ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 มิ.ย. 2015
- What do Franklin Graham, Tony Campolo, Tim Keller and the nation of Ireland have in common? They’ve all taken bold stands on same-sex marriage in the last month. From wholeheartedly embrace to all-out boycott, Phil and the gang talk through wildly varied responses to the same question.
![บุษบา - เมนทอล [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IGnWPokSEis/mqdefault.jpg)
"That's one purpose... What about genesis?" "One of the main purposes of marriage is procreation, and the woman is a helpmeet for the man"
So... What about childless marriages? Those who can't or choose not to have kids, or become childless through loss
Wow, what a great question...
Let me share my thoughts and you can let me know what you think?
(1) Certainly, there are many, many individual cases of marriage without children. I don't think, however, that this reality changes procreation being truly one of the main purposes of God for his gift and instituting of marriage. Although there are exceptions, it is still a female and a male that procreate together.
(2) However, I do NOT think that this means "every couple must attempt to procreate at all times." I've seen many couples who do not have a child (due to various reasons) do some amazing, sacrificial works for the Lord, and literally or "spiritually" adopt others. But, more importantly, we humans seem to have done quite a marvelous job physically multiplying already… even though we still have much "spiritual multiplication" (i.e., making disciples) to do. I mean, after all, this sort of multiplication and disciple-making seems to be the very calling of parents!
Yeah so, I think it's important to consider the context from which the Bible speaks about procreation. Surely, it was much more SIGNIFICANT in Israel (i.e., to carry on the family name, to receive the inherited portion of the land, etc.). I am highly doubtful that most people living in these biblical contexts would've even considered not having children (hence, we see God accommodating polygamy in the old covenant).
(3) It is interesting that Apostle Paul, in view of both the impending crisis in his day (1 Cor 7:26) and the Lord’s return (v. 31; cf. 4:5), expresses his wish for ALL to be single as he was (7:6-8). He expresses this as his own wish and personal opinion (cf. v. 25), but he also clearly does not see this as being in an unresolvable conflict with the "creation mandate" from God. So, while he acknowledges that each person indeed has her or his own “gift” from God (v. 7), he himself does NOT physically fulfill the creation mandate, but nonetheless “fathers” many children.
(4) To be sure, this still is NOT to redefine marriage as something other than that of the union of a female and a male
+ one of its purposes being procreation, BOTH physical and spiritual, for the human race as a whole.
This!! If a Christian couple were to simply not have children, I don’t think anyone in their church would bat an eye. But if a gay couple want to get married, is suddenly “think of teh children” haha. Tbh, I would be willing to bet that those verses about doing terrible things to people just for being gay were added in to the Old Testament by Jewish leaders who just wanted to keep their population up, and were upheld by Paul simply because he was raised a very orthodox follower of the scripture. Idk why more Christians don’t instead look at what Jesus himself says about marriage; according to Matthew 19- 10 & 11 (literally the same passage that mentions ‘a man will be joined to his wife and become flesh’) “His disciples said to him, ‘if the relationship between a man and his wife is like this, it’s better not to marry.’ He responded, ‘Not everyone can accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs that were born that way from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs who were made by men, and eunuchs who have made themselves that way because of the kingdom of heaven. Only the one who is able to accept it should accept it.’” Under that logic, it sure seems to me like Jesus could easily, most definitely actually, have been including gay ppl under those categories. Marry to have children if that’s what you feel able to do, but if not, who cares?
I think in Genesis, the ONLY reasons for marriage was the sexual gratification of men (women had no choice in the men they married. Therefore it wasn't a mutually endearing relationship) and reproduction.
And really, only reproduction of MALE offspring. Females were rarely noted in the first few books of the Bible. The only reason they would be mentioned is if they somehow did something to add to the story.
@@akorn9943 It’s really important to look at the original language of those verses and the context of what was going on when certain men made those translations including deciding which parts to take out and which parts to add, and then later in time, when more changes were made.
With regards to the "now I know gay people" argument not being logical, if you used to think homosexuality was immoral but then you got to know someone in a homosexual relationship and got to see their relationship on a personal level and really struggled to see how it was anything but positive for that person/couple, I think it absolutely makes sense that you could no longer view it as immoral.
Of course you probable have a very different view about morality, rather then morality having anything to do with well being, you see it as following gods commandments no matter what, even if it means hurting people.
The problem comes when we limit our limitless God to the Bible. God has no law against love; God only hates ab-using and de-humanizing acts. The culture of the times when the Mosaic codes appeared, apparently, hated sex that did not produce children in the proper paternal line. The same laws force raped women to marry those who attack them, and suggest stoning your disobedient son. It has also been pretty definitely shown that Paul’s prohibitions are actually against pederasty.
Even were the Bible totally against homosexuality, that never proves that God thinks that. God is greater than our very human and wonderful Bible.
17:10 Main conversation
Personal Highlights:
46:35 The anti-slavery Christians challenging the pro-slavery Christians for imposing their own CULTURAL PRESUPPOSITIONS onto the biblical texts
50:25 The diverse, complementary nature of God's creation (and thus such design in marriage)
14:28
“Ding”
“oh, my wife is sending texts”
Worst podcast ever.
39:24 Phil slips and it's really funny
@@nonsensicalfox Welp... I'm glad he got called out right away by his co-hosts and he clarified his point right away (i.e., challenging the notion that "the behaviour must be correct because I know people who do it"). But boy, that was a TERRIBLE analogy... I'm pretty sure Phil would deny the equation of bankrobbers and gay people, so why don't these guys edit this kind of mistakes out, I wonder?
@@DS-lx7tf Honestly I don't know, but it was such an absolute abysmal analogy that I'm kind of glad they left it in. It makes Phil look really bad but that "oh no" reaction from his co-hosts was very amusing
This is taking too long to unfold. Losing my patience. And I usually LOVE Phil. But this conversation is too important to be shrouded in silliness.
This is a very complex issue ... especially when you consider that Same-Sex marriage LAWS are as much about Civil Rights than it is about biblical purposes. Should we have LAWS that deny a life-long partner the same "next of kin" and family rights (because their significant other is of the same sex) that we provide to opposite-sex unions? No one is trying to require churches to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples, but the laws will require (for example) insurance companies to provide coverage to the spouses of homosexuals.
There is no such thing as a “same sex marriage”.
Interesting point Sky! I belive governments don't change hearts, changed hearts change governments! Also, I dont recall Jesus calling us to be the sin police or to judge the unsaved! he calls us to be fishers of men, not cleaners of fish!
The short answer why same sex marriage (yes, marriage with an m, not civil union) is not a problem is a.) separation of church and state and b.) Judeo-Christians do not have a monopoly on marriage as it has been witnessed in many other cultures even prior to the time of Jesus.
If you want to continue the argument, whatever, but realize that you are pushing for a theocratic position - i.e. laws driven by a specific religious doctrine. Look at countries like Saudi Arabia and see if that is really what you want to be.
This. I honestly get why Christians feel the way they do about this, hell, I used to be the same way too. But the fact of the matter is is that you shouldn’t be able to force your believes on other people’s lives, they have to be able to make their own decisions (especially if they aren’t hurting anybody (!)). Any time you support a law because it upholds your faith, imagine if you lived in a Muslim, Hindu, etc. majority country and they tried to do the same thing. Don’t just criminalize someone’s happiness based on your faith just because you have a majority.
There is no such thing as a same sex marriage.
43:20 that thought could be applied to so many things in so many people's lives. How many things do we all believe because someone else said it and not because we actually educated ourselves and considered it in our hearts.
Culture has been a crucial route into understanding Biblical understanding. Without understanding culture and the context in those times, we highly, probably would not understand most of the Bible, within the context in how we should live today. Looking at anything and taking it at face value risks the notion of ignorance and/or naivety. Equate it to a doctor, I could walk into any hospital and look at a patient and give a diagnosis. Would my diagnosis be logical or likely correct? More than likely, it would be unfounded without looking at the charts, consulting the patient, and their doctor then could I make a better assessment of the problem plaguing the individual in jeopardy. For me, hearing someone suggest that understanding cultural context to better interpret the Bible as a mere means of "cultural blinders" is absurd. History suggests, to me, that the church has always used cultural understanding to better understand the Bible in its entirety--how did we arrive with the translating and interpreting the scriptures? It took understanding the culture and the usage of each word within the culture. If I were to walk into any argument and suggest to know the pretense behind the argument, I would probably risk looking like a fool and submit to becoming a new opposing side to both debaters. Anyone suggesting to look at scripture at face value risks resurrecting many old blemishes and traditions within the church from which the church has been liberated from. The church has always been progressive. Who we are today, in our Biblical practices and understandings, are not necessary the same as our predecessors. Does that mean we are right and they are were wrong or vice versa, or maybe we, as the church, like each individual child of God, are in a progressive process of sanctification. Who I was when I first got saved is not who I am today--the trust is that Jesus is making me more and more into Himself through sanctification. The notion that the church is separate from that idea is weak. Just look at the Jews relationship with God in the Old Testament. Without understanding the Jewish culture, how would we understand the Old Testament and a large part of New Testament. We, as the church, have and should consider the culture context of the Bible and the revelation of culture itself, and we, as the church, should lavish each member within the body of Christ the liberty to walk out and work out their own relationship with God as they see fit without condemnation, hurtful rhetoric, or clever side-comments, since He is the one who will judge and we, the ones who will give an account of ourselves for ourselves.
It’s interesting that the reference to shell fish was written off as simply a ritual requirement. I get why that might be a useful category for us today, but I’m not certain that view would hold, especially since the verse about homosexuality appears on a list that includes wearing clothes of two different fibers. Jesus often railed against personal piety, or to put it another way, religious practices or beliefs that were purely symbolic with no practical value. A large part of his anger at the Pharisees is motivated by this.
Genesis always seems like a crappy place to start this argument. genesis tells it is not good for humans to be alone, then god makes a female assuming procreation, and homosexual relationships are written off in what amounts to an argument by omission.
Another informative podcast. Keep it up.
The Baker case was in Northern Ireland which is part of the UK not Ireland ...nothing to do with the Irish referendum ....also Phils Irish accent imitation is irritating for us Irish ....
2:23-2:36 My Christian mother didn't let me watch a ton of popular movies. Jurassic Park was one I never saw. I don't know if it was forbidden or it just never hit my radar, I don't even recall a time where I asked her, "Mom, can I watch Jurassic Park?"
So when I was 18 and living with my Grandma, I caught that it was about to be on TV, so I watched it. I liked it, though I think the beginning was slow. Maybe I would change my mind now that 3 years have passed.
Even though I was 18, that car scene and the climax TERRIFIED me. You know Steven Spielberg has a gift when he can make me scared of DINOSAURS in a MOVIE!
Can we please skip the preamble?
The cake incident was in Northern Ireland...a different country. You should get your facts correct and stop with the borderline offensive accent and stereotypes before discussing other countries. At least the guy in the Black button up tried to speak sense but he was't entirely correct. The Irish constitution is actually secular but holds a special place for the catholic church. The schools are run by the state, just the church owns the land they were built on. Though that gives the church some influence and to have a catholic ethos...it usually translates to a very vague liberal ideas of love one another and accepting differences etc so it was hardly a surprise Irish are very accepting of Homosexuality. While the majority of Irish identify as Catholic, in recent decades at least, for the majority it is just a cultural thing. Very few people would agree with the pope or a lot of christian doctrine.
New here! Could someone tell me what the dings are for?
It seems to happen every time a product/company is named
@@leamccoy1057 thanks fellow Lea/h!
Franklin is all about grabbing the spotlight and political power. Has left the Gospel for the Republican party.
No True Scotsman
I don’t know a soul who is a genuine Christian who puts any stock into what either Graham has/had to say.
They were both ecumenical “just say the sinners prayer”!! who would both link arms with false teachers.
