Alcoholism vs sexual orientation

[OllieFranz]

Ok, I'm still at work but have had a minute here and a minute there to consider the over-all point you're trying to make.

I'd like to lay out my own understanding of it in a very simple, three-point geometrical form. I've omitted the contrast with alcoholism as it's merely an example (which I don't feel the need to refute). I've also removed all 'unnecessary' wording, based on my own understanding of the argument.

1. The Bible says that "man-lying" or "man-bedding" are sins.

2. Homosexual acts or relationships in general do not necessitate "man-lying" or "man-bedding".

3. Therefore, homosexual acts or relationships in general are not sin.

If this is the correct deductive interpretation of what you've written, I'm ready to discuss it. Let me know.

I would not call everything that you discarded "unnecessary," because it is possible that down the line some of it may prove key to some of the disagreements we may (or may not) have as we continue the discussion, but, yes, in terms of your three-point outline they are not immediately essential.

I would also place the term "homosexual acts" in quotes, as I do not feel, for several reasons, that it is the best descriptor for the thing(s) under discussion. Some of those reasons may also prove not to be "unnecessary." Although, admittedly, there are problems with other possible descriptors as well.

Also, on point three, all of the usual constraints on "sexual" acts apply. I do not claim that adultery, incest, promiscuity, rape, etc get a pass when the involved parties are both male, just because they are not "man-lying."

Given these clarifications, I think we can begin our discussion.

 

[Poverello78]

I would not call everything that you discarded "unnecessary," because it is possible that down the line some of it may prove key to some of the disagreements we may (or may not) have as we continue the discussion, but, yes, in terms of your three-point outline they are not immediately essential.

I would also place the term "homosexual acts" in quotes, as I do not feel, for several reasons, that it is the best descriptor for the thing(s) under discussion. Some of those reasons may also prove not to be "unnecessary." Although, admittedly, there are problems with other possible descriptors as well.

Also, on point three, all of the usual constraints on "sexual" acts apply. I do not claim that adultery, incest, promiscuity, rape, etc get a pass when the involved parties are both male, just because they are not "man-lying."

Given these clarifications, I think we can begin our discussion.

Ok, great. My next request should be a rather obvious starting point.

Please define "man-lying" and "man-bedding" (as precise as you can, as I will likely make reference to the words you use specifically).

 

[OllieFranz]

"Man-lying" (mishkav zakur)comes from the way the ancient rabbis referred, in the discussions that were recorded in the Talmud and other respected commentaries, to the act forbidden in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. They did not have the chapter and verse divisions that modern Bibles have, so they designated verses by the most significant word or phrase.

"Man-bedders" (arsenokoitai) is one of the classes of sinners in the sin lists that Paul gives us in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. These are the first appearances of the words, and the context tells us that they are sinners, but not what their sin was. A reasonable assumption is that these sinners are the ones guilty of "man-lying." The LXX translation of Leviticus 20:13 lends credence to this assumption.

The rabbis were mostly in agreement that the "man-lying" prohibition was directed only at one specific action (a**l s*x) and at only one of the two participants (the one in the more "active" position). Most of their discussions were attempts to understand why both participants were to be killed according to Leviticus 20:13. They were never able to come to a consensus on that issue.

There are more clues in the language and grammar of the two Levitical verses, but they are more suggestive than conclusive. So, a person is not guilty of "man-lying" unless he, at the very least, engages in a**l s*x asw the "active" partner. It may also require that the second partner not be fully consenting, or that one of the partners have a wife, who he is cheating on (thus making the act adultery) or some other additional condition, but none of them are certain.

As long as they are not certain, the principle from Romans 14:14 applies. I know that a**l s*x is part of the sin of "man-lying. I don't know which of the other elements, if any, is a necessary part of the sin. So for me a**l s*x alone would be sin. (Fortunately I find the idea rather repulsive, so it is not a critical issue for me.) For someone else, the Romans 14:14 line might be drawn in a different place. Where God draws the (objective) line is no longer clear.

 

[CTyer]

God is not a liar, that is true. But satan is and not only is he a liar, but the father of lies. This is one of the lies he has fathered. Sodomy is not limited to a**s** either by the way. Oral s** is also sodomy. Just so you know.

It is not men who "deny gays this way of escape" but God. God never offered marriage to any combination other than a male and a female. So, "marriage" does not solve the problem for any perversion or distortion of His creative purpose of mankind for anyone. Jesus reiterated what constitutes a marriage in the eyes of God, when He refers to the creation account. He made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave His parents and cleave to His wife. There are no male wives and there are no female husbands, there is no "wife and wife" nor "husband and husband". That is a creation of satan, carried out by man.

Calvin Tyer

Which brings me back to 1 Corinthians 10:13 and 1 Corinthians 7:1-9. In 1 Corinthians 10:13, God, through Paul, promises that there will be no temptations without a way of escape. In 1 Corinthians 7, He tells us that, except for the very few, like Paul, that He gifts with the gift of celbacy for the gospel's sake*, the way of escape from sexual temptations is marriage. If you deny gays this way of escape, you turn your God into a liar. My God is not a liar. *(See Matthew 19:12)

 

[OllieFranz]

God is not a liar, that is true. But satan is and not only is he a liar, but the father of lies. This is one of the lies he has fathered. Sodomy is not limited to a**s** either by the way. Oral s** is also sodomy. Just so you know.

"Sodomy" is not a Biblical term. It comes from English common law. It is as much a misnomer as is "Onanism." The (former) crimes that each describes does not match the circumstances that gave their namesakes their notoriety in the Bible.

The act that was in English common law as "Onanism" is described in the Bible as merely requiring that the man wash off the contaminating substance and be considered "unclean" (should not have physical contact with a priest or someone else who must avoid even contamination by proxy) until sunset.(Leviticus 15:16)

Similarly, nowhere in the Bible is Sodom connected to "man-lying." Nor is "or*l s*x condemned anywhere in the Bible.

It is not men who "deny gays this way of escape" but God.

Either God provides a way of escape, or He is a liar. Paul tells us that the only way of escape from a temptation to abuse the sex drive is marriage (except for the very few whom He has gifted as "eunuchs for the sake of the gospel"). You say marriage is denied to gays. But you do not show what other way of escape there is for gays. You make your God into a liar.

God never offered marriage to any combination other than a male and a female.

Provably untrue. There are many instances of God blessing marriages that are not "a male and a female." In 2 Samuel 12:8 Nathan quotes God saying that He has given David his wives and would have given him even more.

So, "marriage" does not solve the problem for any perversion or distortion of His creative purpose of mankind for anyone.

The Corinthians to whom Paul first gave the advice that "it is better to marry than to burn" were not burning in a desire to have children; they were burning with sexual passion. Marriage was not offered simply to avoid bastardy, but to avoid promiscuity and fornication. In your words, to solve the problem for a "perversion or distortion of His creative purpose of mankind."

Jesus reiterated what constitutes a marriage in the eyes of God, when He refers to the creation account. He made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave His parents and cleave to His wife. There are no male wives and there are no female husbands, there is no "wife and wife" nor "husband and husband". That is a creation of satan, carried out by man.

In both instances (Genesis 2:24, and Jesus' cite in Matthew 19:5-6 and Mark 10:8) the emphasis is not on "male and female" but on becoming one in flesh and in spirit. Jesus quotes the passage in response to a question about divorce and uses it to explain that what God has bound, man does not have legitimate authority to unbind.

Biblically, marriage is a covenant between two people (sometimes one or both families are also part of the covenant) in which they become one. One of the parties leaves the old home and moves in with the other.

Other than your outrage at the suggestion that they might have been gay (a claim that I do not make, although Saul seems to suggest it) can you explain how this does not meet the Biblical definition of marriage?

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
1 Samuel 18:1-4
​

 

[OllieFranz]

Poverello78--

It's been almost 2 days since I answered your last question. Have you forgotten about our discussion?

Ok, great. My next request should be a rather obvious starting point.

Please define "man-lying" and "man-bedding" (as precise as you can, as I will likely make reference to the words you use specifically).

"Man-lying" (mishkav zakur)comes from the way the ancient rabbis referred, in the discussions that were recorded in the Talmud and other respected commentaries, to the act forbidden in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. They did not have the chapter and verse divisions that modern Bibles have, so they designated verses by the most significant word or phrase.

"Man-bedders" (arsenokoitai) is one of the classes of sinners in the sin lists that Paul gives us in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. These are the first appearances of the words, and the context tells us that they are sinners, but not what their sin was. A reasonable assumption is that these sinners are the ones guilty of "man-lying." The LXX translation of Leviticus 20:13 lends credence to this assumption.

The rabbis were mostly in agreement that the "man-lying" prohibition was directed only at one specific action (a**l s*x) and at only one of the two participants (the one in the more "active" position). Most of their discussions were attempts to understand why both participants were to be killed according to Leviticus 20:13. They were never able to come to a consensus on that issue.

There are more clues in the language and grammar of the two Levitical verses, but they are more suggestive than conclusive. So, a person is not guilty of "man-lying" unless he, at the very least, engages in a**l s*x asw the "active" partner. It may also require that the second partner not be fully consenting, or that one of the partners have a wife, who he is cheating on (thus making the act adultery) or some other additional condition, but none of them are certain.

As long as they are not certain, the principle from Romans 14:14 applies. I know that a**l s*x is part of the sin of "man-lying. I don't know which of the other elements, if any, is a necessary part of the sin. So for me a**l s*x alone would be sin. (Fortunately I find the idea rather repulsive, so it is not a critical issue for me.) For someone else, the Romans 14:14 line might be drawn in a different place. Where God draws the (objective) line is no longer clear.

There are two other criteria, besides Romans 14:14, that affect my judgment of my own behavior: The principle that not everything legal is necessarily "profitable" (1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 10:23) and the principle that my actions should not encourage, or even appear to encourage sin. (1 Thessalonians 5:22; Romans 6:1; Romans 14:13)

On the other hand, my relationship with others is to be far less judgmental. I do not know where those same three principles would have his conscince draw the line between acceptable behaviour and sin. Without that knowledge, I am not equipped to judge him.

 

[CTyer]

The definition of the word we call "sodomy" was absolutely recorded in the Bible. The hebrew words Mishkevei ishshah mean literally "after the manner of lying with a woman by the introduction of the male member." This means penetration of the male member into the flesh of another man. The english translation in Leviticus 18:22 says: to "lie with mankind, as with womankind." No matter how you attempt to slice and dice it, it is abominable in the sight of God for men to have a romantic relationship with other men as well the same goes for women. This is a perverted distortion created by satan, a counterfeit of the perfect love and love-making that God created men and women to share with one another, the fruit of which takes place in the womb, which is the bonafide evidence of God's creative wonderment, that mankind knows even without the Scripture, but we also have the Scripture and are therefore left without excuse.

Do me a favor, stop with the wild stories of Jonathan and David made up by what God calls "filthy dreamers, which defile the flesh, going after gross immorality and lusting after strange flesh, which Sodom and Gomorrah are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire". ( See Jude 1:7-8) Don't even try to go there, it is a bonafide apostate teaching, that continuing to delude yourself will only dig your heels further into the mire. Rather than continue to justify sin, and raise for yourself teachers who will preach what your itching ears want to hear, you ought to come face to face with the fact that it is sin and a gross perversion that comes from satan to steal from you and come into agreement with God and then ask Him to help you. The first step to deliverance is coming into agreement with God and admitting you are wrong and submitting your will to His. If one is not willing to do that, one can usually never be delivered.

No, it is not me, but YOU who makes God a liar. You preach that God is not only taking back His instructions which tell us, "make no provision for the flesh." and He is going further and is going to make a provision Himself for those to engage in abominable acts in His sight, with His blessing. This is an apostate belief. God does not contradict Himself, and He will not now call good, what He has already condemned as evil and wicked.
< br /> The world will, but God won't. He provides the same way of escape for everyone. Men can marry women and women can marry men. It's the same rule for everyone. The fact that a homosexual has desires that are contrary and in opposition to the perfect sexual provision God has made, means there is a problem that has to be addressed. If the sin has already overtaken them, because they have fed the demons that have tempted them, there is good news! The good news is that there is deliverance for those who are bound in sin by a stronghold that needs to be broken. Jesus paid the price for that stronghold to be broken, He has sent His Holy Spirit to endue His servants with the power to deliver in His name. If one believes that the Lord can make Him whole and believes His word when He says He will, that is all he needs. Such a man (or woman) can and will be made whole. Jesus is Lord!

Calvin Tyer

&quot;Sodomy&quot; is not a Biblical term. It comes from English common law. It is as much a misnomer as is &quot;Onanism.&quot; The (former) crimes that each describes does not match the circumstances that gave their namesakes their notoriety in the Bible.

The act that was in English common law as &quot;Onanism&quot; is described in the Bible as merely requiring that the man wash off the contaminating substance and be considered &quot;unclean&quot; (should not have physical contact with a priest or someone else who must avoid even contamination by proxy) until sunset.(Leviticus 15:16)

Similarly, nowhere in the Bible is Sodom connected to &quot;man-lying.&quot; Nor is &quot;or*l s*x condemned anywhere in the Bible.



Either God provides a way of escape, or He is a liar. Paul tells us that the only way of escape from a temptation to abuse the sex drive is marriage (except for the very few whom He has gifted as &quot;eunuchs for the sake of the gospel&quot. You say marriage is denied to gays. But you do not show what other way of escape there is for gays. You make your God into a liar.



Provably untrue. There are many instances of God blessing marriages that are not &quot;a male and a female.&quot; In 2 Samuel 12:8 Nathan quotes God saying that He has given David his wives and would have given him even more.



