I appreciate Doug's attempt to get me off the hook. And yet I will boldly go where no SDA has gone before. I was indeed speaking of sensuality of the dangerous kind. I think we could open the door a little to sentimental breath sounds during singing. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to see oneself as being in love with God.
Eve opened a dangerous door as well and all humanity is reaping the consequences. What you are saying resembles Hvveth William's discourse "How to Have Sex With God." A truly close relationship with God is one where self and the love of the world is given up. That is far better than some seductive groan. Obedience is the highest form of worship. I think Doug knew what kind of sensuality we were talking about.
there may be something antithetical between sexuality and holiness, given exodus 19:15, in which moses commanded the israelites to refrain from sex during the period leading up to their meeting god and receiving the ten commandments...i know, years ago, steve wallace seemed to think all sexuality was inappropriate for people living in the anti-typical day of atonement...but my understanding is that the north pacific union conference refuted wallace's views, and he's now disfellowshipped (i could be wrong on this last point)... in my own experience, when i'm closest to god in prayer - when i can feel myself receiving love, joy, and peace from the holy spirit - anything sexual feels completely inappropriate...the feelings in sexuality and holiness don't mix...
If holiness and sexuality do not mix, how is it that a holy God created perfect human beings with sexuality?
Holiness and sexuality most certainly do/should "mix." But they shouldn't mix in a setting of corporate worship.
colporteur wrote, >A truly close relationship with God is one where self and the love of the world is given up. Absolutely. But God doesn't leave us empty. He doesn't just take the ice out of the back room, He replaces it with a warm fire. However I think a seductive groan is way over the top. Jeremy, that would be sad about Steve. I liked _Take Three_. About ten years ago I was worried about him. He was preaching holiness and his demeanor was up tight. Something seemed to be bothering him. I must admit, as I of right now, sexuality is hard to reconcile with holiness. So, Kenneth, how do you solve the Exodus 19:15 conundrum? Three days of corporate worship?
that is definitely sad about steve...i understand he lives in montana still, and i've thought of driving down to see him...i heard him for the first time when i was just a kid...he made a big impression on me...he struck me then as someone who was really interested in being saved...he had such a no-nonsense, earnest approach that was contagious... as for sexuality and holiness, i'd love an explanation of why jesus didn't leave an example of perfect sexuality...as i see it, he never had sex of any kind at any time...this also tends to suggest that sexuality and holiness are not compatible...
I can see God now, "Be fruitful and multiply,...Uh,...well,...never mind that last part. Actually, come to think of it,...there you go, have a nice little nap,...while I rearrange one or two things here,...there we go. Now, let's try that again, Be fruitfu,...I mean,...Enjoy!" Several minutes later, "Oops, I need to change the animals too, before they notice!"
> @georgethe54th > So, Kenneth, how do you solve the Exodus 19:15 conundrum? Three days of corporate worship? I did get a good laugh from that one George. > @jeremyvandieman > i'd love an explanation of why jesus didn't leave an example of perfect sexuality…as i see it, he never had sex of any kind at any time…this also tends to suggest that sexuality and holiness are not compatible… There's no conundrum George. Exodus 19.15 is an example of a prescribed version of 1 Cor 7.5. If you mean a conundrum in the sense that 3 days is a long time, well,..."add to your patience..." And Jeremy, I think 1 Cor 7.5 should help answer your question about Christ's example. The idea that holiness and sexuality are incompatible is not logical (as Matthew and I have pointed out above), it's not biblical (Hebrews 13.4), and it really evinces a considerable immaturity. Notice the marriage bed is undefiled. What does that mean? It means it is compatible with the highest holiness man has ever had or ever will have.
Jesus most certainly did leave an example of holy sexuality, through His actions and through His teachings. Jesus lived a pure life, setting the example for how all of us should live when we are not married. And His teachings on marriage show us how God expects us to conduct ourselves when we're married. Jesus taught that even looking at a woman lustfully is adultery; sin begins in the thoughts, not merely the actions (Matt. 5:28). And He taught that divorce was never part of God's original plan. What God has joined together in one flesh, let no one separate (Matt. 19:6). If God joins a husband and wife into one flesh, how can sexuality not be holy? Can God create anything unholy? Scripture says unequivocally, no (1 John 1:5). There are numerous reasons why Jesus never married. First of all, He was a unique Person, fully divine and fully human. Don't you think that would complicate things when it came time to "be fruitful and multiply"? What would have happened to His children? They would have been worshiped as demigods. Imagine the theological conundrum that would have left us with. The fact that Jesus never married certainly does not mean that marriage and holiness are incompatible. Jesus never did many things that we do today. He did not speak English. He did not wear suits and ties. He did not drive a car. He had no permanent home. Should we return to living like a 1st-century Palestinian in order to best reflect Jesus' holiness?
"Jesus taught that even looking at a woman lustfully is adultery" when we consider that adultery really is in the mind and heart, in addition to actions, i think it must be quite challenging to be married...especially in a moment of disagreement that may spill over into an argument, or perhaps a moment of disappointment or disillusionment, and the feeling that your life isn't yours anymore - and then comes an unexpected opportunity that satan plants in your way...wow...my hat goes off to everyone who's a successful, faithful husband...
> @matthewshallenberger > Jesus taught that even looking at a woman lustfully is adultery Matthew, be careful here. I have seen this error contribute to the divorce of several family members and those of way too many Christians I have counseled with. Jesus did not teach that lust is adultery, He taught that lust is adultery in the heart. This is a critical distinction when it comes to how we treat each other, especially how spouses treat each other. Though Christ was not here providing grounds for divorce, many wrongly take it that way. Divorce is a civil matter based on responsibilities between two people. Adultery in the heart is a moral matter regarding responsibilities between a person and God. Adultery in the heart is no more grounds for divorce (I know you didn't say it was, Matthew) than hatred is grounds for the death penalty. As a Christian clinical psychologist, I can't help but mention this point, as I have seen the lives of many men, women, and many more children devastated as a result of this misunderstanding.
While I can agree that lust is not always a grounds for divorce, I can also imagine scenarios where it is (e.g., a husband with a porn addiction who refuses to get help). Jesus was raising the bar, not lowering it. We need to be careful about equating lustful thoughts with lustful actions, but we also need to be careful about excusing lustful thoughts. The latter leads to people justifying sin. "What's the harm? I'm just looking."
Matthew wrote, >What would have happened to His children? They would have been worshiped as demigods. Not to mentioned that at a young age they would have to live with seeing their father being crucified. He certainly could have been attracted to Mary, but how does a loving Man marry a woman, knowing He will be dead and gone in a few years? Kenneth, I'm surprised, given your reticence for compartmentalization that you compartmentalized the conundrum. We are considering mixing the two areas of sexuality and spirituality, not leaving them in separate but adjoining, dare I say, rooms. But, last night I think I found the answer to the puzzle posed by jeremy. Exodus 19 is a pivotal chapter in the story of salvation. In verses five and six God basically says, "See what I did for you, I can keep doing it for you forever. What do you think?" Then in verse eight came the sad answer, >Then all the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken *WE* will do." So Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD. With those words the human race ratified th e old covenant. Beginning in verse nine we see the response of an angry and disappointed God to their rejection. In essence God shows them how hard it is going to be to deal with their own beasts--how much self affliction and depravation it will entail. Sad, when you realize that God was offering a complete cleansing of the heart that would have resulted in righteousness being impulsive. But they opted for plan B, and in that plan it is dangerous to think about sex while you are trying to worship God.
Lust, including in the case of a porn addict who refuses to get help, is never grounds for divorce. Unless you are going to use some standard other than the Word. Fidelity to the Word does not lead one to "excuse lustful thoughts," nor does it lead one to "justify sin."
Jeremy wrote, >my hat goes off to everyone who's a successful, faithful husband… My hat goes off to forgiving wives.
My hat goes off to forgiving wives and forgiving husbands and forgiving children.
What you are saying, Kenneth, is that habitual lust is not really adultery (even though Jesus plainly said it was), and that a wife must continually forgive and tolerate her husband's habitual lust because he hasn't actually committed any lustful actions.
Lust and adultery are not topics of this thread. Please stay on the topic of the article.
If you'd like to continue your discussion on this topic, Kenneth Neal started a thread at the [Issues](http://advindicate.com/forum/#!/issues:lustadulterydivorceetc) forum.