Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 69 of 69

Thread: The church and homosexuality

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RaymondDelauney View Post
    That's my point exactly - therefore it's a bit rich of the church homophobes (as one particular old bat who sits on the General Synod did on telly only this morning) to quote OT on the matter of sexuality, yet keep pretty schtum about the equally pressing (I'd imagine) moral dangers of eating lobster and letting different sorts of cattle graze together.
    Paul answers this very thing. As Paul explains, if the law were sufficient for the forgiveness of sins and Salvation, then we should be following the whole law, as passed down through Moses and stated in the Old Testament. We would then still be required to stone those who practice adultery or homosexuality. We would still then be required to sacrifice animals for the forgiveness of sins. We would still be required to follow the whole law.

    What you are witnessing among the devout in the Christian church is the understanding that, as Paul explains, that only through Christ is Salvation attained. And Christ said of Himself that He did not come to do away with the law, but to finish the law. Now right there is the profundity of how we're supposed to regard the law.

    What finishes a work? What is the point in our progress where we say something is finished? Yeah, precisely, it's when we finally reach the end-goal, the very reason we even started the work, correct? When we have finally obtained that which we were progressing towards, we say we are finished with whatever it is. Christ said that He finished the law. In other words, the fundamental entire purpose of the law was all entirely in preparation for the coming of Christ, His death, and then His subsequent resurrection.

    So, how in the world was the law necessary to prepare for the coming of Christ. The reason is because of Adam and Eve, the fall of mankind. When that happened, we became the lords of our own lives, our own soul, basically and fundamentally, we became the gods of our own selves. And that would not have been bad except for the fact that we are not worthy of the position, even over only our own selves. God tells us in the Bible that He searched over the whole earth to find just one who was worthy, and He was unable to find even one. In other words, if we had to face judgment that was based in complete truth, we would fail. So God had to send one who was worthy. Since no human could ever succeed in being worthy, God sent His Word into Mary's womb. The personification of Word in this is not a personification. Christ is literally God's Word made flesh. According to the Apostle John, this Word of God was both God and with God in the beginning. Yeah, God talks to Himself in the third sometimes like when He said, "Lets make man in our own image." It's only one of the verses from the old testament that corroborates at the very least, the dual person of God. Other verses indicate that God is actually a triune being. Like we are taught that we have a soul, a spirit, and a mind, or maybe you might say a soul, body, and mind, also a triune structure, the triune members of God are The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

    Anyway, to leave the minor tangent, it means that God was planning this Christ Salvation all along, and that the law He gave to Moses was in preparation for the coming of the Christ. If you look at the law, you can see that it very much mirrors in the physical what we must understand in truth, which is in the spirit. I don't know why a blood sacrifice is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, but the law very much demonstrated in the physical that it is necessary. So, God sent His Son to die, to be that blood sacrifice. And Christ voluntarily accepted it for our sake. Other than that, most of the law is a physical demonstration of what God thinks about sin, and how dangerous it is to us individually, and as we have seen throughout history, it is also detrimental to society, especially to society's moral evolution. Evolution does not mean a progression towards the better or more effective. It simply means progression irrespective of the route it takes, and the route it takes is always a collective progression.

    There are many truths that our human minds would not comprehend without the law first there to demonstrate their necessity. We learn later the why, but until we understand the how, it is often too difficult to understand the why. We must see a need, and then perceive not just an answer, but an accurate answer. For whatever reason, if we fail to perceive the accurate answer, we never progress towards the better, and in our inclination towards greed, selfishness, violence, and ignoring the very truth before our eyes, we may never have perceived the accurate answer in any effective number.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Crask For This Useful Post:

    T00ts (03-07-2017)

  3. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    3,423
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 359 Times in 299 Posts
    Now the homosexuality issue is nearly settled, can anyone say if there is clear Bible teaching on incest? If so, do Creationists delve deep to contrive many scenarios for Adam and Eve to start it all, and for their offspring to carry on procreating (eg, where did their spouses come from)? I know Adam is supposed to have lived to 900+ years, so he could have fathered many, but who with? Surely, they must have been related...
    The poster reserves the right to amend or completely change any opinions he has posted at any time meanwhile, still waiting for the whip hand that Enoch forecast...

