NGKnightfell

Just so I am clear about what you mean in this passage, are you saying that God calls all men (people) to be saved, and all those that WANT to be saved, He does save. However, while hearing this call from God, some people choose to reject this calling, and having done so, they essentially, are blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and from that point on can NO LONGER be saved? That the Holy Spirit simply stops striving with this human? What if a person simply resists the calling for a time, and says over and over again that they are "not interested" in the Gospel, or that the Gospel may be "good enough for me" but that he prefers not to be bothered? Does the apparent lack of desire to be saved at any given moment always imply an automatic indication that he has already committed the unforgiveable sin, and that God has lost interest in him? No offense, but I had always believed that as long a human drew breath, that there was still time for him or her to change their minds about God and about their lives. That in order to literally blaspheme the Holy Spirit one would have to deny His calling right up to their dying breath, and at THAT point, it would become an unpardonable sin. After all, it is not until we are DEAD that we face the judgment, and once dead, there is NO changing one's mind about anything. Being misguided, disillusioned, angry, bitter and a great host of other detrimental attitudes towards life could very well deafen a person to the call of God and cause a person to resist the pull of the Holy Spirit. If we treated every person as irretrievably lost simply because they do not currently show an interest in salvation, then why bother evangelizing in the first place? Why bother trying to love this person, and showing them by the love we have for each other that there is a BETTER way than their bitter attitude towards God? Please, let me know where I am going wrong in my understanding of your post ... This is not what I got from her posts. Take it at what it says. If someone does not have a desire to be saved, they won't be. If anyone has committed the unforgivable sin, they would not have a desire to repent. I do believe that God would turn such a person over to Satan. Yes, God does do that ... but what is His purpose and intent for this? The context of the Scripture that admonishes the church to boot unrepentant church members out of the fellowship in order that Satan would buffet them about is in order that they would receive in FULL measure the folly of their unrepentant stand on Scriptural truths in an effort to wake them up. If they are unwilling or unable to receive godly counsel from fellow believers while existing in the sanctuary and the haven of the church, then they were to be cast out of fellowship, where Satan would have much greater access to his mind and heart. It is hoped that after once again being fully exposed to all of Satan's lies and mistreatment, they will once again seek the grace and fellowship of God and His church, and do so in a fully repentant attitude. Read with me in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 - 1It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. 2You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. 3For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5[i have decided] to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. I Corinthians 5:1-5 NASB and in 1 Timothy 1:18-20 - 18This command I entrust to you, Timothy, [my] son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, 19keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. 20Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme. 1 Timothy 1:18-20 NASB Please note, the underlined portions emphasize that being handed over to Satan is a temporary, but totally necessary, tactic to bring believers back to a right understanding about God, but it is surely a last ditch effort to bring them around when all else has failed. On the other hand, If folks have not yet been born again, they are ALREADY in the hands of Satan, and God wants to deliver them, not make their tenure with Satan more secure! My request for clarification stems from the fact that Tinky's post makes it sound like anyone that currently does not have a mindset that is eager to be saved has somehow already committed the unforgiveable sin. And now you are bringing up the idea that God will give them over to Satan in the same context as Tinky made for having already blasphemed, and the implication seems to be that God has also already given up on them all due to an apparent lack of interest in salvation. Shiloh357 had brought up a very relevant point concerning the way that the Pharisee's had blasphemed the Holy Spirit, when they accused Jesus of having evoked Satan when He performed His miracles. They were very purposeful about their accusation, which makes it all the more blasphemous because as the spiritual leaders of their day, they should have known better! I can say with all conviction that a person that HAS already blasphemed the Holy Spirit will in all likelihood have nothing good to say about God, nor will he or she express any interest in salvation. However, that does NOT automatically mean that a person that expresses no interest in salvation nor in any other attribute of God has already committed that sin. The two are not mutually inclusive, not by a long shot. A lack of interest in salvation could happen for all manner of other reasons, such as bitterness, anger, disillusionment, or having been bullied by Christians that have an unforgiving nature, and the list goes on and on. Such a person is still being wooed by the Holy Spirit, and still has the opportunity to look once again at the truth, and change his mind - and repent of his previous lack of interest! I needed to have Tinky elaborate on that point so I was clear on exactly what her stand was. As long as a person draws breath, anyone who confesses his need for salvation before he dies is welcome in God's kingdom. Just look at the thief on the cross ... saved with his own dying breath by His loving Savior, and welcomed that day into paradise.

Just so I am clear about what you mean in this passage, are you saying that God calls all men (people) to be saved, and all those that WANT to be saved, He does save. However, while hearing this call from God, some people choose to reject this calling, and having done so, they essentially, are blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and from that point on can NO LONGER be saved? That the Holy Spirit simply stops striving with this human? What if a person simply resists the calling for a time, and says over and over again that they are "not interested" in the Gospel, or that the Gospel may be "good enough for me" but that he prefers not to be bothered? Does the apparent lack of desire to be saved at any given moment always imply an automatic indication that he has already committed the unforgiveable sin, and that God has lost interest in him? No offense, but I had always believed that as long a human drew breath, that there was still time for him or her to change their minds about God and about their lives. That in order to literally blaspheme the Holy Spirit one would have to deny His calling right up to their dying breath, and at THAT point, it would become an unpardonable sin. After all, it is not until we are DEAD that we face the judgment, and once dead, there is NO changing one's mind about anything. Being misguided, disillusioned, angry, bitter and a great host of other detrimental attitudes towards life could very well deafen a person to the call of God and cause a person to resist the pull of the Holy Spirit. If we treated every person as irretrievably lost simply because they do not currently show an interest in salvation, then why bother evangelizing in the first place? Why bother trying to love this person, and showing them by the love we have for each other that there is a BETTER way than their bitter attitude towards God? Please, let me know where I am going wrong in my understanding of your post ...

Please understand that I am NOT advocating polygamy. I only spoke about it at length because I had been asked to consider it, and show how such a relationship would fit into my idealogy. My only intent has been to point out the truly miraculous manner by which God literally (and not just psychologically) causes men and women to become one flesh, a feature that has been substantiated by modern scientific investigation. The word "marry" means "to join two things into one," and hence, we see that it is the physical bond between two people that forms the "marriage," and not any external ceremony we might enforce upon people in order to legitimize their desire to cohabitate. Since Adam and Eve were the very first people, they probably did not have to sign any paperwork, or succomb to religious or civil ceremony when they 'knew each other' for the first time. Such ceremony was not necessary for them, and it remains unnecessary today ... God looks at the heart, and if two people are sincere in their devotion to one another, then their simple cohabitation is just as sacred - and binding - in front of God as is the status one recieves after going thru formal wedding rites. Do I recommend foregoing ceremony? Not in this day and age, not when people are already making a huge mockery of what God has created and are using sex as a mere form of recreation. Are men and women who are merely living together without formal ceremony living in a state of sin? Before God? Certainly not. The commandments concerning adultery apply to them with every bit as much force as for those who had had the formal ceremony. The true crime is the fact that we are treating such relationships as "pariah" and we are being negligent by merely accusing them of sin and not expecting them to remain faithful to their "common law" spouses. Shame on us ...

I must admit, I never quite saw "dominion over the earth" in quite this way before. I got the impression that God's initial command to Adam and Eve (and thus all of their progeny) meant to go out over the land, and develop it. Plant crops... build homes, villages and cities... learn how to work metal, wood and stone... develop industry... and learn how to get along with each other. We are not very good at the "getting along" part, but we have world domination down cold. The idea of believers taking charge of the earth the way that the Israelites were charged to take over the land of Canaan is a pretty big chunk of bread to digest in one sitting. As I dwell on this concept, my mind keeps seeing verses like 'turn the other cheek" and "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword" and "love your enemies as yourself" and "let the tares grow up amongst the wheat." From verses like these, I came to the conclusion that the kind of warfare God had in mind for this New Testament was one of our standing still and sure upon our foundation of faith, and let GOD fight the battles for us, and that we were supposed to spend our time making sure we loved one another, and making disciples of all nations. Just keeping our own tongues in control in the face of opposition or ridicule can be a full time battle ... at least for ME it is ... Besides, God promised that a NEW heaven and a NEW earth was in His future plans, and that His faithful followers in today's world would be priests and kings in the new one. Perhaps what you are suggesting is that Christians need to be more diligent than we tend to be right now, and get busy trusting God a whole lot more in preparation for this future "domination?"

Excellent questions...I have always wondered what the difference was between a wife and a concubine. I could not find any reference to God being offended, or accusing the men of gross sin because of having concubines and multiple wives ... although there is one passage in the New Testament for men who wanted to be BISHOPS of the church: they had to be the husband of only ONE woman, and have their family under tight control and be above reproach in all things. It would seem that multiple wives were still in vogue in the early church, and after Pentecost, it was abundantly clear that a man with more than one wife would NOT be a very effective leader in the church. I got the general feeling from Scripture that wives and concubines were different only in terms of some form of official capacity in relationship to the husband, quite possibly political (in the case of Solomon) and perhaps just a matter of societal standing (in the case of Jacob. Leah and Rachel were wives because they were Jacob's cousins, and Bilhah and Zilpah were concubines because they were Leah's and Rachel's maidservants.) In keeping with my entire line of thought, the concept of multiple wives and having concubines being acceptable to God lead me to believe that it was the COMMITMENT between two people having sex that was important, and that a married relationship did not automatically mean an exclusive one between a man and ONLY one woman. If a man was able to properly care for more than one woman, he was welcome to as many wives and concubines as his income could support. The woman was not allowed to share her bed with any other man, nor was the man allowed to share his bed with anyone that he was not able to bring into his home and make into a part of his family. Either situation would be considered adultery. It would seem that the notion of marriage ONLY being between one man and one woman exclusively is a New Testament tradition. Personally, the notion of single-minded fidelity to only one woman is much more in keeping with God's laws than the idea that a man can sow his oats in as many female pastures as he could support, and that Jesus understood the heartache a woman must have felt all those many centuries in days gone by, knowing that if she was not somehow "good enough" for her husband, he could simply add to his harem. Think about it a moment ... if we were to bring back the Old Testament traditions of men having as many wives and concubines as they liked, men would no longer need to feel guilty about having a mistress in addition to a wife in this day and age. He would just need to make her a concubine, or just marry her as well, and bring her into his home. Egad! I am grateful we don't ascribe to polygamous relationships anymore!!! Careful reading of the Old Testament shows that while having multiple wives was acceptable, all those women, with their many contradicting mannerisms, was a hot bed of trouble for Solomon. They led Solomon to serious idolatry as he tried to satisfy their emotional as well as physical needs, and they brought their pagan beliefs into Jerusalem. It goes without saying that making the relationship OFFICIAL, and formally establishing the roles of husband and wife in a vow taking ceremony is emminantly superior to "just shacking up," and I must beg pardon of all those that have come to believe I think otherwise. It does not, however, negate what I had been saying all along, that the bonding mechanism between men and women was put there by God right in our bodies, and the effect is physcal, NOT purely spiritual nor psychological, and the fact that our culture and our religious institutions go to such great lengths to advocate vows of fidelity lend credence to just how serious and permanent this bonding really is. Blessings to all.

No worries brother/sister. If you only want to quote a section of the person's post simply delete whatever sections you don't feel are necessary. You can also use the quote feature above where you type. It's to the right of the < > button and looks like a bubble you'd see in a comic book. Best thing to do is play around with it you won't hurt anything. Ah, ha! I see! It works great! Thanks for the info... Now, how do I go about playing with that <> symbol ...?? mwua ha ha ha ha ha

// "Here is another question. The bill of divorcement was in the law of Moses, so there had to be some kind of recognition that a couple was married in the first place. In other words, just because two people lay together, and remain in the same household for a time, doesn't mean they would need a bill of divorcement to split up and marry, so where does divorce come in?" // - Butero Jesus spoke concerning the topic of divorce. He stated that Moses allowed the Israelites to issue divorce papers to each other because it was recognized that humans are incredibly flawed, and have been known to get involved sexually with someone before they had completely absorbed all the ramifications of what they were getting themselves into. Those raging hormones have apparently been a problem all along. God allowed the Israelites to divorce one another, but it was never God's intention that we just willy-nilly hop from bed to bed, or to simply "put aside our spouses" on a whim, because it has been God's intention all along that we mate with our partners FOR LIFE. What is implied, however, is that a formal 'bill of divorcement' would only be necessary because the couple had become formally married in the first place. If we, during the course of our married relationship, suddenly grow cold in our love for our spouse, which can happen in relationships where one or both spouses are incredibly selfish with one another, the New Testament allows for them to "separate" from each other for a time, and remain separate and single or else become reconciled. Selfishness is not sufficient excuse for a person to betray the bonds that they had willingly established, and just set them aside in order to find someone that "was more fun to be with". Such a betrayal of the bonding for such an arbitrary reason causes anyone that would subsequently marry that set aside person to be committing adultery with them. Jesus did say that marital infidelity, on the other hand, IS suffienct grounds for terminating a married relationship. If a man or a woman simply cannot keep their hands off of other people, then they are betraying the bonds they made with their first partner, and they should end the marriage. In the simplest terms possible, it needs to be said that a Married couple are those that had begun having sex, and that an UN-Married couple are those that have had NO sexual relations with each other. The wedding ceremony is not what physically bonds two people together ... the sex is. What gives me the greatest hope of all is knowing that once a man or woman comes to acknowledge the Lord in their lives, and are reborn, then their minds and their hearts become more like Him, and their lives begin to take on the attributes of holiness and righteousness. If we were once inclined to follow the rules and the dictates of society, and we had formerly given in to our lusts, and fornicated and committed adultery with one another, both with or without having had a formal wedding ceremony, before we met Christ, and then repented of those sins, then the blood of Christ has washed away all stain of that sin, and we are new creatures. We are now free to begin living our lives FROM THAT POINT ON as if we had never sinned. All along the way, we find ourselves waffling back and forth between honestly wanting to obey all the commandments of God and inevitably finding ourselves once again mucking in the mire of our old sin nature, and needing to be cleaned up and forgiven all over again. Our lives are a process, and as we grow in understanding and in spiritual maturity, it becomes easier to fight those old temptations, until we are able to finally LIVE TOTALLY in sober self control, and we are able to STOP SINNING. Until that time comes, God extends to us mercy and grace, both chastising us when we become rebellious, and being sympathetic when we go off half-cocked in the heat of passion and find ourselves in situations we really should not have gone into. We will be surrounded by brothers and sisters who are also in a process of learning how to trust God instead of their own lusts, and we need to be gracious and merciful, stern and sympathetic with each other as well. It is so easy for us to point at one another, and call other people "sinners" or "fornicators" or "adulterers" based on our own standards of righteousness, and to forget that all of us are in this together. ... I just noticed how "preachy" those last few paragraphs sounded, but it felt necessary to say those things in context with everything else I have said. Sometimes we get all caught up in the "letter" of the law that we forget the "spirit." That, and I never seem to be able to say anything in just one or two lines. Please know how much I appreciate y'all giving me so much space to "be myself" in. Your patience with me is a balm to my soul ... 8-) May God bless us all ...

// "So if two people who love each other decide to be committed to each and have sexual intercourse they're married in God's eyes? Is this what you're saying? God bless, GE" // Not quite. The commitment to one another is what sanctifies their marriage and makes it holy and undefiled in God's sight. They become Married as soon as they have sexual intercourse. The confusion over this line of thinking stems from the fact that most folks do not understand that the word "marry" simply means "to join two things together to make them one." The Bible tells us that this occurs when a man leaves his family and cleaves (clings) to his wife, and science has shown that our bodies do indeed bond together as one during sexual intercourse. If sexual intercourse is not "cleaving" I don't know what is... In our culture, we very closely associate the fact that when two people declare their intention to marry (to join with each other in the act of sex in order that they become one flesh) they very often participate in a wedding ceremony beforehand, that includes the sharing of rings or the speaking of vows, which officiates the beginning of their new life together. In just such a situation, the man officially declares that he is now a husband, and the woman a wife, and for the most part, folks consider it to be SIN to have sex without benefit of having first had this ceremony, this speaking of vows. It is my contention that the issue is much simpler, and has been so from the very beginning ... to be married is to have bonded with another person via sex. The SIN is not that of having sex without the ceremony - the SIN is treating that sex as a recreational activity without ever taking upon oneself the implied role of husband and wife which such a union automatically creates, nor even of intending to. We humans had created the wedding ceremony to instill and enforce the seriousness of bonding with another human, because we humans tend to think by the seat of our pants rather than our hearts, and the wedding ceremony helps put a brake on the raging hormones that would otherwise lead us astray. But the original question was to discuss why CHRISTIANS would ever want to commit the "sin of having sex without being married" - and my response is that they are not sinning, per se, when they "just live together" - by simply having sex, they are already MARRIED, but without the benefit of having taking formal vows. Such a relationship may carry with it a great many social and traditionally religious taboos, but unless they betray their bonds and stop being loyal to their sex partner by having sex with someone else, then they are not actually SINNING before GOD. Hope that helps ... 8-)

// "Just because the majority start accepting women wearing men's clothes doesn't make it ok. At what instance did it go from being wrong to being ok? How many women had to sin before what pertained to men suddenly included women? The majority are often wrong, and many things we consider wrong today will be likely accepted by the majority down the road? Look at what is happening with homosexual marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if the day comes where the majority will accept it as normal, and even the church world as a whole will be much more accepting of it. You can't go by what is socially acceptable, at least I don't go by that." // - Butero <AND> // "You make a good point concerning the teachings in Romans. We are free to believe something is unclean, while another person may not agree? The person who considers something unclean is not to judge the person doing the thing they consider unclean, and the person who is doing the thing the other person considers wrong is not to offend the person that sees their actions as sinful. It is a two way street." // - Butero (BTW - I am not totally familiar on how to use the quote and the multi-quote functions, so please forgive me if my methods are out of sync with the house rules on quoting other people's posts. It is kind of cumbersome for me to keep repeating the entire reply over and over when I respond, when I just want to respond to a portion. I am sure I will figure it out eventually Thanks - ngk) I believe I understand where this line of thought is going. I totally agree that it is definitely not okay for any of us to "offend" each other with our convictions by flaunting them in the face of other Christians that happen to believe otherwise. In those matters of personal principles, we are all expected to honor one another's thoughts and feelings, and when we are in the presence of these other people, we are to behave as they do, as far as we are able. In this way, we are helping the younger believer in the faith to be able to grow at his own pace. For example, if I had been invited to attend a brother's church services, and I knew that it was the norm for men to wear suits, and women to wear nice dresses, then I would make sure that my family and I dressed in a similar fashion so as not to call undue attention to myself, and the same would apply every time I associated with this brother and his family. This brother is responding to God's call in his own way, and I praise God for his zeal and enthusiasm. I would not want something as insignificant as arguing over what kind of clothes we are wearing to quench the fire of God's Spirit in their house of worship or in our continued fellowship. On the other hand, not everyone expresses their zeal for God's house in the same fashion, and as it says in Romans, God blesses our enthusiasm however we choose to express it. It would not be a good thing for the suit wearing brother to come to MY church in his three piece suit, and look down his nose at the jeans, tee-shirts and sandals that all the men and women had chosen to wear. I believe the intent of the passage in Romans was for folks that had strong convictions about cultural norms to go ahead and express their convictions ... but to not judge anyone that held different customs. Butero is correct ... not everything that "society" dictates as acceptable should simply be accepted, especially concerning those things that go directly against the laws of God (homosexuality and all other immorality, for example). As Spirit filled believers, I believe that we all have a modicum of discernment in this regard, and God's kingdom does have a great deal of room for variety in how we all happen to look on the outside. However, no man has God's permission to call another man's cultural convictions about the clothes he wears, the food he eats, or what day of the week he goes to church, a SIN just because they happen to look or do things differently than we do. I have found that such an attitude is dangerous because it causes unnecessary divisions amongst the believers, and sends the wrong message to the unsaved, because it smacks of legalism and the enforcement of ritualism as a condition for salvation. Besides, if I may coin the sentiment expressed by another poster earlier, all of us are born into this world naked, and when we finally reach heaven, we will all be dressed in ROBES of righteousness. It gives me the impression that God is not nearly as concerned with how we clothe our bodies here on earth as He is with how we clothe our hearts in matters of spirit and truth. After all, it is not the clothes that make the man, but the words which come from his mouth out of the treasure of his heart.

Do you consider someone who commits fornication to be married? If they commit fornication with numerous partners, are they married to all of them? I don't see them as being married. When Jesus was speaking to the Samaritan woman, he said plainly that the man she was with was not her husband, but she had been married 5 times in the past. I think a commitment between the couple and God is required to make a marriage. It doesn't necessarily need the blessings of the government, but I do believe it requires a commitment. I understand where you are going with this, because this is what I thought until I read your statement and have to ask, how can God "commit" to sin if a person has been married before and divorced unless the spouse died? There is also the argument of in the case of adultery? It is in the book of John chapter 4 that we find the story about the Samaritan woman at the well. Here are the pertinent verses: 15The woman said to Him, "Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw." 16He said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here." 17The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband'; 18for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly." In keeping with my thoughts about the concept of marriage as that of being in a sanctified state of "one flesh" with our partner, and that the Lord honors a committed relationship, the word "husband" simply refers to the man in the committed relationship. Jesus said the woman had had five husbands, which means that she had entered into five distinct committed sexual relationships. The man she currently was with was NOT her husband, which means that either she, or the man, was in it purely for the recreation, and not for the long haul, in which case what she was likely committing with him was fornication, or maybe even adultery, depending on the status of the man she was living with. The Bible does not say that she had divorced those five men, only that she had had five husbands with whom she enjoyed the married status. It could just as easily have been that she had been widowed five times. Back in those days, a widow was supposed to marry her husband's brother in order to keep the family line going. If she had been one of those unfortunate souls for whom the brothers kept dying on her before she could get with child, then perhaps she was pretty soured on the entire sanctified marriage relationship, and chose fornication instead. That is why fornication and adultery are so deadly to us ... Yes, in essence, when we "sleep around" we are "marrying" a variety of partners with no intention of honoring them as a spouse, and we are cheapening the sanctity of what marriage is all about, and betraying that very real bond that has been formed as a result of the chemical interaction.

I disagree. Jesus differentiated between marriage and just living together. There are plenty of references to the bride and groom being bride and groom prior to intercourse in the gospels too, when Jesus refers to the bridegroom coming to her fathers house to get his bride. Nowhere in the bible is intercourse called marriage. In keeping with my line of thought, I need to say that a bride is a woman in preparation for being married, and the bridegroom is a man in preparation for being married. The marriage ceremony, which we call a wedding, is the formal and customary celebration which gives legitimacy to their intent to BE MARRIED ... or literally, have sex, or be "one flesh" with each other. The point I had hoped to make, is this: God is very specific about what happens when a man lies down with a woman ... even in such extreme cases as when a man lies down with a prostitute, he is literally "one flesh" with her ... I Corinthians 6:16. Historically, it was customary that couples which had gone thru the wedding ceremony were not considered to be literally and truly Married until they consumated their vows by having sexual intercourse, and this could prove problematic in cases of inheritance or rights of rulership if it could be established that they were merely wedded, and not truly married. If a man is considered to be "one flesh" with a woman simply by having sex with her, that gives me the indication that marriage does not occur during the wedding ceremony, but during the sex. Apparently, one can be one flesh with a woman without having gone thru a formal wedding service, which means that "getting married" must have meant something else entirely to God than what it means to us today. Indiscriminate sex is abhorrent to God, hence, His commandments concerning the need to avoid adultery and fornication. Of course, it is far better that two people take the time to legitimize their desire to be one flesh by initiating a wedding ceremony beforehand, but the plain truth appears to be that the ceremony is not what makes the marriage happen, it is the sex. Which puts a whole 'nother spin on just how important it is to remain chaste until we are truly ready to be lifelong mates with each other.

Our God is an amazing God! He tells us that when an man leaves his family, and clings to his wife, they become one flesh. I have read recently a number of scientific articles that discuss the various hormones that are triggered in the brain during sexual intercourse, and that a number of these hormones, Oxytocin in particular, instill within each partner the feeling of being bonded to one another. In fact, in one such article, I learned that for the moments in which the sexual partners are connected to one another physically, the fluids that are commingling within the female body create a literal connection that operates exactly as if they were hard wired to one another, and that their bodies were responding to each others signals as if they were indeed one person. This bond is deeply rooted within the brains of each partner, and it only deepens and become more permanent with time. To date, I have not found any evidence that this phenomenon of "one flesh" bonding ever occurs between two people of the same gender. Just a thought, but as far as the pure chemistry of sex is concerned, it would appear that we perform the act of marriage everytime we have heterosexual intercourse. With this in mind, it is no wonder that God is so adamant that we treat the act of sex with a great deal of reverence, and that when we do have sex with someone, it is our intention to spend the rest of our life with that person. Or as it is said - what God has joined together, let no man put assunder. With that said, Adultery could be seen as someone who has been having regular, and committed sex with someone, and then they simply break away in order to engage in the sex act with someone else, or in addition to the one that they are committed to. Fornication, on the other hand, is the kind of sex two people have that is indiscriminate, and without any intention at all of forming a lasting relationship. The Bible calls such people whoremongers and prostitutes. What we typically think of as "marriage" today is actually the formal ceremony - the wedding - that two people participate in that legally sets these two people up as husband and wife. There are civil weddings and those done in religious circles - but the marriage itself happens as soon as their flesh and hormones combine during sex. While the wedding ceremony helps cement in our minds the concept of permanence, and the legal ramifications of trying to get a divorce after a wedding has taken place certainly gives a person pause before entering into such a legal union, the literal and truly Biblical MARRIAGE occurs during intercourse, and a person is committing adultery even if he is having regular sex with someone while simply "living together" and then entering into another relationship at the same time. Nowadays, there is a great deal of stigma for having sex without benefit of a formal wedding ceremony, with licenses and witnesses and receptions and honeymoons, and we call this 'fornication'. But God apparently had something else in mind when He spoke about adultery and fornication, because He set it up that the very first act of sex between a man and woman "marries" them in HIS sight. In fact, He did not seem to mind it at all that men such as David, Abraham and Jacob all had multiple wives, and legal sexual partners called "concubines" - which implies to me that it is the commitment one has for their partners, and the detemination to sustain them in sickness and in health, that makes a sexual relationship sacred in God's sight, not the formal ceremony in and of itself. With this said, a great many young people are putting off the formal wedding ceremonies in favor of the apparently more easily disposable lifestyles of simply "moving in together." Such cohabitation sometimes leads to a formal ceremony, but it tends to happen that they simply dissolve their cohabitation and pick up with someone else when they have their first real crisis. That this kind of thing happens is because we are not teaching our children that sex should only happen with someone whom we intend to spend the rest of our lives with, and that to celebrate our decision to partner with someone for life, we THEN have a wedding ceremony, and we thus enter into such a relationship with the blessings of our families and the church. I believe it is only by instructing our children on the truth about what sex does between two people, this chemical bonding, that we will be able to help armor them against the temptation to enter into sexual relations lightly. Not meaning to sound facetious, but there is no such thing as "sex outside of marriage" because sex IS marriage ... Sex without commitment, on the other hand, is fornication or adultery. Blessings to all ...

