Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Against Heterosexuality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Since you're dismissing everything, I suppose there's no point to this conversation with you.
    That is what I was trying to say
    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      Source:

      Discuss.
      I actually found the article quite interesting. I had never really thought about how these terms could have been used to change a sin into not just a behavior but an essential and unchangeable part of someone's identity (seemingly of course). The conversation has slowly been changed from being about a behavior to an identity - and it seems that the essential conceptualization of the terms has fed into this.

      Very, very interesting, IMO.

      Comment


      • #18
        You may also be interested in this piece written in a similar vein; it has helped to clarify many of my thoughts.
        Last edited by Paprika; 10-25-2014, 07:14 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          You may also be interested in this piece written in a similar vein; it has helped to clarify many of my thoughts.
          I am a strong believer in Christian personalism, but parts of this piece seem to be little more than a play on words. Being heterosexual does not mean being attracted to an abstract idea or ideal of sexuality. It means that one is indeed sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. I don't think the the LGBT folks have a true insight into this problem, any more than heterosexual folks. Once can condemn pornograhpy without condemning heterosexuality as a reality. Most people are indeed sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex and some are attracted to people of the same sex, and some to both. Being heterosexual does not mean that one does not understand that sexuality is rooted in the person.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            . . . but parts of this piece seem to be little more than a play on words. (snip)
            It is pretty much a toying with words, and shows little if any meat.
            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              I am a strong believer in Christian personalism, but parts of this piece seem to be little more than a play on words. Being heterosexual does not mean being attracted to an abstract idea or ideal of sexuality. It means that one is indeed sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. I don't think the the LGBT folks have a true insight into this problem, any more than heterosexual folks. Once can condemn pornograhpy without condemning heterosexuality as a reality. Most people are indeed sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex and some are attracted to people of the same sex, and some to both. Being heterosexual does not mean that one does not understand that sexuality is rooted in the person.
              What I found interesting about the article is how it seems that our current culture has used these words to describe feelings and has turned it into an identity. The whole premise being that your 'feelings' determine your identity as opposed to your clear design within the context of God's purposes.

              Interestingly enough, our pastor this weekend talked about how the world wants you to think that your identity is determined by your thoughts or feelings rather than determined by the purposes of God.

              The problem is that our society has bought into and full on endorses the idea that your identity is found in your feelings and thoughts, and perhaps these terms 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual' with regards to describing people (rather than actions) has completely played into that ideal.

              Of course, having 'homosexual' thoughts no more makes you a 'homosexual' than having thoughts of wanting to eat cake (and lots of it) makes me obese.


              To be clear, I think what the article is trying to get at (more or less) and what I take from it, is that the problem is not necessarily the words we use, but how we use them -- the problem happens when we take an action, turn it into a behavior, then take that behavior and tie it to a passion, then call it identity. So it's action vs. identity ... and the problem has come from turning 'homosexual' into an identity tied to the very essence of the person.
              Last edited by phat8594; 10-27-2014, 02:42 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                To be clear, I think what the article is trying to get at (more or less) and what I take from it, is that the problem is not necessarily the words we use, but how we use them -- the problem happens when we take an action, turn it into a behavior, then take that behavior and tie it to a passion, then call it identity. So it's action vs. identity ... and the problem has come from turning 'homosexual' into an identity tied to the very essence of the person.
                I agree to a certain extent, though I must point out that words do have certain public significances and thus are not always tabulae rasae - containers that can mean whatever a person defines them to be.

                There is also a second problem as noted by the first article: the "homosexual" vs "heterosexual" distinction has emphasised heteronormativity instead of the common good of marriage.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I can see a similar article being written about the term "flat" being attached to "earth" in Galileo's time.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                    I can see a similar article being written about the term "flat" being attached to "earth" in Galileo's time.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                      Christianity has always had a problem with scientific discovery that goes against the traditional understanding of whatever the issue is. Galileo was arrested for saying that the earth revolved around the sun, because the Church at the time thought the bible was a science book.

                      And the same issue exists, today. Traditionally homosexuality has been a choice people make that is sinful. That appears to be how the bible presents that to us, but that also reflects the level of scientific development that existed in Paul's day.

                      As science progresses, we're learning about the causes of homosexuality, and to make distinction, the term "heterosexual" was created to establish the norm.

                      But this crosses the traditional understanding of sexuality, so Christians rebel against science, again, assuming the bible is a science book, and make silly statements like these.

                      Does this mean homosexual acts aren't sin? Of course not. There are lots of sexual acts that are sinful. Labeling them and understanding their origin doesn't change that. But science continues to progress and learn. And the bible isn't a science book.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                        Christianity has always had a problem with scientific discovery that goes against the traditional understanding of whatever the issue is. Galileo was arrested for saying that the earth revolved around the sun, because the Church at the time thought the bible was a science book.

                        And the same issue exists, today. Traditionally homosexuality has been a choice people make that is sinful. That appears to be how the bible presents that to us, but that also reflects the level of scientific development that existed in Paul's day.

                        As science progresses, we're learning about the causes of homosexuality, and to make distinction, the term "heterosexual" was created to establish the norm.

                        But this crosses the traditional understanding of sexuality, so Christians rebel against science, again, assuming the bible is a science book, and make silly statements like these.

                        Does this mean homosexual acts aren't sin? Of course not. There are lots of sexual acts that are sinful. Labeling them and understanding their origin doesn't change that. But science continues to progress and learn. And the bible isn't a science book.

                        I'm don't know where to begin, and I'm not sure I want to.

                        Comment

                        widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                        Working...
                        X