And that's part of the problem. At no point in the Bible does the laundry list come out, and that's why it's hard to take that as the law. Does God at some point start putting check marks on the list?

 

Oral sex -- nope, that's OK

anal sex -- yes, but only if it's two guys

polygamy -- nope, that's in there a bunch, and OK

bestiality -- not sure if there's a reference to that, but I don't recall it

hetero, but non-missionary positions -- Catholics say yes, but I'm skeptical

 

See where the disconnect comes from?

 

But therein lies the beauty. We are supposed to struggle over the doctrine. We are supposed to study the text and apply it to our own lives. The concept of "Priesthood of the Believer" allows two Christians to read the same Bible passage in earnest, prayerful desire to seek God's will and each comes out with a different conclusion.

Christianity isn't a list of dos and don'ts, but rather a continual striving to walk more closely with Christ.

My walk may look very different than many of my fellow Christians and I find that to be a beautiful thing as we all seek a more intimate relationship with the Savior.

 

Just my opinion.

And that's part of the problem. At no point in the Bible does the laundry list come out, and that's why it's hard to take that as the law. Does God at some point start putting check marks on the list?

 

Oral sex -- nope, that's OK

anal sex -- yes, but only if it's two guys

polygamy -- nope, that's in there a bunch, and OK

bestiality -- not sure if there's a reference to that, but I don't recall it

hetero, but non-missionary positions -- Catholics say yes, but I'm skeptical

 

See where the disconnect comes from?

 

Clarify "non-missionary positions."

 

I feel like the New Testament is pretty clear as it relates to sex being designed for one husband & one wife within marriage. And within that marriage relationship, there is a great deal of sexual freedom because the N.T. is silent as it relates to some of the stuff you mentioned (anal & oral).

But therein lies the beauty. We are supposed to struggle over the doctrine. We are supposed to study the text and apply it to our own lives. The concept of "Priesthood of the Believer" allows two Christians to read the same Bible passage in earnest, prayerful desire to seek God's will and each comes out with a different conclusion.

Christianity isn't a list of dos and don'ts, but rather a continual striving to walk more closely with Christ.

My walk may look very different than many of my fellow Christians and I find that to be a beautiful thing as we all seek a more intimate relationship with the Savior.

 

Just my opinion.

 

See, I would counter with "but therein lies the ugliness," since it seems that all Christians -- and when I use that term, I'm referring to the "Look at me, I'm a Christian" types -- want nothing more than to be the keepers of the rules of society, and apply those rules wherever they can use the tyranny of the majority to keep those who don't agree with them in line. Y'know, like blue laws, for instance.

Clarify "non-missionary positions."

 

I feel like the New Testament is pretty clear as it relates to sex being designed for one husband & one wife within marriage. And within that marriage relationship, there is a great deal of sexual freedom because the N.T. is silent as it relates to some of the stuff you mentioned (anal & oral).

 

I think we're both reasonably familiar with what constitutes "the missionary position" and what doesn't. But if you're not, I would presume you would have my back if I were to start a new laundry list that would, under normal circumstances, get me suspended for listing. Your call.

I think we're both reasonably familiar with what constitutes "the missionary position" and what doesn't. But if you're not, I would presume you would have my back if I were to start a new laundry list that would, under normal circumstances, get me suspended for listing. Your call.

 

I swear to you I've never heard that phrase until you just posted it. I just googled it. :lol2:

I swear to you I've never heard that phrase until you just posted it. I just googled it. :lol2:

 

:laugh: I'll take that as a "no." :lol:

So while I've been a bit shaken by Jim enhancing my vocabulary, I do firmly believe the New Testament is consistent in the one man, one woman in marriage thing. That's really all it says. There are no specifics as to what can happen sexually within that relationship, so I take that as freedom to basically do whatever.

See, I would counter with "but therein lies the ugliness," since it seems that all Christians -- and when I use that term, I'm referring to the "Look at me, I'm a Christian" types -- want nothing more than to be the keepers of the rules of society, and apply those rules wherever they can use the tyranny of the majority to keep those who don't agree with them in line. Y'know, like blue laws, for instance.

 

I agree with you. With the freedom to interpret scripture comes the freedom to misinterpret and manipulate scripture.

