Jesus (God) defined marriage as Adam and Eve (one man and one woman)

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread has gone off on a tangent as they often do.

The OP wants to know how a Christian can accept anything other than a traditional marriage of one man and one woman. As the OP stated if you are a Christian and you actually follow what Christ taught you can not accept the redefinition of marriage. It is very clear the Jesus is saying that marriage was meant by God to be one man and one woman. Not only that, it is implied that we were made to be married. Adam and Eve were not married by anyone, there wasn’t anyone else around. They were made married and it was a permanent union.

No one says you are required to be a Christian. You can believe what you want and enjoy the benefits as well as suffer the consequences of your beliefs. But to call yourself a Christian and then change Christian beliefs to suit your own ideas is just wrong.

To believe that Jesus is God and at the same time to believe that Jesus was wrong about something he taught is irrational.

All politicians who are in favor of same sex marriages are not practicing Christians.
 
chaldobyzantine said:
In what world do you live in where same-sex couples do not have children and procreate? Lesbian couples often have sperm donors
Click to expand...
What you are talking about is artificial insemination. It is not natural. The “sperm donor” is the opposite sex. The woman needs a man to have a baby. Therefore, the child is still the product of the union of one man and one woman and not a product of the two lesbians whether you want to ignore the facts of it or not.

“He [Jesus] answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 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’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’” - Matthew 19:4-6

So how can anyone say that they are a Christian which means “follower of Christ” and at the same time call Jesus a liar by denying the truth of what he said about marriage?
 
livingwordunity said:
Abortion, “doctor assisted suicide”, “same-sex marriage”, contraception, etc. The liberal goal of all this is to to reduce the human population by taking away any incentive for human procreation, doing whatever prevents procreation, and killing babies and others who can’t fight back. If gay couples get benefits for being “married” the government will eventually stop giving benefits for marriage when it runs out of money. This will hurt children.
Click to expand...
Not necessarity. The benefits provided to married couples were created when marriage meant children, and the benefits were indirectly tied to producing and raising children for the benefit of society. Now that society has chosen to separate marriage from producing and rearing children, it is time to discontinue all government benefits for simply being married, and provide them to parents creating and raising children. If the current benefits simply for being married are instead used to fund increased benefits to families with children, children will benefit more than today’s current system.
 
Dan_Grelinger said:
Not necessarity. The benefits provided to married couples were created when marriage meant children, and the benefits were indirectly tied to producing and raising children for the benefit of society. Now that society has chosen to separate marriage from producing and rearing children, it is time to discontinue all government benefits for simply being married, and provide them to parents creating and raising children. If the current benefits simply for being married are instead used to fund increased benefits to families with children, children will benefit more than today’s current system.
Click to expand...
My point is there’s an overall push to reduce the population and homosexual unions don’t naturally produce children. A homosexual couple has to go out of their way resorting to unnatural and expensive means to have children, and many probably don’t want children whereas most heterosexual couples have to go out of their way not to have children. Even when a heterosexual couple is contracepting, a child sometimes still results. Therefore, it makes sense that if homosexual behavior becomes the norm then birth rates will go down. This fits right in with all the other aggressive government efforts to reduce the human population.
 
chaldobyzantine said:
In what world do you live in where same-sex couples do not have children and procreate? Lesbian couples often have sperm donors and are able to conceive and give birth (what a shock!). Male couples can adopt children whose mothers decided to not abort them, but were unable to care for them, or children who are in orphanages, or they can decide to procreate through surrogacy.
Click to expand...
You describe a world where children are now a commodity to be created at the will of adults for their own wants, as some such property or as pets, rather than for the real benefit of the children. This is not a good thing.
chaldobyzantine said:
Somehow I bet that a child is much happier in a stable loving home instead of an orphanage without someone (or two) to call mom or dad.
Click to expand...
A poor alternative (non-natural family) is not the right solution to this problem (children in orphanages), and should not be accepted as a real solution.

More response later.
 
Dan_Grelinger said:
Not necessarity. The benefits provided to married couples were created when marriage meant children, and the benefits were indirectly tied to producing and raising children for the benefit of society. Now that society has chosen to separate marriage from producing and rearing children, it is time to discontinue all government benefits for simply being married, and provide them to parents creating and raising children. If the current benefits simply for being married are instead used to fund increased benefits to families with children, children will benefit more than today’s current system.
Click to expand...
Even if children didn’t suffer financially from so-called “same-sex marriage” they would suffer spiritually from it by society normalizing sin and rejecting the concept of absolute truth in morality and rejecting God’s word. Also, with homosexuals having children by artificial insemination, many abortions would come from it from all the extra unwanted fertilized embryos which means many babies getting murdered in the womb.
 
chaldobyzantine said:
In what world do you live in where same-sex couples do not have children and procreate?
Click to expand...
The real world. Where two same sex people can never be a mother and father. Even a first grader can understand such basic things. The problem is we have deceived ourselves so much we no longer know right from wrong.
 
Dan_Grelinger said:
I am not satisfied to disagree with you. I actually have as my goal to agree with you. But first, you must understand what I said, because I certainly did not suggest that we should expect the government to ‘manage’ the sacraments. That would be futile, as all the sacraments come from God. I DO expect the that society (and the government) respect the good that comes from the sacraments, much like I expect society (and the government) to respect the good that comes from God’s commandments.

Would you suggest that the government has no business ‘managing’ the commandments? Just like the sacraments, they came directly from God.
Click to expand...
You believe that the sacraments came from God. I believe they came from men that lived thousands of years ago and have no bearing today. Some of them still hold true, some of them are nonsense.

You expect that society respect the good that comes from the sacraments? Really? Without belief in the Catholic church they serve zero good at all. This is like someone saying that the government should respect the good that comes from a pilgrimage to mecca. Without a belief in Islam, a pilgrimage to mecca is not something that is objectively good.
 
Dan_Grelinger said:
Not necessarity. The benefits provided to married couples were created when marriage meant children
Click to expand...
In most cases, marriage still means children. Even in this contraceptive culture, it’s rare to see a man and woman get married and never have a child. Where I work, the women have been getting pregnant left and right usually shortly after getting married. And these are liberal working women I’m talking about.
 
interestedman said:
You believe that the sacraments came from God. I believe they came from men that lived thousands of years ago and have no bearing today. Some of them still hold true, some of them are nonsense.

You expect that society respect the good that comes from the sacraments? Really? Without belief in the Catholic church they serve zero good at all. This is like someone saying that the government should respect the good that comes from a pilgrimage to mecca. Without a belief in Islam, a pilgrimage to mecca is not something that is objectively good.
Click to expand...
Natural marriage predates the sacraments of the Catholic Church. It goes all the way back to the first man and woman on earth. You should be thankful that they weren’t homosexuals or you and I would have never been born.
 
livingwordunity said:
Jesus was asked a question about divorce, but he answered it by talking about marriage.
Click to expand...
His first miracle where He changed water to wine was also in the context of marriage, in Cana, not in another type of social gathering.

Gay ‘marriage’ advocates say Jesus never specifically spoke of homosexuality. He did not have to because His actions and messages in context were clear of His support for Jewish laws and customs, including traditional marriage between a man and a woman. He rebelled against hypocrisy. However, as a Palestinian Jew, it would be outside the realm of possibility that He would have supported homosexual behavior, much less homosexual ‘marriage.’
,
 
InSearchofGrace said:
His first miracle where He changed water to wine was also in the context of marriage, in Cana, not in another type of social gathering.

Gay ‘marriage’ advocates say Jesus never specifically spoke of homosexuality. He did not have to because His actions and messages in context were clear of His support for Jewish laws and customs, including traditional marriage between a man and a woman. He rebelled against hypocrisy. However, as a Palestinian Jew, it would be outside the realm of possibility that He would have supported homosexual behavior, much less homosexual ‘marriage.’
,
Click to expand...
Also in Sacred Scripture, Saint Paul condemned homosexual behavior and called it unnatural.
 
JohnAlexander said:
This thread has gone off on a tangent as they often do.

The OP wants to know how a Christian can accept anything other than a traditional marriage of one man and one woman. As the OP stated if you are a Christian and you actually follow what Christ taught you can not accept the redefinition of marriage. It is very clear the Jesus is saying that marriage was meant by God to be one man and one woman. Not only that, it is implied that we were made to be married. Adam and Eve were not married by anyone, there wasn’t anyone else around. They were made married and it was a permanent union.

No one says you are required to be a Christian. You can believe what you want and enjoy the benefits as well as suffer the consequences of your beliefs. But to call yourself a Christian and then change Christian beliefs to suit your own ideas is just wrong.

To believe that Jesus is God and at the same time to believe that Jesus was wrong about something he taught is irrational.

All politicians who are in favor of same sex marriages are not practicing Christians.
Click to expand...
👍
 
livingwordunity said:
Also in Sacred Scripture, Saint Paul condemned homosexual behavior and called it unnatural.
Click to expand...
Yes. Too many secular people think he was making either arbitrary or phobic assertions. But, he was simply implying that there must be many things which are unnatural and bad despite that people can become attracted to these unnatural things: For every realm of human life there are many bad things that are possible, including many bad things that people can be changed into enjoying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top