God and Sex

Post Reply New Topic

You come dangerously close to hypocrisy here. Is compliance with the letter of scripture required or not? If it is, then your starting position of Christ's example fails. But if it is not, and it is the spirit of the law that is the core, then it is up to each and every individual Christian to come to an individual understanding of the spirit of scriptural law.

You are in no way competent to tell another person what the spirit of scripture means to that person, just as that person is not competent to do the same for you. If you believe that homosexuality is prohibited by the spirit of Christian scripture then you are morally prohibited from engaging in it. But you have absolutely no basis on which to claim that a homosexual Christian is subject to the same moral constraint.

Every single Christian has an individual relationship with God, and God's Law speaks to each of them differently.

You're over-simplifying the issue, and ignoring what I wrote in doing so. Theology is a very complex subject and discipline, to the extent that doctored theologians (like my best friend) admit that not even they can explain everything about the Bible, God, the World, or flawlessly articulate the exact intended meaning behind each and every verse that tells us how to live. Study indeed helps, but it does not answer all questions, nor should it be expected to.




Within margins, as I said and explained. Again, you try to alter what I, in order to avoid confusion, very clearly wrote. The Bible is 5.5 million characters in length in English, and is a book of mind-boggling specificity and breadth of subject matter, so it was clearly not intended to be essentially shelved and forgotten by someone who says, as you do, that whatever you feel God wants is the way you should be, ergo "Who needs the Bible when I can just divine all knowledge in my own head?" You pretend I advocate that foolishness which you want to practice.

And on THAT note, I will answer the following with the aforementioned, not-to-be-shelved Scripture:



Romans 1:24-32
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
http://www.biblegateway.com

If you interpret those passages as God smiling on your lifestyle, who am I to stand in your way? Go wild.
I don't think you'll die if you abstain from sex with men, though. If it IS a choice between that and death, the God I know -- the God of the Bible -- would understand.

Smile on? Not exactly.

The Romans passage deals with idolatry, and it is very clear according to the context at the time "homosexuals" were actually pederasts having sex with young male prostitutes. There is no real explicit condemnation in the Bible regarding it.

I am taking this from the footnotes in the newest edition of the New American Bible and a book I had to read when I went to a Jesuit high school (used in 2002, in case the year 1986 throws you off regarding the timelines). You can tell it is tricky because in the Catechism it states homosexuality has changed in meaning through history (CCC 2357; the Vatican website has terrible ways of trying to get around to find the actual one, but I have a paper copy of it). The Catechism also references the story of Lot and the angel (where it never happened and it is not clear what the actual sin was) and 1 Tim 1:1-10 (the latter has the same footnote as 1 Cor 6:9-10). It does not mention the two Leviticus verses, more than likely due to the fact they concern more with idolatry to the child sacrifice god Molech.

That is a good trick with Bibles. They might have the same verses, but I am willing to bet the footnotes describe a different take on events, if they mention them at all. Next time you cite a verse, please claim what Bible you use and the year it was published. That would make the conversation more fair and clear.

It is a joke anyway. I went to Catholic school for 12 years and they must have did a terrible job trying to convince me to think these ways about gays, especially in terms of their parenting. You do understand they do not have sex every time your back is turned, right? I seemed to pick that up from your last sentence, I am sorry if I misinterpreted that.

Since when are idolatry and sexual indulgence with the wrong partners separate sins? Paul's point is precisely the connection between idolatry and wrongful sex. But don't take my word for it:

Romans 1:21-27, NIV


We surround ourselves with idols daily -- anything you like more than God is an idol, and boy are there a LOT of those things in this country. (I do try to keep myself in check, though.) Indeed, pederasts existed commonly in the Roman Empire. (You wouldn't believe where I learned about pederasty: C.S. Lewis! "Surprised by Joy", I think the book is called. And, no, not that kind of joy.) But the "New American Bible" isn't on the list of the 29 English Bible versions at my Bible website, biblegateway.com, so it seems like an obscure version to me (with a reinterpretive agenda, perchance?). But the New American Standard, the NIV, and -- of course -- the King James Version (but, then again, King James was gay, wasn't he?) all indicate men having sex with men, not boys. And I don't have the Catholic book that you cited, so I will need more evidence from you on your "men"-means-boys claim.

But here's another question: Let's say you're right, and God wasn't talking about gay sex between adults. Wouldn't that sex be adultery, since gay marriage didn't exist?
And what did "women" being "inflamed with lust for one another" have to do with pederasty? Were there women-girl couples, too?
Also (I'm almost done), pederasty was commonly a rite of passage for young boys and otherwise-straight men in the Greek and Roman worlds. So these men would be bisexual. Yet, verse 27 says the men "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another". Also, in "Men committed shameful acts with other men", "men" are men, and "other men" are boys?

One could argue from the Romans passage that God hates the way these men turned to gay sex -- "exchanging the truth for a lie", thus being fundamentally perverse -- as much as the gay sex itself, but it's undeniable that He hates them both. Indeed, he hated gay sex in the Old Testament as well:

Leviticus 20:13, NIV


I'm not saying we are under the law; I agree with Paul: we're not under the law, but under Grace. Nonetheless, my point stands that God did not like gay sex then (Lev 20:13) and He does not like it even when we are under Grace (the Rom & 1 Cor passages I cited). Was it about pederasty in Lev too? So, even though a boy is, by God's law, not responsible for his own sins, but rather his father is, the apparent-boy (who is called "a man" once again) shall be put to death along with the actual man he had sex with? And in that one case only, the boy becomes responsible for his own sins?

Not buyin' it.

Last edited by Ragtime on 25 Oct 2011, 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's called, 'logic' and 'consistency.'

I had this warning flag come up when I read this...



...and this explains it. The New American Bible is on the Vatican's website. That is why I used it, and that is why I have it. I told you I went to Catholic school. My reference to men=boys is literally in the footnotes of Tim and 1 Cor. The Romans passage even says "Punishment of Idolators" in its heading. In fact, the Cor reference also mentions Romans as well (EDIT: Took out unnecessary words, I think I went overboard). All the Bibles you named were Protestant. This makes my point perfectly in terms of what is interpreted how. You should buy the bible, it is only like 10 American dollars and probably is at fine bookstores everywhere.



What are the couple verses before that? I mentioned it already. Plus, do you actually put them to death? Of course not, because it is very clear that it references idolatry to Molech if you actually read my previous post, or actually read the verses before that. You do understand the Jews were more lenient than the other cultures around them? They sometimes did not kill everyone after they won a battle, which the others did. The argument is weaker than most people think since they do not know about the other cultures, since they all died off. I have a hard time believing they actually would kill someone more because of gay sex than worshiping idols.

This of course this is all in the Bokenkotter book, which again, I was taught at a Jesuit (Catholic) high school. Actual priests told me that. (EDIT: Same as above). Something tells me you are not very fond of the people who ran my school, or the branch in general, since you basically ignored every reference to the Church I gave. Other than the notion of buying the book yourself, I am more than certain now that you are not going to believe anything I post looking like it came from this book. The very first sentence I quoted says it all.

Your premise is based on the fact that homosexuality is idolatry, which is sketchy at best and I do not think the majority of people agree with. Granted, if you actually believe this fallacy, then you would be right. I cannot deny that. But this definition is either insane or rather convenient. I do not know what else to tell you.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 26 Oct 2011, 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

I have observed that you certainly don't practice what you preach, but what do you
take as your God's view of the effects of a tonsillectomy and sex with the same God?

Tadzio

1 Tim 1:9-11

This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, ἀρσενοκοίτης *, slave traders**, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

* I left the original language here so you can follow my working.
** I wish some Southerners had read this word, especially since they never seem to have a problem looking at the proceeding word.

The direct translation of ἀρσενοκοίτης is actually two words; man and soft. The same word is used in the Corinthians verse. Everything hinges on how you translate this word. I would read these; http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj3h.pdf, http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/h ... hians6.pdf, http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/pd ... isited.pdf

And so puddingmouse wins by default. b9 has decided to throw an insult to disguise his lack of a good argument. Good job

Yeeaaahhhh.....ummmm...I'm not exactly sure what's going on with that. b9 seems like an ok guy to me--but personally I feel no obligation to agree with anybody if I'm not inclined to agree. That doesn't mean I take anything personally or as a personal insult (if it's obvious that it's an insult, which I frequently miss, then I just ignore it anyway). If you wanna dish it out in PPR, be sure you can take it.

But whatever... If that's how b9 feels, then I say just let it go. There's no point in insulting someone just because they themselves use insults. It looks to me as long as at least one person is insistent on watching his own language, very likely the positive influence will spread.

well i apologized. i edited my posts as well. i was very tired and i did not know what i was replying to really.

i just said a sort of a joke to begin with, then someone said it had already been done, and i did not realize that was said as a joke, and i did not know it was not puddingmouse who said it, and so i assumed when she said "your god"...and "twisted fun" etc, that she was mocking me, and so i thought she thought i was religious etc etc, and i replied very immaturely.

i was wrong in what i interpreted, and i also answered stupidly.

the most worrying thing is that i did not think that puddingmouse would be hurt by what i said. i knew she would probably be angry, but i did not mean to hurt feelings.

i did not know she took anything i say seriously because she has greater mental ability than me, and i thought she would react by ridiculing me.

i am sorry i will carefully read what i reply to in future.

Its all good. Everyone overreacts sometimes, myself included. Sorry if I was kind of a jerk too



Well I agree with you, AngelRho, about dishing out and receiving, but I disagree with saying "I consider you to be stupid". "Your opinion is stupid because..." would even be more acceptable than that, if brusque. I don't think puddingmouse deserved such a rebuke at all and I'm glad that b9 apologized for it. He's obviously a good guy too

I thought puddingmouse was responding to me or Ragtime. And I'm a pretty tough guy to offend. It's only outright bullying tactics that get to me. Given the crowd here and how most of us feel about that kind of thing, that's extremely unlikely to happen.

And just being vocal about your beliefs doesn't count. Some things I've said might be offensive to some, but I like to think that we all view each other with mutual respect even if we disagree. Insult are always uncalled for.

As to what "stupid" is--I like the definition of "stupid" being "knowing better but doing it anyway."

Oohhh, snap!

Well, I'm not a Catholic. On the contrary, I'm someone who reads Scripture and tries to follow it primarily based on what I read therein. I don't read lots of books that tell me that Scripture doesn't really mean what it teaches, so, again, I'd fail as a good Catholic.

And, footnotes & headings added to one particular version of the Bible? They are equally authoritative with Scripture how?

I was raised Christian. But my theologian friend was raised Catholic, before he began to study Scripture, and was forced by what he read therein to leave the Catholic Church, due to their obvious and extreme doctrinal lies. As a doctored theologian, he has of course read and studied the original biblical texts in their original languages, and remains the most vociferous preacher I personally know on how the Romans and 1 Cor passages absolutely refer to gay sex between men, and God's hatred for it.

The amount of things I agree with the Catholic Church on are pretty easy to number: their emphasis on the reality of Jesus' suffering, their stance against gay sex/marriage (unless they've changed it), their teaching that premarital sex is wrong, their teaching that Jesus died for our sins, and some other things. But I have more disagreements with them than agreements, and those disagreements, as I said, are major doctrinal ones. The Catholic Church is so unbiblical, and in so many blatant ways, that it would be difficult to make a complete list here, and that's not what we're here for anyway.


Verses 1-6 talk about Molek, sure. But verses 7-8 shift the focus of the monologue onto a new subject: Israel's obedience to God.

Then, verses 9-27 (and on into the next chapter) begin the long series of commands to the Jews for specific, absolute obedience to God -- without pretext, qualification, or reference back to Molek. I read verses 7-8 as basically saying, "Enough about Molek; this is what you'll do for Me as my people: ..."



Actual priests, huh? No foolin'?



Well, Paul related it to idolatry, and he's speaking of the internal workings of hearts, as revealed to Him by God at the time of the writing, so whatever "the majority of people agree with" doesn't stack up against that. People aren't exactly doing a bang-up job of running the world, you'll notice -- even in democracies (have hunger, abject poverty, and preventable disease ended anywhere?) -- and history clearly shows that good rulers/governments make up the exception to the rule.
I don't know how Paul, a qualified rabbi thoroughly schooled in Scripture, and audibly and visibly called by God Himself, stacks up against "actual priests" of the manmade Romanist priesthood two millenia later, but I defer to him.

Last edited by Ragtime on 26 Oct 2011, 10:53 am, edited 2 times in total.

Paul was a scoundrel and a fraud. He wasn't even a disciple. He was also a con-man who boasted of being all things to all people.

ruveyn