Christopher,

Christopher Tyack - 27 June 2008 03:22 PM

I am sick of saying on this site that Paul only condemned homosexuality because he thought it was an abuse of freedom, ***being contrary to the natural order **** (see Romans 1).

And we’re sick of reading it...because it’s patently wrong! So if you stop saying it, we’ll all be happy.

[quote author="Christopher Tyack"]Now I’ve read quite a bit of theology, and nature is created “good” in Christianity.  Humans, with free will, are subject to death and temptation, but they are nevertheless created good.  So I fail to see how it is contrary to the natural order (Rom 1) for two people who love each other to have sex.

Nature is created good, you’re right about that. And human beings, though created good, are subject - that is, in slavery to - death and *not temptation* but *sin*! This is Paul’s point in Romans 1. It is God who has given humanity over to a sinful desires and behaviours, and part of God’s giving humanity over to what ought not to be done is their homosexual activity.

I think your reaction to Adrian is very unfortunate.

When I put my head above the parapet before in this thread to say these things, Tim Allen and Dannii started saying that homosexuality, though natural, is part of fallen nature.  Now I’ve read quite a bit of theology, and nature is created “good” in Christianity.  Humans, with free will, are subject to death and temptation, but they are nevertheless created good.  So I fail to see how it is contrary to the natural order (Rom 1) for two people who love each other to have sex.

God did make nature and humanity good at the beginning. But then Adam went and screwed it all up. Now as Paul wrote to the Romans, “there is no one righteous… no one who seeks God… they have together become worthless.”

The only good thing about nature and humanity now is that one day it will be destroyed and recreated perfect once again.

I just realised that Christopher is an ID proponent with his natural teleology. Perhaps a fundamentalist trapped in a liberal body.

Dannii Willis - 28 June 2008 12:05 AM

The only good thing about nature and humanity now is that one day it will be destroyed and recreated perfect once again.

Dannii
James 3:9 reminds us that humans are made (not were made) in God’s image (not to mention Psalm 8 and the like).  Methinks you may have overstated your case a little . . .
Bob

Hmmm yes possibly… hmmm.

All,

Firstly, for all the messages of support, thank you.

Secondly, perhaps in the interests of an inclusive, open and engaging debate i’ll say some of the responses to Christopher have been a bit uncharitable, and certainly I hope that what I say below cannot be read in such a way. If it is, Chris, I sincerly apologise.

Christopher,

In response, in my post I didnt argue for a legalistic application...certainly 9 years of deep meditation on my bible as well as my personal experience has taught me that a legalistic view on the whole issue ignores the fact that at the core of the debate are real people. A black and white legal application without recourse to the bible and pastoral care is useless. In the past I have experienced being someones project...being someone who just needed to be shown the law and would be alright afterwards. That approach doesnt let me grow personally, so I agree with you that there has to be deep and critical meditation on what the bible says.

Not having legalism does not mean that we cannot draw from the Bible clear ways in which God does and does not like us to lead our lives. Being free of the law enables me to engage God through the Bible, in prayer and in my fellows and have the choice of how I lead my life as a response.

I know this is a slightly trivial point, but self denial even from an entirely secular point of view is not always wrong. That I deny myself from having sticky date pudding and heaps of icecream every night is a good thing…

Christopher Tyack - 27 June 2008 03:22 PM

I am sick of saying on this site that Paul only condemned homosexuality because he thought it was an abuse of freedom, ***being contrary to the natural order **** (see Romans 1).

[quote author="Christopher Tyack"]Now I’ve read quite a bit of theology, and nature is created “good” in Christianity.  Humans, with free will, are subject to death and temptation, but they are nevertheless created good.  So I fail to see how it is contrary to the natural order (Rom 1) for two people who love each other to have sex.

Christopher, what is your understanding of 1 Cor.6:9-11?

1 Cor. 6:9-11 (ESV)
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  [11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

G’day Christopher Tyack,

Christopher Tyack - 27 June 2008 03:22 PM

Tim Allen ... started saying that homosexuality, though natural, is part of fallen nature.  Now I’ve read quite a bit of theology, and nature is created “good” in Christianity.  Humans, with free will, are subject to death and temptation, but they are nevertheless created good.

Thanks for interacting with the ideas I put forward in posts # 107 and 132. We seem to be in agreement that nature was (originally in my view, perhaps perpetually in your view?) created good. Could you expand in a bit more detail what it means for humans to have been created good, in light of our current status as sinners who have fallen far short of God’s glory (c.f. Romans 3:23)? In particular, at what point in our lives after our individual creation do we become sinners (by which I mean at what point does our relationship with God become broken and require the repairing work of Jesus death on the cross), and what is it that tells us we have become sinners?

Christopher Tyack - 27 June 2008 03:22 PM

So I fail to see how it is contrary to the natural order (Rom 1) for two people who love each other to have sex.

Does this basis thus extend acceptance (or even approval) to a biological brother and sister or a father and daughter to have sex with each other if they love each other and are consenting to the sexual relationship without either party exploiting or oppressing the other?

Cheers,

Timbo

G’day Kate,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to your reply to me, but I wanted to think properly through the very substantial amount of information you covered before posting.

Thanks for replying in detail to my response. I can see from it that you have examined this thread thoroughly and also that you have read Andrew Cameron’s article. Thanks for the time you have put into this, as it helps to establish a substantial amount of common ground we can base our discussion on.

I would point out that

Kate Deakin - 24 June 2008 01:25 PM

(or as you put it, that they express a “fear of sexuality” and “support of violence and hatred")

I was not using my words, but rather yours, as per this paragraph from your original post:
[quote author="Kate Deakin"]In short, we get on with our lives, and all your angst and fear about sexuality (although destructive to those unfortunates who are brainwashed by it, objectionable when you attempt to influence the law, and contemptible when support violence and hatred), is really for the most part at worst annoying, sometimes mildly amusing, but mostly irrelevant)

A general dictionary definition of “inflammatory” is “tending to arouse anger, hostility, passion, etc.” Something can be said to deliberately try and provoke someone and succeed, or fail, or may have no intent to provoke and succeed in causing anger and hostility anyway. As Andrew Cameron pointed out, the very act of disagreeing with someone and saying (however viciously or kindly) “you are wrong” on this issue can make the one being spoken to perceive the words as inflammatory. I am therefore able to accept that many of the views and words expressed on this site – probably even those expressed by myself – are inflammatory for you, and will readily concede this point to you. So, risking the likelihood of us both being offended by the other’s point of view, I thought I would try and give my take on the sections you found contained “inflammatory, loaded and misleading language”.

However, in the meantime, many of the people you quoted have responded for themselves, and for the remaining posters who didn’t, I generally think it is sufficient to say that:
a) They often (but not always) are echoing the words, terms and phrases used in the Bible. It thus becomes a situation of the chief problem being with what the Bible says about homosexuality, albeit that the Bible’s views are endorsed by many of these posters.
b) The context often shows a bit more detail and subtlety than you were perhaps allowing for. For instance, your offence at Lars Norved’s comments about “suffering” or being “affected by” homosexuality were in the context of people who found their innate same-sex attraction distressing and unwanted, in which case IMO it seems entirely reasonable to use those terms. For someone who is comfortable and endorsing their homosexual disposition, it is probably a more contentious and potentially inflammatory description.
c) Analogies, as others have pointed out, are usually made to provide evidence to an argument by evoking a comparison of certain features (but not all features) in two entities. The similarity or disparity of the non-comparative aspects is largely irrelevant to the concept being discussed. We need to not read more into analogies than they are intended to convey, so it is probably best for us to take a cautious approach and query whether a wider suggestion from a comparison was really part of the original intent of the proponent.

Kate Deakin - 24 June 2008 01:25 PM

- There is also the inconvenient fact that many assert it as a basic tenet of faith that homosexuals are doomed to eternal torture, and are then surprised when others act out that condemnation in this world.

It is an inconvenient fact that many of the people here – myself included – believe that a large range of people who are rejecting God’s offer of salvation in Jesus and continuing to live in a fashion at odds with the Bible are doomed to eternal separation from God. Furthermore, we believe that this is the normal trajectory of all humans, so that no-one can claim any sort of innate moral superiority over another as the grounds to act out this condemnation in this world. We are thus just as abhorrent of anyone visiting violence upon the greedy, the promiscuous, or the selfish people in our community out of some misguided perception that they are doing God’s work.

Kate Deakin - 24 June 2008 01:25 PM

In circumstances, I hope you will understand if I take your charming assurances that you have nothing against your gay hairdresser or colleagues with a rather large grain of salt.

Of course, in the limited mode of communication that this on-line forum presents, it is impossible to provide the evidence for a historical personal experience and difficult to establish the trust required to accept anything I say as an accurate description of what really occurred, so I accept that you view my assertions on this matter with scepticism. I would hope, however, that some attempt to understand and co-exist with our differing beliefs will permit us to allow for the existence of sincerity and honesty in each others’ posts.

Finally, given that you have read through Andrew Cameron’s article, do you think it represents and reasonable and workable way forward on how two people such as you and I can have a constructive and robust discussion of our differences, yet remain in amicable co-existence within a community?

Cheers,

Timbo

Tim Allen - 30 June 2008 11:19 AM

G’day Christopher Tyack,

Christopher Tyack - 27 June 2008 03:22 PM

So I fail to see how it is contrary to the natural order (Rom 1) for two people who love each other to have sex.

Does this basis thus extend acceptance (or even approval) to a biological brother and sister or a father and daughter to have sex with each other if they love each other and are consenting to the sexual relationship without either party exploiting or oppressing the other?

Cheers,

Timbo

Tim, as both those relationships would be illegal (as well as being unbiblical) perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be for a (legal but unbiblical) adulterous relationship. If I as a Christian heterosexual married woman have a sexual relationship with a man other than my husband, is that OK if “we love each other”? I doubt that my husband would think so, nor the hypothetical man’s wife (if he had one), and I KNOW that it wouldn’t be right (no matter how much we might “love each other"). Legal, but not right and I certainly wouldn’t expect my family, friends or colleagues to approve. (In fact as a Church employee, I am certain that it would be grounds for dismissal.) It might be legal, but it is definitely a sin, and much as I might want to sin from time to time, and much as I believe that I can be forgiven for my sins, that can never make it acceptable to deliberately, repeatedly and knowingly undertake adultery or any other sin.

Jean,

I think incest stands as a better test of Christopher’s basis of sexual ethics (i.e., if I have interpreted him correctly, that for two people who love each other to have sex is not aginst the natural order). Homosexuality is illegal in various places around the world, and appears at the very least on a surface reading to be unbiblical, yet neither of these two conditions are a barrier to Chrstopher’s ethical basis. So yes, adultery is also a useful test as it is unbiblical (again at least in a surface reading), but it is widely accepted in Australia and is (probably?) illegal in only a few countires; I feel the more challenging case of incest is a better test of Christopher’s propsed ethical basis, as it is not only unbiblical (again at least in a surface reading) but largely unacceptable in most communities and illegal in most places in the world, including Australia.

Cheers,

Timbo

The other problem with adultery is that it always hurts other people. It’s claimed that homosexuality doesn’t, so those in support of it can argue against adultery because of the pain caused to others.

Tim, I have considered your latest entry, but I still have to disagree, mainly because I do think that incest is still unacceptable to most people, but I think that both adultery and homosexuality are seen by most (or at least many) non-Christians as OK; not perhaps ideal but at least acceptable. As a society we are so very tolerant that we don’t just say that we don’t agree with either. (Which is quite different to how we feel about the individuals). We tend to tolerate all sorts of sin.
As for the argument which has been put forward that Paul only condemned short-term homosexual affairs, not long term committed relationships, surely the reverse should be true. While the “one-night stand” type affair (heterosexual OR homosexual) is not a good thing, we should recognise that sin happens, events get out of hand and one thing leads to another, so that on occasion a person may end up in bed with someone they had no intention of having sex with-in the cold light of day they repent, are forgiven and try to ensure that the same circumstances don’t occur again. On the other hand, the long term homosexual or adulterous affair is not repented of, is deliberately and knowingly repeated, and cannot therefore be forgiven.

Jean,

I’m not sure that you’ve completely understood what I was trying to discuss with Crhistopher Tyack. Christopher put forward an argument for sexual ethics that appeared to me to rest solely upon two people who loved each other having sex as never being against the natural order discussed in Romans 1, thereby trumping any other (particularly OT) biblical prohibitions against any sexual act. I was not agreeing with him nor suggesting that incest was either biblical or ethical, but was wanting him to show how such a basis as his could cope with the situation of incest.

As Dannii pointed out, adultery is not as good a test case for Christopher’s proposed ethical basis as it usually leaves other parties hurt through broken vows, betrayed trust, etc., which would probably be easily dealt with by Christopher’s ethical basis. In the case of fraternal incest where no previous contracted relationship (e.g. marriage to other parties) has been entered into, it would seem to pass Christopher’s test for ethical sexual behaviour, despite its clear condemnation within scripture as well as by wider society. I was simply trying to get Christopher to prvoide a bit more depth of his stated ethical basis by providing a nominally unacceptable sexual relationship that would appear to pass his test.

Cheers,

Timbo