Biblical Truth about Gender and Sex
by Heather Koerner on 06/10/2009 at 1:00 PM
Over at the Gender Blog, I found a very insightful and helpful editorial by Dr. Denny Burk (located in the latest edition of The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood).
In it, Dr. Burk outlines what he believes are the main points of contention between a biblical and secular worldview on gender and sex. First, Dr. Burk addresses the three main secular views:
- Gender is something that you learn, not something that you are. "In other words, the idea of male and female comprises a set of stereotypes that we absorb from our culture. Male and female does not designate a universal, innate distinction among humans. Thus gender is merely a social construct."
- Sex is for pleasure, not for God. "We might call this the Sheryl-Crow-philosophy-on-sexuality. If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad. This perspective affirms any and all attempts to get sexual pleasure so long as such attempts do not harm others. If it feels good and you're not hurting anyone, then how could it possibly be wrong?"
- Marriage is cultural, not universal. "In other words, marriage is something that came from human culture, not from God. It has a human origin, not a divine one. With God out of the picture, humans are free to make marriage into whatever they want."
Dr. Burk contrasts those secular beliefs with three biblical truths:
- Gender is something you are before you learn anything. "In other words, the distinctions between male and female find their origin in God's good creation, not in what we learn from culture. That is not to say that people do not absorb ideas about gender from the culture, some of which are quite unhelpful. But that fact should not be used to suppress the truth that in the beginning God differentiated humankind as male and female as a part of His original creation-work."
- Sex is for God before there is any lasting pleasure. "When people treat pleasure as the goal of sex, not only do they inevitably end up in immorality but they also end up with less pleasure. God is not a cosmic killjoy when it comes to sex. He intends for His creatures to enjoy this great gift for His sake, and that can only happen when God's people realize that the body is not for immorality but for the Lord (1 Cor 6:13)."
- Marriage is universal, not cultural. "From the Garden of Eden forward, God intended marriage to be an enacted parable of another marriage: Christ's marriage to His church (Eph 5:31-32). Thus, marriage is not defined by the culture, but by the gospel itself."
Good stuff. Reading Burk's article helped me to articulate some of the underlying assumptions in the debates over sexuality and gender in our society. But, my favorite part of the article was when Burk recommended that Christians emphasize a two-pronged approach to gender and sex in our culture -- both a countercultural message from the church and countercultural living among individuals and families in the church. By doing both, we both proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and show its power in our lives.
1. Christina B said the following at 2:01 PM on Jun 10:
These ways of thinking completely contrast one another. Yet, many think they're Christians and have or have had the beliefs outlined in the first set. It's so easy to be deceived and so simple to avoid deception. It only takes focusing explicitly on the Word.
2. Christina B said the following at 2:11 PM on Jun 10:
I also believe that misunderstanding the Scriptures can lead to such deception.
For example, Galatians 3:28 says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
That says that in Christ, we are one unit, His love reaching us equally. Some interpret it to mean that gender suddenly disappeared.
3. Carol said the following at 4:04 PM on Jun 10:
I just read a young adult novel that basically preached those first three messages. I'm feeling pretty bummed about it, and wondering why America's young people have to choose from such garbage to read.
Parents: make sure your children know that every book/movie/song has a message. Make sure they know how to evaluate those messages. Otherwise they will be a blank slate without even realizing it.
4. pass the ammunition said the following at 6:05 PM on Jun 10:
Dr. Burk's #1 basically just said that since sex and sex differences exist, therefore gender is innate. That's a HUGE logical leap. Surely there is a better argument for gender essentialism out there.
While I do think that men and women have been socialized so differently that in practical terms gender may as well be innate, in reality the body parts under your clothes do not determine much. There are XX people with male physical characteristics, and there are XY people with female physical characteristics from birth as well. What if your hormones are off balance and you have the emotions, tendencies, and impulses of someone of the opposite physical sex that you are? What if you have ambiguous sexual organs?
The fact that gender must constantly be enforced hints to me that it is not as "natural" as we think.
5. farmer Tom said the following at 9:30 PM on Jun 10:
pass the ammunition,
You seem to be suggesting that the small percentage of individuals with some kind of sexual confusion, be it hormonal, psychological, or actual physical deformity should be the determinative factor in making an argument about what determines gender.
In reality, the vast majority of people have no issues whatsoever with gender identity issues. So why use the confusion of the minority to question the basic assumption that "male and female created He them". Yes, because of man's sinful condition, and the results of our fallen world, be it genetic defects, hormonal imbalances or simply choice, there are a minority who live outside that standard. That does not mean the standard is wrong, it simply means that there are outliers to the norm.
If, and I find no evidence to support this, if, 10% of the population is sexually befuddled, (I'm thinking more like 3 to 5 percent max) why question the fact that gender is innate in 90% of the population.
Chances are you have accepted as fact the arguments made by the sodomy lobby that some great percentage of the population is sexually befuddled. When in reality, almost every survey done in the last 25 years shows numbers less than 10 percent.
Go look at the list of surveys on sexuality at Wikipedia. I bet if you averaged the total of all the surveys, they would average about 2 to 3 percent. That's of course excluding Kinsey's corrupted, criminal findings.
Kinsey the pervert
6. Thomas said the following at 10:35 PM on Jun 10:
Good summary. I am curious though, seeing how much of Biblical worldview and secular worldview are totally opposing, would those among you who are more conservative advocate making America a theologically ruled country (like some Middle Eastern countries)? Because while I agree with the Biblical worldview, I cannot come up with any reasons why a non Christian should or would follow the worldview without first coming to Christ. In fact, secular culture seems very natural to follow if one does not believe.
So would you guys be advocates for forcing our worldview and culture through the state, which encompasses such things like marriage, abstinence-only education, censorship, etc. If this is the solution, why not just go for the full thing and make the USA an "official" Christian nation, like Saudi Arabia is an "official" Muslim nation?
7. obewan said the following at 6:06 AM on Jun 11:
Biblical Truth about Gender and Sex
by Heather Koerner on 06/10/2009 at 1:00 PM
Dr. Burk contrasts those secular beliefs with three biblical truths:
"Gender is something you are before you learn anything."
-----------------------------------
I tend to agree, except that his view ignores those victimized by being born as hermaphrodites. I read a medical report on this condition once, and the focus was on how the children were raised. Upbringing had a huge impact on gender choice (assuming surgery was postponed). Those raised as females identified as female, and likewise for males; however; if they let the children choose on their own, they sometimes adopted a “gay” orientation after surgery.
8. Tara said the following at 8:06 AM on Jun 11:
To Farmer Tom:
Why do you so often speak in condescending terms? i.e. "Chances are you have accepted as fact the arguments made by the sodomy lobby." Not only are you insulting the above noter's intelligence, but you are insulting homosexual people by assuming each homosexual person belongs to some extremist political group. Have you ever thought about the "heathens" who log on to this site, trying to find answers, who might read your posts and then just throw up their hands in frustration?
9. Irene M said the following at 10:13 AM on Jun 11:
I was about to completely agree with pass-the-ammunition, when I realized that gender isn't fully defined. So, quick question for the writers or any commenters who want to take a stab at it. What exactly does Dr. Burk mean in point 1 when he talks about the intrinsic "distinctions between male and female"? Which traits are intrinsic and which are culturally specific? I have my own ideas on gender essentialism, but I want to be careful and make sure I fully understand Dr. Burk before commenting further.
Also, Farmer Tom, "sodomy lobby" is taking it too far. Describing groups of people in explicitly sexual terms is crude, insulting, and does a disservice to the mission of boundless. Could you please refrain from such terms in the future?
10. khalil said the following at 12:04 PM on Jun 11:
In simple terms, sex is a biological trait of a person (organism) and gender (identity and roles) is a sociological construct. A person's gender roles and identity can be changed and impacted by society and the culture they live or develop in (some societies have what is called a 3rd gender), but if someone wants to change their sex an operation (physical, not social) has to be undertaken.
It is easy to get lost in the moment here but a standard definition has to be decided if this is going to be discussed as gender and sex tend to be regarded as the same thing to many people...when they are in fact quite different when looked at.
11. farmer Tom said the following at 12:21 PM on Jun 11:
8. Tara,
A fair question.
But before I answer your question, I have one for you. What is water?
Words mean things. Those who would distort the true meanings of words have an agenda. To properly discuss a subject one must define the terms being used.
You are offended by the term sodomy lobby. I on the other had am offended by the abomination that is sodomy.
Sexual intercourse that is not the union of the genital organs of a man and a woman. The term is most frequently applied to anal intercourse between two men or to sexual relations between people and animals. (See pederast.)
Note: According to the Bible, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for unacceptable sexual practices, apparently including anal intercourse between men. Sodomy takes its name from the city of Sodom.
I refuse to use some other term chosen or preferred by those who want to legitimize their confused or aberrant sexual behavior, in an attempt to make their sinful activities more palatable. In the same way I refuse to call some politicians adulterous behavior "an affair".
God in His word refers to sexual immorality between two people of the same gender as sodomy. I will use His term, rather than some euphemism preferred by NAMBLA,LGBT groups or ACT UP.
Yes I have. My message for them is simple. I am a sinner, saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. God says that all have sinned, I have sinned therefore I deserve God's punishment. Forgiveness for that sin in found in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
God considers sodomy to be sin. Therefore you are a sinner in need of forgiveness, that forgiveness is also found in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I would hope and pray, that you will repent of your sin, ask Jesus Christ to forgive your sinfulness and help you to "go and sin no more".
Playing word games, suggesting that sexual immorality is not sin, only some kind of evolutionary anomaly, does not point the sinner to his need of a Savior.
Maybe the problem is you. You have accepted the worlds definitions of immorality as ok, and thereby allowing your view of sin to be watered down. You use euphemisms for deviant sexual acts instead of calling sin, sin.
12. Jeremy said the following at 12:54 PM on Jun 11:
Farmer Tom (#11) -- "Maybe the problem is you. You have accepted the worlds definitions of immorality as ok, and thereby allowing your view of sin to be watered down. You use euphemisms for deviant sexual acts instead of calling sin, sin."
That is a hilariously precise example of exactly what Tara was referring to. You are not only condescending and insulting, but you ascribe positions to specific people and to masses of Christians and non-Christians alike that no one has suggested. Much like Dr. Sarfati, perhaps the fact that so many commenters consistently single your comments out as sounding hateful and ignorant indicates not that you are some lone voice of reason, but that you DO come across as a bit hateful and ignorant.
I know that this is just an anonymous forum on a blog, but I would still encourage you to think about how your words will impact people who read them.
13. LeeLee said the following at 1:24 PM on Jun 11:
I have a question for farmer Tom:
Have you actually ever met a homosexual? Or to use your own term as distasteful as I may find it, a "sodomist?" If you have, would you sharing with the group what transpired?
I often wonder why certain evangelical Christians (and don't get me wrong, I consider myself one) have labeled certain sins as taking greater precedence over others? We are called to love God first,then our neighbors as we love Him. To take a line from Mike Huckabee, if we're not getting the first two basics right then we're lost.
14. A. said the following at 1:25 PM on Jun 11:
Just in case you don't know, Farmer Tom,
People of the opposite sex can also engage in sodomy. Oral or anal sex between a man and a woman qualifies as "sodomy". I don't know your views about those kinds of sex acts and am not asking about them; I think it is simply relevant and important to point out that the term you're using is broader than the context in which you're using it.
15. Heather Koerner said the following at 2:38 PM on Jun 11:
Khalil (#10):
You state that sex is biological and identity and roles are sociological. I disagree with your definitions.
Simply because there are sociological messages about gender that may impact us (if I could, I would take every Bratz doll to a bonfire), it doesn't follow that our identity and roles are solely sociological. Dr. Burk himself makes that point in his article.
Genesis 2 tells us that the Lord God made woman as a suitable helper for man. From the moment of creation, women and men were distinct -- in a way far deeper than just their genitalia -- and it was good.
Throughout Scripture, God clarifies and instructs us on those created differences--emphasizing the roles to which each of us was created for.
16. IMO said the following at 2:44 PM on Jun 11:
"I often wonder why certain evangelical Christians (and don't get me wrong, I consider myself one) have labeled certain sins as taking greater precedence over others?"
I don't know if that's really the issue.
Perhaps the issue is that there are certain sins that are no longer considered as sins.
For nonChristians, some may not even believe there is such a thing as sin. I know I didn't before I was saved. So maybe they think in terms of what was taboo and is now no-longer taboo. I don't know.
When adultery starts becoming OK in society (and I mean, we're almost there anyway), then people who still believe in the sin of adultery will be speaking up.
On a separate note, I do think that the sin of gluttony gets overlooked as well.
17. Mike said the following at 3:10 PM on Jun 11:
I believe what Farmer Tom is trying to do (like a bull in a china shop) is make the point that the "gay rights" political movement is attempting to normalize sinful behavior.
This is why he refers to them - somewhat brutally - as the "sodomy lobby". They are lobbying to make sodomy a normal, accepted practice. The term is technically accurate.
But, dude, you would probably win more converts by coming across a little less abrasive. While the term is accurate, it's also rather harsh. Just IMHO.
18. obewan said the following at 3:17 PM on Jun 11:
I am not sure how to respond to Farmer Tom's comments, but it seems to me he has never met a gay person. Maybe that is because he does not live in an urban environment.
That said, I wonder how he would respond if he met a “celibate” gay person in a church. Some churches even allow "gay" people into positions of leadership as long as they remain celibate.
Then too, beyond a certain age, the sin he names is not really possible. At my sisters urban church, I met one pair of old retired roommates who where completely celibate, but were "suspected" of being gay. They were evangelical Christians who were accepted by some and scorned by others at the church they attended. The question hangs: were they sinning? They were at least not part of the "lobby" Farmer Tom mentions.
19. farmer Tom said the following at 7:53 PM on Jun 11:
That was funny. I laughed.
Of course, you also missed the point.
When I use the terminology that the "aggrieved" group prefers, I have already accommodated their position.
An example. The people in the group who want as many abortions as possible to take place, because they make money off of the abortion business, refer to people like me as anti-choice.
This is of course not true, I want the mothers to choose life. I refer to myself as pro-life. If I play the game by their rules, I will refer to them as pro-choice. But, in fact they are pro-death, they are anti-life, the are baby-killers. If I accept the term pro-choice as a valid description of their position, I've already given away the game, they win, because they can then portray me as anti-choice. When I call them baby killers, it infuriates them, for numerous reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I do not allow them to define the language.
So then, I refuse to use terminology which advances the agenda of the pro-sodomy sector of the culture. Yes, it infuriates them and some of you. But, I will not play their game on their terms.
As for Obewan's assertion that I've never met a sodomite. Well, I suppose that would be true if I'd never been off the farm, and I know most of you think that's true, but I have ventured into the big city a few times in my life.
went to college in a city of 250,000.
Oh, and there's the local printer who fled the AIDS scene in San Fransisco, in the mid eighties, for small town Iowa, to avoid getting AIDS. Or the gal down the street with the bumper sticker that reads, "Sorry I Missed Church, I've Been Busy Practicing Witchcraft and Becoming a Lesbian" so that's at least two.
But, your basic premis is flawed, use your same question and change the terms.
"but it seems to me he has never met an adulterer ". Or how about, "but it seems to me he has never met a whore".
What pray tell does meeting a sinner, have to do with how one describes that sin? Is it not adultery if you know the parties involved? Or is the woman not a whore if you know her by name? What are you talking about? Sin is sin, regardless of who is doing the sinning. Knowing the sinner personally does not in any way negate the sinfulness of their actions. I wish that I did not know any sinners, but sorry to say, I look at one every morning in the mirror, so there's one for sure. Treating sinful behavior as less wicked because you know the sinner personally is an affront to God. God is Holy, He can not tolerate sin. Why do you? Or why do you use terms to "take the edge" off of their sinful behavior, instead of confronting them with their sinfulness?
One more thing.
Another absurd question. Should we accept celibate adulterers, celibate whores, celibate child molesters?
What I want to see in the church are repentant sinne rs. Sodomites, adulterers, child molesters, prideful, arrogant, gluttonous sinners, who have repented for their sinful behavior, fallen on their face before God, and acknowledged their wickedness, and are actively attempting to "go and sin no more".
20. Tara said the following at 10:19 PM on Jun 11:
Farmer Tom (#11) -- "Maybe the problem is you. You have accepted the world's definitions of immorality as ok, and thereby allowing your view of sin to be watered down. You use euphemisms for deviant sexual acts instead of calling sin, sin."
You're assuming again. You concluded from my brief statement that I have watered-down morality. My point, as Jeremy (#12) probably worded more clearly, is that your language comes across judgmental, legalistic and harsh. You're focusing more on the sin than helping the sinner.
21. aefc said the following at 11:04 PM on Jun 11:
IMO (#16) hit the nail on the head. The issue, the problem, is that some sins are no longer being considered sin.
It seems that people need to be politically-correct, we need to be nice, we need to be this and that, except truthful.
I don't recall Jesus ever backing down, stopping to rephrase a thought, or holding back. He was blunt and did none of that stuff. He, however, was capable of conveying love at the same time. That's why he was so effective and people were responsive.
Out of love, Jesus was truthful, even if the truth was what the other person didn't want to hear. Remember the young rich man whom Jesus told to leave all his riches behind?
So for the sake of our neighbors, lets speak the truth.
The Bible is clear about gender and sexuality as it relates to marriage, singlehood, males, females, truth and sin. Lets not give our opinions. Lets give Biblical truths.
22. Mike said the following at 4:34 AM on Jun 12:
Farmer Tom (#19) -
My son, whom I adopted when I married, was born out of wedlock. Technically, he's therefore a bastard.
Should I call him that to be accurate?
I think not.
It's one thing to be accurate and to insist on accuracy. It's another to use language deliberately to inflame.
Abortion proponents call themselves "pro-choice". But, as you point out, they're not. They're pro-abortion. That term is accurate, but not inflammatory. "Baby-killer" is both.
You can be accurate, refuse to accept the adversary's definitions, and at the same time be gentle and rational in your discourse.
Peace.
23. Holly said the following at 8:17 AM on Jun 12:
Farmer Tom: Just so you know, that bumper sticker on your neighbor is not necessarily a declaration of lesbianism. Many people have that bumper sticker who are straight (including one friend and one family member of mine). It's a reference to a famous quote by Pat Robertson. "Feminism is not about equal rights for women. It is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
24. obewan said the following at 8:36 AM on Jun 12:
(I have to repost this since I put it on the wrong thread the first time):
O.K. Maybe I should take a second stab at my Farmer Tom speculations. Maybe he has never met a Christian who is a "celibate" gay or a Christian who has struggled with same sex attraction.
He seems to lump those who are "celibate" but "tempted" into the same category as those who are actually sinning.
I confess the heart attitude is important to God. What is different about my realization though is that I am no different than the celibate person who struggles with same sex attraction since I have struggled with lust. That makes me an adulterer in my heart. Since Farmer Tom lumps those who struggle in with those who actually commit the sin, I suppose I would not be welcome by him in his church, for he stated:
"Another absurd question. Should we accept celibate adulterers, celibate whores, celibate child molesters?"
The church is a hospital for sinners, and the word hospital is derived from the concept "show hospitality".
25. LeeLee said the following at 10:13 AM on Jun 12:
farmer Tom, you didn't answer my question and I'm attempting to understand why someone like you thinks it's acceptable to talk to someone the way you are.
You said you know of (potential) gays, but have you actually ever conversed with them? Do you tell them the sin they're committing is an abomination in the eyes of God everytime you run into them on the street? Because that's the impression I'm getting.
What if one of your children came to you and told you they were gay? Would you disown them and pretend they didn't exist? Or would your unconditional love for them (like God loves all of us) win out?
Or if you met me on the street, would you call me a whore because I've had premarital sex despite the fact that I've repented of that sin?
I'm genuinely curious.
26. BY said the following at 11:07 AM on Jun 12:
LeeLee #25,
Sorry for interfering. I'd like to ask you if your child or your spouse goes to hell because you were to afraid to call their sin what it actually is so that they could turn from it, how would you feel then? If you yourself go to hell because you were so concerned to please people that you forgot completely about what God calls clearly sin, how would you feel then?
27. LeeLee said the following at 12:24 PM on Jun 12:
#26 - You're not interfering; it's a fair question. Obviously I would feel beyond guilty if any of the situations you described occurred.
My point is not that we shouldn't call a loved one out on their sin, or address a situation if there is a problem. My point is that there is a loving and decent way of going about it. Calling someone a whore or a sodomist is not going to win their heart for Christ. It's basic kindergarten stuff.
28. BY said the following at 1:43 PM on Jun 12:
LeeLee #27,
I agree completely with your last comment. But let me ask you one more question: if someone does not feel like she is sick, why should she go looking for a healer? Would our love be enough? May we pray for God's love to abide richly in our lives.
29. Samantha said the following at 2:46 PM on Jun 12:
farmer Tom, thank you for standing against sin :-) I'm glad that there are some people who are not buying into the world's defination of what is okay and what isn't.
30. Craig M. said the following at 3:56 PM on Jun 12:
Just so I'm sure that I understand....are we saying that oral sex between a married man and woman is wrong? I'm a military criminal prosecutor, so I can assure you that ANY oral or anal sexual activity qualifies as "sodomy." Don't get me wrong--I'M not drawing any moral equivalence between homosexual acts and ANY moral sex acts. But are you guys? That's a very Roman Catholic position if so--not that there's anything wrong with that....
31. BY said the following at 10:30 PM on Jun 12:
LeeLee #27,
Please do not get me wrong, but I think you have something more important to worry about and that is: would you get into heaven without having the heart of God? Perhaps you regularly confess your sins, but do you confess all your sins, especially the right ones? Let me be more specific and give you one example of what I mean. Imagine that someone has deeply offended you at work. Then you go to church on Sunday and the preacher calls you to confess your sins and you do confess them. But then on the next day at work you are still deeply troubled by what the other person has said to you, and you frankly hate him. Hence, in your mind consciously or subconsciously you devise all kinds of schemes and ways to get back at him. However, when you talk, you hide your anger and hate behind polished and well-versed conversations. Nevertheless, everything you do from this moment on regarding that person (whether he is a believer or non-believer is unimportant) is driven from the desire to get back at him, a desire that is deep within you. Hence, clichés will not get you into heaven – only God can let you in there if He chooses to do so. However, God will let us in if we confess all our sins as He has promised to give us a new heart. Then, maybe with our new heart we will be able to truly love and give to others even if our words do not look so polished and well-versed on the outside because our inside will be clean.
32. LeeLee said the following at 9:02 AM on Jun 13:
#31 BY - Ok, I'm not really sure how we got to this point, or how you came to the conclusions you did. I'm still trying to understand why you're making assumptions about my life, or the type of person that I am based off of a few comments that I posted chiding another believer to be "nicer," particularly in situations when he might be encountering non-believers that are truly struggling. That's it. That's all I was attempting to do.
If my discourse comes across as "polished" and "polite" it's because I think through what I'm going to post on here before I do it. And if I'm spewing cliches, it's because I believe the cliches to be true. I believe that God knows our hearts better than we know them. We will all have to answer for what is not atoned for in our lives.
So, thank you for your concern about the state of my heart, I guess.
33. Jo said the following at 3:12 PM on Jun 13:
BY,
Firstly I'm not sure if you're saying that we must confess all our sins to be saved, but if you are I disagree. If I confessed all my sins individually I'd never get anything else done. I don't mean that it's never appropriate to repent of individual sins, but to say that it's a requirement to confess them all separately is not a concept I find in the Bible. I'm absolutely sure I will die with some sins left undiscovered. God is working in me yes, but I will never be perfect this side of heaven.
Secondly, the Bible does say that out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. Loving words are evidence of a heart that at least wants to be loving. Of course we don't say everything the right way all the time, but why is it a bad thing to aim for?
I also think it's a two way process between the heart and the actions. As God changes us inside, the change comes through to the outside, yes. But also, our growing discipline and commitment to doing the right thing even when we don't feel like it, also helps in the heart-changing process. You almost make it sound like we should act exactly how we feel and simply pray for God to change us, without making any effort to behave righteously ourselves. That clearly isn't biblical.
And I'm with LeeLee, I don't really know how the conversation ended up here either!
34. BY said the following at 12:07 AM on Jun 14:
LeeLee @ 32,
Yes, I do not know you personally LeeLee and I do not know who you are, but God knows our hearts.
Jo #33,
I think you did not understand clearly what I meant with the example I gave and the words I used, but I guess that’s fine as this does not apply to you. But, you see even if you did not fully understand what I said, you were quick to stand up for LeeLee and only you know why you did this. That’s fine and I hope you do it more often for other believers too, like farmer Tom even if you do not understand sometimes what he is trying to tell you or he who is in reality. But, be careful, in today’s culture there are many people who use “loving words” but inside they are ravenous wolves who are waiting to tear you apart, so pick up your battles and watch out for your heart. All of us are spiritual beings and that’s why Jesus said that whoever hates his neighbor is a murderer and whoever lusts in his heart is an adulterer, because our actions as well as our thoughts have consequences for us and for the other people as well. Sometimes they are like seeds which give their “fruits” in due time through “loving words” in one way or another, when a close friend betrays you with a smile or a spouse cheats on you while you were not there, etc. My main point was this: even if you think that someone has done you wrong, first forgive him/her and then try to understand him/her without trying to think bad thoughts about him/her. And please remember that “the true children of God are the ones who are led by God’s Spirit,” (Romans 8:14) and all our own efforts and good intentions cannot substitute for His Spirit.
35. Jo said the following at 1:44 PM on Jun 14:
BY,
I wasn't sticking up for LeeLee. I don't stick up for anyone on this blog, I simply say what I think. In this case I thought there was nothing in LeeLee's comment to suggest there was anything wrong with her heart. And the points I responded to in your post were simply things I disagreed with, nothing to do with LeeLee.
For what it's worth I often do agree with what farmer Tom says, and I sometimes do comment on it. I think a lot of the time he says things needs to be said, and I actually quite like him as a commenter. But it's worth repeating my previous point: the fact that some people speak compassionately while thinking evil thoughts is not an argument against speaking compassionately. Meaning well doesn't let us off the hook when we speak harshly and hurt others. We're all works in progress, but we should be making progress, not just inwardly, but also outwardly. For people to challenge farmer Tom's writing style is not a negative thing. One of the ways we build each other up is by challenging sin (or perceived sin) in each other's lives. farmer Tom is perfectly able to weigh up the feedback he gets and decide whether it's justified. I'm not necessarily saying that it is, but it's absolutely right to have that conversation.
If I misunderstood anything in your comment, I apologise. I do find it difficult to understand some of your posts, they don't always seem to relate to what's gone before... Maybe our minds just work differently. :/ On the other hand, I think some of your other comments are absolutely spot on - it seems I either agree with you completely or don't get you at all!
36. LeeLee said the following at 4:16 PM on Jun 14:
#30 Craig M. - I feel bad, no one has acknowledged anything you asked. I have no problem with it within the context of marriage as long as both parties are agreeable. But others on here may have other opinions.
#33 Jo- Thanks. And I agree with everything you said.
#34 BY - Ummmmm... still confused. Are you accusing me of being a "ravenous wolf" now?
37. farmer Tom said the following at 9:20 PM on Jun 14:
# 25 LeeLee said,
I most certainly did answer your question, you may not have liked my answer.
Quote me,
"
BTW obewan this is for you as well,
Now I did not give names and addresses, but I have met numerous practicing sodomites. However, I also have a completely different view of these people than you apparently do.
I see all people from the President of the United States down to the drunken bum laying in the gutter as sinners . I believe in the total depravity of man. See Romans 7:18 and 8:8, and Isaiah 64:6.
Therefore, each and every person I meet every day of life is a sinner in need of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Without Him, they are already on their way to eternal damnation see, John 3:18 and 36.
So when I meet a sinner, (all people) I'm polite, kind, and try to show the difference that Life in Jesus Christ brings. If a sinner tells me that they are engaging in a particular sin, adultery, fornication, gluttony, drunkenness, what ever their sin is, I as a sinner saved by grace, have a duty before God to show them their actions mean that they have a broken relationship with the Creator God. They are worthy of God's judgment because they are a sinner . I don't treat the guy from my church who was formerly an alcoholic, drug user, who engaged in deviant sexual behavior in prison, any differently than the man who was abusive of his wife and committed adultery. They are both sinners saved by grace. When they acknowledged their sinfulness before a Holy God, confessed their sin, asked Jesus Christ to save them, and then turned from their wicked ways, there was evidence of God's work in their lives, they are new creatures, old things have passed away. They no longer practice the sins of their past. So I now consider them brothers in Christ. I don't call them "celibate adulterers" or "celibate fornicators".
So when someone visits my church, I assume he or she needs a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I don't play "identity politics" or other games practiced by those who want their behavior to be their identity.
You are confusing the written word with the spoken word. I use the proper terminology to describe a particular sin, just as Scripture uses it. If someone comes up to me and tells me that they are sexually befuddled. That they do not understand God's created order, "male and female created He them", I don't suddenly swoon, then treat them as some special protected class, and neither do I yell "you heathen sinner". I simply treat them as another sinful human being in need of a Savior. If asked I will tell them what God's Word says about their particular sin, whatever that sin may be.
At the same time, when writing or posting on the web, in discussions with those who claim the name of Christ and those who do not, I refuse to use euphemisms which many groups use to soften the impact of their particular sinful behavior. If you think that Boundless is the only place I refer to the "sodomy lobby" or sodomic behavior, then you are blatantly wrong. I'm sure if you read some of the previous posts at my blog and others I frequent you would soon find that I had used those terms if the subject of same sex sexual activity comes into the conversation.
For all of you who claim to be offended by my "harsh, unkind statements" I have a question.
Is God more offended by my calling sin, sin, by using Biblical terms to describe sinful behavior, or is He offended by the sin???
Most of you are trying to cast me as the sinner because I'm harsh, unkind, etc etc, and you refuse to acknowledge that God called certain acts of sin, an abomination.
I'm not pleading my innocence here, I have acknowledged my own sinfulness, I am a sinner saved by grace through faith. I simply refuse to allow sinful people to cover the magnitude of their sin by prettying it up with nice euphemisms, flowery words or other politically correct language.
38. BY said the following at 7:13 AM on Jun 15:
LeeLee #36,
I don’t know who you are as I don’t know you personally like I mentioned in my previous comment and I’m not accusing you of anything and I honestly don’t know how you got to this point in our conversation. If I have wronged you in any way, please forgive me. It’s a little ironic that you would say that I was trying to accuse you indirectly of anything when I spent so much time explaining out that it is much more important to have our inside clean than our outward appearance. But I can assure you of one thing – I love you as a human being and I want to underscore with all my posts the importance of Christ’s love in a person’s life, even though very unsuccessfully at times.
For me what matters is what matters to God – whether Jesus can be found in the heart of a person and whether this person does the will of God. Focusing on the external and the outward appearances in order to please others and fit better in this world, in my opinion, really distorts the point of Christian living.
God's peace to you!
Jo #35,
“But it's worth repeating my previous point: the fact that some people speak compassionately while thinking evil thoughts is not an argument against speaking compassionately.”
I have never argued against “speaking compassionately” but against pretending to speak compassionately without being ready to act compassionately as well. If our inside is not clean and Jesus has not cleansed our hearts, all our words about “compassion,” love, empathy, and others are empty and without substance. I always want to challenge every person to test his/her own heart condition before making judgment calls on the way things appear on the surface. In general, I also argue against pretending that one can reconcile living out the Christian life with the knowledge of the world which focuses predominantly on the superficial and outward expressions of the human beings: their money, success, good looks, etc. Hence, worldly love, which is a desire to gain something that will bring one satisfaction and personal recognition, can never be reconciled with Biblical love, which is giving up something of oneself for others because of God’s love in one’s life and in order to please God.
“I do find it difficult to understand some of your posts, they don't always seem to relate to what's gone before”
Yes, indeed I do jump rather abruptly sometime from one topic to another wherever my heart leads me.
“For people to challenge farmer Tom's writing style is not a negative thing.”
My first thought, Jo, is what God thinks about “farmer Tom's writing style” and whether he approves it or not, and then what God will think if I “challenge” farmer Tom's writing style and miss the substance of his writings. Ultimately, I want to see through God’s eyes. So many people choose to live through the motions of life and they are content with where they are and what they have. So few want and are ready to step out of their way for God and do something that only God wants them to do even if it will mean that they will lose everything, everything they have worked for so hard all their life. The truth is that if one chooses not to step out of her way for God, her life will be meaningless even if her life was a great success story and many people patted her on the back for her numerous achievements and she received a number of honors and awards. That’s why Jesus says that if you try to save your life, you will lose it, and if you lose your life, you will find eternal life. Would you get out of your way and leave the motions of your life if God calls you? Would you be ready to suffer and be willing to be talked down and hated by others, including your Christian friends and family, if that’s what God calls you to do, and say “Not mine, but your will be done, Lord!”? Do you understand now why in my posts I am trying to break beyond the clichés and the external appearances of Christian routines we call Christian living and beyond all possible prejudices and misconceptions about Christianity, and turn the focus on God and His will for our lives? If we miss God through the motions of our lives, then who are we serving with our lives – us or God?
This said: I appreciate your comments! Thank you, Jo, and God’s peace to all!
39. obewan said the following at 8:20 AM on Jun 15:
#37. farmer Tom said the following at 9:20 PM on Jun 14
‘…BTW obewan this is for you as well,
Now I did not give names and addresses, but I have met numerous practicing sodomites. However, I also have a completely different view of these people than you apparently do.
…They no longer practice the sins of their past. So I now consider them brothers in Christ. I don't call them "celibate adulterers" or "celibate fornicators".’
==================================================
#1. You are putting words in my mouth. Where or when did I ever say that I do not consider homosexual ACTS to be sin? What I did imply is that the temptation may not be a sin in itself.
#2. You were the one who applied the terms “celibate adulterers” yada yada not me, and you said we should not accept them. I even quoted you.
Also, if you read my first post, you will learn of the existence of hermaphrodites. Some of them do end up with gender confusion issues and end up with a gay “orientation” after surgery to correct their anatomy to one predominant gender. Now, lets say that a person like this becomes a Christian, and struggles with a lifelong homosexual orientation, WHICH THEY DO NOT ACT ON. Such a person might rightly bear the burden of being classified as a “celibate gay”. If they are open about their pain and struggle, accepting Christians will understand what that label means in terms of sacrifices that such a person would have to make in living for Christ. I am not trying to make a case for normal persons being “born gay”, but I would point out that their may be cases where SOME people are, and I would not degrade their person by referring to them as part of the “sodomy lobby.”
40. IMO said the following at 9:01 AM on Jun 15:
What I see BY doing pretty clearly is GIVING EXAMPLES. That is all.
41. farmer Tom said the following at 11:57 AM on Jun 15:
obewan,
From what I can remember hermaphrodites make up somewhere between .033 and .05 percent of the population. Something like one in 200 people. Trying to argue that we should coddle the sexually befuddled because there are a very, very, very small percentage of them who have a genetic anomaly, is akin to making public policy outlawing airplanes because some crazy nutjobs flew a couple of them into sky scrapers. While it may have occurred twice in the period of two hours, the number of times its happened in the century of flying airplanes is a minute speck on the charts.
In the same way, trying to claim that using the Biblical term for the practice of sexual activity between members of the same gender is somehow related to a visible, medically defined deformity, is ridiculous.
Next you will want to establish all abortion policy based on incidence of pregnancy caused by rape. Which a quick glance at the web says is around .06 percent.
Give it up dude. You want to condemn me because you think I am too harsh with the language. Fine, but leave the genuinely unfortunate who have been born with a genetic deformity, out of the discussion. Since the percent of the population who claim to be sodomites is somewhere between 3 and 7 percent, the vast majority of them are choosing to engage in sexual behavior which God condemns. Trying to make an excuse for that choice is simply enabling their chosen behavior.
42. Leah W said the following at 11:58 AM on Jun 15:
Thomas #6
"Because while I agree with the Biblical worldview, I cannot come up with any reasons why a non Christian should or would follow the worldview without first coming to Christ. In fact, secular culture seems very natural to follow if one does not believe."
Our country was founded on a Christian worldview... and even though not all the "original" Americans (not sure what else to call them :D) were Christians they all managed to live under a Christian worldview. I don't see anywhere in any historical books, writings, etc that I've read where it talks about those early citizens complaining when the founding fathers used scriptures to back up the beliefs that permeated and provided the foundation of our country & its constitution.
The point isn't to force everyone to agree with us, but to call our country back to a higher standard!
Do I want to see all men and women come to know Christ on a personal lever? Yes! Do I think that that will be accomplished by passing laws and declaring us an "official" Christian nation? NO! -- Just like not all who live in Saudi Arabia are Muslims.
Why would we *not* want to live to a higher standard that tells our youth that "Yes, you do have the self control *not* to give in to your every lustful thought. And you *can* wait until your wedding night to have sex."? Why do we *not* want to keep pornography from destroying the lives of men and women (and boys and girls) around our country? Is that censorship? Probably. But how can anyone look into the eyes of a man whose marriage has been destroyed, and who only gets to see his young daughter once every two weeks, because his wife has threatened to tell a judge about his addiction to *adult* pornography, that we shouldn't have worked just a little bit harder at keeping porn from his 13 year old eyes, because "That's censorship. And that's infringing on that magazine's freedom of speech."*
So do I believe that we should kill all those who do not believe like us?(that's from the Koran--no offense to anyone who hasn't read the book for themselves to see that it is indeed taught there.) NO! But I do believe that we need to raise the bar for this country's moral standard and step up and fight (leagally!) for something worth fighting for.
*Yes, I know this man and I know his wife. I don't know what the judge would rule in this case since his addiction is limited to adult women, but I do know that he lives in fear of never seeing his daughter again should he press any issue with his now ex-wife. And I've seen the self-hatred in his face because he honestly believes that he can do nothing to stop his addiction.
43. obewan said the following at 12:35 PM on Jun 15:
#41. farmer Tom said the following at 11:57 AM on Jun 15
obewan,
From what I can remember hermaphrodites make up somewhere between .033 and .05 percent of the population. Something like one in 200 people.
----------------------------------
We are in agreement on that statistic, but it also goes with my point about being exposed to more of these people in urban areas.
In a large church like mine, we might expect to meet 2 such individuals. In a town as big as the one I live in, there would be 1,000.
I think we stand together against the same sins, we just have a different way of addressing some of the issues.
I'm sorry if my comments have offended you. I was certainly not intending to "condemn you" or force any kind of "liberal agenda" upon those opposed to gay sins committed my normal people.
44. Jeremy said the following at 12:44 PM on Jun 15:
Farmer Tom --
I think what Obewan is getting at is a fundamental difference in language that so often makes Christians come across as hateful (as you are here). To most of the world, the term "gay" or "homosexual" means someone who is primarily attracted to members of their same sex. To many Christians (including you, it would seem), the term "gay" or "homosexual" means someone who engages in sexual activity with members of their same sex.
Surely you can see the difference. Christians often phrase their (rightful) condemnation of homosexual sexual activity as being anti-gay or opposed to homosexuality. The problem is that much of the rest of the world sees this as also being opposed to same-sex attraction, over which most people have no concious control. The same impression is given when you refer to gays as "sodomites"; you may mean only those who engage in homosexual sexual activity, but many would interpret your insults as applying also to those who are attracted to those of the same sex without ever acting on it.
* Note that this is not your only problem with hateful writing; your tone is consistently haughty, proud, and insulting. You almost always come across with the exact same attitude as the Pharisee in Luke 18:11 -- "The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.'"
45. farmer Tom said the following at 4:37 PM on Jun 15:
44. Jeremy said,
Surely you can see the difference.
I thought about a long diatribe explaining the absurdity of this idea. I've heard some Catholic priest on the radio try to make the same argument. And frankly, I ain't buying it. I see your comments as a distinction without a difference.
Here's why, not from my opinion, reasoning or thought processes, a
littlelot higher source.Jeremy, I have my own problems with adultery, just because someone else lusts after a member of the same sex, doesn't give them a free pass.
46. Jeremy said the following at 5:27 PM on Jun 15:
"Jeremy, I have my own problems with adultery, just because someone else lusts after a member of the same sex, doesn't give them a free pass."
But again, surely you can see that there is a difference between attraction and lust. I assume you are a heterosexual. I assume you knew that before you had sex. I assume you would know that even if you had never lusted. In fact, I imagine you would know that even if you had never seen a specific woman. That is my point -- for most people the terms heterosexual and homosexual refer to attraction, not exclusively to sinful behavior.
Your stout refusal to acknowledge that distinction is a perfect example of why people struggling in this area so often feel rejected by the church. In your mind, it would seem, there is no difference between the man who is attracted to other men but valiently fights against the desire to indulge that temptation, and the promiscuous homosexual. They are both "sodomites", and both equally deserving of condemnation. I find that to be a sad and destructive position.
47. Ted Slater said the following at 9:09 PM on Jun 15:
Jeremy (#46) -- I wholeheartedly affirm what you're saying. There's a difference between "attraction" and "lusting."
My heart breaks for those who are sexually attracted to the same sex. There is no godly way to pursue that attraction. I imagine that can feel unfair at times.
If it's difficult for those with heterosexual desires to pursue intimacy with the opposite sex in a godly way, imagine how difficult it is for those with homosexual desires to pursue godly intimacy.
Remember that Leviticus 18:22 calls **the behavior** "an abomination." Scripture does not call **the individual** an "abomination." Indeed, if there were but one man on this planet, and he identified himself as "gay," out of love Christ would die that that one man might become His friend. Check out this article for more info on this concept.
48. Jo said the following at 12:08 AM on Jun 16:
"They are both "sodomites", and both equally deserving of condemnation."
Since sodomite refers to a specific action, and not attraction at all - it is as farmer Tom said, an accurate term. I still wouldn't use it personally because it's inflammatory. But I don't think farmer Tom was applying that term to those who are same-sex attracted - if he was, it's no longer accurate.
49. khalil said the following at 12:13 AM on Jun 16:
Replying to Lisa, #15...
I don't disagree that there is an ideal that we are held too, that which God had in mind during creation. We live in a fallen world and throughout the centuries sin has twisted and corrupted culture and society so thoroughly that when we are born/conceived we are afflicted immediately by the effects of it. Our genetics can predispose us to certain conditions while our culture and society in which we are born into have a strong impact on certain values, ideals, and behaviors.
God created us as male and female; up to the moment of the fall God gave us our gender and our biological sex. The culture that Adam and Eve lived in was of God. When the fall occurred everything changed and what God created and purposed now had something working in opposition to it, a counter culture. As we are today we have a world that has been living with the effects of sin for a long time, thousands of years or millions/billions of years (depending on your leaning towards old/young earth). With science we can change our sex while our culture and society impacts our gender roles and identity quite significantly. We live in a place that the norm is fallen and corrupted, seeking self gratification and looking away from God. The counter culture now is based on looking to God and scripture for truth, purpose, and identity.
I never said that gender was completely societal (I gave a basic and quick definition of each), personally I believe there is an innate "something" in us that helps point us in the right gender direction. If gender roles were solely based on culture then I would imagine we'd see a lot fewer people struggling with gender identity and sexuality issues, because society (external) wouldn't be fighting against that "something" (internal).
50. BY said the following at 2:59 AM on Jun 16:
Jeremy, #44 & #46
In my view, farmer Tom’s views completely agree with Ted Slater’s comment # 47 (farmer Tom please correct me if I’m wrong). It is my understanding after reading carefully all the comments that farmer Tom loves all people and all sinners as he sees himself also as a sinner. However, farmer Tom hates the sin, not the person. And he is not willing to compromise with the definition of the sin – he is not condemning the person, but the sin of the person, and he is not willing to compromise on the sin.
Jeremy, you make a distinction between homosexual attraction and homosexual activity, but farmer Tom is not interested in this kind of distinction. For him, there is only one kind of distinction: between people who confess their sins and accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and those who do not accept Jesus and try to justify their sins as part of natural life. That does not mean that farmer Tom loves gay people any less than you do.
We all have to resist lusting in our hearts whether we are gay or straight, and that’s sometimes a hard struggle for all of us. Ultimately, if one lusts in her heart, she will be a very miserable person if her desires are not satisfied. Of course, for straight people marriage is a “godly” way-out, even though marriage purely for the sake of lusting is not a very good idea. But how does a person feel who cannot find a godly way-out for her attractions, but can only pursue attractions with the opposite sex which she does not feel attracted to? Well, I do not know, as I do not even want to imagine not liking the opposite sex and seeking a way-out with the same sex. This is impossible for me.
In general, I agree with obewan’s comment:
“I think we stand together against the same sins, we just have a different way of addressing some of the issues.”
However, I think we get bogged down on all these petty issues when the most important thing in my mind is having Jesus in our hearts vs. not having him. Compassion, love, empathy, etc. are all empty and deprived of meaning if Jesus is not in our hearts. Why so? Because if we love someone and feel compassion towards them, and we do not point them to the cross of Jesus where they can meet God’s love and forgiveness, what’s the use of all our love and compassion and all our efforts in general? Just to be liked by other people? Somehow it seems to me that a lot of Christians think that if they are just wise and smart enough, they can be friends with everyone and never have to be hated and rejected because of their faith and beliefs. That’s absolutely wrong thinking and mindset. Look at Jesus. He was the representation of perfect love: he cured people, he fed people, he did miracles, he preached about loving your enemies and repaying evil with good and then he healed his enemies, forgave them and loved them. His whole life was spent in service, dedication and love to and for others, because he wanted to point people to God and God’s love as much greater than anything else in this world. Yet, because of Jesus’ honesty and uncompromising attitude toward corruption and moral deprivation, people hated him, tortured him and in the end crucified him like a criminal even though he alone was sinless and did no wrong to anyone. Could Jesus escape the hatred, the torture and the crucifixion? Yes, probably he could if he was wise enough to find a way to please the people. But he said, “Yet, your will be done, not mine, Father!” As I asked in my previous post, how many people today are ready to suffer because they stood up for what is true, just and honorable and for what God calls them to do? How many people are ready to hang on and put their trust only in God and go through suffering in order to do God’s will for their lives? How many people want to leave the pleasures of this life and pursue something greater than themselves and wait for God to call them? Following Jesus does not necessarily mean drawing a set of Christian rules which we should follow, but it means above all waiting on God to call us and then be ready to follow his call full heartedly. He will surely not lead us to sin, but out of it into his glorious kingdom if we only trust him completely.
God's peace to all!
51. Jo said the following at 8:59 AM on Jun 16:
Revising my comment #48, I have changed my mind...
'Sodomite' refers to a specific action, which (as Craig M points out) is not exclusively homosexual, which not all homsexuals practise and indeed which two women cannot practise. So actually, using 'practising homosexual' would be not only less inflammatory but a good deal more accurate as well.
52. Jo said the following at 9:02 AM on Jun 16:
Question for farmer Tom and BY:
If a person who was attracted to people of the same sex became a Christian, repented of past homosexual activity and lust and committed to following Jesus and upholding a biblical view of sexuality, do you think that person's attraction to people of the same sex would disappear? If not, how would you then refer to that person (in terminology I mean, are they gay, ex-gay, celibate gay...?), and how would you treat them within the church?
53. BY said the following at 10:30 AM on Jun 16:
Jo,
Why do you ask me this question? Did I not make myself pretty clear that I agree with Jeremy and Ted Slater that fighting with lust is not a sin? For me there are only Christians and non-Christians. For me, there are no Christian gays, but rather Christians who may struggle with homosexual sin. I do not like the use of the word "sodomite" either. Can we now let it go and move on to more important issues of the Christian life?
54. Jo said the following at 12:28 PM on Jun 16:
BY,
I was just asking. Thanks for clarifying.
55. farmer Tom said the following at 8:13 PM on Jun 16:
I'm leading the Bible Study at prayer meeting tomorrow night. I really should be preparing for that. I going to discuss "Law and Grace".
This is going to be long. I'm sorry for that. However, I also think that we are actually having a worthwhile discussion.
To all of you who have recently commented on this thread, I'm not ignoring you, I'm simply going to present my argument with Ted and Jeremy first, then I'll get to the other comments later, when I have more time.
DISCLAIMER The illustration I'm going to use here is not something I deal with, it is simply an illustration. It is gross vile and disgusting. But, I think it illustrates the fallacy of the distinction Ted and Jeremy are trying to make.
Main Entry: attraction
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: ability to draw attention; something that draws attention
Synonyms: allure, allurement, appeal, attractiveness, bait, captivation, charm, chemistry, come-on*, courting, draw, drawing power, enchantment, endearment, enthrallment, enticement, fascination, gravitation, inclination, inducement, interest, invitation, it, lure, magnetism, pull, seduction, solicitation, temptation, tendency
Antonyms: repulsion, revulsion
Main Entry: lust
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: appetite, passion
Synonyms: animalism, aphrodisia, appetence, appetition, avidity, carnality, concupiscence, covetousness, craving, cupidity, desire, eroticism, excitement, fervor, greed, hunger, itch, lasciviousness, lechery, lewdness, libido, licentiousness, longing, prurience, pruriency, salaciousness, salacity, sensualism, sensuality, thirst, urge, wantonness, weakness, yen
Antonyms: chastity, disenchantment, disgust
Now I would agree that the two words are not exactly synonymous. But, I think substituting the word attraction instead of lust, when referring to sexual desire for someone of the same gender, is simply a canard. Let me see if I can explain why.
In Genesis 3, in Genesis 13 and 14, in I Samuel 11 with David and Bathsheba, in Romans 1 and numerous other passages of Scripture, there is a progression of sin. First simply looking, seeing or thinking about a particular sin, then eventually acting on those thoughts. That's why I quoted what Jesus said earlier. The sin of adultery starts with lustful thoughts. (See David as an example.)
So you claim that somehow someone who is "attracted" to someone of the same sex is different than someone who acts on that attraction. How are they different? To entertain thoughts of sexual attraction to someone of the same gender is clearly a violation of God's law, because God has said, "Thou shall not....."
Let me illustrate, again a DISCLAIMER, this is an illustration.
Suppose that I had sexual attraction for one of my daughters. Read the DISCLAIMER Would you consider that sinful? Is it sinful, only if I act on it? I know that God has clearly established in His Word that incest is wrong. Is it ok, for me to entertain thoughts of that kind of attraction, as long as I don't act on them?
Do you see the fallacy here? What actual difference is there between attraction to sin and lust? Don't you think David was attracted to Bathsheba first, before he acted on that attraction?
Both attraction and lust are part of the thought life. Look what Jesus said about that in Matthew.
Hebrews 4 says that the Word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Can you honestly say that God sees some kind of distinction between "attraction to a member of the same sex" or "lust for a member of the same sex"? Read the DISCLAIMER How about sexual attraction to my daughter? Read the DISCLAIMER
I contend that claiming same sexual attraction is different than lust, is making provision for the flesh. See Romans 13:14 "14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."
Now go to James 1:13-15
James 1:13-15 (King James Version)
13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Notice again the progression of sin, how it starts with temptation, followed by lust. In the list of synonyms above temptation is listed as one of the synonyms of attraction. Way back in #44 Jeremy said, "To most of the world, the term "gay" or "homosexual" means someone who is primarily attracted to members of their same sex." And those people are tempted to sin, that sin is sodomy. Read the DISCLAIMER Just as the sexual attraction to my daughter is sin, that sin is incest. Read the DISCLAIMER
Now the second part of my disagreement with many of you. You object to my use of the term sodomy, or a related derivative, because it's harsh, unkind etc.
Read the DISCLAIMER. Using my above illustration of sexual attraction to my daughter, incest is such a harsh, icky, negative word, so I purpose that instead of incest, we us the word "happy". Put a yellow smiley face out there as the symbol of my attraction. I'm "happy" and I'm proud. I've come out of the closet and I'm "happy". I've never acted on my "happy" attraction, so I'm a celibate "happy". Have you ever had any "happy" attractions? You're just "happy-phobic"! Read the DISCLAIMER
Get the picture?????
Putting a nice yellow smiley face and a feel good euphemism like "happy" in place of incest makes it seem so much less icky doesn't it???
Why then do you allow the world to use their euphemism for sodomy in this discussion or any discussion of the practice?
56. farmer Tom said the following at 8:49 AM on Jun 17:
Ok, I've been thinking about this all night, and most of the morning.
If you all are playing word games, and substituting attraction for the Biblical word temptation, then attraction and lust are not the same thing.
However, having heard this discussion before, from a Catholic priest who tried to suggest that those attracted to young boys were somehow different than those who actually committed pedophilia, I find that argument less than convincing. Someone who is thinking about, pondering in their mind, acting on some sort of attraction has already passed into the area of lust, at least in my mind.
Again, if you are simply saying that attraction and temptation are the same, then we know Biblically that temptation is not sin.
So, if you are "attracted to" or "tempted by" members of the same sex, the sin that is tempting you is sodomy. Using some euphemism that the world uses only further clouds the issue.
57. Ted Slater said the following at 10:35 AM on Jun 17:
farmer Tom (#56) -- Let me quote James 1:15 from the ESV:
"Desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death."
Desire *precedes* sin, but it is not in itself sin. Desire can become sin if it is allowed to grow. But if we refuse to allow desire to come to fruition, it is not sin.
I am by nature sexually attracted toward women. That in itself is not a bad thing, just a normal thing. It becomes bad if I allow that tendency to come to fruition -- if my desire grows to lust.
I don't see same-sex attraction as necessarily sinful, but more like an infliction or malady. A broken bone is distressing, but not sinful; a broken sexual compass is distressing, but not sinful.
To refuse treatment for that broken bone *could* be sinful; to promote that broken bone as a "right" condition could be sinful. Similarly, to accept ones same-sex attraction as "normal" or "right" may be sinful; to *act* on it, to allow that attraction to blossom into lust or sexual behavior would be sinful.
I've never experienced same-sex attraction, and so it could be easy for someone like me to dismiss those who experience SSA as freaks, as nameless sodomites bent on perversion. I think, though, that the Lord would have our hearts break for those who experience SSA, that we would pray for them and encourage them to disengage in homosexual behavior, to find their identity in Christ and not in their sexual orientation, and to seek the Lord's healing for their infliction.
Most of us desire sexual intimacy; how wonderful if those who've suffered from SSA could enjoy that deep intimacy as well, within a godly marriage?
58. BY said the following at 10:52 AM on Jun 17:
All you guys had one basic problem from the very beginning of this discussion and that is: you could read one another’s words, but could not see what the heart of the person was behind the words. Farmer Tom was defiant because he was unwilling to compromise on his definitions of sin. Others were attacking him predominantly because they thought that Farmer Tom was calling “sodomites” all Christians who struggled with homosexual sins which was obviously not the case. Can you now all come to an agreement? Please make sure you clearly understand one another’s words, especially the word “attraction” and all its connotations before you start bickering again and calling one another names? I cannot really see why you argue when you all say basically the same thing but you use different words. Whether we use the word “sodomy” or the words “homosexual acts,” it will not make the sin any less of a sin, nor will change our understanding of the nature of its seriousness. However, we all want the person to turn away from it and we all want to help him/her do this as lovingly as possible.
59. Rachael said the following at 11:04 AM on Jun 17:
re: desires, temptation, sin
Jesus was tempted but without sin. Honestly I'm not sure how that worked. Did his temptation involve desire? I don't know...
But I Biblegatewayed "sinful desires" and found a couple results. In the ESV this phrase is found in 2 Peter 3:3 and Jude 1:16. Do the same search with the NIV, which is thought for thought rather than word for word, and a bunch of results pop up, though several of them don't have the exact words "sinful desires" side by side.
So desires can be sinful. But in James 1:15 it does show that the desire leads to sin.
Complicated...
60. Jo said the following at 11:26 AM on Jun 17:
farmer Tom, you raise an interesting point. I find it difficult too to think of someone sexually attracted to children as not sinful. But I agree with what Ted said, and I think it extends to these other areas too. To be tempted is not sin; to indulge temptation, to flirt with it and encourage it and not deal with it ruthlessly, is sin.
The tragedy with homosexual attraction is that it is accepted as normal and right. The tragedy with attraction to children is that it is a sin so despised (and rightly so) that for people suffering from that temptation, there is virtually nowhere to go for support. The extremes of our culture (loving certain sins but demonising anyone who struggles with certain others), have nothing to do with God's view. As Christians I think we are called consistently to a middle way, to keep calling sin, sin (as you say), but also to love and support those struggling with all kinds of temptation, however much those temptations repel us. Because we're all sinners, and we know that our sinful natures will try to pull all of us away from God using every method possible - but ultimately sin is defeated, and we are in grace and victory because of Jesus.
61. BY said the following at 12:16 PM on Jun 17:
Jo #60,
Wow! So well put! I like your comment and I want to apologize for any rudeness on my part in my comment #53.
62. Jo said the following at 12:51 PM on Jun 17:
BY,
Thanks, and don't worry, I didn't find you rude. :)
63. Brian K said the following at 2:37 PM on Jun 17:
"Biblegatewayed" Just doesn't flow off the tongue like "googled" :-). I refuse to say Bing'd.
64. Trevor Dolby said the following at 5:17 PM on Jun 17:
Jo (60): Very true, your point about the extremes of our culture. I've always thought it ironic that the world would view the Holy Spirit to be a p[a]edophile for getting an under-age girl pregnant (assuming that classic traditions of Mary's age are correct(ish) and that the Holy Spirit was over sixteen at the time).