Tom, Tom, Tom. *sigh* We've been around that block so many times already on this board. You certainly will not change your mind, nor will I change mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
|
Tom, Tom, Tom. *sigh* We've been around that block so many times already on this board. You certainly will not change your mind, nor will I change mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
As you wish - you made the claim - if you are not willing to back up your claim, that is your choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Mt.5.28 says that lust is a sin. And so it is. What does that have to do with homosexuality? If anyone, gay or straight, were to lust that person would be committing a sin. I don't see how Mt.5.28 is at all relevant to any issue concerning homosexuality as distinct from heterosexuality. It's just telling us not to lust. Period.
Wondergirl said that the act of homosexuality was the issue not the orientation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Jesus made quite a point of pointing out that the sin starts well before the act, and this is an example. Or do you think that lust is an act?
I did not say that it did. Read what I said.Quote:
I don't see how Mt.5.28 is at all relevant to any issue concerning homosexuality as distinct from heterosexuality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, scripture is clear that an orientation towards sin is also sin.
Scripture says:
1 Cor 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
NKJV
To suggest that would be like saying that an adulterer can be a Christian if he does not act out on it, but only lusts.
Jesus Said:
Matt 5:28
28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
NKJV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure it's an act. Not all acts involve moving ones limbs. Thought-acts are definitely acts. Reading is an act, thinking is an act, concentrating is an act, praying is an act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And Mt.5.28 says that lust is a sin even if you don't have intercourse with the person you're lusting after. It doesn't make the more general claim, which are are ascribing to it, to wit, that "the sin starts well before the act". Even if we suppose that lust is not itself an act, all Mt.5.28 is saying in that case is that the non-act of lust is a sin. It makes no general claim of the sort you are asserting.
And since a lustful desire is an act (according to your definition - which differs from most), so must a homosexual desire then, using your definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I don't accept the synomyny you've introduced. Lust and desire aren't the same thing. Think of it as a Venn Diagram: Lust is a sub-set of desire; all lust is a kind of desire, but not all desire is lust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I would say this: Any lust, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual or (heaven forbid!) bestial is a sin. I don't think the sinfulness of lust depends upon the object of the lust (man, woman, animal) but on the character of the lustful desire itself. In other words, it is the quality and not the object of the desire that makes it lustful. If the desire has a certain intensity to it, if the subject of the desire yields to it, leans into it instead of resisting it, then it is a lustful desire and hence sinful. Not all sexual desire counts as lust, of course. And this is one prima facie reason to suppose that it is not the object of desire that makes it lustful.
Interesting. If lust is not a desire, what is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Exactly what I said - Lust is a desire.Quote:
Think of it as a Venn Diagram: Lust is a sub-set of desire; all lust is a kind of desire, but not all desire is lust.
Agreed. Just as any sinful desire would also be a sin.Quote:
Any lust, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual or (heaven forbid!) bestial is a sin.
You seem to be trying to distract away from speaking about desire, to focus in on the specific, ignoring what I said about the fact that it was merely an example of a sinful desire.Quote:
I don't think the sinfulness of lust depends upon the object of the lust (man, woman, animal) but on the character of the lustful desire itself.
Or do you think that a desire for something sinful is not sinful? Can you give an example of a righteous desire for sin?
As I said, lust is a kind of desire. There are other kinds of desires besides lust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Right, lust is one kind of desire. Draw a circle and label it "desire". This will represent the set of all desires. Now inside that circle draw another, smaller circle. This second circle will represent the set of all lustful desires. That is a Venn Diagram.Quote:
Exactly what I said - Lust is a desire.
Well, that's just true by definition, isn't it? A sinful desire is, by definition, a sin.Quote:
Agreed. Just as any sinful desire would also be a sin.
I'm not trying to distract from anything. Mt.5.28, which you quoted, doesn't use the word "desire"; it uses the word "lust". It says that lust is a sin. My point is that you cannot read off from that any more general claim about desire, since it speaks only of one particular type of desire, namely lust.Quote:
You seem to be trying to distract away from speaking about desire, to focus in on the specific, ignoring what I said about the fact that it was merely an example of a sinful desire.
Again, by definition, a sinful desire is sinful. Lust is a sin. But Mt.5.28 doesn't say anything except that lust is a sin. You are interpolating the rest. Now this is something you've often cautioned against, so you shouldn't do it yourself. Mt.5.28 doesn't say anything about orientation or about desire in general. It only talks about lust.Quote:
Or do you think that a desire for something sinful is not sinful? Can you give an example of a righteous desire for sin?
I have pointed out to you that what makes a desire lustful isn't the object of the desire but the quality of the desire. If you have a problem with that, by all means explain the error your take me to have made.
Good - I got you off the single focus on lust into the topic of desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
And since homosexual act is a sin, a desire for a homosexual act (homosexuality) is a sin.Quote:
Well, that's just true by definition, isn't it? A sinful desire is, by definition, a sin.
Now you got it!
Homosexuality isn't a desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I can desire a banana. There is no sin in that desire. The banana isn't sinful, nor is the wish for one.
450donn,
I agree except that some people are homosexual but do not practice that life style simply because they know it is wrong.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Really? So homosexuality has nothing to do with a man's sexual desire for another man?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
homosexuality
sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.
Origin:
1890–95; homo- + sexuality
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This doesn't follow from anything I've said. All lust is a sin, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. If acts of homosexuality are a sin, it doesn't follow that the desire for homosexual sex is a sin. And MT.5.28 doesn't say otherwise. It speaks only about lust. Not all desire for sex is lustful, I'm sure you'd agree. Or are you guilty of the sin of lust every time you make love with your wife?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
So why did you cite Mt.5.28? It talks only about lust. It certainly doesn't tell us that the desire for sex is in each case lustful. Neither does it tell us that the desire for homosexual sex is lustful. If a desire for sex is lustful, then and only then is the person guilty of sin.
Ah, I see that you are back talking about lust rather than desire, which is the point that I was making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Really? Can you show me in scripture where we are told that it is possible to have a righteous desire for something which is sinful? (2nd time of asking)Quote:
If acts of homosexuality are a sin, it doesn't follow that the desire for homosexual sex is a sin.
Back? I never left. My whole point has been that Mt.5.28 is talking only about lust. You, however, seem to think it's saying something about desire in general. The text doesn't license this interpretation, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Well, I'm not sure what the phrase "righteous desire" means. Can you show me a place in Scripture where that phrase is defined?Quote:
Really? Can you show me in scripture where we are told that it is possible to have a righteous desire for something which is sinful? (2nd time of asking)
You seem fixated on an example of a desire, rather than dealing with what I was referring to, which was sinful desires.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I sense that this discussion is heading towards being useless. Check out the words meanings in a dictionary if you don't know what they mean.Quote:
Well, I'm not sure what the phrase "righteous desire" means. Can you show me a place in Scripture where that phrase is defined?
It appears to me that this is a way of avoiding the question. I understand.
I am fixated on Mt.5.28, which you brought up. And it mentions only lust.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Well, you used them! If you don't know what the words you use mean how on earth is anyone else supposed to?Quote:
I sense that this discussion is heading towards being useless. Check out the words meanings in a dictionary if you don't know what they mean.
If you say so. The only question that I'm aware of having left unanswered is the one to do with "righteous desires". But when I asked you what that means you said you don't know yourself, so I don't know how I was supposed to answer it.Quote:
It appears to me that this is a way of avoiding the question. I understand.
If you ever figure out what you mean by "righteous desire" let me know. Otherwise, I'm going to bed.
Go back and read the context as to why it was brought up. I copied and pasted it a second time. A third should not be necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
English is a language common to several billion people. Dictionaries make it easy to understand each other in the English language. If you wish to avoid discussing the point, you have the right not to discuss it, but don't waste my time because you wish to avoid a dictionary. We went through this in our last discussion.Quote:
Well, you used them! If you don't know what the words you use mean how on earth is anyone else supposed to?
You tell us that it is possible to have a desire for sin without sinning but don't wish to, or cannot tell us where scripture gives an example of a righteous desire for sin.
That is fine, we can leave it there if you wish.
It seems to me that a person can have a none sinful desire or a sinful desire.
Lust is a sinful desire if one lusts for someone other than his wife.
A desire to partake of the Eucharist is a none sinful desire.
That is what I believe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
So everyone appears to agree that a homosexual act is a sin, so a desire for a homosexual act would be a sinful desire.
Same for hetero outside of marriage. And since homosexuals are not allowed marriage or a legal union, they are shot down right from the get-go. Clever fundievangels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Yes, if they believe and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and savior.
I am a sinner and saved and surely a homosexual, even one that may committing acts, may be saved if they confess and trust in the Lord to help them repent.
Matthew 5: 28
Brings Galatians 3:24 and Romans 8:1-11 into focus.
Surely those who are in Christ know the price that was paid for their salvation.
Psalm 51
G&P
Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
= temple prostitution with males and females =Quote:
do not practice any of these detestable activities.
Right. I said that before, no sin is greater than the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
But the homosexuals aren't allowed to marry...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Like I said -- clever, very clever.
God never said sex within proper bounds is sin. In fact, Adam & Eve were told to multiply.
He has on many occasions said that same gender sex is an abomination.
No ceremony can justify something that God has labeled clealy as sin. To think so is to indulge in self-decption.
Let's follow that line of reasoning further. Suppose laws are passed allowing siblings to marry. Would that make incest proper? What if we legalize group marriage, polygamy, multiple husbands, or marriage to animals? Would the "legalization" of any of these practices mean that they were no longer sin?
I certainly don't think so.
And if homosexuals had sex within proper and legal bounds, that too would not be sin, just as it is not sin for heterosexuals. Adam and Eve types have multiplied themselves into a lot of parentless children. Adoption by gays and their partners relieves that condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
That is a misinterpretation of those words and verses. This has been discussed countless times on this board.Quote:
He has on many occasions said that same gender sex is an abomination.
We all see this as Sin.. Sin.. Sin.. whether lust or desire it is sin..
In Matthew Christ gave an example of just how sin for man does exist.
Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
The answer to the question ... Keep the commandments.
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Which commandments?
Matthew 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The young man concluded he had done so... what lack I yet?
Matthew 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Jesus concludes .. " If " thou wilt be perfect
Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.
whoa.... obviously the treasures this man obtained, were what the lust and desire of his flesh benefits from
Matthew 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
NOW Hear Jesus warn the disciples... the word "shall hardly" means in greek with difficulty ref (Mark 10:23 - Luke 18:24)
Matthew 19:23-27 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
NOW HEAR CHRIST
Same Everytime!!
Luke 18:26-27 And they that heard [it] said, Who then can be saved? And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men [it is] impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Jesus does go on to say any who do follow His Ways and have forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
We Just Can Not Judge!
galveston,
Your reasoning is very good.
Fred
So what is the point? People cannot marry their cousins either. There are legitimate restrictions on marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Changes to laws of the land does not change what God has decreed is sin. What God says is sin, remains sin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Cousins? There was something in the paper this week that geneticists are finding that marriage between first cousins isn't the disaster that has been portrayed. There's no restriction on any other kind of cousin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
He didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Okay, change cousin to sibling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Read again - here is his quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if homosexuals had sex within proper and legal bounds, that too would not be sin, just as it is not sin for heterosexuals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The law of the land (i.e. legal bounds) does not dictate what a sin is.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
It ruins a good story, doesn't it :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
His?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Whatever - gender doesn't matter to you, does it? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:49 PM. |