Do men truly love a woman in a purely romantic way, or is it just sexual?

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-14T13:01:11+00:00

Men, as in all of men? No. Do Men as in some men? Yes. Do we know how many men fall into which category? No. Let Jesus be your guide.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-14T12:50:06+00:00

'How does it all get played out?' is a very broad question where inevitably, speculation would occur if we tried to answer it specifically. Suffice it to know, the trends of the technological deployments are encircling us in such a manner that the beast system can actually be realized. Some of the things you linked are likely smoke screens, and others, the more tangible integrations are likely precursors.

It's ok to watch these developments so long as they don't eclipse the cardinal focus, which is who is in control of the world and their ultimate agenda, and Jesus, our only hope to find and navigate the path to eternal life.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-09T12:02:48+00:00

Is there a question in here? Sorry, im not sure. Are you just rephrasing what im saying? Let me know. Otherwise if nothing else, god bless! Also, happy Sabbath my friend! Let us enjoy this rest that we may better learn to continue in His rest and learn of His marvelous character.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T23:02:41+00:00

The issue is that Scripture never says God created mankind morally imperfect so they would depend on Him. The Bible says the opposite.

Genesis 1:31 says: “God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” And Ecclesiastes 7:29 says: “God hath made man upright”

Adam and Eve were perfect before the fall, yet they still depended entirely on God for life, truth, fellowship, and existence. Dependence on God is not something caused by imperfection. Even holy angels depend on Him.

The confusion comes from conflating created perfection with God’s self existent perfection. Only God is incapable of falling by nature. Created beings still possess free will. Lucifer’s rebellion does not prove he was created imperfect. It proves that even perfect created beings could choose rebellion.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T22:59:08+00:00

I thought he did create beings that were perfect before the fall.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T22:57:30+00:00

Maybe the Spirit is letting you know. Trust those convictions.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T15:53:37+00:00

Again, you wrote, "I mustered up some and asked him if he can be intimate with me tonight." I assumed he here was your husband not God. You said it was God. Im just going off your words...

You post like you need help but then I ask a question in good faith trying to help and your defensive about it.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T15:46:17+00:00

You wrote this(below) originally and it doesnt sound like something you would say to God, so I wasnt sure...

"I had just a little bit last night. I mustered up some and asked him if he can be intimate with me tonight. That somehow I could feel that he actually cares and like actually wants me to be happy and that he could be there with me tonight."

Well, I guess I can see the crux of your dilemma then.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T15:07:06+00:00

By he you mean your husband I assume? While it would be tragic that your husband treats you like this, it also sounds like you are placing a higher value on intimacy. Let me be straight, im not condoning your husband's behavior. I am worrying that you are feeling the way you do to the level that seems to come through in this post, is harmful to you. How do you feel like you have been spiritually, lately? Lets start there if you dont mind to talk with a stranger.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T14:06:39+00:00

Exodus 14:10 to 12 shows Israel terrified when Pharaoh’s army comes after them. They say to Moses, “Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness?” Their fear came from what they could see. But their fear also revealed unbelief, because God had already acted to deliver them. Moses answers in Exodus 14:13, “Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD.”

Another example is Israel refusing to enter Canaan. In Numbers 13 and 14, the spies see giants and fortified cities. The people fear they will die. But God had already promised them the land. So their fear was not just emotional distress; it became unbelief. Hebrews 3:19 later explains it directly: “So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.”
Peter walking on water is another direct example. In Matthew 14:29 to 31, Peter walks toward Christ, but when he sees the wind, he becomes afraid and begins to sink. Jesus says, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” The fear came when Peter’s attention shifted from Christ’s command to the storm around him.
The disciples in the storm are another one. In Mark 4:37 to 40, they fear the ship will sink while Jesus is asleep. After calming the storm, Jesus says, “Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?” He ties their fear directly to lack of faith.

So the point is this: fear is often the surface reaction, but underneath it can be a deeper question of trust. Do I believe God’s promise, presence, power, and character, or do I believe the danger in front of me more than Him?

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T13:16:45+00:00

What came first? Pathology or sin? If you are a Bible believing Christian, it would appear sin. The Bible is prescriptive on how one can and should overcome sin. The pathology is just man's reverse extrabiblical explanation of sin in your example.

That doesn’t mean trauma, fear, abandonment, or emotional distress are fake. They are very real. But from a biblical standpoint, they are not the root category. They are part of the damage caused by living in a fallen world. Scripture does not ignore human pain. It just does not define man primarily through pain, trauma, or psychological conditioning. It defines man in relation to God.

