Christian View Of Sex

[Mattnxtc 0]

well, you're shooting down my statement that your argument is flawed by saying my statement isn't scientific, thus implying that yours is.

that is not correct. You make ur cause that this is something they are born with and it is a chemical imbalance...That is a statement that implies science when there is in fact no science that I know of that supports this. It is my assertion that the bible says that homosexual acts are sinful which implies that science will not find anything to support your theory. It would be my assertion that morally we "know" that it isnt correct as you said, you inherently knew it was wrong. I could use the example of a mule, we know that this isnt a natural animal as we see the unnatural act done to create it. Just as homosexuality is the creation of an unnatural act

[mrdannyg 274]

this is truly one of the dumbest arguments i've ever heard. i used to be 100% of the belief that homosexuals chose to be that way, and was somewhat proven right by my wife's friends, who all seemed to turn gay because it was the trendy thing to do. after that, the more research i did into it, the more people i spoke to, i began to realize that there are the people that are doing it to be trendy and to 'experiment' and then there are the people that are truly born this way. to say that they should be forced to live a life of celibacy because your book was written by homophobes is laughable. i really honestly can't believe the crap that spews out of your mouth. if 'god' had written in your book "black men are the devil...you must kill one every week or you're going to hell" would you do that in the name of the lord? if you wouldn't, you'd be a complete hypocrite because you're following the book to the goddamn letter otherwise.

the obvious answer is that if the bible said black people were bad, they would be accepted as bad. since racism is currently socially unacceptable, you "can't make statements like that," but logic shows it to be obvious.actually that's interesting, because i've read several passages that implied "dark" people were lesser than others, but i'm sure you *could* interpret them otherwise. sorry i can't provide these, i don't have them written down or anything.daniel

[Pupsta 0]

the obvious answer is that if the bible said black people were bad, they would be accepted as bad. since racism is currently socially unacceptable, you "can't make statements like that," but logic shows it to be obvious.actually that's interesting, because i've read several passages that implied "dark" people were lesser than others, but i'm sure you *could* interpret them otherwise. sorry i can't provide these, i don't have them written down or anything.daniel

wouldn't matter if you had the passages, because they'd be in an "incorrect" translation and it'd have the "correct, right, godlike" wording in matt's handy dandy i'm-right-and-you're-wrong bible.

[Mattnxtc 0]

the obvious answer is that if the bible said black people were bad, they would be accepted as bad. since racism is currently socially unacceptable, you "can't make statements like that," but logic shows it to be obvious.actually that's interesting, because i've read several passages that implied "dark" people were lesser than others, but i'm sure you *could* interpret them otherwise. sorry i can't provide these, i don't have them written down or anything.daniel

What verses?

wouldn't matter if you had the passages, because they'd be in an "incorrect" translation and it'd have the "correct, right, godlike" wording in matt's handy dandy i'm-right-and-you're-wrong bible.

Pupsta often people do misread a verse b/c they dont understand the historical context behind what was said. It has nothing to do with God but merely that they didnt write it to be in the context of 2000 years from then

[Pupsta 0]

What verses? Pupsta often people do misread a verse b/c they dont understand the historical context behind what was said. It has nothing to do with God but merely that they didnt write it to be in the context of 2000 years from then

so how the hell can the bible be infallible if there are so many different interpretations? it's obviously not just "one word" if you can read a passage two completely contradictory ways.

[renaedawn 1]

that is not correct. You make ur cause that this is something they are born with and it is a chemical imbalance...That is a statement that implies science when there is in fact no science that I know of that supports this. It is my assertion that the bible says that homosexual acts are sinful which implies that science will not find anything to support your theory. It would be my assertion that morally we "know" that it isnt correct as you said, you inherently knew it was wrong. I could use the example of a mule, we know that this isnt a natural animal as we see the unnatural act done to create it. Just as homosexuality is the creation of an unnatural act

A comparison of 41 autopsied brains has revealed a distinct differencebetween homosexual and heterosexual men in the brain region that controlssexual behavior. The finding supports a theory that biological factorsunderlie sexual orientation, although it remains unclear whether theanatomical variation represents a cause or result of homosexuality, saysneurobiologist Simon Levay, who describes the study in the Aug. 30_Science_.

