S
SeriousQuestion
Guest
There are more Bible verses.
- Status
S
SeriousQuestion
Guest
Leviticus also condemns murder, bestiality, incest, and adultery.
A
Alex337
Guest
Good for it?
R
RigidBenedict
Guest
Hi Alex,
I’m coming at this from the opposite direction to you. I have recently converted to Catholicism leaving behind an active gay lifestyl.
As well as Leviticus which does have its issues as direct moral law as you point out and St Peter and St Paul struggle with in the New Testament, you could look at Romans 1:26-27 (there are other NT texts but this clearly includes both male and female same-sex sex).
I think the controlling narrative, howeve, is the creation story where God created human beings male and female, clearly to be a couple and to be fruitful. This narrative is important to Our Lord who refers back to it when talking about marriage.
This together with natural law and tradition (a history through two thousand years of Christianity and before that Jewish history), I think, pretty conclusively means that same-sex marriage and sexual acts are outside of the will of God.
I’m coming at this from the opposite direction to you. I have recently converted to Catholicism leaving behind an active gay lifestyl.
As well as Leviticus which does have its issues as direct moral law as you point out and St Peter and St Paul struggle with in the New Testament, you could look at Romans 1:26-27 (there are other NT texts but this clearly includes both male and female same-sex sex).
I think the controlling narrative, howeve, is the creation story where God created human beings male and female, clearly to be a couple and to be fruitful. This narrative is important to Our Lord who refers back to it when talking about marriage.
This together with natural law and tradition (a history through two thousand years of Christianity and before that Jewish history), I think, pretty conclusively means that same-sex marriage and sexual acts are outside of the will of God.
A
Alex337
Guest
Hi RB,
I’ve read over Romans 1:26-27 before now and to me the issue always seemed to be lust. Hetersosexual or homosexual lust isn’t great. What’s being described in that passage isn’t a committed, loving relationship; it’s lust.
While being fruitful is certainly important I will always believe that it’s not in regards to being only biologically fruitful. Both of my parents were adopted; but both sets of grandparents I had were fruitful in that they opened their home and family to life. In the fallen world where not all children will have biological parents, and not all people can conceive, it only makes sense that being fruitful should be concerned with raising children rather than only having them.
I’ve read over Romans 1:26-27 before now and to me the issue always seemed to be lust. Hetersosexual or homosexual lust isn’t great. What’s being described in that passage isn’t a committed, loving relationship; it’s lust.
While being fruitful is certainly important I will always believe that it’s not in regards to being only biologically fruitful. Both of my parents were adopted; but both sets of grandparents I had were fruitful in that they opened their home and family to life. In the fallen world where not all children will have biological parents, and not all people can conceive, it only makes sense that being fruitful should be concerned with raising children rather than only having them.
R
RigidBenedict
Guest
Thanks for the reply.
I think the root problem in the Romans text is idolatry where the created order is elevated to the position of the Divine. I would argue that is what secular humanism has done and one of the fruits of that is the privatisation of marriage and the canonisation of emotions.
Marriage, I would argue, is an act that is about taking two people pledging themselves to work together for the good of their community. For Christian marriage - in obedience with God’s law. Marriage is not just about how the adults involved ‘feel’ and their consent. It involves the wider community too.
I would modify your sentence about the ‘raising of children’ as I would say that it is included in the understanding of being obedient to God’s law. If you have children you must raise them properly. Couples who adopt, are no exception here. Adoption was well known in Our Lord’s (and experience) and he didn’t feel the need to make specific provision for it.
While I agree that there exceptions to the biological fruitfulness as you suggest, the key element would be that husband and wife are still intimate with one another without using artificial birth control so that their marriage is open to the possibility of children.
The fact that as a distinct group same-sex unions cannot be fruitful (and clearly human beings are not designed to find them physically unitive) they are not comparable to the small group of opposiite-sex unions that for one reason or another cannot procreate naturally.
So given Scripture, the Natural Law and Sacred Tradition the question would be why should the Church suddenly decide that same-sex sex is morally acceptable?
I think the root problem in the Romans text is idolatry where the created order is elevated to the position of the Divine. I would argue that is what secular humanism has done and one of the fruits of that is the privatisation of marriage and the canonisation of emotions.
Marriage, I would argue, is an act that is about taking two people pledging themselves to work together for the good of their community. For Christian marriage - in obedience with God’s law. Marriage is not just about how the adults involved ‘feel’ and their consent. It involves the wider community too.
I would modify your sentence about the ‘raising of children’ as I would say that it is included in the understanding of being obedient to God’s law. If you have children you must raise them properly. Couples who adopt, are no exception here. Adoption was well known in Our Lord’s (and experience) and he didn’t feel the need to make specific provision for it.
While I agree that there exceptions to the biological fruitfulness as you suggest, the key element would be that husband and wife are still intimate with one another without using artificial birth control so that their marriage is open to the possibility of children.
The fact that as a distinct group same-sex unions cannot be fruitful (and clearly human beings are not designed to find them physically unitive) they are not comparable to the small group of opposiite-sex unions that for one reason or another cannot procreate naturally.
So given Scripture, the Natural Law and Sacred Tradition the question would be why should the Church suddenly decide that same-sex sex is morally acceptable?
Last edited:
A
Alex337
Guest
No worries, I do warn that as I’m in Australia I will be shortly running off to bed so will stop replying for a time.
Marriage was practiced without great church involvement for centuries. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent that it was deemed a sacrament and before that was often performed without great church involvement. And that’s just in places with Christianity, other places without Christianity had forms of marriage too.
Marriage need not involve the community at all, unless you feel that a married couple can’t live off by themselves on a property? I know couples like that in rural Australia; they’re happy to live away by themselves and don’t particularly care about the wider community.
On the topic of sex and marriage we’ve been having a great discussion about whether sex is the defining part of marriage. Do you think sex defines a marriage? Could, for example, a man who is unable to attain an erection be married despite being unable to have sex?
I would disagree about the unitive statement, they seem very unitive. I suspect this is a matter of opinion though and doubt we can prove either way.
And in answer to your final question; I don’t actually mind what the Church does. I find same sex marriage morally acceptable, as does my new faith. If others find their faith elsewhere that’s good so long as they don’t seek to impose it on me.
Marriage was practiced without great church involvement for centuries. It wasn’t until the Council of Trent that it was deemed a sacrament and before that was often performed without great church involvement. And that’s just in places with Christianity, other places without Christianity had forms of marriage too.
Marriage need not involve the community at all, unless you feel that a married couple can’t live off by themselves on a property? I know couples like that in rural Australia; they’re happy to live away by themselves and don’t particularly care about the wider community.
On the topic of sex and marriage we’ve been having a great discussion about whether sex is the defining part of marriage. Do you think sex defines a marriage? Could, for example, a man who is unable to attain an erection be married despite being unable to have sex?
I would disagree about the unitive statement, they seem very unitive. I suspect this is a matter of opinion though and doubt we can prove either way.
And in answer to your final question; I don’t actually mind what the Church does. I find same sex marriage morally acceptable, as does my new faith. If others find their faith elsewhere that’s good so long as they don’t seek to impose it on me.
S
Sursum-Corda
Guest
True marriage can only occur between a male and a female human.
Anything outside that is a very very grave insult to God Almighty.
Anything outside that is a very very grave insult to God Almighty.
R
RigidBenedict
Guest
No worries. I hope you have\had a good night’s rest.
I agree that for a long period of time the Church was not involved in regulating marriage in the way it is now. I think you could argue that this was because it was persecuted and then assumed Christendom.
I agree that peoples other than Christians have marriage but the vast majority of those conform to the model of man and woman. In our world today, as far as I am aware, same-sex marriage is a concept only practiced in secular democracies. We could discuss why the notion of same-sex marriages has only developed in those nations.
I think marriage is about taking one’s place in the community. Marriage ceremonies tend to involve a wider group of people being present. They are usually associated with the couple having their own home. Home, business and children all tend to imply the involvement (and support) of other people. Even if you go off to live at a distance in the outback therefore going to be a community that you relate to, and trade with.
I think, again, there can be exceptions to the general rule about the role of sex but my understanding of English\Catholic law is that a marriage has to be consummated. I think companionship is a part of marriage but a defining characteristic of marriage is the unitive act which is open to procreation.
I’m interested in you saying that the faith community you are now a part of has embraced same sex marriage, can you tell me the process by which they made that decision?
I agree that for a long period of time the Church was not involved in regulating marriage in the way it is now. I think you could argue that this was because it was persecuted and then assumed Christendom.
I agree that peoples other than Christians have marriage but the vast majority of those conform to the model of man and woman. In our world today, as far as I am aware, same-sex marriage is a concept only practiced in secular democracies. We could discuss why the notion of same-sex marriages has only developed in those nations.
I think marriage is about taking one’s place in the community. Marriage ceremonies tend to involve a wider group of people being present. They are usually associated with the couple having their own home. Home, business and children all tend to imply the involvement (and support) of other people. Even if you go off to live at a distance in the outback therefore going to be a community that you relate to, and trade with.
I think, again, there can be exceptions to the general rule about the role of sex but my understanding of English\Catholic law is that a marriage has to be consummated. I think companionship is a part of marriage but a defining characteristic of marriage is the unitive act which is open to procreation.
I’m interested in you saying that the faith community you are now a part of has embraced same sex marriage, can you tell me the process by which they made that decision?
A
Alex337
Guest
Will be off soon.
That argument could be made but historically speaking it was more likely that it was a good means of securing political power. I mean that’s a very pessimistic view but it looks quite likely. By taking an active hand in controlling who marries the Church was able to secure greater power over the royal families which continued until a certain king got all behead-y.
Many cultures practice/practiced polygamy or (more rarely) polyandry. This talk discusses a polyandrous marriage format that’s quite interesting;
In terms of same sex unions in other cultures and throughout history they do indeed pop up; History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia As to why they’re not more common in current day outside of developed nations one problem is that Christian groups (Evangelical, not Catholic) led the way (and still do) in many African countries for persecuting homosexuality; https://www.thenation.com/article/its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa/
They are currently connected to a couple having their own home. But in times past it was common for a married couple to move into the husbands family home, or to at the very least share their home with their parents. Multigenerational households were the norm for centuries. Now, you say that people can’t be without a community even if they’re actively avoiding it; I’m not sure I agree with that.
But if we are to think that marriage does have something to do with society then there seems to be even more reason to allow same sex marriage; these people are a part of society. Recently my country voted overwhelmingly to have same sex marriage, the society agreed that it is good for it.
Catholic law says it must be consummated, English law not so much. Why do you believe sex is a defining aspect of marriage out of interest? Remembering that the “open to procreation” aspect isn’t required as infertile people can marry in the Catholic Church.
I only joined the Quakers about a month ago (former Catholic) so I wasn’t part of them when they came to this decision. My understanding is that in the 60s the first Quaker writings came about on the matter of homosexuality, and unsurprising it reminded us that they are equal to heterosexual people (Quakers are big on equality).
Australian Quakers have supported the celebration of same sex and different sex commitment ceremonies since 1994 and recognize them on an equal basis with other committed and loving relationships. In January 2010, Quakers meeting in Australia Yearly Meeting in Adelaide agreed to treat all requests for marriages in accordance with Quaker traditions, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender of the partners.
That argument could be made but historically speaking it was more likely that it was a good means of securing political power. I mean that’s a very pessimistic view but it looks quite likely. By taking an active hand in controlling who marries the Church was able to secure greater power over the royal families which continued until a certain king got all behead-y.
Many cultures practice/practiced polygamy or (more rarely) polyandry. This talk discusses a polyandrous marriage format that’s quite interesting;
They are currently connected to a couple having their own home. But in times past it was common for a married couple to move into the husbands family home, or to at the very least share their home with their parents. Multigenerational households were the norm for centuries. Now, you say that people can’t be without a community even if they’re actively avoiding it; I’m not sure I agree with that.
But if we are to think that marriage does have something to do with society then there seems to be even more reason to allow same sex marriage; these people are a part of society. Recently my country voted overwhelmingly to have same sex marriage, the society agreed that it is good for it.
Catholic law says it must be consummated, English law not so much. Why do you believe sex is a defining aspect of marriage out of interest? Remembering that the “open to procreation” aspect isn’t required as infertile people can marry in the Catholic Church.
I only joined the Quakers about a month ago (former Catholic) so I wasn’t part of them when they came to this decision. My understanding is that in the 60s the first Quaker writings came about on the matter of homosexuality, and unsurprising it reminded us that they are equal to heterosexual people (Quakers are big on equality).
Australian Quakers have supported the celebration of same sex and different sex commitment ceremonies since 1994 and recognize them on an equal basis with other committed and loving relationships. In January 2010, Quakers meeting in Australia Yearly Meeting in Adelaide agreed to treat all requests for marriages in accordance with Quaker traditions, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender of the partners.
R
RigidBenedict
Guest
Thank you for the interesting links. I don’t really know enough about polygamy and even less about polyandry, so as the OP was about the sinfulness of gay marriage I’ll happily stick to that. The Wikipedia article gives a very inadequate source for claiming same-sex marriage existed in ancient Greece and Rome. While same-sex sex did indeed exist, in Greece it is the time-limited older man \ teenage boy relationship which introduced the boy into the work of adult men. In both Greecexand Rome it was socially unacceptable for a free adult man to be the sexually submissive participant. Julius Caesar was mocked as having been suspected of being the submissive lover of Nicomedes IV of Bithynia.
The only same-sex marriages I am aware of in ancient Rome are ones that the Roman historians use to illustrate the moral depravity of the person in question, for example Nero and Pythagoras and, then, sports.
In the time after the fall of Rome and into the late Middle Ages, John Boswell has collected evidence that there were relationships between mainly men (if I remember correctly) blessed/celebrated by the Church. In the main, I think, these were between religious. The main problem with this evidence was that there was no way of knowing these were sexual relationships. They were also celebrated in a way that was different to how marriage was celebrated so it is hard to argue, I would suggest, that they can be viewed as forerunners of same-sex marriage.
Again, I accept that there will be exceptions to the rule about community and marriage. I imagine such instances would be very few and, I would think, that to be completely self-sufficient and absolutely cut off from everyone would be an enormous effort. I would also question the appropriatness of bringing up children in that context, if that was to happen.
I do think sex is important to marriage, I think it is where the couple open themselves to and unite themselves with the creative power of God. It is also physically where they become ‘one flesh’. I think intimacy is a very important part of maintaining a healthy relationship for husband and wife.
In terms of non-sexual relationships, like the ones, I would argue, John Boswell found), I think there is a possible argument that the Church should encourage people to seek a blessing for non-sexual friendships. This may be a way for those who experience SSA to find companionship and live within the teaching of the Church.
At the risk of getting slightly off topic, you say Australia voted to allow same-sex marriage - the community says it is a good thing - therefore it happens. I would argue that above the state stands Natural Law interpreted by the Church so Australia, England, etc. shouldn’t have made that decision. Where do you think objective morality comes from or do you think the right to marriage could just be taken away from same-sex couples when enough people have changed their minds to get a 50% vote?
The only same-sex marriages I am aware of in ancient Rome are ones that the Roman historians use to illustrate the moral depravity of the person in question, for example Nero and Pythagoras and, then, sports.
In the time after the fall of Rome and into the late Middle Ages, John Boswell has collected evidence that there were relationships between mainly men (if I remember correctly) blessed/celebrated by the Church. In the main, I think, these were between religious. The main problem with this evidence was that there was no way of knowing these were sexual relationships. They were also celebrated in a way that was different to how marriage was celebrated so it is hard to argue, I would suggest, that they can be viewed as forerunners of same-sex marriage.
Again, I accept that there will be exceptions to the rule about community and marriage. I imagine such instances would be very few and, I would think, that to be completely self-sufficient and absolutely cut off from everyone would be an enormous effort. I would also question the appropriatness of bringing up children in that context, if that was to happen.
I do think sex is important to marriage, I think it is where the couple open themselves to and unite themselves with the creative power of God. It is also physically where they become ‘one flesh’. I think intimacy is a very important part of maintaining a healthy relationship for husband and wife.
In terms of non-sexual relationships, like the ones, I would argue, John Boswell found), I think there is a possible argument that the Church should encourage people to seek a blessing for non-sexual friendships. This may be a way for those who experience SSA to find companionship and live within the teaching of the Church.
At the risk of getting slightly off topic, you say Australia voted to allow same-sex marriage - the community says it is a good thing - therefore it happens. I would argue that above the state stands Natural Law interpreted by the Church so Australia, England, etc. shouldn’t have made that decision. Where do you think objective morality comes from or do you think the right to marriage could just be taken away from same-sex couples when enough people have changed their minds to get a 50% vote?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Hi RB,
As a gay man, I’ve struggled for years to find a place for myself as a Christian, but tradition is, in my opinion, one of the weakest arguments against homosexual sex and same-sex marriage. A few years ago, I read most of the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, and was very disturbed by some of what I found in those texts. But two things in particular were turning points for me, the fact that Scripture and tradition condoned slavery and the subordination of women.
In Leviticus 25:44-46 it says:
The notion that God condones the owning of human beings by other human beings as “property” (and “property” that can be inherited) is impossible for me to accept. And the New Testament is not much better:
And early Christians such as St. Augustine condoned the whipping of slaves. According to a passage in his Enarrationes in Psalmos (from Corpus christianoruam, series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-), 40: 1464-6):
I’ve also found, too, that many Christians have become apologists for ancient slavery. And even in more modern times, slavery was condoned by Christians, even Catholic ones. Just recently, Georgetown University, a Catholic University, has been trying to make amends for the fact that it owned slaves and sold them, in many cases breaking up families.
And then there are all the statements by Paul about women which show that he expected them to remain in a subordinate position to men. And Thomas Aquinas obviously believed that women are intellectually inferior to men.
So just because things are old traditions, as slavery and the subordination of women were for thousands of years, does not make them good.
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
One unavoidable old tradition is this: Humanity is comprised of men and women. Men and women are sexually complementary, having complementary reproductive systems.
Marriage exists only because there are men and women.
Had there just been two Adam’s or two Eve’s, none of us would be here.
Marriage exists only because there are men and women.
Had there just been two Adam’s or two Eve’s, none of us would be here.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
True! I also found this article detailing what Saint Paul thought about slavery. It’s an interesting read:
www.catholic.com
Slavery and the New Testament
In March 2012, the group American Atheists erected a billboard in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with an image of a slave and this citation from St. Paul: “Slaves, o...
S
SeriousQuestion
Guest
That’s a good link.
R
RigidBenedict
Guest
Hi Thorofl,
I think we could easily have another thread, or two, about the issues you raise regarding slavery and the subordination of women. I don’t think the issues are as simple as a binary choice between accepting slavery and women’s subordination or dismissing Scripture and Tradition.
Taking the position you seem to do in your post what conclusion do you reach about gay marriage’s sinfulness, or not, and how?
I think we could easily have another thread, or two, about the issues you raise regarding slavery and the subordination of women. I don’t think the issues are as simple as a binary choice between accepting slavery and women’s subordination or dismissing Scripture and Tradition.
Taking the position you seem to do in your post what conclusion do you reach about gay marriage’s sinfulness, or not, and how?
R
RigidBenedict
Guest
A good article on the Church and slavery:
Let My People Go.
Let My People Go.
T
tweedlealice
Guest
Alex,
From reading scripture and thinking of Creation, I feel, we are all to be chaste.
I think the reason is this: What pulls us away from our Spiritual lives? The WORLD! Now, eating doesn’t separate us from God that much. Alcohol does. Illegal drugs do. SEX IS A BIGGY. We get into adoration w SEX. It is s big deal to God. He wants us to adore Him only! Do NOT put other gods before Him. After Adam & Eve we’re disobedient, He left us on our own for eons. We decided what we wanted. Which culminated w a free for all in Sidon & Gomorrah. Sex was a god there. Homosexuality was part of living in all the early civilizations.
So, why did God, when He started communicating w us, pull away from Himosexuality? All God’s rules were made to protect us and help us to thrive.
Don’t eat cloven hooved animals. Burn anything w mildew. God defined clean and unclean. I.e. something was a negative w Homosexuality. What? Mainly, it’s non-productive. He wants us to procreate. I wish we could chat today. Like, can we supersaturated the Earth w overpopulation? How should we solve it? Infertility, is any of it OK? Anyway, Marriage, free for all to have babies. I did correlate the thinking of: Csn we have sex after menopause? Wouldn’t that be hilarious! I’m told, it’s OK.
We need to define HAPPINESS! What can make us happy may not be good for us. Heroin, alcohol, certain foods, porn & sexual deviations. Like S&M. Elaborate equipment for a precious act of love. The more things that are brought into the marriage bed, the more we raise SEX to a god. Homosexuality has some unpleasant things. Then, HIV/AIDS. A simple, spontaneous act or a cute night gown, changing locations and positions give variety aplenty. What makes a god??
Happiness is being in a loving relationship w GOD. In all His glory, FATHER, SON, HOLY SPIRIT. Everything else falls in place after that.
Joy comes in realizing, we are overcoming desires that hurt us. When, we are achieving the goal God has got us. The beauty of a family. Creating our dynasties. Reaching out to help others and bring our children up to be Holy, successful ppl.
Looking at life as to find HAPPINESS by meeting the needs of the flesh is short term for eternity. Giving into urges, is not good. That’s why one of the gifts of the Spirit is Self-Control. We should use it more.
Remember heterosexuals have temptations and secret longings that we have to deny.
Gotta go
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice
From reading scripture and thinking of Creation, I feel, we are all to be chaste.
I think the reason is this: What pulls us away from our Spiritual lives? The WORLD! Now, eating doesn’t separate us from God that much. Alcohol does. Illegal drugs do. SEX IS A BIGGY. We get into adoration w SEX. It is s big deal to God. He wants us to adore Him only! Do NOT put other gods before Him. After Adam & Eve we’re disobedient, He left us on our own for eons. We decided what we wanted. Which culminated w a free for all in Sidon & Gomorrah. Sex was a god there. Homosexuality was part of living in all the early civilizations.
So, why did God, when He started communicating w us, pull away from Himosexuality? All God’s rules were made to protect us and help us to thrive.
Don’t eat cloven hooved animals. Burn anything w mildew. God defined clean and unclean. I.e. something was a negative w Homosexuality. What? Mainly, it’s non-productive. He wants us to procreate. I wish we could chat today. Like, can we supersaturated the Earth w overpopulation? How should we solve it? Infertility, is any of it OK? Anyway, Marriage, free for all to have babies. I did correlate the thinking of: Csn we have sex after menopause? Wouldn’t that be hilarious! I’m told, it’s OK.
We need to define HAPPINESS! What can make us happy may not be good for us. Heroin, alcohol, certain foods, porn & sexual deviations. Like S&M. Elaborate equipment for a precious act of love. The more things that are brought into the marriage bed, the more we raise SEX to a god. Homosexuality has some unpleasant things. Then, HIV/AIDS. A simple, spontaneous act or a cute night gown, changing locations and positions give variety aplenty. What makes a god??
Happiness is being in a loving relationship w GOD. In all His glory, FATHER, SON, HOLY SPIRIT. Everything else falls in place after that.
Joy comes in realizing, we are overcoming desires that hurt us. When, we are achieving the goal God has got us. The beauty of a family. Creating our dynasties. Reaching out to help others and bring our children up to be Holy, successful ppl.
Looking at life as to find HAPPINESS by meeting the needs of the flesh is short term for eternity. Giving into urges, is not good. That’s why one of the gifts of the Spirit is Self-Control. We should use it more.
Remember heterosexuals have temptations and secret longings that we have to deny.
Gotta go
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice
A
Alex337
Guest
Food can be a temptation too, friend. Gluttony is a sin as well as lust (though gluttony need not be confined to food). I think I’d be far more likely to have trouble with gluttony than lust, I suspect many people do as we don’t pay as much attention to it. And I think I’ve spoken with you before about how I believe the sin of Sodom was rape, not homosexuality.
At the time I’d suspect it had to do with safety, luckily we can now do so safely, just like we now eat animals with coven feet.
S&M doesn’t seem to be in the catechism from what I can see? What’s wrong with it?
T
tweedlealice
Guest
In my humble viewpoint, God is about love and kindness and positive energy. He wants to build our spirits up. S&M is a negative, painful activity. Some feel it is exciting.?But, they go back to our basal nature, We were primitive at one point of our evolution. I had a funny thought, You may not agree? But cavemen allegedly were aggressive w women(?) Comparing Muslim men today, they regressed… GROAN.
Healthy, Happy comes from positive energy sources.
Negative sources might feel good but, it eats our souls slowly. Can a woman, that you would like to be the Mother of your children, look like a playgirl centerspred? Would you want her to raise a daughter of yours. Like Stormey Daniels? GROAN. We all must look beyond the moment today, & realize it compounds things that could interfere w our relationship w Jesus. It could ruin our Salvation. We want warm fuzzies, not HOT SIZZLES. OUCH!
I said before FOOD is a temptation. It’s the one with which I have trouble. I’m not a Saint. Just trying. Yes,you said, the sin of Sodom was rape. I sent you back scripture verses in the story of S&G, that clearly talk of men sleeping w men. It was men calling for the male angels. ( all angels are men). They were ticked off. RE-read it.
God wants us to be happy. Shoot for His version of life. Satan wants us tormented. Maybe that will help??
PM me, if you have questions or would like prayer. CAF noted me that I spoke w you 3 times.
Lord, we have visions of how You want us to live, through Your Word. Satan, confounds it w temptations and stimulating sensations in our bodies. You gave us those sensations to use wisely. Thank You, ABBA. Help clear up our confusions in this world. May we all feel that peaceful, Happy contentment we get achieving Your goals for us.
In Jesus name.
Amen
Tweedlealice
Healthy, Happy comes from positive energy sources.
Negative sources might feel good but, it eats our souls slowly. Can a woman, that you would like to be the Mother of your children, look like a playgirl centerspred? Would you want her to raise a daughter of yours. Like Stormey Daniels? GROAN. We all must look beyond the moment today, & realize it compounds things that could interfere w our relationship w Jesus. It could ruin our Salvation. We want warm fuzzies, not HOT SIZZLES. OUCH!
I said before FOOD is a temptation. It’s the one with which I have trouble. I’m not a Saint. Just trying. Yes,you said, the sin of Sodom was rape. I sent you back scripture verses in the story of S&G, that clearly talk of men sleeping w men. It was men calling for the male angels. ( all angels are men). They were ticked off. RE-read it.
God wants us to be happy. Shoot for His version of life. Satan wants us tormented. Maybe that will help??
PM me, if you have questions or would like prayer. CAF noted me that I spoke w you 3 times.
Lord, we have visions of how You want us to live, through Your Word. Satan, confounds it w temptations and stimulating sensations in our bodies. You gave us those sensations to use wisely. Thank You, ABBA. Help clear up our confusions in this world. May we all feel that peaceful, Happy contentment we get achieving Your goals for us.
In Jesus name.
Amen
Tweedlealice
- Status