Joseph Finberg | Christianity SHOULD NOT allow gay marriage - 8/8 | Oxford Union
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2024
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-unio...
The student speakers in this debate are professional debaters and their argument may not reflect their personal beliefs.
Currently, Church of England members of the clergy are not permitted to carry out same-sex marriages, whilst homosexual Anglicans are required to remain celibate. In recent years, however, the Church of Wales, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and, most recently, the Methodist Church, have all embraced marriage equality. In February 2023, the General Synod met to discuss the issue, raising the question across the Anglican Communion and Christendom: should Christianity extend the sacraments to same same-sex marriages?
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Here's the summary: "I didn't read the question and so I'm going to argue something that no one asked to be debated."
I think his argument is more “the enforcement mechanism of marriage is no longer in the hands of the church so it doesn’t matter whether or not they sanction it, marriage is done and upheld by the state so only their opinion matter in this regard” it’s a fair argument and basically tells secular people to leave the church alone
So in actuality it was 6 vs. 2 who genuinely defended the church's denial of gay marriage. It seems a lot of these Oxford debaters don't really represent the side they're on. How is that fair?🤔
It was unusual how the two sides were formed. On the "for" side you had three Bishops and one doubting layperson, but all in some way affiliated with the Progressive wing of the Anglican church. It was an ideologically united team. The "against" side was very divided and different. Two reverends shared opinions, but otherwise you had nonaffiliated people who didn't actually make a case for why the church should not recognise same sex marriage from a church viewpoint. Instead they argued that "we shouldn't interfere with private organisations" and "they shouldn't have the right to do it in the first place" which essentially led to 4 different sides rather than two. I'd suggest this went beyond the scope of the debate, which really is an intra-church matter.
@@brettweier9504 yep. And I really like that approach coz it also weakens the other sides argument. If liberals have rights, churches also have rights too.
I just made the same observation in the video of the Oxford Union 2/8 “opponent” against gay marriage who really was a “proponent” for gay marriage as she indicated prior to her presentation/argument
I would modify the assessment @Brett Wier made with the following considerations:
a) Pro side's first two presenters were terrible and offered nothing of value to the debate so we can strike those
b) the Con opener was equally poor so I remove that one from consideration as well
c) I would accept the final Con presenter as either his own position or in support of his assigned position though he was strongest in his own position
I would frame this as a 2 v 2 v 1 debate and it would be best if the 1 were removed from it completely.
I used to watch these videos regularly until I stopped a few years ago, largely because of the poor behavior of it's presenters and governing student body (whatever they are called). By poor behavior I mean how they continue to have debaters who attack their own side or otherwise undermine it.
To be fair, those two against did a phenomenal job and still outdid the 6 who disagreed with them.
"The Church cannot deny recognising marriage to people based on a difference of religion" what the heck, that's an utter breach of freedom of religion. They can get married by the state if they do not want to follow Christians teachings.
Agree.. jelly in the brain there.. geesh
chickens might as well engage into marriage too
wE SHOUld force Christian churches to marry muslims in the way they want!
What has an atheist to do with this debate? Of eight speakers, only two of them attempted to defend the proposition 'Christianity SHOULD NOT allow gay marriage'. That is not a fair and balanced debate. It's a fix.
Sadly Calvin said in a different interview that the Christian leaders invited to join his side of the argument all turned down the chance.
Yup
- IN OTHER WORDS TO SUMMERIZE:
Gay people can get married WITHOUT church, so gay marriage should NOT involve Church/Christianity in any way.
Good points, but poor historical research and knowledge (Enlightenment didn’t come out of the blue, it came out of religious universities created by the church in the High Middle Age). Still, the point holds: with the separation of church and state, marriage is no longer what it used to be. Trying to impose secular reasoning onto religion is a nonsensical argument.
Heroic Acts, yes. Newton, Kepler, Galileo, etc were all theists and belief in God drove their science. Needham apparently concluded that this was why the natural sciences arose in Christian Europe, and didn't in China, though they developed a high level of technology.
Wrong. It came from the Phoenician Canaanites.
The message of the gospel has us standing in the way of a lot of things that powerful people want, and our resistance to change that message because it's not ours to change has made us a lot of enemies.
Whether we admit it or not, we're at war, the war of Ephesians, not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of this world, against the spiritual forces in the heavenly realms.
And if we insist on denying that, then we've already lost.
but homophobics chaanged the bible, is that ok?
@@pastorbri No. It says in Revelation 22:19
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
@@TMCsVideoADay. thats all homophobics stuffed then as I said.
@@pastorbri that's nonsense. nobody changed anything. take your meds
You already lost it, the Church has allowed homosexuality for years 😅
This is the most intellectual jargon I have heard, marriage is not based as contract , using baseless point to argue that marriage is a contract and comparing same sex to race is the worst insult I have heard.
Historically, since ancient times, marriage was indeed a contract--especially in Judaism. Concubinage (again historically) was contractless. The reason for the difference between a 'wife' and a 'concubine' hinged precisely on the question of whether contractual promises were made. In ancient Judaism, the contract often revolved around the husband's promise to provide specifically food, clothing and conjugal rights to the wife. Hence why, even today, marriage ceremonies often involve "vows". For the husband to breech this contract afforded certain rights to the woman. So, I would humbly suggest, on that point, that you are mistaken about marriage not being "based on a contract".
Marriage is between Man and Women only! Gods living word for ever and ever
🙏
Thats odd, in the OT God said marriage was also 1 man and many wives, did God lie?
@@pastorbri What? Where did God say that? Bible verse please.
@@demetriusmurch What? Assume u have never touched, never mind read a bible now.
The OT contains quite a few specific regulations that apply to polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10: "If he take another wife for himself; her food, her clothing, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish".Deut 21:15-17, states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son's mother and likes another wife more; and Deut 17:17 states that the king shall not have too many wives.
The OT may distinguish concubines and "sub-standard" wives with the prefix "to" (e.g., lit. "took to wives"). Despite these nuances to the biblical perspective on polygamy, many important figures had more than one wife, such as in the instances of Esau (Gen 26:34; 28:6-9) Jacob (Gen 29:15-28), Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1-8), David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13-16) and Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3).
If u don't know your Bible, don't make out you do.
no its not
cope
Religion does not have to perform your marriage. Why do you want the law to force a religion to marry you? No matter what type of marriage ceremony for the state to recognize the ceremony, you have to turn in the paperwork.
And the American shows why the rest of the world holds them in such low regard!
I have never seen such a stupid point argued so inadequately and had so much fun listening to it. He caught me with one historical Error, and before I could process it he was already on the next one, truly a gifted man. As a great friend once told me, if you can not dazzle them with distinction, baffle them with bullshit.
To be fair.. I was assigned this position and had to think of a way to argue it without going against my conscience.
@@joefinberg8387 I guessed as much, and I will give you that you were REALLY entertaining, you had bravado and charisma on stage. And the saying at the end is not a taunt, it's genuine. I do hope you get to defend your own positions in the future though rather than mine, and I will be happy to listen to them if you keep up with that style.
Not sure the contributor understands English law on marriage. The whole issue has come about because in England churches legally act on behalf of the state. The officiant acting as the legal registrar of the marriage. You could argue that this should not be the case but you cannot argue that the question is irrelevant.
It is interesting that most churches have the legal right to marry, however, don't have the legal right to divorce.
Great debate! Can you please put entire debates on one video clip?
Love your channel!
Jimmy James
how is bigotry great?
@@richardshortall5987 Its the abuse of woke folk who are at fault, woke is great. God and Jesus were both woke as that just means inclusive.
Jennifer Heath | Christianity SHOULD allow gay marriage - 1/8 ua-cam.com/video/lD7MOqoRgA0/v-deo.html
Chloe Davis | Christianity SHOULD NOT allow gay marriage - 2/8 ua-cam.com/video/cNLc7Mxkfm8/v-deo.html
Dr Alan Wilson | Christianity SHOULD allow gay marriage - 3/8 ua-cam.com/video/8lQO1VAWXOo/v-deo.html
Rev. Dr Ian Paul | Christianity SHOULD NOT allow gay marriage - 4/8 ua-cam.com/video/BBy4POSOhL4/v-deo.html
Martin Gorrick | Christianity SHOULD allow gay marriage - 5/8 ua-cam.com/video/hoavFUTHIBQ/v-deo.html
Rev. Calvin Robinson | Christianity SHOULD NOT allow gay marriage - 6/8 ua-cam.com/video/ymbTb2HS5Rc/v-deo.html
Dr John Inge | Christianity SHOULD allow gay marriage - 7/8 ua-cam.com/video/7NkbQDsampg/v-deo.html
Joseph Finberg | Christianity SHOULD NOT allow gay marriage - 8/8 ua-cam.com/video/XQ9waMCGvVk/v-deo.html
@@prussianblus Thats because they are not christians but religious freaks.
@@richardshortall5987 Woke did used to mean inclusive old chap. It may have changed its meaning because of silly old snowflakes.....so I go off the origional meaning, so yes God and Jesus were woke as they were inclusive. Shame on you for wanting God NOT to be inclusive.
@Oxfordunion needs to do better when picking debtors. This Guy did not understand the assignment at all. What a waste of time.
Who needs enemies when you have allies like him?
FRRR!! it feels like as if he opposes the church entirely, but they only has a space open for debating against it, and him wanting to become important by partaking in an oxford debate therefore took that opportunity. Rather then him actually being against it.
Joseph Finberg goes through history and describes how the Church no longer has the power to legally marry. The speech was delivered breathlessly and it was hard to follow at times, and I cannot confirm whether the historical references are true or false (there were many points of interruption from the audience).
If marriage is legally controlled by non-religious authorities, that doesn't invalidate the question. Gay marriage is legal in the eyes of the state, which is non-religious. The questions is whether the Church should allow gay marriage.
It seems he didn't agree with his assigned position so he tried to take an alternate tack to win the debate. It amounted to creating a separate third position altogether.
@@dwpetrak Exactly.
What a poor argument this guy presented. He doesn't even know what he's talking about.
The USA is not a theocracy. That fact allows us to have Synagogues, Temples, Churches, and numerous other houses of worship functioning within our country.
Once a church decides the homosexual act is not a sin, to be consistent that church must decide greed, theft, adultery, anger, drunkenness, gossip and slander are no longer sins either.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11-Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Great Britain is not a theocracy either with lots of different religions present within the population. This American speaker clearly didn't study up on British family and marriage laws.
This guy had no understanding of the question, no understanding of history, no understanding of Christianity and no understanding of English law in regard to marriage, let alone the role of a religious minister as a registrar. What a waste of an argument.
2 Peter 2:1 NKJV - But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
thaats a good description of the homophobic lifestyle choice.
These students are articulate and confident. I can see a touch of why the uni is so respected frkm watching in these few moments. In terms of the discussion, Isaac Newton was a Christian and so were many others whose faith in God who created things with an order opened their minds to find patterns, cayses, etc. Taking a scientific approach alone with no other view doesn't necessarily open a person's mind but limits them to the physical world.
Sorry but I found the arguments rather weak and obvious nothing that I haven't heard before.
@@claudiabailey5302 Understand what you are saying as the actual points are considered to be the standard view now in mainstream education, media, literature, pop culture, etc so people grow up thinking that they formed these views all by themselves. Just wanted to acknowledge the skills represented. At ger age, I wouldn't have been able to speak like that publically- I would of just crumbled. For me, intellect without spiritual and Biblical touch will go astray. It would be even better if the young lady's skills would be put towards what was true, right and good for society epesicially spiritually, since people are taken views on church of England practices.
@@AnonyMe-qy5vzpublic speaking is taught in high school in the US. However after this idiot- am thinking that passing it is a graduation requirement. This guy was awful. The students were better but one was insulting the other speakers while having NO relevant knowledge of the topic and the other failed to argue the side she was assigned. 🤷🏽♀️
Oxford became a joke, it seems.
Christianity can not allow that which does not exist.
'Yield unto caesar what is caesar's and yield unto God what is God's' -Jesus introducing the separation of state and church
How ironic that the state now imposes upon the religion that enabled the separation between it.
This guy is ridiculous
Wtf is this guy talkin about
He is saying that religion should have nothing to do with marriage , a social contract between two people.
@@iainrae6159 Hi Iain, this debate is not about if the UK should allow such ‘marriages’, but if the Church should according to its scriptures. I don’t think you grasp this distinction.
@@SirHargreeves Yes that was the debate and my argument is that Churches no longer have jurisdiction over marriage.
"The Church should be COMPELED to perform marriage ceremonies....regardless of race, sex, national origin or RELIGION" What??
It would have been a better argument to hear him use that one statement as an illustration. If the church should have to follow society and perform marriages for any couple even where it goes against the church's explicit teachings, what's to stop the church from being required to perform different religious ceremonies altogether? Unfortunately, that's not where it went....
No
This felt like a high school presentation in which the kid spends the entire time reading the stuff he himself glued to the blackboard
Totally Nonsence ...!
In the US, if the church doctrine is against gay marriage then they don't have to marry you. I believe this is supported and affirmed by the Supreme Court. So what this man said is off base. He needs to get his facts straight before putting them out there. I do want to thank him for his participation in this debate. Continue to research and grow.
He’s trying so hard to sound intelligent.
And which side was voted as the winner?
“The U.S is the first truly secular nation”
What happened to…
One Nation Under God
That was only added after WWII, to be in opposition to the Soviet Union.
it was added after world war 2 during the cold war
I have experience in debate; both as speakers and as spectators in several occasions in school and college. And out of the four speakers standing on the side of *SHOULD NOT*, only Ian Paul and Cavian Robinson presented a strong case.
The other two makes me facepalm hard. Because not only do Chloe Davis and Joseph Finberg dances around the topic at hand, the way they both presented their case is rather weak; with Chloe seemingly dodging the issue by trying to be more neutral, and Joseph presenting his case with too much joking attitude.
If the new light of science and reason are so much brighter, then why do we not always seem to see as far!
At 00:45 he seeded the debate to the other side.
The trouble with this debate is that though the question posed suggests "Christianity" is the subject, in truth it was about the Church of England.
The Church of England is NOT a "private institution" but the "by law established state Church". It's laws are "state laws" though they be administered by separate courts, yet they are affirmed by Parliament. CofE parish priests legally marry people. The question here is between the current state legislation on civil marriage and the doctrinal praxis of the CofE and the question is whether they should be reconciled or left apart. Or in other words, whether the CofE should still be able to marry people legally while holding a different understanding of legal marriage.
It's a great shame that two of the speakers in this debate were wholly ignorant of the very public and legal status the CofE enjoys. CofE Bishops sit in the House of Lords - they can debate and vote on state legislature - hardly a "private" affair.
This speaker talks about the separation of Church and State, but that doesn't (yet) exist in the UK! However, his argument - though never fully stated - that legal marriage should be a wholly state affair and taken away from the religious sphere - would have been a great point. Shame he missed actually making it.
Joseph Finberg needs to read this...
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yes... that was my point.
"Even me, an atheist..." and I don't need to listen to any more of this.
How did the vote go? You guys published 8 speakers in his debate and not how it ended???
lets hope the homophobics lost
@@pastorbri See? Name calling just shows an inherent biasness and an unwillingness to address the points raised. Besides, I seriously doubt anyone is afraid of homosexuals. If one cannot see that ad hominem attacks is an inherent logic flaw, there is no point watching debates since your stance is fixed in a closed mind.
@@jarrod2276 How is stating someone follows homophobia name calling, sounds like you are a bit of a delicate type who needs to man up and not be so soft, if u follow the homophobic lifestyle.....people will say you are homophobic, thats a fact, not name calling.....same as if a a racist doesn't wanna be called racist, don't be racist! Also as homophobia is not a fear of LGBT people, I agree most homophobics don't fear them.....
@@jarrod2276 they recourse to insult because they've thrown reason and logic out the window
@@GonzaReformado Yes, I was hoping for a meaningful exchange. While I've stop suffering fools years ago, I was still naive enough to think that I could have meaningful exchanges online ... live and learn. I guess
Oh my word it's such a poor argument
Where is the link for the full debate? Which side won the debate?
The motion was carried 181-41.
@@SeeScotland wow. thanks
@@HelloEveryonez678 For clarification the Union voted to support Same Sex marriage in the church. I was unfortunately assigned this position. But I think I did an OK job.
@@joefinberg8387 Agreed, it was a fascinating debate I enjoyed it very much. Well done 👏
ua-cam.com/users/results?search_query=oxford+union+anglican+church+homosexual+marriage
He announces from the onset that he does not believe his Creator exists. Do not say of him that you were not warned. Civil unions are defined by man. Marriage is defined by God.
He is incorrect about the law of the United States there is nothing in our law that requires a religious institution to perform any act or action for any person or groups of persons and a manner that would violate their own religious tenants or beliefs. Such restriction only applies to the government and not to non-government actors.
Here’s a playlist of all 8 arguments
ua-cam.com/play/PL8E3F9Xm52glxRv9hTX2d5zndzlzdDpSb.html
This is not an argument between upholding the sanctity of heterosexual marriage and sanctifying sodomy. It is a conflict between reason and madness.
heterosexuals do sodomy too
Marriage at its core is not a contract, it’s a COVENANT, which in terms of oaths/promises/vows is the mother of them!! Contracts can and are often broken, easily; but break a covenant, which was often made with the BLOOD of the two parties, meant DEATH. It should STILL carry the same penalty; maybe then unconditional love of children would be sacrosanct and there would be REAL trust in those who were committed to such a promise
Strongly agree and disagree. Marriage is indeed a covenant. However, the death penalty should not be applied when the covenant is broken.
@@schnaftipufti that's not my point, the point I'm making is that it should be taken THAT seriously when you enter into it and it should SEEM like death if it's broken; in every way. Instead every supposedly 'good' reason is given for a divorce from insipid "I don't feel connected to you anymore", to "You're always working, you're not tending to MY needs!", etc ad nauseam; the breathtaking lack of effort compared to their wedding day even is testament to the amount of serious dedication they lacked from the start.....if the stark reality was presented to them they'd MAKE SURE they got it RIGHT. Or walk away before anyone gets hurt....
lol a covenant is a contract tho
Where is the full debate of this topic
Leviticus 18;22 and the lord spoke to Moses saying you shall not lay with a male as if it was a woman for it is an abomination draw the line
Governments draw their authority to rule from God, not the people, because of this all governments are expected to follow the law of God. It IS a meaningful question.
You can believe that God has the final say in the legitimacy of a nation all you want, but that doesn't make it right to enforce your religion's standards onto everyone else. Your religion is no more credible than a Buddhist, or a Muslim.
I'm not a Christian, but in my eyes, the Lord would want people to be free to choose who they marry, just like He granted us the freedom to choose what we do in life, but would nevertheless want us to pursue a righteous life. Restricting liberty is not a good way of getting people to follow your beliefs.
