A fine example of something that is not a problem, but is ‘ up to the problem ‘.
It requires a long explanation but I give the short summary.It is suspected that the primitive man was polygamous and that the children were brought up by the tribe. The emergence of agriculture also created monogamy: unkind, the woman was colonized and obliged to sex with one man. This because, now that people were settled, they could acquire ‘ possession ‘. This possession could be passed on in the form of inheriting, but then the man had to know for sure that the children were also children. The woman was allowed to have sex with one man.
(Partly) under the influence of the expanding religion, after the woman also the sexuality was colonized.Man was created in God’s image and thus elevated above animals. In the sexual act, however, we are very similar to animals, with also a powerful orgasm. An orgasm is a form of control loss and pleasure-both were seen as animal. That was to be minimized to keep our above animals elevated status. Sex from pleasure or from relational considerations became a taboo. Sex should have only one purpose: reproduction. All other reasons and forms of sex were fought with strength. About 1880 there is a heavy taboo on masturbation, which is after all sex for enjoyment. The same applies to homosexuality, and all other forms of sex. Reproduction, within a marriage: that remains. The rejection of other forms of sexuality goes as far as legal sanctions are imposed, and is being psychiatric: you can be included.
In short, there is no problem.It has been created problem. Because the sexual outreach of man is broad, very broad. And there is nothing wrong with that. Except when rulers decide that something is wrong with it. Because that’s how it goes.
Thinking, and religion.
People like to think in booths.And the most beloved box is that of “people who are like me.” That means the most hated box that is of “people who are not like me.”
There are a number of characteristics that are very decisive for your position in society.The more features you possess that are positively considered, the easier you have it. The more You “deviate”, the harder you will have it:
- Cisgender (your gender is the same as your gender at birth)
Unfortunately, people who fall into the “positive category” often look down on the people who do not.
Well, we are people huh. Also called animals, but a special kind of animals.We have created the most complicated and comprehensive society on this earth ever. With religions and laws and cultural taboos.
The fact that something is common among animals is not so relevant.In The Animal Kingdom, fighting for the females is also very common. The stag who wins goes with the whole herd to the fetch and fertilized as many hindes as-ie can. People females generally do not find this a good plan. They prefer to choose for themselves. There are also many examples of this in the animal kingdom. On the other hand, no animal species has made itself so dependent on tools like us. Not of course, all those bikes, cars, phone calls, shoes, clothes. But it is generally accepted. So that animals kill each other, eat their own youngsters, defecate where it suits them, have sex in public, that’s all no reason to do so as people.
It is mainly religion, which evolved with a society that changed from matriarchal to Patriarchal, which created all sorts of taboos, which made sense to what the people knew then of the world, but which have now become meaningless and oppressive.All kinds of enchanteing rituals, from exotic rain dances to evening cots, are persistent remnants of this. All sorts of outdated laws and notions as well. That one man can only be happy with one woman for example. Or actually (because all three Abrahamic religions are patriarchal) that a woman can become happy with one man. Islam, for example, has no problems with polygamy, but with a woman who wants to keep a club of males. Polygamy is nicely biblical inspired, in case you still want to read the patriarchs.
Catholics can still not divorce and marry again according to the official prescriptions of their religion.Until about a hundred years ago they were not allowed to make themselves. So it is also with homosexuality. Religion, culture and in their footsteps, the laws necessarily run behind the realities.
Most societies on Earth today, are heterosexually oriented paternaliste communities.
The great religions on earth have all been condemning homosexuality for several thousand years.
Homosexuality has also been coming for thousands of years, and has thus neglected the established order for thousands of years.I remain at the perspective of the man, because in all these years they have determined the image of society. The woman has hardly been given a role in this (unfortunately).
The biological animal man, like the rest of nature, has the primary purpose of reproduction.Therefore, a homosexual relationship is not intended for reproduction. The pretext for reproduction has also long been able to hold the dominant position of the man in the sexuality. The man could thus rationalize his hormonal determined urge to have sex with the argument of reproduction. These men have anchored in their religion.
Homosexuality is not about reproduction, but for pleasure; Pleasure Love Satisfaction.That is a threat to the dominant position of the institutionalised religion. This is why Homosexualisation has been criminalised.
In addition, men who are not strong in their own sexuality see homoseexuality as a threat.They doubt themselves and see a different experience as frightening. They are taught that you must be straight. The confrontation with gays turns to doubt in an area where they can no doubt. The unknown is thus rejected with more strength and rejection than other unknown things.
Animals live in the moment.They are unaware of the fact that sexual intercourse leads to procreation. They therefore continue to reproduce involuntarily. Homosexuality is therefore not an issue. They will only not reproduce if they choose exclusively for the same sexe. Furthermore, it has no impact in the community if it is already there.
I find this a ridiculous question.Firstly, homosexuality is not a problem and I am a human being. And secondly, I have never seen a homosexual animal. So it is not everywhere in the animal kingdom to be found. Perhaps you could ask the question a little more more concrete?
HEU well… Do you have a moment of time then?
This is also my final contribution in a series, which I have put on YouTube as a playlist: God, Bible, Christians, Church, faith, marriage, relationships and sex.
Actually, these should be two separate contributions, but I don’t feel like it anymore so go and cram it nicely.
Alas, from a Christian angle, opinions are equally divided over the LGBT community than elsewhere.In the Netherlands I mean, in the V. S and elsewhere the turps are still reasonably quickly cooked in a discussion. In my own encounters and experiences I have become fairly liberal In that regard.
Contextual theology of the Bible.
The black-and-white thinking is rather a Greek than Jewish invention in theology, which improved in centralization of power and politics in the church because the noses are faster than the same side.If anyone else can think about it, where do you stay as a state religion, the emperors thought.
The Bible, in my opinion, is rather a love letter, where in the plans of God gradually become clearer and later revelations help to understand the first better.Unfortunately, much theology remains in a rather strict doctrine, while thinking from Love as the only eternal commandment is a lot of wiser.
Difference between commandment and application
A Biblical commandment, is something as and eternal in force. These are also summarized under: Love as the only norm, who fulfills it, pleases God.Unfortunately, many applications-which must be culturally, time-bound and contextually-duplicated by much theology.
The Greek-rational theology of black-or-white enforces choices that are unjustifiable in modern contexts.Applications, or Twel applications, are then actually promoted to commandments that can frustrate even the spirit of the commandment of love and hostage.
Neither Jesus nor Paul were very much concerned with theology, rather with practical pastoral and debris culling in broken lives, which were pushed into the verdom corner by egoism or exaggerated religion.Jesus also did not want to bring a new religion of salvation, but salvation for religion, in which God was quite approvable.
The Bible contains quite spicy texts, which I can also explain not as one-two-three, let alone defend.I have to say that I have recently learned new findings, which in terms of translation and interpretation, the whole issue of homosexuality, for example, remove the angel from critical theology.
There is much to say that in any case the Bible does not explicitly talk about loving relationships between two adult persons, where there is no need for abuse, prostitution or exploitation, or dubious temple sex, in a culture that is very Anti-Christian was instead of non-Christian.
Do you not know that whoever does injustice will not be part of the Kingdom of God?Make no mistake. Neither the perpetrators nor the idolaters, the overspelists, the fearless and the servants of the Lord, thieves nor money wolves, drunks, slanders, nor exploits will be part of the Kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Well, do you have to do it with it when the pastor quotes it?The crux, however, is in the first part: doing injustice. All the sequel is seen as a result of this, not as the cause. A loving way of dealing with others, in exploitation, selfishness, greed, materialism, liars and gossip.
The recipients of this letter were not civilized Westerners, formed by humanism and Judaeo-Christian thought.We are talking about cultures where revenge, selfishness and violence were rather rule than exception, without equality of women, as well as slavery and a lot of inequality.
The apostle Paul does not address a problem of liberal thinking, from which pastoral love alternative relationships were tolerated.On the contrary: the problem was that there was no love or pastorate at all. The mutual care and thought as a Christian family was pretty undermined. Injustice.
It is also just how you should translate this quote from Paul exactly from the Groundtexts Aramaic or Greek.But anyone who knows the big picture sees a continual pastoral argument to take account of each other. For love, great egos and ego tripping is indeed no place in God’s family.
As has already been mentioned, Paul was more concerned about bringing people love, tolerance and care to each other, than to get liberal thinkers and LGBT candidates at the stake.At least, the whole list of sins that you encounter in his letter are about much more than alternative relationships and sexual misconduct.
This apostle was more of a pastoral worker with an eye and compassion for people and their own laborious reality, than to force a Christian-correct ideal image.Mildness and flexibility is actually read in all his work between the rules. He is not a theologian, rather a pastoral worker with theological sides.
Because we are people and because we have built up all sorts of “moral” barriers in our society.