I think this podcast dealt with some of the issues of same-sex marriage under a Christian view alright, but I was wanting to hear why same-sex civil unions shouldn't be allowed in the US. We shouldn't just legislate for or against everything that is prohibited in the Bible -- for example smoking, tatoos, lying, gluttony, etc.
As a Christian, I haven't been convinced or think that it can currently be shown that same-sex unions are harmful enough to society to prohibit them. Although I do of course agree that Christian marriages should be between a man and a woman.
Then also the question comes up of "why does the government involve itself in civil unions in the first place?" If there is a reason, we should be constructing our arguments around whether or not same-sex civil unions will be good or bad for this reason.
Anyone have a reason to think otherwise?
Gosh, this is 5yrs old. I'll reply anyway. Just in case. My pastor reminds us that God DOES judge nations. So we need to be a nation that does not condone/vote for sexual sin of any kind.
@@natalieshafer3839 I just don’t get why people think we can act for God, like we can decide what’s right and wrong. Who are we to impose laws over people for actions that clearly don’t hurt anybody? Especially over such a trivial part of the Bible; being gay is only mentioned in like 5 verses tops out of tens of thousands, yet it takes up so much real estate in the minds of modern day Christians. The same amount of Bible space is devoted towards showing God’s supposed distaste of the abomination of eating shellfish, but you don’t see Christians fighting for laws to criminalize shrimp restaurants. On the contrary, you see many Christians eating at those restaurants themselves, or wearing mixed fabrics, or working on Saturday, all things that the Bible claims God finds detestable and punishable by death, yet at the same time so fervently criticizing gay people. It seems like such a double standard to me, and leads me to believe that so many Christians oppose gay marriage not because they’re trying to make a perfect nation of God, but just because they personally find it “icky,” whether they even realize it or not.
Keller is raising, and knocking down, only straw men. He has not addressed the real issues.
I watched a few of your other podcasts and was a bit disappointed by this one; really enjoyed the others. it seemed Phil has a real chip on his shoulder - hope I'm wrong. I'm gay and an atheist and just trying to understand Christian beliefs and your views. Such a shame I've now been put off by Phil's attitude problem. :(
Someone who is gay and an atheist, talking about having a chip on his shoulder of someone else. That's rich.....
Johnathan, I appreciate your inquiry into Christian perspectives. I encourage you to be patient with us. We all have a lot to figure out.
@@ReconcileRedeem OK, James. Answer me one question, "What fellowship does Belial have with Christ?"
@@moirbasso7051 Sounds like you've got one yourself. He was only inquiring, and I agree that Phil seems to already have his mind made up in the discussion, though this was five years ago and could be completely different at this point.
@@moirbasso7051 the pleasure is godly I assure you
Im not bothered by gore and i think you should ask your children if they are bothered by what they see.
Really hope you evolve on this. This was disappionting to watch...
People are always disappointed when it’s not what you want to hear
@@latishaturner1964 that's fair. I don't expect them to change their beliefs, but there is no reason for them to be uncaring and disrespectful.
Like I always say, EVERYONE should be allowed to experience the joy of D-I-V-O-R-C-E. When straight marriages start lasting more than 50% of the time, THEN they can judge who should marry. But not otherwise.
Can you share the chapter and verse from scripture that says that?
Why do we as Christians feel the need to define God’s pathway for another?
Also, if the basis for marriage is to have children, then why is contraception permitted? There are religions who believe that the purpose of the sexual act is for childbearing and therefore prohibit any form of contraception because it violates the purpose of marriage.
It’s difficult to accept this purpose for marriage and yet condone contraception.
There is no such thing as a “same sex marriage”.
The fake Irish accent made me mute and just follow the closed captions. My ears are still bleeding.
Fun Fact about the car scene in JP: When the glass breaks and the kids scream at the T-Rex, that is genuine fear. The glass was not supposed to break so the kids thought they were in real danger.
The cake was in Northern Ireland. The gay marriage referendum was in the Republic of Ireland (south). The cake ruling was overturned and the bakers were found to be within their rights not to be subjugated into servitude to a political cause they did not support. Democracy prevailed.
