-
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.
Homosexuality
- Thread starter Jig
- Start date
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
Upvote
0
StTherese
Peace begins with a smile :)
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!
Upvote
0
StTherese
Peace begins with a smile :)
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.
Upvote
0
So lust is not a sin? Only acting on it is?
and I say "lust" because no one would even be compelled to ACT on an attraction if it had nothing to do with lust. So I am not talking about simply finding someone physically attractive or appealing where no lust is involved.
You went so far as to say the attraction was strong enough that you had to make a choice NOT TO ACT on it (so I am assuming that such an attraction would be "lustful" or "sexual" in nature).... and you claimed that because you didn't ACT on it that it WASN'T sinful.
That is not how I interpret what Jesus said when he said that if you even LOOK upon someone to LUST after them then you have already committed adultery with them IN YOUR HEART. No "act" involved in that.
It may be "beyond your control" but according to God it is still a sin. Are you saying that you CAN'T overcome feelings and attractions that are "beyond your control"?
Isn't that what some here are asking homosexuals to do? And telling them that it is something that they SHOULD do and CAN do?
Now let's say that they don't ACT on it. Then it's NOT SIN (anymore)?
That isn't what Christ said about lust? The ACT is not required to be quilty of the sin. So it seems to me that if homosexuality is a sin, then whether you ACT on it or not you are GUILTY (as long as the attractions/feels are still THERE).
So let he who is WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone. I don't think anyone here is in the position of casting stones and pulling out motes/twigs/splinters/etc. For we can not judge another man's HEART or their standing before God. We will all give an account for OURSELVES, as we will ALL appear before the judgment seat of Christ.
angelmom
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
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
Upvote
0
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).
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.
Upvote
0
intricatic
...a dinosaur... or something...
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.
Upvote
0
davedjy
Well-Known Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,184
- 1,080
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
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.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Hence sexual orientation is of little practical import as far as salvation goes
Upvote
0
davedjy
Well-Known Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,184
- 1,080
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
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.
Upvote
0
Myriah
I love you, O Lord, my strength (Ps 18)
Jesus called the lowly people who were not Israelites dogs because dogs are unclean. The Israelites did not inter-mingle with the Gentiles as they were considered unclean, hence the word used back then was "dogs". Dogs merely means unclean, or was used as an example to mean something that is "unclean".
The Apostles didn't know they would be reaching the Gentiles too at first. That is very clear if you read the Gospels in order, not going out of sequence and skipping to scripture from one book and then getting a scripture from another book.
And it is quite clear that the apostles did not know Jesus was the Christ at first. Jesus then started to use these "lowly dogs" and even Gentile women (which was pretty much forbidden for a "rabbi") to show the apostles that His love and forgiveness was not partial, and was meant even for what was the lowest unclean peoples, who were referred to as dogs. (unclean) However, in Peter's Vision, Acts 10, we see that salvation was for the unclean Gentiles too because Jesus said in Peter's vision... "don't call anything unclean which I have made clean".
I hope I explained that a little better.
Dogs, swine, etc... were metaphors in the NT for types of unclean people; Gentiles.
Upvote
0
Gusoceros
Head Rhino
I agree, Enemyparty, he talks in circles, it is so contradictory.
Consistency is key when making a debate point.
In actuality- my point has been made- and that is, that there is a HUGE difference between same sex couples, and hetero couples. Your positioning to make the point of procreation a menial side point aside- does not minimize the difference, or the design, or the impact of it. The difference is so great- that with same sex couples only, our entire race would die out- there would be no more children.
To the point of "what about sterile couples???" anomolies dont undo design, or the difference- this is not a valid argument against why the couples are different.
In addition to procreation, I cited a few other differences between the 2 couples in my essay. Procreation is a big enough reason to cite complete difference between the 2 couples though. What that means is this: the 2 couple types- are not the same.
G
Upvote
0
Similar threads
