Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 59

Thread: ****sexual marriage acceptable to God?

  1. #1
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default ****sexual marriage acceptable to God?

    Asdf, I guess it is alright with you if I consider you an apostate Christian. I mean, I should think that you should be able to present in the realm of ideas here on this board a Christian presentation of ****sexual acts being acceptable in God's site by Sacred Scripture and by the consistency of which Christendom has practiced since the Church began to the present. If you have the "truth" in regards to ****sexual marriages as sacramental, I would love to hear it.

  2. #2
    Austin Canes
    Guest

    Default So Be It.

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Asdf, I guess it is alright with you if I consider you an apostate Christian...
    I can't speak for adsf, but if you must consider those who disagree with you and your interpretation of the Bible, belief and faith to be apostate... then SO BE IT (by you).

    That happens enough in this world, and God (yes, the Creator) is and will be the final arbiter in all things.

  3. #3
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Correct. He is, and His will can be determined even now, by his revelation to the nation of Israel and through the testimony of his apostles and his Church throughout the ages in the Church's consistency on morals. It is not my own interpretation, that is the fundamental aspect of Protestantism. I, as a Catholic, hold to something greater than myself. The sacramental grace I recieve from the sacraments are only beneficial when my soul is in complete communion with the teachings of my Church. Those Catholics that are ill instructed, may receive the sacramental grace, but when properly catachized and instructed, any idea that one can approach Catholicism like a buffet line and pick and choose those aspects they want to agree or disagree on is a bad Catholic that needs to confess to the priest or just leave the Church to graze with the other Protestants.

    At any rate Austin, I wish you well. I do not have a lot of time left before I become active duty. If you absolutely feel it necessary to divert from the OP and go on a t-i-t-for-tat, I'll give you the last word, I will not answer you unless it reflects some substance to answering the intentions of the original post. Besides, I am going to have the last word anyways, just not in the forum. I'm taking my last word to Him in hopes that while I am away for a year that I can expect great things from you. May you have an enjoyable anomie that will lead you into a fuller understanding, blessings, and fruitful relationship with the Lord Jesus.

  4. #4
    Austin Canes
    Guest

    Default Thanks for the Intellectual Exchanges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Correct. He is, and His will can be determined even now, by his revelation to the nation of Israel and through the testimony of his apostles and his Church throughout the ages in the Church's consistency on morals. It is not my own interpretation, that is the fundamental aspect of Protestantism. I, as a Catholic, hold to something greater than myself. The sacramental grace I recieve from the sacraments are only beneficial when my soul is in complete communion with the teachings of my Church. Those Catholics that are ill instructed, may receive the sacramental grace, but when properly catachized and instructed, any idea that one can approach Catholicism like a buffet line and pick and choose those aspects they want to agree or disagree on is a bad Catholic that needs to confess to the priest or just leave the Church to graze with the other Protestants.

    At any rate Austin, I wish you well. I do not have a lot of time left before I become active duty. If you absolutely feel it necessary to divert from the OP and go on a t-i-t-for-tat, I'll give you the last word, I will not answer you unless it reflects some substance to answering the intentions of the original post. Besides, I am going to have the last word anyways, just not in the forum. I'm taking my last word to Him in hopes that while I am away for a year that I can expect great things from you. May you have an enjoyable anomie that will lead you into a fuller understanding, blessings, and fruitful relationship with the Lord Jesus.
    Peace and grace to you Columcille [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost.gif[/IMG]. Stay safe, and thank you for your service.
    Last edited by Austin Canes; 12-10-2009 at 04:06 AM. Reason: grammar corrected

  5. #5
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    Asdf, I guess it is alright with you if I consider you an apostate Christian. I mean, I should think that you should be able to present in the realm of ideas here on this board a Christian presentation of ****sexual acts being acceptable in God's site by Sacred Scripture and by the consistency of which Christendom has practiced since the Church began to the present. If you have the "truth" in regards to ****sexual marriages as sacramental, I would love to hear it.
    Hi Columcille,

    I'm sorry I never took the time to methodically make my case for why it is my belief that the Church should put its blessing on committed, monogamous, faithful, lifelong covenantal same-sex relationships (whether or not the Church wants to give that the label "marriage"), based on my foundation in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience).

    It doesn't look like that will be able to happen prior to your departure, but I'd still like to get back to that eventually.

    You may be interested in a series of articles by a Presbyterian minister called "Not a Sin". He goes through the various sources of influence to both "sides" to the issue. I consider it among the best overviews I've seen, and my forthcoming apologia for same-sex relationships would be along these lines. Here's the index/introduction:
    Behind all the arguments about ordination and marriage lies the basic argument over whether or not ****sexuality is a sin.

    It is not.

    In this series of articles I will deal in a brief way with the variety of sources usually employed to make a case one way or another. I will ultimately suggest that the best way of determining what is sinful is careful moral reasoning, and I will point out that the dominant modes of moral reasoning on the right - divine command (a kind of deontology), and natural law (another kind of deonotology), are faulty.

    Here is a taste of what's to come:

    The Bible
    Conservatives insist the primary source for arguing that ****sexuality is a sin is the Bible. Every relevant p***age has been carefully disected and ****yzed by people on both sides. I will not rehash that work, but I will point out some big problems with using the Bible as a primary source for moral reasoning. In fact, I contend that our values have little to do with what scripture says, that moral reasoning and value judgments always precede our reception of scripture and claiming the Bible as a source, rather than a support is a lie.

    Aesthetics
    One example of value judgments prior to input from supports like the Bible, is our personal reaction of enjoyment or distaste upon encountering ****sexuals. Look at the picture at the top of this article. How does it make you feel? Aesthetics have a huge impact, whether we admit it or not, on our moral judgments. This isn't all bad. It is a good thing for people to be sensitive to violence - to naturally and instantaneously abhor it. But these primitive, instinctual reactions are far from perfect, and they need to be ****yzed. Aesthetic values are certainly no replacement for conscientious moral reasoning.

    Biology
    Evidence is growing that ****sexuality is biologically conditioned. This is one topic which usually gets brought up by progressives to argue that ****sexuality is not a sin. It is indeed relevant, but it is far from a slam dunk. It is not as simple as eye-color, nor as neutral. A genetic predisposition for same-gender attraction doesn't automatically make ****sexual relationships morally neutral. Biology is an important counterbalance to natural law arguments, however.

    Natural Law
    One of the most popular arguments for deeming ****sexuality sinful can be summed up in the catchy slogan, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Complementarianism ***erts that because *****es fit into ******s they should always and only be used that way. I admit that it is difficult for me to treat these arguments with seriousness because they are so shabby, but I will do my best to fairly point out why Natural Law is a horrible mode for approaching the topic of sin or human sexuality, or almost anything.

    Teleology
    Does ****sexuality harm anyone? That ought to be a defining question in the debate, yet it is rarely addressed, and when it is the answers given are so poor I am apalled. A partner question is, does ****sexuality benefit anyone? Are there positive or negative consequences to ****sexual relationships? Can ****sexual relationships even be differentiated in their consequences from heterosexual ones?

    Virtue
    What kind of person does one become by accepting and living out a ****sexual iden***y? Is there evidence in the lives of ****sexuals that ****sexuality impacts the development of virtue in any way? When we have gotten here we are really beginning to consider matters that will help us show why ****sexuality is not a sin.

    Gay Culture
    As a sort of appendix to the main subject I will briefly put down some thoughts on "gay culture". What is it? What is good about it? What isn't? I venture into this area with some hesitance because I am not an insider to the gay community, but I feel like I can say some relevant, respectful things.
    In any case, shalom and all good to you as you leave for active duty. Thank you for your service, stay safe, and may YHWH bless and keep you.

  6. #6
    archaeologist
    Guest

    Default

    to answer the question: no it isn't.

    to pose another question: is ****sexual marriage a threat to hetrosexual unions?

    let's see your answers.

  7. #7
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    ****sexual marriage isn't a threat to anybody or anything. If you feel threatened by ****sexual marriage, well, you're an *****. There really is no other way to say it.

  8. #8
    archaeologist
    Guest

    Default

    ****sexual marriage isn't a threat to anybody or anything. If you feel threatened by ****sexual marriage, well, you're an *****. There really is no other way to say it.
    now that was just rude and uncalled for but it provides a prime example of why ****sexuals should not be granted the right to marry.

    they are acting like spoiled people who want something they cannot have--normality. they are not normal, and go against what God has declared to be right.

    they seek legitimacy when their actions, desires, and at***ude are not legitimate. yes they are human BUT they do not get to have their cake and eat it too. if they want to participate in abnormal acts and desires then they cannot demand to participate or have granted to them those rewards which come with normalicy.

  9. #9
    archaeologist
    Guest

    Default

    clearly you are not a person one can have an educated discourse so i will ignore you from now on.

    suffie it to say, humans are not animals and because animals do it doesn't mean it is correct or a normal human behavior.

  10. #10
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Oh I am more than capable of having an educated discourse. However your blatant ignorance calls for neither courtesy nor respect.

    Humans are indeed animals. If you don't know that you need to go back to school.

    You still have yet to define "normal"....

  11. #11
    archaeologist
    Guest

    Default

    sorry i won't be continuing any conversation with you as you are too rude, too antagonistic, too flaming and resort to insults and abuse to make your responses.

    for everyone else:

    God does not change, what was an abomination to him in the old testament, was an abomination to him in th enew and is still an abomination to him today. ****sexual marriage is NOT acceptable to God nor his the ****sexual lifestyle.

  12. #12
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    LOL! The last resort of someone who knows they have been beaten but won't admit it; make stuff up.

    My last post was more cordial than you deserve.

    For the THIRD time you fail to define what "normal" is.

    Do you plan on backing your position up or are you just going to use more lame excuses to avoid finding out just how wrong you are?

  13. #13
    Bat-Man
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post
    Humans are indeed animals. If you don't know that you need to go back to school.
    Just because some people in some schools teach that humans are animals doesn't mean that what they are teaching is true, IR.

    You've been conditioned to believe whatever you believe, whether you realize that or not.

    ... Heh, heh, and the really funny thing is that you think you are God.

  14. #14
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Humans are animals, we just happen to be the most intelligent animals. You can try and deny it all you want but it doesn't change the fact that we are indeed animals.

    And I am God, I am my God. What is really funny is that you are weak and pathetic and have to surrender yourself to a imaginary being because you are unable to take control of your own life.

  15. #15
    Administrator Jill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post
    And I am God, I am my God. What is really funny is that you are weak and pathetic and have to surrender yourself to a imaginary being because you are unable to take control of your own life.
    Oh please, IR, that whole line is so old--and so is the "weak and pathetic" thing. LaVey wore it out. Knock off the personal attacks.

    And btw it sounds like your "god" is having a bad day. The most pathetic thing of all is when humans made of clay exalt themselves to godhood. Kind of like an ant walking around calling itself a lion. Oh but wait, that's right, it all began with a creation trying to be God:

    "How you are fallen from heaven,
    O Lucifer, son of the morning!
    How you are cut down to the ground,
    You who weakened the nations!
    For you have said in your heart:
    'I will ascend into heaven,
    I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
    I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
    On the farthest sides of the north;
    I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
    I will be like the Most High.' Isa 14:12-14

    Say and do what your god likes, IR, but one day, you will bow to Jesus Christ...

    "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,
    that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord
    ,
    to the glory of God the Father." Phil 2:9-11
    How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God. 1 John 3:1

  16. #16
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Old and worn out?

    And what of your faith? That is even older, not to mention more worn out and, dare I say, obsolete? Yes, I think obsolete is an appropriate word.

    How is that log in your eye doing?

    I am not made of clay, neither or you or any living thing on this planet. Pottery is made out of clay, I am made out of flesh and blood and bones etc.

    I will bow to no one - especially a fictional character.

  17. #17
    archaeologist
    Guest

    Default

    Old and worn out?

    And what of your faith? That is even older, not to mention more worn out and, dare I say, obsolete? Yes, I think obsolete is an appropriate word.

    How is that log in your eye doing?

    I am not made of clay, neither or you or any living thing on this planet. Pottery is made out of clay, I am made out of flesh and blood and bones etc.

    I will bow to no one - especially a fictional character.
    ...SIGGGGGGHHHHHH...!!! is there no intelligent life on internet forums?

  18. #18
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    So thinking that people are made out of clay and believing in the existence of something despite any proof is intelligent? That seems like the opposite of intelligence to me.

    I see that you still have yet to define "normal". Instead of backing up what you have to say you retort with that lame comment. You truly are a waste of oxygen.

  19. #19
    archaeologist
    Guest

    Default

    for everyone else:

    God does not change, what was an abomination to him in the old testament, was an abomination to him in th enew and is still an abomination to him today. ****sexual marriage is NOT acceptable to God nor his the ****sexual lifestyle.

  20. #20
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post
    ****sexual marriage isn't a threat to anybody or anything. If you feel threatened by ****sexual marriage, well, you're an *****. There really is no other way to say it.
    It is a threat to the stability of the family. ****sexual marriage is an offense to which all children born should benefit from the stability of a heterosexual union ordained by God. The fact that Inciting Riots cannot see its corrosive effects on the family life only goes to show you the fact that we are engaged in a culture war. To love IncitingRiots means to bless him, despite his cursing us; to pray for him, despite his desires that stem from bitterness. So IncitingRiots, you are a testimony for us. I thank you for the opportunity that I can pray for you, and I hope God blesses you with the joy of his presence. May you one day become like St. Paul, whom as Saul gladly persecuted and lead many Christians to a holy and blessed martyr's death.

  21. #21
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Care to elaborate on how exactly it is a threat to the stability of the family? There is nothing that proves that ****sexual relationships are any more "stable" than heterosexual relationships. Just look at the divorce rates, the number of single parents out there etc. And what about ****sexual couples that do not want children; are they too a threat to the stability of the family?

    You are welcome for the opportunity to pray for me. I suggest doing something more constructive. Go for a jog, build something, curl up in bed with a good book, organize the garage - just do something. However, if you must pray for someone, here's an idea: Instead of praying for me, get a phone book, pick out a random name and pray for that person.

  22. #22
    archaeologist
    Guest

    Default

    in one aspect i do not see ****sexual marriage as a threat to the ins***ution of marriage simply because no one is outlawing hetrosexual marriage nor saying that one can only be a ****sexual if they want to get married.

    BUT believers in Jesus CANNOT legitimize, give permission, nor advocate sin nor can they support sin which is exactly what ****sexual marriage is. it is sin and it is wrong. it would be ludicrious to eventhink that christians would accept such a sinful practice or even turn a blind eye to it.

    of course ****sexual marriage is NOT acceptable to God, why would it be? He has called it an abomination and the act of two ****sexuals getting married does not grant sinless status, like hetrosexual sex, upon the union.

    it is sin whether they marry or not; it is an abomination whether they marry or not.

  23. #23
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post
    Care to elaborate on how exactly it is a threat to the stability of the family? There is nothing that proves that ****sexual relationships are any more "stable" than heterosexual relationships. Just look at the divorce rates, the number of single parents out there etc. And what about ****sexual couples that do not want children; are they too a threat to the stability of the family?

    You are welcome for the opportunity to pray for me. I suggest doing something more constructive. Go for a jog, build something, curl up in bed with a good book, organize the garage - just do something. However, if you must pray for someone, here's an idea: Instead of praying for me, get a phone book, pick out a random name and pray for that person.
    Inciting Riots, a family, in the growth and stability of a society rests in both a husband, wife, and children. A married couple is not a family. We do out of respect sometimes talk about extended family, such as friends, but it is not the same thing. Every person may be a member of a family, but that does not mean they have their own as a parent. Society therefore recognizes heterosexual marriages across universal boundaries to be the necessary tradition that maintains the respect, and stability for its own survival. ****sexuality seeks to mimic what it cannot produce, hence it breaks down the traditional role of "family." It is a dysfunction, a quirk. The fact that marriages are not maintaining its sanc***y is a part and parcel of the culture war from the side at which you wage. The principles from which you seek to encourage ****sexual unions is an***hetical to healthy family stability, which not only includes the heterosexual marriage, but the family unit itself. Family use to mean something where the respect for parents by the children produced selfless and noble characteristics. You are in essense the product of the indoctrination of educators that have produced as Lewis claims in the "Abolition of Man" such "men without chests."

    As far as my praying for you, I am a firm believer in prayer. The intention of the heart of a person crying out to their maker is a sign of respect. God knows the needs of every individual, but we are his hands and his feet. As such, praying for people in a phone book without encountering them is impersonal. We have some dialogue here to make it much more personal. Since you commented on my prayer intentions for you, it indicates to me a spiritual reality that prayer is effective. I have never turned down prayer from anyone, even when I personally doubted my faith: I figured even in my doubt, that if there is no god listening, it is a waste of time telling others not to pray for me or trying to persuade them not to pray for me for as many reasons as the one you just gave. You don't like people praying for you, probably makes you feel uncomfortable at the thought, I submit such uncomfort is a byproduct of something you understand unconsciously, but cannot pinpoint rationally. Why make all the fuss otherwise? Ignoring it would have been the most rational decision.

  24. #24
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    After reading all those pla***udes I still see nothing that backs up your ***ertion that ****sexual marriages are a "threat" of any kind to anything.

    The principles from which you seek to encourage ****sexual unions is an***hetical to healthy family stability, which not only includes the heterosexual marriage, but the family unit itself.
    Really? I must now ask you to tell me from which principles am I arguing. I think I know where I am coming from better than you do. The fact remains is there is no reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. You Christians (or any other people of faith) have no right to legislate your "morality" on the rest of the world. EVERYONE has the right to love and be loved and EVERYONE has the right to express that love by getting married as long as the marriage is between two consenting adults. If to guys, or two girls want to get married it doesn't affect you at all so just leave them alone. You bigots make me sick to my stomach. Seig Heil!

  25. #25
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post

    Really? I must now ask you to tell me from which principles am I arguing. I think I know where I am coming from better than you do. The fact remains is there is no reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. You Christians (or any other people of faith) have no right to legislate your "morality" on the rest of the world. EVERYONE has the right to love and be loved and EVERYONE has the right to express that love by getting married as long as the marriage is between two consenting adults. If to guys, or two girls want to get married it doesn't affect you at all so just leave them alone. You bigots make me sick to my stomach. Seig Heil!
    I like the way you throw the word "love" so nonchalently. Must be a mantra or cliche by now. In the culture war that you wage, if you were in agreement with the Christian on this of what actually cons***utes a "family unit" and the roles and responsibilities expected, then there would be no need address the side you are on. You are against the Christian and those nonChristians that do not approve of ****sexual marriages, hence your arguments are naturally condescending. Would you please describe to me the natural boundaries of what cons***utes a "family unit?" I think it clear that a family unit involves mother, father, and children. ****sexual unions rob children from other families to engage in ****sexual acts. ****sexual partners can not ever create the family unit, two fathers and children or two mothers and children are not a family unit, they only hope to mimic it since the love cannot ever generate children of their own. Therefore, heterosexual marriages, whether they generate their own children or not, at least have the capacity in adoption to generate a real family as a mother, father, and children is capable. To me the ultimate goal of ****sexual lobbying is not the ****sexual marriage, but the adoption issue. They must first gain legal marriage status if they are to further their cause to appear "normal" in context of a "family unit."

Posting Permissions

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