What we should look for are fruits of the Spirit, which too often we DON’T see in Evangelical “Christians. I have seen them in many homosexuals, specifically the priests In my parish. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” I believe we are saved by faith through Grace, but I also say, with James, “Faith without works is dead,” and with Paul, “ if I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, BUT HAVE NOT LOVE… I gain nothing.”
Do you support Gay marriage or dont you, why do you avoid this question
I do
@@Isaac-eg3um does phil vischer that is the question
@@pwx13 He probably does too
17:25 your welcome
Sky, your Phil's bank robber analogy was actually more apropos than your Hindu analogy. The question is, are the Hindus that you know engaged in sinful acts (homosexual sex, bank robbing, gluttony, idolatry, etc.) - if so, they should repent of (turn from) those acts.
Is turkish delight not a thing in America? Freaky. You people are so deprived.
he's a taquito!
These three are clueless...
About what
Love this podcast
There is not a “debate” to be had. While homosexuality is certainly not an unforgivable sin, and there have been homosexuals saved and delivered from their life of sin and given new life in Christ by the sovereign grace of God, it is not possible to be a “homosexual Christian”. Nor is it possible to be a Christian and support “homosexual marriage”. It is akin to being a “pro choice Christian”, or a “racist Christian”. It doesn’t exist. Scripture does not have a single affirming word to say about homosexuality.
Genesis 19:1-11, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Jude 7. Those are each speaking of the sin, the abomination of homosexuality. Not “temple prostitution”, not nymphomania, but homosexuality.
How joyful we are that our very Christian and traditional church, the Episcopal Church, not only accepts gay marriage and LBGTQ members, but has married gay priests and even Bishop Gene Robinson.
You do not have a church.
You have a social justice meeting center.
The Bible is clear and Jesus reiterates in the NT, same sex relationships are a sin - period. The issue we are experiencing as a culture is love for others constitutes a “no change” policy. Just love on people as they are; Jesus did. Incorrect and anti-Biblical. Jesus will ACCEPT you as you are to begin the transformational walk of sanctification. It is a journey, and we all walk it at varying paces. Accept the sin to begin the change brought forth by our Christian love of one another. We have allowed culture to dictate God’s contextual values within clearly written scriptures that are literal in value, not unbiased appraoches to how we make others feel more accepted in a state of current sin that is easier to accommodate than to confront.
37:20 yep. If you're gonna disregard doctrine when it comes to letting women hold ecclesiastical authority, why would you be against homosexuality?
39:37 why does he have to walk it back? Where's the error? You got any backbone, man?
Good podcast guys I always enjoy your discussions. My two cents here on the same-sex marriage discussion: I actually do agree with Franklin Graham that as Christians we should not be force fed whatever the world wants us to accept and for christians who do not feel comfortable doing business with an organization that is pro gay, they should take their business elsewhere. The bible does say in Amos "can two walk together unless they agree?". Also though I always love and respect my gay brethren and want to love them like Jesus did, the Bible is crystal clear on the reasons for male and female marriage. It is the coming together of opposite sides of the same coin to bring balance. I think as Christians we should not be ashamed of our position or through to use intellectual arguments to defend our position. The bible is simple and straight forward on this topic.
Anyway keep up the good work guys and continue to read your bibles for the Holy Spirit to breathe on it and give you wisodom and power from on high. Amen.
The rights of marriage should not be put to a vote. It is a legal matter between two people.
There is no such thing as a same sex marriage.
I was really enjoying your podcast for a few weeks now but I was served up this podcast and I cried by the arrogance and ignorance by you guys. I respected you so much. Have your views changed about this? We need your voices I just hope you have studied the Bible and seen the different between gay marriage (commitment sex) and gay sexual sin. Just as straight marriage sex (commitment sexual) is different than straight sex outside of commitment.
Can you do a new podcast on this?
A “big-minded” God-fearing country is entirely different from a small-minded one. Jesus said, “Judge not, lest you be judged.” ( Matthew 7:1).
Is it wrong to mention homosexuality and robbery in the same sentence?
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
If this is true, all is Irish leprechauns are fucked
@@Scifiguy11th said couldn't of better you
Now do it in the original language.