Morality

[strange]

So, as long as the wife knows that her husband has a girlfriend and chooses to stay married to him then you're OK with that? Just trying to understand your position.

Remembering the ELCA's long drawn out study of human sexuality. In the draft of this study it stated that adultery is secretive, deceitful, a lie, and a hypocrisy; that it is a serious sin when a spouse becomes sexually involved with someone else. The definition used by the draft was a dictionary definition; based on the cultural norm. Most would agree with monogamy in our culture but nonetheless, extramarital sex is factual. Just consider that around 50% of marriages end up in divorce. We are a serial polygmaous society; by virtue of marriage, divorce and remarriage.

An affair is synomonous with adultery. If your example, (wife knows, choosing to stay married,) means that she condones the extramarital sex, then the question changes to what harm is there in the marriage? I guess that your question needs clarification given the definition of an adulterous relationship or affair.

How the wife is affected goes along way in answering this issue of morality.

 

[slave2six]

Is there a reason we shouldn't be ok with that?

Just wondering.

Not in my opinion.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't think there's anything wrong with a couple who agree to an open relationship, (again, providing they are kind, honest, respectful, and equal to all concerned) and I think this is the only moral approach to having more than one sexual partner.

 

[slave2six]

An affair is synomonous with adultery. If your example, (wife knows, choosing to stay married,) means that she condones the extramarital sex, then the question changes to what harm is there in the marriage? I guess that your question needs clarification given the definition of an adulterous relationship or affair.

How the wife is affected goes along way in answering this issue of morality.

Either way, whether she condones it or not, if she is aware of the relationship and chooses to stay married, is the husband immoral? Inconsiderate - yes. Immoral? Well, I don't know.

If she condones the behavior then does that make the act any less "adulterous" by the standards you cited?

If we are going to take "harm" to mean "how someone reacts to something" then you open a can of worms. I have a friend, for example, who is the all-time coolest person you would want to meet. He loves his wife and is very respectful of the people around him. One day at work he was carrying some boxes and passed a female co-worker coming the opposite direction. He nodded to her and winked as people will do meaning nothing by it and she reported him for sexual harassment.

To me, it is immoral for someone like my friend to have to be subjected to all that he went through just because some chick took offense and didn't have the courtesy to stand up for herself. He had a great reputation at work and no one, not any of the other women there for sure, backed this other person up. This same person started making waves in other areas of the company and eventually was fired. Still, because of the laws in place, reason was not employed for my friend's situation.

My point is, just because someone takes offense does not mean that the other person has committed one. In the case of the woman who stays with her husband who is "cheating" on her and the whole thing is out in the open, can you really consider that a moral offense in the same way you would if the guy was sneaking around?

 

[Alceste]

If we are going to take "harm" to mean "how someone reacts to something" then you open a can of worms. I have a friend, for example, who is the all-time coolest person you would want to meet. He loves his wife and is very respectful of the people around him. One day at work he was carrying some boxes and passed a female co-worker coming the opposite direction. He nodded to her and winked as people will do meaning nothing by it and she reported him for sexual harassment.

My point is, just because someone takes offense does not mean that the other person has committed one. In the case of the woman who stays with her husband who is "cheating" on her and the whole thing is out in the open, can you really consider that a moral offense in the same way you would if the guy was sneaking around?

Morality is tied to what you can reasonably expect, accounting for all the facts you are aware of. If your friend was aware that this woman was an unbalanced nutcase who couldn't handle a wink, and winked anyway, it would have been "immoral" (although I prefer the term "unethical", since morality has a lot of useless religious baggage). Nobody expects that kind of thing to happen, though, so it's not a very good example.

It's reasonable to assume in our relationships that each partner knows each other well enough to know whether or not there is an expectation of monogamy (IMO, this should always be clearly and explicitly communicated, never assumed), and what the consequences of non-monogamy are likely to be. Will you be dumped but forgiven? Will you be kept but never forgiven? Will she say "Well alright, what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and take up with the grocery boy? Taking the most likely reaction of someone you know very well (theoretically) into account before you act is ethical. Not just your partner's reaction either, but also yours, and the consequences for whoever else you're thinking of sleeping with.

So, assuming everything is out in the open, and everybody is aware of everyone else's situation, and everyone is consenting, and nobody is aware that somebody else is being hurt - or is likely to be hurt - by their actions, it's perfectly ethical in my books.

