Debunking 'Biblical marriage'

And how did you form this doctrine?

Through considering many doctrines, philosophies and my own observations.

My axioms are:

1. Pantheism
2. Universalism
3. God makes sense

That didn't answer my question.

Could you expand on the question then? I'm not sure what you are looking for.

Your doctrine of instruction via the Holy Spirit.

I think that really solidified during my time in a pentacostal church. that was also my first real experiance "hearing" an inner voice other than my own.

Counsel of the spirit has never lead me astray.

My background is pentecostal, and pentecostals, while they do have an emphasis on experience, would disagree with you about the primacy of scripture. The pentecostal dictum is "the scripture teaches, the Holy Spirit illuminates."

You can check that one off. Ever heard of Blue Laws?

I agree that they disagree... it's one of the reasons I'm not in a pentecostal church now. I wouldn't trade away the time I did spend in that church for anything though.

The portion of the path you walked in the past is as much a part of one's journey as is that yet to come.

The Sabbath is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

Once again, I was thinking in western terms instead of eastern and so were the people who wrote the Blue Laws.

Blue Law
n.
A law designed to regulate commercial business on Sunday.
One of a body of laws in colonial New England designed to enforce certain moral standards and particularly to prohibit specified forms of entertainment or recreation on Sundays.


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/blue-law#ixzz1Dni9muW2

Why do you believe that God creates people a certain way? I believe God is hands off and allows to happen, what will happen. However we may be born, our actions are ultimately our choice, and it is our actions that are morally judged, not our birth.

I don't claim to know if God creates people at all. I am saying that true homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual any more than I chose to be heterosexual.

I don't see homosexuality as an action any more than I see having red hair as an action. Now, if public display of red hair was a sin, a redhead could in theory get up every day and shave all the red hairs away or color them to prevent committing the sin. But I would question a deity that would proclaim such a sin and force select people to live their life that way. Same with homosexuality. A homosexual could, in theory, live a heterosexual life and hide from public display their innate homosexuality. And I question a deity that has that expectation of a person to hide their true self.

It is quite easy for me, a heterosexual, to say that a homosexual should avoid homosexual actions and be heterosexual to please God. But, if those were reversed, how many of you could act homosexual to please God despite your innate desires to be heterosexual? What do you think that would do to your life? How would you feel about a deity that forced that upon you?

I fully agree. I just find it contradictory that the very people who preach love, understanding, and forgiveness are the ones driving this agenda. Politics and religion are a poor ideological mix and both messages suffer for it. In time, science will probably settle the debate to no one's satisfaction.

I don't think the science really matters. It would underpin one particular argument but a counter to that argument exists (from both sides) anyway so, other than gaining the knowledge, a scientific explanation doesn't advance anyone's position here.

Whether it is nature, nurture or some combination that sets sexual orientation it is pretty clear that it is set for men, in most cases, well before there is a meaningful opportunity to act on their orientations. There is significant evidence, both anecdotaly and in controled studies, that womens' orientations are far more fluid.

In the end; a man is attracted to men or to women (or, in some cases, both) and to ask a man to refrain from expressing the love he feels seems to be a pretty big deal to me; a thing that should not be done without good reason. Scripture and western civilization (until fairly recently) agree that promiscuity is dangerous and a solid, well evidenced case can be made on an objective basis to support this.

If God, society and your great auntie Tildee are concerned about the greater good then I would think that encouraging and insiting on comitted monogomy for all persons in the physical expression of romantic love for one another is a vastly more important goal than in doing a census of how many weiners are present in the marital bed.

I am non-comittal on polyamorous relationships. All that I have been aware of (and that is not enough to have any statistical significance) have actualy been cases of a dominate or openly abusive partner formalizing a means to be adulterous. Genuine poly-amorous relationships, where all persons are on an equal footing, may be possible but I have never been aware of one.

I would disagree with my friend on the importance of a possible clear scientific finding that would support nature over nurture. It would undermine much of the discussion on what God intended and the literal interpretation of scripture on this issue. I think the issue of promiscuity is not relevant in this debate due to the individual nature of the decision to be sexually irresponsible.

On the third area I highlighted, how will you feel if there is imperial evidence discovered that homosexuality is a choice? Would you then relegate scripture on this matter to irrelevancy and substitute human judgment over Biblical edicts?

There is no rational position that cites being homosexual as a choice. We don't know if orientation is set in the genetic code, in the womb or only in upbringing but we do know that it is an inherant condition by adulhood and that it can not be changed.

As a social issue; if we can not demonstrate harm then we have no granted power to supress a person's right to act upon their nature.

From a spiritual perspective; I do not believe that God is caprecious or cruel so if it is not reasoanbly possible to read a verse in such a way that fails to demonstrate God to be caprecious or cruel then I have no faith in the veractity of that verseas a stand-alone pronouncement. I would consider that to be a verse either meant to touch our hearts as a negative example or as part of the development of a larger thought that lacks meaning until the whole is considered.

Ok, well thanks for clarifying. My understanding is that homosexuality isn't the sin, it's the act of homosexuality. They don't have to hide who they are, they have to refrain from acting on it. Living a life of celibacy isn't unheard of and love is more than sexual attraction. And the Bible is pretty clear that the path to salvation is not an easy one. Many people have to make hard choices in their daily lives to choose God.

There are people who are kleptomaniacs, habitual liars, etc. I know there are likely drugs to correct the behavior, but they were most likely born that way. Still, we consider their actions to be against the standards of good society.

There is a rather significant difference here though since these are all examples of causing harm.