[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Hm...

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Only if she's married.

And we're off!

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Only if she's married.

If she is or if you are?
shut it dakar

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

If she is or if you are?

If she is.

Remember, polygyny is fully legal, so you can be out shopping/looking for an additional Mrs. perfectly legally.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If she is.

Remember, polygyny is fully legal, so you can be out shopping/looking for an additional Mrs. perfectly legally.

While it may be Biblically okay, are we supposed to respect the view of our culture?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If you are straight and married, you can still desire other women. The sin is when you act on it.

That's very convenient, isn't it? "I love you with all my heart, honey, just like I said in the marriage vows, but I really have the hots for the neighbor, although I can assure you that nothing will ever happen between her and I." What lengths people won't go to, in order to justify their hypocrisy, and assuage their guilt.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

That's quite incorrect: God sent the angels to Sodom or Gommorah, in order to bring the message to Lot, that the towns would be destroyed and that he and his family should better get out. The decision to destroy these towns was made by God before the incident with the tried rape of the guests of Lot, of which the possible rapers didn't know that they were angels.

The reason for the destruction of the towns was presumably that the citizens became completely wicked, trangressing every bounds in every way, the homosexuality of them and the willingness to rape people, were merely symptoms of an underlying evil.

You're right that God already had it in for the cities, but my point is that, given what we know of their behavior, it's hard to say that homosexuality was the reason. In fact, Ezekiel said it was for pride and cruelty that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah — that fits with the "shameless rapists" explanation, but not so much with the "guys who love other guys are evil" explanation.

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

How about this from wikipedia (Source: Homosexuality and Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)



At least for those bound by the Torah, it seems pretty clear-cut, don't you think?

It's certainly against the rules for them, yeah.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

While it may be Biblically okay, are we supposed to respect the view of our culture?

Only if the culture we find ourselves in is not set against God.

For example, the culture I find myself in now says it's OK for homosexualists to marry in church. Not only that, but that the church can't legally refuse to hold their ceremony. That's against God's law (or, at the very least, a serious piss-take of it), so that culture is no longer be required to be respected.

That's my take on it anyways. Read your Bible, formulate your own opinion, answer to the Big Guy later.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Only if the culture we find ourselves in is not set against God.

For example, the culture I find myself in now says it's OK for homosexualists to marry in church. Not only that, but that the church can't legally refuse to hold their ceremony. That's against God's law (or, at the very least, a serious piss-take of it), so that culture is no longer be required to be respected.

That's my take on it anyways. Read your Bible, formulate your own opinion, answer to the Big Guy later.

It's homosexuals. Where is it illegal for a church to refuse to marry homosexuals?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Only if the culture we find ourselves in is not set against God.

For example, the culture I find myself in now says it's OK for homosexualists to marry in church. Not only that, but that the church can't legally refuse to hold their ceremony. That's against God's law (or, at the very least, a serious piss-take of it), so that culture is no longer be required to be respected.

That's my take on it anyways. Read your Bible, formulate your own opinion, answer to the Big Guy later.

If the majority of our culture things polygamy is wrong, should we respect that?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

It's homosexuals.

No. It's whatever I feel like writing.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Where is it illegal for a church to refuse to marry homosexuals?

The UK. Provision of goods, facilities and services laws.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

If the majority of our culture things polygamy is wrong, should we respect that?

Read your Bible, make your own mind up.

I personally no longer respect any laws which are not (a) God's or (b) my own and make no effort to keep to them beyond the effort needed to stay out of strife. Reasoning: If you're gonna make me a criminal (and fingerprint and DNA me) for driving at 31 mph in a 30 mph zone, then I'm already technically a criminal so I might as well do 130 mph.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If she is.

Remember, polygyny is fully legal, so you can be out shopping/looking for an additional Mrs. perfectly legally.

Polygyny, or polygamy, is not legal in England. http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/pubspr...683-2_7_e.html

United Kingdom
One cannot enter into a valid polygamous marriage in England. Although there is no criminal offence of polygamy, bigamy is a criminal offence under the Offences Against the Person Act s. 57, which effectively makes it an offence to enter into a polygamous marriage in England. However, under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1973, the United Kingdom considers marriages contracted on or after August 1, 1971 as being valid, if both parties had personal capacity under the law of their respective domiciles to enter into the marriage and if the marriage is valid in the country in which it took place. This allows for the legal recognition for certain family law purposes of polygamous marriages in England.

The United Kingdom has a policy of "prevent[ing] the formation of polygamous households" in the United Kingdom.12 This policy is achieved, in part, through s. 2 of the Immigration Act, 1988, which allows only one of the wives involved in a polygamous marriage to be sponsored by her husband to immigrate to the United Kingdom.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Polygyny, or polygamy, is not legal in England.

We were talking about God's law, not English law.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

That's very convenient, isn't it? "I love you with all my heart, honey, just like I said in the marriage vows, but I really have the hots for the neighbor, although I can assure you that nothing will ever happen between her and I." What lengths people won't go to, in order to justify their hypocrisy, and assuage their guilt.

How is anything I said "hypocrisy"?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How is anything I said "hypocrisy"?

I didn't think I'd have to explain it, but then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You see, when you get married, you have this thing called vows, where you promise to love, cherish, honor, be true to, etc., etc., etc., the person you're getting married to. Are you with me so far? If you're married, and you desire other women, then that sounds to me like you aren't honoring, cherishing, loving, etc., etc., the woman who is supposed to be the only woman that gets all your love, honor, and attention. If you're married, and you desire other women, then get a divorce, and go after all the women you want, preferably one at a time, and be honest with yourself and your spouse.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I didn't think I'd have to explain it, but then again, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You see, when you get married, you have this thing called vows, where you promise to love, cherish, honor, be true to, etc., etc., etc., the person you're getting married to. Are you with me so far? If you're married, and you desire other women, then that sounds to me like you aren't honoring, cherishing, loving, etc., etc., the woman who is supposed to be the only woman that gets all your love, honor, and attention.

People are human. Just because you get married, it doesn't mean that your physical desires stop when you see a member of the opposite sex who you find attractive. You vows and your love though should stop you from acting on any desires.

Using your same logic, once you give your life to Christ and you vow to live your life as he did due to your love and respect for him, you should be able to give him all your love, and not desire members of the same sex. Especially since he wouldn't want that.

If you're not willing to accept the same standard for both examples, then THAT is hypocrisy. My standard acknowledges good and bad desires, but acknowledges that we should not act on the bad desires. There's no hypocrisy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

If you're married, and you desire other women, then get a divorce, and go after all the women you want

I'm going to take a flying guess and say that stupendousman is defining desire in broader terms than you are here.

Edit: he beat me to it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People are human. Just because you get married, it doesn't mean that your physical desires stop when you see a member of the opposite sex who you find attractive. You vows and your love though should stop you from acting on any desires.

Using your same logic, once you give your life to Christ and you vow to live your life as he did due to your love and respect for him, you should be able to give him all your love, and not desire members of the same sex. Especially since he wouldn't want that.

If you're not willing to accept the same standard for both examples, then THAT is hypocrisy. My standard acknowledges good and bad desires, but acknowledges that we should not act on the bad desires. There's no hypocrisy.

There shouldn't be any bad desires, otherwise you've made the vows in vain. It should mean your physical desires stop, otherwise you're being dishonest with your spouse, and yourself. I'm well aware that people are human, but the vows exchanged at weddings are supposedly the most sacred vows you make. If you can't keep them, then what's the point? Either they're sacred, or they're not; there is no middle ground. This isn't supposed to be some off the wall thing you said you'd do; it's supposed to be the ultimate promise, with the conviction that you'd carry it out as you agreed to. The so called family values groups are always blathering on and on about how the family is under attack, because nobody believes in the sanctity of marriage anymore, and they have the answers to take you back to the mythical good old days, yet just as many of them no doubt divorce, often under acrimonious terms. We have three men running for president right now, who have had eight wives amongst them, yet they go after the "family" vote, and have the chutzpah to keep preaching about family values. Anybody can spin things to their advantage, but that doesn't make it right.

As to giving my life to Christ, I don't. I'm an agnostic, and I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to state what someone wanted two thousand years ago (which we're not even sure is an accurate time frame), based on a book that was written by men and translated, revised, and published many, many, times in many different versions, with the natural result being that there is far from universal acclaim as to what its contents mean.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

There shouldn't be any bad desires, otherwise you've made the vows in vain.

If we didn't have bad desires, there would be no sin. The idea that you don't love someone just because you see someone else attractive and you have impure thoughts about them is silly and unrealistic. While it's a worthy goal, It's not something normally under one's control, just as having desires for the same sex wouldn't normally be something you can control. If you are suggesting that we have a definite control over our sexual desires, than there shouldn't be anything stopping homosexuals from not doing what they do that the Bible condems as sin.

It should mean your physical desires stop, otherwise you're being dishonest with your spouse, and yourself. I'm well aware that people are human, but the vows exchanged at weddings are supposedly the most sacred vows you make. If you can't keep them, then what's the point?

I don't think anyone really interprets the vows to mean that you will become inhuman, and without sin. I think the idea is that you will control yourself to the point where you won't DO anything to hurt your relationship with your spouse whom you love. Having an impure thought about someone else isn't likely to have a big impact on your relationship with your partner unless you act upon it, or obsess over it. AT THAT POINT, you may be able to consider that breaking your vow.

Either they're sacred, or they're not; there is no middle ground.

You're imposing a standard that I don't think a single person assumes (including God) when taking your vows. The question is WHAT is sacred? Your thoughts or your actions? I think most would agree it's your actions.

As to giving my life to Christ, I don't. I'm an agnostic, and I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to state what someone wanted two thousand years ago (which we're not even sure is an accurate time frame), based on a book that was written by men and translated, revised, and published many, many, times in many different versions, with the natural result being that there is far from universal acclaim as to what its contents mean.

Then maybe you shouldn't be telling us what vows created that are historically based upon the teaching of that book, really are supposed to mean?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Then maybe you shouldn't be telling us what vows created that are historically based upon the teaching of that book, really are supposed to mean?

You're making the assumption, falsely, that people who don't believe in your religious beliefs have no values and are incapable of discerning between right and wrong.

You're also making an assumption that you know what your god assumes when you take your vows. If your god doesn't assume that you'll take your vows seriously, then there is no basis for the practice of religious beliefs. If the god that allegedly issues commands doesn't expect you to take them seriously, what's the point? You can't make the rules up to suit yourself, while claiming to believe something else.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I'm well aware that people are human, but the vows exchanged at weddings are supposedly the most sacred vows you make. If you can't keep them, then what's the point?

Fortunately, having natural sexual desires is not a violation of normal marriage vows. As long as you don't indulge those impulses, it's not relevant.

[hyteckit]

Okay, I'm going to make enemies for saying this.

Homosexuality is a mental illness.









So is the belief of God.




So one mental issue might stem from another mental illness. If you feel an attraction for the same sex, you have a problem. If you feel an attraction toward God, then you have a problem.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You're right that God already had it in for the cities, but my point is that, given what we know of their behavior, it's hard to say that homosexuality was the reason. In fact, Ezekiel said it was for pride and cruelty that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah — that fits with the "shameless rapists" explanation, but not so much with the "guys who love other guys are evil" explanation.

It was surely not for homosexuality per se that Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed by God, the out-of-control-homosexuality (ie. even heterosexual citizens chose to act homosexually), and the other sexual transgressions, were like I already said merely symptoms of an underlying evil/wickedness that went well beyond that.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's certainly against the rules for them, yeah.

But even so, if you are willing to read slowly and carefully the rules, you can interpret it to mean something that doesn't go against homosexuals: The commandment says, that the jewish man should not lay with another man, like he (would) lay(s) with a woman. That would be an abomination, worthy to be sentenced to death for.

If one is willing to interpret it in a new way, it could also mean that it is a sin to be bi-sexual, or at least to act bisexually. Take your choice, and stay to it: A jewish man who lays with a woman, should not likewise lay with a man!

To construct that commandment for homosexual jewish men, it would mean: Do not lay with a woman, like you would lay with a man...

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

There shouldn't be any bad desires, otherwise you've made the vows in vain. It should mean your physical desires stop, otherwise you're being dishonest with your spouse, and yourself.

Nonesense, no human is in total control of his/her physical desires, the control jumps in, by refusing to give in spiritually to these physical desires and to refuse to act upon them, that's all that's needed to keep the vow to your spouse/husband.

Taliesin

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You're making the assumption, falsely, that people who don't believe in your religious beliefs have no values and are incapable of discerning between right and wrong.

I"m doing no such thing. The act of "marriage" is a societal construct which is mainly based on religious tradition. The vow you take is supposed to be a promise to your spouse and God, so that you'll live your life as husband and wife as he planned. I understand that those who don't have religious beliefs or don't hold traditional ones also can choose to marry regardless of their belief in what has been the basis of marriage. The fact remains though that the tradition is very much rooted in relgious tradition.

You're also making an assumption that you know what your god assumes when you take your vows.

Yes. Based on my understanding of scripture. In life, we often times have to make decisions based on our understanding of the circumstances that surround us. That requires assumptions to do that.

If your god doesn't assume that you'll take your vows seriously, then there is no basis for the practice of religious beliefs.

YOU are assuming what my God considers not taking my "vows seriously" despite not even believing in him. Based on my knowledge of scripture, and my personal relationship with him, I think I have a better understanding from which to draw a conclusion. Especially since I believe that my point if view better meshes with that of the majority who practice my religion and the clergy. You're inventing a standard which almost no one, not even most agnostic people hold. It's you who are inventing standards - not me.

[ebuddy]

mrtew? Are you there? I was curious if you had a reply. I haven't received the IM or any follow-up to your original post. I was curious if there was any other bastardization of Christian principle that needed clarification.

Oh well... let me know.

Thanx.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I"m doing no such thing. The act of "marriage" is a societal construct which is mainly based on religious tradition. The vow you take is supposed to be a promise to your spouse and God, so that you'll live your life as husband and wife as he planned. I understand that those who don't have religious beliefs or don't hold traditional ones also can choose to marry regardless of their belief in what has been the basis of marriage. The fact remains though that the tradition is very much rooted in relgious tradition.

The fact does not remain that marriage is rooted in religious tradition, and therein lies the problem. The simplistic, easy to swallow notion that it does is in fact a myth, propogated by those who have their own axes to grind. There are social historians who disasbuse the notion that marriage is based on religious traditions quite easily, such as Stephanie Coontz. Sometimes it's quite interesting to learn something new, and to find out that some of the things you've been taught since you were a child have no basis in historical fact. Of course it can also cause one to be painted as a heretic, by those who refuse to give up beliefs, despite evidence to the contrary, but that's of no concern to me. Here's a sample review of one of her books on the subject, Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage.

Marriage, a History - Author Stephanie Coontz

Marriage isn't what it used to be. A Provocative new books suggests that's all as well.

"I do." With this declaration, countless women and men over the centuries have strode down the marital aisle, vowing to love each other till...

Hold the chocolate truffles! As college professor and family historian Stephanie Coontz observes in her erudite, myth-shattering Marriage, a History (Viking), love and marriage have traditionally gone together like a horse and well, a giant radioactive tangerine. Among Coontz's revelation: that the founders of Christianity believe that remaining single and celibate was a far more sacred state than taking a husband or a wife. That until the Victorian era, marriage had everything to do with acquiring influential in-laws, forging political alliances, hoarding wealth, and expanding a family's labor force. That contrary to the current widespread nostalgia for a postwar Leave it to Beaver "golden age of marriage," divorce rates from the mid 1940s through the '50s were higher than in any previous decade--and haveactually fallen since 1981. That in America's conservative Bible Belt, out-of-wedlock birth and divorce rates are higher today than in any other region of the country. Coontz's endlessly fascinating history lends some much-needed perspective to present-day political caterwauling that marriage in in unprecendented peril, and that America has lost sight of its core moral values. In fact, if equality, mutual respect, negotiation, friendship, freedom, an--yes--love are among the characteristics of enduring wedlock, the truly moral, truly value-driven golden age of marriage is right now.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

The fact does not remain that marriage is rooted in religious tradition, and therein lies the problem.

Wrong.

The simplistic, easy to swallow notion that it does is in fact a myth, propogated by those who have their own axes to grind. There are social historians who disasbuse the notion that marriage is based on religious traditions quite easily, such as Stephanie Coontz.

There are "social historians" and others who'll do whatever they can, regardless of how intellectually dishonest it is, to reduce the impact of religion on society based on their own religious bigotry. This thread is clear proof of that. For every denier, I'm pretty sure I can find 3 that will disagree.

Sometimes it's quite interesting to learn something new, and to find out that some of the things you've been taught since you were a child have no basis in historical fact. Of course it can also cause one to be painted as a heretic, by those who refuse to give up beliefs, despite evidence to the contrary, but that's of no concern to me. Here's a sample review of one of her books on the subject, Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage.

Marriage, a History - Author Stephanie Coontz

Marriage isn't what it used to be. A Provocative new books suggests that's all as well.

"I do." With this declaration, countless women and men over the centuries have strode down the marital aisle, vowing to love each other till...

Hold the chocolate truffles! As college professor and family historian Stephanie Coontz observes in her erudite, myth-shattering Marriage, a History (Viking), love and marriage have traditionally gone together like a horse and well, a giant radioactive tangerine. Among Coontz's revelation: [b]that the founders of Christianity believe that remaining single and celibate was a far more sacred state than taking a husband or a wife.

Uh..I believe that's still the case in many belief systems. That's why Catholic priests and nuns are single and celibate. The Bible references the benefits of staying single if that's possible, but it's clear that at the same time it states that if you are not going to be single and celibate, that you should marry and "bear fruit and multiply". Sorry, that's not a rebuke of marriage by religion and does nothing to dispute the fact that the societal pact we engage in that we call "marriage" is rooted in religious tradition.

Sorry, but your evidence fails to prove your claims.

[OldManMac]

You just simply saying "Wrong" doesn't refute anything I've said. Do some research; you'll find that, if you're open minded, intellectual dishonesty (which seems to be a favorite saying of yours to deny anything you don't agree with) has nothing to do with differing viewpoints. You'll also find that people with different viewpoints don't necessarily offer them to defend their own bigotry. Of course I realize I'm pissing into the wind, but I'm comfortable with my beliefs.

It's also quite interesting that you chose, once again, to cherry pick which points to argue against, basically choosing only the point that the founders of Christianity believed that staying single and celibate was far more sacred than marrying. You conveniently stopped at that point, no doubt because historical records can easily substantiate the rest of the article. Obviously, you've never read anything on the history of marriage, and the different reasons for it throughout history. A little knowledge can be a scary thing, can't it?

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

mrtew? Are you there? I was curious if you had a reply. I haven't received the IM or any follow-up to your original post. I was curious if there was any other bastardization of Christian principle that needed clarification.

Oh well... let me know.

Thanx.

Yeah my reply is to go back and read my post again and everywhere you thought I was talking about a 'church' try to undestand that I was talking about God and reply again.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Yeah my reply is to go back and read my post again and everywhere you thought I was talking about a 'church' try to undestand that I was talking about God and reply again.

If you have difficulty expressing yourself clearly; (i.e. using 'Church' instead of what you meant to say, 'God') go back and read my reply. Anywhere I said "Church" in response to you, substitute it for God.

Anything else?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Maybe you're willing to accept a church that sentences you to death for checking out hot chicks or cool cars (which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard) but many gay people aren't. Everyone knows that adultry is a sin but that's not the same as being homosexual. Imagine if your church told you that sleeping with your wife is a sin. Maybe it wouldn't bother you since you're willing to accept that virtually everything else you do is, but once gay people have struggled to find enough 'pride' to accept themselves as gay, they are usually not in the mood for a preacher to tell them that they're evil sinners again. Gay adultry is a sin of course, or gay rape, but gays are not going to put up with you Christians saying that gay love is sinful at its core. Would you leave your church if it told you that loving your wife is a sin? Please answer that.

And here's why adultery is a sin:

When two people are marrried, in God's eyes they become one flesh. So, in sleeping with a married woman you're also sleeping with her husband. Which means you're having the bum fun (albeit virtually).

This is why "adultery" only refers to a bloke having sex with a married woman or a married woman straying outside the marriage. If you look at the laws there's no real prohibition against a married man having the canoodlings with an unmarried woman. The unmarried woman isn't "one flesh" with a husband, so you're not having the virtual bum fun if you're with her.

And this is probably why Jesus was going on about "thought adultery" - if you're lusting after a married woman then because of the one flesh principle you're effectively lusting after the husband. Which, from a spiritual viewpoint, technically means you're gay and wanting the bum fun.

If there was no "one flesh" principle (and thus no virtual gayness involved), there probably wouldn't be any prohibition against adultery.

