Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
How Homosexuals Misinterpret Scripture
- Thread starter Relic
- Start date
W
WiLdAtHeArT
Guest
1Cor6:12 says
So all that to say that just because two people consent to doing something does not make it beneficial for them or for their kids, family, etc. If a boy consented to have sexual contact with a man (using just the Golden Rule) would that make it okay?
I always had trouble with this verse because it infers that any action is permissible (accepted) by God. But I think it is saying that humans desire for everything (especially sinfulness) to be permissible, but there are things that while they may seem harmless or 'beneficial' they are actual destructive. I believe that homosexuality or adultery or fornication is actually destrctive to society. Think of all the STDs fatherless children, divorce, etc. that would be eliminated from society if we would only follow God's standards for sexual behavior (sex with your spouse only)!!!
So all that to say that just because two people consent to doing something does not make it beneficial for them or for their kids, family, etc. If a boy consented to have sexual contact with a man (using just the Golden Rule) would that make it okay?
I feel that life is a series of risk verses rewards. We take our children across coutry to see their grandparents. We have just put their lives as risk for the reward of being close to their relatives. If we wanted no risk, we should set the maximum speed limit to 5 mph (and accept the small amount of fatalities that produces). But we don't. We feel that some risk is acceptable in order to be happy.WiLdAtHeArT said:
Now let me reverse the question a little. If there was 100% birth control and STDs have all been cured, would you be ok with this stuff? If not, then this is just a side issue, not the main issue you have.
When it comes to children, society has taken the idea that their parents know what is best for them. So we don't allow them endless candy, nor sex with adults. But for consenting adults, it is another matter...
S
Solo
Guest
Have you ever been in a homosexual relationship?Quath said:
christian_soldier
Member
Quath said:
No one has the power to stop someone from worshiping other gods, BUT it is clear that there is only One God that we should worship. That will never change.
The only Christians who will sanction homosexuality are those who have been misled by the likes of this twisting of scripture:
http://www.whosoever.org/v4i5/youth.html
R
Rick W
Guest
The sexual revolution began somewhere around the late '60s. It's been almost 50 years now. So how has this supposed "acceptance" benefited our society?
I think it has helped in a happiness sense. For example, women now feel they should be able to have a good sex life. We can talk about sexual problems from impotence to lack of desire and seek treatments. The society has learned how to have better sex with guides and suggestions.PotLuck said:
Before the sexual revolution, sex was considered by a lot of women to be a chore of marriage. So I see a lot of good has come from it.
R
Rick W
Guest
You see "good" as fulfilling the sexual desire of an individual. I see "good" as something that benefits society as a whole.
Have you ever watched any of those TV court shows? 50% or better of the cases involve unmarried people with problems of all sorts. Where there is no long term commitment there can be no long term cohesion. Children born out of wedlock has increased dramatically, children are being raised without fathers and the single mothers are hard pressed to make ends meet (many relying on welfare or other government supported programs). Many kids know little else other than what they are taught in daycare centers with little or no parental input concerning their development.
The sexual revolution was the first major assault against marriage, shacking-up became a "see if the shoe fits first" excuse for sex without restriction (even if it was with one woman) requiring little if any commitment to a long term relationship.
Tolerance to the practice diminished the value of marriage, making commitment an option, not the focus. "We don't need a piece of paper from the state to show we love each other." That is until one or the other tires of their spouse then all bets are off.
If the sexual side is what you claim is good then your focus is on the wrong thing entirely where relationships are concerned. Sex is not the focal point of a marriage. If it is then that relationship is more at risk of collapse in the long run. If one becomes "bored" that doesn't mean it's time to split up, or get a divorce then change partners to do it all over again simply to gratify sexual desire. I knew one fellow that said marriage was like getting the same Playboy magazine every month. His marriage didn't last long.
As for women it's my belief they seek a long term commitment, much more so than a man. It's the women that lost when the sexual revolution gained a foothold. The family unit also lost when sex became the central measuring stick of the health of a marriage. The children lost because of instability within the home and having multiple fathers and mothers being pulled this way and that because of the sexual desires of the wayward parents.
Have you ever watched any of those TV court shows? 50% or better of the cases involve unmarried people with problems of all sorts. Where there is no long term commitment there can be no long term cohesion. Children born out of wedlock has increased dramatically, children are being raised without fathers and the single mothers are hard pressed to make ends meet (many relying on welfare or other government supported programs). Many kids know little else other than what they are taught in daycare centers with little or no parental input concerning their development.
The sexual revolution was the first major assault against marriage, shacking-up became a "see if the shoe fits first" excuse for sex without restriction (even if it was with one woman) requiring little if any commitment to a long term relationship.
Tolerance to the practice diminished the value of marriage, making commitment an option, not the focus. "We don't need a piece of paper from the state to show we love each other." That is until one or the other tires of their spouse then all bets are off.
If the sexual side is what you claim is good then your focus is on the wrong thing entirely where relationships are concerned. Sex is not the focal point of a marriage. If it is then that relationship is more at risk of collapse in the long run. If one becomes "bored" that doesn't mean it's time to split up, or get a divorce then change partners to do it all over again simply to gratify sexual desire. I knew one fellow that said marriage was like getting the same Playboy magazine every month. His marriage didn't last long.
As for women it's my belief they seek a long term commitment, much more so than a man. It's the women that lost when the sexual revolution gained a foothold. The family unit also lost when sex became the central measuring stick of the health of a marriage. The children lost because of instability within the home and having multiple fathers and mothers being pulled this way and that because of the sexual desires of the wayward parents.
You asked about the sexual revolution. The problems you see with marriage come from two other things. The first is that people started to believe that marriage was about happiness. That is a relatively new change to marriage. The other is that women could support themselves and were not forced to stay in bad marriages.
I think it will take society awhile to reinvent the concept of marriage s that people can be happy and stable. Previously it seemed to focus more on stability than happiness.
I think it will take society awhile to reinvent the concept of marriage s that people can be happy and stable. Previously it seemed to focus more on stability than happiness.
christian_soldier
Member
Quath said:
Says who? Sounds like you know a bunch of folks who made bad decisions. How sad.
R
Rick W
Guest
Quath said:
What about the kids? It seems to me when people talk about what marriages ought to be these days they focus on the parents and what they want. Not many include children and their welfare in their equation of a "new and improved" institution of marriage. Rarely if ever do I see any posts from those wanting to change the traditional values of marriage mention anything that would be in the best interest of the children. It's always about what the adults want. It's like the children either accept the whims of the adults no matter where the kids wind up, what they have to go through, what they may become or else.
The family unit is the fundamental building block of our society. The kids are our future. From ants to elephants the central focus in social behavior is on the young and not on the individual adult. The centerpiece of those social orders is the offspring. In most cases the adults in these non-human societies are instinctively prepared to give up all for their young, even their lives if needs be. And that usually includes individuals that did not sire or birth those offspring. Yet, we don't learn from that. Why? Because we're too busy catering to the adult's desires which seems to always come first.
Before trying to overhaul marriage one must first ask how it will benefit the kids.
Another product of the sexual revolution was "self", individualism, being self-sustaining asking nobody for anything, giving nothing, relying on nobody but oneself to have total and complete control. So as nature is a young girl becomes pregnant getting no help with the young from the family because she and her "mate" can handle it all by themselves. At one time raising kids wasn't only up to the parents ('rents in today's young lingo) but was a unified family effort from all adults within that family circle. A mom-to-be could ask for and get help of all sorts from advice to moral support to help with minding the children instead of running them off to a daycare center under unknown supervision and influence.
Public schools have become baby-sitters even to the point of giving the kids breakfast every morning before they go to class. The government is not taking control of our kids, we're giving it to them a little at a time. We're handing our kids over on a silver platter because we're too busy chasing after our own wants and desires, for convenience.
Getting family back into society should be our main objective. Getting kids back in our focus, front and center, should be the major motivation to do so. And giving our lives, our commitment, to rear our young should be as second nature as it is for any other social order of life on earth.
Tearing apart the institution of marriage is not the solution. Reenforcing the basic principles of family is. Getting back the respect parents deserve from their kids, getting back the principle of commitment to each spouse and getting back the concept of family (the entire circle) are the things needed to "revamp" the ideas of what marriage should be.
I agree that the kids are important as well. And that does get figured in a lot of the time. Some people remained married until the kids graduate school. Some find the relationship too unbearable to stay that long.PotLuck said:
Society is trying to find the best way to deal with kids and divorce. For example, say you have a daughter in a bad marriage. Say they guy gambles away the rent money, stays drunk in front of the kids, and is having an affair. Would you want your daughter to just accept her marriage or do you want her to be happy and leave the guy? For me, I want my children to be happy and I would want for him to leave. And I would help her finiancally until she could get her feet on the ground again.
Kids are also just one factor. Kids grow up to be adults. I don't think there is much value in making people happy as kids and then miserable as adults. I rather go for a more balanced approach where we strive for happiness at all points in life.
The problem is more about economy than about sexual lifestyle. If you want to provide for your kids, you can choose to have both parents work so there is money for school, extracurricular activities and other things that kids need. Or you can try to be a single job family, which focuses on more attention on the child with less material things to help. And there is a lot of middle ground. This is not a simple choice with one right answer.
Marriage of the past was just the passing of ownership of the woman from father to husband. With the more modern idea that women have equal worth to men, that idea had to go away. It changed into a stable institution for the woman who didn't have real economic powers. But as that went away, it had to change. There is no going backwards. So look to where it can go.
I watch how society reacts. One thing I notice is that fathers are expected to take more of a role in taking care of children (you can find changing tables in men's bathrooms now). They also are given paternity leave. That is one way we are trying to help the kids.
Some people try to telecommute to work so they have more time with kids. Some families have 1 full time worker and 1 part time worker.
Some people try to join families (helps in high cost of living areas) but also there are more people to help with the kids.
Futher down the line, polygamy may make a comeback. Maybe two bread winners and one stay-at-home parent can work. Who knows?
Quath said:
:smt078
Just take those thoughts you present here back to hell where they came from and burn them like one burns trash for they are nothing but anti-Christ type ideals.
In the first place, People don't need to have polygamous marriage to have a nanny stay at home while both parents work.
And no, polygamy will never be the "norm". It will always be mainly outlawed, because it causes problems. There may be some communities in which people live outside of the law, but it will never be main stream normal.
The notion of a society consisting of women insisting on having multiple husbands, or multiple females partners in a marriage relationship is not going to become "normal" in any way! Perversion will never prevail because it is destructive in itself. Same stands true in the instances where men who think polygamy is a way of getting away with whoring about with a familiar group of women, or men, it's just another word for "swinger". It is the perverted person who insists on 'swinging' from one partner to the other!
excerpt from an article I found a while back:
..."What about the Old Testament practice of polygamy?
The practice of polygamy is clearly found in the Old Testament. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon are prime examples of Old Testament saints who practiced polygamy. But it must be clearly stated that just because they had multiple wives, doesn't make it right! At no time does God condone or place His "seal of approval" upon the polygamous practices of these men. In fact, God warned Solomon well in advance to NOT practice polygamy:
Moses' instruction to Solomon generations in advance:
Deuteronomy 17:14-20 is God's warning against the polygamist practices of Solomon. After stating that the king [Solomon] is not to get riches from Egypt, nor to amass silver or gold, Moses says, "He must not take many wives" [Deut 17:17].
Polygamy brought problems!:
Abraham's household was fractured because of jealousy between Hagar and Sarah.
Jacob also endured spousal rivalry.
David's adulterous tendencies was his downfall, as he approached Bathsheba.
Solomon's many wives were a snare to him and drew him into idol worship. ...
When marriage becomes anything, it becomes nothing.
If our society continues to accept non-traditional views of the family, we will see an erosion of the family unit itself. When marriage is devalued, infidelity is accepted, and non-biblical modes of sexual expression are encouraged, confusion and instability will arise within our youth. God has assured us that when we obey Him, we will have joy and happiness: "The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart." [Psalm 19:8]
Let us not forget what God did to the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah:
"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire". [Jude 7]
"Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the LORD out of the heavens."
[Genesis 19:24] ... "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't think that consequences are not going to catch up with all the perversion going on these days, because they will. and it ain't going to be a pretty sight when all hell breaks loose. It's already started and there will be a hefty price to pay for all the perversions people insist on living by.
Self destruction is what these perverted notions bring about.
Can't blame God for making absolute laws to live by. God created absolute laws that govern the material things in life, what makes people think there are not absolute laws for the emotional and spiritual well being of people? So you can't blame God for all the evil choices people are making, instead of taking heed to his fair warnings. The consequences are still there also.
I'm so tired of Quath coming on this board promoting his anti-Christ ideals. It's one thing to give fair warning to people as to what is giong on so that they can take appropriate precautions, but to go about acting as if there is nothing wrong with it is another thing and an insult to Christian principals. Why is he allowed to continue to do this over and over again until this whole place is polluted with his promotions of anti-Christ garbage as if there is nothing sinful about it? :-?
Wow. Your Bible promotes polygamy and defines marriage as the union of one man and one or more women and yet you say that is an idea for hell? How you defame your deity....Relic said:
You misunderstand scripture. God did bless many polygamous relationships. You can see a clear example of this when God helps Jacob produce children from his two wives in Genesis 29 and 30.
Since there was pretty much the death penality for going against God wishes (like worshiping other gods, homosexuality, working on Saturday) it was pretty clear that if God didn't kill you for something, then he accepted it (not blessed it).
Deuteronomy 17:14-20 is only addressed to kings for one. It means that a king should not have a great many wives (as opposed to monogamy). You can see this because a king should not have a multitude of horses either (from the same passage). However, we would not think a king should be kept to one horse. So it means a king can have several wives, just not too many.
Polygamy also brought many children that were blessed by God. I could list some of the bad things that happened to momogamous couples as well. That doesn't mean that monogamy is bad; it just means that life is not easy.
Do you want to go back to the time when marriage was just about changing the ownership of a woman and a woman could not get divorced without being destitute thereafter?
If people do not want me here, I will be happy to leave. My goal is not to cause strife but to debate and try to understand.
R
Rick W
Guest
Yes, God suffered polygamy in the OT but that was it. He tolerated it in the OT the same as He tolerated divorce in the NT (giving us an "out"). He doesn't want us to do either in the first place.
Where there was a polygamist relationship in the OT and God interacted with that man in the end that man wound up with one wife only or in some cases none at all. Where men follow after their own hearts you'll probably find polygamy practiced in their house but after repenting to follow after God that changes. Also where God calls a man blameless you'll see the relationship held is of one man and woman and not a polygamous one.
You must follow biblical accounts to their ends to find out what happened to those polygamous relationships. An account may begin with polygamy but it doesn't remain that way when men follow after God doing right in His eyes.
Where there was a polygamist relationship in the OT and God interacted with that man in the end that man wound up with one wife only or in some cases none at all. Where men follow after their own hearts you'll probably find polygamy practiced in their house but after repenting to follow after God that changes. Also where God calls a man blameless you'll see the relationship held is of one man and woman and not a polygamous one.
You must follow biblical accounts to their ends to find out what happened to those polygamous relationships. An account may begin with polygamy but it doesn't remain that way when men follow after God doing right in His eyes.
Is this a belief that you want God to be this way or do you have a verse that shows God condemning polygamy?PotLuck said:
Heh. All monogamous relationships also end the same way unless both partners die at the same time.
Anyway, do you think that God disapproved of King David, wise King Solomon, or Jacob in their marriage? If so, God did not show it and in fact blessed them. And God was very strick about whom you could have sex with. For example, David had six wives and numerous concubines, yet God punished David when he committed adultery by killing his son.
God clearly spelled out what he found acceptable and what he did not. If he didn't like it, he outlawed it. It just seems that Christians want for monogamy to be Biblical so they are trying to redefine the Old Testament to make it so.
Where men follow after their own hearts you'll probably find polygamy practiced in their house but after repenting to follow after God that changes. Also where God calls a man blameless you'll see the relationship held is of one man and woman and not a polygamous one.
You must follow biblical accounts to their ends to find out what happened to those polygamous relationships. An account may begin with polygamy but it doesn't remain that way when men follow after God doing right in His eyes.[/quote]
R
Rick W
Guest
Concerning David:
2Sa 20:3 And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.
I'll get to the others you mentioned when I get home from work. (4 to 12 shift)
2Sa 20:3 And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.
I'll get to the others you mentioned when I get home from work. (4 to 12 shift)
R
Rick W
Guest
BTW,
Quath, do you believe there is no biblical restriction of number or gender concerning sexual morality? Or are these issues, based on biblical text, left to one's personal choice?
Quath, do you believe there is no biblical restriction of number or gender concerning sexual morality? Or are these issues, based on biblical text, left to one's personal choice?
I believe there are restrictions on sexual morality, but not the same sexual morality that Christians have today.PotLuck said:
The OT seems to accept polygyny (multiple wives) but not polyandry(mulotiple husbands). Likewise, women could not have pre-maritial sex, but there were no such restrictions on men. You were expected to marry your brother's wife under certain circumstances (even if you were already married). If you raped a virgin, you had to marry her (even if you were married).
From all of this, it seems the Biblical concern was for determining the lineage of children. If you contolled the sexuality of women, you could determine this easier.
Our culture doesn't care about that as much and we gained a different set of sexual beliefs. We are not so freaked out by a women's menstral cycle. We wouldn't kill an animal that has sex with a human. We tend to believe in serial monogamy.
I am not sure if that was what you were asking.