Gay Marriage

[WILK99]

you would classify gays as non belivers... right? so if 2 non belivers are married whay would god care? marrage is not just for christians.. i am a christian but you can not use the bible to govern over people. god will do that in the end.. we shouldn't

[Ejcm]

That's right. Hebrew Law. If we went by all of thier laws you would be amazed by what we couldn't do. Heck, it was even against the law to have sex with a woman during her period. (Although I wouldn't do that anyway)!
Also, if you raped a woman, all you had to do was pay the father some money and marry her!!! Deuteronomy 22:28 Oh, and more than 1 wife was o.k. (Solomon had over 100) We can't look at, and rely on Hebrew law to gset standards for ourselves.Check out Deuteronomy 23:1 and tell me if this is how it should be!!!

[Ejcm]

Originally Posted by WILK99

you would classify gays as non belivers... right? so if 2 non belivers are married whay would god care? marrage is not just for christians.. i am a christian but you can not use the bible to govern over people. god will do that in the end.. we shouldn't

"Judge not, les ye be judged"!

[bar scrapper]

Originally Posted by jfuller82

Just a reminder, homosexuals are not barred from marriage. Any homosexual can go marry a woman anytime he wants just like any heterosexual man can. I do not see where the discrimination is here since both men can do the same thing and are barred from the same thing.

Thank God some1 else sees this obvious point... I have been saying this all along.

[kosmo]

Originally Posted by WILK99

so if 2 non belivers are married whay would god care?

If you are christian then this answer is clear. God loves all his children. Why do you think he sacraficed his only son for the sins of all of his children, not just the sins of all belivers.

[WILK99]

so you are saying what? 2 non belivers should not get married?

[kosmo]

Originally Posted by Ejcm

That's right. Hebrew Law. If we went by all of thier laws you would be amazed by what we couldn't do. Heck, it was even against the law to have sex with a woman during her period. (Although I wouldn't do that anyway)!
Also, if you raped a woman, all you had to do was pay the father some money and marry her!!! Deuteronomy 22:28 Oh, and more than 1 wife was o.k. (Solomon had over 100) We can't look at, and rely on Hebrew law to gset standards for ourselves.Check out Deuteronomy 23:1 and tell me if this is how it should be!!!

Here are a few explainations of 23:1

He that is wounded - A phrase denoting an eunuch. Shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord - Shall not be admitted to honours and offices either in the church or commonwealth of Israel; and so the congregation of the Lord doth not here signify, the body of the people, but the society of the elders or rulers of the people. Add to this, that the Hebrew word, Kahal, generally signifies a congregation or company of men met together; and therefore this cannot so conveniently be meant of all the body of the people, which could never meet in one place, but of the chief rulers, which frequently did so. Nor is it strange that eunuchs are excluded from government, both because such persons are commonly observed to want that courage which is necessary for a governor, because as such persons ordinarily were despicable, so the authority in their hands was likely to be exposed to the same contempt.

We ought to value the privileges of God's people, both for ourselves and for our children, above all other advantages. No personal blemishes, no crimes of our forefathers, no difference of nation, shuts us out under the Christian dispensation. But an unsound heart will deprive us of blessings; and a bad example, or an unsuitable marriage, may shut our children from them.

23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member
cut off, {a} shall not enter into the congregation of the
LORD.

(a) Either to bear office, or to marry a wife.

I. Upon bastards and eunuchs, v. 1, 2. By bastards here the Jewish writers understand, not all that were born of fornication, or out of marriage, but all the issue of those incestuous mixtures which are forbidden, Lev. xviii. And, though it was not the fault of the issue, yet, to deter people from those unlawful marriages and unlawful lusts, it was very convenient that their posterity should thus be made infamous. By this rule Jephthah, though the son of a harlot, a strange woman (Judg. xi. 1, 2), yet was not a bastard in the sense of this law. And as for the eunuchs, though by this law they seemed to be cast out of the vineyard as dry trees, which they complain of (Isa. lvi. 3), yet it is here promised (v. 5) that if they took care of their duty to God, as far as they were admitted, by keeping his sabbaths and choosing the things that pleased him, the want of this privilege should be made up to them with such spiritual blessings as would entitle them to an everlasting name.

