DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Secular Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 4, 2015, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bradley link=topic=285.msg2453#msg2453
date=1436017122]
Hey, you are the one who brought up the fact that some animals
have same gender sex at times. I never said we should act like
animals, trying to fulfill any desire as it comes up, like a dog
humping the leg of humans. We should strive to be more
spiritual, like abstaining from sex (not love) if its not God's
will.
[/quote]Yes, and I said that in response to Poppy's post:
[quote author=Poppy link=topic=285.msg2443#msg2443
date=1435866129]
Two become one when they are physically joined. Male to female
fit together naturally. Male to male or female to female do not
fit together naturally so can never be one flesh and can never
create life. Unnatural = ungodly.
[/quote]
#Post#: 2456--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 4, 2015, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Poppy link=topic=285.msg2452#msg2452
date=1436010843]
Well it's pretty obvious to me. Natural is the way God ordained
-male to female. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Madam and
Eve.[/quote]You do realize you keep writing down platitudes --
like soundbites? You may like life to be simple, but
sometimes we can't have things as simple as we'd like them to
be. I'm trying to talk with you; but what I get back seems to
be soundbites you've heard and not your own thoughts.
[quote]"the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful
(and unnatural) acts with other men
You may think or say this stuff Kerry but nobody has to accept
it as being right. And before you say it, you don't have to
accept what I say either.
[/quote]If you bothered to read all my posts in this thread, you
should find where I agreed with Paul -- that sex motivated by
lust and not by love is a sin.
[quote]I would say myself that this is true of well over 90% of
all sex acts; and I don't see much difference frankly between
heterosexual and homosexual if the man is having sex to gratify
himself and not his wife.[/quote]
Paul is talking about men who stopped having sex with their
wives (and possibly with other women) and took up having sex
with men -- because they burned with lust. I can't equate
that in my mind with two gay men who aren't married and who have
sex out of love not lust.
I remind you this thread is not about gay sex that married men
have on the side, and that is surely what Paul is talking about
there along with married men who may have left their wives and
then started having gay sex. I wouldn't say it includes
straight unmarried men who gave up sex with women since that
would be a sin too.
I don't know where you stand on it; but I've known men who got
married and then cheated on their wives with men. I find it
very distressing. I've seen it in my own family -- and I know
how it hurts wives and children. If someone is gay, I'd rather
he find another man to love and get into a relationship with him
-- and not pretend to be straight by getting married, make
children who will then get hurt when the truth comes out. I
also would much rather see gay men "marry" each other than try
to become Catholic priests and wind up having sex with young
innocent boys or with other priests.
Life is not always as simple as we'd like. And what I know is
that when gays aren't accepted by society, they hide and go
underground -- and you don't know who is gay and who isn't.
Some marry and I pity their wives -- even if the men aren't
cheating with other men, you know the sex life in that marriage
isn't good, not if he's thinking about men all the time. I
think a woman deserves a man who will love her without thinking
about men . . . or other women for that matter.
When I lived in Washington, I knew a man who got married but who
went to have gay sex with boys almost every weekend. He paid
for it. He met one he liked who was very young and talked his
wife into adopting him. She didn't know anything was wrong
until she came home early one day and found them together in bed
having sex. Then she figured it all out and she divorced him
right away. Why would a man like that marry? I'd say he
wanted to "fit in." Society put the pressure on. Somehow I
think it would have better for other people if he had found a
man to "marry" -- call it whatever you want -- but I don't think
he should have married his wife and pretended to be straight.
And I certainly don't think "adopting" someone and telling
people he's your son when in fact you're having sex with him is
a good thing. It's horrible. That kid started gay sex with
adult men before he hit puberty. I heard some of the stories.
I never knew why he was homeless; but obviously he needed
someone to help him, not have sex with him by giving him money.
I also met a kid who had been kicked out of his house by his
parents at the age of sixteen when they found out he was gay.
He came to Washington and sold his body. His parents'
homophobia made things worse not better.
You can say it's all so unnatural, but does that solve anything
for anyone? It surely didn't solve anything for the Catholic
Church. It made things worse.
#Post#: 2458--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 4, 2015, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
People seem so sure their interpretation of Genesis is right,
that the commandment to be fruitful means to have sex and have
physical children. Is that right? If it is, we have some
problems.
People say Jesus kept all the commandments; but did he keep
that one? It's one of the oldest commandments in the book,
predating Moses even. So did Jesus keep it? I say he did; but
if he didn't, then what?
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
I say Jesus did obey this commandment, and kept it the way Adam
and Eve should have kept it. He produced children spiritually.
Both Adam and Jesus (son of man, son of adam) had the correct
image and likeness. This is spiritual, not physical; and it
was originally intended to be passed to offspring produced
spiritually.
However, after the Fall, we see that this image and likeness was
passed on with difficulty and sorrow. It's easy to read that
passage and think the sorrow meant pains and difficulty of
childbirth and then jump to the conclusion that Eve was meant to
have physical children using physical childbirth -- but is that
right? Not necessarily. The matter of how Jesus was
conceived should also tell us something.
But back to how Jesus kept this commandment. He had the right
image and likeness of the Father. We do not get that image and
likeness from the Father. We don't. If we are ever going to
have it , we get it from Jesus. In one way, yes we can say is
the Father of all -- but in another way, Jesus is our father
too.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate
to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
firstborn among many brethren.
2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a
glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image
from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of
many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second
time without sin unto salvation.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not
yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall
appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
If we do not see Jesus as he is, we don't even know what the
"image and likeness of God" is. We could read about it in
books, and men might try to give us their opinions; but we
cannot be changed and be "conformed" to his image unless we see
him clearly. As Paul says, at first we see rather darkly.
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but
then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know
even as also I am known.
The spiritual birth is the one that matters. Adam and Eve were
to produce spiritual children. Good and spiritual people are
doing a good deed if they marry and produce spiritual children;
but I am sorry I don't see much merit in it if wicked and carnal
people marry and produce monsters. I also don't see it as a
virtue for spiritually corrupted people to have children and
teach them to be pagans and idolaters.
In this fallen world, human parents can't pass on 100% of the
spiritual nature they have; but it still is important. Paul
tells me that when he talks about Timothy's background.
2 Timothy 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith
that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and
thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.
They did very good deeds in having children. We may talk about
Timothy a lot more than his ancestors; but let's remember he
wouldn't have been who he was without them. Now of course,
Timothy's parents could not impart 100% of the image and
likeness of God to him; but they could impart enough faith to
him that it made it easier for him to find salvation through
Jesus by not rebelling at the authority of God.
And in all this, we should remember that women are more
important than men when it comes to the spiritual nature of
children. Men may need to learn how to exercise authority;
but they will never succeed without women who insist on having
moral standards. When women abandon morality, society goes to
hell -- and all the sermons by men won't change a thing.
But back to my point: If you don't believe Jesus obeyed this
commandment, then I beg you to explain how he kept all the law.
I believe he obeyed it perfectly.
#Post#: 2461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: bradley Date: July 5, 2015, 9:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe that ever since we had physical bodies, God's commands
were for "both" the physical and spiritual nature. As you say,
Jesus had many spiritual children, and personally, I believe
that the multiply and fill the earth was a group command to the
human race in general, not in every case, otherwise barrenness
would be sinful which is not always the individual's fault.
And that is the one command that I think we have filled quite
well.
#Post#: 2462--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 5, 2015, 12:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bradley link=topic=285.msg2461#msg2461
date=1436105917]
I believe that ever since we had physical bodies, God's commands
were for "both" the physical and spiritual nature. As you say,
Jesus had many spiritual children, and personally, I believe
that the multiply and fill the earth was a group command to the
human race in general, not in every case, otherwise barrenness
would be sinful which is not always the individual's fault.
And that is the one command that I think we have filled quite
well.
[/quote]I believe it was a commandment to Adam and Eve and their
descendants -- yes, as a group commandment. I think you believe
in a prior race of people? I do. I think that race of humans
had fallen and needed spiritual help; and I think Adam and Eve
were to help them. There are two words in Hebrew for "man" in
English. Enosh is the physical man while Adam is more
spiritual. The expression "Son of Man" in Hebrew is "Ben Adam"
-- someone with the correct image and likeness. Jesus in
referring to himself said the Son of Man came down from Heaven
-- I read this to mean "Adam" lived in a spiritual paradise or
garden.
My understanding is also based on the idea of Adam Kadmon --
meaning the Adam was a collective -- the Body of all souls with
spiritual awareness -- the original Israel. Some Jews say it
had 600,000 souls, one said it had 288,000. I say it had
144,000 but if you divide each soul into male and female, you
have the 288,000. This concept is called the Body of Christ in
the New Testament. It was these spiritually aware souls, I
believe, who were meant to subdue the earth -- and that for me
also means defeating the forces of darkness (a false Christ
consciousness) that had corrupted the fallen type of humans
already living on the earth.
That false Christ consciousness had to be taken on in order to
be defeated if the rest of the world was to be saved. Thus Adam
and Eve had to confront the serpent. The serpent had to be
allowed in Eden to give them the opportunity to exercise
dominion over it.
#Post#: 2467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: bradley Date: July 5, 2015, 10:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
^You may well be right about that. I do believe in a
pre-adamic race of pre-mankind. They are "part" of the dust of
the earth that man was created from.
#Post#: 2469--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Piper Date: July 5, 2015, 10:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]Wow, this thread took off! I've been sick.
