I hope this thread will be more sucessful than the last one I created about homosexuality. I think you will find this chart quite helpful and insightful, especially when you're dealing with advocates with this abomination:
I must admit I'm thoroughly confused by this massive chart. All I know is that I have this attraction upon which I no longer act or even wish to act, because I love God and His Son more than the sons of men. The point about infertility & sexuality is well-made. Type vs. effect is very important in all this.
OK this chart confused me, but I would like to make 2 points.. 1. Contraception is not wrong if used in a way which doesn't change the internal bodily function, eg the pill is wrong because it effect the hormones but condoms are fine because they only have an outside function- the sperm can't reach the egg which should be the sole reason for contraception anyway. 2. If you have an act of sex which is procreative in type surely the intention of reproduction is there just by committing the act, weather reproduction is the agreed concequence of that act or not.
I've been thinking, if sex doesn't have to be had with the intention of procreation surely that allows (in a general sense) the act of Homosexual sex because procreation can not happen in a union of two people of the same sex.
This is where Natural Law can contradict the Theology laid out by the Holy Scripture. Men burning with lusts toward one another and committing these acts are certainly not in God's favour.
Ok so Homosexually goes against the idea of procreation, but how do we know that God frowns on practising Homosexuals? Yes is's written in the bible that 'man should not lay with man' but what about all the arguements out there saying that the bible is only saying that because of what society was like at the time, and it should be taken in context, so surely that means that homosexually in a loving relationship doesn't go against God, does it? I would like to add that this is just a point of view and not something I auctually believe myself.
This is one of the worst slanders against God, Christ, and the Apostles that's floating around today. If the culture of the time really influenced the Lord & the first Christians so much, pretty much the entire Gospel becomes ridiculous. No one expected one person to be resurrected to eternal life before the General Resurrection at the end of time, yet this is what happened to Christ. No one who would make up the Resurrection for his own benefit would have reporteda Woman to be the first witness of it. A great love for the dignity of children & women was displayed by the Lord Jesus which is not typical of that culture at all - and He spoke to the Samaritan adulteress at the well, something utterly shocking to everybody. This is one reason the Gospel about Christ is so convincing: it's unexpected, otherworldly, and shocking. We must conclude that Paul's injunctions against homosexual acts stem from strong personal conviction given by the Holy Spirit. In most of the Gentile cities to which he wrote, homosexuality~pederasty was something beloved and practiced by many. He could've appeased them and told them to go on with what they were doing, but he did not. There are just so many things said & done by Christ and the Apostles which completely defy the society in which the Faith began. Thanks be to God!
Ok, but I have heard the view that although homosexually was practised it was really rape to show one man more dominant than the other, so surely if homosexually was practised in a loving relationship it would still be to defy the society of the time, if Jesus was defying so much else in the name of the Holy Spirit why not this?
Well, please excuse me for making so graphic an answer, but: even if that was the case, do we allow the lesser evil simply because the greater is the only evil condemned? For example, we deplore murder, but do we allow assisted suicide or manslaughter because death may be desired by the one who ends up being killed? I dare say we do not. Anyway, Paul speaks of "men burning with lust toward one another", which indicates mutual fetishes & idolatry of the flesh. There's no question that this was about pure consensual acts.
Ok, I agree with what the bible says so I have run out of objections (not that I had many to start with) so I am going to bow out gracefully.
What is the reasoning behind this distinction? Is an act procreative in type when contraception is used? There is clearly no intention of reproduction in that case. I'm afraid I don't follow you at all here.
People who advocate that homosexual unions should be embraced by the church (Note: NOT what UK Anglican believes ). They say that the Old Testament laws are moot and were only used for the Israelite people. For example, they sometimes say that right now it's not a crime to eat shellfish. Ergo, the homosexuality ban was only a custom for society then. It is perfectly fine to embrace it now. Ignoring what Paul has to say about homosexuality in the New Testament, one of the verses in the Old Testament that talks about homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22: Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Since the Old Testament doesn't apply, it is no longer binding right? Leviticus 18:23 - Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. But then, in order for them to be consistent, shouldn't they abolish the next verse as well? Isn't that choosing and picking which verse to follow?
You make a good point, I think a lot of liberally minded people view these verses and others to make what they want to believe possible in the eyes of scripture.
What I hear him saying is that if the act of sex is for procreaction. Then when on uses a means against that act for procreation is one not in the same boat as homosexuality. Atleast this is what I am hearing.
While I did not read the article I want to say that the whole idea of gay lifestyle is not any different from their heterosexual friends or oeven those who claim Christianity. Booth are promiscuous both use sex out of wedlock and both practice the same ideology when it comes pto lifestyle. While heterosexuals are over looked and homosexuals are pointejd at. I think once we take an active stance in general othere would be more ground to stand on. Of course I could take the stance of a friend and point out that in Christ there is no more male or female.