It isn't easy to stay on the narrow path... And not always because of the "rules" being broken. Arrogance is one unfortunate downfall of many Christians. It always has been... notice how Jesus referred to the church leaders in his teachings. It was seldom positive.

When we forget that we all have sinned and fallen short, we risk missing the plank in our own eye by focusing on the speck in our neighbor's eye.

 

I know several on this board who are sick of Christianity as a whole for these very reasons. It is sad that the witnesses some have seen and heard have not shown the example of Christ's love for us all.

Spindoc... some people can make valid logical points. It's annoying when the response to a valid logical point avoids answering it and consistently goes on to add more illogical thoughts and invalid comments to it. UKMustangFan made an incredibly valid logical point about how Bible quoters appear to be selective, all the while claiming they believe every word of it. How are we to buy their Bible quotes if they're obviously inconsistent and hypocritical about it? That's a valid question... which you did everything in your will to avoid answering. Downright annoying if you ask me... and illogical.

The bible defines sexual immorality. I'm sure you know the verses. Did the immorality change with new covenant we have in Christ? I think the answer is no. I've not been personal or barbed in my opinion. I simply think that bible is God's inherent truth and choose to believe it cover to cover. It's my opinion that you either believe it all or none. I know it's difficult for you to hear the things I say. Your lifestyle is sin according to God's word. In the past I had a problem with pornography, a sin of sexual immorality also. I'm sure on this site we have adulterers and other issues with sexual immorality. But to choose to believe something because you "can't believe God thinks that way" just isn't scriptural. God says what he means. There's not room for interpretation. But there is room for application. As a Christian, I see our country waiver, our leaders waiver, our preachers waiver. They soften their stance with ear tickling speech. They leave the very foundation of our faith by mollycoddling those around us with mind numbing acceptance of sin as the norm. I am not opposed to tolerance, but am also not afraid to call sin what it is, sin. UKMF asked about old testament issues with meat. The meat was part of the sacrifice for he atonement of sin, yet the new covenant we have in Christ who is the penultimate sacrifice for our sins does away with the customs and tenets of the old testament with regard to eating pork, for instance. The hierarchy of the home, man is the head of the household, is that not still covered in the new testament? You see, what I see from this point of view is people plucking scripture out, often using it out of context to fit their agenda or angle. I'm tired of it to be quite honest. We should all hold our lives up to God's word and see how we stack up. Does the holy spirit convict us of our sin? Do we even walk close enough to know or are we all numb and hard hearted to the spirit to even discern? God's word is confounding. And he even warns that knowledge will be increased in the end times as Daniel prophecies. I'm not sure if that means about knowledge of Gods word or knowledge in general. Seems to me the latter. I'm sure you aren't pleased either with my stance on the genetic aspects of homosexuality. But scientifically speaking it's indisputable. I'm also tired of Christians being painted as judgemental with scriptures about the splinter and the plank and who am I to judge. Again, Christ warns not to judge, lest you be judged by the same measure. Well, we are all judged by the same measure. If we aren't supposed to judge, how are we ever to learn how to discern? How do we teach our children? Again, sin creeps in to our lives, we pluck that scripture and warn others not to judge us because Christ says so, when in fact, the whole passage doesn't say that remotely.

 

So, to end this diatribe, I asked UKMF if he'd read the bible in it's entirety for my understanding of his point of view. You obviously thought I was being critical. I can say this with assurance, UKMF knows that we go back and forth quite often in threads about various subject, but I respect his stance and his opinion, regardless if I agree with him or him with me. And lastly, I have read every word of this thread, I don't see where Khalid was being contradictory or hypocritical at all. If I was I'd like you to let me know what I said, so that I might have a chance to clarify or defend. Otherwise, I don't see anything illogical about it. I can definitely see, however, why you may think the things I've said are annoying, with all due respect.

So while I've been a bit shaken by Jim enhancing my vocabulary, I do firmly believe the New Testament is consistent in the one man, one woman in marriage thing. That's really all it says. There are no specifics as to what can happen sexually within that relationship, so I take that as freedom to basically do whatever.

 

Then why are there sodomy laws still on the books in many places? Those laws -- some of which were only recently repealed -- were borne out of a Christian application of the rules.

Then why are there sodomy laws still on the books in many places? Those laws -- some of which were only recently repealed -- were borne out of a Christian application of the rules.

Also used to be a law you had to honk your horn when traveling around a blind curve.

Then why are there sodomy laws still on the books in many places? Those laws -- some of which were only recently repealed -- were borne out of a Christian application of the rules.

 

For many, I'm sure it's like the blue laws...Christians trying to apply Scriptural restrictions when there are none. Of course, for some, I think they are genuinely opposed to things like this because they are personally opposed to it.

 

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with Christians who disapprove of alcohol sales on Sunday, anal sex within marriage, etc. Just don't tell me that there is Scriptural precedent for it.

The bible defines sexual immorality. I'm sure you know the verses. Did the immorality change with new covenant we have in Christ? I think the answer is no. I've not been personal or barbed in my opinion. I simply think that bible is God's inherent truth and choose to believe it cover to cover. It's my opinion that you either believe it all or none. I know it's difficult for you to hear the things I say. Your lifestyle is sin according to God's word. In the past I had a problem with pornography, a sin of sexual immorality also. I'm sure on this site we have adulterers and other issues with sexual immorality. But to choose to believe something because you "can't believe God thinks that way" just isn't scriptural. God says what he means. There's not room for interpretation. But there is room for application. As a Christian, I see our country waiver, our leaders waiver, our preachers waiver. They soften their stance with ear tickling speech. They leave the very foundation of our faith by mollycoddling those around us with mind numbing acceptance of sin as the norm. I am not opposed to tolerance, but am also not afraid to call sin what it is, sin. UKMF asked about old testament issues with meat. The meat was part of the sacrifice for he atonement of sin, yet the new covenant we have in Christ who is the penultimate sacrifice for our sins does away with the customs and tenets of the old testament with regard to eating pork, for instance. The hierarchy of the home, man is the head of the household, is that not still covered in the new testament? You see, what I see from this point of view is people plucking scripture out, often using it out of context to fit their agenda or angle. I'm tired of it to be quite honest. We should all hold our lives up to God's word and see how we stack up. Does the holy spirit convict us of our sin? Do we even walk close enough to know or are we all numb and hard hearted to the spirit to even discern? God's word is confounding. And he even warns that knowledge will be increased in the end times as Daniel prophecies. I'm not sure if that means about knowledge of Gods word or knowledge in general. Seems to me the latter. I'm sure you aren't pleased either with my stance on the genetic aspects of homosexuality. But scientifically speaking it's indisputable. I'm also tired of Christians being painted as judgemental with scriptures about the splinter and the plank and who am I to judge. Again, Christ warns not to judge, lest you be judged by the same measure. Well, we are all judged by the same measure. If we aren't supposed to judge, how are we ever to learn how to discern? How do we teach our children? Again, sin creeps in to our lives, we pluck that scripture and warn others not to judge us because Christ says so, when in fact, the whole passage doesn't say that remotely.

 

So, to end this diatribe, I asked UKMF if he'd read the bible in it's entirety for my understanding of his point of view. You obviously thought I was being critical. I can say this with assurance, UKMF knows that we go back and forth quite often in threads about various subject, but I respect his stance and his opinion, regardless if I agree with him or him with me. And lastly, I have read every word of this thread, I don't see where Khalid was being contradictory or hypocritical at all. If I was I'd like you to let me know what I said, so that I might have a chance to clarify or defend. Otherwise, I don't see anything illogical about it. I can definitely see, however, why you may think the things I've said are annoying, with all due respect.

 

Wine or grape juice? Simple question.

Wine or grape juice? Simple question.

Wine, you disagree?

For many, I'm sure it's like the blue laws...Christians trying to apply Scriptural restrictions when there are none. Of course, for some, I think they are genuinely opposed to things like this because they are personally opposed to it.

 

For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with Christians who disapprove of alcohol sales on Sunday, anal sex within marriage, etc. Just don't tell me that there is Scriptural precedent for it.

 

OK, that being said, is it really that hard to understand why so many of us don't take "the Bible says so" seriously? I mean, really? This whole state is full of stupid blue laws that are so outrageously illogical that it's not even amusing anymore. Are you ready to hit the stump with me for a barnstorming tour across Kentucky and tell all these people's preachers why they're wrong?