#0 · Sep 17, 2003, 18:52 · Hiebreed
#1 · Sep 17, 2003, 19:21 · Mustardseed
Regards Mustardseed
#2 · Sep 17, 2003, 20:13 · bellylard
#3 · Sep 17, 2003, 22:30 · Tenacious
-Tenacious[
]
#4 · Sep 18, 2003, 02:37 · curiousgirl
quote:you felt that because you were discovering it was the wrong direction for you.
In my young years I did experiment but even then felt a terrible strong foreboding sense of going the wrong direction.
quote:heh heh, you could say the same thing about male heterosexuality. but really, they fall in love with each other as much as hetero males fall in love with women. homosexuality is about more than just sex (though the media loves to dwell on only the sex aspects of homosexuality, giving everyone the idea that that's all it's about), it is about falling in love. these people just fall in love with the same gender.
Male homosexuality is based very strongly in lust .
quote:perhaps this is because they live in a world where they are constantly bashed and persecuted??? i mean, for the longest time they've had to hide themselves, for fear of being hated or disowned by their own families, and for fear of being beaten up or worse. it is only recently that they are feeling safer about "coming out" (though i'm sure it depends on where you live, too). the gay men that i've met were sweethearts! talkative and cheerful! this one guy i worked with was just a total sunbeam. [8D] always laughing, and always helping people. he devoted so much of his time toward helping people and keeping busy with creative activities. his attitude and his kindness puts many "good christians" to shame. of course, christians i've talked to said that good deeds will not save him, he will still burn in hell because homosexuality is a sin. but he did things out of the pure desire to do so, not to try to "save his soul"... that wasn't even on his mind. it makes me so angry when people say that gays will burn in hell... don't they realize love is love? why should god condemn love in any form? i thought that's what "He" is all about!
Looking at Homosexual men (some of who I do know) they seem generally to be very agressive hostile provokative and unhappy.
#5 · Sep 18, 2003, 07:36 · Mustardseed
#6 · Sep 18, 2003, 07:57 · WalkerInTheWoods
quote:It could be that the homosexual view in the OT was more a view of society than of God. In the OT the Jews were a small group surrounded by much more populated groups who they did not get along with very well. So they needed numbers in order to have a better chance at surviving. Homosexual couples could not add to the population and so were frowned upon, possibly making its way into a religious view.
Originally posted by Mustardseed
Yep it could be all that, I dont really know . All I know is that according to my faith and what I read in the Bible, I cannot see it having much of a bearing on their relationship to God.He seemed to hate it in the OT and maybe still does but in the era of Christianity that has changed. It can be argued that it is no worse than any other sin and so forth. Seems that a Church goer who lusts after the pastors wife is in the same category or a Christian who lusts after his neighbours car for that matter. What I offered was personal opinion to this serious question.
I really do not see where homosexual acts are condemmed other than by I believe it is Paul. I find this man to be too judgemental and not very much in line with what Jesus taught on many things. Jesus never said one way or other specifically. I think that it does not really matter who you choose to partner with as long as it is based on love.
Homosexuality is not about just sex any more than heterosexuality is.
#7 · Sep 18, 2003, 11:01 · Gandalf
-----------------------------------------------------
Interesting that in this descroption of god, he 'hates' things. Doesnt sound like much of a god that I'd like to follow. I love how christians try to get out of the trully awful acts of 'god' in the OT complete with ethic cleansing etc by stating that this was the 'old law' and once jesus came god changed to the 'new law'. I'm afraid it doesnt wash with me, he still isnt any kind of god that I'd follow, even if he did have a personality change!
In reality of course, this excuse was thought up to reconcile two different faith systems.
Douglas
#8 · Sep 18, 2003, 20:30 · Beth
Peace, Beth
#9 · Sep 18, 2003, 22:41 · Mustardseed
On an interesting note I have a visitor from Thailand. She told me that since Buddism has no judgement on these moral issues an enormously large section of the male population is becoming gay or bi. It is the big in thing as it is western and the repercussions (aids) are greatly feared in the future, with gvt. offices being alerted and so on.
Regards Mustardseed
#10 · Oct 21, 2003, 15:17 · KDC
[:I]At the moment, like a lot of young people do. I'm am having trouble in finding my sexuality. I do like boys and there's one boy I really fancy, but sometimes I feel strongly towards the female gender too. It's really confusing for me and I'm not sure how to tell my mates. I'd never try and push any one into anything they didn't want to do, but I'm worried they'll hate me or think I'm a freak (or something like that). Did any one else go through the same thing cause I'd really like some advice?
Luv KDC
#11 · Oct 21, 2003, 16:29 · James S
If people would stop thinking in terms of what society and religions consider to be right or wrong in the case of homosexuality then I feel that our race as a whole might be allowed to advance that little bit, because we will have learned to stop putting conditions on love. Homosexual couples are capable of feeling love for each other just as much as heteros.
As to how the major religions handle homosexuality, I don't think their governing bodies are able to deal with any kind of sexuality, let alone homosexuality.
James.
#12 · Oct 21, 2003, 19:37 · Beth
In my opinion--and it is just that--my opinion, it is perfectly natural to be sexually attracted to the same sex. It is also perfectly natural to be bi-sexual and have the capacity to physically love both genders.
I have come to think of this in terms of "energy." We are all made up of both masculine and feminine energy, and when we are attracted to a certain person, it is because their energy patterns are complimentary to ours. In other words, the boy that you are attracted to and whatever other female you are attracted to will both have certain energy factors that your energy responds to. Oftentimes you will feel an "energy match" in your sexual center, but that does not necessarily mean that he/she should become your lover. As a relationship develops it will become clear what that relationship should be, be it friend or lover--male or female. If it is "friend energy" the sexual stimulation will soon subside, if it is "lover" it will over time remain consistently "sexual."
IMO, we as a global society need to "move on" past all of these stereotypical boxes, and learn to love one another, as we ourselves want to be loved.
Peace,
Beth
#13 · Oct 22, 2003, 10:56 · kakkarot
(except the girls. had a couple of lesbians mistake me for a girl once because of my long hair [8D]. they even gave me a ride home [|)])
~kakkarot
#14 · Oct 22, 2003, 12:21 · shaman
So I understand what is Love from the "heart" and how it works, just I am not sure why people have to put "sex" in the middle of it when sometimes it is NOT especially needed there.
I don't bother what other poeple do, unless they hurt other people. I certainly do not tolerate people who hurt children.
Now the main question is: "Is deep compassion/love (from say the "heart") related to sexual attraction" or is it only "disoriented by it" ?
From my experience, deep compassion/love can stand by itself without any sex in the middle and is not especially a result of sexual attraction - for example the way someone loves her/his children; or if you are too young to have children it would be the way you can love your dog (though I dont like that analogy). It is a little bit of confusion/mixed-up to put sex in a good friendship, especially for people of the same sex... Is it because there is "to love" and "to make love", I am not sure why, but there is a kind of confusion there... Or maybe because one wants more than 'platonic" love, the compassion becomes passion and then there is a lost of control...
Anyhow, as I said, if none is hurt, I do not mind what you guys are doing...
#15 · Oct 22, 2003, 12:34 · RJA
Consequently I believe that the Old Testament was addressed to the Israelites in accordance with where they, as a people, were at spiritually. They were not yet ready to have individual relationships with God, but rather were conditioned to perceive themselves as being under a group covenent. Thus, to push them up the ladder of spiritual evolution what was necessary at that time was a system of rules that would move their culture forward a little at a time. The prohibition against homosexuality, seen in this context, had to do with being a part of a group, and engaging in behaviors that were best for the group as a whole.
Jesus represents the transition from a group covenent to an individual covenent - i.e. the Jewish culture had evolved sufficiently that spiritually, some of them were able to enter into an individual relationship with God. Thus Jesus' emphasis on living by the Spirit instead of adhering to legalism. The New Testament writers struggled with this concept and their writings, while certainly having spiritual meaning for us today, were aimed at the culture of 2000 years ago. So the teachings were more spiritually evolved than those of the Old Testament (i.e. let's not stone and kill people any more), but still contained ideas that we today, being even more spiritually evolved, find distateful (support of slavery, oppression of women, etc.).
Having had another 2,000 years to grow spiritually, many Christians today are moving into new interpretations that take Biblical teachings much less literally - focusing instead of the spiritual principles and ideas conveyed, and getting even further away from legalism. Thus we see more acceptance of homosexuality in certain denominations. But because Christians today cover a wide swath of the spectrum of spiritual evolution there are still those groups that cling to much more literal views. This is a good thing, because it shows God's plan at work - meeting people where they are at spiritually and moving everyone (individuals, culture's and the human race) forward slowly but surely. Granted this process occurs slowly enough that in the span of one life we may not see dramatic change in the entire human race, but we can experience dramatic change in ourselves and help to nudge those around us in the right direction.
When God's plan is seen in this light, I believe it demonstrates that the Bible is even more powerful as a teaching tool than historically regarded, because it does not just lend itself to one interpretation but when understood properly with the guidance of the Holy Spirit can speak to Christians at any point along that spectrum of spiritual evolution.
And in a larger sense I believe that the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is just one of many processes that God is using to accomplish the overall plan of spiritual evolution for all humanity. It happens to be the tradition that I was born into so it is appropriate to me, and yet I can see God's truth being gradually unfolded/revealed in different ways and at a different pace in all cultures. So while at the lower end of the spectrum world religion's seem quite different, as you move up the spectrum into the more esoteric teachings of Christianity (mysticism), Islam (Sufism), Judaism (Kaballah), etc. - they seem to be describing a very similar God and a very similar process of spiritual enlightenment - so that it's not much of a stretch to see them all converging farther on up the spectrum. (And incidentally even secular disciplines aimed at discovering truth such as psychology and physics even seem to be following a similar course such that they seem to also be zero-ing in on that ultiamte truth way up at the end of the spectrum).
For me, when I view creation, as well as my own spiritual views and those of my cultural contemporaries and the world over in this light then all of the seemingly unreconcilable things present in creation begin to fit together - kind of like a huge, multi-dimensional, cosmic puzzle slowly assembling itself.
And, ... what were we talking about again!? [
] - oh, yeah - homosexuality - so anyway as we personally move further up the ladder of spiritual evolution I believe we become less judgemental and more concerned with what's going on inside ourselves than with what others are doing with their body parts.
#16 · Oct 22, 2003, 14:18 · Rob
#17 · Oct 22, 2003, 17:12 · Nay
] (you know who you are) about this same thing..and the conversation ended with him getting ticked and telling me to find God..LOL Of course I never got to express anymore because he hung-up on me..hehe
I could care less whom other ppl love, as long as they are loving each other..I have also thought for years that it might have something to do with past-lives...but of course I don't know for sure, sooooo...but it seems plausible. I am not saying that to find a reason for it either.... I like what Beth said..energy loving energy.
And adding to what Gandalf said, I think ppl blame God WAY too much or use him as an excuse.. I am sure he is sick of ppl saying.."tis the way of God, he hates gay ppl".. I just know he is rolling his eyes every time that line is said. He gave us a free will for a reason..and isn't he a NON judging God?...I really don't get it.
Nay [
]
#18 · Oct 23, 2003, 15:32 · Anonymous
Anyway, that's what I think. Pretty much all of my beliefs come from Christianity, but not from the Church, as it has been my experience that churches rely far too much on dogma. Yet all of my beliefs have Christian roots. So.... that's what I think.
#19 · Oct 23, 2003, 16:12 · kakkarot
that's just funny. God is a judging God, but He is a fair judge and He does not use the same standards as we might think Him to or want Him to.
but just because He judges, doesn't mean He isn't compassionate too. i mean, after all, God is not some one-dimensional (flat) character out of an old mystery novel; He is a living God who is at least as complex in character as humans are.
but back to the homosexuality, paul states in the bible:
quote:(taken from bible.com , Romans 1:24-28) and that seems to be the only viewpoint on homosexuality in the bible (that i can find). HOWEVER you really must read the surrounding verses before blindly believing what it says there because it seems to clarify the issue to be towards a certain type of people (those who have turned away from God?).
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
~kakkarot
#20 · Oct 23, 2003, 17:33 · Beth
"Man" = "mind/reason"
"Woman" = "intuition/senses"
Male homosexuality = "minds" without "intuition/senses"
Female homosexuality = "intuitions" with without "mind/reason"
In other words, "thinking with reason" without using "our intuition", or using our "intuition without reason" are both "missing the mark" or "commiting lustful/lazy sins."
We must strive to maintain a harmonious balance using both of these traits, and specifically--not to just adopt what other people's "minds or intuitions" say about God, but to come to our own conclusions "using both our own intuition and our own mind." This allows for the Holy Spirit to speak to each individual in a manner in which that person is uniquely prepared. Otherwise, we are only listening to each other and adopting the prescribed "dogmas" of others.
What Paul is referring to in these verses is idolotry of all kinds--most especially those of the Roman ilk, e.g., monetary wealth, polythesistic representations of God and Goddessess, and a devotion to the flesh instead of to God through gluttony, greed and yes, promiscuous sexual relations, of every kind, rampant and out of control. All of these things lead to a "depraved mind" which is a mind that is not devoted to God.
quote:But as Paul then says in Chapter 2,
Verse 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
quote:We should therefore be very careful before we judge others . I for one know many God loving, spiritual people who have found partners of the same sex who are being terribly hurt by misinterpretations of the scriptures. But do you know what is most amazing about this? They have NOT given up on God--or Christianity.
21You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
Peace,
Beth
#21 · Oct 23, 2003, 17:38 · Beth
GOD is NOT a HE. GOD IS MIND.
Peace,
Beth
#22 · Oct 23, 2003, 17:48 · Nay
#23 · Oct 23, 2003, 20:04 · Beth
You can of course doing anything you choose.
I only mention this because to continue to use a masculine pronoun for God, or a feminine one for that matter, continues to keep God within "our image" instead of working toward trying to find ourselves in the "Image of God."
Peace,
Beth
#24 · Oct 23, 2003, 20:31 · Nay
Nay [
]
#25 · Oct 23, 2003, 21:30 · wisp
]
Beth,
Right and Left brain has to to with our own ability to perform thinking functions. Your description is more of that being your higher self or even a spirit guide. Your higher self is a spirit, therefore vulnerable to error.
The Holy Spirit does not error. The Holy Spirit does not cause division among others. I have been spending the last few years learning of the Higher Self and Spirit Guides. Your descriptions and thinking methods are self generated I suspect. I know it's just my opinion. But it certainly explains why so much of what you say is opposite of what are generally accepted opinions about Christian belief and the Bible. That doesn't mean your wrong in (your) thinking, it just means your source is You (or a guide), and your calling it Holy Spirit. This is hardly appropiate to be proclaiming messages FOR others in the name of Holy Spirit, what you call your spirit for yourself is your business. It seems to explain some of the confusion in what you say. If this was coming from the Holy Spirit, would this conversation would be taking place? Does Holy Spirit debate?
#26 · Oct 24, 2003, 17:46 · Gandalf
This is one of the reasons why so many people stopped listning to christian rhetoric years ago.
btw, seeing how this topic has been hijacked into being a font for yet more christian debate, can I suggest someone moves this thread into the christian forums (as homosexuality is such a christian hangup, it would seem appropriate for discussion there).
Douglas
#27 · Oct 25, 2003, 15:38 · wisp
I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. I was trying to smooth the ripples of dissent, at least in my own mind. I'm guilty.
I'm into mind language. I don't know a thing about what goes on in churches, let alone any doctrine! If it comes out sounding like that, I must be on the right track.
Churches have a sytem of one mind. I'm very into christian beliefs. I practice my own faith independently. I was only clarifying a point reguarding a reference to a loose use of terms. When a church (one mind) has a set standard of meanings of names, it's important that off shoots or varients from this be recognized. I was only making that point clear.
As far as homosexuality goes, I have no opinion what so ever on the matter. I was only reading the thread.
The Holy Spirit has a meaning to each person in their own way. Misunderstandings occur when one person uses a collective term for their own use or point. That's a pretty common thing to happen. Just keeping it in prospective.Maybe I was out of line.
#28 · Oct 26, 2003, 15:34 · Mustardseed
Regards MS
#29 · Nov 16, 2003, 07:33 · Gandalf
EnderWiggin
-------------------------------
OH....MY....GOD.....
Just when I thought we might be making progress.
EnderWiggen's attempts to be 'reasonable' here to gay people is laughable..
Now he equates gay people with 'the forces of darkness'...
btw I notice you mention the 'dark forces', I presume you are one of those paranoid-christian types who believe that there is a 'global satanic conspiricy' aimed at destroying the 'good people' of christiandom; members of this conspiracy include (knowingly or unknowingly) people of non-christian faiths, or even people of other CHRISTIAN faiths who belong to a different mistaken branch of christinaity (Heratics...burn them!), Gays, pagans (kill the heathens!), hell, even blacks and 'japs'.
Sorry if I am exagerating what you are saying here; I realise that you are (hopefully) not as extreme as that but I have come across people who really do hold such beliefs; the worse thing is they are not even a minority but actually a significant portion of the 'bible belt' regions of the US and the south (although of course still a minority in the US as a whole); the paradox is that these people hold the above beliefs and yet consider themselves 'good people'.
I am just slightly concerned as your statement doesn seem that far away from the more extreme versions I have heard in the past.
Douglas
#30 · Nov 27, 2003, 14:04 · The AlphaOmega
#31 · Nov 27, 2003, 18:22 · onefromsomewhereelse
The problem in this area is that most modern Christian churches are of Arminian persuasion, and not what is called Calvinistic persuasion. This is too involved to discuss here, but briefly, the former believes in free will of man....that we decide our eternal position, and the latter believes that God decides it...we can't, because we are dead in sin, and spiritually dead people can't make a spiritual decision.
If you believe the Bible is God- breathed, then you will view homosexuality as a sin. Of course, it is no more a sin than screwing around, stealing, etc....the problem with homo sin is that it shows! Most sins are internal, and others don't really know one is doing the sin. If you don't think God is fair, then you can pick and choose any verses you want to ignore a delete them from your belief system, but that doesn't change anything, really.
Sorry for rambling.
#32 · Nov 27, 2003, 20:43 · exothen
onefromsomewhereelse,
God does have a free will, but let's not get into it since that is not the topic of this thread. [
]
#33 · Nov 28, 2003, 00:09 · kakkarot
quote:
Originally posted by onefromsomewhereelse
If you believe the Bible is God- breathed, then you will view homosexuality as a sin.
quote:it doesn't say that homosexuality in all cases is a sinful act (it heavily infers it, but it does not outright state it), just that God gave them up to "unnatural relations" and their own "dishonourable passions".
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.
however, a sin is an act against the will of God, so according to this passage these people sinned by turning away from God, not neccessarily by having sex with people of their own gender. but perhaps i'm wrong [|)]
(and sorry beth, but i really can't agree with your interpretation of that section)
~kakkarot
#34 · Nov 28, 2003, 07:40 · onefromsomewhereelse
God cannot sin; therefore, his will is not free, by logic.
#35 · Nov 28, 2003, 19:10 · exothen
The Bible is clear: homosexuality is sin; it is unnatural. There is no allegorical interpretation needed and it shouldn't be used at all. I find it interesting that when people don't agree with what the Bible says, they turn to some method of interpretation to give them something to agree with. And this, too, the Bible strictly warns against.
On to the argument. What the Bible does, as it so often does, is point out what is obvious, or what should be obvious . The natural teleology of the body makes it clear that males are meant to couple only with females - it is only a male and a female that can reproduce; that is what is natural. Homosexuality is a perversion of what is natural.
quote:God is who he is and can be nothing else. He cannot be what it is impossible for him to be, therefore, he is perfectly and absolutely free.
God cannot sin; therefore, his will is not free, by logic.
#36 · Nov 28, 2003, 19:22 · xander
It is also interesting the bible only says a tiny bit about male homosexuality but nothing about lesbianism. This was due to the fact that woman cannot produce seed and thus they were not concerned with womens sexuality the same way they were concerned with men.
ou cannot tell me that some biblical people like solomon, who had over 300 wives didn't occasionaly like to watch the lesbian love making taking place in the bedroom.
Also, the verses where paul speaks of male homosexuality it is regards to the Greeks pattern of the higher ranking male penetrating a lower ranking male. The issue was not penetration but the behavior of the higher class taking advantage of the lower class.
I am working on my Religous Studies degree and I do know what i'm talking about.
Xander
quote:
Originally posted by exothen
One thing to keep in mind with Romans 1 is that, yes, they started worshipping other gods and "exchanged the truth of God for a lie," but the sin of homosexuality was already in their hearts . Romans 1:26, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions ; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural ."
The Bible is clear: homosexuality is sin; it is unnatural. There is no allegorical interpretation needed and it shouldn't be used at all. I find it interesting that when people don't agree with what the Bible says, they turn to some method of interpretation to give them something to agree with. And this, too, the Bible strictly warns against.
On to the argument. What the Bible does, as it so often does, is point out what is obvious, or what should be obvious . The natural teleology of the body makes it clear that males are meant to couple only with females - it is only a male and a female that can reproduce; that is what is natural. Homosexuality is a perversion of what is natural.quote:God is who he is and can be nothing else. He cannot be what it is impossible for him to be, therefore, he is perfectly and absolutely free.
God cannot sin; therefore, his will is not free, by logic.
#37 · Nov 29, 2003, 00:15 · kakkarot
a sin is anything that goes against the will of God. evil is any act that is purposefully harmful to an nonconsenting other. those two definitions are not the same thing: literally speaking, something can be good and still against the will of God, and something could be evil and still inline with the will of God. the same goes for unnatural: it is NOT a synonym for sin.
<and besides: Thou shalt not murder is one of the ten commandments right? God HIMSELF killed ONE OF HIS OWN PEOPLE who touched the ark of the covenant. *zap*, dead, no chance at reconsiliation or mercy. God contradicted the law He laid down for men (and it is considered by most that to murder in any case is against the will of God, so God would have just contradicted Himself if that is true [|)]).>
~kakkarot
#38 · Nov 29, 2003, 00:38 · xander
quote:In that context one must see YHWH as an energy, just like electricity. It was YHWH's holiness that killed the guy.
Originally posted by kakkarot
<and besides: Thou shalt not murder is one of the ten commandments right? God HIMSELF killed ONE OF HIS OWN PEOPLE who touched the ark of the covenant. *zap*, dead, no chance at reconsiliation or mercy.
YHWH, Jehovah, whatever ya call him went through a long series of changes from the early days of Judaism. When he handed to commandments to moses he was still just a nation-state god like baal, or marduk. It wasnt untill the Assyrians conquered the jews that YHWH was elevated to position of being the only GOD and the GOD of all creation.
Most xians are in love with what they think the bible and their tradition says. They havent the slightest clue about the reality of it.
Xander
#39 · Nov 29, 2003, 11:06 · exothen
quote:And you know more about the Bible than most Christians...please.[V] (This place needs an emoticon where the eyes roll). We'll see just how much you "know."
Most xians are in love with what they think the bible and their tradition says. They havent the slightest clue about the reality of it.
quote:Did you not read the verse I posted? I'll post it again along with a little more of the context:
It is also interesting the bible only says a tiny bit about male homosexuality but nothing about lesbianism. This was due to the fact that woman cannot produce seed and thus they were not concerned with womens sexuality the same way they were concerned with men.
Romans 1:22-27, "22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity , so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions ; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural , 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another , men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
Leviticus 18:22, "'22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Notice that verse 23 states, "lusts of their hearts." Lusting is a sin, so this is actually saying "the sinful desires of their hearts." Also, if lying with a man is an abomination, so is lying with a woman.
1 Corinthians 6:9, "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,"
In the Greek, "effeminate" means "a male prostitue, a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness," and "homosexuals" means "one who lies with a male as with a female, a homosexual." So both in the homosexual relationship are addressed.
1 Timothy 1:9-10, "9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane , for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,"
Again, homosexuality is connected to "the ungodly, and sinners...the unholy and profane."
quote:Yes, I can tell you. This is just an all-round bad argument. First, it reveals your own heart, namely, that you would like to watch lebsian love-making. Second, it is mere speculation. Third, Solomon was in violation of Deuteronomy 17:17a, "17 "He shall not multiply wives for himself." Polygamy only happened when the socitey was in rebellion against God and those who were poygamists, paid dearly for their sins. And Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
ou cannot tell me that some biblical people like solomon, who had over 300 wives didn't occasionaly like to watch the lesbian love making taking place in the bedroom.
kakkrot,
It is clear that homosexuality is unnatural, even apart from the Bible. What the Bible does do is tell us of the Creator and that man was created by him. Since homosexuality is unnatural, it goes against creation and is therefore a "slap in the face" to the Creator. It is going against the natural purpose of the complimentary function of male/female sex. Homosexuality is a sin because it is rebellion against the Creator due to it being unnatural, or against nature.
#40 · Nov 29, 2003, 11:51 · xander
Quote Originally posted by exothen
[br
And you know more about the Bible than most Christians...please. We'll see just how much you "know."
>I admit its been awhile since I read the bible, but right now i'm trudging through the Qur'an.
Did you not read the verse I posted? I'll post it again along with a little more of the context:
>Ah so you didnt post the whole thing last time?! that would be picking and choosing info to prove beleifs, rather than looking at all evidence and then create the beleifs.
1 Corinthians 6:9, "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,"
>I dont recall thaty verse saying that, I'll have to get a bible to go head to head with you on verses and meanings.
In the Greek, "effeminate" means "a male prostitue, a
>are you sure thats the definition or is effeminate a QUALITY of a male prostitute. I know many effeminate men and they're not homosexuals nor prostitutes.
1 Timothy 1:9-10, "9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane , for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,"
>What version of the bible are you using? KJV or another?
Yes, I can tell you. This is just an all-round bad argument. First, it reveals your own heart, namely, that you would like to watch lebsian love-making.
>LOL! Theres lots of things I like to watch[}:)]
Second, it is mere speculation. Third, Solomon was in violation of Deuteronomy 17:17a, "17 "He shall not multiply wives for himself." Polygamy only happened when the socitey was in rebellion against God and those who were poygamists, paid dearly for their sins. And Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
>Yes but was this law made before or after Solomons reign?
It is clear that homosexuality is unnatural,
>actually many animals in nature take part in behavior that can be seen as homosexual. And would you please define natural?
When I look around I see many things that are unnatural...plastics, cars, synthetic chemicals, cola, electronics, etc. I can't go pluck a tv off a tree the way I can an apple so then does that make tv watching, car driving, etc UNnatural?[8D]
#41 · Nov 29, 2003, 16:40 · kakkarot
2 Samuel 6:5-7
as well,
19 And he slew some of the men of Beth-she'mesh, because they looked into the ark of the LORD; he slew seventy men of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had made a great slaughter among the people.
1 Samuel 6:19
God slew them, not His presence. His presence has killed others, but in those instances it was directly God.
EDIT: this is added:
the greek word used in 1 cor 6:9 for effeminate is also translated to an instrument of unnatural lust . it can also be used to denote: soft to the touch, delicate, softness, languor, indisposition, weakness, infirmity of body , though those definitions are not what is meant in that passage (i'd love to post the greek words as well, but i'd have to make an image to do that. maybe i will later and just edit it in)
the greek word used next (the one that exothen posted as homosexual) means: one who lies with a male, a sodomite . ... well, i guess i'm wrong then ^_^ , the bible is fairly explicit on homosexuality.
~kakkarot
#42 · Nov 29, 2003, 16:43 · xander
quote:Thus I really need to get a bible and reread it.[B)] Thanx for quoting the verse.[
Originally posted by kakkarot
5 And David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the LORD with all their might, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. 6 And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there because he put forth his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God.
2 Samuel 6:5-7
as well,
19 And he slew some of the men of Beth-she'mesh, because they looked into the ark of the LORD; he slew seventy men of them, and the people mourned because the LORD had made a great slaughter among the people.
1 Samuel 6:19
God slew them, not His presence. His presence has killed others, but in those instances it was directly God.
~kakkarot
]
Xander
#43 · Nov 29, 2003, 21:06 · kakkarot
] i've had my fair share of being corrected when it comes to the bible.
i also edited my above post (in case you didn't notice [|)]).
~kakkarot
#44 · Nov 30, 2003, 09:17 · wisp
It was as if we connected on another level, I think it was a spiritual level. I found out a few years later he had died of AIDS.
I will never forget him. He touched me in a way no one had ever did.
#45 · Nov 30, 2003, 11:53 · xander
I would also like to point out that sexual/gender anomalies are a lot more common than people realize.
Xander
quote:
Originally posted by wisp
I just want to throw some emotion in on this topic. Several years ago I met a young fellow who was gay. We spent long periods of time talking with each other. It was a mystical experience for me. I was mystified by his soft speak and understandings of so many things. The strange part about this,there was not one thing we didn't see eye to eye about. Now, I know it's easy to talk with someone who sees and thinks the same as you do, but this experience seemed to go beyond the details of topics.
It was as if we connected on another level, I think it was a spiritual level. I found out a few years later he had died of AIDS.
I will never forget him. He touched me in a way no one had ever did.
#46 · Dec 01, 2003, 00:56 · doesitmatter
#47 · Dec 01, 2003, 03:44 · xander
quote:What does the Qur'an say about it?
Originally posted by doesitmatter
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Xander
#48 · Dec 05, 2003, 19:00 · Gandalf
It is just one of those nasty features of Christianity that most *normal* reasonable Christians have disgarded, but which the hard-core will always believe and use it to continue their nasty homophobic rhetoric. There is little use in trying to convince them otherwise.
Quite simply, its not a problem if you just ignore it.
I just wish that some of these bible thumpers would invest some of their feverish bible study time into actually researching into the men who actually wrote and added to these sections of the bible and what their agendas were.
Of course the church has a wonderful answer to anything you might come up with, namely that these writers were were 'inspired' by god..
A beautiful argument.. its like the one about how fossils have been placed in the ground to 'test one's faith'.
These arguments are beautiful as they are impossible to refute, but it is their irefutible aspect that comprimises their very validity, and exposes their falsehood.
Douglas
PS
I will be burning according to your doctrines....ooooooooooo... what a lovely big trident you have there Lucifer!
#49 · Dec 05, 2003, 20:32 · exothen
quote:Do you really think someone is reasonable when they abandon truth just to follow popular consensus? As for "homophobic," perhaps you should look the word up in a dictionary. It is one of the most misused words in debates on homosexuality and is rather a straw man and ad hominem argument.
It is just one of those nasty features of Christianity that most *normal* reasonable Christians have disgarded, but which the hard-core will always believe and use it to continue their nasty homophobic rhetoric.
Perhaps you missed my post on how homosexuality is unnatural, apart from what the Bible says; the Bible just points out the obvious. So those who are "reasonable" and have disregarded this teaching, are not so reasonable after all.
quote:And of course you have, right? [xx(] Straw man.
I just wish that some of these bible thumpers would invest some of their feverish bible study time into actually researching into the men who actually wrote and added to these sections of the bible and what their agendas were.
quote:Hmmm...straw man. I have never heard that in my entire life.
A beautiful argument.. its like the one about how fossils have been placed in the ground to 'test one's faith'.
Perhaps you should actually post some arguments instead of making up a bunch.
Do you actually know anything about Christianity?
#50 · Dec 07, 2003, 07:35 · Gandalf
I couldnt care less about 'bible arguments' as they have no validity as far as I am concerned.
More importantly, lets talk about 'unnatural'. What is that?
What is the definition of 'unnatural'.
Something which doesnt nececerelly fulfil its biological function?
Some animals exibit 'gayness' on occasion. Are they 'wrong'?
Where is your evidence that this is 'wrong'? What do you mean by wrong?
Are 'Gay genes' are a 'biological defect' or not? from a biological point of view I would say they are: BUT only on an individual basis. However biologists hold the view that nature has made allowances for this 'defect' to occur so that if there are gender imbalances in the population same sex relationships can relieve some of the pressure.
In this way, although it might be a biological defect on an individual level, on a wider level it is fulfils a proper biological function after all. Whether or not there are *actually* any gender imbalences in the population at any given time is not relevent. The point is, this is why the 'defect' is there. so on a wider society level it is not a defect at all. Rather it is essential.
Therfor, if you happen to be born with this orientation then there is nothing wrong with following it. There is no 'danger to society' as some alarmists have slavered, since the proportion of Gay people in any given society will alaways be in the minority.
The 'moral' objections in the bible are simply based on prejudice and ignorance of anyone who is different... nothing new there.
So please Exothen, dont try to validify your bible arguments by saying that they are backed up by biological ones as you wont find any support for this amongst biologists (except fundi-christian ones of course).