Of course, it's a little more complex than that, but that's what it boils down to.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You just simply saying "Wrong" doesn't refute anything I've said.

You stated a claim as fact withouth adequate support. There's no reason I can't do the same. Nothing you wrote refuted what I said in the first place.

Do some research; you'll find that, if you're open minded, intellectual dishonesty (which seems to be a favorite saying of yours to deny anything you don't agree with) has nothing to do with differing viewpoints.

It's not when I simply disagree. It's when there's a clear attempt to distort an issue with facts that do not support a claim. Again, nothing you offered refuted my claim.

You'll also find that people with different viewpoints don't necessarily offer them to defend their own bigotry. Of course I realize I'm pissing into the wind, but I'm comfortable with my beliefs.

It's not differing viewpoints I have a problem with. It's when there's a pattern of making claims which can be shown to be false (facts are facts regardless of which side of the argument they are) or distorted in a way that supports a political point of view against something else.

It's also quite interesting that you chose, once again, to cherry pick which points to argue against, basically choosing only the point that the founders of Christianity believed that staying single and celibate was far more sacred than marrying. You conveniently stopped at that point, no doubt because historical records can easily substantiate the rest of the article. Obviously, you've never read anything on the history of marriage, and the different reasons for it throughout history. A little knowledge can be a scary thing, can't it?

The rest of your "evidence" had nothing to do with the "root" of marriage but rather why some decided to go ahead with the practice in addition to it's religious background. I didn't think I'd have have to refute EVERYTHING that clearly does little to support your claim. It's no better than your attempts to create a standard (that no one else I know subscribes to) for what is expected out of the "vows" in order to try and make them meaningless, while the standard most people use helps to cement a more solid man/women relationship when our natural desires might lead us to less monogamous lifestyle.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And here's why adultery is a sin:

When two people are marrried, in God's eyes they become one flesh. So, in sleeping with a married woman you're also sleeping with her husband. Which means you're having the bum fun (albeit virtually).

This is why "adultery" only refers to a bloke having sex with a married woman or a married woman straying outside the marriage. If you look at the laws there's no real prohibition against a married man having the canoodlings with an unmarried woman. The unmarried woman isn't "one flesh" with a husband, so you're not having the virtual bum fun if you're with her.

And this is probably why Jesus was going on about "thought adultery" - if you're lusting after a married woman then because of the one flesh principle you're effectively lusting after the husband. Which, from a spiritual viewpoint, technically means you're gay and wanting the bum fun.

If there was no "one flesh" principle (and thus no virtual gayness involved), there probably wouldn't be any prohibition against adultery.

Of course, it's a little more complex than that, but that's what it boils down to.

How do you explain 1 Corinthians 7:8-9?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

How do you explain 1 Corinthians 7:8-9?

I've no idea how you're fitting that in with what I just wrote.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I've no idea how you're fitting that in with what I just wrote.

The main part says "it is better to marry than to burn with passion." I take that as saying that sex is for marriage only.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

The main part says "it is better to marry than to burn with passion." I take that as saying that sex is for marriage only.

Ahhh. I get where you're at now.

I don't take much notice of Paul, since I believe he was few sandwiches short of a picnic. I mean, in Genesis God makes a chick to be with Adam. In 1 Corinthians 7:8 it seems like Paul is suggesting that God made a mistake and everyone would be better off single. Jesus mentions that he didn't come to change the law, yet Paul reckons he's the bloke who can. Something odd there.

Recently I've even been toying with the idea that he was longing for the bum fun, since his opinions on sexual matters seem to mirror those of certain other well-known gay people who're struggling with their gayness in a spiritual context.

As for the whole sex outside marriage thing, I reckon it's neutral. Not condoned, but not condemned either. Otherwise, surely, it'd be "thou shall not hit anyone who isn't your spouse" rather than "thou shall not commit adultery"?

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ahhh. I get where you're at now.

I don't take much notice of Paul, since I believe he was few sandwiches short of a picnic. I mean, in Genesis God makes a chick to be with Adam. In 1 Corinthians 7:8 it seems like Paul is suggesting that God made a mistake and everyone would be better off single. Jesus mentions that he didn't come to change the law, yet Paul reckons he's the bloke who can. Something odd there.

Recently I've even been toying with the idea that he was longing for the bum fun, since his opinions on sexual matters seem to mirror those of certain other well-known gay people who're struggling with their gayness in a spiritual context.

As for the whole sex outside marriage thing, I reckon it's neutral. Not condoned, but not condemned either. Otherwise, surely, it'd be "thou shall not hit anyone who isn't your spouse" rather than "thou shall not commit adultery"?

Okay, I see what you mean.
I don't think that Paul was saying God made a mistake, as Paul obviously realizes that without sex, the human race is unlikely to continue. But Paul and a lot of the other disciples were able to do a lot more with respect to spreading the Gospel because they weren't tied down. Can you imagine Paul trying to write Romans with his wife nagging him about cleaning out the garage or mowing the lawn? I think that he's putting spreading the Gospel above fulfilling his desires for sexual satisfaction.

With regards to Jesus not coming to change the law but to fulfill it, Jesus broke the law when he healed on the sabbath but was cool with it. He preached a message of love over rules. In Luke 14:5 Jesus says "And He said to them, 'Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?'" Jesus is saying that people won't be saved by following every little rule in the Law, which is what Paul gets at in Romans and James helps to explain in his letter.

And the Greek word "porneia" appears many times in the New Testament and it has, since 100AD, been taken to mean, among other things, sex with someone you're not married to.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

As for the whole sex outside marriage thing, I reckon it's neutral. Not condoned, but not condemned either.

Evidently marriage is not something that has to be done by the church or any other institution. From what I know of the Bible, intercourse is, in God's eyes, the beginning of marriage, and you should plan on being committed to whomever it was you slept with. In this way, sex before legal marriage is not a sin in and of itself.

This is unrelated (and not directed at Doofy), but yesterday I overheard an acquaintance of mine saying "There's nothing wrong with gay people." This is something I only hear rarely in person, 80% of the time I hear homosexuality spoken about in derogatory terms. I told him it was nice of him to say that.

One can either spend time perfecting arguments which assert the immorality of homosexuality, or one could instead spend the very little time required to say and do things which make people feel better about themselves, since God did put us on earth to act peacefully and pleasantly towards one another.

Also take into consideration that some of us are trying hard to be Christians, and that being constantly reminded of the supposed gravity and peculiarity of our particular sin serves only to either a) make us feel even worse or b)drive us away form the Church. You won't ever succeed in turning us straight. I tried very hard to do that and it does not work.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

One can either spend time perfecting arguments which assert the immorality of homosexuality, or one could instead spend the very little time required to say and do things which make people feel better about themselves, since God did put us on earth to act peacefully and pleasantly towards one another.

Also take into consideration that some of us are trying hard to be Christians, and that being constantly reminded of the supposed gravity and peculiarity of our particular sin serves only to either a) make us feel even worse or b)drive us away form the Church. You won't ever succeed in turning us straight. I tried very hard to do that and it does not work.

I agree. As long as you ain't having the bum fun on my front lawn* or being in your face with lifestyle promotion, I don't care who you want to have nagging at you in the morning. 'Tis up to The Boss to judge, not us.

Please be aware that I'm not actually against anyone being gay. Do what you want - I'm a libertarian, after all. I'm simply attempting to analyse what "The Law" says about it. It's like how I don't really care that you're doing 50 mph in a 30 mph zone - I can tell you what the law says about it but I personally don't care either way.

(* note: I don't really want hetero chavs doing it on my front lawn either.)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Okay, I see what you mean.
I don't think that Paul was saying God made a mistake, as Paul obviously realizes that without sex, the human race is unlikely to continue. But Paul and a lot of the other disciples were able to do a lot more with respect to spreading the Gospel because they weren't tied down. Can you imagine Paul trying to write Romans with his wife nagging him about cleaning out the garage or mowing the lawn? I think that he's putting spreading the Gospel above fulfilling his desires for sexual satisfaction.

With regards to Jesus not coming to change the law but to fulfill it, Jesus broke the law when he healed on the sabbath but was cool with it. He preached a message of love over rules. In Luke 14:5 Jesus says "And He said to them, 'Which one of you will have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?'" Jesus is saying that people won't be saved by following every little rule in the Law, which is what Paul gets at in Romans and James helps to explain in his letter.

I'll take some time to consider this.