and these weren't between men and women?Ummm... concubines.
Love to know your thoughts!
I've never denied I don't have controversial positions... my intro here at CF alluded to that.So far it doesn't sound like you're saying much of anything. I suspect that you've got some controversial positions on sexuality lurking beneath the surface that makes you want to disarm those arguments.
So what do you wish to promote that this argument would seek to strike down?
You realize this wasn't about homosexuality right? It was just an example in the original post. I mean, personally I have no issues with homosexuality, but that wasn't the point of the argument. I've seen many variations of this argument which have nothing to do with homosexuality. In any case, I find it unpersuasive.and these weren't between men and women?
You realize this wasn't about homosexuality right? It was just an example in the original post. I mean, personally I have no issues with homosexuality, but that wasn't the point of the argument. I've seen many variations of this argument which have nothing to do with homosexuality. In any case, I find it unpersuasive.
I have heard it used in discussions of; sex outside of marriage, polyamory, and polygamywhat other things have you seen this argument used for?
all those things would be prohibited in Scripture but the "original design" argument would be insufficient in dealing with those particular issues.I have heard it used in discussions of; sex outside of marriage, polyamory, and polygamy
Certainly not just in reference to homosexuality though.
I agree, and that's why it's use is so frustrating to me.all those things would be prohibited in Scripture but the "original design" argument would be insufficient in dealing with those particular issues.
Supernatural childbirthshe magically felt no pain during childbirth
I highly suspect that would be the exception and not the rule.Supernatural childbirth
Just a side note, we have friends (two different couples) who had pain free childbirths
For sure, at present, but in the future, it will become normal (victorious eschatology).I highly suspect that would be the exception and not the rule.
Given that the writer of Genesis clearly has a problem with nakedness, if a person was clothed in light from my creation and then the light died because of a loss of relationship with the light, it would explain the shamefulness and disgrace of being naked.Specifically: Gen. 2:25
However, I'm fairly open to alternate positions, I just see no issues with them being naked in the first place.
Again though, I think this is a separate topic. I still maintain the inconsistency in the arguments use. In my experience, Christians use this argument to suggest striving for God's original design is a good thing, but then only apply it to sex and marriage, nothing else in Genesis.
- An individual can definitively know God's original plan, or interpret scripture in such a way they definitively know.
- We have the capacity to live a pre-fall life.
Are you saying it's easy to know definitively God's original plan?#1 is easy. The simplicity an clarity on this subject could only be "missed" by willful ignorance.
#2 is impossible.
Are you saying it's easy to know definitively God's original plan?
We agree on #2, which proves my point.
I don't promote anything for anyone's life. I'm actually quite careful in how I write. I will state my own position though, and there's a difference.Again, only those with an ulterior motive could ignore such clarity and simplicity. What's yours? My guess is that you wish to promote or at least condone homosexuality. If I'm wrong, my apologies.
I don't promote anything for anyone's life. I'm actually quite careful in how I write. I will state my own position though, and there's a difference.
I simply like to call out poor reasoning. The "God's original plan" argument, the "you're trying to justify sin" argument, and the "God says" argument listed in my other threads are perfect examples of that. Up next I'll write about the you-have-been-deceived-by-the-devil argument which carries about as much weight as the others.
I'm not intent on anything, and once again, not promoting anything. I like discussion.I would be the first to agree with you that there are huge issues with poor reasoning in Christian circles. Spend 5 minutes on CF, and that will be clear enough; however, pointing out poor reasoning for the sake of working toward orthodox is far different than pointing out poor reasoning in order to push toward heterodoxy.
You don't seem to be desiring to helping the Church have airtight arguments which defend God's word. You seem to be intent on undermining biblical ideas regarding marriage and sex.