.
    Only one person comes on with the Paul thing.

  13. I informed Ricky Bobby #1 who I was. No need to freak.

  14. The dumbest and least intellectual argument for gay marriage and it being a norm is the argument of silence. Basically since Jesus neither denied nor confirmed homosexuality in any of the gospel records it is therefore OK. Well it’s not and such arguments demonstrate an ignorance of the 2nd Temple period Jewish culture and teaching.

    Now if you are demanding the answer to the question, homosexuals can be “saved” that is a whole different debate. However, the affirmation of homosexual marriage as a norm, in the economy and design of God, will never be accepted either in scripture (even if we exclude Paul’s writings) or in the natural design of humanity.

    Additionally the debate is not about people either confirming their commitments to others or actually loving others of the same sex. The debate is about physical acts of homosexuality and can two people of the same sex, “become one” in marriage.

    Ok I’ve done enough to start the brawl. Michael I support you in this.

  15. “You say, “The Gospel is the announcement of what Jesus has accomplished” but you believe that the didactic interprets the narrative. Translation, only Paul can lead us to Christ.”

    There is absolutely no place where you will ever find a quote where I said that.
    What I have said is that it is in Pauline writings that you find the doctrine of grace must fully developed.
    For example, if you read the Sermon on the Mount without a background in the theology of grace, it becomes an utterly terrifying piece of writing.

    “But you dictate that Jesus (The One True God) is only validated/interpreted through a mortal shaded by a lifetime of law.”

    That is not only untrue, it’s asinine.

    I use to the whole counsel of God to show show the fullness of who Jesus is.

    Let’s look at some red letters…

    ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
    “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison.Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.
    “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
    “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
    “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
    “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
    “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
    (Matthew 5:17–48 ESV)

    Law or Gospel?

  16. Bob,

    Good post.
    I had to step out for a while…

  17. “The dumbest and least intellectual argument…”

    “Bob,

    Good post”

    Figured yourself out yet? Pauline to the max. Now it’s personal.

  18. There is no “dialog” with opposition. You proved it. You have two detractors now, Michael. You take the low road. Face the facts. You are what you hate.

  19. Anon,

    You have misquoted and misrepresented me more than once.
    I am simply defending what I believe and you decide its personal and I am the enemy.
    For all your “Jesus” talk, you sure are a hostile human being.

  20. I leave it to Steve and MLD to trash.
    ———————————————-
    Guys who throw bombs out like that are just wanting people to join them in their bitterness and hate….consciously looking for strife.

    It’s a pitiful sight really, and worthy of pity not scorn. And yeah, Michael deserves a lot better, especially given his profession of personal challenge at this season.

    As far as hijacking nicknames and such….well, it reminds me of the old joke about the Beatles playing behind a curtain – identity is obvious within a minute. You don’t even need to hear Paul or John sing a word, George’s riffs alone would give them away.

  21. Make me a mod for 5 minutes!! 🙂

  22. I will continue to seek peace with Anon…and I refuse to consider him an enemy despite his wishes.
    Love hopes…Paul taught me that.

  23. Anon

    Pauline to the max?

    I guess you didn’t actually read my post. But that seems to be the norm.

  24. I appreciated Dr. Packer’s response. The gospel is intersperse through out the Scripture. It is Christ saving, us and our response to the work of His salvation as we are being saved.

  25. Gay marriage is the turning point for christendom. There is finally a lever that will cause the rockslide to cover us. The hatred of those who oppose this disunion will foment until revenge has made dissent silent.

    Christianity will be hated over this matter or it will lose all resemblance to the historic faith.

  26. To claim that Jesus said nothing about gay marriage is not accurate: he defined marriage as designed by the Creator and “Male and female.” The Jews asked him about one issue (divorce) and he answered all issues by simply showing how God set up marriage. He laid down the “straight stick” and all else is made to appear to be a “crooked stick.”

    To say that that homosexuality is not in the gospel is like saying lying, straling, murder, etc. are not part of the gospel. The Lord’s name is Jesus, “For he shall save his people from their sin.” Unless we want o exclude the words of angels, we must accept this message as part of the good news. John the Baptist said, “Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.” Unless we want to cut the Lord’s forerunner out of the gospel-preaching pack, then we must accept that , part of the good news is the message of concerning man’s sin. Peter, on the day of Pentecost taught about being washed from our sins. Unless we are ready to excise as “not preaching the gospel of Christ” one on whom the Holy Spirit of God descended on the day of Pentecost (according the the promise of the Lord, Himself) then we must consider that the sin of homosexuality,and more importantly, salvation from it, is part of the preaching of the gospel. Paul wrote, ” I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation….” Unless we are willing to believe that, having said that, Paul’s turned right away to a subject that is not the gospel, then we must assume that the declaration of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior is part of the gospel.

    It is true that one does not have to say, “homosexuality is a sin” in order to preach the gospel. But, neither do I have to name my sons and daughter in order to speak of may family. To throw out the red herring that homosexuality is not a part of the gospel is simply to invite needless, divisive debate. The Scriptures call such divisive talk “heresy.” Sadly, heresy has come to mean “error” but the original word means “division.” Heretics generally present a smug attitude of superiority, ready to dismiss the words of faithful men. Even if they never say so in so many words, lying at the heart of their motivations is a desire for preeminence among God’s sheep. I cannot speak of their tactics in other days, but it seems that in the modern world of internet publishing they have taken making statements so ridiculous that one is drawn into the debate with them just out of curiosity as to what they mean. But they respond, not with careful, gentle, loving teaching, but sniping accusations (strictly Pauline), vague assertions, logical fallacy, and bombast.

    The scriptures do not call on Christians to withdraw from many sorts of people. But among those is the heretic. They are to be given one or two opportunities to repent then they are to be rejected. I suggest that the moderator of this site do so with “anon” seeing that his posts are in error and divisive. It is not helpful to the cause of Christ to entertain the ramblings of such men (or women). They are an irritant to believers, a stumbling block to seekers and a dishonor to the name of Christ.

    However, I must say that I find it sort of funny that “anon” quotes Paul (there is one mediator) to discredit Paul.

  27. “Christianity will be hated over this matter or it will lose all resemblance to the historic faith.”

    The second one isn’t an option….
    So bring on the first.

    On a college campus recently, an atheist said “None of the Christians in my dorm have ever once warned me about hell, told me how to be saved. So they either don’t really believe or they don’t love me enough to tell me.”

    I’d add a third option: many of us Christians are spoiled cowards who want the niceties of life without the disdain of the world.

    And perhaps the One who laid down His life for the church wants us to love the atheists etc, speak the truth to them and do it while facing hatred, imprisonment and death. Certainly we may have to face the disfavor of the SNL cast.

  28. “So they either don’t really believe or they don’t love me enough to tell me.”

    The language of the “atheist” statement gives him away. If the “atheist” can make this statement in these words it means that he is really a fallen away Christian and perhaps his dorm mates recognize that … that this guy does know about hell and he does know how to be saved and he is just trying to be a pain in the ass.

  29. Packer and others can’t affirm “gay” marriage…yet they affirm fornicator, adulterer, p0rn addict, liar, prideful, glutton, divorcee marriage all the time.

  30. The bible has already redefined marriage several times.

    In the OT you could marry a whole lot of women, see David, Solomon, Lamech, Johoiadah, Asshur, Rehoboam…so many others.

    The bible endorses and permits multiple wives or polygamy in the OT (i can list quite a few verses).

    Traditional Marriage folks today claim, “Marriage is between one man and one woman!”

    …well not according to the bible in many places.

  31. Gideon, David, Solomon…all hailed as “men of God” no? Nathan didn’t come after David for humping his many wives and concubines…Nathan came after David for committing adultery with another man’s wife.

    Gideon, an OT hero of the faith…a righteous man etc, correct?

    Judges 8:30 Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring, for he had many wives.

    Seems “Traditional” marriage is polygamy if you go back to the OT bible.

  32. The Bible list all of man’s shortcomings. The Bible stories reflect the way people lived. We are always held to the straight edge of scripture.

    Just because people took multiple wives does not mean that it was God’s intention for people to take multiple wives.

    You still fail to see that Jesus was crucified because we continuously do it wrong – however, that does not mean that wrong is acceptable.Just because a man CAN marry a man does not make it acceptable.

