When did God nail do not murder, do not commit adultery to the cross? :dizzy:
Recommended reading:
The Plot (an overview of the Bible) by Bob Enyart
If its just love, why shouldnt incest be ok?
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
When did God nail do not murder, do not commit adultery to the cross? :dizzy:
Recommended reading:
The Plot (an overview of the Bible) by Bob Enyart
For an infertile couple any sex would be immoral.
theophilus
Well-known member
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
How are you going to feel, when you learn, the hard way, the Bible is the truth of God, God's Holy Book? How are you going to feel to have argued against Almighty God, to have rejected His truth, to be so far gone and have argued even some untenable idiocy that will sink any society, that even some pagans, with at least some intellect, realize, that is, argue against fixed moral standards, when you find yourself damned and in eternal hellfire? Are you still going to be telling anybody you just don't believe all that stuff, when you finally learn the least important thing in life was what you thought, when you stand before the Lord and you meet the Lord's wrath at your damnation? You going to feel like the legend in your own mind, then?
People like you, who may never repent and believe, God knows, are the most to be pitied, as you sell your souls for nothing. The devil gets you on the cheap, as you damn yourself over the likes of a message board. How does it feel, to be brainwashed by homo liberals, to be the devil's spiritually blind little puppet and cheap date?
You reject God's moral law so why ask? :juggle: Lev. 18:6–12
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them (Ro 1:28–32).
Recommended reading:
Theology Thursday: The Bible's Criminal Code by Bob Enyart
Bump for WonderfulLordJesus
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...incest-be-ok&p=4793301&viewfull=1#post4793301
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...incest-be-ok&p=4793301&viewfull=1#post4793301
A sin covered in innocent blood.
I understand, inconvienent sins are no longer sins
So the law about rape victims having to marry the man who assaulted her was not founded in love?
theophilus
Well-known member
Your words.
Ritual and Ceremonial laws from the Old Covenant have been done away with under the New Covenant.
The moral Law still stands.
glassjester
Well-known member
Not necessarily.
Being infertile, in itself, does not make someone's actions immoral. Similarly, being fertile, in itself, doesn't mean every sexual act a person engages in, is a moral one.
If I were to purposely seek out a sexual partner (whether she is fertile or infertile), just for the sake of satisfying my own sexual desires, then yes - that would be immoral. I'd be using that person, no?
theophilus
Well-known member
Please always insure you leave things out of quotes so the context is lost. I appreciate it. I'll answer you when you quote me correctly.
theophilus
Well-known member
[MENTION=18336]MrDante[/MENTION]:
FTR - there is nowhere, in the original languages, where the OT mandates that a woman, raped by a man, is required to marry her rapist. Re: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm
FTR - there is nowhere, in the original languages, where the OT mandates that a woman, raped by a man, is required to marry her rapist. Re: http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm
Let me break it down
Only in consummating the marriage is infertile sex valid. It ties into 'becoming one flesh', which validate the marriage much like circumcision marked the tribes of Abraham. It's more of a rite, really.
It's not absolutely necessary, though. A marriage can still be valid if they choose to remain chaste, but they do require the ability to have sexual intercourse.
In the case of impotency- when one cannot perform sex, a couple can still have a 'Josephite marriage' in which they do not become one in the flesh.
However, annulment can come by default if either of the two wish it in any case not involving direct consummation.
You're biblically illiterate (Heb 13:4, Prov. 5:15–19, 1 Co 7:4-5). :dizzy:
ClimateSanity
New member
No. God performs miracles.
ClimateSanity
New member
Thank you for answering the blasphemy.
can you cite chapter and verse that says the law was split into ritual, ceremonial and moral parts?
Meh
That's a lot of hoops and bounds to get around a plain message.
What that source fails to acknowledge is that nowhere in scripture is rape ever condemned in forcing a woman who is neither a virgin or betrothed. Those women were pretty much left to the mercy of whoever wanted to pretty much take them.
But you said: "If a sexual act is intrinsically opposed to either the unitive or procreative aspect of sex, then the act is immoral."
An infertile couple can't be procreative by definition so if a heterosexual couple is infertile, say because of a hysterectomy, than any sex that couple has would be immoral and "just for the sake of personal, physical gratification." Right?
I'd be very surprised if you did...
you said: "Those laws were for the purity and protection of Israel as a called-out people in the midst of heathens. They were to be separate and distinct from the nations around them. Maybe you should explore the "why's" of those laws?
And the root and foundation of those laws was Love."
So...was the law stating that a victim of rape had to marry her attacker based on love?