Sexual Orientation

Mardy Bum

philologos wrote: »

I think what Christians should be concerned about is introducing people to the Lord Jesus through evangelism, and it is as we introduce people to see the living Lord Jesus and as people accept Him as Lord and as people are encouraged to follow Him that true transformation in society can happen.

As Christians we pray in the Lord's prayer:
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed by thy name,
thy kingdom come, thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven,
give us this day our daily bread,
forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us,
Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever,
Amen.

Do we really believe it when we say "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"? Do you realise how powerful that statement is?

It means, God's opinion trumps yours. God's word comes first. That means we speak and live by God's standards rather than the standards of a fallen world.

Do you have any idea the revisionism Christianity went through from the original Marcionite version of Christianity to the Pauline version of Christianity, which in turn choose its own books for the bible; the huge revisions which each new author of the different books of New Testament made so as to make it more appealing to non believers. The difference from Mark to John is astounding. You do realise that the whole idea of Heaven didnt take shape until a good half century after Jesus died? Matthew's Kingdom of Heaven is taken from Mark's Kingdom of God which was to be on earth. Then by the time we get to John this has taken a lovely turn for the better. What about this wonderful line by Jesus to a woman looking for help "Its not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs".

My point is you cannot take morals from a book wrote for the sole purpose of trying to make people convert to the religion as something which modern day humans must adhere to. Morals are built on philosophical and ethical grounds without any need for a book wrote two thousand years ago.

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you would have no problem for the State to teach incest is OK to your kids, if it was made legal? Or bestiality? Or racial supremacy? Does being legal make it OK? Does majority opinion make it OK?

We do have to have a basic public morality if we are going to have the State educate our kids. I'm arguing for the sexual morality component of that to be the the Christian one. What one are you arguing for? What morality do you say should be taught in schools?

What? racial supremacy was taught to kids one time, if legal then yes it should be part of the education.

It makes it legal. It makes it the norm.

See I don't disagree that you should fight your corner, but you have to accept the decision of the majority. Strangely I don't see homophobia as all that Christian. So we disagree, why should your view supersede mine?
By all means make your case but 'the bible tell me so' isn't much of a case for non bible believing types.

PDN

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Do you have any idea the revisionism Christianity went through from the original Marcionite version of Christianity to the Pauline version of Christianity,

Hopefully he is better educated than to have any such idea. After all, Marcionism came along nearly a century after Paul wrote his epistles. oops!

philologos

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Do you have any idea the revisionism Christianity went through from the original Marcionite version of Christianity to the Pauline version of Christianity, which in turn choose its own books for the bible; the huge revisions which each new author of the different books of New Testament made so as to make it more appealing to non believers. The difference from Mark to John is astounding. You do realise that the whole idea of Heaven didnt take shape until a good half century after Jesus died? Matthew's Kingdom of Heaven is taken from Mark's Kingdom of God which was to be on earth. Then by the time we get to John this has taken a lovely turn for the better. What about this wonderful line by Jesus to a woman looking for help "Its not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs".

My point is you cannot take morals from a book wrote for the sole purpose of trying to make people convert to the religion as something which modern day humans must adhere to. Morals are built on philosophical and ethical grounds without any need for a book wrote two thousand years ago.

Read the links in my signature. There's evidence to show that all of the New Testament books that we use were written from the first century, and used in the early church from that point onwards.

There's no evidence that the New Testament has been significantly altered since the first century either, and there's more manuscript evidence for the New Testament in comparison to any other ancient text.

What about that wonderful line from Jesus? Are we going to have a discussion about it in Mark chapter 7 for example?

Mardy Bum

PDN wrote: »

Hopefully he is better educated than to have any such idea. After all, Marcionism came along nearly a century after Paul wrote his epistles. oops!

I meant in relation to the formation of the New Testament as Marcion was the first to start collecting Christian writings two centuries before it started to coalesce.

Ignore the rest of the post though just to be careful.

philologos wrote: »

Read the links in my signature. There's evidence to show that all of the New Testament books that we use were written from the first century, and used in the early church from that point onwards.

There's no evidence that the New Testament has been significantly altered since the first century either, and there's more manuscript evidence for the New Testament in comparison to any other ancient text.

What about that wonderful line from Jesus? Are we going to have a discussion about it in Mark chapter 7 for example?

