Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

Northclare

I think love is God given as long as the person who express their love has the right motives and have a non selfish agenda.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The general rule on desire covers all aspects:
Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 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.

Romantic love involves sexual desire, the desire to be one with the other. To own one another's body. That can only lawfully be resolved in heterosexual marriage. All else is sin. Embracing the desire for unlawful fulfilment is a sin. Be it adultery, fornication or homosexuality.

********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 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.

The Bible doesn't say though that being in love with someone you are not married to is a sin (ie if both of you are single).

It provides a method to fulfill that love through marriage.

It provides no such method for homosexual love, and in fact doesn't seem to even recognize or be aware of homosexual love. It speaks of homosexual desire purely in terms of sexual lust, yet recognizes heterosexual love rather than simply lust.

My first question is simply do you accept that this is accurate summary?

Second question would be do you have any idea why that is, ie the logic behind it? The logic behind adultery is easy to understand, it is breaking a previously established loving commitment.

I think the absence of any real explanation or justification for the denial of homosexual love in the Bible is a bit issue for homosexuals leading to the rejection of the Bible as being true and reflecting human nature. This can be dismissed as no more than someone wanting to cheat on their wife dismissing the Bible as well, but I think that is highly disingenious since most people feel that adultry is wrong anyway, since it involves lying, a break of commitment, and hurting someone in a manner you promised never to do. People struggle to find any objection to homosexual relationships beyond "God says so", so it cannot simply be lumped into the bag of bad things we want to do so we ignore the idea that they are wrong.

As I said to PDN I think if the Bible was telling heterosexuals that the love they feel for their husband or wife is an invalid form of lust I think many, including a lot here, would say that this is not a book that speaks to the true of nature, that it is clearly made up.

wolfsbane

Zombrex wrote: »

The Bible doesn't say though that being in love with someone you are not married to is a sin (ie if both of you are single).

It provides a method to fulfill that love through marriage.

It provides no such method for homosexual love, and in fact doesn't seem to even recognize or be aware of homosexual love. It speaks of homosexual desire purely in terms of sexual lust, yet recognizes heterosexual love rather than simply lust.

My first question is simply do you accept that this is accurate summary?

Second question would be do you have any idea why that is, ie the logic behind it? The logic behind adultery is easy to understand, it is breaking a previously established loving commitment.

I think the absence of any real explanation or justification for the denial of homosexual love in the Bible is a bit issue for homosexuals leading to the rejection of the Bible as being true and reflecting human nature. This can be dismissed as no more than someone wanting to cheat on their wife dismissing the Bible as well, but I think that is highly disingenious since most people feel that adultry is wrong anyway, since it involves lying, a break of commitment, and hurting someone in a manner you promised never to do. People struggle to find any objection to homosexual relationships beyond "God says so", so it cannot simply be lumped into the bag of bad things we want to do so we ignore the idea that they are wrong.

As I said to PDN I think if the Bible was telling heterosexuals that the love they feel for their husband or wife is an invalid form of lust I think many, including a lot here, would say that this is not a book that speaks to the true of nature, that it is clearly made up.

I say the assumption of homosexual romantic love is there. The Bible does not say only valid romantic love exists. Indeed it gives a startling example of an invalid one in the account of Amnon and Tamar.

Romantic love is shown to be common to mankind in all their sexual relationships. Just as is sexual desire - the only valid expression of this is in marriage, but it happens in all sorts of other relationships.

*********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 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.

Northclare

What happens if you repent for your sin,are you still burning in everlasting torment.

Id say Satan is working overtime at this stage.

Look up Iron Maidens song Holy Smoke.

It's even worse to judge those bad people who will be burning in hell for satisfying their desires.


Like I said love is god given.....

Northclare

I find it very hard to trust a person who tells me I should live by one book

JimiTime

Northclare wrote: »

I find it very hard to trust a person who tells me I should live by one book

You've come to the right place so, as The Bible is a collection of many books;)

Northclare

Yes I agree with you there but its full of contradictions and its very paradoxical.

I prefer reading books written by mystics such as John Moriarty,Bishop Berkley,Depoch Chopra and many more.

If a person wants to be undersood they have to be able to understand as well.

That's why its easier for one who suffered and lived a hellish life to understand the love and forgiveness of God.

If Jesus was among us now I think he would be socialising with the down beats of society but he would understand them rather than tell them about the flames of hell

lmaopml

Northclare wrote: »

Yes I agree with you there but its full of contradictions and its very paradoxical.

I prefer reading books written by mystics such as John Moriarty,Bishop Berkley,Depoch Chopra and many more.

If a person wants to be undersood they have to be able to understand as well.

That's why its easier for one who suffered and lived a hellish life to understand the love and forgiveness of God.

If Jesus was among us now I think he would be socialising with the down beats of society but he would understand them rather than tell them about the flames of hell

Lots of people live hard lives Northclare, being Christian doesn't mean immunity to hardship or any other thing that is common to the human condition - and especially the hardship of others, that's what Christians do, and what they are called to respond to, others hardship and charity and love.

Discussing this topic can't be taken in isolation to the love of Christ or his mercy either. - I don't know a whole lot about mystics like Chopra et al, except that they sound very new age sci-fi, and not in a good way like Star Trek

Wolfe may be speaking about hell etc. but in effect he is actually speaking a whole lot of truth and not decorating it too much, that's a quality he has, and it's not without it's merits imo - except that it's a reality that exists for not only homosexuals lets face it, but for everybody who deliberately seperates themselves from mercy and goodness and from Christ, so we're all in the same boat really - that's why Tommy kept talking about the 'beam' that needed removal.

Whether I agree with his approach is neither here nor there, but I will say that I think it's important to 'understand' before being 'understood', and that can be very difficult sometimes, but not insurmountable, and worth every moment, because one can learn a whole lot from others.

Northclare

Your a very balanced individual and have a good heart and empathy for others.

I have been in and out of discussions with atheists and Christians for the last few days and your the first I have come across that was non judgemental or threatening in any way.

It's good to be human isn't it thanks for the reply

lmaopml

Northclare wrote: »

Your a very balanced individual and have a good heart and empathy for others.

I have been in and out of discussions with atheists and Christians for the last few days and your the first I have come across that was non judgemental or threatening in any way.

It's good to be human isn't it thanks for the reply

Life started for me since I recognised my Christianity and it's worth and power for good in the world, the nagging tapping on the shoulder just woudn't go away; thank God. I've never felt more free, or more burdened and in that, more alive.

HamletOrHecuba

philologos wrote: »

.

Total depravity is clearly Biblical. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), and our hearts are inclined towards evil (Genesis 6). Man will have a perpetual struggle against sin (Romans 7) until the final day when we meet Jesus Himself.

No one in their right minds argues that most humans are not depraved, but there is a difference between stating that, or that we have a fallen nature and saying that we are TOTALLY depraved in our natural condition.

Were the Prophets before Christ totally depraved? Or Enoch? The righteous before Christ and even people like Plato seriously suggest that Total Depravity in fallen man is wrong.

tommy2bad

It's good to be human isn't it thanks for the reply

Thats the whole point,being human is divine, check out Shakespeare Hamlets soliloquy, starts with "What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties,"
We are here for the glory of God and God is here for our glory. right and wrong, good and bad are means to an end. Lets not loose sight of the goal with disputes about what God wants, we have enough evidence of that. LOVE one another as I have loved you.
What gets me is why we continue to seek justification for being complete idiots when it's so simple?

PDN

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

No one in their right minds argues that most humans are not depraved, but there is a difference between stating that, or that we have a fallen nature and saying that we are TOTALLY depraved in our natural condition.

Were the Prophets before Christ totally depraved? Or Enoch? The righteous before Christ and even people like Plato seriously suggest that Total Depravity in fallen man is wrong.

I think you might be misunderstanding what 'total depravity' actually means when used in theology. It does not mean that every one of our actions is as bad as it might be. It means rather than "even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition."

In other words, the doctrine of total depravity declares that even our best actions are still tinged with selfishness (as when we put money in a charity collection box, but then hope that someone saw us doing it and thought us to be generous). It also declares that we lack the goodness to pull ourselves up to heaven by our own bootstraps, but we need the grace of God to reveal the Gospel to us.

Looking at Plato, for example, we see that he made some noble declarations about the freedom of man - and did so while he himself owned five slaves. That's not saying he was a 'bad man' when compared his contemporaries - but it does rather neatly demonstrate how total depravity works. "Slave, hurry up and bring my shoes so I can go to the Agora to deliver my lecture on the necessity for human freedom!"

philologos

Essentially, there is a problem that mankind faces, and that is the overwhelming burden of their sin. For as long as sin exists, we remain separated from God. We have no hope of salvation. However, since Jesus took this burden of sin onto Himself on the cross, we now have a means of clear access to God. PDN has done a great job of explaining total depravity. I would say it means essentially, there is no hope without God, we can't save ourselves no matter how much we think we can. Ultimately it is only through the grace and favour of God that I and you could stand before Him.

Wikipedia in a nutshell:

It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is offered.

HamletOrHecuba

PDN wrote: »

Looking at Plato, for example, we see that he made some noble declarations about the freedom of man - and did so while he himself owned five slaves. That's not saying he was a 'bad man' when compared his contemporaries - but it does rather neatly demonstrate how total depravity works. "Slave, hurry up and bring my shoes so I can go to the Agora to deliver my lecture on the necessity for human freedom!"

Christianity does not oppose slavery; it may say that it is a product of the fall, but than so to is the state. Saints and Prophets owned slaves as well.

Plato was certainly against "the freedom of man" as understood in a modern liberal sense; the Republic with its Philosopher King and Guardians is hardly a forerunner of Democratic principles. What noble declarations are you referring too?

HamletOrHecuba

PDN wrote: »

In other words, the doctrine of total depravity declares that even our best actions are still tinged with selfishness (as when we put money in a charity collection box, but then hope that someone saw us doing it and thought us to be generous). It also declares that we lack the goodness to pull ourselves up to heaven by our own bootstraps, but we need the grace of God to reveal the Gospel to us.

If that is the explanation than surely outside of Pelagianism Calvin was in agreement with all Christians that came before him? Who argues that we can pull ourselves to Heaven by our own boot straps? Who argues that we dont need Revelation and the Grace to accept it? So what than is all the fuss about?

PDN

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Christianity does not oppose slavery; it may say that it is a product of the fall, but than so to is the state. Saints and Prophets owned slaves as well.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make - but thank you for demonstrating my point. Christians, saints and prophets are affected by this as well - that's why it's called total depravity - because it applies to all of us.

If that is the explanation than surely outside of Pelagianism Calvin was in agreement with all Christians that came before him? Who argues that we can pull ourselves to Heaven by our own boot straps? Who argues that we dont need Revelation and the Grace to accept it? So what than is all the fuss about?

What fuss? It's hardly a burning topic in theological discussion.

HamletOrHecuba

PDN wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make - but thank you for demonstrating my point. Christians, saints and prophets are affected by this as well - that's why it's called total depravity - because it applies to all of us.

No total depravity in what the term originally meant by those who first used it is that all non-Christians are not just depraved, but totally depraved. You and Philologos are giving it a new meaning, which is un-necessarily confusing.

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_45.html

The Bible does not condemn slavery. Infact St Paul tells slaves to obey their masters, he tells masters to be kind to their slaves but not not to have slaves.

Would you agree that women not covering their heads during worship essentially a lot more evil than slavery?

philologos

I'm totally depraved in so far as there is no way I can save myself from the burden of my sin. It was only through Jesus that this came to be. Your article seems to back up much of that point of view. I don't see anything insane about total depravity in terms of Christianity, it is evidenced clearly in life, and it is substantiated clearly in the Bible.

HamletOrHecuba

philologos wrote: »

I'm totally depraved in so far as there is no way I can save myself from the burden of my sin. It was only through Jesus that this came to be. Your article seems to back up much of that point of view. I don't see anything insane about total depravity in terms of Christianity, it is evidenced clearly in life, and it is substantiated clearly in the Bible.

Do you believe that your agnostic co-workers or family are totally evil? That is the question, do you believe that the Prophets who lived before Christ's redemption were totally evil?

No one is arguing that mankind isnt depraved or can save himself.

philologos

I believe that we are inclined towards evil, and because of our sin, we are unable to be regarded as wholly good. We are totally depraved in so far as there is no means for us to save ourselves from our sin.

It is true of all mankind that there is no way to escape the burden of sin other than through Jesus. This is the traditional view of total depravity as has been pointed out to you.

HamletOrHecuba

philologos wrote: »

I believe that we are inclined towards evil, and because of our sin, we are unable to be regarded as wholly good. We are totally depraved in so far as there is no means for us to save ourselves from our sin.

It is true of all mankind that there is no way to escape the burden of sin other than through Jesus. This is the traditional view of total depravity as has been pointed out to you.

No that you have given the view of our burden that Calvinists came up with the term Total Depravity to distinguish their position from.

philologos

The doctrine understands the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the the Fall of man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation.

Total Depravity on theopedia.org. Man is morally corrupt as a result of rebelling against God. As a result there is no other means for salvation other than through being rescued by Christ. That's what it is.

By the by, many Christian denominations have explained this concept, it's not in the sole remit of Calvinism.

HamletOrHecuba

philologos wrote: »

By the by, many Christian denominations have explained this concept, it's not in the sole remit of Calvinism.

They were the ones who first used the term; the term belongs to them and they used to distinguish their position from the explanation that you have just given of the term.

Many people have explained original sin that is true, but they didnt use that term; why?

PDN

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

No total depravity in what the term originally meant by those who first used it is that all non-Christians are not just depraved, but totally depraved. You and Philologos are giving it a new meaning, which is un-necessarily confusing.

Myself and Philologos are using the term in the way in which it is used in Christian theology. This is the Christianity Forum, after all.

The Bible does not condemn slavery. Infact St Paul tells slaves to obey their masters, he tells masters to be kind to their slaves but not not to have slaves.

Would you agree that women not covering their heads during worship essentially a lot more evil than slavery?

No, because the Bible doesn't say that women not covering their heads is more evil than slavery.

PDN

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

They were the ones who first used the term; the term belongs to them and they used to distinguish their position from the explanation that you have just given of the term.

Many people have explained original sin that is true, but they didnt use that term; why?

Look it up on wikipedia or something if you want. The term 'total depravity' as with 'original sin' is used by Catholics and Arminians as well as by Calvinists.

lmaopml

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

They were the ones who first used the term; the term belongs to them and they used to distinguish their position from the explanation that you have just given of the term.

Many people have explained original sin that is true, but they didnt use that term; why?

Perhaps, I'm not sure, whether it was orginally coined or put forward by Calvin.

However, the doctrine 'Total Depravity' can mean very different things to various Protestant groups - between Luther, Calvin and Arminianism, they may use the term, but would argue a lot with eachother too about what that means in relation to the 'Fall' and also Man's free will and how that is tied in with rejeneration - It's tricky to know exactly what view is proposed when discussing it.

I think however, that most assume the Calvinistic view which precludes free will and is pretty deterministic - however, not all hold to that view, but would still use the term 'total depravity' with various shades of determinsm or freedom of the will or lack thereof in between.

HamletOrHecuba

Extreme followers of Augustine I think may have used the term and were very close to Calvin. Its part of the Calvinistic TULIP belief. You cant divorce it from that.

Northclare

We are all slaves one way or the other we have to accept our social status.

Some people are slaves to internet forums

HamletOrHecuba

PDN wrote: »

Look it up on wikipedia or something if you want. The term 'total depravity' as with 'original sin' is used by Catholics and Arminians as well as by Calvinists.

Its not used by Catholics. Original Sin is; not Total depravity.