I am not good with chapter and verse: it is the time the hebrew leaders tried to trap Yeshua by asking if a woman married a brother and he died and according to law, she married another brother and so on, who would she be married to in heaven....
Nooo. According to law the husband's family had to provide for her. That was not a sexual verse- it was just saying that the man's brother (or father or mother) would take care of the woman if she is widowed. When Jesus died, he told Lazarus to take care of his own mom.
John 19:26-27 (Today's New International Version)
26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, "Woman, [
a] here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
You seem to only read enough to snap back, not understand. I said that if a person repented of their sin (and they were divorced) and became a better person that did not make the same mistakes, it would not be the same person remarrying. It would be an improved person (through Christ), that would be a lot less likely to sin the same way (make the same mistakes)
That is the gospel according to YOU. That is not what the bible says. The bible says that if a woman's husband even dies, then she must not remarry or have sex with another man, as this is adultery. This is the same situation with divorce.
As for the 'unrighteous' being redeemed: how can that happen unless they seek redemption (repent)?
They don't know God, so there is no way for them to do this on their own, until Judgment day. God will know who knew him and who did not. HE is the redeemer. I think he might even say "Hey how ya doing? I'm God! I am great, am I not? Well, did you know you were sinning by doing X, Y, and Z? Do you want to follow my way, instead?" "sure" "Ok then you are redeemed, you don't have to stay dead."
Where have I said I 'hate' homosexuals? Aren't you spreading 'propoganda' by implying that the Lord will accept homosexuals as 'not sinning' when it clearly states in several places that in the 'eyes of the Lord' it IS a sin?
If someone does not know the Lord, then whatever they do is not actually considered to be sinful, because the Lord said that they are simply unrighteous.
Righteous= Knowing God
Unrighteous = Not knowing God.
No where have I claimed that I AM G*d or even a god. I am pointing out falsehoods about the Bible (that homosexuality is not a sin). Because you disagree with the Bible, does not make the Bible wrong. I would looooove to here your plan for society to 'all get along'. I would be very interested in hearing where you think people get their spirituality and ability to reason (some call that free will).
I never said that the bible was pro gay. I am simply saying that religion really doesn't bare any consequence to this issue, because in America, people have the freedom of religion. This is a legal matter, and therefore it should remain wholly secular.
Yeshua begged His father to "forgive them for they know not what they do". I would "read into it" and say He was declaring that behavior sinful.
Adam and Eve were told that they 'displeased' G*d. The punishment was expulsion from The garden, working all their days for survival and painful childbirth (just guessing, maybe I am not "reading into enough", but that sounds 'sinful' to me). I believe sin and evil can be used interchangibly in the Bible.
Dont forget the punishment of death. Adam and Eve both knew in advance that they would die if they did not follow the one commandment God gave them. Did they follow it? No. Death was the ultimate punishment. This again bears no consequence to the issue of gay marriage, because not all American marriages are created in a church and issued by a pastor/ priest. Many marriages are purely secular, and a covenant between two united people and the state, to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, yadda yadda.. and by the power invested in me by the state of whatever, I now pronounce you John and Jane or Chuck and Larry.
WWJD? Please, have you read the gospels? He would have been in the worst places telling the 'sinners' about His love and the opportunity for ANYONE to come to Him for redemption. He would not see their sin and say ... oh well, maybe I should just let that slide.... He went to the people that were considered the worst of society and preached and taught them about G*d's love. He told them what awaited them if they chose to reject G*d.
First of all, I do not understand why you keep putting an asterisk where the o should be in the word God. You are not using his name in Vain. It is perfectly okay to spell it out.
Secondly, Yes he did say I will let that slide.. He did it all the time. Letting is slide WAS the redemption. Yes they came to him.. But they didnt have to beg him for mercy. He just GAVE the redemption freely. He KNEW them, and knew that they felt bad. Or he knew that they didnt know him. What was worse was that they did not know him, not what they did in the past. Once they knew him, that WAS the redemption.
No where did He say: in eternity everyone is accepted just as they are.
YES HE DID. He said that only certain specific people would be barred from their second chance at life. And even out of those specific people, many of them even got a second chance, like the prostitutes, for instance.
The Lord is JUST...everyone will be punished for their sins (like when you were a child and disobeyed your parents, you were punished, and most of the time, you earned the punishment), it will not stop His love. If you reject Him, you will not get to be in with Him (something that caused the rebellious angels to cry and gnash their teeth and show great distress).
Rebellious angels gnashing teeth?? Well, you have one part of it right. Gnashing of teeth is the biblical interpretation of people being angry and upset, but the people would be upset because someone died, because death is very final, or at least, can be very final. I agree with the rest of what you said, but again, this plays no role in the issue of Gay marriage in free America.
There was no mention of a "basic contract", the subject is: HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. Do not try 'it depends what is, is".
It is still a contract. My parents were entitled to all sorts of government entitlements, because they were married. They were not married by a priest. They did not have to be married by a church to be awarded those benefits, like social security and insurance benefits and such. Why does everyone all of a sudden have to be married in a Christian church to be considered legally wed???
I do not have a story book outlook on the Bible, it is a book of spiritual growth, you can use it to mature spiritually (or not). I do not have a story book outlook on society; I do not believe you can legalize sinful behavior, and the outcome will be whole and pure. It will not. I do not believe that lying to people that are involved in destructive behaviour, will somehow, magically, make the outcome any different. People will be destroyed. That is not hatred. It is not fear. It is fact.
It is not fact. It is baloney. Native Americans, for instance, have been smoking pot for hundreds of years, if not longer. They don't have a higher crime rate because of it. Actually it is a part of their heritage and culture, and religion too. Yet, you will be the one to claim that based on the bible saying that someone should not use mind altering substances, then all mind altering substances should be illegal, including pot. I suppose you would probably not consider including prescription MAOIs which also alter the mind, of course.. That is because you just pull out whatever argument you can run the fastest with. And yes- that is a story book way of life.. Which I meant no offense by, either. =)
