modern christian view of sexuality not realistic

[KV-44-v1]

Yeah, a really gay movie.

if you are not sinning to be Happy, if you arent idolizing it, then be happy by all means.

OR,

Do you mean h*m*? Well, eh, then that is indeed wrong.
Abandoing the natural function, etc.

 

[miamited]

Girls do it, too. It's part of being human.

Hey Riven

I doubt that the comment was meant to even infer that it is just some male issue. Yes, there are those of either gender that lust. The sin of our carnal nature is not limited to just one gender.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Girls do it, too. It's part of being human.

No, it’s a part of being corrupted in this godless culture.

 

[miamited]

In my knowledge, homosexuality originated from ancient Greece

Hi Carry_Your_Name

Really? So, that part in Genesis where all the men of the town were trying to beat down Lot's door and declaring that he send the angelic strangers out to them that they may have their way with them, isn't anything to do with sex.

Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."

Carnally was what, some game like checkers or dominos? The men of the city, the men of Sodom, were seeking some sort of 'carnal' relationship with the men who visited Lot. I'm just not so confident as you seem to be that this issue of homosexuality didn't raise it's head until Ancient Greece came to be on the map of the world.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hi Carry_Your_Name

Really? So, that part in Genesis where all the men of the town were trying to beat down Lot's door and declaring that he send the angelic strangers out to them that they may have their way with them, isn't anything to do with sex.

Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."

Carnally was what, some game like checkers or dominos? The men of the city, the men of Sodom, were seeking some sort of 'carnal' relationship with the men who visited Lot. I'm just not so confident as you seem to be that this issue of homosexuality didn't raise it's head until Ancient Greece came to be on the map of the world.

God bless,
Ted

Yes, it goes back further to Sodom and Gomorrah, but it wasn’t politicized in any shape or form like it is today. In Lev. 18, it says “you shall not lie with a man as you lie with a woman,” the historical context of that is committing fornication with a Canaanite temple prostitute, it was a cultish religious practice, no man marries a man and no woman marries a woman as a “personal choice”. It didn’t seep into the culture and become a philosophy until Ancient Greece.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I dunno

I’ve only skimmed more serious material on the subject but…


Homosexual behavior occurs all over. Gay identities seem to have grown out of capitalism and urbanization. It is odd to me how our 21st century society overlaps with pagan cultures even the scary Babylonian ones with temple prostitution and human sacrifice….

They tended to call everything sacred. Sacred sodomy sacred child sacrifice on and on. CS Lewis writes about this a good bit. And now…

A man and a man can call their union sacred and much less of society…from the current talking heads on tv to the local Episcopal churches ️…will agree and some will even expound upon the situation with a sort of secular religious zeal.

Currently mental health is en vogue and people are sacrificing their families to the idol gods of self actualization and mental health. Dr.Thomas Szasz,an atheist and psychiatrist who debunked psychiatry in the 60s, writes extensively about the religious functions of both psychology and psychiatry. And…

I dunno nothing new under the sun . I shouldn’t be surprised but I kinda am actually…

We’re back to sacred sodomy even calling various sorts of gender distortions and problems sacred and we as a society are sacrificing our nearest and dearest to the gods of the age…

And it’s all somehow modern and rational?

 

[jasonc]

Girls do it, too. It's part of being human.

Reduction to body parts isn't by nature what God meant .

If that is human then hell I should leave my wife she ain't so young ,same argument for me .

Trust me .being married for over twenty years ,sex isn't what will keep it . It's part of it but looks fade and also with both sexes the desire for it will wane.

Men usually keep that drive longer but I know men who lost the appetite for it .

 

[miamited]

Yes, it goes back further to Sodom and Gomorrah, but it wasn’t politicized in any shape or form like it is today.

Yeah, I wasn't saying your entire commentary was wrong. I was just pointing out that your idea that it didn't become a 'thing' until the Ancient Greek civilization came on board on the earth, isn't a true representation of the matter and its beginnings. It likely wasn't politicized like it is today in Ancient Greece either, do you think? Or do you think that Ancient Greek senators ran on LGBTQ issues?

God bless,
Ted

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yeah, I wasn't saying your entire commentary was wrong. I was just pointing out that your idea that it didn't become a 'thing' until the Ancient Greek civilization came on board on the earth, isn't a true representation of the matter and its beginnings. It likely wasn't politicized like it is today in Ancient Greece either, do you think? Or do you think that Ancient Greek senators ran on LGBTQ issues?

God bless,
Ted

What makes it a “thing”? I was pointing out that originally that was a “thing” about temple prostitution, where there were both male and female prostitutes. It wasn’t politicized, but neither was it an identity, it was an immoral sexual behavior in the same category with incest, adultery, period sex, bestiality and child sacrifice. People did it out of pagan belief, nobody identified themselves as a non-binary homosexual, not in Sodom, not in Canaan, not in Greece, only in post WWII western world.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Gay identities seem to have grown out of capitalism and urbanization

I blame Evolution, Hunanism, belief that the universe is greater than 10,000 years old, and the fact that Biblical influence on culture is waning.

 

[miamited]

What makes it a “thing”? I was pointing out that originally that was a “thing” about temple prostitution, where there were both male and female prostitutes. It wasn’t politicized, but neither was it an identity, it was an immoral sexual behavior in the same category with incest, adultery, period sex, bestiality and child sacrifice. People did it out of pagan belief, nobody identified themselves as a non-binary homosexual, not in Sodom, not in Canaan, not in Greece, only in post WWII western world.

Hi again Carry_Your_Name

Sorry, I guess I need to define my term 'thing' for you. You seemed to point to a time in history that homosexuality got started. I'm referring to that process or time as homosexuality becoming a 'thing' because you're claiming that's when it became something of merit or its beginnings. And I'm not convinced that immoral sexual activities necessarily originated from some pagan worship practice, although yes, it was involved in many. Sexual immorality just comes from our love/enjoyment/pleasure that most of us generally get from sex. And yes, it was likely more enjoyed by the man than the woman, certainly in the beginning. We read in Paul's letter to the Romans that 'even' their women exchanged... This would imply to me that the use of the word 'even' means that it started with men, but then became a practice among women.

And yes, there are many, many, many more terms to define all of these sexual deviances than there were 4,000 years ago, or even 50 years ago. But that's part of man's corruption of knowledge. That we spend a great amount of time studying and defining and making up terms to explain the things that we see happening on the earth.

I'd also be just a bit careful making a declarative statement that people didn't identify as homosexual until more modern times. I mean, do you believe that the female prostitutes mentioned in the old covenant didn't identify themselves as women who were having sexual relations with men as some temple, for lack of a better word, religious worker?

God bless,
Ted

 

[Tenchi]

In modern Christian view, sex - from kissing, fondling, undressing, shower, foreplay to intercourse, the whole shebang - is a foretaste of our spiritual union with Jesus in heaven, like a trailer of a movie. Sex by God's design is the consumation of a loving relationship, it's about losing yourself and merging with your partner, transcending physical boundaries and feeling the presence of God when you hit climax.

This is quite abhorrent, conflating physical experience with spiritual experience, acutely degrading the latter in so doing. Yuck. You might help your thinking here by considering the following:

Galatians 5:16-17
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.

Matthew 22:30
30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Romans 8:11-13
11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—
13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

2 Corinthians 4:16-18
16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.
17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison,
18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

And, by the way, no right-thinking man would want anything like such a "union with Jesus in heaven." Eeewww. The idea of having with Christ something like the sexual relationship I have with my wife is, well, repellent.

