Let's talk about evangelicals, protestants, and sex in marriages:

"In analyzing online discussions on Christian sexuality sites, I found examples of men who identified as conservative Christians and who also enjoyed being anally penetrated by their wives.

I develop the term in my book 'gender omniscience' to describe how these men justify their interests despite critiques that these interest might signal gender or sexual deviance/sinfulness.

Instead, they emphasize that both God and their wives know, with certainty, that they are heterosexual men enjoying this sexual practice within their godly marriage," said Burke.

Everybody! Is this deviant or normal behavior?

In the grand scheme of things, I would have to say, "Who cares?" But I know that there are a lot of people out there that actually do care, which leaves me shaking my head because I just don't get what someone does in private has anything to do with ...anything. At all. 

70 Georgia churches leave United Methodist Church over homosexuality debate

Seventy congregations in Georgia have decided to leave The United Methodist Church due in part to the mainline Protestant denomination’s ongoing debate over homosexuality.

The UMC North Georgia Conference announced last Thursday that 70 congregations representing 9% of its churches and 3% of its members have chosen disaffiliation.

T he official date of disaffiliation for the churches will be June 30 [2022].

It is expected that many if not all of these departing congregations will join the newly created Global Methodist Church, which was launched as a conservative alternative to the UMC.

“Bless these congregations as they depart,” prayed North Georgia Bishop Sue Haupert-Johnson, as quoted by the announcement. “I pray that we will be partners in ministry and you will do your mighty work of healing division and overcoming rifts.”

The 70 churches leaving the North Georgia Conference comes as many other congregations in the United States are leaving the UMC over the ongoing debate on LGBT issues.

The UMC Book of Discipline presently labels homosexuality “incompatible with Christian teaching” and prohibits the blessing of same-sex unions or the ordination of noncelibate homosexuals.

However, many in the UMC adamantly oppose the Book of Discipline's biblically-based stance and some prominent leaders in the denomination have refused to enforce the rules.

Hi Thomas, a similar split is happening in Texas: Texas megachurch with 14K members votes to leave UMC amid homosexuality schism August 10, 2022.

christianpost

All over homosexuality and its place in our culture. And yet, these Christians, likely do similar sexual acts and activities in the privacy of their own marriages—while looking discriminately down their long noses at homosexuals!

And there is that word again: "PRIVACY."  A word MAGA conservatives and a conservative majority on the SCOTUS have decided is not in the constitution so therefore it does exist.

Fuck em.

If however many,  and I use big air quotes here, need to decamp and leave because the church is too accepting.... fuck them.

They had aught to get down on their boney knees and pray to God for redemption,  because they have misinterpreted the word of God.

...Oh yeah!  Jesus too! Probably more pertinent, since he was sent down for the express purpose of saying, "HEY! You all have this wrong."

And, they are getting it wrong for the thousandth time..Try to teach some hating person what it is to love... it is like trying to make a bird fly backwards. And backwards is where they all want us to go. Back to the shadows where we make things work, so they can  (giggle) "rule" over us 

My mother was a tithing member of the United Methodist church. Not saying that I know how she would have felt... Yes, I am! She would have been upset as hell that there were some people who were not receiving the full benefit of the church, but she would also agree with the churches standing on LGBTQ+ issues, insofar as those standings reflect the core principles that all people are created in God's image....

These whole schisms and furtherance of "protestant" dividing in the Church is so frustrating. I propose that the Church get in the habit of love and letting God manage the universe and all that it encapsulates!

Ultimately, if I, we, believe (trust in) God that none God plans to save will be lost; then none will be lost that God plans to save! That should give people great comfort! Not this trying to compel people to convert or live according to a way that is impossible for them in the sense of this comment!

I get it. That some conservatives are afraid of what change can be/is. But, change is coming. . . be it incrementally or in a rush. People have to listen to one another to hear what is true about each other, instead of working 'for days" to overpower, silence, and subjugate those in our citizenry they perceive or in fact make into 'demons' for their own purposes!

people are created in God's image....

Man created God in man's image.

If people were created in God's image we would be invisible.

Not quite, but nice try.

A nice try

HA!

Nice try indeed!

Freaky Fundies!

"For some this means oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, the use of sex toys, the list could go on. … In online blog comments and message boards, website users sometimes debate whether or not a particular sex act is 'OK.' But the prevailing attitude is that if a believer is in open communication with God and a spouse about his or her desires, then those desires are permissible.

And then these "fundies," hiding behind privacy clauses and marriage creeds deny rights and privileges to homosexuals (and women separately)/! Well I am calling them out—publicly!

But the prevailing attitude is that if a believer is in open communication with God and a spouse about his or her desires, then those desires are permissible. And then these "fundies," hiding behind privacy clauses and marriage creeds deny rights and privileges to homosexuals (and women separately)/! Well I am calling them out—publicly!

CB, don't lose sight that the "prevailing attitude," suggested in the article, is from the creators of and people frequenting the sites, and is not necessarily the prevailing attitude of Christians, in general.

her study is based on 50 interviews with creators and users of Christian sexuality websites, extensive content analysis of about a dozen sites over the two-year period...

So, she conducted 50 interviews, and gathered the results of 768 surveys...of people that frequented or created the websites. Hardly a cross-section of Christians. 

We had an extensive discussion on this a while back, so I assume you know my thoughts already. Yes, I agree that the position of some of these people is hypocritical. But, it reminds me of our previous discussion. Once you start down the path of justifying what you are doing, instead of calling it what the Bible calls it, you are no longer following. 

Good point! While I agree that she has a limited number of Christian I would like to draw your focus to how she is laying out her research:

Burke explained that her study is based on 50 interviews with creators and users of Christian sexuality websites, extensive content analysis of about a dozen sites over the two-year period, and a survey with 768 respondents who asked questions about sexual attitudes and practices and religious beliefs.

So there is some credibility to her 'section' of the Christian community personnel and "extensive content analysis" from 12 websites, plus. Keep in mind, that I am not offering justification for what people are doing, certainly not at this time.

I am definitely pointing out that conservatives are attempting to legislate homosexuality as wholly 'deviant' behavior and I am putting those conservative on 'front-street' for each and every behavior they do in the confines of their marriages.

Marriages, which conservatives seek permission to deny homosexuals, based on what exactly?!

Once you start down the path of justifying what you are doing, instead of calling it what the Bible calls it, you are no longer following. 

Trans' Rex, to that I will add scripturally  we are reminded: With all our getting get understanding.

It is plain to see that some conservatives would rather just follow and do so blindly. We are not called to do that!

When Christians of any stripe is found doing acts and activities for which they are determined to deny others; it should no be an 'open' secret!

I would like to draw your focus to how she is laying out her research:

Not saying what she has seen is BS, or that she is not being truthful with what she has seen; rather, what she has seen is simply not a good cross section, and does not necessarily translate to everyone in the group. 50 interviews, and 768 surveys hardly cover the estimated 230+million Christians in the US. That's 0.00036%. If I were to attribute something to an entire community, say homosexual men, based on my interviewing and surveying of 0.00036% of that community, nobody would take that seriously. 

If her "extensive" analysis was as "extensive" as the survey and interview pool...I posit that the analysis was not extensive. Regardless, and apparently, there are professed Christians frequenting these sites. My only caution was this, don't attribute this to all. 

Marriages, which conservatives seek permission to deny homosexuals, based on what exactly?!

Spoiler alert! I agree with you, and I think you may be surprised to find that there are many Christians who do also. Yes, I believe the Bible sets forth what a Biblical marriage is. That said, we also have a marriage recognized by the State. Don't quote me, but I think that dates back to 1913, and the Revenue Act. Regardless, if the state recognizes a marriage between same sex couples, it does. I'm not going to spend my days, picketing to prevent such a thing, because I don't think that serves anyone really.

We see it come up in bills, but, unfortunately, I think that is more a product of the proverbial squeaky wheel. Example. One of my good friends is a state representative. He backed some legislation that was not popular, not even close. Fortunately, it crashed and burned. I asked him what he was thinking. His response? He was listening to the people showing up at his meet and greets. I literally called him an idiot, and suggested that those people represent a very small fraction of his constituents, if they even represent his constituents, and that he needs to do more than to go by who is yelling the loudest. I think that is going on with the bulk of the hot button issues we are seeing nationally. Recent Kansas vote is evidence of that. 

. My only caution was this, don't attribute this to all.

Of course, there are always exceptions. Kinda of goes without saying. That being recognized, it is a good point to share.

A fine comment.

Trans' Rex, what compelled me to seed this article is this: We have self-righteous believers who are not paying attention to what people "do" universally across sexual categories, and are damning homosexuals time after time blindly and more as a wedge issue to garner a voting bloc: White Christian America specifically.  (You appear to not be one of these people. )

Moreover, some of these people are here on NT. Recently, they have expressed that homosexuality is "deviant." So I ask them how and in what way? It can't be the act because 'everybody' is doing these practices-even in their marriages.

Therefore, what is this about? The GOP is using homosexuals as a wedge issue to galvanize White Evangelicals, people with a hatred for homosexuality though now we can call it out as unfounded disregard and dismissal, at mid-terms and presidential election times.

Finally, do keep in mind, the "churched" is not a place to go to get a sampling of the private sexual attitudes and practices of laypeople. They are not the most forthcoming due to the nature of the topic. This is why I think she uses websites and site creators where some anonymous questioning and sharing can be obtained.

