Marriage

[secondeve]

Places where the Bible says illnesses are caused by demons:

Matt 9:32 "While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk was brought to Jesus. 33And when the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel."

Here we see muteness caused by demonic possession.

Matt 12:22 "Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see."

Blindness and muteness.

Luke 11:14 "Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed."

Muteness again.

Matt 17:14 "When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15"Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him."

17"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me." 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment."

Seizures.

Mark 9:17 A man in the crowd answered, "Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. 18Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not."

19"O unbelieving generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me."

20So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.

21Jesus asked the boy's father, "How long has he been like this?"

"From childhood," he answered. 22"It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us."

23" 'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes."

24Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"

25When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the evil[a] spirit. "You deaf and mute spirit," he said, "I command you, come out of him and never enter him again."

26The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, "He's dead." 27But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up.

Muteness, seizures, convulsions, deafness.

Luke 9:37 The next day, when they came down from the mountain, a large crowd met him. 38A man in the crowd called out, "Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child. 39A spirit seizes him and he suddenly screams; it throws him into convulsions so that he foams at the mouth. It scarcely ever leaves him and is destroying him. 40I begged your disciples to drive it out, but they could not."

41"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you and put up with you? Bring your son here."

42Even while the boy was coming, the demon threw him to the ground in a convulsion. But Jesus rebuked the evil[a] spirit, healed the boy and gave him back to his father.

Seizures, convulsions, foaming at the mouth.

Acts 19:12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

I included this verse because I just found the wording interesting. It makes it look like those sick had evil spirits. I could have this one wrong, though.

Acts 19:16 Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding.

Here a man possessed by a demon is beating people!

Billie, I know these references, but I had something else in mind - which is my fault for not speaking clearly enough. Now, I don't believe in demons, so when I talk about them in this context - with reference to the Bible - I'm talking about how Christians percieve them, not what I believe. So. In my mind, being possessed and having an illness are two separate concepts. The reason I say this is because, in modern medicine, we can tell what the cause of an ailment is - and it isn't demonic, in the sense of being inexplicable. We don't say someone is blind because they have a demon nowadays; we say they've been born with x or y problem in their eye, which medical science can either correct, or help, or in many cases can't do anything. The point being, it's an illness, not a demon. In the examples you've given, we're not talking about people who lacked a demon and were ill anyway. The examples you've given aren't examples of Jesus healing someone who didn't have a demon; all their symptons are demon-caused. So when the demon left, so did the symptoms. But unless you want to run the line that every single mute or blind person, or someone who has siezures, is suffering from a demon, then you're acknowledging that illnesses can occur which are not the result of demon possession, yes? So when I ask for Biblical verses, it doesn't say that all illnesses are caused by demons, or that whenever someone it mute, it's because they have a demon - and it certainly doesn't say that homosexuality it caused by demons. And you and I know that people can be sick without demonic help - we catch a cold via germs, or inherent a hereditary condition, or are born a certain way. And so all I was saying is, people can be sick for reasons other than demonic interference, and the Bible doesn't state that all illnesses are demon-caused. Does that make sense?

[Joshua-777]

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

Issue No.: 247

by: Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.

Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of "Gay-Straight Alliances" among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers--even in the youngest grades--to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to "gay" students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.

Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns--in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.

However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:

[secondeve]

Josh, the original OP was not about paedophilia and homosexuality; it was about marriage. I know there have been deviations and that I've participated in them, but that really was a mammoth post to prove an unrelated point.

[Joshua-777]

Josh, the original OP was not about paedophilia and homosexuality; it was about marriage. I know there have been deviations and that I've participated in them, but that really was a mammoth post to prove an unrelated point.

ya sorry, ok, main point I feel marriage is sacred, between man and woman. Now if they want to do somthing legalistic, let them do it away from the church and don't call it marriage. Mariage should be somthing honorable. and I don't feel this issue should be widespread on the media, I'm PRO MARRIAGE, so I've heard I'm a biggot and homophobe just for that. anyways, hey sorry about the long post. Just, ya got carried away and found that artical, anyways peace and blessings.

[billie]

The reason I say this is because, in modern medicine, we can tell what the cause of an ailment is - and it isn't demonic, in the sense of being inexplicable. We don't say someone is blind because they have a demon nowadays; we say they've been born with x or y problem in their eye, which medical science can either correct, or help, or in many cases can't do anything. The point being, it's an illness, not a demon.

Not always. There are many identifiable ailments that modern medicine has yet to figure out where they come fromor why they develop, and still other symptoms people come up with that don't even fit a previously identified medical condition.

But unless you want to run the line that every single mute or blind person, or someone who has siezures, is suffering from a demon, then you're acknowledging that illnesses can occur which are not the result of demon possession, yes?

Yes, of course, not all illnesses are demonic in nature. I whole-heartedly agree. I think the percentage of demon-related illnesses is probably small, actually, though I'm sure some of my brothers and sisters may disagree.

and it certainly doesn't say that homosexuality it caused by demons.

This is why we believe homosexuality is "caused by demons":

Homosexuality is a sin.

Satan(and his minions)tempt us to sin.

Now, I don't think the Bible has any direct mention of a person possesed by a demon who causes them to commit homosexual acts, but these two statements above are supported by Scripture, and if quotes are needed, I'll be happy to supply them. Putting these two truths together, we can see that homosexuality, whether directly or indirectly, has their roots in the demonic.

[secondeve]

The reason I say this is because, in modern medicine, we can tell what the cause of an ailment is - and it isn't demonic, in the sense of being inexplicable. We don't say someone is blind because they have a demon nowadays; we say they've been born with x or y problem in their eye, which medical science can either correct, or help, or in many cases can't do anything. The point being, it's an illness, not a demon.

Not always. There are many identifiable ailments that modern medicine has yet to figure out where they come fromor why they develop, and still other symptoms people come up with that don't even fit a previously identified medical condition.

But unless you want to run the line that every single mute or blind person, or someone who has siezures, is suffering from a demon, then you're acknowledging that illnesses can occur which are not the result of demon possession, yes?

Yes, of course, not all illnesses are demonic in nature. I whole-heartedly agree. I think the percentage of demon-related illnesses is probably small, actually, though I'm sure some of my brothers and sisters may disagree.

and it certainly doesn't say that homosexuality it caused by demons.

This is why we believe homosexuality is "caused by demons":

Homosexuality is a sin.

Satan(and his minions)tempt us to sin.

Now, I don't think the Bible has any direct mention of a person possesed by a demon who causes them to commit homosexual acts, but these two statements above are supported by Scripture, and if quotes are needed, I'll be happy to supply them. Putting these two truths together, we can see that homosexuality, whether directly or indirectly, has their roots in the demonic.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[billie]

Okay!

[Guest K.R.E.B.S]

As for sex outside of marraige, to me, this isn't an issue, because as a non-Christian, I see nothing inherently important in the idea of extra-marital sex, particularly in a day and age where contraception is readily available to all. Originally, yes, I can see why the idea might've appealed - so women, who weren't allowed or able to earn money to support themselves, might not end up with bastard children. That's just practical. But today? Nope.

Well, all I can speak of is my experience with friends who are struggling with the homosexual lifestyle.

But in regards to what you just said here. I guess it would make sense why you see nothing wrong with homosexuality if you don't even hold marriage to higher standard.

Gosh, I don't know what I would do if I found my wife sneaking around behind my back just because contraception is readily available.

I don't know what to tell all those fatherless or motherless children out there who've had to grow up without the love of both parents. You think we don't have bastard children today??? Really???

Yeah, I guess marriage between a man and woman isn't something we need or should value these days.

With respect,

Joe

[sweetycakes]

ya sorry, ok, main point I feel marriage is sacred, between man and woman. Now if they want to do somthing legalistic, let them do it away from the church and don't call it marriage. Mariage should be somthing honorable. and I don't feel this issue should be widespread on the media, I'm PRO MARRIAGE, so I've heard I'm a biggot and homophobe just for that. anyways, hey sorry about the long post. Just, ya got carried away and found that artical, anyways peace and blessings.

Respectfully, every homosexual couple that I have known who were married were just as "honorable" as every straight couple I have known.

But 'honourable' in whose eyes, AAA?

[MRHarvey]

So, I was thinking yesterday - there seems to be a lot of brouhaha in the media of late regarding whether or not gay marriage should be allowed. Quite naturally, just about all Christians are against this, because they see it as an offence in the eyes of God. But the thought occured to me that, yes, the churches have every right to decide who they will or will not perform ceremonies for, but a universal ban only works if the only definition of marriage as an institution is a Christian one. Nonebelievers get married in civil services; believers can marry non-believers; and people of different religions can have their own ceremonies in mosques, temples - wherever they please. So why, when it comes to the issue of marriage, do Christians fight so hard for an all-out ban on homosexual unions, rather than just a ban on individual churchs being forced to perform Christian ceremonies?

<SNIP!>

Well, here in Canada, where I live, the federal Parliament -- about two years ago -- passed a law that supposedly does just that; the law allows gay marriges but is supposed to allow churches and religious organizations that don't believe in gay marriage (Christian and non-Christian alike) to opt out of performing gay marriages. But the Christian community in my country is concerned that the law does not go far enough in protecting churches, denominations, ministers, and other religious leaders who do not want to perform gay marriage.

I will try not to make this posting too lengthy, but here is one of the concerns:

United Church of Canada is officially in favour of gay marriage, even though there are many Bible-believing ministers within the denomination who are against it. Nothing in the current law protects a minister -- in a denomination such as United Chruch of Canada -- from being defrocked by his or her denomination for refusing to perform a gay marriage. In all fairness, no minister in United Church has been defrocked for that kind of thing so far, but the potential is there ...

Along the same lines, there is the concern -- in my opinion, the very legitimate concern, that allowing gay marriages coulld be a slippery slope; it could be the thin edge of the wedge. If we allow a law that legalizes gay marriages -- but doesn't force any minister or other religious leader to perform gay marriage ceremonies -- today, then the gay community may very well be lobbying for a law that will force them to perform gay marriages tomorrow!

... It just seems odd and lopsided to me that believers would single out gay marriage, rather than lobbying also for a ban on Christian marriages for those who will be 'unequally yoked,' or for other religions. Surely Hindu weddings or nonbeliever-believer weddings are as offensive to god as gay weddings? ...

I agree with you there. But we have to remember that my country -- like yours -- is a democracy, not a theocracy! And in a democracy, it is not practical to try to make all kinds of non-Christian weddings illegal. It is not practical in a democratic society to outlaw Jewish weddings, for example, let alone Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, etc. weddings, as well as totally non-religious ones. However, it is practical to outlaw gay marriages, because Bible-believing Chistians are not the only ones who are opposed to gay marriages. Sikhs, "Koran-believing" Moslems, Orthodox Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and most other major religions are opposed to gay marriages as well. In fact, even a lot of non-relgious people who simply understand the importance of preserving the family as an institution are opposed to gay marriages.

So the bottom line is, the reason that the churches are focussing on fighting against gay marriages -- but not against non-Christian marriages in general, is because we have to make the distinction between what is and isn't practical in a democracy!

Hope that helps answer your questions, Secondeve!

TTYL WLIC

--

MRHarvey