I'm sorry, I wasn't starting the whole tired Homosexuality vs Christianity debate again. But you haven't quite seen my point, I didn't hate God for condemning the act of sex, but my desire for it, which is such a core part of who someone is. I assume you're straight, can you imagine having to quash the feelings of attraction you have for men? Well, there's arguments backwards and forwards for it and this isn't the thread for them, I was just deatailing my former stance.
And I was detailing mine. Yes I can imagine quashing it since all desire is is some signal your body sends you like pain or hunger demanding treatment it doesn't care what you do so long as it's fixed I usually don't even think about guys I think about what I want done to me and that's all.
Praise reason! No more chains.
Yay for you but not everyone wants to indulge in it if anything sexuality IS the chains
Questions for debate;
Can sexuality, gay, lesbian, straight, or otherwise, be controlled?
Is the demand that you control yours chains or is the sexuality itself the chains?
My stance; I mentioned before there was some sheik that once sommented that it was all the woman's fault that men rape them, for being "uncovered" like not covering meat in front of a cat. I don't really see the God vs sexuality debate as much different and despite what he said about women he also insulted men too, they're not some pathetic cat that can't control themselves. Imagine what that would mean otherwise...............
'Belief is never giving up.'- Random footy adverisement.
Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.
I'm sorry, I wasn't starting the whole tired Homosexuality vs Christianity debate again. But you haven't quite seen my point, I didn't hate God for condemning the act of sex, but my desire for it, which is such a core part of who someone is. I assume you're straight, can you imagine having to quash the feelings of attraction you have for men? Well, there's arguments backwards and forwards for it and this isn't the thread for them, I was just deatailing my former stance.
And I was detailing mine. Yes I can imagine quashing it since all desire is is some signal your body sends you like pain or hunger demanding treatment it doesn't care what you do so long as it's fixed I usually don't even think about guys I think about what I want done to me and that's all.
Praise reason! No more chains.
Yay for you but not everyone wants to indulge in it if anything sexuality IS the chains
Questions for debate;
Can sexuality, gay, lesbian, straight, or otherwise, be controlled?
Is the demand that you control yours chains or is the sexuality itself the chains?
My stance; I mentioned before there was some sheik that once sommented that it was all the woman's fault that men rape them, for being "uncovered" like not covering meat in front of a cat. I don't really see the God vs sexuality debate as much different and despite what he said about women he also insulted men too, they're not some pathetic cat that can't control themselves. Imagine what that would mean otherwise...............
Can sexuality, gay, lesbian, straight, or otherwise, be controlled?
If we mean the innate urges or whether those urges are heterosexual or homosexual in nature, then I would say no.
If you mean behavior, then I would generally say yes, within reason.
From a Christian standpoint, the Bible at the very least allows an outlet for sexuality through marriage. It is unclear whether sex outside of marriage is always sinful, but it is in general frowned upon.
According to Paul, the ideal would be that we all remain celibate. However, he says it is better to marry than to burn with lust.
Not that this needs to be another homosexuality thread, but it seems to me to allow a sanctioned outlet for heterosexuals and not homosexuals is an 'unreasonable chain.'
Certainly in all instances sexual desire is not an excuse for violence. Neither is such violence the fault of the victim, even if they were somehow being 'provocative' in dress, etc.
Is the demand that you control yours chains or is the sexuality itself the chains?
I don't see sexuality as a 'chain'. However, it is a part of who we are that can have a detrimental impact depending on how one deals with it.
Whether the demand that it be controlled is a 'chain' depends on exactly what is being demanded. An external demand of celibacy I think is oppressive by nature.
However, a 'calling' to be celibate that is voluntarily accepted is something else entirely.
I would not personally make any 'demands' regarding sexual behavior except for people to in general behave in a responsible manner. Don't knowingly spread disease. Don't use your sexuality to harm or manipulate others. Certainly do not commit sexual violence. Take responsibility for offspring that arise.
Can sexuality, gay, lesbian, straight, or otherwise, be controlled?
In a word, no.
No one has ever come up with any scheme for doing so.
Attempts at doing so, from monesteries to abstinence programs, have left a wasteland of human misery.
Rape, for example, can be seen as a result of this "control". Why should someone who is intent on violence choose to express it through rape (i.e. by sexual activity)? We are so used to viewing rape as violence that we almost can't see that on the face of it this is absurd. Sexual activity is inherently non-violent, and to use it as violence requires a great deal of social conditioning.
In other words, our morality has made sex such a "bad thing" that people can use it as a violent crime even though it is not a violent act.
This is the result of the religious drive to "control" sexuality.
(In addition, there have been many other negative consequences, from psychopathic sex-murderers to soul-crushing guilt at one's own normal sexual feelings.)
From a Christian standpoint, the Bible at the very least allows an outlet for sexuality through marriage. It is unclear whether sex outside of marriage is always sinful, but it is in general frowned upon.
Well it does say Exo 22: 16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride price, and she shall be his wife. If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride price for virgins"
There was also Jesus saying lust wasn't any different from adultery although one debater did point out how can it be adultery if say you're attracted to your partner.
Not that this needs to be another homosexuality thread, but it seems to me to allow a sanctioned outlet for heterosexuals and not homosexuals is an 'unreasonable chain.'
No, and I was hoping it wouldn't have to be
In a word, no.
No one has ever come up with any scheme for doing so.
There's a first time for everything
Rape, for example, can be seen as a result of this "control". Why should someone who is intent on violence choose to express it through rape (i.e. by sexual activity)?
Rape often enough happens during a date a girl has with a man she wouldn't otherwise suspect, and because he say offers her a ride home and the girl doesn't agree, yet the guy doesn't take no for an answer because he expects that in particular for return. (Brent Sanders "How dagerous men think- and how to stay safe for life" 2001)
We are so used to viewing rape as violence that we almost can't see that on the face of it this is absurd. Sexual activity is inherently non-violent, and to use it as violence requires a great deal of social conditioning.
In other words, our morality has made sex such a "bad thing" that people can use it as a violent crime even though it is not a violent act.
In the case where when it is seen as a bad thing affecting conditioning, the one who feels guilty associates the guilt with the desire and though this can be a basis for sadism (though it also relates to hierophilia) (Dr Stephen Juan "the odd sex" 2001) there are clubs out there for that particular thing, it doesn't necessarily lead to rape.
A common misconception though I have found, if this is also something you are going to refer to, is that the church is the cause of pedophilia but that in fact is caused by the person in question having being abused themselves and blaming the church would not explain those incidents involving teachers.
Serial rapists do what they do in order to compensate for their own feelings of inadequacy physically, mentally and sexually and try to look macho (Brent Sanders "How dangerous men think- and how to stay safe for life" 2001)
(In addition, there have been many other negative consequences, from psychopathic sex-murderers to soul-crushing guilt at one's own normal sexual feelings.)
Yeah? Well there's guilt, but then on the opposite end there's that powerless feeling. If you don't control it others might. You can get women out there that use their looks to get men to do whatever they want you don't want that happening do you?
'Belief is never giving up.'- Random footy adverisement.
Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.
Can sexuality, gay, lesbian, straight, or otherwise, be controlled?[/quote
Yes it can. That is what Christianity is all about. No one can be saved by the Mosaic Law because no one can keep the whole of that Law, except for Jesus who kept it on our behalf and paid the penalty for our sins by dying on the cross. In like manner our flesh dies too on that cross and he raises us up as a new creation.
We who accept Jesus's finished work on the cross receives the Holy Spirit, God in Us. A helper Who works in us to transform our inner nature until the Law of God is written in our hearts and we naturely do the good god created us to do. This is the work of God in us.
The Mosaic Law could not eradicate sin in us because it kept our focus on sin. Like riding a motorcycle, where we look is where we go. For the very commandment that warned us not to do something bad also stirred in our flesh the very sin our mind was agreeing not to do. So the effect of the Mosaic Law was to cause us to sin all the more, to show us how helpless we are and how much we can't do it on our own will, how much we really need God.
For Jesus said to those under the Mosaic Law: John 5:39-47
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
NASU
Thus the Apostal Paul too, in the book of Hebrews, calls the Mosaic Law worthless in that it could not save anyone. Then He points out that Jesus is not a Priest according to the earthly temporary priesthood of Levi, But His is an everlasting priesthood according to the order of Melchelzidek. And that where there is a change of Priesthood there is a change of covenant [Law].
The New Laws of the New Covenant in Jesus differ from those from the Mosaic Covenant in that the Mosaic Law we had to keep, but through the laws of the New Covenant God Keeps us.
What are these new Laws that supplant the Mosaic covenant?
The 1st Law is found in the the 8th chapter of Romans:
Rom 8:1-30
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh — for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, " Abba! Father!" The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. NASU
For more info about the Holy Spirit, read Easyrider's detailed post under the subject "Holy Spirit"
The 2nd Law is called the perfect law: It is The Law of Liberty. Liberty means to be put in a wide place, you have many choices that you are free to make. Another important aspect of the Law of Liberty is that mercy triumphs over judgement. As Jesus said, 'As you judge, so shall you be judged; as you measure, so will it be measured unto you.'
James 1:19-25 you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.
James 2:12-13
"So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. NASU
The 3rd Law is called the Royal Law:
James 2:8 If, however, you are fulfilling theroyal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well.NASU
The 3 laws work together in perfect harmony.
The 1st Law says that as a Christian, The Holy Spirit resides in us, God in me, and through the Spirit we have fellowship with God, we should seek Him and talk to Him, everyday. He says Knock and it shall be open unto you, Seek and you will find, Ask and it shall be given to you. The 1st law is God in us, working in us, to be the beautiful being that we were created to be, revealing good and truth to us on a continous basis. As Homer wrote, without God, man is nothing. We have an advocate in Jesus. If we spend time with God, the Spirit will guide us as we think upon "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you."Phil 4:8-9 NASU
The 2nd Law, The Law of Liberty, gives us much freedom and that we should not restrict the freedom of others that God has given. That we should be merciful to one another.
The 3rd Law, the Royal law of Love, is to Love our Neighbor as ourself. If you love your neighbor, you will not use your freedom in a manner that will harm anyone. 1st Law is 'God in us' that we may not harm ourselves. the 3rd Law "The Royal Law of Love" puts a balance on the 2nd Law, The Law of Liberty that we may not harm anyone. The As Paul wrote, 1 Cor 10:23-24
"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor."
NASU
By these laws and relationships, we will have self control and it will be effortless to do so, for it will be be our very nature to do the right thing by all others due to our relationship with god and the work He performs in us. Eliminate any one of these laws and it all fails. The road there may been painfull, long, and ardous, for God disciplines those whom He calls and loves.
scorpia wrote:Can sexuality, gay, lesbian, straight, or otherwise, be controlled?
micatala wrote:If we mean the innate urges or whether those urges are heterosexual or homosexual in nature, then I would say no.
If you mean behavior, then I would generally say yes, within reason.
From a Christian standpoint, the Bible at the very least allows an outlet for sexuality through marriage. It is unclear whether sex outside of marriage is always sinful, but it is in general frowned upon.
According to Paul, the ideal would be that we all remain celibate. However, he says it is better to marry than to burn with lust.
I agree with micatala here - sexual behaviour can be controlled and conditioned. Sexuality (the underlying drives) cannot, as they are simply part of human nature. There are parts of Christianity that deal well with these drives, in an almost egalitarian way with regard to men and women (monogamous partnerships being the preferred form to keep sexuality from causing social problems), and there are other parts of Christianity that don't deal well at all with them (the Gnostic and anti-Jewish elements focussed on spiritual purity and saw all sexuality as something base, animalistic and sinful).
Of course, many Old Testament Scriptures encourage and even revere sexuality (Genesis, for example, when God told his people to 'be fruitful and multiply'; or the love story of Esther, or the Song of Songs being only a few examples). And then in the New Testament there is a drastic change in tone. It was never mentioned in the Gospel whether or not Jesus was a sexual being (though as a rabbi in those times it would have been scandalous if Jesus were not married). And of course, micatala brought up the excellent example of the Epistles, where Paul declares that the preferred course for everyone would be celibacy. This has been problematic, particularly among some splinter Protestant groups (like the Shakers, who refused to breed and accordingly died out).
I think perhaps the most reasonable way to view sexuality from a Christian perspective is as something natural and (for better or for worse) God-given. Sexual urges and feelings, like sexual behaviours, become sinful only when they become lustful ('lust' here in its appropriate definition as the subjugation or exploitation in thought or action of another person's will for sexual ends). The human being, body and mind, is God's image: there is a great difference between enjoyment of God's image in another and abuse of it for one's own pleasure.
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.
Scorpia, I don't think you can keep comparing homosexuality and rape since I am talking about sex between consenting adults, not sexual abuse. It's a version of the thin end of the wedge argument and casts homosexuality in a bad light.
micatala made my point for me: since there is a legitimate outlet for heterosexual desires through marriage in the bible, that there isn't one for homosexual desires is the chain that I see with Christian beliefs. I would basically have to abandon any hope of that wonderful thing, a physical and emotional union with another human being. I'm simply not willing to do that. But in any case, now I realise there is no God, I don't even have to rationalize such things.
I have taken part in many sexuality vs. christianity arguments and they are endlessly tiring, I am itching to type more but will bow out.
Scorpia, I don't think you can keep comparing homosexuality and rape since I am talking about sex between consenting adults, not sexual abuse.
I was not in the first place, or at least not homo= rape. I was relating comments of said shiek as above but not necessarily because it was to do with rape; if the comment was reffering to men's behaviour simply being harrasment, or toned down to just gawking, well the men would still be helpless and the women/ God would still be the ones to blame. I just don't agree with that. It's like blaming McDonalds for making their food too tasty and it's all their fault that one is fat. Doesn't necessarily mean go starve yourself but it still seems rather weak willed.
Speaking of food though, how does going ahead and indulging yourself help any? You eat chocolate in excess then it gets boring it's more fun when you're on a diet.
micatala made my point for me: since there is a legitimate outlet for heterosexual desires through marriage in the bible, that there isn't one for homosexual desires is the chain that I see with Christian beliefs. I would basically have to abandon any hope of that wonderful thing, a physical and emotional union with another human being.
And that is unbearable, why?
'Belief is never giving up.'- Random footy adverisement.
Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.
I was not in the first place, or at least not homo= rape.
Ok, my mistake.
Speaking of food though, how does going ahead and indulging yourself help any? You eat chocolate in excess then it gets boring it's more fun when you're on a diet.
But you still get to eat chocolate, even if it is in infrequently. Even infrequent homosexual acts aren't permitted by the bible. I'm all for savouring things, and not going to excess, there's plenty of reasons why eating too much is a bad thing, though not because eating or indulgence is inherently bad, only its consequences. The bible teaches homosexual acts to be inherently immoral, despite there being no bad consequence of them (with the religious exception of being sent to hell). This is my utilatarian morality pitted against your axiological morality, i.e. that things have an inherent value to them (as defined by your scriptures).
Quote:
micatala made my point for me: since there is a legitimate outlet for heterosexual desires through marriage in the bible, that there isn't one for homosexual desires is the chain that I see with Christian beliefs. I would basically have to abandon any hope of that wonderful thing, a physical and emotional union with another human being.
And that is unbearable, why?
....do you have a heart? Can't you see how awful this is for someone?
And you still have your left hand, if you'll pardon my rudeness
....do you have a heart? Can't you see how awful this is for someone?
I have never been with anyone, and I'm not about to go looking for someone, I have given up the idea that I would find anyone, and I'm fine on my own. I do not find it "awful."
'Belief is never giving up.'- Random footy adverisement.
Sometimes even a wise man is wrong. Sometimes even a fool is right.