BTW this quote comes from page 3 of the seed:

"Religion provides a foundation for heterosexuality, which has largely lost its other familiar attributes: gender, monogamy, and marriage. This may mean that conservative Christians will hold steadfast in their exclusive support for heterosexuality, or it may mean that they may gradually accept non-heterosexual practices and identities. Christian sexuality websites are one place where this future unfolds, " she added. christianpost

Finally, do keep in mind, the "churched" is not a place to go to get a sampling of the private sexual attitudes and practices of laypeople.

Yes, I agree with that. I do believe there is a place for discretion, some people take it to the extreme though, as if nobody knows how you or your wife got pregnant. We know.

Recently, they have expressed that homosexuality is "deviant." 

I'd tell you it deviates from what the Bible sets forth. So does this. There is a yoga group, that meets twice a week, next to my workplace. The girls have invited me, several times, to join their morning sessions. Although a couple of sessions of yoga per week would be beneficial to me, I don't think that is the right setting for me. All women, mostly very attractive women, in yoga pants. Call me childish or sophomoric, but also call me honest. As much as I'd like to say I could avoid it...I don't think I would. Probably from the first downward dog, I'll be getting an eye full of another dude's wife, and I'm going to have some prurient thoughts running through my head. Lusting after some other dudes wife...that deviates from what I know to be right. Who knows, I might be able to make it through, but best to avoid it altogether. 

So I ask them how and in what way? It can't be the act because 'everybody' is doing these practices-even in their marriages.

That goes back to our previous conversations. If everyone is doing something, it may be the norm, but that does not make it Biblical. There are people on here referring to Lot. Let's not forget that Sodom was destroyed, and Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt for looking back, as they fled. 

If everyone is doing something, it may be the norm, but that does not make it Biblical.

First, what it makes it is nonsense that it should be labeled "deviant" for some and normal (acceptable) for others by the same groups of people! On the part of those who do so, it is ignoring the obvious.

I'd tell you it deviates from what the Bible sets forth.

Secondly, it becomes important that we ask for the Spirit of Discernment to decide what "doth says the Lord" in this situation. If only because the Church has 'split' over the question in our day, and of course, at best we were being guided by men in understanding (and accepting) the ancient meaning of words related to the topic!

In other words, there is much that can be discussed related to the meaning "then" and the meaning "now."

Probably from the first downward dog, I'll be getting an eye full of another dude's wife, and I'm going to have some prurient thoughts running through my head. Lusting after some other dudes wife...that deviates from what I know to be right. Who knows, I might be able to make it through, but best to avoid it altogether. 

Thirdly, as a heterosexual male in a "conspicious" placement in a class full of women bent over I can see the issue. The issue is not your thought process, but the location of your body. For example. What would you be thinking if you were on the front row and to the left or the right of the lead instructor?

You can see that this is not the "deviancy" the Church and evangelicals are talking up. Their complaint is to decry the homosexual himself! While pretending to be against the acts involved.

Good talk!

BTW, I am a believing, confessing Christian and I am 'FED UP TO MY EYEBALLS" with the cherry picking coming from our White evangelical counterparts/groups. Fed up!

What these people are doing in the political realm is downright wrong. The Church has no authority over our plural culture to try to turn it back into a "Christian" culture! When this nation had a Christian conservative majority, today, we can see the problems plainly being so presented to our country.

The issue is not your thought process, but the location of your body.

I agree...but I'd be in the back...if they let me choose.

What would you be thinking if you were on the front row and to the left or the right of the lead instructor?

She's the best looking of the bunch, so...best view in the house? I think I'd have to go blind-folded, regardless of position in the class. 

You can see that this is not the "deviancy" the Church and evangelicals are talking up. 

I agree. That is part of the problem, and was addressed in the video you previously posted. I'm having a little fun with the yoga scenario, but that would be a comparable scenario, to me. That's the rub though, and part of what I suggested earlier regarding "following." The Bible is clear, no temptation has seized you, except what is common to man. I'm man, and I experience temptation. I may not physically follow through with everything, but Jesus suggested that lustfully looking at a woman was the same as the physical act, as far as the heart is concerned. Is the Church doing a good job of conveying the message? Apparently not. That, or those portraying the "holier than thou" attitude garner more press. Probably a bit of both, because "Christian recognizes own sin" doesn't get the press that "Christian damns everyone else" does. The real issue is Christians attempting to justify conduct. People don't like hypocrites...generally, and hypocritical Christians are easy targets. As suggested though, the hypocrites are the ones our society likes to spotlight. To that end, I'd say don't put much stock into a hypocrites suggestions, and, to hypocrites, stop...or at least try. 

I'd say don't put much stock into a hypocrites suggestions, and, to hypocrites, stop...or at least try. 

The issue before us is they are hypocrites while operating in their faith/s as the case may be. And, as hypocrites why do they "get" to pass into state and federal law condemning those they (mis)label "deviants" outside of the faith or their church doors ?

Please, if you can respond to the question above.

That is part of the problem, and was addressed in the video you previously posted.

What video are you referring?

The Bible is clear, no temptation has seized you, except what is common to man. I'm man, and I experience temptation. I may not physically follow through with everything, but Jesus suggested that lustfully looking at a woman was the same as the physical act, as far as the heart is concerned.

May I suggest to you that keeping one's hands and fingers to oneself is enough? Then, I do suggest it. The biblical implication in the "lust of the eye" bears on it leading or ending up in an act. Which you alluded to with ". . . not physically follow through will everything. . . " 

As mature Christians one is reminded that self-discipline can go only so far in the real world. And the real world is what matters right?

That is, the New Testament is written in a high-context way. That is, much is left up to the individual as liberty to work out the details. Versus a low-context way. That is, every little detail.

It does make one wonder why New Testament believers try to operate under the Law of Moses. Versus walking in faith-trusting God to do what they can not!

There is much packed into this comment; I wonder if you can "see" it?

What video are you referring?

The debate on LGTBQ people in the Church. 

The issue before us is they are hypocrites while operating in their faith/s as the case may be. And, as hypocrites why do they "get" to pass into state and federal law condemning those they (mis)label "deviants" outside of the faith or their church doors ?

I'll refer back to the story of my friend, the idiot that backed the legislation because the people showing up to his town halls seemed to support it. Look at this board. You and I are the only one's commenting here, and we are not even arguing against each other. I don't perceive this as a hot button issue amongst voters. There is a small band of people raising hell about this...ignore them. And, I'm not suggesting you ignore them, but the idiots in DC or the State legislatures should ignore them, and not only them, but also any other small faction of morons, caravanning around to raise hell.  That's the problem. They won't, and I'm not sure that they, on both sides, aren't the ones ginning this thing up, because the more money, the more problems, except, contrary to Biggie's case, it's the mo' problems we come across, the mo' money we see. 

And, I don't know that they "get" to pass anything into law, any more than any one else "gets" to pass laws. We have people in office promoting the centralization of everything. That's the thing that most everyone that has come/is coming here is fleeing. 

Have you read the Committee on Finance's (COF) report on the effects of the Inflation Reduction Act? The Senate claims the report shows that the Act will reduce the deficit, over a ten year period, by 60-80 billion dollars. It doesn't. It leaves huge dangling questions. The report literally has a blank where the COF should be subtracting the 80 billion the new IRS agents are going to cost. The report also leaves blanks for extended subsidies and tax credits. The real alarming part about it, to me, is the fact that the claimed deficit reduction comes in the first three years. Every year after that, it is going to add to the deficit, by an increasing amount each year. All things considered...with the 80 billion increased cost, and extension of subsidies and credits not accounted for...this thing is going to cost...and it is expected to raise inflation on top of that.  

Why do I bring this up? That is a helluva lot more pressing and important to the wide majority of people than same sex marriage, and will literally impact everyone on US soil. So why in the world was that thing not scrutinized every which way, the same as any piece of legislation dealing with same sex marriage? Because they don't want you looking too deeply into things, they want you bickering about same sex marriage. Both sides.

I still have to show proof off 72 hr negative Covid test to enter into places, but the vaccinated folks walk right in...this is even after the CDC announced that vaccinated and unvaccinated folks should be treated the same, if symptom free. Why? I've been trying to understand that for a while now. Walensky admitted, in January, the vaccine can't prevent transmission. No kidding...you don't say? They are still clinging to "it prevents serious illness and hospitalizations though." I've posted the numbers from my state here. The numbers don't match the narrative, and haven't for quite some time.  The CDC isn't fully releasing the breakdown on hospitalizations, by vaccination status, for the claimed reason that the public simply isn't ready for those numbers. No, I'm ready. Why isn't the CDC ready. I'm assuming it's because the numbers don't match what the CDC has been selling. Otherwise, they'd throw those numbers in everyone's face. 

Inflation has been at all time highs, the consumer price index is absurd, and Joe Biden keeps on a tellin us that his plan is working, and that the worker has more buying power. What? 

I'm not saying that the issue of same sex marriage isn't being brought up in legislation, because it is. I'm saying, until everyone stands up and says "please address the issues that impact us most," they will continue to run their dog and pony show, while they slip things by, that impact 100% of us. 

May I suggest to you that keeping one's hands and fingers to oneself is enough?

Jesus didn't say look, but don't touch. He said:

“You have heard that it was said ^{[ a ]} 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.

So, keeping your hands to yourself is not enough. 

It does make one wonder why New Testament believers try to operate under the Law of Moses. Versus walking in faith-trusting God to do what they can not!

I've had this conversation with Christians and non-Christians. Neither the New Testament, nor Jesus, directs anyone to abandon the Law of Moses. Jesus quotes the law of Moses, when he is tempted. Paul, in 2 Timothy, 3:16 writes that all Scripture is God breathed, and useful in teaching, rebuking, correcting and training, in righteousness. Scripture includes the Law of Moses. Joshua 1:8, Do not let this book of law depart from your lips. Meditate on it day and night, that you may be careful to do everything written in it, then you will be fruitful and prosperous. Paul references this in 1Timothy 4:13,   Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. 

If you wonder why Christians don't abandon the Law of Moses, it is because Jesus did not, nor is there any direction to do so. Jesus is the new covenant, but he did not proclaim that everyone should simply give in to their sinful nature, because he will justify you in the end. Being called to faith doesn't include abandoning the law because you have been justified. I submit that the people that are the subject of the article are not following the direction of Joshua 1:8, but are perverting the law to conform to what they want it to be. Their failure has an impact, which is evident by this seed. You're taking issue with their position, (I'd say rightfully so) bust casting your perception of those people onto an entire group. Paul finished 1 Timothy 4 with this; Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. 

What video? Did I miss(place) a video somewhere? I don't follow your, sorry!

I'll refer back to the story of my friend, the idiot that backed the legislation because the people showing up to his town halls seemed to support it. Look at this board. You and I are the only one's commenting here, and we are not even arguing against each other. I don't perceive this as a hot button issue amongst voters. There is a small band of people raising hell about this...ignore them. And, I'm not suggesting you ignore them, but the idiots in DC or the State legislatures should ignore them, and not only them, but also any other small faction of morons, caravanning around to raise hell.  That's the problem. They won't, and I'm not sure that they, on both sides, aren't the ones ginning this thing up, because the more money, the more problems, except, contrary to Biggie's case, it's the mo' problems we come across, the mo' money we see. 

Trans' Rex, that (above) is a specious argument: See bolding areas.

1. Some others here, not all of course, won't touch this topic of "kinky," "deviant," or "normal" sex because it is easier to hide their sociopathic treatment towards homosexuals by pretense to modesty. (A lie. They have demonstrated no shame on any thing they presently do-remember.)

2. I can not ignore them because this issue is one SCOTUS decision (this fall?) away. Where SCOTUS has a strong potential to 'remove' its hand in the process of uncovering same-sex marriage for states to decide in hodge-podge manner. I care about same-sex marriage liberty. Why should homosexuals be denied sex which is being performed by 'all'?

Homosexuals should not!

3. As for whosoever is making political hay out of the topic, all I can say is the issue can be taken off the table from manipulation if, and its a big if, politicians and religious groups stop with their pretense of calling others names like "deviants" while they screw this way and that way themselves!

As a believer yourself, Trans' Rex, I am pretty sure you accept that God can see into the bedrooms of Christians and all and what is occurring; and thus, see the hypocrisy for what it is.

Matthew 5: 27  “You have heard that it was said ^{[ a ]} 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.

So, keeping your hands to yourself is not enough.

Yes. That is the high context (less than fine print) impression given from the Bible verse. But what does the low context (fine print) of Gospel say:

Adultery is a sin in marriage. What of a non-married or single individual who lust? Where is the fine print?

John 8:⁴ “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. ⁵ The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

⁶ They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. ⁷ They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” ⁸ Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

⁹ When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. ¹⁰ Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

¹¹ “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

The "law" insisted this woman be stoned to remove the 'corruption, so what is it Jesus applied instead?

Why did Jesus release a 'corrupt' woman back into the community? Why?

Is it rational to assume the woman would not commit adultery again or any other sin ever?

What is it that Jesus extend to her? Answer: Grace.

Grace is something only someone higher up in a hierarchical society can provide. 

God gives grace to a sinner/s.

Trans' Rex, God tells the children of the kingdom to come boldly before the presence of God and make request known: Thus, why we come respectfully we do not come as 'beggars.' We come before God as members of the realm (of faith) and we trust that God will provide. That God can not lose and that none can remove us from God's realm except God alone.

This does not mean we commit sin so that grace further and deeper enters in. It simply means God understand (better than we) we are flesh and it is carnal. That is, we do the best we can and then TRUST God to do the rest!

And, I don't know that they "get" to pass anything into law, any more than any one else "gets" to pass laws. We have people in office promoting the centralization of everything. That's the thing that most everyone that has come/is coming here is fleeing. 

"Centralization of everything"? Everything? "Everything"? Is that literally true or hyperbole?

Trans' Rex, here is a for instance. Our interstate highway system is designed in the national interest. That is, the road system transports people, goods and services, and military stock thousands of miles through the contiguous states, Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

Our nation centralizes what is conducive to safety, uniformity, and national interests. That is, we can not have unsafe marriages simply because a group of states don't want to honor certain TAXPAYING citizens who pay into the national treasury same as those others.

I'm not saying that the issue of same sex marriage isn't being brought up in legislation, because it is. I'm saying, until everyone stands up and says "please address the issues that impact us most," they will continue to run their dog and pony show, while they slip things by, that impact 100% of us. 

Those "issues" are good, but fortunately or regrettably are for another discussion. The scope of this discussion is considering some conservatives defame homosexuals of this country by calling them "deviants," and putting up policy 'prescriptions' that take away homosexual liberties, equality, equity, and potentially their marriages based on a whimsical notion of what liberties can be justified conservatively.

I am likely going to touch a 'third rail' with you. But, what is life if it is not about growth and development? Being so, we must move deeper into our faith and not sit on the edge of it-where we are subject to metaphorically 'teetering over' and landing on the floor.

1. Jesus existed under the Law of Moses. Is this true? Yes.

2. The Apostles were born in the Jewish faith. Is this true? Yes.

3. Timothy was a Greek born of a Greek father and Jewish mother whom Paul circumcised in order to do missionary travels with him-Paul-in and around Jewish society. 

Acts 16:1 Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. ² The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. ³ Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

⁴ As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.

⁵ So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers.

3. a. What distinction is being delivered to you when Paul specifically writes Timothy's mother was both a Jew (under the law of Moses) and a believer?

A Jewish person is separate and apart from a believer - a believer need not be Jewish - or - can be both things? Is this true? Yes.

3. b. Why did Paul circumcise this believer? Was it to necessary for believers to be circumcised in Paul's day? Is this true. NO.

Timothy was a known personage to the locals in and around Lystra and if he wanted to be respected by the Jews Paul would encounter he circumcision and a recognition of Abraham and the later Law of Moses: Leviticus 12:3.

4. What were "the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem"?  HINT: Acts Chapter 15.

'All scripture' is good, no doubt for a variety and assortment of understanding, growth, background, teaching, and daily living. However, I can AFFIRM to you that Christians are under faith and not under the Law of Moses.

If you doubt I can-Ask me.

Address the room: Not me. I have nothing to share with you at all beyond this.

thenewstalkers

What?

Trans' Rex, that (above) is a specious argument: See bolding areas.

I don't think it is. I acknowledge the reality of the topic being an issue. I tend to believe that the loudest people are but a very small fraction though. By your comment, am I to believe that you are of the opinion that our elected representatives should promote the whims and wants of those opposed to same sex marriage, even though, by all I've seen, that is not a majority. I don't even believe a majority of conservatives are promoting such a ban. 

1. Some others here, not all of course, won't touch this topic of "kinky," "deviant," or "normal" sex because it is easier to hide their sociopathic treatment towards homosexuals by pretense to modesty.

I've yet to see anyone post here, that I believe would shy away from the topic. If you'd have included the name Trump, I think there'd be a much more vigorous debate, or at least commenting. 

2. I can not ignore them...

Good. Don't. I didn't suggest you should; rather, I suggested the opposite. "There is a small band of people raising hell about this...ignore them. And, I'm not suggesting you ignore them, but the idiots in DC or the State legislatures should ignore them,"

3. ....

Yes, kind of goes along with my suggestion that the DC folks should stop with it already, but I don't think they will, because...Pop Quiz: Line from a sketch from 'In Living Color.'

Absolutely, I believe, and not only the bedroom, but the heart. 

"There is a small band of people raising hell about this...ignore them. And, I'm not suggesting you ignore them, but the idiots in DC or the State legislatures should ignore them,"

The idiots like Ted Cruz, Marsha Blackburn, and other republicans are not ignoring them: It is in their hearts that same-sex marriage should be a 'local' issue. However, let me be clear, where you live in this country should not break the ties that bind you to another person!  Moreover, we all are fully aware that states' rights have often been used to deprive minorities of their liberties, privileges, and rights because they may not have the numbers needed to win the day.

Good article at link. I will not chop it up here, because as a whole it makes the case for why I, we, can not ignore "small bands of people raising hell. . . ."

cnn

Re: Adulterous Woman

Jesus turned the pharisees game on it's head, by calling them on the carpet, and inviting the sinless to throw the first stone. What he didn't do is tell the woman to go and continue in sin. 

Is it rational to assume the woman would not commit adultery again or any other sin ever?

Nobody is saying she would, or that it is even possible for her to live a completely sin free life. Recognition of that fact, and the fact that we are saved by grace, does not give a person carte blanche to commit sin. 

This does not mean we commit sin so that grace further and deeper enters in. It simply means God understand (better than we) we are flesh and it is carnal. That is, we do the best we can and then TRUST God to do the rest!

Calling for a redefining of sin, to conform to "today," is not doing the best you can, it is justifying what you are doing. As you noted above, there is only One that can justify.

there is only One that can justify.

I am not telling anybody to consider what they call "sin" not sin. Please understand the distinction, because it is there where the fine details operate. In a diverse country, it is one thing to lead one's church flock and a whole other thing to govern a nation. Churches have religious freedoms. They do not have "special dispensation" over civil matters. That is, the outside world concept of sin is an act that is illegal.

Churches have no authority to enter into civil matters with religious rituals, ceremonies, or sacred "laws."  Do you understand and agree?

That is, churches should not takeover the 'world' outside its doors and legislate people who are disassociated or never even heard of them and their ways, into religious obeisance or worse subjugation. Do you agree?

Furthermore, I will remind you of what I, you, others and clergy say all the time about God: "God can not fail."  Do you believe God can not fail?

"God can not lose."  Do you believe God can not lose?

Well, then churches and laypeople, therein lies maturity in the faith, trust God to give "increase" to the faith where and as God decides. Trust God to do what God does: Save souls.

It has always struck me odd that Christians 'mouth' the words over and over again: "God can not fail."

And so I ask shockingly: "Why do some believers behave as if God will fail without them (taking control)?"

Where is their faith?!! What level is their faith operating on?

Religious freedom in our COTUS allows churches which hold to specific doctrines to exist and govern admissions to their ranks (flock). The Law of Moses does not govern all churches. Right? So why should it creep into governing civil society?

Sin is a doctrinal expression. It is not a civil term. Why are churches legislating religious expression into civil law?

You will certainly agree that this republic of our is not a theocracy - old or new. Right?

Religious freedomin our COTUS

Historically, my coitus has been free, religious or not.

Well, I guess we can use a comic to relieve any tension on this forum.  You can begin. . . now!

Jesus didn't say look, but don't touch. He said:

“You have heard that it was said ^{[ a ]} 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.

I had no idea he said that. He actaully took Jewish law one step further than what is asked. Read this from an ultra orthodox Jewish group:

What a great sharing. Greatly appreciated. This is what it is all about. It is not necessary that we all(ways) agree, though in this case we do, but that we are open and honest with one another.

Thank you from my heart!

Btw... I did a little investigation and apparently there is some discussion on what is really considered a sin re: lust

Most words in the Bible that are translated “lust” mean “a passionate desire.” Strong desire can be either good or bad, depending upon the object of that desire and the motive behind it. God created the human heart with the capacity for passionate desire so that we would long after Him and His righteousness ( Psalm 42:1–2 ;  73:25 ). However, the concept of “lust” is now usually associated with a passionate desire for something God has forbidden, and the word is seen as synonymous with sexual or materialistic desire.

James 1:14–15  gives us the natural progression of unrestrained lust: “Each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”

According to this passage, sinful lust begins with an evil desire. Being tempted by evil is not the sin. Jesus was tempted ( Matthew 4:1 ). The sin begins when the evil desire “drags us away” from where our hearts need to be. When an evil desire introduces itself, we have a choice. We can reject it as Jesus did and refocus on the path God has set before us ( Matthew 4:10 ). Or we can entertain it. As someone once said, “We cannot stop the birds from flying overhead, but we don’t have to let them make a nest in our hair.” When temptation beckons, we need to remember that we are not helpless. We can choose to give in or to resist.

The reason we are “dragged away” by temptation is that we are “enticed.” That word in the Greek refers to bait, as on a fishing line. When a fish sees the wiggling worm, he is enticed by it and grabs hold. Once the hook is set, he can be “dragged away.” When we encounter temptation, we should immediately reject it as Joseph did when he was tempted by Potiphar’s wife ( Genesis 39:11–12 ). Hesitation opens the door to enticement.  Romans 13:14  calls such hesitation “making provision for the flesh.” Like the unwary fish, we grab hold of the tempting thought, believing it will delight and fulfill us. We savor the fantasy, imagine new and sinful scenarios, and entertain the idea that God has not provided all we need for happiness ( Genesis 3:2–4 ). This is foolish.  Second Timothy 2:22  says, “Flee youthful lusts.” To “flee” means to take off immediately. Joseph did not stick around to consider his options. He recognized sexual temptation, and he ran. When we hesitate, we make provision for the flesh and give it the opportunity to choose evil. Often, we are overwhelmed by its power. Samson was a physically strong man, yet he was no match for his own lust ( Judges 16:1 ).

The next step in the downward progression of temptation, according to  James 1 , is that “desire conceives.” Lust begins as a seed, a thought packed with wrong desire. If we allow the seeds of lust to germinate, they will sprout into something bigger, more powerful, more difficult to uproot. Temptation becomes sin when it is allowed to germinate. Desire takes on a life of its own and becomes lust. Jesus made it clear that lust is sin, even if we do not physically act on it ( Matthew 5:27–28 ). Our hearts are God’s domain, and when we allow evil to grow there, we defile His temple ( 1 Corinthians 3:16 ;  6:19 ).

Wrong desires plague every human being. The tenth commandment forbids coveting, which means lusting for something that is not ours ( Deuteronomy 5:21 ;  Romans 13:9 ). The human heart is constantly seeking to please itself, and when it discovers something or someone it believes will satisfy, lust begins.

gotquestions

Strong desire can be either good or bad, depending upon the object of that desire and the motive behind it.

So there exist a (LUST) spectrum. And what has to be determined is what is (religious) sin - for religion(s) is the summation of this word, "sin."

In the world beyond the doors of temples, mosques, churches, and other sacred spaces sin does not exist, per se. There civil (citizen) law is "Lord." It being determined by aggregate bodies of humans.

To connect this sharing together to our topic; (Southern) White Evangelicals are getting into the political realm and legislating sin or morality—what constitutes sin and lust for them for the masses in the outside world. That is a major problem.

For the nation and for the churches involved. For they are generally found to be doing many practices today under the cover of marriage which are done in the world and for them there is no moral conflict, name-calling, or stigma. However, they FORCE homosexuals to "deny themselves" the same.

sinful lust begins with an evil desire

uh, what other kind of lust is there? since when is basic biology evil?

Re: Adulterous Woman

Do you have her phone number?

I'm an adult so I'm qualified to commit adultery.

I am not telling anybody to consider what they call "sin" not sin. Please understand the distinction, because it is there where the fine details operate.

Maybe not expressly CB, but I think your comments, reproduced below, suggest, at a minimum, that faith wins the day, so do whatever feels good, and it is left up to each individual to work out, for themselves, what is sin, and what is not. 

That is, the New Testament is written in a high-context way. That is, much is left up to the individual as liberty to work out the details. Versus a low-context way. That is, every little detail.

Also, I think you are failing to make the distinction between what you were wondering in your question, Re: Christians and the Law of Moses, and what you are promoting as the answer. You asked:

It does make one wonder why New Testament believers try to operate under the Law of Moses. Versus walking in faith-trusting God to do what they can not!

The operative word is "operate." You wonder why Christians try to; conduct themselves, manage themselves, control themselves, according to the Law of Moses. I gave you, what I believe, is the best example. Jesus did. However, your response is that we are not "bound" by the Law of Moses, and the suggestion beyond that is that it therefore makes no sense to abide by the Law of Moses, because God cannot fail. I agree we are not bound by, or justified through adherence, but being bound by and abiding by are two separate things. 

While I agree that God did not, and cannot, fail, I think you are missing, ignoring or avoiding a couple of issues.

1) Repentance: Romans, Chapter 12:1

I  beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. ²  And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

We are not called to live as the words Kansas sang..."carry on my wayward son." Both the Old and New Testaments are filled with the direction to repent. Repentance is more than an acknowledgment of Jesus. That much is clear from Mathew 7:21-23 and Mathew 8:28-34. We are called to recognize our sin, and to turn away from the sin or flesh, and to walk in the spirit. You are suggesting that we walk in the spirit, and are not justified by the law. I wholeheartedly agree with that. The problem arises when you suggest that the New Testament presents an open canvas, waiting for each individual to discern what is holy and righteous for themselves. I disagree. Galations 5 sets forth the fruits of the flesh and the fruits of the spirit. The Flesh?

¹⁹  Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: ^{[ d ]} adultery, ^{[ e ]} fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, ²⁰  idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, ²¹  envy, ^{[ f ]} murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Of course, that is not the only example, and is not a suggestion that truly repentant people, who happen to give in to the flesh, e.g. adultery, cannot inherit the kingdom. As I have suggested before, though, 1 John 1:8-10 seems a clear expression.

⁸  If we claim to be without sin,   we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.   ⁹  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰  If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

Recognition, confession, and repentance are express ingredients here. That brings us back to our conversation within the seed I linked above (your seed). If I do not recognize it as sin, how can I confess it, and repent? The demons Jesus casted out, in Mathew, recognized Jesus immediately as the son of God. They knew who he was, and that he had dominion over them, and all other things. Thus, they knew of grace, faith, and what he represented. They were not saved.

2) False Teachings: Look at Titus 1:10-16:

¹⁰  For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. ¹¹  They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.   ¹²  One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” ^{[ c ]   13}  This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith ¹⁴  and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. ¹⁵  To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. ¹⁶  They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him.They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

You have suggested, on multiple occasions, that the liberty afforded by grace, gives us carte blanch to decide what is and is not holy and righteous, according to our world, and that the Bible should be interpreted differently now, as opposed to how it was back then. Your sword is a question. "Do you believe God cannot lose?" Stated alternatively, do you believe that God's plan can be thwarted by the act of sinning? Do you not have faith that you have been justified by the sacrifice of Jesus? Or, what does it matter, you have been justified...do you question God's ability to forgive and purify? 

