Originally posted by whodeyI didn't say 'any and all circumstances.' You gave a perfect example in the adultery case: even if a
I would say that insisting that two people who love each other MUST be afforded the notion that God condones a sexual union between them under any and all circumstances is ridiculous.
man loves a woman who is not his wife, to express that sexually or otherwise is sinful because of the
harm it does his wife, the lack of attention to his original vows, &c. Please stop asserting that I'm
in favor of casual sexual exchange in any way, shape or form.
I take the purpose of sexual expression between two sentient beings as a presentation of three critical things (in no particular order):
1) A willingness to be vulnerable;
2) An expression of deep commitment to the other; and,
3) An interest in providing physical pleasure and emotional comfort.
I think these things glorify God of themselves. I do not believe that wherever there is love, God is
absent. I do not believe that two men or two women expressing themselves in this way is disgusting
to God, but that He celebrates in it just as He does between a man and a woman.
Why do you deny this as a possibility? Why do you think that two men's or two women's sexual expression
of love as defined above would be abhorrent to God?
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodey
Before answering this question I am curious, can you answer this question?
The answers you have provided overlap and in most cases are not mutually exclusive.
How has the laws concerning homosexuality changed in regards to the Bible?
They haven't changed much. Gender roles (i.e., what men can do and women can't) and views on
homosexuality are pretty consistent within the context of the Bible.
Or do you mean since the Christian canon was formulated?
I'll address each of your statements one by one.
1. The Mosaic laws were not inspired by God nor were the Pauline letters.
I think some of the Mosaic Laws and parts of the Pauline corpus are inspired. I think most of the
Mosaic Laws are social conventions or aetiological explanations given 'power' by putting them in God's
voice. So, my answer is 'Some are, some are not.' My standard? Which are based in love and which
can be executed in a way that glorifies God.
2. The Mosaic laws and Pauline letters were inspired by God to some degree but not in regards to the teaching that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God.
In proto-Judaic culture, homoeroticism must have been viewed with suspicion or distaste --
perhaps because some neighboring tribe practiced it, who knows?! -- and was consequently written into
the Law. St Paul existed in the same sort of circumstance (with the Roman, pagan homoerotic displays,
most notably Nero!) and commented upon the same thing. I have no doubt that most if not all of
the homoeroticism that existed in either of their times was indeed sinful, since it was often
nonconsensual, non-nurturing, self-gratifying and so forth.
This is in direct contrast with modern times.
That is, neither heteroeroticism nor homoeroticism is intrinsically sinful, but the contexts in which they
are expressed define their sinfulness.
So, that's a strong 'yes.'
3. The concept of sin has changed either in the minds of believers or of God.
I consider the former to be irrelevant (if 99.9% of the people think that wanton theft is not a sin, it
makes no difference to me: it's still a sin). God is unchanging, so the latter is not possible.
So, that's 'no' and 'no.'
4. Homosexuals referred to back in Mosaic times and Pauline times were generally "wicked". Today, however, their are some that are "righteous".
I think I answered this above at #2. It would be my belief that homoeroticism was largely if not
entirely sinful (because of the way in which it was practiced) in Mosaic and Pauline times. Homoeroticism
today looks nothing like 1st-century Rome, so it's apples and oranges.
So, my inclination is to answer this 'yes,' though 'wicked' and 'righteous' are too vague for me to be
fully comfortable with them.
5. Christ destroyed the Mosaic laws and Paul had not realized this as of yet.
Jesus revealed that law for law's sake was meaningless, that if one simply followed law because it
was a law and not because it glorified God, then you were wasting your time. St Paul realized this,
perhaps best amongst all of the early Christians.
So, that's a 'not a chance!'
Can one glorify God through keeping kosher? Absolutely! Can I glorify God through keeping kosher?
Not really (my heart is not in it...I think it's silly...I'm forgetful...&c). Can I glorify God through
well-rehearsed, well-articulated liturgy? Absolutely! Can everyone? No (some think it's pompous...
some think it's vapid...some think it's silly...some do it poorly...&c).
Can two men glorify God through the sexual expression of their love and union with each other through
God? Absolutely.
Why do you have a quarrel with this?
Nemesio
P.S., I want you to take note that I have answered all of your questions carefully and to the best of
my ability. I genuinely wish you would show me the same courtesy.
Originally posted by NemesioNot so fast. As you have rightly pointed out, God either considers something a sin or he does not. Also, God does NOT change as you have rightly pointed out. The question, therefore, is what was considered to be a sin when Paul was talking about hair and hats? Was it the hair/hat issue or was it offending your brother so that he may stumble? I say the later.
[b]Originally posted by whodey
Okay, so then that's a solid yes to #3. It was a sin but today it's not a sin.
Originally posted by NemesioBut what if two couples are swingers and who love each other and who want to glorify God through their swinging? Perhaps they are even all "good" poeple and "good" parents etc. etc.?
[b]I didn't say 'any and all circumstances.' You gave a perfect example in the adultery case: even if a
man loves a woman who is not his wife, to express that sexually or otherwise is sinful because of the
harm it does his wife, the lack of attention to his original vows, &c. Please stop asserting that I'm
in favor of casual sexual exchange in any way, shape or form.
Originally posted by NemesioI would add:
I take the purpose of sexual expression between two sentient beings as a presentation of three critical things (in no particular order):
1) A willingness to be vulnerable;
2) An expression of deep commitment to the other; and,
3) An interest in providing physical pleasure and emotional comfort.
4) In interest in seeking the will of God for such an endevour. Just because it may be "OK" on the surface and there are not necessarily laws against it does not mean it is God's will for you to pursue even if it is what you may desire.
For me, this should come first.
Originally posted by NemesioWhy? Because it is apparent that sex was made for men and women to engage in and not men and men or men and animals or men and children etc. etc. Sin is simply abuse and abuse is simply assigning a task for which it was not intended. For example, I could exchange the motor in my car for the one that powers my lawn mower. It may even actually work to some degree!! However, the mower in question was not designed or intended to operate in such a fashion.
Why do you deny this as a possibility? Why do you think that two men's or two women's sexual expression
of love as defined above would be abhorrent to God?
Nemesio[/b]
As the old saying goes, was there not Adam and Eve in the garden only and not Adam and Steve? Perhaps you can get around this by saying that the Garden of Eden story is "made up".
Originally posted by NemesioI think God is glorified when we do as he wills and seek him and not when we do our own thing as Adam and Eve did in the Bible. After all, when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, who were they hurting? Were they not "good" people? What they do in the privacy of their own garden is no bodies business if you ask me. 😛
Can two men glorify God through the sexual expression of their love and union with each other through
God? Absolutely.
Why do you have a quarrel with this?
Nemesio
P.S., I want you to take note that I have answered all of your questions carefully and to the best of
my ability. I genuinely wish you would show me the same courtesy.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyWell, that's exactly the opposite of what St Paul says, so I don't know how you can conclude that.
Was it the hair/hat issue or was it offending your brother so that he may stumble? I say the later.
He refers to the nature of man and woman. He says that woman needs to attend to it 'because of
the angels[/i]. He says that if someone is inclined to disagree, they will not be accepted in the
church of God.
But, let's say you're right in spite of the text. Why can't homosexuality be viewed that way? Now
that homosexuality is more widely accepted and causes less 'stumbling,' why can't the views on its
sinfulness change?
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyThis belies the commitment clause (#2) I discussed, so your example is moot.
But what if two couples are swingers and who love each other and who want to glorify God through their swinging? Perhaps they are even all "good" poeple and "good" parents etc. etc.?
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodeyWell, don't you think that epiphineas' viewpoint is a better one, then? I mean, he probably doesn't
4) In interest in seeking the will of God for such an endevour. Just because it may be "OK" on the surface and there are not necessarily laws against it does not mean it is God's will for you to pursue even if it is what you may desire.
like the idea of having to follow the laws on hairstyle, but he claims he does (and presumably insists
that his wife and children do or will, as well as the friends with whom he consorts and so forth).
I mean, you have the 'Word of God' that says explicitly one thing and your 'inkling' that the viewpoint
on hairstyles has changed.
Seems a bit risky because it seems on the 'surface' to wear a hairstyle one way or the other is
irrelevant, but the 'Word of God' testifies to the 'nature' of man- and womankind. I think he is the
one pursuing the 'will of God' in this case, if the 'Word of God' is to be viewed as a way of discerning
the 'will of God.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYes to all, except the last one.
So God does not reject His children for being practicing homosexuals?
Would you attend a church with women with short hair or men with long hair?
Would you attend a church with individuals who have remarried?
Would you attend a church that has open, practicing homosexuals?
Would you attend a church with a woman in a position of spiritual leadership?
Would you attend a church that blesses same-sex unions?
Originally posted by whodey
Because it is apparent that sex was made for men and women to engage in and not men and men or men and animals or men and children etc. etc. Sin is simply abuse and abuse is simply assigning a task for which it was not intended.
If you're speaking about the biological intention, then you would say that adoption is a sin, because
that's a violation of 'the way it's intended.' Then you would say that infertile couples' sex is a sin
because it doesn't fulfill it's intention. Or when a heterosexual couple passed the age of fertility have
sex, that's a sin, too, because the 'intended task' is not fulfilled. Or when a heterosexual couple has
non-procreative sexual experience (be it digital, oral, or anal, or when sex is done with artificial or
so-called 'natural' contraceptive practices in place, or during pregnancy).
OR...........
Sexual exchange in human beings has become a socialized experience, that it is natural for sexual
exchange to be divorced from its procreative functions. Think about it, whodey. When you have
sexual relations with your wife, are you trying to conceive? No, you're not (or by God, I hope
not). And, so, if it is a socialized experience, then why would it be restricted to male-female
exchange, only?
... As the old saying goes, was there not Adam and Eve in the garden only and not Adam and Steve? Perhaps you can get around this by saying that the Garden of Eden story is "made up".
You know that I don't believe in the literality of the Garden of Eden story, but let's not get bogged down with that. I do believe in its mythological importance, so let's discuss it from points of agreement.
The absence of 'Adam and Steve' does not allow you to infer that God would find 'Adam and Steve'
sinful. Obviously, 'Adam and Steve' cannot be fruitful and multiply, which is why homosexuality will
never be a dominant biological force (for, I hope you know, homoerotic expression occurs in nature),
and I am not suggesting that it should become normative.
Nemesio
Originally posted by whodey
I think God is glorified when we do as he wills and seek him and not when we do our own thing as Adam and Eve did in the Bible.
I fully agree. But God clearly wills that a woman's hair be long and man's be short ('nature,' remember?).
But you've come to the conclusion that God doesn't really intend that, but something else.
Why can't you allow for the possibility that sexuality works that way, too?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioFeigned indignation... You are hilarious. The questions you asked, save the last one, addressed whether or not I would attend a church with such people among the congregation, not whether the church 'endorsed' such sins. Yes, I would attend a church with other sinners like myself sitting next to me in the pews. Definitely.
Wow. What a hypocrite you are! You would attend a church that endorses all matter of public and
willful sins, except the one that allows homosexual unions.
How disgusting!
Nemesio