Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

Zombrex · 10-02-2012 4:59pm

PDN wrote: »

No, I think you're quite wrong there.

If you take away the sex then surely "homosexual commitment" simply means a non-sexual commitment between two people of the same gender? The love between a father and a son for example.

Or are you trying to say something else?

Well, while trying to avoid another discussion on what love means to each other, I think a lot of people would view the romantic love between a couple as rather different to the paternal love between parent and child. A man does not love his wife in the same manner he loves his daughter, though both types of love can be equally powerful. Love between father and daughter is not merely love between man and wife without the sex. You may disagree (not saying you do, just that it is not a requirement that you agree to understand the argument), but certainly this is a common concept in human society.

Morbets point, if I'm following, is that the Bible does not recognize homosexual love, romantic love between members of the same sex. It views homosexuality purely in terms of lust and sexual action.

Or to put it another way, Christianity does not recognize that a homosexual couple can be in love with each other (as a heterosexual couple can), and legitimately desire to marry each other, even if they do not have sex.

He might be wrong about that (do any Christian denominations approve of homosexual marriage if the couple promise not to have sex, or cannot physically have sex?), but seem to be his point. And its a good one to my mind.

Zombrex · 10-02-2012 5:15pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Homosexuality is nature, that cannot be denied by any rational being. The very fact that it is found in hundreds of animals is proof enough. My own mother is a Lesbian and was raised in a Catholic household in a time of rampant homophobia, so that removes the nurture argument.

She is simply a normal woman, doing her PhD in History at U.C.C., owns a house and is in love with a wonderful woman. There is absolutely no difference between that and her sister who is married to a man, also owns a house and so on.

Now tell me PDN. How is this wrong? What has she done that deserves the Hell that so many religious speak of? She's never stolen, murdered or any such thing.

Now tell me. Why does she deserve to be spoken to in such a way? Is it right that she be called an 'abomination' and destined to eternal suffering because someone claimed God said so?

I wouldn't get too worked up about what a religion you don't follow thinks about you. Sure speak out about it, but are you really that surprised or offended?

I mean Scientology thinks you are mentally ill (we all are). I don't think many loose sleep over that, or consider it that insulting.

There is that odd phenomena in society where people outside of the main religion (in this case Christianity) still seek some sort of implied acceptance from the religion. So we get people who aren't Christians trying to get Christianity to admit that it is ok to be gay.

The initial response to this is why are the bothering? But I guess Christianity still has such a significant role in society that it is difficult to separate Christianity from this role just because we stop believing. It is like the people who want the Catholic church to admit female priests, rather than simply moving to a Christian denomination that accepts female priests.

It is an odd, though some what understandable phenomena. It is just a pity, to my mind. A far better use of ones time would be to simply go "Well this is clearly nonsense of the highest order"

PDN · 10-02-2012 5:53pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Well, while trying to avoid another discussion on what love means to each other, I think a lot of people would view the romantic love between a couple as rather different to the paternal love between parent and child. A man does not love his wife in the same manner he loves his daughter, though both types of love can be equally powerful. Love between father and daughter is not merely love between man and wife without the sex. You may disagree (not saying you do, just that it is not a requirement that you agree to understand the argument), but certainly this is a common concept in human society.

Morbets point, if I'm following, is that the Bible does not recognize homosexual love, romantic love between members of the same sex. It views homosexuality purely in terms of lust and sexual action.

Or to put it another way, Christianity does not recognize that a homosexual couple can be in love with each other (as a heterosexual couple can), and legitimately desire to marry each other, even if they do not have sex.

He might be wrong about that (do any Christian denominations approve of homosexual marriage if the couple promise not to have sex, or cannot physically have sex?), but seem to be his point. And its a good one to my mind.

Morbert made a claim about mainstream theology, but you are citing a hypothetical example which, if it does ever occur, has hardly occurred often enough to merit a theological position. I am unaware of any major theologian, or any denomination, taking a position as to the sinfulness or otherwise of a same sex couple wanting to maintain a romantic but non-sexual relationship. So I doubt if anyone knows what mainstream theology has to say on the subject.

Morbert · 10-02-2012 6:32pm

PDN wrote: »

No, I think you're quite wrong there.

If you take away the sex then surely "homosexual commitment" simply means a non-sexual commitment between two people of the same gender? The love between a father and a son for example.

Only if "sex" refers to all facets of sexuality, from holding hands or kissing, to not investing the same time with another, third party, to that simple feeling of contentment you get when watching a film or enjoying a dinner with your other half. This is not what Christians mean by sex when they say "No sex outside of marriage". It is not the sex they object to, but all forms of celebrating their sexuality. I can anticipate your response to this, and I address this anticipation below.

Morbert made a claim about mainstream theology, but you are citing a hypothetical example which, if it does ever occur, has hardly occurred often enough to merit a theological position. I am unaware of any major theologian, or any denomination, taking a position as to the sinfulness or otherwise of a same sex couple wanting to maintain a romantic but non-sexual relationship. So I doubt if anyone knows what mainstream theology has to say on the subject.

A romantic, but abstinent relationship is still sexual, but that is a semantic issue. Abstinent romance is a massive issue for anybody who is interested in becoming a Christian, but happens to be gay. If pastors and theologians approved of romantic but abstinent homosexual unions, it would be play a huge role in reaching out to the homosexual community.

Not being permitted to have sex with your other half is frustrating, and still clearly rejected by non-Christians. But being told you can still devote yourself to them, in sickness and in health, as long as you both shall live (even if not strictly called marriage), could be the difference between a gay Christian and an atheist.

PDN · 10-02-2012 6:47pm

Morbert wrote: »

Only if "sex" refers to all facets of sexuality, from holding hands or kissing, to not investing the same time with another, third party, to that simple feeling of contentment you get when watching a film or enjoying a dinner with your other half. This is not what Christians mean by sex when they say "No sex outside of marriage". It is not the sex they object to, but all forms of celebrating their sexuality. I can anticipate your response to this, and I address this anticipation below.

A romantic, but abstinent relationship is still sexual, but that is a semantic issue. Abstinent romance is a massive issue for anybody who is interested in becoming a Christian, but happens to be gay. If pastors and theologians approved of romantic but abstinent homosexual unions, it would be play a huge role in reaching out to the homosexual community.

Not being permitted to have sex with your other half is frustrating, and still clearly rejected by non-Christians. But being told you can still devote yourself to them, in sickness and in health, as long as you both shall live (even if not strictly called marriage), could be the difference between a gay Christian and an atheist.

To be honest it isn't something I've ever thought about. My initial response is that as far as I understand Scripture, the prohibition is against sexual acts. I don't see that, biblically speaking, two men sharing a kiss and a cuddle is any different from an unmarried boy and a girl, who are not sexually active, kissing and cuddling. The only problem I can see (in either context) would be if it stirred up the hormones and tempted them to go further into overt sexual acts.

The Salvation Army has a gender imbalance in that it has many more female clergy than male. Therefore it is quite common for two women to live and work together as a ministerial team, often in successive churches and over a long period of time. Often these women would retire together. When one of them dies it is usual for the funeral notice to state that the name of the bereaved 'companion' so former parishoners can send their condolences. I've known a few of these couples (pairs?), and I'm pretty sure the relationship was non-sexual - but their devotion and attachment to each other in every other respect resembled a marriage.

tommy2bad · 10-02-2012 7:07pm

PDN;
My initial response is that as far as I understand Scripture, the prohibition is against sexual acts. I don't see that, biblically speaking, two men sharing a kiss and a cuddle is any different from an unmarried boy and a girl, who are not sexually active, kissing and cuddling.

So it penetrative sex that the rules apply to? And anything that might lead to it?
Mmmmmmm....

PDN · 10-02-2012 7:14pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

So it penetrative sex that the rules apply to? And anything that might lead to it?
Mmmmmmm....

No, that isn't what I said at all. 'Sexual acts' is what I said. I can think of, and have tried, dozens of sexual acts that do not involve penetrative sex.

Zombrex · 10-02-2012 8:05pm

PDN wrote: »

Morbert made a claim about mainstream theology, but you are citing a hypothetical example which, if it does ever occur, has hardly occurred often enough to merit a theological position.

Romantic love between two men or two women occurs all the time, ask any gay person in a loving committed relationship. While it involves desire, just as heterosexual romantic love does, the ability to have sex is not a requirement. Equally the removal of sex does not turn such romantic love into platonic love.

Or to put it another way, homosexuality is more than just a physical desire to have sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex. Homosexuals fall romantically in love with members of the same sex, as heterosexuals do to members of the opposite sex. This is more than a strong friendship. You may love your close friends, but you don't love them as you love your wife.

The Bible seems to utterly fail to recognize this, as do many Christians.

PDN wrote: »

I am unaware of any major theologian, or any denomination, taking a position as to the sinfulness or otherwise of a same sex couple wanting to maintain a romantic but non-sexual relationship.

Well yes, that is the point. Such a concept is absent from Christianity, which views homosexuality almost exclusively in terms of sexual desire. Even you yourself compared the love between two members of the same sex absent of sexual lust in totally non-romantic terms, such as a father and a son. Such a concept of romantic love between two men seemed alien to you.

The concept of a man loving another man as a man might love a woman is absent in Christianity. Homosexuality is viewed purely in terms of sexual lust, and the only other concept of same sex "love" is non-romantic father-son, mother-daughter. And I think we can agree that loving your sister is not the same type of love as the love one has for their wife.

tommy2bad · 10-02-2012 9:24pm

PDN wrote: »

No, that isn't what I said at all. 'Sexual acts' is what I said. I can think of, and have tried, dozens of sexual acts that do not involve penetrative sex.

But you discounted kissing n cuddling, so it anything involving genitalia? breasts? neck? thigh?
Can you understand why I'm looking to define this ? If it acts that satisfies sexual desire then I understand the prohibition as it a prohibition on selfishness.
But sexual gratification in a committed loving relationship is approved of or just tolerated? A necessary evil for procreation, a release of desire that may corupt if not 'vented'.
Can you state clearly what is wrong with sexual gratification that it must be exclusively heterosexual as opposed to exclusively monogamous. A reason other than 'God said so'

PDN · 10-02-2012 9:37pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

But you discounted kissing n cuddling, so it anything involving genitalia? breasts? neck? thigh?
Can you understand why I'm looking to define this ? If it acts that satisfies sexual desire then I understand the prohibition as it a prohibition on selfishness.

I'm reminded of the British judge who said that he found it difficult to define pornography but he knew it when I saw it.

Christian morality does not operate on a legalistic criteria similar to setting a speed limit.

One sensible rule of thumb is that certain actions express love in non-sexual ways whereas others are exclusively and explicitly sexual.

So, for example, hugging someone and kissing them is acceptable behaviour in a variety of situations, including parents and children. Mutual masturbation is obviously different.

But sexual gratification in a committed loving relationship is approved of or just tolerated? A necessary evil for procreation, a release of desire that may corupt if not 'vented'.

It is approved, better celebrated, in marrriage.

Can you state clearly what is wrong with sexual gratification that it must be exclusively heterosexual as opposed to exclusively monogamous. A reason other than 'God said so'

I'm a Christian. Why would I need another reason than God saying so?

PDN · 10-02-2012 9:45pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Romantic love between two men or two women occurs all the time, ask any gay person in a loving committed relationship.

Who said it doesn't?

Well yes, that is the point. Such a concept is absent from Christianity, which views homosexuality almost exclusively in terms of sexual desire.

No, that isn't true. It views homosexual sexual acts in terms of sexual desire. The Bible doesn't address the situation of non-sexual homosexuality.

Even you yourself compared the love between two members of the same sex absent of sexual lust in totally non-romantic terms, such as a father and a son. Such a concept of romantic love between two men seemed alien to you.

Maybe you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying? The concept of romantic love between two men when the relationship does not include sex seems alien to me.

And I think we can agree that loving your sister is not the same type of love as the love one has for their wife.

That depends. If you want to talk about the kind of love someone has in a non-sexual relationship with a wife, then we can do so. I would think it could be quite sisterly.

lmaopml · 11-02-2012 12:58am

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I can respect where your coming from, and there isn't a whole lot to disagree with in your post. OK, maybe a little!

I have a homosexual brother in law - I love the ground he walks on.

I think the reason that the debate over homosexuality is so intense is because most people have come to accept that it's something that a person doesn't choose. Now one can argue that being homosexual isn't the problem, just homosexual acts, but the problem is that a person's sexual orientation is something inbuilt, it will be close to impossible for them to be a whole, complete person if something which is so natural and intrinsic to them can never find expression.

I know Benny, there are things intrinsic to me, terrible things, that I fight every single day. Sexuality is down the list and on a par with many other things - this is why I believe that my Brother in law is a fellow traveller, and quite entitled to tread the path, but so too to acknowledge when he veres from it - just like me, no better and certainly no worse. The path is narrow, no point in lying to myself or anybody else.

Now I haven't mentioned scripture yet. Phil is right in one sense - it is part of human nature to look for loopholes that we can use to justify our wrongdoing. I'm sure I do it all the time. My knowledge of scripture is limited compared to most of the posters here. I'm not a biblical literalist and I try to read the Bible with what it would have meant to the audience at the time in mind - and it's no less inspiring and challenging as a result. I also don't believe that science and scripture have to clash. As such I truly believe that it would be possible for a gay person in a committed relationship to be a genuine follower of Christ.

Well, I think Science and Scripture can compliment eachother too - but one is the research of nature which is an invaluable 'tool' and the other is how we 'should' express our relationship with Christ when it is 'perfect'! Look, nobody is perfect - nobody deserves Christ, but he loves sinners and that's why he came for me too, I'm no better than anybody, but the bar is 'set' - it doesn't mean we can judge eachother eternally damned or whatever - who can do that? I can't judge myself either, I'm on the same path as every other sinner who draws nearer to God.

Zombrex · 11-02-2012 1:27am

PDN wrote: »

The Bible doesn't address the situation of non-sexual homosexuality.

Yes, again that is the point. The Bible doesn't acknowledge any form of homosexual bond other than sexual lust. It doesn't recognize that two members of the same sex can be romantically in love with each other. It deals with homosexuality purely in terms of sexual lust. It deals with romantic love purely in terms of heterosexual relationships. It is hardly surprising that modern gay people find it as alien to reality as if the Bible proclaimed the Sun goes around the Earth.

PDN wrote: »

That depends. If you want to talk about the kind of love someone has in a non-sexual relationship with a wife, then we can do so. I would think it could be quite sisterly.

Really? Do you cuddle on the couch with your sister sharing tubs of ice cream while holding hands and watching romantic movies?

Do you stare puppy eyed into each other eyes whispering that you love each other?

Do you hold your sisters hand as you walk on a sun set beach?

Romantic love is not the same as the platonic love between siblings. Whether or not the couple is having sex or not doesn't alter that.

lmaopml · 11-02-2012 1:49am

No the bible or Scripture acknowledges 'lust' whether it's homosexual or not, even for those who are straight and married as tough as that may sound - you don't get it Zombrex.

Maybe read C.S. Lewis on the four types of love to understand the difference.

PDN · 11-02-2012 7:24am

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, again that is the point. The Bible doesn't acknowledge any form of homosexual bond other than sexual lust. It doesn't recognize that two members of the same sex can be romantically in love with each other.

Neither does the Bible speak about romantic love between members of different sexes where sex is not part of the equation.

So it seems rather silly to try to create the artificial distinctions and arbitrary conclusions you are creating here.

Really? Do you cuddle on the couch with your sister sharing tubs of ice cream while holding hands and watching romantic movies?

Do you stare puppy eyed into each other eyes whispering that you love each other?

Do you hold your sisters hand as you walk on a sun set beach?

No, and neither do I have sex with my sister. So what's your point?

I do, however, know a Christian woman who cuddles on the coach with her dog, sharing tubs of ice cream. She also holds the dog's paw while watching romantic movies. Puppy eyes? Absolutely. she whispers how she loves the dog, and they share walks on the beach.

I don't give two hoots whether someone calls that 'romantic' love or not - because that has nothing to do with the issues of sin as raised by the Bible and by Christian theology. Of course it all becomes different if she were to have sex with the dog.

So, I guess that proves that Christians and the Bible only view human-doggy relationships in terms of lust, doesn't it? (At least if we follow your logic)

Romantic love is not the same as the platonic love between siblings. Whether or not the couple is having sex or not doesn't alter that.

I really don't know what you are trying to prove. While such assertions might demonstrate your vast experience of romantic relationships where sex is not, and never will be, involved, this doesn't affect my point to Morbert which related to sin and Christian theology.

JimiTime · 11-02-2012 1:33pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

A fine word, speaking the truth in love! Every sinner should hear this and see what it means to be an authentic Christian.

Indeed, every Christian too, as we can so easily slip into the world's way of thinking.

Thank you, dear sister!

NOTE: The subject she addresses is homosexuality, but all she says applies to every sort of sinner!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHyMGocflrk&feature=share

**************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Sums it up succinctly. As the first few replies to your OP suggest, Christians all the more in this age, will have to face up to the fact that the gospel will not be popular with the world. Even knowing that, I still thought the video was going to be of a fire and brimstone type based on the replies, rather than the meek testimony I encountered.
The womans testimony should give us encouragement, that even though we may be met with venemous opposition, we are merely sowing the seeds. God will make it grow where he deems appropriate. We are not seeking friends, but giving life saving truth. Think of all the violence Jesus and his early disciples met on account of the Gospel. Think of the prophet Jeremiah, who was put in a pit on account of giving the truth to the King of Israels impending destruction. Christians are called to be salt. Remember, Jesus did not come to bring peace, but a sword! We turn the other cheek in this physical realm, but we must be dressed up for battle in terms of the spiritual war being wielded against humanity by its greatest enemy. Watering down the message is the biggest injustice we can inflict to our fellow man. It effectively sends them to sleep spiritually.

Zombrex · 11-02-2012 1:44pm

PDN wrote: »

Neither does the Bible speak about romantic love between members of different sexes where sex is not part of the equation.

The Bible regularly speaks of romantic love without mentioning sex at all. The not mentioning sex bit doesn't turn this into platonic love. There is no one in the Bible going "were they having sex or not? they were? ah must be romantic love then"

Romantic love between homosexuals is completely absent. And no, it is not found in descriptions of a father loving his son, or a sister loving her sister.

PDN wrote: »

No, and neither do I have sex with my sister. So what's your point?

My point is romantic love is not simply platonic love + sex acts. Nor is romantic love - sex acts = platonic love. They are different types of love whether you are physically having sex or not.

Therefore examples of platonic love between members of the same sex (father and son) are not example of the same thing as romantic love between homosexuals (whether or not they having sex, the act of having sex is irrelevant it doesn't change the type of love they feel).

A homosexual couple who are madly in love with each other but who, for some reason do not have sex with each other, do not have the equivalent loving relationship that a father and son might have, or that two sisters might have. Anymore than a heterosexual husband and wife who do not have sex with each other do not have the same relationship as a son and daughter.

It is an entirely different forms of love. I love my sister. I do not desire to marry her. I do not desire to live together for the rest of our lives (we would kill each other). I do not desire to share a bed with her, whether or not we would have sex or not.

I cannot tell if you are being facetious or whether you really don't see the difference.

But back to the original point, romantic love is a form of love that is in the Bible exclusively represented as heterosexual in nature. Men fall in love with women, women fall in love with men. The Bible is absent on the nature and beauty of romantic love between members of the same sex.

PDN wrote: »

I don't give two hoots whether someone calls that 'romantic' love or not - because that has nothing to do with the issues of sin as raised by the Bible and by Christian theology.

The Bible is (supposed to be) more than just a list of things you shouldn't do, isn't it. It is supposed to be a revelation about humanity, why we are as we are.

Where is the recognition of romantic love between homosexuals in the Bible? Again it is not found in descriptions of sisters who love each other, or the love between father and son.

It is absent from the Bible, and if I was a gay person I would see that as a pretty good reason to think that the Bible has little understanding of homosexuality, or even humanity since homosexuality takes up such a large chunk of humanity.

PDN wrote: »

I really don't know what you are trying to prove.

I'm not trying to prove anything. You seemed to genuinely not understand what Morbert was talking about.

I'm expanding on Morbet's point (and I hope I'm being accurate to his point) and explaining to you that the Bible has little to offer homosexuals in terms of a way to relate to them, since it completely ignores a huge aspect of their homosexuality, instead focusing purely on homosexuality in terms of sexual lust as if that was the only aspect of it.

Why would a homosexual think the Bible is an authority on how they should live their lives when the Bible doesn't seem to understand the first thing about what it is to be a homosexual?

For example where does the Bible recognize that a gay man may desire to marry another gay man? Desire to marry in the Bible is treated exclusively as a heterosexual act. It seems to have not even occurred to the authors of the Bible that a homosexual couple may want to marry. It says that a gay man may desire to have lusty sex with another gay man, and that this is wrong, but is silent on any of the romantic aspects of being gay.

Imagine you read a book about how to be a Christian, and all it talked about was how a Christian should desire to get into heaven, and then it stopped.

You would probably say that this book was nonsense, that there is a lot more about being a Christian than simply a desire to get into heaven, and that anyone who wrote such a book was clearly is ignorant of Christianity and doesn't understand it at all.

Would you be likely to accept this book as an authority on what it means to be a good Chrisitan? I sincerely doubt it.

PDN · 11-02-2012 2:27pm

Zombrex wrote: »

The Bible regularly speaks of romantic love without mentioning sex at all. The not mentioning sex bit doesn't turn this into platonic love. There is no one in the Bible going "were they having sex or not? they were? ah must be romantic love then"

So where in the Bible is romantic love mentioned where there is no sex, or prospect of sex in the future?

Romantic love between homosexuals is completely absent.

Indeed it is, but I'm not sure why you think this is important. I see no reason why we should expect the Bible to refer to it.

My point is romantic love is not simply platonic love + sex. Therefore examples of platonic love between members of the same sex (father and son) are not example of the same thing as romantic love between homosexuals.

I think you're rather missing the point. In terms of morality, which is what I was referring to in my interaction to Morbert, they are the same.

Of course you are free to think that they are different in terms of how they make you feel - but that is irrelevant to what we were discussing.

The Bible is (supposed to be) more than just a list of things you shouldn't do.

Where is the recognition of romantic love between homosexuals in the Bible? It is not found in descriptions of sisters who love each other, or the love between father and son.

The Bible deals with the relationship between mankind and God, and more specifically how God provided a remedy for the problem of sin.

For that reason the recognition of romantic love between homosexuals is found in the same bit of the Bible that deals with the correct voltage for my fridge, that discusses whether guitar music is nicer than trumpet music, or whether rugby is just for posh people. Since these things are irrelevant to the theme of the Bible we shouldn't expect to find much recognition of them.

I'm expanding on Morbet's point and explaining to you that the Bible has little to offer homosexuals in terms of a way to relate to them, since it completely ignores a huge aspect of their homosexuality, instead focusing purely on homosexuality in terms of sexual lust as if that was the only aspect of it.

No, you're ignoring Morbert's point, which was about how mainstream theology treats such relationships, and introducing a rather irrelevant point which, quelle surprise, takes us down another rabbit hole.

Why would a homosexual think the Bible is an authority on how they should live their lives when the Bible doesn't seem to understand the first thing about what it is to be a homosexual?

For example where does the Bible recognize that a gay man may desire to marry another gay man? Desire to marry in the Bible is treated exclusively as a heterosexual act. It seems to have not even occurred to the authors of the Bible that a homosexual couple may want to marry. It says that a gay man may desire to have lusty sex with another gay man, and that this is wrong, but is silent on any of the romantic aspects of being gay.

Neither does the Bible demonstrate understanding of the angst that might motivate someone to commit idolatry. If you want a psychological analysis of every possible human motivation and activity then I don't think anyone here is suggesting you look in the Bible for it.

tommy2bad · 11-02-2012 4:28pm

PDN:
If you want a psychological analysis of every possible human motivation and activity then I don't think anyone here is suggesting you look in the Bible for it.

You are. If all morality is based on the bible then it becomes your only source for anything.

PDN · 11-02-2012 4:41pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

You are. If all morality is based on the bible then it becomes your only source for anything.

No, that is a total non sequitur. If all morality is based on the Bible then it becomes your primary source for moral issues.

The Bible is not my only source, or even my primary source, for scientific knowledge, for music appreciation, for medicine, or indeed for psychology among other things.

Zombrex · 11-02-2012 5:44pm

PDN wrote: »

So where in the Bible is romantic love mentioned where there is no sex, or prospect of sex in the future?

Well taking an easy example, in Genesis Jacob worked 7 years in order to marry Rachel because he was in love with her. It explicitly states that he was in love with her. It doesn't say they were having sex that entire time, does it, and since they weren't married we assume they weren't.

Nor does it refer to Jacob as merely lust after Rachel. It refers to him as being in love with her. It doesn't say he loved her as a sister, it is quite clearly romantic love. His heart burned for her. In love with her for 7 years before they had sex. Now if Rachel had died year 6 would that mean Jacob never loved Rachel? Of course not.

Again I have to ask are you really not getting this point or are you just being facetious.

PDN wrote: »

Indeed it is, but I'm not sure why you think this is important. I see no reason why we should expect the Bible to refer to it.

Well yes, that is sort of the point.

To a gay person the idea that this fundamental aspect of their lives would be completely absent from a book that is supposed to explain human existence and God's love for humanity, well that is a stretch to put it mildly.

Imagine if you loved your wife, but there was nothing in the Bible about this love, nothing about your desire to be with her for the rest of your life, nothing about your wish to commit to her for the rest of your life, nothing about your feelings for her, your worry that she is safe, your concern that she is happy.

Imagine if your entire relationship was reflected solely in the Bible as a few commandement about your desire to shag her.

If that was the case is the Bible something you could relate to? I doubt it.

But luck for you that isn't the case. The Bible is over flowing with references to romantic love between heterosexuals, and I imagine you have referred to the Bible many many times to seek guidance when facing issues in your relationship with your wife.

In fact the web is full of articles, podcasts and videos of preachers doing just that, using the Bible as a model for a successful marriage. Some of them have been posted on this forum. Everything from when you should marry to the role the husband and the wife have in the marriage is discussed.

What passages would a homosexual turn to in the Bible to seek guidance on the correct manner to have a homosexual relationship. Other than don't have sex with each other?

PDN wrote: »

I think you're rather missing the point. In terms of morality, which is what I was referring to in my interaction to Morbert, they are the same.

Of course you are free to think that they are different in terms of how they make you feel - but that is irrelevant to what we were discussing.

It is not irrelevant at all. Like I said (and something you have said many times as well) the Bible is more than simply a list of things that are immoral.

Morbert was not simply saying that Christianity views homosexual acts as immoral, but that it views homosexual romantic love as illegitimate.

PDN wrote: »

The Bible deals with the relationship between mankind and God, and more specifically how God provided a remedy for the problem of sin.

For that reason the recognition of romantic love between homosexuals is found in the same bit of the Bible that deals with the correct voltage for my fridge, that discusses whether guitar music is nicer than trumpet music, or whether rugby is just for posh people. Since these things are irrelevant to the theme of the Bible we shouldn't expect to find much recognition of them.

And yet we find the theme of romantic love between heterosexuals throughout the Bible. In fact it is a core theme of the Bible.

Homosexuality on the other hand is relegated to a mere commandment not to have lusty sex with each other.

So again this is the point. There is no recognition in the Bible at all of even the existence of romantic love between homosexuals, let alone its beauty and power of such love.

Yet the Bible is full to the brim of beautiful words about heterosexual romantic love.

PDN wrote: »

No, you're ignoring Morbert's point, which was about how mainstream theology treats such relationships, and introducing a rather irrelevant point which, quelle surprise, takes us down another rabbit hole.

It isn't irrelevant at all (or at the very least I'll wait till Morbert tells me it is irrelevant). Mainstream theology is simply a reflection of the religion.

Even you yourself seem genuinely have not really considered that a homosexual couple could be in love with each other as a heterosexual couple are, instead equating it some how to the love between two sisters or a woman and her dog.

The Bible is regularly put forward as a guide to heterosexuals about the nature of love, what love between two people means, what commitment means, the nature and purpose of sex, how to express love to each other in the fullest. Regularly Christians talk about how they turn to the Bible to help with problems in their relationships, in their marriages.

And what is there in the Bible for homosexuals? Nothing but a few commandments not to have sex with each other. No understanding of homosexual love, no recognition of such a love, no guidance of how to manage such a love.

It is utterly utterly facetious to say that the Bible also doesn't tell me how to fix my fridge, given how much of the Bible is given over to love and marriage between heterosexuals, how much of a theme that topic is in the Bible.

Zombrex · 11-02-2012 5:45pm

PDN wrote: »

No, that is a total non sequitur. If all morality is based on the Bible then it becomes your primary source for moral issues.

The Bible is not my only source, or even my primary source, for scientific knowledge, for music appreciation, for medicine, or indeed for psychology among other things.

How influential has the Bible been in shaping and guiding your romantic relationships, including your marriage?

PDN · 11-02-2012 6:02pm

Zombrex wrote: »

How influential has the Bible been in your romantic relationships, including your marriage?

Extremely important, but it would not have helped me at all if I wanted to analyse any romantic feelings I might have hypothetically had if I had engaged in a relationship with a woman other than my wife, or indeed with a man or an Alsatian.

The Bible deals with romance in a particular context - and that context is marriage. It has very little to say about romantic feelings in relationships which involve sexual sin.

Well taking an easy example, in Genesis Jacob worked 7 years in order to marry Rachel because he was in love with her. It explicitly states that he was in love with her. It doesn't say they were having sex that entire time, does it, and since they weren't married we assume they weren't.

Nor does it refer to Jacob as merely lust after Rachel. It refers to him as being in love with her. It doesn't say he loved her as a sister, it is quite clearly romantic love. His heart burned for her. In love with her for 7 years before they had sex. Now if Rachel had died year 6 would that mean Jacob never loved Rachel? Of course not.

Again I have to ask are you really not getting this point or are you just being facetious.

You're the one not getting the point. Jacob did not enter into a relationship with Rachel on the understanding that they would hold hands on the sofa, eat ice cream, but never get it together in the sack. Romantic relationships, as described in Bible, involve sex. The fact that the sex is anticipated at a future stage does not mean that sex is not involved.

Well yes, that is sort of the point.

To a gay person the idea that this fundamental aspect of their lives would be completely absent from a book that is supposed to explain human existence and God's love for humanity, well that is a stretch to put it mildly.

It's only a stretch if you think being gay is the most important thing in your life. Being heterosexual is not the most important thing in my life. It wouldn't bother me unduly if the Bible spoke as little about marriage as it does about cooking pasta.

Imagine if you loved your wife, but there was nothing in the Bible about this love, nothing about your desire to be with her for the rest of your life, nothing about your wish to commit to her for the rest of your life, nothing about your feelings for her, your worry that she is safe, your concern that she is happy.

Imagine if your entire relationship was reflected solely in the Bible as a few commandement about your desire to shag her.

If that was the case is the Bible something you could relate to? I doubt it.

If my desire to shag her was a sin, then that would be all I would need to know.

What passages would a homosexual turn to in the Bible to seek guidance on the correct manner to have a homosexual relationship. Other than don't have sex with each other?

To know that I'd need to actually meet someone who was seeking a homosexual relationship where sex is not involved. While I would find such a conversation interesting, I recognise it might not happen since such individuals seem to be as rare as hen's teeth.

Anyway, I'll bow out of this discussion, since you're obviously in one of your moods where you'll argue till you're blue in the face that black is actually white. I was responding to Morbert before you took us down this particular rabbit trail, and I'll gladly continue the conversation with him if he wishes.

tommy2bad · 11-02-2012 6:09pm

PDN wrote: »

No, that is a total non sequitur. If all morality is based on the Bible then it becomes your primary source for moral issues.

The Bible is not my only source, or even my primary source, for scientific knowledge, for music appreciation, for medicine, or indeed for psychology among other things.

But it's more than a primary source it a final arbiter of right and wrong.
I wish this wasn't about homosexuality it's such a divisive issue that it makes making any point, er pointed. Lets say driving on the left side of the road, morally neutral, no biblical help. Monogamy, morally neutral but several biblical options that have developed as society developed. Now homosexuality morally neutral but biblically wrong. So we are stuck with a morality for homosexuals that is based on a 2000 year old text. No option for any social or moral development.

Why is any attempt to develop the thinking on homosexuality so anathema?
What exactly is the problem is it repulsion or fear or perceived threat?
Is their something specific about homosexual acts that puts them beyond the pail that heterosexual act don't contain?

Or is it that homosexual acts are forbidden like pork or buttons or meat on Fridays ?

Zombrex · 11-02-2012 6:23pm

PDN wrote: »

Extremely important, but it would not have helped me at all if I wanted to analyse any romantic feelings I might have hypothetically had if I had engaged in a relationship with a woman other than my wife, or indeed with a man or an Alsatian.

The Bible deals with romance in a particular context - and that context is marriage. It has very little to say about romantic feelings in relationships which involve sexual sin.

Yes but it also deals with the run up to marriage, as in the case of Jacob. Or more specifically it deals with heterosexual romantic feelings, both pre and post marriage, and views marriage as the ultimate expression of such feelings.

Which brings us right back to Morbert's original point. Romantic feeling between homosexuals are considered illegitimate according to Christianity.

PDN wrote: »

You're the one not getting the point. Jacob did not enter into a relationship with Rachel on the understanding that they would hold hands on the sofa, eat ice cream, but never get it together in the sack. Romantic relationships, as described in Bible, involve sex.

No, they involve sexual attraction. Again, if Rachel had been hit by a time travelling bus the day before they got married no one would say Jacob wasn't in love with her.

I know of at least 2 couples where physical sexual intercourse is not possible. No one would say that these couples are not romantically involved. Certainly no one would equate their relationship to that of a son and daughter.

PDN wrote: »

It's only a stretch if you think being gay is the most important thing in your life.

I think gay people, like a lot of straight people, probably think being in love, and having that love returned, is one of the most important things in life.

PDN wrote: »

Being heterosexual is not the most important thing in my life. It wouldn't bother me unduly if the Bible spoke as little about marriage as it does about cooking pasta.

I sincerely doubt that. But each to their own. This isn't really about you.

PDN wrote: »

To know that I'd need to actually meet someone who was seeking a homosexual relationship where sex is not involved. While I would find such a conversation interesting, I recognise it might not happen since such individuals seem to be as rare as hen's teeth.

Why would you need to actually meet someone. Say a paralyzed gay man came into your church and said he is in love with his partner but his partner wants to work. He feels his partner shouldn't work, that he should be the only one who provides for the house hold (a common issue with heterosexual marriage). What passages would you turn him to in the Bible?

Or heck just name any passage that guides homosexuals on their romantic relationships with each other. Any passage.

The Bible deals with marriage, it deals with family relationships, it deals with relationships between friends, it deals with relationships between neighbors, it even touches on relationships between slaves and slave owners, and employers and employees.

It is silent on homosexual relationships beyond a brief comment on sexual lust.

PDN wrote: »

Anyway, I'll bow out of this discussion, since you're obviously in one of your moods where you'll argue till you're blue in the face that black is actually white. I was responding to Morbert before you took us down this particular rabbit trail, and I'll gladly continue the conversation with him if he wishes.

Fair enough. You really don't have to do anything other than listen and try and understand.

Perhaps you have done that, though given you still come up with some very weird comments (such as the one about adultery) I expect that isn't the case.

These posts were only to help you follow the point. If you are done I'm done also.

lmaopml · 11-02-2012 6:36pm

PDN wrote: »

It's only a stretch if you think being gay is the most important thing in your life. Being heterosexual is not the most important thing in my life. It wouldn't bother me unduly if the Bible spoke as little about marriage as it does about cooking pasta.

Agree wholeheartedly. Being heterosexual doesn't mean that life is a bed of roses always.

tommy2bad wrote: »

So we are stuck with a morality for homosexuals that is based on a 2000 year old text. No option for any social or moral development.

I wouldn't quite section out homosexuals in this manner Tommy. The Bible speaks of Marriage between man and woman, and 'lust' whether it's within Marriage or no is contrary to God. There are no special people -

Why is any attempt to develop the thinking on homosexuality so anathema?

The same way as developing morals of anykind for anybody don't mind homosexuals is contrary to God. Sin is sin is sin is sin for everybody.

What exactly is the problem is it repulsion or fear or perceived threat?
Is their something specific about homosexual acts that puts them beyond the pail that heterosexual act don't contain?

To put it simply Christians understand that God created woman for man, both for eachother - Lust is dealt with as a sin for everybody no matter whom, but the best expression of love and sexual relations that are pleasing to God, are those found within the Sacrament of Marriage between one man and one woman.

Or is it that homosexual acts are forbidden like pork or buttons or meat on Fridays ?

I've already committed adultery if I even look at the fine muscles on the window cleaner in my job - that's how tight the union of marriage is, it's Holy! What God joins together, man shouldn't seperate, and Marriage in God's eyes is between one man and one woman - this is part of being a Christian. It doesn't mean that somebody who is homosexual is worse than me when I stare at those muscles and my eyes glaze over if you know what I mean. There are no special cases.

tommy2bad · 11-02-2012 6:46pm

lmaopml;
I've already committed adultery if I even look at the fine muscles on the window cleaner in my job
Sipping a diet coke while drooling no doubt.

I understand your point, the point I'm raising is marriage isn't even an option, not because God deemed it between one man and one woman because he didn't, that came later, but because the Jewish understanding of homosexuality didn't develop as fast as their understanding of monogamy. If their social development had stayed the same way as at the time of King David then polygamy would be the norm now.

wolfsbane · 11-02-2012 8:32pm

Zombrex wrote: »

It is not comparing the two, it is pointing out that the excuses for homosexual behavior (I was born this way, it is natural, i can't help it, it is not a choice, I can't change who I am) have no baring on the morality of homosexual actions. This fact is demonstrated by replacing homosexuality with something that is considered immoral by all (in this example pedophile) and highlighting that if you applied all the same excuses that still wouldn't make pedophile actions moral.

Or to put it another way, take a sentence such as

I was born a homosexual, I cannot change that it is who I am it is not a choice therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong.

and simply replace the word "homosexual" with "pedophile"

I was born a pedophile, I cannot change that, it is who I am, it is not a choice therefore pedophilia cannot be wrong.

Now, is pedophilia considered morally acceptable because of any of those reasons? No, of course not. Being born a pedophile has nothing to do with whether it is or isn't moral to have sexual relations with children.

So why would it make homosexuality moral? In reality it has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is or isn't moral, any more than it does with pedophilia.

Lets try another

Homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature, it is found in other species, you cannot then say that it is wrong.

Infanticide is naturally occurring in nature, it is found in other species, you cannot then say that it is wrong.

Does that mean infanticide is therefore moral? Nope, how wide spread infanticide is in nature is irrelevant to the question of whether it is moral. Thus it must also be irrelevant to the question of the morality of homosexuality.

This is a very common method of highlighting the weakness of an argument in support of something. Any argument for the morality of homosexuality that would also require that pedophile, murder, arson, child battery, infanticide etc etc also be considered moral is obviously flawed.

People need to get straight why they think homosexuality is moral (which to me is blindingly simply, it is a freely chosen consensual choice to be in a homosexual relationship which can be done in a healthy safe manner, so why would it be immoral) and base their reasoning of such first principles. The answer is actually far simpler than a lot of people make out. Huge problems arise when people try and marry Christianity with homosexuality, personally I think this is ridiculous. Homosexuality is demonstrably not a bad thing, to me Christianity proclaiming it is the equivalent of proclaiming the Sun goes around the Earth. You don't try and marry modern understanding with such an idea, you simple say the people who came up with the idea have no idea what they are talking about and reject it. Simples.

Thank you for exactly grasping my point and expressing it so clearly.

It is the 'born as' defence I was getting at. Certainly not equating the sin of homosexuality with the sin of paedophilia.

********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

wolfsbane · 11-02-2012 8:38pm

And just read PDN on the same. Thanks.

Yes, it is puzzling to say the least to see such poor logic advanced.

**************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

wolfsbane · 11-02-2012 9:04pm

Zombrex said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PDN
Morbert made a claim about mainstream theology, but you are citing a hypothetical example which, if it does ever occur, has hardly occurred often enough to merit a theological position.
Romantic love between two men or two women occurs all the time, ask any gay person in a loving committed relationship. While it involves desire, just as heterosexual romantic love does, the ability to have sex is not a requirement. Equally the removal of sex does not turn such romantic love into platonic love.

Or to put it another way, homosexuality is more than just a physical desire to have sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex. Homosexuals fall romantically in love with members of the same sex, as heterosexuals do to members of the opposite sex. This is more than a strong friendship. You may love your close friends, but you don't love them as you love your wife.

The Bible seems to utterly fail to recognize this, as do many Christians.

I'm sorry, I may not have grasped PDN's view of what constitutes romantic love as I've only got back to the thread and am pressed for time. But as far as I can see, romantic love is not platonic love. I can love a woman as a spiritual sister, or a man as a spiritual brother (as per David and Jonathan). But romantic love includes the sexual element, whether or not it is physically expressed.

But I disagree that the Bible fails to recognise there is unlawful romantic love. Amnon 'loved' Tamar, his half-sister, and was sick with love. He raped her - then found he was out of love. Romantic love is emotional and often transitory. It takes an act of the will to make it hold.

Certainly sexual lust can exist on its own - but much lust involves exactly the same romantic love as is valid between the sexes. Good people get trapped in adultery at times because of this romantic element, rather than bare sexual need.

So whether one feels romantically about one's neighbour's daughter, or one's neighbour's wife, or the neighbour himself - the first is valid, the latter two not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PDN
I am unaware of any major theologian, or any denomination, taking a position as to the sinfulness or otherwise of a same sex couple wanting to maintain a romantic but non-sexual relationship.
Well yes, that is the point. Such a concept is absent from Christianity, which views homosexuality almost exclusively in terms of sexual desire. Even you yourself compared the love between two members of the same sex absent of sexual lust in totally non-romantic terms, such as a father and a son. Such a concept of romantic love between two men seemed alien to you.

The concept of a man loving another man as a man might love a woman is absent in Christianity. Homosexuality is viewed purely in terms of sexual lust, and the only other concept of same sex "love" is non-romantic father-son, mother-daughter. And I think we can agree that loving your sister is not the same type of love as the love one has for their wife.

I can't see PDN's definition of romantic love in any of my reading. He could be right about how commentators & theologians view it, but I've never picked it up.

Homosexuality is wrong, be it romantic only or filled out with sex. The desire itself is sinful, just as my desire for another man's wife - however romantically based - would be sinful.

*******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Good example of 'speaking the truth in love'

Comments