Originally posted by NemesioWhat you mean is if two men and/or two women love each other and are committed to each other should they be able to screw their respective brains out?
Do you suppose that if two men or women love each other so deeply that they are willing to live
their lives in undying devotion to each other through God -- do you suppose that this is in the spirit
of God's Law?
Nemesio
I think you will find, or a least I have, that sex and love are not equivalent although it is often a byproduct of two people loving each other and should be. Having said that, I think that love should come first and sex second.
I know that if I condemn homosexual relations you will condemn me by saying that I am hypocritical for abandoning love over a law, however, I do not think this is necessarily the case. I say to love, but not necessarily to have sex? Must we have sex with those we love or with those we wish to spend our lives with? This question should be posed to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. I think we can agree there MUST be boundaries but where should they be drawn either way? This is the big question. Also, we are to love God above all else which includes those we may have sexual relations with. Therefore, if I were to think God was not in favor of me having sex with a particular person, whatever the reason, then I should place him above myself and that of my prospective partner, no?
For example, the woman caught in adultery. Perhaps she is madly in love with the man in question and vice versa. Is it then wrong to codemn them? However, what of the husband and what of the family unit that God has pre-ordained that have been thrown to the wind?
I think we all too often elevate our own sexual desires and "needs" above that of what God desires for us. If we do, then those things we love above our God becomes our god. In effect, what we love the most becomes our God.
I personally view the homosexual desire as a disorder. Mind you, this has NOHTING to do with love, rather, it ONLY has to do with sexaul desire. Also, from what I read in scripture this seems to be the case. In all honesty, does it seem natural to you? Of coarse many will accuse me of being a homophobe and biggot etc, etc, etc., however, I do not hate them, rather, I simply see them as having struggles that are different than my own. In the past, I also have had "inclinations" towards sins other than homosexuality. I too am a sinner. I too have had sexual incounters with those of the opposite sex that were sinful. However, I then had the choice, as does the homosexual, as to whether to continue in it or give it to God and turn from it. Was I born to have certain sinful inclinations? I would say yes. Does it mean that God put them there? I would say no. We are all born in sin because mankind fell long ago. God did not put the sin their, rather, we as a race chose it.
Originally posted by vistesdI tried to elude to this in my conversation with Nemesio but, as usual, my speech is not as eloquent. In fact there are no true literalists. To be a true literalist one must only hold the data unprocessed. To process data requires interpretation of the data. This is true in any indevour such as science, theology etc. Usually the side that one disagrees with becomes the dogmatic side or the side that is drowning in idolatry.
As I read through this discussion—and others like it—I come to the following conclusions:
_________________________________________
Non-inerrantists get to pick and choose which portions of scripture make sense to them.
Inerrantists get to pick and choose which portions of scripture make sense (to them) of others, so as to preserve the notion of ine ...[text shortened]... icks and chooses. Everybody interprets. There are those who own up to it, and those who don’t.
Originally posted by whodeyWell, the side that I disagree with usually is dogmatic and drowning in idolatry. 😉
I tried to elude to this in my conversation with Nemesio but, as usual, my speech is not as eloquent. In fact there are no true literalists. To be a true literalist one must only hold the data unprocessed. To process data requires interpretation of the data. This is true in any indevour such as science, theology etc. Usually the side that one disagrees with becomes the dogmatic side or the side that is drowning in idolatry.
I have a very broad understanding of idolatry, however. The following comes close—
“Every definition of God leads to heresy; definition is spiritual idolatry. Even attributing mind and will to God, even attributing divinity itself, and the name ‘God’—these, too, are definitions. Were it not for the subtle awareness that all these are just sparkling flashes of that which transcends definition—these, too, would engender heresy. ...
The greatest impediment to the human spirit results from the fact that the conception of God is fixed in a particular form, due to childish habit and imagination. This is a spark of the defect of idolatry, of which we must always be aware. ...
The infinite transcends every particular content of faith.”
—Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (former Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Palestine).
_______________________________________
And—
There are no idols
except the ones you need:
that is how you know them—
When you no longer need them,
they fall apart—
Watch out!
lest they start to crumble
before you have walked away…
Originally posted by whodey
What you mean is if two men and/or two women love each other and are committed to each other should they be able to screw their respective brains out?
