Homosexuality

Mling · Feb 21, 2007

But God's morality IS good for us, THAT'S what I was tryign to say, as opposed to the idea that morality and beneficial-ness (beneficiality?) are opposed, as was presented.

I don't think that that was the idea being presented. I think the idea that was presented was that morality is, to some degree or another, bound to benefit or harm. That which harms is immoral, that which edifies is moral.
I don't know if I, personally, would take that I idea all the way--I wouldn't completely disregard the possibility of other determining factors in morality. But both Holo and Paul seem to be saying roughly the same thing--that one should seriously consider whether an action is harmful or constructive as opposed to simply "allowed" (the point Paul was making) or in keeping with a seemingly unreasonable code of conduct (Holo's point).
I don't believe for a second that Holo was trying to say

that morality and beneficial-ness (beneficiality?) [benefit] are opposed,

.
The point is that we should be looking at the question "does this edify or does this harm?" If what edifies is banned by a code of conduct, and what harms is allowed, then it is probably time to seriously examine the code and consider the idea that we might be misinterpretting aspects of it.

*Starlight* · Feb 21, 2007

yodafett said:
Where does it say Heterosexual? I can't find that even alluded to in scripture...

"men abandoned the natural function of the woman"

It says that for them, heterosexuality was natural. The actual word "heterosexuality" didn't exist then.

StTherese · Feb 21, 2007

StarJewel said:
Why do you believe that romantic love isn't "real love"? As for sacrifice... sacrifice is an expression of love.

Because it can lead us to do our own will instead of the will of God who is the source of all love. Our feelings are not love. Love is a choice. One can not be forced to love, as would be the case with your homosexual tendencies. These are feelings, not love. Love is the surrender of yourself (and your feelings) to the ultimate good which is God.

Your feelings and inclinations are not sinful but are a result of original sin. Concupiscence is the result of the sin of our first parents.

Well, as I said, for me the inclination to form a loving romantic relationship with a person of the same gender is the same as the inclination to write with your left hand... these are both things that aren't common, but aren't sinful in any way.

Like I said before...as a result of the fall of man, we now have concupiscence...these sinful tendencies that we must overcome. Sex does not equal love. Sex is meant to be procreative and within a marriage. Without its orginal purpose set forth by God in natural law...it becomes not love but a lustful desire.

Peace

yodafett · Feb 21, 2007

StarJewel said:
"men abandoned the natural function of the woman"

It says that for them, heterosexuality was natural. The actual word "heterosexuality" didn't exist then.

I'm quite aware that the word "homosexuality" didn't exist then. But you're changing the use of the word natural to mean "natural to them", which implies subjectiveness that simply isn't there in the text.

Mling · Feb 21, 2007

StarJewel said:
"men abandoned the natural function of the woman"

It says that for them, heterosexuality was natural. The actual word "heterosexuality" didn't exist then.

For that matter the whole concept of homo/heter-sexuality didn't exist then. You were not gay or straight, you were powerful or weak--the taker or the taken.

And I've always wondered what the implication of that verse is. What exactly is the natural "function" of women? How are women to be used? What types of tools are we, exactly?

Regardless of how any particular word or verse is used, it's pretty clear that either the Roman culture had a very different view of what "natural" meant, or Paul seriously misunderstood nature. He also thought that long hair on men was unnatural. Either the word had a different meaning, or he's a little confused--what scissors are completely natural and hair, in it's proper state, should stop growing at a predetermined length?

yodafett · Feb 21, 2007

Mling said:
And I've always wondered what the implication of that verse is. What exactly is the natural "function" of women? How are women to be used? What types of tools are we, exactly?

Well, in the preceding verse (which is why I included verse 26, as well), the word for “use” or “relations” is
χρῆσις
chrēsis
khray'-sis
From G5530; employment, that is, (specifically) sexual intercourse (as an occupation of the body): - use.

So verse 26 is saying that women turned to an unnatural sexual behavior, and in verse 27, that men did likewise.

Mling said:
Regardless of how any particular word or verse is used, it's pretty clear that either the Roman culture had a very different view of what "natural" meant, or Paul seriously misunderstood nature. He also thought that long hair on men was unnatural. Either the word had a different meaning, or he's a little confused--what scissors are completely natural and hair, in it's proper state, should stop growing at a predetermined length?

True, which is why we need to get back (as close as possible) to the original language and look not just at what was said, but the culture that it was said in.

Mling · Feb 21, 2007

yodafett said:
True, which is why we need to get back (as close as possible) to the original language and look not just at what was said, but the culture that it was said in.

In which we will see that what Paul was exposed to bears little resemblance to what we are discussing. He saw:

Pederasty
Sexual exploitation of one's social inferiors
Sexual abuse of slaves
Orgies
Sex turned into a power trip, rather than the embodiment of love.

