How Did I Come to My Conclusions About Homosexuality?

[Rocinante]

Seebs,

You use the term Fundamentalist. FundaGelical is simply a term, just as Fundamentalist is a term.

I'm sure you have a definition of Fundamentalist.

There is also a difinition of FundaGelical.

The FundaGelical Religion is identified as a religion where people band together to aggressively promote a Religious-Right political agenda that includes slandering and discriminating against homosexuals, forcing prayer into public schools, fighting against equal health insurance for all children, approving cuts to public schools and financial assistence to private schools, approving cuts in social programs that would aid the poor, approving the oppression and exploitation of the poor on a global scale, and giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

Obviously, that is not a blanket condemnation, but quite specific, easily as specific as the definition of Fundamentalist as you use it.

The term is quite valid and is useful in identifying a specific sociological group.

 

[seebs]

You use the term Fundamentalist. FundaGelical is simply a term, just as Fundamentalist is a term.

I'm sure you have a definition of Fundamentalist.

Yes. It's the definition agreed upon by the people who chose to adopt that label to describe themselves.

There is also a definition of FundaGelical.

And who provided this definition?

The FundaGelical Religion is identified as a religion where people band together to aggressively promote a Religious-Right political agenda that includes slandering and discriminating against homosexuals, forcing prayer into public schools, fighting against equal health insurance for all children, approving cuts to public schools and financial assistence to private schools, approving cuts in social programs that would aid the poor, approving the oppression and exploitation of the poor on a global scale, and giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

Obviously, that is not a blanket condemnation, but quite specific, easily as specific as the definition of Fundamentalist as you use it.

The term is quite valid and is useful in identifying a specific sociological group.

I have never met a single such person, and I don't see what they have to do with anyone on these boards.

The fact is, it sounds like you're adopting a stereotype of people in this group, and then using it as a catch phrase, implying that anyone who does a given thing is part of this group as a whole. For instance, your comment about "FundaGelical Religionists" telling other people whether or not they're sinning might be reasonably interpreted as an implication that anyone who does that shares this whole agenda you have mapped out. In fact, this is exceedingly unlikely. I know people who are both active in opposing homosexual sex (and anything that might lead to it) and in campaigning for broader social programs to support the poor.

I cannot see a practical application for this term, especially because I don't believe you've previously offered your definition, and I don't think what you said is what anyone would have understood you to mean.

I ask again that you consider whether you might not do better to deal with people as individuals, rather than trying to conglomerate many into a group with such very elaborately specified qualities.

 

[Imjustanant]

You are indeed wrong. Not all condemnations are specific; however, you haven't even managed an unspecific condemnation of homosexuality yet. The case may be made, but you're not making it.

I would ask that you consider being less hostile and confrontational. That, my friend, is clearly and explicitly condemned, at great length, by Jesus. If we are to follow Him, let us do so in all things, not just in other peoples' bedrooms.

Me, hostile?? lol - No. Just trying my darndest to understand your position and keep coming up empty. My additional punctuation is out of frustration for lack of my ability to see your point(s), not hostility.

Part of the argument for homosexuality is the (debated) lack of condemnation by Jesus or anyone else in the NT. Using that SAME argument, I find beastiality to be a valid human response, not condemned in the NT. Why am I wrong on that point?

What rules are there for Scriptural polygamy? I might be interested in that Really, I can look them up but if you know them easily, please show me.

The second point, however, is the important one, because it is exactly where your argument falls apart. That is the one thing that it is totally unambiguous that they do do. They may not procreate. They may not be one man and one wife. But they do, they most assuredly do, leave their parents and cleave together.

Gopher wood brother, gopher wood.

Unless you are ready to declare that all post-menopausal marriages, and people with hysterectomies, and other non-procreative marriages between men and women are invalid, you have to drop the "multiply" claim as a red herring. Either you use that rule or you don't. You can't use it part of the time.

