Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
JavaLadybug2
Like all good gifts from God, sex can be misused and perverted. Christian Post
January 28, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Water is a gift of God, without which we couldn’t survive. But floods and tidal waves are water out of control, and the effects are devastating. Fire is an energy-producing gift of God that gives warmth and allows us to cook. But a forest fire or a house burning to the ground or a person engulfed in flames is fire out of control-it is horrible and frightening. Water and fire are good things which, when they occur outside their God-intended boundaries, become bad.

Likewise, God designed sex to exist within certain boundaries. When exercised in line with God’s intended purpose, it is beautiful and constructive. When out of control, violating God’s intended purpose, it becomes ugly and destructive. Sex is a good thing which, when it occurs outside its God-designed boundaries, becomes bad.

The problem isn’t sex—the problem is us. We’re sinners who can pervert, abuse, and rip away from their proper place the good things God created. The greater the gift from God, the more power it has both for good and bad. Inside marriage, sex has great power for good. Outside marriage it has equally great power for bad.

Chastity = Moral Cleanliness:

Being chaste means to be morally clean in:
  • Thoughts
  • Words
  • Deeds

Anything that leads to lustful thoughts, words, or actions are in violation of God's command to be morally clean. 

Sexual purity means to not have any sexual relations before being legally married including any thoughts, words, or actions that generate desire and arousal. Keeping the law of chastity means not participating in the following:

  • Kissing passionately
  • Necking: kissing on the neck
  • Petting: touching private body parts of another person (with or without clothing)
  • Lying on top of another person
  • Arousing sexual emotions (in your own body or that of another person)
  • Masturbating
  • Viewing pornography
  • Reading/watching/listening to anything that arouses sexual feelings
  • Fantasizing or dwelling on sexually arousing thoughts


Sexual Sins are Extremely Serious:

Committing sins of a sexual nature violate God's law of chastity and offends the spirit, causing one to be unworthy of the presence of the Holy Ghost. The only sins more serious than those of sexual sins are that of committing murder or denying the Holy Ghost. Vigilantly avoid every temptation to participate in any inappropriate sexual activity, including thoughts, no matter how "innocent" the behavior may appear- because it is not innocent. Small sexual indulgences lead to greater sins, including sexual addictions which are highly destructive and extremely difficult to overcome.

Repentance = Sexual Purity:

If you have broken the law of chastity by engaging in anything impure you can become sexually pure again through sincere repentance. Through following the steps of repentance you will feel the love of your Father in Heaven as your sins are forgiven. You will also feel the peace that comes from the Holy Ghost. 

If you are struggling with a sexual addiction there is hope and help in overcoming addiction and other destructive habits.

Victims are Innocent:

Those who have been the victims of sexual abuse, rape, incest, and other sexual acts are not guilty of sin but are innocent. Victims have not broken the law of chastity and do not need to feel guilty for the inappropriate and abusive sexual acts of othersFor those victims God does love you and you can receive healing through Salvation.. 

Sex and marriage go together. Sexual union is intended as an expression of a lifelong commitment, a symbol of the spiritual union that exists only within the unconditional commitment of marriage. Apart from marriage, the lasting commitment is absent and the sex act becomes a false expression, a lie.

Every act of sex outside of marriage cheapens both sex and marriage. Sex is a privilege inseparable from the responsibilities of the sacred marriage covenant. To exercise the privilege apart from the responsibility perverts God’s intention for sex.

Sex is designed to be the joining of two persons, of two spirits, not just two bodies. Sex should be giving to someone to whom I’m 100% committed (as measured by the state of legal marriage), not taking from someone to whom I’m uncommitted or partially committed.

“But we really love each other” has no bearing on the ethics of sexual intimacy—sex does not become permissible through subjective feelings, but through the objective lifelong commitment of marriage.

