I thought it was pretty clear. So gay people can get married as far as secular society is concerned. Meh.Care to elaborate or just looking to up your post count?
What if is flows over to the church? Two priests getting married?I thought it was pretty clear. So gay people can get married as far as secular society is concerned. Meh.
Groan...What if is flows over to the church? Two priests getting married?
"Become one flesh" is actually the act of completing the Creator, to make him whole again, bringing the two halves together as one. Anything else is a mockery and the Father will not be mocked.
From our Rabbi :
In Genesis 49:25 the word 'Almighty' is the Hebrew word SHADDAY and the Hebrew word for 'breasts' used at the end of the verse is SHAD which can be used to reference actual breasts or bosom but is more of a reference to 'giver of life or sustenance' or 'the source of all life' therefore it's believed that the human breast is a physical representation of this spiritual trait of God...not that he has breasts but that he is that trait represented in the female body that gives sustenance to the children
Yes, to some this sounds blasphemous, but years ago I was given this understanding.Worse than that.
Genesis 1 is a chapter of separation as much as it is re-creation.
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
The Father possesses both male and female attributes. "Become one flesh" is actually the act of completing the Creator, to make him whole again, bringing the two halves together as one. Anything else is a mockery and the Father will not be mocked.
I think she meant "bringing the two halves of God together" on a symbolic level, not literal level. God is after all, quite whole.This sounds more like it belongs in psycho theology. Are you implying that the Creator is somehow less than perfect and needs us for anything?
And building on that: Lot didn't try to run Sodom. Nor did Abraham try to run Ur.
They kept control of their own households, they weren't trying to boss around others and run other people's households.
In fact, doing so would probably detract from the time necessary to focus on keeping their own house pure.
I'm confused. Sodom is not in Ur. Sodom is in the Levant, in the land next to where Abraham decided on. Ultimately the land Sodom was on became part of Abraham's covenant. Where does God command Lot not to go to Sodom? If Lot had chosen where Abraham went, then Abraham would have gone where Sodom was. Are you saying that Lot was disobedient because he chose to be a city dweller rather than a herdsman? I don't think that's in scripture. Please explain.Lot in frank disobedience went to Sodom.
I'm confused. Sodom is not in Ur. Sodom is in the Levant, in the land next to where Abraham decided on. Ultimately the land Sodom was on became part of Abraham's covenant. Where does God command Lot not to go to Sodom? If Lot had chosen where Abraham went, then Abraham would have gone where Sodom was. Are you saying that Lot was disobedient because he chose to be a city dweller rather than a herdsman? I don't think that's in scripture. Please explain.
I'm confused. Sodom is not in Ur. Sodom is in the Levant, in the land next to where Abraham decided on. Ultimately the land Sodom was on became part of Abraham's covenant. Where does God command Lot not to go to Sodom? If Lot had chosen where Abraham went, then Abraham would have gone where Sodom was. Are you saying that Lot was disobedient because he chose to be a city dweller rather than a herdsman? I don't think that's in scripture. Please explain.
You are correct here. Lot and Abraham split up because they had too many herds to keep them together. It was causing problems among their followers. After Lot went his way, it never says what happened to his flocks or men. I'm guessing he sold the flocks and let the men go in order to buy a house in Sodom, maybe a business of some type. Either way, like Abraham, he was a rich man.
The problem with lot staying in Sodom is that he knew what the men were like there. He had no business being part of their city.
I don't think he disobeyed God. God did not demand of him not to live in a city. He made a foolish choice, though, and one which many people still make: they choose the shallow glitter over substance.He pitched his tent towards Sodom.
He had a choice, temporal advantages and wealth or faith and following God and his instruction. He chose to settle with the heathen.
Yeah, Lot was a coke short of a six-pack.The problem with lot staying in Sodom is that he knew what the men were like there. He had no business being part of their city.
it wasn't about cake , it isn't about marriage , it isn't about the Bible really, except that belief in the Bible and the laws that allow it , limits their access to your children.
Jesus Loves the little children , all the children of the world red and yellow black and white....Jesus loves the Little children of the world.
I think he plans on having blood on his hands before this deal is done.
"That was and remains the point, to get yourselves out of harms way"
I don't see how that contradicts what I said. I am saying, get yourself out of harms way.
Lot didn't try to run Sodom, he tried to run away from Sodom.
To the extent he lived there, he had no illusion of lording over the others there. Likewise, we live in human society. God doesn't require us to live in the wilderness. Scripture assures that we may be IN the world without being OF the world (John 17:14, 16; John 15:19).
We can be in Egypt without being Egyptian. We can be in France, the US or Japan, without being French, American or Japanese - we are called to be citizens of heaven (Philippians 1:27, 3:20). As scripture says, "Do not be conformed to this world, but continuously be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you may be able to determine what God's will is—what is proper, pleasing, and perfect" (Romans 12:2.)