Christian ministry under threat...

[hedrick]

Here is the NZ legislation in PDF as it was enacted:

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0001/latest/096be8ed81bbdd35.pdf

As @Paidiske alluded to it has multiple sections, which can apply variously. You will need to read it if you want anything other than second-hand views.

Looks the same as the draft I posted. The only actual offenses involve people incapable of consenting, and practices resulting in serious harm that the person knew would happen or were reckless about.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Looks the same as the draft I posted. The only actual offenses involve people incapable of consenting, and practices resulting in serious harm that the person knew would happen or were reckless about.

One does not only become capable of consenting at age 18.

 

[tall73]

Looks the same as the draft I posted. The only actual offenses involve people incapable of consenting, and practices resulting in serious harm that the person knew would happen or were reckless about.

Yes, I think there were only two version on this one, the committee, and the one presented as a bill, which was referenced earlier, which you also posted, etc.

 

[Carl Emerson]

At 16 they can elect to have an abortion without informing parents or getting their consent...

 

[Carl Emerson]

So the chances of a Pastor being asked to assist a person in their teens with gender dysphoria are high.

 

[Paidiske]

One does not only become capable of consenting at age 18.

For a whole bunch of things, that's the line in the sand. Can't get married below 18 (without a court order and parents' permission). Can't buy alcohol or tobacco below 18. (Good grief, do we think conversion therapy is less serious than a glass of wine with dinner?) Can't vote below 18.

Yes, older minors have some leeway with medical matters, largely to protect them from parents who would inappropriately control medical care. But that's hardly necessary here.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Getting back to the flow of the thread - before easter recess Tall73 was presenting a scriptural support for concluding that the same sex attraction is lust driven.

This is how Romans 1 reads to me also.

It would be good to focus on what scripture says because for the church to accept that folks battling lust cannot be supported in their attempts to get free of it, is to agree with criminalising a normal function of the church.

 

[Paidiske]

criminalising a normal function of the church.

Trying to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity is not a "normal function of the church." Heck, even the concepts involved only date back a few decades.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Helping folks with a lust issues is...

Let's further explore what scripture says about the subject.

 

[hedrick]

Getting back to the flow of the thread - before easter recess Tall73 was presenting a scriptural support for concluding that the same sex attraction is lust driven.

This is how Romans 1 reads to me also.

It would be good to focus on what scripture says because for the church to accept that folks battling lust cannot be supported in their attempts to get free of it, is to agree with criminalising a normal function of the church.

As I understand it, the term translated lust in the NT means the intention to have sex with someone that is forbidden. In non sexual contexts it is translated covet. If you take the traditional Jewish view, that would make homosexuality lust by definition. I don’t think there is any intrinsic difference in the quality of the relationships. Of course there is quite a variation among gay people, as there is among all of us. I don’t doubt you can find people for whom same gender relationships have serious problems.

 

[Paidiske]

As I understand it, the term translated lust in the NT means the intention to have sex with someone inappropriate....If you take the traditional Jewish view, that would make homosexuality lust by definition.

I agree with your first sentence, but the second doesn't follow, because orientation doesn't automatically equal intention/desire to have inappropriate sex.

 

[hedrick]

I agree with your first sentence, but the second doesn't follow, because orientation doesn't automatically equal intention/desire to have inappropriate sex.

Yes. My understanding is that lust requires intention. Thinking “I wish I had a wife like my neighbor’s” probably isn’t lust, but starting to imagine seducing her is. Similarly, same gender sexual attraction wouldn’t be lust, even if you accept Jewish purity laws. (However given the Pharisees’ concept of the fence around the law, they might consider it that way. My understanding is that Jesus rejected that approach.)

But Jesus isn’t very specific about this. Christian understanding is influenced by later anti sexual attitudes that shouldn’t be projected onto Jesus. 1st century Jews, and to some extent Paul, had different priories that still differed from modern ones. Jesus had his own issues with key contemporary Jewish ideas, but he doesn’t exactly give us a comprehensive sexual ethics. That leaves us operating from the perspective of our own traditions, based on general understandings of what Jesus was about, as in many other issues of theology.

 

[Carl Emerson]

OK so first off you want to contextualise scripture so that only those gifted in the understanding of culture will get the meaning God intended. So scripture is a closed book to the very simple folk who Jesus fellowshipped with? Which means the book He left behind central to His message favours the intellectually gifted...

I don't think so...

The Holy Spirit is the Teacher and He does not have a preference for class or learning, just the condition of heart and how we responded to the Great Teacher and His indwelling presence.

So who are we accountable to?

Look at what we received within, as a package deal when we were born again.

The seven spirits of his anointing listed in Isaiah 11.
Wisdom, Knowledge, Counsel, Understanding, Strength, Knowledge, and the Fear of the Lord.