I get that you're not suggesting that there is a kind of sexual interaction between the believer and their Savior, but that the level of intimacy possible between a husband and wife in a sexual encounter offers a glimpse of what it will be like to know Christ in eternity. But the Bible never indicates this, directly or obliquely. Instead, all our physical experience, all our knowledge derived from that experience, is just "looking in a mirror dimly" (1 Corinthians 13:12), it is just partial knowledge that, because it is partial and non-spiritual, must always warp and lower the truth of our eternal, heavenly future with God.

Years ago, I read of an elderly man whose wife suffered a terrible stroke and fell into a coma. Every morning, no matter the weather, the elderly man hobbled to the side of his wife's bed and remained there for the entire day, only leaving in the late evening to return home to sleep. As the old man sat with his wife, he would tell her about himself, about the world outside the facility in which his wife was confined, about the lives of their children and grandchildren; he would read to her; he would caress her hair, hold her hand and kiss her, and tell her that he loved her. He did this for two years, if I remember correctly, never missing a day, though his wife never gave any sign she heard him, no gentle squeeze of his hand, no brief flutter of eyelashes, nothing. And then she died.

I see God's love in this kind of love, in the incredibly selfless, deeply-committed love of this old man for his wife, far, far more than I do in the brief, inevitably self-centered sexual love you want to hold up as a "shadow of things to come." Though the old man and his wife never enjoyed sexual relations in the last two years of their life together, there was far greater godly love, intimacy and beauty in their relationship than could ever be in a comparatively fleeting moment of sexual passion.

When I look at the New Testament and what God offers to us in it as His greatest expression of His love to us, it isn't an example of semi-sexual intimacy he offers, but a terrible, breath-taking demonstration of excruciating, indomitable self-sacrifice. How very, very far from what the World calls "love" this is!

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is quite abhorrent, conflating physical experience with spiritual experience, acutely degrading the latter in so doing. Yuck. You might help your thinking here by considering the following:

Good, then stay away from women and walk in the spirit, so the latter won’t be “degraded”. I’ve never been confused about that.

And, by the way, no right-thinking man would want anything like such a "union with Jesus in heaven." Eeewww. The idea of having with Christ something like the sexual relationship I have with my wife is, well, repellent.

Then you’re denying the prophecy of the Lamb’s marriage supper in heaven (Rev. 19:7-10), along with all the marriage analogy (Matt. 9:15, 22:1-14). There won’t be worldly marriage with one another in the kingdom (Matt. 22:30) because Jesus will be the bridegroom for all. Don’t bother lecturing me with any word of God if it’s “eeeww” to you.

I get that you're not suggesting that there is a kind of sexual interaction between the believer and their Savior, but that the level of intimacy possible between a husband and wife in a sexual encounter offers a glimpse of what it will be like to know Christ in eternity. But the Bible never indicates this, directly or obliquely. Instead, all our physical experience, all our knowledge derived from that experience, is just "looking in a mirror dimly" (1 Corinthians 13:12), it is just partial knowledge that, because it is partial and non-spiritual, must always warp and lower the truth of our eternal, heavenly future with God.

well looking in a mirror dimly is still better than not looking at any mirror at all, or never knowing what a mirror is. You keep pounding me on the “spiritual” front and denigrating any “physical” experience, how do I know that you’re not preaching the heresy of Gnosticism, i.e. spiritual and abstract things good, physical and tangible things bad? That completely undermines the incarnation of God.

Years ago, I read of an elderly man whose wife suffered a terrible stroke and fell into a coma. Every morning, no matter the weather, the elderly man hobbled to the side of his wife's bed and remained there for the entire day, only leaving in the late evening to return home to sleep. As the old man sat with his wife, he would tell her about himself, about the world outside the facility in which his wife was confined, about the lives of their children and grandchildren; he would read to her; he would caress her hair, hold her hand and kiss her, and tell her that he loved her. He did this for two years, if I remember correctly, never missing a day, though his wife never gave any sign she heard him, no gentle squeeze of his hand, no brief flutter of eyelashes, nothing. And then she died.

I see God's love in this kind of love, in the incredibly selfless, deeply-committed love of this old man for his wife, far, far more than I do in the brief, inevitably self-centered sexual love you want to hold up as a "shadow of things to come." Though the old man and his wife never enjoyed sexual relations in the last two years of their life together, there was far greater godly love, intimacy and beauty in their relationship than could ever be in a comparatively fleeting moment of sexual passion.

Sir, you’ve totally mistaken. I clearly pointed out that true agape love is about sharing and giving, putting your partner’s need before your own, you should save this sob story for GodsGrace who only sees her own self-centered needs.

When I look at the New Testament and what God offers to us in it as His greatest expression of His love to us, it isn't an example of semi-sexual intimacy he offers, but a terrible, breath-taking demonstration of excruciating, indomitable self-sacrifice. How very, very far from what the World calls "love" this is!

Yes, exactly, that’s why I’ve never got to experience that worldly “love”, even if I wanted, God won’t offer any, he humbled me with a celibate yet carefree life. Please understand that this thread is about sexuality, i was just explaining what a biblical view on sexuality should be - “two become one flesh”. You go back to the OT, not the NT, because neither Jesus nor any of his disciples were known of having any sexuality, that’s rather a distraction, God’s love is too great and pure to be tainted with any hormonal reaction in the nether region.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Hi again @Carry_Your_Name

Sorry, I guess I need to define my term 'thing' for you. You seemed to point to a time in history that homosexuality got started.

No sir, it became a “thing” in Ancient Greece, as I’ve explained. Before that it had always existed, when Ham saw Noah drunk and naked (Gen. 9:22), he may have had homosexual sex with his Father, not just accidentally caught a sighting of that and told his brothers, according to some scholars. It could’ve been existed in the pre-flood world, there’s no certain historic record to pin it down.

And I'm not convinced that immoral sexual activities necessarily originated from some pagan worship practice, although yes, it was involved in many. Sexual immorality just comes from our love/enjoyment/pleasure that most of us generally get from sex. And yes, it was likely more enjoyed by the man than the woman, certainly in the beginning. We read in Paul's letter to the Romans that 'even' their women exchanged... This would imply to me that the use of the word 'even' means that it started with men, but then became a practice among women.

And yes, there are many, many, many more terms to define all of these sexual deviances than there were 4,000 years ago, or even 50 years ago. But that's part of man's corruption of knowledge. That we spend a great amount of time studying and defining and making up terms to explain the things that we see happening on the earth.

Friend, don’t be distracted by this stuff, heed Paul’s advice, flee from sexual immorality, don’t waste your time on studying it. These kinds of sexual immorality always existed, there’s nothing new under the sun.

I'd also be just a bit careful making a declarative statement that people didn't identify as homosexual until more modern times. I mean, do you believe that the female prostitutes mentioned in the old covenant didn't identify themselves as women who were having sexual relations with men as some temple, for lack of a better word, religious worker?

This is absolutely a modern phenomenon, it’s called identity politics, a devious strategy of “divide and conquer”. LGBTQ is a fabricated “oppressed minority”, they were envious of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, and they’re making their own counterfeit version of it, playing the victim and crying foul. Civil Rights movement was a genuine movement led by God fearing Christians, MLK was a pastor; this one however was led by godless satanists. If you buy into it and accept homosexuality as a legitimate identity, you’re deceived, and you’ve already lost.

 

[Tenchi]

Good, then stay away from women and walk in the spirit, so the latter won’t be “degraded”. I’ve never been confused about that.

I'm married. Just as God intends most men and women to be. Being so doesn't at all interfere with life in the Spirit, only with being given over entirely to Christian ministry which would be damaging to a marriage.

By the way, do you know what it is to "walk in the Spirit"?

Then you’re denying the prophecy of the Lamb’s marriage supper in heaven (Rev. 19:7-10), along with all the marriage analogy (Matt. 9:15, 22:1-14).

