Christians and viewing "sex for enjoyment" as sinful

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Apex, you said you were once a strong conservative(I think it was you that said that). What made you change your views on sex and the bible?

My background:

I was once very active in a Calvary Chapel church. In fact, this is where I "came to Christ" and was baptized. This "denomination" is the middle road between fundamentalism and conservationism.

I had invested most of my free time into volunteering for the church and decided I wanted to be a pastor. I went to a conservative college and graduated with a degree in Biblical Studies. I was later accepted to a conservative seminary, but did not graduate. It was too expensive.

While in school, I held a job working for a church as the youth pastor. I did the whole enchilada - creating curriculum, giving sermons, retreats, counseling, etc. I saw the inside and out of how church worked. I didn't like it at all! It seemed fake to me.

So, how did I end up changing many of my conservative positions? It just kind of happened over time. I own an extensive theological library on Logos - 6000 or so books (commentaries, lexicons, grammars, dictionaries, etc.) Plus, I have access to the ATLA and JSTOR databases.

I mention this because...I see a large range of professional and well-articulated opinions. I also have the educational and professional foundation to digest most of it. It simply became clear that others sometimes had better ideas. Instead of resisting change, I decided to be honest and...well...changed.

Jesus is still my savior, nothing changed there, but I now feel free! I don't feel fake and I feel like I "get" God.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The complexity with sex in the new earth is Jesus' statement: "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Mark 12:25)

Of course marriage isn't completely synonymous with sex, but the more obvious understanding of that verse is that there isn't any. Or that Jesus was wrong (or misquoted). The Jewish version of this also said there was no eating.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The complexity with sex in the new earth is Jesus' statement: "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Mark 12:25)

Of course marriage isn't completely synonymous with sex, but the more obvious understanding of that verse is that there isn't any. Or that Jesus was wrong (or misquoted). The Jewish version of this also said there was no eating.

Well, this does go much deeper. There is evidence that suggests that angels are sexual beings, just like us. Just look at Genesis 6:2 ("sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive"). Here we see angels having sexual desire stimulated by beautiful women. We even see them getting married, having sex, and begetting children! Of course, the context shows that all three of these things were not appropriate because of their intentions and ultimate consequences. However, we must note that it wasn't impossible! It seems that angelic sexuality exists for a purpose not corresponding to the need to marry or reproduce. Pleasure is a reason people tend to discount as a legitimate purpose, but don't forget that God created female's with a certain "part" that only exists to bring her sexual pleasure.

I do find it interesting that angelic sperm was able to impregnate a human woman. If angels can manipulate their physical appearance, maybe they can also manipulate their physical seminal structures down to the DNA level. This is pure speculation though. There are some passages that hint at the possibility of "female" angels, but we cannot be sure. All the other significant creatures God created had a female counterpart. Why not angels? However, being sexual doesn't require penal/vaginal penetration.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: xpower
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The complexity with sex in the new earth is Jesus' statement: "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Mark 12:25)

Of course marriage isn't completely synonymous with sex, but the more obvious understanding of that verse is that there isn't any. Or that Jesus was wrong (or misquoted). The Jewish version of this also said there was no eating.

Now that is interesting. Thank you! I can't reconcile the idea of a renewed earth and yet still needing to feed on the lives of other beings. (Not a vegetarian, but death is death, and the leopard shall lie down with the goat.)
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Now that is interesting. Thank you! I can't reconcile the idea of a renewed earth and yet still needing to feed on the lives of other beings. (Not a vegetarian, but death is death, and the leopard shall lie down with the goat.)
We can only speculate. Accounts of heaven in the NT are highly symbolic. Maybe inevitably. But there could be ways other than sex to celebrate relationships between people. I will say, however, that I find it hard to imagine that people who have become one flesh won't have a special relationship, although it's not so clear that Jesus' description is consistent with that.

Or contemporary Jewish tradition could be right: "In the future world there is not eating and drinking, not begetting and propagation, neither trade nor traffic, neither envy nor enmity nor conflict. Instead, the righteous sit there with their crowns on their heads and refresh themselves at the brilliance of the Shekinah” [quoted from Luz' commentary on Matthew]

One other interesting passage: Rev 22 talks about the new Jerusalem having the tree of life, whose fruits seem to be eaten. Of course Rev is about the least literal part of the Bible. But if it's right, either we need to be careful about the no eating part or it's talking about something better that replaces eating, as I've speculated there's something better that replaces sex. (I assume the subtext behind the tree is a comparison with Gen 2. Unlike Genesis, the tree of life in the new Jerusalem is intended for our use.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0

xpower

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 24, 2014
445
149
✟105,003.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My background:

I was once very active in a Calvary Chapel church. In fact, this is where I "came to Christ" and was baptized. This "denomination" is the middle road between fundamentalism and conservationism.

I had invested most of my free time into volunteering for the church and decided I wanted to be a pastor. I went to a conservative college and graduated with a degree in Biblical Studies. I was later accepted to a conservative seminary, but did not graduate. It was too expensive.

While in school, I held a job working for a church as the youth pastor. I did the whole enchilada - creating curriculum, giving sermons, retreats, counseling, etc. I saw the inside and out of how church worked. I didn't like it at all! It seemed fake to me.

So, how did I end up changing many of my conservative positions? It just kind of happened over time. I own an extensive theological library on Logos - 6000 or so books (commentaries, lexicons, grammars, dictionaries, etc.) Plus, I have access to the ATLA and JSTOR databases.

I mention this because...I see a large range of professional and well-articulated opinions. I also have the educational and professional foundation to digest most of it. It simply became clear that others sometimes had better ideas. Instead of resisting change, I decided to be honest and...well...changed.

Jesus is still my savior, nothing changed there, but I now feel free! I don't feel fake and I feel like I "get" God.
( I own an extensive theological library on Logos - 6000 or so books (commentaries, lexicons, grammars, dictionaries, etc.) Plus, I have access to the ATLA and JSTOR databases.)

This is impressive. You are far more knowledgeable me.
 
Upvote 0

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We can only speculate. Accounts of heaven in the NT are highly symbolic. Maybe inevitably. But there could be ways other than sex to celebrate relationships between people. I will say, however, that I find it hard to imagine that people who have become one flesh won't have a special relationship, although it's not so clear that Jesus' description is consistent with that.

Or contemporary Jewish tradition could be right: "In the future world there is not eating and drinking, not begetting and propagation, neither trade nor traffic, neither envy nor enmity nor conflict. Instead, the righteous sit there with their crowns on their heads and refresh themselves at the brilliance of the Shekinah” [quoted from Luz' commentary on Matthew]

One other interesting passage: Rev 22 talks about the new Jerusalem having the tree of life, whose fruits seem to be eaten. Of course Rev is about the least literal part of the Bible. But if it's right, either we need to be careful about the no eating part or it's talking about something better that replaces eating, as I've speculated there's something better that replaces sex. (I assume the subtext behind the tree is a comparison with Gen 2. Unlike Genesis, the tree of life in the new Jerusalem is intended for our use.)

It appears we will be able to eat and drink in our new resurrected and glorified bodies. Jesus did.

Luke 24:41-43
And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Now that is interesting. Thank you! I can't reconcile the idea of a renewed earth and yet still needing to feed on the lives of other beings. (Not a vegetarian, but death is death, and the leopard shall lie down with the goat.)

...what? There's not going to be any Supreme Sausage Pizza in Glory? Egads!!! What kind of eternal life is that? :rolleyes:

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Silmarien
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,124
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And Matt 8:11, probably. I think we've solved the question of eating. The evidence about sex seems thinner.

[...from the above post]. Whew!!! That's good news!!! hedrick saves the day, again! ;)
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
And Matt 8:11, probably. I think we've solved the question of eating. The evidence about sex seems thinner.

Something better that replaces eating seems a more interesting possibility to me. Eating transfigurated, I suppose. Otherwise we're talking about a future world where you either still need to eat to survive, which does not sound terribly deathless, or one where you don't and will just kill things for fun anyway, which also does not sound terribly deathless.

I'm a little bit radical with the sorts of things I consider part of fallen nature. Or maybe just radical enough.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And Matt 8:11, probably. I think we've solved the question of eating. The evidence about sex seems thinner.

There are many aspects to consider. Such as, is there gender and biological sexual distinctions in heaven? The Scriptures certainly make it seem so. Does this mean males still have a penis and females still have a vagina? Or do we turn into glorified barbie dolls?

It makes sense that we retain every body part. There is no indication of any other body part gone missing. Since we eat and drink in our resurrected bodies, it follows that we also would urinate and defecate. This requires the existence of our genitals. This also would support the idea that sex occurs in heaven. If not, it would seem odd for these parts to exist in their current form. Does the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] become numb and vestigial?
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Because Eisegesis - Wikipedia

Depending on context...
It is not a sin to have sexual desires.
It is not a sin to have sexual fetishes.
It is not a sin to have sexual fantasies.
It is not a sin to touch.
It is not a sin to enjoy ethically-produced inappropriate contentography.
It is not a sin to have non-marital sex - of any kind!

Context: The balance between licentiousness and legalism is love.

And, yes, I can support all this using the Bible.
No, you cannot support all this using the Bible without resorting to the kind of specious sophistry that prohomosexual polemicists must engage in, which makes a making a mockery of Biblical morality in general, then appealing to this ambiguous standard (such as being "the Law of Christ") as determinant of what is moral!

We do not have a God who commands us to live by His every word but then leaves such ambiguity about what His will is that the morality of a most basic human relationship is unclear, with the morality of which being determined by what is perceived that love would allow or require under "love thy neighbor as thyself."

For the second commandment is not the first commandment but requires love for God, which means doing unto others what He would have them do.

And God which reveals His will by both precept and principle, explicit and implicit, in teaching and the principles behind in them, and by what He sanctions and what He does not sanction.
It is not a sin to have non-marital sex - of any kind!
This assertion is nothing less than the serpent hissing "hath God said." Contrary to this it is incontrovertible that:
  • The only sexual union sanctioned (that "God hath joined together") in Scripture is that between male and female in marriage (which was not because it made the most sense in their particular culture), while sexual unions outside of that are only condemned wherever they are manifestly dealt with, even before the giving of the Law. (Liberals imagine that concubinage constitutes sanctioned sexual relations outside of marriage, but ]concubines were wives: Gn. 25:1; cf. 1Ch. 1:32; Gn. 30:4; cf. Gn. 35:22; 2Sam. 16:21, 22, cf. 2Sam. 20:3.) And nowhere is the illicit status of any sexual union or partner outside marriage based upon whether it or the person is loving or not. Consensual sexual relations outside marriage may be loving toward each other, but they are contrary to love for God who nowhere sanctions it.
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers [fornicators] and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)


And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel. (Genesis 34:1-3)

And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife. And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come. (Genesis 34:4-5)


And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him. And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not to be done. (Genesis 34:6-7)

And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out. (Genesis 34:26)


And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot? (Genesis 34:31)

Note that the motive in this fornication was love and the description infers consensuality btwn a prior never-married virgin and a young man, who therefore "had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter which thing ought not to be done." And both the Hivites and sons of Jacob knew marriage was the only sanctioned context for this union.

Moreover, this was not a problem of endogamy, for the Hivites were willing to be circumcised, but the thing "that ought not to be done" was fornication, "enticing a maid that is not betrothed," (which would require marriage under the Law and which the Hivite sought), and which the sons of Jacob expressed was was akin to having relations with a harlot, as such engage in illicit consensual sexual relations.

But
in the eyes of modern-day liberals these sons of Jacob and the Hivites simply were not enlightened enough to know "it is not a sin to have non-marital sex - of any kind."

  • Instead, since marriage is the only sanctioned context for sexual union then a women was called a harlot if she was not, even on the basis simply being discovered to not a virgin once married, while consensual relations required the man to marry the women. Scripture known nothing of sanctioned
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid [virgin]: (Deuteronomy 22:13-14)

...if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. (Exodus 22:16)


The latter is in contrast to rape (cf. Deuteronomy 22:23,24,28-29) and rather than this consensual premarital union being sanctioned, the man is compelled to marry the women unless his father absolutely forbids it, in which case monetary satisfaction must be given. Liberals will thus try to reduce this law to merely financial considerations, that of recompense the loss of value (dowry) for a non-virgin, but the very loss of value is because there are only 3 categories for a women, that of a virgin or married or a harlot. Nowhere is any women considered anything less than a harlot if she engaged in sexual relations prior to marriage.

Nowhere is the licit or illicit status of any sexual partner based upon motive, whether it be near kin or same gender or animal, or valid candidates for marriage.
  • The condemnation of immoral acts in the context of idolatry - which condemnations of basic immoral practices find themselves - does not restrict them to that context, thus sanctioning them outside it.
Israel was distinctly enjoined not be like pagan nations, (Lev. 20:23; Ex. 23:24; Dt. 12:4; 12:30,31; Jer. 10:2,3) particularly as regard sexual practices, (Lv. 18) not because such were only wrong when part of idolatry, but because idolatry is the mother of sin, and idolatrous people example what should not be done, and thus are set in contrary to the Godly. After prohibiting numerous sexual sins, Leviticus 18:24,26-27) states,

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: (Leviticus 18:24)

Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled.)


Nor were these proscriptions a matter of ritual uncleanness as pro-homosexuals assert, nor only wrong when committed by idolators, but are forbidden as wrong regardless of context.
  • The sexual union with another person makes the persons one flesh, whether in the sanctioned context of marriage or outside of it in sin, and the illicit nature of the latter is not based on whether it is part of idolatry or prostitution.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:23-24)

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. (1 Corinthians 6:15-20)


The oneness here is such regardless of whether in marriage or nor, while again, nowhere is any women considered anything less than a harlot if she engaged in sexual relations prior to marriage.

Nor is this prohibition against fornication conditional upon it being with idolatrous temple prostitutes, which conditional must be read into the text.

And while one member can defile the church corporate to a degree, the text speaks of individual " members of Christ" so that "he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."

As for other assertions:

Sexual desires (which God created, but not lust) themselves are not sin, but acting them out with someone you are not married to is fornication, which is only condemned. Expressing love through sexual relations is to be part of marriage, (Proverbs 5:15-20, Song of Solomon; Hebrews 13:4) but lust, craving that compels self-gratification, is to be crucified, and is contrary to the self-control which is one of the fruits of the Spirit (which i need more of).

Sexual fetishes, as in attraction to female breasts, legs is how men are wired, and exposing such is sanctioned in a marriage (seeing the nakedness of a women is often a euphemism for sexual relations, as in Lev. 18), but exposing such to those who are not, and gazing at one who is not your wife, looking in lust, craving sexual satisfaction, is sin. And even your wife is not to be reduced to being a piece of meat, with her body being a means to satisfy lust, but is to be appreciated as a unique creation of God, with her real treasure being her heart.

Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life. (Proverbs 6:25-26)

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:28)

Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. (Proverbs 31:30)

...for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7)


Sexual fantasies regarding those you are not married to are thus wrong for the same reasons, and in marriage it should only be out of a desire to show affection to the other, while it is wrong to be fantasizing about any carnal pleasure, though we should apprecite what God has given.

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. (Romans 8:6)

Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: (Colossians 3:2-5)

For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. (Romans 14:17)


Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. (Philippians 4:8)


Masturbation is wrong when it involves the above, and even when or if it does not then, while not clear in Scripture (never being clearly condemned), I have come to believe it falls under the category of moral uncleanness, with the marital bed being the only one that is sanctioned anywhere in Scripture, with sexual union (with a female) in marriage being the only provision for sexual release and alternative to fornication, and is not unclean.

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; (Ephesians 5:3)

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife [versus touch], and let every woman have her own husband. (1 Corinthians 7:2)


Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)

As far as "Ethically-produced inappropriate contentography" being fine, what is said about lust and setting affections applies here, while given the ambiguous basis for morality whereby it is asserted that "it is not a sin to have non-marital sex - of any kind" then the writer's premise of having ethics is as spurious as his conclusions of what is immoral.

Thus it remains that the only sexual union sanctioned (that "God hath joined together") in Scripture is that between male and female in marriage, and there are no sexual unions outside of marriage that are manifestly sanctioned, but which are only condemned wherever they are manifestly dealt with.

May by the grace of God this supplement the worthy reproofs of redleghunter here.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, you cannot support all this using the Bible without resorting to the kind of specious sophistry that prohomosexual polemicists must engage in, which makes a making a mockery of Biblical morality in general, then appealing to this ambiguous standard (such as being "the Law of Christ") as determinant of what is moral!

I believe I have supported my ideas well using the Bible. Paul appealed to the Law of Christ as a determinant for what was moral. I do not think loving God and others is an ambiguous concept.
 
Upvote 0

SnowyMacie

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
17,007
6,087
North Texas
✟118,149.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
I believe I have supported my ideas well using the Bible. Paul appealed to the Law of Christ as a determinant for what was moral. I do not think loving God and others is an ambiguous concept.

I'm convinced some people don't actually read threads or people's arguments, they just find posts they can throw scripture at.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Apex
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, you cannot support all this using the Bible without resorting to the kind of specious sophistry that prohomosexual polemicists must engage in, which makes a making a mockery of Biblical morality in general, then appealing to this ambiguous standard (such as being "the Law of Christ") as determinant of what is moral
This much is clear.
 
Upvote 0