Beyond The Four Spiritual Laws

[Adziilii]

.

I'd kind have to disagree with you that ALL LBGT people are openly sexually active and feel a Need to be open about their sexuality.

I would disagree with me too were I to say something like that.
_

 

[Christ4Ever]

.


Well; the key to correctly applying Paul's instructions regarding LGBT is the word "indulges" which Webster's defines as: excessive compliance and weakness in gratifying another's or one's own desires. In other words: they have to be sexually active; and not just active, but openly active; which, I should think, applies to all LBGT regardless whether they were that way prior to becoming a Christian or took it up after they became a Christian.

That same rule of course applies to immoral persons, the covetous, the idolaters, the revilers, the drunkards, and the swindlers.
_

Oh, I understand the "indulges", which in other words means "practicing'.

As far as the focus on this type of sin verses others it is easy to see. One, but limited to this is the possibility that those who are against this "loudly" see this moral condition, as a perversion. As well as one that depending on how you read Romans 1:26-27, "gave them up to", "delivered them up to", or even "abandoned them to", seems to imply a hands on or off approach by God specifically for this particular sin. While in truth a Christian should view all sin as being repugnant, sadly we know this is not always the case. You can easily find one with an active "sin life", in any number of other areas and still be aggressive against this particular sin, all while ignoring their own sinful life.

Regardless of how it is viewed, I'm still curious if you believe as my question from the previous post was asking and which I'll reword a little here. If a process should be in place for how one should handle this type of situation seeing as one is newly arrived to the faith while the other has professed to be of the faith for some time? I will add as a prerequisite that regardless of the process that it must be done with the Love of Christ, always first and foremost.

Thanks for hearing me out.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
<><

 

[Adziilii]

.

Romans 1:26-27, "gave them up to", "delivered them up to", or even "abandoned them to", seems to imply a hands on or off approach by God specifically for this particular sin.

Well; I'm pretty sure in my own mind that the pronoun them does not specifically apply to LGBT because the same language is again at Rom 1:28-32 for depravity, every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, insolence, arrogance, boasting, disobedience to parents, lack of faith, heartless, and ruthless.

In other words: Rom 1:18-32 is a class-action indictment against the whole human race as a corporate body rather than against individuals. So it would be accurate to substitute them with "gave humanity up to" and "delivered humanity up to" and "abandoned humanity to"
_

 

[Christ4Ever]

.


Well; I'm pretty sure in my own mind that the pronoun them does not specifically apply to LGBT because the same language is again at Rom 1:28-32 for depravity, every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, insolence, arrogance, boasting, disobedience to parents, lack of faith, heartless, and ruthless.

In other words: Rom 1:18-32 is a class-action indictment against the whole human race as a corporate body rather than against individuals. So it would be accurate to substitute them with "gave humanity up to" and "delivered humanity up to" and "abandoned humanity to"
_

Agreed. Thanks for looking further

Still, back to what I originally mentioned.

You might not have thoughts on this and that is okay. Just looking for Scripture first of course, as it pertains to how to deal/interact/methodology one might use in treating one who has these failings or any sinful behavior, in the light of one who is new to the faith verses one who has been of the faith for some time? Understanding as I've stated before that regardless of the process that it must be done with the Love of Christ, always first and foremost.

Thanks for your consideration.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Nick
YBIC
<><

 

[Adziilii]

.

You might not have thoughts on this and that is okay. Just looking for Scripture first of course, as it pertains to how to deal/interact/methodology one might use in treating one who has these failings or any sinful behavior, in the light of one who is new to the faith verses one who has been of the faith for some time?

