/lit/ - Literature

[/christian/ No.6992840]

I am curious, /lit/, what is your opinion on homosexuality in a Christian context?

Strikes me that as per Romans and Hebrews, the main qualm the writer(s) have with homosexuality is the promiscuous itinerant of it that was most common in the Hellenistic era, as they do not mention those of a homosexual inclination who did not become as such to spite women. One could cite mosaic law, but that was never applicable to gentiles nor do any modern Christians follow it.

Also, /christian/ general. Anyone got good recommendations on mystics in the vein of St. John of the Cross?

(Also, happy after feast of the dormition of the Virgin Mary, folks.).

[Anonymous No.6992852]

>unironically christposting

[Anonymous No.6992857]

It's morally wrong to have gay sex and marriage is only between a man and a woman. It's that simple. Premarital sex in general is morally wrong and since homosexuals can't marry (and since procreation is the end sought in marriage and sex) gay sex can't be moral.

[/christian/ No.6992861]

>>6992852
>ironically fedoratipping

[Anonymous No.6992866]

>>6992840
>in a Christian context?
pfft, do you think there Christian morality is any different from real morality?

[Anonymous No.6992871]

>>6992840

Pagans/Vikings would have a simple way of dealing with homosexuals.

They would hang them and drop them in a bog. I'm not sure why this practice didn't catch on with the Christians.

[Anonymous No.6992872]

Paul knew nothing about homosexuals. He thinks they eschew women for the same reason people thought that in the fifties - he couldn't imagine the attraction so it has to be some reactive thing.

[AZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZA No.6992873]

In the book of Genesis, the Son in law and Brothers of Lot's daughter were approached by a lot of gay dudes, who wanted to have sex with them. This demonstrates the moral depravity and "loose" (get it) values associated with homosexual deviance.

[Anonymous No.6992880]

>>6992871
>>6992871
>They would hang them and drop them in a bog.

we should do this today, tbh

[/christian/ No.6992881]

>>6992857
> (and since procreation is the end sought in marriage and sex) gay sex can't be moral.

Could one not use this argument, indeed, to disallow marriage rights to the infertile? Although, of course, the end-goal of a marriage is parentage, and indeed, marriage is a sacred rite between a man and a woman, ancient rites exist of brotherhood and friendship which one could surmise which might be applicable to homosexuality(though obviously not holding this as an original intention).

I would argue that premarital sex is only immoral in cases of promiscuity and unadulterated lust. Nothing in the Scriptures disallows this act, although we can both agree marriage is a sacred rite and sacrament shared between a man and a woman.

[Anonymous No.6992882]

>>6992871

> unironically asatruposting

[Anonymous No.6992887]

>>6992873

The sin of Sodom is noted in Ezekiel as being poor to guests(note also the multiple calls to being hospitable) and being uncharitable(full of food, ect.). They also tried to rape angels, which is pretty obviously a no-no.

[Anonymous No.6992891]

>>6992881
>I would argue that premarital sex is only immoral in cases of promiscuity and unadulterated lust
Biblically sex is marriage.

[Anonymous No.6992892]

>>6992871
>>6992880

The classic drop to lower case to make it look less like samefagging.

[Anonymous No.6992894]

>>6992881
>Could one not use this argument, indeed, to disallow marriage rights to the infertile?
Sure. Is that meant as an objection?
>I would argue that premarital sex is only immoral in cases of promiscuity and unadulterated lust.
I have to disagree. How is the sinner supposed to tell when his lust is adulterous? And isn't all sex outside of marriage promiscuous?

[Anonymous No.6992909]

>>6992871

I'm all for hanging homosexual males. I'm not sure how to handle gay women though...

Since they don't really know better, they are like children in a way, we can show them mercy.

[Anonymous No.6992912]

>>6992891
The references to pre-marital marriage stem from the sin of fornication(Paul does give advice to those in such a situation that they get married, however, he does not explicitly call it sinful if they do not). Little and less is said of those in an engaged relationship having sexual intercourse in the scriptures.

[Anonymous No.6992915]

I would argue that a bunch of ham-thighed permavirgins trying to come up with alibis for their failure to get laid is hilarious, but irrelevant to literature. /r9k/ is the department you want.

[Anonymous No.6992928]

>>6992915
>>6992894 here, I've had sex 3 times in the past week. You don't have to believe me, but then you don't have to believe premarital sex is wrong, either.
>tfw sin

[Anonymous No.6992929]

>>6992912
"The two become one flesh" is found throughout the Bible.

[Anonymous No.6992930]

>>6992894
>I have to disagree. How is the sinner supposed to tell when his lust is adulterous? And isn't all sex outside of marriage promiscous promiscuous?

Our Lord calls adultery the lust for women(and I imagine, men) whom are already married in the Sermon on the Mount. Promiscuity in this vein, I would imagine, would stem from sexual contact unadulterated by any feeling of love, or any monogamous desire. I consider myself theologically conservative, and I'm not Gay myself, so you know.

>>6992909
/pol/ please go.

[AZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZA No.6992935]

>>6992912
The bible will either say someone had sex directly (he took her) or shroud it in a wordage that could be open to many different interpretations (and often alot of those are the correct interpretation, due to the very complex and layered order of the bible). But for instance, Mary Magdalenes "foot massage" of Jesus was probably sexual.

[Anonymous No.6992942]

[Anonymous No.6992943]

>>6992935
>Mary Magdalenes "foot massage" of Jesus was probably sexual.

[Anonymous No.6992944]

>>6992942
The bible is literature, anon.

[AZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZA No.6992947]

>>6992915
typical SJW slut, dropping huge assumptions and showcasing her very shallow vocabulary

this is AZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAbtw

[Anonymous No.6992951]

>>6992872
He actually was actively combatting pederasty and homosexual sex in the classical conyext

[Anonymous No.6992953]

>>6992930
As a Catholic, I'd like to remind you that the one true Church has taught for centuries that adultery isn't exclusive to married people. Anyone who looks at a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery. Fornication falls under adultery. All fornication is promiscuity.

[AZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZA No.6992954]

>>6992942
Hold on there, talking about the Bible is a rule violation in /lit/? Just because you're too ignorant to read it, doesn't mean that it isn't an important part of literature.

Take your blindfold off.

[Anonymous No.6992961]

>>6992951
Yep. Classically, you can easily make a case for homosexuality as depravity(especially in a biblical context). In the modern world, it is slightly less black and white(mainly due to the fact not many men of repute have Puer Delicatus anymore), in my opinion.

[AZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZA No.6992964]

>>6992953
Any real Christian who's actually somewhat understood the Bible will immediately discredit anything the Cathloci church has ever said. You should try Protestantism.

[Anonymous No.6992965]

>>6992947

It's not an assumption though, is it? You're the 'conservative' equivalent of those smelly fat shut-in women who spend endless time prattling about imaginary genders to put off the day that someone asks them if they've ever actually been touched.

[Anonymous No.6992966]

>>6992953
I'm not a Catholic, anon.

[AZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZA No.6992972]

>>6992965
You followed "It's not an assumption" with an assumption. How can I take anything you post seriously?

[Anonymous No.6992973]

>>6992881
>Could one not use this argument, indeed, to disallow marriage rights to the infertile?
not really, since our laws are made on principles, and heterosexual unions are in principle fertile.
Also, the types of sterility arent the same, a hetero couple may be contingently sterile, while a homo couple is necessarily sterile