Women unable to bear children in OT times were thought to be what, blessed? Sure, I can use this argument. It's simple and valid. Valid as DRA's gopher wood example

As to the other part... This is question-begging.

Quote: by Imjustanant

Homosexuality SEEMS to undermine the very foundation for family that God commanded, does it not, and if not how not?? end quote

No, it does not.

The foundation of marriages is mutual love and respect. That two should leave their parents house and become one. That is the foundation of marriage.

God says a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife. For a man to leave his parents and cleave to another man is to not use gopher wood when building the ark.

Besides, how do homosexuals become one? They aren't built for it.

 

[seebs]

Part of the argument for homosexuality is the (debated) lack of condemnation by Jesus or anyone else in the NT. Using that SAME argument, I find beastiality to be a valid human response, not condemned in the NT. Why am I wrong on that point?

You have misunderstood the argument. The argument is that, in the absence of a specific condemnation, you must reason the things we do know. You can't just say "there's nothing wrong here, nyaaah". You have to find an argument that supports or refutes a position. I think this issue is a tricky one, because there are many very different approaches we can take to understanding it.

What rules are there for Scriptural polygamy? I might be interested in that Really, I can look them up but if you know them easily, please show me.

I believe it's in Exodus. 21:10.

Women unable to bear children in OT times were thought to be what, blessed?

Nope. But they were still able to be married.

The rest of your arguments seem to me be mistaking accidental qualities for intent.

 

[Imjustanant]

Regarding polygamy, this is the verse that came to my mind:

Deut.17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

I'm not aware of the pro-polygamy one.

Seebs quote "You have misunderstood the argument. The argument is that, in the absence of a specific condemnation, you must reason the things we do know. You can't just say "there's nothing wrong here, nyaaah". You have to find an argument that supports or refutes a position. I think this issue is a tricky one, because there are many very different approaches we can take to understanding it."

A significant portion for your argument is that there is an absence of specific condemnation for homosexuality. I am reasoning what I do know, that a man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife. Where do we find support FOR homosexuality? We don't find a promoting Scripture. Previously, the pro-gay stance on this fact is something to the effect, "well then, silence of a promoting Scripture can not disprove homosexuality." The same can be said for beastiality. Where is the refutation of it in the NT?

I believe in the next 20 years we (Christians - I do not exlude you), will be refuting beastiality under the same argument that is being given for homosexuality. I hope I'm wrong but FWIW, those folks that practice that would use this same argument to justify their actions. Again, no condemnation of such in the NT and the OC being done away with, nailed to the cross.

As far fetched as beastiality is to you, homosexuality is to me. Insert beastiality into Rocinante's, monogamous relationship based on love, awaiting on the blessings of marriage. Should science prove that some people are born with a predisposition for desiring animals, this country will be in a world of hurt.

I'm not sure I understand why DRA's gopher wood example does not work for you in the debate over homosexuality?

 

[seebs]

A significant portion for your argument is that there is an absence of specific condemnation for homosexuality. I am reasoning what I do know, that a man is to leave his parents and cleave to his wife. Where do we find support FOR homosexuality? We don't find a promoting Scripture. Previously, the pro-gay stance on this fact is something to the effect, "well then, silence of a promoting Scripture can not disprove homosexuality." The same can be said for beastiality. Where is the refutation of it in the NT?

Neither is directly supported or opposed, I think, in the NT. I would point out that I think bestiality is condemned in the OT, but homosexuality isn't. Yes, I know the verses you might cite; I interpret them differently.

However, I believe that the two commandments Jesus gives us are enough to see ways in which we might distinguish between these things.

I believe in the next 20 years we (Christians - I do not exlude you), will be refuting beastiality under the same argument that is being given for homosexuality. I hope I'm wrong but FWIW, those folks that practice that would use this same argument to justify their actions.

I don't see this as very likely. If it happens, though, my argument will work fine. My argument is that the prerequisite for sex is consent, as well as mutual respect, love, and commitment, and this cannot be formed with animals.

I'm not sure I understand why DRA's gopher wood example does not work for you in the debate over homosexuality?

I haven't been ordered to build an ark.

Seriously, it is not clear at all to me that all people are being commanded to do a specific thing. Noah was under specific, explicit, direct orders. You're comparing this to contexts in which we see general, sweeping statements, which we already know have many exceptions. People who are physically incapable of reproducing with their loved ones can nonetheless form valid marriages, and pursue sex in its unitive aspect even if there is no possibility of procreation. This seems to me to be a sound basic principle.

 

[Rocinante]

Justanant said: DRA had a wonderful example using gopherwood below. It seems to me you've missed his point.

Roz sez:

There was no discernable point. Maybe it fell down a gopher hole.

Justan said:

Homosexuality SEEMS to undermine the very foundation for family that God commanded, does it not?

Roz sez:

No, it doesn't. Raising adopted children is a wonderful way to form a family. There is no shortage of children that need parents and the population is such that "multiplying" is not an issue.

Justan said: Where does scripture forbid child molestation?......WHERE in the NT does Jesus, Paul or any other apostle condemn beastiality?

Roz sez:

You fail to understand the Law of Love that Jesus gave. Both child molestation and bestiality harm others. A child or an animal cannot consent to sex ..... legally, they are being raped and abused.

Committed homosexual relationships are between adults of the age of consent and harm nobody.......indeed they bring love and happiness to many people.

It is quite ugly and insulting for you to compare loving and monogamous homosexual relationships to these things.......you should think about your failure to obey the Law of Love when you say such things.

Justin said: Brother, may the Lord cleanse our minds and purify our hearts!

Roz sez:

Well.....your heart and mind needs it, that's for sure.

 

[Rocinante]

Seebs said:

I cannot see a practical application for this term, especially because I don't believe you've previously offered your definition, and I don't think what you said is what anyone would have understood you to mean.

I ask again that you consider whether you might not do better to deal with people as individuals, rather than trying to conglomerate many into a group with such very elaborately specified qualities.

Roz sez: Well, you have the definition now. You still haven't offered one for Fundamentalist, so I'm ahead of you.

And I'm sure EVERYONE understands EXACTLY what I mean.......that's the problem. They don't like the truth.

If the shoe doesn't fit.....you don't have to WEAR it, do you? If, as you say, they don't exist.....the term is irrelevant.

The FundaGelical community is well-established and well-known. To say you haven't met any of them is quite amazing. I've personally met hundreds ..... and their spokespersons, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, James Kennedy and Charles Colson....are on television often.

The FundaGelical Religion is high-profile and easily identifiable. If you can't see them, maybe you need to look harder.

 

[seebs]

Roz sez: Well, you have the definition now. You still haven't offered one for Fundamentalist, so I'm ahead of you.

Actually, I did. I didn't write out the words, but I pointed you at the historical definition and its origins.

And I'm sure EVERYONE understands EXACTLY what I mean.......that's the problem. They don't like the truth.

Honestly, if I had been asked to describe what the term meant from reading it in context, I would never in a million years have connected it to health care policies. It would never have occurred to me.

If the shoe doesn't fit.....you don't have to WEAR it, do you? If, as you say, they don't exist.....the term is irrelevant.

Not entirely. It's a lot like "backsliding liberals"; it may be used broadly and defined narrowly, and thus create tension.

The FundaGelical Religion is high-profile and easily identifiable. If you can't see them, maybe you need to look harder.

I have met many people who fit part of your description, but none who fit all of it. It seems to me that this ends up being a very misleading term, to say nothing of the overtly hostile way in which you use it.

 

[Rocinante]

It's certainly no more hostile than Fundamentalist......and there is no other term extant to use for this religious sub-culture.

If you come up with one, let me know.

 

[PastorFreud]

Freud,

1 Cor. 7:1-5 does NOT say that a couple needs state approval to have sex. It says that they need to be husband and wife to have sex and be pleasing in God's view. Jesus also taught about God's law on marriage in Matt. 19:3-12.

Marriage rules differ among societies. Today, in the U.S., there are certain legal requirements that accompany marriage. Romans 13:1-7 says that we should obey the government . . . as long as their regulations do not violate God's i.e. Dan. 3 & Dan. 6.

Married couples have a responsibility to each other sexually (1 Cor. 7:1-5). I don't know the circumstances of the couples you are alluding to. But I do know what God said about the matter. If they decide to abstain, it needs to be by mutual agreement.

. . . Denny

This sounds like equivocating. You say that state approval is not what matters, as long as a couple are husband and wife. This doesn't make sense. What is the distinction between the two? Isn't it the government who decides who is married and who is not? And in my state a heterosexual couple living together for six months is considered married by common law. Even sooner if they represent themselves as Mr and Mrs in any way. So a couple could go to the Holiday Inn, sign in as Mr. and Mrs., would be considered legally married by the state and meet the requirements of your proof text, and have all the sex they want. That meets the letter of your requirement, but hardly sounds moral.

 

[seebs]

It's certainly no more hostile than Fundamentalist......and there is no other term extant to use for this religious sub-culture.

The term fundamentalist is not inherently hostile, and is the term chosen by the members of the group. Fundamentalism was a movement. There are no people out there distributing pamphlets about the "FundaGelical revival" and how it will save Christianity.

I believe courtesy suggests that we refer to people by their own terms for themselves.

Furthermore, I am not at all convinced that this is really a single monolithic entity that can reasonably be addressed (or dismissed) with a single word. It seems to me that you are conflating many different groups of people based on a statistical overlap between their goals.

 

[PastorFreud]

Have you really thought about the difference between generic and specific authority? Consider what God told Noah in the building of the ark (Gen. 6:14). Noah was to use "gopherwood" (NKJV). God did not say, "Noah, you shall NOT use oak, pine, yew, hickory, spruce, elm, ash, or any other wood. So, what wood was authorized? Gen. 6:22 tells us what Noah did - - he obeyed God; therefore, he used gopherwood as opposed to others, since God specified that type of wood. That is an example of specific authority. Now, let's consider generic authority. Let's suppose that goperwood came in two varieties - - dark gopherwood and light gopherwood. Would it make a difference which type of gopherwood Noah used? No, because God did not specify light or dark gopherwood - - only gopherwood. Noah could have used either type. That is an example of how generic authority works.

Col. 3:17 requires authority today for what we say and do under the law of Christ. It doesn't require specific authority, but it does require authority from Christ. That is what I'm looking for in the midst of this talk about homosexual monogamous relationships being acceptable unto God. Have you found any yet?

Share we use this mandate your are referring to and we will discuss it.

What is "gopherwood"? This term does not correspond to any know type of wood today that I am aware of.

 

[Imjustanant]

What is "gopherwood"? This term does not correspond to any know type of wood today that I am aware of.

I've been told it is a native type of wood to that area and I've been told that it can be any kind of wood that has a specific "treatment" (for lack of a better term) done to it. Either way, a command was given to either use a specific wood or use wood specifically treated a certain way.

The point of the matter is Noah was given this command. If he failed it, he would have failed the command. The same is being said for marriage. A command was given, "for this reason a husband shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife." If he's left his parents and is "cleaving" to something other than a "wife", he has failed the command. At this point, the pro-gay Christian says, but it is silent on that area, and I say, so is the NT on beastiality. I know, gross. But isn't it gross if a gay male has anal sex with another male? Isn't there something inherently wrong with that? What do you do when "love" has been reduced to such a fecal level.

I mean no disrespect.

 

[seebs]

The difference is, Noah's command has to be specific - there's only one of him.

If I move out from my parents' house, and live on my own for a couple of years, and then get married, am I failing to abide by that command? How about if I invite my wife to move in with me and my parents for a year while we finish college?

Really, that's not a command. It's a prediction. A statement. No man is being addressed, and told "Leave your parents. Cleave to your wife." We are told that men will do this, and indeed, men will do that. Not all men will do that, but many men will do that.

FWIW, anal sex is fairly common among straight people; for at least a thousand years, it was a preferred method of birth control. It sounds gross to me, but keep in mind that whatever sex you don't want has to sound gross to you, for survival reasons. I still remember being absolutely disgusted by the idea of putting any part of me in a girl. Eww! But now I rather like it.

You're mistaking personal instincts for morality. That's ALWAYS a bad idea.

What I find is just what many scholars have argued for the last few thousand years; that some commandments are truly universal, and some must be satisfied in general. It is necessary that each of us refrain from murder, but it is sufficient that many of us reproduce. We don't all have to. Celibate men are not defying God's will; they may be doing God's will for them, even though other people are called to marriage.

We have a whole lot of exceptions to this rule. You're basically saying that this other thing which might be an exception, and which some people think is an exception, shouldn't be because it sounds gross to you. So? I think sex with those really spookily thin women you see on TV sounds really gross. It repulses me. That doesn't make it immoral.

 

[kimber1]

*MOD HAT ON
*sigh* i'll say this one more time. if i'm not mistaken this will be the third time now. the veiled insults and sarcasm are cropping back up again. let's see if we can discuss this delicate issue without the "i'm right and you're wrong so therefore i'm not listening nya nya" attitude. thanks, carry on.
*MOD HAT OFF

 

[Rocinante]

The term fundamentalist is not inherently hostile, and is the term chosen by the members of the group. Fundamentalism was a movement. There are no people out there distributing pamphlets about the "FundaGelical revival" and how it will save Christianity.

I believe courtesy suggests that we refer to people by their own terms for themselves.

Furthermore, I am not at all convinced that this is really a single monolithic entity that can reasonably be addressed (or dismissed) with a single word. It seems to me that you are conflating many different groups of people based on a statistical overlap between their goals.

Roz sez:

I have worked with Fundamentalists for many, many years......I have been one. You do not seem to understand them intimately.

I think you need to study up on Fundamentalism if you think they are not offended by the name. They are. But their defense is to say, "I am not a Fundamentalist, I am an Evangelical."

Accuracy demands that they be correctly identified. They ARE a specific sub-culture of Christianity, and a high-profile one.

In the interest of staying on topic, I suggest you start a new thread if you wish to discuss this in depth.

 

[Fideist]

Roz sez:

Accuracy demands that they be correctly identified. They ARE a specific sub-culture of Christianity, and a high-profile one.

In the interest of staying on topic, I suggest you start a new thread if you wish to discuss this in depth.

I would suggest using the terms conservative Christians or Bible Christians. Some other terms are offensive and get in the way of discussion.

 

[leecappella]

puriteen18: Here the men have left the natural use of the woman, and lusted after other men. It seems to me that this could only mean that they forsook sex in the natural way with a woman to fulfill thier desires with other men.

me: Between a heterosexual man and a homosexual man, whom has the natural use of a woman? A heterosexual man because he is naturally instictive or inclined towards females.

puriteen18: It also seems to me that if the regulation on the sin fo homosexuality had changed in the New Covenant, that the change would have been documented in the Scriptures just as the eating of clean and unclean animals.

me: That's only if your view, as you see it is the correct view. That is also an assumption.

 

[leecappella]

It was unsatisfactory because you say that it is not talking about men leaveing natural sex, but that is exactly what the verse says.

Now, you either have to deny that the word 'natural' belongs there or you have to agree with me.

Not necessarily. If Paul was implying that all males are naturally relationship oriented towards females, then that would be one thing. It is also an incorrect implication though. Besides, the text really has nothing to do with relationships, but sex for idolatrous purposes.