Will have to read and catch up. Soon. [/font]
#Post#: 2474--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Piper Date: July 6, 2015, 5:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]I read.
All I will say of my own thoughts is that I'm definitely
"old-fashioned." I like the idea of "family" being man, woman,
and child. In ideal situations, it is what works best. Or so
it seems to me.
If we are to speak honestly of sexual sin, I think it must
overwhelmingly be the most common sin. A good question to ask
is what is our motivation when engaging in sexual activity? Is
it to love? Is it to fulfill a physical "need" or "desire"?
Both?
There is more than one kind of hunger. This we know. Both are
very hard to ignore or deny. Sex truly is a "drive." We are
called to control that drive, to reserve it for circumstances
acceptable and holy. Who has never failed? Who has ever
managed to be utterly chaste?
I think sex fulfills physical need. I think it is best when it
is also an expression of love. We all know it is not strictly
engaged in for producing children, but also for warmth, comfort,
release of tension. We want to please and be pleased. And for
some-- I suppose it is pure lust.
I would love a world full of happy, traditional families.
Fallen world.
I've never felt an attraction toward another woman. But what if
I had? How can I guess how easily, or even if, I could have
remained chaste? Especially, perhaps, if I also loved that
woman in every other way.
Even now. Wishing to be Catholic, could I confess to a male
priest the difficulties in my own life, with my husband sick for
years? Is that something I could openly discuss without utter
embarrassment?
How shall I judge other sinners, when I am a sinner?
Best I not judge anyone on his or her sexual orientation alone.
Some things are too private. And I think they should stay that
way.
The good samaritan might be a gay person.
Who can honestly cast the first stone?
No. Things are never simple. I want them to be, but no, they
are not. It's easy to tell others they are called to total
abstinence-- until we try to maintain it ourselves.
Honesty is very painful.
[/font]
#Post#: 2476--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: bradley Date: July 6, 2015, 11:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Gay sex with consenting adults is not any greater sin than
lying, cheating, etc. But they are not content with putting it
in that catagory. They want it to be proclaimed as absolutely
good in every way. They dont want to hear its a sin, and
refuse to see it as such. Thats the problem imo, not that,
that specific sin is worse than others, but its wanted to be
accepted as a sinless act. Yes, far too many christians who are
against it, never say "boo" about the other many sins committed
regularly amoung christians, but then those christians "usually"
dont try and say they are okay, just that they have been
forgiven.
#Post#: 2477--------------------------------------------------
Re: Gay Marriage
By: Kerry Date: July 7, 2015, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What good does it do to tell people something is a sin? If
they disagree with you, all you'll do is rouse antagonism, and
the other person will think you're being either condescending or
acting superior.
To convince someone that something is a sin, you need to be able
to show them either how they're harming others or harming
themselves. That's what I think anyway. To talk them into
changing, you need to convince them that trying something else
will make their lives better. I see people sometimes doing
things I think are wrong; but if I can't think of a way to talk
to them in a way that might convince them changing things would
be better, I keep quiet. I don't say anything if the only
thing I have to say is, "You're wrong."
The problem with some things Christians often call sins is they
can't explain why they're sins in a non-religious way. You can
tell people that stealing is wrong because you can show how it
harms others -- and also how many people don't trust or want to
be around thieves. The thief injures himself if caught; and
even if not caught and prosecuted, people may avoid him if
they're suspicious he's stealing but can't prove it. With many
things, you can make a non-religious case; and where Christians
can make such arguments, I think they stand a good chance of
prevailing.
The problems rise when Christians lack non-religious cases but
just say, "It's a sin" and then want to outlaw it.
Homosexuality is a particularly touchy problem since -- and
let's be truthful now -- historically, Christians have
persecuted homosexuals. They made it a capital crime and
executed people for it; and they based that on their
understanding of the Bible. Sodomy laws were on the books in
many states; and in many states, it's still legal to fire people
for it. It is here in Pennsylvania. Landlords can refuse to
rent to gay people.
Yet ironically, the worst cases seem to involve hypocrites who
put on a false face of piety while secretly engaging in gay sex.
This too has undermined Christianity; and our politicians and
clergy are the biggest villains when it comes to this. Perhaps
not every politician and member of the clergy who rants and
raves on the subject is guilty; but enough are. Why do they
do it? Three reasons.
The first is they feel guilty themselves; and they think if
there are laws against it, maybe it would stop them from
sinning. I think that's the case with the Congressman who was
sending sexual texts to a page while voting on a bill he wrote
to protect minors from that sort of thing.
Then there's the type who thinks if they attack others for
something, people won't suspect they do the same thing.
Finally there's the type who realizes you can be popular by
appealing to prejudice and winding people up, making them feel
threatened by this or that.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page