Sexual purity is not an option for an obedient Christian, it’s a requirement. God’s will is centered on our character and moral purity much more than on our circumstances, such as job, housing and schooling. You want to know God’s will? You don’t have to wonder. Here it is: “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality” (1 Thessalonians 4:3). There is no sense seeking God’s will in other areas when you are choosing to live in sexual impurity in your mind or body.

     ”Who may ascend the hill of the LORD? Who may stand in his holy place?
     He who has clean hands and a pure heart.” (Psalm 24:3-4) a and 24:3-4)

     ”If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened.” (Psalm 66:18)

     ”If anyone turns a deaf ear to the law, even his prayers are detestable.” (Proverbs 28:9)

     ”‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the LORD Almighty.” (Zechariah 7:13)

Sexual purity is inseparable from a committed Christian life. If you are not living in sexual purity, God will not hear your other prayers until you offer the prayer of confession and repentance and commit yourself to a life of holiness (1 John 1:9). 


”As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).

”For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality . . .” (Matthew 15:19-20).

”But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

You will inevitably adopt the morality of the programs, movies, books, magazines, music, Internet sites and conversations you participate in. GIGO—Garbage in, garbage out; Godliness in, godliness out. The cognitive is basic to the behavioral—you become what you choose to feed your mind on.

     Sow a thought, reap an action;
     Sow an action, reap a habit.
     Sow a habit, reap a character.
     Sow a character, reap a destiny.

Your future can be accurately predicted by what you allow your mind to dwell on. Sinful actions don’t come out of nowhere—they are the cumulative product of little moral compromises made over time, which ultimately culminate in ungodly behavior.

There’s nothing new about sexual temptation—what’s new is how it has invaded our homes. In first century Corinth there were prostitutes all over the streets, but when you entered your home you had a sanctuary from the temptation. We live in a technological Corinth, where immorality can come into the privacy of our home through airwaves (television) and modems (the Internet). Most of us are only a few pushbuttons away from sexual immorality of the mind. Every choice we make to view and contemplate immorality desensitizes us to its evil.

Actions, habits, character and destiny all start with a thought, and thoughts are fostered by what we choose to take into our minds. Therefore we should take extreme care about what we feed our minds on.

”Above all else, guard your heart [mind, inner being], for it is the wellspring of life” (Proverbs 4:23).

If someone wants to pollute water, he pollutes it at its source. If he wants to purify water, he purifies it at its source. Our thoughts are the source of our lives. All our lives flow from our mind, and through the choices we make every day we program our minds, either for godliness or ungodliness.

”Turn my eyes away from worthless things; preserve my life according to your word” (Psalm 119:37)

Our minds are not a vacuum—they will be filled with something. It is necessary to turn our minds from the worthless, but it’s not sufficient. We also must fill our minds with good thoughts that crowd out and combat the bad ones. It’s not enough to say “don’t think about anything bad.” (If I say, “don’t think about spiders,” what do you think about?) We must also choose to think about the good. (If I say “think about your favorite dessert,” pretty soon you stop thinking about spiders.) Time in the Word, in prayer, and in conversations with Christ-centered friends reinforces our commitment to purity.

”Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure . . . think about such things” (Philippians 4:8).

We can’t avoid every temptation, but we can avoid many of them, and we can certainly resist their attempts to take hold of us. Martin Luther said, “You can’t keep the birds from flying over your head, but you can keep them from making a nest in your hair.”

Be careful what you expose your mind to. If you’re on a diet, don’t go to Baskin & Robin’s. If you do, your resistance will break down. If you want to abstain from lust you don’t go places and watch movies and programs and read things that stimulate lust.

Your body will go where your mind allows it to. When it comes to your sexual purity, the ultimate battle is in your mind. Don’t give your mind junk food. Be sure you’re getting spiritual nutrition.

Replies

  • NWP
    by NWP
    January 31, 2013 at 4:07 PM

    I have given you some examples of many religions from around the globe, some before, some after. The Bible is just one source of moral code in this list. If you are of one of the abrahamic faiths, like Christianity, then you believe it (or at least the part of it that is shared with Judaism and Islam) to have existed first, long before writing appeared in the western world, since the creation of the first man, because that is what it tells you.

    As for what I was saying about your erronious assumptions, I was refering to your attempts to redirect the conversation in a negative personal manner, making assumptions about what I believe, which I have never shared with you or posted in this thread.

    I am merely saying that it is better to steer clear of this type of irrelevant form of petty redirect and instead discuss the issue at hand.


    Quoting cammibear:


    First of all, to those it annoys, I cannot cut the tree from my phone. Sorry for that.

    Your focusing on a statement that is irrelevant to anything else I've said. But, please give a historical example of any set of laws that claim to come from God to man that pre-dates the Mosaic Law. I'll wait.

    Concerning my supposed "erroneous" assumptions, I have asked more than once if I need to give a list of sources that influenced our laws. I've offered to back up my statements. My "opinion" is based on the actual words of those who would know. Not contemporary historians that rewrite history to suit their political agenda.


    Quoting NWP:

    I am addressing this statement you made " I only believe its the first written set of laws from God to man." and replying with a fact that saying the Bible was the very first to do this was not true globally, even if Christians believe it to be the one true truth.

    As for everything else in your most recent comment, it is your opinion based on erroneous personal assumptions. If you choose to make such assumptions, please present evidence to back them up. Choosing to divert the subject in this manner is a poor way to avoid discussing the factual information presented.

    Quoting cammibear:

    But we are talking exclusively about the USA, and these unites states used the Christian bible as a source for our laws on morality.



    They also used the English Common Law, which used the Christian bible as its source.



    Why is it so important to rewrite this part of our history? Why are you all so adamantly protesting this known historical fact?



    I honestly just don't get your hatred for everything "Christian", and the attempt to make it anything but.



    Quoting NWP:

    As to my point earlier, when I asked if you were talking about the historical "we"....Here you make this reference, " I only believe its the first written set of laws from God to man." This could be true if you refer to God in abstract, as whatever higher power a culture builds its theology around. There are many cultures/religions around the world that included a set of moral rules. Christianity is by far not the first or only one to do this and many were written down before the Christian Bible was translated from its oral tradition into words....in fact, much was taken from the previous cultures that existed prior to Christ. Most world religions share a common value system of morals based on "the golden rule" and have built out very similar moral guidelines, or laws, as you state. Here are just a few examples of how this is a shared concept that doesn't exclusively belong to Christianity, or even the Judeo-Christian tradition.




















    bulletBahá'í Faith: 









    bullet"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not

    have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.
    " "Blessed

    is he who preferreth his brother before himself.
    "

    Baha'u'llah
    bullet "And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for

    thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.
    " Epistle to

    the Son of the Wolf. 1


     


    bulletBrahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would

    cause you pain if done to you".
    Mahabharata, 5:1517 "


     
    bulletBuddhism







    bullet "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I

    inflict that upon another?"
    Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 
    bullet Hurt not others in ways

    that you yourself would find hurtful."
    Udana-Varga 5:18


     


    bulletChristianity









    bullet "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men

    should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the

    prophets."
    Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
    bullet"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to

    them likewise
    ." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
    bullet"...and don't do what

    you hate...
    ", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40

    gospels that circulated among the early Christian movement, but which

    never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).


     


    bulletConfucianism:









    bullet "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to

    you"
    Analects 15:23
    bullet"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve

    as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' --

    reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire
    .'" Doctrine

    of the Mean 13.3
    bullet"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated

    yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to

    benevolence
    ." Mencius VII.A.4


     


    bulletAncient Egyptian:



    bullet"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus

    to do.
    " The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B.

    Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800

    BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of

    Reciprocity ever

    written. 2


     


    bulletHinduism





    bulletThis is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain

    if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517


     


    bulletIslam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for

    his brother what he wishes for himself."
    Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's

    Forty Hadiths
    ." 3


     
    bulletJainism









    bullet "Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others

    nor does he make others do so."
    Acarangasutra 5.101-2. 
    bullet"In happiness and

    suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.
    "

    Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
    bullet"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he

    himself would be treated. "
    Sutrakritanga 1.11.33


     


    bulletJudaism











    bullet "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.",

    Leviticus 19:18 
    bullet "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the

    law: all the rest is commentary."
    Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
    bullet "And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15

    4


     


     

    Quoting cammibear:

    Who thinks the bible was the first set of laws ever? I only believe its the first written set of laws from God to man. All other laws are mans attempt at justice.





    Look, I'm sorry for being mean or condescending. It has obviously blinded you to any of the points I'm trying to make.





    Our laws extend beyond the Constitution. You might not "see" God and the Bible in our federal constitution, but you will find both all in our state and local constitutions and laws. And when deliberating our federal constitution, the Bible is the number one quoted source. How can you continue to deny its impact on our laws? Laws dictate what is right and wrong. History proves the Bible had a great influence in the writing of our laws.

    Quoting mikiemom:

     I find it weird that so many christians think their bible was the first set of laws ever. Try any archiology site, look up the Indus Valley. Our Founding fathers deliberately did not write our constitution around the bible. Get over it The US is not a christian Nation. Your religion can not dictate right and wrong for anyone but yourselves.



    Quoting cammibear:

    Okay, since you know so much, what sources can you site that we based our laws on? Because all you've given me so far is the Code of Hammurabi. ;)
    I guess those that wrote our laws that quote the bible as a source don't know what their talking about? I think you just don't want to admit defeat.










  • cammibear
    January 31, 2013 at 4:32 PM
    I feel like we are talking on different planes that will never connect. lol

    My last attempt. :)

    You called out a specific thing I said about the Mosaic Law being the only law that claims to have come from God to man. I asked you to give an example of any other such law code. The examples you gave might be a source for moral law, but they were written by men, not by God. See the difference? Like I said, it's what I believe, but it is irrelevant to the argument that I thought was...
    Is the bible a source that early Americans used to write the moral laws of this country?

    When the bible is quoted as being a source, then yes, it was a source. They certainly didn't use Hammarubis Code, since it wasn't even discovered at that time. I never said it was the only source. In fact I offered to give a good list of the sources quoted by our Founders.

    The bible was a source. It was one of the main sources for law in this country. Law school used to consist of studying and understanding the bible because it was relevant to understanding our code of law.

    If I presumed anything, it's because you jumped into the middle of a conversation and seemed to be defending the other person. Forgive me if I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Like I said, I feel like we are not connecting at all.


    Quoting NWP:

    I have given you some examples of many religions from around the globe, some before, some after. The Bible is just one source of moral code in this list. If you are of one of the abrahamic faiths, like Christianity, then you believe it (or at least the part of it that is shared with Judaism and Islam) to have existed first, long before writing appeared in the western world, since the creation of the first man, because that is what it tells you.

    As for what I was saying about your erronious assumptions, I was refering to your attempts to redirect the conversation in a negative personal manner, making assumptions about what I believe, which I have never shared with you or posted in this thread.

    I am merely saying that it is better to steer clear of this type of irrelevant form of petty redirect and instead discuss the issue at hand.


    Quoting cammibear:


    First of all, to those it annoys, I cannot cut the tree from my phone. Sorry for that.



    Your focusing on a statement that is irrelevant to anything else I've said. But, please give a historical example of any set of laws that claim to come from God to man that pre-dates the Mosaic Law. I'll wait.



    Concerning my supposed "erroneous" assumptions, I have asked more than once if I need to give a list of sources that influenced our laws. I've offered to back up my statements. My "opinion" is based on the actual words of those who would know. Not contemporary historians that rewrite history to suit their political agenda.





