Well, again, I think you are reading a lot into Paul here. You seem to think you know his mind and his intent beyond what is actually written. Rather, he says that men and women should not deprive each other and he says marriage and sexuality are from the Lord. It seems clear to me his focus on celibacy has nothing to do with which is more virtuous but has much more to do with Paul's passion for Christ and focus on the ability to commit more time to the building of believers. As a married man, I certainly agree with Paul that I do not have the same amount of time to serve the church as I did when I was single. So certainly, for the benefit of the church and the kingdom, a single person can devote far more time and attention. I think you are reading too much into it if your assumption is Paul is suggesting those who are sexually active as married couples are less virtuous due to their intimacy.
I am not offended, but I think this statement is nonsense. The difference is that Paul, as an inspired author of Scripture, applauds marriage between a man and a woman as from God:
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1–3, ESV)
On the other hand he declares homosexuality to be a wicked behavior that comes from a lack of knowledge of God and declares that those who practice such things bring the wrath of God on the world. So, no, this has nothing to do with me "deevaluated" [devaluing] another person's sexuality. It has to do with what Scripture has to say on the subject. Clearly it does not approach the sexuality of a married couple in the same way as it does the sexuality of an adulterer or homosexual. I mean, really, this argument of yours could be used by a pedophile or someone who practices beastiality who wants to argue that you are devaluing their sexuality by prohibiting them from carrying out their lusts. I mean, who are YOU to determine if someone's sexuality should be devalued or not? Nonsense. Using Paul's comments on sexuality in 1 Cor 7 as a means to validate homosexuality is baffling.
I think you are missing my point. The point is that you were making it sound like there is some complete scientific agreement on the matter and I am saying that is far from the truth. The redefinition of homosexuality has nothing to do with "science" but everything to do with culture accepting the practice. Of course textbooks are going to approach the matter differently. But that is due to cultural evaluation of the practice and not some scientific silver bullet that says people have no choice but to sleep with people of the same sex due to some finding in their DNA (which is how you were trying to make it sound). The bottom line is, engaging in ANY sexual behavior (heterosexual or homosexual) is a behavior. My inclination to be attracted to women does not mandate I try to fulfill any bodily lusts I might feel toward any woman I pass that I find attractive. It is not the same as eye color or skin color. It is a behavior. Simply because someone is predisposed to want to do something, drink, smoke, chew, have one-night-stands or whatever else does not mean that they are somehow excused by God for doing something he disapproves of. As I said from the beginning, this is a discussion about what the Bible says is right and wrong, not what culture has determined is acceptable. I find it sad that so many people have their interpretation of the Scriptures so dominated by cultural pressures and expectations. As I said before, NO Christian for almost 2000 years would have argued that God approves of homosexual activities. The Church NEVER accepted the practice throughout all of history. Now, suddenly, our culture embraces it and, lo and behold, we just happen to discover that Paul really didnt mean what he said based on some wild contextual scenarios we drum up. Hardly the way to be salt and light in the world.
No, you were arguing that Paul's basis for understanding sexuality was based in stoicism. Hardly the case. I think Paul's argument is based on creation, sin and the teaching of the Scriptures that the Hebrews had followed on this matter for thousands of years. I dont think he was influenced by Greek Stoicism and asceticism.
You are missing the point. Procreation points out the natural order of things. The purpose of marriage is not merely children. Rather, the ability to conceive children and the sexual activity itself reveals God's design and desires in creation. Its no different than saying, "Why not have men engage with intimacy with apes or fish?" Well, regardless of whether or not a person might desire to do such a thing, the very act itself is clearly outside of God's design. Its more than the inability to have a baby with a fish that matters. The inability to have a baby and the nature of the physical bodies involved reveals that the whole nature of that kind of intimacy is foreign to God's purposes and design.
