Female Vs Male Homosexuality

[IshChayil]

What's interesting is that Romans 13 describing the biblical definition of true government does not mention breaking laws or committing crimes, but doing good and evil. The only authority any government has is derived from good and evil: they only have the authority to say No to what God has said No to. God says, "Do good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." So when you marry more than one wife, and someone's not happy, that's not your true government talking with authority from God, just confused or outright evil people who have far overstepped rightful governing into oppression and dictatorship, which we may obey for the same reason Jesus paid some token tribute money, though he told Peter it was actually not right that it was asked for.

And for those who talk about things like traffic regulations, here's a thought: owning roads has nothing to do with bearing the sword against evildoers: roads should be private property, and as such if the owner allows you to come on his land and use his road, he has the right to set any terms and conditions he wants, even saying that only pink cars are allowed on his road. But really once private companies have the roads, they have to compete with each other to make both safe and easy to follow regulations, or else they go out of business.

I only replied to this because of your signature "have you not read what David did?"
This is again a case of pakuach-nefesh (life-risk) where rabbis & Yeshua concurs, it's ok to break almost any Law of G-d to save a life; in David and his hungry soldiers' case, it's their own lives.
A weak soldier with no energy is a dead soldier. Sorry if this is in the wrong thread, I just wanted to respond to your signature and it's in the same thread where I discussed life-risk in interpreting Paul; I hope that's OK.

 

[Keith Martin]

Thanks.

 

[FollowingHim]

Also, the minor laws such as one way streets, speed limits, laws about drinking and driving, etc are created for the purpose of protecting you and your neighbor. These laws do not contradict scripture so how can you argue that we as a people have no right to make basic laws for protection and to improve our quality of life? It sounds like you all believe yourselves to be above the governing laws all together. But if the government was ordained by God as a means to maintain life and to uphold His law, than are we not obligated to follow these laws? If I have misunderstood anyone's position please tell me.

Answering the bolded part: No, certainly not.

Road rules for instance, as you have said, exist for the purpose of protecting people. They are an application of "love thy neighbour as yourself". They are an attempt to take this basic principle and apply it to a modern setting. Whether they are optimal is obviously debatable (it is entirely reasonable political discourse to debate whether a speed limit should be X or Y, for instance), and the precise details change over time because there is no "right" or "wrong" answer, this is a judgement call. However, they should be obeyed, and the government does have a moral authority to enforce them, because their purpose is just and the fact that they do generally keep people safer is obvious (the fact we all drive on the same side of the road, for instance, obviously enhances safety, and the fact we all obey the same rules on the road makes driver behaviour predictable to others and helps us all avoid accidents even if some details of those rules are debatable).

But that doesn't mean that disobeying the regulation is a sin. Rather, endangering your neighbour would be a sin - the regulation is simply a way of avoiding endangering your neighbour. If you do something that technically breaks the regulation, but does not endanger your neighbour, I cannot see how that could be called sinful. For instance, driving the wrong way a short distance up a one-way-street when there is no other traffic. You would only do this when it saved an enormous amount of driving time - which means you are avoiding driving right around a block through several intersections, all of which there is a risk of an accident at. Your action is reducing your time on the road, reducing the risk to your neighbour, and actually working to achieve the PURPOSE of the regulation even if it technically breaches the letter of it. This is common sense. The regulations exist for a purpose, and where that purpose is irrelevant the regulation is irrelevant. That is what I meant by "it gets a bit ridiculous if you take this so far that it defies common sense".

Likewise, if you are so adamant about obeying the regulation that you insist on obeying the precise detail of the law even though this actually endangers your neighbour in those specific circumstances, then you've also missed the point and defied common sense. For example, insisting on reporting your neighbour to the authorities for an action that harmed nobody else but was technically a breach of the regulations (let's say driving the wrong way up a one-way street, or maybe growing illegal medicinal herbs in his garden). By doing this you would be endangering your neighbour (in this case placing them at risk of harm via the legal system), for no valid purpose, and this would be sinful as a breach of "love thy neighbour as yourself" even though it was entirely legal, even demanded by law.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Likewise, if you are so adamant about obeying the regulation that you insist on obeying the precise detail of the law even though this actually endangers your neighbour in those specific circumstances, then you've also missed the point and defied common sense.