    Quoting NWP:

    I am addressing this statement you made " I only believe its the first written set of laws from God to man." and replying with a fact that saying the Bible was the very first to do this was not true globally, even if Christians believe it to be the one true truth.

    As for everything else in your most recent comment, it is your opinion based on erroneous personal assumptions. If you choose to make such assumptions, please present evidence to back them up. Choosing to divert the subject in this manner is a poor way to avoid discussing the factual information presented.

    Quoting cammibear:

    But we are talking exclusively about the USA, and these unites states used the Christian bible as a source for our laws on morality.





    They also used the English Common Law, which used the Christian bible as its source.





    Why is it so important to rewrite this part of our history? Why are you all so adamantly protesting this known historical fact?





    I honestly just don't get your hatred for everything "Christian", and the attempt to make it anything but.





    Quoting NWP:

    As to my point earlier, when I asked if you were talking about the historical "we"....Here you make this reference, " I only believe its the first written set of laws from God to man." This could be true if you refer to God in abstract, as whatever higher power a culture builds its theology around. There are many cultures/religions around the world that included a set of moral rules. Christianity is by far not the first or only one to do this and many were written down before the Christian Bible was translated from its oral tradition into words....in fact, much was taken from the previous cultures that existed prior to Christ. Most world religions share a common value system of morals based on "the golden rule" and have built out very similar moral guidelines, or laws, as you state. Here are just a few examples of how this is a shared concept that doesn't exclusively belong to Christianity, or even the Judeo-Christian tradition.







































    bulletBahá'í Faith: 














    bullet"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not


    have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.
    " "Blessed


    is he who preferreth his brother before himself.
    "


    Baha'u'llah
    bullet "And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for


    thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.
    " Epistle to


    the Son of the Wolf. 1



     



    bulletBrahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would


    cause you pain if done to you".
    Mahabharata, 5:1517 "



     
    bulletBuddhism











    bullet "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I


    inflict that upon another?"
    Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 
    bullet Hurt not others in ways


    that you yourself would find hurtful."
    Udana-Varga 5:18



     



    bulletChristianity














    bullet "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men


    should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the


    prophets."
    Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
    bullet"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to


    them likewise
    ." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
    bullet"...and don't do what


    you hate...
    ", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40


    gospels that circulated among the early Christian movement, but which


    never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).



     



    bulletConfucianism:














    bullet "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to


    you"
    Analects 15:23
    bullet"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve


    as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' --


    reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire
    .'" Doctrine


    of the Mean 13.3
    bullet"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated


    yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to


    benevolence
    ." Mencius VII.A.4



     



    bulletAncient Egyptian:





    bullet"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus


    to do.
    " The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B.


    Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800


    BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of


    Reciprocity ever


    written. 2



     



    bulletHinduism








    bulletThis is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain


    if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517



     



    bulletIslam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for


    his brother what he wishes for himself."
    Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's


    Forty Hadiths
    ." 3



     
    bulletJainism














    bullet "Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others


    nor does he make others do so."
    Acarangasutra 5.101-2. 
    bullet"In happiness and


    suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.
    "


    Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
    bullet"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he


    himself would be treated. "
    Sutrakritanga 1.11.33



     



    bulletJudaism

















    bullet "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.",


    Leviticus 19:18 
    bullet "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the


    law: all the rest is commentary."
    Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
    bullet "And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15


    4



     



     

    Quoting cammibear:

    Who thinks the bible was the first set of laws ever? I only believe its the first written set of laws from God to man. All other laws are mans attempt at justice.







    Look, I'm sorry for being mean or condescending. It has obviously blinded you to any of the points I'm trying to make.







    Our laws extend beyond the Constitution. You might not "see" God and the Bible in our federal constitution, but you will find both all in our state and local constitutions and laws. And when deliberating our federal constitution, the Bible is the number one quoted source. How can you continue to deny its impact on our laws? Laws dictate what is right and wrong. History proves the Bible had a great influence in the writing of our laws.


    Quoting mikiemom:

     I find it weird that so many christians think their bible was the first set of laws ever. Try any archiology site, look up the Indus Valley. Our Founding fathers deliberately did not write our constitution around the bible. Get over it The US is not a christian Nation. Your religion can not dictate right and wrong for anyone but yourselves.





    Quoting cammibear:

    Okay, since you know so much, what sources can you site that we based our laws on? Because all you've given me so far is the Code of Hammurabi. ;)
    I guess those that wrote our laws that quote the bible as a source don't know what their talking about? I think you just don't want to admit defeat.














  • NWP
    by NWP
    January 31, 2013 at 4:42 PM

    This:" The examples you gave might be a source for moral law, but they were written by men, not by God. See the difference? " This is what I am addressing about your argument.

    You believe this because you are Christian. In the examples I gave, the members of those faiths believe them to be true and the word of their god or gods. Those who do not follow Christianity may share your belief that other holy texts outside of their own were not the word of their god/gods, but were just written by man. They may say this about the Bible, as you just claimed about their texts.

    See the circle?

    Quoting cammibear:

    I feel like we are talking on different planes that will never connect. lol

    My last attempt. :)

    You called out a specific thing I said about the Mosaic Law being the only law that claims to have come from God to man. I asked you to give an example of any other such law code. The examples you gave might be a source for moral law, but they were written by men, not by God. See the difference? Like I said, it's what I believe, but it is irrelevant to the argument that I thought was...
    Is the bible a source that early Americans used to write the moral laws of this country?

    When the bible is quoted as being a source, then yes, it was a source. They certainly didn't use Hammarubis Code, since it wasn't even discovered at that time. I never said it was the only source. In fact I offered to give a good list of the sources quoted by our Founders.

    The bible was a source. It was one of the main sources for law in this country. Law school used to consist of studying and understanding the bible because it was relevant to understanding our code of law.

    If I presumed anything, it's because you jumped into the middle of a conversation and seemed to be defending the other person. Forgive me if I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Like I said, I feel like we are not connecting at all.
    Quoting NWP:

    I have given you some examples of many religions from around the globe, some before, some after. The Bible is just one source of moral code in this list. If you are of one of the abrahamic faiths, like Christianity, then you believe it (or at least the part of it that is shared with Judaism and Islam) to have existed first, long before writing appeared in the western world, since the creation of the first man, because that is what it tells you.

    As for what I was saying about your erronious assumptions, I was refering to your attempts to redirect the conversation in a negative personal manner, making assumptions about what I believe, which I have never shared with you or posted in this thread.

    I am merely saying that it is better to steer clear of this type of irrelevant form of petty redirect and instead discuss the issue at hand.


    Quoting cammibear:


    First of all, to those it annoys, I cannot cut the tree from my phone. Sorry for that.



    Your focusing on a statement that is irrelevant to anything else I've said. But, please give a historical example of any set of laws that claim to come from God to man that pre-dates the Mosaic Law. I'll wait.



    Concerning my supposed "erroneous" assumptions, I have asked more than once if I need to give a list of sources that influenced our laws. I've offered to back up my statements. My "opinion" is based on the actual words of those who would know. Not contemporary historians that rewrite history to suit their political agenda.

    Quoting NWP:

    I am addressing this statement you made " I only believe its the first written set of laws from God to man." and replying with a fact that saying the Bible was the very first to do this was not true globally, even if Christians believe it to be the one true truth.

    As for everything else in your most recent comment, it is your opinion based on erroneous personal assumptions. If you choose to make such assumptions, please present evidence to back them up. Choosing to divert the subject in this manner is a poor way to avoid discussing the factual information presented.

    Quoting cammibear:

    But we are talking exclusively about the USA, and these unites states used the Christian bible as a source for our laws on morality.

    They also used the English Common Law, which used the Christian bible as its source.

    Why is it so important to rewrite this part of our history? Why are you all so adamantly protesting this known historical fact?

    I honestly just don't get your hatred for everything "Christian", and the attempt to make it anything but.
    Quoting NWP:

    As to my point earlier, when I asked if you were talking about the historical "we"....Here you make this reference, " I only believe its the first written set of laws from God to man." This could be true if you refer to God in abstract, as whatever higher power a culture builds its theology around. There are many cultures/religions around the world that included a set of moral rules. Christianity is by far not the first or only one to do this and many were written down before the Christian Bible was translated from its oral tradition into words....in fact, much was taken from the previous cultures that existed prior to Christ. Most world religions share a common value system of morals based on "the golden rule" and have built out very similar moral guidelines, or laws, as you state. Here are just a few examples of how this is a shared concept that doesn't exclusively belong to Christianity, or even the Judeo-Christian tradition.

    bulletBahá'í Faith: 

    bullet"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not


    have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.
    " "Blessed


    is he who preferreth his brother before himself.
    "


    Baha'u'llah
    bullet "And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for


    thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.
    " Epistle to

    the Son of the Wolf. 1

     



    bulletBrahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would

    cause you pain if done to you".
    Mahabharata, 5:1517 "
     
    bulletBuddhism


    bullet "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I


    inflict that upon another?"
    Samyutta NIkaya v. 353 
    bullet Hurt not others in ways


    that you yourself would find hurtful."
    Udana-Varga 5:18



     



    bulletChristianity:

    bullet "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men


    should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the


    prophets."
    Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
    bullet"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to


    them likewise
    ." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
    bullet"...and don't do what


    you hate...
    ", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40


    gospels that circulated among the early Christian movement, but which


    never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).



     



    bulletConfucianism:

    bullet "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to


    you"
    Analects 15:23
    bullet"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve


    as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' --


    reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire
    .'" Doctrine


    of the Mean 13.3
    bullet"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated


    yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to


    benevolence
    ." Mencius VII.A.4



     



    bulletAncient Egyptian:


    bullet"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus


    to do.
    " The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B.


    Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800


    BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of


    Reciprocity ever


    written. 2



     



    bulletHinduism


    bulletThis is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain


    if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517



     



    bulletIslam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for


    his brother what he wishes for himself."
    Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's


    Forty Hadiths
    ." 3



     
    bulletJainism

    bullet "Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others


    nor does he make others do so."
    Acarangasutra 5.101-2. 
    bullet"In happiness and


    suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.
    "


    Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
    bullet"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he


    himself would be treated. "
    Sutrakritanga 1.11.33



     



    bulletJudaism:

    bullet "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.",


    Leviticus 19:18 
    bullet "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the


    law: all the rest is commentary."
    Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
    bullet "And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15


    4



     



     snip

  • Autiziumom
    January 31, 2013 at 9:27 PM
    Love the post! Sooo true and beautiful. I can say this bcuz I have understood and experience this. My husband did not touch me until our wedding night. It was soo wonderful and beautiful. Sex is really good. I wouldn't wwant it any other way!
  • beehive7
    February 1, 2013 at 2:08 AM

    Ok you kinda threw me off with all the hollering! Anyway I believe Jesus carried a great love for Magdalen and like the book The Di Vinci code brought to our attention is the strong possibility and near truth of them being companions. I believe your truths are based on what they taught you in bible study and nothing else beyond that. I hope for your sake the judgments your throwing on us  won't come back and bite you in the ASS on judgment day! Cuz God clearly states to leave the judgeing to him! 


    As for that whole water to wine thing...  Um ok whatever, I didn't ask for the old scientific process of which you THINK it turned into wine Jesus had a great gift from God and possibly a great love, and her name was MARY MAGDALEN

Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts