-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You are suppose to be proving that the bible says attraction is lust... not that lusting after anyone other than your spouse is adultery. That is another strawman argument. We both agree lusting is sinful.
You said: Then you just make a post talking about lust, which is not synonymous with attraction.
You also posted a long message previously that isn't from the bible. I'm still waiting for the bible explicitly saying attraction without lustful thoughts/actions equates to lust or adultery.
You said: Then you just make a post talking about lust, which is not synonymous with attraction.
You also posted a long message previously that isn't from the bible. I'm still waiting for the bible explicitly saying attraction without lustful thoughts/actions equates to lust or adultery.
K
The ideas that the writer put forth were Bible based and he used Scripture to back up what he was saying. So when you say use Scripture to prove your point you mean only Scripture you accept? There is no spin in what the article said. you're determined to be right no matter what "proof" is given. If the Word isn't proof enough for you then you're living by mans ideals. Where do you fault the writer of the article? Where has he "spun" anything?
If you can't differentiate one person's interpretation from the bible (remember you said the bible states attraction is lust?) from the actual word of God, we should probably end this discussion. There is nothing explicit in the word of God that says mere attraction equates to lust and/or adultery.
It's one thing if you claimed it is implicit, and then give someone's interpretation of the word of God, but you didn't say that. In which case, I would respond by posting what I posted pertaining to Adam and Eve. I'm not sure if you read it though.
It's one thing if you claimed it is implicit, and then give someone's interpretation of the word of God, but you didn't say that. In which case, I would respond by posting what I posted pertaining to Adam and Eve. I'm not sure if you read it though.
K
Lets try again.
" The Bible says that our sexual desires/attractions have a moral component and that we are held accountable for them. Jesus’ remarks on the nature of heterosexual desire are a case in point:Mathew 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.”"
Jesus was making the point that the desire AND the action are wrong.
[h=1]Mark 7:21-23-" For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”[/h]Phil. 4:8 -Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.
So we are commanded to keep our thoughts pure, thoughts are our desires. To desire,to look at someone other than your spouse with sexual desire is wrong. To desire sex with the same sex is wrong, its forbidden in Gods Word. Sinful desires if not dealt with, become sin.
Yes, we are to keep clean thoughts. Finding someone attractive doesn't mean we automatically think lustful thoughts though. From what I am reading from you, having attractions automatically means lust. This is where we clearly disagree. I think dwelling on those attractions leads to lustful thoughts. And of course, lustful thoughts are sinful.
The bible compares lust with adultery in the passages you posted. It doesn't mention attraction as lust or adultery. They aren't synonymous. There is no precedent set in the bible (that I'm aware of, I could totally be wrong) that says "attraction" and "lust" or "adultery" are synonymous.
The bible compares lust with adultery in the passages you posted. It doesn't mention attraction as lust or adultery. They aren't synonymous. There is no precedent set in the bible (that I'm aware of, I could totally be wrong) that says "attraction" and "lust" or "adultery" are synonymous.
finding someone attractive is not sin. Noticing other who are attractive to you other than you husband or wife is not sin. I have seen many very attractive women and do so each day , however I am married so I do not let my attraction rule my mind to an area that would be sinful. I think my daughter are pretty and attractive I do not have ill thoughts of them.
Lust is what the sinful nature produces to pervert the good things God has made . Like attraction, marriage, sex, and many other things.
Lust is what the sinful nature produces to pervert the good things God has made . Like attraction, marriage, sex, and many other things.
J
Over here, in Norway, where I live, they were big on burning witches back in the day (17th, and maybe 18th, century, I think). If a person, most likely a woman, was being accused of witchcraft, she was to be burned at the stake. And, heretics, more often than not, found themselves in the middle of trials which inevitably would, literally, set them ablaze.
I am not denying that those who claimed people to be witches were not burned. What I am saying it was never Christian to do so No where will you find after the birth of the church in the Book of Acts where they ( Christians) burned those practicing witch craft. Simon the Sorcerer burn his own stuff but he was not. The poster suggested that burning witches is a " Christian value " it is most certainly not.
This is a better argument than the rest, probably the only one worth addressing. You need to understand what nature is. Nature encompasses the entirety of our material world as it pertains to life cycles, water cycles, gravity, right down to physical laws and the theories that explain them.
It's totally misnomic to say "homosexuality isn't part of nature". Nature is what governs homosexuality. And it was never a problem until Jewish value systems came about. Just like serial monogamy was never a problem (it's actually the "natural", majority relationship type. All humans are serial monogomers).
It's also misleading to argue that because something used to be treated medically (by chemical castration, I might add), that it ought still to be "treated" medically. Homosexuality doesn't actually pose a health risk in and of itself, either psychologically or physically. In fact, it only was ever considered to be harmful to society because of the JudeoChristian values embedded in the social psyche, that deemed it so. Now, those values are becoming more and more a minority opinion on how society should look. That's something Christians have to concede. You live in a uniquely secular constitutional democracy.
As for the natural benefit of homosexuality: it would have heloed naturally limit population expansion. The population expansion problem we have can actually be traced back to Abrahamic religion: giving women no authority over their sex lives. Middle Eastern Islam, many foreign Christian interpretations, and many Jewish traditions, and the Catholic church in many African states and in South America, allow or at the very least promote marital rape, contraception bans, divorce as a man's right only, the sexual and legal authority of man over woman, and the idea that more children is better than less children. This leads to population expansion, and subsequent scarcity of resources and the violence and poverty that inevitably come with it. Secular countries that allow homosexuality, allow females to divorce, allow women to have power over their own sexuality, and promote safe sex, have sustainable populations.
Homosexuality specifically, evolved in nature to deal with excessive populations. During any population boom, the percentage of homosexual people seems to increase. It's thought this was to provide extra help with childcare, since humans for many years were raised in communal settings. There are also genetic and neurological tells for homosexuality. It's not simply something that people just "decide" to be. With all the religious damnation and subsequent stigma, the threat of violence or even death in some countries, who would ever decide to be gay if they had a choice?
I should also point out that the founding father's were mostly enlightenment deists, not Christians, and morality is and always has been a phenomenon the specifics of which are relative to the population's majority. The very existence of different moralities between cultures professing the same religion is surely evidence of this.
It's totally misnomic to say "homosexuality isn't part of nature". Nature is what governs homosexuality. And it was never a problem until Jewish value systems came about. Just like serial monogamy was never a problem (it's actually the "natural", majority relationship type. All humans are serial monogomers).
It's also misleading to argue that because something used to be treated medically (by chemical castration, I might add), that it ought still to be "treated" medically. Homosexuality doesn't actually pose a health risk in and of itself, either psychologically or physically. In fact, it only was ever considered to be harmful to society because of the JudeoChristian values embedded in the social psyche, that deemed it so. Now, those values are becoming more and more a minority opinion on how society should look. That's something Christians have to concede. You live in a uniquely secular constitutional democracy.
As for the natural benefit of homosexuality: it would have heloed naturally limit population expansion. The population expansion problem we have can actually be traced back to Abrahamic religion: giving women no authority over their sex lives. Middle Eastern Islam, many foreign Christian interpretations, and many Jewish traditions, and the Catholic church in many African states and in South America, allow or at the very least promote marital rape, contraception bans, divorce as a man's right only, the sexual and legal authority of man over woman, and the idea that more children is better than less children. This leads to population expansion, and subsequent scarcity of resources and the violence and poverty that inevitably come with it. Secular countries that allow homosexuality, allow females to divorce, allow women to have power over their own sexuality, and promote safe sex, have sustainable populations.
Homosexuality specifically, evolved in nature to deal with excessive populations. During any population boom, the percentage of homosexual people seems to increase. It's thought this was to provide extra help with childcare, since humans for many years were raised in communal settings. There are also genetic and neurological tells for homosexuality. It's not simply something that people just "decide" to be. With all the religious damnation and subsequent stigma, the threat of violence or even death in some countries, who would ever decide to be gay if they had a choice?
I should also point out that the founding father's were mostly enlightenment deists, not Christians, and morality is and always has been a phenomenon the specifics of which are relative to the population's majority. The very existence of different moralities between cultures professing the same religion is surely evidence of this.