A real life example of this I can share. A hunter I know allowed someone he was with to shoot an animal when he had not yet paid for the tag. The man went the next day and bought the inexpensive tag so he could let the fish and game regulatory agency know he had taken the animal. The hunter when asked if the man had the tag when he shot the critter said no, got himself fined and his license pulled, got his friend fined. The spirit of the law would be responsible hunting or being aware of how many are taken. There is not a limit on how many can be shot. The hunter should have prevented the friend if he believed it was wrong, and protected him when asked. Not allow him and then bringing judgement and consequences upon him.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Rahab "lied" and was rewarded supernaturally by YHWH. It did not hurt anyone to help the men escape. The hunter I know might have considered that story and made a different choice.

 

[Joleneakamama]

It sounds like you all believe yourselves to be above the governing laws all together.

We believe in keeping the higher law to the best of our ability. The golden rule is a good thing to live by, but can still get complicated by variations in individuals that might both be lawful, but can offend someone with a different personal standard (think manners, etiquette or personal preference).

Here is something to consider. Would you call your dog obedient if he came when you called him at dinner time and ignored you at other times? How about a child that only obeys when they want to?

I cannot understand why Christians say we should be subject to man's law and man made government, UNLESS it is in conflict with God's law. Why not just say that we SHOULD obey YHWH's laws statutes and judgments? That is affirmed in the new testament.
As much as lies within you live at peace with all men, but those that believe in playing "Simon says" with our creator's world really don't have His Authority backing them.
The Red Queen is having her day ...perhaps so the world can see she deserves the judgment coming, but some see her fruit sooner then others and try and tell folks ...."the emperor has no clothes."

For some serious meat for thought try reading a christian perspective from an earlier time. Lysander Spooner wrote "Natural Law" and "No Treason."

We are like boiled frogs when generation after generation acquiesce to political correctness, or man's changing standards.

 

[bluearrow89]

We believe in keeping the higher law to the best of our ability. The golden rule is a good thing to live by, but can still get complicated by variations in individuals that might both be lawful, but can offend someone with a different personal standard (think manners, etiquette or personal preference).

Here is something to consider. Would you call your dog obedient if he came when you called him at dinner time and ignored you at other times? How about a child that only obeys when they want to?

I cannot understand why Christians say we should be subject to man's law and man made government, UNLESS it is in conflict with God's law. Why not just say that we SHOULD obey YHWH's laws statutes and judgments? That is affirmed in the new testament.
As much as lies within you live at peace with all men, but those that believe in playing "Simon says" with our creator's world really don't have His Authority backing them.
The Red Queen is having her day ...perhaps so the world can see she deserves the judgment coming, but some see her fruit sooner then others and try and tell folks ...."the emperor has no clothes."

For some serious meat for thought try reading a christian perspective from an earlier time. Lysander Spooner wrote "Natural Law" and "No Treason."

We are like boiled frogs when generation after generation acquiesce to political correctness, or man's changing standards.

Because God ordained the governments, that is why we follow the government law unless it contradicts God's law. If God ordained it, it is God's law.

 

[bluearrow89]

A real life example of this I can share. A hunter I know allowed someone he was with to shoot an animal when he had not yet paid for the tag. The man went the next day and bought the inexpensive tag so he could let the fish and game regulatory agency know he had taken the animal. The hunter when asked if the man had the tag when he shot the critter said no, got himself fined and his license pulled, got his friend fined. The spirit of the law would be responsible hunting or being aware of how many are taken. There is not a limit on how many can be shot. The hunter should have prevented the friend if he believed it was wrong, and protected him when asked. Not allow him and then bringing judgement and consequences upon him.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Rahab "lied" and was rewarded supernaturally by YHWH. It did not hurt anyone to help the men escape. The hunter I know might have considered that story and made a different choice.

The spirit of the law regarding deer tags are to keep track and manage what is harvested, gain a tax income from it. I'm not saying I agree with the need to buy tags first, but that is besides the point. They want you to buy tags first so they get the revenue whether or not you fill your tags. Jesus said to render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers. This is no different. So the hunters didn't obey the spirit of the law, only what they perceived it to be.

 

[FollowingHim]

The spirit of the law regarding deer tags are to keep track and manage what is harvested, gain a tax income from it. ... So the hunters didn't obey the spirit of the law

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

They precisely obeyed exactly what you just stated the "spirit of the law" is. They were very conscientious in ensuring they purchased a tag, extremely promptly, in order to allow government tracking and management of what is harvested and to pay the taxes, exactly as you have said, and "render unto Caeser what is Caeser's". They recognised the purpose of the law and followed it - if they did not recognise the purpose of the law, they wouldn't have gone and purchased a tag at all - and I'm sure they would have been very unlikely to be discovered. It is only because of their strong intent to follow the law that they suffered any ill consequences from the technicality of the timing of their tag purchase, combined with their complete honesty regarding the circumstances.

Is it right for someone to be punished for honesty, while dishonesty would be rewarded (the dishonest man would get tax-free meat)?

 

[bluearrow89]

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

They precisely obeyed exactly what you just stated the "spirit of the law" is. They were very conscientious in ensuring they purchased a tag, extremely promptly, in order to allow government tracking and management of what is harvested and to pay the taxes, exactly as you have said, and "render unto Caeser what is Caeser's". They recognised the purpose of the law and followed it - if they did not recognise the purpose of the law, they wouldn't have gone and purchased a tag at all - and I'm sure they would have been very unlikely to be discovered. It is only because of their strong intent to follow the law that they suffered any ill consequences from the technicality of the timing of their tag purchase, combined with their complete honesty regarding the circumstances.

Is it right for someone to be punished for honesty, while dishonesty would be rewarded (the dishonest man would get tax-free meat)?

He is not legally allowed to hunt or shoot a deer without a tag. There is a huge revenue difference if only the successful hunters pay for a tag. If they would have been caught by a warden while deer hunting without a tag even before making the kill, there would still have been a fine. But I also don't see where God says you only need to obey the spirit of the laws made by My ordained authorities. Ordained authority means God given authority, therefore would we not strive to follow it as we would all other commandments God made?

 

[FollowingHim]

He is not legally allowed to hunt or shoot a deer without a tag. There is a huge revenue difference if only the successful hunters pay for a tag. If they would have been caught by a warden while deer hunting without a tag even before making the kill, there would still have been a fine.

What is the primary purpose of such tags? Is it to manage a resource, or get revenue by selling more tags than are used? It cannot be for both. Because if the system expects to sell more tags than are used, then they will have no idea how many animals are actually killed. Their tag-sale stats will be completely meaningless for conservation purposes. Therefore, any system that is truly intended for wildlife management must be set up to sell approximately the same number of tags as animals that are killed. If that is the case, the only difference in buying a tag before or after shooting an animal is a a matter of a few weeks, so the taxation loss is a matter of a few cents maximum (the interest that would have been earned on that money had it arrived a few weeks earlier).

Therefore if the purpose is conservation / wildlife management etc, the hunters precisely obeyed the spirit of the law. If the real purpose is excessive revenue gathering through excessive tag sales with no care about wildlife management they didn't obey that spirit, but the extortion of excessive taxation is hardly a noble purpose that should be promoted...

There is a deeper issue at play here.

It is over-legalism that results in communist snitches. Every communist society keeps the populace under control by empowering the "do-gooders" in society to fix all their naughty neighbours / family members / friends by reporting them to the authorities.

I would certainly hope that people would be faithful to God's law ahead of the government's law when it came to actual persecution of Christians. However, we know that is not the case, both from contemporary examples and because Jesus clearly prophecied that even close family members will betray each other to death (Matthew 10:21, Mark 13:12).

If people are in the habit of obeying every last detail of what the government says, regardless of whether it makes logical sense, it will be very difficult for them to change this habit at the last minute when it really matters. Some will not change, and people will die, as prophecied. We must always keep in mind the true purpose of law and hold it loosely enough in our minds that we are always making a free choice to obey because obedience has a real practical purpose, not an instinctive one to obey just because the government said so, so that when the time comes when disobedience is necessary we will be able to do that without hesitation at that critical point.

 

[bluearrow89]

What is the primary purpose of such tags? Is it to manage a resource, or get revenue by selling more tags than are used? It cannot be for both. Because if the system expects to sell more tags than are used, then they will have no idea how many animals are actually killed. Their tag-sale stats will be completely meaningless for conservation purposes. Therefore, any system that is truly intended for wildlife management must be set up to sell approximately the same number of tags as animals that are killed. If that is the case, the only difference in buying a tag before or after shooting an animal is a a matter of a few weeks, so the taxation loss is a matter of a few cents maximum (the interest that would have been earned on that money had it arrived a few weeks earlier).

Therefore if the purpose is conservation / wildlife management etc, the hunters precisely obeyed the spirit of the law. If the real purpose is excessive revenue gathering through excessive tag sales with no care about wildlife management they didn't obey that spirit, but the extortion of excessive taxation is hardly a noble purpose that should be promoted...

There is a deeper issue at play here.

It is over-legalism that results in communist snitches. Every communist society keeps the populace under control by empowering the "do-gooders" in society to fix all their naughty neighbours / family members / friends by reporting them to the authorities.

I would certainly hope that people would be faithful to God's law ahead of the government's law when it came to actual persecution of Christians. However, we know that is not the case, both from contemporary examples and because Jesus clearly prophecied that even close family members will betray each other to death (Matthew 10:21, Mark 13:12).

If people are in the habit of obeying every last detail of what the government says, regardless of whether it makes logical sense, it will be very difficult for them to change this habit at the last minute when it really matters. Some will not change, and people will die, as prophecied. We must always keep in mind the true purpose of law and hold it loosely enough in our minds that we are always making a free choice to obey because obedience has a real practical purpose, not an instinctive one to obey just because the government said so, so that when the time comes when disobedience is necessary we will be able to do that without hesitation at that critical point.

That's just the point though, we follow the law of the government because God said to. Not because we are loyal to a government or system but rather to God and His commands. For people to turn their backs on family is not a reflection of habit but rather a disassociation with their zeal and service to God.

 

[FollowingHim]

But deeply ingrained habits make it harder to change direction fast enough, when needed. The problem is when obedience to God and obedience to government become too closely connected psychologically, making it difficult to disassociate the two in time of need. Thus the need to view this from a careful perspective.

 

[bluearrow89]

B

But deeply ingrained habits make it harder to change direction fast enough, when needed. Thus the need to find a balance here.

But if our lives are centered on God and not the law, than our habits will be to follow God not the law. The small things like one way streets, deer tags, and speed limits are not going to pose any issues when they become habitual. If I am starving to death I will be shooting a deer, if I need to get someone to the hospital in an emergency situation, I will speed. Habit is not the same as being dependent on the laws created. If someone turns their back on a family member, it is an issue with their relationship and devotion to God.

 

[bluearrow89]

I feel like this is turning into an endless circle. I agree on some points and have definitely learned from everyones input. I feel like I have confused some people or have been misunderstood so I would like to just make a quick summery of my beliefs on this topic.
I am loyal and obedient to my God, He has commanded me to obey the authorities He has ordained, and I will obey these authorities until they cross the lines God set.

 

[cubanito]

How about external things like steamy novels and artifacts creating distraction?

 

[Joleneakamama]

When Jesus confronted Peter about speaking for his master about paying taxes He stated that then the children of the kingdom are free indeed. But so we don't offend them, go catch a fish and take the money in its mouth and give it to them for you and me. (Paraphrasing the story)

David was a prophet priest and king, and a shadow of the king that was to come. He was anointed to be king a long time before he was seated on the throne and recognized AS king by all. Likewise Yeshua/Jesus has been given all Authority already, but is not yet reigning in a way that causes all to recognize him AS king.

David had some men with him before he was on the throne. They endured some hardships to stand with him while Saul was still in power, but did they do wrong in honoring the anointed one instead of the one out of favor with YHWH?

People seem to expect God to just fix it all instantly at some point, but the scriptures liken the establishing of the kingdom to birth through labor with pangs.....not a knock ya out with drugs and wake up after it's over.

The apostles preached a new King! The world tells us that same king has put polishittans in charge and we should pay taxes that fund abortion and war and we should pray for people they call our leaders (they are supposed to be servants I thought) that are basically priests of baal who are as corrupt as can be.......

We need to look at substance and fruit and quit letting career preachers of government incorporated businesses masquerading as the called out assembly of the saints of the household of YHWH tell us what is right in YHWH's eyes.

YHWH's authority is what all believers in Yeshua have to do right and manifest His kingdom on earth. It is not like a magic wand that gets passed down by descent like the Catholics believe, nor was "priesthood" restored by the founders of the Mormon church. People think man, and man made organisations, can ordain and make priests. They make priests and disciples all right.....but what kingdom do they manifest and build? What is the fruit?
Romans 13 applied the way most teach is like giving the most corrupt group of power hungry men status as holy and set apart ruling for YHWH. He uses them all to work His purposes.....but would you say that Joseph's brothers did right when they sold their own brother as a slave?? Greedy politicians do not have it in their lying carcasses to do right....they don't even know what right is. They are ministers for YHWH of the curses in Deut. 28 and when their work is complete and they are seen for what they are....when the people repent and turn back to the One that can save us.....then things will get better.
My uncle shared this video. I will wrap up with my comment back to him on the video.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CAiMH0sAvl5/
Interesting....but I don't buy a word of it. I particularly disagree with the end point of the speech where he says that the only thing strong enough to save america is the people and him. Man's arrogance knows no bounds! Until people repent of putting their trust in polishittans and turn back to God things will only get worse... they will get the america they deserve.....but it won't be quite what is being promised. 'Nuff said.

 

[Patrick Lauser]

Also, the minor laws such as one way streets, speed limits, laws about drinking and driving, etc are created for the purpose of protecting you and your neighbor. These laws do not contradict scripture so how can you argue that we as a people have no right to make basic laws for protection and to improve our quality of life?

In a biblical society where the government, as ministers of God, fulfilled their actual role and "attended continually on this very thing", they would not be doing random other things, like roads and schools and post. Government would not be making the regulations (I hope I'm not just repeating myself), the regulations would be made by the owners of the roads, as the "Terms and Conditions of Use", and the government would only enforce the keeping of contracts including such Terms and Conditions. If the government tried to tell someone how fast cars could be allowed to drive on that person's own property, which the roads would be, it would be obvious oppression. In our case it is not the regulations that are tyranny, it's the fact that a governing body owns the roads, little different from a private company coercing people to use only their services and to pay for them whether used or not.

Oh, and about drinking and driving it would fall under the moral case law of the dangerous bull. If a drunk driver caused a crash which resulted in a death he would usually be worthy of death according to God's law.

This is again a case of pakuach-nefesh (life-risk) where rabbis & Yeshua concurs

It is speculative though I can see where there could have been a life-risk involved. However Yeshua using David's case in tandem with how the priests were commanded to do their work on the Sabbath, then following through with "here is one greater than the Temple", shows his point was clearly that law adds to law, that when the law says "do this" it can also in a specific case say "but here do this", and that like David had authority as a prophet and as the Temple had authority in its duties he also had authority to give his judgement in a specific case.
The intention with the quote is to show up how unbiblical is the modern idea that the words David wrote, like the Psalms he wrote, are inspired, yet his actions, like marrying multiple wives, are not inspired.

steamy novels

This may be heading off topic, but I think there should be steamy novels depicting wholesome married life. Of course what you're referring to is glorification of promiscuity - besides being artistically and romantically unappealing (nearly always repulsive no doubt), I would say that for some people (probably most of those who would actually want to read such things) they would fall under: "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge." - Proverbs 19, and no doubt: "Be not thou envious against evil men, neither desire to be with them." - Proverbs 24, not to mention a terrible waste of time.

 

[FollowingHim]

I feel like this is turning into an endless circle. I agree on some points and have definitely learned from everyones input. I feel like I have confused some people or have been misunderstood so I would like to just make a quick summery of my beliefs on this topic.
I am loyal and obedient to my God, He has commanded me to obey the authorities He has ordained, and I will obey these authorities until they cross the lines God set.

I think that in practice we would agree 99% of the time when it comes to actual behaviour (obedience to laws and regulations). We're just looking at it from different angles and thinking different thoughts while we obey, for reasons that do matter. I think those different angles have been explained adequately at this point.

 

[cubanito]

In a biblical society where the government, as ministers of God, fulfilled their actual role and "attended continually on this very thing", they would not be doing random other things, like roads and schools and post. Government would not be making the regulations (I hope I'm not just repeating myself), the regulations would be made by the owners of the roads, as the "Terms and Conditions of Use", and the government would only enforce the keeping of contracts including such Terms and Conditions. If the government tried to tell someone how fast cars could be allowed to drive on that person's own property, which the roads would be, it would be obvious oppression. In our case it is not the regulations that are tyranny, it's the fact that a governing body owns the roads, little different from a private company coercing people to use only their services and to pay for them whether used or not.

Oh, and about drinking and driving it would fall under the moral case law of the dangerous bull. If a drunk driver caused a crash which resulted in a death he would usually be worthy of death according to God's law.


It is speculative though I can see where there could have been a life-risk involved. However Yeshua using David's case in tandem with how the priests were commanded to do their work on the Sabbath, then following through with "here is one greater than the Temple", shows his point was clearly that law adds to law, that when the law says "do this" it can also in a specific case say "but here do this", and that like David had authority as a prophet and as the Temple had authority in its duties he also had authority to give his judgement in a specific case.
The intention with the quote is to show up how unbiblical is the modern idea that the words David wrote, like the Psalms he wrote, are inspired, yet his actions, like marrying multiple wives, are not inspired.


This may be heading off topic, but I think there should be steamy novels depicting wholesome married life. Of course what you're referring to is glorification of promiscuity - besides being artistically and romantically unappealing (nearly always repulsive no doubt), I would say that for some people (probably most of those who would actually want to read such things) they would fall under: "Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge." - Proverbs 19, and no doubt: "Be not thou envious against evil men, neither desire to be with them." - Proverbs 24, not to mention a terrible waste of time.

Yes twisted "romance" fantacy and other distracting programming. This one is equivalent to porn for men. Just as addictive. If you call it waste of life, you are judging, they say.

 

[cubanito]

Because God ordained the governments, that is why we follow the government law unless it contradicts God's law. If God ordained it, it is God's law.

Many now contradict God as a norm, many with man made beastie want to be god. The false prophets still teach to obey the beast, God put them here (along with satan) for you. Line up and get your rna editing shots, don't worry, rapture will make it all better. We won't be responsable for those choices. We will suddendly go to that free all you can eat supper in heaven. They actually teach something like that.. Lol
Come; we have smooth words for you in this institution, and a cemetery right next door for you, if you are extra good. For now, free icecream will do.