Thoughts on "God and the Gay Christian"?

[seasanctuary]

Biblically sex is supposed to be only in a marriage and between a man and woman. Everyone else should remain chaste. No not everyone is gifted with the willpower to remain unmarried and chaste, but that is what is expected if they remain unmarried. That is why the bible says that if they can't handle it, then they should get married so as not to sin.

1 Cor 7:8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Which are all points Vines makes in this book. :)

[Sparko]

That's terrible advice and a good recipe for a failed marriage. It completely ignores the fact that men with high libido might have a psychological and/or physical problem that marriage won't cure.

I'm reminded of the documentary on women with clitoral blood flow problems, 100 Orgasms a Day:



The point being that Paul's advice seems to be only for men. Consider the multitude of reasons men have "passion problems."

He mentions "widows" and your argument is that it is too hard to remain celebate and monogamous so it should be OK to be promiscuous? Really?

I heard it is really hard for some alcoholics to not drink, so they should drink themselves to death and ruin their families in the process, right? Or I bet there are some people who really, really can't help going around raping women or killing them with an axe. So that's OK too.

Sheesh.

But back to the topic. It is clear that the bible condemns promiscuity and so your initial statement about the gist of Vine's argument is just wrong. If he does that sort of thing throughout the book, then he obviously isn't going to convince anyone unless they are already on his side. The bible is pretty clear about sexual sins, including homosexual behavior.

[seasanctuary]

But back to the topic. It is clear that the bible condemns promiscuity and so your initial statement about the gist of Vine's argument is just wrong.

Yeah back to topic. There isn't any advocacy of promiscuity in Vines' book.

[Paprika]

Yeah back to topic. There isn't any advocacy of promiscuity in Vines' book.

Quite. Because the love is true and committed, the acts are therefore sanctified.

[whag]

He mentions "widows" and your argument is that it is too hard to remain celebate and monogamous so it should be OK to be promiscuous? Really?

I heard it is really hard for some alcoholics to not drink, so they should drink themselves to death and ruin their families in the process, right? Or I bet there are some people who really, really can't help going around raping women or killing them with an axe. So that's OK too.

Sheesh.

But back to the topic. It is clear that the bible condemns promiscuity and so your initial statement about the gist of Vine's argument is just wrong. If he does that sort of thing throughout the book, then he obviously isn't going to convince anyone unless they are already on his side. The bible is pretty clear about sexual sins, including homosexual behavior.

The Bible is far from clear on sexual sins. One need only look at David's and Solomon's cadre of wives and concubines to see the fuzziness that surrounds the topic, especially with regard to context and the progressive revelation about homosexuality.

As for what you said about promiscuity, I didn't advocate that. I merely said that high libido can point to psychological and physical problems that marriage isn't necessarily a solution to.

[seasanctuary]

Quite. Because the love is true and committed, the acts are therefore sanctified.

Are you suggesting that committed, sexually-exclusive life partners can be characterized as "promiscuous"?

[whag]

Quite. Because the love is true and committed, the acts are therefore sanctified.

Polygamy and concubinage is sacrosanct and full of warm love love-y feelings.

[Scrawly]

1) It seems to me that Vines' arguments are merely a repackaging of all the liberal arguments made in the past about how said verses have been misinterpreted. Indeed, the expectation that a young man without theological or ancient language qualifications would suddenly discover some game-changing approach or hidden meaning behind the text that scholars have missed for centuries was always a little far-fetched to begin with.

2) Dr. Michael Brown has a relatively helpful dialogue with Mr. Vines here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-bTqIJP2JI

3) For those interested Dr. James White also has a 5 hour long talk on this issue as well: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.ph...anity-refuted/

[Sparko]

Yeah back to topic. There isn't any advocacy of promiscuity in Vines' book.

sorry sea. I didn't even notice I was responding to Whag's post. I automagically thought it was your comment.


I have made a decision to not respond to Whag as much as possible. so ignore my last post. I need to pay more attention to the avatars!

[Paprika]

Are you suggesting that committed, sexually-exclusive life partners can be characterized as "promiscuous"?

Where did I do so?

[seasanctuary]

1) It seems to me that Vines' arguments are merely a repackaging of all the liberal arguments made in the past about how said verses have been misinterpreted. Indeed, the expectation that a young man without theological or ancient language qualifications would suddenly discover some game-changing approach or hidden meaning behind the text that scholars have missed for centuries was always a little far-fetched to begin with.

It's not an "everyone has been missing this and I'm the great discoverer!" kind of book. There is a long history of doubt that this or that passage was really condemning committed same-sex relationships. What this book does is, yes, package these ideas in a coherent, accessible way.

Plus, it's a relatively recent thing for the general public to acknowledge that there are people with exclusively same-sex orientation. It's an even more recent thing to see Exodus International close down its "reparative therapy" efforts for being ineffective and damaging.

2) Dr. Michael Brown has a relatively helpful dialogue with Mr. Vines here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-bTqIJP2JI

Cool, thanks!

3) For those interested Dr. James White also has a 5 hour long talk on this issue as well: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.ph...anity-refuted/

What does he do? Read the book in its entirety while giving a running commentary? :P

[seasanctuary]

sorry sea. I didn't even notice I was responding to Whag's post. I automagically thought it was your comment.

Hah, no problem.

[seer]

1)
2) Dr. Michael Brown has a relatively helpful dialogue with Mr. Vines here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-bTqIJP2JI

I watched this, Matt got his clock cleaned, but I think he is sincere.

[fm93]

I watched this, Matt got his clock cleaned, but I think he is sincere.

Nonsense, to borrow a common phrase of yours. Brown basically just ignored most of Vines' points and then demonstrated stunning thick-headedness trying to argue in favor of conversion therapy even when the premier conversion therapy organization in the world shut down and admitted that conversion therapy doesn't work in the vast majority of cases.

[seer]

Nonsense, to borrow a common phrase of yours. Brown basically just ignored most of Vines' points and then demonstrated stunning thick-headedness trying to argue in favor of conversion therapy even when the premier conversion therapy organization in the world shut down and admitted that conversion therapy doesn't work in the vast majority of cases.

What are you talking about? Conversion therapy, whether it works or not, has nothing to do with weather homosexual behavior is defined as sin in scripture. And Matt's main point was not even about conversion therapy.