Yes the church is out of touch with modern society. No the people have not turned away from the truth. They have instead decided to educate themselves.
The church does not in fact have a monopoly on the Truth, only on its on special brand called 'the truth', inverted commas intended, which is what you represent.
Douglas
#51 · Dec 07, 2003, 18:37 · onefromsomewhereelse
I'm not concerned about cancer.....that doesn' mean it isn't real. Perhaps you should be more concerned about the things of the Lord.
"Every knee shall bow"
#52 · Dec 07, 2003, 18:42 · xander
quote:Your Christ says that no one is fit to JUDGE, cept GOD. Thus since you choose to judge others and do not even look at your own behavior you are committing sin. Thus according to your own rantings YOU SHALL BURN IN HELL![}:)][}:)][
Originally posted by onefromsomewhereelse
Gand,
I'm not concerned about cancer.....that doesn' mean it isn't real. Perhaps you should be more concerned about the things of the Lord.
"Every knee shall bow"
][}:)]
Xander
P.S. when you say every knee shall bow, does it mean your "god" likes BJ's?
#53 · Dec 07, 2003, 20:25 · beavis
#54 · Dec 07, 2003, 20:54 · xander
quote:Cuz anus's are where turd's come from and from a mythological perspective, the penis to anus is similar to the snake that eats it's own tail, the beginning/end that has no beginning/end.
Originally posted by beavis
I dont know about you, but I'd rather touch a penis than a turd. So what's the big deal with touching a penis to an anus instead of a turd?
Either that or the xian homophobes are trying to make themselves feel better for having that scat fetish eating away at their conscious.
Xander
#55 · Dec 07, 2003, 21:44 · beavis
Mothers are where penises come from (and the rest of the baby). Does that mean its ok to put a penis there, but not a turd? I dont think she'd like either.
#56 · Dec 07, 2003, 23:00 · xander
quote:I think you're confusing anus with vaginal orafice.
Originally posted by beavis
Cuz anus's are where turd's come from
Mothers are where penises come from (and the rest of the baby). Does that mean its ok to put a penis there, but not a turd? I dont think she'd like either.
Xander
#57 · Dec 08, 2003, 09:05 · beavis
#58 · Dec 08, 2003, 14:42 · Gandalf
I'm not concerned about cancer.....that doesn' mean it isn't real. Perhaps you should be more concerned about the things of the Lord.
Sorry, your 'Lord', and no I dont happen to swallow all that rhetoric that depicts Jesus in the style of a Roman emperor, where the english word 'lord' is a translation from the Latin 'Dominus', a word incidently also used the by the rulers of the later Christian Roman empire. Christianity was transformed by the adoption of it as part of the Roman state, where we get all this 'bow the knee' bovine excrement.
"Every knee shall bow"
'Nuff said'
Douglas
#59 · Dec 08, 2003, 15:54 · Mustardseed
I have been reading the thread and wondered if it is a bit off topic to start another "christianity pisses me off and is bovine excrement" flaming session.? The one starting it asking: What do religions or you say about Homosexuality. This is the beef of the matter. I realise you are not in agreement with very much the Bible says, and I do not blame you much seeing how Christians in the fundementalist category have used it to elevate themselves and put others down in a very selfrighteous manner. However they are not the only voice of Christianity.
IMO it seems pretty clear that Homosexuality in the old testament was a pretty bad thing, a rebellion against Gods way and obviously if one chooses to believe a literal interpretation, it is enevitable that this would influence such a believers opinion, when they would try to figure out Gods position!!!
The New testament is harder to figure out. While on one hand there are the obvious mentions of Gods wrath in Romans 2, this seems to be a reiteration of the old testament in Pauls words. That taken into consideration and Pauls general attitude of almost "anti sex" or death to the flesh, one wonders. ?? I heard once some gays quoting John saying that he was gay "laying on Jesus breast" but I doubt that. It is obvious though if one reads the whole New Testament and considers the scriptures over all that the "sin" of Homosexuality if there is such a thing, is no worse than adultery, and substance abuse and seemingly way less important to God than the sins of the spirit. i.e. Pride selfrighteousness and judgementalism, and a lack of faith on God and even rebellion.
Whether God considers it "good or bad" is actually in a way quite unimportant. We have free will and the ones choosing this lifestyle will do so wheather they believe they are in "gods will" or not. There might also be some personal considerations in the equation and likes and dislikes, but the attitude of looking down on the Homosexual as an inferiour person, sinful or whatever is entirely unsupportable seen in the light of scriptures. We should not judge our brothers!!!There is no if and buts about that.
I have had many good friends who were gays, my wifes brother was gay and died of aids a few years back. He was a very dear friend but though he was not a Christian he was in his own words quite troubled by the lifestyle he and his friends were living and felt they sort of "did it to themselves" ? We never touched on what the Bible says, he knew it well, and I did not see the need.
The question in the thread is interesting though. I personally would like to ask what people think of the average single gay lifestyle as opposed to the hetero, in terms of spiritual values. Is there a difference and if so what is it.
Regareds Mustardseed
#60 · Dec 09, 2003, 06:27 · Gandalf
I have been reading the thread and wondered if it is a bit off topic to start another "christianity pisses me off and is bovine excrement" flaming session.?
Not really, in case you hadnt noticed the fundis were on the attack again, which was inevitable as this is one of their favourite topics.
The question in the thread is interesting though. I personally would like to ask what people think of the average single gay lifestyle as opposed to the hetero, in terms of spiritual values. Is there a difference and if so what is it.
The problem here is with the term 'average':
There is no 'spiritual' difference between hetero and homo, again as anthropologists keep having to remind everyone about characteristics between racial groups and also human 'traits' between different groups (although no-one bothers to listen):
'The differences WITHIN groups are invariably greater than the differences BETWEEN groups.'
Therefore you get some gay people who are very interested in spirituality and you get many others who are as shallow as the day is long.
However, the same can be applied to straight people as well.
I heard one poster talk about how 'shallow' and sex obsessed the gay community was and how 'all their relationships are based on lust and physical attraction.
The thing is, if this person had bothered to observe what goes on in 'straight' bars and clubs on an average Saturday night he would find exactly the same thing.
Also, there is a more fundamental mistake. When he refers to the 'gay scene' he is only referring to that certain proportion of the young gay population who naturally are out looking for a good time and most likely a bit of action, which is exactly what most young straight people are looking for when they hit the town on a Saturday night as well, its just a facet of being young.
Actually, there are many gay people who are not into the 'scene' as it were, many of whom are older and have grown out of the 'single scene', or others who were never into it, they are into other 'scenes'... but again, there is no difference here to straight life.
You might therefore wish to criticise the actions of the young in general, (although the young have always enjoyed a good time so I don't see any sign of that stopping, nor would I want it to), but this cannot be used as some kind of method to single out the gay community specifically, that would be hypocrisy, as you think it perfectly all right or 'less sinful' for young straight people to act the same way.
So in sum, yes the single gay scene can be shallow and sex obsessed but so is the young single straight scene, I know, I used to be a part of it but I've grown out of that stage now and cant really stand the notion of going out 'on the pull', not because 'its wrong' as I don't think it is, its just the biological drive tends to settle down as you get older........ ah, the passions of youth!
Douglas
#61 · Dec 09, 2003, 17:16 · exothen
quote:Stop it, you're making me blush.[:I]
To Exothen_ Chief bible Thumper:
quote:Unnatural...hmmm...maybe that which goes against nature or is not of nature. That which is not natural. Wrong would be that which ought not to be, which is supported by the obvious 'unnaturalness' of homosexuality. Something which is morally wrong.
What is the definition of 'unnatural'.
Something which doesnt nececerelly fulfil its biological function?
...
Where is your evidence that this is 'wrong'? What do you mean by wrong?
quote:No. Animals are incapable of making moral choices, but humans should know better.
Some animals exibit 'gayness' on occasion. Are they 'wrong'?
quote:There are no such things as 'gay genes.' At least, none have been found.
Are 'Gay genes' are a 'biological defect' or not?
quote:That's a mighty big 'if' Gandalf. As it stands now, it seems to be choice that determines if one is gay. Any biological predisposition
Therfor, if you happen to be born with this orientation then there is nothing wrong with following it. There is no 'danger to society' as some alarmists have slavered, since the proportion of Gay people in any given society will alaways be in the minority.
remains to be seen, if there is any at all, although I won't rule out the possibility it may exist. But biology as stands right now, is against the notion of being born gay.
quote:No, they are based on what God has said and on the purposeful design of the human body.
The 'moral' objections in the bible are simply based on prejudice and ignorance of anyone who is different... nothing new there.
What is scary is that people just accept this and are incapable of seeing any moral wrongness with this behaviour. Kind of like the recent story of the cannabalistic German who claims he did nothing wrong.
...
quote:Perhaps you missed your post on page two where you started going against the Christian position. Or where I merely stated my position, was 'attacked' and have merely defended my position ever since. You seem to like to start arguments, particularly against Christian beliefs, and then blame others for them, particularly Christians.
Not really, in case you hadnt noticed the fundis were on the attack again, which was inevitable as this is one of their favourite topics.
#62 · Dec 09, 2003, 17:53 · abcdefghijklmno
#63 · Dec 09, 2003, 19:54 · xander
quote:Go away you ignorant troll!!
Originally posted by abcdefghijklmno
I think it is quite disgusting. I do not know how people can be that way! It makes me sick! I'd rather be dead than to be a homosexual. that is my opinion of homosexuality. I also think all homosexuals will be damned in the depths of hell.
Xander
#64 · Dec 09, 2003, 21:48 · beavis
Thats what you get for not wearing a condom! You have to stop having sex. Dont spread your herpes.
#65 · Dec 10, 2003, 00:28 · kakkarot
~kakkarot
#66 · Dec 10, 2003, 01:11 · xander
quote:I'm not sorry for stooping to his intellectual level. Now however, i shall surpass them.
Originally posted by kakkarot
the topic is asking for opinions people. don't bash peoples' opinions. they were asked for, this is not a debate nor a "is it right or wrong to be homosexual" thread. it is asking for opinions, which abcdefghijklmno gave, though it may have been a bit rude it was still his/her opinion.
~kakkarot
It was asked is it right or wrong. well is it right or wrong to be heterosexual? white? black? female? male? etc? Or is it simply the way one is.
Xander.
#67 · Dec 10, 2003, 01:55 · Huwie
I have friends who are homosexual and they are some of the best friends I have ever had. In fact, my closest male friend is homosexual and my closest female friend is bisexual.
I couldn't ask for better friends. They're there for me when I need them to be, and they bring me nothing but happiness by being my friends. I love them dearly . If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.
#68 · Dec 10, 2003, 06:54 · abcdefghijklmno
#69 · Dec 10, 2003, 08:54 · Nagual
About homosexuality, I think that, from a sexual point of view, it's not natural. But from a love point of view, I see no problem... In the end, people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others...
And just wanted to add that animals do it too.
#70 · Dec 10, 2003, 09:02 · Huwie
#71 · Dec 10, 2003, 11:30 · beavis
I dont think that really is abcdefghi's opinion. He's trolling. If it was his opinion, I would have said nothing.
#72 · Dec 10, 2003, 11:38 · xander
quote:Are you asking or offering? Male, female, dom, sub, what's yer pleasure?
Originally posted by abcdefghijklmno
screw you people???
Xander
#73 · Dec 10, 2003, 14:59 · beavis
#74 · Dec 10, 2003, 20:09 · onefromsomewhereelse
What is this about noone but God judging? "By their fruits ye shall know them". We are to judge, but not by a standard we wouldn't judge ourselves!
"Judge not, lest ye be judged"....that is the standard. As mentioned, we are to be fruit inspectors; that is a judgment, ol buddy. You better learn a little about something you criticize, for credibility.
You compare homos with skin color....you cannot control your skin color, but you can control your homosexualy cravings!
Get real....IAYA
#75 · Dec 10, 2003, 20:19 · xander
quote:Actually one can change skin color.....Just ask Michael Jackson.
Originally posted by onefromsomewhereelse
xand,
You compare homos with skin color....you cannot control your skin color, but you can control your homosexualy cravings!
You claim homosexuals can control their sexual cravings, cant heteros control their sexual cravings?
Xander
#76 · Dec 11, 2003, 05:34 · Huwie
Good point!
Listen, my friend who is gay, the one I mentioned earlier, gets a lot of excrement for it. If he could do anything to be straight, believe me he would. There is no choice involved whatsoever.
#77 · Dec 11, 2003, 11:52 · Gandalf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'moral' objections in the bible are simply based on prejudice and ignorance of anyone who is different... nothing new there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they are based on what God has said and on the purposeful design of the human body.
Exothen_
Oh dear....
In fact they are based on WHAT OTHER MEN have said god has said on the purposeful design of the human body.
It still remains the case that just because you are doing something other than what was originally 'designed' or evolved with regards to the human body, does not equate that it is wrong.
Futhermore, Exothen has chose to ignore the biological view I stated earlier where gay orientation may be percieved as a biological defect on an individual level but on a wider societal level it certainly does fulfil a function, as a safety valve to guard against gender imbalances in the population.
There is also a more important assumption that 'other than designed' equals 'moraly wrong' and Im still to hear a decent explanation on what this is based on, other than its 'against god will'. In fact you can not say this with any more certainty than i can say that the choice of orientation was put there by god for societal reasons, as outlined above, or that some people have been made gay on purpose to test 'christians levels of tolerance', in which case you would have failed!
Even although you may claim 'not to be the one to judge' it is quite clear that you do.
Douglas
Anyhow, I think i have had enough of this thread; I'll leave the narrow minded to their narrowminded views.
#78 · Dec 12, 2003, 09:19 · onefromsomewhereelse
My god has the ability to "breathe" his words through his creation.
You should study up on this subject just a bit.
#79 · Dec 12, 2003, 09:22 · onefromsomewhereelse
#80 · Dec 12, 2003, 11:14 · xander
quote:deviance/normalacy are standards created by those in power to help themselves remain in power.
Originally posted by onefromsomewhereelse
Xander, I am sure hetros can control their cravings, but as we all know, many don't. They are just as guilty of sin in that way as are the deviant groups.
Xander
#81 · Dec 14, 2003, 07:55 · Gandalf
My god has the ability to "breathe" his words through his creation.
You should study up on this subject just a bit.
Pardon?
All writings are made by men. The only dispute here is if they are 'inspired'. I think not. However you believe this it is fine for you to do so. The problem here is that you go around stating as fact that the bible is 'the revealed truth of god.'
This means that all other religions conceptions of god are wrong and that we non-christians are also wrong. This is fine for you to state in your opinion or in the churches opinion, but not to state as fact which you do.
Also, how is it that everytime something good happens it is never mans doing, it is always attributed to god. but when something bad happens it is not gods fault.
Douglas
#82 · Dec 14, 2003, 19:31 · onefromsomewhereelse
In the screw topic, I'll take a babe.
#83 · Dec 14, 2003, 19:34 · Shinobi
#84 · Dec 14, 2003, 20:49 · xander
quote:The bible says its the word of god, so does the Qur'an and Torah.
Originally posted by onefromsomewhereelse
The Bible says it's inspired; that's why I say it is.
The Jews say theyre the chosen people, the Nazis also said they were the chosen people.
How trite the ego is to ascribe to itself divine connection and dismiss all else. ROFLMAO!
Xander
#85 · Dec 15, 2003, 08:27 · Gandalf
Well not really, if you make suitably vague predictions, succeeding generations can fit events to 'verify' them, this has always happened. Its the oldest trick in the book, nostradamus was an expert as was the writer of revelations.
---------------------------
Shinobi_
This view is held by me.
You are correct, it is not a view held by ALL biologists, just some.
I should have been more precise. The main origin of this view is mainly held by 'biology influenced sociologists' to be more exact.
Also the view as to whether the genes themselves are actually altered in any way is debatable, although I agree that the evidence that it is biological (in some cases) is growing.
I learned about this in anthropology classes, where there is also a wide range of views on this.
Anthropologists indicate that gender is socially constructed anyhow, over and above sexuality.
One thing that they all hold however is that just because something does other than 'its biological function' this premise does not logically lead to the conclusion that it is 'morally wrong'. This does not compute.
Some people have pointed towards the notion that it threatens the reproduction of society but this cannot be the case as the gay population, no matter how well it is promoted, always remains small within any population.
All anthropologists recognise that the 'moral arguments' against it all stem ultimately from the common human trait of 'being afraid of what is different'.
However, the idea that an abhorrence of homosexuality is universal has been seen to be false.
There are many human societies where this trait is commonly accepted; its 'difference' is therefore negated and it is a normal part of society. Eriksen (2001) describes one such tribe where it is considered acceptable for young men to engage in homosexual relationships up until marrying age, this provides them with sexual experience. They then move on to their 'hetero phase' where they marry and have kids.
In fact they have no definition of 'homo and hetero' these are just terms coined by us to promote this perceived distinction between them.
cf Thomas Eriksen's anthropological primer 'Small Places, Large Issues, an introduction to social and cultural anthropology' (London : Pluto books Ltd, 2001)
Douglas
#86 · Dec 18, 2003, 15:50 · gleizner
A shaman I worked with for a number of years was a homosexual. He and his mate lived together, worked together, ceremonied together (using a combination of his shamanism and his partners wiccan and greek practices).
Here's the simple truth regarding homosexuality. I don't proclaim anything strongly, but on this one subject I have to say the common sense answer is obvious, and for the most part missed due to the general developmental level of consciousness present on the planet right now. If you haven't experienced yourself beyond your human state, you won't be able to understand this or why I am so sure, and to you all I can say is, sorry, to each their own. But back to my opinion. We have all had extensive lifetimes in this and many other worlds. We have existed as entities/consciousness/whathaveyou possibly forever, and our entity is in no way tied to a human gender - humanity, 3rd dimensional reality, our existence as we experience right now (what have you), is such a teeny tiny itty bitty little nothing in the eye of infinity that to say any person is inherently male or female based on the body they chose to incarnate in this time around is absolutely brain-bustingly absurd. We have all been male, we have all been female, and both more times than we can even begin to imagine. Therefore homosexuality I view as an option in several lights:
1) The person has a life lesson to learn that deals with rejection, hatred, etc - in other words, they are uncontrollably homosexual in order to face the ordeals faced these days by homosexuals. In this way, their sexual preferrence in a choice made on a higher level which allows them certain experiences which will help them grow. As tolerance isn't a particularly strong trait of the species right now, homosexuality allows a great deal of growth for these people.
2) The entity in question has had more lifetimes in one gender, or finds one to be more in synch with its own current nature, yet that entity is currently in a body of the opposite sex. This can describe why a man could say he has always felt like a woman inside, or vice versa... In this case, habit/pattern overcomes biological signals.
3) The entity in question has opened themselves to the point that, other than physical body parts, they are no more male than female or vice versa. In spiritual advancement, we hit a point where gender definitions and boundaries become utterly meaningless, and so we discard them in order to continue on. Part of this adrogenous nature may allow for bisexual behaviour.
4) Finally, some people just want to push everyone else's buttons. They may consciously choose to be homosexual in order to challenge other belief systems that would dare to denounce them. This may well go on subconsciously, but I'd see it as a force at work regardless.
JP
#87 · Dec 19, 2003, 12:22 · Mustardseed
Flaming is wasted on me
Regards Mustardseed
#88 · Dec 20, 2003, 14:05 · kakkarot
truth be told, i used to sometimes have inklings of sexual desire for males, but i've since quelched those desires because i choose to be heterosexual. perhaps everyone has these desires and different people treat them differently (ie, some give in, some don't, some punish themselves for the thoughts while others wish they could allow themselves to give into them).
i view the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex as just another sexual practice: just like BDSM, the lusting after redheads, exhibitionism, lust for things taboo, etc. i highly doubt it's hard wired (via genetic coding or whatnot) into some people.
~kakkarot
#89 · Dec 21, 2003, 03:58 · The AlphaOmega
#90 · Dec 21, 2003, 08:10 · Mustardseed
#91 · Dec 21, 2003, 08:50 · Nagual
#92 · Dec 21, 2003, 16:08 · kakkarot
dressing up as a girl and actually being homosexual are two different things (referencing theAlphaOmega's post). after all, i know a gay guy who loves most of the things the stereotypical straight males love (the kinds of things that stereotyped homosexuals supposedly don't like), so what do these things have to do with sexuality?
the fact is, homosexuals either choose to keep their sexual desires for people of the same sex, or they don't choose to rid themselves of their sexual desires for people of the opposite sex. just like straight people either don't rid themselves of their sexual desires for people of the opposite sex, or they actually choose to rid themselves of their sexual desire for people of the same sex.
hair colour is a physical trait that you have no choice over (though some people actually can change their hair colour, most cannot). the actions you perform are CHOICES that you make, things that you (should) have complete control over. if you choose to have sex with someone of the same gender as you, then you are CHOOSING to be homosexual, there is no "it's just who he/she is". technically choosing to not have sex with people of the same gender, REGARDLESS of what your body lusts after, is the choice to be not homosexual since being homosexual means that you actually *willfully* have sex with people of the same gender (ie, being raped does not count).
would you believe a mass murderer killed people because "it was in his genetic code"? because it was who he was and he couldn't change it? or how about rapists? i think not.
now, i'm NOT saying that my opinion is that homosexuality is good or bad, i'm just pointing out that homosexuals have just as much choice in what they do and who they are as heterosexuals. so it's not "just who they are", it's what they choose to be.
~kakkarot
#93 · Dec 21, 2003, 16:20 · Huwie
#94 · Dec 21, 2003, 16:39 · The AlphaOmega
]
#95 · Dec 21, 2003, 17:10 · onefromsomewhereelse
#96 · Dec 21, 2003, 19:54 · shedt
#97 · Dec 21, 2003, 21:39 · The AlphaOmega
#98 · Dec 22, 2003, 10:24 · kakkarot
in the same way, a person who has desires to have sex with people of the same gender AND WILLFULLY MAKE THE CHOICE TO ACT UPON THOSE DESIRES ACT UPON THOSE DESIRES are homosexuals. if a person has the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex BUT DOES NOT act upon those desires, then they are not really homosexual.
when a straight person has sex with someone of the opposite gender, they *choose* to have sex. when a gay person has sex with someone of the same gender, they *choose* to have sex. unless you're under the influence of some sort of mind-altering substance/effect, how can you have sex without choosing to? rape is the only way a person can have sex without willfully choosing to have sex, BY DEFINITION. are you a slave to your lusts in that whenever you feel the slightest inkling of arousal you go out and screw whatever the object of your arousal is? *or*, when you are in a situation where you understand sexual intercourse is likely to occur, do you actually think to yourself "hm, yeah that person's hot. i'll go for it" thereby making the decision to have sex?
it seems that certain people think that sexuality is a part of you like your skin colour is: "it just is". no, a person isn't "just like that". the desires might be there without a person really wanting them to be there, but only when a person chooses to act upon those desires do they become heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual.
after all, the things a person lusts after (whether they be sexual things or not) can be changed within the person; merely saying a person "has no choice" about their sexuality is like saying they have no capability to actually think about the acts they commit.
~kakkarot
#99 · Dec 22, 2003, 13:59 · kakkarot
is that the same definition that others are going by?
because if a person is going by the definition that homosexuality is having an "attraction" to people of the same sex, than most of my posts don't apply since having an attraction to someone is much different from just having sex with someone.
hiebreed's original post was about *loving* (ie, not neccessarily sexual) a person of the same gender (is that your definition of homosexuality hiebreed). and regarding simply that, my opinion is still that it's up to the individual who they want to love.
~kakkarot
#100 · Dec 22, 2003, 18:10 · Huwie
quote:Wrong. In fact, I'd go so far as to say crap. By your reasoning, if a heterosexual has desires to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, but doesn't (in other words, doesn't have any sex at all) then that person is asexual? That's a bit of a silly way to think, isn't it?
Originally posted by kakkarot
arousal is different from the actual act of sex. no matter how much desires a person might have to have sex with people of the opposite gender, if they CHOOSE to have sex with people of the same gender (even if they feel no arousal at all) then they are homosexual, right?
I'm going to say this one last time. There is NO choice involved at all. Even if I wanted to have sex with another man, I couldn't do it because frankly I'd feel ill. Why? Because I'm heterosexual, whether I like it or not!
#101 · Dec 23, 2003, 09:31 · kakkarot
~kakkarot
#102 · Dec 23, 2003, 12:47 · Huwie
]
#103 · Dec 23, 2003, 18:59 · kakkarot
have a nice christmas [|)].
~kakkarot
#104 · Dec 24, 2003, 07:11 · Nagual
You have control on the acting upon that attraction.
IMO, you can be labeled has homosexual even if you don't act as such.
#105 · Dec 28, 2003, 20:51 · Gandalf
Of course, your opinions are your own.
Douglas
#106 · Jan 10, 2004, 19:43 · onefromsomewhereelse
Just because someone thinks up to 20% of animals are queers (I doubt it) doesn't make humans any less responsible for their sins.
#107 · Jan 11, 2004, 08:20 · Gandalf
I would still like a good explanation, with evidence of how homosex is deviant behavior, both physically and spiritually
Sound more like 'fear of something different' to me!
Douglas
#108 · Jan 27, 2004, 22:26 · Arcane
I find it hard to believe that it should occur normally as this would be against the survival of a species (unless it occurs as a method of controlling population, but how would that work?).
It doesn't bother me that this exists though, i would be interested in knowing why.
#109 · Feb 01, 2004, 11:18 · madonafrk
One of the reason homosexuality is frowned upon so much is because society puts that in your head when you are young growing up, so naturally, u will believe it is wrong when older! Also, my view is also, all you homophobes out there,,,when you bash us and say were going to hell,,,um, its been known that some of you have homo feelings dwelling deep inside of you that you are terrified to deal with. i remember having "these" feeling back as far as kindergarten!! Does that I mean i was a child that should of been punished or put to death??? Nobody knows for a fact what god feels about homosexuality!! Where is the evidence??? oh, thats right, the bible says so!! Do u always believe what others tell you??? Experience life to the fullest and understand other things first before making such judgemental decisions on others!!! Life is to short to worry about what others are doing behing closed doors,,,worry about your own path in life!
#110 · Feb 03, 2004, 22:31 · onefromsomewhereelse
We all have sins; we are all sinners. It is how you deal with sin which indicates if you have he spirit of God in you. Everyone does not have the spirit in him. If you are truly seeking the Lord's will, and feel convicted of sin, that's a good indication you have the spirit of God.
Perhaps some day you will be more spiritual regarding this matter, and seek wisdom from the Lord. You will be in my prayers.
#111 · Feb 03, 2004, 23:09 · James S
I can't think of a place where God actually said anything about homosexuality. Certainly Jesus never said anything about it. He showed tolerance to all people and never once singled out any particular group as being sinful, with the possible exception of the corrupt temple heirarchy.
The 'proof' if you wish to call it that, that Christians have used against homosexuality almost invariably comes from Leviticus. Trouble here is this is a modern interpretation of an ancient custom. Christian scholars will interpret the acts performed in Leviticus that God detested as being homosexual acts. Ancient historians will tell you that it was a custom of the time that a nation who has just defeated another nation, will take the captured soldiers of the defeated nation and parade them through the streets, publicly raping them as a part of a process of brutal humiliation.
If you look at it this way, God wasn't showing a dislike of homosexuality, he was showing a dislike for this custom of brutal public rape.
James.
#112 · Feb 04, 2004, 16:24 · Gandalf
An example of a typically limited viewpoint.
More correctly, you either believe what's in the bible or you don't.
Perhaps some day you will be more spiritual regarding this matter, and seek wisdom from the Lord.
You are obviously of the blinkered 'if you dont believe in the bible you dont believe in god' world-view.
You will be in my prayers
Thank you. You have my sympathies.
Regards,
Douglas
#113 · Feb 04, 2004, 19:46 · exothen
quote:What Bible are you looking at? I'm sure I posted these at the start of this thread, but I'll do it again:
I can't think of a place where God actually said anything about homosexuality.
Trouble here is this is a modern interpretation of an ancient custom.
1 Corinthians 6:9, "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals ,"
Romans 1:26-27, "26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
Leviticus 18:22, "22 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
There is no "ancient custom" even implied in Leviticus. I have no idea where you got this 'historical interpretation' idea from, but it has no bearing on this verse whatsoever. It is clearly talking about homosexuality.
#114 · Feb 04, 2004, 22:38 · madonafrk
#115 · Feb 05, 2004, 00:24 · James S
quote:I think this is one of the classic cases where the text of the bible has been altered to suit the views of the church heirarchy through the ages. Firstly, exactly what translation of the bible uses the word "effeminate"? I just looked up that passage in my NIV and it does not make mention of this word at all. Thought they'd just trow that one in for good measure eh? Secondly, The term "homosexual" or any term like it could NEVER have been written in the originl texts. This term was coined in 1869 by the Hungarian physician Karoly Maria Benkert. Again, I think the church rulers at the time probably thought they'd make good use of the word once it had come into existance.
Originally posted by exothen
1 Corinthians 6:9, "9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals ,"
Nowhere in the bible will you find any mention of the ancient customs I described regarding Leviticus. This is one of those things that didn't need to be detailed there as people living in that time would have known about it. Think about how many customs we have today that when written of are not explained. That's because we don't need them explained to us. If those writings are read in 2000-3000 years time, the peopel reading about them probably won't have a clue what we're on about.
Remember that theres a lot written in the bible that was 'topical' for the period, and bears no relation to customs that we have today. Beth showed us this in a lot of her posts regarding biblical history.
If you're going to take these verses that you've posted literally by directly translating them into standards of todays society you're going to find yourself in a lot of trouble if you wish to maintain the word of the bible. Do you have a wife or girlfriend that attends church with you? Does she cover her head in church? Is she submissive to you as the head of the house? If not, you'd better look out because you are not fulfilling the word of God.
Petty, picky? Yes it is. But then so is using the bible as a means to condemn homosexuals. Jesus intended his teachings to be a means of liberating the human race from its self imposed slavery and condemnation. The bible has been used to put us right back into it again.
James.
#116 · Feb 05, 2004, 09:16 · exothen
quote:Nothing has been altered; it is your misunderstanding of different translations of the Bible. The NIV is a dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) translation, whereas the NASB which I used, is a formal equivalence (word-for-word) tranlsation (as close as they can get and still have it make sense). Both versions are correct.
Firstly, exactly what translation of the bible uses the word "effeminate"? I just looked up that passage in my NIV and it does not make mention of this word at all. Thought they'd just trow that one in for good measure eh?
The word for 'effeminate' ( malakos in Greek) means 'of a catamite,' 'of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man,' 'of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness,' or 'of a male prostitute,' which is what the NIV says. The NASB went with the actual word, the NIV went with the thought, the definition.
So, no, this is not a "classic case where the text of the Bible has been altered to suit the views of the church heirarchy through the ages." I suggest you do some research before posting such nonsense.
quote:What does that have to do with anything??? The Greeks had words to describe such behaviour. Who cares if homosexual is a newer word; it is conveying the same idea as the Greek words . Even Plato wrote about such things.
Secondly, The term "homosexual" or any term like it could NEVER have been written in the originl texts. This term was coined in 1869 by the Hungarian physician Karoly Maria Benkert. Again, I think the church rulers at the time probably thought they'd make good use of the word once it had come into existance.
quote:There is a reason for that - because it was not talking about an ancient custom . Wheteher or not there was such a custom is irrelevant to the issue; that is not what Leviticus is dealing with. The whole chapter is talking about sexual sins such as incest, adultery, and fornication. Why don't you mention ancient customs for those? Because that is not the point.
Nowhere in the bible will you find any mention of the ancient customs I described regarding Leviticus.
Leviticus is clearly talking about everyday homosexuality. What you have done is called eisegesis - reading something into the text that isn't there. If you read the rest of the OT, you would realize that if this passage was talking about an ancient custom, it would have mentioned it.
quote:Beth says a lot of things; some of it right, some of it wrong.
Beth showed us this in a lot of her posts regarding biblical history.
quote:I have left these verses in the context of when they were written. The meaning remains the same whether speaking of it in today's terms, or of the time.
If you're going to take these verses that you've posted literally by directly translating them into standards of todays society you're going to find yourself in a lot of trouble if you wish to maintain the word of the bible.
quote:Don't twist what Jesus said and make him say what you want. Jesus's teachings were all about how salvation and freedom from sin are found in him alone. Jesus didn't mention a lot of things, but he didn't need to. The Bible clearly teaches homosexuality as a sin and Jesus, being a Jew, would most certainly have agreed.
Jesus intended his teachings to be a means of liberating the human race from its self imposed slavery and condemnation.
#117 · Feb 05, 2004, 12:38 · kakkarot
quote:so at least one of the apostles taught that homosexuality is wrong. (and for whoever it is that is believing that the bible is all of jesus words or jesus wrote the whole thing, it's just not so. in one point in the bible i believe it was peter who mentioned something about gentiles being less christian than jews because the gentiles were uncircumcised. and in another place i believe it was paul who contended that and said that all people, gentile and jew, are all God's people. i'm likely wrong about some details in there since i'm doing this from memory so if anyone can provide a verse for that it would be helpful [
the greek word used in 1 cor 6:9 for effeminate is also translated to an instrument of unnatural lust. it can also be used to denote: soft to the touch, delicate, softness, languor, indisposition, weakness, infirmity of body, though those definitions are not what is meant in that passage (i'd love to post the greek words as well, but i'd have to make an image to do that. maybe i will later and just edit it in)
the greek word used next (the one that exothen posted as homosexual) means: one who lies with a male, a sodomite. ... well, i guess i'm wrong then ^_^ , the bible is fairly explicit on homosexuality.
]. so the bible is not 100% "savvy" with itself, but i think people tend to forget that it's not the bible that is the christ, but jesus who is the christ [|)]. sorry, just stirring up more controversy [
])
~kakkarot
#118 · Feb 05, 2004, 19:17 · James S
quote:No, I don't think I am. I believe his is the difference between where many Theologins will concentrate on the words of the bible - picking apart meanings of verses, interpretings laws, as opposed to looking at the spirit in which Jesus was instructing us. His teachings were about love, tolerance and acceptance.
Originally posted by exothen
Don't twist what Jesus said and make him say what you want. Jesus's teachings were all about how salvation and freedom from sin are found in him alone. Jesus didn't mention a lot of things, but he didn't need to. The Bible clearly teaches homosexuality as a sin and Jesus, being a Jew, would most certainly have agreed.
Rejecting homosexuals as the church has done, goes against the spirit of his teachings. I don't think that's twisting his words to suit my feelings on the matter. Whether or not his apostles spoke against homosexuality, Jesus spoke of love and acceptance of all people. The spirit of his words, living by the examples HE set, to me are of far more importance than focussing on interpretations of the laws and regulations of the bible.
I'm not a christian, though I spent 16 years of my life studying the bible and following the ways of christianity. For me Jesus has become far more real, far more important since I got out of the box that the modern christian dogma sought to keep me in.
I know this can sound like a bit of a cliche, but think about how Jesus himself would be treating this discussion if he were a member of this forum. Would he be finding scriptures to condem homosexuals, or would he be trying to help show others that all people should be shown the same level of appreciation and acceptance.
Kind regards,
James.
#119 · Feb 05, 2004, 19:56 · Cynda Lee
#120 · Feb 11, 2004, 17:11 · exothen
quote:You are right, partly. Jesus would do the same as the apostles - accept the homosexual, but reject their sin. That is completely in line with everything that Jesus taught. But most of the church has lost its ability to do that; we tend to reject the sinner because of the sin instead of loving them despite it. I think that most Christians just don't know how to deal with it.
Rejecting homosexuals as the church has done, goes against the spirit of his teachings. I don't think that's twisting his words to suit my feelings on the matter. Whether or not his apostles spoke against homosexuality, Jesus spoke of love and acceptance of all people.
I am very sure that the apostles' teachings were inline with what Christ taught.
#121 · Feb 13, 2004, 19:09 · kakkarot
however, that could create another rift in people's thinking: that jesus' words were right but the rest of the bible is merely guidelines.
anytime something is spoken out against the people who don't think it's all that bad will try to find whatever way they can to try and persuade people to believe that the "negative" message given about the controversy doesn't really mean what it says. for example, the apostles clearly did teach that homosexuality was wrong, as did the laws of the old testament, and yet people seek to use linguistic maneuvering to try and get around that and say "the bible doesn't really say that, it just looks like it does because of ..." and spout of any of the number of reasons that have been adopted up till now.
but anyway, what about other religions? some of the more "smaller" ones (maybe "overshadowed" would be a better word [
])? does anyone have any insight into what other theological teachings declare?
~kakkarot
#122 · Feb 15, 2004, 14:30 · James S
quote:Yes I agree with this. Whether right or wrong the church has found many reasons to reject people throughout history. In some ways I see the churches treatment of homosexuals in this age as being similar to the way lepers were treated 2000 years ago.
Originally posted by exothen
You are right, partly. Jesus would do the same as the apostles - accept the homosexual, but reject their sin. That is completely in line with everything that Jesus taught. But most of the church has lost its ability to do that; we tend to reject the sinner because of the sin instead of loving them despite it. I think that most Christians just don't know how to deal with it.
James.
#123 · Mar 07, 2004, 18:20 · FreeFaller
#124 · Mar 07, 2004, 18:21 · FreeFaller
so frankly im not to sure. i have only read the first chapter Genisis so i dont know what the bible says
#125 · Mar 25, 2004, 23:05 · Targa
#126 · Mar 26, 2004, 01:08 · Mystic Cloud
quote:I think you are 100% wrong when you say that homosexuality is based very strongly in lust. That is just an absurd opinion. Atleast the Male homosexuals I know have _NOTHING_ to do with lust. But on the other side there is a tendence that many homosexuals are very 'shallow' and only cares about looks etc. [}:)]
Originally posted by Mustardseed
With all due respect to individuals and political correctness I find it intuitivly wrong . I dont know why. In my young years I did experiment but even then felt a terrible strong foreboding sense of going the wrong direction. All taid there may be situations where it would be accaptable. Maybe a deserted Island with some guys marooned but in general I would say that at least Male homosexuality is based very strongly in lust . Female is different. I believe in the bible and it is clear that God does not like it according to Romans . However according to other qoutes it seems permissable. All that to say .I dont know. Looking at Homosexual men (some of who I do know) they seem generally to be very agressive hostile provokative and unhappy.
Regards Mustardseed
But still I don't think there is anything wrong falling in love with someone of the same gender. I think it is a matter of choice in life/before life if you want it or not. Besides there will STILL be the feminine and masculine polarity in that relationship (one will be masculine and the other feminine)
#127 · Mar 26, 2004, 01:23 · Mystic Cloud
quote:Sorry to ruin your day but.
Originally posted by onefromsomewhereelse
You can either believe the Bible or just pick and choose. You would not be convinced if the Lord himself payed you a personal visit and told you that homosexuality is deviant, wrong behaviour.
We all have sins; we are all sinners. It is how you deal with sin which indicates if you have he spirit of God in you. Everyone does not have the spirit in him. If you are truly seeking the Lord's will, and feel convicted of sin, that's a good indication you have the spirit of God.
Perhaps some day you will be more spiritual regarding this matter, and seek wisdom from the Lord. You will be in my prayers.
1) I don't believe in the bible. It has been changed and used as
means of massmanipulation for AGES for personal wealth & power. And no
I am NOT going to hell for this. Merely I'm getting a reward for showing people the truth behind the curtains.
2) While I believe in god and know what life is about I also know that
he accepts EVERYONE, yes including homosexuals. I do however NOT understand how you think that not everyone has a spirit in him. That is like to say that not everyone is made out of atoms, but some are made of green cheese.
3) If you punish and convict yourself because of some 'sins' that you have done you have a very naive and perverted view of yourself. On top of this anyone can manipulate and bend you according to their own will, which is in my opinion not a very good thing. Where is your self-grace and mercy? After all we are here to learn and show 100% unconditional love towards others and not condemn everyone and yourself.
4) Sins are more like 'mistakes'. These are necessary to LEARN how to LIVE. Without these you would not learn very important lessons in life.
5) The picking and choosing about Bible or not. GNNN. Are you blind?
LOOK AT HOW MANY OTHER SPIRITUAL TEXTS THERE ARE AVAILABLE IN THE WORLD!!!?? And no, the 'others' do NOT come from Lucifer as many fanatic (evil?) Christians believe. (Besides Lucifer is a misinterpretion of King James while translating it from hebrew and is originally a name of the King of Babylon) They all come from ONE source, ONE ALL-mighty, ONE God.
6) The only good I found in this post was that you pray for the well-being of others, and that is a good deed. But still if you pray for someone who ISN'T ill but still insist that he is and pray against his whole life-view just because you think different, it kind of turns the deed to something else.
7) I dislike ALL 'fanatics'
#128 · Mar 26, 2004, 07:48 · Gwathren
God created man and then woman. If God would have wanted man to love man, then why in the name of nine hells did God create woman anyway?
Let's keep it simple. Man can love man as a friend, but not as a woman. There are women for that. (And that doesn't mean that women were created only because man would have someone to love).
#129 · Apr 10, 2004, 20:19 · G3MM4
As for gay people not being able to get married, why shouldn't they? Why is it OK for hetrosexual people to get married, but it's not OK for gay people to get married? While I'm on this point, why is it OK for single or married heterosexuals to adopt children, but it's not OK for gay people to adopt children? It's not unnatural at all. It's just as natural for gay people as it is for hetrosexual people. It's only the narrow-minded individuals who says otherwise.
Please don't take offence at what I've just said, as I'm only voicing my opinion, just like everyone else is.
#130 · Apr 10, 2004, 22:13 · Moonburn33
you're making the "god created adam and eve, not adam and steve" argument based on your own conceptions of sexuality. now the act of creating two genders does not in of itself say that these two "people's" progeny could not love each other in a romantic way. you are saying that if god created A and B then only A+B=Right when there's no given saying that that is true- it is left open. there is nothing saying that A+A=wrong only that there are two variables to work with here.
the hebrew words adam and eve are plural in this case, so god created men and women in the beginning- according to the old testament. and the original hebrew translation for god creating the world was actually gods- just found that one out today.
#131 · Apr 28, 2004, 09:28 · cristina8675309
There's a scene in a tv show that very many who are "uptight" shall we say wouldn't agree with, but I do. God made everything, God loves all his creations. Therefore, if it turns out in the end that any version of sexuality is acceptable, who cares....
He loves the creation, if not the act, too.
Another biblical idea is love the sinner, not the sin. If you view it as a sin...can you not still show love for your fellowman and accept him/her at whatever "place" they are?
argh. i hate the religion war. That is why I am of no particular religion, but put my trust, faith and hope in spirituality. enough...this has made me feel ucky because of all the petty bickering.
peace to all and everyone...regardless of their choice.
#132 · Apr 29, 2004, 18:19 · exothen
quote:It seems to be that way in the West, but in the Christian East, where Christianity was born and has survived for almost 2000 years, religion and spirituality are one and the same.
Religion and Spirituality are two very separate things...
quote:I agree that everything that God made is good and he loves his creation, but it is in error to say that God creates homosexuals, as some have asserted. Being born into a fallen Creation is was creates the homosexual, just as it does the adulterer, fornicator, glutton, etc.
God made everything, God loves all his creations. Therefore, if it turns out in the end that any version of sexuality is acceptable, who cares....
Also, God clearly condemns the homosexual act, so waiting for "the end" to see if it was okay, is too late. To reword your question: If it turns out in the end that any version of sexuality is not acceptable, then what?
In the same way that man goes against the natural order of the world and tries to subdue it for his purposes, ravaging it in the process, so one who goes against the natural order of sexuality and tries to subdue it for his own purposes, ravages his soul. Sexuality and spirituality are very closely linked, which is why there were many fertility cults in past history and why the Bible states "the two will become one flesh" - the mystery of the spiritual union of sexual intimacy.
quote:And here is where the Christian Church struggles, as do I, although I am changing. What you say above is true, but because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, the Church doesn't know how to make room for and accept homosexuals as persons (although they accept those with other sins). I think that it is because homosexuality is of such an explicit, deviant nature, so very contrary to the purpose of sexual expression, that for me anyway, makes it hard to deal with those involved in it.
Another biblical idea is love the sinner, not the sin. If you view it as a sin...can you not still show love for your fellowman and accept him/her at whatever "place" they are?
But Christ said, he didn't come for the righteous but the unrighteous. The Church is changing, but it will take time. This doesn't mean that the Church can tolerate "believing" homosexuals, but it should allow unbelieving homosexuals into the Church more often than it does.
#133 · May 05, 2004, 00:00 · FreeFaller
quote:the part where mustardseed says "I believe in the bible and it is clear that God does not like it according to Romans" HAVE YOU TRIED READING THE BIBLE?
Originally posted by Mustardseed
With all due respect to individuals and political correctness I find it intuitivly wrong . I dont know why. In my young years I did experiment but even then felt a terrible strong foreboding sense of going the wrong direction. All taid there may be situations where it would be accaptable. Maybe a deserted Island with some guys marooned but in general I would say that at least Male homosexuality is based very strongly in lust . Female is different. I believe in the bible and it is clear that God does not like it according to Romans . However according to other qoutes it seems permissable. All that to say .I dont know. Looking at Homosexual men (some of who I do know) they seem generally to be very agressive hostile provokative and unhappy.
Regards Mustardseed
the bible says how god LOVES everything and everyone even his enemy satin. SO ask your self if he loves satin how does he hate homosexuals? HE put us on this earth for a reason. he made a plan for all of us. we dont choose what we do he does, and it all happens for a rreason. HAVE you ever thought homosexual people are the best role models for the earth? look at this they are not ashamed what others think of them.
a big problem is prejudice people. "I dont like him because he is gay" maybe homosexual people serve a purpose to one day eventualy stop prejudice against them. You know in another post i say how my friend and i discussd what we think the true meaning to christianity is, we want to create our own religion with others that have the same view as us so we can decide what we think the lost and true meaning of christ is... not exactly christ, but what god wants... hard to explain such as saying that god doesnt hate homosexual people, but that he loves everyone and he put them on this planet for a reason.
i say put on this planet because i dont believe the fact that homosexual people just woke up one morning and decidd that they were going to be gay, it just happens.
(I'm not gay)just as a pointer no PMs asking if you want to get together with me.... that already happened once not again
#134 · May 05, 2004, 18:35 · kakkarot
and that's not to say that God can't both love the person and hate the acts they are involved in. because He can, as can you and i.
~kakkarot
#135 · May 05, 2004, 19:10 · Yerzak06
I personally disagree with it becuase if man were meant to be with a man then i would be able to give birth ( im never going to go through that painful though again.) I also think that you dont have to be born with it either. It developes in early child hood. Look at it this way, all boys dont like being around those "annoying" girls who play with gasp.....DOLLS. If we stayed that way we would start to talk to them in the teen years.
Please tell what your thoughts are on my thoughts.
#136 · May 05, 2004, 20:41 · exothen
quote:Yes, God makes us all for a reason, but God does not make people gay; he makes people who then are born into a fallen, sinful world. It is only in that sense that one can be considered born gay.
HE put us on this earth for a reason. he made a plan for all of us. we dont choose what we do he does, and it all happens for a rreason.
It is the same as with disease. God doesn't create people with diseases just so that they die. We are all born into this fallen world where things are not the way God initially created them.
quote:Is that the criteria one uses to determine a good role model? Was Jeffery Dahmer ashamed at what people thought of him? Probably not.
HAVE you ever thought homosexual people are the best role models for the earth? look at this they are not ashamed what others think of them.
quote:LOL! Nothing like that has ever happened to me.
(I'm not gay)just as a pointer no PMs asking if you want to get together with me.... that already happened once not again
Yerzak06,
I have argued previously that it is obvious from the natural teleology of the the body that men are made to be with women. Homosexuality is therefore unnatural, going against the divine order of nature and creation.
As for being born with it, see what I wrote to FreeFaller above. One thing is for certain, as of yet, there is no "gay gene." I think the best way to think of it is that some are born with gay tendencies, but I think that most do make the choice.
#137 · May 06, 2004, 08:01 · exothen
quote:It has nothing to do with controlling the masses and everything to do with what the Bible says (and as I pointed out, nature shows otherwise as well - the Bible is just pointing out the obvious). I am thinking for myself, thank you very much, as is everyone else that I know.
The reason people think it is wrong is because religion told them it was wrong in order to control the masses. Are people so afraid to think for themselves?
quote:How does that work? If someone is bi, then they are attracted to both sexes, which according to you isn't by choice.
The only time homosexuality has a choice is if the person is bi-sexual, then you have a choice. Attraction is something within you that does not choose.
quote:There is nothing wrong with wanting love and to be loved, that is basic human nature, but there is something wrong with preferring to love the same sex.
There is nothing harmful, evil or wrong with that, just different.
quote:This is a bad argument that usually comes in the form of "What if a couple doesn't want to have kids?" or "What if in a couple one of them is sterile and they can't have kids?" Any way that it is stated, it is pointing out exceptions, not the norm. A man and a woman are meant to have sex, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. This argument ignores the argument from teleology of the human body.
Since they can't have babies is it wrong for old folks to get it on?
quote:That is true.
According to the bible fornication is wrong, so you are screwed either way unless you are married
quote:That is not true, thankfully.
& only having sex to make babies.
quote:It has nothing to do with this at all.
I seriously doubt gays will stop the human race, so relax.
#138 · May 06, 2004, 17:53 · Yerzak06
quote:something interesting to note is in the downfall of nearly every great empire, especialy the roman empire, just before it happened the number of gays rose dramatically. History repeats it self over and over again,
Originally posted by runlola
I seriously doubt gays will stop the human race, so relax.
#139 · May 06, 2004, 18:35 · need
But the truth probably is that the empire was dying anyway for many quite right reasons and that rising numbers of homosexuality was actually a challenge (like a needle in a haystack) to the old ways contributing to the destuction of a civilization or empire that possibly decided somewhere had to be ended.In considering these issues it might be better to read between the lines somehow just saying certain words gives rise to controversy, confusion ,ignorance and general silliness. So we bang our heads against the same old walls.How do any of us know that what we say is the truth. Is this the truth.If it is the truth can be enforced, if it's enforced will it solve any problem or add to them.
#140 · May 06, 2004, 20:02 · Yerzak06
#141 · May 06, 2004, 21:32 · need
Same sex relationships possibly work like hetoresexual relationshiops, many different factors attracting the participating parties into a relationship, it's that simple. Who knows who falls in love with what. Some people are superficial and others deep, opposites attract and like attracts, sexual drive is so intrinsic to human existance it would be silly to deny that lust being one aspect of love, is not in some way the motivating factor behind what we think of as love nowadays, in homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
What life requires of us is to judge with no experience, to decide when we are blind,some part of us must lie to believe in a truth. In many relationships there must be the feeling that something is missing some wholeness not inherent in one individual thus we seeks out relationships. Sometimes we seek what is expected of us, other times we go against the grain maybe not even wanting to or knowing why we are.Think of how brave homosexuals have to be to live in todays climate by so called civilization,when human nature cannot understand human nature, why on earth should religion have the lowdown on what homosexuality is. Most of todays religions have very antagonistic ideas on gay people and very very bizarre ideas on exposing the truth of anything or cloaks smoe truth in disguise. If it were that truthful why do we keep questioning.Why so many different religions.
Religion is an ultimatum, accept this or leave, is what religion says to me,so I don't feel religion has the blatant authority it proclaims unless it could explain itself very clearly . Read most religions and being bamboozled is a great possibility.Religion has to be taken [
] on faith.And it is a faith.
Personally I feel gays are normal, hetero's are normal because what the hell is normal these days.
#142 · May 07, 2004, 11:45 · exothen
quote:To continually be reminded of what is right. Obviously there are many people who don't even realize the obvious.
Then why do you read the bible if it so obvious?
quote:The Bible is a book based on history. Somethings will be out-dated, but there are principles which will never be out-dated. Yes, I believe everything it says.
The bible says a lot of out-dated stuff. Do you believe everything it says?
quote:Yes, a bi can choose which particular sex they want to be with, but, if they engage in homosexual acts based on their choice of partner, then how can homosexuality not be a choice? They are still engaging in homosexual behavior, which, according to you is not a choice.
Bi: the choice is you can go either way. Homosexuality: you can go only one way.
quote:Homosexuality cannot create love; it is based on loving the same sex. The fact that homosexuality cannot create life shows that it goes against nature.
Homosexuality doesn't create life. It creates love, so it is meant to be. Love is never wrong.
Is it wrong for a dad to love his little girl so much that he has sex with her? Is it wrong for someone to love their dog so much that they have sex with it? How about polygamy?
Pure love is never wrong, but love that has been perverted is very wrong and destructive.
quote:And what is wrong with that statement? It is true. But as for the whole world becoming homosexual, of course that would never happen.
Back in Sunday school, a kid once asked about homosexuality & the nun said, "If all humans became homosexual, there would be no more babies & the world would end".
#143 · May 07, 2004, 16:42 · shedt
#144 · May 09, 2004, 06:28 · Mystic Cloud
quote:They say in the old testament that it is bad to be gay, right?
Originally posted by exothen
runlola,quote:To continually be reminded of what is right. Obviously there are many people who don't even realize the obvious.
Then why do you read the bible if it so obvious?
quote:The Bible is a book based on history. Somethings will be out-dated, but there are principles which will never be out-dated. Yes, I believe everything it says.
The bible says a lot of out-dated stuff. Do you believe everything it says?
quote:Yes, a bi can choose which particular sex they want to be with, but, if they engage in homosexual acts based on their choice of partner, then how can homosexuality not be a choice? They are still engaging in homosexual behavior, which, according to you is not a choice.
Bi: the choice is you can go either way. Homosexuality: you can go only one way.
quote:Homosexuality cannot create love; it is based on loving the same sex. The fact that homosexuality cannot create life shows that it goes against nature.
Homosexuality doesn't create life. It creates love, so it is meant to be. Love is never wrong.
Is it wrong for a dad to love his little girl so much that he has sex with her? Is it wrong for someone to love their dog so much that they have sex with it? How about polygamy?
Pure love is never wrong, but love that has been perverted is very wrong and destructive.quote:And what is wrong with that statement? It is true. But as for the whole world becoming homosexual, of course that would never happen.
Back in Sunday school, a kid once asked about homosexuality & the nun said, "If all humans became homosexual, there would be no more babies & the world would end".
They also say in the old testament that it is right to own slaves if they are from another country.
They say alot of other things too [xx(]
Besides you should try to understand a few things about the Spiritual side of humans and the Genderlessness of the soul. We have BOTH male and female aspects in our selves that are _NOT_ limited to our body. So basically the gender does not matter, besides most gender issues relate to the thing that most people are RAISED as a boy or a girl which is pretty bonked up in the first place.
Imo the physical robot which you reside in has not so much to do with your mental gender. There are alot of males who are more feminine that masculine and vice versa which is perfectly normal. So tell me WHY is it wrong to be homosexual?
I do not want any answer based from the bible, I just want to know why, and don't give me that crap that it is against nature, because it really is not, just check the behavior of some species and you will notice this.
#145 · May 09, 2004, 14:22 · kakkarot
quote:really? please provide the passage.
The bible says a man should hit his wife. Do you think that is right too?
~kakkarot
#146 · May 09, 2004, 16:02 · Yerzak06
#147 · May 09, 2004, 23:15 · Moonburn33
(loosely quoted)
#148 · May 09, 2004, 23:19 · Moonburn33
#149 · May 10, 2004, 04:48 · James S
[
]
One thing that interests me is when people staunchly use the bible to pass judgement on others, which one are the using? I mean, how many different versions are there, and how many different ways has the bible been translated to suite those that did the translating?
"Well ours is based on the original texts!"
Oh, yeah? Well show me the "original" texts you used then!
Is it the original texts that went into the Good News Bible, the NIV, the King James, the Watchtower bible (now that's an interesting one - the translations seem to change every time someone new comes into the head of the JW organisation), or any other of the 50 different translations?
How can anyone judge someone else based on a copy of The True Word Of God when there are so many different versions of The True Word Of God out there.
And I really like the version Moonburn is using! Gets right to the point.
"happy is he who dasheth his little one's heads against the stones"
I wonder if that's from the "Cop This Ya Pack Of Fairies" version?
You know, the one with the solid metal cover, so that when you want to bible bash someone, you can really bash them!
[
]
James.
#150 · May 10, 2004, 05:17 · Brynbstn
I think I might be the only homosexual male who has responded to this post. I'll tell you how it is for me. I fell in love with a boy my age when I was 19. There is no question that I was crazy in love with this person. I got all nervous when I was around him. I thought about him all the time, I loved everything about him. We were friends, but the love was unrequited. I had a few relationships with women - they lasted 3-6 months, and the woman always pursued me. It was sexual, but I was not in love. I just thought I should try it, ie try to be straight.
I realized I was attracted to men, not women, but did not know what to do about it. I was very spiritual back then, and instinctively wanted to stay on my path. Eventually I saw a psychic, and she told me that I had chosen to come into this life to experience love from a new angle - as a male that loves males. This implies the point of life is to learn lessons about love, perhaps how it transcends all of our 3rd-dimensional experience - space, time, gender, ethnicity, age, etc...
Now I am fully "out" gay male. I had a bf who I lived with for 7 years. I did not love him the way I loved the first boy, but I did love him and was deeply committed to him and our relationship. Sex was a small part of our relationship.
Now I have been single for 3 years and have become esconced in the gay sexual culture. Its hard to avoid it in a urban area, if you are good looking and have a nice body. I believe the Gay scene right now is truly a "culture of desire", and this makes it very hard to live a spiritual life. Many would argue that this is a side-effect of our oppression, and if we were more openly accepted and integrated into society, we would not be forming our own culture, and it would not have such a strong sexual theme. I don't know. I'm sure it will not always be this way - societies (obviously) change over time.
Bryan
#151 · May 10, 2004, 10:40 · exothen
runlola,
quote:But you clearly said "love is never wrong." Are you now saying in some instances that it is wrong and in others it isn't? Does mere consent between adults make it right?
Homosexuals can & do love each other. We are talking about consenting adults. What I am referring to has nothing to do with molestation & bestiality. Gays are capable of love without destruction. Some people do not know what love is & confuse it with violation.
quote:No, why should I be? Are you projecting your fear of homosexuals onto me?
But wouldn't you be afraid if people went out of control & suddenly gays were everywhere
quote:Perhaps this will jog your memory:
If a wife disobeys her husband, strike her—something like that. I can't believe no one has ever heard this before?
Ephesians 5:25-30, "25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her....28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church."
quote:No, I don't hate then and no it is most definitely not okay to geat them up; don't be silly. The Bible says to love everyone, just hate the sin. Jesus came for the sick, not those who are well.
If you believe gays to be wrong & against nature, does that mean you hate them as well? How far does it go? Is it OK to beat them too?
Mystic Cloud,
quote:Please provide a chapter and verse. I am not saying you are wrong, but just for the benefit of all so we can see exactly what it says and study it.
They also say in the old testament that it is right to own slaves if they are from another country.
quote:Basically, you don't want an answer. You have cut off both my moral and philosophical arugments. That some animal species engage in homosexual behavior doesn't mean that it is natural behavior. These are animals , at most with basic reasoning and no moral judgment.
I do not want any answer based from the bible, I just want to know why, and don't give me that crap that it is against nature, because it really is not, just check the behavior of some species and you will notice this.
Perhaps you would like me to argue that evolution doesn't provide a sufficient reason for homosexual behavior since it does not, and cannot, result in propagation of the species. Where did it come from and why does it exist? Perhaps that it is among animals proves that homosexuality is just for self-gratification.
Well, I suppose that was just another angle of the argument from nature. That some species engage in homosexual behavior does nothing to my initial argument anyway. Perhaps you should read it again.
Moonburn33,
quote:Yeah, that was a little loose. [
happy is he who dasheth his little one's heads against the stones- psalms
(loosely quoted)
]
Psalm 137:9, "How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock."
One of the most important rules of biblical interpretation is to take verses in their contexts. In this case, the Psalmist is speaking of the captivity of the Israelites in Babylon:
137:1, "By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion."
137:8, "O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us."
We see that the Psalmist, an Israelite, is looking toward Babylon's destruction for taking the Israelites into captivity. War in those days was exceptionally brutal; everyone was killed, even women and children.
2 Kings 8:12, "12 Hazael said, 'Why does my lord weep?' Then he answered, 'Because I know the evil that you will do to the sons of Israel: their strongholds you will set on fire, and their young men you will kill with the sword, and their little ones you will dash in pieces, and their women with child you will rip up.'"
Here we see the prophet Elisha foretelling Israel's destruction by another country, including children being dashed "in pieces." A brutal fact of war, yes; a command to dash children on the ground, no.
#152 · May 10, 2004, 11:01 · exothen
quote:The fact is, the vast majority of Bible translations agree with each other. Some are "dynamic equivalence," or thought-for-thought (NIV), and some are "formal equivalence," or "word-for-word" (can't translate any language into another word-for-word since it wouldn't make sense; they get as close as they can, keeping it comprehensible - NRSV, NASB). Then there is a whole range in between. Also, some are written in older English (KJV) and some in very current English, using current idioms and slang (NLT, The Message).
Now my question is how do you believe the bible when there are so many cleaned up versions, which one is right?
.....
One thing that interests me is when people staunchly use the bible to pass judgement on others, which one are the using? I mean, how many different versions are there, and how many different ways has the bible been translated to suite those that did the translating?
"Well ours is based on the original texts!"
Oh, yeah? Well show me the "original" texts you used then!
Is it the original texts that went into the Good News Bible, the NIV, the King James, the Watchtower bible (now that's an interesting one - the translations seem to change every time someone new comes into the head of the JW organisation), or any other of the 50 different translations?
How can anyone judge someone else based on a copy of The True Word Of God when there are so many different versions of The True Word Of God out there.
Archaeology has also constantly been providing more Greek manuscripts of the NT, some newer, some older, more variants of one reading, more of another, etc. Yet, there still isn't a significant contradiction or error.
This argument really is not an argument at all, but just a lack of understanding of the reason for the many Bible translations, for which I fault neither runlola or James. I'm sure many professing fundies wouldn't know either.
Having said that, I will say something about the Watchtower's translation, the New World Translation (NWT), used by the JWs. It is a very poor translation, ignoring much Greek scholarship, and is known to have verses twisted (from their Greek meaning) to fit particular doctrines. This is just one of the many reasons they are not considered Christians, but a cult or Christian heretics.
#153 · May 10, 2004, 11:18 · exothen
quote:Do I believe homosexuality is detestable to God? Yes. Should they die for their behavior? No. God will deal with them justly in due time. The use of punishment for such things died with Christ on the cross; the declaration of certain things as sin, did not.
well, I did find this:
Leviticus 20
13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have
done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on
their own heads
Exodus 21
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as
a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the
slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
do you belive in that?
Do I believe in slavery? No. Do I believe the Bible condones salvery? No. Did the Bible record the fact that people were held as slaves and considered property? Yes.
You have to remember that these laws were for a people that God had called to be his own; a people that were essentially wandering pagans. Read just how much God would prove himself, but they would sin, often turning to previous pagan practices or adopting new ones. God would then punish them, they would repent, God would restore them, but then the cycle would continue.
God is trying to purify his people to be who he wants them to be. These laws are meant to help keep them in line. Since this was a nation, God dealt with them as a nation. God knew that how quickly sin would spread among the people if it went unpunished; sin is a disease. He thus dealt with sin swiftly and forcefully to stop the spread of the disease.
Were some of these laws harsh? Absolutely. Was it for a better purpose? Yes. Do the punishments apply to today? No. Does the essence of those laws apply to today? Yes.
#154 · May 10, 2004, 12:21 · kakkarot
]
~kakkarot
#155 · May 10, 2004, 15:57 · need
#156 · May 10, 2004, 17:57 · James S
quote:Thank you Exothen, this is what I've been waiting for someone to say.
Having said that, I will say something about the Watchtower's translation, the New World Translation (NWT), used by the JWs. It is a very poor translation, ignoring much Greek scholarship, and is known to have verses twisted (from their Greek meaning) to fit particular doctrines. This is just one of the many reasons they are not considered Christians, but a cult or Christian heretics.
What would happen I wonder, if I were to put you in a room of JW's and let you explain this to them?
See, from their point of view, from the way they interpret the bible, they are right, and it is you who do not see things correctly.
This was my point behind mentioning how many different translations there are. Many are consistent, just using different dialect or rhetoric, but some are radically different in their translation.
But they are all versions of the christian bible.
I mean, geez, if christians can't agree with other christians about something, why shoud we listen to what they say when they speak against other people? It all smacks of very narrow, closed little mindsets.
Brynbstn,
Thankyou thankyou THANKYOU!!!
At LAST someone asking one of the really IMPORTANT questions here:
"What are the karmic effects?"
So far we've heard a multitude of mostly christian people going on and on about "sins of the flesh".
Come on guys! You're supposed to be following a SPIRITUAL path. Why are you sou bound down by what's happening with the PHYSICAL!
Brynbstn has now just asked what is probably the one real question you should be asking. What is the ramifications of homosexuality on YOUR IMMORTAL SPIRIT?
What will affect you karma, is not what you do in the flesh, it is what you do in your heart. If you show love for another person, if you show compassion, tolerance, understanding, acceptance, you are doing what is right as far as karma is concerned. Being at peace with who you are is what is really important, as this is necessary if you are to achieve the balance between you physical self and your spirit self. Berating, judging, condemning others based on a percieved set of "moral" rules is NOT good for your karma, and NOT good for your spiritual growth. Such negativity only distances you further from your spirit self, as you have become too rooted in the concerns of the physical world.
What of the astral? The astral deals purely with spirit, not flesh. Sex in the astral is between two spirits. It is far more intense a pleasure as it is not restricted in any way by what the physical body is capable of.
Thank you for your post Bryan. Your point of view is very refreshing.
Blessings,
James.
#157 · May 10, 2004, 21:14 · exothen
My first post was getting long and I suppose I could have joined the last two together, but I wanted to keep the topics separate. Next time, I'll at least consider editing. [
]
James S,
quote:Just doing what I can to keep you happy.[
Thank you Exothen, this is what I've been waiting for someone to say.
]
quote:Oh, they would get upset. I've done it to at least four of them.
What would happen I wonder, if I were to put you in a room of JW's and let you explain this to them?
quote:Yeah, but they are wrong.
See, from their point of view, from the way they interpret the bible, they are right, and it is you who do not see things correctly.
quote:Hows about some examples? Just because they are different, doesn't mean that they aren't saying the same thing. Some might be, there are so many versions one can't possibly keep up with them all. I would be interested if you could post some tidbits.
Many are consistent, just using different dialect or rhetoric, but some are radically different in their translation.
quote:I agree, but this doesn't necessarily come out of different translations of the Bible. When it comes to Scripture, it very often is the majority view which is correct. There are also those liberal theologians who really are not Christian at all who have been translating things to fit their views as well. They are probably a minority, but they are a very vocal minority who always manage to get in the media because of their sensational views.
I mean, geez, if christians can't agree with other christians about something, why shoud we listen to what they say when they speak against other people? It all smacks of very narrow, closed little mindsets.
The problem is that if all Christians agreed on everything, we'd be accused of being brainwashed and not being able to think for ourselves. We are already accused of that despite the numerous Bible translations and denominations that prove the opposite. This is very similar to other arguments used against Christianity in which the Christian cannot win.
There are many, many reasons why Christians don't agree on everything. It is a very complex issue that goes right back the full "2000" years. But there are also many things that Christians agree upon that makes a Christian a Christian. Many of these things JWs reject.
I'd just like to comment on this...comment:
quote:As a Christian, I believe that the physical affects the spiritual. I have no idea if this is your experience or not. But the Bible clearly teaches that what one does, or doesn't do, in the physical world, affects the spiritual world. And of course the spiritual world also affects the physical; the two cannot be separated. The spiritual world is seen as coexisting among us in the physical.
You're supposed to be following a SPIRITUAL path. Why are you sou bound down by what's happening with the PHYSICAL!
#158 · May 11, 2004, 05:58 · James S
Hi Exothen,
"Oh, they would get upset. I've done it to at least four of them."
"Yeah, but they are wrong."
LOL [
]
Bet you liked putting firecrackers in ants nests as a kid too! [}:)] [
]
As to radically different bibles, try these ones:
the femenist "gender exclusive" or gender neutral bible"
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_intro.html
the cockney bible -
http://www.geocities.com/Axiom43/cockneybible.html
[
]
I agree with what you say about the relationship between the physical worlds and the spiritual worlds. My belief is that there needs to be a balance sought between the two, as we are both physical and spirit. My greatest concern with so many of these anti-homosexual arguments is that their reasoning is all so much based in the physical, that they either detract from, or deny the spiritual aspects of homosexuals.
My point here is - who is more likely to be able to attain a more spiritually enlightened, or at least a better balanced physical / spiritual life? The homosexual who is at peace with his sexuality, his identity, and has a positive spiritual outlook, or the preacher who is committed to trying to force people to accept the errors of their ways? Seems to me that the latter is too distracted with scriptural technicalities to be able to embrace the bibles message of love and acceptance.
I'm not saying that the core of christian beliefs are wrong. In fact the core of the christian faith (and I did study the bible as a "christian" for approx 16 years of my adult life) is a wonderful message of hope and love which can allow the spirit to rise above the boundaries of the physical world. What I feel though, what I always felt, even in church, was the dogma, the politics of the church, which showed no compassion or acceptance towards homosexuals, is wrong.
I feel this way particularly because through a friend who at the time was a fellow christian, I knew of a homosexual who committed suicide after the one place left he thought he might find a bit of human compassion and acceptance - the church, rejected him because of who or what he was. The heartless minister of that church was so bound up in the church's dogma that he could not show any of the compassion or acceptance that Jesus showed for all, so that one poor guy felt he had no where left to turn.
I know that sounds a little severe, but it happened, probably about 8 - 9 years ago now. This is why I so dislike people leaning on bits of the bible like Leviticus to tell someone just why it is they are wrong. That doesn't show compassion, it doesn't show love, or any of the things that are signs of spiritual growth, or even a heartfelt belief in the ways of Jesus. We treat homosexuals today the way people treated lepers two thousand years ago. It only shows judgemental intolerance of people who are different. The same kind of things that have caused holy wars for thousands of years.
The way I see it, it's time to stop using things like the bible to justify why someone else is wrong, and show unconditional acceptance of other people, no matter what their sexuality might be. It's the only way we'll achieve anything resembling peace in this world. If you truly believe that following Jesus will correct any sexual "abnormalities", then show people the positives of what a spiritual life such as this can bring them. Don't give them the negatives. If it the will of God that a homosexual be changed, then it will happen. But it won't happen through jugdement and condemnation.
I apologise if anyone thinks I'm attacking them here. Please nobody take what I'm saying personally. I'm not pointing a finger or accusing anyone in specific. I'm accusing a dogma that would turn a book with a message of peace, love, acceptance and hope into a tool for judging and condemning others.
#159 · May 11, 2004, 08:03 · Nay
*runs over and takes the flag down*
Nay
#160 · May 11, 2004, 10:00 · exothen
quote:Not at all.
When I said, "Love is never wrong" you misinterpreted it as, "Sex is never wrong"
quote:In some cases, such as the one James brings up, yes. When it comes to JWs, no.
By the way, did it ever cross your mind that arguing whose bible is right might be wrong?
quote:No, the Bible is not intended to be used with arrogance at all, but it is meant to be defended otherwise one ends up with all sorts of abberations, such as JWs.
Do you think the bible was intended to be used with so much arrogance?
Jude 3, "I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints?"
Gal 1:6-9, "6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another ; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! "
The JWs and Mormons preach a completely different gospel than that held by Christianity. The JWs have twisted their translation of the Bible to try and fit their erroneous doctrines.
James S,
quote:[?] Confused, but otherwise okay. What is a "flag?"
LOL at flag!!
quote:Where I am in Canada, firecrackers were (are?) illegal. I used sticks and stuff.
Bet you liked putting firecrackers in ants nests as a kid too!
quote:The can of worms has been officially opened.
As to radically different bibles, try these ones:
the femenist "gender exclusive" or gender neutral bible"
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_intro.html
the cockney bible -
http://www.geocities.com/Axiom43/cockneybible.html
James, James, James...did you put firecrackers in ants' nests when you were a kid? [
] I'm sure you've seen a lot of stuff on that AV1611 site. I've debated other Christians regarding the position held by that site. That is ultra-fundamentalist stuff. And very wrong. Just take most of what they say with a grain, or block, of salt.
However, yeah, I've heard of the TNIV. These are the debates in Christianity - does one change the literal wording of the texts so that it becomes gender inclusive? Any good student of the Bible can tell when "men" refers to men only or is inclusive of women. Unfortunately, there are some bad Bible teachers out there.
That Cockney translation is interesting. Take note of the Lord's Prayer:
HELLO, Dad, up there in good ol' Heaven,
Your name is well great and holy, and we respect you, Guv.
We hope we can all 'ave a butcher's at Heaven and be there as soon as possible: and we want to make you happy, Guv, and do what you want 'ere on earth, just like what you do in Heaven.
Guv, please give us some Uncle Fred, and enough grub and stuff to keep us going today, and we hope you'll forgive us when we cock things up, just like we're supposed to forgive them who annoy us and do dodgy stuff to us.
There's a lot of dodgy people around, Guv; please don't let us get tempted to do bad things. Help keep us away from all the nasty, evil stuff, and keep that dodgy Satan away from us, 'cos you're much stronger than 'im.
Your the Boss, God, and will be for ever, innit? Cheers, Amen.
Do you see how terrible translations like this are? One loses the whole sense that one is even speaking to God. There is no reverence or awe for God and as such, the real meaning of the prayer is lost. On the other hand, the gospel has been known to be reworded so that others in foreign cultures can understand it.
For example, "he will make our sins as white as snow" is useless to anyone who doesn't know what snow is. This shows the adaptability of the Christian message to any culture in any time, something which I don't think that any other religion can do. Islam, for example, must force it's way of life onto people in order for it's religion to take root and be maintained. Anyway, I digress.
The main thing is, is the essential message and teaching of the Bible being transmitted, or has it been changed? I can't tell from the Cockney version what is being said, but I know the TNIV gets the essential message across.
quote:Agreed.
What I feel though, what I always felt, even in church, was the dogma, the politics of the church, which showed no compassion or acceptance towards homosexuals, is wrong.
quote:Agreed; to a point (see below).
The way I see it, it's time to stop using things like the bible to justify why someone else is wrong, and show unconditional acceptance of other people, no matter what their sexuality might be.
quote:I couldn't agree more, very well said. If I have come across as condemning homosexuals, I apologize to all.
If you truly believe that following Jesus will correct any sexual "abnormalities", then show people the positives of what a spiritual life such as this can bring them. Don't give them the negatives. If it the will of God that a homosexual be changed, then it will happen. But it won't happen through jugdement and condemnation.
I've said it ealier and I'll say it again because it needs to be said. The problem is this: the Bible condemns homosexual behavior , not the homosexual person. As a result, the Church doesn't know how to react. On the one hand, we have to accept the homosexual, it is commanded of us to love all ; on the other hand, we cannot accept homosexual practice.
The reason we cannot and do not want to accept such behavior is because it is condemned and therefore separates that person from God. One of the goals of the Church is to bring people into a loving relationship with God and sin (a willing, deliberate, continual life of sin), separates us from God. So when people in the Church see an obvious sin that they feel is keeping someone from God (ultimately God alone judges the heart), they typically condemn it in hopes the person will change and "get right" with God.
However, why some churches won't let homosexuals through its doors all the while allowing the adulterer, idolator, greedy, etc., to have "fulfilling" lives in the pew as they are lead by a power hungry minister at the pulpit, is beyond me. Why some Christians seem to think that shouting hateful remarks at homosexuals or beating them up is okay, is beyond me.
The typcial Church doesn't know what to do with homosexuals when they come through its doors. This is something that is changing, but needs a lot more work.
Do I condemn homosexual behavior? Yes, as much as I condemn wrong behavior in myself . Do I condmen the homosexual? No. I accept them as I accept myself, realizing that I still need to grow.
#161 · May 11, 2004, 17:10 · James S
I see that you are definitely more interested in the spirit of the bible than the dogmas of the church. For me, even though I no longer follow the ways of christinity, the words of Jesus to me are still as wise as powerful and as relevant as ever.
When I feel to argue some of these points, I do not argue against christianity - it is a very good and productive spiritual path that truly brings people closer to oneness with God, that which the primary goal of all true spiritual paths. My arguements have always been against the hypocracy, the control and the politics of church dogma.
Yes I'm old enough that I got to stick firecrackers in ants nests when I was a kid.[}:)]
Anyway, since they are illegal now, you keep on using that stick to stir up JW's nests.[
]
The flag I LOLed at was the one Runlola posted.
Blessings,
James.
#162 · Jan 02, 2005, 21:26 · fuji257
I am personally disgusted at the thought of sex with another man. However, I think that if some dude wants to go bump wee wee's or whatever that is his own business. Now women that are gay; thats just awesome. I can agree with them that women are sexy, so I share something in common with them.
As for those people who say "It's against nature!" - I don't think so. If we could just do things against nature as we pleased, I think a lot more people would sprout wings and fly.
And for people who thinks gay animals do not exist, I beg to differ. I had a queer cat. I'm dead serious. He had another male cat he paled around with all the time, and they fornicated quite frequently. He was indoor/outdoor and with NO shortage of females in the neighborhood, the only activity I witnessed him or his boyfriend doing with them is hissing at them. You can believe what you want, but I believe what I witnessed, first and foremost. Animals can be gay.
As far as gay marriage goes, I don't think the government should keep track of marriages to start with. Give HOUSEHOLDS tax breaks for however many WORKING people live in it and/or how many children live in it. Once tax breaks for being married is gone, then marriage would become a 100% secular issue and anyone could have whatever religious or non-religious ritual they saw fit. And they could call it marriage or civil union or whatever the hell they wanted. Marriage is personal and should not be a government concern. And for those people who believe that it is against their religion; keep it in your church - it YOUR beliefs/religion, NOT everyone else's.
Lastly, I do not like it when somebody is gay and they have to mention it every five seconds. OK, your gay - now get over it already. I don't go around telling everyone my sexual desires every freakin' five seconds! I'm not trying to be intolerant, its just this is what gays do a lot in my experience, I'm not saying all gays do it - just the ones I'm around.
#163 · Jan 08, 2005, 16:31 · Tyciol
Well... I'm all for homosexuality, I might even try it some time. You find it disgusting, heh, you're a homophobe. Don't try and mask your hatred with 'modern' thinking, it only hides it, to truly be tolerant you must understand it, and you do not.
The bible's pretty much all against it, there are pro-arguments out there?
Marriage tax breaks should all be taken away, I agree. Religious ones too I think, churches shouldn't get tax breaks. Churches shouldn't have to be forced to marry homosexuals if it's against their religion though, that's just ridiculous.
#164 · Jan 08, 2005, 18:29 · karnautrahl
No one can truly judge you harder than you'll judge yourself. So in terms of spirit, karma and sin in general people don't really have the right to do this. Of course in the real world, we have to have judgement of people going on when certain things are committed-murder, theft, etc. But outside of these things religion should stay out of it. Love is love, and whoever/whatever is the truth about our creator, the being is not going to agree with very narrow human dogmas definitions and arguements really are they? Hmm..that said, if that being is also us and everything else maybe it would..
I don't know..
Me, I have a same sex partner and I cannot say that my intuition has a problem with it. Not all relationships are about the sexual basis of it.
Damn too much wine tonight. Maybe I'll write some more for the hell of it tomorrow.
#165 · Jan 08, 2005, 20:12 · fuji257
Yes I find it disgusting. It is not hatred, it is preference. I understand what being gay means and have no problems with it. If you read my post you'll see that I think gay marriage is OK, and I also believe homosexuality is natural. Just because I don't want hear about gay peoples sexual escapades does not make me hateful. Please. I guess one would have to rent gay porn to be tolerant?
>>The bible's pretty much all against it, there are pro-arguments out there?<<
Again if you read my post before you responded to it, I stated that I have found a LOT of really good arguments on why the bible does not actually condemn homosexuality. Of course anyone interested should do their own research and draw their own conclusions. I don't use the Bible as my "holy book" or moral guidance anyways, so for me whatever the Bible "says" just doesn't matter (to me).
>>Nice bumping up an old post there. <<
Just bored to death and thought I would read old posts. Its a relevant topic, still - right? Are you having a bad day? Your posts are usually intelligent or thought provoking.
#166 · Jan 09, 2005, 03:44 · karnautrahl
I couldn't call a heterosexual man who felt gay sex was disgusting a homophobe on that basis alone. If he had problems with gay people in general then yes. But the potential sexual acts between 2 guys? No that's not homophobia. There are sexual acts and fetishes I find distasteful and worse myself, but they are ultimately harmless and none of my business, but I wouldn't say I had a problem with the participants ever I just don't want to think about or witness the acts.
I don't rent any porn myself, but if I did, you know I'm unlikely to enjoy heterosexual porn.
To me tolerance doesn't have anything to do with being interested in alternative lifestyles sexual acts, but being able to just accept people exactly how they are. fuji257, you sound as tolerant of homosexuals as a straight man is likely to be in general. BTW you have a point on the "political" gay scene, there aren't too many straight men who make such a fuss about being a straight guy as far as I know, But I have the most annoying cousin whos' discovered he's gay. He's decided because he is, he needs to be camp, and push it out for all to see. That grates on me. Don't see the need for it these days. I have some unusual interests etc, but I am proud of the differences-of being able to live with those. I don't think it needs "wearing" like a badge 24/7 though.
I missed this discussion as I've joined the board not that long ago, so
#167 · Jan 09, 2005, 05:56 · clandestino
Quote Nice bumping up an old post therehear hear !
I agree, it is natural to be revolted by things that are so far displaced from one's own experiences.
However, accepting homosexuality as a part of how men & women co-exist, in terms of love (not sex), is a different matter. It shouldn't create any revulsion at all.
Time and time again, I see people who don't accept gay men/women. It soon turns out that those people have never even met, let alone know, anyone who is gay.
The Old testament is quite homophobic... but I'm not sure about the new testament ?
kind regards
Mark
#168 · Jan 09, 2005, 17:14 · Tyciol
I wouldn't say it's homophobic to find it unpreferable or awkward, but 'disgusting'? Yes, watching some gay porn might be a good idea for you
Not to say you you have to want it, but you should try and appreciate the erotic qualities in it. You like lesbian sex so it has nothing to do with sexual normalcy. You like heterosexual sex, so it has nothing to do with seeing a man nude and having sex, so why not two men? The only reason not to would be that you'd feel threatened watching it, or feared what other people might think, or didn't want it to 'turn you gay'. Not to say you have to make a habit, but exposing yourself to some media (or attempting to imagine it in detail) could give some interesting new perceptions.
#169 · Jan 09, 2005, 17:28 · karnautrahl
Someone who's not willing to expose themselves to depictions of erotic acts of alternative sexualities doesn't need a label to explain their choice. This is emotive enough for them. I'm not a heterophobe because I don't choose to watch straight porn.
Actually since most porn is pretty boring really
I don't see much that's mind expanding about it really. To find something disgusting often starts in feelings before reaching the reasoning mind. A man finding gay sex disgusting to watch is not choosing to find it disgusting, it's a product of his life experiences to that point.
Him trying to watch more of it to be less disgusted probably won't help. Him getting to know gay couples etc in a purely social context is by far and away the best possible way I know to reduce any unconscious homophobia.
His feelings for their act would be blunted somewhat to the point of well he'd rather not think hard about it, but it doesn't make him react too much either.
Having an empathy for people in relationships is more mind expanding as is socialising with a nice wide variety of people of all kinds. Something at the moment I'm not doing anything like enough of!
#170 · Jan 10, 2005, 03:00 · Tyciol
Attending a pride parade might work too, I should do that sometime. I'm ugly, so they won't hit on me, so my straightness is preserved!
#171 · Jan 10, 2005, 11:09 · andonitxo
From my viewpoint there's nothing against homosexuality in the bible. Except that passage about Sodoma in which, I think, they were punished due to their uncontrollable lust (both het and homo lust, of course). We should take in count that the old testament is a mess of ideas, based on a brutish god avid of sacrifices and blood.
There's no human who can speak about God or about his rules. By definition God is inconceivable, a human mind is unable to even understand him. Thats why theology is but a great lie.
The only way to understand the universe is to experience it and the only philosophy which offers it, free of human stupidity, is yoga. Yoga doesn't speak about God, it just worries about enlightment. What may come after enlightment is something up to us.
If someone has asked to himself why so much sex abstinence in religions will find answers in energy-related schools, taoist yoga or just plain yoga. But that has nothing to do with homosexuality, energy is discharged in both cases.
Anyway, once I read about what happens in a het sex encounter. When orgasm arrives an energy circuit is closed between a man and a woman. This process doesn't happen on a gay encounter, so a gay guy maintains his astral virginity through all his life and he's able to drive energy in differents ways and het can't. Another theory for the sack.
#172 · Jan 10, 2005, 18:32 · Joerii
Notice how many American people are against homosexuality and judge gay people, compared to people from other parts of the world ? Why is that ? Because the rest of the world is perverted and your not ?!
I'm not a Christian but i do believe in god. I know that He or It loves us all, no matter what gender we feel attracted to....
It never seems to amaze me how many people are hypocrite like that. ESPECIALLY people that hide behind some ancient store book called the bible ( although it has a lot of good bits ) I know one thing god don't like people that are judging and unconsidered towards other people feelings !
SO THERE ! Have a good night, this Dutchman is going to sleep. See you in the Astral, boy AND girls heheh ( hint hint )
#173 · Jan 16, 2005, 20:51 · fuji257
I think you have some small problem with the word "disgusting". Thats just how I see Man on Man sex. But I also think eating pumkin pie is disgusting as well. Really, thats just plain nasty. You can eat all the pumkin pie you want, and I won't hold it against you. But I won't touch it. I will not rent videos of others eating it
. If I'm eating dinner and someone at the table is eating pumkin pie - - I won't pay attention. But if they get in my face and chew with their mouth open saying "mnnya mmmhhnya GOOD!" that will like totally tinkle me off. Though, I do like apple pie.
You see where I'm coming from? The video thing really gets me. I'm not afraid I'll "turn gay" (I don't believe anyone can - your eaither gay or not IMHO). I'm sure being gay has certain things that are nice (for gays), they certainly have more partners to pick from and thats never a Bad Thing (tm) hell in that respect I wish I were gay. I'm pretty "in touch" with myself and do not believe my revulsion towards gay sex is deep rooted psychological problem, its just kind of like pumkin pie: I don't like it. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
#174 · Jan 18, 2005, 22:13 · Tyciol
You are pretty messed up, I'll never understand you. Pumpkin pie kicks butt.
#175 · Jan 21, 2005, 02:19 · Berserk
"Some are EUNUCHS BY BIRTH; others were made that way by men, and others have become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."
In Hebrew/Aramaic the term "eunuch" often bears a figurative meaning. Thus, the NIV rightly translates the assertion "others have become eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" as "others have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." In rabbinic Judaism, the expression "eunuchs by birth" can bear the figurative sense "those who for whatever reason lack a conventional sex drive." Gays would have presumably been included under this umbrella. In Jewish society most of these gays would have been well closeted.
This observation is important for two reasons. (1) There is no censorious tone in Jesus' reference to these people. (2) The modern concept of sex orientation is absent in the ancient world. But Jesus' phrase assumes nothing "unnatural" about the "eunuchs from birth" and their implied lack of a heterosexual sex drive.
#176 · Jan 21, 2005, 04:02 · Nostic
Quote from: Tyciol I think everyone's a potential homo and heterosexualLOL, blunt as ever. If nothing else, you sure do set yourself apart Tyciol.
You are pretty messed up, I'll never understand you. Pumpkin pie kicks [edit].
#177 · Jan 21, 2005, 08:23 · Joerii
Quote from: Tyciol I think everyone's a potential homo and heterosexualYes, some good research supports this. For those interested, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Sedgewick check out this site.
I myself believe that most people are no 100 % attracted to men or woman, that it's always a little mixed, it's just mixed differently for different people. A person with 50/50 attraction to both sexes might choose not to express his/her gay side, or be a happy bisexual. It even happens all the time that people ( men for example that are, say, 95% gay ) choose to live a hetero ( and probably MISERABLE ) life because there culture forces them to be.
Any thoughts ?
#178 · Jan 26, 2005, 12:18 · who_am_i
the universe intended men to be with men. you know our generation really should shape up because before you know it in 50 years from now were going to have the same argument but it's not going to be with homosexuals. its going to be with pedophiles. No one gets sent to Hell we do a fine job of volunteering for the job.
#179 · Jan 26, 2005, 13:32 · soma-sight
#180 · Jan 26, 2005, 15:00 · J.K.
Nature, however, gives me a different perspective that's not so easily misinterpreted. I'm reminded that single cell organisms never really die. They simply split themselves, forming a carbon copy, and thus unless one is smashed or becomes damaged or something - in essenese they have eternal life. - A great change occurs, however, the moment you introduce sexual reproduction into the mix. At that moment in nature you have the first instance of death. And what this tells me (in my own interpretation) is that at some point along the evolutionary chain nature made a decision that the concept of "male/female - He created them" was literally something of such value it was worth dying for.
A hopeless romantic's notion perhaps - but lol -that's me..
Having said that then it should prolly come as no suprize that I see homosexuality as something goes against nature - and something that exists in contradicion to the evolutionary progress of man - which I see as Divine. Nevertheless, I'm rarely outspoken on the issue. The reason is twofold..
1) Like most folks (and in this I would include those who are overtly anti-gay) I can imagine two people of the opposite sex sincerely falling in love with one another. I can also further imagine that their sexual preference (in some cases) has largely been formed by some rather nasty hetrosexual parents and an unhappy childhood. Again, not in all cases but some.
If that be the case, it seems rather odd for God to comdemn the child later in life when God should have been there protecting the child earlier in life. - We come through our parents but we are not 'of our parents.' And certainly one of the duties of a Creator would be to look over His creation. If He has failed to do that, then it's simply afront to reason that the child should have to bear the price for his absence of protection.
2) The biggest reason I'm not usually vocal about it though is because, especially lately, it seems to be the issue most from the far right are using to see themselves as "goodness" - when that's really just an illusion.
Two cases in point. First, homosexuality is now being hailed as "that which will destroy the insitution of marriage in this country." - But duuuuuhhh... Look around. Those who are doing that are for the most part the far right-wing Protestants - who in case you haven't noticed are the very ones who did destroy the concept of 'marriage - life ever after.'
Serial monogomy aint marriage..
And imho, that's exactly what you have condoned by the right-wing Protestant faith. The biblical concept of marriage was torn down by the Protestants long before the homosexuals were even an issue. By shifting the focus now onto the homosexuals rather than themselves, however, they're able to see themselves as 'goodness.'
This is an illusion.
Then (and I don't mean to be graphic but just give another example of how folks fail to look within) there is also the issue of fantasies about bi-sexual girls. I'm willing to bet that 80% of the men we see on our televisions condeming homosexuals go home after making their speech and indulge in a bit of this fantasy themselves - up to and including to the point where the fantasy becomes real or at least real enough. And thereafter exit the experience kinda forgetting about it and not considering themselves "gay."
What I would suggest though is that if a hetrosexual man finds within himself the entertainment of this fantasy - he's just as much attracted to homosexuality as the participants he's envisioning. He may not be homosexual himself - but he's attracted to the same thing.'
I wonder how many anti-gay male pastors have within themselves this fantasy? I wonder how many have even taken the time to consider what it makes them? - I dare to venture it's very few.
In the end then, I'd just say that whatever the issue is - the answer is not finding the sin outside you. It's finding the sin within. I'd also suggest that the more vocal a person becomes in pointing out sin apart from themselves (it's over here, it's there, it's that) the more clearly we can see that the person has not yet taken the inward journey.
#181 · Jan 26, 2005, 15:35 · Nostic
Quote from: who_am_i it always amazes me how this generations will gain acceptance with things that have repulsed the last generation. In my believe I am against. I do believe souls are asexual but this realm unfortunately for some people is physicaland I'm sorry but you're never going to convince me nature, God,
the universe intended men to be with men. you know our generation really should shape up because before you know it in 50 years from now were going to have the same argument but it's not going to be with homosexuals. its going to be with pedophiles. No one gets sent to Hell we do a fine job of volunteering for the job.
#182 · Jan 26, 2005, 16:08 · Nostic
Quote from: J.K.LOL, when I read that, I get something totally different. How I see it is, once you introduce duality into the picture, death must ensue. Immortality is WHOLE, so when you split it, you no longer have immortality.
Nature, however, gives me a different perspective that's not so easily misinterpreted. I'm reminded that single cell organisms never really die. They simply split themselves, forming a carbon copy, and thus unless one is smashed or becomes damaged or something - in essenese they have eternal life. - A great change occurs, however, the moment you introduce sexual reproduction into the mix. At that moment in nature you have the first instance of death. And what this tells me (in my own interpretation) is that at some point along the evolutionary chain nature made a decision that the concept of "male/female - He created them" was literally something of such value it was worth dying for.
A hopeless romantic's notion perhaps - but lol -that's me..
I think the greater point is not to focus on anyone outside of yourself, but to focus within. People, in general, look for that other person to fill that void that they have within themselves. But it's never enough. There will still be something missing.
I have a theory actually about why it seems that homosexuality appears to be on the rise. Weather that is the case or not, I have no idea, but at the very least, it's obvious that it's more visible than before. Anyway, my theory: I think people, over many lifetimes have already tried the "heterosexual thing". They have thoroughly experienced it, know what it's like, and have seen that the opposite sex does not fulfill them. So in time, over lives, they decide to see if the same sex will instead make them fulfilled. It's a fruitless effort however. It's not about that other person, male or female. There will never be a total satisfaction until you are whole within yourself. Until, within yourself, you have perfectly balanced, incorporated, and thus transcended both principles (the feminine and the masculine), there will be no rest.
#183 · Jan 26, 2005, 17:47 · Frank
It is an argument I have heard before that homosexuality is somehow against nature. As if "nature" were a separate thing that just came about by chance. Which always makes me giggle as we created it. Likewise, we created the notion of evolution. It's just a believe construct and has no bearing in the wider reality.
When we choose to come to this place we call here, we all participate as male and female plus one "other". That is, either as homosexual male or a homosexual female. So everyone has at least 3 parallel focuses (and some have even more). There is nothing whatever abnormal about being homosexual. I am my heterosexual male focus and I enjoy playing that role immensely. I just hope my parallels are enjoying the same in their respective roles. After all, that is what we are here to experience and it sure beats fighting each other over whose god is the rightest.
Procreation is a construct we engage in for the benefits of our experience. It has nothing whatever to do with the survival of our species, lol.
Yours,
Frank
#184 · Jan 26, 2005, 19:03 · Rob
No, I'm not joking!
This would seem to imply it is natural in humans.
The argument has been stated elsewhere (not on this site) that the eating of offspring also occurs in nature, but that doesn't mean we should do it. This argument is false because, to the best of my knowledge, homosexuality in universal in nature, whereas murdering your children isnt.
Rob
#185 · Jan 26, 2005, 19:43 · no_leaf_clover
#186 · Jan 26, 2005, 19:44 · karnautrahl
I know my sexuality is not wrong. I have had a number of years to think about it. A number of years to examine my own heart and meditate on the issue. No qualms about my lifestyle pop up. Qualms about my choices of partner(s) have done of course. Now I have met my soul mate.
It's not about the "sex", never was, people get hung up on that. It's nonsense to be hung up on the physical act, as if that's the most important thing you can do with your partner! Narrow minded to say the least.
It's about the mental, emotional and spiritual connection you have with another being.
I feel that a few people's minds would literally crack if they had to open them to allow for the fact that such relationships can be and are as deeply natural and soul connecting as heterosexual relationships. Shame really, but I guess some peoples very narrow boxes are supremely comforting to what might otherwise be seen as an insecure mind.
Inguma, I've seen the same stuff too. I seen it happen as well
.
#187 · Jan 26, 2005, 21:19 · Frank
Yeah, absolutely right, well said!
Yours,
Frank
#188 · Jan 26, 2005, 21:43 · Telos
Quote I know my sexuality is not wrong. I have had a number of years to think about it. A number of years to examine my own heart and meditate on the issue. No qualms about my lifestyle pop up. Qualms about my choices of partner(s) have done of course. Now I have met my soul mate.Do you think it's possible to have just as strong an emotional, mental and spiritual connection with someone without having sex?
It's not about the "sex", never was, people get hung up on that. It's nonsense to be hung up on the physical act, as if that's the most important thing you can do with your partner! Narrow minded to say the least. It's about the mental, emotional and spiritual connection you have with another being.
#189 · Jan 27, 2005, 04:06 · karnautrahl
We don't have to argue either, we read each other's minds easily (though he's a skeptic). We are different enough, wildly so in many ways that there's variety but we like enough things together so that it's easy to share good times.
I'm lucky however because I have a particular sexual interest that normally would scupper a relationship based on any sex so i am slightly biased. I do not feel a lack however, niether does he.
Sex is either loving procreation in a heterosexual relationship or perhaps the giving of sensual pleasure between a couple. I'm guessing obviously from my own experiences but yes, I'm confident that I've met my soul mate and don't need to add extra security with sex particularly.