No, I certainly believe God will prevail, his plan is perfect, and nothing I do will impact that. I'll just be on the winning or losing side. But, verse 15, "all things are pure" does not mean that everything you do is pure, so long as you think it is pure. This is where your question as to the "law" comes in. Cutting your hair, trimming your beard, eating certain foods, etc. Those things don't justify a person, nor does the trimming of your beard render you condemned. Those are the "laws" that the pharisees were throwing in everyone's face, that were add ons by man. Really not material. What about murder? If a person is pure, would murder also not be pure? What about those things expressly identified as detestable? Are those all of the sudden pure, if undertaken by a pure person? The answer is no. Can those be forgiven? Yes. The harm comes, though, in suggesting that all things are good, because grace gives a person liberty to entertain the commission of any sin, without hesitation, remorse, or repentance. It doesn't. 

You are also chastising those who do promote the notion that justification through the law is possible. I'm not sure why though. I am not suggesting acts get a person there. I'm more interested in your persistent claim that God is perfect, yet somehow the Old Testament is hogwash; God is perfect, yet the multiple assertions in the Bible concerning sexual impurity, immorality, etc., are to be interpreted as we "encounter" them in our world, and not as set forth in the text, which you agree is God breathed. The second half of Titus 1:15 and verse 16 deal with Christians who are perverting the truth. 

2 Timothy 4:3-4 A time will come when people will not listen to accurate teachings. Instead, they will follow their own desires and surround themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear. People will refuse to listen to the truth and turn to myths.

I would suggest, as a Christian, we need to consider our actions, contrasted against the examples we have in the Bible. As reproduced above, we are directed to NOT conform to the world. Your suggestion appears to be that the Bible should be interpreted according to the world we live in today. I think the Bible answers whether or not that is right in the verse from Romans, and many others. 

Truthfully, I can't say that I understand your position or journey. If God detests men laying with men, why would God create a man that desires to lay with a man? I can't answer that, much the same as I cannot answer why God would create in me such a strong sexual desire for all women. To that end, I appreciate the conflict. If my lust is the equivalent of adultery...what am I to do? Much to my chagrin, I lay with my secretary, in my heart, about twice a week, on average. For my part, you and I are in the same boat. I do not condemn you. (already stated and established...I can't, not my province) Nor do I take a "holier than thou" stance. There is nothing in me any holier. I do, obviously, question the aversion to contrasting ourselves with the example as provided in the Bible. Adultery and homosexuality run in several of the same versus. I can't change that. I understand that you don't want to hear that. It doesn't change the fact for you, any more than it does for me though. So, what do you do? You have the answer, and thank God, literally, for that. For my part, the rubber meets the road as  set forth in 1 John 1:8-10 though. 

As to our politicians. I don't know what to say anymore. Pray that the heart of us will promote honest, thoughtful men and women, instead of the self serving folks, I believe, that are filling a large majority of the seats. 

867-5309. Supposedly, anyone can call for a good time. 

Maybe not expressly CB, but I think your comments, reproduced below, suggest, at a minimum, that faith wins the day, so do whatever feels good, and it is left up to each individual to work out, for themselves, what is sin, and what is not. 

Well if that is true, what do you and I have faith in? I simply point out that the concept of sin is not related to law. And it is high time that the church accepts that it is in manifest error to insist on conformity to its teaching on sin by people outside the faith! Religious freedom exist in the church (and in the person of any believer) not on the 'streets' of America, per se.

Do you agree?

If you do not agree: What do you find wrong about the above?

The operative word is "operate." You wonder why Christians try to; conduct themselves, manage themselves, control themselves, according to the Law of Moses. I gave you, what I believe, is the best example. Jesus did.

Jesus was a Jew born, raised, and died under control of the Law of Moses. He was even called, " Rabbi ."  Remember this: The Temple veil was not ripped (spiritually) until and after the death of crucifixion:

Matthew 27: 50 When Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, He yielded up His spirit. 51 At that moment the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom .

Signifying the 'completion' of the Law of Moses and Salvation through grace. Otherwise, why would Jesus come? Do do what exactly? Of course, for Jewish people the Law of Moses as specified in the modern day Judaism has permanency .

Many Christians the world over have never been and are not now, members of Judaism.

Remember this: Jesus is the 'cornerstone' between Judaism (Law) and Christianity (Faith).

You have suggested, on multiple occasions, that the liberty afforded by grace, gives us carte blanch to decide what is and is not holy and righteous, according to our world, and that the Bible should be interpreted differently now, as opposed to how it was back then.

I am not fully sure what you mean "back then." But we are not 'back then" and much revelation has been delivered over the two millenniums for which WISDOM expressly states we should draw meaning and understanding, nevertheless.

First. My point is to clearly clarify that the church 'world' is not the world outside its doors. I certainly am not telling Christians to do anything which they consider sin (and Paul did not either when he wrote about liberty in Christ!). I am insisting that is time for the church to drop its demands that 'the world' follow after their (our) Lord!

Do you see this expressed in or throughout my comments? Am I being clear at all on this point?

You are also chastising those who do promote the notion that justification through the law is possible. I'm not sure why though. I am not suggesting acts get a person there. I'm more interested in your persistent claim that God is perfect, yet somehow the Old Testament is hogwash; God is perfect, yet the multiple assertions in the Bible concerning sexual impurity, immorality, etc., are to be interpreted as we "encounter" them in our world, and not as set forth in the text, which you agree is God breathed.

I have not asserted the scriptures are "God breathed." Though I know what the Bible says on that account. It is a personal conviction of mine to live by the "books" plural. Mind you, we have more books and letters now than Jesus lived under, and the apostles (as neither had Paul's instructive letters to the Churches).

I have not suggested the Old Testament is hog-wash. That would be an insult to our Jewish members on the site. I, emphatically state that Christians are not Jews. Of course you have to agree we are not! It is not an option to decide. Therefore, believers are without a doubt not adherents to Judaism.

The Old Testament is for the believer a source of reference material. That is, technically-speaking, we have bibles in print and circulation, that are New Testament only leaving off the Old Testament (but not because of any "hog-wash"). 

Your suggestion appears to be that the Bible should be interpreted according to the world we live in today.

Nope. My "suggestion" is the Bible is written to and for believers. And, the 'world' outside of the doors of any religion is that of non-believers. Do you agree?

Thus, religious freedom exists in the believing world and not apart from it. It is a fine distinction that must not be overlooked and we must not become lazy to understand this one thing. Many Christians and other people of faith are trying to turn this country into a theocracy or some version of it. That is not right.

The harm comes, though, in suggesting that all things are good, because grace gives a person liberty to entertain the commission of any sin, without hesitation, remorse, or repentance. It doesn't. 

I have not suggested all things are good. That would be error. For all things are not good. Let's be clear. People in the church ARE doing these things mentioned in this article, good-bad-indifferent. That is without denial.

Thus, for the Church the question becomes this: Why go out in public and judge others as corrupt when "green-lighting" the same and similar practices for and in the privacy of heterosexual marriage?

The question is staring the Church in its face.

Truthfully, I can't say that I understand your position or journey. If God detests men laying with men, why would God create a man that desires to lay with a man? I can't answer that, much the same as I cannot answer why God would create in me such a strong sexual desire for all women. To that end, I appreciate the conflict. If my lust is the equivalent of adultery...what am I to do? Much to my chagrin, I lay with my secretary, in my heart, about twice a week, on average. For my part, you and I are in the same boat. I do not condemn you. (already stated and established...I can't, not my province) Nor do I take a "holier than thou" stance. There is nothing in me any holier. I do, obviously, question the aversion to contrasting ourselves with the example as provided in the Bible. Adultery and homosexuality run in several of the same versus. I can't change that. I understand that you don't want to hear that. It doesn't change the fact for you, any more than it does for me though. So, what do you do? You have the answer, and thank God, literally, for that. For my part, the rubber meets the road as  set forth in 1 John 1:8-10 though. 

First, you learn to trust God (as you say you do) and 'rest' from your efforts. God can not fail. So rest.

Second. I want to clear up something I read coursing through your paragraph: I am homosexual in nature. That is AFFIRMED in me, even though in a matter of some months I will have been CELIBATE for 30 years. That I speak of myself as homosexual is due to an acknowledgment that were I sexually. . . active. . . my body signals to me that men are my preference. I have not slept with any one male or female since 1993, the day I took my 'vow' to live a Christian life. I have not even entered a platonic relationship in this time.

(I say the above only because it seems to need to be 'uttered,' I am well past any point of pride or "proud." This is just who I am.)

All the above being stated. I have no right/privilege/authority to compel any person to live out my faith in their life. I repeat: I have no right/privilege/authority to judge and compel anybody else to walk by faith walk.

As God delivered me. God will deliver any God intents. For it is an article of my, our faith that God can not fail or lose. If you believe it, then let the 'world' turn and know that God will save any/all that are destined for kingdom living.

Once this is understood, accepted, and agreed upon. . . men and women can live and thrive together in peace. And Trans' Rex - peace is the goal, at least in this order.

Don't worry, God can not fail.

867-5309. Supposedly, anyone can call for a good time.

What's the fucking area code?

CB, I agree, in several locations, that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And nowhere do I suggest that there is any way to come into the kingdom of heaven, other than by grace, through faith. Thus, I agree, with your understanding of the tearing of the veil. That is not, however, evidence that we should engage in sin at will. I'm not sure why you are so adamant on continuing that line of thought. Point me to a passage where Paul, Peter, or any other writer suggests the new covenant gives everyone carte blanche to engage in sinful acts.

