As a part of the bible, in the New Testament, clearly condemning Homosexuality, I have always wondered why it is not mentioned more in religious debate over Gay Rights.
What, if anything, does the verse in the title mean with regards to New Testament condemnation of homosexuality? Does it mean anything at all since it was penned by Paul and does not quote Jesus?
I know homosexuality is becoming less demonized and more accepted in the modern world, even in mainstream Christendom, but this is still a pertinent question to at least a portion of the population at large.
EDIT
Here is the text:
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
I'm not a Biblical scholar, myself, but there's question that this passage even refers to homosexuality, as it is not clear. Because it says it better than I can, [URL="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Annotated_Bible/Romans"]RationalWiki's annotated Bible pages have this to say about Romans 1:26 and 27[/URL]:
Romans 1:26 (KJV)
[QUOTE]For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]This is said to be the only verse in the Bible which clearly condemns female homosexuality. However, it is not clear it is talking about homosexuality at all. While the "unnatural" behaviour in the next verse involves a same-sex element, this verse makes no direct mention of homosexuality. A possible interpretation, is that the verse isn't condemning homosexuality at all, but rather penile-anal intercourse; this verse then condemns it as practised (receptively) by heterosexual women, while the next verse condemns it as practised homosexually (or bisexually) between men.[/QUOTE]
1:27
[QUOTE]And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]While this verse is commonly taken to be a prohibition of male homosexuality, it is not clear it is prohibiting all forms of male homosexuality. If the "use... which is against nature" in the preceding verse, is not a reference to female homosexuality, but rather a prohibition of women engaging in "unnatural" heterosexual intercourse (e.g. receptive anal sex), then the clause "leaving the natural use of the woman" might not refer to male homosexuals (uninterested as they are in any "use" of women), but rather to men who have given up the [B]"natural"[/B] "use" of women in favour of the [B]"unnatural"[/B] "use" of the same. Given that interpretation, the reference to male-male sexuality is not a reference to all forms of male-male sexuality, but rather only to male-male anal intercourse, and not to other forms of male homosexual activity (there are quite a few gay men who don't like anal sex and choose not to practice it). To further complicate matters, this verse and the preceding one seem to imply homosexuality is a punishment from God rather than a run-of-the-mill abomination. While God must be applauded for using tactics other than his usual fire and brimstone fare, one must wonder why he would punish us with something that feels absolutely fantastic.[/QUOTE]
It might just be a condemnation against doing it in the butt across the board.
Saint Paul's teachings are...controversial, to say the least. Not only he teached on restricting the role of women within the Church and society, he also supported slavery and submission to the romans.
Some believe that these teachings were intended to ease relations between christianity and the rest of roman society. In any case, it's no wonder why such controversial statements wouldn't see use in the debate.
Alternatively some interpretations focus on the use of the word "lust", suggesting that it was merely condeming lustful activities and not loving, caring ones. Which you can kinda see fits. Natural use doesn't have to mean reproduction either, companionship and support is a natural use of a relationship. So "vile affections" is just lustful behaviour like no-strings-attached sex or something.
aka you can interpret the bible an infinite number of ways, so when you put bigoted conservatives in charge of the interpretations or generally ignorant people you get the conservative, ignorant interpretations.
[editline]28th October 2014[/editline]
And afaik this verse [I]is[/I] used liberally (hehehe) in the argument by conservatives.
[editline]28th October 2014[/editline]
I'm pretty sure there is/was a facepunch user with a title that linked directly to this verse because they were so anti-gay they needed something to remind them how bad being gay is whenever they went on Facepunch.
There's also the fact that we don't have the original book or a 1:1 translation. The Bible is not foolproof, and unfortunately we can't get the big man to clarify a couple points.
[QUOTE=T553412;46348260]Saint Paul's teachings are...controversial, to say the least. Not only he teached on restricting the role of women within the Church and society, he also supported slavery and submission to the romans.
Some believe that these teachings were intended to ease relations between christianity and the rest of roman society. In any case, it's no wonder why such controversial statements wouldn't see use in the debate.[/QUOTE]
I don't think his statements really supported slavery as much as people think, or even at all. He makes many anti-slavery statements (Galatians 3:28, anyone?), but the statements people claim to have been used to support slavery serve a different purpose. Instead of claiming that slavery is perfectly okay, they more or less serve as a way for pro-slavery people (this is 1 AD Rome, you have to remember) to slowly ease their way up into non-slavery territory. He mentions teaching slaves as equals and with fairness, which is the next best thing considering Roman society at that time.
[URL="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html"]It's hard to explain, but this site looks like it does a good job of clarifying it.[/URL]
As for the women segment -- I believe those were specifically addressing women in the church who were genuinely disrupting church. As in, Paul had to take the time to literally mention them in a letter to struggling churches during that time. Personally I don't think this theory holds up, but, again, Galatians 3:28 reminds us that sexism and slavery are heavily discouraged by the Bible.
[QUOTE=Lepaz;46348788]I don't think his statements really supported slavery as much as people think, or even at all. He makes many anti-slavery statements (Galatians 3:28, anyone?), but the statements people claim to have been used to support slavery serve a different purpose. Instead of claiming that slavery is perfectly okay, they more or less serve as a way for pro-slavery people (this is 1 AD Rome, you have to remember) to slowly ease their way up into non-slavery territory. He mentions teaching slaves as equals and with fairness, which is the next best thing considering Roman society at that time.
[URL="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html"]It's hard to explain, but this site looks like it does a good job of clarifying it.[/URL]
As for the women segment -- I believe those were specifically addressing women in the church who were genuinely disrupting church. As in, Paul had to take the time to literally mention them in a letter to struggling churches during that time. Personally I don't think this theory holds up, but, again, Galatians 3:28 reminds us that sexism and slavery are heavily discouraged by the Bible.[/QUOTE]
What? Galatians 3:28 doesn't condemn slavery; it says "go a head and be a slaver because we are all one in Jesus Christ."
Even if there are passages of the bible that condemn it, go right out the window in the presence of Soloman and Jacob.
[QUOTE=valkery;46348840]What? Galatians 3:28 doesn't condemn slavery; it says "go a head and be a slaver because we are all one in Jesus Christ."
Even if there are passages of the bible that condemn it, go right out the window in the presence of Soloman and Jacob.[/QUOTE]
Galatians 3:28 doesn't say "go ahead and be a slave owner because we are all one in Jesus Christ". It says we are all equal. I don't know how you can get any more anti-slavery with claiming that everyone is equal. Would you put someone you're equal to into slavery?
I've considered it and several other verses as condemning non-procreational sex (including sexual acts on one's lonesome self) in general regardless of sexuality and not actually condemning a sexual orientation directly in the sense that many people view it as.
[QUOTE=Lepaz;46348879] I don't know how you can get any more anti-slavery with claiming that everyone is equal. Would you put someone you're equal to into slavery?[/QUOTE]
There's a big difference between [I]claiming[/I] equality and [I]enforcing[/I] equality.
Homosexual sex has been considered wrong from the very beginning of Christendom. Even the Apology of Aristides in the early 2nd century mentions it. Within that context it would make sense to interpret this verse's message as a confirmation of beliefs talked about in many places in the Scripture instead of trying to make up completely different and original teachings.
[QUOTE=Lepaz;46348788]I don't think his statements really supported slavery as much as people think, or even at all. He makes many anti-slavery statements (Galatians 3:28, anyone?), but the statements people claim to have been used to support slavery serve a different purpose. Instead of claiming that slavery is perfectly okay, they more or less serve as a way for pro-slavery people (this is 1 AD Rome, you have to remember) to slowly ease their way up into non-slavery territory. He mentions teaching slaves as equals and with fairness, which is the next best thing considering Roman society at that time.
[URL="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html"]It's hard to explain, but this site looks like it does a good job of clarifying it.[/URL]
As for the women segment -- I believe those were specifically addressing women in the church who were genuinely disrupting church. As in, Paul had to take the time to literally mention them in a letter to struggling churches during that time. Personally I don't think this theory holds up, but, again, Galatians 3:28 reminds us that [B]sexism and slavery are heavily discouraged by the Bible.[/B][/QUOTE]
I do genuinely wonder why you would say that though.
Old Testament, right:
Exodus 20:17, the woman is the man's property.
21:7, selling your daughter into slavery.
21:20-21, beating your slave is fine if they don't die in 2 days.
Leviticus 25:44, buy your slaves from the heathens around you (aka a direct endorsement of slave trade)
Leviticus 15:19-30, 33, that time of the month makes women inherently unclean in the eyes of God.
Though in the New Testament, everything is better. Except it isn't really. Nothing in the OT is trumped or overruled, in fact it's confirmed in Ephesians 6:5.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
On topic with Romans 1:27, the Christians don't agree.
Generally whether they condemn gays or not they can still say that this verse agrees with them since it only really talks about unnatural sexual functions.
So I don't know, if you don't have gay sex but are homosexual then it's fine?
[QUOTE=EcksDee;46349285]I do genuinely wonder why you would say that though.
Old Testament, right:
Exodus 20:17, the woman is the man's property.
21:7, selling your daughter into slavery.
21:20-21, beating your slave is fine if they don't die in 2 days.
Leviticus 25:44, buy your slaves from the heathens around you (aka a direct endorsement of slave trade)
Leviticus 15:19-30, 33, that time of the month makes women inherently unclean in the eyes of God.
Though in the New Testament, everything is better. Except it isn't really. Nothing in the OT is trumped or overruled, in fact it's confirmed in Ephesians 6:5.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
On topic with Romans 1:27, the Christians don't agree.
Generally whether they condemn gays or not they can still say that this verse agrees with them since it only really talks about unnatural sexual functions.
So I don't know, if you don't have gay sex but are homosexual then it's fine?[/QUOTE]
Let's not forget that mosaic law is no longer applied to Christians due to the fulfillment of the law and that those Old Testament verses are irrelevant.
Also, real quick.
[quote][B]Nothing in the OT is trumped or overruled[/B], in fact it's confirmed in Ephesians 6:5..[/quote]
There's a book called "Acts" that deals with this.
Next, let's tackle the fan-favorite "pro-slavery" New Testament verses. We scan through the pages, but we see nothing that directly says "stop having slaves!" Oh no! Clearly, the Bible is pro-slavery and is a book of evil. Or, rather, it's not. Shocker.
The verse you posted looks like it came from the mouth of a vicious beast. Oh, wait, it doesn't when you realize that you didn't even post the other half the verse.
[I]"And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."[/I]
My oh my, a verse telling masters to treat their slaves with respect, fear, and sincerity of heart. Funny how things make more sense when you don't post half of an argument in order to make your side look better. This verse tells masters to treat slaves as equals and with respect... does that even sound like a typical master-slave relationship to you? Not to me! In fact, let's stop and think for a moment. If this slave is respecting his master and his master is respecting his slave, is this even a bad thing? I mean, slaves are bad, so OF COURSE!
Or, you know...
Perhaps the word "slave" just has a negative, modern-day connotation. Perhaps the brutal Atlantic slave trade is what we're thinking of. If both parties are respecting each other and no one is being abused, then what's the problem? If anything, it just sounds like the Golden Rule.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;46349285]So I don't know, if you don't have gay sex but are homosexual then it's fine?[/QUOTE]
The Bible's concept of being a homosexual is someone who has homosexual sex.
[editline]27th October 2014[/editline]
Slavery was often a way for people to pay off debts in that time period. It was more of a social institution than an inherently oppressive institution.
[QUOTE=Lepaz;46349379]Let's not forget that mosaic law is no longer applied to Christians due to the fulfillment of the law and that those Old Testament verses are irrelevant.
[/QUOTE]
Matthew 5:18
Also I do really really hope you aren't talking indentured servitude right now.
The Bible just contradicts itself. It does let you beat them to death with no punishment (because they are your property) and you said it doesn't, woah.
Plus it aint indentured servitude because slaves are your slaves for life. It wasn't anything to do with paying off debts.
Your fellow Jews could only be enslaved for 7 years, after that they had to go free.
If you gave your Jewish slave a wife then the wife stays with you after 7 years because she is your property.
Now any decent man is going to say "I love my wife, I can not leave alone", at which point you take them before the elders of the town, pierce his ear and he is your property for ever.
Non-jew slaves were your slaves forever, until death, to begin with.
Now tell me, mr. indentured servitude, how do you pay off a debt if you can never escape from under that debt?
[editline]28th October 2014[/editline]
Oh my god this is off topic as fuck, I'm not posting any more. If you want to argue further then steam me or something.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46349390]The Bible's concept of being a homosexual is someone who has homosexual sex.
[editline]27th October 2014[/editline]
Slavery was often a way for people to pay off debts in that time period. It was more of a social institution than an inherently oppressive institution.[/QUOTE]
Just as homosexuality was often synonymous with lust rather than an actual homosexual relationship (that's why the bible describes homosexuality as homosexual sex because non-procreative sex was a lustful behaviour). Also because there isn't a direct translation from ancient greek and ancient roman (before Christian rule) for homosexuality, just receptive and passive and the passive role bore the brunt of it.
Homosexuality is not some stalwart thing that is immune to changing cultural and societal understandings. If the bible was ok with slavery because it was a social institution rather than a system of oppression and worked against lust which homosexuality was equated with, why does homosexuality not contain the same transformation slavery underwent.
Homosexuality now is no more lustful than heterosexuality. The passage is anti-lust not anti-gay love, just as much as . It's the people who interpret it as anti-gay that are the issue - in fact (I just found this out today!) Plato and Aristotle were both generally pro-homosexuality and even then were equating oppression with barbaric and uneducated states.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;46349458]Matthew 5:18
Also I do really really hope you aren't talking indentured servitude right now.
The Bible just contradicts itself. It does let you beat them to death with no punishment (because they are your property) and you said it doesn't, woah.
Plus it aint indentured servitude because slaves are your slaves for life. It wasn't anything to do with paying off debts.
Your fellow Jews could only be enslaved for 7 years, after that they had to go free.
If you gave your Jewish slave a wife then the wife stays with you after 7 years because she is your property.
Now any decent man is going to say "I love my wife, I can not leave alone", at which point you take them before the elders of the town, pierce his ear and he is your property for ever.
Non-jew slaves were your slaves forever, until death, to begin with.
Now tell me, mr. indentured servitude, how do you pay off a debt if you can never escape from under that debt?
[/quote]
Remember how I said a lot of the Old Testament is now just there for context and doesn't apply to us? Yep. And please, Matthew 5:18 is directed towards those under the law -- In other words, non-Christians. He's showing us how futile it would be to follow the law, as no one is perfect and all of us will have to rely on His grace for any chance of salvation. 5:17 says something similar.
Please stop posting context from something that doesn't even apply to Christians.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;46350277]Just as homosexuality was often synonymous with lust rather than an actual homosexual relationship (that's why the bible describes homosexuality as homosexual sex because non-procreative sex was a lustful behaviour). Also because there isn't a direct translation from ancient greek and ancient roman (before Christian rule) for homosexuality, just receptive and passive and the passive role bore the brunt of it.
Homosexuality is not some stalwart thing that is immune to changing cultural and societal understandings. If the bible was ok with slavery because it was a social institution rather than a system of oppression and worked against lust which homosexuality was equated with, why does homosexuality not contain the same transformation slavery underwent.[/QUOTE]
That's correct, which is why the orientation of homosexuality is not considered a sin, rather acting out on that desire is. In the same way that it is not a sin for a heterosexual man to be attracted to a woman outside of wedlock, it becomes sinful when he begins entertaining more carnal ideas about her (and perhaps acting out on them). The only difference is that Christian marriage is exclusively heterosexual, so there is no structure within-which homosexual acts or thoughts can be considered good.
[QUOTE]Homosexuality now is no more lustful than heterosexuality. The passage is anti-lust not anti-gay love, just as much as . It's the people who interpret it as anti-gay that are the issue - in fact (I just found this out today!) Plato and Aristotle were both generally pro-homosexuality and even then were equating oppression with barbaric and uneducated states.[/QUOTE]
Define gay love.
Also Plato and Aristotle were pagan philosophers, their authority within Christendom only goes so far as their writings agree with its holy scriptures (even then the Church has fought to have much of their teachings removed from its formal theology).
[QUOTE=Lepaz;46350399]Remember how I said a lot of the Old Testament is now just there for context and doesn't apply to us? Yep. And please, Matthew 5:18 is directed towards those under the law -- In other words, non-Christians. He's showing us how futile it would be to follow the law, as no one is perfect and all of us will have to rely on His grace for any chance of salvation. 5:17 says something similar.
Please stop posting context from something that doesn't even apply to Christians.[/QUOTE]
Wait so, the Ten Commandments (which are part of the 613 commandments given to Moses at Mt. Sinai(also known as [B]the Law[/B]​)) don't apply to Christians?
[QUOTE=EcksDee;46351387]Wait so, the Ten Commandments (which are part of the 613 commandments given to Moses at Mt. Sinai(also known as [B]the Law[/B]​)) don't apply to Christians?[/QUOTE]
Adherence to the Jewish laws was one of the big controversies among the early churches; do Christians need to be circumcised, is eating pork okay, etc. The Apostle Paul dealt with these questions in his letters and the general answer is that Christians can [i]technically[/i] get away with pretty much anything because salvation through Christ frees them from the threat of eternal damnation (although this is debatable depending on your denomination/theology); forgiveness is the whole point of Christianity after all. That said, just because you [i]can[/i] do something doesn't necessarily mean you [i]should[/i]; its still wrong and it encourages others to sin as well.
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
1 Corinthians 6:12-13
"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved."
1 Corinthians 10:31-33
[QUOTE=EcksDee;46351387]Wait so, the Ten Commandments (which are part of the 613 commandments given to Moses at Mt. Sinai (also known as [B]the Law[/B]​)) don't apply to Christians?[/QUOTE]
Pretty much.
Still doesn't mean you're allowed to be an asshole though.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;46353057]Pretty much.
Still doesn't mean you're allowed to be an asshole though.[/QUOTE]
It's also key to differentiate the moral laws and the Jews cultural laws. The prior apply to all people while the latter applied only to the Jews under their covenant with God.
The cultural laws were never intended for anyone but the Jews (i.e. dietary laws). Even in the Old Testament the people outside of the Jewish nation weren't expected to obey those laws. For example, God doesn't convict the adversary nations of Israel for not being circumcised, but for moral issues like sacrificing children.
These moral laws still apply to Christians and are summed up in the two phrases spoken by Jesus in Matthew: "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind,'" and, "‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ These sum up all morals laws and are in fact quotes from the Old Testament. They aren't new.
[editline]28th October 2014[/editline]
It's also good to note that the word "love" is generally an action word in the Bible, not an emotional word. So when it says to "love" your neighbor it doesn't mean you have to emotionally love everybody. It means that you act in a loving way.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;46351387]Wait so, the Ten Commandments (which are part of the 613 commandments given to Moses at Mt. Sinai(also known as [B]the Law[/B]​)) don't apply to Christians?[/QUOTE]
If X doesn't fall under "love God" and "love your neighbor as yourself", then X doesn't apply to Christians.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46351285]That's correct, which is why the orientation of homosexuality is not considered a sin, rather acting out on that desire is. In the same way that it is not a sin for a heterosexual man to be attracted to a woman outside of wedlock, it becomes sinful when he begins entertaining more carnal ideas about her (and perhaps acting out on them). The only difference is that Christian marriage is exclusively heterosexual, so there is no structure within-which homosexual acts or thoughts can be considered good.
Define gay love.
Also Plato and Aristotle were pagan philosophers, their authority within Christendom only goes so far as their writings agree with its holy scriptures (even then the Church has fought to have much of their teachings removed from its formal theology).[/QUOTE]
Plato and Aristotle was just an interesting thing that I didn't know, not precisely an argument.