I tried to convince my ex-fiance of this but it took all the fun out of cheating, from his perspective. For him, the "wrongness" of it was 90 % of its appeal. Deceiving the girlfriend was an essential part of the storyline, for him. I think in his case, since he was intentionally doing something he thought was wrong and was aware that it was outside the realm of what I'd explicitly told him was acceptable (I told him non-monogamy was OK as long as he didn't expect monogamy from me, but that deception was a deal-breaker), he was acting unethically.

 

[strange]

Either way, whether she condones it or not, if she is aware of the relationship and chooses to stay married, is the husband immoral? Inconsiderate - yes. Immoral? Well, I don't know.

If she condones the behavior then does that make the act any less "adulterous" by the standards you cited?

If we are going to take "harm" to mean "how someone reacts to something" then you open a can of worms. I have a friend, for example, who is the all-time coolest person you would want to meet. He loves his wife and is very respectful of the people around him. One day at work he was carrying some boxes and passed a female co-worker coming the opposite direction. He nodded to her and winked as people will do meaning nothing by it and she reported him for sexual harassment.

To me, it is immoral for someone like my friend to have to be subjected to all that he went through just because some chick took offense and didn't have the courtesy to stand up for herself. He had a great reputation at work and no one, not any of the other women there for sure, backed this other person up. This same person started making waves in other areas of the company and eventually was fired. Still, because of the laws in place, reason was not employed for my friend's situation.

My point is, just because someone takes offense does not mean that the other person has committed one. In the case of the woman who stays with her husband who is "cheating" on her and the whole thing is out in the open, can you really consider that a moral offense in the same way you would if the guy was sneaking around?

Adulterous, as in the Bible, by the standards I listed, does not condone said relationship and primarily so because of the hypocrisy. There are other instances in the Bible that indicate that hypocrisy is the issue also; especially with homosexuality. But what is even more confusing is that divorce is the gateway to adulterous relationships. If divorce leads to adulterous relationships via remarriage, then there is something that someone doesn't get, that someone being Christianity.

But people do fall out of love and in to love again, and sometimes love again is with someone else. And some relationships are open relationships. So the question is, "does that make the act any less "adulterous" by the standards you cited?" But then, polygamous relationships were condoned in the Old Testament. Is this a morality issue? Or is it an adulterous issue? My test to the sinfulness of this issue is the morality issue.

The issue with the friend, isn't that just what we are talking about given the issue of the morality of homosexuality? I agree that there was no fairness in the issue of sexual harassment. So is fairness apart of morality?

 

[Humanistheart]

Remembering the ELCA's long drawn out study of human sexuality. In the draft of this study it stated that adultery is secretive, deceitful, a lie, and a hypocrisy; that it is a serious sin when a spouse becomes sexually involved with someone else. The definition used by the draft was a dictionary definition; based on the cultural norm. Most would agree with monogamy in our culture but nonetheless, extramarital sex is factual. Just consider that around 50% of marriages end up in divorce. We are a serial polygmaous society; by virtue of marriage, divorce and remarriage.

An affair is synomonous with adultery. If your example, (wife knows, choosing to stay married,) means that she condones the extramarital sex, then the question changes to what harm is there in the marriage? I guess that your question needs clarification given the definition of an adulterous relationship or affair.

How the wife is affected goes along way in answering this issue of morality.

I agree. Afte rall there are polyamorous couples that knowingly seek other partners. Adultery is secretive, but extra maritial relationships aren't necessarily. I knew a girl who flat out told her bf to go have new experiences with other girls, because she was far more experienced than he was and knew that bothered him. That certianly cannot be immoral, as she gave him her permission and encouraged it.

 

[strange]

Socrates would have you believe that "men don't do evil knowingly," because their reasoning is misled concerning a course of action. To behave well man must strengthen mental and moral virtues.

 

[Autodidact]

I think the Buddha would say the same thing.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Any time you resent something there is a moral judgment being made (whether you do this consciously or subconsciously is irrelevant). Is there a difference between telling someone that rape is wrong and telling someone 2+2=5 is wrong? If there is, then morality is something you recognize, even if you might feel that morality is too complicated to be fully grasped or articulated.


Do we judge a man by the consequence of his actions? Then a man who tries to save hundreds and in failing ends up killing a handful would have to be condemned.

Do we judge a man by the content of his character/heart? Then an otherwise righteous man who through ignorance chose to support terrorism could not be held accountable for any wrong doing.

Do we judge a man by the means he uses? Then must not we condemn the surgeon for harming his patients?

Do we judge a man only by means and ends? Then a person who attempts wrong-doing but fails to harm anyone cannot be held accountable.


Clearly some combination of means, ends, and motivation is what we should use to judge the "moral content" of an event.


So with this in mind exactly how are we to find any harmful means, end, or motivation in homosexuality? By itself the only homosexuality could ever be harmful is if it were so wide-spread and unchanging as to endanger the survival of the human species. And I think we all recognize just how ludicrous that situation is. Sure other factors like: consent, injury, emotional trauma, etc are all things that can color the situation one way or another, but all of those things apply just as easily to heterosexuality as homosexuality. Child-molestation is wrong no matter whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.

MTF

 

[blackout]

Either way, whether she condones it or not, if she is aware of the relationship and chooses to stay married, is the husband immoral? Inconsiderate - yes. Immoral? Well, I don't know.

If she condones the behavior then does that make the act any less "adulterous" by the standards you cited?

Poly relationships/marriages are some of the most considerate I've seen.

And the most giving.

 

[strange]

Socrates would have you believe that "men don't do evil knowingly," because their reasoning is misled concerning a course of action. To behave well man must strengthen mental and moral virtues.

What Socrates had to say is only a half truth. The other half is the misled action of individuals and society.

For man to behave well, reasoning must be strengthened by mental and moral virtues. Moral virtues are the same as human virtues because they are with reason; it is a balance of a course of action. The rightness of reason is prudence; so prudence directs moral virtues. But prudence is a mental virtue and since it is about regulating behaviour by reason, it is the same as moral virtues.

All this is Thomas Aquinas' take on moral virtues.

"Discipline and self-control strengthen the mind to resist being misled by disorderly emotions; but they are not virtues." Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas, edited by Timothy McDermott, pp. 237.

So here's my take. Thomas Aquinas has demonstrated that morals and virtues go hand in hand. That is to say that some of the talk about morals here may not be about morals first but may indeed be about virtues. The same may be applied about the use of ethics. Whereas, ethics have to do with the science of human duty; as in political or social ethics; and ethics has nothing to do with what is right or wrong; ethic's rules are practices regarding a particular class of human actions.

I believe that it is, as with virtues and ethics, that conflict becomes apparent, and in the case of homosexuality or same-sex marriage where individual virtues, that come with reason or mislead reason may indeed conflict with ethics if prudence (actions to be take at the discretion of societal direction) is governed by misinformation.

It is not easy talking about all the derivatives in the equation of morality. Especially when individuals and social groups may differ in defining those derivatives. One way of developing morals is to set a goal. Know what it is that becomes a common factor in defining morals.

 

[strange]

Part One:

TO STRANGE AND Mr CHEESE WITH LOVE

I have also to surmise that you haven't a clue as to what morality is all about and what our God requires of us. You are lost in your own knowledge step back and look at the complete picture. Which is very simple really for even an illiterate can understand, so why make it complicated, the only ones that like make it complicated are those who want to justify their evil deeds. They do not know that forgiveness is theirs for the asking if they resolutely set themselves to sin no more. As you are engrossed in human theology, I am engrossed in the Spirit of God. The fallowing articles will demonstrate to you the morality required by God.

EFFECTIVE WORSHIP




We all at some time, either alone, or within an assembly have taken part in worship, but in response to a Samaritan woman, Jesus revealed the requirements for an effective worship. We read in John 4 – 20 – 26: “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus said to her. “Woman believe me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you worship the father. You worship that which you do not know; we worship that which we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and truth; for such people the father seeks to be his worshippers. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” The woman said to him, “I know that the Messiah is coming, (he who is called Christ when that one comes he will declare all things to us.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”

“God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
The above scripture on the surface appears to be straightforward, but how do we do that, seeing that we are of flesh, and our perceived truth is not necessarily the truth?

Wisdom dictates that we should not venture in the realm that is beyond our grasp. First we should analyse our own spiritual makeup, for we should have an intimate knowledge of ourselves, for if we were created in the image of God, we should know which part of us is in the image of God, before we can understand what lies beyond.

In the book of Genesis 1 – 26 and 27, God laid the foundations of the character and purpose of humanity, for we read: “Then God said, Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

So according to the above scripture we have the image of God in ourselves, but unfortunately man’s imaginative and artistic skill fashioned God to resemble himself, male and female, and some of us even elevated animals as the form to worship. Others worship some object like the sun, the moon, the earth, or nature itself. Needless to say that they all are in error, because it is not the object, or creature, or our superficial appearance or gender that bear the image of God, but it is the essence (spirit)




============================

What is a Spirit?

Are they one and the same ?

The soul is the actual life-power.

The spirit, it is life; it is the life of the soul; it includes the body and mind but not as realities of the soul.

With those statements as answers, they are not the same.
===========================

of God in us that bear the image of God.

It isn’t difficult to identify the spirit

====================================
identify the spirit
self-centred


I start this discussion out with a quote from Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology, Vol. III, pp. 38.

"The self-integration of life in the dimension of the spirit: morality, or the constitution of the personal self.--In man complete centeredness is essentially given, but it is not actually given until man actualizes it in freedom and through destiny. The act in which man actualizes his essential centeredness is the moral act. Moraity is the constitutive function of spirit. A moral act, therefore, is not an act in which some divine or human law is obeyed but an act in which life intergrates itself in the dimension of spirit, and this means as personality within a community. Morality is the function of life in which the centered self constitutes itself as a person; it is the totality of those acts in which a potentially personal life process becomes an actual person. Such acts happen continuously in a personal life; the constitution of the person as a person never comes to an end during his whole life process."
==========================
in us that bear the image of God; because he has not been hidden in some dark place, but he is in the most forefront of our lives, if anything it is his ever-exposure that makes him invisible as it were.

For with his essence we are able to think, formulate plans and be creative, to have the power of the word means to be living souls. Just consider without this Godly essence we would be like animals, living in the limitation of instinct, and not living from the essence of unlimited freedom and intelligent reason.


So the God given ability to formulate reason

=========================================
reason
For man to behave well, reasoning must be strengthened by mental and moral virtues. Moral virtues are the same as human virtues because they are with reason; it is a balance of a course of action. The rightness of reason is prudence; so prudence directs moral virtues. But prudence is a mental virtue and since it is about regulating behaviour by reason, it is the same as moral virtues.
========================
with words is what makes us in the image of God, for he created all things by the power of his word, and like him we also plan and create things out of the reasoning power of our words. The ability to speak intelligent and creative words is truly what makes us living souls; therefore it is the breath of life itself. (Genesis 2 – 7.)

We all know that man was not content with the special status that God had allotted to him, because man was enticed by Satan to covet the likeness of the wisdom of God, by knowing good and evil. Genesis 3 – 5 – 6, records the advent: “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be open, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, (gratification of the body) and that it was a delight to the eyes, (gratification of the senses) and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, (gratification of the ego) she took from its fruit and ate, and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.” And Genesis 3 – 22, confirms what took place. “Then the Lord God said, behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”

Moving a step further towards the understanding of ourselves we must realise that the source of coordinate actions of the body and precise utterances, reside in the spirit, there is no other plausible location. Have you ever searched your inner self to find the source of your words? For if you could find it you would be staring in the face of god, with a small “g” because it would be your own face you would be looking at. Our spirit has the ability to be immensely active, continually creating thought without disturbing the body, in our dreams for example, or in our private thought, he is the tenant of the body, and his presence and activity keeps our body alive, “for the body without the spirit is dead.” Our spirit and soul is so intertwined that to separate them is only possible to God.

 

[strange]

Part Two:


from post 465

We cannot see the soul but we can see and hear the affect of the soul, it can be either good or bad, because it knows both. Therefore it stands to reason to conclude that we are spiritual creatures covered with a body, (the apostle Paul calls it a tent) and our thoughts and words are the evidence that our essence bears the image of God.

A loving relationship either in the flesh or in the spirit is always based on communication; for how can anyone claim to have a relationship without talking to each other, or how can anyone fellowship with those that entertain adversary thought and or, behaviour, that cause offence to one’s own character. So the exhortation recorded in the scriptures “You shall be holy, for I am holy” is an invitation to fellowship with him.

Therefore the soul has to become holy to meet and fellowship with a holy God. Ephesians 4 – 23, is very explicit with what we have to do, for we read: “And that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind.” In other words, the soul must cleanse itself from the word of inequity, which is the integral and living evil side of our soul, which uninvited floods our mind; with the covetousness of immorality, boastfulness, jealousy, greed, fear, anger, envy and ambition.

However with the guidance of the Holy Spirit abiding in us, we are now able to suppress and put to death our unclean and undisciplined thoughts. And replace them with the discipline of love: With its manifestation of joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, meekness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Wisdom also demands that we understand the complex identity of our soul, which is formed by the spirit of our conscience, and the spirit of our mind, sharing control over our will and body, but the most important part of the soul is our conscience. For it is an independent judge of all that we do or say, it is also a passive but persuasive controller of our unfolding lives. (Man or woman without a conscience unquestionably would tend to be an evil person, and unfortunately there are many in the world whom have no conscience.)


God = Wisdom
=========================================================================

On the other hand the spirit of our mind is a calculating self-centred personality, reacting to the world’s unfolding opportunities of possible gains, fear, and desires, often overriding the better judgement of the conscience. But through our conscience’s retrospective judgement and shame for past evil words or deeds, we learn that the spirit of our mind in its natural state is a slave of corruption, sold into bondage to sin. The apostle Paul said in Romans 7 – 15, “For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practising what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.” According to that we are sinners because in our unregenerate state we have no effective control of our will. But now with the accomplished work of redemption of our Lord, and the gift of his grace he has set our will free; therefore we are now no longer obligated to obey sin. As 1st Peter 4 – 2, also says, “So as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God.”

To have our will freed from the shackles of sin is very important to God, for he sacrificed his son to redeem the freedom of our will. But only at our request he sends the spirit of his son into our heart to sanctify our conscience, and thereby setting the conscience free from condemnation for past sins. Also giving our conscience the right to change the course of our life, and to enter the consciousness of God’s truth. Hebrews 10 – 1 to 18 is explicit for it says among other things: “For having once been cleansed we would have no longer consciousness of sins.”

Our body is also fundamental to worship God, 1st Corinthians 6 – 18 to 20, is very explicit in describing the importance of our body for it says. “Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.”

At our request our body has become a vessel in which God dwells. But now it has to be made holy by the strength and determination of our new sanctified conscience, because we now are able to put to death the body’s unholy appetites, as Romans 12 – 1 – 2 says, “I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable (useful) to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.” The importance of keeping our body holy is obvious, for God will not openly use a defiled vessel.

Without a doubt, if we have exercised the new freedom and power of our sanctified conscience, and grasped the importance of our body as the vessel of God, and made his mind our own, we have inadvertently already experienced the joy ofworshipping in spirit and truth.(Or consciousness of holiness)

As I said before, the above glorious cleansing of our body and soul is only possible through the gift of freedom of our will, brought about by the presence in our conscience of the Holy Spirit. Our gratitude and thanksgiving belongs to him, who is our priest, and advocate, who also patiently lead us back to our God and father. Having therefore by his grace reached sanctification, of our spirit, (conscience) of our soul, (mind) and of our body, (vessel) we can now have the living hope of fellowship and enter beyond the veil of holiness in the presence of our God and father.

The attitude of worship will express, respect, obedience, and service, all wrapped in an uncovetous loving relationship with our Heavenly Father so that we may know his will, regarding the work of service that we must zealously render on his behalf to our fellow men. Because, if we have been sanctified completely, in other words “if we are dead to sin and sin is death to us” the love that God holds for the human race has become our own, and we have become partners with his son Jesus Christ to spread among men the gospel of salvation.

Because “Truth” in God’s eyes is not only that which is contrary to falsehood, but it is also a state of existence, therefore, the day will come when only “Truth” will exist in eternity. Then we can confidently say that“Truth” is a state of unchanging holiness, the essence of God to which we by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ have become partakers.

In John 14 – 6, Jesus said, “I am the ‘Way’, the ‘Truth’, and the ‘Life’; no one comes to the father, but through me”. Yes!
He is the “Way” because we must follow the footsteps of his earthly life = repentance
He is the “Truth” because he is the embodiment of unchanging holiness = God
He is also the “Life” because he is the eternal Word = life

It is fitting for the wisdom of God to sum it all up with this one phrase.
“God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Glory to God

 

[strange]

Part Three:


All these things, the catalogue of virtues, are instilled virtues. God needs no help by us to apply these virtues. The virtues are within us all.

What needs to be understood here is that this catalogue is this goal that I mentioned in my last post on "Morality." Especially when one reads the catalogue of vices. I once wrote, "The catalogue of vices and virtues is the correct categorization in the determination as to whether the above are immoral sexual acts." The above, sexual acts begins with saying, "Simply, homosexuals may or may not be immoral [sinful]." The same is true about business, helping professionals, one's work. And this list can go on.

If we were to take the short list of catalogue of vices and equate that list with only the acts they define; then we have wrongly interpreted God's Word to mean only those acts. But the catalogue does not only address those specific acts, instead the catalogue addresses the behaviour that relates to all sin. The catalogue encompasses all behaviours. Like avoiding family or wife by being a workaholic. Or having an affair. Both demonstrate avoidance, deceit, lies, etc.

Since virtues, whether mental or moral are intimately tied to human reason and prudence one can begin to see that which we, as humans, are created in the likeness of God's goodness. It is our lot to help one another. It is our lot for prudent morals. Morals with goals to govern ethics and laws.

free spirit
In Galatians 5: 22 to 25, we read,"But the fruits of the spirit is love joy, peace, patience, kindness goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."
So Mr Cheese, if you do the above things you fulfill the law, as Christ did. And if you want to belong to him, all you have to do is crucify your flesh by denying its passions and desires.

fruits of the spirit is love[,]joy, peace, patience, kindness and goodness

spirit = love, joy, peace, patience, kindness and goodness, etc.,

These attributes describe what one's spirit is about. First, one's spirit is the image of God. Secondly, one's spirit is how we conduct ourselves. Thirdly, one's spirit is our morality.

For Tillich, the function of Christ is two fold: The forgiveness of sin in baptism and the avoidance of sin through asceticism.

Medical doctors are practitioners. We avoid sin by how we practice, how we live our lives. We live by virtues (catalog of virtue,) the image of God, ability to reason and prudence. This is our morality. Homosexuality does not describe immorality. But lies and deceit do describe immorality.

One's spirit, one's morality is about our relationship.

Immorality vs. spirit
flesh vs. morality
flesh = sarx = self

===============================
You should know that love is the character of God. And that love is expressed by us in the following manner. 1st. Corinthians 13: 4 to 8; we read, "Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act umbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. love never fails."
Again Mr Cheese if you do all of the above you are one with God, there is no other way in which you can be any closer.


The only words that i take from others I take from the bible, the rest are my thought.
what is the number of the post that has the same ideas please!


I've listed these posts, marked words in your posts by highlighting those words. Cut and pasted those words with my post.


“the rest are my thought.”
I am the author of the quote, which is not a quote.
Thomas Aquinas and Augustine have no place in the bible, therefore they are as important as I am.


Well, there you go, see that your thoughts, as those thoughts of men far more knowledgeable on the subject of theology,philosophy and the Bible are by your own words, at least as important. So who is right concerning absolute truths? Do I believe what is of great importance to you or to Aquinas or Augustine? What religion is the true religion? What Christian denomination; Protestant or Catholic, Lutheran or Baptist, Pentecostal or Episcopalian?


No I know that I have the absolute truth because By his grace I have the ability to correct the errors that are in the bible.

I know that there are others with greater knowledge than yours that correct the Bible. And by your own admission, the Bible is in error. Therefore, not the Word of God. And in the need of a better translation, reinterpretation and new exegesis.
Because I believe that your ([my]) description of morality is no morality at all, but it is licentiousness.
=================================

My description of morality, is that of Aquinas and Tillich. Many of the words highlighted in your posts are used to describe morality as I have sited in Aquinas and Tillich. How is it that you can deny the definitions of such use of words and terms?
=================================

Your wife exercise tells me one thing, those people did not know God at all.

=========================================================================
Hence my point. No one understands God. God gave you a spirit, reason and the ability to read, translate, interpret the Bible. No one can read the Bible without interpreting it. There is a long history of Christian thought that were attempts at understanding God. Some understandings have prevailed and are still being questioned. So, is your interpretation any more right than mine? Maybe you think that one of us has to be right? Sorry, but neither of us has to be right. Nobody gets it right. But somebody has to use reason, their spirit, God given and the image of God.

I ask you, did God say that you were right in your interpretation of the Bible?

 

[blackout]

Poly relationships/marriages are some of the most considerate I've seen.

And the most giving.

Did I mention unselfish?

 

[strange]

Did I mention unselfish?

I'm guessing, no jealousy either.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

And we are just supposed to take the word on ethics of someone who thought that masturbation was a greater sin/evil than rape and incest? Pass!


MTF

 

[blackout]

And we are just supposed to take the word on ethics of someone who thought that masturbation was a greater sin/evil than rape and incest? Pass!


MTF

Who thought that?!

 

[Alceste]

Who thought that?!

Whoever wrote the Bible.