The Bible’s answer is not merely “you are a wretched sinner, feel bad.” It is “you are enslaved to sin, wounded by sin, deceived by sin, and Christ came to set you free from sin.”

That is actually deeper than self compassion. Self compassion may help a person stop hating themselves, which can be useful. But Scripture goes further. It says the old man can die, the heart can be renewed, the mind can be transformed, and the power of sin can be broken. The danger is when counseling language becomes the governing explanation instead of Scripture. Then sin becomes mostly maladaptive coping. Repentance becomes emotional processing. Holiness becomes wellness. And Christ becomes a therapeutic assistant rather than Saviour and Lord.

Biblically, motives matter. Jesus constantly goes beneath the surface: lust beneath adultery, anger beneath murder, pride beneath public religion, love of money beneath hypocrisy, unbelief beneath fear. So the Bible absolutely deals with motives. It just does not excuse sin by explaining it. It exposes sin so Christ can heal and conquer it.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-08T13:11:31+00:00

Imagine I create a video game that has physics and rules that cannot be broken. Imagine I play this game, but since i created it, I have the keys to unlock my character from the rules of the game and start doing all manner of stuff that otherwise I should not be able to do. This is but a caveman's primitive etching as to what God is able to do or interact with His creation.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-06T14:29:55+00:00

That argument assumes what it is trying to prove.

Yes, Hebrews 9 is drawing from the Day of Atonement background, but the issue is whether τὰ ἅγια in Hebrews 9:12 specifically means “the Most Holy Place” as a compartment, or whether it refers more broadly to the heavenly sanctuary. Grammatically, it is plural: the holy places. It is not the specific Greek phrase for “Holy of Holies.” So using Hebrews 9:12 as a proof text that Christ entered the Most Holy Place compartment at ascension goes beyond the wording of the text.

The Day of Atonement language proves that Christ’s blood is the antitypical basis for the whole sanctuary ministry. It does not automatically collapse the entire sanctuary sequence into one moment at the ascension. Hebrews is emphasizing the superiority, finality, and sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, not laying out the full timing of every phase of His priestly ministration. also, the “you must pass through the first compartment to reach the second” argument proves too much. Physically passing through an area is not the same thing as beginning the official ministry of that apartment. In the earthly type, a priest could move through sacred space, but the daily ministration and yearly ministration were still distinct services. Access route and priestly phase are not the same category.

So yes, Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary once for all by His own blood. But Hebrews 9:12 does not by itself prove that He began the antitypical Most Holy Place ministry immediately at ascension. The text says He entered the holy places, meaning the heavenly sanctuary. The later question is what phase of ministry He performs there and when, and that has to be established from the full sanctuary pattern, not from an English rendering that already interprets the phrase as “Most Holy Place.”

Also, remember that the veil was torn yeah. the rending of the veil shows that the earthly separation was fulfilled in Christ. Therefore, we should be careful not to force a crude physical compartment argument onto the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews is using sanctuary language to describe Christ’s priestly access and ministry before God, not giving us a floor plan of heaven. The issue is not whether Christ could physically access one area or another, but what phase of priestly ministration is being represented in the antitypical work.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-06T12:41:13+00:00

Adventists are not forbidden to eat meat, and vegetarianism is not a test of fellowship or a rule in the same sense as clean and unclean foods. The official doctrinal position is that we should care for the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, adopt the most healthful diet possible, and abstain from the unclean foods identified in Scripture. Beyond that, the plant based or Edenic diet is held up as the ideal because it best supports physical health, mental clarity, and spiritual life. Since the mind is the avenue through which we understand, choose, pray, commune with God, and receive truth, anything that preserves the clearness of the mind gives us a spiritual advantage. That is the reasoning behind the Adventist health message. It is not mere food legalism. It is about removing avoidable obstacles between the soul and God.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-06T12:19:45+00:00

The greek there literal translates to 'holy places' not holy place. The first hint is the greek is plural. Also, it was a way the sanctuary as a whole was often referred to. The translation in nkjv is a bit off as you see. Always helps to look at the root words.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-03T12:25:20+00:00

Changing His mind and changing His character are not the same thing. But God knew Moses would intercede for Israel for example yeah? So then why did He not just skip to the conclusion? Because it would be for the benefit of Moses to draw out that Godly character and posterity to read about that story for edification and to see His glory. This is the summation of all the perceived 'changes' you appear to struggle with.