Ok lets take the one crowning example of a Biblical revision to suit the author at the time of writing, in Mark at the end of the crucifixion he comes out with the line "My god my god why have you foresaken me". In Luke he seems to have came upon some great realisation (it was written a decade later), "Father into your hands I commend my spirit" and then in John he knew what was going on the whole time "It is finished". Mark seems to be pretty inconvenient in that context.

The stories were written after Jesus died on second and third hand information. Any proper literary critic could go through the bible and point out numerous inconsistencies.

philologos

Mardy Bum: The texts were widely used in the second century church, even before they were put into a single volume. That's historical reality. We know this from the writings of the church fathers.

Oh, and having studied Mark quite a bit this year, I disagree with your conclusion that the "Kingdom of God" described in it was exclusively on earth, and I disagree even more strongly that Mark does not point to eternity as a result of that conclusion.

As for alleged inconsistencies in the accounts, I'd welcome you to post them with full quotations on the Atheist / Christian debate thread that is if you're actually interested in hearing the case for Christianity.

This thread is about sexual sin, and how Christians should respond to it.

Mardy Bum

philologos wrote: »

Mardy Bum: The texts were widely used in the second century church, even before they were put into a single volume. That's historical reality. We know this from the writings of the church fathers.

Oh, and having studied Mark quite a bit this year, I disagree with your conclusion that the "Kingdom of God" described in it was exclusively on earth, and I disagree even more strongly that Mark does not point to eternity as a result of that conclusion.

As for alleged inconsistencies in the accounts, I'd welcome you to post them with full quotations on the Atheist / Christian debate thread that is if you're actually interested in hearing the case for Christianity.

This thread is about sexual sin, and how Christians should respond to it.

Yes exactly and I am trying to point of the fallacies in responding to it from a biblical perspective. If a sexual act is consensual and is not inflicting pain or hurt on others directly then for all intents and purposes any Christian should deem it satisfactory.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

.....

This thread is about sexual sin, and how Christians should respond to it.

Well...if they think its a sin (whatever "it" might be) they'd be supposed to avoid doing "it". Those that do otherwise will be (according to that view) judged in the next life.

lmaopml

The idea of 'life' from a Christian perspective is that, every single 'life' comes as a gift from God and that the creation of life and the young is a 'Holy' thing -

Tell a parent in the labour ward that their child is not the biggest 'gift' to them that they have to cherish them now but watch the onslaught of others - Christianity is an extension of that childs right to life - an aspect of Christianity is being the voice of every single child, because it's children that know the simple joys even in deep poverty, they are more Christlike than most.

That's why children are a 'gift' - not a burden, they have a way of surprising! Although life sometimes can be very hard, most people find their 'joy' in their children, and not only that but also in their 'parents' too - who most likely sacrificed to give their life to them, which is something one may not entirely understand for some time, for their interest and growth in all ways of life. The world gets in the way so much - as a parent one would want to be a champion boxer not to see their children following the crowd in many ways.

Mardy Bum

lmaopml wrote: »

The idea of 'life' from a Christian perspective is that, every single 'life' comes as a gift from God and that the creation of life and the young is a 'Holy' thing -

Tell a parent in the labour ward that their child is not the biggest 'gift' to them that they have to cherish them now but watch the onslaught of others - Christianity is an extension of that childs right to life - an aspect of Christianity is being the voice of every single child, because it's children that know the simple joys even in deep poverty, they are more Christlike than most.

That's why children are a 'gift' - not a burden, they have a way of surprising! Although life sometimes can be very hard, most people find their 'joy' in their children, and not only that but also in their 'parents' too - who most likely sacrificed to give their life to them, which is something one may not entirely understand for some time, for their interest and growth in all ways of life. The world gets in the way so much - as a parent one would want to be a champion boxer not to see their children following the crowd in many ways.

The love felt after giving birth has nothing to do with Christianity, its a product of reciprocal altruism and parental investment theory which has been developed through evolution.

Actor

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Giving birth and the love felt afterwards has nothing to do with Christianity, its a product of reciprocal altruism and parental investment theory which has been developed through evolution.

Wha?

lmaopml

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Giving birth and the love felt afterwards has nothing to do with Christianity, its a product of reciprocal altruism and parental investment theory which has been developed through evolution.

Thank 'Evolution' that you are a valuable opinion...

Nah..don't think so just wait for the joy to make things more crystal clear, seeing your baby. There is nothing like being responsible for others and especially family, the needy the young and the old - that's where one begins to understand and reach out for God, because most of the time they know him better than you do. Or I.

But some don't, and won't. It's always been that way.

Andrewf20

wolfsbane wrote: »

Andrewf20 said:

God created Adam's nature - a perfect nature, sinless. That nature was however able to choose to sin - and Adam did. We call that the Fall of Man.

Our nature since has been twisted, sinful, opposed to God. God has to intervene if we are to get a new nature.

But why would a perfect nature that is sinless have an impulse to sin? A perfect being who is sinless would surely recognise sin and avoid it. If it doesnt then its not perfect in nature. Did God then create an imperfect nature in Adam, hence the fall?

philologos

Mardy Bum wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Mardy Bum: The texts were widely used in the second century church, even before they were put into a single volume. That's historical reality. We know this from the writings of the church fathers.

Oh, and having studied Mark quite a bit this year, I disagree with your conclusion that the "Kingdom of God" described in it was exclusively on earth, and I disagree even more strongly that Mark does not point to eternity as a result of that conclusion.

As for alleged inconsistencies in the accounts, I'd welcome you to post them with full quotations on the Atheist / Christian debate thread that is if you're actually interested in hearing the case for Christianity.

This thread is about sexual sin, and how Christians should respond to it.

Yes exactly and I am trying to point of the fallacies in responding to it from a biblical perspective. If a sexual act is consensual and is not inflicting pain or hurt on others directly then for all intents and purposes any Christian should deem it satisfactory.

This thread is about what Christians believe about sexuality.

To say that Christians should live like atheists is useless.

There's nothing fallacious about consulting the Bible as a Christian. In addition I'm convinced that if you present any of your alleged fallacies on the Atheist / Christian debate thread that they will come to nothing.

tommy2bad

To say that Christians should live like atheists is useless.

But too many Christians insist that atheists live like Christians. In fact they try to make it illegal to live otherwise.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

But too many Christians insist that atheists live like Christians. In fact they try to make it illegal to live otherwise.

Ultimately yes I believe strongly that all should repent and believe.

But if someone asks what the Christian position on sexuality is, expect a Christian and biblically based answer.

If one is to live as a Christian it means following what God has commanded. I don't expect non-believers to care about this. I hope that they eventually do come to know Jesus.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

Ultimately yes I believe strongly that all should repent and believe.

But if someone asks what the Christian position on sexuality is, expect a Christian and biblically based answer.

If one is to live as a Christian it means following what God has commanded. I don't expect non-believers to care about this. I hope that they eventually do come to know Jesus.

Im sorry, but I just dont see why God would actually care about sexual orientation or who is sleeping with who. Surely even homosexual sex is an expression of love, So why would God be upset with an expression of love which is consensual between two people.

Leave Bible quotes out of this , as anyone can counter with the Bible is written by imperfect man with hangups

philologos

God cares about the relationships we form with others, God cares intrinsically for our ultimate well being, and God cares for family. If God didn't genuinely love us, sure, I don't see why God would care. However, it is since that God does genuinely love and care for mankind (Psalm 8 for example), it is that He gives us these standards for our own good.

If you don't care about God, that'll mean you probably won't care much for His commandments, this why I don't expect non-believers to follow Christianity. However, if you do care about God, and if you genuinely do believe that He knows best, you'll stand by His principles even when those in the secular world fly in the face of godliness. I believe that God was right when He said that sexual relationships should happen in a loving marriage between a man and a woman.

If you want to discuss Christianity, discussing the Bible comes as a part of that. If you want to discuss this on the atheism forum, be my guest. However, if people come in here to discuss Christian views, the Bible should be discussed.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

God cares about the relationships we form with others, God cares intrinsically for our ultimate well being, and God cares for family. If God didn't genuinely love us, sure, I don't see why God would care. However, it is since that God does genuinely love and care for mankind (Psalm 8 for example), it is that He gives us these standards for our own good.

If you don't care about God, that'll mean you probably won't care much for His commandments, this why I don't expect non-believers to follow Christianity. However, if you do care about God, and if you genuinely do believe that He knows best, you'll stand by His principles even when those in the secular world fly in the face of godliness. I believe that God was right when He said that sexual relationships should happen in a loving marriage between a man and a woman.

If you want to discuss Christianity, discussing the Bible comes as a part of that. If you want to discuss this on the atheism forum, be my guest. However, if people come in here to discuss Christian views, the Bible should be discussed.

