God loves all sexuality

divorce for example is not bad in itself. it is what it implies. you took a vow to respect and to love someone before god and in sickness and in health and in good and bad.

when jesus says "what god joined, let no man separate". he is not saying "you would go to hell if you divorce an abusive husband or a alcoholic slutty wife" but more like "dude, be very careful who you marry and only make a commitment if you're absolutely sure". it is like breaking a promise. you promised god you would be with someone until death and then you said "errrm, i kinda changed my mind".

Of course, we are humans and we make mistakes, so even if your mate seems the perfect match, he might change or you might discover he is an abusive alcoholic. Even though divorce is frowned upon, it is like any other sin, forgivable.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Naturally, I'm inclined to agree. But I doubt Jaywill does.

Do you, Jaywill?

Nemesio

he will smack you over the head with the bible again if you come up with these pagan ideas 😀

Originally posted by Nemesio
Okay. However, after a point, He rescinded His toleration and reiterated His true position which,
it would at first appear, was in contradiction with His early position. Right?

It is interesting to note that He never rescinded His position on polygamy. Yes, Jesus spoke
about the two becoming one flesh and so forth, but as mentioned that doesn't excl ...[text shortened]... ion on something (divorce) that He previously allowed
(but always hated). Right?

Nemesio

If one wanted to live according the the kingdom of the heavens one must have the highest standard of morality.

I think your concept of "rescinding toleration" is a little weird.

One of the other principals of the kingdom of the heavens is "Blessed are the merciful. For they shall obtain mercy."

The kingdom people are strict towards themselves yet merciful with others. This is against human nature. Mostly we are easy on ourselves and strict with other people. Some people are strict with themselves yet make other people around them miserable because they expect the same from them.

The kingdom people are to be strict with their own behavior and merciful on others. If they are merciful then in the judgement for reward or loss of reward or punishment, Christ will be merciful with them.

But if they are strct and exacting with other people and yet easy on themselves, Christ will be strict and exacting on them in that day of judgement.

Why is this important? It is important because ALL disciples are going to probably come up short in the end. Few are 100% faithful. Since even the kingdom people make errors, how they deal with others will enfluence how Christ will deal with them at the judgement.

Blessed are the merciful. They shall obtain mercy. But judgement is without mercy to him who has shown no mercy.

The kingdom of the heavens disciple must be strict and exacting on his own behavrior. Yet with others he is accomodating and merciful.

Originally posted by jaywill
If one wanted to live according the the kingdom of the heavens one must have the highest standard of morality.

I think your concept of "rescinding toleration" is a little weird.

Do you realize that you haven't answered a single one of my questions directly. Every time I
summarize your position and solicit your approval or disapproval, you go off on another tangent.

Can you fathom how frustrating this is?

So, let's try again. God conceives of a particular, singular, and perfect morality. But, because His
people are unable to meet to it initially, He gives a less restrictive, though less perfect one for
His people to follow. Once they reach a certain level of spiritual and moral maturity, He
begins to become more restrictive since, having attained those maturities, they are now capable
of handling it.

Is this correct?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Do you realize that you haven't answered a single one of my questions directly. Every time I
summarize your position and solicit your approval or disapproval, you go off on another tangent.

Can you fathom how frustrating this is?

So, let's try again. God conceives of a particular, singular, and perfect morality. But, because His
people are unable ...[text shortened]... ttained those maturities, they are now capable
of handling it.

Is this correct?

Nemesio

You find it frustrating to talk to me? I often have a similiar feeling in talking to you.

Maybe the reason I feel that some of these summaries are not that good is because I expect you to exploit it next to make the Christian faith look unjust and/or foolish. So I am on the look out for aspects of it which could be exploited by your generally skeptical and destructive attitude toward the Bible

But your summary before this one I generally passed as maybe OK.
I only pointed out one thing that I would have said differently. I thought I was being fair.


It may be a long time before you'll see me write "Wow Nemesio, you just took the words right out of mouth ! What a summary! "

It could happen though.

Originally posted by jaywill
You find it frustrating to talk to me? I often have a similiar feeling in talking to you.

Maybe the reason I feel that some of these summaries are not that good is because I expect you to exploit it next to make the Christian faith look unjust and/or foolish. So I am on the look out for aspects of it which could be exploited by your generally skeptical ou just took the words right out of mouth ! What a summary! "

It could happen though.[/b]

'Maybe okay' is equivocal! You pointed out one thing. I tried to correct it in my most recent
summary, which you didn't even bother to comment on.

If my summary is accurate, and a subsequent conclusion logically follows, and the result is that
Christianity looks foolish, then you have two choices.

1) Revise your theological framework so that it doesn't embrace foolishness; or
2) Acknowledge that you employ a framework that embraces foolishness.

The option you are employing -- committing to nothing, equivocating on every issue, not answering
questions -- makes you appear to look foolish, unknowledgeable, and petty. If you can't
(or won't) talk intelligently about your faith, then your just engaging in theological masturbation
every time you post.

Now, if my summary is inaccurate, all you have to do is say 'sentence x should read x-y, or
x+z.' Let's see if you can do that with my most recent summary. In case you forgot it:

So, let's try again. God conceives of a particular, singular, and perfect morality. But, because His
people are unable to meet to it initially, He gives a less restrictive, though less perfect one for
His people to follow. Once they reach a certain level of spiritual and moral maturity, He
begins to become more restrictive since, having attained those maturities, they are now capable
of handling it.

Is this correct?


Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
'Maybe okay' is equivocal! You pointed out one thing. I tried to correct it in my most recent
summary, which you didn't even bother to comment on.

If my summary is accurate, and a subsequent conclusion logically follows, and the result is that
Christianity looks foolish, then you have two choices.

1) Revise your theological framework so that it doe maturities, they are now capable
of handling it.

Is this correct?


Nemesio

To get to the point of "all sexuality being acceptable to God" the direct answer is:

1.) Depends on what you mean by "sexuality".


Now about the polygamy and divorce issue.

The belief that to God divorce was undesirable (against His perfect will) is pretty plainly spelled out.

The belief that to God polygamy was undesirable may be less explicit. However I think implicit evidence is pretty strong against it.

That's it for me and this topic.

Something needs to be said about this passage:

"You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery.

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already commited adultery with her in his heart." (Matt.5:27,28)


This does not mean that it is a sin to see beautiful women. God created the female human being to be attractive to the male human being. The beauty of the female sex is God's idea.

And no man, unless he is blind, can avoid seeing attractive women. This "look" is not the seeing of attractive women. This is the intentional gaze "in order to lust after her".

In other words this is not the first seeing. This is the second looking. This is "looking in order" is the third step a man takes that gets him into trouble.


Say you are married:

1. Step 1 - You see an attractive woman who is not your wife.

2. Step 2 - You are stirred perhaps slightly in your heart. The woman is after all pleasant to see.

3. Step 3 - You look the second time "in order to lust after her"

This is where the sin arises in the heart. This look is not the first seeing. It is the second look which is the third step. That is this is the PURPOSEFUL gaze with the intention "to lust after her." Here the Lord Jesus says you have commited adultery with her already in your heart.


The new teaching of the kingdom of the heavens touches more than the outward act. It penetrates deep into the inner motive. It exposes the imagination. The law of the kingdom of the heavens is a law dealing with the innermost motive of the sinner. It is requires that inward working of the Holy Spirit which Christ can dispense into the heart of the believers.

"He who believes into Me, as the Scripture said, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit which they who were about to receive; for [the Spirit] was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified." (John 7:38,39)

Originally posted by jaywill
That's it for me and this topic.

It's really an emotional struggle for you to answer a 'yes or no' question directly, isn't it? When
pressed, you simply stick your head in the sand and refuse to participate further.

Do you think that's a sign of a mature faith, or mature person for that matter?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
It's really an emotional struggle for you to answer a 'yes or no' question directly, isn't it? When
pressed, you simply stick your head in the sand and refuse to participate further.

Do you think that's a sign of a mature faith, or mature person for that matter?

Nemesio

NWR - not worth reading

WoT - waste of time

Originally posted by Nemesio
Do you realize that you haven't answered a single one of my questions directly. Every time I
summarize your position and solicit your approval or disapproval, you go off on another tangent.

Can you fathom how frustrating this is?

So, let's try again. God conceives of a particular, singular, and perfect morality. But, because His
people are unable ...[text shortened]... ttained those maturities, they are now capable
of handling it.

Is this correct?

Nemesio

I apologize for taking this long to respond. I have a heavy game load and was injured this month.

If you love God, you will strive not to sin. Quite true. Different people, however, have a different idea of what sin is. Most think of sin as a list of dos and donts; follow the dos, stay away from the donts, and you're ok. That is not sin to me. Sin is separation from God and has nothing to do with what other people think are right and wrong, or what other people think that God thinks is right and wrong.

Therefore, such expressions of sexuality reflect a lack of covenant with God, and consequently a lack of love for God. Thus, those who express such sexuality cannot be believers.

How, as a minister, do you respond to that and the incessant Biblical quotation that would
accompany it?

As a minister, I respond to this an anything else in the context of the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The OT treated the waste of seed, if you will, as sacrilege and gave accounts of when this is so. It was basic to their belief. I am no more constrained to that 'rule' or 'law' than Jesus was constrained not to do his works on the Sabbath. Jesus did plenty of things that broke the rules - on a temporal level he was killed for exactly that. But what he did was not sinful; it caused no chasm in his relationship with God. It did not cause harm to other people. It caused offense, but that is not the same thing. For the most part people choose to be offended.

It is too bad that some paradigms, like homosexuality, mean different things today than they did in the time of Jesus. The same is true with winking. It's too bad that Jesus did not specifically address the issues, but I think he looked to disciples to see the entire forest and not just a few trees - to see the entirety of his ministry and what he was trying to convey, rather than just choose what you like and insert whatever exclusions you will. Jesus would have no problem with winking or homosexuality, and I can only presume that those who would disagree do not understand his radical message of love to all. That message is not something we say, it is not something that is for 'us' but not 'them'; it is for all that would engage in loving acts toward others. I do not see winking as a sin or homosexuality as an unloving act. They can be, but so can abstinence or heterosexuality. The intent and action of the act is what makes it loving, sinful or not sinful, not the act itself.

Incessant rule quoting or bible thumping says more about the speaker than it does about the supposed act of sin.

Originally posted by Badwater
I apologize for taking this long to respond. I have a heavy game load and was injured this month.

[b]If you love God, you will strive not to sin. Quite true. Different people, however, have a different idea of what sin is. Most think of sin as a list of dos and donts; follow the dos, stay away from the donts, and you're ok. That is not sin to me. Sin ...[text shortened]... bible thumping says more about the speaker than it does about the supposed act of sin.[/b]

excellent post and rec'd

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
excellent post and rec'd

Agreed.

How does God feel about seventeen year old girls getting pregnant?