I have not asserted the scriptures are "God breathed."

1st: I said you agreed. Perhaps I misinterpreted. Let's try this. It hasn't worked thus far, but I'll ask another question of you. Do you believe that all scripture is God breathed? If not, is any of it, and which portions?

2nd: Insult to the Jews? Why not Christians also? Unless, and apparently, it is your opinion that the OT does not apply at all to Christians.

What is your take on Jesus' words from the Sermon on the Mount? Particularly the portion in bold:

The Fulfillment of the Law

¹⁷ “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.¹⁹ Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.²⁰ For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

It seems clear, you do not abide by a belief that Jesus promoted the continuing practice of adherence to the Law. Instead of offering continued assertion that we are at liberty to sin because of grace, please point to something in the Bible, whichever portion you may think applies to you, that provides support for that position. The above seems clear. Until heaven and earth disappear, not the least bit of the Law will disappear, until everything is accomplished. Everything is not accomplished, and so it follows that the Law is still around. Verse 19 seems hard to misinterpret. "Anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." Not my words CB, those are Jesus' words, whom you profess to follow. Does the "liberty" you claim exists because of grace include the freedom to ignore the above admonishment?

Nope. My "suggestion" is the Bible is written to and for believers . And, the 'world' outside of the doors of any religion is that of non-believers. Do you agree?

Clearly, the Bible contains direction for believers. But, no, I don't agree if the assertion is that to and for believers means only for believers. John expressly tells us his writing was made so that people  would believe.

The Purpose of John’s Gospel

³⁰  Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. ³¹  But these are written that you may believe ^{[ b ]} that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Had he meant it only for Christians, he'd have said it was to "strengthen" or "further" an existing belief. 

Many Christians and other people of faith are trying to turn this country into a theocracy or some version of it. That is not right.

I have yet to disagree with that. My concern is the Christians ignoring the words of Jesus, reproduced for you above. 

I have not suggested all things are good. That would be error. For all things are not good. Let's be clear. People in the church ARE doing these things mentioned in this article, good-bad-indifferent. That is without denial.

Are you not? Your assertion in a previous post contradicted Jesus' words, concerning adultery. However, and again...I understand your beef with the people mentioned in the article, but, during the course of this discussion, you have; denounced the Law and suggested that any attempt at adhering thereto is both folly and evidence that a person is weak in their faith (again in contradiction to Jesus' teachings), suggested that the NT leaves much to the individual as liberty to work out, suggested that the OT is for the Jewish people and potentially only useful as reference for Christians, and claimed that Jesus' work is complete. 

I don't disagree that you can find reference in the NT, concerning liberty, but the passages I recall concern things such as "eating unclean meat." Peter and Paul both say that nothing is unclean...but they aren't talking about sexual immorality when they say that, and they also both caution the reader to not be a stumbling block to others. 

You are taking issue with a group of people who are both expressing a belief that homosexual intercourse deviates from Biblical teachings...while undertaking equally non-Biblical acts. I agree with your beef with them CB. But, I think your writings here are not clear, and are easily understood to mean that homosexual intercourse or contact is not a sin. You could easily clear that up with a yes or no answer. Is homosexual contact or intercourse sin?

All the above being stated. I have no right/privilege/authority to compel any person to live out my faith in their life. I repeat: I have no right/privilege/authority to judge and compel anybody else to walk by faith walk.

As God delivered me. God will deliver any God intents. For it is an article of my, our faith that God can not fail or lose. If you believe it, then let the 'world' turn and know that God will save any/all that are destined for kingdom living.

Once this is understood, accepted, and agreed upon. . . men and women can live and thrive together in peace. And Trans' Rex - peace is the goal, at least in this order.

Don't worry, God can not fail.

Yes, I agree! But acknowledging the fact that it is neither my, nor your, nor anyone else's province to condemn anyone or compel them to walk by faith does not address what I believe I have read you to mean in many places...that is, Jesus discusses the importance of the heart. We can live in peace, and I hope that I am not offending or upsetting you here. To me, 1 John 1:8-10 is on point with the concept of the heart.

Re: your celibacy...seriously, all I can say is wow. 

I seriously think it applies to all area codes.

That is not, however, evidence that we should engage in sin at will.

Let me ask you a direct question (we are the only ones discussing anyway): When the books of the Bible speak about SIN to whom are they addressing:

1. The Temple.
2. The Church
3. Society

The Temple and the Church 'worlds.' There is no sin component in civil law. Right?

1st:. Do you believe that all scripture is God breathed?

The Bible says the scriptures are "God-breathed" and I am very aware of my wording.

I have to go "practical" and away from the academic statements in the Bible, because unlike a boy or man living in a heterosexual 'world' I can see problem areas that the Bible does not address. That is, the Bible is not clear as to what a homosexual is supposed 'to be' (or do) in such a world as the homosexual finds him or her selves facing from sexual realization to old age.

I wonder have you given any thought to how hetero-centric the Bible is? Reflect on it for a moment.

Well, I have shut off a portion of myself for a good 30 years thereabouts and yet were I to return to intimacy- it would not be a with a woman, because that would be inauthentic of me-coming from me.

Back to your question: All scripture is God-breathed is an article of our faith. I question the incompleteness, for instance, of a WRITER who would not specify that rather or not they are disqualifying homosexuality as a general rule or as prostitution and cult temple sex. It would have taken only a few clarifying words to remove the opaqueness from the text. 

However, being "God-inspired" or "breathed" does not in anyway means the text is do-able, executable, or will be held against those who can not carry out the 'discipline.' 

Hope that helps. If it does not (and I know how it comes across as a question of the sanctity of the books) let me know.

Do try to understand this. We are trying to follow a very old set of books. There is no way those Jews or early Christians got it all right; and, neither will we. I know. I got my time in. I have the experiences to talk about this.

It is your opinion that the OT does not apply at all to Christians

The Old Testament is optional to Christians, if they want to know the background of how Christianity comes to be. Of course, this has become a complex "generational" problem for some, because of the manufacture of Old Testament and New Testament bibles combined. But it need not be so for future generations.

The Old Testament tells us foundationally about God and Christ. It is not our manner of living after Jesus' advent.

If you attend religious services: Do you do so on Sabbath or Sunday?

Practical living exercise: Separate the two sets of books (Old and New testaments) for several generations and watch the difference in how Christianity will be processed in the minds of believers.

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.²

Before we continue with this line of questioning (directed at me); can you define what "these commands" Jesus is referring? In general, that is. You do not have to write out any long list.

"These commands" - are what area of the books?

Everything is not accomplished, and so it follows that the Law is still around. Verse 19 seems hard to misinterpret.

I guess that would require explanation of what is meant by "everything" in the context of this sentence.

Remember, 2.1.51 , where you wrote:

T hus, I agree, with your understanding of the tearing of the veil.

So let me ask you: What is/was the purpose of the veil in the Jewish 'house of God'?

Is 'ripping it from top to bottom' not a change to the Law of Moses?

John 19: ³⁰  When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

What is finished by the death of Jesus?

In furtherance:

Luke 16 “ The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John . Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it . 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

Moses was the foremost prophet of God. In context of today that would make him "the old guard" and John the Baptist (come baptizing) and the apostles including Paul "the new guard."

Clearly, the Bible contains direction for believers. But, no, I don't agree if the assertion is that to and for believers means only for believers. John expressly tells us his writing was made so that people  would believe.

The bible books are addressed to believers, Trans' Rex. To everyone else the words are merely good sayings or some such thing. I am sure you have heard it stated so. After all, Paul's writings are literally letters to the churches. They were not open-ended to the world. Of course, the Bible can turn a heart, but until the heart, mind, and soul changes - there is no such place as the Christian church of unbelieving souls.

We have to agree (for it is inarguable that the Bible is expressly a set of writing directed at increasing the believers' faith). Do you agree?

Your assertion in a previous post contradicted Jesus' words, concerning adultery. However, and again...I understand your beef with the people mentioned in the article, but, during the course of this discussion, you have; denounced the Law and suggested that any attempt at adhering thereto is both folly and evidence that a person is weak in their faith (again in contradiction to Jesus' teachings), suggested that the NT leaves much to the individual as liberty to work out, suggested that the OT is for the Jewish people and potentially only useful as reference for Christians, and claimed that Jesus' work is complete. 

See my 'series' of comments on the subject above.

Furthermore:

Did you read Acts 15 in its entirety.

⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Did you not observe that the Jerusalem council did not require circumcision for non-Jews (Gentiles)? Did you not observe that the Council only required several provisions from the Gentiles coming to faith:

1. Abstain from food polluted by idols.

2. Abstain rom sexual immorality,

3. Abstain from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

Also, note verse ll above. Read closely, it is Peter's use of the possessive, "we" that informs us that he too-also has come to Jesus Christ through faith! Albeit, he is a Jew by birth also.

You, I, we, have to go deeper through these "connective" statements carefully and pull the 'threads' to inspect them closely.

I John 1:⁵ This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. ⁶ If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. ⁷ But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

⁸ If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. ⁹ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. ¹⁰ If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

 

In the highlighted section: Do you see it? Walking in the light as God and Jesus is in the light means we are in a 'container' where God and Jesus abide and accordingly Jesus covers all our sin. Read it closely.

It is evident that people of the world, outside of the faith, are not in this light being mentioned; they have civil law. Indeed, they may not even recognize there is a spiritual set of rules at all! And certainly know there are not any spiritual doctrines they testify to ponder, obey, or profess.

My celibacy. Thank you. I only mention it these days, because I want my fellow Christians to understand that I keep within the strictures of faith, even while recognizing that there are those God has not brought to their "appointed day" as yet. Additionally, I am a firm believer that as God found me- God can find any single individual. On God's own timetable.

We do not need to worry. We do not need to fret. God is never worried about how ALL THIS turns out.

If God wants to save 'anybody' God can - even if it means keeping Heaven open for an additional thousand years for one soul! God can not fail. Therefore, we can share, love, and above all rest and not worry ourselves needlessly.

It should give the believer the greatest peace to know that they can treat good people, in the church and in the world, in peace, love, and importantly right-trusting in God to never lose control of this realm! We don't have to 'over-do' anything or stress ourselves out.

God can not fail! God got this. Let God do what God does best: Draw people.

Our responsibility is simply to love all people without duplicity. The greatest of these is love.

I think your writings here are not clear, and are easily understood to mean that homosexual intercourse or contact is not a sin. You could easily clear that up with a yes or no answer. Is homosexual contact or intercourse sin?

I will tell you that homosexuality is moral sin; sin in the context of cult prostitution as was the case in biblical times. I will tell you that homosexual fornication is sin. I will tell you that Churches "outlaw" marriage for homosexuals - leaving them no recourse but to fornicate outside of marriage and fall into sexual fatalism religiously speaking.

I will tell you that the question is challenged by the fact that sexuality goes to the core of a human being and it is not enough for the heterosexual to say: "Go! Be delivered and set free!" Because what happens when one is yet captured?

So as someone who has extraordinary experience in being celibate, as someone who has read the arguments for and against homosexuality-my opinion results in a more complex answer than "yes" or "no."

It is the point of this article. The sin can not be be because -God said so. The sin can not be because two boys, two girls, or two women, or two men do it. The sin has to be the act itself. . . and more than homosexuals are doing every 'step' involved in this 'forbidden' activity.

Therefore, who can condemn (or judge) anyone else? 

Is homosexual contact or intercourse sin?

The question is caught up in suspense. It may be, after all my years of researching (and dealing with) this question that only God can answer it at some future date. The Bible simply does not answer the question enough.

Look at Romans 6. 

¹⁵ What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!

CB, you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the Bible. You keep pointing to grace and faith...I can find nothing in the new testament that expresses the "liberty" you suggest grace affords concerning sin. 

The Bible simply does not answer the question enough.

Romans 1:26-27

²⁶  For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their ^{[ i ]} women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. ²⁷  Likewise also the ^{[ j ]} men, leaving the natural use of the ^{[ k ]} woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Although, I assume you do not agree with the translation. There are numerous instances in the NT, and in the OT where it is expressly identified as detestable to God. You, of course, do not believe the OT is any more than flowery words. It begs the question, then. Is the God of the OT the same as the God of the NT? Did God change? 

"These commands" - are what area of the books?

You first. 

CB, at the end of the day, we both agree that God can conquer all. I think you are working too hard to justify something though, when you clearly believe that you don't need to justify it, because 1) you can't and 2) there is only one that can. What's the purpose of grace, if you don't need it? That's my question. Why argue that something is not sin, or potentially not sin, when there are direct references to it being sin in both the OT and NT, and if one doesn't agree with the translations, it most likely falls within the broader group of sexually immoral acts? Why not, instead, call it what it is, and thank God for the grace?

Then in keeping with the theme of this article, why are members in the Churches, doing the same sexual practices as men with men and women with women?  Are you condemning church folks and heterosexual married folks as detestable too?

Or is this just prejudicial to men sleeping together or women sleeping together?  Not the act itself?

Please address the question before you hand me over another scripture that I have read a 'thousand' times already.

See 2.1.68 .

CB, at the end of the day, we both agree that God can conquer all. I think you are working too hard to justify something though, when you clearly believe that you don't need to justify it, because 1) you can't and 2) there is only one that can. What's the purpose of grace, if you don't need it? 

Here is my response to the above. Considering that Moses, ancient Israel (not the State of Israel today), Paul, and later the Nicene Council wrote down a heterosexual 'reality' point of view regarding sexual relations, I would expect there to be no homosexuals in Christianity or in heavenly places!

Now then, what makes you think that homosexuality is a 'problem' in regards to eternal life:

Matthew 22: 29 But Jesus

There are no heterosexuals or homosexuals in eternity: Only spirits which God will provide whatever is needed to console spirits. The flesh is earthy. Sexuality is earthy.

Now I am going to ask you an otherwise biblical question albeit 'shocking' - the Bible refers to God throughout as "he":

Do you really believe God is a man ? If you do not believe God is a male- why not ?

Second time (around):

If you attend religious services: Do you do so on Sabbath or Sunday?

Trans' Rex, are you out there? Just checking!

Going to pin this point here: Ancient Israel had laws for Israel, they were not for people outside the nation; using that as a model, why does this nation need corporate theocratic laws for people outside the reach of any specific religion?

The question will stand whenever you return to this or any other discussion on the manner of the Law.

Also, I will draw your attention to the parable of the Prodigal Son: It being a 'picture' of a believer (son) who departed the faith (Father's house) and went off into the 'world' until such time as he returned to the faith—The Father was there to meet him-evenso after all the raucous living outside the faith.

The parable implies great(er) love and and great(er) faith is the order of the day (not law).

I will leave its farther 'analysis' up to you, nevertheless.

Gotta pay the bills...

I don't disagree with your position on legislating religion. It won't work, and it's a turn off for many. 

I agree that grace will cover all in the end. 

I agree that Jesus repeatedly tells people that it is about faith, love, and the heart. I'm just on a different waive length when it comes to repentance, sin, etc. I'm not getting hung up on the law, or suggesting that the law can be followed to perfection. It can't, hence the need for Jesus in the first place. I have just never seen anything in the NT that says "since you are no longer bound by the law, give in to the flesh." The opposite is true. 

Yes you can point to several passages where Peter and Paul talk of eating certain foods, performing rituals, etc., as not being the things that make a person righteous. Paul also talks about his own sin though, and giving into the flesh. The thing that stands out most are the several passages discussing deliberate sin. Hebrews 10, for example:

²⁶ For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷ but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. ²⁸ Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. ²⁹ Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

Brings us back to repentance. Are we willfully running to sin? Are we justifying what we are doing to avoid calling it sin? If those are the cases, then there is a chance we might be missing the point of grace. You'll agree that Jesus advised that he came to heal the sick. If we refuse to acknowledge our sickness, what is there to heal?

Are you condemning church folks and heterosexual married folks as detestable too?

1) I have yet to condemn anyone. 2) Let's recall my example of lusting after the women in the yoga class. Adultery and homosexuality run in the same passages as being things that are detestable. Not my words. So, I'm not condemning anyone, but I am suggesting that church folks and homosexuals are capable of committing acts expressly labeled as detestable. Question is, are we repentant, or are we justifying the acts? My reading of the Bible provides that we should turn from it. Again, Jesus didn't tell the adulterous woman to go back to what she was doing, he told her to go and sin no more. 

As to God. I can't say that I know, apart from the references in the Bible of 'Father'. Jesus refers to God as Father on numerous occasions. 

Brings us back to repentance. Are we willfully running to sin? Are we justifying what we are doing to avoid calling it sin? If those are the cases, then there is a chance we might be missing the point of grace. You'll agree that Jesus advised that he came to heal the sick. If we refuse to acknowledge our sickness, what is there to heal?

A hasty response comes readily to mind: I asked you first who is subject to the 'law of sin'?

A. Jewish and Christian believers. 

B. The 'World' (People outside the Church)?

If you say Jewish and Chrisitan Believers, I would remind you that Christians are trying to make an impact on society as a whole-in and out of the Church. That is inappropriate.

If you say the World (including the Church), I would remind you they are UNBELIEVERS and as such do not accept sin as law over them.

We have to determine types and audiences before we make informed applications!  As for the Book of Hebrews, my conclusion is it is addressed to Hebrew believers who were living (yet) under the law of Moses.

Surely, by now, you are aware that you are not living under the Law of Moses, or for starters, you would be keeping a seventh day Sabbath. Do you?

I will remind you (also again) homosexuality is a sexual attraction and adultery is sex outside of marriage. They are not the same. The Bible. bless its good intentions, can not 'arrest' people for their sexuality; though, I reckon it can tell them they have a choice of marriage or being single throughout 20-60 years of life.

Try doing this with sexuality and you really will have some 20-60 years strong mentally people around! Or worse, you will have people in marriages they detest, but doing so in hopes of pleasing or not offending God . . . who has given them grace for every situation.

There are 'detail' discussions with get to the nitty gritty of understanding the purposes of scripture. Remember this also:

Mark 2:

23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread , which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions . 27 hen he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

We are under obligation to make the scriptures teach, exhort, instruct, and more besides, but we are not made for scripture - the scripture is made for us!

It is inhuman to ask humans to constraint an 'irresistible force' within them for 20-80 years of life. It simply is not practical . God's grace has too kick in somewhere.

Why argue that something is not sin, or potentially not sin, when there are direct references to it being sin in both the OT and NT, and if one doesn't agree with the translations, it most likely falls within the broader group of sexually immoral acts? Why not, instead, call it what it is, and thank God for the grace?

WHAT is the sin? The act or acts? The people doing them? Which?

Be explicit and do not just mouth the text. Because what I am establishing is this: The maturity of our faith. Because surely you have heard that the law was (past tense) a tutor, but after being schooled- mature Christian go out and live righteousness.

Are the heterosexual Christians in this article exercising liberty in their marriages by performing these acts?

Is it the Church that is holding a whole class of people separate and apart based on some notion that it pleases God to see them not have a marriage relationship simply because no child/ren can come out of it?

Well, we know there are plenty of heterosexual marriages where offspring is not forthcoming? So lack of being "productive" is not the sin either.

What is the sin? Actually.

I have just never seen anything in the NT that says "since you are no longer bound by the law, give in to the flesh." The opposite is true. 

Who said anything about giving in to the flesh?  And what do you mean by the phrase?  That is, do you mean fornication?

Finally, how is the Church not persecuting outsiders when it has "movements" which step into the public sphere and lends its voice, power, and influence directly to affecting the lives of their fellow taxpaying citizens. The church has a strong voice in every arena of people outside of church culture!

And yet the church is not able tell people ideally or specifically what it's different protestant beliefs are!

Why should anybody not part of the "contract" with any Christian persuasion listen to or be persecuted by our 'local' church or church organizations?

WHY?!!

A hasty response comes readily to mind: I asked you first who is subject to the 'law of sin'?

A. Jewish and Christian believers. 

B. The 'World' (People outside the Church)?

If you say Jewish and Chrisitan Believers, I would remind you that Christians are trying to make an impact on society as a whole-in and out of the Church. That is inappropriate.

If you say the World (including the Church), I would remind you they are UNBELIEVERS and as such do not accept sin as law over them.

We are going to go round and around too many times CB. We disagree. Clearly. 

I'll answer one final question...the above. If you believe what is written, all have sinned, and the wage is death. Therefore, according to my reading, everyone. What a non-Christian 'accepts' is not up to me, nor do I have control over it, nor does it change what is written. That much we agree on...or should. We part on an understanding of Jesus' fulfillment. You keep asking my opinion concerning the ritualistic laws established to atone for sin, and I have agreed each time that, in fact, Jesus' sacrifice has covered all of those for us, so that we might be justified. There remain other portions, however, that deal with the heart, like the reference Jesus gives concerning adultery. The NT seems pretty consistent to me. Don't worry yourself about eating unclean meat...whatever that was meant to do for you in the past, Jesus has taken care of. However, there are multiple references, and I have produced many here, where some conduct is expressly set forth as sin, and is to be avoided, as well as the people undertaking such acts. So, I am not saying we are under the law, because the NT makes clear that the old ways of making yourself right have been fulfilled. But, it also makes clear that grace is not a pass to consider everything holy and good. 

I will not pester you will repeating theme. But. I have one more for you for which I need a 'straight' answer:

Finally, how is the Church not persecuting outsiders when it has "movements" which step into the public sphere and lends its voice, power, and influence directly to affecting the lives of their fellow taxpaying citizens? The church has too strong a say in every arena of people's lives outside and 'away' from church culture!

And yet the church is not able tell people ideally or specifically what it's different protestant beliefs are! That is, churches are inconsistent. Some even supporting homosexuality at varying degrees (as is done in Israel 'proper' too).

Why should anybody not part of the "contract" with any Christian persuasion listen to or be persecuted by our 'local' church or church organizations?

Is Church culture distinct from "civil" culture in the United States? Yes or No?

And finally, you specifically won't answer the question regarding honoring the Sabbath; either you do or you don't! (It's not a gray area.)

Lastly, I applaud the fact that unlike so of the others here who just like to shoot from the lip, you weighed in. They not so much. I will leave it up to others to call them what they are!

I thought I said I was done? Just kidding...that's more of a rhetorical question to myself.

Why should anybody not part of the "contract" with any Christian persuasion listen to or be persecuted by our 'local' church or church organizations?

You and I are not arguing the point. I agree with you still on this. Not required to listen, and you can't legislatively mandate such. Won't work. 

That is, churches are inconsistent.

I agree. And to your question of the sabbath, my understanding is that the sabbath was created for us, not the other way around, but that is one of the areas that is, IMO, a bit ambiguous as to whether or not keeping the sabbath holy is the ritualistic law meant for atonement or the law that deals with the heart and soul. To that end, I think there are groups that rightfully honor the traditional sabbath. I set aside Sunday. Which one is correct? What is the point? The day, or the heart on the day? We will find out. 

Is Church culture distinct from "civil" culture in the United States? Yes or No?

Should be. 

Is Church culture distinct from "civil" culture in the United States? Yes or No?

Should be. 

So that is a yes! Church culture is distinct from civil culture in the United States. This begs the question that the GOP has long partnered with the evangelical forces to pass into law/s policies that fundamentally remove civil rights from citizens of the United States. A gross form of secular persecution! And all the while it is the evangelicals (conservative Whites) who are operating outside the parameters of constitutionally protected religious expression.

As to the Sabbath-it seems pretty clear to me: If Christians are under the law; the Sabbath is holy and permanent. But Christians are not under the law of Moses and so it (Saturday) is not a high holy day. Also I pointed you in the direction of where you can make a determination of what Peter offered the gentiles as it regards Moses and the Law in Acts 15 ("The Council at Jerusalem".)  And this rather inconspicuous passage:

Act 16: Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. ² The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. ³ Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.⁴ As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey.⁵ So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers

Trans' Rex, this is not me trying to 'tower' over you in a discussion of our faith. It is me humbly submitting that it is high time that the Church consider what it is letting slide because of the minimal impact on the lives of its heterosexual congregants, while demonizing, damning, and weaponizing the gospel ("The Good News") against otherwise hapless citizens of this country!

And it is time to say enough!

Sorry, couldn't help myself...

Tough 'crowd'?

Tough 'crowd'?

Apparently. I gave it a thumbs up. Gotta love Family Guy. We've gotten to a point where humor, on any topic, is questionable, and people are afraid to laugh in public. 

We've gotten to a point where humor, on any topic, is questionable, and people are afraid to laugh in public. 

And I gave a thumbs up to the humor, because why "Family Guy" producers mean the "butt sex" rhetoric to be shocking, it serves a double purpose of taking the 'sting' (no pun intended) out of a somewhat common practice some consider taboo (but not really). It is time. The time has come to discuss taboo materials/subjects PLAINLY so as to challenge what "sacred cows" they have become through neglect. And even worse, people are doing these behaviors with abandon, making jokes about in public, while ruining lives in the process using propaganda, stigmatization, and downright cruelty to their neighbors.

At this point in discussion, I think it is early enough and appropriate to clear up something "Butt sex," while featured prominently in homosexual settings is not the "be-all" act for homosexuals—not even in individual same-sex marriages. There are many other acts these couples can perform as intimacy besides.

The question is this: Since the Church is found out as having various intimacies beyond what it publicly labels "the norm" (whatever that means) why does it persist in attempts to regulate the life of another classification?

I just don't get why people care so much what others do in their own bedrooms.

It is not like they have to participate.

Because it is obsession. It is judgmental. It is 'picking and kicking' the little guy! Furthering otherizing of people one does not wish to like and in fact may desire to hate. It's religious conservatives looking over into somebody else 'yard' and turning up their noses! All the while keeping near and dear for themselves justifications for behaving the same way.

I agree with your point though. Condemning others for what they themselves do.

A classic 😀 

Cowboy Butt Sex

I heard about a Texan who got a "broke back" from that shit.

So "questionable" sex acts are okay for married Christians, says some conservatives. And, 'they' want to be the ones determining who can be allowed marry 'participation'! Unbelievable!

In other words, the people I observed and talked to who use Christian sexuality websites are respectful of fellow believers' individual relationships with God. Where they draw the line is when sex is not heterosexual, non-monogamous (including pornography), extra-marital, or not consensual," Burke said.

In other words, do as they say, and not as they do! Because they will call you names. And make life impossible for you! Even though they do the same acts in their bedrooms!

What you see here is the Church acting to take control over the sex lives of homosexuals and girls and women through dictates, compelling, and enforcement against who can do what. It is not right and it is past time for people to tell White Christians to shut up and end this!

So how is homosexuality 'deviant' when the acts are 'universal'? Conservative explain this hatred you carry!

Christian sex toy shops like Covenant Spice, notes Vice channel's Broadly, caters to sexual activity utilizing all orifices in marriage including toys that promote "anal play as straight-friendly" for Christians.

Why are Christian conservatives in the 21st century so divisive?

Christian sex toy shops—plural?!  "Straight-friendly" anal play?!!!

toys that promote "anal play as straight-friendly" for Christians.

Nailed (pegged) it.

It is pretty clear to me there is sufficient evidence that White evangelicals are messing with homosexuals again, simply because they have gotten away with it for eons!

Well, I felt 'fake' conservatives did not wish to discuss this topic directly, it has been their strategy just to bluff! This seed is now a record of their 'deafening' silence! Moving back int the 'stream'. . . .

"But then you wake up, in the present tense. " Jethro Tull Skating Away 

Sorry, butt, because of this topic, I have to post this video again.

CensorShit!

It's a Youtube thing!

I watched it all. It's there for those who are not too lazy to 'go for it.'  Friend Al Jizzerror, sometimes I, even I, am at a loss for words. (Well, that shut my mouth!)

[[Delete]]

Shameless bump

Yes. Thanks! This is not the easily of topics, but hey. . .it's time somebody pushed back against church abuse of outsiders who do not bother them. And I write this as a confirmed believer!!