Resisting homosexuality (which if it is an orientation is not a desire, that would imply that it is a want not a need) is a recipe for mental health issues. I think that there is plenty of room for the bible to say that lustful sex is a no no but love making is an ok. So gay love is two people loving each other and expressing that love - aka anal sex is ok. I don't actually know what denomination of Christianity you are but I'm going to guess you're totally cool with anal sex being ruled as a sin. I'm not religious so it has no bearing on me all I am suggesting is that there is clearly a capability for interpretation of the Bible, consistent with previous interpretations, for anal sex to be a normal and acceptable sexual act given that it's comitted by two loving and willing people.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;46355911]Resisting homosexuality (which if it is an orientation is not a desire, that would imply that it is a want not a need) is a recipe for mental health issues. I think that there is plenty of room for the bible to say that lustful sex is a no no but love making is an ok. So gay love is two people loving each other and expressing that love - aka anal sex is ok. I don't actually know what denomination of Christianity you are but I'm going to guess you're totally cool with anal sex being ruled as a sin. I'm not religious so it has no bearing on me all I am suggesting is that there is clearly a capability for interpretation of the Bible, consistent with previous interpretations, for anal sex to be a normal and acceptable sexual act given that it's comitted by two loving and willing people.[/QUOTE]
I'm iffy on calling sex a need, it most certainly is not a need in the same way that food, water or shelter are needs, I wouldn't even equate it to the need for clean clothes. Abstaining from sex does not cause death in the short or long term, it does not even result in dangerous infections or the spread of disease, I don't really see how it can be equated to needs that seem much more important. I'll grant you that nobody can ultimately resist entertaining sexual thoughts and that for some, sexual acts are inevitable, but Christianity does not require them to be successful in their endeavors towards chastity, only that they try to be (and recognize that it is good to do so).
Sex is only condoned within the structure of marriage, anything outside of that is considered fornication, so any attempts to cast homosexuality in an approving light under Christian theology must completely ignore its teachings on marriage. I myself am an orthodox Lutheran and thus do not condone the separation of childbearing from sex, In itself I cannot say non-procreative sex between husband and wife is sinful, but the influence it has on their views of sex can most certainly lead to sinful behaviour as it breaks the natural order (thus it is something that should be avoided).
So people really, really should never have sex except to have children, in your world view?
Then your world view and reality are weirdly divorced as sex IS actually a psychological need for most adults.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46356135]I'm iffy on calling sex a need, it most certainly is not a need in the same way that food, water or shelter are needs, I wouldn't even equate it to the need for clean clothes. Abstaining from sex does not cause death in the short or long term, it does not even result in dangerous infections or the spread of disease, I don't really see how it can be equated to needs that seem much more important. I'll grant you that nobody can ultimately resist entertaining sexual thoughts and that for some, sexual acts are inevitable, but Christianity does not require them to be successful in their endeavors towards chastity, only that they try to be (and recognize that it is good to do so).
Sex is only condoned within the structure of marriage, anything outside of that is considered fornication, so any attempts to cast homosexuality in an approving light under Christian theology must completely ignore its teachings on marriage. I myself am an orthodox Lutheran and thus do not condone the separation of childbearing from sex, In itself I cannot say non-procreative sex between husband and wife is sinful, but the influence it has on their views of sex can most certainly lead to sinful behaviour as it breaks the natural order (thus it is something that should be avoided).[/QUOTE]
Firstly you're confusing homosexuality with homosexual sex in your first sentence where you interpret my statement that homosexual behaviour is only sex. Affection, love, support and friendship are undeniably needs. Secondly, sex, just like romantic love, may not be a need for some. However there are people - a large proportion of people - who do require it as much as the need for clean clothes and social interaction and in the sense that lacking clean clothes, food, water and shelter can kill you. Mental illness kills and most people are in a place where no romantic activity whatsoever, or being convinced that their romantic needs are wrong, will make them mentally ill and a significant portion of those people will die as a result.
Sexual activity as a part of that romantic need is also a need for a healthy mind. Yes there are some people who can survive without and for them it is perhaps not a need (mind you there might be something else going on there that means they're not actually healthy with that mindset). But there are far more people who do need romantic relationships and need sex within those relationships.
I think that you agree with me that sex is a need because you suggest no one can ultimately resist sexual urges... why not? If it is good for them why does it subsequently happen? Because mentally that would break the person to not act on the need. Resisting sexual needs if they are present is not good for you I think that is an unequivocal statement.
Again you keep referring (at least I hope that's what you're saying in the first sentence of your second paragraph) to homosexuality as if it's literally just sex. You can not be married and have a boyfriend or girlfriend surely? You don't have to have sex in context of that relationship in theory, but you say that homosexuality can't be cast in an approving light under Christian theology without ignoring its teachings on marriage...? Yeah I am pretty sure you are just saying gay sex can't be cast in an approving light without ignoring marriage not gay people full stop.
I don't think that there is any written biblical verse that excludes homosexuals from the rite of marriage. Given the level of leeway in interpretation of other religious tenants the exclusion of the lgbt community from the rite of marriage is causing the sin more than the people. I think that the teachings in Christian theology can be altered as they have been before and remain entirely consistent with the Bible and other sacrosanct documents. And I think some denominations do this successfully.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;46356272]Firstly you're confusing homosexuality with homosexual sex in your first sentence where you interpret my statement that homosexual behaviour is only sex. Affection, love, support and friendship are undeniably needs. Secondly, sex, just like romantic love, may not be a need for some. However there are people - a large proportion of people - who do require it as much as the need for clean clothes and social interaction and in the sense that lacking clean clothes, food, water and shelter can kill you. Mental illness kills and most people are in a place where no romantic activity whatsoever, or being convinced that their romantic needs are wrong, will make them mentally ill and a significant portion of those people will die as a result.[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression that homosexuality referred to a type of sexual preference and thus is fundamentally connected to sex. I'm not sure how you could prove that a large proportion of people need to have sex as badly as they need clean clothes, perhaps if it gets to that point one should change their perspectives on the matter, or at worst seek therapy. My position is not that the sexual urge in itself is sinful, rather that it is sinful to satisfy it outside of wedlock, that is an important distinction.
[QUOTE]Sexual activity as a part of that romantic need is also a need for a healthy mind. Yes there are some people who can survive without and for them it is perhaps not a need (mind you there might be something else going on there that means they're not actually healthy with that mindset). But there are far more people who do need romantic relationships and need sex within those relationships.
I think that you agree with me that sex is a need because you suggest no one can ultimately resist sexual urges... why not? If it is good for them why does it subsequently happen? Because mentally that would break the person to not act on the need. Resisting sexual needs if they are present is not good for you I think that is an unequivocal statement.[/QUOTE]
The fact that someone cannot avoid sexual immorality does not classify it as a need, in the same way we do not need to hate simply because we cannot avoid feeling hatred (anger towards someone without cause). I see it as an expression of our sinful natures and nothing else. I'll admit I find it hard to empathize with the position that abstinence would break a person, I can testify to the difficulty in resisting the urge (especially in the post-secondary education environment), but never would I say that my abstinence has "broken" me.
[QUOTE]Again you keep referring (at least I hope that's what you're saying in the first sentence of your second paragraph) to homosexuality as if it's literally just sex. You can not be married and have a boyfriend or girlfriend surely? You don't have to have sex in context of that relationship in theory, but you say that homosexuality can't be cast in an approving light under Christian theology without ignoring its teachings on marriage...? Yeah I am pretty sure you are just saying gay sex can't be cast in an approving light without ignoring marriage not gay people full stop.[/QUOTE]
The boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is traditionally oriented around courtship as both parties are determining whether the other would make a good spouse. Of course you don't have to be married to someone to express support and affection to them, in an ideal world we would be expressing affection and support to everyone. You're right, I meant to say "homosexual activity" by saying "homosexuality" in that part of my post, my mistake.
[QUOTE]I don't think that there is any written biblical verse that excludes homosexuals from the rite of marriage. Given the level of leeway in interpretation of other religious tenants the exclusion of the lgbt community from the rite of marriage is causing the sin more than the people. I think that the teachings in Christian theology can be altered as they have been before and remain entirely consistent with the Bible and other sacrosanct documents. And I think some denominations do this successfully.[/QUOTE]
There isn't, but you don't need a clear statement in scripture to set a doctrine in place, the same goes for the core doctrines of original sin and the Trinity. There is not a single homosexual relationship that is approved of in the bible, the only marriages that are approved of are heterosexual and all doctrinal statements that refer to both individuals in a married couple assume the relationship to be heterosexual.
Ultimately any church that condones homosexual unions is not only adding to the scriptures, but is deviating from the original teachings of the Church, so they are altering Christianity to be something that it was not intended to be. Yes the teachings can be altered and I think to many people's misfortune as was displayed in the 1600's in the Catholic church.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46356552]I was under the impression that homosexuality referred to a type of sexual preference and thus is fundamentally connected to sex. I'm not sure how you could prove that a large proportion of people need to have sex as badly as they need clean clothes, perhaps if it gets to that point one should change their perspectives on the matter, or at worst seek therapy. My position is not that the sexual urge in itself is sinful, rather that it is sinful to satisfy it outside of wedlock, that is an important distinction.[/QUOTE]
I use homosexuality to refer to both sexual attraction and romantic attraction, the proper term for the romantic attraction is homoromanticism - I use them synonymously and that was my mistake. I see no reason to seperate the two in this discussion however so I am just going to use gay from here on in. A gay person is not just about gay sex, they also require romantic attraction. The things you refer to, clothes, food and water are all found in fundamental psychology to be the basis for a human being to avoid anxiety and the development of mental disorders. Guess what else has been right there along with [I]breathing[/I]? Sex. Sexual intimacy - that which is advocated by religious marriage - is a little further down the line as a requirement. It is therefore fundamentally accepted that the activity of sex alone is required for a healthy mind and that can be achieved through marriage and within a religious context without hurting anyone as long as everyone has that option, but before then you can't advocate celibacy outside of marriage for people who you won't permit to be married without advocating a higher risk of mental illness for those people. I haven't proven that a large proportion of people need to have sex as badly as they need clean clothes, psychologists have. Science and that.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46356552]The fact that someone cannot avoid sexual immorality does not classify it as a need, in the same way we do not need to hate simply because we cannot avoid feeling hatred (anger towards someone without cause). I see it as an expression of our sinful natures and nothing else. I'll admit I find it hard to empathize with the position that abstinence would break a person, I can testify to the difficulty in resisting the urge (especially in the post-secondary education environment), but never would I say that my abstinence has "broken" me.[/QUOTE]
Sexual immorality - as you would define it - for some is synonymous with the basic need of sex (keep in mind that sex as a basic need has to be catered for differently to things like food and water, I would think it's more akin to clothing in that you may be unable to acquire clothes and survive but their lack results in psychological stress which is not mentally healthy). For reference: my main source for these statements is Maslow's Hierarchy but what he posited has been reinforced by psychology study since.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46356552]The boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is traditionally oriented around courtship as both parties are determining whether the other would make a good spouse. Of course you don't have to be married to someone to express support and affection to them, in an ideal world we would be expressing affection and support to everyone. You're right, I meant to say "homosexual activity" by saying "homosexuality" in that part of my post, my mistake.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I will say it wasn't your mistake here it was mine. Homosexuality technically refers to just the sexual activity, however on operating on that definition I find it completely innapropriate for the context of the conversation, gay or lgbt suits better.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46356552]There isn't, but you don't need a clear statement in scripture to set a doctrine in place, the same goes for the core doctrines of original sin and the Trinity. There is not a single homosexual relationship that is approved of in the bible, the only marriages that are approved of are heterosexual and all doctrinal statements that refer to both individuals in a married couple assume the relationship to be heterosexual.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;46356552]Ultimately any church that condones homosexual unions is not only adding to the scriptures, but is deviating from the original teachings of the Church, so they are altering Christianity to be something that it was not intended to be. Yes the teachings can be altered and I think to many people's misfortune as was displayed in the 1600's in the Catholic church.[/QUOTE]
I think the clearer statements trump the more ambiguous ones and given cultural contexts during the time it is still not a stretch to suggest that the bible implicitly approves of loving and caring relationships, approves of the human requirement for intimacy as a need for a healthy life and therefore must approve of gay marriage otherwise lgbt people will be living in sin purely because of a lack of acceptance within the Church. The Church wouldn't be deviating from the original teachings to alter it to be something it was not intended to be by accepting equal marriage, just growing in its understanding of what the original teachings really were.
[editline]29th October 2014[/editline]
I used celibacy earlier where I should have said abstinance.
Just a quick question: When would you say that sex becomes a need? I know literally hundreds of peoples in their early to late 20s who haven't had sex and live very fulfilling lives. From what I can tell, and based on personal experience, their lack of sex has no detrimental effect on their happiness or mental health.
I ask because it shows how fundamentally different sex, as a need, would be when compared to things like clothes and food. It seems that the need for sex is fairly dependant on the beliefs of the person in question. In contrast, the need for clothing is equal for all people depending on the climate that they live in.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.