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pixels on your screen
    Posts
    6,290
    Thanks
    889
    Thanked 852 Times in 622 Posts
    Leviticus 18 covers prohibited sexual relationships. Most of these are reflected in our own laws.
    Adam predates these by quite a few years. Did you think biblical laws were retrospective?

    If secular society want to validate same sex marriage, I wonder why they don't also remove the ban on the incestuous for consenting adults, as the prohibitions are all based on biblical texts. Maybe two brothers could get married, or a woman marry her mother. Absurd, you might say. But that is what many people consider same sex marriage - absurd.

  5. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    3,423
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 359 Times in 299 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Leviticus 18 covers prohibited sexual relationships. Most of these are reflected in our own laws.
    Adam predates these by quite a few years. Did you think biblical laws were retrospective?

    If secular society want to validate same sex marriage, I wonder why they don't also remove the ban on the incestuous for consenting adults, as the prohibitions are all based on biblical texts. Maybe two brothers could get married, or a woman marry her mother. Absurd, you might say. But that is what many people consider same sex marriage - absurd.
    Surely, God's laws (interpreted or otherwise) would have started at Creation whether on the First Day or the Sixth Day. Scrabbling together patches at a later date to cover up flaws and weaknesses found in the first product seems more Microsoft than All Mighty...
    The poster reserves the right to amend or completely change any opinions he has posted at any time meanwhile, still waiting for the whip hand that Enoch forecast...

  6. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Pixels on your screen
    Posts
    6,290
    Thanks
    889
    Thanked 852 Times in 622 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Patman Post View Post
    Surely, God's laws (interpreted or otherwise) would have started at Creation whether on the First Day or the Sixth Day. Scrabbling together patches at a later date to cover up flaws and weaknesses found in the first product seems more Microsoft than All Mighty...
    You really need to argue this point with God, and he's not yet signed up on this forum.

  7. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    West Country
    Posts
    1,769
    Thanks
    64
    Thanked 90 Times in 83 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Leviticus 18 covers prohibited sexual relationships. Most of these are reflected in our own laws.
    Adam predates these by quite a few years. Did you think biblical laws were retrospective?

    If secular society want to validate same sex marriage, I wonder why they don't also remove the ban on the incestuous for consenting adults, as the prohibitions are all based on biblical texts. Maybe two brothers could get married, or a woman marry her mother. Absurd, you might say. But that is what many people consider same sex marriage - absurd.

    I think there are rules and regs about who can marry who
    A Hand Up Not A Hand Out
    Terms and Conditions Apply

  8. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    London N16
    Posts
    3,423
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 359 Times in 299 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    You really need to argue this point with God, and he's not yet signed up on this forum.
    Unfortunately, like Brexit, there are only people claiming to be interpreters of what's meant. So it seems anyone with questions can only find answers through human experience. Meanwhile, we can all enjoy what has been created by His worshippers, whether believers or not...
    The poster reserves the right to amend or completely change any opinions he has posted at any time meanwhile, still waiting for the whip hand that Enoch forecast...

  9. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Darn Sarf
    Posts
    1,864
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 160 Times in 131 Posts
    Natural law is reason enough not to allow the facilitation of incest as a normal sexual activity. As the offspring of two closely related people are all to often malformed, or many times more likely to suffer from an ailment that runs in the family.

    Surely no reasonable person could argue in favour of this. It really is just not right!

  10. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    2,255
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 544 Times in 433 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BryanLuc View Post
    I think there are rules and regs about who can marry who
    Quite right. Marrying your slave, someone you've raped or the widow of anyone you've killed in battle is just fine.

    You could even have kids with your own daughters if you're Lot, or (one presumes) enjoy all manner of incestuous liaison if your parents are Adam and Eve...

    Anyone who looks in the Bible for moral guidance on such matters is looking in quite the wrong place.

Similar Threads

  1. Church 'has duty to debate politics'
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17-02-2015, 02:08 PM
  2. Gay marriage to be illegal in the Church of England
    By Bright Young Thing in forum Religion, Faith and Spirituality
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 14-11-2013, 04:21 PM
  3. Ban On Male Homosexual Blood Donors Set To Be Lifted
    By Nicholas in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 11-09-2011, 09:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •