God loves all sexuality

Originally posted by jaywill
===============================
You find that “rather hostile”? -that surprises me.
If somebody told me they have absolutely no interest in what a book about evolution has to say when I personally find that particular book particularly interesting, I would not find that absence of interest “rather hostile”. In fact, I would probably think “so what? -I .

I would consider it the reply of an ostrich with its head buried in the ground.

…I don't like people telling me not to refer to the Bible. …

-and I wasn’t telling you to not to ever refer to the Bible -I was merely hoping you could formulate your own reasoning rather than base you “reasoning” only on your interpretation of the Bible.

…And I am not impressed with people who try to make Bible readers out to not be able to reason. …

And I wasn’t doing that nor do I believe that. But you don’t need the Bible to be able to reason -right?

…Maybe your goal is to stand up and say "Look everybody! I can say something original! …

No. My “goal” if you can call my motive a “goal” is to think critically and independently.
I may or may not come up with thinking something original -after all, much of what I independently think up would have independently thought up by others because I am not the only person that thinks independently and there are independent thinkers that are far far more intelligent than I.
Merely what I say is not part of my end-goal but what reasoning I can convince others of from what I say can be.

…Whenever you're ready to include that book in your reasoning process then maybe we can discuss these issues. …

Personally, I don’t see how I can include something as part of my reasoning process when that something is not itself based on what I would regard as “reason” -or at least that is the way I see it.

… It could be that your priorities are to win a debate…

No.

… =======================================
Can you give an example of one of these “mysteries” that you think would only exist if there was no god?
=======================================
Why there is anything instead of nothing. …

To imply that the reason why there is anything instead of nothing is because god made everything only answers that one question to create two more questions that are left unanswered:
why is there a god? And, why did he create everything?
To claim that there is no god doesn’t answer the “Why there is anything instead of nothing” question but at least it doesn’t make the problem even worse by generating even more unanswered questions than questions that it answers.

…Why a man of such honesty, selflessness, love, justice, beauty, righteousness, nobility, and even glory as Jesus Christ would teach about God His Father when such a divine Father did not exist. …

Because people, no matter how good their intentions, can be delusional (and it is not their fault when they are delusional and they shouldn’t ever be belittled merely because of their dilutions but I would like non-delusional people to save them from their dilutions).

Originally posted by Nemesio
So, it was His will to forbid divorce and polygamy, but He was being permissive in permitting
those things? And subsequently, He stopped being permissive.

Is that what you are saying?

Nemesio

In the Gospel of Matthew the disciples are called to live a life under God's administration. This administration is carried out by Christ coming into them to be the indwelling divine nature and life.

This realm is called the kingdom of the heavens. And the call is to live the highest standard of morality on the earth. Those who participate in the kingdom of the heavens are called to live the highest standard of morality. This they do not through thier own power and ability. They are able to live this way because of receiving the divine life into their being which is Christ Himself.

In the matter of marriage the kingdom of the heavens recovers back to God's original established arrangement.

In short the Gospel of Matthew is teaching that the normal Christian should live the highest standard of morality on the earth.

Matthew sets the standard for what a normal disdiple of Jesus Christ should live. It is call to repent for the kingdom. It is a call to repent for not living under God's administration. It is a call to repent for not living in the highest standard of morality.

The angle of Matthew's Gospel is somewhat different from the angle of Luke's or John's Gospel. But I emphasize, for a total well rounded picture we need all four Gospels. They compliment each other.

The high demand for perfection in Matthew needs the rich supply to meet that demand in John. Christ Himself can live the normal Christian life. We need Him within us.

Originally posted by jaywill
In the Gospel of Matthew the disciples are called to live a life under God's administration. This administration is carried out by Christ coming into them to be the indwelling divine nature and life.

This realm is called [b]the kingdom of the heavens. And the call is to live the highest standard of morality on the earth. Those who participate in t demand in John. Christ Himself can live the normal Christian life. We need Him within us.[/b]

Was that a yes or a no?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I belong to a secret cabal that operates above, below and beyond the law.

I am to the law as Titania is to Bottom.

So you dream of being bottom? In just the summer?🙂

Originally posted by Nemesio
Was that a yes or a no?

The way you phrase your question, a simple Yes or No is misleading.

For those desireing to live in the kingdom of the heavens, they are expected be recovered back to His original ordination concerning marriage. God holds them to a higher standard.

Unless their righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees they will not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.

Originally posted by jaywill
The way you phrase your question, a simple Yes or No is misleading.

For those desireing to live in the kingdom of the heavens, they are expected be recovered back to His original ordination concerning marriage. God holds them to a higher standard.

Unless their righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees they will not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.

So, God told people that they could have divorce and be in polygamous marriages, even though
these were less-then-righteous states?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
So, God told people that they could have divorce and be in polygamous marriages, even though
these were less-then-righteous states?

Nemesio

What I read was that Moses allowed the Hebrew men to give their wives a certificate of divorce. This was part of the supplemental law.

I don't think I can find a specific word on polygamy. But it seems that it developed.

We can't say that all things that developed God TOLD people to do. That is rediculous. People come here and write blasphemous things against God. They are not immediately judged of course. God is permitting them. Does this mean He told them to write blasphemous things?

So you asking me if God told people to do this or that against His perfect will is not something we should expect to find.

They did it. That is all.

Incidently, since all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God, God has sent the Savior Jesus Christ to take away our record of sins. So He has made provision for sins done against His perfect will or within His permissive allowance.

So it all comes back to being saved by Christ from our sins.

Originally posted by jaywill
What I read was that Moses allowed the Hebrew men to give their wives a certificate of divorce. This was part of the supplemental law.

Just a minute. Stop pretending that Moses was the one who allowed divorce. It's part
of the Deuteronomical canon. It's prefaced with, 'Hear, O Israel, the status and decrees which I
[Moses] proclaim in your hearing this day...Since you were afraid of the fire and would not go up
to the mountain, I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to announce to you these words
of the Lord.' (Chapter 5:1a, 5)

All of those commands from chapters 5 through 26 are 'the words of the Lord,' not the words of
Moses. Note the chapter on divorce is chapter 24.

So, given that the author of Deuteronomy writes that explicitly, it's clear that God changed
His mind on the issue.

Or do you disagree?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Just a minute. Stop pretending that Moses was the one who allowed divorce. It's part
of the Deuteronomical canon. It's prefaced with, 'Hear, O Israel, the status and decrees which I
[Moses] proclaim in your hearing this day...Since you were afraid of the fire and would not go up
to the mountain, I stood between the Lord and you at that time, [ ...[text shortened]... y, it's clear that God changed
His mind on the issue.

Or do you disagree?

Nemesio

That's the kind of debate that I have to respect.

I'll look into it and if I agree I will tell you so. I need time to study it.

Good job Nemesio, on checking it out in the Bible. I hope posters learn to double check things like that.

Be back after some more study.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Just a minute. Stop pretending that Moses was the one who allowed divorce. It's part
of the Deuteronomical canon. It's prefaced with, 'Hear, O Israel, the status and decrees which I
[Moses] proclaim in your hearing this day...Since you were afraid of the fire and would not go up
to the mountain, I stood between the Lord and you at that time, [ ...[text shortened]... y, it's clear that God changed
His mind on the issue.

Or do you disagree?

Nemesio

First tell me if you agree that I am quoting Jesus when I say that Moses gave the Hebrews a certificate of divorce?

"They said to Him [Jesus], Why then did Moses command [us] to give [her] a certificate of divorece and divorce her?" (Matt. 19:7)

He said to them, Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so." (v.8)

Notice the words "Moses ... allowed you ..."

I am quoting Christ who said "Moses ... allowed you"

Now I think what your issue is is that you say I am pretending that the instruction came only from Moses and was not of God.

Be back.

Originally posted by jaywill
First tell me if you agree that I am quoting Jesus when I say that Moses gave the Hebrews a certificate of divorce?

Yes. Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce.

There are only two conclusions that can be drawn by this. Jesus was mistaken or Moses was evidently
lying when he issued commands that he claimed was on behalf of God?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Yes. Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce.

There are only two conclusions that can be drawn by this. Jesus was mistaken or Moses was evidently
lying when he issued commands that he claimed was on behalf of God?

I am sure that both of your conclusions are wrong.

It is possible that I phrased something poorly, gave a wrong impression, or even taught something poorly and with an error in it.

But Christ neither lied and Moses did not lie. Of these two things I'm sure.

Originally posted by jaywill
But Christ neither lied and Moses did not lie. Of these two things I'm sure.

Moses taught that it was God's commandment that divorce be permitted.

Jesus taught that man must never divide what God joined.

Both claimed to be speaking on behalf of God.

One of them was either wrong or lying, or God changed His mind.

Unless you see another possibility, which is it?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Yes. Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce.

There are only two conclusions that can be drawn by this. Jesus was mistaken or Moses was evidently
lying when he issued commands that he claimed was on behalf of God?

Nemesio, I have been following this discussion and have a question. It is clear that the content of the Instruction given to Moses in Deuteronomy comes from God; on this the Tanakh is clear. Moses claims that God has enjoined and charged Israel to follow these rules. But Moses himself also claims that he himself enjoins and charges Israel to follow these rules, typically after giving ancillary reasons to think that God's rules are wise. This is so even in Deuteronomy 24:18, within the chapter you're concerned with here. It is as though Moses is saying to Israel "God commands that you X, and anyway here are some other reasons to X, so I command you to X as well." Why do you think that Moses felt the need to add his own sanction to these commandments when delivering them to Israel? I'm not sure, but if this is right, then I wonder whether there is a third, harmonious conclusion that can be drawn from the apparent tension between Moses' and Jesus' respective claims concerning divorce. Jesus could have meant simply that Moses allowed divorce (in the same manner that Moses enjoined, charged and commanded in his delivery of the Instruction to Israel), where this does not entail anything about the ultimate origin of the permissibility of divorce. Have I gone wrong here somewhere?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Moses taught that it was God's commandment that divorce be permitted.

Jesus taught that man must never divide what God joined.

Both claimed to be speaking on behalf of God.

One of them was either wrong or lying, or God changed His mind.

Unless you see another possibility, which is it?

Nemesio

===============================

Moses taught that it was God's commandment that divorce be permitted.

Jesus taught that man must never divide what God joined.

=======================================

He said that in the beginning it was not so. He refered back to the original plan for marriage.

In Malachi God said He hated divorce. He allowed it but He hated it (Malachi 2:13-17)


====================================
Both claimed to be speaking on behalf of God.

One of them was either wrong or lying, or God changed His mind.
===========================================

No, there is an Old Testament and a New Testament.

There is an Old Covenant and a New Covenant.

You have heard that it was said thus and such, But I say to you ....

For example:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist him who is evil; rather whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matt. 5:38,39)

The old speaking of the law of God said in essence "Only extract so much as is just - an eye for an eye. Limit your compensation to what is just.

The new speaking is in essence "You have to deal with the motive of anger and revenge down to its very core and root. Your reaction should be more loving and more with self control as to not resist but to leave your vindication up to God."

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in oder to lust after her has already commited adultery with her in his heart. So if your right eye stumbl;es you, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna." (Matt. 5:27-29)

The old commandment stopped at the outward act of adultery. Christ new speaking is more penetrating. Now He exposes the evil imagination and the thought life has to come under the control of the Holy Spirit. The kingdom people have to deal with the motive of such a sin at any cost.

This means to open our beings fully to the saturation of the Holy Spirit in every corner of our soul and heart. Then we not only avoid the outward act of adultery which offended to law of Moses. But we avoid the inner motive and evil imagination that festers within the heart and gives birth to the action.

The new law of the kingdom of the heavens is more penetrating, more exposing, and requires the indwelling of Christ's own life and Person to fulfill.

The old law says love your neighbers and reserve your hate for your enemies. In essense the new law of the kingdom of the heavens says that that is not good enough. Love even your enemies and pray for them.

We are to trust God for our vindication.

====================================
Unless you see another possibility, which is it?
====================================

A progressive gradual unfolding of the purpose of God.

God's purpose is to dispense Himself into man. This required some long period of progressive and gradual education. Both Moses and Christ speak for God. Christ, however, IS God come to us as the Lord and Savior to redeem us and live within us.