Posted on 04/25/2015 5:26:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
Rev 21:7-8 touches upon the issue doctrinally.
Review Romans Chapter 1, 1Cor 6:9-13, Col 3:5-10.
Don’t become too preoccupied with the particular sin. That will tempt one towards legalism instead of remaining in faith in Christ and what He provides. Instead, consider why these particular types of sins are grouped together with general consequences.
Also redirect your thinking from a legalist perspective of sin, towards understanding God has a Plan for each and every person and ANYTHING, good or evil, NOT in that particular Plan for us at the right time and place, also falls in the category of sin or ‘Missing the Mark/Target’.
Sexual immorality is obviously sinful, but not all sins are immoral. Many things are permitted, but not all things are expedient.
Same passage in 1Cor 6:9,..12
1Co 6:12
(12) All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
While personal sins are an issue in human life, because they attack human freedom and human relationships, personal sin is not an issue in salvation or the last judgment.
The emphasis is upon our freedom and righteousness.
Sin is anything that is unrighteous. Nothing God does is unrighteous. By definition, He is righteousness. When He provides us our gender/sex, it is part of His Plan. If we attempt to go against that Plan, we merely create more problems than we perceive are present. If we are His, He disciplines us. From Rom 1, some who were given the opportunity to come to Him, instead reject Him, and He even turns them over to their own vile affections and their consequences.
Indeed. It seems that same-sex marriage is proposed to be a civil right on the same footing as interracial marriage, a/k/a miscegenation, which until fairly recently was "illegal" in many states. The conclusion we are supposed to draw from this: One cannot be held responsible for the way one was born; i.e., for one's gender or race. Equal justice/civil rights, therefore, have to be blind to such considerations.
Thus the argument that one cannot be held responsible for an accident of birth relating to gender, any more than one can be held responsible for being born black. But this line of reasoning seems specious to me. Race and gender are not equivalent — especially when "gender" is being self-defined; i.e., is therefore not a purely natural fact.
To put it another way, a black man is not the one who gets to decide whether he's black.
It has been noted that "freedom from responsibility [is] the most highly valued freedom of all" [Theodore Dalrymple, a frequent contributor to National Review and a psychiatrist, in his book Admirable Evasions.]
The "born with it" argument is premised in the attempt to assert the moral equivalency of apples and oranges....
Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
Thank you so much for writing dearest sister in Christ — and for your kind words of support.
The “born with it” argument is premised in the attempt to assert the moral equivalency of apples and oranges....
It’s true some idiots are indeed born idiots.....
BUT they can choose to become less of an idiot... or more..
Being human is all about choice....
Some men can act like women, some are good at it..
Some women can act like men, few are good at it..
What you do with your groin is also a choice...
Reality can care less what you choose...
What is..... “IS”.... What isn’t....... “ISN’T”...
***
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.