Christian Nerdfighters

Comment

Comment by Hannah le Faye on November 13, 2012 at 11:44am

Whatev.

Comment by Bryan Rosander, FL on November 12, 2012 at 9:46am

I think the tie in to gay marriage came from someone else. If there was a tie in, it would be to show that gay marriage was generally inconsistent with God's clearly stated plan for marriage.

I was mostly addressing issues with people not wanting to have children for selfish reasons while leaving the option open for many legitimate reasons. I was making sure that while the discussion of children and gay marriage might focus on gay marriage, some of the comments might effect other situations as well and need to be qualified.

Comment by Hannah le Faye on November 9, 2012 at 2:09pm

Ok, then, given everything else that is generally accepted for a good marriage, love that is patient, kind, etc etc and fidelity, I feel that what Bryan is saying is that if the genitalia of two people are the same, there's no possible way that they can honest to God be in love and have a good and blessed marriage because they can't birth children together.
I don't think I have to apologize for making a suggestion that would put some context to why Paul is relatively flippant about marriage and why he's not interested.  Asexuality is not a bad thing, just another type of person.  I also don't just accept things in the Bible without considering their context.

Comment by Malcolm on November 9, 2012 at 12:59pm

Hannah I think that I have been clear in not saying it's sin. I can't say that. However I think you need to be wary of how you word things. 

You know what else is an overemphasis on sex?  Telling other people that their love is a sin because of their genitalia.

I'm inclined to think that I would call an adulterer sinning, even if they were in love with the person they were with. Being in love cannot and should not be used as an excuse. I realize that this is a gross removal of context but it's also a suggestion to reword.

Comment by Bryan Rosander, FL on November 9, 2012 at 7:25am

I assume that Paul dealt with sexual temptation like any other Christian guy and that it had nothing to do with him not being married.

As Paul was one of the apostles and his writings are part of the Bible, I am siding with him on this one.

Comment by Hannah le Faye on November 8, 2012 at 10:37pm

I didn't say that I thought that Christ was asexual.  I said I had a theory about Paul that explains some of what he wrote.  Aren't fundamentalists big on theories not being proven?  You know what else is an overemphasis on sex?  Telling other people that their love is a sin because of their genitalia.

Comment by Malcolm on November 8, 2012 at 7:52pm

Hannah, I think that this reflects an over emphasis on sex. The idea that we have to state a label is quite disturbing. It isn't a free of sexuality that induces it, most of the time. It can really be an intense respect and appreciation for the ideas that back it. 

Was Christ asexual? I doubt it. It is said he faced every temptation we did in order to be a more perfect judge. And every Christian's goal is to be Christ like to the point it would be hard not to act like him.

I don't think that it was to the point that Paul was fleeing from sex (an act of willpower); I think that he was sustained elsewhere. He didn't need sex because God filled the hole. His future with God was so overwhelming in joy that anything on Earth could have easily been drowned and forgotten. Though in reality something on Earth was still important, us. 

Comment by Hannah le Faye on November 8, 2012 at 3:15pm

It comes from reading the Bible as well as other things and not being afraid of different forms of sexuality, enough to recognize it when I see it.  Maybe he wasn't, but it's worth a consideration.  Does it bother you to think of Paul as anything but a heterosexual man who flees sexuality?

Comment by Bryan Rosander, FL on November 8, 2012 at 8:37am

@Hannah le Faye - I think that you are overstating my point. I think that only some people have this problem, but I'm not pointing fingers or claiming that you can easily figure out who they are.

"Paul was asexual? Didn't really understand people's fixation on sex and/or marriage?"

Where did this come from?

 

@Malcolm - The Bible can say both "It is not good that the man should be alone" and “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.” I don't think they contradict each other.

Comment by Hannah le Faye on November 8, 2012 at 1:43am

My theory is that Paul was an asexual person who a) didn't feel the urge to merge and perhaps didn't really understand people's fixation on sex and/or marriage and b) received some flack for not being married, as a lot of single people still do, and wanted to reassure others like himself that being single is not a bad thing.  Let's not forget that Jesus himself said that we should ACCEPT people who choose not to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (in the same breath as acknowledging people who have been eunuchs from birth...Born This Way anyone?)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 22
• Next ›
• Page