Compelled to change?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The evidence is that our brains are wired for sexuality at the womb stage on a deep structural level. This is why sexual desire feels so primitve and powerful. It's more like trying to overcome the "sin" of feeling hungry or eating. This is different from other wiring in higher brain structures. There are parts of the brain that can be re-wired and pa rself as having a "choice" about it in the same way as you might choose not to steal?

Again, I do not deny that some have a propensity for a particular sexual persaution, rather, I am questioning whether or not one then has the moral right to indulge in this attraction in the eyes of God. For example, could one not also argue the same about a pedaphile? Do we have an innate right, for example, to indulge our sexual persuations whatever they may be?

I agree 100% in that we are a fallen race and, therefore, what can go wrong WILL go wrong with the human body whether it be a physical problem, sexual problem, or mental problem etc. However, I think the problem in identifying sexual disfunctions is that it is taboo. Our sexuality is a very personal matter and when it goes wrong with our sexual identiy it is devestating. It seems odd to me, for example, to be able to show that schitzophrenia has a biological connection and is seen as a disorder, but when one talks of homosexuality, which is also seen as biologically determained, it cannot be considered a disorder as is the former disorder mentioned. Not long ago the medical community identified homosexuality as a disorder I think as early as the 1950's. However, it was later changed and not mentioned as a disorder. I think the reason was that such people can function normally within society so why label them as "disabled" Why make them feel bad about themselves by saying that they are defective in some way? However, in terms of reproductive capacity in how we are designed, is it "normal"? Is not something amiss?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The food in the NT declared clean was in the light of it being sacraficed to idols. Since we know that idols are nothing, it is only refused depending on conscience to the eater or someone with a weak conscience(unlearned).
Abomination according to Strong's is..

8441 tow` ebah (to-ay-baw'😉;

or to` ebah (to-ay-baw'😉; feminine active participle of ...[text shortened]... pecially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:

KJV-- abominable (custom, thing), abomination.

Arrogance is said to be an abomination—should it be treated any differently than homosexual relations? What should be the stance of churches regarding arrogance? Should anyone who displays arrogance be allowed to become a pastor/minister? Should arrogant people be allowed to hold public office? Get married? Adopt children? What exactly are the marks for arrogance (as opposed to, say, self-confidence) anyway? Could we give psychological tests for arrogance, and prohibit arrogant people from raising children?

Is it still an abomination to eat of the flesh of a sacrifice of well-being after the third day? If not, why not? If not now, was it ever really an abomination? On what basis? Why is it not an abomination now to eat pork or shellfish? Were shrimp sacrificed to idols? If it is not an abomination now, why was it—on what basis?—before?

Does the entire Levitical code still stand? If not, what portions have been abrogated? How about the Deuteronomical code? Which portions stand, and which are abrogated?

Some on here have said that the law concerning stoning adulterers has not been abrogated, only that sinlessness was declared as a requirement to cast the first stone. Does that apply to stoning children who curse their parents? Was Jesus speaking to capital punishment for all sins, or only adultery? To men who lie with men? Does that include only real stones, or verbal stones? How about other forms of punishment, other than stoning?

Do you personally find eating shellfish to be as abominable as homosexuality? Would you find it as difficult to vote for an arrogant candidate for President, as one who advocated gay rights? Why or why not?

What made eating shellfish as morally disgusting or abhorrent (to use your Strong’s) as male homosexual relations? What makes it now less morally disgusting or abhorrent? Is it still an abomination to eat an osprey? Was it actually a sin to eat osprey, along the same lines as, say, stealing or murder?

Now, a lot of these are, of course, rhetorical questions. The point is, in the OT, eating shellfish or osprey, or eating of the sacrifice of well-being after the third day, or behaving in an arrogant manner were no more or less “abominable” than male homosexual relations. So, if you want to apply that term, at the very least it has to be kept in the same context. If you want to equate it with sin, then you have to keep it in the same context—and treat people who are gay no differently than arrogant people who are straight.

And you really might want to wonder, next time you eat a shrimp, what exactly was abominable about it anyway? 🙂

Originally posted by knightmeister
I believe you are not trying to judge anyone. I think you are wrongly bracketing a biological phenomenon with other sins. What do you think that the OT jews would have made of torrettes syndrome if they came across it?

There are two trains of thought here. The first of which is that the Mosaic law was not handed down verbatum by God. The other is that the Jewish people had some influence from God and were vaguely inspired by God but did not hear from him directly. I would assume your view is the later. However, it is said that Moses talked freely with God face to face and, in fact, the Ten Commandments were written with the finger of God himself. I suppose your position depends upon where you place your faith as well as how much you rely on such faith in comparison to your reasoning abilities.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What about an eye for an eye? It seems to me that it would now be considered a sin.

Again, Christ introduced another and superior way to destroy sin. Now we can destroy the sin while preserving the sinner because Christ said that he came to set uf free from sin. Those who do not choose the option of grace, however, are still subject to the old law of an eye for an eye. It is the next best thing in combating sinful tendancies. Unfortunatly it means destroying the sinner to destroy the sin.

Originally posted by whodey
Again, Christ introduced another and superior way to destroy sin. Now we can destroy the sin while preserving the sinner because Christ said that he came to set uf free from sin. Those who do not choose the option of grace, however, are still subject to the old law of an eye for an eye. It is the next best thing in combating sinful tendancies. Unfortunatly it means destroying the sinner to destroy the sin.

I couldn't disagree more. Do you really think that Jesus intended man to continue with an eye for an eye when he said the following?

Matthew 5:38-39
"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. "

Originally posted by vistesdAnd you really might want to wonder, next time you eat a shrimp, what exactly was abominable about it anyway? 🙂[/b]

But shrimp are the cockroaches of the sea. Do you consider cockroaches abominable or at least eating them? I think the Levitical dietary restrictions covered animals who were scavengers like the cockroach as well as swine who had high fat content and such. They were seen as unhealthy to eat and perhaps for good reason. I have heard that, although shrimp may taste good, they have a high sodium content. Knowing what we know about healthy eating today, is a diet high in sodium or fat content a good thing? Are not cardiac related illnesses the greatest killer today medically? For example, I suppose if Moses were around today, perhaps he would declare eathing at Mcdonalds also as beig abominable, or at least in terms of healthy eathing. I know I do. 😛

I suppose the same comparison could be made with sex. Sex is sex and eating is eating, however, there are better things to eat and better ways of having sex. It is really a matter of which venue is of better taste and for better health.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I couldn't disagree more. Do you really think that Jesus intended man to continue with an eye for an eye when he said the following?

Matthew 5:38-39
"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. "

That is not what I am saying. Christ was teaching his followers the law of grace. How is one introduced to the law of grace? Is it not through Christ? Therefore, those who have not been introduced to Christ are subject by default to the Mosaic laws in question. According to Mosaic law sin brings death just as Adam and Eve were subject to death because of their sin, however, with Christ we have the potential for life were death would have resulted had he not come.

Originally posted by whodey
That is not what I am saying. Christ was teaching his followers the law of grace. How is one introduced to the law of grace? Is it not through Christ? Therefore, those who have not been introduced to Christ are subject by default to the Mosaic laws in question. According to Mosaic law sin brings death just as Adam and Eve were subject to death because of ...[text shortened]... ever, with Christ we have the potential for life were death would have resulted had he not come.

I'm sorry but your posts continue to be riddled with contradictions and non-sequiturs. Just like earlier when you said that Jesus didn't do what He claimed to do. I have no real idea of what you're trying to say. The only thing that seems apparent is that you're bound and determined to hold on to your prejudices and ignorance. That's pride for you. It blinds one from the truth.

Originally posted by whodey
But shrimp are the cockroaches of the sea. Do you consider cockroaches abominable or at least eating them? I think the Levitical dietary restrictions covered animals who were scavengers like the cockroach as well as swine who had high fat content and such. They were seen as unhealthy to eat and perhaps for good reason. I have heard that, although shrimp m ...[text shortened]... s of having sex. It is really a matter of which venue is of better taste and for better health.

Well answered! 🙂

Now, do you consider eating at McDonald’s more or less sinful than homosexual activity?

Which was my whole point. Despite Strong’s (as CB referenced), I don’t think that toevah—or the English abomination—is necessarily morally abhorrent (though it can be that too). On the other hand, if it is, it ought not to be considered more morally repugnant that eating at McDonald’s, etc.

Now, just going by memory, I believe that Peter had a vision in which all foods were declared clean—without regard to whether they were part of idolatrous ceremonies (which, I believe, was at least part of Paul’s point in the matter). If shrimp or osprey are now declared to be clean for eating, are they still “abominations”? If not, what was the basis for them being abominable to eat in the first place? If it was a matter of morality, rather than healthful diet, what changed—morally?

I know from personal experience on here that neither you nor CB behave harshly toward people because you disagree with their moral perspective—as long as they are not actively harming anyone else. I’m not implying that either of you would behave harshly toward an openly gay person, or treat them in any less a friendly and respectful fashion than anyone else.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well answered! 🙂

Now, do you consider eating at McDonald’s more or less sinful than homosexual activity?

Which was my whole point. Despite Strong’s (as CB referenced), I don’t think that toevah—or the English abomination—is necessarily morally abhorrent (though it can be that too). On the other hand, if it is, it ...[text shortened]... openly gay person, or treat them in any less a friendly and respectful fashion than anyone else.

Well answered as well!

However, to be fair, Paul did not allow for homosexual conduct as he did eating restricted Mosaic foods. It is said Biblically that a sexual union causes one to become one flesh with another person. Therefore, for me there is a spiritual component to a sexual union as where eating food there is simply a physical component. I think Pauls focus was on spiritual matters more than material ones. Don't get me wrong, eating healthy is important, however, spiritual matters are much more important.

In effect, I view comparing sex and food the same as comparing apples to oranges.

Originally posted by vistesd

I know from personal experience on here that neither you nor CB behave harshly toward people because you disagree with their moral perspective—as long as they are not actively harming anyone else. I’m not implying that either of you would behave harshly toward an openly gay person, or treat them in any less a friendly and respectful fashion than anyone else.[/b]

Thanks for that. 🙂

Originally posted by whodey
Well answered as well!

However, to be fair, Paul did not allow for homosexual conduct as he did eating restricted Mosaic foods. It is said Biblically that a sexual union causes one to become one flesh with another person. Therefore, for me there is a spiritual component to a sexual union as where eating food there is simply a physical component. I thi ...[text shortened]... portant.

In effect, I view comparing sex and food the same as comparing apples to oranges.

I’m running out of steam tonight, but—

The question that arises here is whether a spiritual component can be there in a loving homosexual union. And if not, why not.

I don’t see any reason why not.

You are the one who remembers all five Greek words that can be translated as “love”! (I can only ever recall three.) The way that I “love” shrimp, and the way that I love my wife are not comparable. I understand the spiritual—“component” is such a dry term, it really doesn’t get it—anyway, in an intensely intimate and loving sexual experience. I simply cannot say to a gay couple that they really can’t experience that, even as they say they do.

I think that knightmeister has a real point: much of what is in ancient texts—inspired at the time or not—is necessarily limited by their understanding of the world at that time. The world is round, not flat—so “rising up” doesn’t mean the same thing. Stopping the sun would not make the day last any longer. Pork may now be one of the healthiest meats to eat. Homosexuality may be as natural as heterosexuality. Each case is a case of its own. The Biblical texts may well be culture-bound, in the sense that the spiritual truths expressed could only have been expressed, at that time, in terms of the cultural understandings of those people in those times. Allowance needs to be made for that, I think—and I do not think that such allowance undermines the spiritual truths: it may make it more difficult for us to unpack them from their cultural luggage.

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks for that. 🙂

Just the truth.

EDIT: Jeez, I just realized that my foregoing post might be construed as accusing CB of arrogance. Not my intention at all.

Originally posted by vistesd
You are the one who remembers all five Greek words that can be translated as “love”! (I can only ever recall three.) The way that I “love” shrimp, and the way that I love my wife are not comparable. I understand the spiritual—“component” is such a dry term, it really doesn’t get it—anyway, in an intensely intimate and loving sexual experience. I simply cannot say to a gay couple that they really can’t experience that, even as they say they do.

If you can, get hold of C.S. Lewis's book "The five loves". Although I don't agree with everything he has to say, he has a lot of good points and valuable insight. I think you will find if you really think about it that part of your love for you wife is actually just the same as your love for shrimp and based on various components like familiarity for example. Part of your love is a selfish love and part of it is selfless.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Part of your love is a selfish love and part of it is selfless.

and let's not forget the context...part of his love is shellfish.