Oh? Did the use of the marriage metaphor in these instances emphasize the sexual nature of marriage, drawing out of the sex-act, in particular, a parallel to heavenly "union with Christ," as you did?

Don’t bother lecturing me with any word of God if it’s “eeeww” to you.

I will respond to your posts as I see fit. Certainly, if you propose false notions of God's truth, as you did by sexualizing the believer's eternal, heavenly experience of God, I'm going to make corrective remarks, whatever you might prefer.

well looking in a mirror dimly is still better than not looking at any mirror at all, or never knowing what a mirror is. You keep pounding me on the “spiritual” front and denigrating any “physical” experience, how do I know that you’re not preaching the heresy of Gnosticism, i.e. spiritual and abstract things good, physical and tangible things bad? That completely undermines the incarnation of God.

I "pounded"(?) on your sexualizing the believer's heavenly, spiritual experience of God with Scripture, not Gnostic doctrine.

Sir, you’ve totally mistaken. I clearly pointed out that true agape love is about sharing and giving, putting your partner’s need before your own, you should save this sob story for @GodsGrace who only sees her own self-centered needs.

??? "Sob story"? I gave no "sob story." Only a beautiful, and inspiring, and exemplary story of godly love.

I've never encountered the person you describe GodsGrace to be in my interactions with her. She's always been quite personable, generally even-handed and thoughtful even when we've sharply disagreed. You don't demonstrate that the Spirit of Christ is within you by bad-mouthing her in this thread.

Yes, exactly, that’s why I’ve never got to experience that worldly “love”, even if I wanted, God won’t offer any, he humbled me with a celibate yet carefree life. Please understand that this thread is about sexuality, i was just explaining what a biblical view on sexuality should be - “two become one flesh”.

I understand what the thread is about. My remarks to you were concerning only your peculiar idea that the sex-act reveals something of the intimacy of the believer's eternal, heavenly experience of God. It doesn't.

God’s love is too great and pure to be tainted with any hormonal reaction in the nether region.

Oh? Well, you wrote:

"In modern Christian view, sex - from kissing, fondling, undressing, shower, foreplay to intercourse, the whole shebang - is a foretaste of our spiritual union with Jesus in heaven, like a trailer of a movie. Sex by God's design is the consumation of a loving relationship, it's about losing yourself and merging with your partner, transcending physical boundaries and feeling the presence of God when you hit climax."

 

[miamited]

Friend, don’t be distracted by this stuff, heed Paul’s advice, flee from sexual immorality, don’t waste your time on studying it

Says the believer who's obviously studied it enough to know when it became a thing. Somehow that sounds somewhat hypocritical to me.

If you buy into it and accept homosexuality as a legitimate identity, you’re deceived, and you’ve already lost.

A homosexual man is a homosexual man. This idea that you have that it's some kind of 'identity' is lost on me. So yes, I guess I've already lost whatever battle it is that you think I'm in over the issue.

God bless,
Ted

 

[GodsGrace]

Good, then stay away from women and walk in the spirit, so the latter won’t be “degraded”. I’ve never been confused about that.

Then you’re denying the prophecy of the Lamb’s marriage supper in heaven (Rev. 19:7-10), along with all the marriage analogy (Matt. 9:15, 22:1-14). There won’t be worldly marriage with one another in the kingdom (Matt. 22:30) because Jesus will be the bridegroom for all. Don’t bother lecturing me with any word of God if it’s “eeeww” to you.


well looking in a mirror dimly is still better than not looking at any mirror at all, or never knowing what a mirror is. You keep pounding me on the “spiritual” front and denigrating any “physical” experience, how do I know that you’re not preaching the heresy of Gnosticism, i.e. spiritual and abstract things good, physical and tangible things bad? That completely undermines the incarnation of God.

Sir, you’ve totally mistaken. I clearly pointed out that true agape love is about sharing and giving, putting your partner’s need before your own, you should save this sob story for GodsGrace who only sees her own self-centered needs.

Yes, exactly, that’s why I’ve never got to experience that worldly “love”, even if I wanted, God won’t offer any, he humbled me with a celibate yet carefree life. Please understand that this thread is about sexuality, i was just explaining what a biblical view on sexuality should be - “two become one flesh”. You go back to the OT, not the NT, because neither Jesus nor any of his disciples were known of having any sexuality, that’s rather a distraction, God’s love is too great and pure to be tainted with any hormonal reaction in the nether region.

Why are you mentioning me in this post when you don't even understand what I was saying?

Please refrain from addressing me in any manner.

 

[Riven]

I blame Evolution, Hunanism, belief that the universe is greater than 10,000 years old, and the fact that Biblical influence on culture is waning.

It was around before Darwin. Lol.

 

[KV-44-v1]

It was around before Darwin. Lol.

The cause of it is Sin, and some beliefs give people a Percieved (not real) "justification" for sin.
So the things i listed basically, in the people's minds, let them "rationalize" violating the Law written on their heart.


"Bible wrong? Christianity false? Ok then let the sin burst forth!" - Person with those false beliefs

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I'm married. Just as God intends most men and women to be. Being so doesn't at all interfere with life in the Spirit, only with being given over entirely to Christian ministry which would be damaging to a marriage.

By the way, do you know what it is to "walk in the Spirit"?

Walk by faith not by sight. At least contrary to walking in the flesh.

Oh? Did the use of the marriage metaphor in these instances emphasize the sexual nature of marriage, drawing out of the sex-act, in particular, a parallel to heavenly "union with Christ," as you did?

If you're married with your partner, you're no longer two, but one, this one-body union with Christ is just a matter of fact. Tell me, how many times in the NT says we're "one with Christ", we're "in Christ", we're the "body of Christ"? I emphasize on the "sexua" nature because, again, the topic of this thread is about sexuality. If you don't wanna talk about it, don't reply.

I will respond to your posts as I see fit. Certainly, if you propose false notions of God's truth, as you did by sexualizing the believer's eternal, heavenly experience of God, I'm going to make corrective remarks, whatever you might prefer.

Sir, you're making false accusations, what I said was the opposite - "there will be no marriage or giving into marriage in the resurrection like angels," angels are sexless, they don't reproduce, and neither will we in the kingdom. That's the eternal heavenly experience, it's DEsexualized. What I described is nothing but sanctified sex within wedlock. If you're really married and you believe that's what God intended, you wouldn't have disparaged human sexuality the way you do in your mean-spirited reply.

I "pounded"(?) on your sexualizing the believer's heavenly, spiritual experience of God with Scripture, not Gnostic doctrine.

No sir, you seem to be offended by an honest, cathartic discussion about human sexuality, you're acting just like a typical prudish parent who perpetuates the stigmization of sex and suppresses any mention of sex because sex is taboo, a necessarily evil for reproduction.

??? "Sob story"? I gave no "sob story." Only a beautiful, and inspiring, and exemplary story of godly love.

I've never encountered the person you describe @GodsGrace to be in my interactions with her. She's always been quite personable, generally even-handed and thoughtful even when we've sharply disagreed. You don't demonstrate that the Spirit of Christ is within you by bad-mouthing her in this thread.

Hey I'm just giving you an honest report about my interaction with her about "need" and "self-centeredness". If you don't like it, leave it. I don't wanna cause any collateral damage.

I understand what the thread is about. My remarks to you were concerning only your peculiar idea that the sex-act reveals something of the intimacy of the believer's eternal, heavenly experience of God. It doesn't.

If you don't have a temporary, earthly experience of God, how can you begin to imagine such an eternal, heavenly experience of God? You and I are still living in our sinful earthly lives, nobody's ever been to heaven and come back except lord Jesus himself.

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? (Jn. 3:12)