Oh..well what is, then?
Submitted by sally on March 27 2002 22:36:56
In reply to Sexual ATTRACTION isn't an issue submitted by Forgiven on March 27 2002 13:21:35
|
Oh forgiven, I like you. the error is in your overreaction to the sexual attraction. It is my argument that sexual attraction just is - it's not a matter of choice, it's purely an issue of personal preference; I happen to like him because he's a good thinker, but with him there's a bit of sexual attraction as well I'm not sure I understand my error. =0) LOL My overreaction to sex-u-al attraction... my overreaction to sex-u-al attraction... my... (it makes a catchy ditty-- sounds like spell of some sort... it reminds me of Bedknobs and Broomsticks) OK enough of this... I was just so tickled that you wanted to point out my error... heh, heh... LOL OK I'm getting serious here... you think that sexual attraction just is.... just is what? Just is a matter of personal preference... and yet not a choice... hmmm... I'm sorry but I just can't even begin to fathom what you are trying to say.... personal preference on one side... choice on the other... preference... choice... What? OK I was lying when I said I was getting serious. But this time I really am going to be serious. SO WHAT?!! As long as I don't do anything about it - i.e. seek to establish a sexual relationship with the person, or fantasize about them, then nothing sinful has occurred. It just doesn't matter. This is the routine experience of every school teacher who has a class full of people some of whom they find attractive; the trick is surely not to do anything about it! I'm not sure I can agree that this is the routine experience of every school teacher. I, for one, have never been attracted to a child and I would doubt if the majority of school teachers have been sexually attracted to the children in their classes. That said it surely does happen, more and more commonly, unfortunately, that teachers are not only attracted, they actually molest. But I would agree with you that a teacher regardless of whether he is heterosexual or homosexual is required to not have a physical relationship with or fantasize about a student. I understand you to be saying that if Joe Science teacher is in a class full of 17 yo girls, and I can trust him with that why not trust you with a room full of boys. Well I can. But... Actually one of the reasons I don't send my kids to school is that I don't trust the teachers. But let us say we have two Christian male teachers, one a married heterosexual who has sex often with his wife and one married heterosexual whose wife always has a headache. Which one do I think is going to be more tempted? The Bible is pretty clear on this point. The guy who is filling up at home is going to have far better chance of not being the ravenous wolf. So if you have the gift of celibacy, great, but if not and you aren't getting some relief in a lawful way you are going to be hard-pressed to keep yourself from busting out all over someplace and ruining your life and the life a boy. If you do not have the gift of celibacy (and if you do I don't know why you'd consider yourself a boylover) then you need to be very cautious, Forgiven. Of course part of the problem is that we tend to put Paul, Jesus and Barnabus on such pedestals that we forget they were human beings (doctrine of the incarnation!). It is fundamental to Christianity that Jesus became a man. As such he would have found certain people sexually attractive. He would have coped with that without sin - but that doesn't mean that he won't have noticed that they were sexually attractive. Certainly Jesus belongs on that pedestal, Forgiven... he was fully God as well as fully man. And I think I'm pretty safe looking up to Paul and Barnabus, also. They were just men, but I'm convinced that Paul, at least, had a much closer relationship to God than I do. When God commissions me to write an addition to the Bible and when he takes me to the third heaven I'll think about comparing myself to Paul. As far as their sexual attractions... I'm just not sure what you mean by "notice" here. I may notice a man and think he is good-looking or a boy or a girl. I may see a woman and notice that she is attractive. But if I notice that a person is attractive that doesn't mean I'm attracted. I've never thought that Jesus was stirred to a physical response to an attractive person... but I've actually never considered it. I'm not sure when we would say that attraction was lustful. I suppose it is the minute you want something. So I would say Jesus never sexually wanted a man woman or child. And given that heterosexual attraction is not inherently more or less wrong than homosexual, the suggestion that there may have been a sexual attraction between Paul and Timothy - or even Jesus and John - is as anodyne and unexciting as the suggestion that there was a sexual attraction between Jesus and the woman who wiped his feet with her hair. The point is that he didn't do anything about it - and it is our duty as Christians to be equally pure. But that doesn't mean pretending that there isn't a sexual attraction - just not acting on it. (There is a separate debate about exactly when the frontier of inappropriate behaviour is crossed, let's not get into that.) I don't know about anodyne and unexciting.... I was pretty much bouncing up and down in a rage when you first suggested it. Calling down fire from heaven upon your head. =0) OK not quite but I did find it offensive and surely most of Christendom would, I think. If they want to reserve the deepest pit in hell for you then how can we even imagine that the suggestion that Jesus and John might have been sexually attracted to another an anodyne suggestion. Adam was born with no sin nature and when God saw that it was not good for man to be alone he gave him woman. All the animal were trotted out but none of them were suitable helpers so God made this woman-- this counterpart-- to fit with him perfectly. And God told them to multiply so heterosexuality was in the garden prior to the fall. If there had been no fall there would be no homosexuality. Jesus--the second Adam-- was born into a pre-fall condition-- he, like Adam, had no sin nature and was unaffected by the fall, so I can't see how he could possibly have ever had any sexual attraction for a man. It is in that context I want to defend my relationships with my YFs. In any one of them, there is a variable amount of sexual attraction - but the issue is for me to not act inappropriately with them. In that context a clear commitment to a Christian faith with the traditional understanding that homosexuality is wrong by the YF makes it all a lot simpler; the temptation to consider the possibility of something more is minimised. But in the context of what I've written above, I really won't abandon my friendships because they happen to be with people where there is a sexual attraction. OK I'm probably done arguing this with you. I like talking with you... just can't see where else we can take this. I don't think that calling them YF's is appropriate and I doubt I ever will. Besides that... I understand you to be saying that if they are not homosexual then you are safe... but, if you are continuing in a relationship where you are consistently tempted to lust even if they will not allow anything to happen, are you able to repent honestly of your lust? That would be a bit like my buying a whole freezer full of ice cream and then being sorry every day for eating it. How sorry can I be if I don't throw the ice cream away? Well, thanks for taking the time with me, Forgiven. It has been educational, for sure. sally |
Follow ups: