Posted on 04/28/2011 5:55:29 AM PDT by ZGuy
So nice of you to help God with what he means’...just keep this to argue your point during the judgement
God: “Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
The only plausible meaning: “A man who actually looks at a woman in order to lust after her has committed adultery.”
Your pathetic sect’s perversions have you trapped! You have no clue what the Word of God means.
I do not know if you are a man..but men testify that if a woman in a bikini walks by them they have sexual thoughts.. they were not LOOKING for that thought ..it is just there..
Here in Maryland it is against the law to discriminate in housing and employment for sexual orientation, but sexual orientation is not defined in the law.
“Sexual Orientation” has never been clearly defined to me, other than perhaps the acts one has committed, but I don’t know of any special tests, other than perhaps committing the act with someone or possibly numerous people, as the case often is, is some sort of proof. I don’t think even the gays know for sure who is truly homosexual amongst their own ranks.
“I do not know if you are a man..but men testify that if a woman in a bikini walks by them they have sexual thoughts.. they were not LOOKING for that thought ..it is just there..”
Yes, but the man also does not have to continue to feed his lusts afterwards as well. I am one, so I can tell you that much.
Exactly. I never really thought about it until I read it at a conservative website many years ago.
So it is only a sin if you go hunting to find a woman to lust after??
Would you say that one would have to desire to kill someone to have God declare you a murderer ?
Mat 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
Your 107 cites a line from Eepsy’s post 103
(here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711746/posts?page=103#103), but is addressed to me.
Perhaps you meant to ask her?
The difference between lookin’ and lustin’ is thinkin’. It’s OK to appreciate but not anticipate or participate.
” Coalition for Reproductive Choice?)”
Cute.....How about
” Coalition for Homicidal Choice “
C’est toujours la meme chose.
On second thought, mayve the word “Carnage” is in there somewhere...
Countering with Scripture.
What a novel concept.
Reading and comprehending scripture: even moreso.
You make some good points, though I have to wonder (as a non-Methodist) how effective UMC authority really is if it allows this “church” to stay in business, as it were.
But on the broader question of orientation and inclination, one could argue that the whole point of ethics, especially sexual ethics, is to process and channel human (i.e. fallen) desires in appropriate ways. On a very basic level, the Biblical model of marriage acknowledges and celebrates our desires for sex and romance, while still insisting that there is only one way to express those desires legitimately: in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage. So, I’m wary of approaching homosexuality as any sort of inherent orientation, instead of treating it (as the Bible does) as a clearly disordered perversion of legitimate sexual desire. The question should not be, as many liberal churches have claimed, how to live Christianly as a homosexual, but rather how to deny the lie that living Christianly can even admit the legitimacy of homosexual desire.
It's the continual feeding that crosses the line. Even having the initial thought is not lust. It can be nothing more than a thought planted by the devil.
That's what makes temptation so hard. It's that you get blindsided by it.
Psalm 19:12-13
Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults.
Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me!
Then I shall be blameless, and innocent of great transgression.
Jesus taught us a great lesson when tempted in the wilderness on hos to deal with temptation. It shows the value of knowing, REALLY knowing Scripture.
She didn’t say that and from what I know of her, she doesn’t believe that either.
It was a charge leveled by someone with an agenda.
But not you. I didn’t mean to imply that. I just realized that that could have been read wrong.
I should have included charge *initially* leveled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.