@@femboyacolyte7833 We are called to deny ourselves and take up the cross to follow Jesus. The western concept of liberty makes me want to vomit. Glory to God our High King, and glory to HIs Son Jesus upon whose shoulders governments are built. I can and will strive for a nation where my God's perfect law is enforced on everyone.
@@jacob.dorsey3204 You take for granted your liberty, which you now use to express your repugnant views. I respect your right to religion, however I can't condone your desire to turn our flawed yet still somewhat democratic nation into a theocracy. Take a glance at the history books, and see the ruins of civilizations who wished to follow the law of God. The blending of church and state corrupts both, friend.
@@jacob.dorsey3204 Furthermore, you agree that people in power tend to be corrupted by it? Imagine if the church had power as those in government. Would you like for your religion to become a shadow of what it once was? Also, the inevitable pushback against Christian nationalism would collapse the system anyhow.
For the good of yourself and everyone else, don't legislate religion as law.
@@jacob.dorsey3204 You are a coward. Amd also a social parasite.
Why did he come dressed as Doctor Strangelove, mein fuhrer?
All life was created to procreate otherwise it ceases to exist, therefore homosexuality is at odds with what nature's intent is. Homosexuality is also at odds with Christian truth. In Genesis God says that he created everything and instructed it to multiply, thus homosexuality did not exist. After the fall, all creation was cursed and homosexuality came into existence. You arrive at the same conclusion both from a natural perspective and a spiritual one - Homosexuality did not exist at the beginning of life. Therefore, Christianity being a worldview that asserts the truth of the Bible, in that God created a natural, perfect world and we contaminated it by being led astray from Gods instructions, should not allow gay marriage as it contradicts Gods plan for creation.
Here Sir is the foundation of the separation of church and state that you are not aware of.
Roger Williams the founder of Providence usa in 1644 first suggested the concept to protect the GARDEN of the church from the wilderness of the world. Thomas Jefferson later ran with this
Only for church of England™, not Christianity.
Yes the church has given far too much away to the "state' but the "state" is not some foreign entity, it should be the peoples choice therefore the idea is just that some people have harmed the "people" by oppressing the people with things which they never believed. It is obvious that there are far too many voices opposing Church doctrine within this group that there are for, making for a stacked deck.
The church is morally obligated by what? If you say God, then he has outlined morality in the Bible. Otherwise you have no other moral foundation to base this argument on.
The church doesn't have more authority to perform a marriage than that that have to issue your taxes. S asking the church to perform a marriage is a nonsense.
Finberg
You can have your "marriage ceremony" anywhere you want, even in your outside toilet. It makes no difference where. This is because the ceremony doesn't "marry" you. That only occurs when the two couples sign the "unofficial certificate" so as to confirm what are the couple's names and two witnesses as well along with the celebrant. The witnesses and celebrant are only needed for legal purposes so you can forward it to the relevant state government authority to officiate it and confirm it to you by mailing you out an official document called a "marriage certificate". It's this document that "marries" you. You get married not to each other but to the state. It's the state that marries you, gives you a document, which is a legally binding contract between the couple and the state. When you get divorced It's the state that gives it to you. You each hire a lawyer because you are both breaking an official government contract, which is a complicated legality that must ensure all assets are distributed fairly between both parties. It requires going before the courts. No church can "marry" anyone. Church is only for religious people who believe in a God and as part of their faith consider marriage only "official" if it's done before him. But they still have to go through the same paperwork as the couple from a civil ceremony. Atheists don't need a church to get married. They don't care what an imaginary God thinks. People are getting themselves worked up over nothing, from both sides. Personally, I proclaim that Jesus is Lord and that there is a Creator, who has told us his gender and wants to be known as "I am." and "Abba", Father, and He became flesh and had the name Jesus (because God can do anything AND everything at the same time and he knew showing us his absolute form would blow our brains out {Like in the Bhagavad Gita, when Arjuna asked Lord Krishna to show him His Godly form, and Lord Krishna opened up His mouth and showed it to Arjuna, the entire Universe inside of His mouth along with His infinite forms. Then Arjuna, who, when he saw it, became so terrified, so paralyzed with terror that he begged Lord Krishna to please close His mouth and begged for forgiveness for ever questioning God and having doubted His power.}
so we can let 2 men or 2 women marry, cool
If the state acts in the place where religion used to act than you don't have a secular society. You have Statism.
Couldn’t make it past 1min. You’re on the wrong side sir. Go stand with the others that know better than Christ, your creator.
Oh, of course he is an atheist from America arguing about what the Church of England should do. Also, why is he so loud?
Who won?
A question:
Some Christians say homosexuality or living your homosexuality is a sin. Sin is a disobey to a "divine rule".
Where in the Bible is God saying that he is putting a rule against homosexuality or homosexual life?
In Leviticus the Hebrews made up their rules to be different to the Canaan’s in Canaan while expanding in the land, and to give their human made rules more impact in difficult times they called them “divine rules”, but they are not divine.
Or in the Corinthian or Roman letters of Paulus, he declares in a very confused way his rules to his communities to keep them together as they were about to break apart in the else wise cultural Corinth. Also, he declared his rules to “divine rules” to give them more political impact, but they are not.
So where?
Marriage is a sacrament within the church? Isn't that authority?
Amen no is the answer
what a skewed, inaccurate presumption to base such stances upon..
it's like gouging out one eye and claiming superior vision, while not acknowledging the loss of depth perception.
sad and flimsy argumentation as well.
So, homosexuals can live together however they want even if the Anglican Church doesn't toss out the bible?
homophobics don't give a toss about the bible.
@@pastorbri neither do gays.
@@megasizer5119 no just the homophobics old bean
Jesus is King ❤
They seriously couldn't find a better speaker for the negatuve than this guy?
Do it believe what it is saying?
He sounds like Skipper from Penguins of Madagascar
this is legal woffle - sorry im falling asleep -- nowt to do with bible and what bible says...but to the end... Good point that vote no cos this is not a legal question, like asking if a chruch should be allowed to issue driving licences. Brilliant . well said!
Wonder if God is listening to the debate and having a giggle at his earthling creations wrestling with this vexed question?
I can imagine how God is simply shaking His head in disappointment as to how degenerate we've become. And sad too, yes.
He speaks too fast in my opinion
He needs to breathe
Volvo 240 🚗
😉
Marriage predates monotheism with the earliest recorded ceremony taking place around 2345BC
God predates marriage.
You can't separate the two. Any bible believer will say like I will, Adam and Eve were married by the fact that in the bible narrative she came from his rib. They were joined by God and physically separated by God through her creation also they would have been considered monotheistic as they didn't have any idols. Adam walked with God. Also they reckon Noah's ark was round 2345bc and he was a monotheist
@@LBelieveinJesus
Even most Christian believers acknowledge Adam and Eve , Noah and parting of the Red Sea are mythical tales.
It would have been difficult for duck billed platypus to make the 14000 mile journey to the Ark, they die in salt water.
@@iainrae6159 then most christians aren't Christian. Paul mentions Adam and Eve, Jesus Christ even says that in the beginning they were made male and female. If you don't trust the words of Jesus how can you call yourself a Christian when it means little Christ. You're really then just someone with some Judeo-Christian values but who is swayed by the culture.
@@iainrae6159 also I don't reject all evolution just on the macro level. It's possible that this animal you mention had a previous state which allowed for salt water. Or when they got to land if it couldn't handle salt water God likely had lakes filled with rain water. How do you explain all the ocean fossils on top mountains? Fossils buried while giving birth or eating prey? And dino bones with blood cells still intact after 'millions of years'?
This guy obviously got bullied at school so daddy sent him to the UK.. 🙄
Christianity should not allow homophobics to have a say!
@@ajmartinez1470 yes I am lost in Jesus love, sadly you are lost in your anti God ways.