View Full Version : Sexuality
Hey guys, I posted these thoughts over on PP but got no response -- I'm wondering what you all think:
Now here's a thought to consider: Could the biblical injunction against same-sex "practice" be NOT so much a carte blanche stipulation on humanly, but possibly more related to the area of purity within the community of "those called" to minister on God's behalf as Israel was under the old covenant? Thus this same-sex "unnatural attraction" becomes a metaphor for "death" as it relates to the Godly line of "those called" as was reflected by apostate Israel who looked to "man" rather than to "God" [1Cor 10:6-8, 17-24].
This then explores the broader issue of "sinful practice" [not JUST homosexuality] not in terms of right versus wrong, but rather more in terms of wise versus unwise [1Cor 6:9-10] i.e., in terms of help or hindrance in Godly service [1Cor 6:12; 10:23; Rom 14:22; 6:16]. Thus Paul's related "[I]inheriting the kingdom" is seen in terms NOT of who goes to Heaven etc, but rather – what hinders one from grasping [inheriting] the kingdom as a present reality, and its subsequent call to service; being saved-to-serve.
Any thoughts? :coffee:
Davo,
I don't see how your hypothesis squares with Romans 1:18-24.
JL
Hi JL, it's not something I'm currently dying for, but within the biblical context of "the people of God" I'm wondering if it can be seen as such, and certainly Rom 1:18 can be seen as indicative of such where "the wrath of God is being [Gk] revealed from heaven against… men who suppress the truth…" [Lk 11:52; Act 15:10] etc, where such can be seen in context as the Judaistic hierarchy of the day – thus NOT global but local, as per other pręt arguments made etc.
Just because something can "possibly" be identified as being Israel specific does not mean it cannot be applied beyond – but is THAT necessarily required of this text?
Interesting.
Gee Dave, Why do you have to go asking such tough questions? Trying to get us to think or somethin?:rolleyes 2: Just giving you a hard time. I don't even know why I'm responding to this cuz I have NO CLUE :conf44: Oh well, I think your view is very well thought out and I think it's plausible. Um, lets see, I guess where my thoughts take me is I'm thinking that Paul was very human. When I read his writings I see someone who's always trying to absorb the full meaning of grace even as he's trying to explain the whole expansiveness of it to others. Sometimes I'll be reading his stuff and come across a verse and think "gosh he sure hit the nail on the head with that description of grace". Then other times I think he misses the boat, especially with interpersonal dealings. I think he was still greatly influenced by his own religious background and some of that comes thru in his writings. I am one who does weigh scripture. Or I should say I'm one who "admits" I do :biggrinbounce: I actually think most ppl do weigh it according to alot of their belief system. But Eeeenyway, Since I started looking at scripture thru the lens of grace, his "right on the nail" descriptions of it, trump the other interpersonal relationship stuff he expresses...homosexuals, women, etc... :2cents: Tami
Romans was not written to Jews but to Romans. So I don't see how what you wrote follows.
JL
Paige
06-25-2006, 12:28 AM
I've actually heard it argued that Romans was written to "Israelites" of the diaspora in Rome...anybody else heard that before? Where that gets some weight with me is the fact that Paul spends quite a lot of the book speaking about the law and how "they" died to it (Rom.7). That speaks to a "Hebrew" audience, if you ask me...Its something I'm chewing on right now anyway.
Exactly Paige.
JL, have you never noticed how all Paul's "Gentile" epistles carry such a "Israelite-ish" undertones -- could these Gentiles primarily [though not exclusively] be of Northern Tribes extraction? Example, Paul writes:
1Cor 1:1 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
And then:
1Cor 10:1-11 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
For a very "Gentile" church they sure had some very "Jewish" history. This whole passage touches on these very things.
I'm not in any way going along with the stupid comment that Episcopalian priest made -- what I'm wondering is "how much" of what Paul wrote on such things actually fits "within the context" of the people of God, irrespective of how that might apply beyond, and is such then as I queried relative to the "call of God" as opposed to a general sanction etc.
Now JL, considering your background, how can you NOT see my point regarding this as per the global/local logic [not saying you have to agree though].
I have some expanded thoughts on this Jewish/Gentile connection HERE (http://pantelism.com/TheNations.htm).
ozark
06-25-2006, 03:33 PM
Paige,
I have heard this before from preterists. However, I think you run into trouble with Romans 9-11 in such a scenario. Trying to make these chapters talk about the Diaspora sounds a bit forced to me. Moreover, why would they even be necessary?
I am not saying that the word “gentiles” cannot primarily mean the Diaspora, but there are numerous problems with this interpretation that are yet to be solved or are perhaps unsolvable. Not to mention the fact that the archeological evidence and other writings of the day seem to disagree with this possibility.
Doug, perhaps this might be something for another thread -- what difficulties do you see with what I've shared in my article and or what I've shared above. What archeological evidence and other writings do you have in mind etc??
christyG
06-25-2006, 07:21 PM
Davo,
great thread, great thoughts...
Could the biblical injunction against same-sex "practice" be NOT so much a carte blanche stipulation on humanly, but possibly more related to the area of purity within the community
I recently read a similar point of view on this exact subject in a book by Marcus J. Borg, entitled Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. This book also points out that homosexuality is addressed as part of the purity laws in Leviticus. Borg makes his point about this issue of homosexuality as a purity issue in a line of discussion about how Christianity and society as a whole today have their own new forms of "purity laws" and homosexuality could be seen as a purity issue even today.
Christy
Barry
06-25-2006, 08:03 PM
Paul cannot speak from any other vantage-point other than that of a Jew.
Yes he can be a gentile to the gentiles. But one who speaks of Jewish things.
Romans 1:18 concerns itself with that which was "revealed" from faith to faith. These are Jewish matters. They are old covenant matters. It was the old covenant creature that was implacable.
The creation of the world in 1:20 is the old covenant world.
God's eternal power and invisible attributes are seen in "old covenant creation" since Adam. Paul preached Christ from the law and the prophets.
This is where those who epose the "physical first" then the "spiritual" fail in covenantal eschatology.
It is not the physical first but the natural first.
The physical is not the natural. The natural is that which is within human potential. Human potential "natural" is typically governed by the physical. Hence the confusion.
The end of the world was not the end of the physical but the end of that which human potential could "independently" accomplish (as Babel tryed).
The temples physicality was not destroyed. It's "standing" one stone upon another was "taken down" ("made with hands" is not its physicality but its potential in natural terms).
Herein there is a substantial difference.
So then those who were called to service could not meet their calling but through the "natural" which was then the bases of their calling in this time.
JMO
Barry
Howdee all!
I'm thinking that in the Old Testament, that to "spill seed" was seen as murder in that lineage was so important. Perhaps it could even be seen as something which went against the outworking of God's redemption because they are wasting their seed rather than going out and reproducing.
I think that Paul is using homosexuality as an example of that which is unnatural - which would be adam lying with adam, eve lying with eve; or idol worshippers. Either of those goes against the spiritual, as Barry already pointed out.
Though those who were unnatural symbolically (those who clung to the old covenant system) would not enter into the Kingdom, I'm not sure that the "type" (for lack of better wording) would be accountable in the same way.
Amie
PS- I totally agree with it having to do with uncleanliness. Just look at the other places "abomination" is used.
Paul even says "They take into themselves the recompence of their error which is meet". Could be wrong, but I understand that to mean that the uncleanliness they 'took in' was good enough for 'em.
Amie
Me Again
12-12-2007, 08:26 AM
Old thread, but I feel like thinking and writing - so RESURRECTION!!!!!!
While it is probably true that the Roman Church had Israelites as well as Italians (gentiles), I think that much of Romans was written ABOUT Israel. "For, though they knew God, they neither glorified Him, nor gave Him thanks." Who knew God? Only Israel. It was "they" who exchanged natural relations for unnatural. Just as Amie pointed out, the spilling of the sperm outside the womb was sinful. God told the covenant people to "multiply and fill the Land," and to practice either contraception or homosexuality (or masturbation for that matter) prevented that procreation. So, these things were abominations, as were other things - like lying.
I have a real problem with bringing old testament prohibitions about homosexuality, contraception and masturbation into this "new age." I believe that their proscription served a purpose that is no longer necessary. That is not to say that I necessarily approve of any of those practices, but this ranting that goes on in fundamentalist pulpits regarding sex has done nothing to bring about changed lives. While groups like Exodus International, a homosexual-salvation group, claim thousands of changed lives, what they don't tell you is the large percentage of people who return to the former lifestyle. Some of the folks who were "changed" were in fact BI-sexuals to begin with and simply stopped the same-sex practice. It wasn't that they weren't attracted to women, they just found men acceptable as well. As long as they could get enough sex from females, they didn't need the "alternative."
I am of the persuasion that our job is to preach God's love. As people accept that love unconditionally, IF God wants something in their life to change, He'll help...He'll do it. As I've said in other places, I am NOT fundamentally a different person than I was prior to "conversion." What I PRACTICE is largely different, but who I am is still the same - "warts and all." I'm sure that's true with others.
ozark
12-12-2007, 01:11 PM
I am of the persuasion that our job is to preach God's love. As people accept that love unconditionally, IF God wants something in their life to change, He'll help...He'll do it. As I've said in other places, I am NOT fundamentally a different person than I was prior to "conversion." What I PRACTICE is largely different, but who I am is still the same - "warts and all." I'm sure that's true with others.
Very well said. I live in a city where there is a large homosexual community, and I have reached the same conclusion. I will not preach against homosexuality, but I will preach the love of Christ. Love is what most homosexuals I know have been denied for much if not all of their lives. If such love transforms their sexuality, then so be it. If it does not, they are still loved.
Jotham
12-12-2007, 03:39 PM
the more i dig into the Fulfilled point of view the more i'm able to look beyond a fellow being's current perceived state and not judge them. I'm luvin' the idea of Comp.Grace and U.L. . It solves a world of hurt IMV.
: ) Thom
Jason Hall
05-29-2008, 03:13 PM
I don't think we are to judge people...but we are definitely to judge actions. Otherwise, "eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die".
As for homosexuality, and masterbation, and any other sexual issue, it's not about the "who", or lack of a "who"...but it's about lust. Too often lust is included in the concepts of love. Certainly in modern America it is almost the definition of love. We know, both from the Bible, and from nature, and from simple logic, that one man and one woman reproduce, and no other people are needed. Therefor, how can it be anything but lust for homosexuals? Lust is very powerful, especially for those who don't know God's love, and it feels like love, when someone lusts after us, and we like it and want more, because "someone loves us".
And what of spilling seed? Masterbation inherently requires lust. You cannot masterbate without lust. The only arguement against this may be that one could think of their partner...but I would argue that if you can't wait for your partner, then you're not thinking of them, but the pleasure for youself instead.
One can even lust after others during sex with their partner. Thus, even a virgin (using the modern definition, thereby applying to men also) can commit adultry.
The issue is "lusting in your heart" and not "who you're having sex with".
Me Again
05-29-2008, 05:13 PM
Jason, fundamentally I agree with you. The problem lies in bringing old testament prohibitions into post-parousia existence. The whole point of the law was to show men that they were lustful, and no better than the adulterer; nor the one who calls his brother a fool any better than the murderer.
I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with lust, if it is directed towards one's spouse. I personally lust after my wife's body - what she calls being "warm for her form." This is exciting to me, it stimulates me. I love watching her, touching her, experiencing her. Sure, it's because I love her, but the very natural emotion of lust is what stimulates me to enjoy her as well.
What is interesting is how we view things sexually. During the intercourse, a man may move in a certain way to bring pleasure to himself. Although the woman's body is being used, it is still the man's motions that stimulate. Yet, if the man was watching his spouse showering, and masturbate, somehow it becomes evil. Sex is a very mechanical thing - and requires that each partner participate in the act. The mechanics of it requires a combination of self-stimulation AND other-stimulation. There's no way around it. If I avoid self-stimulation entirely, I must then trust my wife to do every aspect of the mechanics in order for me to have an orgasm. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak; it is the man who is staring at the ceiling saying "beige, I'll paint the ceiling beige..."
James Jordan, a Presbyterian commentator, once stated that "within marriage, there is no prohibitive touch." IOW, married couples are free to experiment with a variety of ways of sexual pleasure. There is absolutely NOTHING in the bible that would indicate that a married couple was punished by God for doing a certain sexual act. Outside of bringing others into the relationship (which would include porn), there is nothing to limit a couples' sexuality. As long as both partners are comfortable with it, it's all about consenting adults - one flesh.
ed
Jason Hall
05-30-2008, 01:01 PM
The issue seems tobe more about what is lust rather than how it pertains to the physical mechanics of sexual pleasure.
From Scripture, I see lust as the desire for physical pleasure taking precedence over the spiritual consequences.
Jesus example of lusting after another woman being adultry shows adultry is of the heart, not the act, thereby showing lust as purely spiritual in nature. Thus, covetting and lusting seem basically the same. Would you say covetting is ok? Would you say focusing on getting what someone else has is an acceptable mindset for someone who is to show God's love? Now, would you say that wanting someone else's body for your own pleasure is showing God's love? If the entirety of the stimulus in sexual activity is physically sensual, then it would seem to be lust-driven. If the desire has a spiritual component to it, though, then it's be an act out of love.
The problem, I think, is in the view that having sex is our right. Our society is really worried about making sure we all have the right to have sex, and that we take other's money to pay for the consequences. The perspective that "I should be able to" is ingrained in us from the moment we turn on the toddler shows, through the government schooling, while we listen to the popular music, and all through college. I disagree that physical pleasure is a right.
Aside from that even, look at the lifestyle of people who want to have all kinds of crazy sex. Are they really loving? Are they looking for something to fill the void that we realize God fills with love? If it's obviously not good to have sex with any random person you come accross, due to the empirical data that people who do that are spiritually drained of love, constantly looking for acceptance, then at what point is it acceptable? Never? Porn and orgies are bad? Howso? Scripture doesn't say anything against molestation then. Or sexual abuse. In fact, it doesn't say anything against any sexual pleasure post-Parousa, right?
I think we too-often, in our zeal to escape the death the Law brings, don't acknowledge the reason for the Law was to guide into the New. We don't have to abide the letter, but if we abide to the spirit of the Law, we'll see God better, and be able to love more.
To an extent, you can argue that nothing is "wrong" post-Parousa, but we all know certain things still are. Murder certainly isn't advocated, right? So, there is a morality still in play. God's written it on our hearts.
Paige
05-30-2008, 02:15 PM
The problem, I think, is in the view that having sex is our right. Our society is really worried about making sure we all have the right to have sex, and that we take other's money to pay for the consequences. The perspective that "I should be able to" is ingrained in us from the moment we turn on the toddler shows, through the government schooling, while we listen to the popular music, and all through college. I disagree that physical pleasure is a right.
I think this is a bit overly simplistic. Who created sex? Who put within human beings the desire for it? Why is sex on the chopping block here, but not sweets? If I choose junk food over whole food, will I suffer consequences? Will I possibly become a drain on the health insurance rates in my group? What If I like to bungee jump, or sky dive? Should someone else be able to point the accusing finger at me?
Sex is not the only thing out there that provides physical pleasure, but it sure seems to be the most demonized...Not only that, but once it is treated like the forbidden fruit, it is going to be the most sought after fruit around (human nature, I think).
All things are lawful, yet not all things are profitable. Sometimes people have to learn the hard way.
Paige
Jason Hall
05-30-2008, 03:39 PM
Paige,
You could place anything you want into my post. Sex is the topic of the thread, that's why it's singled out. I made the comparrison to covetting for the reason to show that lust doesn't have to do with the sexual act, but with the internal desire.
And if all things are lawful, then what about rape and murder? How can these things be accetable? Those committing these acts may not be loved any less, or punished as we may think they should be as part of our nature, but the actions themselves certainly aren't acceptable, are they? When you admit rape isn't ok, then you must acknowledge an objective reality wherein certain things actions are wrong.
Jason,
Rape is being done every minute of the day whether you accept it or choose to argue with that reality (as if anyone not accepting it will make it stop). Part of Paige's statement (a quote from Paul no less) was "..yet not all things are profitable". I think we all acknowledge that rape is crossing a sexual boundary and not to be enabled.
I understand the "lust" biblically to be referring to a desire for righteousness - and yes, sexual conquest is included. Lust was never an issue as I understand it but rather what was being lusted. Is masturbation in pursuit of one's own interest as it was when the seed was spilled biblically? Because that guy was commanded by God to have sex with that woman and refused. See, even masturbation can be seen via the flesh and blood eyes as self gain, OR in other ways all together. There is lust for gain/status even in that context, and lust for - well, I'll behave.
To be holed up in moral court is to take time up arguing rather than actually addressing the issue of rape. It is subjective, rapists are real human beings with real problems and preventing further victimization would be beneficial to those who would suffer at the hands of a problemed brother or sister.
Gotta go..
Amie
Jason Hall
06-02-2008, 12:39 PM
Amie,
Your allowance for lust being good is interesting, and I'll look more in to that to see what the scripture does indeed say.
However, I think you missed my point. I am assuming from what you said that you do think rape is wrong, since you think people need be protected from it. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I'll proceed with that assumption. So, if rape is wrong, then not ALL things are acceptable to be doing. I know the quote is from scripture, but I also know that the "all" in the context did not mean "everything ever that you can possibly imagine". In fact, that word rarely truly means ALL, but is usually a term meaning "everything pertaining to this context". If I list off a bunch of TV shows, for example, and say at the end "all are on tonight", we know from the context of the list that I mean all the shows on the list will air that night.
Paige has seemed to imply that focusing on sexual activity to determine a righteous attitude toward it is bad because we should be focusing on everything else people do for pleasure also. And you seemed to imply that we're wasting our time here in "moral court" trying to understand what's acceptable and not. Certainly we all here, by simply posting, are then wasting our time being to focused on one thing or another, or by trying to descern truth from the insight of others with common base assumptions. I don't think that, at least not for subjects of import, and I don't believe either of you do too, but I think there is too much a knee-jerk reaction to certain topics, and sex is one of them. The topic of this post is about sexuality, and it's presence on this site implies "in relation to the fulfilled grace of God", so I've been responded as I thought on the subject. If we are to respond to rapists, or just homosexuals, then it would be best if we've all discussed what God thinks, rather than avoided it due to not wanting to waste time in "moral court", or because there's other subjects out there too.
It seems like Me Again is the only one who felt like discussing this.
Paige
06-02-2008, 02:33 PM
Jason,
You brought up a point about lust to which Ed replied:
I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with lust, if it is directed towards one's spouse. I personally lust after my wife's body - what she calls being "warm for her form." This is exciting to me, it stimulates me. I love watching her, touching her, experiencing her. Sure, it's because I love her, but the very natural emotion of lust is what stimulates me to enjoy her as well.
In your response, you said:
From Scripture, I see lust as the desire for physical pleasure taking precedence over the spiritual consequences.
My point, when I entered into the conversation, was that sex was designed by God to be physically pleasurable. I agree with Ed in that I really don't think God has a problem with people desiring physical pleasure from each other. I won't explicity state "married" people, because even before we marry, we desire physical intimacy with that person (hopefully). I don't think He has a problem that we derive pleasure from certain food (like chocolate) either (or sky diving and bungee jumping).
Perhaps I've misread you, but it seemed as if your view of life in relationship with God is that we must replace "I should be able to" with "I can't..." I think a full life here on earth includes a healthy attitude toward pleasure. I think children should be encouraged to run, jump, and play. However, if you knew me, you'd also know that I believe very strongly in balance. I've been exposed to much legalism in my background. I tend to be very sensitive to it.
Pardon me if I did misunderstand your point of view.
As an aside, I'm not sure how one would've ever jumped, after reading my initial post, to the idea that I would defend rape. In my exposure to the research out there, rape has more to do with violence than sexuality. I don't defend violence, unless one is having to defend themself, or another.
Paige
Jason Hall
06-02-2008, 03:35 PM
I didn't mean that you defended rape. But you implied all things were "legal" with your quote, and I was using rape as an example that I'm fairly sure no one would say that is "ok, but not very profitable". It was just a point that we do all agree there is objective reality, though some don't see they think that way. And, if rape is wrong, then other things CAN be wrong to do, whether we have the "right" to do them. I accept that any rapist can be reconciled to God. I accept the possibility that everyone already is (though I'm not yet fully convinced on that), however, no one allows for that because of this "new" human condition that rape is now acceptable, because we are "free" since the parousa. That was my example: that "old testament values" aren't gone just because we are redeemed. With that in mind, then we cannot simply accept what Paul indicates is wrong in Romans 1 as "no longer wrong", which seems to be what was being advocated earlier in the thread.
And just because we find pleasure in something doesn't mean we can just go do it. Romans 14 indicates why. Not because it is "wrong", but because of the others that see us.
Romans 14:
14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.
Now for a silly movie example that actually hits on what I've been saying well. The other day I came accross The 40-Year-Old Virgin on TV, so I watched some of it...since I do like Steve Carell (I think that's his name). Anyway, turns out the whole film was about how everyone's life was messed up and out of control due to their sex lives. I've seen this since high school, and over the past decade since. The more sex anyone I've ever known has, the more lost in their own turmoil they've become. If the answer for this is not because of how sex affects us emotionally in relation to the partner(s) for those acts, then why would this be? Paul said he was celebate to stay clearly-thinking, and he wished that others would too. He said if you can go without sex, that's best, but if you must, then get married, so can get it out of your system. How does the life of those more sex-oriented help them maintain a peaceful (with God) life? I offer that it doesn't...and can't. Physical pleasure too easily becomes an idol, a focus of life. Especially sex. And that's why we should choose not to get rediculously liberal in our "allowance" for it in our lives, because others will stumble. Those that only see what your doing, and not why.
My position is not that we "can't" but that we "should try to avoid excess". Physical pleasure for the sake of that pleasure tends to far too easily end in excess. Jesus said everything in moderation, and moderation is our responsiblity to say "when".
I am assuming from what you said that you do think rape is wrong, since you think people need be protected from it.
I'm not sure that I should go on reading your post (but I will) if it is built upon this mistaken assumption. I'm not sure that we could make a law which states "rape is wrong" when we keep in mind the child soldiers being trained in Africa for example, who participate in rape. Would we hang them along with those who should know better? In the Old Testament, they would be stoned like everyone else because law is law.
No rape is not okay, yet I know that because of relationship and not because I believe that I hold the monopoly on moral truth.
I am not here to decide rights and wrongs (findings made in moral court), but to make friends and build relationships. I love talking about theology yet my purpose is not to weigh rules to live by. We are free imo.
Why talk about whether or not rape is acceptable? It's here regardless of our decission -- still needing solutions in preventing it and helping those living through it or committing it. So yes, I see that as a distraction. It's like the argument about abortion. Folks arguing over whether it should or should not be allowed or morally acceptable are so busy arguing that no real solutions are being sought.
In sharing my opinion my intent is not to try and convince you either way, it's just my opinion. We may not agree on some things, we may agree on others, but we're getting to know one another. I have been discussing this with you so I am confused by your last statement.
Amie
The more sex anyone I've ever known has, the more lost in their own turmoil they've become.
In what way?
Amie
Jotham
06-02-2008, 09:33 PM
...Paul said he was celebate to stay clearly-thinking, and he wished that others would too. He said if you can go without sex, that's best, but if you must, then get married, so can get it out of your system. How does the life of those more sex-oriented help them maintain a peaceful (with God) life?...IMO, from personal studies, I believe Paul was encouraging his audience (those that would go through the tribulation of those days in the 1st century --audience relevance--) to heed his words as the times ahead would be difficult for any following "The Way", and more so for those who were taken in marriage.
For the "Sex" thingy, God created all and said a big "it is good" at the end. There was most likely sex between the garden-couple before the fall, how else were they to expand their family? So "Sex" created by God is good. God created the healthy male with a sex drive that is nearly unquenchable, and after 25 years of happy marriage i have more passion for my bride than the first time we made love. God did that, and "It Is Good".
I say that a happily married male is able to be a pleasing offering to God as much if not more so than a single male that still has the natural sex drive that is placed in all men by their creator.
And on a sillier note; One of my first questions in the great beyond is why God created males in such a way that on some days we will think of sex 45 seconds out of any given 60!?
THANK GOD FOR MARRIAGE !
: )
IMO, from personal studies, I believe Paul was encouraging his audience (those that would go through the tribulation of those days in the 1st century --audience relevance--) to heed his words as the times ahead would be difficult for any following "The Way", and more so for those who were taken in marriage.
I think there's a historical context as well Thom. Those that they would take in marriage could turn back to the law - and what about pregnant mothers back in that tumultuous time? I could only imagine (and it is hard to even try).
Plus there's the whole "in the resurrection they neither marry or are given in marriage" thing. Marriage was as defined under the law and the law was a passing thing. Things got complicated during the transition I bet.
Just some thoughts you inspired..
Amie
Barry
06-03-2008, 07:54 AM
Hey folks,
:2cents:
Lust is not the desire for pleasure.
Lust is the desire to establish or fulfill something about one's self defined self.
The biblical "lust of the flesh", is not equal to human desire, or human desire for pleasure.
The connection comes in as a matter of feeling that the pleasure answers to ones value or worth or merit. This is IMHO what people see in scripture and then make the connection between human pleasure and lust. A connection that is however not IMHO completely accurate.
In other words then, people become very attached to pleasure when something within them sees that pleasure as saying something to their own self defined image of themselves. Since sex is often attached to self image, guess what? When we determine that sex says nothing about who I really am then it can be more easily appropriated in situations that are more conducive to the benefit of all who are affected by it. Thus personal boundaries become based not on "sin" or "law" but love and care and well being for all involved.
The problem that "law" dealt with is not human desire, but desire which was sourced form a self conceived image. Hence, the law is not for a rightous man for of sinners.
In essence, the law was given to idolaters [all within the setting of the precedence of types and figures].
Living for the pleasure tends to come into play when my own self defined image is somehow built up through a particular pleasure. The pleasure may speak to me as one that is worthy of it. Then the desire for it is not just a human issue but rather a "worth" issue. Then the pleasure becomes more important than the issues of benefit or well being that surround the choices that are make.
God's love without condition tends to undermine these issues. His free gifts undermine my own desire to seek out my own established worth. And places life itself in the understanding of relationship (as opposed to law).
As far as human desire, God made us sexual beings. If that is not what he intended then he messed up pretty bad :)
God did not put pleasure in front of us just to tell us that it is wrong. For he has attached pleasure to survival and contentment. Sex in and of itself is healthy and beneficial to one's well being.
Most of the issues arise when pleasure answers to a self image construct.
JMO and it needs more work but it's beginning IMO.
Barry
ozark
06-03-2008, 02:01 PM
Barry,
I think this area of our model needs to be our next project. It seems there were two lies the serpent presented to Eve in the garden. One was who she was wasn’t enough. (You shall be like God.) The other was what she had was not enough. (The tree was desirable.) It was this perceived incompleteness that led to all the troubles.
I mentioned in an earlier post the first fruits Christians giving up their money etc. It could be that because they were finding completion in Christ, they found freedom to give, and to exercise love instead of lust.
We all want abundant life, but rarely do we define it as Christ. And rarely do we define it as something we have rather than something we are looking for. It is very similar to the concept of righteousness.
Barry
06-03-2008, 02:23 PM
Barry,
I think this area of our model needs to be our next project. It seems there were two lies the serpent presented to Eve in the garden. One was who she was wasn’t enough. (You shall be like God.) The other was what she had was not enough. (The tree was desirable.) It was this perceived incompleteness that led to all the troubles.
I mentioned in an earlier post the first fruits Christians giving up their money etc. It could be that because they were finding completion in Christ, they found freedom to give, and to exercise love instead of lust.
We all want abundant life, but rarely do we define it as Christ. And rarely do we define it as something we have rather than something we are looking for. It is very similar to the concept of righteousness.
Those are some great points Doug.
It does also somewhat simplifiy things a bit.
Been thinking about the incompletness and that also does make a lot of sense IMO.
It was this perceived incompleteness that led to all the troubles.
Barry
Jason Hall
06-03-2008, 02:34 PM
If, as Amie said, this is a place for everyone to be friends rather than discuss understanding or right and wrong, which has no relavence due to the fact that whether something is right or wrong aparently will never affect anything about the fact that something is done, or not done; then I guess I'm in the wrong place. I am all for understanding the context of scripture, but I refuse to ignore the entirety of moral judgement espoused therein under the guise of "it doesn't apply to us". Some of it applies to us. We're all still human, just like them as told about in scripture, with one greater quality given us. That means the words in scripture do mean something. For example: the ten comandments may not still be Law for us, but they certainly are indication of how we should behave.
Obviously I shouldn't have said anything about rape, since it drove everyone crazy and upset the "conversation". I apologize for interfering with the agree-a-thon that was going on. I've always found my understanding to improve via debate (even heated) rather than mutual consensus, so this just ain't the place for me.
Me Again
06-03-2008, 02:54 PM
Jason,
What's wrong with mutual consensus? I guess I am not following. You believe that we MUST disagree, or that we must agree with you? I don't mean to be so blunt, but I know of what I speak.
I was one of the founding members of this forum. Then I decided that everyone must agree with me on one point. I flushed years of friendship over ONE SINGLE POINT of disagreement. I deleted my membership, dumped my webpage, even tried to become a pret-idealist (don't ask...). I've since returned with a renewed spirit; one of humility and sorrow for what was lost. What's beautiful about the gospel message is that, in spite of wrongdoing, we can find reconciliation, first with God, then with each other.
You think I agree with everything Amie or Barry says? LOL. they'll tell you that ain't so! Oh man, there's been times when Amie and I basically had to agree to take some time away from the screen so that our friendship would stay intact. I actually one time wanted to fly to Australia and punch Davo in the mouth (you probably didn't know that Davo, sorry...).
This place is meant to be a loving place. No one here doesn't love you Jason. Some of us disagree with you - big time - but that doesn't mean that you can't stay here and share...but you need to let us share too...are you feeling me? I hope so. I know it's difficult sometimes to "hear" what we are saying - Amie used to think I talked like Macho Man Randy Savage from the WWE, until she talked to me on the phone. Now, she hears what I write, as if I were saying it. It puts a whole new face on my posts for her. She knows I'm just a big teddy bear.
Try to hear what we are saying (I know I am not a person who thinks that we can live without morality), and we'll try to hear what you are saying. Let's make this a conversation - nothing wrong with that - but if you wanted a place where you can just tell us what you think and we're all going to agree and elect you pope, then that's not going to happen here. We've all been raked over hot coals too much to be anything but free-thinking and at times downright ornery. It took all of us a lot of arguing to get to where we are, and a whole lot more to get us where we are going. You can add to that conversation, help change us, and be changed. We are all in this together, and we need all the help we can get.
Hope you'll consider staying and sharing your heart. Sorry if we come across too harshly at times. Try to hear us...we don't bite, really.
Barry
06-03-2008, 03:00 PM
If, as Amie said, this is a place for everyone to be friends rather than discuss understanding or right and wrong, which has no relavence due to the fact that whether something is right or wrong aparently will never affect anything about the fact that something is done, or not done; then I guess I'm in the wrong place. I am all for understanding the context of scripture, but I refuse to ignore the entirety of moral judgement espoused therein under the guise of "it doesn't apply to us". Some of it applies to us. We're all still human, just like them as told about in scripture, with one greater quality given us. That means the words in scripture do mean something. For example: the ten comandments may not still be Law for us, but they certainly are indication of how we should behave.
Obviously I shouldn't have said anything about rape, since it drove everyone crazy and upset the "conversation". I apologize for interfering with the agree-a-thon that was going on. I've always found my understanding to improve via debate (even heated) rather than mutual consensus, so this just ain't the place for me.
Hey Jason.
Sorry you feel out of place for whatever reason.
A few questions for you if you wish to hang around.
Jason, do you obey the Sabbath?
Why did God tell Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
I would be interested in your views on this bro.
Blessings Barry
Jotham
06-03-2008, 03:27 PM
[...]It took all of us a lot of arguing to get to where we are, and a whole lot more to get us where we are going. You can add to that conversation, help change us, and be changed. We are all in this together, and we need all the help we can get[...]Ed your post was full of dejaVu for me. And the snippet i quoted sums it all up for me here with my TG Family.
Jason, as Ed stated in his post, many of us have; "been raked over hot coals", if not here, then in our respective real-world sphere of influence. I'm not proud of the fact i've been asked to leave a bible study or two in my days. . . and it is the Fellowship in Grace and Love here at TG that keeps me coming back for encouragement and support that i can take into my daily walk with my local brothers and sisters here on the Oregon Coast.
Some of my NetQuaintences here go back many years from another forum we were involved with...we've been through lots together and i can assure you, as Ed noted, we don't all think alike. Though after all that has transpired there is no other place that i call my spiritual home on the web!
Blessings,
Thom
Beautifully stated y'all. I fell short I think, in communicating the assurance that my point was not to try and convince, but to share.
It is a struggle to have a relationship in the face of diversity and a task that we've all undertaken by choice. Had I chosen to surround myself with people who always agree with me and who share all of the same experiences and stuff, I will have never grown - and believe me, I've grown.
I do not think that friendship is at odds with discussing understanding, but a part of it.
Ed - No one ever stopped loving you, your effort at flushing was failed. (hahaha!!) Time outs are to remember that although I may not be right, I am never wrong. LOL!!
Amie
:bow:
I actually one time wanted to fly to Australia and punch Davo in the mouth (you probably didn't know that Davo, sorry...).haha lol... good one Ed. To puch me in the mouth though Ed you'd have to be pretty quick, seeing as my mouth moves so fast :biglaugha: :termi:
Robert
01-11-2010, 08:57 PM
wow i have never really looked at this category on here before i dont think haha i love the posts shared by all the admins to jason and sharing how you all differ in many ways. it is a very good thing to have disagreement in an agreeable manner. Amie needs a timeout though since she believes she is always right LOL good stuff ya'll!!
Robert
Raggedy Anne
01-21-2010, 01:38 AM
wow i have never really looked at this category on here before i dont think haha i love the posts shared by all the admins to jason and sharing how you all differ in many ways. it is a very good thing to have disagreement in an agreeable manner. Amie needs a timeout though since she believes she is always right LOL good stuff ya'll!!
Robert
Well said, Robert. I just now worked my way through this thread and really enjoyed the voyage. I'm not a pantelist -- not even sure I understand what one is, but there sure are some awesome brothers and sisters participating at this place. I have been banned from a few boards myself (not something to brag about), but I've been raked over a few coals myself and tossed outside, door locked, key thrown away. It has turned out to be for my good, it seems. God shuts and opens doors - not we ourselves.
Grace and peace -
Anne
Me Again
01-21-2010, 06:42 AM
I have been banned from a few boards myself (not something to brag about),Anne
actually, I think it might be something to brag about. In one of Woody Allen's movies, he says to Albert Brooks, when talking about church, "I'm not sure I want to join a group that would have me as a member."
The groups I've been banned from I now realize I wouldn't want my name associated with. I'm happy to be living "kingdom" right here...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.