1-3. He that is wounded . . ., shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord--"To enter into the congregation of the Lord" means either admission to public honors and offices in the Church and State of Israel, or, in the case of foreigners, incorporation with that nation by marriage. The rule was that strangers and foreigners, for fear of friendship or marriage connections with them leading the people into idolatry, were not admissible till their conversion to the Jewish faith. But this passage describes certain limitations of the general rule. The following parties were excluded from the full rights and privileges of citizenship: (1) Eunuchs--It was a very ancient practice for parents in the East by various arts to mutilate their children, with a view to training them for service in the houses of the great. (2) Bastards--Such an indelible stigma in both these instances was designed as a discouragement to practices that were disgraceful, but too common from intercourse with foreigners. (3) Ammonites and Moabites--Without provocation they had combined to engage a soothsayer to curse the Israelites; and had further endeavored, by ensnaring them into the guilt and licentious abominations of idolatry, to seduce them from their allegiance to God.

Verse 1. Shall not enter into the congregation, &c.] If by entering the congregation be meant the bearing a civil office among the people, such as magistrate, judge, &c., then the reason of the law is very plain; no man with any such personal defect as might render him contemptible in the sight of others should bear rule among the people, lest the contempt felt for his personal defects might be transferred to his important office, and thus his authority be disregarded. The general meaning of these words is, simply, that the persons here designated should not be so incorporated with the Jews as to partake of their civil privileges.

[kosmo]

Originally Posted by WILK99

so you are saying what? 2 non belivers should not get married?

No you asked why would God care. So I told you.

[Ejcm]

My point is, it should in no way govern the way we live our lives today!!!!
Otherwise we would be making animal sacrifices all time.

[kosmo]

Originally Posted by Ejcm

My point is, it should in no way govern the way we live our lives today!!!!
Otherwise we would be making animal sacrifices all time.

The bible still sets moral guidelines for all to live by. Thats what we should follow. It's the Word and message that are important and you are obstructing and clouding that by including animal sacrifices, etc.... Times have changed with cars, computers, people, etc.... People can give up different things today than they did thousands of years ago. The overall message is the same

[WILK99]

Otherwise we would be making animal sacrifices all time.

crap, i just did one.. too late...

[Ejcm]

Originally Posted by kosmo

The bible still sets moral guidelines for all to live by. Thats what we should follow. It's the Word and message that are important and you are obstructing and clouding that by including animal sacrifices, etc.... Times have changed with cars, computers, people, etc.... People can give up different things today than they did thousands of years ago. The overall message is the same

Like the moral guideline of having more than one wife? What I am saying is I would look to the New Testament, not the Old Testament for guidelines. The old Testament to me is just more of a history book, I look to the New Testament for guidelines.

[kosmo]

Originally Posted by Ejcm

Like the moral guideline of having more than one wife? What I am saying is I would look to the New Testament, not the Old Testament for guidelines.

Have more than 1 wife is not the moral guideline of God. Show me one verse where that is Gods will and guideline.

[Ejcm]

Originally Posted by kosmo

Have more than 1 wife is not the moral guideline of God. Show me one verse where that is Gods will and guideline.

Not necessarly his will, but it was allowed, according to their laws. Look at Deuteronomy 21:15. I will look for others.

[kosmo]

Originally Posted by Ejcm

Not necessarly his will, but it was allowed, according to their laws.

See, you are mixing up the laws of the people and the laws of God. I said we should live by the Word and messages of God, not the people during that time. The lives of the people in the bible is mostly there to show you the way people were living not by Gods Word. There are people that lived by his word but people overlook that when they read. You are also too caught up in Deuteronomy.

[Ejcm]

Actually I am wrong. These were the Lords commands . "Today the Lord your God commands you to obey all these rules and laws: be careful to obey them with your whole being" Deut. 26:16. So there you go, at that time it was a moral guideline of God

[Ejcm]

Originally Posted by kosmo

See, you are mixing up the laws of the people and the laws of God. I said we should live by the Word and messages of God, not the people during that time. The lives of the people in the bible is mostly there to show you the way people were living not by Gods Word. There are people that lived by his word but people overlook that when they read. You are also too caught up in Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy is where a lot of the laws are laid out! I'm just taking the info from where I get it. The laws of the people were strict laws, given by God!!!

[kosmo]

Originally Posted by Ejcm

Deuteronomy is where a lot of the laws are laid out! I'm just taking the info from where I get it. The laws of the people were strict laws, given by God!!!

Here is an interestign take on this:

A number of godly men in the Old Testament had more than one wife, and beyond this, some had concubines (such as Hagar in Genesis 16:1ff.), who did not have the same status as a wife. I think we must acknowledge that God did not forbid Old Testament saints to have more than one wife. Indeed, the Law even has instructions for the man with more than one wife (Deuteronomy 21:15). A king was forbidden to “multiply wives” (Deuteronomy 17:17), which appears to prohibit political alliances by means of marriages (as we see with the marriage of Ahab and Jezebel’s daughter, Athaliah, with Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram (2 Kings 8:18, 25-26).

In the New Testament, we find that elders must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2), though there are different interpretations of what this expression means. At a minimum I would understand that an elder would not have multiple wives.

It seems to me that the Old Testament describes those marriages with multiple wives in such a way that we see the problems this creates. This is especially true of Jacob’s two wives and two concubines, and the “family” that results. It was certainly true of Elkanah’s two wives. Paul’s words in Ephesians chapter 5 make it clear that marriage was intended as a picture of the relationship of Christ to His church, and a multiple wives certainly don’t seem consistent with that!

Since the coming of Christ marriage to but one woman is clearly the ideal. Our culture has tended to reinforce this as well. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that we are more uncomfortable reading about those men who had more than one wife than God was. He did not prohibit this practice in the law, and He did not rebuke those who had more than one wife. God did rebuke Abraham for lying about his wife, and He certainly corrected Jacob on various matters, but not about his wives. Indeed, the nation Israel comes from the offspring of the four “wives” (2 wives, 2 concubines) of Jacob.

In times of old, believers had more than one wife, all at the same time. Today, even Christians have more than one wife, one at a time, by way of divorce. If there is something that God is very clear about, it is that He hates divorce (Malachi 2:16).

In conclusion, I think I would say that in Old Testament times having more than one wife was not ideal, but neither was it clearly defined or prohibited as sin. There are a number of things in the Old Testament that are difficult to understand, such as Lot offering his two virgin daughters to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, so that they won’t rape his male guests (Genesis 19:8). I think that we will have to wait till we are in heaven to ask God about such things.

[kosmo]

Originally Posted by Ejcm

Actually I am wrong. These were the Lords commands . "Today the Lord your God commands you to obey all these rules and laws: be careful to obey them with your whole being" Deut. 26:16. So there you go, at that time it was a moral guideline of God

Yes you are wrong.
What the Bible says

From the very beginning God created one woman for one man (see Genesis 1:27; 2:21-25). Deuteronomy 17:17 explicitly instructed the king not to "multiply wives."

Moses' law said, the king "shall not multiply horses to himself... Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deuteronomy 17:16-17).

[kosmo]

The clearest evidence that monogamy is God’s ideal is from Christ’s teaching on marriage in Matt. 19:3–6. In this passage, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, saying ‘the two will become one flesh’, not more than two.

Another important biblical teaching is the parallel of husband and wife with Christ and the Church in Eph. 5:22–33, which makes sense only with monogamy — Jesus will not have multiple brides.

The 10th Commandment ‘… You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife [singular] …’ (Exodus 20:17) also presupposes the ideal that there is only one wife. Polygamy is expressly forbidden for church elders (1 Tim. 3:2). And this is not just for elders, because Paul also wrote: ‘each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.’ Paul goes on to explain marital duties in terms that make sense only with one husband to one wife.

The example of godly people is also important. Isaac and Rebekah were monogamous — they are often used as a model in Jewish weddings today. Other examples were Joseph and Asenath, and Moses and Zipporah. And the only survivors of the Flood were four monogamous couples.

Polygamy’s origins and consequences
A very important point to remember is that not everything recorded in the Bible is approved in the Bible. Consider where polygamy originated — first in the line of the murderer Cain, not the godly line of Seth. The first recorded polygamist was the murderer Lamech (Gen. 4:23–24). Then Esau, who despised his birthright, also caused much grief to his parents by marrying two pagan wives (Gen. 26:34).

God also forbade the kings of Israel to be polygamous (Deut. 17:17). Look at the trouble when they disobeyed, including deadly sibling rivalry between David’s sons from his different wives; and Solomon’s hundreds of wives helped lead Solomon to idolatry (1 Kings 11:1–3). Also, Hannah, Samuel’s mother, was humiliated by her husband Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah (1 Sam. 1:1–7).

What about godly men who were polygamous?
Abraham and Sarah would have been monogamous apart from a low point in their faith when Hagar became a second wife — note how much strife this caused later. Jacob only wanted Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her older sister Leah, and later he took their slave girls at the sisters’ urging, due to the rivalry between the sisters. Jacob was hardly at a spiritual high point at those times, and neither was David when he added Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Sam. 25:42–43).

Why did God seem to allow it, then?
It is more like the case of divorce, which God tolerated for a while under certain conditions because of the hardness of their hearts, but was not the way it was intended from the beginning (Matt. 19:8). But whenever the Mosaic law had provisions for polygamy, it was always the conditional ‘If he takes another wife to himself …’ (Ex.21:10), never an encouragement. God put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would discourage polygamy. It is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.