Homosexuality vs. Mildew

mcmickey

Marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman. The heterosexual family was created by God and same-sex relationships contradict God’s design for marriage and violate his will.

antiskeptic

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.

I'm not sure I said anything that would lead to you conclude other than that. The generalised view is that sexual intimacy (and again we could split hairs over what constitutes sexual intimacy) is to occur within the boundary of marriage. With even thoughts of sexual intimacy constituting sexual intimacy.

Holding hands isn't a sexual act - but that first handhold, the one that identifies to both that the relationship has crossed a line - is one that is open to being sinful should it be a handhold that can't lead lawfully to marriage. Again, I'd point to the spirit of the law rather than trying to establish a letter for you.

Sex is a powerful event indeed - deliberately so. And the further a person strays from the God-ideal for sex, the further he sins.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

Yes, there should be no expression of sexual interest until marriage is planned. Hand-holding can be of the friend sort of course, but it should not become intimate until marriage is in view.

Yes, few modern Christians have thought it through. Most go on societal norms - less the obvious sexual acts. But the mature Christians should make sure they do know what is respectful and what is not.

_________________________________________________________________
1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God;

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure I said anything that would lead to you conclude other than that. The generalised view is that sexual intimacy (and again we could split hairs over what constitutes sexual intimacy) is to occur within the boundary of marriage. With even thoughts of sexual intimacy constituting sexual intimacy.

It was the following paragraph

"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."

I assumed that, since you mentioned sexual relationships embarked up without any desire to investigate marriage, you were implying it was ok for heterosexual relationships with a desire to investigate marriage, even if they later conclude that marriage would not be a good idea, and the relationship should end.

Holding hands isn't a sexual act - but that first handhold, the one that identifies to both that the relationship has crossed a line - is one that is open to being sinful should it be a handhold that can't lead lawfully to marriage. Again, I'd point to the spirit of the law rather than trying to establish a letter for you.

Sex is a powerful event indeed - deliberately so. And the further a person strays from the God-ideal for sex, the further he sins.

The problem here is we now have an act that is not sexual, but is still interpreted to be sinful under the same set of laws. We have an introduced an extra distinction. There is no longer just a line between acts that are sexual and acts that are not (wherever that line may be). There is now a line between acts that are not sexual (i.e. Do not "consume any of the blessings" to borrow your phrase), and acts that are not sexual but still not o.k. for homosexuals to do.

I'm not a Christian, but I don't necessarily think that is the spirit of the law. It is my understanding that God reserves the privilege of sexual acts for married people because He sees such privileges as important in His plan. But He makes no such reservations for acts that are not sexual but are interpreted by society as what heterosexuals do.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

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?

Heterosexual attraction is OK, but not where it is allowed to develop into a fixed desire to have sex with the person.

Homosexual attraction is sinful in itself, not part of God's intention for mankind.

_________________________________________________________________
Jude 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

It was the following paragraph

"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."

I assumed that, since you mentioned sexual relationships embarked up without any desire to investigate marriage, you were implying it was ok for heterosexual relationships with a desire to investigate marriage, even if they later conclude that marriage would not be a good idea, and the relationship should end.

Okay. Given the spirit in which I'm attempting to address your question, it should be clear that hand holding (in the context of a godly-relationship) is fine.

The problem here is we now have an act that is not sexual, but is still interpreted to be sinful under the same set of laws.

Under the same spirit of the law - I must remind you. What is the spirit behind the law seeking.

We have an introduced an extra distinction. There is no longer just a line between acts that are sexual and acts that are not (wherever that line may be). There is now a line between acts that are not sexual (i.e. Do not "consume any of the blessings" to borrow your phrase), and acts that are not sexual but still not o.k. for homosexuals to do.

You can see the problems of legality you enter into once concentrating on the letter of the law The spirit behind the law is far simpler: is your focus on progressing down a godly line or not. If it is, then you will steer clear of certain pathways - knowing where pathways tend to lead. It's a legalist who concentrates on how far one can follow a path without breaking the law.

I'm not a Christian, but I don't necessarily think that is the spirit of the law. It is my understanding that God reserves the privilege of sexual acts for married people because He sees such privileges as important in His plan. But He makes no such reservations for acts that are not sexual but are interpreted by society as what heterosexuals do.

Does the above alter your position?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, there should be no expression of sexual interest until marriage is planned. Hand-holding can be of the friend sort of course, but it should not become intimate until marriage is in view.

Yes, few modern Christians have thought it through. Most go on societal norms - less the obvious sexual acts. But the mature Christians should make sure they do know what is respectful and what is not.

Thanks for the clarification

oceanclub

Yes, there should be no expression of sexual interest until marriage is planned. Hand-holding can be of the friend sort of course, but it should not become intimate until marriage is in view.

Just curious, but how does someone in this situation determine between (a) someone sincerely refraining from sexual interest and (b) someone happy enough to do so because they have no interest whatsoever in sex or are perhaps a closeted gay?

P.

Zombrex

oceanclub wrote: »

Just curious, but how does someone in this situation determine between (a) someone sincerely refraining from sexual interest and (b) someone happy enough to do so because they have no interest whatsoever in sex or are perhaps a closeted gay?

P.

Why would you have to? Isn't it up to God to know your motives?

oceanclub

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would you have to? Isn't it up to God to know your motives?

Sorry, not sure what you mean here. (I'm a bit confused by your use of "you".) I'm talking about an example, say, of a woman seeing a man. How does she determine the difference?

P.

Zombrex

oceanclub wrote: »

Sorry, not sure what you mean here. (I'm a bit confused by your use of "you".) I'm talking about an example, say, of a woman seeing a man. How does she determine the difference?

P.

Oh right. You are asking how does a woman know that her boyfriend is a good Christian or a closet homosexual when in both cases he seems uncomfortable getting too physical.

No idea to be honest. I'm an atheist and I find the Christian ideas of marriage rather naive. But I don't want to derail the thread with that. I guess the question how do you ever know anyone comes up. If the couple slept together would the woman know her husband wasn't gay? Plenty of women (and men) have married partners who have mislead them, this wouldn't be something new.

StealthRolex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Heterosexual attraction is OK, but not where it is allowed to develop into a fixed desire to have sex with the person.

This would appear to be a fair interpretation

wolfsbane wrote: »

Homosexual attraction is sinful in itself, not part of God's intention for mankind.

This would not. In some cases homosexual attraction is not something sinful in itself but rather the indulgence and practice of it is. If someone is "genetically" homosexual they would have little control over who attracts them or who they find themselves attracted to but knowing that the consummation of such an attraction would be sinful leads them to deciding to embark or not on a life of sin.

My understanding is that those with homosexual tendencies are called to a life of chastity as are all unmarried persons.

wolfsbane

StealthRolex wrote: »

This would appear to be a fair interpretation



This would not. In some cases homosexual attraction is not something sinful in itself but rather the indulgence and practice of it is. If someone is "genetically" homosexual they would have little control over who attracts them or who they find themselves attracted to but knowing that the consummation of such an attraction would be sinful leads them to deciding to embark or not on a life of sin.

My understanding is that those with homosexual tendencies are called to a life of chastity as are all unmarried persons.

OK, let me clarify my meaning, if it helps. I agree that temptation/attraction to sin is the lot of us all. We must resist and repudiate all temptation. We are not sinning by being tempted.

Heterosexual attraction is not always temptation, however. It is simply telling us the other person is pleasant to our eye. If we are not in a position to use that information well, we must dismiss it.

Homosexual attraction is always a temptation to sin. It can never be properly used. Those who experience it ought to always reject it as evil and ask God for grace to purge their natures of its presence.

That's the key difference.
_________________________________________________________________
Colossians 3:5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

wolfsbane

oceanclub wrote: »

Sorry, not sure what you mean here. (I'm a bit confused by your use of "you".) I'm talking about an example, say, of a woman seeing a man. How does she determine the difference?

P.

Wicknight has put it well. She cannot be certain. All the Christian who is looking for a spouse can do is ask God to direct their path, and then look for signs of spiritual reality in their 'prospect'.

If they later find they have married a phoney, that was God's will for their pilgrimage. It is through many tribulations we enter the Kingdom.

________________________________________________________________
James 1:12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.