Christianity, its great if you are straight

archdukefranz · 07-09-2007 07:06PM

Jakkass wrote:

This is why one needs to look at the context of Acts 15. It was based on the Pharisees in Jerusalem saying that all who convert need to be circumcised. This led to further discussion of the Law of Moses. The elements of the Law of Moses to be kept are listed. Sexual immorality would be referring to sexual immorality in the Law of Moses since that is what the Apostles are discussing.

Er no....
Because he is saying we should write to the gentiles and say "don't be sexually immoral"

and what does he do.. he writes to the gentiles and says "don't be sexually immoral" so its sexually immoral from the perspective of the gentiles

philologos · 07-09-2007 07:12PM

archdukefranz wrote:

Er no....
Because he is saying we should write to the gentiles and say "don't be sexually immoral"

and what does he do.. he writes to the gentiles and says "don't be sexually immoral" so its sexually immoral from the perspective of the gentiles

The discussion is what they should keep from the Law of Moses. It would be a bit stupid to tell the Gentile believers to keep away from sexual immorality when they have nothing to base it on surely. Don't you find something illogical about that? Also. Paul was fluent in the Law as he had been a Pharisee beforehand. Bear in mind that Christianity is seen as the fulfilment of Judaism. The topic of discussion in the chapter is clearly about the Law of Moses, that is why they had been summoned for discussion in Jerusalem to see which elements of the Law the Gentiles should keep.

Scofflaw · 07-09-2007 07:17PM

Jakkass wrote:

The discussion is what they should keep from the Law of Moses. It would be a bit stupid to tell the Gentile believers to keep away from sexual immorality when they have nothing to base it on surely. Don't you find something illogical about that? Also. Paul was fluent in the Law as he had been a Pharisee beforehand. Bear in mind that Christianity is seen as the fulfilment of Judaism. The topic of discussion in the chapter is clearly about the Law of Moses, that is why they had been summoned for discussion in Jerusalem to see which elements of the Law the Gentiles should keep.

But if the Gentiles are non-Jews, why does Paul expect them to know the Jewish laws?

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos · 07-09-2007 07:29PM

Paul expects them to adhere to the rulings of the Law that the Council of Jerusalem (guided by the Holy Spirit) concluded.

archdukefranz · 07-09-2007 07:37PM

Jakkass wrote:

The discussion is what they should keep from the Law of Moses. It would be a bit stupid to tell the Gentile believers to keep away from sexual immorality when they have nothing to base it on surely. Don't you find something illogical about that? Also. Paul was fluent in the Law as he had been a Pharisee beforehand. Bear in mind that Christianity is seen as the fulfilment of Judaism. The topic of discussion in the chapter is clearly about the Law of Moses, that is why they had been summoned for discussion in Jerusalem to see which elements of the Law the Gentiles should keep.

Jakkass we can see in all the other letters that he didn't give a big explanation of what sexual immorality was... he just said sexual immorality...
If he meant the that the law should be kept up in that sense then his letters to gentiles would have been more explicit as homosexuality certainly wouldn't have been considered immoral by Romans or Greeks... why didn't Paul explain that that was included?

archdukefranz · 07-09-2007 07:39PM

Jakkass wrote:

Paul expects them to adhere to the rulings of the Law that the Council of Jerusalem (guided by the Holy Spirit) concluded.

Er so say I live in Greece.. and I get a letter saying I'm not supposed to be sexually immoral... and I don't live anywhere near Jerusalem... how am I supposed to find out about it?
I think it would be included in pauls letters if it was wrong.

philologos · 07-09-2007 07:53PM

archdukefranz wrote:

Er so say I live in Greece.. and I get a letter saying I'm not supposed to be sexually immoral... and I don't live anywhere near Jerusalem... how am I supposed to find out about it?
I think it would be included in pauls letters if it was wrong.

Paul trained the believers to be able to both know what was moral and immoral and to preach the message of Christ. I suggest you read the book of Acts.

Acts 18:24-26 wrote:

At a time a Jew named Apollos, who had been born in Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent speaker and had a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm he proclaimed and taught correctly the facts about Jesus. However he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquilla heard him, they took him home and explained to him more clearly the Way of God.

Paul spent up to two years in some places teaching the people of what it meant to be a Christian and how to live a moral life. Much of the sources came from his letters, and from his preaching while he was there before moving on. Then the believers were left to evangelise for themselves. What is interesting is before Paul had even been to Rome, there were believers waiting for him there.

Acts 28:15 wrote:

The believers in Rome heard about us and came as far as the towns of Market of Appius and Three Inns to greet us. When Paul saw them he thanked God and he was greatly encouraged

Nevyn · 07-09-2007 07:54PM

Esp considering to greek standards having sex with a woman who was already pregant or not just for the aim of getting her pregnant was 'immoral'.

Scofflaw · 07-09-2007 08:12PM

Jakkass wrote:

Paul trained the believers to be able to both know what was moral and immoral and to preach the message of Christ. I suggest you read the book of Acts.

Paul spent up to two years in some places teaching the people of what it meant to be a Christian and how to live a moral life. Much of the sources came from his letters, and from his preaching while he was there before moving on. Then the believers were left to evangelise for themselves. What is interesting is before Paul had even been to Rome, there were believers waiting for him there.

We, on the other hand, are dependent on his letters, in which he does not mention homosexuality?

Note that I'm not really disputing the idea that Christianity condemns homosexuality. I am always quite surprised by a religion that doesn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos · 07-09-2007 08:16PM

Scofflaw wrote:

We, on the other hand, are dependent on his letters, in which he does not mention homosexuality?

Note that I'm not really disputing the idea that Christianity condemns homosexuality. I am always quite surprised by a religion that doesn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In Romans 1 he refers to it. And I don't see why we are dependent on his letters. We have the Law of Moses in all of our Bibles as well.

Scofflaw · 07-09-2007 08:44PM

Jakkass wrote:

In Romans 1 he refers to it. And I don't see why we are dependent on his letters. We have the Law of Moses in all of our Bibles as well.

Yes, sorry about that - I meant to ask where he refers to the Council of Jerusalem. I'm familiar with the passage about "...receiving in themselves..." etc.

Your reference to the Bible, on the other hand, is anachronistic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos · 07-09-2007 09:52PM

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes, sorry about that - I meant to ask where he refers to the Council of Jerusalem. I'm familiar with the passage about "...receiving in themselves..." etc.

Your reference to the Bible, on the other hand, is anachronistic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Much of Paul's letters would have been based on his personal knowledge and interpretation of the Torah. Having been brought up in a strict Jewish life, even after being converted in Damascus would have caused him to have a very Judeo-centric view of morality.

Scofflaw · 07-09-2007 11:23PM

Jakkass wrote:

Much of Paul's letters would have been based on his personal knowledge and interpretation of the Torah. Having been brought up in a strict Jewish life, even after being converted in Damascus would have caused him to have a very Judeo-centric view of morality.

Yes, he was a Pharisee. Where did he refer to the Council of Jerusalem, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos · 08-09-2007 07:52AM

well the meeting was called because of Paul's nature of dealing with the Gentiles and objections to how he preached the Law of Moses.

Scofflaw · 08-09-2007 11:09AM

Jakkass wrote:

well the meeting was called because of Paul's nature of dealing with the Gentiles and objections to how he preached the Law of Moses.

OK - I was hoping for a reference? Or is this an extra-Biblical tradition?

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos · 08-09-2007 01:40PM

I think most of his works were written before the Council of Jerusalem. But a lot of it was based on the Law of Moses if you even compare.

Scofflaw · 08-09-2007 03:23PM

Jakkass wrote:

I think most of his works were written before the Council of Jerusalem. But a lot of it was based on the Law of Moses if you even compare.

Well, yes. That would be hardly surprising for a Pharisee, who always were more about the letter than the spirit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN · 09-09-2007 02:34AM

Scofflaw wrote:

OK - I was hoping for a reference? Or is this an extra-Biblical tradition?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Many (but not all) New Testament scholars think that Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the Council of Jerusalem.

I find it very unlikely that the reference to "immorality" was an endorsement of the entire set of Old Testament regulations concerning sexuality. However, bearing Romans 1 & 1 Corinthians 6:9 in mind, we can be fairly certain that the early churches under Paul's instruction would have included homosexuality under the general heading of "immorality".

PDN · 09-09-2007 08:18PM

archdukefranz wrote:

Gender roles is a major thing at the moment in my life..
I started thinking about the fact that God is refered to as male...
there is the whole wives submit to your husbands etc...
This doesn't suit me... I'm a guy, I'm not dominant in a sexual relationship nor do I ever plan to be, I don't see how this effects my ability to serve "God"
Expand that further, does anyone think its ok to cross dress or take on attributes associated with the female gender etc.?
Is part of being a man of God being masculine?

Human nature being what it is, most of the thread has focused on the aspect of the OP that asks about sexual behaviour. However, there are 2 other issues in the OP that are, IMHO, worthy of consideration.

1. God is above male and female. It is true that the male pronoun is always used of God, but that is probably more for linguistic reasons than any theology. We do the same thing everyday when we refer to humanity as 'mankind' rather than 'womankind'.

2. The OP seems to confuse gender stereotypes with sexuality. In fact many homosexual men are very macho & some heterosexual men have effeminate mannerisms. It's perfectly possible to be a firmly heterosexual man without being dominant in a sexual relationship. The Bible actually says that husbands & wives should submit to one another in love.

As for cross dressing, there are Old Testament passages that prohibit men wearing women's clothing & vice versa. Different people interpret these verses differently. Some would say they are ceremonial, in which case they would not apply today. Others believe they are moral, and so are still in force.

One interesting aspect of this thread is the sophistry it reveals on the part of some posters. Some who argued on another thread that Christianity is fundamentally homophobic now are telling the original poster that homosexuality is compatible with biblical Christianity.

Fanny Cradock · 09-09-2007 09:13PM

PDN wrote:

One interesting aspect of this thread is the sophistry it reveals on the part of some posters. Some who argued on another thread that Christianity is fundamentally homophobic now are telling the original poster that homosexuality is compatible with biblical Christianity.

Yes, I did find that quite odd.

Scofflaw · 09-09-2007 09:17PM

PDN wrote:

Many (but not all) New Testament scholars think that Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the Council of Jerusalem.

Yes, I can see that interpretation.

PDN wrote:

I find it very unlikely that the reference to "immorality" was an endorsement of the entire set of Old Testament regulations concerning sexuality. However, bearing Romans 1 & 1 Corinthians 6:9 in mind, we can be fairly certain that the early churches under Paul's instruction would have included homosexuality under the general heading of "immorality".

I'd certainly accept that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 09-09-2007 09:29PM

PDN wrote:

One interesting aspect of this thread is the sophistry it reveals on the part of some posters. Some who argued on another thread that Christianity is fundamentally homophobic now are telling the original poster that homosexuality is compatible with biblical Christianity.

I think the phrase "enough rope to hang yourself" comes to mind ...

Christianity, as an organised religion, is homophobic. You can see this from Paul onwards. The question Arch needs to ask himself is if he thinks that is really what Jesus wanted his religion to represent.

Excelsior · 09-09-2007 11:21PM

Wick, that is a complex question in itself on numerous levels and with all due respect to you, I don't think you are all that interested in helping Archduke through that process (not that it is your responsibility!).

I know the OP and so next time we have lunch we might get around to talking about this topic but putting this out on record might be a good idea and a prompter to more profitable discussion.

If Jesus is who he says he is then one can conclude that he is also telling the truth about what becoming his disciple will do to you- he is unambiguous that the process of following him as Lord/Teacher/Rabbi/Master (take your pick) will involve a total transformation of the person. As such, I think Christianity is great- regardless of whether you are straight or gay or bi or somewhere even more obscure on the grand spectrum we call "sexuality". If Jesus is who he says he is then it will challenge every individual's sexuality to follow his path. If Jesus is who he says he is then discussion about Paul's interpretation contra James or Athanasius or Calvin might be interesting but it doesn't change the nature of the proposition- Christ is above all powers, all urges and all identities, including my raging naked-lady fetish.

10-09-2007 12:34AM

PDN wrote:

One interesting aspect of this thread is the sophistry it reveals on the part of some posters. Some who argued on another thread that Christianity is fundamentally homophobic now are telling the original poster that homosexuality is compatible with biblical Christianity.

Are you sure it's not a case of them saying some christians interpret it so as to be homophobic but it can be taken the other way too

Zombrex · 10-09-2007 12:41AM

Excelsior wrote:

Wick, that is a complex question in itself on numerous levels and with all due respect to you, I don't think you are all that interested in helping Archduke through that process (not that it is your responsibility!).

Well obviously I would like the out come where Archduke doesn't think homosexuality is a mortal sin that will land someone in ever lasting torment in hell. That isn't because I believe either way, it is because I don't think it is healthy to believe such things.

Excelsior wrote:

If Jesus is who he says he is then it will challenge every individual's sexuality to follow his path. If Jesus is who he says he is then discussion about Paul's interpretation contra James or Athanasius or Calvin might be interesting but it doesn't change the nature of the proposition- Christ is above all powers, all urges and all identities, including my raging naked-lady fetish.

You seem to be working under the assumption though that Jesus has a big thing against sex, homosexual or otherwise, and therefore to follow him one must give that up or replace it with him.

TBH the Christian preoccupation with sex speaks more about Christians than Jesus.

Jesus hardly ever mentioned sex, yet it seems to be all his followers, then and now, talk about.

Scofflaw · 10-09-2007 01:01AM

Wicknight wrote:

Well obviously I would like the out come where Archduke doesn't think homosexuality is a mortal sin that will land someone in ever lasting torment in hell. That isn't because I believe either way, it is because I don't think it is healthy to believe such things.

Essentially, we'd prefer Archduke to be happy being who he is. If he wants to be both homosexual and Christian, then we are happy to point out that there are interpretations of Christianity that regard that as perfectly possible.

What we would be against would be for him to decide to abandon either part because some sects of Christianity regard homosexuality (well, anything other than strict current-socially-normative heterosexuality) as completely incompatible with being a good Christian - when there are interpretations of Christianity that disagree with that very restrictive message.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN · 10-09-2007 01:46AM

Wicknight wrote:

Jesus hardly ever mentioned sex, yet it seems to be all his followers, then and now, talk about.

I spend most of my time conversing with Christians and the percentage of the conversation that refers to sex is certainly lower than when I used to chat with my mates in the pub before my conversion.

Statistically I believe that a quick glance at these boards will show that most of the threads and posts are on matters unrelated to sex. Most of the threads that do refer to sex (this one being an exception) are initiated by atheists or agnostics who appear to have a fixation with Christians' beliefs on sexuality.

Excelsior · 10-09-2007 06:34AM

PDN wrote:

I spend most of my time conversing with Christians and the percentage of the conversation that refers to sex is certainly lower than when I used to chat with my mates in the pub before my conversion.

I'd totally agree with this. I spent a lot of my working week in my office where guys from the church come and just hang out and drink coffee. They range in age from 20 up to about 50. Some are single, some are married, some seperated or divorced. Everything gets discussed but there is a notable frankness in the conversation about sex compared to the conversation with my friends (cos you know I only talk to the church guys cos I get paid to do it

).

I'd totally reject in fact, the idea that Christianity is preoccupied with sex. I've heard about 12 sermons about sex in the last 5 years and all have had as their main focus the gift of God that sex is, the quite dramatic power that it has for bringing people together and in one case, one of Ireland's most esteemed evangelical elder-statesmen was wearing a t-shirt that read "God made sex for us to enjoy it" that was given to him by his congregation. The next time I will hear a sermon about sex is next Sunday when the church I work for is hosting an open forum on the role of gender in today's society and the place of sex in the individual's life. My experience, which is typical of mainstream evangelicalism, has been that sex is dealt with much more positively, engagingly and relevantly than you would propose. An unhealthy preoccupation doesn't begin to describe it.

Furthermore, you know full well that we don't think that sex is a "mortal sin" for which you are to be condemned to hell. It's that kind of repeated comment that drives the saner Christians away to talk about other things else where. You've been on these boards long enough now to have even by osmosis absorbed the doctrine of sin that historic Christianity has held to. Sin is like parasite on the human body. The things you typically call "mortal sins" are just symptoms of an underlying disconnect between every individual human and their own psyche (you admit as much with your "be true to yourself-isms"), every other person, their environment and ultimately at root, their God.

As far as church traditions that engage with the contemporary norms of sexuality in the western societies, I think Jesus spoke rarely and strongly on sexuality. He was the man who said that if your eye causes you to lust, tear it out. He was a man who explicitly laid out covenantal marriage as the context for sexual intercourse. As I wrote last night, if you are saying that is too restrictive you are really redefining Jesus as something less than the Christ. Which is fine, but I sort of feel like both of you are failing to see this, which is a central aspect of the issue we're presented with.

Zombrex · 10-09-2007 09:11AM

Excelsior wrote:

I'd totally reject in fact, the idea that Christianity is preoccupied with sex. ... one of Ireland's most esteemed evangelical elder-statesmen was wearing a t-shirt that read "God made sex for us to enjoy it" that was given to him by his congregation.

You reject the fact that Christians are preoccupied by sex yet your congregation felt the need to make a joke T-Shirt to explain how sex is not a bad thing, that God gave us sex for us to enjoy.

Did you think why there needs to be a t-shirt in the first place? Maybe because the traditional Christian view that people are used to is that sex is immoral and evil.

Excelsior wrote:

Furthermore, you know full well that we don't think that sex is a "mortal sin" for which you are to be condemned to hell. It's that kind of repeated comment that drives the saner Christians away to talk about other things else where.

Excelsior if you don't think being an active homosexual will land someone in hell I welcome that. I just wish you could convince the rest of the Christian posters here.

Excelsior wrote:

The things you typically call "mortal sins" are just symptoms of an underlying disconnect between every individual human and their own psyche (you admit as much with your "be true to yourself-isms"), every other person, their environment and ultimately at root, their God.

See that is the problem. I don't see homosexual sex as wrong. I don't see it as a "disconnect" from anything, quite the opposite. I see it as the connection of two people, and when done in love, it is as powerful as any heterosexual love.

Viewing homosexuality as sexually wrong, then looking in the Bible for the bits that say don't do sexually wrong things and concluding therefore that the Bible says don't have a homosexual relationship is simply cyclical justification.

Excelsior wrote:

As I wrote last night, if you are saying that is too restrictive you are really redefining Jesus as something less than the Christ.

Only if one thinks that Christianity is supposed to restrict. Jesus mentions a man and a woman getting married, so only a man and woman can get married. After all homosexuality is wrong, so why would Jesus say it is ok.

TBH with you if Jesus is the person you guys hope he is he would be the first to baulk at such pedantic following of his speech.

It is missing the wood for the trees, ignoring why Jesus would tell people to watch their sexual lust, or why people would wish to get married.

But again, as I said, what do I care. People take from the passages what they want to take. I doubt I can convince anyone here who already believes that homosexuality is wrong otherwise because the Bible will appear to them to support this no matter what, as it does all things. My hope is only that Arch hasn't reached that point yet and that he can find in the Bible an interpretation that doesn't lead him down that path.

PDN · 10-09-2007 12:11PM

Wicknight wrote:

You reject the fact that Christians are preoccupied by sex yet your congregation felt the need to make a joke T-Shirt to explain how sex is not a bad thing, that God gave us sex for us to enjoy.

Did you think why there needs to be a t-shirt in the first place? Maybe because the traditional Christian view that people are used to is that sex is immoral and evil.

Maybe because of the repeated stereotypical false assertions by outsiders who really should know better?

Christianity, its great if you are straight

Comments