So Much Hate and Hard Questions

[Silver-Mask]

Micah Seven Eighteen

Genesis 2:18-25

18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

23The man 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.”

24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
_

Matthew 19:3-9

3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
_

Do you still disagree that marriage is here defined by God to be between a man and woman only?

More great references! Thanks for the material. You should try leading with that next time.
However, it doesn't say anything against anyone marrying anyone of the same gender, just sex. Unless I'm missing some more scripture, of course.

An additional question that has come is regarding Adam and Eve too. Cain and Able were said to be born from them, but where other offspring mentioned of Adam and Eve?  

[Corvis Cross]

Silver-Mask

Micah Seven Eighteen

Genesis 2:18-25

18Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

23The man 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.”

24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
_

Matthew 19:3-9

3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
_

Do you still disagree that marriage is here defined by God to be between a man and woman only?

More great references! Thanks for the material. You should try leading with that next time.
However, it doesn't say anything against anyone marrying anyone of the same gender, just sex. Unless I'm missing some more scripture, of course.

An additional question that has come is regarding Adam and Eve too. Cain and Able were said to be born from them, but where other offspring mentioned of Adam and Eve?

What is the difference between gender and sex, Biblically?

Here are a few places where we see other offspring who had to have come from Adam and Eve, or are specifically said to have come from them.
_

Genesis 4:17

17Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.
_

Cain's wife had to have come ultimately from Adam and Eve, as these were the only two human beings God created initially: all human life ultimately originates with them.
_

Genesis 4:25

25Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.”
_

Seth is specifically said to have come from Adam and Eve.
_

Genesis 5:3-5

3When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
_

Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters besides Cain, Abel and Seth. The statement comes after Seth is mentioned, but this does not mean they were had after Seth only. We simply see how long Adam lived after he had Seth, and then the statement is made that he had other sons and daughters: the statement does not say when they were had.

One might think "Wouldn't it mention the other children who came first, though?" This passage does not make mention of Cain or Abel, both of which we see coming before Seth in earlier reading. We see from the previous reading that indeed Cain and Abel did come before him, and we also see that Cain had a wife who must logically have also come from Adam and Eve.  

[Silver-Mask]

Micah Seven Eighteen

What is the difference between gender and sex, Biblically?

Here are a few places where we see other offspring who had to have come from Adam and Eve, or are specifically said to have come from them.
_

Genesis 4:17

17Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.
_

Cain's wife had to have come ultimately from Adam and Eve, as these were the only two human beings God created initially: all human life ultimately originates with them.
_

Genesis 4:25

25Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.”
_

Seth is specifically said to have come from Adam and Eve.
_

Genesis 5:3-5

3When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
_

Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters besides Cain, Abel and Seth. The statement comes after Seth is mentioned, but this does not mean they were had after Seth only. We simply see how long Adam lived after he had Seth, and then the statement is made that he had other sons and daughters: the statement does not say when they were had.

One might think "Wouldn't it mention the other children who came first, though?" This passage does not make mention of Cain or Abel, both of which we see coming before Seth in earlier reading. We see from the previous reading that indeed Cain and Abel did come before him, and we also see that Cain had a wife who must logically have also come from Adam and Eve.

As far as gender goes, Eve was created as a partner to Adam to aid him and help him populate the world.
Sex just mentions repopulating the world, as far as I know.
I'm guessing you've got more to bring to the table though?

I figured as much. It would seem strange for God to tell Adam and Eve to spread and multiply, and only have two sons given how long people could live back then.
Glad to see there are passages that expand on the topic! Thank you!  

[Corvis Cross]

Silver-Mask

Micah Seven Eighteen

What is the difference between gender and sex, Biblically?

Here are a few places where we see other offspring who had to have come from Adam and Eve, or are specifically said to have come from them.
_

Genesis 4:17

17Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.
_

Cain's wife had to have come ultimately from Adam and Eve, as these were the only two human beings God created initially: all human life ultimately originates with them.
_

Genesis 4:25

25Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.”
_

Seth is specifically said to have come from Adam and Eve.
_

Genesis 5:3-5

3When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
_

Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters besides Cain, Abel and Seth. The statement comes after Seth is mentioned, but this does not mean they were had after Seth only. We simply see how long Adam lived after he had Seth, and then the statement is made that he had other sons and daughters: the statement does not say when they were had.

One might think "Wouldn't it mention the other children who came first, though?" This passage does not make mention of Cain or Abel, both of which we see coming before Seth in earlier reading. We see from the previous reading that indeed Cain and Abel did come before him, and we also see that Cain had a wife who must logically have also come from Adam and Eve.

As far as gender goes, Eve was created as a partner to Adam to aid him and help him populate the world.
Sex just mentions repopulating the world, as far as I know.
I'm guessing you've got more to bring to the table though?

I figured as much. It would seem strange for God to tell Adam and Eve to spread and multiply, and only have two sons given how long people could live back then.
Glad to see there are passages that expand on the topic! Thank you!

So, as far as gender goes, you are referring to gender as male and female and sex as sexual intercourse? If so, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you earlier: I thought you were claiming a distinction between gender and sex when both words are used to distinguish between male and female (the kind of claim people make when they talk about gender identity, etc.) For example, someone claims that they are really a woman, though they are biologically male. They might say their gender is female, but their sex is male. This distinction is not Biblical and it's simply an attempt to redefine words.

Does God apply marriage to any union other than a male or female here in this passage or anywhere else in Scripture?

Also, you're welcome for the passages. Have you read through the Bible yet?  

[Silver-Mask]

Micah Seven Eighteen

So, as far as gender goes, you are referring to gender as male and female and sex as sexual intercourse? If so, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you earlier: I thought you were claiming a distinction between gender and sex when both words are used to distinguish between male and female (the kind of claim people make when they talk about gender identity, etc.) For example, someone claims that they are really a woman, though they are biologically male. They might say their gender is female, but their sex is male. This distinction is not Biblical and it's simply an attempt to redefine words.

Does God apply marriage to any union other than a male or female here in this passage or anywhere else in Scripture?

Also, you're welcome for the passages. Have you read through the Bible yet?

OK, I see where the confusion set in for both of us! lol
No, I was referring to gender and sex in the same way. Though I suppose I should've used "gender" more since "sex", as you said, can be misleading.

No, I don't believe He does. He doesn't go into racial equality either, yet we know such a thing is right because we are to treat others as we would want to be treated.

The whole Bible? No. I have trouble reading large amounts, so I normally hafta use audiobooks.
I still read small amounts of scripture at a time though, just so I can better grasp where such scripture is used is used. The audiobook doesn't mention which verses are used.
I admit, I'm still very ignorant to the Bible though. Hence why I come with questions.
Hopefully by gaining better understanding, I can retain the book better.  

[Corvis Cross]

Silver-Mask

Micah Seven Eighteen

So, as far as gender goes, you are referring to gender as male and female and sex as sexual intercourse? If so, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you earlier: I thought you were claiming a distinction between gender and sex when both words are used to distinguish between male and female (the kind of claim people make when they talk about gender identity, etc.) For example, someone claims that they are really a woman, though they are biologically male. They might say their gender is female, but their sex is male. This distinction is not Biblical and it's simply an attempt to redefine words.

Does God apply marriage to any union other than a male or female here in this passage or anywhere else in Scripture?

Also, you're welcome for the passages. Have you read through the Bible yet?

OK, I see where the confusion set in for both of us! lol
No, I was referring to gender and sex in the same way. Though I suppose I should've used "gender" more since "sex", as you said, can be misleading.

No, I don't believe He does. He doesn't go into racial equality either, yet we know such a thing is right because we are to treat others as we would want to be treated.

The whole Bible? No. I have trouble reading large amounts, so I normally hafta use audiobooks.
I still read small amounts of scripture at a time though, just so I can better grasp where such scripture is used is used. The audiobook doesn't mention which verses are used.
I admit, I'm still very ignorant to the Bible though. Hence why I come with questions.
Hopefully by gaining better understanding, I can retain the book better.

Seeing as you said that you meant gender as sex, what did you mean when you said:
_

"However, it doesn't say anything against anyone marrying anyone of the same gender, just sex."
_

If you mean them the same way, you just said "However, it doesn't say anything against anyone marrying anyone of the same gender, just gender." In what way does that make sense?

Are you equating God's definition of marriage with racial equality? In what way are these things the same?

Questions are always a good way to learn. That's why I'm asking you questions about your statements and questions, because I want to learn what you're trying to convey. I want to make sure I understand you properly, so I can respond properly.  

[Silver-Mask]

Micah Seven Eighteen

Seeing as you said that you meant gender as sex, what did you mean when you said:
_

"However, it doesn't say anything against anyone marrying anyone of the same gender, just sex."
_

If you mean them the same way, you just said "However, it doesn't say anything against anyone marrying anyone of the same gender, just gender." In what way does that make sense?

Are you equating God's definition of marriage with racial equality? In what way are these things the same?

Questions are always a good way to learn. That's why I'm asking you questions about your statements and questions, because I want to learn what you're trying to convey. I want to make sure I understand you properly, so I can respond properly.

"However, it doesn't say anything against anyone marrying anyone of the same gender, just sex."
For this I meant intercourse. Thank you for pointing out my confusing choice of words! lol

Same gender marriage and racial equality, actually. It's not mentioned of either topic. Intercourse between a two people of the same gender is stated as sin, but it doesn't say anything about a union of love or parenting between two people of the same gender, as far as I can tell.

Oh, there's no need to explain! I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand these answers better if even if they're answered with questions. biggrin  

[Corvis Cross]

Silver-Mask

Micah Seven Eighteen

Seeing as you said that you meant gender as sex, what did you mean when you said:
_

"However, it doesn't say anything against anyone marrying anyone of the same gender, just sex."
_

If you mean them the same way, you just said "However, it doesn't say anything against anyone marrying anyone of the same gender, just gender." In what way does that make sense?

Are you equating God's definition of marriage with racial equality? In what way are these things the same?

Questions are always a good way to learn. That's why I'm asking you questions about your statements and questions, because I want to learn what you're trying to convey. I want to make sure I understand you properly, so I can respond properly.

"However, it doesn't say anything against anyone marrying anyone of the same gender, just sex."
For this I meant intercourse. Thank you for pointing out my confusing choice of words! lol

Same gender marriage and racial equality, actually. It's not mentioned of either topic. Intercourse between a two people of the same gender is stated as sin, but it doesn't say anything about a union of love or parenting between two people of the same gender, as far as I can tell.

Oh, there's no need to explain! I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand these answers better if even if they're answered with questions. biggrin

I understand now. So, you were saying that the passage doesn't reject a male marrying a male or a female marrying a female, it just talks about sex, correct? If so, here is the problem: you are objecting using the culture's definition of marriage, not God's. God here makes a male and female and applies marriage to them, but never applies it to any other gender union, so how could a male marry a male or a female marry a female? That could be called a union of some sort, but certainly not marriage. If you believe marriage is defined in some other way Biblically, thus it could be applied to a male/male or female/female union, the burden is on you to prove that from the Scriptures.

Equating race (I don't like using this term, as there is only one race, that being the human race, so I'll use skin color from now on) and sexual lifestyle is a faulty comparison fallacy that I think you are picking up from the culture. Homosexuality is changeable, whereas skin color is not. Though I believe this is observable, here are some passages to back that up:
_

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
_

Jeremiah 13:23

23“Can the Ethiopian change his skin
Or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good
Who are accustomed to doing evil.
_

The top text mentions homosexuality (and other sexual lifestyle sins as well, such as adultery and fornication) but says what? Such were some of you. The lower text from Jeremiah uses the immutability of skin color (and a leopard's spots) to show how this people cannot turn from their evil and do good (this also supports Calvinism, as we believe it is impossible for man to turn from evil and do good apart from a miraculous work of God that replaces the man's heart of stone with a heart of flesh).

So, now you have a dilemma: do you believe God's Word, which says homosexuality is changeable, or do you believe the culture, which commits a faulty comparison fallacy and equates it with skin color? You strike me as someone who is very influenced by the culture considering your objections, so there may be much tradition/brainwashing on that end to work through. That's something we all have to do as Christians, to varying degrees. Have you been recently converted?  

[Silver-Mask]

Micah Seven Eighteen

I understand now. So, you were saying that the passage doesn't reject a male marrying a male or a female marrying a female, it just talks about sex, correct? If so, here is the problem: you are objecting using the culture's definition of marriage, not God's. God here makes a male and female and applies marriage to them, but never applies it to any other gender union, so how could a male marry a male or a female marry a female? That could be called a union of some sort, but certainly not marriage. If you believe marriage is defined in some other way Biblically, thus it could be applied to a male/male or female/female union, the burden is on you to prove that from the Scriptures.

Equating race (I don't like using this term, as there is only one race, that being the human race, so I'll use skin color from now on) and sexual lifestyle is a faulty comparison fallacy that I think you are picking up from the culture. Homosexuality is changeable, whereas skin color is not. Though I believe this is observable, here are some passages to back that up:
_

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
_

Jeremiah 13:23

23“Can the Ethiopian change his skin
Or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good
Who are accustomed to doing evil.
_

The top text mentions homosexuality (and other sexual lifestyle sins as well, such as adultery and fornication) but says what? Such were some of you. The lower text from Jeremiah uses the immutability of skin color (and a leopard's spots) to show how this people cannot turn from their evil and do good (this also supports Calvinism, as we believe it is impossible for man to turn from evil and do good apart from a miraculous work of God that replaces the man's heart of stone with a heart of flesh).

So, now you have a dilemma: do you believe God's Word, which says homosexuality is changeable, or do you believe the culture, which commits a faulty comparison fallacy and equates it with skin color? You strike me as someone who is very influenced by the culture considering your objections, so there may be much tradition/brainwashing on that end to work through. That's something we all have to do as Christians, to varying degrees. Have you been recently converted?

OK, I see how marriage within the government's definition differs from God's definition. I guess it's just hard to swallow at times since I was raised to believe in equality. I still believe in it since you aren't talking about inequality, but something done incorrectly.

I still have a hard time believing homosexuality is a choice too. I know I could never be gay, but there's a lot I can't see me doing that isn't within the realm of impossibility.
This is the tough part about asking questions though that I'll hafta accept; getting tough answers. The truth will always be the truth whether I like it or not. I can also see why such hate groups are so committed to such beliefs now. The problem is they approach the problem of homosexuality with hate instead of guidance or love.
It's unsettling, but I'm still grateful that you've shared that. It's almost like taking the wrong medicine for a long time and having a different doctor tell me I'm doing something wrong.

Well, of course I've been influenced in one way or another. That's almost impossible to avoid in any generation by anyone. You became close to God eight years ago, if I'm not mistaken. No doubt you still carry some modern culture with you. Many cultures still hold truths.
I'd be arrogant to say any one source has all the answers unless it came from God's own words. Hence why I've mentioned, near the beginning, that I'm aware I'm ignorant.
Ignorance doesn't mean I'll accept anything blindly though, even if someone is right. I still need to know it's right by challenging what I've learned. It'd be foolish to to simply abandon knowledge that conflicts with other information, without evaluating which knowledge is more credible and evident. Fortunately you came prepared!

I've found Christ seven years ago. I was raised Roman Catholic, but I had no reason to believe in God, so with nothing to hold me to a faith I didn't believe in, I began asking questions.
I might be ignorant, but I know He's the truth.  

[Corvis Cross]

Silver-Mask

Micah Seven Eighteen

I understand now. So, you were saying that the passage doesn't reject a male marrying a male or a female marrying a female, it just talks about sex, correct? If so, here is the problem: you are objecting using the culture's definition of marriage, not God's. God here makes a male and female and applies marriage to them, but never applies it to any other gender union, so how could a male marry a male or a female marry a female? That could be called a union of some sort, but certainly not marriage. If you believe marriage is defined in some other way Biblically, thus it could be applied to a male/male or female/female union, the burden is on you to prove that from the Scriptures.

Equating race (I don't like using this term, as there is only one race, that being the human race, so I'll use skin color from now on) and sexual lifestyle is a faulty comparison fallacy that I think you are picking up from the culture. Homosexuality is changeable, whereas skin color is not. Though I believe this is observable, here are some passages to back that up:
_

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
_

Jeremiah 13:23

23“Can the Ethiopian change his skin
Or the leopard his spots?
Then you also can do good
Who are accustomed to doing evil.
_

The top text mentions homosexuality (and other sexual lifestyle sins as well, such as adultery and fornication) but says what? Such were some of you. The lower text from Jeremiah uses the immutability of skin color (and a leopard's spots) to show how this people cannot turn from their evil and do good (this also supports Calvinism, as we believe it is impossible for man to turn from evil and do good apart from a miraculous work of God that replaces the man's heart of stone with a heart of flesh).

So, now you have a dilemma: do you believe God's Word, which says homosexuality is changeable, or do you believe the culture, which commits a faulty comparison fallacy and equates it with skin color? You strike me as someone who is very influenced by the culture considering your objections, so there may be much tradition/brainwashing on that end to work through. That's something we all have to do as Christians, to varying degrees. Have you been recently converted?

OK, I see how marriage within the government's definition differs from God's definition. I guess it's just hard to swallow at times since I was raised to believe in equality. I still believe in it since you aren't talking about inequality, but something done incorrectly.

I still have a hard time believing homosexuality is a choice too. I know I could never be gay, but there's a lot I can't see me doing that isn't within the realm of impossibility.
This is the tough part about asking questions though that I'll hafta accept; getting tough answers. The truth will always be the truth whether I like it or not. I can also see why such hate groups are so committed to such beliefs now. The problem is they approach the problem of homosexuality with hate instead of guidance or love.
It's unsettling, but I'm still grateful that you've shared that. It's almost like taking the wrong medicine for a long time and having a different doctor tell me I'm doing something wrong.

Well, of course I've been influenced in one way or another. That's almost impossible to avoid in any generation by anyone. You became close to God eight years ago, if I'm not mistaken. No doubt you still carry some modern culture with you. Many cultures still hold truths.
I'd be arrogant to say any one source has all the answers unless it came from God's own words. Hence why I've mentioned, near the beginning, that I'm aware I'm ignorant.
Ignorance doesn't mean I'll accept anything blindly though, even if someone is right. I still need to know it's right by challenging what I've learned. It'd be foolish to to simply abandon knowledge that conflicts with other information, without evaluating which knowledge is more credible and evident. Fortunately you came prepared!

I've found Christ seven years ago. I was raised Roman Catholic, but I had no reason to believe in God, so with nothing to hold me to a faith I didn't believe in, I began asking questions.
I might be ignorant, but I know He's the truth.

Okay, so we can agree that marriage is defined by God to be between a man and a woman, correct? If so, then let's follow what else is said. A husband and wife are told to multiply. We see in Genesis language like mother and father (Genesis 2:24), or brother (Genesis 4:2), or son (Genesis 4:17). These words all have meanings. There is no distinction, initially, between giving birth to a child and being their parent. That being the case, initially, was God's intention for a child to be raised by a mother and a father, a married couple who were husband and wife?

I have some more questions regarding the view that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. Would you believe that the ***** should be allowed to adopt? How about someone committing bestiality? If a child should be allowed to be raised by a male and a male, or a female and a female, why not a male human and a male animal? Why shouldn't a male ***** be allowed to adopt a female child, even having a romantic relationship with her?

I totally understand the difficulty in accepting these things. We all have traditions and we all have blind spots, even me. If we knew about our own blind spots, they wouldn't be blind spots. We need to hold to Scripture and really let it speak, because that will destroy traditions and blind spots. We need to be careful not to rip texts out of context, we need to consider whether or not we bring a preconceived idea about something the Bible teaches to the texts, and then impose that meaning into the Bible, instead of just letting the Bible say what it really says. So much disagreement within the church comes due to man's tradition.

It's sad to see people twist things and turn it into hate. Homosexuality is sin: that's true. However, we are not to hate someone who lives in sin, whether it be homosexuality, or lying, or adultery, or fornication or even murder. We are to love them and call them to repentance. We are no different than they are: we all deserve God's just wrath for our own sin. However, we are better off than they are, as God has given to us what we have not deserved: forgiveness in Jesus Christ. That's what we hope for the homosexual, and the liar, and the thief, and whatever other sin there is. We hope for reconciliation and restoration and eternal life in Christ Jesus.

I didn't simply become close to God, but I became a Christian about 8 or 9 years ago, yes. Before that, I was a false convert and though I said I loved Jesus, my actions denied His reign (semi-quoting Andy Mineo there, haha). If not for the grace of God? I would have remained in my self-deceit, and would have rejected the true Jesus in favor of a false one who was cool with my sin, right up to my death and destruction.

Please, please, please, don't think it bad to ask questions. We are all ignorant in varying degrees, on all sorts of topics. We ask questions to learn, to examine, to analyze. The truth will withstand scrutiny. When we start with God as our basis, we have the necessary preconditions to even ask questions and to scrutinize to begin with, and to expect consistent results. I certainly encourage you to examine what I say and test it to the Scriptures: do not just take it at face value.  

[Silver-Mask]

Micah Seven Eighteen

Okay, so we can agree that marriage is defined by God to be between a man and a woman, correct? If so, then let's follow what else is said. A husband and wife are told to multiply. We see in Genesis language like mother and father (Genesis 2:24), or brother (Genesis 4:2), or son (Genesis 4:17). These words all have meanings. There is no distinction, initially, between giving birth to a child and being their parent. That being the case, initially, was God's intention for a child to be raised by a mother and a father, a married couple who were husband and wife?

I have some more questions regarding the view that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. Would you believe that the ***** should be allowed to adopt? How about someone committing bestiality? If a child should be allowed to be raised by a male and a male, or a female and a female, why not a male human and a male animal? Why shouldn't a male ***** be allowed to adopt a female child, even having a romantic relationship with her?

I totally understand the difficulty in accepting these things. We all have traditions and we all have blind spots, even me. If we knew about our own blind spots, they wouldn't be blind spots. We need to hold to Scripture and really let it speak, because that will destroy traditions and blind spots. We need to be careful not to rip texts out of context, we need to consider whether or not we bring a preconceived idea about something the Bible teaches to the texts, and then impose that meaning into the Bible, instead of just letting the Bible say what it really says. So much disagreement within the church comes due to man's tradition.

It's sad to see people twist things and turn it into hate. Homosexuality is sin: that's true. However, we are not to hate someone who lives in sin, whether it be homosexuality, or lying, or adultery, or fornication or even murder. We are to love them and call them to repentance. We are no different than they are: we all deserve God's just wrath for our own sin. However, we are better off than they are, as God has given to us what we have not deserved: forgiveness in Jesus Christ. That's what we hope for the homosexual, and the liar, and the thief, and whatever other sin there is. We hope for reconciliation and restoration and eternal life in Christ Jesus.

I didn't simply become close to God, but I became a Christian about 8 or 9 years ago, yes. Before that, I was a false convert and though I said I loved Jesus, my actions denied His reign (semi-quoting Andy Mineo there, haha). If not for the grace of God? I would have remained in my self-deceit, and would have rejected the true Jesus in favor of a false one who was cool with my sin, right up to my death and destruction.

Please, please, please, don't think it bad to ask questions. We are all ignorant in varying degrees, on all sorts of topics. We ask questions to learn, to examine, to analyze. The truth will withstand scrutiny. When we start with God as our basis, we have the necessary preconditions to even ask questions and to scrutinize to begin with, and to expect consistent results. I certainly encourage you to examine what I say and test it to the Scriptures: do not just take it at face value.

Yes, we're on the same page now 3nodding
Ah, I think I see. A marriage, as defined by God, implies not just a man and a woman, but children too, correct?

Sometimes traditions and even innocent pursuits of peace can make blind-spots, but sometimes it's like eating your vegetables; you know what's good for you, but you still rather have your dessert.
These are tough truths, but I accept them because they're true. I'm more concerned about getting others to understand.
When in doubt, turn to scripture, right?

Oh! Speaking of which, I've been going back to church, and I might be paraphrasing when I say what my pastor said, but I loved his message.
During his sermon, he mentioned, "It can be difficult to preach to someone without feeling like you're forcing it. You shouldn't need to force it either. Just love on 'em, and sooner or later someone will bring something up about religion, Christianity, faith, or any topic related to it. That's when you step forward."
So I feel more confident in getting a foot in when preaching to friends and anyone else who might need it.

Honestly? That sounds depressing and scary. Living in a pretty illusion, is still living in an illusion. Even worse, it puts up a barrier between you and Jesus with that same illusion.

Hey, Jesus asked many questions. Granted, he asked them to get people to think. wink
I actually feel much more comfortable asking questions now. It's almost like being the fat guy trying to jog to lose weight, and feeling self-conscious about what other people think. In this case, I feel like I have people to jog with, so I feel far less self-conscious!  

[Corvis Cross]

Silver-Mask

Micah Seven Eighteen

Okay, so we can agree that marriage is defined by God to be between a man and a woman, correct? If so, then let's follow what else is said. A husband and wife are told to multiply. We see in Genesis language like mother and father (Genesis 2:24), or brother (Genesis 4:2), or son (Genesis 4:17). These words all have meanings. There is no distinction, initially, between giving birth to a child and being their parent. That being the case, initially, was God's intention for a child to be raised by a mother and a father, a married couple who were husband and wife?

I have some more questions regarding the view that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. Would you believe that the ***** should be allowed to adopt? How about someone committing bestiality? If a child should be allowed to be raised by a male and a male, or a female and a female, why not a male human and a male animal? Why shouldn't a male ***** be allowed to adopt a female child, even having a romantic relationship with her?

I totally understand the difficulty in accepting these things. We all have traditions and we all have blind spots, even me. If we knew about our own blind spots, they wouldn't be blind spots. We need to hold to Scripture and really let it speak, because that will destroy traditions and blind spots. We need to be careful not to rip texts out of context, we need to consider whether or not we bring a preconceived idea about something the Bible teaches to the texts, and then impose that meaning into the Bible, instead of just letting the Bible say what it really says. So much disagreement within the church comes due to man's tradition.

It's sad to see people twist things and turn it into hate. Homosexuality is sin: that's true. However, we are not to hate someone who lives in sin, whether it be homosexuality, or lying, or adultery, or fornication or even murder. We are to love them and call them to repentance. We are no different than they are: we all deserve God's just wrath for our own sin. However, we are better off than they are, as God has given to us what we have not deserved: forgiveness in Jesus Christ. That's what we hope for the homosexual, and the liar, and the thief, and whatever other sin there is. We hope for reconciliation and restoration and eternal life in Christ Jesus.

I didn't simply become close to God, but I became a Christian about 8 or 9 years ago, yes. Before that, I was a false convert and though I said I loved Jesus, my actions denied His reign (semi-quoting Andy Mineo there, haha). If not for the grace of God? I would have remained in my self-deceit, and would have rejected the true Jesus in favor of a false one who was cool with my sin, right up to my death and destruction.

Please, please, please, don't think it bad to ask questions. We are all ignorant in varying degrees, on all sorts of topics. We ask questions to learn, to examine, to analyze. The truth will withstand scrutiny. When we start with God as our basis, we have the necessary preconditions to even ask questions and to scrutinize to begin with, and to expect consistent results. I certainly encourage you to examine what I say and test it to the Scriptures: do not just take it at face value.

Yes, we're on the same page now 3nodding
Ah, I think I see. A marriage, as defined by God, implies not just a man and a woman, but children too, correct?

Sometimes traditions and even innocent pursuits of peace can make blind-spots, but sometimes it's like eating your vegetables; you know what's good for you, but you still rather have your dessert.
These are tough truths, but I accept them because they're true. I'm more concerned about getting others to understand.
When in doubt, turn to scripture, right?

Oh! Speaking of which, I've been going back to church, and I might be paraphrasing when I say what my pastor said, but I loved his message.
During his sermon, he mentioned, "It can be difficult to preach to someone without feeling like you're forcing it. You shouldn't need to force it either. Just love on 'em, and sooner or later someone will bring something up about religion, Christianity, faith, or any topic related to it. That's when you step forward."
So I feel more confident in getting a foot in when preaching to friends and anyone else who might need it.

Honestly? That sounds depressing and scary. Living in a pretty illusion, is still living in an illusion. Even worse, it puts up a barrier between you and Jesus with that same illusion.

Hey, Jesus asked many questions. Granted, he asked them to get people to think. wink
I actually feel much more comfortable asking questions now. It's almost like being the fat guy trying to jog to lose weight, and feeling self-conscious about what other people think. In this case, I feel like I have people to jog with, so I feel far less self-conscious!

It does seem we're on the same page, at least as far as God's initial intention, likely. I'm not necessarily saying someone should be forbidden to adopt if they are a single person, but I think a family as defined by God should at least be what is aimed at, as this is how parenting is intended to be done by God. I also don't believe comparing a homosexual with the above situation is a fair comparison, not anymore than other forms of sexual deviancy wishing for adoption would be.

Our culture has done a good job numbing us to homosexuality, yet the others are still wrong to many people. If we continue in the direction we're going as a nation, I believe the others will also be numbed to us, eventually. I hope God would grant us as a nation repentance instead of giving us over to our sins. Nevertheless, God's will be done: His Kingdom will simply continue expanding, with or without America. We should share the Gospel and engage in apologetics, destroying opposing worldviews and replacing them with what is true and good. Only God can change hearts and minds, all we can do is be faithful and obey His command to go and preach.

Amen, brother. We are all learning from the same Bible we point you to. There are solid teachers that can share with us what they've learned from studying, but in the end, even the best teachers can't be our ultimate authority: the Scripture must be our ultimate authority. I'm not a Presbyterian (more like Reformed Baptist, probably) but something I liked from them is that they are willing to debate, they are willing to discuss and they believe the church is even still reforming. We should be able to debate in a loving way, aiming for what is true.

Oh, and as a side note, if you ever check out a Presbyterian church? See if it's OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) or PCA (Presbyterian Church of America). If it's PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) run for the hills! Not a good church.

EDIT: Not every OPC or PCA church is necessarily good, but I'd say you have reason to trust that if they are in one of those two groups, they're probably good. PCUSA is radically not good, so avoid those ones.  

[Silver-Mask]

Micah Seven Eighteen

It does seem we're on the same page, at least as far as God's initial intention, likely. I'm not necessarily saying someone should be forbidden to adopt if they are a single person, but I think a family as defined by God should at least be what is aimed at, as this is how parenting is intended to be done by God. I also don't believe comparing a homosexual with the above situation is a fair comparison, not anymore than other forms of sexual deviancy wishing for adoption would be.

Our culture has done a good job numbing us to homosexuality, yet the others are still wrong to many people. If we continue in the direction we're going as a nation, I believe the others will also be numbed to us, eventually. I hope God would grant us as a nation repentance instead of giving us over to our sins. Nevertheless, God's will be done: His Kingdom will simply continue expanding, with or without America. We should share the Gospel and engage in apologetics, destroying opposing worldviews and replacing them with what is true and good. Only God can change hearts and minds, all we can do is be faithful and obey His command to go and preach.

Amen, brother. We are all learning from the same Bible we point you to. There are solid teachers that can share with us what they've learned from studying, but in the end, even the best teachers can't be our ultimate authority: the Scripture must be our ultimate authority. I'm not a Presbyterian (more like Reformed Baptist, probably) but something I liked from them is that they are willing to debate, they are willing to discuss and they believe the church is even still reforming. We should be able to debate in a loving way, aiming for what is true.

Oh, and as a side note, if you ever check out a Presbyterian church? See if it's OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) or PCA (Presbyterian Church of America). If it's PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) run for the hills! Not a good church.

EDIT: Not every OPC or PCA church is necessarily good, but I'd say you have reason to trust that if they are in one of those two groups, they're probably good. PCUSA is radically not good, so avoid those ones.

Not sure I caught the context when you said, "I also don't believe comparing a homosexual with the above situation is a fair comparison, not anymore than other forms of sexual deviancy wishing for adoption would be."

I understand what today's lessons are trying to teach us. We strive for equality, which is admirable, but there's a point where we stop making things fair, and start pushing to give power to people or things that shouldn't have it.
I understand some viewpoints, namely population control, but I believe God must have some plan that is ultimately superior to just population control.
Its been a while since I've read Revelations, but doesn't it say most of the world will turn from God near the end? I seriously hope I'm remembering it wrong, but if that's true, then there's only so much fighting we can do.

Funny that you should mention that. Does the following sound like a PCUSA? I just saw the article today.Link  

[Corvis Cross]

Silver-Mask

Micah Seven Eighteen

It does seem we're on the same page, at least as far as God's initial intention, likely. I'm not necessarily saying someone should be forbidden to adopt if they are a single person, but I think a family as defined by God should at least be what is aimed at, as this is how parenting is intended to be done by God. I also don't believe comparing a homosexual with the above situation is a fair comparison, not anymore than other forms of sexual deviancy wishing for adoption would be.

Our culture has done a good job numbing us to homosexuality, yet the others are still wrong to many people. If we continue in the direction we're going as a nation, I believe the others will also be numbed to us, eventually. I hope God would grant us as a nation repentance instead of giving us over to our sins. Nevertheless, God's will be done: His Kingdom will simply continue expanding, with or without America. We should share the Gospel and engage in apologetics, destroying opposing worldviews and replacing them with what is true and good. Only God can change hearts and minds, all we can do is be faithful and obey His command to go and preach.

Amen, brother. We are all learning from the same Bible we point you to. There are solid teachers that can share with us what they've learned from studying, but in the end, even the best teachers can't be our ultimate authority: the Scripture must be our ultimate authority. I'm not a Presbyterian (more like Reformed Baptist, probably) but something I liked from them is that they are willing to debate, they are willing to discuss and they believe the church is even still reforming. We should be able to debate in a loving way, aiming for what is true.

Oh, and as a side note, if you ever check out a Presbyterian church? See if it's OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) or PCA (Presbyterian Church of America). If it's PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) run for the hills! Not a good church.

EDIT: Not every OPC or PCA church is necessarily good, but I'd say you have reason to trust that if they are in one of those two groups, they're probably good. PCUSA is radically not good, so avoid those ones.

Not sure I caught the context when you said, "I also don't believe comparing a homosexual with the above situation is a fair comparison, not anymore than other forms of sexual deviancy wishing for adoption would be."

I understand what today's lessons are trying to teach us. We strive for equality, which is admirable, but there's a point where we stop making things fair, and start pushing to give power to people or things that shouldn't have it.
I understand some viewpoints, namely population control, but I believe God must have some plan that is ultimately superior to just population control.
Its been a while since I've read Revelations, but doesn't it say most of the world will turn from God near the end? I seriously hope I'm remembering it wrong, but if that's true, then there's only so much fighting we can do.

Funny that you should mention that. Does the following sound like a PCUSA? I just saw the article today.Link

I don't think comparing a homosexual who wants to adopt with a single person who wants to adopt is a fair comparison, not anymore than it would be to compare a single person who wants to adopt to a ***** who wants to adopt, or any other form of sexual deviancy (such as bestiality, which I had mentioned in a previous post).

It really does seem like most of the time those who call for equality do not actually desire equality. Instead of equal rights, they demand uber rights, as James White says. I disagree with population control, at least as far as the claim that there are too many humans and we need to kill them, etc. Actually, I don't at all believe there are far too many. That is a claim promoted by the secular culture, but I don't believe it has a sound basis.

As far as how everything is in the end? The usual view of end times in this modern era would be the various premillennial views. I can't say I am premillennial, but instead I am postmillennial, though I am open to learning more about all of these and testing the various views to Scripture, to see what squares better.

So basically, I believe much of Revelation has already been fulfilled. I do believe that Christ is already reigning now (Matthew 28:18-19; Jesus says "All authority has been given to Me on Heaven AND on Earth, THEREFORE go...). I believe Christ's kingdom is expanding in history (Matthew 13:31-35; the kingdom is compared to a mustard seed and leaven in a lump of dough, starting out small and expanding) and will gradually grow until almost everyone is a believer. I believe this will be the millennial reign, or perhaps it is a non-literal 1,000 years and we are already in it, but I do believe that Christ returns in judgment of the world after the millennium, which would be why I'm postmil. If you'd like to learn more about this view, whether you agree or disagree with it aside, I'd suggest checking out www.ApologiaRadio.com.

I skimmed the article, and yeah, I believe they are talking about the PCUSA, because the PCUSA did do the very thing they are saying recently. From what I saw of the writing I didn't like though, because it looks like they were careless and just said "The Presbyterian Church did this..." when actually it was just the PCUSA. OPC and PCA have some solid churches. Writing like this can broad-brush the Presbyterian denomination as a whole, lumping it all together when they certainly are not.

As far as I understand, PCUSA does have the largest numbers, but this means nothing as far as truth is concerned, though I could see why someone might broad-brush in this way if they only come across PCUSA churches. That, or just plain ignorance of the PCA and OPC.  

[Silver-Mask]

Happy to say that since I've been reviewing more of the material Micah's referenced to me, and returning to church, I have far less questions!

I FEEL SO MUCH MORE RELIEVED! GUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH! emotion_drool