And you suggest we cant understand the plain reading of His book?

Jesus has not changed His mind, but calls the Simple to confound the wise.

So where does the authority of Truth reside? Who are we accountable to as we read His inspired Words?

So it was with the disciples - unlearned yet taught of His Spirit.

I encourage then the plain reading of the text in humility and prayer and ask the Spirit of God to witness His message within.

Romans 1 on the face of it indicates that He gives over to lust the hearts of those who refuse His Godly Order and desire un-natural unions.

Simple as that - not PC, but who said God has to be polite and not harmful when he chooses.

So let's hear from Tall73 who is carefully presenting his take on the matter from scripture which is the great interpreter of itself... and give the Holy Spirit the room to judge.

 

[tall73]

Getting back to the flow of the thread - before easter recess Tall73 was presenting a scriptural support for concluding that the same sex attraction is lust driven.

So far we are still working through the nature of temptation, attraction, lust, etc. as a precursor to any further application. The last post on the subject in my exchange with Paidiske was #479

It should be noted that Paidiske indicated she was not interested in talking through the issues in Romans 1.

 

[tall73]

I am thinking of the Latin; id quod volo (that which I desire); but that is the same verb for what I will. (So in the old Latin marriage rite, "Will you..." was responded to with "volo," "I will." That is, not a future tense, but a present tense I will to do it. It's at the root of English words such as volunteer and voluntary, arising from the free exercise of one's will. It's that range of words which is informing the way I think about the difference between attraction, desire, choice and so on.

So, in that semantic field, what I will or choose to do is the same as what I desire to do. When you speak of "desire," I read that as "what I choose, or would choose to do if I could." Not, "what might appeal to me but I would not choose." That latter sense is closer to what I mean by attraction but not desire.

Yes. My understanding is that lust requires intention. Thinking “I wish I had a wife like my neighbor’s” probably isn’t lust, but starting to imagine seducing her is. Similarly, same gender sexual attraction wouldn’t be lust, even if you accept Jewish purity laws. (However given the Pharisees’ concept of the fence around the law, they might consider it that way. My understanding is that Jesus rejected that approach.)

I would agree that in Jesus' statement about looking at a woman to lust after her the decision to lust is a step beyond that immediate notice of the person that comes unbidden, but that creates a decision point. That thought that comes unbidden, of the attraction to the person is at that point, to my thinking, a temptation.

We see someone that is attractive to us, and then we either respond in an appropriate way, or we go on to lust. Lusting at that point is a definite decision to act in an inappropriate way, it is a poor way to resolve the temptation that confronted us.

However, I wanted to come back to the idea of sinful nature that is within us because the Scriptures talk about more than just our ability to decide, but also about forces at work within us.

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

This is the NKJV which translates it the lust of the flesh. Some versions put it as the desire of the flesh. Or some even put it the cravings of the flesh.

Either way the flesh in us, our sinful nature, wants us to do that which is sinful. The Spirit in us wants to live out Christ's better way in us. They are at odds.

At that point of decision, that temptation, we are either walking in the Spirit or giving heed to the flesh. So our decision is not really just about "I should do the right thing", but about deciding to crucify the sinful nature and keep in step with the Spirit from the beginning so that we are able then to say no to the flesh in us which is hostile to God.

Romans confirms that the carnal mind cannot please God:

9:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Now the notion of sexual orientation is, as was noted, a more recent development. And I am not sure it is a particularly helpful one here in that it is overly broad. I don't know of anyone who is attracted to all women or all men. Generally a person is attracted to a particular subset or type. But the underlying issue is as Hedrick said that if you are attracted sexually to someone of the same sex, that is by definition an attraction that is opposed to God's will. But the same is also true if you are sexually attracted to someone other than your spouse. It sets up temptation you must respond to. It is not in itself sin. But it is also not a good thing, because it is tempting you to thoughts that God does not permit.

And while the notion of sexual orientation is that it deals with attraction, which is a step before sin itself, in that one still has to decide to lust or have sex, it still is a problem to have temptation to lust after anyone who is not your spouse. It is a desire/will/craving etc. of the flesh, of the sinful nature. When that sinful nature prompts this decision, we must be walking in Christ to resist it by the Spirit. Because we don't have the resources to do so consistently without the Spirit.

Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

And this is why I have said that the concept of sexual orientation is only helpful in understanding that someone has same sex attraction, rather than opposite sex attraction, but the terminology comes from non-theological realms, and is essentially intended to be neutral. It is, as in the document @Paidiske posted, intended to show that there is natural diversity in attraction.

But this is not the biblical view. The biblical view is that God created the male and female one flesh union. He did not create a diversity, but that diversity of orientation is the result of rebellion and sin in the world.