tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17552619.post1113065661504924009..comments2023-12-22T02:34:28.506-08:00Comments on DCNY: Tony Seelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15751662054424993371noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17552619.post-2659831938540804022013-06-15T15:29:50.311-07:002013-06-15T15:29:50.311-07:00Steve, I used to argue with some of our liberals (...Steve, I used to argue with some of our liberals (now gone from us) that Israel's conquests were of land promised to them by God, but at least one of them didn't buy this. Of course, Muslims can make the same claim. <br /><br />I think that you nail the complimentarian part of human sexuality. I also argue from creation and I will probably be working on an essay on this next week.Tony Seelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751662054424993371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17552619.post-28322611274968840872013-06-15T12:48:02.533-07:002013-06-15T12:48:02.533-07:00An interesting article that goes to show the flaws...An interesting article that goes to show the flaws of modern interpretation. Of course, there will be some who will try to compare the war and conquests of the Old Testament (ie David and the Philistines, Joshua etc.) to the conquests of Islam. But there are at least two differences. 1) Israel's conquest was limited to the land that the Lord had promised them through the covenant with Abraham and was restricted to the boundaries God had given them. In Islam the conquest was through using expansionary militant force to spread their religion worldwide. 2) Jesus Christ became the fulfillment of the covenant by introducing a new covenant by breaking down the walls of hostility by producing one new person in Christ. Without Christ being the fulfillment of God's redemptive plan, the Old Testament would not make sense. It was necessary that the Israelites received the land so that from that land would come a redeemer. Jesus' so-called conquest was a conquest of reconciliation and love, not on coercion and was brought about by the proclamation of the gospel. Unfortunately there are times that the so-called church forgot that message and resorted to coercion (such as the Crusades and the Inquisition), but this was not the teachings of the New Testament.<br /> As for the sexuality issue, I think the article does an excellent job in discussing the relationship of Christ and the church. But I also think there is another piece that must be explored. If we hold to God being the Creator then one must admit that males and females were created for each other and that one cannot compartmentalize the physical from the spiritual and mental aspects of sexual union. To put it quite frankly, the male parts of the body are meant to complement the female parts of the body and vice versa. In creation, there is no way that two males or two females can have a natural union. If we believe in the creation of a human body holistically, the physical aspects of a human body and the emotional are inseparable. To merely reduce the Bible's teachings on the premise that Jesus didn't talk about it or Paul was referring to prostitution defies the laws of creation and the perfect way males and females could join together physically, emotionally and spiritually.<br /><br /><br />4T..I-40 blog with Steve Reynolds, Church Consultanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17799220998553008389noreply@blogger.com