There is no homo or hetero. It's all just sexual.

[ptgatsby]

I think the ultimate expression a human can manifest is love. And not all love is created equal. I think the highest love is truly unconditional love, agape, which God has for us, his children.

I read nearly this entire thread and yet the thing that bothers me the most is this first line.

You have essentially defined love and then used it outside of the definition, using qualities only inherent in your definition that would not apply to the broader (out of this definition) meaning. In this case, you have defined and qualified love in a Christian unconditional sense. The defined quality does not generalize to all definitions of love.

You cannot have an unconditional relationship with another human under God's law, granted, but your relationship is condoned/endorsed by God (and here we can argue into the different Christian viewpoints). We presume he wants us to both be happy and has sex (multiply); these outlets cannot be formed under the same definition of love that we use with God. God doesn't have a sexual relationship with you, nor provides companionship (in the human/physiological pair bonding/social connectivity sense) and so forth. There is no single quality that applies to both God's love and relationship love as it is defined here. The definition, the qualification of love, is entirely different.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Physical attraction is grouped in with 'sex'. It is inferior to love. We treat it first in our culture. We treat it like it is necessary for love. But it isn't. You can have sex (physical attraction) lead you if you like, as may others. Most people do. If we find our mates based on physical attraction (who we want to potentially have sex with), we run the risk of attaching prematurely or to someone not right for us. Or to hurting or being hurt unnecessarily. And to wasting time, and to lots of other things that are not Godly or enriching. Yes, it might be fun, but it isn't good for us overall.

What do you think is the basis of sexual attraction? Is there an assumption that it is rooted in the physical? Are you suggesting that people are first attracted to a body and then love a person?

I think sexual attraction is an expression of the depth and complexity of our minds. Physical attributes often serve as metaphors for more intangible qualities of a person. Large eyes evoke feelings of innocence, strong frames imply a person who likes to protect others, even large breasts represent providing sustenance. It can kill the libido to analyze these things, but it is important to ask why dark hair, an elegant profile, or even large white teeth and a big smile make people desire intimacy with the person possessing these physical attributes.

On one level my hypothesis is that we are attracted to intangible attributes expressed in physique and demeanor of a person we meet. For myself I actually feel no attraction to an unknown man who is symmetrical and muscular in his features i.e. attractive. If I don't have proof he is kind and intelligent, I cannot feel sexual attraction. For my attraction to my husband now, I admired him as an intelligent and fair minded individual for a few years before I ever saw him and before we were friends. I felt connected in a meaningful way before seeing him, but when I saw his picture, I saw in his face the expression and representation of everything I value. I knew he could understand the complexities of my emotional experience when I saw his eyes, and I knew he could love and appreciate me by the set of his expression. That is when I wanted to be intimate with him.

I was going to ask if you or others believed in a biological basis for attraction or if you considered everything to be socially conditioned. There is evidence of variation in hormonal levels and other biological factors that can correlate to sexual orientation. If attraction is completely dismissed as a valid aspect of choosing a sexual partner, then I guess the second question is why is limiting oneself a negative thing? Why do we socially condition ourselves towards certain patterns in choosing a sexual partner? That tendency has evolved in humans and it is important to understand why before it is dismissed.

On a personal level, I have a reason why I don't feel as easily connected to really tall men. My life has conditioned this, so am I limiting myself or taking control metaphorically for how I desire to have my life turn out? In my theories about sexuality, I think our natural sexual impulses often contain at their core ways to help us take control of our lives and heal from them. Conditioning can limit our choices, but there could be a positive side to this process as well.

 

[Orangey]

I was going to ask if you or others believed in a biological basis for attraction or if you considered everything to be socially conditioned. There is evidence of variation in hormonal levels and other biological factors that can correlate to sexual orientation. If attraction is completely dismissed as a valid aspect of choosing a sexual partner, then I guess the second question is why is limiting oneself a negative thing? Why do we socially condition ourselves towards certain patterns in choosing a sexual partner? That tendency has evolved in humans and it is important to understand why before it is dismissed.

This is the crux of the issue.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I suppose women are slightly more complicated in this regard. But here's my take on it.

I've considered my bi-'curiosity' at one point when I've felt genuine feelings of deep care for another person that was of the same sex (although his sexuality itself was debatable, transgender). But whilest I did feel a sort of connection I could best describe as love. I had no sexual feelings for him whatsoever. And trust me when I say I seriously considered about a possible relationship here. Ultimately he was just not what I needed and I not what he needed. And whilest we remained friends, I made our future clear and he ended up in a good relationship with someone that did fit him well, so all it well that ends well.

Sexuality is and always will be one of the most important factors to consider potential lifelong partners, at least for me. In fact, I think it is the only thing that I could never compromise on.

In fact, if I did try to force that relationship on me and that person, I would always feel like I would not be able to give him what he truely deserves, which is physical affection. That kind of love only does harm.

I would not call that love worthy of basing a relationship on, nor one that God likely sanctioned as such. Perhaps it was just a very intense friendly love (we need to come up with some new terms here), or perhaps over more time like that, the love would have deepened or changed in such a way as to become sexually charged.


Thanks Fluffy!! Need more story......

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

What do you think is the basis of sexual attraction? Is there an assumption that it is rooted in the physical? Are you suggesting that people are first attracted to a body and then love a person?

I think sexual attraction is an expression of the depth and complexity of our minds. Physical attributes often serve as metaphors for more intangible qualities of a person. Large eyes evoke feelings of innocence, strong frames imply a person who likes to protect others, even large breasts represent providing sustenance. It can kill the libido to analyze these things, but it is important to ask why dark hair, an elegant profile, or even large white teeth and a big smile make people desire intimacy with the person possessing these physical attributes.

On one level my hypothesis is that we are attracted to intangible attributes expressed in physique and demeanor of a person we meet. For myself I actually feel no attraction to an unknown man who is symmetrical and muscular in his features i.e. attractive. If I don't have proof he is kind and intelligent, I cannot feel sexual attraction. For my attraction to my husband now, I admired him as an intelligent and fair minded individual for a few years before I ever saw him and before we were friends. I felt connected in a meaningful way before seeing him, but when I saw his picture, I saw in his face the expression and representation of everything I value. I knew he could understand the complexities of my emotional experience when I saw his eyes, and I knew he could love and appreciate me by the set of his expression. That is when I wanted to be intimate with him.

I was going to ask if you or others believed in a biological basis for attraction or if you considered everything to be socially conditioned. There is evidence of variation in hormonal levels and other biological factors that can correlate to sexual orientation. If attraction is completely dismissed as a valid aspect of choosing a sexual partner, then I guess the second question is why is limiting oneself a negative thing? Why do we socially condition ourselves towards certain patterns in choosing a sexual partner? That tendency has evolved in humans and it is important to understand why before it is dismissed.

On a personal level, I have a reason why I don't feel as easily connected to really tall men. My life has conditioned this, so am I limiting myself or taking control metaphorically for how I desire to have my life turn out? In my theories about sexuality, I think our natural sexual impulses often contain at their core ways to help us take control of our lives and heal from them. Conditioning can limit our choices, but there could be a positive side to this process as well.

I think this is a very good post, and very valid. Thank you for writing it.

When I said physical attraction was linked to 'sex' to cascade on the previous page, I spoke inaccurately, without qualifying it. Physical attraction is very complex. There, I was speaking about physical attraction as it is implied by just being hot for someone's body because they are beautiful or fit or stylish or any other materialistic way, which is how I think many of us are in our society. But physical attraction IS a valid part of feeling able to love another when it's a deeper kind of phenomenon besides just noticing someone's physical attributes; and maybe the most prophetic part, because it usually happens initially and quickly.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that physical attraction is the slave to either lust or love....it can identify lustfully those superficial characteristics that mean someone would give you materially those things that you feel would make you happy. Or physical attraction can help you identify those ephemeral and deeper things that you pick up when you see someone...like you are saying about the smile, or just knowing in an instant if someone has something that would fit you. These are more qualities associated with love, so it illustrates that love is your primary goal, not lust.

But the qualities in the aforementioned category are going to probably be more cookie-cutter and proscribed, being able to be applied to many potential partners--big tits, easy, fit, sassy, whatever, tall, smart. The qualities in the latter group are going to be as variable as the partner(s); and might change drastically depending upon the person. I mean a nice smile that denotes love can vary greatly. With my point being that while a gender or an orientation can easily fall into the first category, it isn't so easy to stuff a gender or orientation into the second category--anyone can be loving, anyone can have similar values, it is not gender nor orientation specific.


I am glad you called that out. Physical attraction is very important in selecting a long term mate (at least for many, not all). But the kind of physical attraction that is the most important is still the kind that would exist independent of a specific group.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I read nearly this entire thread and yet the thing that bothers me the most is this first line.

You have essentially defined love and then used it outside of the definition, using qualities only inherent in your definition that would not apply to the broader (out of this definition) meaning. In this case, you have defined and qualified love in a Christian unconditional sense. The defined quality does not generalize to all definitions of love.

You cannot have an unconditional relationship with another human under God's law, granted, but your relationship is condoned/endorsed by God (and here we can argue into the different Christian viewpoints). We presume he wants us to both be happy and has sex (multiply); these outlets cannot be formed under the same definition of love that we use with God. God doesn't have a sexual relationship with you, nor provides companionship (in the human/physiological pair bonding/social connectivity sense) and so forth. There is no single quality that applies to both God's love and relationship love as it is defined here. The definition, the qualification of love, is entirely different.

But really you only need believe in God, not Jesus, based on my explanation of love:

I think the ultimate expression a human can manifest is love. And not all love is created equal. I think the highest love is truly unconditional love, agape, which God has for us, his children.

Right?


And I'm not really following exactly your line of thought in the last paragraph. Would you care to elaborate?

If God's love is ideal and perfect (agape) and lusty love is at the other end of the spectrum>


God/Agape--------/-------------/--------------/-----------------/------------/------lusty love


Then in between are all the other kinds of love. How pure our love is depends upon us, really. I was going to say who we are in relationship with, but really, how we treat one person is likely how we will treat another. If we are living truly coram Deo, then we might be able to give a more pure love because we are with God more often and God's love is pure, and makes us more pure (hopefully). If we are living in this world only (where the prince of the air, or satan, rules), then our love will likely reflect that. Maybe it will be more materialistic or superficial or selfish, for example.

I think a person could exude a healthy love without having concept of God, and a person could exude an unhealthy love who is very devout. I just think it's more likely to be the other way around--the more we walk with God, the more pure we will be and therefore our love will be; and the more we don't, the more we will be a slave to lust.

 

[ptgatsby]

But really you only need believe in God, not Jesus, based on my explanation of love:

Yup, for sure! I assumed a personal relationship which is typically Christian.

Then in between are all the other kinds of love.

The line must be expressed in units of "something" in order to have a continuum like that. What quality makes one's love for God greater than their love of another human? It could be seen as degree of devotion ("quantity"), or as you speak to innocence, a measurement of sin or purity ("quality"). I believe you have a qualitative view of the difference, judging from the thread.

What I believe we will reduce it to is; define God as good, taking (one of) God's virtues and extrapolate the lack of it.

That's fine but it does end up being definition chasing. With God as the ultimate good, it follows that all qualities coming from the relationship of God would be ultimately good, and therefore all other mortal qualities in existance would be inferior. All measurements would show that. We can put lust at one end of the spectrum, God at the other and name a unit of what is being measured. The unit is irrelevant: if you call it love, it's love, and qualitively is measured. Anything can be placed on the axis and the argument remains the same. (For example, you could argue that waffles are inferior to God's breakfast! And if pancakes are in the middle, you can simply define the qualitative difference as smoothness.)

Your view rests on the perceived virtues of God. You would not apply lust as a virtue of God. Those that do would simply place their opposing value as a diminished version of God's virtues. It would be equally valid to say that compassion is the lowest form of emotion, if you were to change God's virtue... and so forth.

I believe that you cannot create a Form to bridge concepts; the concepts must interect of their own natures to draw meaning from them. This is especially true when bridging between the immaterial and the material; trying to define a relationship with God to human lust requires such a bridge. In line with that, given that God is ultimately all encompassing and all virtues come from God, all aspects are themselves qualitative close to or far from God's will on their own merits. Lust is not intrinsically far away from God's will and inferior to platonic relationships. Lust in marriage serves both an important and sanctioned part of God's will/plan, for example.

Or, put in (not so) awesome ascii Venn diagrams;

     ###        ###
    #   #      #   #
   #     #    #     #
  #  GOD  #  # LUST  #
   #     #    #     #
    #   #      #   #
     ###        ###

Adding a bridge to overlap the concept.

     ###          ###
    #   #  %%%%  #   #
   #     #%    %#     #
  #  GOD %#LOVE#% LUST #
   #     #%    %#     #
    #   #  %%%%  #   #
     ###          ###

What I believe it should look like;

         , - ~ ~ ~ - ,
     , '               ' ,
   ,          ###          ,
  ,   GOD    #   #           ,
 ,          #     #           ,
 ,         #  LUST #          ,
 ,          #     #           ,
  ,          #   #           ,
   ,          ###           ,
     ,                  , '
       ' - , _ _ _ ,  '

I just think it's more likely to be the other way around--the more we walk with God, the more pure we will be and therefore our love will be; and the more we don't, the more we will be a slave to lust.

I agree in principle, but I do not believe that they connect this way. Walking with God makes lust pure(r). The purity of anything is derived from how close you walk to God.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Yup, for sure! I assumed a personal relationship which is typically Christian.

Really? Are other religions typically 'further' from God than Christians are?

The line must be expressed in units of "something" in order to have a continuum like that. What quality makes one's love for God greater than their love of another human? It could be seen as degree of devotion ("quantity"), or as you speak to innocence, a measurement of sin or purity ("quality"). I believe you have a qualitative view of the difference, judging from the thread.

What I believe we will reduce it to is; define God as good, taking (one of) God's virtues and extrapolate the lack of it.

That's fine but it does end up being definition chasing. With God as the ultimate good, it follows that all qualities coming from the relationship of God would be ultimately good, and therefore all other mortal qualities in existance would be inferior. All measurements would show that. We can put lust at one end of the spectrum, God at the other and name a unit of what is being measured. The unit is irrelevant: if you call it love, it's love, and qualitively is measured. Anything can be placed on the axis and the argument remains the same. (For example, you could argue that waffles are inferior to God's breakfast! And if pancakes are in the middle, you can simply define the qualitative difference as smoothness.)

The continuum is "The Love Continuum" and the quality that exists from one end to the other and that changes as you get closer or farther to one or the other end, is "purity," with God's love being the most pure love and lusty love being the most impure love. Lust in and of itself isn't even on the continuum, because lust can be more of hate than love and have nothing whatsoever to do with either loving oneself or loving one's neighbor.

The only thing that still needs fleshing out are the types of love in between. And as we contemplate it, it really has nothing to do with sex. Because 'brotherly' love or 'friendly' love can be closer to agape (unconditional) love than eros-type love.

So, really we have to come up with new terms to describe love that is in various stages of impurity. Since I proposed before that our ability to love is reflective and dependent upon how pure WE are, then perhaps the defining characteristic is some measure of our 'love health'. We could make up an unconditional love/lusty love test and see how people fall out on the continuum. And then correlate that with a sexual orientation test to see if those who typically fall out closer to Agape love tend to be sexually open-oriented or not.

Do these tests already exist, and are they of good quality? I would want about 100 questions on such a test. And the test would have to have a proper proportion of love/lust questions, equally weighted along the continuum as well.

It would still be nice to identify types of love, because CS Lewis only identified 4 of them. And I think that could be broken down a bit more. ?

Your view rests on the perceived virtues of God. You would not apply lust as a virtue of God.

You can have 'lusty love' though. Those who perhaps are not very healthy but have a kernel of love in them wanting to be exposed to light. Most of what they do might be selfish and lusty, but perhaps the kernel of love underneath might be close enough to the surface to pervade it somewhat. I think of abusive relationships or something like that, where the people involved have never really known a pure type of love on the 'agape' side of the continuum. Love is still in them because we are all God's creations and as such have that love spring within, wanting to flow forth, but that pure love is covered over in the sh** from living, and therefore made unclean. It's not that they don't feel or express some real love there, just that it's so dirty as to be difficult to enjoy for very long.

Those that do would simply place their opposing value as a diminished version of God's virtues. It would be equally valid to say that compassion is the lowest form of emotion, if you were to change God's virtue... and so forth.

Lost me. How can compassion be the lowest form of emotion. You are just effing with me, aren't you. You must be really bored.

I believe that you cannot create a Form to bridge concepts; the concepts must interect of their own natures to draw meaning from them. This is especially true when bridging between the immaterial and the material; trying to define a relationship with God to human lust requires such a bridge. In line with that, given that God is ultimately all encompassing and all virtues come from God, all aspects are themselves qualitative close to or far from God's will on their own merits. Lust is not intrinsically far away from God's will and inferior to platonic relationships. Lust in marriage serves both an important and sanctioned part of God's will/plan, for example.

Or, put in (not so) awesome ascii Venn diagrams;

     ###        ###
    #   #      #   #
   #     #    #     #
  #  GOD  #  # LUST  #
   #     #    #     #
    #   #      #   #
     ###        ###

Adding a bridge to overlap the concept.

     ###          ###
    #   #  %%%%  #   #
   #     #%    %#     #
  #  GOD %#LOVE#% LUST #
   #     #%    %#     #
    #   #  %%%%  #   #
     ###          ###

What I believe it should look like;

         , - ~ ~ ~ - ,
     , '               ' ,
   ,          ###          ,
  ,   GOD    #   #           ,
 ,          #     #           ,
 ,         #  LUST #          ,
 ,          #     #           ,
  ,          #   #           ,
   ,          ###           ,
     ,                  , '
       ' - , _ _ _ ,  '

I wish I could recreate this and change it around. You get an A for effort. Mainly for making me laugh at your wit. What is up with the last little diagram? Of course God is around everything....lol

I agree in principle, but I do not believe that they connect this way. Walking with God makes lust pure(r). The purity of anything is derived from how close you walk to God.

Yeeeahhhh.......lusty love IS on the same love continuum as Godly agape love, but saying lust is pure is very relative to the amount of love that exists within it.

 

[ptgatsby]

Really? Are other religions typically 'further' from God than Christians are?

Well... it depends on your belief, I guess. I probably should of said Abrahamic religions. They all have a more personal relationship to God. I'd hesitate to use closer/further, since that could be interpretted as being "outside of God's grace". It's just the relationship we have with God that differs.

The continuum is "The Love Continuum" and the quality that exists from one end to the other and that changes as you get closer or farther to one or the other end, is "purity," with God's love being the most pure love and lusty love being the most impure love. Lust in and of itself isn't even on the continuum, because lust can be more of hate than love and have nothing whatsoever to do with either loving oneself or loving one's neighbor.

What if I said I rejected the concept that lusty love is the least pure? I can understand God's love being the most pure, but why do we place lusty love on the complete opposite? What is the inherent quality of lust that is impure?

Lost me. How can compassion be the lowest form of emotion. You are just effing with me, aren't you. You must be really bored.

Hah, or it was really late. Sometimes I wonder!

No, what I mean is that God's definition requires defining purity as good; if we step away from a Christian set of virtues, into something like Animism, you get a very different world view on what the spectrum would be. In a Totemic group, God would be defined very differently, and many of the traits that the Totemic spirit has would be viewed equally good. What I meant is that it requires a particular definition of God and his virtue to have this definition of Love. If that is the case, then the argument isn't generalised, but specific to a religious belief (ie: God is like this/says this, therefore...)

Yeeeahhhh.......lusty love IS on the same love continuum as Godly agape love, but saying lust is pure is very relative to the amount of love that exists within it.

I say there is more love in lust than in a platonic relationship. I believe God's mandate to marry, mate and procreate is greater than His mandate for brotherhood.

 

[ptgatsby]

Really? Are other religions typically 'further' from God than Christians are?

Well... it depends on your belief, I guess. I probably should of said Abrahamic religions. They all have a more personal relationship to God. I'd hesitate to use closer/further, since that could be interpretted as being "outside of God's grace". It's just the relationship we have with God that differs.

The continuum is "The Love Continuum" and the quality that exists from one end to the other and that changes as you get closer or farther to one or the other end, is "purity," with God's love being the most pure love and lusty love being the most impure love. Lust in and of itself isn't even on the continuum, because lust can be more of hate than love and have nothing whatsoever to do with either loving oneself or loving one's neighbor.

What if I said I rejected the concept that lusty love is the least pure? I can understand God's love being the most pure, but why do we place lusty love on the complete opposite? What is the inherent quality of lust that is impure?

Lost me. How can compassion be the lowest form of emotion. You are just effing with me, aren't you. You must be really bored.

Hah, or it was really late. Sometimes I wonder!

No, what I mean is that God's definition requires defining purity as good; if we step away from a Christian set of virtues, into something like Animism, you get a very different world view on what the spectrum would be. In a Totemic group, God would be defined very differently, and many of the traits that the Totemic spirit has would be viewed equally good. What I meant is that it requires a particular definition of God and his virtue to have this definition of Love. If that is the case, then the argument isn't generalised, but specific to a religious belief (ie: God is like this/says this, therefore...)

Yeeeahhhh.......lusty love IS on the same love continuum as Godly agape love, but saying lust is pure is very relative to the amount of love that exists within it.

I say there is more love in lust than in a platonic relationship. I believe God's mandate to marry, mate and procreate is greater than His mandate for brotherhood.

 

[Salomé]

There is a lot of symmetry and perfectly constructed opposites in your thinking. You seek to create a sense of balance by bringing absolute extremes together. By taking each concept to its extreme, you inadvertently dismiss all individual specificity of how both concepts are reasonably and compassionately applied.

Insightful.

I'm wondering if some of your assumptions result from the whole inferior Se aspect of being an INFJ.

The extremism points in this direction.

I have realized my best road is hard to determine on my own without a guide of some sort. I have tried many types of guides in the form of self-help books, dabbling in new age religiosity, and using my intuition. They all help some, but I was lacking a sound framework which I found in God and His word, which acquainted me with Jesus and His life. So, to be my best, I need not only my own flavor and intuition and style(because we are all so different!), but I need a sound framework to follow. I think we all do.

My reading is this: you are someone who likes to be told what to do. You enjoy abandoning responsibility for your actions and allowing a "higher" authority to do your thinking for you. This is just intellectual laziness which you are seeking to elevate to spiritual enlightenment. Religion is a trap for people like you. A comfortable trap. An opiate that absolves you from wrongdoing and wrong thinking.
Nothing precious is so easily won. Certainly not true enlightenment and self-knowledge.

By giving responsibility to God to provide you with a partner you don't have to ask yourself important questions. You don't have to do anything but "submit to His will".

If this works for you, then fine.
The trouble is, unless it's universally true, you don't really have a sound basis for believing it, which is why you must attempt to convert others. You must realise that this is only going to go one way though -it's only going to isolate you further and make you more dependent on your religious crutch.

I'm not sure how you have managed to interpret scripture in such a non-heteronormative light. It's very ... creative of you.
I seem to remember lots of verses about homosexuals being burned in a lake of fire....

God/Agape--------/-------------/--------------/-----------------/------------/------lusty love

First of all, Love is not a continuum, it comes in different flavours. Your confusion arises from the limitations of English. If you have looked into the Greek (in which the New Testament is mostly written) you will know that in addition to agape (wide-open love), there is philia (for friends), storge (for family) and Eros (from which we derive erotic).

These are different emotions and it is inappropriate to conflate them. To do so is to suggest that if we love something/one more, we will inevitable pass through a phase of sexual longing for them. Which is distasteful if we are talking about family members and (presumably) blasphemous if we are talking about God.

Who do you think gave us lust/eros? If you believe in a Creator, necessarily you must believe that lust is a gift from God. Provided for the purposes of procreation. Which is only possible between male and female... Who are you to denigrate it and suggest it is somehow inferior? Do you know more than your Creator?

Sex without love can be fully consensual; sex without lust (or sexual desire) is tantamount to rape.
This puts it higher on the 'hierarchy' of loves within sexual union than love, in my view.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

This is just intellectual laziness which you are seeking to elevate to spiritual enlightenment. Religion is a trap for people like you. A comfortable trap. An opiate that absolves you from wrongdoing and wrong thinking.

It really must be tough to be so much better than those whose views on life differ from your own.

What lead you to the conclusion that your answer was the only answer?

 

[Cellmold]

Welcome to the realm of subjectivity Fi. Nice to see you stretching your wings here.

I dont think you need Fi to understand that people have their own realities.

 

[Ivy]

My reading is this: you are someone who likes to be told what to do. You enjoy abandoning responsibility for your actions and allowing a "higher" authority to do your thinking for you. This is just intellectual laziness which you are seeking to elevate to spiritual enlightenment. Religion is a trap for people like you. A comfortable trap. An opiate that absolves you from wrongdoing and wrong thinking.
Nothing precious is so easily won. Certainly not true enlightenment and self-knowledge.

By giving responsibility to God to provide you with a partner you don't have to ask yourself important questions. You don't have to do anything but "submit to His will".

IMO there's another wrinkle here, and it's once I see in a lot of evangelical types. On one hand they want to be absolved of responsibility by relying on being led by God's will in all ways. But on the other, they still want to do what they want to do, they just claim they've received a sign or that God spoke to them during prayer that what they want is also God's will. When you claim to have personal revelations of God's will, and it pretty much lines up with your own, something is off. I saw this all the time in the churches I grew up in. It's what caused me to leave Christianity as a teen/young adult. Finding out later there are actually churches where people don't do that, and where doubt (even heavy doubt) is understood and welcome, brought me back. Although the people who worship like that would disagree that I'm truly "back" when I'm not even 100% certain there is a God at all. I still find value in the questions and the community and the liturgy.

 

[cafe]

IMO there's another wrinkle here, and it's once I see in a lot of evangelical types. On one hand they want to be absolved of responsibility by relying on being led by God's will in all ways. But on the other, they still want to do what they want to do, they just claim they've received a sign or that God spoke to them during prayer that what they want is also God's will. When you claim to have personal revelations of God's will, and it pretty much lines up with your own, something is off. I saw this all the time in the churches I grew up in. It's what caused me to leave Christianity as a teen/young adult. Finding out later there are actually churches where people don't do that, and where doubt (even heavy doubt) is understood and welcome, brought me back. Although the people who worship like that would disagree that I'm truly "back" when I'm not even 100% certain there is a God at all. I still find value in the questions and the community and the liturgy.

That stuff drives me nuts. What can you say when someone has a mandate from God? It's the ultimate trump card because it's completely subjective.

The flip side of the same thing is that if you want to do the right thing, you have to have God communicate with you somehow. I believe God can and does speak to people, but I don't think it's necessarily on demand. It's not like he's a Magic 8 Ball in the sky or something. So here you are needing to make a decision about something and praying about it, etc and you got nothing. What do you do about that? I was taught that it meant I just hadn't prayed hard enough or long enough or I needed to fast or I had sin in my life or something like that.

That caused me *so* much distress as a young adult. If I knew then what I know now, I'd probably have a bachelors. Instead I was waiting for God to tell me what to do when I grew up. So I have an A.A. in general studies. I wish someone had told me to pray and keep an open mind, but use my brain and counsel from people I respected to make the best decisions I could.

I hate that you're supposed to just magically know all this stuff, but I guess I'm glad I can't make myself make it up or convince myself God is telling me to do something when it's really what I want to do. Sometimes I do envy that ability, though. It must be nice to not constantly doubt yourself and God and everything. Deluded maybe, but nice.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

What if I said I rejected the concept that lusty love is the least pure? I can understand God's love being the most pure, but why do we place lusty love on the complete opposite? What is the inherent quality of lust that is impure?

What would you recommend going at the other end? It has to be some sort of impure love.

IMO there's another wrinkle here, and it's once I see in a lot of evangelical types. On one hand they want to be absolved of responsibility by relying on being led by God's will in all ways. But on the other, they still want to do what they want to do, they just claim they've received a sign or that God spoke to them during prayer that what they want is also God's will. When you claim to have personal revelations of God's will, and it pretty much lines up with your own, something is off. I saw this all the time in the churches I grew up in. It's what caused me to leave Christianity as a teen/young adult. Finding out later there are actually churches where people don't do that, and where doubt (even heavy doubt) is understood and welcome, brought me back. Although the people who worship like that would disagree that I'm truly "back" when I'm not even 100% certain there is a God at all. I still find value in the questions and the community and the liturgy.

I am new to having faith again and haven't been in the church as an adult, but I could see people doing this.

I guess if someone wants to say something (regarding them) is God's will, and it isn't harmful to others, then ce la vi. As for determining if something is God's will for me, I go by feeling, intuition, and fruits. If it feels good over time, if my intuition tells me it is grooving, and if I see tasty fruit come forth from it, then I think those are signs that it is God's will.

That stuff drives me nuts. What can you say when someone has a mandate from God? It's the ultimate trump card because it's completely subjective.

The flip side of the same thing is that if you want to do the right thing, you have to have God communicate with you somehow. I believe God can and does speak to people, but I don't think it's necessarily on demand. It's not like he's a Magic 8 Ball in the sky or something. So here you are needing to make a decision about something and praying about it, etc and you got nothing. What do you do about that? I was taught that it meant I just hadn't prayed hard enough or long enough or I needed to fast or I had sin in my life or something like that.

That caused me *so* much distress as a young adult. If I knew then what I know now, I'd probably have a bachelors. Instead I was waiting for God to tell me what to do when I grew up. So I have an A.A. in general studies. I wish someone had told me to pray and keep an open mind, but use my brain and counsel from people I respected to make the best decisions I could.

I hate that you're supposed to just magically know all this stuff, but I guess I'm glad I can't make myself make it up or convince myself God is telling me to do something when it's really what I want to do. Sometimes I do envy that ability, though. It must be nice to not constantly doubt yourself and God and everything. Deluded maybe, but nice.

Pertinent points. Thank you.

I think overall it just takes time in living coram Deo to know and hear what God is telling me. It's not something I can just turn on and off when I'm struggling [not saying you are saying this, just sayin' ] It's like any relationship: The more time you put into it and the more you communicate effectively, the closer you are.

My reading is this: you are someone who likes to be told what to do.

You have no idea.

You enjoy abandoning responsibility for your actions and allowing a "higher" authority to do your thinking for you.

If that were the case, then I never would have become an atheist at 19-41 I don't think.

This is just intellectual laziness which you are seeking to elevate to spiritual enlightenment. Religion is a trap for people like you. A comfortable trap. An opiate that absolves you from wrongdoing and wrong thinking.
Nothing precious is so easily won. Certainly not true enlightenment and self-knowledge.

I am intellectually lazy often. But I am basically a skeptic and not easily swayed--I like to do my own research and make my own decisions, and I don't lock down on ideas until I'm extremely sure about them, and even then I will reopen a door when appropriate evidence is forthcoming.

My walk with God and Christ hasn't been easy for me. Yet I felt compelled to keep leaning toward Him. Because that is just how fulfilled he makes me.

By giving responsibility to God to provide you with a partner you don't have to ask yourself important questions. You don't have to do anything but "submit to His will".

What important questions should I be asking?

If this works for you, then fine.
The trouble is, unless it's universally true, you don't really have a sound basis for believing it, which is why you must attempt to convert others. You must realise that this is only going to go one way though -it's only going to isolate you further and make you more dependent on your religious crutch.

? I'm not trying to convert others. I'm bearing witness to my conversion and the changes God has made in me that have been life-changing, so that others might benefit from knowing God as well.

I am fine being isolated with God. God is love. If loving compassionately, and attempting to love unconditionally, isolates me, then isn't that more a reflection on our pathetic world than on me doing something wrong?

I'm not sure how you have managed to interpret scripture in such a non-heteronormative light. It's very ... creative of you.
I seem to remember lots of verses about homosexuals being burned in a lake of fire....

I'm not a bible expert. The verses I've seen leave a lot open for interpretation.

First of all, Love is not a continuum, it comes in different flavours. Your confusion arises from the limitations of English. If you have looked into the Greek (in which the New Testament is mostly written) you will know that in addition to agape (wide-open love), there is philia (for friends), storge (for family) and Eros (from which we derive erotic).

My feisty girl likes to fight. *hiss and spit* I said, love, that there are different kinds of love. But there are also different degrees of love. More pure love and less pure love, depending upon the health of the person loving. If you know another, better, paradigm for describing the love phenomenon, then please share.

These are different emotions and it is inappropriate to conflate them. To do so is to suggest that if we love something/one more, we will inevitable pass through a phase of sexual longing for them. Which is distasteful if we are talking about family members and (presumably) blasphemous if we are talking about God.

I think we need to separate the concept of love from the concept of lust and sexual desire. Love may include sexual longing, or it may not. It really depends upon the situation, the type of love, and the parties involved.

Who do you think gave us lust/eros? If you believe in a Creator, necessarily you must believe that lust is a gift from God. Provided for the purposes of procreation. Which is only possible between male and female... Who are you to denigrate it and suggest it is somehow inferior? Do you know more than your Creator?

This is my favorite part of your post. I absolutely believe that God gave me sexual urges and wants me to use them (appropriately), and to derive the utmost pleasure in using them. But not just for procreation (are you Catholic?), otherwise I'd only have orgasms when I conceived. Eros isn't lust. It's romantic love, that usually involves sexual urges. No love has to culminate in sex, no matter how pure, or impure it is. But sex needs to flow out of love.

Sex without love can be fully consensual; sex without lust (or sexual desire) is tantamount to rape.
This puts it higher on the 'hierarchy' of loves within sexual union than love, in my view.

Two people lusting does not make it love. God is love. Lusting is not of God, but of the enemy, which takes us away from love and away from God.

Rape is a sin. Lust isn't necessarily, it's just not in the guidebook for living coram Deo, living within the the will of God.

 

[Jeffster]

Another good thread. I agree that our identities should be based on more than who we are attracted to sexually. (I'm assuming that was one of the points you were making, because it seems like it is.)

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Another good thread. I agree that our identities should be based on more than who we are attracted to sexually. (I'm assuming that was one of the points you were making, because it seems like it is.)

Thanks, Jeffster. You're looking very distinguised.

Just tired of the sex everywhere, for sex's sake. The celebration of sex, hotness, fitness, etc. I think those things are awesome, but within appropriate bounds of loving relationship, not just thrown out there and spilling all over the place.

Sex sells, but it doesn't mean we have to buy into it.

EDIT: lol. I was thinking this was the other thread I started on sexual immorality.....But yeah, you said it well.

 

[zulidadwi]

well...your point of view about sexual identity and how to love are a unique one. *That makes a lot of to thinks*

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

well...your point of view about sexual identity and how to love are a unique one. *That makes a lot of to thinks*

Yes, beliefs aren't set in stone, this does make a lot to think.