I am afraid I must disagree with the notion that the church should be tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle in the name of love. Homosexuality has to be just about the most graphically and diametrically opposing viewpoint to all things that belong to God as there can be for any human to exhibit, but when seen from a bird's eye view, it can be seen to be, in reality, just the tip of a very large iceburg. According to the book of Romans, chapter one, God speaks specifically about what kind of person embraces the homosexual lifestyle, and it is clear from the text that before a man or woman enters into that lifestyle they have already said in their hearts that there is no God in their life but themselves. They have seen all the evidence of God's divine authority over their lives in the things that He has created, and they have chosen to deny Him. So, in response to their denial of His sovereignity, He had given them over to reprobate minds, so that they would do in their flesh those depraved things their minds have already conceived. Romans goes on to say that in addition to this particular depravity, such people are also given over to a very long list of other undesireable traits. Paul wrapped it up in verse 32 when he said "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, (emphasis mine) they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." The Episcopal church was named in one of the replies, which encourages homosexuality, and even has homosexual clergy ... in light of Romans chapter one, such an all embracing attitude concerning homosexuality is to be shunned by anyone callng themselves a child of God, not just because homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord, but because such an embracing attitude is evidence that they have denied the very sovereignity of God Himself. In the grand scheme of things, I do not feel that one is truly under much obligation to call attention to the particular sin of homosexuality with any gay person, it being sufficient to simply stick to the main problem, namely, point out to them that they deny God in the first place. In my heart of hearts, I believe if we focus our attention on the fact that the wages of ALL sin is death, and that only Jesus can save us from this death, we will have done our part in witnessing to our fellow humans. In this way, the homosexual lifestyle, and all those other nasty attributes, will become a thing of the past as the person becomes a new creature in Christ. May God bless you all ...

It seems to me that the issue of wearing pants as the symbol of masculinity, and dresses as the symbol of femininity, is a matter of personal principle. In all honesty, when I read that verse in Deuteronomy concerning the abomination of a man wearing a woman's garment, I had gotten the impression God was speaking about a man dressing like a woman as if he thought of himself as a woman, the way that trans-sexuals often dress up in women's clothing in modern times. Such an attitude is the forerunner of homosexuality, and I believe God is simply trying to nip things in the bud with that particular commandment. Apparently it was just as bad for a woman to go around dressing up in men's garments, and again, I always took it as God telling us it was an abomination to appear to be something that we had not been born to be. It is clear to me from my own perusal of Scripture that men and women have some very specific roles to play, and that it is only when we are standing up to our own duties as men and women that we will attain harmony in the kingdom of God. Anything that will help us keep our roles straight is a good thing! 8-) It has already been established in this thread that culture plays a large part in what our society deems to be both feminine and masculine in regards to our clothing, and I know of many women who prefer men's clothing (jeans, shirts, jackets, etc.) simply because the garments intended for men are more durable, more roomy and tend to cost lest than comparable items manufactured for a woman's taste. Trousers are often a great deal more comfortable than dresses are, and are more suitable for environments which expose us to the elements, and there are many cultures who see nothing wrong with both genders being comfortable in this manner. In all things, God is most concerned with where our hearts are when we develop the principles by which to live by. If, in our own hearts, we believe that women should never wear anything but dresses, then it would be a sin for that woman to wear anything but dresses. As concerns a man and his home, it is between the husband and his wife to determine the rules of their home, and dress according to their own convictions. I have found that the following verses from Romans 14 (NASB) to be particularly helpful whenever I encounter disagreements concerning matters of principle: 1Now accept the one who is weak in faith, [but] not for [the purpose of] passing judgment on his opinions. 2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables [only]. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day [alike]. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. (emphasis mine) 6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. My apologies to everyone if this had already been covered in later posts. I confess that I did not read all of the replies in this thread when I added my thoughts on this subject. I have been in churches where women were treated like pariah if they did not have at least one nice dress to wear to services each Sunday, and their budgets simply did not stretch far enough to have two warddrobes, and it was very disheartening to witness. God bless ...

When I first became a Christian, the wonder and exhilaration of finally being set free from the weight of guilt and sin filled me with joy, and the first thing I wanted to do was to tell the world about what Jesus had done for me. I could not wait to tell my parents and my siblings about the blessedness of being free, not only from sin, but also from the terrible bondage of having to satisfy the dogma and rituals of formal religion. Surely, they would be as thrilled as I was to learn that our salvation was not assured by our works or by our own understanding, but by the grace of God. I was totally unprepared for the venom and the animosity towards the gospel of grace that my parents and my siblings spewed all over me. My parents were steeped and totally committed to obeying the doctrines of Catholicism, and became increasingly more agitated with me the more I tried to show them evidence from the Bible that Jesus alone could save them, and not the Pope, nor the priests, nor the pious devotion towards lighting candles or saying the rosary. My parents gave me the impression that they were very comfortable in their belief that they could somehow please God by the works of their own hands, and that as long as they were satisfying the letter of the law of their religion, then they did not need to be concerned about any other aspect of their lives. Over time, I began to notice that a great many people who object to the gospel seem to be offended that anyone, God included, has a right to tell THEM that they were somehow not 'good enough' as they were. As far as these people were concerned, they were their own god, and they did not need anyone like me to come along and tell them they were "condemned already" if they did not embrace Jesus as their Lord. Satan has been feeding us that line from the very beginning, when he tempted Eve to eat from the forbidden tree by telling her that God was holding out on her and did not want her to be wise. Humans have been looking at their own abilities to 'figure things out on our own, thank you' ever since. Such an attitude is foreign to the kingdom of God, which requires that we lift God up as the supreme ruler of our lives and that we humbly bow to His will in all things. Folks are so enamored of their own abilities that they become violent if anyone comes along to disabuse them of their puffed up attitudes. People we have known and loved all our lives, co-workers and acquaintances that smile and wave at us on a daily basis become hostile the minute we even mention the name Jesus in their presence ... why? Because Satan is the god of this world, the one who spreads his own gospel of self-centeredness, and he is the one who is more greatly influencing the lives of the lost. He, and his fallen angels, are the principalities and the power of the air that we do battle with every moment of our waking lives, and they are the ones behind all the selfishness and unrest in our world. It is a hard lesson to learn to find out that even our dearest family members can turn toxic on us at the mere mention of Jesus, or being held accountable for the truth, or even holding oneself accountable to others - and the sudden shock and pain of being totally rejected by a loved one over our faith in Christ can knock us completely off our feet, and we will take it quite personally unless we remember at all times that our "fight" - so to speak - is not with that loved one, but against Satan for instigating that stronghold of selfish opposition to God's authority in the first place. 2 Corinthians 10:3-6 says it pretty well: 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh: 4( For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds;) 5Casting down arguments, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (emphasis mine) 6 And having a readiness to punish all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. (KJV 2000) Jesus said it Himself: He did not come to bring peace to the world, but the sword. His word will tear families apart, as the believers and the non believers begin to take their own side in the battle for our souls. He tells us to be diligent and aware of our surroundings, to pray without ceasing for others, and above all, to constantly 'buffet our own bodies' to bring our fleshly needs under control so that our carnal appetites will not hinder our walk with God. Warfare is serious business, and not something we can ever take lightly, and the more we come to recognize all of the enemy's wiles, the more stringently we must pray and fight against its influence. Everyone is in their own place as concerns their walk with God, and we cannot know their hearts the way that God can. When friends, loved ones, or even strangers, treat us with contempt, or behave towards us in an unfair or abusive manner, it is tempting to simply blow them off in anger and leave them to their own poison. Sometimes the biggest battle we face is our own dismissiveness towards others in the face of being challenged or dismissed by them - remembering to turn the other cheek when someone spitefully uses me is the hardest fight of all! God bless ...