If its just love, why shouldnt incest be ok?
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
glassjester
Well-known member
Incorrect. It has much to do with procreation.
Infertility does not change this.
Similarly...
It is not immoral to be a crippled man.
It is immoral to purposely cripple yourself.
commonsense
Active member
I feel I was unduly harsh...sorry...yet I'm still pleased I wasn't brought up catholic, close though...Anglican
If it did it would apply to everyone.
glassjester
Well-known member
Thank you for the kind words, Brother.
That's a rare occurrence, especially on the internet!
Yes - Anglicanism could be considered quite close.
I wonder, if you could have chosen a belief system to have been brought up in - what would it have been?
They still become one flesh, infertility notwithstanding.
theophilus
Well-known member
then it isn't about fertility.
I asked if you could cite chapter and verse that says the law was split into ritual, ceremonial and moral parts?
You responded:
and you then included a list of laws that you put into arbitrary categories.
:yawn:
She answered you sufficiently :yawn:
theophilus
Well-known member
Response: "no."
Not a false claim, irregardless of the following "arbitrary" categories (which were not mine but are generally accepted).
But suit yourself. Neither my heart, my conscience nor my Father condemn me.
how is that a sufficient answer?
generally accepted = arbitrary.
Again, self-convincing diatribes such as this offer no compelling evidence to accept the verity of word wrought from resolute debauchery. If and until you come the realization that within the character of self (yourself) lies the very embodied nature of that which you're so desperately and futilely seeking to insulate (armor) yourself from, there exists no persuasive discourse for trusting such an individual who's oh so righteously ambitious as to divisively impose 'targets' upon the backs of others.
Last edited:
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Nobody planted a target on your back. You have one on your back, my friend, and exactly the case your eyes don't see it. The world is likewise divided, between the children of God and the children of the devil, a division that has existed since long, long before I was ever born. You're, in fact, and obviously so, kicking against God, engaging in shooting the messenger behavior that is unworthy.
Again, read the Bible, study the New Testament, beginning with the gospel according to John. Therein are the claims, the divisions explained, all of this. And again, it's a sophomoric copout to attack the messenger, just because I believe the word of God like countless others down the generations, the issue not at all me, as you try to deflect, but God's word you refute, He the one you're actually lashing out against, your attack of me by proxy and senseless. This would indicate your judgment is, as mentioned, not trustworthy, being angry at God and taking this out on another human being, who's merely informing you of what He has said.
Think about it. It's not me who can save or damn you. It hasn't been my truth, any inventions of mine, I've argued. I tell you to read the Bible, and you just come back that, by default then, you can't do that, because of me, who has pointed you to that Bible truth? Don't you see how senseless this is? Again, you're kicking against God, His "diatribe," as you put it. The Lord will also explain that very real target on your back that will damn you to the torments of hell, facts which were brought to light a tad before my time. You might not like bad news, but hitting the power switch will never make that news go away. Nor will it negate the good news you NEED to tune into, like all of us.
It's always so ironic. I'm trying to help you avoid a cosmic, personal disaster, holding up a sign the bridge is washed-out up ahead, and you're angry over that sign, so you'll just step on the gas.
You incorrectly equate "personal, physical gratification," with the unitive purpose of conjugal relations.
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
If anything, the argument used against you is false, not your claim. It's a false argument to say that, since it's not explicit in the Bible, it's not true. Theological concepts like the Trinity, original sin and the major dispensations (would like to emphasize major) are neither literally cited in scripture, a list that could become very long of ways to categorize, to properly study and exegete God's truth that are not in the Bible. As many have often pointed out, you don't find the word Bible in the Bible, either.
The entire Old Testament sacrificial system is ceremonial, and no Old Testament saint was saved by works, rather by faith in the Lord. Read Romans 4, Galatians 3 and Hebrews 11. Nobody, outside of Israel, was ever called upon to sacrifice a couple young pigeons, either.
On the other hand, the whole world has had moral prohibitions against the likes of murder and stealing, which appeared in moral law before there was law, obviously it widely known, before the Law, that Cain did something very bad, then becoming an outcast and the Lord putting a mark on him that he not be slain by anybody who comes upon him, certain moral law a matter of conscience, Romans 2:15. Such moral law is in the consciences of men, whereas it's never been in the universal conscience of man to sacrifice a young pigeon or do any Jewish temple ritual, cleansing ritual, on and on, nor did God ever intend this.
There is obviously a distinction between the bulk of Old Testament law, with regard to universal human morality. To say "give me a verse" that explicitly cites this concept is like saying, since Bible isn't in the Bible, the concept of a Bible must be invalid. It's a very specious sort of argument to make of the Law, that seems somebody would make to simply stir the pot. It's also like the old "rapture" isn't in the Bible argument, when nobody ever said it was, and while the teaching of the Greek "harpazo" is right there, in black and white. Such arguments are, actually, worse than specious, as they have no plausibility, when examined on the surface layer, the likes of just playing with words.
shagster01
New member
So? My beliefs say Christianity is false.
There simply is no divide apart from the illusory dogma that imparts the desire for such. You seek the divide because you need the divide in order to contrive pertinence to an antiquated divisive ideology. You're your own worse enemy blindfully pitting one man-made ideology against another. By your own logic I could likewise follow the divine tenets of of the Qur'an and you've no recourse to contend it's "word".
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
This is such a striking, revealing statement of the problem, in neon. The very truth is, in fact, God is so, so righteous, so very holy, of extreme righteous ambitions, as a matter of fact, He has imposed an eternal target on your back, bigtime, that will send you to hellfire, if you don't repent.
Your statement is an explicit rejection of God's righteousness and the "divisive" truth of that target on your back God has placed there, and upon all the unrepentant, the bull's eye your impending doom. It's "divisive," dismiss it, Scarlett O'Hara, "I'll think about that tomorrow." Divisive? You bet! Matthew 10:34-36. Divisive like the gulf between heaven and hell, Luke 16:24-26. And pointing this out doesn't resolve your personal problem.
1. Reject righteousness. 2. Declare the consequences divisive. Can you perhaps see, at least, this is the sort of argument a criminal may make, against the judge? Amazing what you reveal so plainly about yourself, that you can't even see.