a new clobber passage?

[tpdncr4christ]

Mathew 19:4-6

“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.' And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”

How do we respond to this?

[andrewlittle]

Hey Austin,

You might tell them to read it in context.

19:1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.
2 Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there.
3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?"
4 He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'
5 and 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. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?"
8 He said to them, "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery."
10 His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
11 But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.
12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

The question asked is about divorce. The answer is about divorce, so it is referring to married people.

Also, nowhere does it state that same-sex partnerships are sinful, wrong, even a slight bit of a problem. They just don't relate to the context and aren't addressed. Until later that is.

When asked if it is better not to marry, Jesus tells of "born" eunuchs. While it may not be flattering, there were different classifications of eunuchs in the ancient Greco-Roman culture.

One group were altered to have no interest in women, and no ability to sexually interact with them - well, engage in coitus anyway. These men were castrated or completely emasculated and served as managers, harem keepers, attendants and such, but also as sex-toys for wealthy men.

Another group were "natural" or "born" eunuchs - men born with no interest or predisposition to being sexually active with women. Now who do you suppose they were? Do you find any judgment in verse 12? This is the full context, because verse 13 begins a new narrative.

This is the danger, my young friend, of people proof-texting - taking snippets of scripture out of context to prove their preconceived notions. Teach them something about good Biblical study.

[Emproph]

This just gets sweeter and sweeter.
Mathew 19:4-6

“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.' And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.”

How do we respond to this?

19:9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.

That's the Biblical definition of remarriage. God's definition, via Jesus.

In my experience, what is usually attempted is the argument that one can be "forgiven" for getting remarried, as though this nullifies all future altulterous sexual behavior. The idea being that if you didn't know that you were choosing to be an adulterer at the time of remarriage, you can be "forgiven," and then continue to live the adulterous lifestyle without consequence.

To be clear, I don't believe in any of this, I only mention it for it's blatant hypocrisy.

That's where your "what God has joined together" comes into play. By admitting to the sin of the adultery of remarriage, one is acknowledging "what God has [previously] joined together."

To continue with "remarriage" then, is to continue living the unrepentant adulterous lifestyle. As opposed to just the adulterous lifestyle.

Such an ideology validates the "homosexual lifestyle" even more so. We only discovered that we were gay, we didn't go out of our way to choose it. According to the logic usually presented to justify the adultery of remarriage, we could ask God's forgiveness for "discovering" that we were gay and then just continue to remain gay without fear of consequence.

In other words, if you choose to be an adulterer through remarriage, you can be forgiven and continue to have multiple spouses, but if you discover that you're gay, you're doomed to a life of lonliness.

It is THE MOST flagrant and blatent hypocrisy floating around out there that I have seen.

According to the Bible, half our televangelists are doomed to hell.

[scott snedeker]

Andy, you are just amazing! glad you are here!

[keltic63]

This just gets sweeter and sweeter.




That's the Biblical definition of remarriage. God's definition, via Jesus.

In my experience, what is usually attempted is the argument that one can be "forgiven" for getting remarried, as though this nullifies all future altulterous sexual behavior. The idea being that if you didn't know that you were choosing to be an adulterer at the time of remarriage, you can be "forgiven," and then continue to live the adulterous lifestyle without consequence.

To be clear, I don't believe in any of this, I only mention it for it's blatant hypocrisy.

That's where your "what God has joined together" comes into play. By admitting to the sin of the adultery of remarriage, one is acknowledging "what God has [previously] joined together."

To continue with "remarriage" then, is to continue living the unrepentant adulterous lifestyle. As opposed to just the adulterous lifestyle.

Such an ideology validates the "homosexual lifestyle" even more so. We only discovered that we were gay, we didn't go out of our way to choose it. According to the logic usually presented to justify the adultery of remarriage, we could ask God's forgiveness for "discovering" that we were gay and then just continue to remain gay without fear of consequence.

In other words, if you choose to be an adulterer through remarriage, you can be forgiven and continue to have multiple spouses, but if you discover that you're gay, you're doomed to a life of lonliness.

It is THE MOST flagrant and blatent hypocrisy floating around out there that I have seen.

According to the Bible, half our televangelists are doomed to hell.

