curious question
Submitted by F.O.D. on August 24 1999 at 11:37:46
In reply to To all - posing the question again. Does my sexual attraction mean I am possessed? Submitted by Jimf3 on August 21 1999 at 09:15:45
|
Hi Jim [and hi everyone else] funny you should ask this question. I stumbled upon this very question in my recent sojourns. I caught up with the family of one of my boy-friends on the weekend (of two of them, in fact, two brothers. But that's "friend" rather than "Young Friend") To my great surprise I discovered I was able to talk with the boy's mother in very calm and honest terms about the subject of homosexuality. She did maintain that having a same-sex sexual relationship was not, as she understood it, the best way of living our lives, but she was quite ready to discuss the matter without any pointless references to "sodomites" or the like. In fact she was quite enthusiastic about the relationship between David and Jonathan ("your love was better than that of women") as a model for a good homosexual nonsexual relationship. She did make the comment that she thought homosexual activity came about as the result of demonic influences. I thought of you when she said that, because of the childhood fears of demons you've described previously. But I made her think about what she was saying a little more carefully. Actually, I would have ignored the comment immediately as the ravings of a super-spiritual looney, if I did not know how full of love and acceptance her life is in general. So we spent a good part of the evening exploring the matter further, with the boy listening in and adding occasional comments of his own. One problem, as I see it, of saying various phenomena are based on demonic influences (she wasn't just talking about homosexuality, she referred also to phobias and suchlike irrational fears), is that it's the sort of comment you can't really prove, not unless the demon speaks up and makes himself known explicitly. I don't know enough about the subject to speak authoritatively myself. So, maybe it's true, or maybe it's not. For the most part I like to think this woman knows what she's talking about, though, so I won't dismiss her views out of hand. What struck me as a tad incongruous, though, was that though she saw herself as having a ministry of delivering people from demonic influences, she didn't seem to have the insight to see that I myself am bothered by the "demon of homosexuality" (I very nearly told her that my questions on the topic were more than academic, but did not. Or maybe she guessed, but was too polite to say). This leads me to suspect that demons are not the machinations behind homosexual desire, or at least, not entirely. Thinking over her point of view, I am willing to see it this way: that homosexual desire comes basically from a natural source (genetics, upbringing, foetal biochemistry, etc etc), but that demons are able to manipulate this basic desire to produce destructive behaviour. For instance, they can be the basis behind someone being addicted to sex, going from partner to partner in search of the perfect orgasm, or a man becoming a misogynist, or whatever. Heterosexual desire can, of course, be twisted in the same way. In short, it doesn't make sense to me that homosexual attraction is demonic, but I can see how demons may be able to twist that attraction around for the sake of destruction. Which is not, perhaps, such a cheery response for you, but it's an honest one. I took our discussion a little further. I figure that if demons are doing their destructive work, then that work would have to be objectively bad. For instance, suppose they generate irrational fears in a person. But here it is clear that these fears are destructive. If they are responsible for homosexual desires, then there must be some obvious way in which homosexual desires are destructive. So I talked to the boys' mother a little more about the nature of homosexuality itself, leaving the demons out of it. Finally, finally I distilled her position to this: one of the prime functions of human sexuality is to bear children. In her belief, the modern church and civilisation was in dire trouble today for having lost sight of this truism, which has come about from the recent technological growth of contraceptives etc. I had long ago rejected this position, considering the prime function of sexuality to be the uniting of two people, and procreation to be a secondary function. But if you put procreation in the first place, then I guess it makes sense to say homosexuality is out of order. So it's given me something new to think about, to hear that maybe I have been belittling the importance of kids in this whole discussion. But on the other hand, if it is fair to say procreation is of secondary importance, then maybe it does follow that Christians must hold nothing against homosexuality. By the way, I indirectly mentioned you, Jim, mentioning the cruelty that the churches have shown to the homosexuals among them. She agreed that such churches do wrong. What they were doing was trying to make you a Slave using the Law, when what Christ has done for us is free us from the Law (she's been reading Galatians recently). The Law does not apply any longer. In a very real sense you can say you have the freedom from the point of view of orthodox Christianity to enter into a gay sexual relationship. But the question remains whether it is expedient to do so. "All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial" I wasn't going to bring up all this discussion I had with the woman, cause I remember how painful the thought of demonic activity is, but I'm glad you brought it up. Regards :) F.O.D. |