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

[livingwordunity]

“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?

 

[EviPolevhia]

Funny how you turn a passage about Divorce into one about Homosexuality.

 

[thistle]

“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?

In order to justify continuing to sin and they want God to obey their will because they do not want to obey God.

 

[livingwordunity]

Funny how you turn a passage about Divorce into one about Homosexuality.

The passage is about whether or not married people should get divorced. Jesus answered no, and in his reason he reminds us that God made marriage Adam and Eve (one man and one woman). The passage shows that so-called “same-sex marriage” isn’t how God defines marriage.

 

[TimothyH]

Funny how you turn a passage about Divorce into one about Homosexuality.

Jesus referenced back to the way it was “In the beginning.” He says it again a few verses later.

…but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:8)

Jesus was a Rabbi and used rabinnical teaching techniques. His multiple references to the way it was “In the beginning” would have brought the minds of his audience, all scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures, back to the very first words of the Bible,

*In the beginning… (Genesis 1:1) *

It was a clear reference back to the way it was when man walked with God and sin had not yet entered the world, and his Hebrew scholar audience would have recognized it.

There was no divorce prior to Moses and the Exodus. Most people don’t know that. Divorce was not allowed “from the beginning” until the time of Moses.

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ (Matthew 19:4)

When he asks, “Have you not read?” it is almost like a slap in the face to the scholars of the Hebrew scriptures. One can almost hear a sarcastic tone. It was the way Rabbis humbled their students, and showed them that he was the teacher and they were below him in knowledge and learning. That would have humbled them, or infuriated them, and his reference back to the way it was “in the beginning” would have been clear not just in the context of divorce, but in the context of his reference to the creator making them male and female.

God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply;
(Genesis 1:27-28)

Jesus quotes directly from sctipture here.

God did not note that the first two people had brown hair, or that they were fat or skinny, or thier eye color, but that they were male and female and that they should multiply. This is the way it was “in the beginning” and Christ came to restore that, and that is where Jesus chooses to quote from.

The Pharisees posed the question to Jesus about divorce to trap him, but Jesus throws it right back in the faces of the scripture scholars, going all the way back to Genesis 1:1 and the way it was “in the beginning”, before sin entered the world, before divorce was allowed, and when male and female walked together with God, naked and without shame, and were blessed, and told to be fertile and multiply. And Jesus came to restore all that.

-Tim-

 

[chaldobyzantine]

In most countries, marriage has become a civil matter, attached with benefits provided by law due to marital status. In this case, marriage has nothing to do with religion. Couples who are atheist may be recognized as married by the state/federal governments, and their rights would not be infringed upon by any religious group.

God had founded Holy Matrimony, a sacrament and institution which he founded to be binding first through Judaism and then through the Church. Yes, indeed Holy Matrimony is something sacred binding one man and one woman together, and nobody should or is likely going to infringe upon the Church’s rights to deliver the sacrament to whomever they so please. If the government wishes to force its will upon the Church, then just like in any other case, the Church should fight back.

Just as well, gays and Lesbians are NOT seeking Holy Matrimony. Even if they did, that purpose is unfounded and pointless, as you pointed out by quoting scripture. However, people are homosexual, it is not a choice, nor is it something that can be changed. Those who fall in love and wish to have the same benefits the state provides a straight married couple shouldn’t be denied their rights.

Once again, they are not deterring the institution of Holy Matrimony of the Catholic Church, but wishing to at least be recognized as a household couple that can file taxes together.

 

[EviPolevhia]

In most countries, marriage has become a civil matter, attached with benefits provided by law due to marital status. In this case, marriage has nothing to do with religion. Couples who are atheist may be recognized as married by the state/federal governments, and their rights would not be infringed upon by any religious group.

God had founded Holy Matrimony, a sacrament and institution which he founded to be binding first through Judaism and then through the Church. Yes, indeed Holy Matrimony is something sacred binding one man and one woman together, and nobody should or is likely going to infringe upon the Church’s rights to deliver the sacrament to whomever they so please. If the government wishes to force its will upon the Church, then just like in any other case, the Church should fight back.

Just as well, gays and Lesbians are NOT seeking Holy Matrimony. Even if they did, that purpose is unfounded and pointless, as you pointed out by quoting scripture. However, people are homosexual, it is not a choice, nor is it something that can be changed. Those who fall in love and wish to have the same benefits the state provides a straight married couple shouldn’t be denied their rights.

Once again, they are not deterring the institution of Holy Matrimony of the Catholic Church, but wishing to at least be recognized as a household couple that can file taxes together.

Thank you.

 

[JimG]

Jesus referenced back to the way it was “In the beginning.” He says it again a few verses later.

…but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:8)

Jesus was a Rabbi and used rabinnical teaching techniques. His multiple references to the way it was “In the beginning” would have brought the minds of his audience, all scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures, back to the very first words of the Bible,

In the beginning… (Genesis 1:1)

It was a clear reference back to the way it was when man walked with God and sin had not yet entered the world, and his Hebrew scholar audience would have recognized it.

There was no divorce prior to Moses and the Exodus. Most people don’t know that. Divorce was not allowed “from the beginning” until the time of Moses.

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ (Matthew 19:4)

When he asks, “Have you not read?” it is almost like a slap in the face to the scholars of the Hebrew scriptures. One can almost hear a sarcastic tone. It was the way Rabbis humbled their students, and showed them that he was the teacher and they were below him in knowledge and learning. That would have humbled them, or infuriated them, and his reference back to the way it was “in the beginning” would have been clear not just in the context of divorce, but in the context of his reference to the creator making them male and female.

God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply;
(Genesis 1:27-28)

Jesus quotes directly from sctipture here.

God did not note that the first two people had brown hair, or that they were fat or skinny, or thier eye color, but that they were male and female and that they should multiply. This is the way it was “in the beginning” and Christ came to restore that, and that is where Jesus chooses to quote from.

The Pharisees posed the question to Jesus about divorce to trap him, but Jesus throws it right back in the faces of the scripture scholars, going all the way back to Genesis 1:1 and the way it was “in the beginning”, before sin entered the world, before divorce was allowed, and when male and female walked together with God, naked and without shame, and were blessed, and told to be fertile and multiply. And Jesus came to restore all that.

-Tim-

This is certainly a quite thoughtful and accurate exegesis of the passage. By referring back to the very first human couple and noting that God created them male and female, Jesus lays out the nature of marriage from the beginning. It is not sacramental or Judaic or Christian, or Catholic–Adam and Eve precede all those. It is the natural state of things from the beginning. The passage clearly does not fit the homosexual agenda and so various gymnastics will be used to avoid the obvious.

 

[Gods_Peace]

Funny how you turn a passage about Divorce into one about Homosexuality.

Funny how your Athiest and you think you can talk about these issues. Leave this up to the believers.

 

[EviPolevhia]

Funny how your Athiest and you think you can talk about these issues. Leave this up to the believers.

Oooh snap, you told me.

 

[vsedriver]

In most countries, marriage has become a civil matter, attached with benefits provided by law due to marital status

 

[Neofight]

Government should not be even remotely involved in marriage. Only the church should be. This sets the stage for the definition of marriage resting with the church and the enforcement of equal civil rights with the government.

 

[rossum]

Government should not be even remotely involved in marriage. Only the church should be. This sets the stage for the definition of marriage resting with the church and the enforcement of equal civil rights with the government.

There are many religions and many churches. Should the government recognise Muslims who marry up to four wives? What about fundamentalist Mormons with large numbers of wives.

Some churches: Unitarians, MCC, liberal Synagogues, will already marry same sex couples. Should the government recognise those religious marriages?

Be very careful what you are asking for here, you might get it.

rossum

 

[Neofight]

There are many religions and many churches. Should the government recognise Muslims who marry up to four wives? What about fundamentalist Mormons with large numbers of wives.

Some churches: Unitarians, MCC, liberal Synagogues, will already marry same sex couples. Should the government recognise those religious marriages?

Be very careful what you are asking for here, you might get it.

rossum

To answer your question, no. The government should recognize NO marriages, or be involved in any way in marriage. It should be a church concern only. The government should impose no benefits for marriage. The only benefit anyone should expect of the sacrament is the gift of grace bestowed on the male and female entering into Holy Matrimony.

Then the function of the government, if there are any benefits the government feels it must control should be equal without involving itself in the doctrine or dogma of Mother Church or any other church. It would then be up to government to establish policy for benefit eligibility, to answer your concerns a outnumber of wives, etc.

This call to keep government out of God’s business would have also prevented the government on forcing Catholic employers, hospitals, and social agencies from accepting government mandates that impose on religious beliefs.

In this case, I have no hesitation in hoping I get what I wish for; for what I wish is a fairness to the Church to exercise precepts Not Of This World, and for the government to treat its citizens equitably.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Government should not be even remotely involved in marriage. Only the church should be. This sets the stage for the definition of marriage resting with the church and the enforcement of equal civil rights with the government.

Buzzzzzzz! Wrong answer!

The government should exist for the benefit of society. Society benefits from strong, stable, faithful families. This has been confirmed in study after study, and is quite obvious. Just look at how much suffering is caused by the opposite, especially for children.

If the government did not work to encourage strong, stable, faithful families, it would be abdicating a very important responsibility it has to its citizens.

As the family goes, so goes society.

 

[Neofight]

Buzzzzzzz! Wrong answer!

The government should exist for the benefit of society. Society benefits from strong, stable, faithful families. This has been confirmed in study after study, and is quite obvious. Just look at how much suffering is caused by the opposite, especially for children.

If the government did not work to encourage strong, stable, faithful families, it would be abdicating a very important responsibility it has to its citizens.

As the family goes, so goes society.

And, I guess we agree to disagree. Because in my eyes, if we expect government and not God to manage the sacraments, we are are saying we enter Holy Matrimony because of the “things” the government offers us, and not just for the grace the sacrament gives to us from God.

Pax

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

And, I guess we agree to disagree. Because in my eyes, if we expect government and not God to manage the sacraments, we are are saying we enter Holy Matrimony because of the “things” the government offers us, and not just for the grace the sacrament gives to us from God.

Pax

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.

 

[vsedriver]

And, I guess we agree to disagree. Because in my eyes, if we expect government and not God to manage the sacraments, we are are saying we enter Holy Matrimony because of the “things” the government offers us, and not just for the grace the sacrament gives to us from God.

Pax

you don’t think the government should give priveleges to encourage people to do what benefits society? So giving people tax breaks for having kids should be discontinued?

 

[livingwordunity]

you don’t think the government should give priveleges to encourage people to do what benefits society? So giving people tax breaks for having kids should be discontinued?

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.

 

[chaldobyzantine]

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.

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. 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.

Secondly, people need to stop deluding themselves that people will stop having sex if they are urged to wait until marriage. This is near impossible, and to prevent the sin of killing an unborn child, methods such as contraception must be promoted. Whether it is through condoms or the pill, protection against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases should trump the fear of people having sex with no intent to conceive. His Holiness has said so himself.

As a far left liberal, I doubt our overall goal is to reduce the human population as you so intelligently state. The tax benefits of married couples is nothing compared to the tax incentives and cuts that are unnecessarily given to the richest and greediest of this country. You should not be attacking people who wish to live together in love, but those who decide that their wealth is much more important than helping those who cannot afford to live in a home, or to cure their cancer, or to stop gun violence in their communities. Being pro-life is not only reserved for caring for the unborn, but for all those who are born and want to live with dignity and good health.

~God Bless