The definition of marriage is the question then!

Mans legal documented and licensed, or what I believe, gods definition of marriage, "the heart?"

Mans marriage is Intended to satisfy the legalities of two people sharing a life and to ensure that if the marriage fails by divorce or death that the other gets their fair share of the investment!

God does not include divorce, it is wrong. He is very specific about that and we are taught to make sure we know the difference between Love and Lust. This should eliminate the need for divorce.

Still, death is something that happens, and should not leave a surviving spouse without a means of support!

Thus we are forced to mix gods definition of marriage with a man made law! Unfortunate, but legally necessary!

We should however never mistake the difference in our hearts!

I do not understand the debate between Homosexual relationships and the bibles teachings. The bible is very clear on what it deems corrects. There is no debate, you cannot change what god has taught just because it suits the individual.

If you think he is wrong then denounce the bible, and go on with the battle against Mans law. Isnt that the goal of the gay and lesbian communitee? To ensure that your spouse gets equal legal treatment?

Debateing religion will not get you there, debate the law!! In this country majority rules, it is not productive to attack "ORGANIZED" religion! (the keyword here is organized)

E. Personal sin

1. Definition: Personal sin is any thought or attitude, act or failure to act, that violates God’s standard of perfect holiness.

2. Scripture

- James 3:2 “We all stumble in many ways”

- Romans 3:23 “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

3. Penalty. The unbeliever’s sins prevent him from having fellowship (a personal relationship) with God until he is saved. The believer as well loses the enjoyment of fellowship with God when he lives with sins unconfessed (1 John 1:9). Note: Personal sins are obviously related to inherited sin and imputed sin. Personal sins are the visible and “knowable” expression of our inherited sin nature and imputed sin. Personal sins are how a person knows he has a sin problem.

F. The Remedies for sin (see also next section “Salvation”)

-------------------

very interesting page


http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=398

Robin wrote:
“Intense or unrestrained sexual craving”

Well, then lust is a good thing at times right?

I mean, if the condition was chronic it would be on obsession, and any obsession isn’t good.

But if it’s accompanied by spontaneous love making that erupts in orgasmic explosions of heavenly ecstasy,…

Well, there you have it,…, if it was ‘heavenly” it can’t be bad.

I love to lust and be lusted after.

Unfortunately my cat isn’t into that.

from magic man

Robin wrote:
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5:28)."

Very true Robin. But what does "lustfully" actually mean????

-----------------

so splain lucy splain

in best lucy voice

oooopppppssss


i meant ricky recardo voice

If I accidentally gave myself a tummy ache by unintentionally eating too many frozen chocolate chips am I guilty of the sin of gluttony or is it just a petulant inner child run amok?

It is all so confusing ... spinning in circles ... do I take myself to time out or go straight to the hell line?



My apologies James .. I am having difficulty taking this too seriously today .... but the tummy ache and too many chocolate chips is an unfortunate true story...

if your inner being

is not telling you it is wrong

then for you

it is not wrong

sin is knowing it is wrong and doing it anyway

unless it is inherited sin then you are stuck with it

such as the sin of adam and the punishment being death
we all get to deal with that one

Sherrie wrote:
“If I accidentally gave myself a tummy ache by unintentionally eating too many frozen chocolate chips am I guilty of the sin of gluttony or is it just a petulant inner child run amok?”

I don’t know, Jess isn’t here so we’ll have to run this through the Wizard of Oz.

I’ll see if I can find Toto.

Try clicking your shoes together!

At best it might call up the Vanilla Witch of the West.

At worst it will at least work off a few of those superfluous calories.

***looks for her red shoes ***

Sin is action, intent, and more. IMO, sin is doing whatever goes against God's word whether it is adultry, greed, stealing, lying, etc. God has given us His commandments to follow. When we do sin, we also have God's grace and promise of forgiveness when we repent.

Redy said: (edited for brevity)

"Sun 11/11/07 07:41 PM
Eljay
=========================================================
All you have described is that action can be a physical property as well as a mental one. This is the reason why Hebrew men were required to study their scriptures, their laws, and to pray and meditate on the Lord, any time their mind and body were not absorbed in ‘right actions’. To prevent the mind from ‘wondering’.

Obviously, this is not something new. But it does make one wonder; how can two people dating, with the intention of a possible marriage, stop their minds and bodies from acting/reacting to the emotions of love? And why, how, can any god interpret this as sinful, when it is obviously a natural endowment, that was included in the parameters of our making by that same creator? I don't think most Christians would view that kind of emotion, even passion, that is based on the 'right'(right reasons) actions of love

>>> From the time of the writing of Genesis 2:24 (the leaving and cleaving passage) - until the references to "fornication and adultery" of the New Testament - the "interpretation" of marriage and sex outside of it is essentially interpretive, often labelled as sin by sighting specific passages depending upon the circumstance being defined. However - throughout the Old Testament there are obvious references to multiple marriages - with wives and concubines. However there's no reference to there being a point where it is said "This doesn't apply any more - you can now only have one husband or one wife." So - the question remains - is marriage a ceremony - or the consumation of physical love between two people? It is essentially a question which can be reasoned through the scriptures (though I have not done this myself) but more often than not - the question is rationalized. <<<



I’m not sure what you were trying to argue, but what you have succeeded in doing is opening another can or worms. God said be fruitful and multiply, but somewhere between that statement and the New Testament, terms were defined to indicate plurality of partners was no longer pleasing to God. Isn’t that when ‘marriage’ became a bond, a ‘license’ to have sex?

>>> The point that it is quite possible that sex within a marriage can be sinful. It is not uncommon to have lustful thoughts - even towards a spouse, and there are numerous circumstances of spousal rape. Therefore Abra was assuming an invalid premise and staing it as truth. <<<


Abra Said:
================================================================
If a same-gender relationship is a loving relationship of the best INTENT then it can’t be a sin.

The Bible has clearly shown us via the institution of marriage that sin is INTENT and not the ACT.
===============================================================
To which Eljy responds with a look of “NO WAY”.

>>> I'm sure it would not be too difficult for anyone - believer or not, to come up with an "action" that is sinful. By Abra's logic, murder would not be a sin. <<<

So according to your very definition of sin – it is any physical or mental act that is ‘intentionally’ carried on. Every Christian knows that lustful thought is a sin, so to have any such thoughts must be intentional, as the sin is understood and should be avoided.

>>> No - an unintential act can also be a sin. Just because one believe's that their actions have good intentions, doesn not necessarily make them so. <<<<

However, for heterosexuals and for homosexuals there is no intent to sin, there is simply the same ‘emotional’ as well as ‘sexual’ responses to a possible life long partner, therefore, in accordance with how Christians would view this natural reaction, there is no sin committed as the actions were taken with an innocent 'right' intent.

>>> Were actions with only "bad intentions" the definition of sin, this would be true. But since it is not necessarily so - it is not summarily true that your statement has valid premises to support it. <<<

To create a loving bond for a life long partnership has no intent to sin, therefore, no sin conceived, no sin intended, no action that goes against the ‘normal’ uncontrollable actions of our being.

>>> And I'm sure that every single marriage falls into the catagory. At least until the honeymoon is over. However - these days the divorce rate is over 50 per cent. Kind of makes your statement more hypothetical than actual. <<<

Eljay said:
"">>> And I'm sure that every single marriage falls into the catagory. At least until the honeymoon is over. However - these days the divorce rate is over 50 per cent. Kind of makes your statement more hypothetical than actual. <<< ""

What is obviously NOT hypothetical is Christians are included in that statistic. For those, and I would bet money there are alot, who go on to have physical relations with others, and even to re-marry they will live the rest of their lives in sin.

There are three things I don't understand about that senario.
The first is why are those Christians allowed to be re-married, in a church by a pator, minister, or priest, when clearly doing is not only accepting the sin of the divorced, and the sin of adultery, and then committin a sin by illegally (according to God) binding the sinner once again in marriage.

The second is that while the first is passed off like a fly near you food, the GLBT rarely even welcome in a church when they attend with their partner.

The last thing, is why are heterosexuals allowed so much more leaway for thier 'intentional' sinful actions. Why are those who divorce not told they MUST remain celebate for the rest of their lives or until the 'divorced' spouse dies? It would seem only RIGHT of the church to ask the same thing of heterosexuals as it does of gays and lesbians.

If every church and their dogma, judged the sin and sentanced the sinner exactly the same way, then perhaps those Christians who take offence at being placed under the label, would be more content to be considered "Christian" in any conversation.

Eljay wrote:
“>>> The point that it is quite possible that sex within a marriage can be sinful. It is not uncommon to have lustful thoughts - even towards a spouse, and there are numerous circumstances of spousal rape. Therefore Abra was assuming an invalid premise and staing it as truth. <<<”

It’s untrue that I was assuming an invalid premise to start with as truth. I was assuming the perfect hypothetical. You’re just tossing in more CONTEXTUAL conditions that aren’t considered to be part of a NORMAL marriage!

So I didn’t NOT start off with an invalid premise. You just took the perfect hypothetical and contaminated with more CONTEXTUAL motivations. If anything your comments here serve to do nothing more than back up my original hypothesis that sin is indeed CONTEXTUAL.

All you’ve done is shown that even though God himself says that sex is not a sin within marriage even THAT is not an absolutely and can be violated by CONTEXT. So you’ve just SUPPORTED my position that sin is CONTEXTUAL even more.

You’re attempt to belittle my logic only back-fired here.

Eljay wrote:
“By Abra's logic, murder would not be a sin.”

How so? Can you give me a CONTEXT in which MURDER would be justified?

We often allow self-defense to be justification for killing someone. However, then we don’t call it “murder”. Moreover, self-defense would be CONTEXTUAL.

Eljay wrote:
“>>> No - an unintential act can also be a sin. Just because one believe's that their actions have good intentions, doesn not necessarily make them so. <<<<”

I must completely disagree with this.

The whole idea of “sin” is to disobey God. Therefore if you do something that you BELIEVE to be God’s will then in spirit you have not committed a ‘sin’ even if that action might seemingly be construed to be a sin by other people. Sin is WILLFUL disobedience of God. If you did something that might be construed as a sin either unknowingly or by accident, then it cannot be considered to be a sin by God’s very definition of sin. Willful disobedience.

Eljay wrote:
“>>> Were actions with only "bad intentions" the definition of sin, this would be true. But since it is not necessarily so - it is not summarily true that your statement has valid premises to support it. <<<”

But “bad intentions” IS the definition of sin! Sin is WILLFUL disobedience of God!!!

If a person sincerely doesn’t believe that being Gay is against God’s will then being Gay is NOT a sin for them. It’s NOT in any of God’s direct commandments and all references to same-gender sex in the Bible are highly questionable as there are usually other things going on at the same time and it’s unclear whether God was unpleased with the act of homosexuality, or the CONTEXT in which those acts were being performed.

Eljay wrote:
>>> And I'm sure that every single marriage falls into the catagory. At least until the honeymoon is over. However - these days the divorce rate is over 50 per cent. Kind of makes your statement more hypothetical than actual. <<<

Dianna wrote:
”What is obviously NOT hypothetical is Christians are included in that statistic.”

In today’s social climate marriage is almost meaningless for the masses. And this is precisely why my original ‘proof’ demands Biblical ‘perfection’. Almost nothing in the Bible is applicable to today’s world. In other words, the very institution of marriage has become so hollow and insincere as to not even be applicable to God’s original meaning of the term.

By biblical standards everyone today is willfully disobeying the biblical God. Let’s face it, the vast majority of Christians genuinely don’t believe that God exists. Even those who go to church every week and pray all the time. They can’t seriously believe that the Biblical God actually exists and still behave the way they do. They just go through the motions hoping for the Gift of eternal life, but they don’t really believe in the biblical God.

Let’s face the truth here. The biblical God is an almost impossible fantasy to take seriously in today’s enlightened world.

Like Dianna pointed out, Christians have no less rate of divorce, adultery, and other 'acts' of that they consider to be 'sins' than anyone else.

So much for the "power of belief". Obviously the vast majority of them genuinely DON'T BELIEVE in their religion anyway!

Abracadabra,

==============================================================
So much for the "power of belief". Obviously the vast majority of them genuinely DON'T BELIEVE in their religion anyway!
==============================================================

I don't know if I would say "vast majority", but the Jesus said the same thing 2000 years ago...

Matthew 7:22-23
==============================================================
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
==============================================================

Matthew 7:22-23
==============================================================
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
==============================================================

Thank you for posting this Spider.

This certainly seems to go in-line with what Wouldee is saying about whether or not it’s important to be a Christian.

What Matthew seems to be saying here is that Jesus implied that there will be many people who will claim to have done things in his name, but Jesus will reject them because, although they worshiped in his name, they never actually knew him. In other words, Jesus will be rejecting a lot of Christians.

On the other hand, many non-Christians who never attribute the Holy Spirit to Jesus may well know Jesus better than those who claim to be worshiping him in his name.

So, to me, this is actually confirming that how you know the Holy Spirit is unimportant. All that is really important is that you genuinely know the Holy Spirit, and that can be achieved in a multitude of ways and is not restricted to only the biblical accounts of Jesus or the gospels.

This is the essence of the message that we need to fully understand and foster.

Abracadabra,

The first rule in reading the Bible is to never add and never take away. Everytime you discuss the Bible, you add in your own world view, which makes almost anything you say about the Bible false.

Abracadabra said...
==============================================================
On the other hand, many non-Christians who never attribute the Holy Spirit to Jesus may well know Jesus better than those who claim to be worshiping him in his name.
==============================================================

How can someone not know Jesus, but know Jesus?

John 14:6
==============================================================
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
==============================================================

Spider wrote:
“The first rule in reading the Bible is to never add and never take away.”

That may be your rule. It’s not mine.

Spider worte:
“Everytime you discuss the Bible, you add in your own world view, which makes almost anything you say about the Bible false.”

And you don’t????

Spider wrote:
“How can someone not know Jesus, but know Jesus?

John 14:6
==============================================================”
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
==============================================================

I have no problem with this. When Jesus said that no one comes to the father except through me, he didn’t mean through the mortal man named Jesus, he meant through the Holy Spirit which he was.

If you sincerely believe that Jesus was indeed the Holy Spirit then you need to stop thinking of him in terms of an individual man and begin to realize that he was indeed the Holy Spirit speaking through the man named Jesus.

Abracadabra,

===============================================================
That may be your rule. It’s not mine.
===============================================================

Then you use a completely invalid and unscholarly approach to studing the Bible. How can you interpret the Bible by adding in your own beliefs and the beliefs of other religions? You can't, what you will end up with is a contradictory and convoluted set of beliefs.

===============================================================
And you don’t????
===============================================================

No, I don't. I go by the written word. You mourn the fact that some Christians believe the Bible is completely true and accurate, so you already know that some Christians think this way.

===============================================================
If you sincerely believe that Jesus was indeed the Holy Spirit
===============================================================

I don't believe that. I have never met a Christian who does. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus is the son, not the Holy Spirit.

Spider wrote:
"I don't believe that. I have never met a Christian who does. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus is the son, not the Holy Spirit."

This makes absolutely no sense to me at all. If it makes sense to you more power to you!

Spider worte:
“Everytime you discuss the Bible, you add in your own world view, which makes almost anything you say about the Bible false.”

I would like to expand on this further because I completely disagree with your view here.

It is my belief that God ‘wrote’ the universe. In other words, we are living in God’s creation. Our experience in this life and our ‘world view’ is indeed very much a part of God’s creation. To reject reality in favor of any single book would be blasphemy in the highest degree as far as I am concerned.

If a book that was clearly written by men, says one thing, and I obverse God’s creation to be in contradiction to what they wrote in their book, then I have no choice but to accept God’s creation as the final word and denounce the authors of the book as having been mistaken.

To me, creation is as close to God as we can get. For me, the study of science is the study of God’s creation. The study of mathematics is the study of God’s mind. There is no better way to know God than to study God’s very creation and essence.

Anything stated in any book that flies in the face of God’s creation is necessarily wrong.

Of all the things that we can know, we can be sure that if God exists, then God is the author of the universe.

Of this there can be no doubt.

So your suggestion that our “world view” makes anything we say about the Bible false can only be a suggestion that the Bible is indeed false to begin with itself.

Spider:

To answer your question of how one can know Jesus but not know Jesus...

If one asks... with a pure heart and desire..."thirst",as it were... to know the love of our God and for God to pardon all of the wrong that the individual believes that he/she has done... no matter what one calls "God" the individual will be given that knowledge and that pardon... through Jesus(God)... by means of His Holy Spirit... His... God's... forgiveness and grace... if that one has "faith" and truly believes... it will be so...

Jesus talked to the masses as God... God, that is... the Father... That is how one can know God... but not "know" Jesus... you "know" them both IF you "know" one