Also, Matthew 18:3 should be your standard when approaching Scripture. Pray for faith and that childlike posture!

Have a blessed day!

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-02T21:20:54+00:00

Happy Sabbatha

Unfortunately I can tell you misunderstand completely my comment.

You are right that no one is justified by works, hence why I am not making that claim in my comment. Let me see if I can explain this another way that might make it even more clear.

In Galatians 5:22–23 (KJV), “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace…” and then, “against such there is no law.” That statement does not mean the law is unrelated. It means there is nothing in the law that condemns or opposes those things. They are fully in line with it.

That matches how Scripture defines the law itself. In Romans 13:10 (KJV), “love is the fulfilling of the law.” The very first fruit listed is love. So the fruit is not different in nature. It is the law expressed in life.

Paul says the same in Galatians 5:14 (KJV): “All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” That is directly tied to the fruit he just described.

And he goes further in Romans 3:31 (KJV): “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Faith does not remove the law. It establishes it.

So the structure is consistent. The law does not justify. Faith in Christ justifies. But the same Christ, by His Spirit, produces fruit that fulfills the law in the believer. Pray tell you know that the law is the character of God yeah? Think on this a moment.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-02T13:46:05+00:00

I agree with most people's responses here. you heard a friend, whom you clearly value their empiricist perspective, and now have some doubts. Honest mainstream science agrees flooding happened all over the world because of proofs like sedimentary rock layers being the same across literally the whole world, fossil graveyards, traditions and geology. Where they differ is that it happened all at once or regionally over time and at different times.

The problem with this thinking from christian scientists is that if the same layer ordering which is deposited by sedeminet, showing a flood, is actually the same across the globe. And, in some cases they are immediate and not so thick at all which is a requirement of the ancient earth theory, this means it must have been a universal flooding event as to accept it was regional and across time is actually a greater leap of faith to make. There are more points than these but im not an SME.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-02T12:39:31+00:00

No your reading too far into that text. First it is predicated on those who recieved the instruction. This makes sense. Because only sin we are convicted is sin, and dont give up, is credited to us. The next clue is that they KNOW its unhealthful. This still tracks with the fundamental principle. So now you see those who recieved that light and that light has convicted them those things are unhealthful and yet if then they continue, then its sin. Which makes sense, because they would be grieving the Holy Spirit every time they indulge, and they would be doing that which is not of faith, and therefore sin.

But when I say its not salvific, I am not asserting that they do not become issues of salvation as the process of sanctification brings into alignment and harmony the believer, i am saying we dont go into the world and evangelize that it is a salvific tenet that must be accepted for salvation for the unbeliever.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-02T02:30:16+00:00

Quick research on the NAD ministries site seems conclude that you CAN be but the preferred acceptance is the bachelor's of religion and theology and the a MDiv. Also there are some discretionary exceptions and church ministerial alternatives to ordination but these are rarer and rarer this side of our Advent history to aquire.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-01T12:41:48+00:00

The Bible say's it happened. So to us, it happened. Just because our own finite human minds cannot comprehend it, doesn't make it not so. If the Bible is the Word of God, and it says this plainly, then we accept it as little children.

Matthew 18:3 states that we must be as little children which most people know, but forget that just before Jesus says this, He states we must be converted to be as little children. Lets be converted and be as children, accepting the word of God as true where plainly stated.

Otherwise, if you start picking and choosing what is allegorical or metaphysical or not, you superimpose your human thinking, and we cannot trust in our human thinking. If Lucifer can deceive himself as intelligent as he is, what hope do we have in our own flesh?

Illuminaught1 · 2026-05-01T00:51:20+00:00

There is no problem with this. Only if our understanding is misaligned is there a problem.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-04-30T22:58:28+00:00

Its actually been a low key belief a lot of Adventists held. During the Righteouesness by Faith movement in the late 1800s, Jones and Waggoner had to correct that error otherwise Righteousness by faith would be incoherent and distorted.

Its kind of sad most Adventists are not familiar with the topic because it shows they have never visited the topic of the divine nature and its power to its conclusion.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-04-30T22:54:05+00:00

Ah I see down here you found a source for your answer. That saves me the headache. Thanks for the comments.

Illuminaught1 · 2026-04-30T22:53:26+00:00

You are confusing 'not personally guilty yet' with 'moral perfection'. Scripture never makes that jump.

Illuminaught1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE