4 edits
Originally posted by vistesdBut in all fairness it is not just homosexual unions that are discouraged. Biblically both Old and New Testament indicate that a sexual union is blessed in the eyes of God so long as they are married. Either this is the case or it is not. Many would argue, for example, that marriage is not even needed. Some would argue that so long as two heterosexual people love each other there is no real need for marriage. We are not forced to include God in our spiritual persuits such as sexual unions. The option is up to us. If we do include God he either has input in terms of how we should go about things or he has none to offer. The question is does he bless unions in which he has not designed us physcially to be a part of?
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, an ...[text shortened]... ritual truths: it may make it more difficult for us to unpack them from their cultural luggage.
In terms of your talking about walking in love, the number one commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart and to do then love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore, if you love God first and foremost you will consult him before acting on anything and try to please the one that you should love the most. Also, does loving someone mean that one must have sex with them? Can one love someone at arms lenght if they are attracted to them? I know I do. Billy Graham once was asked how he kept his ministry free from sexual scandels and his reply was that he NEVER allowed himself to be in a room alone with another woman. He never allowed those he loved and were attracted to to become a greater temptation by being alone with them or by developing strong emotional relationships with them. For me, this is the most loving thing of all do do. He was taking up his cross and denying himself sexual pleasures for the greater good of his own life, and the life of his wife, and the life of the ministry as well as the greater good of the women in question he was attracted to. A walk of faith will require one to nail to the cross sexual urges to varying degrees. The only quesiton is to what extent?
Originally posted by whodeyThere can be no doubt that homosexuals are more physically suited to homosexual unions than heterosexual ones. The brain is more important in a union than what is between your legs. So who designed them that way if not God?
The question is does he bless unions in which he has not designed us physcially to be a part of?
4 edits
To the original poster I would also add - there is no Biblical precedent for same sex unions (in fact the only mentions made are negative). I know that doesn't answer the question, but it does contextualize the discussion - seeing as you are posing the question within a Christian framework.
Check out http://www.syrogers.com/ for an alternative view.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere are two issues here. The first of which is how God designed us. The second of which is man's fall in the garden as well as Lucifers fall beforehand. Did God create Satan? No, he created Lucifer the angel, however, he fell and became something he was not desinged to be. The same can be said for humanity itself. If I were to claim that I am not "wired" to sin, I would make the Bible a liar because it says that I was born into sin because of the fall. Does this mean that man was originally designed to sin? I say no, however, once sin entered the human race we are driven to sin in various ways.
There can be no doubt that homosexuals are more physically suited to homosexual unions than heterosexual ones. The brain is more important in a union than what is between your legs. So who designed them that way if not God?
You can argue all day that since man fell we were designed to fall, however, their is a difference between being given a choice to do something and being designed to choose something without a choice altogether. If, for example, all of God's creation was designed to fall, what of the angelic host that did not fall?
Originally posted by whodeyAgain, 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? WHODEY
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 ...[text shortened]... s of reproductive capacity in how we are designed, is it "normal"? Is not something amiss?
....but the hugely important issue at hand here is that paedophilia is abusive towards a minor who has not given informed adult consent and as such cannot be considered moral. On what basis might we say that a homosexual act between consenting adults that is fulfilling for both individuals is immoral? Who is it hurting and why is it hurting them? Comparisons with paedophiles is apples and oranges stuff.
Originally posted by knightmeisterPerhaps a better example is a heterosexual union between two loving consenting adults. Is it wrong to engage in sex before they are married in the eyes of God?
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 ...[text shortened]... t hurting and why is it hurting them? Comparisons with paedophiles is apples and oranges stuff.
Originally posted by whodeyOf course you are really avoiding the question aren't you.
There are two issues here. The first of which is how God designed us. The second of which is man's fall in the garden as well as Lucifers fall beforehand. Did God create Satan? No, he created Lucifer the angel, however, he fell and became something he was not desinged to be. The same can be said for humanity itself. If I were to claim that I am not "wir ...[text shortened]... ple, all of God's creation was designed to fall, what of the angelic host that did not fall?
So how do you know that men and women had the same reproductive organs before the fall as they do afterwards. You claim our brains changed after the fall, why not our physical bodies? Your argument claimed that we were designed to have sex in only one way yet our current design does not bear that out. So why do you claim to be the 'correct' design and a homosexual person the flawed one? And why was God so unfair as to let Satan meddle with some peoples design and not others?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI could use my views to attack homosexuals but I do not. In fact, you could do so with any aspect of ones existance whether it be social status, sexual preference, race, etc, etc. You will, at some point, find something in someones life that you find either distasteful and/or do not agree with. Are you then prejudice against them when you do? I say that this is only normal. It could be justifiable or perhaps not. I say that what is important is what you then do with this "prejudice" is what counts. Do you hit them over the head with it so as to attack them? Do you throw it up into their face so as to appear superior to them? I say if you do, then you are at fault, however, I do not do this.
Just as some have tried to justify racism and sexism by using the Bible, some try to justify prejudicial views against homosexuality.
It seems that some don't see this as harmful. How is this any less blatantly hateful than racism or sexism?
As for yourself, how about an adulterer? Are you prejudiced against them? Do you agree with their sexual preference?
Originally posted by whodeyThe question is whether or not you 'agree with' or are prejudiced against something that a person is born with or is forced upon them.
I could use my views to attack homosexuals but I do not. In fact, you could do so with any aspect of ones existance whether it be social status, sexual preference, race, etc, etc. You will, at some point, find something in someones life that you find either distasteful and/or do not agree with. Are you then prejudice against them when you do? I say that t ...[text shortened]... ut an adulterer? Are you prejudiced against them? Do you agree with their sexual preference?
If you are prejudiced against someones sexual preference, race etc it is not equivalent to being prejudiced against their particular actions like rape, theft etc. Nobody is forced to rape or steal but to judge someone for the way they are born (handicapped, race, sexual preference) is wrong.
You may judge homosexuals for acting on their preferences but to judge them for having preferences is wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBut you do attack them.
I could use my views to attack homosexuals but I do not. In fact, you could do so with any aspect of ones existance whether it be social status, sexual preference, race, etc, etc. You will, at some point, find something in someones life that you find either distasteful and/or do not agree with. Are you then prejudice against them when you do? I say that t ut an adulterer? Are you prejudiced against them? Do you agree with their sexual preference?
You've deemed them unfit for church membership or leadership:
"...if those in question were church leaders or people in positions of influence or church members, then perhaps I would be inclined to remove them or ask them to step down"
You continually liken them to pedophiles and adulterers even though they are completely unfair comparisons which has been repeatedly pointed out to you by myself and others.
You claim you don't attack, don't judge and aren't prejudiced but your posts betray your heart. You do attack, judge and are prejudiced.
Your posts are continually riddled with contradictions and non-sequiturs because you don't speak from a place of truth. You speak out of both sides of your mouth because you don't speak from a place of truth.
3 edits
There are more than several scriptures in the Bible presenting a strongly negative view of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27 as an example which can't be sidestepped via arguments about temple prostitution). There are none presenting a positive view. There is no precedent in the old or new testaments for same sex unions as an acceptable norm. If you are going to argue that because of a modern view of sexuality that homosexuals should be able to minister in the church, you are going to have to adequately answer all the problems that creates scripturally.
But really, beyond that, you have to (honestly and sincerely) ask what does God think? It's his church after all (and I'm not talking about the institutions, I'm referring to the body of all believers). All the careful, clever polemics in the world mean nothing next to that.
Originally posted by whodeyMaybe it's wrong , maybe it's not. However , one would not barr someone from a church or being a church leader on that basis. I was having sex with my wife before we were married , maybe God thinks that was wrong? I don't know. I do know that he was far more concerned about other things.
Perhaps a better example is a heterosexual union between two loving consenting adults. Is it wrong to engage in sex before they are married in the eyes of God?
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf you re-read what I said, I said that church's should make it clear to its members as to what is expected of them. There should be mission statements in terms of what the church believes and what they are expected to uphold in terms of certain beliefs. In a church that I would attend, there would be criterea for sexual conduct thus I would then expect them to agree to what they agreed to when they joined. However, if a church chooses not to have its members agree to anything in terms of conduct they deserve what they get. Church's are more than welcome to do as they please. In fact, they may not even care if they deny Jesus died for their sins, however, I would have no part of such a church. In short, the church reserves the right in expecting its members uphod statements of theology and its members reserve the right to find a church that fits their theology.
But you do attack them.
You've deemed them unfit for church membership or leadership:
[b]"...if those in question were church leaders or people in positions of influence or church members, then perhaps I would be inclined to remove them or ask them to step down"
You continually liken them to pedophiles and adulterers even though they are compl You speak out of both sides of your mouth because you don't speak from a place of truth.[/b]
As far as comparing it to other sexual practices I was in no way trying to equate it with those practices, rather, I was merely trying to point out that even though some have "inclinations" it in no way means they have the moral right in the eyes of God to indulge. Perhaps two heterosexuals having premarital relations would have been a better example.
In short, I reserve the right to interpret scripture the way God reveals it to me. I will not made to feel prejudice, or a bigot for doing so for those I may offend. In fact, Christ offended many, many, many people by some of the things he said and warned his followers of much more of the same. I will try to speak the truth in love as Christ did and let the cards fall where they may. If I do not do so, I will be at fault by not listening to the spirit of God within me and what he has revealed in scripture. Sometimes telling the truth is painful, but in the end it is the best policy.
8 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterAgain, it depends on the church. For example, some church's teach that premarital sex is OK. Some church's are more liberal than others regarding such teachings on interpretations of scripture. However, if you were to join a church that taught that premarrital sex is viewed as a sin then I would assume when you joined that you reviewed their beliefs and theologies on the matter and signed something saying that you agreed with their theology. If not, however, then I guess anything goes. If there were no agreements as to what conduct was expected of you when you joined the church they should not be bothered when you may offend them by certain types of conduct such as the one in question.
Maybe it's wrong , maybe it's not. However , one would not barr someone from a church or being a church leader on that basis. I was having sex with my wife before we were married , maybe God thinks that was wrong? I don't know. I do know that he was far more concerned about other things.
There is a difference, however, in people who attend church and those who join a church or hold positions of authority in a church. For example, I would not ban anyone from attending church, rather, I might feel inclined to ban those who have joined who have made a prior agreement beforehand. If they have violated their prior agreement then perhaps you may feel inclined to call them on it and account for their indiscretions and if they do not recant then they would be asked to leave or step down.
In terms of what you believe on the matter, the scripture is there for you to read and interprete as you are led. As far as what I believe it is of little significance. After all, you will not answer to me, rather, you will answer to God as I will. I am merely conveying what my views on the matter are in regards to what the word of God says on the matter. Peace.