I think most people here agree with Paul that these are wrong. But by what logic can that condemnation be extended to homosexuality as it exists in our culture?

StTherese · Feb 21, 2007

StarJewel,

Do you think lustful acts are sinful?

Why did God create man and woman?

Why is sex procreative?

Why would sex that has no possibility of creating life not be wrong?

What is true love? How is it different from feelings/inclinations/sexual desires?

What is the meaning of suffering?

intricatic · Feb 21, 2007

StarJewel said:
"men abandoned the natural function of the woman"

It says that for them, heterosexuality was natural. The actual word "heterosexuality" didn't exist then.

Natural for them was heterosexual. The dichotomy didn't exist because there was no semantic distinction between different mutually exclusive sexual orientations. In other words, it's not a subjective "natural for them..." statement, but a "natural, period." statement.

intricatic · Feb 21, 2007

On the Romans 1 note, though, it's important to look at the language that was used in relation to the society it was made in.

IMHO, this is the key passage;

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
(Romans 1)

Because it indicates something more definitive than simple idolatry or pagan practices; the lusts of their hearts are in question, and God gave them over to dishonor their bodies among themselves as a result of this lusting.

Further pointing back towards this sentence, we see;

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

And again, we see that God gave them up to their vile passions and even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. What Paul's speaking to isn't a concept of animal nature, or even biological nature, but a nature that points back to creation;

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse...
(Romans 1)

(24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. - Genesis 2)

Further;

27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Which reiterates the same sentiment in traditional Pauline manner, through redundancy to make the point as clear as possible.

Or, to put it another way, Paul is appealing to the order of manifest creation - the established pattern of creation that God designed man to function through in His original intent for mankind. This also points to the theological current of covenants and marriage, as both are interwoven in the Bible, each also pointing back to an initial point in Genesis where the covenant archetype was established. Marital unity is the essence of that archetype, and it's what Paul draws from in this chapter, both in terms of idolatry, and in terms of homosexuality (that which is against nature). There's little doubt why Paul discusses these two things side by side.

yodafett · Feb 21, 2007

Mling said:
In which we will see that what Paul was exposed to bears little resemblance to what we are discussing. He saw:

Pederasty
Sexual exploitation of one's social inferiors
Sexual abuse of slaves
Orgies
Sex turned into a power trip, rather than the embodiment of love.

I think most people here agree with Paul that these are wrong. But by what logic can that condemnation be extended to homosexuality as it exists in our culture?

I won't debat that Paul saw those things, or that they are wrong, or that homosexuality as it is practiced in our culture is different. None of that changes what Paul wrote though. Can you show me that he was speaking to those things as opposed to the fact that it was homosexual in nature? If your supposition was the case, why wouldn't it say "sex with the young" or "sex with multiple partners simultaneously" or "sex with someone not your spouse" instead of "man with man" and "burning in their lust one toward another"? That language certainly implies that the orientation is at issue, at least in this passage.

holo · Feb 21, 2007

How come Paul was so "clear" on homosexuality, while what he had to say about female teachers, long hair and head coverings only reflected his cultural background?

BigMike835 · Feb 21, 2007

Perhaps because hairstyles and leadership of a group are completely different things than the intended function of our natural bodies?

I think people misunderstand some of the Bible's function at times as not just a book telling you what to do but also a historical point of reference. There are plenty of passages in the OT discribing laws and traditions that are no longer necessary but are still there to show where we WERE to better help us understand where we ARE. The tricky part is that mixed with those references are also pieces of information that are always going to apply directly to us because they go beyond any cultural context to the very basic idea of what it is to be a human as part of God's creation.

If it was all supposed to be rules then I would have been stoned at the town gates when I was 14!

IamAdopted · Feb 21, 2007

Here are some scripture on this subject..
Jude

7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
8In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings

1 Corinthians 6

9Do 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 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

IamAdopted · Feb 21, 2007

we cannot say that God made them that way either..

13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. 16Don't be deceived, my dear brothers.

StTherese · Feb 21, 2007

BigMike835 said:
Couple things:

First, going to Confession is a Catholic thing, not a Christian thing. There is a big difference! Catholicism is part Socio-Political Totalitarian Regime and part Social Club with a different Bible and borderline idol worship. Christianity doesn't require you to go through a human authority figure to commune with God. That's what Jesus was for!

You are obviously very ignorant about the CC. I would suggest learning more about it and what it truly stands for before posting comments based on your personal opinion which means nothing.

Catholicism shouldn't be looked to for moral guidance or standards anyway. The current lawsuits they're settling out of court across the country should be an indication of that!

Look to your next quote....

Second, if we selected our leaders based on having no sin in their lives then we wouldn't have any leaders!

exactly. people are sinful. They are sinful in the RCC as much as any deomination that has formed out of the RCC. Does that mean we should accept sin? Does that mean that we should not strive to live holy lives?

However, there are people out there who were able to choose their sexual orientation...they're called nuns and monks!

Chosing to live a celibate life has nothing to do with disordered desires. We are all called to live chaste lives even within a marriage.

BigMike835 · Feb 21, 2007

"You are obviously very ignorant about the CC. I would suggest learning more about it and what it truly stands for before posting comments based on your personal opinion which means nothing."

I think history has shown that what I said is a little more than just my opinion.

Also, none of our opinions on this forum really mean anything so your jab was a little silly! Do you think if you were an important decision maker in the world you'd have time to play on the internet all day? I know I wouldn't!

BigBadWlf · Feb 21, 2007

Jig said:
Why do we see a large amount of denominations/sects/religious institutions accepting homosexuality and even approving of it?

just a guess here…but maybe they are following the teachings of Jesus rather than use their religion as a method of justifying prejudice and discrimination

Now, I'm all for allowing homosexuals to attend church and worship, I don't hate them or reject them (We should love everyone). They are sinners just like you and I. What I'm against is the accepting of their acts as something normal or God pleasing.

if only your post matched your denial

engage in an experiment. Rewrite this post but instead of condemning homosexuals put in a different minority. If re-written to condemn blacks would it be considered hateful? You bet it would. How about if your post condemned Jews…it would be very hateful.

Just because you are attacking an unpopular minority does not make the attack ethical…hate is hate no matter who it is directed against. Using the bible to put a spin on prejudice doesn't make that prejudice ethical. Racists and white supremacists have been using the bible to justify their views for centuries, but their use does not make racism morally acceptable.

*Starlight* · Feb 21, 2007

StTherese said:
Because it can lead us to do our own will instead of the will of God who is the source of all love. Our feelings are not love. Love is a choice. One can not be forced to love, as would be the case with your homosexual tendencies. These are feelings, not love. Love is the surrender of yourself (and your feelings) to the ultimate good which is God.

How are homosexual tendencies supposed to force someone to love? And, by the way, I don't have any homosexual tendencies. Well, I guess that we have different definitions of love... I think that love is a special kind of feelings towards another person.

StTherese said:
Like I said before...as a result of the fall of man, we now have concupiscence...these sinful tendencies that we must overcome. Sex does not equal love. Sex is meant to be procreative and within a marriage. Without its orginal purpose set forth by God in natural law...it becomes not love but a lustful desire.

Peace

Since I don't believe that the only purpose of sex is procreation, then I can't really argue here, because we simply have different beliefs... I believe that sex is mostly meant to be an expression of love between two people in a romantic relationship...

StTherese said:
StarJewel,

Do you think lustful acts are sinful?

What exactly are lustful acts? Do you mean sexual acts without love?

StTherese said:
Why did God create man and woman?

Generally, the purpose of sexual dimorphism in a species is reproduction.

StTherese said:
Why is sex procreative?

umm... because there must be a way for people to reproduce? I don't really understand the question...

StTherese said:
Why would sex that has no possibility of creating life not be wrong?

I don't see why it would be wrong... then sex would be an expression of romantic love between two people, and there's nothing wrong with it...

StTherese said:
What is true love? How is it different from feelings/inclinations/sexual desires?

There's no such thing as true or false love... there's just love, and many different kinds of it...

StTherese said:
What is the meaning of suffering?

Meaning of suffering? I think that generally suffering indicates that something's wrong...

intricatic said:
Natural for them was heterosexual. The dichotomy didn't exist because there was no semantic distinction between different mutually exclusive sexual orientations. In other words, it's not a subjective "natural for them..." statement, but a "natural, period." statement.

yodafett said:
I'm quite aware that the word "homosexuality" didn't exist then. But you're changing the use of the word natural to mean "natural to them", which implies subjectiveness that simply isn't there in the text.

ok, so the person who wrote it thought that heterosexuality is natural for everyone... but it doesn't mean he was right. The concept of sexual orientation didn't even exist then... generally people didn't know much about human psychology and sexuality, at least much less than now.

BigBadWlf · Feb 21, 2007

yodafett said:
So unless something in scripture is attributed to Jesus personally, it has no value?

more to the point the continuous attacks against gays and lesbians, the justification and promotion of prejudice and hate and discrimination all fly in the face of the teachings of Jesus.

Homosexuality

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time

Peace begins with a smile :)

Blissfully wed to tierajade

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

Blissfully wed to tierajade

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)

Peace begins with a smile :)

...a dinosaur... or something...

...a dinosaur... or something...

Blissfully wed to tierajade

former Christian

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Peace begins with a smile :)

Active Member

BigBadWlf

Guest

Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time

BigBadWlf

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency