Homosexuality vs. Mildew

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not quite following.

Their argument is that when you look at the context of what is condemned in the Bible it is same sex behavior between heterosexual married men (basically married men slipping off to male prostitutes)

They then say that homosexual relationships are nothing like this and as such are not prohibited by the Bible, and in fact given the general theme of the Bible prohibiting them would make no sense, why would God not want to loving homosexuals to be together, where as you can think of lots of reasons why he wouldn't want heterosexual men slipping off to lay with men as they lay with their women (infidelity, STDs etc)

Whether you agree with that interpretation or not it seems entirely logically consistent.

The Bible being the word of God, from which they get their knowledge of the truth, is not their key premise. Homosexuality being morally valid is.

If the Bible were it, they could not offer the interpretation they do, for it simply is ridiculous. Not a matter of weighing the texts that might be interpreted one way or the other - their interpretation has NO support in the text or in the history of the Church.
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Bible being the word of God, from which they get their knowledge of the truth, is not their key premise. Homosexuality being morally valid is.

No, homosexuality not being what the Bible is actually talking about is their premise.

Both you and then agree that homosexuality is not morally wrong independently to the Bible, so if the Bible is not actually talking about homosexuality then that removes the only reason either of you have for saying it is wrong.

I appreciate you disagree that the Bible is not talking about homosexuals but this seems totally logically consistent.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If the Bible were it, they could not offer the interpretation they do, for it simply is ridiculous.

Again I appreciate that is your opinion, but that doesn't really have anything to do with their opinion being logically consistent.

I think your rejection of all the stuff you reject on the Creationist thread is ridiculous, but your position is still logically consistent. You content that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and the rest of your conclusions are based on that, thus are logically consistent.

Plenty of other Christians think such an interpretation in light of modern evidence and Biblical opinion is mad, but none would say it is not logically consistent.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

No, homosexuality not being what the Bible is actually talking about is their premise.

Both you and then agree that homosexuality is not morally wrong independently to the Bible, so if the Bible is not actually talking about homosexuality then that removes the only reason either of you have for saying it is wrong.

I appreciate you disagree that the Bible is not talking about homosexuals but this seems totally logically consistent.



Again I appreciate that is your opinion, but that doesn't really have anything to do with their opinion being logically consistent.

I think your rejection of all the stuff you reject on the Creationist thread is ridiculous, but your position is still logically consistent. You content that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and the rest of your conclusions are based on that, thus are logically consistent.

Plenty of other Christians think such an interpretation in light of modern evidence and Biblical opinion is mad, but none would say it is not logically consistent.

I'm saying they do not really believe the Bible supports their claim. They are not that stupid. But they offer it as a fig-leaf for their sinful desires. Perhaps they have deceived themselves at the conscious level - but they are just doing the fingers-in-ears spiel.

Now if they said they viewed the Bible as culturally-conditioned, that its condemnation of homosexuality was just a cultural manifestation of its time and we should read only its underlying 'love' message, I could respect that as logical for their position. But instead they claim it means other than it says.

I say the same of those who claim the Bible can be read to incorporate evolution. If they say its Creationist message was culturally conditioned, the result of either the ignorance of the authors or of the intended readership, and we should pay heed only to the 'spiritual' message, I can respect the logic of their position. But when they say the text properly can be read to incorporate evolution...

_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm saying they do not really believe the Bible supports their claim. They are not that stupid. But they offer it as a fig-leaf for their sinful desires. Perhaps they have deceived themselves at the conscious level - but they are just doing the fingers-in-ears spiel.

And I'm saying Fair enough :pac:

I appreciate that is what you believe. I just took exception to you saying it is not logically consistent. That is different to being a lie or stupid.

Whether they actually believe or not, and no offense I wouldn't assume they are dishonest simply because you disagree with them, is something we can only guess at and is ultimately between them and God.

Morbert

I have a question about homosexuality and Christianity.

I am assuming homosexual acts fall under the category of adultery (i.e. sex outside of marriage). But what I'd like to know is whether or things like kissing or holding hands would be classified as sinful homosexual acts. Is there anything in the bible which would support the argument that such acts are more sinful than, say, a heterosexual couple outside of marriage?

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

I have a question about homosexuality and Christianity.

I am assuming homosexual acts fall under the category of adultery (i.e. sex outside of marriage). But what I'd like to know is whether or things like kissing or holding hands would be classified as sinful homosexual acts. Is there anything in the bible which would support the argument that such acts are more sinful than, say, a heterosexual couple outside of marriage?

It is often pointed out that the Bible isn't a science book. Pointed out somewhat less frequently is the fact that the Bible isn't a rule book. That is to say, there isn't an exhaustive list of do's and don't contained within.

Jesus, in his sermon on the mount takes his disciples aside to teach them. He picks 6 large examples in which the law issued was not only being added to by the pharisees and Scribes but was, more importantly, being adhered to in letter rather than spirit. Jesus took murder (a specific outward act) was turned the focus inward to examine the heart (anger with a brother). Adultery (a specific outward act) was turned inward to examine the heart (lustful thoughts). Etcetera. In the intent, or heart behind the action, lay the uglieness.

The Christian (for non-believers are not subject to the spiritual law of God) who would seek to try to split hairs between homosexual intercourse and homosexual hand holding would be doing now as the Pharisees were doing then: missing the intent behind the spiritual law of God. God, in designing the bounds of intimate relations doesn't ask that ways be found to circumvent the letter of the law. He desires that the spirit be observed.

Fanny Cradock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, that's what I meant by odd distinction. Part of being homosexual is wanting relations with members of the same sex. Christianity has no issue only if homosexuals refrain from any activity which defines them as homosexual?

I don't believe it an odd distinction. Indeed, I think you misunderstand what distinction is being made. According to Christianity, the sin isn't in the occurrence of desire (or being homosexual, if you will), it's in the action. I understand that this is probably a difficult distinction to make - the disconnect between desire and pursuit of desire seems unrealistic. And that's why I don't expect any non-Christians to give Christian views on sexuality (even if they are fudged by batty street preachers who get arrested) any heed. Nevertheless, this is what is demanded of the Christian.

I guess this leads us then to how one chooses to define oneself. I would say that sexuality is part of being human. But I question if it is our defining characteristic. And here I rhetorically ask if object of sexual attraction a satisfactory hook to hang identity on? Or is there nothing else to a person beyond the label gay, straight, bisexual, wall lover? Of course, this probably leads into a discussion about our purpose in life - if any. If you simply say "reproduction" or "happiness" then I wouldn't expect you to understand.

You end the above quote with a question, but it appears as if you have already included your own response in that question. However, in attempts to at least provide some sort of answer, allow me to reproduce this response from one of the larger congregations in Dublin.

The church has wide hems, and there are no preconditions for those who want to reach out and touch Jesus’ garment in order to be healed. This includes homosexuals, and the church should repent of any self-righteous spirit which has led to an irrational hatred of homosexuals or an unloving highlighting of their sin in public while conveniently ignoring the ‘beam’ of, say, materialism or indifference to suffering in its own eye. (I say this with holy fear). Homosexuals should feel as welcomed, loved, enjoyed and respected as any other persons who come into contact with the community of faith. But that community is also committed to the lifelong discipleship journey with all-comers towards righteousness and true holiness, and Jesus’ kingdom demands for true disciples are very high indeed.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think it would be more honest just to say christianity has an issue with homosexuals but of course, that's very non-PC these days.

With all due respect, I seems to me that what you are actually saying is that you would think it would be more honest if we just so happened agree with your interpretation of what Christians believe. I decline to do that.

Yes, there are many Christians who do have a problem with homosexuals simply because they are homosexual. As already suggested, Fred Phelps is the best and worst example of this type of person. Yet there are also many non-Christians, including those with no religious beliefs, who also have problems with gays. But this isn't what the Christians I know are talking about.

I think that a considered Christianity acknowledges that sexuality in whatever flavour is a complex issue, and it at least attempts to acknowledge this and concentrate on the purpose of life, which is not simply happiness or or reproduction or whatever, it's God.

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is often pointed out that the Bible isn't a science book. Pointed out somewhat less frequently is the fact that the Bible isn't a rule book. That is to say, there isn't an exhaustive list of do's and don't contained within.

Jesus, in his sermon on the mount takes his disciples aside to teach them. He picks 6 large examples in which the law issued was not only being added to by the pharisees and Scribes but was, more importantly, being adhered to in letter rather than spirit. Jesus took murder (a specific outward act) was turned the focus inward to examine the heart (anger with a brother). Adultery (a specific outward act) was turned inward to examine the heart (lustful thoughts). Etcetera. In the intent, or heart behind the action, lay the uglieness.

The Christian (for non-believers are not subject to the spiritual law of God) who would seek to try to split hairs between homosexual intercourse and homosexual hand holding would be doing now as the Pharisees were doing then: missing the intent behind the spiritual law of God. God, in designing the bounds of intimate relations doesn't ask that ways be found to circumvent the letter of the law. He desires that the spirit be observed.

A perfect answer to the question!

Ickle Magoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe it an odd distinction. Indeed, I think you misunderstand what distinction is being made. According to Christianity, the sin isn't in the occurrence of desire (or being homosexual, if you will), it's in the action. I understand that this is probably a difficult distinction to make - the disconnect between desire and pursuit of desire seems unrealistic. And that's why I don't expect any non-Christians to give Christian views on sexuality (even if they are fudged by batty street preachers who get arrested) any heed. Nevertheless, this is what is demanded of the Christian.

It is really unrealistic, & horrible to suggest that people would be acceptable only if they deny a part of themselves. It's not a concept I can wrap my head around, especially not from people who seem to seem to wish to be synonymous with kindness and acceptance. It just doesn't tally.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I guess this leads us then to how one chooses to define oneself. I would say that sexuality is part of being human. But I question if it is our defining characteristic. And here I rhetorically ask if object of sexual attraction a satisfactory hook to hang identity on? Or is there nothing else to a person beyond the label gay, straight, bisexual, wall lover? Of course, this probably leads into a discussion about our purpose in life - if any. If you simply say "reproduction" or "happiness" then I wouldn't expect you to understand.

I don't think we really have a purpose in life, beyond that which we give ourselves but sexuality is only one facet of our personalities, yes. I actually think it's only the discrimination of and attempts to judge minorities that makes people want to define themselves as such, to show it's not something to be hidden, or ashamed of, or made some kind of social pariah because of.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You end the above quote with a question, but it appears as if you have already included your own response in that question. However, in attempts to at least provide some sort of answer, allow me to reproduce this response from one of the larger congregations in Dublin.

Yeah, I get it but still, the whole people who fancy their own sex are sinners and any physical affection between concenting adults of the same sex is a sin? Writing off people as sinners destined for hell because they happen to be gay unless they deny their wants and needs because certain people have decided on a particular interpretation and condemned it as wrong, still horrible.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

With all due respect, I seems to me that what you are actually saying is that you would think it would be more honest if we just so happened agree with your interpretation of what Christians believe. I decline to do that.

Yes, there are many Christians who do have a problem with homosexuals simply because they are homosexual. As already suggested, Fred Phelps is the best and worst example of this type of person. Yet there are also many non-Christians, including those with no religious beliefs, who also have problems with gays. But this isn't what the Christians I know are talking about.

I think that a considered Christianity acknowledges that sexuality in whatever flavour is a complex issue, and it at least attempts to acknowledge this and concentrate on the purpose of life, which is not simply happiness or or reproduction or whatever, it's God.

I don't think anybody has to agree with what I'm saying, I don't expect anyone here to understand what I mean, never mind agree! I just think this tenuous stressing that there is no issue with people being gay, it is only if they want a normal life with a loving partner and active sex life like everyone else that it becomes an issue, is dishonest. No issue with gays as long as they take a vow of chastity is just trying to put a christian, loving, understanding slant on a horrible prejudice.

Of course there are homophobes everywhere, unfortunately, but I don't hear many from any other walk of life denying what they are and trying to pass it off as some kind of blessed prejudice. It's this kind of thing that really puts me off christianity. If there was a god why would he care if two loving adults wanted to be together, no-one is getting hurt. Why make people gay and then condemn them for it? Makes no sense.

The whole obsession with all things sex is really pretty unsavoury and doesn't paint christianity in any kind of loving, charitable, accepting light - it just makes it seem like something for the last bastions of right-wing conservatism to pin their flag to and hide their personal prejudices behind.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is often pointed out that the Bible isn't a science book. Pointed out somewhat less frequently is the fact that the Bible isn't a rule book. That is to say, there isn't an exhaustive list of do's and don't contained within.

Jesus, in his sermon on the mount takes his disciples aside to teach them. He picks 6 large examples in which the law issued was not only being added to by the pharisees and Scribes but was, more importantly, being adhered to in letter rather than spirit. Jesus took murder (a specific outward act) was turned the focus inward to examine the heart (anger with a brother). Adultery (a specific outward act) was turned inward to examine the heart (lustful thoughts). Etcetera. In the intent, or heart behind the action, lay the uglieness.

The Christian (for non-believers are not subject to the spiritual law of God) who would seek to try to split hairs between homosexual intercourse and homosexual hand holding would be doing now as the Pharisees were doing then: missing the intent behind the spiritual law of God. God, in designing the bounds of intimate relations doesn't ask that ways be found to circumvent the letter of the law. He desires that the spirit be observed.

Ok, but then surely that applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike? If homosexual intercourse and homosexual hand-holding both break the spirit of the law, then surely heterosexual intercourse and heterosexual hand-holding (outside of marriage) break the spirit of the law as well.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Ok, but then surely that applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike? If homosexual intercourse and homosexual hand-holding both break the spirit of the law, then surely heterosexual intercourse and heterosexual hand-holding (outside of marriage) break the spirit of the law as well.

The other issue is what the heck is the spirit of the law and who decides this?

The Christian group earlier I mentioned earlier would no doubt say that following the spirit of the law is actually what they are doing, because they think the spirit of the law is that God is all about loving relationships between monogamous couples and married men shouldn't be running off to rent boys, for obvious reasons (jealousy, STDs, infidelity). That is the spirit of the laws on monogamy.

When they say this of course other Christian who take a different view turn to the letter of the law. No, it doesn't make that distinction in the letter of the law, it mention married men or rent boys, the law says that a man should not lie with another man as a woman. We interpret that as any man. That is what it says. That is the letter of the law. Screw attempts to interpret that with in the possible over all spirit of what God was trying to say to us, that is what the letter of the law says, so don't do it.

Im Q

I'll interpret scripture. Farty poo. Jesus does not exist. God does not exist. End of story. Do some research into it. Kids can figure that ****. God wont save you from being mugged, Drowning, war or disease. And some terrible **** happens on this planet. Uneduacated wishful thinking.

Zombrex

Im Q wrote: »

I'll interpret scripture. Farty poo. Jesus does not exist. God does not exist. End of story. Do some research into it. Kids can figure that ****. God wont save you from being mugged, Drowning, war or disease. And some terrible **** happens on this planet. Uneduacated wishful thinking.

Helpful :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

Ok, but then surely that applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike? If homosexual intercourse and homosexual hand-holding both break the spirit of the law, then surely heterosexual intercourse and heterosexual hand-holding (outside of marriage) break the spirit of the law as well.

First, I don't think antiskeptic was denying the necessity of not physically sinning - he was pointing to the reality of sin even without the active part.

So any homosexual act, or desire to act, is sinful. Hand-holding in the romantic sense is not permitted, as it involves desires that cannot be lawfully fulfilled.

Hand-holding for heterosexuals may be valid, but not necessarily so. It is sinful for a married person to romantically hold hands with someone other than their spouse. But it is OK for a single heterosexual to romantically hold hands with a single person of the opposite sex.
_________________________________________________________________
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

So any homosexual act, or desire to act, is sinful. Hand-holding in the romantic sense is not permitted, as it involves desires that cannot be lawfully fulfilled.

Hand-holding for heterosexuals may be valid, but not necessarily so. It is sinful for a married person to romantically hold hands with someone other than their spouse. But it is OK for a single heterosexual to romantically hold hands with a single person of the opposite sex.

Surely only if they end up getting married though?

So it would be a sin to hold hands with a girl unless you know you are going to marry her, as you are invoking desires that won't be lawfully fulfilled (ie you can't sleep with her lawfully unless you marry her)? Same with kissing and other physical contact.

Or am I missing your point?

Fanny Cradock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It is really unrealistic, & horrible to suggest that people would be acceptable only if they deny a part of themselves. It's not a concept I can wrap my head around, especially not from people who seem to seem to wish to be synonymous with kindness and acceptance. It just doesn't tally.

Let's not pretend that self-denial is not part of Christianity. Indeed, dying to oneself and being born again should be the goal. Currently my lifestyle prevents me from entering into what I would call full communion with the church and, more importantly, with God. I accept this and try to improve.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

But it is OK for a single heterosexual to romantically hold hands with a single person of the opposite sex.

This, I don't understand. Sure, if the handholding is entirely friendly, with no hint of sexual desire, I can understand. But the Bible is quite clear that sex outside of marriage is a sin for everyone, not just homosexuals. So if that is the spirit of the law then heterosexuals engaging in any sexual act (even something as subtle as kissing or holding hands), outside of marriage is committing a sin.

In otherwords, I'm not arguing that homosexual acts are not sinful, but rather the bible seems to equally condemn heterosexual acts outside of marriage as well.

Fanny Cradock

Isn't this all about how you define sex and its outer edges lie? I'm not sure that kissing and hand holding (I originally typed nad holding :pac:) are necessarily sexual - at least not in the erotic sense. However, if it is an erotic kiss, I guess that for the Christian couple an ideal could be argued - that they are preparing for marriage. But it's never black and white and there are many obvious problems with such an argument. Perhaps the Puritans had it right after all.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Isn't this all about how you define sex and its outer edges lie? I'm not sure that kissing and hand holding (I originally typed nad holding :pac:) are necessarily sexual - at least not in the erotic sense. However, if it is an erotic kiss, I guess that for the Christian couple an ideal could be argued - that they are preparing for marriage. But it's never black and white and there are many obvious problems with such an argument. Perhaps the Puritans had it right after all.

It's not so much where the line specifically lies that interests me. More if there is a distinction regarding where the line is for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Fanny Cradock

Your question is a good one, and I would think that it has implications for Christians who are in casual relationships, even if they are not fully sexual.

I guess to answer that one would have to determine what is the intention behind the hand holding or whatever. While I don't think that sexual desire is discouraged in the Bible (and erotic kisses etc. are certainly and example of this) it is always aiming towards an ideal.

coffee_cake

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe it an odd distinction. Indeed, I think you misunderstand what distinction is being made. According to Christianity, the sin isn't in the occurrence of desire (or being homosexual, if you will), it's in the action. I understand that this is probably a difficult distinction to make - the disconnect between desire and pursuit of desire seems unrealistic.

If there's a difference between desire and action why is there a commandment "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife", surely that's ok as long as they don't do anything about it

Fanny Cradock

bluewolf wrote: »

If there's a difference between desire and action why is there a commandment "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife", surely that's ok as long as they don't do anything about it

Another good question. Again, I think one needs to qualify exactly what is meant by desire. Are there degree of desire that range from acceptable to unacceptable? So, for example, is the statement, "I desire to have sex with my wife" the same as, "I desire to have sex with my neighbours wife"?

Fanny Cradock

On that note, I should add that I desire a Smithwicks. So I'm out of this debate for now.

Toodles.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Surely only if they end up getting married though?

So it would be a sin to hold hands with a girl unless you know you are going to marry her, as you are invoking desires that won't be lawfully fulfilled (ie you can't sleep with her lawfully unless you marry her)? Same with kissing and other physical contact.

Or am I missing your point?

A man may court a girl and become so romantically attached that hand-holding and even a kiss is appropriate as a token of their sexual love. This does not constitute a level of intimacy prohibited to singles - it is not a use of their private as opposed to public parts. We do not cover our lips or our hands in modesty - but we do our breasts and sexual organs.

But as it is an expression of sexual love, even holding hands and kissing are not to be lightly used. They are only appropriate to those sincerely intending to marry.

And no such expression is lawful to people of the same sex.

_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

This, I don't understand. Sure, if the handholding is entirely friendly, with no hint of sexual desire, I can understand. But the Bible is quite clear that sex outside of marriage is a sin for everyone, not just homosexuals. So if that is the spirit of the law then heterosexuals engaging in any sexual act (even something as subtle as kissing or holding hands), outside of marriage is committing a sin.

In otherwords, I'm not arguing that homosexual acts are not sinful, but rather the bible seems to equally condemn heterosexual acts outside of marriage as well.

There is a difference between a proper sexual attraction and its expression, and sexual lust. God has made us to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex and seek to marry them. But we are not to desire sex with them before marriage.

So sexual attraction is proper for heterosexual couples, but not sexual lusting. Kissing, in the right spirit and under control, is appropriate for those preparing for marriage.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 4:7 But reject profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness. 8 For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

A man may court a girl and become so romantically attached that hand-holding and even a kiss is appropriate as a token of their sexual love.

Isn't a girl you are courting though a girl you intend to marry?

So my point seems correct? According to you a Christian should not kiss or hold hands with a boy or girl unless they plan to marry them, as this is an precursor to sexual intimacy and sexual intimacy is only for your husband or wife.

When someone is initially dating someone they are not sure they would like to marry they should not hold hands or kiss or engage in other physical contact that is associated with the sexual intimacy of marriage until they are sure they will marry that person. Correct? Or again am I missing something here? You would agree that very few Christians follow such restraint?

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

There is a difference between a proper sexual attraction and its expression, and sexual lust. God has made us to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex and seek to marry them. But we are not to desire sex with them before marriage.

So sexual attraction is proper for heterosexual couples, but not sexual lusting. Kissing, in the right spirit and under control, is appropriate for those preparing for marriage.

I might not be inferring properly, but are you saying sexual attraction between those who aren't preparing for marriage is inappropriate? You also seem to be implying that the very desire is sinful, rather than simply the act.

But either way, does this mean a homosexual couple who are sexually attracted to one another, but not desiring sex, are no more or less sinful than the equivalent heterosexual couple?

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

Ok, but then surely that applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike? If homosexual intercourse and homosexual hand-holding both break the spirit of the law, then surely heterosexual intercourse and heterosexual hand-holding (outside of marriage) break the spirit of the law as well.

Let's assume God has designed (and designated) that intimate sexual relations are to be limited to man and woman within the confines of an commitment-for-life arrangement called marriage. This would preclude heterosexual intercourse outside marriage. But it need not preclude hand holding as an event that occurs in the process of two people (male and female) embarking on a path to discover whether they should be married or no. Romance and attraction are part of the design of God enabling two people to arrive at the point of commitment in marriage. Hand-holding is an expression of that God design.

That's the godly ideal - then you have the rest in varying degrees of departure from that ideal.

There are heterosexual relationships which are embarked upon without any particular desire to investigate marriage. And this case under discussion: homosexual relationships embarked upon which are not open to marriage in the first place. Both consume of the blessings designed into the mechanism (albeit the mechanism is fallen and subject to Sin's intrustion) such as attraction, such as desire for physical closeness, such as desire for sexual intercourse.

All fall from the spirit of the ideal which God desires.

You can't broad brushstroke an action. The heart behind the action is what counts: if ungodly then sin.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's assume God has designed (and designated) that intimate sexual relations are to be limited to man and woman within the confines of an commitment-for-life arrangement called marriage. This would preclude heterosexual intercourse outside marriage. But it need not preclude hand holding as an event that occurs in the process of two people (male and female) embarking on a path to discover whether they should be married or no. Romance and attraction are part of the design of God enabling two people to arrive at the point of commitment in marriage. Hand-holding is an expression of that God design.

That's the godly ideal - then you have the rest in varying degrees of departure from that ideal.

There are heterosexual relationships which are embarked upon without any particular desire to investigate marriage. And this case under discussion: homosexual relationships embarked upon which are not open to marriage in the first place. Both consume of the blessings designed into the mechanism (albeit the mechanism is fallen and subject to Sin's intrustion) such as attraction, such as desire for physical closeness, such as desire for sexual intercourse.

All fall from the spirit of the ideal which God desires.

You can't broad brushstroke an action. The heart behind the action is what counts: if ungodly then sin.

What about a heterosexual relationship where neither is necessarily opposed to marriage, and where all the blessings are consumed (including intercourse). Are sexual acts outside of marriage considered to be adultery even if marriage is not ruled out a priori? I had always assumed the Bible considers sexual acts (wherever the line may be, and regardless of the intention) outside of marriage to be adultery.

JimiTime

Morbert wrote: »

What about a heterosexual relationship where neither is necessarily opposed to marriage, and where all the blessings are consumed (including intercourse). Are sexual acts outside of marriage considered to be adultery even if marriage is not ruled out a priori? I had always assumed the Bible considers sexual acts (wherever the line may be, and regardless of the intention) outside of marriage to be adultery.

'Fornication' was the word used in such matters not adultery. Adultery was specifically used to define fornication by someone who was married.