1. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    19 Jul '08 14:42
    Originally posted by Badwater
    Tell him that a minister (me) says it is not a sin. Not every Christian thinks that a (to me) perverse, archaiac interpretation of sexuality, and sexuality itself, is sinful. Humans simply have to understand that all of us have a sexual nature, and it's different for everyone and to different degrees. Unfortunately too many churches don't understand that; they just simply parrot St. Augustine's notion of original sin, where he sexualizes the Garden of Eden myth.

    Covenant with God is regardless of sexuality. Belief in God is regardless of sexuality. God loves all in all their expressions of sexuality, even if people are imperfect enough not to. God is bigger than people in that respect. Tell your friend that.


    I'm not disagreeing with you. But the general argument goes like this:

    If you love God, you will strive not to sin. Some expressions of sexuality are explicitly (i.e.,
    Biblically) sinful. Therefore, such expressions of sexuality reflect a lack of covenant with God,
    and consequently a lack of love for God. Thus, those who express such sexuality cannot be
    believers.

    How, as a minister, do you respond to that and the incessant Biblical quotation that would
    accompany it?

    Nemesio
  2. Joined
    07 Jan '08
    Moves
    34575
    19 Jul '08 17:58
    Well, I tried to respond but I must have touched off a filter so it will have to wait.
  3. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    19 Jul '08 18:10
    This sounds like circle argument:

    (1) Good loves all types of sexuality.
    (2) I don't think a certain type of sexuality is loved by god.
    (3) Therefore it is a sin, and not a proper type sexuality.
    (4) Of all types of sexualities, this one in particular is excluded.
    and we are back to
    (5) Good loves all types of sexuality.
  4. At the Revolution
    Joined
    15 Sep '07
    Moves
    5073
    19 Jul '08 18:12
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    This sounds like circle argument:

    (1) Good loves all types of sexuality.
    (2) I don't think a certain type of sexuality is loved by god.
    (3) Therefore it is a sin, and not a proper type sexuality.
    (4) Of all types of sexualities, this one in particular is excluded.
    and we are back to
    (5) Good loves all types of sexuality.
    Welcome to the religious world.
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    19 Jul '08 19:19
    did you know that only two men lying in bed(getting it on) is considered sinful in the bible? lesbians are not mentioned and therefore one could consider it is not a sin for them. since the penalty for two men is death it is reasonable to assume that god would have mentioned lesbianism too if it was wrong.

    my opinion is that it is not the homosexuality in itself that is sinful, but what it means. getting it on with a men might mean you don't do your wife and therefore you don't reproduce. and since the jews were a handful of people, it wouldn't have been very good for survival if some dudes decided they like sausage.

    now this is no longer the case. we are enough people in the world, if some dudes like to abstain from making children i say they are doing the world a favor, not sin.
  6. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    19 Jul '08 19:41
    If god created homosexuality, then he must approve of it, doesn't he? Why else did he create it in the first place?
  7. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    20 Jul '08 03:22
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    This sounds like circle argument:

    (1) Good loves all types of sexuality.
    (2) I don't think a certain type of sexuality is loved by god.
    (3) Therefore it is a sin, and not a proper type sexuality.
    (4) Of all types of sexualities, this one in particular is excluded.
    and we are back to
    (5) Good loves all types of sexuality.
    You are not summarizing his claim. He doesn't claim 2. I'm curious, as a Christian minister,
    how he responds to the Biblical citation about this sexual practice and that sexual practice that
    invariably follows when someone says that God is comfortable with all sexual expressions.

    Nemesio
  8. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    20 Jul '08 04:43
    I did this at length once before, but—the words used in the Hebrew and the Greek to condemn (male) homosexual sex are, at best, equivocal. The Hebrew word, for example, does not imply moral wickedness—regardless of the fact that it was translated as “abomination”—a rather “abominable” word, at least in English. At the most, some things were forbidden the Israelites that were not forbidden to everyone else.

    I had a (Episcopal) priest who had studied in depth the OT and NT passages, in their original languages, who came to the same conclusion. [I can cite a book for reading, if anyone is interested.] He offered up one of the bravest homilies I have ever heard on the subject.
  9. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    21 Jul '08 04:27
    Originally posted by vistesd
    [I can cite a book for reading, if anyone is interested.]
    Please do.
  10. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    21 Jul '08 04:27
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    now this is no longer the case. we are enough people in the world, if some dudes like to abstain from making children i say they are doing the world a favor, not sin.
    So the prohibitions in the Bible are only temporary?
  11. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    21 Jul '08 04:441 edit
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Please do.
    Well, you called me on my laziness, and sent me upstairs to the bookshelves... 🙂

    What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D. (in Systematic Theology).
  12. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    21 Jul '08 05:42
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    You are not summarizing his claim. He doesn't claim 2. I'm curious, as a Christian minister,
    how he responds to the Biblical citation about this sexual practice and that sexual practice that
    invariably follows when someone says that God is comfortable with all sexual expressions.

    Nemesio
    I think his parapraph: "If you love God, you will strive not to sin. Some expressions of sexuality are explicitly (i.e., Biblically) sinful. Therefore, such expressions of sexuality reflect a lack of covenant with God, and consequently a lack of love for God. Thus, those who express such sexuality cannot be believers." is an example of (2).

    I can read in a lot of "I think", and "My opinion is" in that parapgraph. If not? Why does not all christians of our world think the same? If all christians would agree to that paragraph, then it would more appear as a biblical fact. But it is not so. Therefore, he is only express his opinion about this, so (2) applies.
  13. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    21 Jul '08 15:253 edits
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I think his parapraph: "If you love God, you will strive not to sin. Some expressions of sexuality are explicitly (i.e., Biblically) sinful. Therefore, such expressions of sexuality reflect a lack of covenant with God, and consequently a lack of love for God. Thus, those who express such sexuality cannot be believers." is an example of (2).

    I can read t. But it is not so. Therefore, he is only express his opinion about this, so (2) applies.
    That's not his paragraph. His paragraph was written in bold. The paragraph you attributed to him
    was my paraphrase of the usual rebuttal made by Christians to his paragraph.

    That is, most Christians (especially ministers) tend to disbelieve the claim that 'God loves all
    expressions of sexuality.' I was curious about his justification for that claim, given that it is
    not the mainstream.

    Nemesio
  14. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    21 Jul '08 15:28
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    That's not his paragraph. His paragraph was written in bold. The paragraph you attributed to him
    was my paraphrase of the usual rebuttal made by Christians to his paragraph.

    That is, most Christians (especially ministers) tend to disbelieve the claim that 'God loves all
    expressions of sexuality.' I was curious about his justification for that claim, given that it is
    not the mainstream.

    Nemesio
    I commented on the paragraph, not the person who wrote it.
  15. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    21 Jul '08 15:311 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I commented on the paragraph, not the person who wrote it.
    Your comment on the paragraph is incorrect. No where in that paragraph does it say that 'God
    loves all expressions of sexuality,' so there is no circular argument. That God loves all expressions
    of sexuality was Badwater's conclusion. The paragraph you commented on was a summary rebuttal to it.

    Nemesio
Back to Top