From: muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Christianity
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:51:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr9.225148.857
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <adams.702824507@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr8.221210.20447@apollo.hp.com> smith_w@apollo.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>>Not a problem...I take it you also view hetrosexual anal sex
>>>as bad?  How about oral sex, a man fingering a woman to orgasm,
>>>a woman giving a man a "hand job", a woman using a vibrator,
>>>or a man using one on a woman?  For that matter, how about
>>>sex between 2 women?
>
>>Yes, yes, yes, yes.... Bad in that they are indulgent in nature and fleshly
>>in origin.  I equate all these things with getting wasted.
>
>Enjoying sex or having non penile-vaginal sex is the same as getting
>wasted?  Sorry, I don't buy that for a minute.  I'd like to see Biblical
>support for this.  In fact, I think the following contradicts what you've
>said. (Ignoring the homosexual issue for the moment, since you just
>basically condemned non-procreative sex)

No I didn't - see my other posts too.

>[I Corinithians 7, NIV]
>
>   "(Paul writes...)(3)The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his
>    wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.  (4)The wife's body does
>    not belong to her alone but also to her husband.  In the same way, the
>    husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
>    (5)Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time,
>    so that you may devoce yourselves to prayer.  Then come together again
>    so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
>
>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].

>     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?

>
> "(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."

But not as strong as society has made it out to be (my opinion of course).
Through High School I wanted to bang every good lookin' chick that ever
crossed my path.  I wasn't that horny though, just lonely and wanting to be
loved, which God provides for in excess.  His love is so much more forgiving
and unconditional that EVERYTHING else pales by comparison.  And this is the
type of love we are to have for each other (...even as I have loved you),
which IS spiritual and NOT fleshly darn it!

Oh no I'm getting mad... :-)  I bet your real scared!  ;-)

>
>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.

>
>>Heterosexual sex was designed by God as a gift to man which would strengthen
>>the spiritual bond between man and wife as well as provide for reproduction.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
I should think this kind of thing is the most "fun" you could have!
Famous quote: "Sex is the most fun you can have without smiling..."

>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 :-)

>
>>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).

>
>>Because God did not intend homosexual behavior (or deviant heterosexual
>>behavior) I hold that gay persons do not receive the spiritual
>>bond-strengthening through sex that a man and a woman do in marriage.

>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.

>
>>Rather
>>the experience is one which satisfies only the fleshly nature of man when we
>>should be focusing on the Spirit.

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.

>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!

>>The union between man and woman is blessed
>>and has spiritual fortitude while the union between two men is a perversion
>>of this inspired by you know who...  Thus the sex act between two people of
>>the same sex does not fulfill the purposes of God (obvious or spiritual) and
>>should not be practiced by the Christian _for his/her own good_.

>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.

>
>>This is no
>>more damning than any other sin, and was payed for by Christ's death, but the
>>homosexual Christian is usually not intent on overcoming this fleshly nature,
>>but rather on justifying it.  This is dangerous in that it may decrease their
>>effectiveness for Christ, cause them psychological duress, lead others
>>astray, etc.  This is why it is worth focusing on more than, say, eating the
>>wrong types of meat (OT Law).

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?

>There are no grades of sin (expcet for blasphemy against the Spirit, ie
>denying God's saving grace), and as such all sins are equal.  In the end,
>it is not for me to judge another person's sins.  (cf Matthew 7)  I have
>enough of my own to worry about.  God will judge.

I'm not going to get into the judging thing which has been going around, so
instead let me tell you my motives, plain and simple.

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.

>
>Remember, Jesus message was one of love for neighbor AND enemy.  He spent
>lots of time with sinners and outcasts.  He was condemned for this by the
>local Jewish authorities.  No matter what you do, it is not your right to
>condemn those who do not do as you think right.  You can witness, but not
>judge.

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).

>
>>All of this assumes that the homosexual has no choice in the matter which I
>>am NOT convinced of by any stretch of the imagination. (If you respond to
>>this also respond to the above please out of courtesy.)  IF this is correct,
>>than these people are called to be as Paul was - single without the burden of
>>the world and able to focus on the Spirit.

>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 :)

>
>>Hope I am not mis-representing God on this -- may I suggest that anyone who
>>is concerned about his issue pray about it and see what the bible has to say
>>to them....
>
>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?
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?)

John M.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc