tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post1203410178511819177..comments2023-05-26T07:41:53.109-05:00Comments on Afterthoughts On A Whirlwind Journey: Still Not ConvincedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-6420100926254293622009-02-14T13:18:00.000-06:002009-02-14T13:18:00.000-06:00Certainly, I hope the moral of Lot offering his da...Certainly, I hope the moral of Lot offering his daughters is NOT that it's better for women to be heterosexually raped than for men to be homosexually raped. Rather, I hope the moral of Lot's offer is that he risked his family to protect his vulnerable guests. This is why some scholars believe the moral of the original story is more about the importance of hospitality than sexual morality.<BR/>----------------------<BR/><BR/>Forget the "scholars".<BR/>Maybe there was no moral at all. That is just what he did and it was <B>im</B>moral!<BR/><BR/>That's what he got for staying in such an immoral atmosphere for so long; it affected his judgment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-1463982225688717262009-02-14T13:12:00.000-06:002009-02-14T13:12:00.000-06:00“why does God not like homosexual sex?”-----------...“why does God not like homosexual sex?”<BR/>-----------------<BR/><BR/>My question would be: is it any of our business why?<BR/><BR/>Eve as asked that question about the fruit in the garden and to this day we're all suffering. Maybe she should not have wondered and just listened to God.<BR/><BR/>God has His reasons. Are we entitled to answers before we must obey?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-11024309438915812122008-04-15T21:52:00.000-05:002008-04-15T21:52:00.000-05:00Well, I don't know how much I should be admired, b...Well, I don't know how much I should be admired, but I appreciate the show of support Jim.<BR/><BR/>And you make a very good point. To be honest with you, I sometimes forget heterosexuals can have some of the same problems. Thanks for bringing that up.<BR/><BR/>And may God bless you, too. :)Brendonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248268499428066786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-59677953446125910782008-04-15T10:19:00.000-05:002008-04-15T10:19:00.000-05:00Excellent writing and dialog, Brandon. This dilemm...Excellent writing and dialog, Brandon. This dilemma is not only with homosexual sex but heterosexual as well. As a married man, I still have to deal with OSA (opposite sex attraction) but through much prayer I made that divorce from recognizing beauty and the urge to desire it for myself. But if I failed and fell in love with a co-worker and I really loved her more than my wife, would God overlook that because of my love for the new girl? The answer is obviously no.<BR/><BR/>Loving God first constrains us much like the discipline from a parent will keep us out of trouble. Granted, the dilemma is greater for homosexuals because you have to deny what you feel as your only sexual outlet altogether. I admire your courage in not simply taking the easy way out. God bless you.Jim Jordanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12456957270007304493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-8612924847540834212008-04-13T11:56:00.000-05:002008-04-13T11:56:00.000-05:00Alex, I was wanting to hear from people who think ...Alex, I was wanting to hear from people who think homosexual relationships are okay and why they think it's okay. I wanted to prod them to attempt to convince me, since I was having a moment of doubt myself. So far, I'm not convinced gay relationships are okay. I'm still leaning toward thinking they're not okay.<BR/><BR/>I think you prove a good point. Loving God should always be what's most important to us. And if homosexual sex is indeed sin, then to engage in that, even if it is out of love for another man, would not be loving God. That goes along with what I've said before that love does not excuse sin.<BR/><BR/>God bless.Brendonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248268499428066786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-2473257541394726622008-04-13T06:11:00.000-05:002008-04-13T06:11:00.000-05:00I dun quite get what you are not convinced about. ...I dun quite get what you are not convinced about. But i would say i agree with what you have written. <BR/><BR/>One should justify homosexual sex just because a man loves another. The reason being, the act itself, is not loving towards God, which is equally, or not, more important than loving men.<BR/><BR/>Good job!Alex Steinert Mileshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02836521996640983652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-74451860325966470072008-04-11T23:18:00.000-05:002008-04-11T23:18:00.000-05:00Well, I'm not sure how eathing shell fish has anyt...Well, I'm not sure how eathing shell fish has anything to do with sexual relations, but that may just be me. ;)<BR/><BR/>Norm, I didn't mean to suggest some of what you thought I might have been implying. I would attempt to explain myself a little better, but I really just don't feel like going through another long and drawn out conversation like that. I think we actually agree on most of these points but just from different perspectives.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the input.Brendonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248268499428066786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-18094535486037016852008-04-11T02:09:00.000-05:002008-04-11T02:09:00.000-05:00Brandon: ". . .but I do think the fact that those ...Brandon: <I>". . .but I do think the fact that those men in the city were out to rape Lot's houseguests WAS about sexual immorality. What else would rape be? . . ."</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe we'll just need to agree to disagree. However, if the story is about sexual morality then it would seem to imply that heterosexual rape of Lot's daughters is <I>preferable</I> to homosexual rape. That just doesn't make sense to me. From the context of the story, it sounds like hospitality and the Sodom people's arrogance was the true sin. The sexual aspects seemed to have been sensationalized -- even by early believers.<BR/><BR/><I>". . . Dealing with homosexuality, I personally can't just dismiss what Paul or any other writer of the Bible is saying. If I dismiss what he says it becomes too easy to dismiss the rest. . . ."</I><BR/><BR/>I've never understood all-or-nothing Bible theology. The Bible is a collection of 66+ books written by a variety of authors for a wide-range of audiences, and edited by numerous church leaders. I suppose if someone's faith relies on the notion that the Bible is a singular and complete Word of God, it may be scary to consider the writings individually. However, it seems more reasonable to me to see the Bible for what it is -- early believers' various thoughts about God and life. <BR/><BR/><I>". . . I would like to ask again, since nobody has given an answer yet, is it possible that the Levitical prohibition against homosexuality could have fallen among Jewish cultural laws rather than God's moral laws?"</I><BR/><BR/>I haven't heard of a sensible way to differentiate which Hebrew commandments apply or do not apply. As witnessed in the New Testament, it's an issue Christians have struggled with from the beginning. Also, since many Christians believe Paul upheld the Hebrew Bible's sex codes, it would be hard to argue the Levitical commandments about sexual relations don't apply.<BR/><BR/>So, we should all stop spilling our seed and eating shell fish :)Norm!https://www.blogger.com/profile/10925789885737585791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-31056467111636308152008-04-11T00:29:00.000-05:002008-04-11T00:29:00.000-05:00Psudain,Sure is something to think about.Norm,I'll...Psudain,<BR/><BR/>Sure is something to think about.<BR/><BR/>Norm,<BR/><BR/>I'll agree with you about Sodom, and about why Lot offered his daughters to those men instead, but I do think the fact that those men in the city were out to rape Lot's houseguests WAS about sexual immorality. What else would rape be?<BR/><BR/>As for nuclear war, I think it's obvious we should value human life enough to not go wiping out so many like that. Not to mention the environmental impact of it. Genetic engineering and stem cells relate to the creation of life, which I for one think should be left up to God. I find it hard not to look at biblical teaching to determine what to think about such things. Dealing with homosexuality, I personally can't just dismiss what Paul or any other writer of the Bible is saying. If I dismiss what he says it becomes too easy to dismiss the rest. Or for others to do the same. Next thing you know the whole book is irrelevent. I think you make a good point about the people back during Paul's time not understanding psychology and science as we do, but I don't think that means what they say or think has any less value.<BR/><BR/>I would like to ask again, since nobody has given an answer yet, is it possible that the Levitical prohibition against homosexuality could have fallen among Jewish cultural laws rather than God's moral laws?Brendonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248268499428066786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-38173559997012327762008-04-10T21:59:00.000-05:002008-04-10T21:59:00.000-05:00Brandon: "'A story that involves a father offering...Brandon: <I>"'A story that involves a father offering his daughters to be raped, isn't a story about sexual morality.' What do you mean exactly?"</I><BR/><BR/>In the story, Lot offered his daughters to the people of Sodom in lieu of his male guests. Certainly, I hope the moral of Lot offering his daughters is NOT that it's better for women to be heterosexually raped than for men to be homosexually raped. Rather, I hope the moral of Lot's offer is that he risked his family to protect his vulnerable guests. This is why some scholars believe the moral of the original story is more about the importance of hospitality than sexual morality.<BR/><BR/>Also, if you take the story literally, the <I>entire</I> city came out to rape Lot's male guests. If we assume the story is about homosexuality, then the implication is that Sodom was entirely composed of gay men (well, rapists). While I'm sure some gay activists would love to use this story as the first recorded evidence of a gay community :) -- it seems unlikely. (It also raises other questions like: Why would Lot choose to live in a gay community? How did the community repopulate?). <BR/><BR/>A more reasonable assumption is that the city wasn't entirely composed of gay rapists, but arrogant, selfish people who wanted to humiliate vulnerable out-of-towners.<BR/><BR/>Brandon: <I>"'If Paul's word choice were so unclear, doesn't that show that he was merely sharing his own understanding -- not divine revelation?' I'm not so sure. I think it could be that he just did a poor job at trying his best to explain something. . . ."</I><BR/><BR/>Well, this depends on your understanding of the Bible and interpretation of Paul's writings. Personally, I think Paul's observations are important, I believe they are limited to his era, cultural, and scientific perspective. Certainly, Paul was unaware of the concepts of psychology or sexual orientation. So, I can't see how one can apply Paul's writing to homosexuality any more than we can apply biblical writings to genetic engineering, nuclear war, stem cells, etc.Norm!https://www.blogger.com/profile/10925789885737585791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-60194208331613540282008-04-10T21:52:00.000-05:002008-04-10T21:52:00.000-05:00Sorry, like Peter, not Paul. Typo!Sorry, like Peter, not Paul. Typo!dain42https://www.blogger.com/profile/04027117770451362202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-9509827676317180882008-04-10T13:15:00.000-05:002008-04-10T13:15:00.000-05:00Isn't reducing it to "Penis + Vagina = Children = ...Isn't reducing it to "Penis + Vagina = Children = OK" a bit (ok--EXTREMELY) over-simplistic, anony.? I mean what about sterile couples? What about elderly couples or post-menopausal women? Does the lack of capability for child production make it wrong? Clearly there's more.<BR/><BR/>As for sex and relationships, clearly one need not have sex to have a relationship. However that is one of the things that is generally shared in forms of long-term committed relationships. I know people who have been together for years, in fact I know one gay couple who have been together since 1963. If that's not love and commitment, I don't know what is. That's better than a lot of straight marriages these days. So really in a lot of ways, I'd say that if two men can have such a loving relationship, then why would the other (i.e., the physical) portions be off limit?<BR/><BR/>As for writing based on the Law, well, just look at Acts 11:1-18 (it actually factored into my coming-out story with my Lutheran community here at school, but that's another story for another time).<BR/><BR/>As our pastor back home put it on Easter, when the passage prior to that one was read (don't recall the specific passage, but all of Acts 10 is devoted to the story), Peter had been among the Gentiles who were following Christ at that time, and had had his opinion about them change. He'd originally seen people who weren't following all the old Hebraic Law. And from that he saw people outside of salvation. But then, as he spent more time, or just took a closer look, he saw something else; he saw the love of Christ and the actions of the Holy Spirit. So, he said if these people show these qualities of love in Christ, then maybe, just maybe that whole Law thing was out the window. Not the "love your neighbor"-based portions, but the purity-code sort of things. (OK, that's a little abbreviated and simplified, but I don't want to go TOO long.)<BR/><BR/>So maybe, just maybe, if we see a similar love in evidenced in gay relationships (and I have been witness to it) then maybe, like Paul, we should reconsider some of our ideas.dain42https://www.blogger.com/profile/04027117770451362202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-35259137356101080292008-04-08T17:29:00.000-05:002008-04-08T17:29:00.000-05:00Anonymous, you are right in saying what you do, bu...Anonymous, you are right in saying what you do, but we should all keep in mind that sex is not only meant to produce children, but also to be an expression of love.<BR/><BR/>Karen, same here. :)Brendonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248268499428066786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-56968578970288521982008-04-08T10:07:00.000-05:002008-04-08T10:07:00.000-05:00Good discussion Brandon. I also have not been pers...Good discussion Brandon. I also have not been persuaded by gay-affirming theology. Not because of any need to stubbornly hold to my view (as I am sure we would both be quite fine with a revelation otherwise!). However, I cannot with intellectual integrity accept the arguments. I am simply not persuaded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-51525249292656906462008-04-08T00:50:00.000-05:002008-04-08T00:50:00.000-05:00Norm, penis-vagina sex produces something, childre...Norm, penis-vagina sex produces something, children. Oral sex and gay sex do not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-49871335450552351172008-04-07T21:30:00.000-05:002008-04-07T21:30:00.000-05:00MR,I'll agree. Seems like today men are so discou...MR,<BR/><BR/>I'll agree. Seems like today men are so discouraged from showing any signs of affection or love for each other that when they do that, it's considered to be homosexual in nature. Outrageous! I actually have at various times in my life told other male (nonsexual) friends that I loved them, and have given hugs, wept with them, and yes even had my parents not like some of them. Doesn't mean I was in a sexual relationship with any of them though. It just meant we were good friends.<BR/><BR/>Norm,<BR/><BR/>Well, I wasn't exactly talking about "penis-vagina sex" only, but just meant that if God created man to only be with woman (if that is true), then to go against that might actually be offensive to him. That would seem to nicely explain why God would not like homosexual sex. If he didn't create two men (or two women) to have sex with each other, and we do that, then we go against His original intent for us, and sex.<BR/><BR/>Interesting notion about oral sex though. Might it be wrong? I don't know. But the logic might suggest that, mightened it?<BR/><BR/>"A story that involves a father offering his daughters to be raped, isn't a story about sexual morality." What do you mean exactly?<BR/><BR/>"If Paul's word choice were so unclear, doesn't that show that he was merely sharing his own understanding -- not divine revelation?" I'm not so sure. I think it could be that he just did a poor job at trying his best to explain something. One could look at the apostle John when writing the book of Revelation and not having words to accurately describe the magnificence of Heaven as he saw it. Though he did his best to describe it with what words he knew. Same could possibly apply to Paul in this matter of homosexuality. If he was attempting to translate text from Leviticus then he may have struggled some with the translation. I'm not certain or convinced one way or the other.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks for the thoughts guys.Brendonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18248268499428066786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-69658874371559567302008-04-07T09:57:00.000-05:002008-04-07T09:57:00.000-05:00Just a few thoughts: - I think it's oversimplistic...Just a few thoughts: <BR/><BR/>- I think it's oversimplistic to say penis-vagina sex is designed by God, therefore all other sexual behavior is offensive to God. I don't mean to be graphic, but is oral sex also outside of God's design? Also, I'm certainly no expert, but I understand that women often require more than penis-vagina stimulation to reach orgasm. The reality of human design is that humans are uniquely designed with complex sexuality with the brain often being the most important sex organ. <BR/><BR/>- It's obvious to me that a story that involves a father offering his daughters to be raped, isn't a story about sexual morality. <BR/><BR/>- If Paul's word choice were so unclear, doesn't that show that he was merely sharing his own understanding -- not divine revelation? Remember, Paul was speaking in a time before psychology and it's doubtful that he was ever referring to committed, consentual, same-sex partners. Would Paul have the same view if he lived today?Norm!https://www.blogger.com/profile/10925789885737585791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6319921527453210584.post-60756785432368566082008-04-06T23:46:00.000-05:002008-04-06T23:46:00.000-05:00I also believe the love between Jonathan and David...I also believe the love between Jonathan and David was not sexual. Many people in our culture don't believe this, but two guys actually can have an intensely heartfelt non-sexual love as friends. I have experienced this kind of friendship even with straight guys and it can be very fulfilling.<BR/><BR/>A healthy friendship like this does not involve romantic kissing, cuddling, etc. It is also non-exclusive. In other words, I should have other friends, too, and not treat my friend as a boyfriend with jealousy and posessiveness.MRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747154844168947527noreply@blogger.com