But yes, I would want to know if the guy one of my daughters is marrying is a pedophile. Wouldn't you?
And I wouldn't want some church to just cover up that fact and push him into marriage with some unsuspecting bride on the grounds that he had "found Jesus" and was turning over a new leaf.
I don't know that just being gay is a sin. But promiscuity is, gay or straight. And I would agree that being gay isn't something that a person "gets out of their system" and then settles down to a heterosexual life and marriage. Which is why I think forcing them to try to do so is a mistake that can harm whole families.
You claim that the stigma associated with homosexual behavior results in closeted gays. Don't you think the same applies regarding pedophiles?
You imply we ought to accept homosexual behavior so that we don't have closeted gays. Do you think the same regarding pedophiles?
I don't remember anyone here suggesting that the church ought to "cover up the fact (that a person faces same-gender attraction temptations) and push him into marriage with some unsuspecting bride.
The idea of some kind of "Rumspringa" to "get it out of their system" was your suggestion. Glad to see that you have no problem with a society that doesn't tolerate fornication, adultery, or "men leaving the natural use of the women, and burning in their lust one toward another."
What makes you think promiscuity is a sin?
I don't know specifically about your church. But conversation therapy and trying to help gay people transition to straight lives is very much a part of some elements of conservative Christian culture. So yes, there are many many conservative churches out there who are pushing gay people to become straight. Or more often pretend to be straight as such programs have no record of long-term success. And the blanket disapproval of being gay, by its very nature, encourages gay members to stay silent and remain in the closet so to speak. So there are multiple pressures on gay people to either undergo "conversion" or simply be quiet and clandestine about their inclinations.
How specifically would your church and your family address a member who declared that they were gay?
I'm not sure why we are talking about pedophilia. We treat sex and marriage as adult activities and do not believe that sex with children or even minors is a good thing so we prohibit it and treat it as a crime. Even though it isn't specifically called out as a sin in the Bible and child brides were a common thing in Biblical times. Just like we treat giving drugs and alcohol to minors as a crime and don't allow them to vote, join the military, and do a lot of other things that we allow for adults. Based on all the stories of pedophilia and child sexual abuse in some branches of conservative Christianity (Sins of the Amish thread, Jeriah Mast scandal. Catholic and Baptist child sex abuse scandals) it would appear that secular society treats pedophilia as a more serious crime than many elements of conservative Christianity. Especially many church leaders who's first instinct seems to be to cover up such crimes and sympathize with the perpetrator rather than make sure the crimes are prosecuted, the abuse stamped out, and the victims supported.
You are telling us that terrible things happen if gay attraction is suppressed. You are telling us that the very fact that homosexual behavior is called out as sin causes people to hide their "gayness" and live repressed lives and pretend to be straight, and that this is a very bad thing.
If this is true for homosexuality, why would pedophilia be any different? You are absolutely correct that we believe pedophilia is wrong. As recently as 50 to 100 years ago the majority of people in America believed that homosexuality was wrong also. And the majority of people in CA communities still believe that both pedophilia and homosexuality are wrong. Yet you say, that gays were in emotional distress living closeted lives 50 years ago, and that this encouraged them to pretend to be straight - but that the charade could only be kept up so long until it all unraveled. How is pedophilia any different? The Bible is arguably more specific about how abominable homosexuality is compared with pedophilia.
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:40 am
As for your last point. You misunderstand me. I did not suggest the Amish adopt some sort of gay "Rumspringa" in order to get their gayness out of their system. I merely commented that such a thing does not exist in Amish or CA culture. So the story provided by Neto of a woman who was a "practicing lesbian" who eventually came back to the church and agreed to live a straight married life even though she knew she was still gay and knew there would be no mutual attraction is not something that could actually happen in Amish or CA life. The woman in Neto's story is someone who did live openly as gay for a period of time and then made the decision to abandon that life at an older age. So consequently she isn't any kind of model for CA society. That sort of informed decision is not something available in CA culture. Instead, CA culture encourages young gay people to suppress or hide their inclinations and most definitely to not ever act on them in any way, sexually or otherwise.
I'm not actually in favor of any sort of Rumspringa for any kids for any reason much less a gay Rumspringa.
Nor did I say that you suggest the Amish should adopt some sort of gay "Rumspringa." You were denying the relevance of Neto's story because the main character had a Rumspringa. The only way I could see that as having any relevance would be if Rumspringa somehow made it easier to live righteously later in live (it doesn't).
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:53 am
If this is true for homosexuality, why would pedophilia be any different?
Or even just chastity for singles or people in sexless marriages. If you go down this line, I think you are basically rejecting any authority of the Bible to speak to sexual ethics.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:53 am
If this is true for homosexuality, why would pedophilia be any different?
Or even just chastity for singles or people in sexless marriages. If you go down this line, I think you are basically rejecting any authority of the Bible to speak to sexual ethics.
The unfortunate truth is that the crowd that keeps pushing the LGBT inclusion (including the Pink Menno) crowd doesn't really believe in chastity for singles either, and nor do they just believe in monogamous marriages; for example, CPT's director once made a statement criticising monogamy (presumably in favour of polyamory).
The real question at hand is if the Bible speaks to any sexual ethic at all. I believe it does, although there is legitimate ground for interpretation about the details of that ethic. The stance from the inclusion-affirmation crowd is that the Bible doesn't seem to speak to any sexual ethic at all, except whatever the prevailing winds of the overall LGBT movement are; the LGBT movement is very much in favour of a consent-based morality where promiscuity and polyamory are OK, and thus they reinterpret the Bible as only supporting a consent-based ethic. I would like to find common ground with these people, but I can't.
ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:53 am
You claim that the stigma associated with homosexual behavior results in closeted gays. Don't you think the same applies regarding pedophiles?
You imply we ought to accept homosexual behavior so that we don't have closeted gays. Do you think the same regarding pedophiles?
I don't remember anyone here suggesting that the church ought to "cover up the fact (that a person faces same-gender attraction temptations) and push him into marriage with some unsuspecting bride.
The idea of some kind of "Rumspringa" to "get it out of their system" was your suggestion. Glad to see that you have no problem with a society that doesn't tolerate fornication, adultery, or "men leaving the natural use of the women, and burning in their lust one toward another."
What makes you think promiscuity is a sin?
I don't know specifically about your church. But conversation therapy and trying to help gay people transition to straight lives is very much a part of some elements of conservative Christian culture. So yes, there are many many conservative churches out there who are pushing gay people to become straight. Or more often pretend to be straight as such programs have no record of long-term success. And the blanket disapproval of being gay, by its very nature, encourages gay members to stay silent and remain in the closet so to speak. So there are multiple pressures on gay people to either undergo "conversion" or simply be quiet and clandestine about their inclinations.
How specifically would your church and your family address a member who declared that they were gay?
I'm not sure why we are talking about pedophilia. We treat sex and marriage as adult activities and do not believe that sex with children or even minors is a good thing so we prohibit it and treat it as a crime. Even though it isn't specifically called out as a sin in the Bible and child brides were a common thing in Biblical times. Just like we treat giving drugs and alcohol to minors as a crime and don't allow them to vote, join the military, and do a lot of other things that we allow for adults. Based on all the stories of pedophilia and child sexual abuse in some branches of conservative Christianity (Sins of the Amish thread, Jeriah Mast scandal. Catholic and Baptist child sex abuse scandals) it would appear that secular society treats pedophilia as a more serious crime than many elements of conservative Christianity. Especially many church leaders who's first instinct seems to be to cover up such crimes and sympathize with the perpetrator rather than make sure the crimes are prosecuted, the abuse stamped out, and the victims supported.
You are telling us that terrible things happen if gay attraction is suppressed. You are telling us that the very fact that homosexual behavior is called out as sin causes people to hide their "gayness" and live repressed lives and pretend to be straight, and that this is a very bad thing.