I dont remember the thou shalt have sex with a man in the 10 commandments. If God loves us surely he should be happy when we find love no matter who it is with. Where does God say himself that being gay is wrong?

Im sorry but if God would punish or be displeased with someone over something they have no control over , that is not a fair God or a God I would be subjected to

Doesnt the Bible teach to kill those who dont believe, we dont tend to follow those rules though

philologos

Sin City wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

God cares about the relationships we form with others, God cares intrinsically for our ultimate well being, and God cares for family. If God didn't genuinely love us, sure, I don't see why God would care. However, it is since that God does genuinely love and care for mankind (Psalm 8 for example), it is that He gives us these standards for our own good.

If you don't care about God, that'll mean you probably won't care much for His commandments, this why I don't expect non-believers to follow Christianity. However, if you do care about God, and if you genuinely do believe that He knows best, you'll stand by His principles even when those in the secular world fly in the face of godliness. I believe that God was right when He said that sexual relationships should happen in a loving marriage between a man and a woman.

If you want to discuss Christianity, discussing the Bible comes as a part of that. If you want to discuss this on the atheism forum, be my guest. However, if people come in here to discuss Christian views, the Bible should be discussed.

I dont remember the thou shalt have sex with a man in the 10 commandments. If God loves us surely he should be happy when we find love no matter who it is with. Where does God say himself that being gay is wrong?

Im sorry but if God would punish or be displeased with someone over something they have no control over , that is not a fair God or a God I would be subjected to

Doesnt the Bible teach to kill those who dont believe, we dont tend to follow those rules though

If you're going to claim the Bible says something quote it.

In a number of passages Jesus defined a marriage between a man and a woman. Mark 12 for example and Matthew 19. Other writings in the New Testament such as 1 Coribthians 6 and Romans 1:26-27 mention homosexual acts as sin. The first context for marriage which was quoted by Jesus is in Genesis 2.

The Ten Commandments aren't the only guidelines that Christians live by.

People do have control over what they choose to do. I have desires, not all of them should be acted upon. Humans are rational creatures.

Delirium

Philo, can you show where Jesus defines marriage as between a man and a woman in Mark 12 and Matthew 19?

Had a look at an online version and can't see in either passage where Jesus gives a definition of marriage.

wolfsbane

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Ok so I take it you are not a Catholic then either. Is there any reason for your stance i.e the particular church you belong to or is it a personal decision?

The reason I am a creationist is because the Bible seems to clearly teach a recent, mature, creation. And I believe the Bible because God has convinced me that it is His word.

My church also believes it, and for the same reasons. The Christian church as a whole believed it, until relatively recently.

*********************************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

wolfsbane

Sin City wrote: »

informed consent cant be.given in the case of bestiality and depending on the age of incest , unturned consent also can't be given, also the genetics of any offspring could be at risk

comparing these to homosexuality is abhorrent

So you would accept incest if it were between adults who used contraception? And would be happy to have an incestuous couple as mum & dad in your kids readers?

I'm using several forms of sexual perversion as examples to get you to think clearly. I'm not equating them other than as being sex outside marriage. You rightly rule out any that are not based on consent - so I'm asking if you are happy with consensual incest, polygamy, etc.

*******************************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

wolfsbane

Cossax said:

You wouldn't ever just stick your signatures into...you know, a signature, would you?

Not since my signature - a Bible verse - was banned/censored by the boards.ie moderator. Apparently it is an offence on a Christian forum to quote as a signature a Bible text that says women must not teach in the Church.

The state should get its morality through a framework of consultation but where ultimately we allow as much freedom as possible, so long as it doesn't infringe on others. That way, we wouldn't have to deal with Dark Ages era prejudices.

There is a difference between freedom and morality. We can uphold the freedom of those who have a different morality to ours. They can be free to hold and preach what we think nonsensical or immoral. But when the State comes to teach morality, then we must aim for a morality that is the lowest common denominator for our society. We can all agree that murder, rape, theft is immoral. But we do not agree on a lot of sexual relationships, so we have to pick stuff we do agree on. I think all regardless of their sexuality would find the historic mum & dad of kids' readers moral. Many would find other relationships moral - but many would not. We should go with the agreed stuff.

That way we do not face kids being taught homosexuality is either moral or immoral - just that some people are homosexual and have the same freedom has heterosexuals to be so. And the kids are not taught that religion is either moral or immoral - just that some people are religious and have the same freedom has atheists to be so.

As such, I can't see why the hypothetical state would have an issue with polygamy but to bring in incest, bestiality or pedophilia is muddying the waters at best and bigotry if we were to be uncharitable.

I've no problem with a State allowing polygamy or incest, providing it is consensual. Both are immoral, but are matters of individual freedom.

I brought the whole spectrum of sexual perversions in to challenge the idea that something is OK if its legal. You seem to agree with me on that.

******************************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

wolfsbane

tommy2bad said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So you would have no problem for the State to teach incest is OK to your kids, if it was made legal? Or bestiality? Or racial supremacy? Does being legal make it OK? Does majority opinion make it OK?

We do have to have a basic public morality if we are going to have the State educate our kids. I'm arguing for the sexual morality component of that to be the the Christian one. What one are you arguing for? What morality do you say should be taught in schools?
What? racial supremacy was taught to kids one time, if legal then yes it should be part of the education.

It makes it legal. It makes it the norm.

Wow! Racial supremacy should be taught in school if it is made legal!

OK, I see where you are coming from - but I wouldn't want my kids being taught it. As a citizen, I hope that enforcing disputed morality on school kids will not become the practise in my country.

See I don't disagree that you should fight your corner, but you have to accept the decision of the majority.

I don't agree that the majority should impose its morality on all.

Strangely I don't see homophobia as all that Christian.

Depends what you mean by homophobia. Hatred of homosexuals is not Christian; but hatred of homosexuality is. Christians are to hate all sin.

So we disagree, why should your view supersede mine?

You are free to have your views - I'm not imposing them on anyone. I just object to anyone imposing their views on me.

By all means make your case but 'the bible tell me so' isn't much of a case for non bible believing types.

It's not a matter of the freedom to believe one way or the other. I'm happy to tell you what God says and you are free to accept or reject that. What I'm objecting to is your view on homosexuality being imposed on me or my kids.

************************************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

wolfsbane

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But why would a perfect nature that is sinless have an impulse to sin? A perfect being who is sinless would surely recognise sin and avoid it. If it doesnt then its not perfect in nature. Did God then create an imperfect nature in Adam, hence the fall?

You offer your definition of 'perfect'.

But God is the Maker of all, so His definition of 'perfect' is the one I go by.

Why did He make men and angels originally with the ability to sin? He doesn't say.

***********************************************************************
Genesis 1: 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Sin City

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you would accept incest if it were between adults who used contraception? And would be happy to have an incestuous couple as mum & dad in your kids readers?

I'm using several forms of sexual perversion as examples to get you to think clearly. I'm not equating them other than as being sex outside marriage. You rightly rule out any that are not based on consent - so I'm asking if you are happy with consensual incest, polygamy, etc.

*******************************************************************
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Honestly , the whole incest thing isnt my bag but if it with consent, I could possibly accept it. I mean the amounts of children out there with different fathers but the same mothers, if they grew up apart hadnt known about each other and went out got married then found out, would/could you condemn them?

As for polygymy you are supposed to give all of yourself to your wife, how can you do that with several women?

philologos

koth wrote: »

Philo, can you show where Jesus defines marriage as between a man and a woman in Mark 12 and Matthew 19?

Had a look at an online version and can't see in either passage where Jesus gives a definition of marriage.

Matthew 19:3-6.
Mark 10:6-9

tommy2bad

wolfsbane wrote: »

tommy2bad said:

Wow! Racial supremacy should be taught in school if it is made legal!

OK, I see where you are coming from - but I wouldn't want my kids being taught it. As a citizen, I hope that enforcing disputed morality on school kids will not become the practise in my country.
When dose it become undisputed? when 100% agree?

I don't agree that the majority should impose its morality on all.
Indeed democracy should never become the tyranny of the majority.

Depends what you mean by homophobia. Hatred of homosexuals is not Christian; but hatred of homosexuality is. Christians are to hate all sin.
I presume you mean hatred of anal sex.


You are free to have your views - I'm not imposing them on anyone. I just object to anyone imposing their views on me.

No one is, you are free to remain heterosexual and monogamous and creationist and Christian.
It's not a matter of the freedom to believe one way or the other. I'm happy to tell you what God says and you are free to accept or reject that. What I'm objecting to is your view on homosexuality being imposed on me or my kids.

And I object to your view being imposed on me and mine, or more accurately my view being censored so yours will have an advantage.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

And I object to your view being imposed on me and mine, or more accurately my view being censored so yours will have an advantage.

Where is either happening?