Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are using your point to prove some design point. Do I actually have to explain what happens besides that and the other sexual acts that heterosexual couples do?Who said the only purpose of a heterosexual couple is to procreate?
I mean really-
G
You are using your point to prove some design point. Do I actually have to explain what happens besides that and the other sexual acts that heterosexual couples do?
What am I trying to accomplish? I haven't nailed married couples to anything, I don't put people or sexuality in boxes.Given that you seemed to be trying to nail down the meaning of married couples to procreation only- it would help me understand what you are trying to accomplish here.
G
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said? Can you explain? What does Christ's identity have to do with him calling the Gentiles dogs?Christ couldn't right then when he said that. He still didn't want the apostles to know who he was at that point -- the Messiah, Savior of the whole world at that time when Jesus says that. He still needed to gain the apostles "trust" as one of them first. They first thought he was an earthly king, then later realized he was the Christ. Jesus came down to break down pride and prejudice.
"What good is it if you only love those who love you? Don't even the pagans and tax collectors do that? Be ye perfect therefore, as I am perfect". This is the finish of the "love thy neighbor as thyself" verse. Perfect love is breaking down and letting go of our pride and prejudices. The apostles later learned Jesus was the Christ... the Messiah of the whole world, but not right at first. Jesus was still called "rabbi" for a time....
Do you not think that our WILL has a lot to do as to whether or not something is sinful? We are not forced to sin. An attraction is not sinful. Ususally, we can not even control who we are attracted to. It is the choices we make that matter, not things beyond our control!So only the ACT of adultery is sin?
Mat 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Does that apply only to men?
angelmom
My point, exactly.WHAT?
God doesn't force us to love Him, we love Him because we KNOW Him.
It is called free will. We make an active choice whether to follow God or to SIN. Sin is to go against the will of God. Sin is not what our Creator intended for us...for the very essence of sin is that which is not God! He did not create us sinners...He created us with free will. We are no more forced to sin than we are forced to love God...yet our natures are severely wounded by sin, hence, the inclination to sin...Yet still when we sin, it was a choice, just as it is a choice to love God and to do His will.If man sinned then he was capable of sinning.
If he was capable of sinning then he was created that way by God, who is his creator.
You miss the point. It is not that they can change their sexual identity or their attraction to same sex individuals...(which may or may not be possible)...it is that they have a choice whether or not to ACT upon that attraction. It's like someone who is inclined to overeating. They have already eaten dinner and even had dessert (nothing wrong with this, right?) Well, then they feel like they want to go back for another plate of food, although they know they are not hungry, they have a desire to eat more, maybe because they enjoy the taste. Just because we feel we want or desire a particular thing, doesn't make that thing good for us. This is where we should die to our fleshly desires and do the will of God...the same can be said of those attracted to same sex individuals.
It is the POTTER who has the power over the clay and I do not for one minute believe that homosexuality is a "choice" or a "learned behavior" or the "result OF sin", even IF it is classified AS sin.
Who (especially among Christians) would CHOOSE something that most of society (especially among Christians) finds dispicable and/or sinful to the point of resulting in "eternal damnation"?
People suffer depression, live in denial, and commit SUICIDE over this.
All over something that they can freely choose to change just by making a better "choice"?
angelmom
So lust is not a sin? Only acting on it is?Do you not think that our WILL has a lot to do as to whether or not something is sinful? We are not forced to sin. An attraction is not sinful. Ususally, we can not even control who we are attracted to. It is the choices we make that matter, not things beyond our control!
SIN is a deliberate choice to act against the will of God to suit our disordered desires!
it seems to be the entire point of your position... when asked what the difference between a sams sex and a heterosexual couple is, all you can come up with is the possibility of procreation... and you pointedly refuse to comment on what difference there is, if any, between a same sex couple and a heterosexual couple where the heterosexual couple remains childlessWho said the only purpose of a heterosexual couple is to procreate?
My point, exactly.
I never said that we don't make choices or that we aren't responsible for them, but you can't say that man sinned NOT HAVING the ability or the inclination or the desire (or whatever you want to call it) TO DO SO. The capacity FOR SIN is/was there already or man would not have sinned. Call it "free will", call it "choice", call it whatever you want, God made man CAPABLE of sinning and there are plenty of scriptures to tell us what man's "condition" is (and was). Man didn't sin and THEN become capable of sinning, he sinned because he WAS CAPABLE of sinning (or he wouldn't have sinned).It is called free will. We make an active choice whether to follow God or to SIN. Sin is to go against the will of God. Sin is not what our Creator intended for us...for the very essence of sin is that which is not God! He did not create us sinners...He created us with free will. We are no more forced to sin than we are forced to love God...yet our natures are severely wounded by sin, hence, the inclination to sin...Yet still when we sin, it was a choice, just as it is a choice to love God and to do His will.
I don't think I missed the point. As explained in my last post, the ACT is not required for the sin to exist. It is not simply what we DO or DON'T DO, what we SAY or DON'T SAY... but our feelings, desires and motivations. We are called to a HIGHER law and the intents OF OUR HEART are being judged.You miss the point. It is not that they can change their sexual identity or their attraction to same sex individuals...(which may or may not be possible)...it is that they have a choice whether or not to ACT upon that attraction. It's like someone who is inclined to overeating. They have already eaten dinner and even had dessert (nothing wrong with this, right?) Well, then they feel like they want to go back for another plate of food, although they know they are not hungry, they have a desire to eat more, maybe because they enjoy the taste. Just because we feel we want or desire a particular thing, doesn't make that thing good for us. This is where we should die to our fleshly desires and do the will of God...the same can be said of those attracted to same sex individuals.
Food is a terrible analogy...guess why? you still get your needs met. Throw that analogy out the window, wow........ \\\\\\\\\\\\My point, exactly.
It is called free will. We make an active choice whether to follow God or to SIN. Sin is to go against the will of God. Sin is not what our Creator intended for us...for the very essence of sin is that which is not God! He did not create us sinners...He created us with free will. We are no more forced to sin than we are forced to love God...yet our natures are severely wounded by sin, hence, the inclination to sin...Yet still when we sin, it was a choice, just as it is a choice to love God and to do His will.
You miss the point. It is not that they can change their sexual identity or their attraction to same sex individuals...(which may or may not be possible)...it is that they have a choice whether or not to ACT upon that attraction. It's like someone who is inclined to overeating. They have already eaten dinner and even had dessert (nothing wrong with this, right?) Well, then they feel like they want to go back for another plate of food, although they know they are not hungry, they have a desire to eat more, maybe because they enjoy the taste. Just because we feel we want or desire a particular thing, doesn't make that thing good for us. This is where we should die to our fleshly desires and do the will of God...the same can be said of those attracted to same sex individuals.
I agree, Enemyparty, he talks in circles, it is so contradictory.it seems to be the entire point of your position... when asked what the difference between a sams sex and a heterosexual couple is, all you can come up with is the possibility of procreation... and you pointedly refuse to comment on what difference there is, if any, between a same sex couple and a heterosexual couple where the heterosexual couple remains childless
God struck Paul with blindness to being him into his will.The Bible is Scripture... um, well, I take issue with whether or not Paul belongs in the Bible. You know that the final decision about what texts went into the final compilation we today call the Bible was made by men, don't you? Its not as though Jesus said "these books are the Bible, and are the direct word of God"... not to mention... Paul wasn't an Apostle, and the writings of ACTUAL Apostles, like, Thomas, for example, didn't actually make it into the final cut?
God is a master designer. The "Things seen" weren't only crafted to serve as empty indicators of a greater meaning, although ultimately they take most of their meaning through that. Some of the ritual in the OT was given to be fulfilled in specific aspects of Christ's ministry or elsewhere, and are no longer applicable because they've come to completion, but other things are universally applicable in terms of morality and ethics. Those things Christ conforms us to by circumstance, through the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.Not sure what you mean. We are conformed to the things SEEN? It is the things seen that reveal to us the things that are NOT SEEN - that are ETERNAL. And it by Christ working in us that we are "conformed into the image of His Son", so not sure what you mean by "that's not the gaol or the mans by which that change comes about" (when speaking of Christ working through us).
And it is. But it was also the design of creation that was a mode of manifestation towards a deal of other types. The idea that the two shall be one flesh in it's most simple and non-theologically explicated form was a model of marriage for man and woman that we still revere today (according to Christ's teachings, as well). We shouldn't revere anything for simple form, though. In other words, it's manifest to us because God wanted Adam to be happy, and He also wanted Eve to be happy, and His design was specific in regards to mutually complimentary roles. After the fall, this fact may be twisted, but the enemy cannot create new designs or totally erase the design that already exists.I see the union between Adam and Eve as being a 'type' (or you use 'anti-type'?) of Christ and the church.
All of the Laws were spiritually applicable even before Christ. Remember Hebrews 12. Because an antitype is fulfilled does not imply that we should abandon morality simply to avoid the appearance of conforming to the outward adornment of the Law. The logical implications of that idea would be self-contradictory to a large degree. Also as in Hebrews, the typification of the Law is pronounced in Jeremiah extremely well.Paul very clearly showed that THE MYSTERY was that this relationship was speaking OF Christ and the Church. So it seems to me that the laws governing it were also spiritually applicable to the church as the bride of Christ.
Do you understand the implications raised in this passage to the topic we're discussing? I had struggled with this for a long time after I first came across it. It caught my eye almost immediately when I was reading this chapter - the statement just seems to come out of nowhere and it uses nature itself as an antitype of the covenant that God has created with His people. The problem, though, is the reference to "Sun" and "Moon" - "Day" and "Night", and the pronouncement that these things are eternal to their types for as long as there is day or night, sun or moon.35 Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
36 “ If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”
37 Thus says the LORD:
“ If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD.
(Jeremiah 31)
I agree 100%. It's not within our power to find salvation and it's futile to try. It's only through the blood of Christ we're saved.Christ said that a man cannot put away his wife EXCEPT FOR THE CAUSE OF FORNICATION (which is the reason that God gave put away His "wife" and gave her a BILL OF DIVORCEMENT).
EVERYTHING in the scriptures POINT TO CHRIST. It is the scriptures that TESTIFY OF HIM. But we cannot find eternal life in the scriptures, we must GO TO HIM for that.
Probably my favorite part of the OT. I have a huge fondness for the prophets in particular.Not sure what you mean but there are LOTS of 'types' hidden in Genesis. And I agree it is by those things we can see that those things that we can't see are made known.
Is this more "straight is great" propoganda?God is a master designer. The "Things seen" weren't only crafted to serve as empty indicators of a greater meaning, although ultimately they take most of their meaning through that. Some of the ritual in the OT was given to be fulfilled in specific aspects of Christ's ministry or elsewhere, and are no longer applicable because they've come to completion, but other things are universally applicable in terms of morality and ethics. Those things Christ conforms us to by circumstance, through the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.
And it is. But it was also the design of creation that was a mode of manifestation towards a deal of other types. The idea that the two shall be one flesh in it's most simple and non-theologically explicated form was a model of marriage for man and woman that we still revere today (according to Christ's teachings, as well). We shouldn't revere anything for simple form, though. In other words, it's manifest to us because God wanted Adam to be happy, and He also wanted Eve to be happy, and His design was specific in regards to mutually complimentary roles. After the fall, this fact may be twisted, but the enemy cannot create new designs or totally erase the design that already exists.
That doesn't mean, as the common argument might suggest, that man and women cannot possibly be happy apart from eachother in that co-relationship (alone, for instance, or celibate). It does mean that sexuality and marriage compliment one another 100% according to the natural design. The point of marriage is to realize why man and woman are mutually complimentary to one another and to fulfill that just as Christ fulfilled the type in regards to the Church. Don't misunderstand me, though. One can't do that without the Spirit.
All of the Laws were spiritually applicable even before Christ. Remember Hebrews 12. Because an antitype is fulfilled does not imply that we should abandon morality simply to avoid the appearance of conforming to the outward adornment of the Law. The logical implications of that idea would be self-contradictory to a large degree. Also as in Hebrews, the typification of the Law is pronounced in Jeremiah extremely well.
Do you understand the implications raised in this passage to the topic we're discussing? I had struggled with this for a long time after I first came across it. It caught my eye almost immediately when I was reading this chapter - the statement just seems to come out of nowhere and it uses nature itself as an antitype of the covenant that God has created with His people. The problem, though, is the reference to "Sun" and "Moon" - "Day" and "Night", and the pronouncement that these things are eternal to their types for as long as there is day or night, sun or moon.
I agree 100%. It's not within our power to find salvation and it's futile to try. It's only through the blood of Christ we're saved.
Probably my favorite part of the OT. I have a huge fondness for the prophets in particular.
Is this more "straight is great" propoganda?
Hence sexual orientation is of little practical import as far as salvation goesIt's only through the blood of Christ we're saved
Just remember, we are supposed to stay celibate, while they can get married and live great lives.Hence sexual orientation is of little practical import as far as salvation goes
Just remember, we are supposed to stay celibate, while they can get married and live great lives.
Sad, isn't it? More like pathetic, take the Conservative perspective, high horse trash out to the dump.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said? Can you explain? What does Christ's identity have to do with him calling the Gentiles dogs?
I wasn't saying that men are literally dogs or beasts or swine or worms, etc. Obviously. Or that Christ hated, disliked or was prejudiced against the Gentiles.
Just pointing out that men are identified with these "names" in various places in scripture - generally relative to their standing with God... ie "natural brute beasts" to identify those who are "perishing in their own corruption" and who "speak evil of those things that they don't understand", etc (along with the other example that I gave).
But even if men are not literally/physically dogs, snakes, vipers, swine, beast, worms, etc, these "names" are given to men to show them who/what they are.
Ecc 3:17-21 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work. 18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
It's tied to the righteous and the wicked (not just men vs animals/beast)... to those WITHIN (above) and those WITHOUT (below).
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
That was the connection that I was trying to make between man and beast.
I'm sorry that others took it so literally, as I thought we were all famliar with these references in scripture.:o
angelmom
I agree, Enemyparty, he talks in circles, it is so contradictory.
Consistency is key when making a debate point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?