With due respect to all parties, I think there is a real pastoral risk in Ken’s viewpoint.

If we allow desire to conceive (i.e. act upon it) it gives birth to sin. Desire itself is not sin. The last thing people struggling with SSA need is for it to be implied their desires themselves are sin.

On the contrary, the very process of resisting temptation is an integral part of godliness. Even Jesus was tempted - but did not yield.

Temptation is not condoned or condemned by God. Yielding to temptation is the problem. Both sexual orienations can be expressed as sin.

I do understand (I think) what you are driving at, Ken, I just think it’s very unhelpful to imply that somehow desires for heterosexual sex outside of marriage are more or less godly than desires for homosexual sex. Both are just desires that need to be restrained within the parameters God has prescribed.

There is a strong gay lobby out there which is not content with a general tolerance for homosexuality, but now wants to go one step further, by having gay sexual relations condoned as normal and natural behaviour.

This is true of course. But the fact they want to take us one step further is not a reason to take one step back. Rather, we need to hold firm to the position discerned in scripture.

Your brother because of Jesus

Matt

From Dani:

I think we often forget that God created sex for the marital relationship (ie. for union between husband and wife and for procreation) not simply that he created ‘heterosexual sex’ (as opposed to ‘homosexual sex’).

Could you clarify what exactly you mean by marriage - because our contemporary view of marriage as a consenting relationship between two adults, united before God in a Christian ceremony is rather novel.

Up until less than a few hundred years ago, marriage was almost always an arranged affair, and in many cultures girls as young as 8 or 9 were married off. Even the idea of having a distinctively ‘Christian’ marriage is quite a new idea. We would recoil from the idea of a young girl being given to an older man - but in Jesus’ time, and even as late as the start of the 20th century, this was the norm.

I am inclined to agree that the true purpose of sex is not to satisfy urgent desires, but as an expression of love within a life-long relationship, and, partly, also for the procreation of children.

I am worried about making marital relationship the standard by which the sinfulness or otherwise of sexual relationship is measured - especially given the fact that for millenia women had very little choice in whom they married. Certainly in 1st century Palestine this was the case, and so all the statements in the NT need to be interpreted in this light.

I suppose I would have to argue that if “God created sex for the marital relationship”, that is a very limited understanding of sexuality, particularly in a first century context. It would basically mean that a woman sold to her husband at the age of twelve was not sinning, but two people in a loving committed (unmarried) relationship would be. I think the nature of sexuality is much more subtle than that.

I think that to state that the rightful place for sex is within marriage is the wrong starting point - for Christians, our starting point is the self-giving love of Christ. Because we have experienced his love, we are compelled to express that love to others - particularly, for humans, to a particular other in a sacrificial relationship. I think Christians choose not to have random or shallow sex because we are too full of the love of Christ to desire it (or be tempted by it).

Thanks Chris for your response

[quote author="Chris"]I am worried about making marital relationship the standard by which the sinfulness or otherwise of sexual relationship is measured - especially given the fact that for millenia women had very little choice in whom they married. Certainly in 1st century Palestine this was the case, and so all the statements in the NT need to be interpreted in this light.

I suppose I would have to argue that if “God created sex for the marital relationship”, that is a very limited understanding of sexuality, particularly in a first century context. It would basically mean that a woman sold to her husband at the age of twelve was not sinning, but two people in a loving committed (unmarried) relationship would be. I think the nature of sexuality is much more subtle than that.

Yes, our free-choice when it comes to marriage is a relatively modern development and even here in Australia there are still numerous cultures where marriages are arranged (and I have said on this board before that in some ways I wish marriages were still arranged for us!). However, I don’t see how whether a marriage is arranged or not makes a skerrick of difference to our understanding of what God instituted sex for.

The Bible does not say that God created sex so that we could express self-sacrificial love. It says he created sex so that we could express self-sacrifical love (amongst other things) within a particularly context and that the context is when a man and a woman come together, and committ themselves to each other for as long as they live in the sight of God.

Now whether that takes place in an arranged marriage where a woman’s husband is chosen for her (and often a man’s wife chosen for him) or whether it takes place when a man and a woman decide of their own free choice to marry- I don’t see a difference.

[quote author="Chris"]Certainly in 1st century Palestine this was the case, and so all the statements in the NT need to be interpreted in this light.

You only have to look at Paul’s instructions for a husband to love his wife as his own body and for a wife to respect her husband (Eph 5). Paul was well aware that the vast majority (if not all) of the marriages he spoke of were arranged and yet he urges and encourages them to act in this way (despite the fact that they may not have married by choice or be ‘in lurve’ with each other). Why do we look at arranged marriages from our 21st Century vantage point and cry foul?? The Bible never says that marriage is about ‘falling in love’ or ‘chemistry’ but that it is about committing yourself, under God, to an individual who you promise to love no matter the circumstances of your marriage.

So yes, a woman whose marriage was arranged (I think it is unfairly putting a modern prejudice on it to say she was ‘sold to her husband’) would not be sinning whislt two people in a ‘loving committed relationship’ yet unmarried would be (although I am very doubtful that this kind of relationship was at all prevalent. I think it too is a very modern development).

Along with our freedom to choose who to marry has come this very modern day concept that sex outside of marriage is fine as long as it is not one night stands, shallow or superficial and there is some intention of committment (for an unspecific period of time) to the other person. But I can’t see where in the Bible that view is ever upheld. If you want to intepret the NT in light of the fact that they had arranged marriages then it seems to me that the only conclusion is that they were instructed it was God’s will that they honour the committment they made in marriage and love, honour and respect each other all the more.

Homosexuality thread #209502535902

To Dani and Matthew,

Dont get excited here. I cannot express myself in a clear manner it seems.

I am not implying any immoral intentions when I state that a male finds a female attractive. This would naturally include sexual desire, what else?
Men find women attractive in a sexual, and in other, ways, Duhh.

This attraction would be best satisfied in the state of marriage! Please note.

I implied nothing contrary to this notion. When I state something you should not read in any devious motives. This is what I meant!

But I was saying that marriage begins initially with attraction between male and female. And God is not against natural sexual desire.
If this is sin, because Jesus did not marry, then a lot of people have married sinfully.

But homosexual desire is not part of this procedure, do you not agree?
This desire, I contend, is unnatural sexual desire. Not condoned by God.
Otherwise scripture would have stated that God approved of homosexual relations, but it does not?

Whew, this is hard work! I initially stated this argument, and have raised up a hornets nest.

Men do not marry women with sex completely out of their minds. Maybe those who do, are out of their minds)

Ken

Hi Ken,

In the interest of not rehashing I think you’ll find that if you read back over Ian, Matt’s and my recent posts on this thread you’ll find that the questions you ask in your latest post have already been responded to. I think the key idea is that there is a fundamental difference between temptation and sin.

Dani :)