From the Law to Grace

Originally posted by @sonship
Gender Equality:

Notice the Old Testament's frequent placing men and women purposely in the same status.

[b]Genesis 1:27 - "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; MALE AND FEMALE He created them" It didn't just mention MALE.

Genesis 2:24 - "For this reason a man shall leave his FATHER AND HIS MOTHER .. ...[text shortened]... etely mutual. It is not just the man owns the woman. The woman also has ownership over the man.[/b]

Why do you cherry-pick verses from the bible? Does context only matter to you if it doesn't weaken your argument? You quoted Geneses 2, but ignored the very next chapter where Eve is told her husband will "rule over" her.

1 Corinthians 11:8-10:

" For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have [a man's] authority over her own head".

1 Timothy 2:11-13:

"A womana should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

Clearly, the bible believes women were created subservient to men.

Originally posted by @vivify
The problem with what you say is that you have no reason for objecting to homosexuality other than your beliefs. You can't actually name what's wrong with homosexuality, or how it harms another person. No specifics, only vague generalities. To object to something without a reason is senseless.

The problem with what you say is that you have no reason for objecting to homosexuality other than your beliefs. You can't actually name what's wrong with homosexuality, or how it harms another person. No specifics, only vague generalities. To object to something without a reason is senseless.

You will probably find that I will attempt to stir replies to your comments in the direction of my thread subject From the Law to Grace.

I am trying to see how I could answer your objection in a way that is along the line of the subject I want to write here about.

I have my human conscience.
I also have what I believe is God's communication from Himself TO man on earth.
Both of these inform me that there is something wrong with me lying with a man for sex. And both inform me that there is something wrong with a man seeking to lie with me for sex.

Both the intuitive sense in my conscience and the Scripture may not speak with the same force. But I think both seem to speak to me something similar.

I might add that to bully someone who appears to act like a person of the sex that he or she is not, also is protested against by my conscience.

if you go down the road of saying that someone should always follow the natural tendencies he or she notices that they have you might absolve behavior against gays as well. If that is the case then to bash gay people i could say was simply a tendency I was born with and therefore should go along with.

My opinion is still that homosexuality is probably a kind of arrested psychological development lingering on from puberty. But I am not a psychologist.

I remember a stage in my development when I could be kind of infatuated with someone of my own sex. This period did not last forever. My opinion is that it is probably a normal stage of human development.

My opinion is that some people hang on to the matter in a way of arrested development.


Now, when I saw your comment about stoning, I thought to check. Is the execution for having a tendency? Or is the execution for the ACT of having sex? I will have to check my Old Testament to see what God ordained for the theocratic nation.

There is no executing of people in the New Testament church life.

Originally posted by @sonship

I have my human conscience.
I also have what I believe is God's communication from Himself TO man on earth.
Both of these inform me that there is something wrong with me lying with a man for sex. And both inform me that there is something wrong with a man seeking to lie with me for sex.

a) Is it correct to say that your conscience doesn't object God ordaining the stoning of gays?

b) You still haven't given an actual tangible reason to oppose homosexuality. This is the point I'd like you to understand: none exists. Therefore, it makes no sense to appose homosexuality.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
We may disagree on what makes a standard objective. Why do you think it’s objectively wrong?

You see nothing wrong with someone stoning a person to death for having sex with the 'wrong' person?

What about the problem of killing all the possible generations that killing that person did? That's ok too?

Do you think you can 'pray away the gay'? Even though homosexuality is present in ALL human societies at a rate of 1 to 5 percent and always will be? What if we found a genetic mutation that would eliminate gays from ever being born, is that ok?

Originally posted by @vivify
a) Is it correct to say that your conscience doesn't object God ordaining the stoning of gays?

b) You still haven't given an actual tangible reason to oppose homosexuality. This is the point I'd like you to understand: none exists. Therefore, it makes no sense to appose homosexuality.

My conscience would bother me about persecuting harshly a gay person.
I had a brother who died in the gay community of HIV infection years ago.
I have relatives in the lifestyle.

Christ Jesus looks beyond a person's faults and sees their needs.
Some people are just so THIRSTY for happiness that they seek to find it in strange manners.

Today, people's inner spirit is so thirsty. They often do not know WHO to blame. And they don't know what will make them happy. They may think to change their sex physically is the answer.

I think the thirst, the hunger for satisfaction makes sinners desperate to try foolish things to quench their hunger for happiness.

Did you ever read John chapter four about the woman at the well? She had had five husbands and when Jesus met her she was with a man who was not her husband.

She was so thirsty for happiness. And Jesus knew that and came to meet her need with His salvation. Many forms of deviancy or sexual excess are due to the desire for human happiness.

Originally posted by @vivify
a) Is it correct to say that your conscience doesn't object God ordaining the stoning of gays?

b) You still haven't given an actual tangible reason to oppose homosexuality. This is the point I'd like you to understand: none exists. Therefore, it makes no sense to appose homosexuality.

b) You still haven't given an actual tangible reason to oppose homosexuality. This is the point I'd like you to understand: none exists. Therefore, it makes no sense to appose homosexuality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an activist opposing homosexuality.
I am a gospel of Jesus announcer helping people to believe that Jesus is the answer to life's toughest problems.

Some people who want to get rid of the Gospel proclamation need to paint me as a political activist opposing this or that. Or they need to label me as a social activist trying to put down evil everywhere by legislation.

I think you are perhaps trying to say I am writing hate speech against someone because I am helping some to understand the Law of God and the Grace of Christ.

In the times of the early Christian churches the Apostle Paul said that the Christians should not expect to go out of the world totally to get away from sinners. So they have to live Christ and learn that they were sinners themselves and that they will daily interact with people who still are. And they should interact with the love of God for them.

" I wrote to you in my letter not to mingle with fornicators. But not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and rapacious, or idolators, since then you would have to go out of the world." (1 Cor. 5:9,10)

Another way of looking at Paul's instruction is that the Christian church is not trying to rid the world of fornicators, covetous, rapacious or idolaters. The Christians should expect that as long as they are in the world there will be such behaviors.

And they too formerly were captives of these errors.

Originally posted by @vivify

Why do you cherry-pick verses from the bible? Does context only matter to you if it doesn't weaken your argument? You quoted Geneses 2, but ignored the very next chapter where Eve is told her husband will "rule over" her.

i take this as a prediction of the unfortunate behavior that is to follow sin entering into the world. Thorns and thistles will grow up as you toil to make a living for yourself. And this husband of yours will rule over you though you desire him.

Can we say that the New Testament instruction for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church - giving up his life for her, is the man ruling over his wife in a harsh way as God forwarned in your passage?

I think if you wish to portray God's perfect will of a harshly ruling husband the NT would not have such an instruction as is found in Ephesiians five.

I have to consider more factors then the simplicity that you wish to push for your agenda.

1 Corinthians 11:8-10:

" For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have [a man's] authority over her own head".

In your quotation "[a man's]" is supplied by the editor to make what the editorial staff convey what they think the sense of the translation is.

I notice that in the portion you have in close proximity to it this.

"However neither is woman without man, nor man without woman, in the Lord. For just as the woman is out from the man, so also is the man through the woman, but all things are out from God." (v.11,12)

Were you just saying something about cherry picking?
Doesn't the rest of the passage place some balance on the whole matter making it hard to generalize in a bigoted way?

I think so.

1 Timothy 2:11-13:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

There is not enough here to argue for bigotry to me.
I mean elsewhere all the believers without regard to sex are to be in subjection to one another.

" ... and ALL OF YOU gird yourselves with humility toward one another, because God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. " ( 1 Peter 5:5b)

As a male Christian the New Testament is instructing me to gird myself with humility too.
How come I didn't get a free pass on this because of being a man?

And again, regardless of your sex -

"Put on therefore, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, inward parts of compassion, kindness, LOWLINESS, MEEKNESS, long-suffering." (Col. 3:12)

Just the Christian sisters need to do so?
Looks like both men and women believers need to.

By the way. You want authority? Learn how to get a prayer through to the throne of God. Learn to have a kind of petitioning skill that touches and moves God's throne.
And you can have authority for sure.

I know. The prayers of a Christian woman channeled me into a life of licentiousness to being a Jesus lover. This woman knew how to pray so as to move the hand of God over people's lives.

That is the authority that counts.

One other thing. You want to be taught by a Christian woman ?
Let me know and I'll recommend some great spiritual books from Christian sisters.

Originally posted by @sonship

Why do you cherry-pick verses from the bible? Does context only matter to you if it doesn't weaken your argument? You quoted Geneses 2, but ignored the very next chapter where Eve is told her husband will "rule over" her.

i take this as a prediction of the unfortunate behavior that is to follow sin entering into the world. Thorns and th ...[text shortened]... stian woman ?
Let me know and I'll recommend some great spiritual books from Christian sisters.

Can we say that the New Testament instruction for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church - giving up his life for her, is the man ruling over his wife in a harsh way as God forwarned in your passage?

When unable to defend your bible, you move goalposts. You now add the word "harsh" to rule over, in order to make it more palatable. Just because the bible doesn't advocate indiscriminately slapping women, that doesn't mean the bible doesn't believe women were created to be subservient to men. Why else would the bible make a point of saying "man was not created for women, but women were created for men"?

A common tactic from Christians to defend female subservience is by saying "it's not so bad if he's nice her". Imagine if someone defended slavery by saying it's okay if slave owners are polite. That's no different from your argument.

Originally posted by @vivify
[b]Can we say that the New Testament instruction for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church - giving up his life for her, is the man ruling over his wife in a harsh way as God forwarned in your passage?

When unable to defend your bible, you move goalposts. You now add the word "harsh" to rule over, in order to make it more palatable. ...[text shortened]... slavery by saying it's okay if slave owners are polite. That's no different from your argument.[/b]

When unable to defend your bible, you move goalposts. You now add the word "harsh" to rule over, in order to make it more palatable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Unable to defend my Bible? Like I need to defend the Bible.
The Bible will still be here long after you're gone.
It will still be the most widely read book too.

It is fascinating for a book that has something in it to step on everyone's toes somewhere.


Just because the bible doesn't advocate indiscriminately slapping women, that doesn't mean the bible doesn't believe women were created to be subservient to men. Why else would the bible make a point of saying "man was not created for women, but women were created for men"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It says that because it is true.
God placed in nature a window into why He created humanity - to marry a corporate entity called a woman - New Jerusalem the Wife of Christ and the Bride of the Lamb.

In a real sense the only male is God. We are all meant to be a part of a corporate romantic help meet that corresponds to our eternal Husband.

Read the last two chapters of the Bible.


A common tactic from Christians to defend female subservience is by saying "it's not so bad if he's nice her". Imagine if someone defended slavery by saying it's okay if slave owners are polite. That's no different from your argument.

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

But the Bible has Jesus Christ. And anyone man or woman you might submit as expressing a higher level of morality in every conceivable way would be a far, far off second place.

If you disagree start naming names.

(Folks, whoever you are, there is something in the Bible that will step on your toes at sometime. Nobody likes everything written in the Holy Bible. Everybody can find something in the Bible that they wish was not there.)

So pummeling rocks at another human being - in order to kill them - for no other reason than their sexual orientation used to be a morally sound thing to do, but now it isn't anymore? The Christian god figure changed his mind ~ Is that how it works?

Originally posted by @fmf
So pummeling rocks at another human being - in order to kill them - for no other reason than their sexual orientation [b]used to be a morally sound thing to do, but now it isn't anymore? The Christian god figure changed his mind ~ Is that how it works?[/b]

I'm guessing you're the only one who is allowed to change their mind? Is that how it works?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I'm guessing you're the only one who is allowed to change their mind? Is that how it works?

I await your answers to my two questions.

Originally posted by @vivify
[b]Can we say that the New Testament instruction for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church - giving up his life for her, is the man ruling over his wife in a harsh way as God forwarned in your passage?

When unable to defend your bible, you move goalposts. You now add the word "harsh" to rule over, in order to make it more palatable. ...[text shortened]... slavery by saying it's okay if slave owners are polite. That's no different from your argument.[/b]

If I was a man doing many things secretively to use and oppress women, I would fare much better under your anti-theist system in terms of getting away with my crimes.

In the teaching of the Bible books of infallible records are kept to which I would have to give account before God. In your system I commit crimes and if I'm lucky simply melt peacefully into the dust of an atheistic universe.

So while you posture great moral outrage for mistreatment to women, it is by far the biblical world view that makes it impossible for the offender to not to be held responsible to a God who misses nothing.

"And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened, and another scroll was opened, which is the book of life, And the dead were judged by the things which were written in the scrolls, according to their works." (Rev. 20:12)

What infallible accountability exists in your philosophy? Just - "Hopefully, evolution will do better next time"?

Originally posted by @dj2becker

I await your answers to my two questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------

dj2becker, have you any idea how many answers from FMF to your questions, you are still awaiting ?