From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:50:41 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>In article <adams.702824507@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:

[Remember we are talking generally about heterosexual sex, except where noted]

>>[I Corinithians 7:3-5, NIV] [deleted for bandwidth]
>>
>>The study notes in the NIV say as follows:
>>
>> "(3)Married couples should have normal sexual relations.  Permanant
>				  ^^^^^^
>I don't know what your definition of normal is, but non-penile-vaginal sex is
>not natural.  Sex for fun _in heterosexual marriage_?  Yes, for the reasons
>outlined.  Sex five times a day?  No, because this also is not normal (I
>realize normal will be different for different people) and is what I mean by
>getting wasted [in fleshly desires].

See, that's just the point.  You and I have different definitions of normal.
There does not appear to be any Biblical support that defines normal or
excessive.  As you say, it's between the partners, and between each of them
and God.  Depending on the couple, they may need sexual relations multiple
times per year/month/week/day/hour.  As I pointed out later (see below)
Paul counseled sex 'regular enough' to prevent sin.  The whole trick is to
not be controlled by sex, and live only for sex.

>>     abstinance deprives the other partner of his or her natural right
>>     and may be conducive to temptation."
>>
>> "(4)Both the husband and wife have conjugal rights and exclusive
>>     possession of the other in this area."

>But of course!  They are one!  All the same do I masturbate just because I am
>all my own?  Would this be the best use of God's time which he has given
>me?  Do you see that even within marriage on can get carried away?

If sex becomes the reason for sex, then yes.  But so long as sex is a
celebration on love between a man and wife, and not simply for its own
sake, then it is not excessive.  As for masturbation, yes, I'd have to
agree that it is self-indulgent.

>> "(5)The Christian deprived of normal sexual activity with his or her
>>     marriage partner may be tempted by Satan to sexual immorality.  The 
>>     normal God-given sexual drive in the human being is strong."

>Oh no I'm getting mad... :-)  I bet your real scared!  ;-)
My keyboard is shaking! :-)

>>Since the Bible doesn't define 'normal sexual relations' I'd like to know
>>how you determine what is normal and what is not.  Note well that Paul says
>>sex should be regular.  Obviously not just for procreation, but for
>>emotional fulfillment.

>Normal means whatever God convicts you of, but some things I know God would
>not convict anyone of because it is not coherant with the nature of himself
>which he discloses throughout the Bible. i.e. homosexuality and some
>heterosexual acts.  There is something to be said for just "knowing its
>wrong" you know - in fact there is your conviction.

Well, there you go.  If normal is defined by convictions given to you by
God, then what you define as normal is fine for you and your partner.  What
do you do with (otherwise) devout Christians whose convictions say that
monogamous, long-term sexual relationships with same-sex partners are not
only permissable, but desirable.  I can't know what God is telling anyone
but me.  And what he tells me is that I should accept others as they are,
and treat them as I would have them treat me.  I will witness to them, and
tell them about Scripture.  Then it's up to them.

>>Again, ignoring homosexual relations for a moment, this is true.  But
>>nowher does it say that it should only be for procreation, which you seem
>>to imply.  Again, the form that sex takes between a man and wife does not
>>seem to be important, so long as it strengthens the spiritual and emotional
>>bond.

>Do you think that anything goes then?  (I am genuinely interested in
>opinions, and my mind has been changed before, believe it or not :-)

Anything?  Well, again, 'normal' depends on the individuals involved, as
you agreed above.  Thus, I cannot say what is permissable and what is not.
I can safely say that adultery is not ok, nor is fornication (ie, sexual
relations outside of a monogamous relationship.)  Beyond that, I do not
know.  Most certainly there are some limits, but what they are, I cannot
discern.

>>>As with any gift, Satan seeks to pervert it so that it may become a "god" for
>>>the lost and a stumbling block for the saved.  Most good things that God has
>>>put in our lives can be warped and twisted - usually by overindulgence.

>>But Paul warned above about UNDERINDULGENCE.  It would appear from Paul's
>>writings that while he might recomend celibacy, he counsels regular,
>>mutually satisfactory sex between married couples to PREVENT Satan from
>>drawing one into an immoral sexual relationship (ie adultery).

>Very good clarification.  Balance is the key -- or rather doing it like God
>planned (whatever _it_ may be).

Again, please apply this thought to all relationships, not just those that
you define to be ok for yourself.  Gratuitous sex is, I suspect, sinful.
But loving, caring, monogamous sex is not.

Just as a question, what exactly is required for a marriage ceremony to be
valid in your definition?

>>Define 'deviant' using the Bible.  Again, I'm referring only to consensual
>>sex between a man and wife.

>As I said above, it is a matter of conviction, assuming that the person is
>trying to do what is right by God instead of justify what they want that God
>doesn't.

To borrow a line from Ronald Reagan... "Well, there you go again!"  You
seem to understand the point, now just apply it to people different from
yourself.

>Not bad, but less than the best.  The "new man" in Christ for some means
>giving up all fleshly desires and following the calling of the Spirit without
>the cares of the world (don't have my Bible here or I'd quote).  In fact, it
>is for any who don't feel that God's plan of marriage is for them.  Getting
>back on track - wouldn't you say that homosexual individuals (assuming they
>ARE and not CHOOSING) are called in this direction?  I guess it becomes
>rather important whether or not they are just that way.  I cannot point to a
>verse that says "God did not make anyone homosexual by nature" but
>_everything_ that I have learned about God's nature in my Christian walk
>points to this being the case.  Any thoughts welcome, as usual.
The 'call' that each person has can only be discerned by that individual.
You don't and can't know what my call is.  (Interested?, send me email).
I have no clue what your call is.  That is between you and God.

>>Since our sex-drive is God-given, and God wants us to join with women and
>>"become one flesh", how can enjoying sex be said to be bad?  By having
>>a health sexual relationship, one can strengthen emotional and spiritual
>>bonds that will IMPROVE our relationship with our spouses and God.

>YES!

One more time....:-)  You're getting the point!  Just put apply it!

>>You must have a direct line to God.  I do not know the purpose or purposes
>>of sex, except that it is ONE way to procreate.  Speaking of that, what do
>>you think of artificial means of procreation used by infertile couples?

>You just told me the purposes of sex besides procreation above!
>By the way, one argument at a time.

Sorry, but it was a valid question, IMHO.  I'd still be interested in
knowing your answer.  It goes towards the idea of sex for procreation only.
What of heterosexual couples who cannot procreate?

>I seem to be saying this a lot lately, and it is probably my own fault, but
>here goes:

>While all sins are equal and equally payed for in God's eyes there are
>definitely worse earthly consequences to some.  Agreed?
Sure.  Just as there are sometimes terrible earthly consequences for
following God's law.  Just ask the Apostles and other martyrs.  But earthly
consequences are nothing compared to the ultimate consequence of unrepented
sin.

>I tend to think that I can love just about anyone - at least that is what I
>strive for.  When I see things in their lives that I _know_ are hurting them
>I can't help but speak out in a way which I think will be most convincing
>(but almost never is).  Opinions that I post here or anywhere else are
>to help people that I think need helped.  Any comments on being effective in
>this would be appreciated.  Also, I am often sure of myself on things which
>seem to me to be obvious, so I usually state them as fact.  Take everything
>with a grain of salt though as I am human just like you.
Loving just about anyone isnt' enough!  We're called to do better than
that.  We're called to love EVERYONE, neighbors, friends, enemies, sinners,
etc.  What you need to do is instead of focusing on what you think will be
most effective is concentrate on what the person needs.   Put yourself in
their shoes, if you can.  Talk to them about what they need, not what you
think they need.  Most of all, listen.   One of God's greatest gifts is the
willingness to listen to others.  If you can do this, and be supportive in
it, you will have much more success.  You can convince noone, they must
convince themselves.  Provide information when asked, support when needed
and love at all times.  Most of all, listen.

Counselling is a tough thing to do, but I find that if you listen, saying
little or nothing, you'll help more than any other way.  People will ask
for advice when they want it.  Don't give it to them until then.

>Can you point to an article where I judged a person?  Does this mean the
>person only or the thing as well?  I have always understood that we are more
>than free to speak out about the action (when appropriate) and love the
>person (I do it to myself all the time).

No, I can't say you've judged any individual, and yes you are free to speak
your mind.  The question of judging comes when one makes statemens in a
judgemental style.  You have your convictions, to which you are entitled.
So do I.  And so do those who disagree with us.  I try to take the message
of Christ as a package, and try to live my life as I believe he asks me
to.

The problem stems from picking out certain sins or types of sins (sexual in
this case) and holding those standards out while more or less ignoring
other sins.  I, a sinner, cannot judge another persons sin.  I have to deal
with my own sins before I can even think about pointing out other peoples'
sins.  (cf Matthew 7)  I don't want to sound nasty, but are you sinless?

>>Do heterosexuals have a choice of being "heterosexual"?  I didn't one day
>>decide to be heterosexual.  I just am.  Of course, I'm mostly right-handed,
>>but only because the nuns in the Catholic School wouldn't let me write left
>>handed.

>Because that _was_ what God intended!  (Not the right/left handedness :)

But, gee, the nuns told me that God intended me to be right-handed. :-)

You keep making the arguments for what I'm talking about, but come to the
opposite conclusion.  Note what you wrote.  What if God intended
homosexuals to be homosexual?  What then?

>>I used to take your position.  Then I read the Gospels and prayed.  I spoke
>>with my Pastor and others.  Mostly, the Gospels are about love and
>>sacrifice.  God so loved us that he gave his only begotten son.  Jesus only
>>asks that we love God and each other unconditonally.  Paul does the same in
>>I Corinthians 13.

>Do you not see any danger in more and more things becoming acceptable?
In many ways, we do not have much control over this.  As Christians, we
should live as God instructed as, but we cannot force anyone else to live
that way.  Those who do not accept God (or even our version of God) may
have their own values.  So long as we do not live in a theocracy, many
things which Christians dislike may be allowed.  You're free to educate
people and try to convince them to live as Jesus taught, but you can't
force them to.  Jesus came with a message, not with a sword.

>Paul also spends considerable time talking about flesh vs. Spirit.
>In case no one has noticed my posts are not aimed at the general homosexual
>public (whom I still love and befriend) but rather to the homosexual
>Christian.  Aren't we supposed to approach those within the church who do
>things we think are ungodly? (Matt 18?)
Yes, I agree that we are instructed to warn members who do ungodly things.
But note well what is said:

[Matthew 18, NIV]

   "(Jesus says)(15)If your brother sins against you, go and show him his
    fault, just between the two of you.  If he listens, you have won your
    brother over.  (16)But if he will not listen, take one or two others
    along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of
    two or three witnesses.'  (17)If he refuses to listen to you, tell it
    to the church;  and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat
    him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Firstly, the statement is 'sins against you', not against God.  Do persons
engaging in homosexual sex sin against you?

Also, note the commandment on how to treat these people.  Treat them as
you would a 'pagan or a tax collector.'  But how are we to treat these
people?

[Matthew 5, NIV]

    "(Jesus says)(44)But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those
     who persecute you, (45)that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
     He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and send rain on
     the righteous and the unrighteous.  (46)If you love those who love
     you, what reward will you get?  Are not even the tax collectors doing
     that?  (47)And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing
     more than others?  Do not even pagans do that?  (48)Be perfect,
     therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

So, if we follow Matthew 18:17, we need to know how to treat pagans and tax
collectors.  Jesus tells us how to do that in Matthew 5:44-48.  So, since
he had already taught loving enemies, even using tax collectors and pagans
as illustrations, we know how to treat them when he instructs us above.


 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc