3 "phobic" VALUES OF GOD

[Neogaia777]

I'm referring to a person-a person going away from the right purpose of something.

I thought you were referring to how like for example Paul uses it Biblically in a couple of places...

God Bless!

 

[Sammy-San]

Not all vulnerability is bad. Vulnerability can push us out of our comfort zone which is an important part of spiritual and mental growth. Think of Jesus washing Peter's feet. Jesus was making himself vulnerable, and challenging Peter to do the same as his master. He was challenging Peter to move out of his comfort zone, making him vulnerable in the process and exposing his discomfort with accepting humility (we see this repeatedly with Peter).

There's a really good bit of theology by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, called The Body's Grace, that I think is worth reading on this subject of how vulnerability in sex can be a good thing, even if the sex itself is less than morally praiseworthy.

BTW, the original baptismal rite in most churches involved nudity.

What does vulnerability mean? being embarrassed?

 

[Sammy-San]

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.

Is all sin despicable or that is reserved for very serious ones?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

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.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of sexual act conducted by a married couple would you consider perversion?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Just out of curiosity, what sort of sexual act conducted by a married couple would you consider perversion?

I guess the best understanding of that would be any act that would be principally participated in by those who most practice perversion, i.e are of the same sex, are not man and wife.

I refer to "pseudo-marriage" in my original post, since there are those who consider that people of the same sex can actually be married to each other. Since such "marriage" is a total perversion of the concept of marriage, I guess pretty well anything they do together (including eating dinner?) should be considered perversion. They are perversion - should never be considered truthfully married, certainly not married before God.

 

[Sammy-San]

I guess the best understanding of that would be any act that would be principally participated in by those who most practice perversion, i.e are of the same sex, are not man and wife.

I refer to "pseudo-marriage" in my original post, since there are those who consider that people of the same sex can actually be married to each other. Since such "marriage" is a total perversion of the concept of marriage, I guess pretty well anything they do together (including eating dinner?) should be considered perversion. They are perversion - should never be considered truthfully married, certainly not married before God.

Do you think marriage has a single definition or has a definition depending on culture?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Do you think marriage has a single definition or has a definition depending on culture?

Marriage, true marriage, is the union before God of a man and a woman. NOT a definition dependent on culture, or at least not in conformity with our culture.

 

[Sammy-San]

Marriage, true marriage, is the union before God of a man and a woman. NOT a definition dependent on culture, or at least not in conformity with our culture.

What about in cultures before they knew of Christianity-like natives, did they get married before God?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Is all sin despicable or that is reserved for very serious ones?

When I say "anti-God and totally descipable," all sin is despicable in some sense, but sexual perversion is especially anti-God in that it violates the (operation of) Holy Spirit, which is a rather long story.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

What about in cultures before they knew of Christianity-like natives, did they get married before God?

If they had a true understanding of God, sufficient to know the basic that God is LOVE and they were being united in that Love. Pretty doubtful in most cases, I suppose.

 

[Sammy-San]

\

If they had a true understanding of God, sufficient to know the basic that God is LOVE and they were being united in that Love. Pretty doubtful in most cases, I suppose.

What about justice of peace weddings?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

\


What about justice of peace weddings?

I would think it possible the couple could believe they were being united by God - not so likely as in a church wedding.

 

[Sammy-San]

I would think it possible the couple could believe they were being united by God - not so likely as in a church wedding.

So you don't think the natives in America truly had legitimate children before Christianity arrived?

 

[Sammy-San]

I would think it possible the couple could believe they were being united by God - not so likely as in a church wedding.

Isn't marriage more than religious-it is also legal and social?

 

[Code Phox]

Homophobic - Having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
Islamophobia or Muslimophobia - Refers to fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.
Xenophobic - Having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.

I don't think I'm Homophobic. I dissagree with the act of homosexuality BUT I still value the person. I don't show dislike or prejudice to homosexuals. I will speak my mind about the subject, however it's equivalent to speaking my mind about anything I dissagree with. Love thy neighbor AND pray for thy enemy, we all are covered in dirty rags.
I don't think I'm Islamophobic. We are all family in creation, the activity one partakes in doesn't remove them from this family. However, there is another family in creation which is composed of anyone who follows Jesus. Anyone is welcome into this family (from what I know) and I will not act as a barrier for their entering into the body of Christ.
I'm not Xenophobic either. I'm sure the state of the world functions effectively to divide people, that's how it's been sense the Tower of Babble. I think every human is extremely important and hold tremendous value. However, I don't agree with the acts many engage in. That's not a country of origin problem, that's a sin problem.

My answer would be: No.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I guess the best understanding of that would be any act that would be principally participated in by those who most practice perversion, i.e are of the same sex, are not man and wife.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

I suggest anyone who believes these "values" are godly will have a lot to answer for on the Last Day, and should spend more time on their knees in repentance, because their feet are dangerously close to the fire.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SolomonVII]

The problem with the OP question is that it compels us to buy into the false political narrative that these terms are real problems, and describe real characteristics of certain people. If we have real problems with fascism or Nazism, would that make us Naziphobic or sociophobic? Is a person who has problems with capitalism a greenbackophobe? Does our dislike of crime entail that we be labeled a Phobe?
At what point then does this exercise into politically inspired phobia labels become an exercise into the ridiculous?

By applying these labels to people who disagree with specific ideologies or trends in our society today, free speech itself is under attack. Instead of dealing with arguments and criticisms, people are caught up in defending against the accusation that they are morally reprehensible people simply for having a point of view that runs counter to the leftist narrative.

Leftist have become intellectually lazy people as a result of this political strategy, defined much more by indignant fits of self-righteousness, and indignant sanctimony than by actually putting up a solid reasoned defence against arguments that they disagree with.

 

[Sammy-San]

When I say "anti-God and totally descipable," all sin is despicable in some sense, but sexual perversion is especially anti-God in that it violates the (operation of) Holy Spirit, which is a rather long story.

What do you mean by that?

 

[SilverBear]

The original word was homophobia, and it described a behavior in which men with latent desires to have intimate encounters with other men, would overcompensate by reacting violently against homosexuals.
Homophobia meant fear of being a homosexual, and it came to explain all opposition to homosexuality by suggesting that anyone who is against homosexuality is therefore a closet gay. It was an ironic slur.

Not quite. the word homophobia was coined by George Weinberg in the 1960's and in early publications it referred to a heterosexual men fear that others might think perceive him as gay.
Ref: Herek, Gregory, Beyond Homophobia" Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century Sexuality Research and Social Policy. 2004

It is pseudo science and pop psychology at best. It may, or may not, describe the psychology of some men, but it certainly does not describe the reasons that many people oppose, say, gay marriage.
Nevertheless, it has been co-opted by the left in order to dismiss anyone who is against the gay agenda as bigots.

Again, not quite.
Over the last fifty years the word Homophobia has evolved to mean - an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals.