Story? Deuteronomy 22:28-29 isn't a story.
If its just love, why shouldnt incest be ok?
- Thread starter Angel4Truth
- Start date
Story? Deuteronomy 22:28-29 isn't a story.
Why did you change relationships to sex?
American law was copied pretty much word for word from British law which was taken from Roman law.
So a heterosexual couple unable to have children could not be a loving committed relations as they are interested in physical gratification.
theophilus
Well-known member
And Hallelujah! a global Theocracy is coming Rev. 1:3c - because the time is near.
Why not? Criminalizing homosexuality would provide one less reason for God to judge this country in justice and righteousness.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are societies under a false religion and they are also Honor/Shame societies. Pride and reputation are "civic duties" there. Rules are in place because there is no self-discipline and no self-control.
John 7:24 - I am called to judge righteously. God has said homosexuality is sin. Fornication is sin. Lust is sin.
Matthew 12:37 - 37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
I regret your derision of the more perfect way and pray someday you may find the Way, the Truth and the Life.
theophilus
Well-known member
Not any more.
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.
Still is - but Christ and grace are game-changers because no one could/can keep the law.
We pursue holiness, powered by the Holy Spirit. As to the law: 2 Cor. 3:4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it.
Love never changes.
glassjester
Well-known member
Ordered toward the good of the potential children, yes.
Sex does not just act as reproduction itself, but also fosters a bond between the couple (again, beneficial to the children).
Ideally, sex does not just bring about parents, it brings about loving, committed parents.
glassjester
Well-known member
If they are having sex just for the sake of personal, physical gratification - then no, that's not an act of love.
glassjester
Well-known member
Well then, you've found the elusive "grey area" on your own accord...seek and ye shall find.
All the better since I didn't even have to sully my hands!
glassjester
Well-known member
How's that a gray area?
Sex is unitive and procreative.
If a sexual act is intrinsically opposed to either, or both, of those purposes, it's immoral.
By such standards you have quite a few heterosexual marriages - with no intention of procreating - that must exist immorally.
Is this what you're claiming?
glassjester
Well-known member
If a sexual act is intrinsically opposed to either the unitive or procreative aspect of sex, then the act is immoral.
I'm not sure about a marriage, itself, being immoral. Invalid, possibly.
It is possible for two people in a valid marriage, to engage in an immoral sexual act. Is that what you mean?
shagster01
New member
Like asking:
If you think it's ok to allow prayer in schools why don't you support other religions being there too?
If you think it's ok to allow prayer in schools why don't you support other religions being there too?
Where are you having difficulties here?
If a heterosexual married couple are having sex, using prophylactics/birth control with the explicit intent to not bear children (i.e. for personal pleasure) is this marriage, based upon an immoral sexual relationship, an immoral marriage?
So, they never enjoy the act of sex...it's an exclusively godly duty?!
I notice that this is a bit of an issue which churches really don't expound on much- on one hand, you have the notion that a person thoroughly imbued with the Spirit shouldn't need to partake in the physical pleasure of sex. Saint Augustine gets into heavy details about this, insinuating that recreational sex cleaves the soul from the body, being unable to control it and ultimately throwing the body to depravity.
But then on the other hand, conjugal rights are clearly expressed by Paul in the Bible and when two marry, they become 'one in the flesh'. So it seems that it's simply a venial issue within marriage, but a mortal one outside of marriage.
glassjester
Well-known member
Using contraception is immoral, yes.
Committing an immoral act, while in a valid marriage, does not invalidate a marriage.
Is the marriage itself intrinsically opposed to the unitive or procreative aspect of sex?
No, not really. A man and woman engaging in a morally illicit sexual act, are not intrinsically unable to engage in a morally licit sexual act.
They are still validly married. They could wake up tomorrow and quit their sinnin'.
I think you're confusing validity with morality.
There is no "immoral marriage."
Good then homosexual marriages are no less moral. (And as such have no correlation to incest.) Correct?
Homosexual marriage is not recognized as marriage anymore than a person marrying a cat. The natural order which God intends is for man and woman, as God created Eve for this purpose.