Christianity and Love

Great Debates
21

You are confusing Christianity with Western Civ. OK, even though Western Civ ruined Christianity, they are in most peoples minds the same thing, and the rock of Western Civ has largely been based on perverting Christian teachings for its own means. This is a case in point.

I mean sometimes it gets just plain silly. J.C. said “let the dead bury their dead” – i.e. don’t bother going to funerals. But, I’ve yet to find a so called Christian church which didn’t have funerals.

Most so called Christians are really just optimistic Jews (not that there is anything wrong with that, I’m just saying). Nothing J.C. did or said has changed much in this world for the better.

22

Connor wrote:

Uh, perhaps you ought to read a little more carefully before going off on me; to wit, vandal wrote:

My emphasis on “(same sex).”

Regardless, the mindset is still insulting to gay and straight couples, IMHO.

Esprix

23

Calm down there Esprix. I specified no sex, just love. That’s it. Love. Not homosexual sex, or heterosexual sex. He gave an example of love. That’s it. He wasn’t trying to imply homosexuality or heterosexuality is just a couple of good friends deciding to hang out for awhile.

I don’t know about other religions, but the Mormon religion believes God is always just.

24

First of all, IMHO, the bible (King James version) was interpreted by a group of people during a time of fear and hate for anyone unlike themselves. During this time the majority of the people were illiterate, and the churches could use the bible to preach their own agendas. I am not bible bashing… I think many parts of the bible are poetically passionate and inspiring… and I have no sites to back up this claim, its just my opinion.
But I (again IMHO) believe that God’s word (and Jesus Christ’s word) was about the message of LOVE, all types of love.
I also think that is not our purpose on earth to judge others… I think we have enough to deal with just living… our purpose should be to accept and help others live life in a way that promotes more love (same sex or not)!! Idealistic as this may sound, reality is just an illusion we create for ourselves and I chose mine to be tolerant and full of love… and if I could met a person that I TRUELY love (that way) I really wouldn’t care which gender he/she is!

25

Hey, love and sex are two entirely separate concepts, although they are often inter-related.

Christ said lots about love, not so much about sex. Paul certainly condemns homosexual sex - that’s different from love between two men.

Also a sin is a sin is a sin, although therre is an argument that a sin that uses the body in the way that sex does can be more damaging. The Bible (as far as I am aware) does not distinguish between gay or straight sexual sins.

26

I don’t think so.

pepperlandgirl, I understand what you are asking but I don’t think its as simple as you make it. God wants us all to love each other. No doubt about that. To answer your question, no, same sex love is not an issue with The Man.

Now, the expression of that love in a physical sense is another sense. I know that you wanted to exclude that aspect but I just don’t see it happening. Yes, if my girlfriend lost the ability to engage in sex I would still love her forever. Nothing will change that. But it doesn’t mean that I will stop desiring her in an erotic sense. The kind of love I have with her involves every emotion and desire of my soul (save for another discussion :wink: ) including sex.

[hijack]
Does God disapprove of same-sex love involving sex? Whew! Thats a heavy topic that deserves its own thread. Way too many interpretations to dive into.

As far as homosexuality goes, IMHO, I don’t care because I don’t understand. I say go for it.
[/hijack]

27

Actually the Bible is very specific, not only about homosexuality but also heterosexual immorality and immorality in general. Here’s one of the key verses:

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kindgom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (I Cor 6:9-10)

The GOOD news is it doesnt END there! Keep reading:

“And that is what SOME OF YOU WERE. 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.” (v11)

In other words, it doesnt matter what your sin - be it immorality, homosexuality, thievery, adultery, etc etc. God can rescue you from a sinful lifestyle and restore you to wholeness and health, the way HE intended you to be!

Two additional comments:

  1. Regarding the original question, “Would their love be considered a sin?”, you must remember there are different types of love. There’s the love I feel for my mom, my brother, my sister-in-law, etc. Then there’s the love I would feel toward a girlfriend / wife. Now…

Lets suppose I were married and felt attracted to another woman. Heck, lets just acknowledge that that WILL happen. It happens to every married person. Lets suppose I fall in love with this woman. I think all here would agree it would be wrong for me to pursue that love. Just because you “feel love” for someone doesnt make it right. And we DO have a choice. You can choose to not pursue inappropriate love / intimacy.

There are many men I love in a brotherly way, but if ever I crossed the line into romantic/sexual love with another man, that would be as inappropriate as being in love with a woman not my wife.

By the way, God doesn’t say these things cuz He’s a killjoy. Heck, he created romance, love, and sex. And that’s the whole point! He knows the way He created it, and He knows how it is intended to be used. When we step outside his boundaries, we’re using love, sex, and intimacy in a way God never intended, and consequences happen.

Don’t get me wrong, no one in this day and age can live up to God’s sexual/romantic standards without Jesus Christ in their life. Only His power and attitude-changing ability can do that.

  1. One final comment. Many have taken the above scripture on homosexuality and have tried to do a dance around it as best they could. I’ve read whole websites where they went scripture by scripture through the whole Bible, trying their darndest to get around the Bible’s clear message of what healthy sexuality is. I’ve seen one or two interesting points made in these websites, but overall it’s an obviously pained attempt to negate what is so clearly stated in scripture. And it doesnt work. Don’t buy it!

Okay that’s my 2 cents worth.

28

FriendofGod, what version of the Bible are you quoting? This isn’t an attack, I’m just curious, since it doesn’t look like anything in the King James version.

29

Well, I’m here you tell you that they are.

In the beginning there was sex. Then men tumbled to the fact that sex makes babies. Soon they wanted to pass their property on to their children; the easiest way to make sure that their children were theirs was to marry a woman and make sure that they only had children with each other.

Eventually, some fell in love, as you might expect when two people are jammed tightly enough together for a long enough time.

It wasn’t until the Renaissance that people began to marry for love, and for quite some time it was considered somewhat daring, much the same way that “living together” was considered some years ago.

In other words, we ended up with sex = kids = property = marriage = (eventually) love. Pretty tenuous, yes?

Finally, when we realized we didn’t actually have to get married - this is THIS CENTURY we’re talking about - we finally equated sex with love. Can you see how this particular abstraction is rather recent?

30

Yes, I can see how that “abstraction is rather recent,” but does that mean they are separated in modern love? Shouldn’t a discussion of love in God’s eyes take that meaning, if right now we have a view of love and intimacy as a package deal?

A long time ago, when we spun off from our ancestors in the evolutionary chain (::ducks::), sex was a means of survival of the species. But humans have grown from idiot survivalists to intelligent species with the ability to contemplate its own existence and to feel a broad range of emotions. Is it wrong to think that, while at one point sex and love were not related, we have brought the two together to create a new emotion?

31

pepperlandgirl wrote:

I think vandal can speak for himself - I already know what your OT was about.

But, now that I think of it, even your premise is insulting. How could anyone say, “Being a couple is great! Wonderful! Live a long and happy life together! Just don’t have sex…” How ridiculous is that? (I know that you were just asking people’s thoughts on it, not necessarily saying that’s what people should do, but it still grates on my last nerve.)

I am so glad I don’t need anyone’s approval to live my life.

Esprix

32

Wait a second. At what point does he describe these people as a couple?

You have to realize, everything written after the word “equivalent” is a tool known as an example. My current roommate is a life-long friend of mine. I’d take a bullet for him. I’ve laughed and cried with him. Being heterosexual, I have at no point desired to have sex with him. Where’s the confusion? We’re not a couple, so our relationship is certainly NO insult to me and my girlfriend’s relationship. Its not an insult to my parents. Who does my relationship with my friend insult?

33

What I believe the Christian supreme being would hate about homosexuality is the same thing he would despise about many heterosexual behaviors. I believe he would not like for either to engage in sexual acts to excess. He would condemn behaviors that do not honor or uplift his creation. I believe he dislikes any act that degrades or dehumanizes man or woman. So if your lifestyle is one of excess or degredation then he is displeased. I just cannot make myself accept that he would deny his love to two people in a committed, mutually respectful, loving relationship.

Needs2know

34

Let’s try this again.

pepperlandgirl wrote:

vandal replied:

And I responded:

vandal is expressing the “acceptable” form of same-sex love as mainstream Christianity defines it - “It’s ok to be gay, just don’t do those gay things.” Yes, I fully understand the rationale behind this train of thought, but I find it insulting, and anyone who has ever loved someone enough to want to spend the rest of their lives together ought to as well, IMHO. The anti-gay marriage camp says same-sex marriages are an insult to the institution of marriage; I say this kind of twisted, self-denying loving relationship is much more insulting to God, however you perceive Him to be.

Just love in every way you can. SHEESH!

Esprix

35

Ok, so from what I understand, gay love is ok, gay sex is not. However, since in our modern society love and sex are intertwined completely, by default, gay love is not ok… period. Even if people could not make love with each other, the desire would still be there, especially when the couple is in love. So at this point of society, you cannot have one without the other.

36

pepperlandgirl wrote:

From a strictly Biblical/Christian perspective, that’s it.

The desire is not the sin, the act is - “gay love” is ok, biblically speaking. Society has no bearing on what is already written in the Bible, and many Christians will say what’s in the Bible is immutable law, so just because today’s society says the two might not be mutually exclusive doesn’t mean that Christians wouldn’t say that they can be. I believe it would be possible for two people to have a loving yet sexless marriage, but it seems to me a patently unreasonable demand for a loving god to place on two people who love each other and want to join together in an otherwise healthy lifelong committed relationship.

There are gay people with strong faith who are trying to get by in such an unreasonably intolerant atmosphere. Dr. Boyfriend has a friend who is Mormon who has decided that he will not have sex until he meets the person he wishes to spend the rest of his life with, and when they begin to add sex to their relationship, he will still follow the Mormon teachings, but will no longer consider himself a “Mormon in good standing,” and will voluntarily withdraw from the church.

I think his position is, in a weird kind of way, admirable, but I think it reflects very, very poorly on the denomination that its members have to resort to such extreme lengths to be happy with themselves. His church is losing a vital, important member of its congregation, and that’s just sad.

Esprix

37

Basically right. But remember you are talking about society. This has nothing to do with real Christianity which I would insist doesn’t give a damn (no pun) either way. Now, yes I know that there are references to it being wrong in the Jewish part of the Bible, but I got some white out handy – it is just a book.

Joel

38

All questions are simple. Its the answer that gets so damn complicated.

39

I’m no expert on Catholic affairs, but I’d say that the Church has a fairly negative attitude about all sexuality. It is not meant to be enjoyed, it is meant for reproduction. Thus, non-reproductive sex has no redeeming characteristics. How important is this doctine? I don’t know. Somehow I don’t think that when schoolboys beat up an allegedly gay classmate, that they would do the same to someone who had had sex using contraception. So it’s obviously not the only thing that is directing anger at gay folks.

Anyway, I’d just like to ramble about some concepts, which have made it into Christianity. The first is Manicheanism: body = bad, mind = good. The truth is more complex than that, and I’m a busy man. I just think Manicheanism is inherently sex-negative, and homophobia is a subset of sex-negativity. I can’t prove causality though.

The second is “Platonic love” - I suspect Plato had a more sophisticated view of love than his percolated down to me, but I think the rudiments have a powerful hold on our popular philosophy. “Pure” love is supposed to lack sex.

Why? I don’t know; I’m not a Platonist. It just seems this attitude - it’s not really a philosophy since I’m just talking about pop culture, not Plato’s writings - worms it’s way into our culture. I used to be ashamed of being attracted to my female friends (this was high school, I was ashamed of a lot of things). That’s right boysngirls, a closet heterosexual. Perhaps even a self-loathing heterosexal!

40

When I said “society” I meant that we tend to judge people based on what’s going on around us at the time. The Bible can be used to back up all kinds claims. But mainly I was using the word “society” in reference to what matt wrote.

I don’t want to get into specific religion here but…

And the Mormon Church shouldn’t have to compromise it’s belief system etc to accomadate anybody. No Church should have to do that. Obviously your friend doesn’t think it’s too bad if he is going to continue to live like a Mormon after he leaves the Church.