Posted on 09/10/2011 8:10:42 PM PDT by LouAvul
...... reconcile themselves to Romans 1?
Rom 1:18-32 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness....24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature......27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet..... 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Granted, verse 32 is referring to the second death, viz. Judgment, but it's so obviously a condemnation of homosexuality it's hard to imagine how they ignore it.
“Christians who divorce and remarry...”
You are correct. Most divorce is sin. Though not unforgivable.
Christ is no rainbows and unicorns moderate, He is hard line G-Party all the way.
He explained to the establishment types of His day (Pharisees,etc.) that God never approved of divorce except in the case of a cheating spouse. Casual divorce was NOT revealed wisdom, but rather an earmark which Moses tolerated to appease the drifting base and Leftward lobbying ACLU (Always Clamoring for Levitical Unraveling).
Moses made more than one mistake in God’s eye. And despite all the incredible work and faith of Moses, God still punished him (no promised land). Kinda makes a fellow take stock, ya know.
God views adultery as analogous to idolatry. Leaving one’s primary love for another. Very bad. He does not like being dumped anymore than earthly spouses do.
Christ teaches on multiple levels. And we’d be wise to consider what He was teaching that day regarding, as He mentioned, the hardness of hearts.
Spiritual wanderers should not expect a letter of commendation from Him for thinking outside the tabernacle. But, without repentance, they might see divorce papers from God.
Of course, we’ve got the best Jewish Lawyer money can’t buy in Christ so we’ve always got a fighting chance. But He does not work on retainer.
Arrogance because you are refusing to call sin what God calls sin.
You are correct that God will judge each of us - and one of the things we will be judge for is our obedience to what is good, for we read: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness."
Did you catch that? God will judge us if we pretend that "evil" is "good." That is exactly what we do when we excuse and defend homosexual behavior.
If "getting along" with relatives is more important than standing for God's truth (and no, you are not required to be perpetually "in your face" with your gay relatives), then we will be judged for our failure to confess God's holy moral standards.
Question: whose opinion is most important to you: that of your gay relatives, or God? It is understandable to be afraid of what others might think of us if we stand for the truth. However, we do well to heed the warning of Jesus: "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels...”
Note that our Lord speaks of being ashamed of Him in the midst of an "adulterous and sinful generation." Let us not fail to give witness to the truth because we are afraid of what they might say or think about us.
Knock yourself out typing toots, I’m not reading another line of this KRAP!
“and does not justify one’s sin on the basis of being afflicted with a besetting temptation, and does not claim that one’s sin isn’t sin, much less try to claim that it is actually good.”
Precisely, I agree.
Based on Mark 10, all divorce and remarriage is a sin.
“...all divorce and remarriage is a sin.”
Matt 19:
“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,...”
Not much, really—no more than the robber or the adulterer. To the Pharisee, they’re all just examples of his spiritual superiority.
I implied repentance (sorry I didn’t write it clearly).
Many gays try to remain chaste, but “fall from grace” on and off again, just like alcoholics end up drinking again, or those of us with bad tempers lose it again.
But we repent our sins, give our lives again to Jesus, and continue to try to follow him.
Except the people who “commit adultery, lie, steal, and cheat” usually repent when they get the message and don’t hold “adultery, lie, steal, and cheat” parades.
MY general thought is that I couldn’t give the house as a space for some son of mine to bring his girlfriend to live in some room, if it was his wife, on the other hand, yes.
As far as the part about coveting my neighbor’s wife goes, frankly, I have had to rethink various media I have had, and sometimes realized that I couldn’t get myself to think the right things through their use, and shredded them, cut them up, or threw them away, because I ultimately had to make my own judgement call that they weren’t encouraging me to think the right thing, or do the right thing either.
Not exactly. It’s important that you look at the time, and the kinds of things Jesus was denouncing. Unless someone was being an unrepentant in adultery, this was understood, but some religious leaders at the time were getting divorced and remarried to younger women, for pretty frivolous reasons. Sorry, but if one isn’t doing divorce for the fact that someone is being stubbornly unrepentant about adultery, or there is a serious need to leave the spouse for abusing you and/or the children, divorce is wrong. Divorce, should be a last resort to marital problems, not a casual solution for a general fact that you don’t spontaneously live happily ever after.
See? So if you can interpret the work of Jesus as quoted in Mark in a way that makes sense to you in the modern era, then how can we be surprised when other people try to do the same with the teachings on homosexuality?
See? So if you can interpret the work of Jesus as quoted in Mark in a way that makes sense to you in the modern era, then how can we be surprised when other people try to do the same with the teachings on homosexuality?
I interpreted it in the context of Judaism in the 1st century, so the whole thing makes little sense.
There is a difference between how homosexuality is interpreted in the Bible versus it’s interpretation in culture.
Biblically, the Bible only is condemning of specific acts. If men were caught jamming their genitals or fists into the anus of another man or woman, that would be a condemning behavior. The behavior was separable from the person in the Biblical context.
I appreciate your efforts at making an analogy, but the real point is understanding things as they historically, and not modernly, were.
See? So if you can interpret the work of Jesus as quoted in Mark in a way that makes sense to you in the modern era, then how can we be surprised when other people try to do the same with the teachings on homosexuality?
I interpreted it in the context of Judaism in the 1st century, so the whole thing makes little sense.
There is a difference between how homosexuality is interpreted in the Bible versus it’s interpretation in culture.
Biblically, the Bible only is condemning of specific acts. If men were caught jamming their genitals or fists into the anus of another man or woman, that would be a condemning behavior. The behavior was separable from the person in the Biblical context.
I appreciate your efforts at making an analogy, but the real point is understanding things as they historically, and not modernly, were.
FREE SPEECH! Ever heard of that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.