V
victrolatim
Guest
Wonder what the argument is for some protestant denominations to justify supporting same-sex “marriage” when the scriptures clearly refute it (I.E. Episcopalian, Presbyterian).
How do churches that claim to follow scripture justify supporting SSM?
- Status
S
superwimp
Guest
Hello
I'm not aware of any scriptures commenting on ssm.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
M
MartinJordan
Guest
C
Confiteor_Deo
Guest
Here are some Scripture passages about homosexual sins.
I think Protestants do what they have always done and misinterpret Scripture to what they want it to say. For example, I have heard that they say God punished Sodom & Gomorrha for being inhospitable to the visiting angel and not for doing homosexual acts. They also say that since God made them that way, it can’t be a sin.
This is just from the New Testament. Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example of how grievous a sin it is to commit homosexual acts since God killed them.
I think Protestants do what they have always done and misinterpret Scripture to what they want it to say. For example, I have heard that they say God punished Sodom & Gomorrha for being inhospitable to the visiting angel and not for doing homosexual acts. They also say that since God made them that way, it can’t be a sin.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Yes, scriptures are twisted to explain away the obvious. Marriage is between one man and one woman and the same with Sodom and Gomorrah.
Mary.
C
chris62
Guest
Yes, the “I was born this way” argument has been tried for many years but now I think most people are seeing through that flawed line.
R
RedFox0456
Guest
Well that’s a lot of hogwash. We are told in the New Testament that not all laws of the Old Covenant were binding on us - only the laws of the Spirit. Now, this does open the door to which Old Testament laws pertain to the Spirit, but Paul does point some of these things out directly - such as homosexuality. Now, if you aren’t a believer then this is a moot point. But if you are a believer, then this should be pretty binding. Although Paul isn’t Jesus, Christians, and more specifically Protestants, tend to have this sola scriptura business going.
We also still don’t really understand the biology or psychology of homosexuality. People still don’t know if it’s biological (the “gay gene” has never been found), or if it is environmentally caused, or some mixture of the two. From a purely scientific standpoint, this would be considered abnormal, as a small portion of the population presents with these inclinations, and since the act prohibits one’s DNA from being passed down the generations. We can talk artificial insemination and surrogate mothers all we want, but those are a medical fix for the situation and hardly a naturally occurring phenomenon that would have countered this throughout the ages.
Lastly, let’s look at the words of Jesus himself on marriage to illuminate if He thought marriage was for everyone.
Looks like Jesus is saying there are some people who are not meant for marriage. Either through birth (I was born this way), because others made them that way (environmental causes), or due to self-imposed celibacy. This is, of course, immediately following his discourse about how marriage is between a man and a woman and how divorce is wrong and was only permitted to Israel by Moses because of the hardness of their hearts.
R
RedFox0456
Guest
Okay, so you are dismissing the argument without actually addressing it. All you are saying is not to listen to Paul. You aren’t saying that scripture here does not address homosexuality. Further, this is not a blanket thread. The question was how Protestants would use scripture to defend same-sex marriage. The problem with dismissing this because Paul was disturbed or something, is that it would mean the bible is not the inerrant Word of God. That wouldn’t much matter if you aren’t a Christian, but if you are then saying that your Holy book can’t be trusted is a pretty strange affair. If you can’t trust one part of the book, how can you trust the gospels? Men wrote the gospels about Jesus. What if they just modified the writings to fit their agenda at the time?
DaddyGirl:
You do realize that this comment would imply that Sodom was not destroyed for being inhospitable, but rather for the sexual immorality that was rampant. But that is irrelevant because it isn’t how it happened.
The angels came and Lot invited them to stay at his house. He prepared meals for them and was treating them as honored guests. Then the crowd wanted to rape them. Lot attempted to quell the crowd’s lust by offering up his daughters - still not the right thing to do, but then again we all know the people of the Old Testament didn’t exactly have things perfect. Lot didn’t just see two angels and say to them, “Hey, you wanna rape my daughters? They’re virgins!”
If you are going to use the faults of the people in the Old Testament as ammunition, at least use them correctly.
Mark 10
Every scripture reference, from the beginning of God’s creation, marriage is between a male and a female.
Jon
C
Confiteor_Deo
Guest
The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans that I quoted was concerning a punishment from God for their sins. God withdrew His grace from them, which made the men fall into lust with one another and the women to likewise commit unnatural sexual acts. The Scriptures are divinely inspired, so any error in them would be in regards to things of minor importance and not of morality.
Sometimes, the Latin “molles” is translated to mean “homosexual perverts” (in the Today’s English Version second edition). A homosexual is effeminate because he acts like a woman when he lusts after other men and has sexual relations with them. Usually, the word effeminate is used for boys/men and not for women.
Lot’s wife was turned to salt because she disobeyed the angel’s command by looking back at the city. She was looking back at vice and sin, which is in one of the Bible notes of Bishop Challoner: “and his wife: As a standing memorial to the servants of God to proceed in virtue, and not to look back to vice or its allurements”.
It is clear from the story of Sodom that they were punished for homosexual acts as is seen when the men surrounded the house: “But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together. And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them”. Sometimes, the “know them” is translated as “the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them” (Today’s English Version). I believe Lot offered his daughters to the angels because he didn’t want them to commit the more heinous sin of homosexual acts.
E
estesbob
Guest
The basis is that we are the wisest, most enlightened generation ever to live on the face of the earth . Whatever we thought we knew about scripture, whatever we thought we knew about morality was wrong and it took this special generation to figure it out It . It Also presupposes a very inept to god -a god so inept that he let his people live in ignorance about the truth of homosexuality for 4000 years . In short it’s all nonsense. Classic example of caving into the pressures of the current culture . It is in evitable fruits of the so-called reformation
E
exnihilo
Guest
One argument is that times have changed. This argument says that St. Paul, and the other Apostles and maybe Jesus were all rubes who didn’t know of any loving homosexual relationships. Apparently these folks know that there were no ‘loving’ homosexual relationships for these folks to be exposed to. Apparently there is something new under the sun, ‘loving’ homosexual relationships. The effect and necessary precursor to the arguments put forth is an undermining of the authority of Holy Scripture.
I agree with everything but the last statement. It isn’t inevitable. Its quite avoidable. One simply needs to maintain, that regarding SSM, Christ meant what He said in Mark 10.
He wasn’t wrong. He wasn’t influenced by His time and culture (His challenges to Jewish laws of the times are proof of that). He wasn’t dropping hints for later generations to discover.
The fact is that the ELCA, for example, which I came out of, is quite candid that they don’t see scripture as anything much more than a guide, filled with “opinion, cultural limitation and bias.”
I am a product of the Reformation, and I haven’t caved in at all. It isn’t inevitable.
Jon
G
Graceful_Lamb
Guest
I’m Episcopalian and I do not know how they justify it. I haven’t been to an Episcopal church in over three years. I refuse to go to an Episcopal church over this issue.
E
estesbob
Guest
Problem Is there is no authority.
Although your Lutheran denomination has not caved others have. And recognizing no authority there is no guarantee that your denomination will not cave also
There is an authority: scripture. The problem with the liberal/modernist denoms is they have rejected the authority. To say that two members of the same gender can get married, is an overt rejection of scriptural authority - indeed the authority of Christ! - on the matter.
I don’t want to swerve the thread into one about sola scriptura/Church authority etc. because you and I, our two communions as well, agree on the issue of SSM.
Jon
M
MartinJordan
Guest
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Since most people who are gay first become aware of feelings of same-sex attraction by the time they are 10 or 11, what sins did such children commit that would make God punish them by withdrawing His grace from them and making them homosexual?
- Status