The Corinthians to whom Paul first gave the advice that &quot;it is better to marry than to burn&quot; were not burning in a desire to have children; they were burning with sexual passion. Marriage was not offered simply to avoid bastardy, but to avoid promiscuity and fornication. In your words, to solve the problem for a &quot;perversion or distortion of His creative purpose of mankind.&quot;



In both instances (Genesis 2:24, and Jesus' cite in Matthew 19:5-6 and Mark 10:8) the emphasis is not on &quot;male and female&quot; but on becoming one in flesh and in spirit. Jesus quotes the passage in response to a question about divorce and uses it to explain that what God has bound, man does not have legitimate authority to unbind.

Biblically, marriage is a covenant between two people (sometimes one or both families are also part of the covenant) in which they become one. One of the parties leaves the old home and moves in with the other.

Other than your outrage at the suggestion that they might have been gay (a claim that I do not make, although Saul seems to suggest it) can you explain how this does not meet the Biblical definition of marriage?

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
1 Samuel 18:1-4
​

 

[OllieFranz]

The definition of the word we call "sodomy" was absolutely recorded in the Bible. The hebrew words Mishkevei ishshah mean literally "after the manner of lying with a woman by the introduction of the male member." This means penetration of the male member into the flesh of another man. The english translation in Leviticus 18:22 says: to "lie with mankind, as with womankind." No matter how you attempt to slice and dice it, it is abominable in the sight of God for men to have a romantic relationship with other men as well the same goes for women. This is a perverted distortion created by satan, a counterfeit of the perfect love and love-making that God created men and women to share with one another, the fruit of which takes place in the womb, which is the bonafide evidence of God's creative wonderment, that mankind knows even without the Scripture, but we also have the Scripture and are therefore left without excuse.

So are you saying that the English translation of Leviticus is more accurate than the Hebrew original? Or that the ancient rabbis for whom the language and culture was their own native language and culture understood the intent of the verses less than the English-speaking Protestant translators who were more than 2000 years removed from the language and culture? They claim that it only applied to the "active" partner in a**l s*x, and that extending the prohibition to the other partner and to other acts was the work of men. Men with the best of intentions, but men, none the less, and not by fiat fron God.

Do me a favor, stop with the wild stories of Jonathan and David made up by what God calls "filthy dreamers, which defile the flesh, going after gross immorality and lusting after strange flesh, which Sodom and Gomorrah are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire". ( See Jude 1:7-8) Don't even try to go there, it is a bonafide apostate teaching, that continuing to delude yourself will only dig your heels further into the mire. Rather than continue to justify sin, and raise for yourself teachers who will preach what your itching ears want to hear, you ought to come face to face with the fact that it is sin and a gross perversion that comes from satan to steal from you and come into agreement with God and then ask Him to help you. The first step to deliverance is coming into agreement with God and admitting you are wrong and submitting your will to His. If one is not willing to do that, one can usually never be delivered.

I was not aware that simply quoting 1 Samuel 18 was spreading "wild stories of Jonathan and David made up by what God calls 'filthy dreamers, which defile the flesh, going after gross immorality and lusting after strange flesh, which Sodom and Gomorrah are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.'"

Or perhaps you mean daring to notice that the ceremony described in those verses has some similarities to a Biblical marriage ceremony. I freely admit that the similarities do not prove it was a marriage ceremony, nor did I claim earlier that it was one. But why do you let the mere existence of that similarity get you so upset?

No, it is not me, but YOU who makes God a liar. You preach that God is not only taking back His instructions which tell us, "make no provision for the flesh." and He is going further and is going to make a provision Himself for those to engage in abominable acts in His sight, with His blessing. This is an apostate belief. God does not contradict Himself, and He will not now call good, what He has already condemned as evil and wicked.

I'm sorry, but I said no such thing. I noted that the Bible mentions certain acts as clearly sinful, and certain other other distantly related acts as clearly lawful and leaves it to our consciences, guided by the Holy Spirit, to determine the lawfulness of all the acts in between, and that despite the fact that Christians are under the covenant of Grace, not the covenant of Law, many Christians condemn even those acts the Bible shows clearly to be lawful.

The world will, but God won't. He provides the same way of escape for everyone. Men can marry women and women can marry men. It's the same rule for everyone. The fact that a homosexual has desires that are contrary and in opposition to the perfect sexual provision God has made, means there is a problem that has to be addressed.

Where does it forbid men to have social intercourse with other men or women with other women? On the contrary, ancient cultures (including the Bible) limit the social interactions between persons of opposite gender, not the same gender.

If the sin has already overtaken them, because they have fed the demons that have tempted them, there is good news! The good news is that there is deliverance for those who are bound in sin by a stronghold that needs to be broken. Jesus paid the price for that stronghold to be broken, He has sent His Holy Spirit to endue His servants with the power to deliver in His name. If one believes that the Lord can make Him whole and believes His word when He says He will, that is all he needs. Such a man (or woman) can and will be made whole. Jesus is Lord!

Yes, that is good news, indeed! I wish more emphasis were placed on the good news, the evangel, the God Spell, the Gospel and less on condemning people and turning them away from God's message of Grace.

 

[Poverello78]

Hey Ollie, I have not forgotten. Things have been mad over here as a friend committed suicide just a few days ago. The few replies I've posted over the last couple days have been those not requiring much thought, but I've held off on this thread for the time being.

I'm out the door to the memorial service as we speak.

 

[OllieFranz]

You have my deepest sympathy.

I'll keep you and your friend and his family in my prayers.

 

[dies-l]

The OP seems to suggest that the Bible teaches that sexual intercourse between two men is inherently sinful. OTOH, mere gestures of affection (hugging, kissing, hand-holding, etc.) are not. Is this a fair summation of the O.P.?

If so, how does this really settle anything on this debate? I would venture that all but the most homophobic conservatives would tend to agree with this point. After all, I attend a relatively conservative church. It is not uncommon that we hold hands during prayer, nor is it uncommon for us to hug our friends during times of greeting, even if they are of the same sex. I doubt that this is uncommon within our culture. We don't kiss, but I suspect this is because of culture, rather than morality. So, my experience suggests that even many conservatives would accept the proposition that men can and should show affection to one another.

How this relates to homosexuality, I do not know. There is a world of difference between expressing affection to a person that I love (whether male or female) and having sex with that person. Just as my wife would not consider it adultery for me to hug or hold hands with another woman in a non-sexual context, it is not a "homosexual act" in the slightest for two men to express their mutual affection.

 

[OllieFranz]

The OP seems to suggest that the Bible teaches that sexual intercourse between two men is inherently sinful. OTOH, mere gestures of affection (hugging, kissing, hand-holding, etc.) are not. Is this a fair summation of the O.P.?

No, I do not consider this a fair summation. That is like claiming that the OP seems to suggest that the Bible teaches that drinking wine is inherently sinful. The Bible does not teach that. It teaches that drunkenness is a sin.

Likewise, the Bible does not teach that "sexual intercourse" is inherently sinful. It teaches that the act referred to as "man-lying" is a sin.

There are a lot of acts on the scale of physical intercourse, and they become more sexual as you move from holding hands at the one end to penetrative acts such as "man-lying" and "knowing one's wife" at the other. The kind of kiss you share with your grandmother is not the same as one you share with someone you are dating and contemplating marriage with, but it still is not what you seem to mean by "sexual intercourse."

So to say that sexual intercourse is "inherently" sinful, or even to say that it is inherently sinful between two men, is to assume two things. First, that there is an objective point along that scale such that everything on the one side is sexual intercourse, and everything on the other side is not, and second, that everything on the sexual side of that point is "inherently" sinful, at least between two men.

There is no Biblical justification for either assumption. And that is exactly my point in the OP

If so, how does this really settle anything on this debate? I would venture that all but the most homophobic conservatives would tend to agree with this point. After all, I attend a relatively conservative church. It is not uncommon that we hold hands during prayer, nor is it uncommon for us to hug our friends during times of greeting, even if they are of the same sex. I doubt that this is uncommon within our culture. We don't kiss, but I suspect this is because of culture, rather than morality. So, my experience suggests that even many conservatives would accept the proposition that men can and should show affection to one another.

How this relates to homosexuality, I do not know. There is a world of difference between expressing affection to a person that I love (whether male or female) and having sex with that person.

But to show that "world of difference" the phrase "having sex with" must be shown to be inherently separable from "expressing affection." Which brings us back to the first assumption.

Just as my wife would not consider it adultery for me to hug or hold hands with another woman in a non-sexual context, it is not a "homosexual act" in the slightest for two men to express their mutual affection.

Actually, adultery is a completely different sin from "man-lying" A man can commit adultery with another man (or a woman with another woman) without committing "man-lying," just as a man and a woman can commit adultery together without vaginal penetration. And the fact that it is not "man-lying" does not mitigate the adultery. But the adultery does not make the sin "man-lying" if it does not meet the criteria for that act.

 

[dies-l]

No, I do not consider this a fair summation. That is like claiming that the OP seems to suggest that the Bible teaches that drinking wine is inherently sinful. The Bible does not teach that. It teaches that drunkenness is a sin.

Likewise, the Bible does not teach that "sexual intercourse" is inherently sinful. It teaches that the act referred to as "man-lying" is a sin.

There are a lot of acts on the scale of physical intercourse, and they become more sexual as you move from holding hands at the one end to penetrative acts such as "man-lying" and "knowing one's wife" at the other. The kind of kiss you share with your grandmother is not the same as one you share with someone you are dating and contemplating marriage with, but it still is not what you seem to mean by "sexual intercourse."

So to say that sexual intercourse is "inherently" sinful, or even to say that it is inherently sinful between two men, is to assume two things. First, that there is an objective point along that scale such that everything on the one side is sexual intercourse, and everything on the other side is not, and second, that everything on the sexual side of that point is "inherently" sinful, at least between two men.

There is no Biblical justification for either assumption. And that is exactly my point in the OP



But to show that "world of difference" the phrase "having sex with" must be shown to be inherently separable from "expressing affection." Which brings us back to the first assumption.



Actually, adultery is a completely different sin from "man-lying" A man can commit adultery with another man (or a woman with another woman) without committing "man-lying," just as a man and a woman can commit adultery together without vaginal penetration. And the fact that it is not "man-lying" does not mitigate the adultery. But the adultery does not make the sin "man-lying" if it does not meet the criteria for that act.

I was hoping to avoid this type of explicit description of sexual acts, but it seems that the nature of the thread prevents this kind of modesty . . . .

Traditionally, I would argue, what defines an affectionate act as "sexual" as opposed to "friendly" (for lack of a better term) is whether the act is done for the purpose of stimularing one's gentalia or an act done in anticipation of genital stimulation, whether in the immediate or distant future. Thus, for example, while it is conceivably possible to "french kiss" in a non-sexual way, it rarely, if ever, is done so. If, however, a person were to do so without the intention of or anticipation of genital stimulation, then this is arguably not a sexual act, and I would argue that, by any biblical standard is morally neutral.

There are many other activities that, thought not inherently sexual, are generally associated with genital stimulation or preparation therefor, and so are regarded as sexual. I am wondering, then, if these are the types of activities that you are contemplating when you say that the Bible does not forbid all sexual activity, but only those identifiable as man-lying? If so, then I would argue that Jesus' words in Matthew 5:28 present a challenge to this notion.

There are also acts that would constitue genital stimulation that are not necessarily "penetrative." The clearest example that I could think of of this would be something along the lines of mutual masturbation. So, if the answer to my last question was "no", then I would ask, then, if this is the type of conduct that you are contemplating? If so, then I still think we run into issues of lust, as the term is discussed in Matthew 5. Also, it seems to be a bit of speculation to suggest that this type of behavior does not fall within the biblical authors' understanding of "man-lying." On top of that, it seems a bit silly to say to same-sex couples, "you can be gay and get to third base all you want, but don't you ever go 'all the way'." Such a moral stand is arguably more repressive than that taken by most conservative Christians, who suggest that it is better for homosexuals to avoid sexual relationships altogether.

 

[OllieFranz]

I agree with your desire to avoid getting graphic or even overly clinical. And I have done so as much as possible. But it is not always possible to be both clear on involved subjects and sensitive to the nature of the focus of the discussion.

Traditionally, I would argue, what defines an affectionate act as "sexual" as opposed to "friendly" (for lack of a better term) is whether the act is done for the purpose of stimularing one's gentalia or an act done in anticipation of genital stimulation, whether in the immediate or distant future.

This is a good first approximation of a distinction between sexual and non-sexual intercourse. But it fails the objectivity test. It is possible -- potentialy rare, but possible -- that the same activity can be considered sexual be one partner and non-sexual by the other, while both agree on your definition. And once we find a definition that is sufficiently objective, there is still the obstacle of the assumption that if it is sexual, it is "inherently" sinful.

As to your question concerning Matthew 5:28. There are things that the Bible clearly labels sin, thing which the Bible clearly accepts or condones without imputing sin, and a lot of things that can be related to things at both ends of the scale, but on which the Bible is silent, or only gives mild advice. It is for each of us, guided by the Holy Spirit to determine whether or not it is sin -- for ourselves. Please look at my post 26 above, especially the last paragraph of the quote from post 23, and what I added in that post. We are to be as harsh as possible when examining our own sins, but it is for God, not us to judge another person's conscience.

Yes, we should let them know what the Bible clearly labels sin. Yes we should tell them about the principles of Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 6:12, and 1 Thessalonians 5:22. But in the end, we cannot read their heart. If they believe that God accepts their decisions, then it is for God to judge their heart. We certainly should not condemn them for something that the Bible does not label sin.

 

[dies-l]

I agree with your desire to avoid getting graphic or even overly clinical. And I have done so as much as possible. But it is not always possible to be both clear on involved subjects and sensitive to the nature of the focus of the discussion.

This is a good first approximation of a distinction between sexual and non-sexual intercourse. But it fails the objectivity test. It is possible -- potentialy rare, but possible -- that the same activity can be considered sexual be one partner and non-sexual by the other, while both agree on your definition. And once we find a definition that is sufficiently objective, there is still the obstacle of the assumption that if it is sexual, it is "inherently" sinful.

As to your question concerning Matthew 5:28. There are things that the Bible clearly labels sin, thing which the Bible clearly accepts or condones without imputing sin, and a lot of things that can be related to things at both ends of the scale, but on which the Bible is silent, or only gives mild advice. It is for each of us, guided by the Holy Spirit to determine whether or not it is sin -- for ourselves. Please look at my post 26 above, especially the last paragraph of the quote from post 23, and what I added in that post. We are to be as harsh as possible when examining our own sins, but it is for God, not us to judge another person's conscience.

Yes, we should let them know what the Bible clearly labels sin. Yes we should tell them about the principles of Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 6:12, and 1 Thessalonians 5:22. But in the end, we cannot read their heart. If they believe that God accepts their decisions, then it is for God to judge their heart. We certainly should not condemn them for something that the Bible does not label sin.

Certainly, there is often a subjective element to some questions of morality. Often, then question of whether something is immoral or unethical wrests on factors such as intent or other situation specific factors that are not easily recognizable to an outside observer. I believe that this is, in part, why Jesus said that we ought not judge one another.

However, our duty to love one another comes with a responsibility to speak truth into each other's lives. When we see a brother or sister making choices that we believe to be unhealthy or sinful, we often have a responsibility to speak lovingly to that person about their actions. Sometimes this means asking questions to help us understand some of the subjective elements of a person's behavior. Other times, the person's actions are clearly problematic, either because they are inherently destructive ro because we know enough about that situation to recognize the problem. For example, to borrow your original analogy, I am an alcoholic involved in AA. If I were to see one of my AA friends drinking a beer, I would have good reason to be concerned for them. Their past admissions of being alcoholic and my knowledge of the nature of alcoholism would reasonably cause me to assume that the person has returned to active addiction.

Likewise, if my friend identifies himself as a homosexual, refers to a person of the same sex as his "lover", lives with that person, and verbally expresses that he believes that there is nothing immoral about homosexual sex, I cannot necessarily assume that he is "man-lying" (to borrow your term) with the other person, but, if I believe that "man-lying" is destructive and/or sinful, then, as a good friend, I will talk to him about his choices. Perhaps, he has chosen to live with this person but to avoid "having sex" with him, but other the factors in the situation would indicate that this is unlikely. Additionally, if that were the case, I would be concerned that this set of choices would place my friend under undue temptation to do things that might genuinely be immoral. Just as I would caution my alcoholic friends to avoid "hanging out" at bars and I would encourage my straight friends to avoid spending excessive amounts of time alone with their bf/gf, if I believe that "man-lying" is a sin, I would encourage my gay friends to avoid situations such as the one described above.

What I fear is that there is a current within our culture that says that, since morality often involves subjective factors about which we do not always know, we ought not have any discussion about those elements of morality that have an objective basis. My thought is that it is because of this interworking of objective and subjective elements that we ought to have this conversation all the more. I agree with you that there are many situations in which it is not necessarily accurate to label something sin, based only on outward appearances. But, this does not mean that we cannot or should not make inferences, based on these appearances that might cause us to be concerned about the moral questions involved.

 

[LightHorseman]

Luke 6:41-42 (New King James Version)

41 And why do you look at the speck in your brother&#8217;s eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your brother, &#8216;Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,&#8217; when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother&#8217;s eye.

Does anything else really need to be said?

 

[OllieFranz]

Certainly, there is often a subjective element to some questions of morality. Often, then question of whether something is immoral or unethical wrests on factors such as intent or other situation specific factors that are not easily recognizable to an outside observer. I believe that this is, in part, why Jesus said that we ought not judge one another.

However, our duty to love one another comes with a responsibility to speak truth into each other's lives. When we see a brother or sister making choices that we believe to be unhealthy or sinful, we often have a responsibility to speak lovingly to that person about their actions. Sometimes this means asking questions to help us understand some of the subjective elements of a person's behavior. Other times, the person's actions are clearly problematic, either because they are inherently destructive ro because we know enough about that situation to recognize the problem. For example, to borrow your original analogy, I am an alcoholic involved in AA. If I were to see one of my AA friends drinking a beer, I would have good reason to be concerned for them. Their past admissions of being alcoholic and my knowledge of the nature of alcoholism would reasonably cause me to assume that the person has returned to active addiction.

Yes we have a social (and in certain cases civil) duty to try to stop people from harming themselves or others. This is separate from judging their sin, however, even when the same act is both the crime (and/or harmful activity) and the sin. As friends and as citizens we have to deal with the earthly consequences of these harmful actions, both personally (one-on-one with a friend, or stepping in to stop a crime or detain the perpetrator), and as part of the civil justice system (as police, prosecutor, judge, jury, corrections officer, etc., or as witness). But we should not confuse judging a person's sin with dealing with a harmful action. There are many ways to try to help an alcoholic friend, but simply berating him because drunkenness is a sin is not only ineffective and counterproductive, it is Biblically unsound.

I find it odd that the very people who have the most trouble separating a civil crime from a religious and moral sin --who, for example, call to pass laws that do not protect people from harm, but merely criminalize actions they believe to be sin -- are often the same people who have no problem separating the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy into the same sort of categories, to the point that they deny (or seem to deny) the moral dimensions of the civil and/or ceremonial laws and vice versa. The fact of the matter is that many actions are both civilly harmful and morally sinful, and when it comes to the laws handed down from God to govern the Israelite people, Moses did not give us a clear-cut separation of religious laws from civil ones.

Edited to Add: This paragraph is not aimed at any one individual and is certainly not at Dies-l. It is just that, thinking about the difference between the moral and civil aspects of laws reminded me about the additional differences some people find in the Torah.

Likewise, if my friend identifies himself as a homosexual, refers to a person of the same sex as his "lover", lives with that person, and verbally expresses that he believes that there is nothing immoral about homosexual sex, I cannot necessarily assume that he is "man-lying" (to borrow your term) with the other person, but, if I believe that "man-lying" is destructive and/or sinful, then, as a good friend, I will talk to him about his choices.

You seem to be equating "man-lying" with "homosexual sex." This is incorrect. "Man-lying" is a very specified sinful act. It can only be committed by the "active" partner in a**l s*x. Even then there may be additional circumstances required before it become "man-lying." But let's take a look at the substance of the statement above, rather than focus on the definition of "man-lying."

Likewise, whether my friend identifies himself as a homosexual or a heterosexual, if he refers to a person his "lover", lives with that person, and verbally expresses that he believes that there is nothing immoral about unmarried sex, I cannot necessarily assume that he is having sex with the other person, but, if I believe that unmarried sex is destructive and/or sinful, then, as a good friend, I will talk to him about his choices.
​

I agree, but the nature and direction of that talk woul depend on whether I thought it was destructive or sinful, or if I thought it was both, which was the more immediate concern.

Perhaps, he has chosen to live with this person but to avoid "having sex" with him, but other the factors in the situation would indicate that this is unlikely. Additionally, if that were the case, I would be concerned that this set of choices would place my friend under undue temptation to do things that might genuinely be immoral.

Being concerned is natural. Sharing those concerns is supportive. But when it goes beyond that, we should examine our own motivations. If we are truly seeking to prevent a real harm, go ahead. If we want to prevent or to punish a sin, then we need to re-examine the facts and see if there really is a harm that requires direct intervention.

Just as I would caution my alcoholic friends to avoid "hanging out" at bars and I would encourage my straight friends to avoid spending excessive amounts of time alone with their bf/gf, if I believe that "man-lying" is a sin, I would encourage my gay friends to avoid situations such as the one described above.

I do not disagree. I do not totally endorse everything in this paragraph, but the disagreements would be mere quibbles.

What I fear is that there is a current within our culture that says that, since morality often involves subjective factors about which we do not always know, we ought not have any discussion about those elements of morality that have an objective basis.

I see and am wary of that position as well. But I am just as wary, and sometime fearful of the opposite position. The Bible does give us examples of actions that are clearly and objectively sinful. It encourages us to treat the gray areas with caution, avoiding anything we even think is sinful. But it also shows that other, somewhat related, actions are benign. It not only encourages us to give others "the benefit of the doubt" when it comes to sin, it orders to give them the benefit when we have trouble sustaining the doubt.

My thought is that it is because of this interworking of objective and subjective elements that we ought to have this conversation all the more. I agree with you that there are many situations in which it is not necessarily accurate to label something sin, based only on outward appearances. But, this does not mean that we cannot or should not make inferences, based on these appearances that might cause us to be concerned about the moral questions involved.

Dialogue, yes. Concern, yes. But leave the final judgment of sin up nto God