3 "phobic" VALUES OF GOD

[Sammy-San]

Sinful would be against God.

Disgusting rather minor habits might be the basis for categorizing someone/something as despicable, without the perhaps aesthetic features being anything against God.

Despicable means immoral actions. But is despicable a particularly horrible or serious sin?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Despicable means immoral actions. But is despicable a particularly horrible or serious sin?

I don't think so. Immoral is sinful, whereas it would seem despicable can be merely UGLY.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What do you mean by sexual perversion?

Same sex activity that involves genitals, etc..

 

[Sammy-San]

I don't think so. Immoral is sinful, whereas it would seem despicable can be merely UGLY.

What's the difference between ugly and dirty?

I've heard people say "ugly and dirty" for things like taking drugs, sexual immorality?

 

[Sammy-San]

Same sex activity that involves genitals, etc..

Immoral means something obvious, but why do people use the term illict for sexual immorality?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What's the difference between ugly and dirty?

I've heard people say "ugly and dirty" for things like taking drugs, sexual immorality?

"Dirty" has lots of uses. Dirt may make something appear ugly - then ugliness would be dirtiness.

"Dirty" and "ugly" are pretty loose or vague terms if applying them to immoral things.

 

[Sammy-San]

"Dirty" has lots of uses. Dirt may make something appear ugly - then ugliness would be dirtiness.

"Dirty" and "ugly" are pretty loose or vague terms if applying them to immoral things.

Loose and vague meaning?

So a more proper term for sexual immorality, including fornication, would be abominations? The other terms are more vague metaphors to me.

 

[Sammy-San]

Same sex activity that involves genitals, etc..

do you think misuse of reproductive organs is the improper way to argue against homosexuality? People would then argue heterosexual couples have sex for pleasure without wanting to have kids.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

do you think misuse of reproductive organs is the improper way to argue against homosexuality? People would then argue heterosexual couples have sex for pleasure without wanting to have kids.

Perversion has nothing to do with the consequences of actual sex.

 

[Sammy-San]

Perversion has nothing to do with the consequences of actual sex.

What do you mean?

To me it's about how that area is reproductive organs. is that incorrect arguement?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What do you mean?

To me it's about how that area is reproductive organs. is that incorrect arguement?

Sex is only incidentally about reproduction. For older people not at all. Though no doubt reproduction is part of its design.

 

[Sammy-San]

Sex is only incidentally about reproduction. For older people not at all. Though no doubt reproduction is part of its design.

Isn't the definition of it reproduction and reproductive organs? I read it is needed to propogate the human race.

In another thread somebody said its the source of reproduction but there are many sexual things and many offspring is not one of them.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Isn't the definition of it reproduction and reproductive organs? I read it is needed to propogate the human race.

In another thread somebody said its the source of reproduction but there are many sexual things and many offspring is not one of them.

Definitions would include that element of reproduction, but it is not a necessary feature of it, not necessarily the result of it.

 

[John 1720]

Hi Pat, ALL SIN IS SIN AGAINST LOVE? How does that idea fit in I wonder?

So for instance, if we are too mired in sin, can there be any love?

GOD IS LOVE - where sin is total there is not God.

Hi Again Douglas,
I am not confident that I truly understand your response and follow up questions . 'All sin is sin against love?' How does that fit in I wonder?'

Personally, that is not something I put anywhere in my post that I can recall saying. However, that said, I do believe that the statement is true. I think Jesus' clearly tied loving the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind as well as your neighbor as yourself with "all the commandments." - the opposite of breaking them - sin. So I can agree sin is against Love. Matthew 22:35-40

• Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
• Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. ’This is the first and great commandment. and the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

"How does that fit in, I wonder?", you ask (i.e : if we are too mired in sin, can there be any love?" - Douglas quote
I'm not exactly sure where you're going with that. Interpolating a bit, I'm guessing you might be asking, can a person sin so much there is no love left in them - no presence of God within their soul?

From my own experience, even as I am hopefully drawing nearer to the sacred heart of Christ, I know I am still far from having the love Jesus' had for humanity. Really it is the love of Christ I see that is my prime motivator to listen, follow and go. I've grown as I have followed him for sure and my faith can put me in situations where I would have reticent to go before. I believe I'd be ready to lay down my life for the Lord if necessary but I'd certainly be praying for the courage to trust Him that the Father's Will would be done in me. I know I'm completely bankrupt without Christ so it has to be Him that must guide my words and actions in all circumstances. Without Him we can do nothing. The point is that although our love is imperfect the Holy Spirit bears with us, even when we fall. It is a process but God is making us all anew to be more like He is. What I see in Christ is beautiful and true, what I see in me is not. So God's Spirit strives with us and wrestles with us, always with the intent of sanctifying and perfecting us in His Love. It may be a long road but the journey with Christ is so fulfilling.

• Genesis 6:3
• Genesis 32:25-30
• Acts 17:22-31
• Hebrews 9:28
• Romans 5:8

So I don't believe we can get to the point where we are so far gone that Christ cannot deliver us - perhaps blasphemy of the Holy Spirit excepted. Let us remember Jesus delivered many that were demon possessed.

• Luke 8:28-39

So let's reason together. A man who was completely overrun by demons, so much so that all the Decopolis knew of him and feared, was restored to wholeness by Jesus. Not only was he restored but the Lord put him to work telling everyone in the surrounding towns to speak of what God had done for Him. He became obedient to the gospel of the kingdom telling all about what Christ had done. If such a man embodying darkness could be delivered I would say God is amazingly able to deliver us from evil. Personally I give up on no-one. I try to pray, show love, tell them about Jesus and if I do become impatient ask for God's forgiveness. I'm old enough to know its all about following Jesus - no turning back.

May the Lord Bless,
in Christ, Pat

Our hope is bigger than we thing because God's love is greater than we think.

 

[Sammy-San]

Definitions would include that element of reproduction, but it is not a necessary feature of it, not necessarily the result of it.

What do you mean by that?

Rainbow of Promise: There's No Gender in Heaven

Notice, God created male and female, not only male or only female. He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Why? Because this is the purpose of gender: for reproduction and procreation, so that with the authority given humans, we rule over all other living things; we are the caretakers of the earth.

 

[Daniel9v9]

A rejection of false dogma (Islam) and a rejection of active sin (homosexuality), according to God's Word, which is good and holy, can however be easily confused with Islamophobia and Homophobia from a secular viewpoint.

Xenophobia, however, I'm failing to understand as a "Christian value". It's not even remotely Christian, for in Christ we are clearly commanded to love all, and have compassion on the poor and the needy.
I would go on to say that the idea of some kind of "Christian xenophobia" is not Christian at all, but instead a popular value often found in America (I don't expect everyone to agree), for Christians in the rest of the world are broadly speaking pretty pro-immigration.

Patriotism and Christianity shouldn't be confused, for under Christ Jesus there is only one kingdom.

 

[Sammy-San]

A rejection of false dogma (Islam) and a rejection of active sin (homosexuality), according to God's Word, which is good and holy, can however be easily confused with Islamophobia and Homophobia from a secular viewpoint.

Xenophobia, however, I'm failing to understand as a "Christian value". It's not even remotely Christian, for in Christ we are clearly commanded to love all, and have compassion on the poor and the needy.
I would go on to say that the idea of some kind of "Christian xenophobia" is not Christian at all, but instead a popular value often found in America (I don't expect everyone to agree), for Christians in the rest of the world are broadly speaking pretty pro-immigration.

Patriotism and Christianity shouldn't be confused, for under Christ Jesus there is only one kingdom.

What's the difference between rejection and islamaphobia and homophobia?

 

[Neogaia777]

There are 3 values of God that many people like to label "phobias," i.e. mental diseases.

1. Islamophobia - being AGAINST ISLAM.
2. Homophobia - being AGAINST PERVERSION.
3. Xenophobia - being AGAINST IMMIGRATION.

Because all the false accusations, that being against these things is disease (or at least like unto mental diseases), do not seem to be capable of being overthrown, that the language incorporating them is becoming ever more entrenched, it seems necessary to endorse them, take them up as one's own, in order to overcome them.

Hence the necessity to insist these values are very godly, that the godly person will endorse these values. (And the people who enjoy beating up people with these fake names of supposedly irrational fears are quite anti-God.)

Perhaps there is some inherent truth in the "phobic" designation, in that those very concerned for God, who love God greatly, will "get all upset by" recognizing these things are against the will of God and hence we should be (in the present context of language usage) islamophobic, homophobic, and xenophobic?

We should be against sin only, but not the sinner specifically...

We should not be racist, or sexist, or whatever the word is for being against certain cultural values or religious beliefs specifically... But the sin(s) involved with or in them only, but not the people sinning specifically...

You should be able to give a good, valid, logical reasons or even better, multiple reasons, why a thing, just "Is not right"... If you can't your not ready to confront it or take a stand against it... You should to be able to tell a person a good reason that they "should not be doing or practicing, this or that"... If you cannot, then do not confront it till you can...

If your going to say this to someone, you must be able to and know of a way to do it, in a spirit of gentleness, meekness, mildness, and kindness, but still make a good, valid, hard to argue against or refute, "point"... If you can't, you need to not confront it right yet, and think about it more till you can...

God Bless!

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Yes of course the terms are being somewhat misused, but try persuading those who use them to stop. They are ways to browbeat, to suggest IRRATIONALITY and bigotry having no basis, when condemning these things is THE POSITION OF GOD.

Many have pointed out much usage amounts to no more than NAME-CALLING, but of course that does not deter those who are intent on being anti-God.

I see where you're coming from now

 

[FireDragon76]

If the "two married people" are engaging in sexual perversion, then it should never be considered honorable, only anti-God and totally despicable. Pseudo"marriage" in that case, certainly not true marriage before God.

I meant "Two married people", as in a man and a woman, the usually accepted definition on this forum.