No, this is not what I mean. I mean that if two men love each other unconditionally with a deep
devotion, can the sexual exchange they experience be as representative of God's love -- as holy?
That is, can their relationship be within the spirit of God's Law, just like you interpret ignoring the
explicit condemnation of particular hairstyles to be a 'spirit of the Law' issue?
I think you will find, or a least I have, that sex and love are not equivalent although it is often a byproduct of two people loving each other and should be. Having said that, I think that love should come first and sex second.
Absolutely. I am assuming that the two men/women in question have gone through the sorts of trials
and explorations that any two loved ones ought to go through before giving of themselves fully in
sexual exchange.
I know that if I condemn homosexual relations you will condemn me by saying that I am hypocritical for abandoning love over a law, however, I do not think this is necessarily the case.
I do, indeed. I condemn you for being a hypocrite. I condemn you for saying that God's Law must
be interpreted to the letter on this issue, while you 'interpret' hairstyles.
I say to love, but not necessarily to have sex? Must we have sex with those we love or with those we wish to spend our lives with? This question should be posed to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
As I said, I believe and have fully believed that the consummation of a relationship is sexual exchange,
that only in the context of a firm belief in an undying love should two people open themselves up so
fully as to engage in sexual intercourse. This is the only way in which such an act is holy -- that is,
glorifying God rather than simply gratifying the self.
I think we can agree there MUST be boundaries but where should they be drawn either way? This is the big question. Also, we are to love God above all else which includes those we may have sexual relations with. Therefore, if I were to think God was not in favor of me having sex with a particular person, whatever the reason, then I should place him above myself and that of my prospective partner, no?
No argument here. I simply don't believe that God would tell a man who loves another man that
he ought not have sex with him simply by virtue of this fact just like I think it's preposterous that
God would say that a woman should feel comfortable praying without a covering on her head.
For example, the woman caught in adultery. Perhaps she is madly in love with the man in question and vice versa. Is it then wrong to codemn them?
First of all, adultery is rarely about love. It's about having unmet needs fulfilled. If you want to discuss
adultery itself, let's start another thread. But, if a man has committed his life to another woman,
then he is failing to love that woman when he commits adultery. That is, he is violating the agreement
he entered into with his wife and their God. He disgraces that agreement by his action, and no love
between adulterer and adulteress can dismiss for that.
However, what of the husband and what of the family unit that God has pre-ordained that have been thrown to the wind?
Again, we must talk about the letter of the Law (God made man and woman) and the spirit of the Law
(God made it such that two people can love each other fully and glorify God in that love).
I think we all too often elevate our own sexual desires and "needs" above that of what God desires for us. If we do, then those things we love above our God becomes our god. In effect, what we love the most becomes our God.
Agreed. But I'm not talking about purely sex like you are.
I personally view the homosexual desire as a disorder.
Well, this is your problem. Is homosexuality normative? Of course not. So, in a sense you can say
it's abnormal, as long as you don't place a value judgment on that. However, a 'disorder?'
Mind you, this has NOHTING to do with love, rather, it ONLY has to do with sexaul desire.
You are an arrogant prick. As a church organist, believe you me, I've seen the full pantheon of
homosexual interaction from flaming queen to 'gee you'd think he's straight.' Just like heterosexuals,
there are some who think only with their genitalia and some who are committed to their partners
unreservedly.
I fully assure you, just like 'normal' heterosexuals, their relationships can be about love just as
easily as it can be about desire.
Also, from what I read in scripture this seems to be the case.
Did you see anything in Scripture that leads you to believe that hairstyles don't matter? It's
pretty conclusive what St Paul thinks. And yet, you deviate from Scripture on this issue.
In all honesty, does it seem natural to you? Of coarse many will accuse me of being a homophobe and biggot etc, etc, etc.,
Homosexuality doesn't seem natural to me because I'm a heterosexual who loves heterosexual
sex. But liking 16th century English cathedral choral music seems natural to me. That's the thing,
I'm not about to judge what's 'natural' for another person by what's 'natural' to me.
And I'm not going to hold a 1st-century Jewish-Christian's opinion about Roman, pagan homoeroticism
as stock against those homosexual partners that show a Christ-like love for each other.
however, I do not hate them, rather, I simply see them as having struggles that are different than my own. In the past, I also have had "inclinations" towards sins other than homosexuality. I too am a sinner.
You are taking the a priori stance that homosexuality is a sin in all contexts. So I really can't
address anything else you say, because it fails to be opened to the idea that homosexuals can express
a holy love for each other, that they must be beholden to the 'letter of the Law' in this case while
you 'interpret' other passages to your liking.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIt is my belief that even if two heterosexuals have sex outside the confines of marriage that such behavoir should be considered sinful. This means even if they love each other. Of coarse I am sure you would disagree with this as well.
No, this is not what I mean. I mean that if two men love each other unconditionally with a deep
devotion, can the sexual exchange they experience be as represent ignoring the
explicit condemnation of particular hairstyles to be a 'spirit of the Law' issue?
There are a wide varieity of sexual pracitces out there that include such things as beastility, pediphilia etc, etc. I think, however, that we can both agree that just because one has "desires" or "needs" that this makes it morally right to engage in certain sexual practices. Therefore, morally where do we draw the line? I suppose your moral stance, as I am sure most peoples, is that if two people love each other and are of consenting age that it is morally justifiable to engage in sexual relations. However, what of the married person? Perhaps they are swingers? Is it wrong if they all four "love" each other and they all consent to that behavoir?
I feel that God has lovingly placed before us guidlines in which to engage in sexual behavoir so as to have our best interests at heart as well as his general purpose for mankind. Therefore, we can choose to ignore such guidlines at our own peril. However, I think that the strength of the family unit is of the utmost importance to the society in which we live and I think bears a direct correlation to the overall morality within that society. I think we can both agree on this. I think this is one of the reasons Christ was so harsh in his stance on divorce. Divorce is a semi-destruction of the family unit and is at the core of many of societies ills. If "Chrisitans" followed Christ's teaching on the matter of divorce, I think society would be much better for it.
Having said that, what is the best way to assemble a family unit that is stable? Is it having sex outside the confines of marriage? What of the single mother who is trying to raise children? Statistically, are they not often living at or near the poverty line? Also, the absense of a loving father/mother is a strain on the overall family structure. To be honest, I don't know how single parents manage. I don't think it the way in which God intended us to live. Perhaps we can agree on this as well?
So this brings us to homosexuals. Unfortunatly, it is impossible to have children through such unions naturally. Some view this as an added bonus, however, I personally think they are being robbed. They are missing out on the wonderful experience of parenthood as well as investing in the future of the society in which they live. It is both a contributive and fulfilling endevour. Does this mean that everyone should have children? That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if one feels drawn to the homosexual lifestyle the decision is already made for them unless alternative ways of having children are created.
This leads us to the homosexual union in which children are adopted and/or one of the parents is the direct parent. My question is how many homosexual unions end up lasting committed and choose to raise children in a loving environement? My guess is that the average heterosexual union is far more likely to have the opportunity for this to happen simply because it is a natural inclination to reproduce as where those within the homosexual partnership must go out of their way to have children. I would like to see the statistics on such endevours. Perhaps I will search out such information and get back to you. I have heard from other people, however, that homosexual unions statistically do not last as long as heterosexual unions and that typically homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous. Also of concern is the fact that one or both parents do not have a direct genetic link to the children in question. Does this mean that this will make a difference in how much they love them? I hope not, but as even in some heterosexual unions in which children are adopted, it can make a differecne unfortunatly.
My purpose here is not to condemn the single parent, or the adulterer, or the homosexual or those who are divorced, rather, my purpose here is to examine the sexual laws put in place for us to follow by a God that loves us and our future generations.
Originally posted by NemesioI think that I am more in line with #1. Again, my response is that Paul's intent is based in love. If certain hairstyles were seen as "genderbending" then yes, it would be of concern. For example, how would you like to go to a bar and pick up a girl and take her home only to find out that the girl in qurestion really is not a girl? Perhaps you would not mind, however, this is a good way to get yourself killed.
I didn't catch your direct answer to this. It sorta sounded like #1. Is it?
Nemesio
I think it good to have a distinguishing line between genders. After all, males and females have differences. Why contrinbute to confusion on the matter by engaging in behavoir that contributes to such confusion? Again, I think this mandate by Paul to be based in love to help prevent further strife within the society in which he lived. For that particular time, I do not think it was misplaced.
Originally posted by whodeyDo you use the biblical passage in question to correct women with short hair and men with long hair in your church? Actually, are they even allowed in your church? If they are allowed in, may they teach a Sunday School class? Are they allowed to get married in your church...?
I think that I am more in line with #1. Again, my response is that Paul's intent is based in love. If certain hairstyles were seen as "genderbending" then yes, it would be of concern. For example, how would you like to go to a bar and pick up a girl and take her home only to find out that the girl in qurestion really is not a girl? Perhaps you would not m ...[text shortened]... in the society in which he lived. For that particular time, I do not think it was misplaced.
The mental gymnastics you guys are willing to do to make sure homosexuals are still sinners is really silly...and telling.
Originally posted by TheSkipperThey probably just have to wear a large placard that says MAN or WOMAN while they're in the building.
Do you use the biblical passage in question to correct women with short hair and men with long hair in your church? Actually, are they even allowed in your church?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAwesome!
They probably just have to wear a large placard that says [b]MAN or WOMAN while they're in the building.[/b]
That sure would make things easier, if I had a nickle for all the times I have accidentally invited a woman from church into my bed only to find out it was a man...well, I'd have a lot of money!
Originally posted by whodeyWait a second. I didn't realize how stupid this really was.
If certain hairstyles were seen as "genderbending" then yes, it would be of concern....I think it good to have a distinguishing line between genders. After all, males and females have differences. Why contrinbute to confusion on the matter by engaging in behavoir that contributes to such confusion? Again, I think this mandate by Paul to be based in love to help prevent further strife within the society in which he lived.
The purpose of St Paul's admonition was clear: Women are not to pray with short or uncovered hair.
This was not a social issue -- to keep men from sleeping with men or whatever your mind has contrived.
This was about respect for God. Do you think God got confused when a short-haired woman prayed?
So, why don't you try again: Why would God care about the style of a man's or woman's hair when
they prayed to Him?
And: Does He still care?
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodey
Unfortunatly, it is impossible to have children through such unions naturally. Some view this as an added bonus, however, I personally think they are being robbed. They are missing out on the wonderful experience of parenthood as well as investing in the future of the society in which they live. It is both a contributive and fulfilling endevour. Does this mean that everyone should have children? That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if one feels drawn to the homosexual lifestyle the decision is already made for them unless alternative ways of having children are created.
Um. So what? It's not like there aren't a shortage of kids who need to be adopted. And, such a
viewpoint is also antagonistic towards heterosexual couples who are noble enough to adopt even if they
are fertile, or those who choose it because they cannot bear children themselves.
The homosexual couples I know with children -- one set who adopted and one set who conceived theirs
surrogately -- are just as committed to their children as any responsible heterosexual parents I've seen.
This leads us to the homosexual union in which children are adopted and/or one of the parents is the direct parent. My question is how many homosexual unions end up lasting committed and choose to raise children in a loving environement? My guess is that the average heterosexual union is far more likely to have the opportunity for this to happen simply because it is a natural inclination to reproduce as where those within the homosexual partnership must go out of their way to have children.
50% of heterosexual marriage end in divorce, or haven't you been paying attention. They have an
abysmal success rate. How much worse could homosexuals be?
I would like to see the statistics on such endevours. Perhaps I will search out such information and get back to you. I have heard from other people, however, that homosexual unions statistically do not last as long as heterosexual unions and that typically homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous.
85% of high school heterosexual males and 75% of high school heterosexual females have had sex
with more than one partner by the time they graduate. By the time they graduate college, they average
seven heterosexual partners. How much more promiscuous before it's dangerous?
Also of concern is the fact that one or both parents do not have a direct genetic link to the children in question. Does this mean that this will make a difference in how much they love them? I hope not, but as even in some heterosexual unions in which children are adopted, it can make a differecne unfortunatly.
Yes, it can. It can make you all the more appreciative of the gift of a child because you chose to have
it instead of as the result of a broken condom, for example. It swings both ways.
My purpose here is not to condemn the single parent, or the adulterer, or the homosexual or those who are divorced, rather, my purpose here is to examine the sexual laws put in place for us to follow by a God that loves us and our future generations.
So, once again, the 'letter of the Law' holds sway on the man-on-man thing, huh? There's no spirit
of the Law to be appealed to? But with hairstyles -- that's a spirit of the Law thing.
Hmmmmmm...
I don't think you're genuinely interested in examining the sexual laws put in place. I think you're interested
in preserving the comfort zone you've established around yourself.
Nemesio
Originally posted by vistesdSo even attributing the mind and will of God is idolatry? Is Christ listed in this category for saying that he is to be about the will of the Father?
[
“Every definition of God leads to heresy; definition is spiritual idolatry. Even attributing mind and will to God, even attributing divinity itself, and the name ‘God’—these, too, are definitions. Were it not for the subtle awareness that all these are just sparkling flashes of that which transcends definition—these, too, would engender heresy. ...
Being a Christian, my defintion of idolatry is placing anything or anyone ahead of my God. Thus the commandment to love the Lord with all of your heart and soul and mind applies as well as loving your neighbor as yourself. If you do these things then you ARE in the will of God and you will have no worries in terms of transgressing the law.
I know I have been pounding the greatest commandment into the ground, which is to love God and your fellow man. But does anyone really know what it means to love God and your fellow man? Christ gave the example of the Good Samaritin as a reference for what it means to love your neighbor as well as the commandment to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. However, when Christ reveals what loving God entails he says that if you love me, then follow my commandments. In other words, if you love me you will try to please me but doing what you know pleases me. This tells me that one knows, in part, what the will or desire of God entails. The problem I find with your definition of idolatry is that one must never be able to fully ascertain what God's will is. Therefore, what is left is simply doing what is right in your own eyes, which in and of itself, is not always the right road as I can attest and I am sure you can as well. The interesting thing is, most everyone can agree that loving your neighbor as yourself IS the will of God, yet, when it comes to other teachings that Christ has given us, such as the teaching that he is the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father but by me, we seem to get squeemish and divorce ourselves from the notion that God is talking to us.
I realize that we come from different perspectives on the issue. You believe that there is not an entity or personality, rather, he is simply the whole sum of existence that is infinite as where I lay claim that he is a personality that can be interacted with even though I conceede that he is infinite. On the one side, you are avoiding defining God in that he is not a personality, however, is this not in and of itself a type of definitiion? How do you know? If he is everything, how does this prove he is not a personality? And if he is a personality, how is it that we cannot relate to him in some way and perhaps even know what his will is?
Originally posted by NemesioI was merely speculating as to why Paul said these things. My hunch, however, is that his objection was based in love. Perhaps the way in which he told people to pray was already a social norm, thus, breaking this norm that was seen as "natural" would create strife and division. However, this also is a speculation by me and it is my interpretation in terms of my knowledge of the scriptures and the overall silence within scripture in regards to this teaching except in this one book of the Bible.
Wait a second. I didn't realize how stupid this really was.
The purpose of St Paul's admonition was clear: Women are not [b]to pray with short or uncovered hair.
This was not a social issue -- to keep men from sleeping with men or whatever your mind has contrived.
This was about respect for God. Do you think God got confused when a short-haired man's or woman's hair when
they prayed to Him?[/b]
And: Does He still care?
Nemesio[/b]
If God really intended for man to wear a hat when he conversed with God I wonder if Adam had a hat? I wonder if Eve was instructed by God to wear her hair a certain way? When we think of such examples the who idea is silly in terms of what is pleasing to God. However, what is pleasing to man in terms of social convention is a different story entirely. You either have the option of going against social convention and enduring the consequences for your actions or going with social convention so as not to offend your fellow neighbor. I judge Pual as doing the later. You may conintue to hound me on the issue but that is my final position though you disagree with it I'm sure.
Let me just say that if I lived in Pauls day, I would try to pracitce public prayer within the social norm as instructed by Paul.