You know nothing of the intersexed. I could explain things, but intersexuality is not relevant to transsexuality. Transsexuals tend to line up nicely as XX/XY, with the proper genitalia, internal organs, and hormones for that sex. They vary from the standard issue human only in certain structures in the brain. (I’ve got bookmarks on this, but my Yahoo! bookmark thingy does not work well with Firefox.). At present, there is no way to examine these structures in a living brain.
This is a question which, IMO, can be answered objectively. Paedophilia involves the coercion, or at least deception, of a vunerable and naive victim by someone with more power, who wishes to use that power for his own personal gratification without taking into account the physical and psychological damage that he’ll be causing to the object of his desire - an evil act by any moral standards.
Homosexuality - or, at least, the homosexuality of which I approve - takes place between two informed, consenting people for their mutual pleasure, and can be, and often is, an expression of their mutual love.
An illustration, I think, of how objective moral standards can be applied. I agree that desires are not good, or evil, in themselves. I would argue that we can use our reason to decide which of them should be acted on.
Well, Genesis states that the first man and woman, the ancestors of humanity, were created male and female (and heterosexual). As I said, that makes perfect sense, because it’s about the procreation of human kind. There are heterosexual males and females—the majority of humanity, in fact—and the survival of humanity depends on them.
But Genesis says nothing about it being impossible for there to be other kinds of human beings as well as heterosexual males and females. It seems to me that to read the story that way would be as absurdly and artificially limiting as to say that giving birth to daughters is unnatural because Eve only had sons.
What I don’t understand is how do you rely on the bible for some things and ignore others. If it was the word of god, written down by men, how do you not follow it completely? If instead, it was written by good men with a social conscience, then maybe the rules they came up with made sense at the time but aren’t as important today. For me, homosexuality is like the animal sacrifices or the prohibition on eating shellfish. It made sense to ban homosexuality when you were trying to increase the size of your young church, or maybe you didn’t like the Greeks.
Leviticus says that after a woman gives birth she is unclean and can’t go back to church for a while (she stays away longer if she has a girl baby, of course). And when she goes back, she has to bring a lamb for a burnt offering and give the priest a turtledove I think. I’m not sure what public policy that ever served (unlike the shellfish, which maybe made sense before refrigeration). So if you’re not going to sacrifice lambs, I can’t imagine why you would ban homosexuality.
Whoops no, I forgot; her named children were all sons, but she (or Adam, at least, by somebody) had “other sons and daughters”.
There’s a whole lot of stuff to respond too, and I’m sorry I’ve taken so long to reply. Ironically enough, I tried to access this thread from school today to post some replies, and was unable to due to the school’s firewall. Anyway, here I am, and here I go.
I haven’t done extensive study of OT stuff yet, but from my understanding, some sacrifices were intended as an atonement for sins, some were intended as worship offerings, and some were intended as tithe or gift offerings. While the priests did benefit quite well from some of the things, we have to remember that one of the functions of the priesthood was as an intermediary and the spokesperson to God for the people. I think, because of some of the verses referring to Jesus Christ as being our intercessor and intermediary to God now, that this was the main function for the priesthood.
As to your second question, we have to remember the historical context of when the laws were written. At the time the laws were given, there was nowhere near the scientific knowledge we have now, at least about what makes people sick. Also, the Israelites had just come out of several generations of captivity and slavery in Egypt. This would imply that they were probably clueless about why most of the laws were given, at least the safety-type lands. I think the safety-type laws, as well as the rest of them were given to set the Israelites apart from the nations around them, that basically did anything and ate anything they wanted to.
I didn’t think I had asked any questions of the board. Rather, I have noticed that there seems to be few people around the board who believe as I do, and so, in an attempt to fight ignorance about the Christian worldview, at least as I see it, opened this thread and opened myself to questions about my viewpoint. I in no way intended to convert anyone, all I wanted to do was to be able to set my viewpoint forth on issues that people brought up, as they were brought up.
[quote=monavis]
I would ask you, as I have asked many times and no one replies: Who created the place for God to be? If God always was (as some believe, then he had to have a place to be first. What is out side of God? Did God then creat a space outisde of himself?[/monavis]
One thing I see implied in your questions is a human concept of space and time being applied to God. This is evidenced by your question about God being in a place, as well as him having to have a place to be first. The problem here is that God is not governed by our limited human concepts of space and time. He is a transcendent being, whose qualities we cannot begin to completely comprehend. Keeping this in mind, we can begin to see that, as the Bible claims, God was the same yesterday as he is today, and will be the same tomorrow as he is today and was yesterday. Does that answer your questions?
While you are correct, these Bishops used 3 tests to determine what books to use in their canon. These tests were:
apostolicity - were the books written by an apostle or under apostolic direction (such as by a scribe)?
Orthodoxy - were the books in question used in the church to refute heresy and teach theology?
Catholicity - Not refering to the Roman Catholic church, but to the universal use of the book. Was it universally used in the church?
Using these tests the Bishops chose the 27 books we have today. There was quite a bit of debate about some of the books, such as Revelation and some of the other Epistles. As for the OT canon, this is generally accepted because these were the books that Jesus and the disciples would have been studying and using. Also, there is a Jewish belief about there not being any prophets after Malachi.
There is a question raised about the closing of the canon. The generally accepted view is that for all practical purposes it is closed. While God, of course, can do anything he would like, it would be an incredibly difficult task to get the entire Christian Church to agree on it and add it to the canon.
I’m sorry if I’m picking and choosing, but there is quite a lot to respond to, and Joey Jo Jo seems to be of the same mind as I am, so I won’t respond to what he has responded to. And thanks, for picking up my slack.
Pretty much, yeah. I wouldn’t necessarily use the word euthanasia, but the whole idea behind justification by faith and sanctification is to leave the old man behind and to be reborn as a new creation. There are several places in the New Testament where Jesus Christ refers to following him as dying to self and following him. This is also the symbolism behind baptism, at least the baptism as we see it practiced in the Church in Acts. When a person goes down into the water, they are dying to their old selves, and when they come up out of the water, they are being reborn into their new lives in Christ. Paul also refers to us as being dead to sin and alive in Christ in Romans, as well as a new creation in Christ in Galatians. Hopefully that makes sense.
Mines Mystique
It’s these type of passages in the OT and others that make it hard for me to understand why anyone sees these passages as the inerrant word of God. No request for repentence or any opportunity to change their ways. No go your way and sin no more, … Just put them to death. What mental gymnastics does it take to read this stuff and see it as the word of God? The God that Jesus spoke of. The God who loves all his creation.
Hear me well, I do not claim to be able to see into your heart and see the work that God has done there. However, there are verses in the bible, for example Matthew 18:15-19 and 1 Corinthians 5 that talk about how to deal with people that claim to be Christians, but are unrepentant of sin. In the Matthew 18 passage, you are to confront the person yourself, then, if they continue to show unrepentance from that sin, you are to take one or two others believers with you to talk to them. If they still continue to show unrepentance and continue in their sinful behavior you are to then turn it over to the church. If he still will not repent, you are to treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector, in other words, as an unsaved person. I think this rather clear.
As I said above, I cannot presume to know either your heart, nor the mind of God. I think part of being a pastor is speaking the truth in love. Given verses such as the Matthew 18 passage and 1 Corinthians 5, coupled with verses that define sin, at least in my understanding, as well as a generally well-accepted interpretation, this is what I must do. As much as I would rather not do it, I have to. This is not to say that I totally cut off all contact with the person in question. On the contrary, I will do my best to continue to pray for them and talk with them and hopefully see them back in the church. Does this help you to understand where I am coming from?
Mines Mystique
And my immediate response 
is that Paul is not talking about natural in the sense “occurs in nature”. Of course Paul knows that homosexuality occurs in nature, otherwise why write about it. He is talking about natural in the sense of “according to God’s original design specifications before the effects of sin”.
It’s possible to adopt all sorts of positions regarding what the bible says. Just not all of them are very intellectually rigourous. I would say that the “homosexuality is OK” position is one of the not very rigorous ones.
While I don’t really want to support atheism, I would say that rejecting all of the bible is far more logical than just accepting the bits that you like. It really comes down to where your final authority comes from. If you accept the whole bible as the world of God, then your ultimate wuthority is the author of the bible, who Christians would say is God. If you only accept part of the bible based on what you feel to be true, then really you are your own ultimate authority. You, not God, decide what is true and what isn’t. As such I would actually argue that such a position is idolatrous. Not idolatrous in the sense of makeing statues and bowing down to them, but idolatrous in the sense of making God who you want him to be, rather than who he is.
Another problem that often occurs when people reject some parts of the bible is that it often leads to their faith in Jesus unravelling in a significant way. I think that the bible contains a consistent view of God. When you subtract or add to that it often leads to an inherently inconsistent view of God. What then happens is that people tend to progressivly add and subtract different things to their beliefs until what they believe is not Christian at all, even though they may think it is.
The other problem is that there is no way to tell if what you believe is actually right, or you just believe it because it is convenient. While it is true to say that our beliefs chape our actions, it is also true to say that our actions shape our beliefs. If you decide what is true, and if you want to do something enough, then eventually you will find a way to justify it to yourself. This is really worrying in the case of Christianity because the NT is quite clear (eg: 2 Tim 3:12) that suffering is part of the Christian life. Christians follow a suffering Lord after all. So when suffering for the sake of the gospel comes, if you have no core belief then there is no guarantee that you won’t buckle under the pressure. If every truth in the bible is questionable, then why suffer for something that you are not even sure is true?
And that I think is the real worry. You might argue that it is possible to only accept part of the bible and still be a faithful Christian. What happens in reality though is that as these people go through life they find the truth of the bible harder and harder to hold on to until eventually they give up completely. So for instance if you look through the ranks of liberal Christians (many of whom have given up on the gospel for other things) a huge percentage of them have come from much more conservative views of the bible to the position that they now hold. It very rarely happens the other way that someone starts off liberal (in fact very few start of liberal at all, that is why the liberal church is dying) and becomes an evangelical or a fundamentalist.
Joey Jo Jo.
I am not sure why I keep seeing this silliness, from time to time, and I really do not understand why I continue to see it on the SDMB when it has been so thoroughly refuted, and I especially am not sure why I continue to see it in posts emanatating from your keyboard, since you, specifically, have been corrected on this point.
When Constantine called what became the Council of Nicaea, the gathered bishops made no effort to create or even define the New Testament. In fact, several of their decrees presumed that such a body of works already existed and no decree from Nicaea acts to delineate which books would or would not be part of the Christian canon.
As early as around 170, (Nicaea did not occur until 325), there was a list now known as the Muratorian Canon that basically listed the majority of the books that would later be recognized as the New Testament.
There are more than enough references to the development of the canon to put aside any notion that it “owed its beginning” to Nicaea and there are plenty of fragments and codices that demonstrate that “the bishop of Rome” could not have rigged a separate re-write.
It is perfectly legitimate to question whether the Holy Spirit actually guided the process or how much human politics interfered. It is irresponsible to make historically false claims about events that have been pretty well documented.
Well then I guess that is what I am saying. My point is though that just because a desire exists it in not necessarily a bad thing that it is not expressed. Nor IMHO is celebacy the death sentance that people think it is. It is possible to live a perfectly happy life and still be celebate.
Sorry, I was using transsexual and intersexual interchangably. If that is incorrect that I was doing so out of ignorance. I guess then where I said transsexual I really meant intersexual.
Then if you agree that desires are not good or bad in of themselves then we at least agree on that. My point was that “homosexuality is OK because I have homosexual desires” is not in of itself a valid argument. We disagree (obviously) on the evaluation of the morality of homosexuality, but that is because we are arguing from two very different starting points.
Firstly, in the biblical story Adam and Eve form the prototypes of humans to come. So for instance Paul in Romans 5 refers to Jesus as a “second Adam”. Therefore to the biblical mind their creation reflects our creation.
Secondly, while you say that limiting humanity to male and female is limiting, there is no real evidence for any other options to be found in the bible. The creation account in Genesis only refers to males and females, which are the only two categories mentioned in the entire bible. If God intended there to be other human genders you would expect that he might actually mention it somewhere. Otherwise the only logical thing to do is to assume that there are no other genders.
Secondly, in refering to intersexed people, you still haven’t answered the question why that particular genetic deviation from the average is a good thing, where as others such as Downs syndrome is a bad thing that should be treated if possible. If intersexuality is inherently good by virtue of its creation, why not Downs syndrome?
Joey Jo Jo.
As long as the two people are a married, heterosexual couple, absolutely not. Just look at the Song of Solomon.
And to address thePCapeman’s question, the Bible is silent on masturbation, and I would say it is one of those gray areas. If you are convicted because of it, then I would say it is a sin for you. If, however, you are not convicted of it, there is no reason to regard it as a sin. However, you must be careful of your state of heart. If you were convicted of it in the past, but no longer feel convicted, it could be because your circumstances changed, or your heart has hardened. All that to say it depends on your personal circumstance.
As for the rest of your list, if the couple is a unmarried heterosexual couple, my advice, and what I practice, would be abstinence from any type of sexual activity. This includes mutual masturbation, anal sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, fondling, or anything you could think of that involves genitalia. This is not to say that I do not show affection to my fiancee. I hug her, hold her hand, kiss her, and show her affection without involving sexual activity. In other words, until we are married, there are boundaries in the physical part of our lives. And I would say, once we are married, anything goes between the two of us, as long as both of us are comfortable.
Also, regarding your question about hugging, I hug my mom, my dad, my sister, my youth pastor, anyone that I feel needs one, without fear of sinning. I will also share a bed with another guy if we are on a business trip or what have you.
As for the homosexual couple, whether guy-guy or girl-girl, I would say that even being in the relationship with the intention of committing sexual acts would be wrong. Let me know if I can clarify any further.
Mines Mystique
Intersexuality is not a “particular genetic deviation”. Intersexuality is an umbrella term for a number of conditions. Some involve people born with unusual chromosome pairs (Turner’s XO, Kleinfelter XXY, etc). But not all forms of intersexuality involve unusual genotypes. Either go off and do some serious studying of intersexuality (I recommend the Intersex Society Of North America page www.isna.org), or simply stop discussing a subject you clearly know nothing about.
Last one for tonight, I have a whole bunch of stuff to do. I will try and respond more tomorrow.
My program is a 3 year program. The entire school has around 850 students, working towards either M.A.s, M.Divs, or D.mins. There are students from all kinds of backgrounds, including international. We do have to sign a statement of faith that is definitely evangelical in nature, so as far as I know, we do not have and Roman Catholic students. For reference, in my circle of friends, one guy is a 5-point calvinist who has a degree in poetry, another is a charismatic/pentecostal who has a degree in Poli. Sci, and my fiancee has a degree in elementary education with a minor in english, and has only been a Christian for 3 years. The faculty also comes from a variety of backgrounds, although mostly evangelical in nature.
As far as theology goes, we recieve training in various strains, such as Calvinism, Lutheran, and Anglican, with no priority or emphasis given to any. We are generally left to our own devices to choose to which systematic theology we subscribe. We don’t really have any classes in non-Christian theology, at least as far as I know. And there are classes such as homiletics, pastoral theology, and, for my program, youth ministry classes that deal with practical ministry.
The facilities are quite nice, as they are brand new. We have three buildings, with one serving as the library and student center, another as the classroom building, and the last as the admin offices. We do have a fairly extensive use of technology, with projectors and computers in every classroom. There aren’t dorms, but they do have apartments that are available on campus to rent. I do work, for an organization called Education for a Lifetime doing abstinence training with 8th graders. I am also the assistant youth pastor for the youth group at my church, which means I lead worship, speak occasionally, and help in other areas around the church.
I will be ordained, but will have to complete some other requirements for the Evangelical Covenant denomination, basically having to do with some of the specifics to that denomination. Having an M.Div degree, I will be qualified for all aspects of ministry in the Covenant Church, but I will focus primarily on youth ministry, probably for most of my career, unless, of course, God directs otherwise.
As for my fiancee and I, we met at Seminary. We have been dating for almost 4 months (I know, quick, but when you know, you know). She is studying primarily the same things I am, but she does not have a specialization as I do. We are not living together, and will not until we are married. The wedding is June 2007.
Mines Mystique
Joey Jo Jo, you’re reading the Bible as if it were possible to obtain meaning from sentences alone. It’s message is found in passages, not sentences.
Our translations are obviously different, but mine does not define the type of sin men and women had for their own genders, but is discussing the punishment of idolators. It seems to me that rather than reading for clarity, you’re picking apart the Bible to fulfill a fundamentalist view that has been taught to you. Imho, presenting 1 or 2 sentences as an example of the true meaning of the chapter is deceptive.
As an example, using the same Chapter I could find meaning that disputes Jesus, Romans II 22-23
From my understanding of this chapter, the impure lusts and degradation of the body is explicitily detailed in the last 1/4 of the chapter. Not to mention that the term eros, the Greek word for romantic love, is never used in this chapter, nor the NT. The term “passion” which is used, more likely refers to a crazy state of mind rather than a romantic encounter (Diogenes the Cynic, please correct me if I’m wrong).
I’m not sure if we’re going to come to a consensus on this, but maybe you could expand on your view on how this is a continuation of the Chapter and/or why you believe the Chapter is about sexual activities.
I think understanding the bible is the same as understanding any text. You have to look at both the specific verses and the wider context. You can’t ignore one over the other. I would have been happy to quote the whole chapter, (or indeed the whole book), but in the interests of clarity I only quoted the two main verses that I was talking about. I did try and provide some overview of Paul’s argument, because context is important.
OK, on a whole book level one of the major themes of Romans is the unity of the Jew and Gentile in Jesus.
On a more specific level this thread of Paul’s argument is all about demonstrating the universal sinfulness of humanity. For if none are righteous outside of Jesus, then all Christians are right with God in exactly the same way. The summary of Paul’s argument from 1:18-3:8 is found in 3:9-3:20. In this part Paul is arguing for the universal sinfulness of humanity, first for people in general, then secondly for moralists and finally for Jews.
So, chapter 1 of Romans in its entirity
In 1:18-32 (the section that is all about humanity in general), I think it unreasonable to limit it just to “idolators” in the sense of people who explicitly go to temples. Mostly because in this section, even though Paul’s train of thought starts at verse 18, idolatry is only really mentioned in verse 23. What it appears Paul is writing about is " all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth". This would certainly include “idolators”, but is certainly not limited by it.
It is in the context of humanities rejection of God that Paul talks about homosexuality in 26-27. I think that Paul is talking about homosexuality simply because it is really the only thing that makes sense in the way it is described. The thing that IMHO gives it away as homosexuality is that whatever you take “passions” or whatever to mean, it has to be something that is OK or “natural” (in the sense that it was created by God) when done in an opposite gender way, but “unnatural” when done in a same gender way. Based on that I think it is clear that Paul intends homosexuality.
Joey Jo Jo.
Joey Jo Jo, what of gossip? Is gossip a natural relation? Is greed, envy, murder and haughtiness natural?
Could this mean that rather than focusing on family, they became consumed with things such as politics, business, etc. in their lust and greed for wealth?
One of the real issues with the Romans passage is Paul’s precise meaning of the words phusiken and para phusin (translated as “nature” and “against nature” respectively. The word usually denotes observable characteristics rather than any sense of divine purpose and Paul uses the word that way in other passages (He says that Jews are Jews "by nature (phusei), for example, that Gentiles are *phusei[/i[ sinners (but that sometimes, also phusei they do things within the law), and he says that it’s phusin for men to have short hair and women to have long hair. Phusis is a DESCRIPTIVE term for manifest, observable traits, not so much a term intended to designate innate purpose or design.
In Romans 1, Paul is talking about people who worship idols and, as a result, become so consumed with base passions that they begin to engage in behavior which is uncharacterstic for them. It might likened to someone who has to much to drink at a party and then, against his usual natures (para phusin) does a table dance with his shirt off.
Its important to recognize that Paul is not saying these people are bad because of their passions, but that their passions are a result of idol worship. It;s the idolotry that is being condemned, not homosexuality per se.
[QUOTE=Mines Mystique]
There’s a whole lot of stuff to respond too, and I’m sorry I’ve taken so long to reply. Ironically enough, I tried to access this thread from school today to post some replies, and was unable to due to the school’s firewall. Anyway, here I am, and here I go.
I haven’t done extensive study of OT stuff yet, but from my understanding, some sacrifices were intended as an atonement for sins, some were intended as worship offerings, and some were intended as tithe or gift offerings. While the priests did benefit quite well from some of the things, we have to remember that one of the functions of the priesthood was as an intermediary and the spokesperson to God for the people. I think, because of some of the verses referring to Jesus Christ as being our intercessor and intermediary to God now, that this was the main function for the priesthood.
As to your second question, we have to remember the historical context of when the laws were written. At the time the laws were given, there was nowhere near the scientific knowledge we have now, at least about what makes people sick. Also, the Israelites had just come out of several generations of captivity and slavery in Egypt. This would imply that they were probably clueless about why most of the laws were given, at least the safety-type lands. I think the safety-type laws, as well as the rest of them were given to set the Israelites apart from the nations around them, that basically did anything and ate anything they wanted to.
I didn’t think I had asked any questions of the board. Rather, I have noticed that there seems to be few people around the board who believe as I do, and so, in an attempt to fight ignorance about the Christian worldview, at least as I see it, opened this thread and opened myself to questions about my viewpoint. I in no way intended to convert anyone, all I wanted to do was to be able to set my viewpoint forth on issues that people brought up, as they were brought up.
It was still humans who decided what God was supposed to inspire. There was much division in the early church,hench the gathering of the texts to have a uniform belief,so for 300+ years they were without a New Testement. So no matter what one believes we are taking the word of Humans. The monks copied the letters etc, and could well have inserted the words that they believed, such as: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church. What you bind on earth will be bound if Heaven. Many other writings were destroyed so it just leaves a matter of faith as to what was said and not said.
Monavis