[mrdannyg 274]

What verses?

ummmand i don't think it says anywhere "black people are bad," but there are definitely implications of it, and many conclusions are made of the Bible's intents from lesser implications.I don't see that as a problem though, since it was something that was believed at the time it was written, and reasonable people now realize that that is incorrect. But if the Bible is simply the Word of God, than nothing is subject to change or revision.In the middle ages, the Bible was interpreted such that all music could only be made to praise God. any other type of music was sinful. that is no longer believed to be the case. so what changed? God's words are the same. In X number of years (hopefully very few), the interpretations will be such that all sexualities are accepted, IMO.

[Mattnxtc 0]

so how the hell can the bible be infallible if there are so many different interpretations? it's obviously not just "one word" if you can read a passage two completely contradictory ways.

again..please take a second and think about it...if you go back and read a letter from 2000 years ago are u going to make correct assumptions? of course not. You have to understand the context behind it...You need to understand who the letter was written to, what they were going through at that time, the wording of the letter, all fo which are often not done and hence the misrepresentation of a verse or letter.

ummmand i don't think it says anywhere "black people are bad," but there are definitely implications of it, and many conclusions are made of the Bible's intents from lesser implications.I don't see that as a problem though, since it was something that was believed at the time it was written, and reasonable people now realize that that is incorrect. But if the Bible is simply the Word of God, than nothing is subject to change or revision.In the middle ages, the Bible was interpreted such that all music could only be made to praise God. any other type of music was sinful. that is no longer believed to be the case. so what changed? God's words are the same. In X number of years (hopefully very few), the interpretations will be such that all sexualities are accepted, IMO.

I am not sure of any bible interpretation that music could only be music that praise God and that would not be biblical as the bible never says that rather that is a product of a legalistic person. As for the sexuality...well the bible makes it quite clear so i cant see there beign some all accepting view of the church

[mrdannyg 274]

I am not sure of any bible interpretation that music could only be music that praise God and that would not be biblical as the bible never says that rather that is a product of a legalistic person.

well all i can tell you is that for many years, music that was not explicitly praising God was banned by the Church, as decried in the Bible. This is only one of dozens of examples of situations where the Church reversed its views in line with social trends. There is no reason to believe that homosexuality will be any different than dozens of other situations, even though the Bible is so specific about it.

[lucky_charmz 0]

Matt, my question for you is this. What if you aren't having the illicit, uncomitted sex that you described as the opposition to sex in marriage? What about people who have been in a dating relationship for a long time, are obviously committed to each other but are not at a point in their lives when marriage is an option? I honestly believe that the bible speaks out against sexual immorality. This makes sense to me, as sexual immorality would involve having sex with someone without commitment, whether by lying to them, getting them drunk, whatever. But I honestly don't see how you can interpret the verses about sex to say that sex is for marriage only. I know you don't like the "what if" situations but I honestly think the situation that I have described is acceptable in God's eyes. If commitment is present, then sex before marriage is acceptable. I also think the fact that we get married at much older ages now then what was common 2000 years ago gives some of the verses that you mentioned less credibility. Just my thoughts...

[Mattnxtc 0]

well all i can tell you is that for many years, music that was not explicitly praising God was banned by the Church, as decried in the Bible. This is only one of dozens of examples of situations where the Church reversed its views in line with social trends. There is no reason to believe that homosexuality will be any different than dozens of other situations, even though the Bible is so specific about it.

Yes danny there are huge differences...First off there is nothing in the bible saying that music has to be only christian music. I know the argument for no instrumental music and it isnt a very good one. So nobody can point to a verse and say there you go thats your proof...With homosexuality you can point to several verses that say that it is bad. Hence why we say homosexuality is bad and music isnt.

[mrdannyg 274]

Yes danny there are huge differences...First off there is nothing in the bible saying that music has to be only christian music. I know the argument for no instrumental music and it isnt a very good one. So nobody can point to a verse and say there you go thats your proof...With homosexuality you can point to several verses that say that it is bad. Hence why we say homosexuality is bad and music isnt.

that "proof" was considered enough a few hundred years ago. maybe the homosexuality "proof" will not be considered "very good" in a few years. who knows, maybe the translations will be modified?this is a stale point though. music is only the one example i'm familiar with. i'm sure you are more aware than I am that it is just one example of the Church changing its views on something, even though what it is basing its views on is unchanging.

[suitedinc 0]

A comparison of 41 autopsied brains has revealed a distinct differencebetween homosexual and heterosexual men in the brain region that controlssexual behavior. The finding supports a theory that biological factorsunderlie sexual orientation, although it remains unclear whether theanatomical variation represents a cause or result of homosexuality, saysneurobiologist Simon Levay, who describes the study in the Aug. 30_Science_.

If you look at this actual study, and the background of Simon LeVay, you will discover that this study could not be more invalid. Statiscally, this study is not even a "study". Look at the background of Simon as well. You will uncover that he had many reasons to hope that he would find such a biological link scientifically. It is studies like this one that prove that even our beloved scientists often have an agenda, and that their bias does play a part in science. Science is not this perfect process that some like to believe it is.

[Mattnxtc 0]

that "proof" was considered enough a few hundred years ago. maybe the homosexuality "proof" will not be considered "very good" in a few years. who knows, maybe the translations will be modified?this is a stale point though. music is only the one example i'm familiar with. i'm sure you are more aware than I am that it is just one example of the Church changing its views on something, even though what it is basing its views on is unchanging.

I would ask you this then, provide one verse that says christian music is the only kind of music...There may be some verse I dont know of but as far as I know no verse ever says that if you listen to other than christian music you are in trouble. Thats the difference. There arent verses that say what kind of music you can listen to. The music policy some try to use is the result of legalism which is mans attempt to "work" to show God how good he is. Homosexuality on the other hand does have verses that say its a sin. Do you see the difference? Its not realy a stalemate b/c one has biblical evidence for it and the other doesnt

[keith crime 8]

what does the bible say about blow jobs?

[crowTrobot 2]

what does the bible say about blow jobs?

don't know, but it does say it's better to bang a hooker than to jack off (although not quite in those words). sorry if that's already been pointed out in this thread - i aint readin it all.

[keith crime 8]

I would think that protein wise as long as the girl swallowed a blow job would be more holy than masturbation

[Mattnxtc 0]

Matt, my question for you is this. What if you aren't having the illicit, uncomitted sex that you described as the opposition to sex in marriage? What about people who have been in a dating relationship for a long time, are obviously committed to each other but are not at a point in their lives when marriage is an option? I honestly believe that the bible speaks out against sexual immorality. This makes sense to me, as sexual immorality would involve having sex with someone without commitment, whether by lying to them, getting them drunk, whatever. But I honestly don't see how you can interpret the verses about sex to say that sex is for marriage only. I know you don't like the "what if" situations but I honestly think the situation that I have described is acceptable in God's eyes. If commitment is present, then sex before marriage is acceptable. I also think the fact that we get married at much older ages now then what was common 2000 years ago gives some of the verses that you mentioned less credibility. Just my thoughts...

Hey man I forgot about this but I will comment on it...The long relationship leads to several questions...mainly why would u not get married? If its b/c of age then thats definately not a good reason for sex. I know all about that part as I was in a 3 year relationship that was "destined" for marriage only to see it fall apart. It happens. The thing about marriage is that its a commitment to your spouse and to God. To always love yoru spouse and to glorify God through this relationship. That is something that just being together with somebody else cannot acheive....let me know if you hav eany other questions on this.

[lucky_charmz 0]

Hey man I forgot about this but I will comment on it...The long relationship leads to several questions...mainly why would u not get married? If its b/c of age then thats definately not a good reason for sex. I know all about that part as I was in a 3 year relationship that was "destined" for marriage only to see it fall apart. It happens. The thing about marriage is that its a commitment to your spouse and to God. To always love yoru spouse and to glorify God through this relationship. That is something that just being together with somebody else cannot acheive....let me know if you hav eany other questions on this.

See this is where I disagree with you. I think that one can make this commitment to their partner and glorify God through the relationship without marriage. Nowhere in the bible does it say that marriage is the requirement to glorify God with your relationship. The bible is about what is in your heart, and that's why I believe that if two people are committed to their relationship, and their intentions for one another are honest, sex is okay for them. Obviously there is potential for the relationship to end, but in the same way, there is also potential for a marriage to end; I really don't see the difference. You can't know what the future will bring, and the bible doesn't call you to. If anything, it says the opposite. James 4:13 says, "Come now, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.' Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away." (NASB) If you are in a relationship that involves honestly, committment and trust, I think that sex is not just okay, but a healthy, normal way to express your love, trust and committment to your partner. I think that the type of sex that the bible speaks out against is that that involves lying, deception and is purely for physical pleasure. Just my opinion and I'd like to hear your thoughts...

[Mattnxtc 0]

See this is where I disagree with you. I think that one can make this commitment to their partner and glorify God through the relationship without marriage. Nowhere in the bible does it say that marriage is the requirement to glorify God with your relationship. The bible is about what is in your heart, and that's why I believe that if two people are committed to their relationship, and their intentions for one another are honest, sex is okay for them. Obviously there is potential for the relationship to end, but in the same way, there is also potential for a marriage to end; I really don't see the difference. You can't know what the future will bring, and the bible doesn't call you to. If anything, it says the opposite. James 4:13 says, "Come now, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.' Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away." (NASB) If you are in a relationship that involves honestly, committment and trust, I think that sex is not just okay, but a healthy, normal way to express your love, trust and committment to your partner. I think that the type of sex that the bible speaks out against is that that involves lying, deception and is purely for physical pleasure. Just my opinion and I'd like to hear your thoughts...

real quick question. What does the bible say sex does for a male and female?

[lucky_charmz 0]

Off the top of my head I'm not sure. I'm not completely sure what you mean...you'll have to explain.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Off the top of my head I'm not sure. I'm not completely sure what you mean...you'll have to explain.

Genesis 2:24Corinthians 6:16read those and give me ur take on what they say

[lucky_charmz 0]

Genesis 2:24- Men and women get married because got created them to be together and to love each other physically and emotionally. However, it makes no mention of it being sinful to love each other physically or emotionally before marriage.Corinthians 6:16- Do not have sex with a prostitute. I get this argument all the time. But at the time, the temple of the Godess Aphrodite was in Corinth. This temple employed more than 1000 prostitues as priestesses and sex was part of their worship ritual. This is what Paul is speaking out against. It says nothing about relationships, it is speaking out against temporary, uncommited sex.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Genesis 2:24- Men and women get married because got created them to be together and to love each other physically and emotionally. However, it makes no mention of it being sinful to love each other physically or emotionally before marriage.Corinthians 6:16- Do not have sex with a prostitute. I get this argument all the time. But at the time, the temple of the Godess Aphrodite was in Corinth. This temple employed more than 1000 prostitues as priestesses and sex was part of their worship ritual. This is what Paul is speaking out against. It says nothing about relationships, it is speaking out against temporary, uncommited sex.

I think you missed the key verse in both of them. It was in both of them thats why I gave you those verses. "The two shall become one flesh"that is the key verse. That is why you get married. So that you can become one flesh. yes unfortunately in todays times marriage and divorce are a common place, but thats not what the bible says is it. What is the bibles take on divorce? 1 Corinthians 7:10-11Marriage was supposed to be about becoming one in the fleshrelationships are about glorifying God. Do you think you are glorifying God by having a physical relationship that is outside the confines of marriage? Again b/c of the decay of society it is a common place but what does the bible say? Do not lust!! I understand that being in a long term relationship can feel like marriage. I experienced one of those and felt it was destined for marriage. But God changes plans. Thats why He made it so important to wait until you can commit to that lifestyle.

[lucky_charmz 0]

I think you missed the key verse in both of them. It was in both of them thats why I gave you those verses. "The two shall become one flesh"that is the key verse. That is why you get married. So that you can become one flesh. yes unfortunately in todays times marriage and divorce are a common place, but thats not what the bible says is it. What is the bibles take on divorce? 1 Corinthians 7:10-11Marriage was supposed to be about becoming one in the fleshrelationships are about glorifying God. Do you think you are glorifying God by having a physical relationship that is outside the confines of marriage? Again b/c of the decay of society it is a common place but what does the bible say? Do not lust!! I understand that being in a long term relationship can feel like marriage. I experienced one of those and felt it was destined for marriage. But God changes plans. Thats why He made it so important to wait until you can commit to that lifestyle.

Again I gotta disagree and I won't be able to post again until tomorrow. But I think this is wrong. I see tonnes of people who get married when they shouldn't, but according to the explanation you have given it would be okay for them to have sex. It is about what the commitment is in your heart, not what you do publicly or write down on a piece of paper. I also think that you're trying to make a connection that isn't there. Sex outside of marriage in a committed relationship has nothing to do with lust, it is about love, honesty, committment, etc. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree..not that I don't appreciate a good debate, but it really doesn't feel like either of us is going to be able to see it any other way. And I really do appreciate the threads that you have started in this section and I will try to contribute to them as much as I can.