None of what I'm about to say down below applies to visitors; only to members on the roles; i.e. the congregation. In other words; we sure wouldn't want churches hanging signs out front saying:

Ø LBGT
Ø Swindlers
Ø Fornicators
Ø Murderers
Ø Envious
Ø Gossips
Ø Slanderers
Ø Arrogant
Ø Deceivers
Ø Faithless
Ø Boasters
Ø Heartless
Ø Ruthless
Ø Juvenile Delinquents

No, we want all those kinds of people to come in. It is my personal feelings that Sunday services should be a neutral zone where people indulging in every category of sin imaginable are welcome; everyone on that list, all of them including, but not limited to: witches, drug addicts, outlaw bikers, Wall Street barracudas, sexual predators, wife beaters, cheap politicians, vandals, felons, dead beats, tax cheats, fugitives, neighbors from hell, etc. It has been my feelings for some time now that Sunday services should be thought of as mission fields because, really, that's what they are: especially on Easter.

Now as for the members on the roles . . .

● Gal 6:1a . . Brethren, even if a man is caught in the very act of any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness;

The restoration process is specifically the turf of "spiritual" Christians. In churches where people are conceited, assertive, confrontational, embroiled in petty rivalries, debating, quarrelling, and maybe even jostling for notoriety; the spiritual ones are obviously going to be as scarce as California Condors.

A spirit of gentleness precludes the use of bullying, intimidation, rage. yelling, demeaning comments, ugly remarks, brow beating, and such. Those kinds of behaviors aren't gentle, no, they're cruel.

The koiné Greek word for "trespass" is interesting. It can refer to willful misconduct and/or unintentional misconduct.

● Gal 6:1b . . each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted.

The Greek word for "tempted" is somewhat ambiguous. It primarily means to test; but can also mean endeavor, scrutinize, entice, and/or discipline.

I think what the restorers are being cautioned against is going about a right thing in a wrong way so that they themselves wind up taken to task for conduct unbecoming. In some people's minds, the end justifies the means so long as it benefits the so-called greater good. But that's Machiavellian thinking rather than Christian thinking.

In other words: the restorers need to tread lightly because if they go after an offender like a lynch mob; then they themselves should expect to be seen by others as a toxic menace and a threat to unity.
_

 

[Sue D.]

.


Well; the key to correctly applying Paul's instructions regarding LGBT is the word "indulges" which Webster's defines as: excessive compliance and weakness in gratifying another's or one's own desires. In other words: they have to be sexually active; and not just active, but openly active; which, I should think, applies to all LBGT regardless whether they were that way prior to becoming a Christian or took it up after they became a Christian.

That same rule of course applies to immoral persons, the covetous, the idolaters, the revilers, the drunkards, and the swindlers.
_

Then what are you saying 'here' that I misunderstood. ""which, I should think, applies to All LBGT regardless ......""

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 6:20a . . For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God

Christ's crucifixion and resurrection liberated his followers from facing justice and the second death in the scene depicted at Rev 20:11-15. That was a mighty big favor, and I should think it earns him the right to expect a favor in return. All things considered; conducting ourselves in ways that honor God is really not too much to ask seeing as how it was He who donated His No.1 son's life to pay the price for people's ransom. (1Pet 1:18-19)

"in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." (1Cor 6:20b)

Human life consists of not only body and spirit, but also soul. (1Ths 5:23, Heb 4:12). So, that being the case; why isn't soul mentioned in 1Cor 6:20? Well; I'm pretty sure it's implied by the pronoun "ye". In other words: soul speaks of the person as a conscious, sentient being.

"Soul" is somewhat ambiguous. In the very beginning, the Hebrew word for soul (nephesh) simply distinguished between fauna life and flora life.

It shows up first at Gen 1:20-21 as sea creatures and winged creatures. Then again at Gen 1:24 as terra creatures; again at Gen 2:7 as the human creature; again at Gen 2:19-20 as the creatures to whom Adam gave names; and again at Gen 9:8-16 as all creatures aboard the ark, including Noah and his family.

NOTE: Speaking of conscious, sentient beings: God's spirit is viewed by some not as a person, but as a force. However, according to Isa 63:10 it's possible to vex God's spirit. The Hebrew word for "vex" is 'atsab (aw-tsab') which means distress, worry, pain, or anger. 'Atsab's first appearance in the Bible is located at Gen 6:6, where it's stated:

"Jehovah was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him to his heart."

'Atsab's equivalent in the New Testament is lupeo (loo-peh'-o). For example:

"Do not grieve the holy spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." (Eph 4:30)
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 7:2 . . To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

The above is especially pertinent in 21st century America. Fornication is everywhere: on a pandemic scale. It's in our music, in our schools, in the White House, in our offices, on our televisions, in our movies, in our novels, and in our conversations. People are even sleeping together on their very first dates.

Even Congressmen, Senators, and US Presidents are indulging in forbidden love. The previous Governor of Oregon was openly shacking up with a girlfriend. An item in the January 2011 issue of National Geographic reported that 41% of America's births in 2008 were illegitimate; which is up 28% from 1990.

This country is in a state of moral decadence, and becoming more and more like the ancient city of Pompeii just prior to its destruction by the volcanism of Mt. Vesuvius.

It's important to note that 1Cor 7:2 makes it okay to marry for sex. My childhood religion taught me that it's a sin to marry for any other reason except procreation and that couples who decide to remain childless are living in sin.

They get that from Genesis 1:28 where it's says: "God blessed them; and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply". But that is clearly a blessing rather than a law. It's always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or empowerments unless clearly indicated otherwise.

Ironically the original purpose of marriage was neither sex nor procreation; it was companionship (Gen 2:18). Leave it to people to construe God's words to mean things they don't say in writing.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 7:3-4 . . Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not authority of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not authority of his own body, but the wife.

What we're talking about in that verse is the principle of private property in marriage that was established right from the get-go.

"Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife" (Gen 2:24)

There are no specific Hebrew words for "wife". The word for wife in that verse comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah. What makes an ishshah somebody's wife? The possessive pronoun "his". The same grammar works for husbands too, for example:

"And Leah said, God hath endued me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have born him six sons" (Gen 30:20)

The Hebrew word for "husband" in that verse is 'iysh which is specifically males; for example Gen 2:23-24 where it says:

"And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

So Eve became Adam's woman; and Adam of course became Eve's man. They quite literally owned each other.

TRIVIA: Leah speaks of Jacob as her man something like five times in Genesis while Rachel never once speaks of him in that way.

Adultery is very serious not only because it's immoral, but also because it's an act of theft. Spouses that cheat on their partners are no different than carjackers taking an SUV that doesn't belong to them and selling it to a chop shop.

So then; if you're looking for a man, or for a women, then go out and find one of your own instead of taking a married one who has no right to give themselves to you without their spouse's consent.
_

 

[Sue D.]

.
1Cor 7:2 . . To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

The above is especially pertinent in 21st century America. Fornication is everywhere: on a pandemic scale. It's in our music, in our schools, in the White House, in our offices, on our televisions, in our movies, in our novels, and in our conversations. People are even sleeping together on their very first dates.

Even Congressmen, Senators, and US Presidents are indulging in forbidden love. The previous Governor of Oregon was openly shacking up with a girlfriend. An item in the January 2011 issue of National Geographic reported that 41% of America's births in 2008 were illegitimate; which is up 28% from 1990.

This country is in a state of moral decadence, and becoming more and more like the ancient city of Pompeii just prior to its destruction by the volcanism of Mt. Vesuvius.

It's important to note that 1Cor 7:2 makes it okay to marry for sex. My childhood religion taught me that it's a sin to marry for any other reason except procreation and that couples who decide to remain childless are living in sin.

They get that from Genesis 1:28 where it's says: "God blessed them; and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply". But that is clearly a blessing rather than a law. It's always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or empowerments unless clearly indicated otherwise.

Ironically the original purpose of marriage was neither sex nor procreation; it was companionship (Gen 2:18). Leave it to people to construe God's words to mean things they don't say in writing.
_

Your last sentence -- God created Adam first and then Eve from Adam. Male and female / egg and *****. And, yes, Adam needed a mate comperable to him.

In 2:27 - 28 God created man ..... male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

The 'be fruitful and increase in number = marriage, sex / procreation.

Put a male and female together in a companiable set of circumstances and their hormones will bring them together. Egg and ***** will combine and a baby / next generation / takes place.

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 7:5 . . Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

It's not uncommon for wives to withhold intimacy from their husbands as a strategy to manipulate them. God forbid that any woman believing herself to be one of Christ's followers should ever pull a stunt like that! Same goes for the husbands. There is just no excuse for that kind of behavior in marriage. It's deplorable and it's unbecoming.

The koiné word for "defraud" is apostereo (ap-os-ter-eh'-o) which means: to despoil; which Webster's defines as: to strip of belongings, possessions, or value; viz: pillage.

In other words, married people who withhold intimacy from their spouses without a valid reason to do so are nothing less than thieves, and in violation of the 8th commandment.

"Thou shalt not steal." (Ex 20:15)

The temptation in question is of course adultery. In other words; if one spouse denies the other spouse's conjugal rights for too long a time they run the risk of pushing them into another's arms.

I heard a story recently about a rather conniving Christian woman who wanted a divorce from her Christian husband; but seeing as how God only allows death or adultery to dissolve the marital bond; she deliberately denied her husband his conjugal rights in order to force him to think about taking a lover; and when he did; she proceeded to divorce him on the grounds of unfaithfulness. That way, in her mind's eye, she was the victim and he the villain. (chuckle) What people won't do to circumvent the laws of God.
_

 

[Sue D.]

Your last sentence -- God created Adam first and then Eve from Adam. Male and female / egg and *****. And, yes, Adam needed a mate comperable to him.

In 2:27 - 28 God created man ..... male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.

The 'be fruitful and increase in number = marriage, sex / procreation.

Put a male and female together in a companiable set of circumstances and their hormones will bring them together. Egg and ***** will combine and a baby / next generation / takes place.

Hmmmm -- apparently it's okay to use the term 'egg' but not '*****' since someone 'x'ed it out.

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 7:8-9 . . Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.

Paul said it's good to remain single; but he didn't say it's best.

The koiné Greek word for "burn" is puroo (poo-ro'-o) which means: to kindle, to ignite, to glow, and/or to be inflamed. I seriously doubt Paul meant to convey the thought that the believers who lacked self control at Corinth were in grave danger of the flames of hell since he had already assured them in 1Cor 6:9-11 that they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of The Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul was one of those kinds of men with a very low-powered libido. But not everyone is like him; nor is everyone cut out to live alone.

Webster's defines "celibacy" as (1) the state of not being married, (2) abstention from sexual intercourse, and (3) abstention by vow from marriage. Celibacy then, isn't limited to zero intimacy, but also includes zero marriage; even platonic unions.

Not long ago, a Catholic priest here in Oregon quit the priesthood after serving more than 30 years in order to get married because he couldn't stand being alone anymore. He wasn't especially looking to get naked with somebody, he just wanted a companion; which is exactly how normal guys are designed.

"Yhvh God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary" (Gen 2:18)

The problem with a vow of celibacy is that although it may hinder a priest from getting married, it does nothing to prevent him from pining for a female companion. 1Cor 7:9 should suffice to silence the mouths of ascetics who preach it's holy to abstain from every form of earthly pleasure; and also the mouths of those who preach it's a sin to marry solely for sex.

NOTE: Typical wedding vows are unconditional, i.e. couples, as a rule, don't promise to love each other in proportion to the amount of love they get from the other. It would be educational for couples to review their vows now and again to see just how conscientious they've been in complying with the unconditional portions of their vows.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 7:10-11a . . Unto the married I command-- yet not I, but The Lord --let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.

Divorcing a man for any cause other than infidelity is unacceptable (Matt 5:32). However, according to Christ's sabbath teachings, the safety and welfare of human life takes priority over strict observance of religious laws and customs; which tells me that women can, and no doubt should, walk out on abusive husbands and get away from them.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 7:11b . . and let not the husband put away his wife.

A man doesn't have sufficient scriptural grounds for divorce just by his woman walking out on him. Now should she take up with a lover during their separation; that would definitely be sufficient. (Matt 19:9)
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 7:12 . . If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

1Cor 7:13 . . And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

It's very common for marriages to start off on common ground, and then later on to become religiously divided; like for instance when one of the spouses gets converted at a Luis Palau crusade. As long as the situation doesn't cause intolerable friction in the home, the couple should stay together.

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy." (1Cor 7:14-15)

According to Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9, divorce and remarriage are holy only if one of the spouses has been unfaithful. So; if a believing spouse divorces their unbelieving spouse for any other reason than infidelity, and remarries; then as far as God is concerned, any children produced in the believing spouse's second marriage will be illegitimate.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 7:15 . . But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

In this situation, Christians are neither required, nor encouraged, nor under even the slightest obligation to attempt reconciliation; rather, "let him depart" strictly forbids getting back together with the unbeliever.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 7:17 . . But as God hath distributed to every man, as The Lord hath called every one, so let him walk.

"distribution" is likely talking about spiritual gifts. All of Christ's believing followers are supposed to have at least one.

"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit, yada, yada, yada." (1Cor 12:5-8)

The "call" is likely the venue where each individual's gift is put to good use for the Lord. I don't think we need to worry about how to find that venue; it'll find us. Thing is, stay in your own zone; don't crash somebody else's party and/or stick your nose into something that's none of your spiritual business.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 7:18a . . Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised.

It was of course impossible to literally reverse circumcision in Paul's day. However, there did exist a procedure to ceremoniously reverse it. (cf. 1Maccabees 1:15)

1Cor 7:18b . . Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

The circumcision in question is ritual circumcision; specifically the initiation rite into Judaism. Paul's advice is very practical because if a believer undergoes Judaism's circumcision rite, they will obligate God to come down on themselves with the curses listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69 for noncompliance with the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. All one has to do is research the last 3,500 years of the Jews' history, up to and including the Holocaust, to see for themselves that God is serious about those curses.

A fair question one might ask is: If 1Cor 7:18b is a hard and fast rule, then why did Paul circumcise Timothy at Acts 16:1-3? Answer: that wasn't done to initiate Timothy into Judaism, but rather, so that the Jews wouldn't make an issue of Paul associating with an uncircumcised Gentile which, in their minds, would effectively invalidate his message.

A similar problem exists today among Christians fixated on the King James translation of the Bible. They will not listen to a teacher, not even a Spirit-empowered teacher, unless he quotes from the KJV. In their minds; all who use any other version are heretics right from the get-go.
_

 

[Adziilii]

.
1Cor 7:20 . . Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.

I once knew a really good Catholic man who felt guilty never going out as a missionary to a foreign land to help people less fortunate than himself. Well, I assured him that somebody has to stay back here in the States and hold down a job in order to earn the money needed to finance missions already in place.

The ratio of soldiers in the rear compared to the ones at the front is something like six to one. It takes a massive support base to keep our guys on the line out there facing off with the other guys; all the way from workers in state-side factories manufacturing war materiel, to the sailors, soldiers, and airmen moving men and materiel over land and seas, to the doctors and nurses staffing MASH facilities, to the guys and girls driving supply trucks to the front. We can't all be in the doo-doo. Somebody has to be in the rear with the gear.

So take comfort in knowing that if you're involved in the effort, then you're a part of the effort; and will be rewarded accordingly. (cf. 1Sam 30:1-25 and Matt 20:1-16)
_