Same sex attractions and Homosexuality

[dms1972]

self deleted

 

[.Jeremiah.]

I can’t quite figure out what you’re saying exactly.
But you have lots of interesting stuff to ponder.
I will attempt to ponder.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The mention of Eros is significantly absent in the New Testament.

Personally I believe that this is because in Christ, we are to be motivated by Agape in every area of life.

Eros is self focussed but Agape is God focussed.

Same sex attraction is a temptation not a wholesome desire from God, as He cannot contradict His own Word.

This aspect of life has become very spiritually motivated as our adversary knows that bondage in this area is very deep and debilitating.

Those promoting this lifestyle are presenting it as identity rather than a choice, to avoid the moral debate.

 

[Gregorikos]

Its been on my mind for a day or two to say something on this. It may seem like some of this hardly need said but I think these expressions "same sex attraction" and "unwanted same-sex attraction" are fostering some confusion.

Same sex attraction does not always constitute or indicate homosexuality, or only constitutes an aspect of it, and there can be same-sex attraction without homosexuality.

CS Lewis has written well on the the four loves, the greek expressions for different sorts of love - Storge, Philia, Eros, Agape, and his book of the same title The Four Loves is one of the best on the subject. But from his day things have become even more muddled. He had to do some debunking about same sex gatherings before he could write on some aspects of the subject.

In a historical context William Barclay has a chapter in his Plain Man's guide to Ethics which gives a good overview of homosexuality in Greek and Roman society.

Same-sex attractions up to a point are normal, and may involve eros, without ever crossing over into homosexuality. Every child has same-sex love needs, and this is nothing to do with homosexuality. English Psychiatrist Frank Lake said Jesus in his human nature experienced eros in his relationships with his disciples without it being tainted by sinful lust.

"Christ as a man knew not only agape, but eros, a very powerful eros, a longing for human companionship. Therefore He, above all knows that if it is not to do more harm than good, eros must be invaded by and controlled by agape. Its most striking character is patience, whereas eros is always impatient." (Clinical Theology Vol. 2; page 779)​

I think Christians need to be clear that homosexuality involves a lot more than same sex attraction.

Having same-sex attractions does not make you a gay man, or a lesbian women. One's manner of relating to others of the same sex and opposite sex may lack maturity however and need ongoing sanctification and pastoral support. For the christian their identity is not supposed to be in a sexual orientation, but in Christ Jesus through faith.

Some are making an argument that what St. Paul wrote about as being under God's judgement was hetrosexual men and women who had left their opposite sex partners in lust for the same sex, and that modern homosexuality is of a different order. There may be a difference of sorts because 'Madison Avenue' has spawned the contemporary image of the modern emancipated homosexual. How different that is from expressions in earlier societies and cultures, is from the christian viewpoint largely irrelevant because its the refusal to acknowledge God as God that Paul is speaking about primarily and then what follows from that. I don't think the aforementioned argument can be used to justify same-sex marriages. And the argument in any case misses the whole point of Paul's thesis in the first chapters of Romans that its the whole world (not just homosexuals) that stands in need of Redemption through Jesus Christ. (Romans 3:19 onwards)

I've certainly felt love for various males throughout life- my father, grandfather, cousins, best friends, etc. But that isn't the same thing as "same sex attraction," which refers to attraction of a sexual nature. I think what you wrote is confusing because of that

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've certainly felt love for various males throughout life- my father, grandfather, cousins, best friends, etc. But that isn't the same thing as "same sex attraction," which refers to attraction of a sexual nature. I think what you wrote is confusing because of that

There are certainly ways in which I love my sisters or my mother that would be completely different if they were not females. But that has nothing to do with sexual desire. I can admire a beautiful woman, (specially if she is very feminine and gracious, sweet —as opposed to bawdy and course, brash), without it being a 'sexual thing' as such, yet obviously it has everything to do with the fact that she is a woman.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Its been on my mind for a day or two to say something on this. It may seem like some of this hardly need said but I think these expressions "same sex attraction" and "unwanted same-sex attraction" are fostering some confusion.

Same sex attraction does not always constitute or indicate homosexuality, or only constitutes an aspect of it, and there can be same-sex attraction without homosexuality.

CS Lewis has written well on the the four loves, the greek expressions for different sorts of love - Storge, Philia, Eros, Agape, and his book of the same title The Four Loves is one of the best on the subject. But from his day things have become even more muddled. He had to do some debunking about same sex gatherings before he could write on some aspects of the subject.

In a historical context William Barclay has a chapter in his Plain Man's guide to Ethics which gives a good overview of homosexuality in Greek and Roman society.

Same-sex attractions up to a point are normal, and may involve eros, without ever crossing over into homosexuality. Every child has same-sex love needs, and this is nothing to do with homosexuality. English Psychiatrist Frank Lake said Jesus in his human nature experienced eros in his relationships with his disciples without it being tainted by sinful lust.

"Christ as a man knew not only agape, but eros, a very powerful eros, a longing for human companionship. Therefore He, above all knows that if it is not to do more harm than good, eros must be invaded by and controlled by agape. Its most striking character is patience, whereas eros is always impatient." (Clinical Theology Vol. 2; page 779)​

I think Christians need to be clear that homosexuality involves a lot more than same sex attraction.

Having same-sex attractions does not make you a gay man, or a lesbian women. One's manner of relating to others of the same sex and opposite sex may lack maturity however and need ongoing sanctification and pastoral support. For the christian their identity is not supposed to be in a sexual orientation, but in Christ Jesus through faith.

Some are making an argument that what St. Paul wrote about as being under God's judgement was hetrosexual men and women who had left their opposite sex partners in lust for the same sex, and that modern homosexuality is of a different order. There may be a difference of sorts because 'Madison Avenue' has spawned the contemporary image of the modern emancipated homosexual. How different that is from expressions in earlier societies and cultures, is from the christian viewpoint largely irrelevant because its the refusal to acknowledge God as God that Paul is speaking about primarily and then what follows from that. I don't think the aforementioned argument can be used to justify same-sex marriages. And the argument in any case misses the whole point of Paul's thesis in the first chapters of Romans that its the whole world (not just homosexuals) that stands in need of Redemption through Jesus Christ. (Romans 3:19 onwards)

I think if you simplify it loving someone whether male or female in a way that is not sexual is not homosexual or lusting, I'm not sure what the argument is, because when it comes to physical attraction it is meant to be for the opposite sex, it's just how God made us.

I do not think ones love for their parent or friend is the same as ones love for a potential mate. To be honest I've never looked up the complicated words used to describe different types of love but I feel that is unnecessary. Just like a child can dumb it down for the difference between love for your family and love for a crush you have, as a kid might put it is as complicated as it needs to be. Any more and you begin to blur the lines and start being like the man who wanted to justify themself and asked "and who is my neighbor".

When it comes to what is homosexual and what is not I believe the line is pretty clear and distinct and it is this:

homosexual love is wanting to be physically intimate with someone of the same gender, whereas platonic love is not physical and non-sexual, like between a friend or a family member.

 

[TheWhat?]

I'm going to be frank about this because there aren't enough people really talking about this.

... Jesus in his human nature experienced eros in his relationships with his disciples without it being tainted by sinful lust.

This honestly is the teaching that probably did some of the most harm in my life. We have to be very clear by what we mean by "sinful lust." Yes there is a "lust" that is sin, but there are multiple sources to draw from. From my childhood, I followed the teaching of the Decalogue on this, and that was fine. I had a clear heart-felt distinction of when it was actually wrong for me to have too much desire for certain women. And that was fine, for the most part, among christians.

But then the internet happened. Gay rights happened. inappropriate content exploded. Abuse scandals erupted. #MeToo happened. And christians became very, very angry. Suddenly, somehow, it practically became "unlawful" in the hearts and minds of lots of pastors, authors, and in general opinion to be a heterosexual male. I do think some pre-existing schools of thought found that to be a favorable environment and flourished, but it's beside the point.

So eventually, I caved to the fear and the pressure. But considering the sex drive sans castration to be a sin in and of itself doesn't solve problems, it creates them. The libido in my experience, being disconnected from my former spirituality, which worked, was transformed into something like a chicken with its head cut off -- wild, uncontrollable and undirected. That of course only adds fuel to the fire. You can't talk to people about it, they'll accuse you of sin, and add to your problems.

Regardless, it wasn't until a particular woman entered into my life when I had somewhat managed a kind of psychological castration, that I had to confess in prayer that I had heterosexual feelings for this single and attractive woman.

I think that made God angry actually, but in a good way. I was given a sudden powerful dose, supernaturally from my perspective, of divine love, lifting me out of my darkened state, and showing me that love is very much like a man of war, fighting for his wife (that's straight from scripture btw).

I feel for anyone caught in this scenario. I know how difficult the odds are that are stacked against you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When it comes to what is homosexual and what is not I believe the line is pretty clear and distinct and it is this:

homosexual love is wanting to be physically intimate with someone of the same gender, whereas platonic love is not physical and non-sexual, like between a friend or a family member.

But that bit is part of the discussion. I come from a South American country where physical expression of friendship, camaraderie, affinity of experience, close friendship, and even love between two men, is not sexual. Yet it is often very physical, but platonic. The things I have seen men do with other men in that country —if I saw it in the States, I would be pretty sure it was not platonic, unless I knew them very well, and knew it was not sexual as such.

Even here in the States it is a known and accepted fact that men and women alike appreciate a good-looking member of their same gender, and feel something toward them (I call it admiration) that has nothing to do with sex unless they allow it, (or some, want it), to be about sex.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

But that bit is part of the discussion...
Even here in the States it is a known and accepted fact that men and women alike appreciate a good-looking member of their same gender, and feel something toward them (I call it admiration) that has nothing to do with sex unless they allow it, (or some, want it), to be about sex.

Well if you are just saying someone looks nice then do that and leave it at that. I feel like you might be looking for someone to give you the green light on what is and is not ok to do between people of the same gender, without it being homosexual. I don't know what kind of answer you want as the post itself is very vague.

 

[Incendiary Minds]

I'm going to be frank about this because there aren't enough people really talking about this.



This honestly is the teaching that probably did some of the most harm in my life. We have to be very clear by what we mean by "sinful lust." Yes there is a "lust" that is sin, but there are multiple sources to draw from. From my childhood, I followed the teaching of the Decalogue on this, and that was fine. I had a clear heart-felt distinction of when it was actually wrong for me to have too much desire for certain women. And that was fine, for the most part, among christians.

But then the internet happened. Gay rights happened. inappropriate content exploded. Abuse scandals erupted. #MeToo happened. And christians became very, very angry. Suddenly, somehow, it practically became "unlawful" in the hearts and minds of lots of pastors, authors, and in general opinion to be a heterosexual male. I do think some pre-existing schools of thought found that to be a favorable environment and flourished, but it's beside the point.

So eventually, I caved to the fear and the pressure. But considering the sex drive sans castration to be a sin in and of itself doesn't solve problems, it creates them. The libido in my experience, being disconnected from my former spirituality, which worked, was transformed into something like a chicken with its head cut off -- wild, uncontrollable and undirected. That of course only adds fuel to the fire. You can't talk to people about it, they'll accuse you of sin, and add to your problems.

Regardless, it wasn't until a particular woman entered into my life when I had somewhat managed a kind of psychological castration, that I had to confess in prayer that I had heterosexual feelings for this single and attractive woman.

I think that made God angry actually, but in a good way. I was given a sudden powerful dose, supernaturally from my perspective, of divine love, lifting me out of my darkened state, and showing me that love is very much like a man of war, fighting for his wife (that's straight from scripture btw).

I feel for anyone caught in this scenario. I know how difficult the odds are that are stacked against you.

I have had at least 6 computer since 1995 as well as numerous cell phones, then smartphones and tablets. With ALL of as well when I didn't have my own PC and used to go to the library, job seeking locations, internet cafes etc; to get online ONE thing has stood out all of this time. I have NEVER turned on or logged into the internet and had ANY form of inappropriate contentography JUST JUMP out at me. Quite to the contrary, I found that one had to be quite determined to look for inappropriate content even the freebies on opening pages! You also learned very quickly that you were risking getting damaging viruses on your equipment OR getting in trouble with the company whose computers you were using.

So I am very skeptical when "Christians " bewail " about how easy it is to slip into the trap of internet inappropriate contentography. I equally realize that different people define "inappropriate content" in different ways. For some it may be a painted toe nail on an open toed shoe for others it's something else. I draw the line at acts of violence, degradation and inability to consent. For people that are hungry, I believe that they will "see" a porterhouse steak in their feverish imaginations when reality is showing a t bone bare of anything. I often wonder for "some Christians " is "hunger" driving some to imagine what really isn't there. Just a thought.

 

[TheWhat?]

I have had at least 6 computer since 1995 as well as numerous cell phones, then smartphones and tablets. With ALL of as well when I didn't have my own PC and used to go to the library, job seeking locations, internet cafes etc; to get online ONE thing has stood out all of this time. I have NEVER turned on or logged into the internet and had ANY form of inappropriate contentography JUST JUMP out at me. Quite to the contrary, I found that one had to be quite determined to look for inappropriate content even the freebies on opening pages! You also learned very quickly that you were risking getting damaging viruses on your equipment OR getting in trouble with the company whose computers you were using.

So I am very skeptical when "Christians " bewail " about how easy it is to slip into the trap of internet inappropriate contentography. I equally realize that different people define "inappropriate content" in different ways. For some it may be a painted toe nail on an open toed shoe for others it's something else. I draw the line at acts of violence, degradation and inability to consent. For people that are hungry, I believe that they will "see" a porterhouse steak in their feverish imaginations when reality is showing a t bone bare of anything. I often wonder for "some Christians " is "hunger" driving some to imagine what really isn't there. Just a thought.

We all have different experiences. But my post isn't really about inappropriate content as much as the social reaction to it. Imagine your post times 1 million or more reactions, then add all the reactions from all the other big controversies, and maybe you know what I'm talking about. It's like we were stuck in a pot of water slowly coming to a boil and I don't really think we're out of it yet.

 

[bèlla]

So I am very skeptical when "Christians " bewail " about how easy it is to slip into the trap of internet inappropriate contentography.

There was a time when certain keywords returned inappropriate contentographic material. But Google cleaned it up and that's not an issue. You need to be very specific to receive the same or frequent venues along those lines to get suggestions.

For people that are hungry, I believe that they will "see" a porterhouse steak in their feverish imaginations when reality is showing a t bone bare of anything. I often wonder for "some Christians " is "hunger" driving some to imagine what really isn't there. Just a thought.

Loneliness begets a lot of problems. When I read accounts of inappropriate content addiction there's overlapping similarities in their stories. Many are isolated or have few connections beyond the Internet. I'm not counting family in the total. A large number admit being introverted and struggle socially.

When you add it together you have a recipe for the cocktail. The desire for connection and relating never leaves. If you can't feed it real time you'll look elsewhere. Social media and forums offer a form of togetherness. But that's not the same as a man and woman. Dating sites are skewed towards certain demographics. So what's a needy person to do?

If you can't meet someone at church or social outlets; inappropriate content fills the void. Physical intimacy is part of it. But many are starved for love and companionship. That's the hole in their sidewalk they're longing to fill. And they can't.

~bella

 

[dms1972]

This honestly is the teaching that probably did some of the most harm in my life. We have to be very clear by what we mean by "sinful lust." Yes there is a "lust" that is sin, but there are multiple sources to draw from. From my childhood, I followed the teaching of the Decalogue on this, and that was fine. I had a clear heart-felt distinction of when it was actually wrong for me to have too much desire for certain women. And that was fine, for the most part, among christians.

Lust precedes sin is the Biblical order, there is a progression from lust to sin if its entertained. What I was saying was Jesus had mature relationships without ever entertaining lust. He had friendships with both men and women - they were of course the relationship between Master and disciple. Jesus love to his disciples I believe altered their love toward him. My point is eros which is not merely "sexual drive" isn't just to do with sexual relationships. Some of these terms are modern: "drive" etc, they keep us from thinking clearly they make us feel helpless at times as though we were defined only by our sexuality and seeing each other as sex objects rather than human beings made in God's image. Jesus love to his disciples I believe altered their love toward him.

 

[dms1972]

I have had at least 6 computer since 1995 as well as numerous cell phones, then smartphones and tablets. With ALL of as well when I didn't have my own PC and used to go to the library, job seeking locations, internet cafes etc; to get online ONE thing has stood out all of this time. I have NEVER turned on or logged into the internet and had ANY form of inappropriate contentography JUST JUMP out at me. Quite to the contrary, I found that one had to be quite determined to look for inappropriate content even the freebies on opening pages! You also learned very quickly that you were risking getting damaging viruses on your equipment OR getting in trouble with the company whose computers you were using.

So I am very skeptical when "Christians " bewail " about how easy it is to slip into the trap of internet inappropriate contentography. I equally realize that different people define "inappropriate content" in different ways. For some it may be a painted toe nail on an open toed shoe for others it's something else. I draw the line at acts of violence, degradation and inability to consent. For people that are hungry, I believe that they will "see" a porterhouse steak in their feverish imaginations when reality is showing a t bone bare of anything. I often wonder for "some Christians " is "hunger" driving some to imagine what really isn't there. Just a thought.

I completely accept what you say as regard internet inappropriate content not leaping out. I sometimes have to be careful and be more discriminate in my search terms however when using a search engine. But I agree the problem often begins in the mind or with fantasy.

I don't expect to be free from temptations always, but I need to become so enamored with Jesus Christ that when temptations come I can turn to Him as the superior satisfaction.

 

[dms1972]

I do not think ones love for their parent or friend is the same as ones love for a potential mate. To be honest I've never looked up the complicated words used to describe different types of love but I feel that is unnecessary

On the contrary its very important - this is the problem today people don't want to think carefully - also by not differentiating loves and other things from love, the idea if you 'love' someone you should be able to marry them cannot be critiqued. Neurotic dependence is not love. Needing someone to "complete me" is not love. Love respects a degree of separateness, but independent individuality is what many want in their relationships and that is why they cannot sustain them, because relationship means giving up some autonomy.

In a christian same sex attraction can by God's grace be transformed into a kind of sympathy or understanding of others and this is sometimes the way God uses them, he enables them to overcome the element of temptation in it.

 

[dms1972]

There was a time when certain keywords returned inappropriate contentographic material. But Google cleaned it up and that's not an issue. You need to be very specific to receive the same or frequent venues along those lines to get suggestions.



Loneliness begets a lot of problems. When I read accounts of inappropriate content addiction there's overlapping similarities in their stories. Many are isolated or have few connections beyond the Internet. I'm not counting family in the total. A large number admit being introverted and struggle socially.

When you add it together you have a recipe for the cocktail. The desire for connection and relating never leaves. If you can't feed it real time you'll look elsewhere. Social media and forums offer a form of togetherness. But that's not the same as a man and woman. Dating sites are skewed towards certain demographics. So what's a needy person to do?

If you can't meet someone at church or social outlets; inappropriate content fills the void. Physical intimacy is part of it. But many are starved for love and companionship. That's the hole in their sidewalk they're longing to fill. And they can't.

~bella

I have used inappropriate content to fill a void at times, I have had some freedom and a greater degree of being able to choose to skip over anything but I have to step on it quick. I still have a problem with lack of social contacts and hopefully that will improve - I just think some of the churches don't foster true fellowship, they are social, but not fellowship oriented, and they haven't helped me a lot to develop deeper relationships. I have been to House Groups but with one exception I felt them to be somewhat ingrown, they want to foster a sort of togetherness and resent anything that spoils that or alters the dynamic they had - which will inevitably happen when someone else joins the group. I prefer to pick the people I open up to or share more personal stuff with.

 

[dms1972]

I've certainly felt love for various males throughout life- my father, grandfather, cousins, best friends, etc. But that isn't the same thing as "same sex attraction," which refers to attraction of a sexual nature. I think what you wrote is confusing because of that

OK - I think it was that point I was making that the term "same sex attraction" is rather vague and love for family members or friends or the same sex and wanting to be in their company is not homosexuality. Even same sex attractions can be part of a passing phase, so that is why I am saying people should not conclude from feelings or attractions at one time in their life. I believe there can in some circles be a lot of pressure put on some people to as it were admit they are homosexual when they are not - I have seen this happen. Its wrong as is the practice of "outing" people.

 

[bèlla]

I have used inappropriate content to fill a void at times, I have had some freedom and a greater degree of being able to choose to skip over anything but I have to step on it quick.

Congratulations on your progress. I pray the Lord delivers you from the stronghold. Add a request to the Prayer Wall and share the good news and ask for prayer to help you overcome.

I still have a problem with lack of social contacts and hopefully that will improve - I just think some of the churches don't foster true fellowship, they are social, but not fellowship oriented, and they haven't helped me a lot to develop deeper relationships.

fellowship
companionship, company
a community of interest, activity, feeling, or experience
a company of equals or friends
the quality or state of being comradely

This is the elephant in the room. I'm no expert on church. But I've built a large circle of friends in the past. At its height there were nearly 50 women. I know how to bring people together and get along.

We had a lot in common. Mindset, interests, beliefs, etc. We weren't relying on one thing to unite us. Within the fold there were differences too. We were on the same page where it mattered most. But we weren't identical.

That's where churches go awry. They don't allow for differences and the relating is forced. You're not going to be BFFs with everyone. That isn't realistic. Many aren't seeking connections either. They build close relationships outside the church. You have a mishmash of need and disinterest huddled together.

Whereas every one in my group wanted to befriend me. They wanted to be close. I didn't have to ask or force the issue. As a result, I developed close relationships.

It's impossible to know where someone falls in church without asking. They're not going to tell you they aren't looking friends. You realize it after awhile. That's primarily due to a lack of need. It isn't their lone option for relating. They aren't compelled to do it.

Instead of getting frustrated, start something. Build a community for people like yourself. Then you're surrounded by others seeking the same and supporting one another. Maybe you'll find a handful and develop a connection.

~bella

 

[SilverBear]

OK - I think it was that point I was making that the term "same sex attraction" is rather vague and love for family members or friends or the same sex and wanting to be in their company is not homosexuality.

i don't think anyone is suggesting it is. By this same token love for family members or friends of the opposite sex and wanting to he in their company is hot heterosexuality

Even homosexual feelings can be part of a passing phase,

and heterosexual feelings?

so that is why I am saying people should not conclude from feelings or attractions at one time in their life. I believe there can in some circles be a lot of pressure put on some people to as it were admit they are homosexual when they are not - I have seen this happen. Its wrong as is the practice of "outing" people.

i think the reverse is something that happens far more often[/QUOTE]

 

[Carl Emerson]

OK - I think it was that point I was making that the term "same sex attraction" is rather vague and love for family members or friends or the same sex and wanting to be in their company is not homosexuality. Even homosexual feelings can be part of a passing phase, so that is why I am saying people should not conclude from feelings or attractions at one time in their life. I believe there can in some circles be a lot of pressure put on some people to as it were admit they are homosexual when they are not - I have seen this happen. Its wrong as is the practice of "outing" people.

Is this not Phila, one of the three loves that is not lust? I say three loves because it seems Eros is lust.