  33. That’s the typical apologetic to explain away the very simple and very clear fact: The definition of marriage changed from polygamy being normative and acceptable in the bible to something else much later on.

  34. MLD, why didn’t Nathan rebuke David for all his wives and concubines if it was “sin”? Why just for Bathsheba?

  35. The multiple wives in the OT, I believe is descriptive and not prescriptive.

    “Nathan didn’t come after David for humping his many wives and concubines…Nathan came after David for committing adultery with another man’s wife.”

    …And murdering the man. I guess you forgot that part.

  36. “That’s the typical apologetic to explain away the very simple and very clear fact: ”

    No, this is YOUR apologetic… to interpret scripture as “The Way God Dictates Life” No, it is a narrative as to WHY a savior was needed.

    God said marriage = Man & Woman – man said marriage = man & several women or man says marriage = man & a water buffalo.

  37. I was focusing on the sexual aspect of “adultery” but yes it appears David was rebuked for murdering her husband as well.

    Why would Nathan rebuke David for “adultery” for Bathsheba but no mention of his other wives and concubines as “adultery”?

    why? b/c it was OK then. It wasn’t considered a sin.

  38. Why is homosexuality a sin?

    Why is having concubines a sin?

    Why is having multiple wives a sin?

    Quantify these “sins” for me….

  39. If someone stays in a sin their whole lives and doesn’t repent of it…are they “saved”?

    If having concubines and multiple wives is akin to “adultery”…and no adulterers go to heaven….and the person stays in the concubine/multiple wife “adultery” until they die with no repentance…then are they in heaven or hell?

    Now, same goes for homosexuality…same questions….

  40. Seems that if having concubines and multiple wives is ‘sin’ as you seem to assert…then David, Solomon, Gideon and many others in the bible are in HELL according to your apologetic.

    B/c if someone is committing the homosexual “sin” until they die with no repentance then you’d claim they were not saved, correct? Your rationale being that no homosexuals can inherit the kingdom of God (meaning practicing homosexuals)

    Well, same standard for adulterers no? If someone like King David practiced Polygamy and Concubine sex their whole lives…and you say it is “adultery”…then they died as adulterers having not repented of that ongoing sinful act…and are in HELL by your same standard toward homosexuals.

    Tough one for your apologetic.

  41. Is polygamy and concubine sex “sin”?

    It has to be “sin” or “not sin”…pick one.

    Either way you go…big problems for your apologetic.

  42. You miss the point – because someone can still go to heaven – because the power of Jesus to save is greater than the power to sin does not make the sin acceptable.

    I have said this many times, I break all 10 of the 10 commandments everyday and I am secure in my salvation, because I believe the promises of Christ. Although I am a continual sinner, I am not seen that way by God.

    But I don’t think there is a single Christian person who is going to tell me my sin is acceptable.

  43. It has to be “sin” or “not sin”…pick one.

    SIN

  44. OK, Polygamy and Concubine sex are “sin”.

    Did David repent of his Polygamy and Concubine sex or just Bathsheba?

  45. If a homosexual practices homosexuality their whole life and doesn’t acknowledge it as “sin” and doesn’t repent of it and dies….is that person going to heaven of hell?

  46. Davd (and Nathan the prophet for that matter) did not consider David’s Polygamy or Concubine sex as “sin”….David did not acknowledge it as sin and did not repent of it as sin…is David in HELL?

  47. 45 – have no idea
    46 – going to heaven is not predicated on your sex life – it is based on Jesus (read my statement above)
    47 – I don’t acknowledge many of my sins as sin – so what’s the point?

  48. MLD you seem to be asserting that I can commit an ongoing sin and never repent of it…and still go to heaven?

    Cool! Antinomianism rules!!!

  49. Then why so hard on the homosexuals and gay marriage if you can sin all you want and it doesn’t matter, just like King David?

  50. I will ask this and then I will stop.

    Is your salvation based on you and your actions or is your salvation based on Jesus and his singular act? If it is based on you, well, good luck with that!

  51. MLD, you stated Polygamy and Concubine sex are “sin”…David lived in that sin without repentance until he died. He had sex with many women and not “one wife”…yet you assert David can be in heaven and his actions didn’t matter in that case.

    Yet David got nuked for Bathsheba…and it is assumed that had David not repented from that particular “sin” he would have been doomed, no?

    Or would David have been good to go had he not repented of Bathsheba as well?

  52. A dear friend emailed me privately to ask if I was posting as “Anon”.

    No.

    Just look for the ( |o )====:::

  53. RB,
    I have stated the Christian position – your religion seems to have a problem with my answer. What can I say?

    Good talking to you.

  54. My point is, why so hard on the gays?

    Sin doesn’t seem to matter much. When pressed, nearly all evangelicals and lutherans and whatever flavor end up in the same refrain (I’ve been through this dozens of times and all end up in the same defensive posture giving the same answers)

    …”Well, Jesus saves you! It’s not your actions!”

    OK, then cut the homos some slack. If David can have concubine sex and multiple wives and live in that sin with no repentance and still be a “man after god’s own heart” and go to heaven…then why not a practicing homosexual?

  55. MLD, it’s called intellectual honesty and critical thinking. You should try it on for size if you are even capable of it.

    If David’s “sin” and practicing ongoing sin w/ no repentance of Polygamy and Concubine sex were not an issue and he’s “saved”…then why so hard on the homosexuals who you say if they practice that sin without giving it up are doomed to hell…even if they make a profession of Christian faith?

  56. Lonnie Frisbee = King David.

  57. RiBo wrote: “then why so hard on the homosexuals who you say if they practice that sin without giving it up are doomed to hell…even if they make a profession of Christian faith?”

    Actually, RiBo hit one out of the park with this statement, for the free grace people like me. This is THE question. And yes, I know RiBo’s views and history, and he and I couldn’t be farther apart on beliefs unless he claimed to be an alien from Neptune.

    But his question is valid. The question is what brought a rise to the free grace movement. Who am I to say that they aren’t saved, all the while having to assert the salvation of someone steeped in anger, jealousy, gossip, and so on? You know, those “not so important” sins?

  58. A big reason the homosexuals hate Christian evangelicals so much is b/c evangelicals and other Christians tend to tell the homosexual that they have to give up their sin to be saved…yet the evangelicals and Christians get to keep their favorite sins and claim grace…like gluttony, pride, lying, heterosexual sin, divorce etc etc.

    Leave the homosexuals alone. They are no more or less sinners than the rest of us.

  59. RB,
    Again, you show that you don’t read what I write, but just load up for the next answer. I have said all along that the sin part does not matter in the heaven issue – Christ died on the cross for everyone’s sin – Sin is no longer the issue.

    What I have said, probably 3 times this morning, is that does not make the sin acceptable

    That my friend is intellectual honesty, Now go back and read my previous comments and you will see how foolish you sound.

  60. MLD, each of my responses was not necessarily directed at you, but to the mass audience in general and to the issue in general.

  61. Andy,

    No one is having ceremonies openly endorsing anger, jealousy and gossip as a blessed God honoring state of being. I repeat No ONE. Why than should we be having ceremonies rejoicing in a Holy matrimony of God’s blessing in a homosexual union? Its beyond comprehension but that is where we are at today. In fact, not only that but unless you jump on board with RiBo he will never stop hounding you until you confess you are a sinner. Well I confess and I need Christ to forgive me for all of my sins including anger, jealousy and gossip.

  62. Andrew wrote: “No one is having ceremonies openly endorsing anger, jealousy and gossip as a blessed God honoring state of being”

    I thought the issue here was those that claim that homosexuality IS a sin, and yet still struggle with it in their lives, a la Lonnie Frisbee. That is who RiBo used as an example. Lonnie Frisbee didn’t say that it was not a sin, and he didn’t have a gay marriage, and he never supported the notion of it. He did struggle with it, all his life. So, is he in hell? He clearly said that he believed in Jesus, and believed homosexuality to be a sin. I say, he’s in heaven.

  63. I thought the issue here was those that claim that homosexuality IS a sin, and yet still struggle with it in their lives, a la Lonnie Frisbee.
    ________________________________________________________________

    No, actually if you read the title of the blog post is why I can’t affirm gay marriage.

  64. Jtk wrote: “On a college campus recently, an atheist said “None of the Christians in my dorm have ever once warned me about hell, told me how to be saved. So they either don’t really believe or they don’t love me enough to tell me.” I’d add a third option: many of us Christians are spoiled cowards who want the niceties of life without the disdain of the world”

    I think it’s primarily the second. They don’t want to talk about hell, because, it will disrupt their social connections.

  65. Gay marriage is a moral opinion and as such the “church” has the right to hold an opinion that calls it “sin” and “wrong”…while the pro-Gay Marriage side has the same right in the opposite direction.

    The issue is really a First Amendment and Separation of Church and State issue.

    “Marriage” in the State side of the equation is a govt. contract..and as such…gays should be allowed the same access as heteros…assuming a State’s majority is cool with it.

    On the “Church” side of the equation…the Church has a right to a moral opinion (First Amendment) and does not have to sanction the marriage from a church context and doesn’t have to perform the marriage.

    Is homosexuality a “sin”? Well, probably if you appeal to the bible as the end-all be-all sin definer…and we are all caught up in that net for many different sins.

  66. Andrew wrote: “No, actually if you read the title of the blog post is why I can’t affirm gay marriage”

    Well I was referring only to the most recent points between MLD and RiBo.

    But as for the title of the blog post, I also cannot affirm gay marriage.

  67. Do you affirm Divorcee Marriage?

  68. “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”–Jesus Christ, the bible

  69. RiBo wrote: “Do you affirm Divorcee Marriage?”

    Absolutely yes. Because there are examples of it in the Bible, such as Deuteronomy 24:1-2.

    I see no Bible examples of two guys getting married, anywhere.

  70. “Absolutely yes. Because there are examples of it in the Bible”

    There are examples in the bible of God commanding the genocide and killing of the children and infants of the already conquered Amalekites…does that make it okey dokey for us?

  71. Same Old Testament gives “examples” of owning sex slaves (concubines) and multiple wives…does that mean we can do so today?

  72. “There are examples in the bible of God commanding the genocide and killing of the children and infants of the already conquered Amalekites…does that make it okey dokey for us?”

    Only if I were in Israel at that time, and told to do that by God, then I would. Otherwise, I will not (Luke 9:54-56).

  73. RiBo wrote: “Same Old Testament gives “examples” of owning sex slaves (concubines) and multiple wives…does that mean we can do so today?”

    Slow down, cowboy. I know you have fresh meat here, but you need to chew slowly, or you won’t digest anything.

    1 Corinthians 7:2 answers this question.

  74. What about owning slaves and sex slaves? Both permitted and exampled in the OT…

  75. Andy, that is a redefinition of marriage which is what I assert above.

    OT says “marriage” Is cool to include sex slaves (Concubines) and multiple wives…then NT seems to redefine that to only one wife.

  76. “What about owning slaves and sex slaves? Both permitted and exampled in the OT”

    If I were alive during that time, as a Jew, and it was obedience, yes.

    See, I’m not afraid to say it. Yes, is my answer to this and all your future questions.

    Of course, they weren’t “sex slaves”. They were incorporated into Israel for their survival. Their societies were being destroyed for the evil they did.

  77. MLD asserted that Multiple Wives and Concubines are “sin”…I don’t know. Both are exampled and permitted in the OT and King David wasn’t rebuked for those acts as “sin” by the prophet Nathan…but assuming it was “sin” and not permitted then David died in that sin w/o repentance.

  78. “OT says “marriage” Is cool to include sex slaves (Concubines) and multiple wives…then NT seems to redefine that to only one wife.”

    I already pointed out they weren’t “sex slaves”, and God never said that multiple wives is “cool” (you said that, not Him). But at any rate, lots of things change in the Bible. Before the flood, no human government to stop anyone. After the flood, human government. Before the tower of babel, no language additions to stop unity of evil. After…. you get the point.

    Now that the Book is closed (Revelation 22:18-19), we have all we need, no further changes.

  79. Andy that is a more intellectually honest position: the bible appears to assert that at one time “slavery” and “sex slaves” were moral and good and permitted…in the “context” of that day. (which is Moral Relativism)

  80. So, if Moral Relativism is the standard…then today “Gay Marriage”…why is it wrong if it is accepted as OK in our cultural context? (also Moral Relativism)

  81. RiBo: “So, if Moral Relativism is the standard…then today “Gay Marriage”…why is it wrong if it is accepted as OK in our cultural context? (also Moral Relativism)”

    “Moral relativism” is never the standard. What God says, is the only standard.

    As for so-called “gay marriage”, see my number 79 for the answer to this.

  82. Andy, wrong, the bible does permit Concubines (which were sex slaves by definition). It was specifically permitted in the Levitical Law given to Moses presumed to be given by God himself:

    Leviticus 25:44-46

    As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

  83. Separation and Divorce I believe are two different things. Once someone is divorced I believe they may remarry if there is repentance. However, not with separation since they would not be legally able to remarry and it would be adultery to shack up with someone new while still technically married.

  84. Andy your apologetic for why it was OK for Jews to have sex slaves is Moral Relativism…as it is not OK for us today. It is Moral Relativism by definition…otherwise we’d be able to have sex slaves/concubines today and it not be “sin” and “immoral”

  85. RiBo wrote: “Concubines (which were sex slaves by definition)”

    Then you must have a dirtier mind than me (Titus 1:15), because I don’t see your Leviticus verses as making them into sex slaves at all.

    Your Leviticus verses sound to me like people that were going to DIE in a just judgment upon their societies, and God is giving them the opportunity to live in Israel (not run it, and not escape it), for their own well-being. Death is the only other option for them.

  86. Andy, same Hebrew word used for the women who were owned by OT figures who had children with them…including Abraham and Hagar.

  87. RiBo wrote: “Andy, same Hebrew word used for the women who were owned by OT figures who had children with them…including Abraham and Hagar.

    I think you’re bringing your own prejudiced bias into it. Hagar actually had been cast out, and could have walked away free. But God, who loved her and PROTECTED her, told her to go back. At the end when God said He didn’t want her there anymore, God once again loved her, provided for her, and protected her.

    So you need to be objective. I don’t know if you can. Can you?

  88. Genesis 20:17 (one of many examples) Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelek, his wife and his female slaves so they could have children again,

    Having children with your women slaves is pretty clearly sexual and sex slaves.

  89. 2 Samuel 5:13 After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.

    Same Hebrew word for female slave…and David had sex with them and had kids with them which was a common practice in the OT…many OT figures, same hebrew word for “female slave” and same result: Sex and kids.

  90. Per your 89, Abimelek was a pagan king that didn’t have any regard to the true God outside of Abraham’s brief involvement, and it was Abraham that prayed, not Abimelek.

    Those societies that reject God, don’t end well, and don’t go well on the way to their end.

  91. “Same Hebrew word for female slave…and David had sex with them and had kids with them which was a common practice in the OT…many OT figures, same hebrew word for “female slave” and same result: Sex and kids”

    This doesn’t make them slaves, as if, had they said to David, “we want out, we’re leaving”, somehow he would have had them murdered. They had freedom of choice, guaranteed even under the law.

    You are applying your own bias to the reading. I don’t see what you’re seeing.

  92. Andy that doesn’t mean anything.

    I can point to a zillion other sons who were born of the wife or wives who went sideways. There is no correlation.

  93. Andy, the text says it in Leviticus and then the text says it in the other examples (and there are many more) in the OT bible.

    Hey, I’m with you that the bible doesn’t mean what it says.

  94. Ribo, it still doesn’t make them slaves that would have been shot to death at the wall of East Berlin for trying to get away. If you are claiming that David would have killed them all, you have lost any credibility with any Bible believer.

  95. The fact is: the bible asserts per the text: Moral Relativism.

    I’m cool with that fact. It is what it is.

    I’m glad the Christian folks today are not cool with murdering children and infants of a conquered people who are captive and I’m glad Christians aren’t cool with executing kids with stones for being unruly or rebellious…though I’m a bit butt-hurt b/c I can’t have sex slaves. That’s total b.s.! 😉

  96. If you think the Bible asserts “moral relativism”, then you haven’t ever read it.

    The Bible asserts God’s statements are final authority. And He reserves the right to change things down the way. And He reserves the right to keep things the way they are as well, which is what happened when He closed the Book.

  97. Andy, wrong.

    God knocked up Mary at age 12 and it was “good”…not so today…God would be put in jail today.

    Andy, is it “good” to get a 12 year old girl pregnant today? Or is it “morally wrong”?

    Moral Relativism by definition.

  98. Reeebo, when you find me the verse that says MARY WAS 12 YEARS OLD… Then I will consider your argument.

    Until then, you are wrong. Wrong as Reeebo, and wrong as Ribo.

    The Scriptures had no problem stating that Jesus was 12 years old, teaching in the temple. Therefore, they would have told us that Mary was 12, if she were. No such Scripture exists.

    Again, your personal bias overrides knowledge.

  99. Apocryphal accounts put Mary at 12 to 14 years old.

    Even the most ardent evangelical apologists assent to the fact she was most likely no more than 15 years old when she married Joseph…after conceiving at no less than 14 or 15.

    Most historians put her at 12-14 when she was impregnated.

    Any way you slice it, she was well under age when she got pregnant and well under age when she got married…both considered morally “good” then (cultural context and moral relativism)…and “not good” and “immoral” today.

  100. Gospel of James: 8. And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

    9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph’s head. And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord thy God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in thy house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received thee from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave thee in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to thee. The Lord will protect thee.

  101. Reeebo, your 100 is based on everything and everyone but the Bible. If it ain’t in the Bible, it ain’t in the Bible. I’m not going to play on multiple playing fields.

  102. Andy, the bible states many things explicitly and implicitly.

    Do you believe in the Trinity? It’s not in the bible.

  103. “both considered morally “good” then (cultural context and moral relativism)…and “not good” and “immoral” today”

    But it does not make it unbiblical. We as westerners don’t do it, but no because the bible is against it – just because we choose not to. The Bbile remains the same.

  104. Andy, show me the verse that says “Trinity”….

  105. MLD, is it morally right or morally wrong to impregnate a 12 year old girl?

  106. The Godhead is in the Bible. Godhead is Trinity.

    The inference of Mary’s exact age, is never inferred. At “best”, you’d have to go to rabbis that hate the Lord Jesus, or liberal “theologians” that hate the Bible, or the “Gospel of Drunk Bob”.

  107. MLD, is it “biblical” to impregnate a 12 year old girl?

  108. The Godhead is the Godhead, the “Trinity” is an extrabiblical term and extra-biblical philosophical concept in an attempt to describe the Godhead. It is not a term used in the bible, you assume it b/c you think it makes sense and you extrapolate from the text…Mary was 12 to 15 when she was impregnated and married. We can extrapolate that from the text and the apocrypha even puts a specific date on it.

  109. Average life expectancy was around 30…people married and had children early.

    Reebo, you reject traditional Christianity.
    We get that.
    You’re not going to change the faith of those who do believe and you’re not going to be convinced either.
    What’s the point?

  110. Where does the Bible say that average life expectancy was around 30? John the apostle was very much older, when he died. So was Paul. Even Jesus was 33, and strong as can be, died of His own choosing.

    The Bible never says that people lived to 30, and the Bible never says that Mary was 12.

  111. Andy,

    We have other historical records outside the Scriptures.
    This was a day and age without medication or much in the way of sanitation.
    Some did live to an older age…many died in infancy.

  112. Michael, the point is don’t hammer on homosexuals and gay marriage…you have no biblical authority to do so, the bible asserts moral relativism, the bible practices moral relativism, the bible asserts that David having multiple wives and concubines is part of the “definition of marriage” yet today you say it isn’t.

    There are major problems with isolating a group of sinners as special and hard-line literalist when the evidence shows there is no good absolute moral argument to say it isn’t OK today to have sex slaves, multiple wives and/or impregnate 12-15 year olds b/c the bible at one time said it was good and acceptable and if you take an absolutist position then the bible permits it today…and I think most of us would be disgusted by that today and a call it “not good” but rather evil.

  113. Michael, I believe we already had this discussion about “historical records”.

    If people usually lived to about 30, which was your original assertion, then nobody should have been shocked that Jesus was going to His death. They should have said, well, He’ll be dead in a year or two anyway, after all, He’s already 33! He’s as good as dead anyway.