If this is true for homosexuality, why would pedophilia be any different? You are absolutely correct that we believe pedophilia is wrong. As recently as 50 to 100 years ago the majority of people in America believed that homosexuality was wrong also. And the majority of people in CA communities still believe that both pedophilia and homosexuality are wrong. Yet you say, that gays were in emotional distress living closeted lives 50 years ago, and that this encouraged them to pretend to be straight - but that the charade could only be kept up so long until it all unraveled. How is pedophilia any different? The Bible is arguably more specific about how abominable homosexuality is compared with pedophilia.
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:40 am
As for your last point. You misunderstand me. I did not suggest the Amish adopt some sort of gay "Rumspringa" in order to get their gayness out of their system. I merely commented that such a thing does not exist in Amish or CA culture. So the story provided by Neto of a woman who was a "practicing lesbian" who eventually came back to the church and agreed to live a straight married life even though she knew she was still gay and knew there would be no mutual attraction is not something that could actually happen in Amish or CA life. The woman in Neto's story is someone who did live openly as gay for a period of time and then made the decision to abandon that life at an older age. So consequently she isn't any kind of model for CA society. That sort of informed decision is not something available in CA culture. Instead, CA culture encourages young gay people to suppress or hide their inclinations and most definitely to not ever act on them in any way, sexually or otherwise.
I'm not actually in favor of any sort of Rumspringa for any kids for any reason much less a gay Rumspringa.
Nor did I say that you suggest the Amish should adopt some sort of gay "Rumspringa." You were denying the relevance of Neto's story because the main character had a Rumspringa. The only way I could see that as having any relevance would be if Rumspringa somehow made it easier to live righteously later in live (it doesn't).
What makes you think that promiscuity is a sin?
Neto’s story is relevant in that there are indeed apparently gay people who after living as gay have, later in life, decided to conform to a traditional straight married life. That is an educated choice people can make. And in Neto’s story I would note that the woman in question did not “convert” to being straight. She remained gay but agreed/decided to live in a traditional marriage anyway knowing it would not involve mutual attraction. But that particular life path isn’t available to young people in CA churches. I question whether someone at age 16 or 18 can truly make that sort of life choice and stick with it, and whether to ask them to do is is fair to them or their future spouses.
Promiscuity is a sin because it is a betrayal to your partner or spouse just like lying to them. In fact it often involves lying or deceit. And there are many old and New Testament teachings against promiscuity or licentiousness or however you want to define the behavior.
Why is anything a sin? The Bible lists a lot of different sins but often doesn’t get into the whys. But generally speaking involve betrayal or harm to self or others and/or behavior or thoughts that lead someone away from a moral or ethical life. And many behaviors that may be fine in moderation or under certain conditions become sins when taken to excess or when they become obsession or addictions. Eating is fine but gluttony is not. Resting is fine but sloth is not. Drinking is fine but drunkenness is not. I would view promiscuity similarly.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:40 am
... the story provided by Neto of a woman who was a "practicing lesbian" who eventually came back to the church and agreed to live a straight married life even though she knew she was still gay and knew there would be no mutual attraction is not something that could actually happen in Amish or CA life. The woman in Neto's story is someone who did live openly as gay for a period of time and then made the decision to abandon that life at an older age. So consequently she isn't any kind of model for CA society. That sort of informed decision is not something available in CA culture. Instead, CA culture encourages young gay people to suppress or hide their inclinations and most definitely to not ever act on them in any way, sexually or otherwise.
I'm not actually in favor of any sort of Rumspringa for any kids for any reason much less a gay Rumspringa.
I do not now recall if the woman in the story I heard had been involved in a church prior to her choice of a lesbian life-style, or if she mentioned anything about that herself. Why does it matter if she had or had not been a Christian before her choice of living a life of sin?
I just want to add that if "being gay" just means that a person experiences temptations to act on same-sex attractions, then I agree that "being gay" is not a sin. But if someone suggests that because it's OK to have an occasional glass of wine, but not to the point of drunkenness, that this means that it's OK for a person to have a "bit of promiscuity" (as long as it's not "too much" - no idea how much that would be), then that is just reprehensible. (In my opinion, and I think the clearly Scripture supports that.)
Promiscuity is a sin because it is a betrayal to your partner or spouse just like lying to them.
Do you consider it a sin for people who don't have a spouse or a partner?
Or if your partner agrees to it, as in an open marriage? In general, Ken, do you think the Bible is a reliable guide for determining what is sinful behavior? If so, how do you use it?
Or is sinfulness based on human reasoning and cultural norms?
Promiscuity is a sin because it is a betrayal to your partner or spouse just like lying to them.
Do you consider it a sin for people who don't have a spouse or a partner?
Or if your partner agrees to it, as in an open marriage? In general, Ken, do you think the Bible is a reliable guide for determining what is sinful behavior? If so, how do you use it?
Or is sinfulness based on human reasoning and cultural norms?
Both. The Bible is a guide, but context also matters and we need to apply human reasoning. Take lying. Is every single lie a sin? I would argue no. And one can also lie or deceive by omission without actually saying a single word. The thoughtful question is to ask WHY lying is a sin and what makes it a sin and then avoid telling the kinds of lies that are actually wrong and damaging, and to also avoid similar deceptions that may not be strictly speaking “lies” but that amount to the same thing.
Is pedophilia a sin? The Bible never explicitly says so that I am aware of. Yet I would argue that it is among the most horrible of sins. Because sexualization of children and sex abuse of children is horribly damaging and injurious to others and can ruin lives for a lifetime. We have to apply our human reasoning to a behavior that isn’t explicitly forbidden in the Bible.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 3:19 pm
Is pedophilia a sin? The Bible never explicitly says so that I am aware of. Yet I would argue that it is among the most horrible of sins. Because sexualization of children and sex abuse of children is horribly damaging and injurious to others and can ruin lives for a lifetime. We have to apply our human reasoning to a behavior that isn’t explicitly forbidden in the Bible.
The Bible clearly says in multiple places that sexual immorality (πορνεία, KJV fornication) is sin. How is pedophilia not included in that?
You apparently concede that gluttony is sin. I could question if overeating at a church potluck is a sin. The Bible never explicitly says so that I am aware of.
If the broad category is condemned, it is not necessary to explicitly name every subcategory; in fact, it is better not to, as something will inevitably be left out that will be used as a loophole.
Do you consider it a sin for people who don't have a spouse or a partner?
Or if your partner agrees to it, as in an open marriage? In general, Ken, do you think the Bible is a reliable guide for determining what is sinful behavior? If so, how do you use it?
Or is sinfulness based on human reasoning and cultural norms?
Both. The Bible is a guide, but context also matters and we need to apply human reasoning. Take lying. Is every single lie a sin? I would argue no. And one can also lie or deceive by omission without actually saying a single word. The thoughtful question is to ask WHY lying is a sin and what makes it a sin and then avoid telling the kinds of lies that are actually wrong and damaging, and to also avoid similar deceptions that may not be strictly speaking “lies” but that amount to the same thing.
Is pedophilia a sin? The Bible never explicitly says so that I am aware of. Yet I would argue that it is among the most horrible of sins. Because sexualization of children and sex abuse of children is horribly damaging and injurious to others and can ruin lives for a lifetime. We have to apply our human reasoning to a behavior that isn’t explicitly forbidden in the Bible.
The last sentence above is one I disagree with as human reasoning is not how a believer is suppose to operate, in my understanding. Asking our guide, the Holy Spirit, and being steadfast to get answers from Him is what I believe is the scriptural way. Paul, for instance, prayed more than once about his 'thorn in the flesh' and finally got an answer to 'live with this thorn' and see the positive side of what this brings to him spiritually. Paul's flesh was going to have to tolerate some pain of sorts but the advantage to live with this would provide him the means to grow spiritually. Which got Paul excited and not to lament over his condition. Some struggles with sin will not be removed as it keeps us leaning on God for His power to deal with them. I keeps us humble and leaning on God's power and not our own.