 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/30/2004 4:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | I thought this was an interesting position. Though there's no time to get into it before the end of this year, I wanted to throw out this one church's (Park Street Church, Boston) position as food for thought.
http://www.parkstreet.org/pulpit/studyqss.shtml
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/30/2004 4:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
quote:
I thought this was an interesting position. Though there's no time to get into it before the end of this year, I wanted to throw out this one church's (Park Street Church, Boston) position as food for thought.
I don't know how little time we have, but here's my quick response:
To say that only actions are sinful but not orientation would need some definition. If I were to say that I'm adulterously-oriented, but I don't actually COMMIT adultery, wouldn't a lot of folks quote the verse in Matthew to me? In other words, if an action is inherently sinful it would seem that the lust thereto or fantasy thereabout would also be sinful.
The specific way that I think we should distinguish between actions and orientation is this: We know that many people commit adultery in their heart, but we don't constantly beat them over the head about it, for the most of us would be being hypocritical. If, on the other hand, they COMMIT adultery, the church is to address it if it is willful and continual. The same distinction would make sense for the action vs. orientation issue.
Now, with respect to the statement:
quote:
Finally, although I probably don't need to say this, I do want to emphasize that I do NOT consider homosexuality to be worse than any of the zillion sins I commit every day
This depends entirely on whether different kinds of sins have different degrees of adverse effects on the rest of humanity. If so, such a claim is unwarranted.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 12/30/2004 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Thanks for the link, Tom. Very interesting. I've tried (albeit unsuccessfully apparently) to argue precisely this point of view in this forum before, that "homosexual orientation" is a concept foreign to the Bible, and that Scripture only condemns homosexual ACTS, and that involuntary impulses in and of themselves have no moral character until the will of the person consents to the impulses. Interesting.
Hi John,
I like your argument. So could one say that there is a similar nature in being born a homosexual and that of a kleptomaniac, which the latter is not a sin unless you steal? Or is there a chemical imbalance involved in one and not the other?
-Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/30/2004 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Thanks for the link, Tom. Very interesting. I've tried (albeit unsuccessfully apparently) to argue precisely this point of view in this forum before, that "homosexual orientation" is a concept foreign to the Bible, and that Scripture only condemns homosexual ACTS, and that involuntary impulses in and of themselves have no moral character until the will of the person consents to the impulses. Interesting.
Hi John,
I like your argument. So could one say that there is a similar nature in being born a homosexual and that of a kleptomaniac, which the latter is not a sin unless you steal? Or is there a chemical imbalance involved in one and not the other?
-Mark
While Jesus certainly identified the source of sin as the heart (he that looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart, and he that hates his brother is at heart a murderer, etc.), there is a proper and needful discussion between impulses (which are by definition involuntary), and the consent of the will to obey those impulses. To my way of thinking, this is true regardless of any chemical imbalances in the body.
One of the real problems is our use of definitions such as "kleptomaniac" and "homosexual." These terms mean nothing apart from the activity they denote. A person is not a kleptomaniac unless he steals. For this reason, I do not find the concept of a person being "born homosexual" or a "born sinner" of any kind is reasonable or scriptural. All of us face various impulses and temptations, but all these are said to be "common to all mankind" in Scripture. But it's no sin to be tempted. And it's no sin to be human. As Gordon Olson points out powerfully in his Holiness and Sin, all the Hebrew and Greek biblical words for "sin" denote voluntary action.
In other words, we are only responsible for that which we have control over. If this is not the case, I honestly can't see how God is not the most unconscionable ogre ever imaginable, condemning people for that which they can't avoid.
Rom 6:12 ¶ Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts,
13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin {as} instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members {as} instruments of righteousness to God.
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. NASB
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/30/2004 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Kingsaint,
quote:
jefscott,
I think you are too harsh in questioning the distinction between act and orientation. Being single, I would like to think that I could say that I am heterosexually oriented without having to lust in order to prove it. I sure hope there is a middle ground between sexual limbo and lust!
In the first place, Matt. 5 deals with adultery, not single people seeking marriage as the proper relationship to express sexual desire. In the second place, Paul says marriage and meats are sanctified by God's word and prayer. They have no intrinsic holiness to them.
If there is such a thing as orientation without desire, I would say you are correct. That's why I was saying the author's discussion begs for definition. As for the neutrality of heterosexual orientation, 1 Cor. 7 implies that there is danger of temptation (presumably to sin) even when spouses don't render due benevolence or when fasting and prayer is continued too long. Moreover, 1 Cor. 7 speaks of the importance of GETTING MARRIED if one burns! The same would apply to a homosexual. So definition is definitely needed for this discussion.
And much of this gets into the distinction John made. He claims all involuntary desire is morally neutral. I would make the distinction differently. Paul seems to argue in Rom. 7 that a man without the Spirit cannot keep a spiritual law. He is carnal, sold under sin. So lust/coveting is used as the example there of what Paul could not prevent in that Spiritless state. So though death is the natural result of such sin, it may not incur any judgement in the ressurection.
So when John refers to God being an ogre for finding fault with involuntary lust/desire, it is partly, in my opinion, due to the fact that he believes any unforgiven sin results in eternal torment. Since I do not believe in eternal torment, I don't have that problem. Involuntary desires contrary to God's holy Spirit may simply involve death, without judgement. And then, in the ressurection, the unrepentant may be judged for voluntary works only.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/30/2004 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
So when John refers to God being an ogre for finding fault with involuntary lust/desire, it is partly, in my opinion, due to the fact that he believes any unforgiven sin results in eternal torment.
Hi Jeff,
Actually, my reason for believing all sin is voluntary is simply because that is what the Bible teaches, irrespective of the issue of eternal torment. It is a plain fact that every Hebrew and Greek word in Scripture that is translated as "sin," "transgression," "iniquity," "trespass," etc., involve voluntary action, not involuntary desires. I only mentioned God's condemnation of sin as a supporting point, not the main point of the argument. Besides, even if one doesn't believe in eternal torment, one still believes God condemns sin, and that however one defines sin, God forbids it. How would it be just to forbid that which is unavoidable?
If involuntary desires were in and of themselves sinful, why would God command mankind to "be fruitful and multiply" before Adam & Eve sinned? It does not seem evident how they were supposed to be fruitful and multiply, in their state of innocence, if the desire for sex is supposed to be in and of itself sinful.
Jesus' statement in Matthew 5 expresses a voluntary nature to the sin he is condemning, for He says, "He that looks on a woman TO LUST AFTER HER..." Intention is clearly involved. He is not here condemning involuntary responses to external stimuli. If He were, then God should've said "Ooops!" rather than "Good" when He created mankind.
Concerning Romans 7, the word for "will" can also be translated "wish" in that passage, which makes much more sense. I agree with you completely that those who are devoted to the flesh (have their minds sent on the flesh) "cannot" please God--they cannot because they will not. They are devoted to SELF supremely, and therefore all efforts on their part to obey the Law are in fact selfishly motivated, and thus utterly futile. Even in the Old Testament, obedience was only possible by means of the circumcision of the heart; that is, what people need is a new heart. In my view, the heart is the center of one's being, the volitional center, the will/mind/innermost personhood. As Finney said, "by the heart I mean the will." Ezekiel exhorted the people to "get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit," and God had promised elsewhere in Ezekiel prophecies that He would "give them a new heart and a new spirit." It's all about synergy, not self-salvation.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/30/2004 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
I will make a full reply to you post when I get time. For now, explain why a desire, involuntary or not, would be good if it is a desire for an act which, if committed, would be intrinsically wrong.
As Jesus' condemnation of adultery in the heart reveals clearly, the morality or immorality of any action is determined by the intention/motivation behind the action.
I'm not saying a desire is "good" (or bad); I'm saying that involutary desires are in and of themselves neutral.
For instance, the desire for food does not in and of itself possess moral character whether good OR bad; however, if that desire is allowed to RULE (selfishly), gluttony is the result. As Paul said in Romans 6, "do not obey the desires of the flesh." He didn't say "do not have desires." (That would be Eastern mysticism's approach, not Christianity).
Likewise, the desire for sexual intimacy is only sinful when the volitional intention/motivation associated with that desire is unlawful. It is not wrong for me to lust after my wife, though it is wrong for me to allow my general appreciation for feminine beauty and my generally healthy sex drive to be focused (willing/intention) upon anyone other than my wife.
This can be illustrated by taking virtually any action and examining the motives behind it. For instance, even marital sex can be sinful if it is selfishly motivated. But the desire itself is involuntary and is by definition neutral. We aren't expected to go through life with blinders on, but we are expected to properly direct our desires in a lawful (godly, righteous) manner.
This is where the RATIONAL MIND comes in, which makes us profoundly different from mere animals, who without human intervention and discipline, will only obey their (animal) instincts and impulses. We do have similar (and in some cases exactly the same) instincts and impulses, BUT, as beings created in the image of God with the inherent ability of MINDING either the flesh or the Spirit, we are commanded by God to "abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." We do this, of course, by living according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh, as Romans 8:1-14 makes clear.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/31/2004 2:47 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
As Jesus' condemnation of adultery in the heart reveals clearly, the morality or immorality of any action is determined by the intention/motivation behind the action.
Desire can be provoked without any intent. So are you saying that if a married man is looking at a woman (not his wife) and just by pure association begins to desire her, that such desire is morally neutral since it was not intentional? Or are men to INTENTIONALLY STOP such thoughts as soon as they begin.
quote:
I'm not saying a desire is "good" (or bad); I'm saying that involutary desires are in and of themselves neutral.
For instance, the desire for food does not in and of itself possess moral character whether good OR bad; however, if that desire is allowed to RULE (selfishly), gluttony is the result. As Paul said in Romans 6, "do not obey the desires of the flesh." He didn't say "do not have desires." (That would be Eastern mysticism's approach, not Christianity).
Colossians 3:5 says to mortify evil desires. What does that mean?
quote:
This can be illustrated by taking virtually any action and examining the motives behind it. For instance, even marital sex can be sinful if it is selfishly motivated. But the desire itself is involuntary and is by definition neutral. We aren't expected to go through life with blinders on, but we are expected to properly direct our desires in a lawful (godly, righteous) manner.
The boldened text seems to be arguing my position. We are to INTENTIONALLY bring all thoughts unto the obedience of the Christ. That means INTENTIONALLY STOPPING evil desires even when they begin UNINTENTIONALLY. For again, many evil desires BEGIN quite unintentionally.
quote:
This is where the RATIONAL MIND comes in, which makes us profoundly different from mere animals, who without human intervention and discipline, will only obey their (animal) instincts and impulses. We do have similar (and in some cases exactly the same) instincts and impulses, BUT, as beings created in the image of God with the inherent ability of MINDING either the flesh or the Spirit, we are commanded by God to "abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." We do this, of course, by living according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh, as Romans 8:1-14 makes clear.
Again, the boldened text seems to argue for my position. It seems to be saying that even fleshly DESIRES war against our soul, and, thus, should be STOPPED.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/2/2005 3:58 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
It is a plain fact that every Hebrew and Greek word in Scripture that is translated as "sin," "transgression," "iniquity," "trespass," etc., involve voluntary action, not involuntary desires.
I thought "sin" meant missing the mark and that "trespass" meant to transgress a defined boundary. I don't see that volition is implied in the words at all. I was once told that "sin" was used to describe missing a target when PURPOSELY trying NOT TO.
Paul says that those who sinned before the Law did not necessarily sin in the similtude of the "TRANSGRESSION" of Adam. I.e., they didn't necessarily sin knowingly in the way of transgression, as Adam did. For with law comes the KNOWLEDGE of sin.
quote:
How would it be just to forbid that which is unavoidable?
Why would it be just for death to come about from sin that is not KNOWN? But it does, per scripture. ONLY GOD is incorruptible. Sinners will perish/die regardless of whether they are aware they are sinning or not. Why else were sacrifices required for sins of ignorance?
Romans 5 makes it clear that what Adam did affected us inevitably. Hence, in Adam, ALL DIE. For through him, sin and death ENTERED INTO THE WORLD.
quote:
If involuntary desires were in and of themselves sinful, why would God command mankind to "be fruitful and multiply" before Adam & Eve sinned? It does not seem evident how they were supposed to be fruitful and multiply, in their state of innocence, if the desire for sex is supposed to be in and of itself sinful.
I am not arguing that desiring sex is sinful. I'm arguing that desiring to have sex with particular persons is sinful - precisely when actually HAVING sex with those particular persons would BE SINFUL.
quote:
Jesus' statement in Matthew 5 expresses a voluntary nature to the sin he is condemning, for He says, "He that looks on a woman TO LUST AFTER HER..." Intention is clearly involved. He is not here condemning involuntary responses to external stimuli. If He were, then God should've said "Ooops!" rather than "Good" when He created mankind.
Since it wasn't sinful for Adam to have sex with Eve, it would not have been sinful for him to desire it.
quote:
Concerning Romans 7, the word for "will" can also be translated "wish" in that passage, which makes much more sense.
What Paul said the law "wrought" in him was desire/lust (v. 8). Then, in v. 15 he adds the word "do" or "practice" to the concept "wrought" to make clear that it was LUSTING that he was "doing." V. 14 explains that it was the lack of the Spirit that made that condition inevitable. Then v. 25 and the first part of chapter 8 reconfirm that fact.
quote:
Even in the Old Testament, obedience was only possible by means of the circumcision of the heart.
I think we both agree that there are certain laws that even the hard-hearted could do. And I would agree that a circumcised heart made a difference. But Paul seems to be clearly saying in Rom. 7 that the Spirit is necessary to eliminate the final problem - EVIL DESIRE. So the prophets did not ONLY talk of a new heart; they also spoke of God putting His Spirit in them so they would KNOW and DO the law.
With the Spirit, we can attain to a level of sanctification that eliminates even sinful desires. But that is not easy for EITHER orientation. For all I know, it is no harder for a homosexual to discipline his/her mind to desire heterosexual sex as it is for a heterosexual to desire ONLY his/her spouse. Thus, to the degree that I'm "too harsh," I'm at least inclusive!!
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/3/2005 1:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
It is a plain fact that every Hebrew and Greek word in Scripture that is translated as "sin," "transgression," "iniquity," "trespass," etc., involve voluntary action, not involuntary desires.
I thought "sin" meant missing the mark and that "trespass" meant to transgress a defined boundary. I don't see that volition is implied in the words at all. I was once told that "sin" was used to describe missing a target when PURPOSELY trying NOT TO.
By all means please do the research for yourself; I have no desire to mislead you. I could post the word-study research I referred to above, but it's much more convincing when a person finds it out for himself. As far as missing the mark goes, that is true; the fact is that the mark lies in the intention.
quote:
Paul says that those who sinned before the Law did not necessarily sin in the similtude of the "TRANSGRESSION" of Adam. I.e., they didn't necessarily sin knowingly in the way of transgression, as Adam did.
Of course I would agree that no one but Adam & Eve could sin in precisely the same way that they did, but that does not mean that sin is not in almost all cases "a voluntary transgression of a known law."
quote:
For with law comes the KNOWLEDGE of sin.
Indubitably.
quote:
How would it be just to forbid that which is unavoidable?
quote:
Why would it be just for death to come about from sin that is not KNOWN? But it does, per scripture. ONLY GOD is incorruptible.
In my view, mortality is simply inherent to physical existence, and that Adam was created mortal.
quote:
Sinners will perish/die regardless of whether they are aware they are sinning or not. Why else were sacrifices required for sins of ignorance?
Sins committed in ignorance, discussed in Lev. 4 & 5, are "a transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4), and they are volitional in nature (one cannot be held responsible for that which is not chosen)though they are not KNOWN to be sins at the time of their commission.
Interestingly, in the Old Covenant it was only sins committed in ignorance that God made provision for through sacrifice; willful sins (sinning with "a high hand," that is, presumptuous sins), could only be forgiven by the sheer mercy of God.
quote:
Romans 5 makes it clear that what Adam did affected us inevitably. Hence, in Adam, ALL DIE. For through him, sin and death ENTERED INTO THE WORLD.
Yes, for all who sin, not necessarily as Adam did, but who follow his example generally by choosing to sin, all die.
quote:
If involuntary desires were in and of themselves sinful, why would God command mankind to "be fruitful and multiply" before Adam & Eve sinned? It does not seem evident how they were supposed to be fruitful and multiply, in their state of innocence, if the desire for sex is supposed to be in and of itself sinful.
quote:
I am not arguing that desiring sex is sinful. I'm arguing that desiring to have sex with particular persons is sinful - precisely when actually HAVING sex with those particular persons would BE SINFUL.
Yes, of course that is true. This is precisely what Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount when he condemns a man who looks on a woman in order to lust after her. What He doesn't condemn anywhere is temptation, or else Christ himself was a sinner, for "he was tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin."
quote:
Jesus' statement in Matthew 5 expresses a voluntary nature to the sin he is condemning, for He says, "He that looks on a woman TO LUST AFTER HER..." Intention is clearly involved. He is not here condemning involuntary responses to external stimuli. If He were, then God should've said "Ooops!" rather than "Good" when He created mankind.
quote:
Since it wasn't sinful for Adam to have sex with Eve, it would not have been sinful for him to desire it.
I think what we're miscommunicating on perhaps is the issue of sexual impulses in general, which I do not find the Scriptures anywhere condemn. I am not saying that it would be okay for anyone to willfully focus their attention and willfully engage their mind in sexual fantasies (with anyone except their spouse).  I am simply saying that the basic sex drive is God given, and thus cannot be in and of itself sinful.
quote:
Concerning Romans 7, the word for "will" can also be translated "wish" in that passage, which makes much more sense.
quote:
What Paul said the law "wrought" in him was desire/lust (v. 8). Then, in v. 15 he adds the word "do" or "practice" to the concept "wrought" to make clear that it was LUSTING that he was "doing." V. 14 explains that it was the lack of the Spirit that made that condition inevitable. Then v. 25 and the first part of chapter 8 reconfirm that fact.
I guess I don't get your point in this case. I agree that mankind will never do right apart from the influence of the Spirit of God.
quote:
Even in the Old Testament, obedience was only possible by means of the circumcision of the heart.
quote:
I think we both agree that there are certain laws that even the hard-hearted could do. And I would agree that a circumcised heart made a difference. But Paul seems to be clearly saying in Rom. 7 that the Spirit is necessary to eliminate the final problem - EVIL DESIRE.
As I stated above, I agree that evil desire is wrong--desiring that which one KNOWS to be forbidden is clearly sin in the heart, as Jesus states plainly in the Sermon on the Mount. My only contention has been the basic desire for sex in and of itself has no moral character attached to it.
quote:
So the prophets did not ONLY talk of a new heart; they also spoke of God putting His Spirit in them so they would KNOW and DO the law.
And, to my understanding, this is nothing more and nothing less than "the circumcision of the heart" which both Moses in Deuteronomy and Paul in Romans 2 refer to--the new heart given to God's covenant people.
Hope this clarifies my view somewhat for you, Jeff. I appreciate the opportunity to further sharpen my ideas through the dialogue.
Blessings,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/3/2005 4:06 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
In my view, mortality is simply inherent to physical existence, and that Adam was created mortal.
I would agree that Adam may not have had continual life without eating from the tree of life. But when scripture says that death entered in the world because of Adam, it is implying that he had access to the continuance of physical life, whereas we DO NOT.
Moreover, Christ said his immortal ressurection body was not a spirit since it had flesh and bones. Why can't that mean physical?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinners will perish/die regardless of whether they are aware they are sinning or not. Why else were sacrifices required for sins of ignorance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sins committed in ignorance, discussed in Lev. 4 & 5, are "a transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4), and they are volitional in nature (one cannot be held responsible for that which is not chosen)though they are not KNOWN to be sins at the time of their commission.
There were ways a person could become unclean completely unaware of it. So the idea of volition seems to lose it's obvious moral quality in these cases. It seems that God demands PURITY and SINLESSNESS to have eternal life independent of whether uncleanness is acquired by transgression - hence, the sacrifices.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 5 makes it clear that what Adam did affected us inevitably. Hence, in Adam, ALL DIE. For through him, sin and death ENTERED INTO THE WORLD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, for all who sin, not necessarily as Adam did, but who follow his example generally by choosing to sin, all die.
That would make sense to me if Romans 7 didn't read so clearly to the effect that humans CANNOT attain to sinlessness since the Fall without the Spirit.
quote:
I think what we're miscommunicating on perhaps is the issue of sexual impulses in general, which I do not find the Scriptures anywhere condemn. I am not saying that it would be okay for anyone to willfully focus their attention and willfully engage their mind in sexual fantasies (with anyone except their spouse). I am simply saying that the basic sex drive is God given, and thus cannot be in and of itself sinful.
I absolutely agree. But the whole debate in this thread is about the moral implications of an ORIENTATION. If orientation does not have anything to do with WHO or WHAT we desire to have sex with, then there is no sense distinguishing between a hetero- vs. homo-sexual orientation. The whole distinction is about the OBJECT of the desire.
Thus, to speak of a HOMO-sexual orientation seems to imply a mind BENT towards desiring and fantasizing about one's own gender. Mere sexual impulse undirected towards an object is not an orientation to my thinking.
quote:
As I stated above, I agree that evil desire is wrong--desiring that which one KNOWS to be forbidden is clearly sin in the heart, as Jesus states plainly in the Sermon on the Mount. My only contention has been the basic desire for sex in and of itself has no moral character attached to it.
I absolutely agree.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the prophets did not ONLY talk of a new heart; they also spoke of God putting His Spirit in them so they would KNOW and DO the law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, to my understanding, this is nothing more and nothing less than "the circumcision of the heart" which both Moses in Deuteronomy and Paul in Romans 2 refer to--the new heart given to God's covenant people.
I had always assumed that the elect of the OT had a kind of circumcision of the heart, but I have not studied that too carefully.
quote:
Hope this clarifies my view somewhat for you, Jeff. I appreciate the opportunity to further sharpen my ideas through the dialogue.
Yes, I think, if I'm reading you correctly, that we pretty much agree on the topic of this thread. And I appreciate the discussion, also. Always need a bit of iron coming my way!!
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/3/2005 5:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Quick followup, FWIW: I don't find the modern concept of "orientation" to be scripturally supported or logically demonstrable. A person cannot be logically or scripturally said to be "oriented" towards something that he was not designed for (homosexual acts, which the Bible calls unnatural).
I do, of course, recognize that a person may have involuntary impulses arising from demonic incitement or even from a disordered mind resulting from unmet needs or even abuse as a child--in fact, I have a good friend who said that ever since his older brother molested him at the age of nine, he has had sexual impulses only directed towards men. That would in my view be a case of psychological damage and demonic bondage instead of "orientation," of course.
As to Jesus' resurrection body, 1 Cor. 15 indicates that our resurrected state, which will be like his, will be "a spiritual body," (whatever that means).
Blessings,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/4/2005 2:18 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Quick followup, FWIW: I don't find the modern concept of "orientation" to be scripturally supported or logically demonstrable.
Mr. Earp, if a woman walked in who approximated your wife in appearance, you might go, "gosh, she's purdy". You're "oriented" in that direction. Nothing positive or negative about it, it just 'is'.
Why do you call me "Mr. Earp?" I thought we were cyberbuds.
Anyway, my point in the above, in the context of the discussion, had to do with the idea of "homosexual orientation," not "heterosexual orientation," which would be just another word for normal.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/4/2005 2:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Quick followup, FWIW: I don't find the modern concept of "orientation" to be scripturally supported or logically demonstrable.
Mr. Earp, if a woman walked in who approximated your wife in appearance, you might go, "gosh, she's purdy". You're "oriented" in that direction. Nothing positive or negative about it, it just 'is'.
Why do you call me "Mr. Earp?" I thought we were cyberbuds.
Anyway, my point in the above, in the context of the discussion, had to do with the idea of "homosexual orientation," not "heterosexual orientation," which would be just another word for normal.
Mr. Johnathan E. Earp, sir, the "party" to whom I am speaking
(E for Earl)
"HoMosExUaL orientation" is the same thing. Guy A likes Guy B. Girl C likes Girl D. And according to Masters and Johnson, Guy A also likes Girl C and Girl D also likes Guy B. And Girl E liked other girls in college but now only likes guys. LIC (Lesbian in College)
I'm not saying the world was designed to be like this, I'm just saying that you've been dropped (by the stork) into a world where many people like other people of the same gender. That's the way it is.
But just as you are attracted to other women who approximate your wife in appearance and/or personality, it's not wrong in and of itself. It's what you do with it that counts.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 1/4/2005 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | .
Amen.
Laika wrote:
quote:
I'm at the point where it's meaningless to argue origins. Suffice to say we're in the world as it is, what do we do now?
.
I searched the Christus Victor Ministries archives for threads on related topics (using the keywords of gay, homosexual, and straight); and came up with a variety of threads.
Thank goodness, it's not necessary to start from square-one in this dialogue. The attached threads contain a wealth of information (and, a variety of opinions):
Discussion Board threads -- Search Results:
============================
PART 1
============================
• Did Jesus Die to Make You Straight?
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3504
_____________________________
• God HATES what the actions that make people GAY.
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=769
_____________________________
• Gay ... But Not Funny
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3653
_____________________________
• Gay Marriage
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2394
_____________________________
• Former Gay Man's Music Ministry a True Blessing
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1858
_____________________________
• Bush Opposed to Gay Marriage
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2372
_____________________________
• Is Const. Amendment on Gay Marriages a good idea?
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2378
_____________________________
• Growing pro-gay business agenda jeopardizes religi
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2976
_____________________________
• first gay high school
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2363
_____________________________
• Well-written article on gays and the Church
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2758
_____________________________
• Gay Marriage in Ontario
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2183
_____________________________
• Gay Marriage
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2461
_____________________________
• Gay Pastor Ordained This Weekend
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2086
_____________________________
• God Loves Gay People!
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=653
_____________________________
• Consolidated convo on remarriage and gays
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=661
_____________________________
• Gay marriage looms as political issue
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2751
_____________________________
• Bishop brings reason to issue of gay benefits
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2802
_____________________________
• A Gay Man Defends Himself
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1864
============================
PART 2
============================
• a plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the c
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=242
_____________________________________
• Homosexuality & Natural Law
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1821
_____________________________________
• Homosexual author debates fundamentalist pastor
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3196
_____________________________________
• Reposting of parts of Homosexuality link: Condensed
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2062
_____________________________________
• Position towards Homosexuals
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3963
_____________________________________
• homosexuality in your face
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1047
_____________________________________
• new homosexuality in your face thread
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1071
_____________________________________
• Women, Homosexuality, and Slavery
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=546
_____________________________________
• A Lamb who Spoke like a Dragon: God & Homosexuality
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=828
_____________________________________
• Homosexual marriage: how do the kids benefit?
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=665
_____________________________________
• Does God Hate Homosexuals?
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=650
_____________________________________
• homosexual orientation/identity
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=410
_____________________________________
• a plea for tolerance of homosexuality within the C
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=80
_____________________________________
• Some Analysis re: Males and Homosexuality
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2842
_____________________________________
• scientific articles on homosexuality.
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2560
_____________________________________
• Portraits of Homosexuality in the Cinema
http://gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2158
_____________________________________
[end]
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/4/2005 10:30 AM (GMT -6) | | So...practically speaking...
As a male, I can have desire and attractions for males...and possibly a corresponding LACK of attraction for women. And understand this "orientation" to be OK (or possibly an aspect of a fallen creation given my belief, perhaps like kleptomania) But as long as I don't ACT on this in a SEXUAL way...I'm cool to be in leadership?
My instinctual desire for the same sex will NOT be considered sinful activity, biblically speaking?
Making sure here... | | Back to Top | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:59 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|