You know, I pointed out this little detail over on the old UMC boards. I believe it was Pastorsteve who was making some noise about staying true to scripture, and I posted about the difference in what Jesus says about divorce (from the scriptures above) and what the UMC Book of Discipline says.

Of course, they did not see the hypocrisy of their stand as they applied verses out of context to lgbt people, while they found all kinds of context, as well as grace for straight people who divorce and remarry.

Straights get a pass, usually with an gentle elbow to the ribs and a wink of the eye. ;)

[andrewlittle]

Of course, they did not see the hypocrisy of their stand as they applied verses out of context to lgbt people, while they found all kinds of context, as well as grace for straight people who divorce and remarry.

Straights get a pass, usually with an gentle elbow to the ribs and a wink of the eye. ;)

But, since Steve is responding to Emproph, I'm doing two in one. :D

Austin, listen to these guys (and that coming from a divorced and remarried man ... and a divorced and remarried man ... and, oh, never mind). I don't remember the technical name for it, but what happens with this passage is a rhetorical classic.

The passage is speaking about one thing, but the very people addressed in it redirect the attention to someone else by using it out of context. This deflects from their own behavior, which is addressed, to someone else's, which isn't. But they misquote, in this case misquote Jesus, to say the "other" is bad.

Case in point - this passage says "divorce" 4 times - it is the subject of the passage and it is discussed with some definite judgment. It only makes a sideways glance at "born" eunuchs with no judgment attached - and if hetero's don't consider "born" eunuchs to cover GLBT, it then makes no mention of GLBT whatsoever. But it is used to denigrate GLBT folks. Why? To deflect attention from the very common behavior that is addressed and belongs to a great number of religious types.

They will then use the argument that divorce is forgiven by other means, while insinuating the "sin that isn't addressed" is unforgivable.

Bottom line - only important if they claim the scripture as meaningful to them - they are misquoting not just scripture, but also Jesus. But, I'm sure there's no sin in that. ;) ;)

[tpdncr4christ]

I'm off to school... heart in the right place, Bible in hand, and hopefully I'll return alive. Wish me luck!

[andrewlittle]

... How did it go?

[u-dog]

Show us your scars!!!

[tpdncr4christ]

and we talked. We left the conversation agreeing that homosexuality is a sin. I have repented and sworn celabacy to all males. I shiver every time I think of my previous life... I am now a reformed Ex-Gay Christian. I am praying for your salvation and enlightenment. I hope sincerly you will see your sinful ways and come to the Lord. I look forward to screwing my wife to be someday in the distant future.




Accept not. Had you all fooled!!! :love: I'm still the flamboyant one. So, here's how it went down: We read bible verse, after bible verse. We discussed the translations, and interpratations. They pulled out all the verses, and I showed them the context just like Uncle Andy said. The funny thing was, they would just focus back on the verse. "It says right here, do not lie with man as you would with man it is an abomonation." And then I asked if they liked sushi, they nodded. I asked if they liked shrimp and crab and lobster. They nodded. I then showed them Leviticus 11:10. And they moved on to Romans. And I said Christ christened Peter as the Rock onto which he should build his church, not Paul, author of Romans. Then I explained how Paul was damning lust, not love. Then they pulled out this new one and I directed them to Luke 3 where it says "judge not and ye shall not be judged..." and our conversation ended.

I figure its best to live my life as an example of God, rather than show them verses. It's easier to show them that Christ is in my life by my actions than show them on paper.

[Pablo Rafael]

You know that us older guys have weak hearts and can't take a lot of stress. In fact I wonder why Dave hasn't responded yet. I always see him here early in the morning. I picture him lying dead in front of his computer with a heart attack. You know that he is MUCH older than I am even, (I don't dare think about poor old Uncle Andy.) ;)



I figure its best to live my life as an example of God, rather than show them verses. It's easier to show them that Christ is in my life by my actions than show them on paper.

You are always an inspiration. Indeed what better way is there to show that we are Christians than by how we live. Rarely is anyone convinced by someone confronting them with Bible verses. But quite often people are influenced, good or bad, by how we live.

Hope your Easter was wonderful. Christ is risen!

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[andrewlittle]

and we talked. We left the conversation agreeing that homosexuality is a sin. I have repented and sworn celabacy to all males. I shiver every time I think of my previous life... I am now a reformed Ex-Gay Christian. I am praying for your salvation and enlightenment. I hope sincerly you will see your sinful ways and come to the Lord. I look forward to screwing my wife to be someday in the distant future.

After the CPR and defibrilation, and of course implanting the pace maker, poor old Uncle Andy read the rest of your post and felt much better. I also appreciate the fact that Austin has a bit of a mean streak - a nicely sardonic edge to his humor. Some people's kids! (You make me sooooo proud.)

We read bible verse, after bible verse. We discussed the translations, and interpratations. They pulled out all the verses, and I showed them the context just like Uncle Andy said. The funny thing was, they would just focus back on the verse. "It says right here, do not lie with man as you would with man it is an abomonation." And then I asked if they liked sushi, they nodded. I asked if they liked shrimp and crab and lobster. They nodded. I then showed them Leviticus 11:10. And they moved on to Romans. And I said Christ christened Peter as the Rock onto which he should build his church, not Paul, author of Romans. Then I explained how Paul was damning lust, not love. Then they pulled out this new one and I directed them to Luke 3 where it says "judge not and ye shall not be judged..." and our conversation ended.

Welcome to the tapdance that is discussing scripture with misguided dolts. They have already decided about GLBT, they are just showing how far they're willing to go to idolize their own prejudice. It even extends to twisting and denying scripture, all the while claiming to being Bible-believers.

You, however, my young i-nephew, showed some pretty admirable foot work. I was smiling as I read about your deftness at showing them the error of their ways.

I figure its best to live my life as an example of God, rather than show them verses. It's easier to show them that Christ is in my life by my actions than show them on paper.

You betcha. When all else fails - hit them with cognitive dissonance.

And Pablo - and I mean this in the most loving and respectful way - BITE ME.

[u-dog]

You know that us older guys have weak hearts and can't take a lot of stress. In fact I wonder why Dave hasn't responded yet. I always see him here early in the morning. I picture him lying dead in front of his computer with a heart attack. You know that he is MUCH older than I am even, (I don't dare think about poor old Uncle Andy.) ;)

You forget Pablo that I have sons just a little older than Austin. On Palm Sunday (April 1st this year) I got three phone calls.

One saying his girlfriend was pregnant. One saying that he had converted to Mormonism and was going into their ministry, and one saying that he and his girlfriend were engaged. Needless to say I read ALL of Austin's post before allowing my heartrate to increase dangerously! :rolleyes:


Austin:

1. You're gonna have to try harder than that! :lol:

2. You have seen first hand that their fear/hatred for us has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the Bible. It comes from their hearts and they use scripture to whitewash it. They won't ever let themselves see what they don't want to see. My oldest son used to have these arguments with his conservative friends at school all the time (he is an ally) He and his main discussion partner (son of a baptist minister) could have paid for college by selling tickets to their slug fests. The result was the same.

Hope your Easter was wonderful. Christ is risen!

HE IS RISEN INDEED !!!!

[Bearnabas]

What great posts. I smile when I come here. I don't come here often enough. What got me about the original post was the reference to making us male and female--just two kinds, specific and opposite. The reference is to Adam and Eve and they were, of course, made that way, male and female--Eve as a perfect match to Adam. Just think, God actually made the match---there was no one else to pick from, and we hope that God didn't goof on getting the right partner for Adam... he never had to worry about dating! He got the E-Harmony match without the long questionnaire!! Praise God.

Anyway, that's not my point. My point is that the new clobber passage is going back to an old song I hear a lot--- it was male and female at the beginning--the only biological match for procreation. I could go for hours on how most of us have sex without thoughts of procreation...so that can't be the only thing our genitals are for. But that God made us male and female. I like that Jesus quotes someone else--so he's not up for correction. I wonder what he does with the 1000 babies born each year (in Britain statistically, who knows the rest of the world) which are hermaphrodites--both male and female? These must be the born eunuchs...or maybe not.

Often I get hit with the biological component of creation---that we were created with these defined types: male and female. And that they must join together. I don't think Christ is wrong in saying that people marry and leave their parents because they want to join with the other sex. I just get confused trying to battle people when they use the hetero pattern of relationships giving it suddenly biblical "precedence"--even as the only relationship--- merely because it's the typical case that Christ uses in talking about relationships. And that they don't consider the biological cases of hermaphrodites...or unknown sex people born every day. Or any other biological case...