  114. Michael, the Hebrews betrothed 12-15 year olds when men lived to be many hundreds of years old. You have presented a poor argument.

    Hebrews have practiced that underage sex and marriage pre-Mary back as far as there is some sort of historical record. It isn’t the life-span…many in the OT lived, according to the OT, for hundreds and hundreds of years…very long lives.

  115. I don’t reject science and history.
    Antibiotics aren’t in the Bible but I’m taking them as we speak.
    Jesus didn’t die a natural death and the crucifixion of anyone was a “shocking” event.

  116. Even back in the Psalms, they talked about living to 70 or 80. And Peter talks about, if you want long life, do good and not evil. 30 is long life? Not when the Psalm said 80.

  117. Michael, very good.

    Don’t reject science or history. They are not anti-God. Atheists over-play the limited info we have and I’m not arguing that God is not real. I am arguing that the liberal Christians are much more right than you now think.

  118. RB,
    Are morals the same as biblical?
    You are a good evolutionist – why does a 12 yr old ovulate?

    But we choose, not on moral grounds, but by regular decision making to control this area of a young girls life. In another land, far, far away, they may choose to regulate at a different age.

    Neither changes what is biblical.

  119. Reebo,

    Go do some research on marriage ages…the later ages for marriage have much more to do with a switch from an agrarian to an industrial economy and life expectancies than moral issues.
    You want to say it’s a problem with Scriptures…and I’m not going to argue as you won’t be convinced.

  120. Michael, today they are moral issues. I am aware of the cultural shifts in history.

    We understand human development now more than before. We understand that it is not healthy or right or good to betrothe (force) a girl to marry and that 12-15 is way too young…and we now know it is wrong to force people to marry and that the woman, once capable emotionally and mentally to make that choice…must be of age and we have consensus that that age is 18 or above in the vast majority of cases (with special exception in some weird cases).

  121. You and others present the bible as Morally Absolute…and it is clearly not. That is a key fact to consider when taking such a hard-line on gays and gay marriage.

    Like with many moral issues that preceded it: Slavery, Child Abuse, Betrothal of underage girls, Multiple wives/concubines, treatment of women, Execution with stones of rebellious children, Execution with stones of women in adultery, etc etc…the Bible “changed” its Morality in the NT on some of those issues…and then the Church changed on all those issues up to today.

    There will be more issues that change in terms of “Moral” vs. “Immoral” depending on the context of a particular age and culture.

  122. If you say the bible permitted things that God didn’t intend…like slavery, child abuse, multiple wives, concubines, execution of children and women with stones, etc etc…then why can you not permit gays to marry?

  123. You do not have a good answer…don’t even try, just accept the facts of the matter. Take my words as statements, not an invitation for argument. The stuff I laid out is as sound as it comes from a critical thinking perspective. Don’t fight it, Read and learn.

  124. Reebo,

    I understand Scripture through an entirely different framework than you do.
    I won’t convince you of mine, nor will the reverse happen.
    The only outcome will be strife and I’ve had enough of that to last me the rest of my life.
    As much as it’s up to me, I’m going to be at peace with people.
    Peace.

  125. RB,
    “You do not have a good answer…don’t even try,”

    Your stupid questions are impossible to answer. You sound like Carlton Blanchard on the old Wings show

    “Why do they call them handcuffs if you wear them on your wrists?”

    “If the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, what do you suppose a doorknob would feel like?”

    “If they were to carpet the state of Florida, how long would it take to vaccum it?”

    “If dogs don’t sweat, then what are their armpits for???”

    “Geez Louise, for the love of Mike, for Pete’s sake; Who are these people?”

  126. MLD, you cannot resist your Troll urges LOL. I predicted to another that you’d respond soon 😉

  127. Michael, you do not “understand” scripture. That is a very prideful comment. You claim to understand the bible in the proper correct context God intended on all matters?

    I think you’ve stated differently many times in the past.

    You see through a glass darkly…and you don’t really know for sure…not very much.

  128. A man with no spine or answer will always call another a troll.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)

%d bloggers like this: