Same Sex Relationships

[Devekut]

Heidi says:

Sorry, but it doesn't come from me, it comes from God's word. And if homosexuals aren't acting on lust, then why not live together in a non-sexual relationship like room mates do? Why not marry a person of the opposite sex and have children with him/her? The answer is simple; lust. Their sexual appetites are their highest priority and they don't care what God or anyone else thinks about it as long as they can act on their lust. There can hardly be anything more selfish than that.

;-) And there can hardly be anything more ;-) simplistic ;-) and unconsidered .

 

[Heidi]

Heidi says:

Sorry, but it doesn't come from me, it comes from God's word. And if homosexuals aren't acting on lust, then why not live together in a non-sexual relationship like room mates do? Why not marry a person of the opposite sex and have children with him/her? The answer is simple; lust. Their sexual appetites are their highest priority and they don't care what God or anyone else thinks about it as long as they can act on their lust. There can hardly be anything more selfish than that.

;-) And there can hardly be anything more ;-) simplistic ;-) and unconsidered .

Sorry, but your attempts to mock me can't change God's word. ;-) The truth is always simple. It's lies that are convoluted. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Again Heidi, this is your reduction of the homosexual relationship based on your theory of sexuality and not actual experience with homosexual couples.

Believe it or not, homosexuals know the difference between lust and love. Homosexual couples know when they are acting on love or lust. I would agree that the homosexual subculture, as well as the heterosexual mainstream culture, have a lust-based orientation. This is not the same as the couples that remain monogomous and live in a unitive sexual relationship based on physical, emotional, spiritual intimacy, self-giving and reciprocity.

Your "theory of people" dictates that you must see homosexual love as lust. You will probably continue to call it lust until you are blue in the face long after it is demonstrated that love is present between homosexual couples.

Devekut - one MUSt start with the Word of God are work outwards. It is the Word of God that is to shape our behaviours and our actions. Not the other way around.

You want to make it complicated in an effort to find justification for a sinful behaviour. You do not even respond to the passage of Scripture I give you, but attempt to talk around it. They have been blinded by what they believe "love" to be. As romans shows, it is not Love, but "God gave them over to degrading passions".

You can either accept the Word of God, or you accept what you perceive. Which is it?

 

[unred typo]

Love? What is love? Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. Friends don’t encourage friends to stick needles in their arms. Friends don’t encourage friends to engage in degrading behavior that could give them sexually transmitted diseases, some of which are incurably fatal.

 

[Heidi]

Love? What is love? Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. Friends don’t encourage friends to stick needles in their arms. Friends don’t encourage friends to engage in degrading behavior that could give them sexually transmitted diseases, some of which are incurably fatal.

Amen. excellent post. :D

 

[Devekut]

My initial point is that, irregardless of what scripture says, this issue is different than discussing things like alchoholism, pedophilia and adultery. My point is that Christians are using a theory of sexual morality (biblically derived) and forcing this paradigm overtop of real relationships with real value to those persons. It is not objectively self destructive behavior, it could well be argued that if you actually spent time with these couples that it is objectively beneficial to them.

Essentially what is happening is that, because of what the Bible says, you are dictating to these couples what their experience is between them even though you personally have no part on it. My personal opinion of moral theology, and especially of theology regarding human relationships, is that it must not only consult scripture but also the actual lived experienes of the people whom these "decress" will affect. A theology is not successful if it is present only on paper, if what it says is Truth it must also be true of the on-ground human experience.

I am not telling you to change your mind, I am asking that this issue be given the high meticulous care that it warratns. What we type here on this forum, real people live out. We are making condemnations of people's actual lives, sense of purpose and place in the world. In my mind that is never a simple matter. It is certainly worlds away from calling drug dealing or alchoholism a sin.

I will, if you prefer, examine Romans and give you my opinion in a later post.

 

[golfjack]

Come on Church, wake up. Since when we call sin something else? Committing homesexual acts is sin, and nothing else. Is the Church being politically correct?



May God bless, Golfjack

 

[mondar]

If I can jump in here and recommend listening to a debate by Bishop Spong of the Episcopal Church and Dr. James White at aomin.org. White takes a solidly Reformed position, but says many things that broader Christianity will agree with and enjoy. Spong is ... well... I guess something between athiesm, and thiesm, but I dont know what to call him.

Anyway, I think White demonstrates that acceptance of homosexuality can only come from a Athiestic presupposition. But then how can an Athiest know what is right and wrong. There is no epistemological basis for ethics in Athiesm.

The down load cost $3, but is easily worth it.

 

[Drew]

There is no epistemological basis for ethics in Athiesm

I probably do not agree with this statement, subject to us having a common understanding of what you mean by "epistemological".

Although I am no atheist, I will argue as follows re how an atheist can claim a means to "ground" his / her ethics.

1. Fact: Human society is a system of individuals that interact in a context where there are limited resources.

2. Assumption: All human beings ultimately desire the same things - peace, freedom, security, happiness, comfort, prosperity, intellectual challenge, etc.

3. Since 1 is obviously true, and if 2 is indeed correct, then it follows that different "rules of behaviour" are differentially effective in optimizing the desired end states described in (2).

4. There is, necessarily an optimal "set" of rules that produces the most peace, most freedom, most prosperity, etc.

5. That set constitutes a code of morality that is grounded in the reality of the system.

I think that this constitutes a good argument against the position that "atheists cannot ground their morality in anything". In fact, I would dare to suggest that, because God loves us and designed us a certain way, "God's moral law for us" is essentially an application of the above principles. God wants us to be happy and prosperous and free and .....etc.

God, of course, is infinitely more wise than we are in respect to "figuring out the best set of rules". So, of course, God's laws may seem mysterious to us.

I suspect that this argument is most vulnerable in respect to item 2.

 

[Devekut]

I think White demonstrates that acceptance of homosexuality can only come from a Athiestic presupposition

I highly doubt that he demonstrated that. Many Christians accept homosexuality while maintaining their theism.

I am not here to convince anyone to change their mind about homosexuality as a sin. These are very conservative forums. My point is that homosexuality should be considered in light of its more serious connection to human relationships. This should, in my mind, be calling Christians to approach this issue in a manner that gives dignity to the people involved. Saying that they do not really love eachother, for example, is not really a statement that most of us are qualified to make. To equate a homosexual couple to pedophiles or drug addiction is again not really representative of the positive value this relationship has in those peoples lives.

As long as Christians continually refuse to acknowledge that homosexual couples might really mean something significant to one another rather than a mere sexual dependence, this issue continues to move nowhere.

 

[mondar]

There is no epistemological basis for ethics in Athiesm

I probably do not agree with this statement, subject to us having a common understanding of what you mean by "epistemological".

Although I am no atheist, I will argue as follows re how an atheist can claim a means to "ground" his / her ethics.

1. Fact: Human society is a system of individuals that interact in a context where there are limited resources.

2. Assumption: All human beings ultimately desire the same things - peace, freedom, security, happiness, comfort, prosperity, intellectual challenge, etc.

3. Since 1 is obviously true, and if 2 is indeed correct, then it follows that different "rules of behaviour" are differentially effective in optimizing the desired end states described in (2).

4. There is, necessarily an optimal "set" of rules that produces the most peace, most freedom, most prosperity, etc.

5. That set constitutes a code of morality that is grounded in the reality of the system.

I think that this constitutes a good argument against the position that "atheists cannot ground their morality in anything". In fact, I would dare to suggest that, because God loves us and designed us a certain way, "God's moral law for us" is essentially an application of the above principles. God wants us to be happy and prosperous and free and .....etc.

God, of course, is infinitely more wise than we are in respect to "figuring out the best set of rules". So, of course, God's laws may seem mysterious to us.

I suspect that this argument is most vulnerable in respect to item 2.

Drew, if I were an atheist why should I care about the betterment of humanity or the extinction of humanity? As long as it makes me happy, what does it matter if I am selfish. After us, it will probably be the bees that evolve.

 

[Devekut]

Drew, if I were an atheist why should I care about the betterment of humanity or the extinction of humanity? As long as it makes me happy, what does it matter if I am selfish. After us, it will probably be the bees that evolve.

Actually, you have demonstrated my original point in relation to homosexuality;

My point is that this statement is made as the logical conclusion of an on-paper moral theology. One would assume that, if the nature of the relationship was sinful, then homosexual relationships would be incapable of genuine love, spiritual growth and value.

My point here is that there is a difference between our theory of something on paper and the onground reality which includes factors and connections that we don't see from the desk. In this case, it might seem like atheism is not capable of producing morality because of our theory on the origins of morality. We proceed with a certain logic given our paradigm and then force our conclusions on the experiences of other people.

But infact, when we turn to atheists we can see that significant portions of them do find sources of morality quite apart from theism. This is an objective fact supported by observation. Many atheists have a distinct sense of morality. (Though I would argue, as I think would Drew and C.S Lewis that they recieve this morality from God as part of human nature).

Now if you want to argue that atheism leads to less traditional morals or that there are more moral religious people than theists, that is a different question than the one asked above.

 

[unred typo]

David and Jonathan had a same sex relationship but it was not sexual. There is nothing wrong with two men who truly love one another and respect their manhood and don‘t indulge in sexual immorality. A son should love his mother but a sexual relationship with her is forbidden. A reason given in the Bible for banning these sorts of things is to prevent what is called ‘confusion.’ This was a serious offense and sometimes a capital one.

Leviticus 20:12
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

The reason that it effects the rest of us is written in Leviticus 18:
27(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
28That the land spue not you out also, when you defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

When we allow things as a nation that God finds disgusting, we assure our being punished in that nation. If we don’t speak out against these abominations, we will be punished with the guilty. This is not to say we should be hateful, viciously attack or stone the offenders. The way of Jesus was to say the truth in love. Just as some people have a predisposition to alcoholism, I believe some are more likely to struggle with sexual sins, whether it is because of genetic or environmental reasons. They need help to get free from these sins and condoning such things only makes it harder to resist.

 

[biblecatholic]

I wanted to jump in and I might not be able to respond soon I have so much work and school work.... I want to first let all non-catholics know that the catholic church teaches that homosexuality is not compatible with love and is sinful. That being said they are just as guilty as me when I was having sex outside of marriage with different girlfriends, which I and many have done. This is a sin that is caused from much wounding to the person which has led them to believe in a distorted view of the human person, ( all of us sinners), and we all have in one degree or another a distorted view of love and humanity

The question of love,[/b] which is the source and summit of our life as typified in the Trinity,

the Love of God is made apparent in the body of male and female, the male gives of himself to the woman the woman recieves the man and gives herself back this Love is so powerful that it can produce life...in essence this is a picture of the Trinity.....feelings and lust are not love. homosexuality doesnt reflect the trinity it makes a counterfit, as with other sexual relationships outside of marriage and even divorce

alchoholism or pedophilia where the child is too young to be making adult decisions about sexuality.

these along with homosexuality are spiritual sicknesses, people are not born attracted to children just as people are not born attracted to the same sex, that being said homosexuals are not molesters and are not the same.

Two people committing adultery might be in love. But it is not that love that we are questioning when we condmen adultery.

people who are committing adultry are not in love, love is God's essence,they might think it's love but it in no way is love

Christians condemn the entire nature of the relationship and not merely the manner or conditions under which it is expressed.

It has to be condemned because it is sin, as any sexual relationship outside of marriage.



.....My heart goes out to homosexuals and all of God's wounded people,I my self am wounded differently than the gay but wounded none the less as we all are. Christ came to heal those who suffer weather from homosexuality or fornication adultry all other sin etc. all can be healed by God. It may take time but our God is a healer....God loves the homosexual but doesnt love the sin.

 

[Biblereader]

Dan :D

You have offered absolutely no answer to the questions I raise. It is picking and choosing and nothing more.

I could go on but it would be a waste of my time if you are not going to answer the questions raised.

Shalom
Ted :D

Ted, are you a homosexual, or a bi sexual?

 

[Vic C.]

You really should have read the whole thread. He said he wasn't returning. That's fine with me; I'm growing weary of people coming to a Christian site to promote homosexuality. It's not natural.

 

[unred typo]

You really should have read the whole thread. He said he wasn't returning. That's fine with me; I'm growing weary of people coming to a Christian site to promote homosexuality. It's not natural.

I think he would disagree with you about what he was promoting. He seemed to imply that what we are born with are animal desires and perfectly normal and natural. This is partly true. The body we are chained to has animal cravings that are natural for animals. We are commanded to “abstain from fleshly lusts that war against the soul.†Scripture describes this fight as a ’war against the soul’ because these passions cause death and misery and even the eternal destruction of our soul if we don‘t deny their reign over us. All things that offend will be gathered and destroyed one day. Things that offend include not only homosexuality, but lying, cheating, greed, backbiting, gossip, pride and many things we consider normal.

 

[faithtransforms]

Maybe someone has already quoted this, since I am coming in late and haven't read the entire thread, but the bible could not be more clear:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[turnorburn]

Don't pick wrong Ted.

Shalom,
turnorburn

Leviticus also condemns the wearing of a fiber blend, the eating of shell fish and the eating of pork.. It also promotes stoning prostitutes and stoning disobedient children. This then raises the question as to what basis one would decide that wearing of a fiber blend etc. is alright. The same question holds true for the eating of shell fish, or the eating of pork. On what basis then does one not hold to stoning of prostitutes or disobedient children.

Looks like picking and choosing to me.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[GraceBwithU]

Dan :D

You have offered absolutely no answer to the questions I raise. It is picking and choosing and nothing more.

I could go on but it would be a waste of my time if you are not going to answer the questions raised.

Shalom
Ted :D

Ro 1:26-32
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
KJV