It was not my argument. . . . it was from the website I linked to. . . I am not really qualified to judge the private consensual sex lives of others. . . nor would I want to . . . . doesn't really fall under my jurisdiction. :)
It isn't really a sin against me. . . if it is true that it is a sin against a holy God. . . . people will have to reckon that out between them and their maker.
One of my earliest memories and fears was a spiral staircase. I remember as a toddler choosing the narrowest part of the stairs to traverse downward. I remember at least two very marked homosexual fantasies as a toddler. I will not divulge them in detail now, yet. Surely before I was well before age five. Lusting secretly after other males in my life with profound, err, LOVE... that I have never been able to forget. I was never molested, it was a "natural" choice.
I just wonder.. did you happen to have some kind of experience.. looked at some kind of light.. everything kinda just melted away.. and you just happened to barely survive..
I don't know...a sense of proportion, or keeping things in persepctive, maybe? With all the violence going on in the world and with man busy destroying the earth, why would God be concerned with gay sex?
I've heard some wacked-out religious nut jobs (Jerry Falwell, etc.) declare that HIV/AIDS is God's punishment for gay sex. To believe that that God punishes gays while they are here on earth but does not punish serial killers, mass murders or pedophiles while they are here on earth is ludicrous.
The Lord God Almighty is concerned with all of humanity. I do not believe He just picks and chooses the causes He stands for, but is concerned with everyone's salvation, that no one will be cast permanently from His presence.
The Romans and Corinthians verses seem to support your argument (I'm not entirely conviced) but Leviticus? Come on...here's a book that tells us about burnt offerings, blood sacrifices and skin diseases. It goes on to tell us about male "discharges" (nocturnal emissions? venereal disease? it doesn't specify), how long males and females are "unclean" after their respective "discharges" (don't touch a menstruating female or you'll be unclean until sundown -- that's a good one).
Sorry about the sarcasm.
The Book of Leviticus holds little moral or spiritual value for modern man. It's pure fiction with no redeeming value that I can see.
Women were considered to be unclean strictly because of the blood. Blood was used in the sacrificial system but it was blood freshly spilled. However, when a woman has her menses, the blood is not fresh, but is already old, so to speak, which is why it is being discarded. As soon as the body determines that the egg has not been fertilized, the blood rich lining begins to be cast out. The woman was unclean during her menses and unclean for an additional 7 days afterwards so that there wouldn't be any traces left. This also gave a woman 2 weeks off from her husband and children. I dint kno, but the system sometimes seemed to have some perks with it, if you know what I mean. LOL
I disageee. Every survey of homosexuals that I've ever seen indicates that homosexuality is most often not a choice. Most report that they've always felt that way, or at least since puberty.
Homosexuality is usally derived rom iniquity from the foreparents. But it is still the choise of the person to choose to sin in this manner, it is not inevitable that a person with this iniquity will absolutely sin. You're right, it is their choise to sin and doesn't belong to anyone else.
Before puberty my sexuality involved simply lust in the midst of many unknowns. My sexuality did not change from that initial state. Once puberty set in my sexuality just evolved. :)
...it is still the choise of the person to choose to sin in this manner
It's also the choice of heterosexuals to fornicate and commit adultery, yet I don't see people who choose to commit those sins being branded, discriminated against or victimized, as are many gay people.
I don't know where all this discussion has gone (haven't read the whole thread), but a couple of humanities classes led me on a tangent a couple of years ago which really altered my idea of context in the "biblical" discussion of homosexuality.
My understanding is that in the Greek era, same sex sex were fine as long as you weren't the one that was being penetrated. So it was weaker men and male children who were penetrated. Homosexual sex was an act of over-lording. In the Roman era, same sex sex was encouraged in the armies because it was believed to be beneficial to building relationships, but men would go home to their wives or at some other point get married. The relationship was not sacred. Within the pagan community (which was just about everyone), there was a good amount of ritual sex. Some of that may have been in the context of sacred, but there was probably a good amount of it that wasn't.
I think the bible speaks against any kind of sex that is not based on love and commitment as being wrong. It always speaks of sex being "wrong" whenever the act is done outside the sacred relationship.
So perhaps it's the context of the act, not the sex of the people that's important.
Pagan or not I think you have the right idea here.
And not the sex but the men with men not knowing who they are.
But seriously, ... where'd you get that garbage anyway? ... Yes, that's right. I called it garbage.
<_<
I absolutely agree this time Garth. :) Blame parents because you have a hangnail? Sometime parents are to blame for instance a parent who uses hard drugs or drinks alcohol during pregnancy but there are many diseases that are simply the luck of the draw when it comes to DNA. Also if it was based solely upon parents why is there statistically the more kids parents have the more likely a child will come out gay... And of most twins usually one is gay... Is this traced to ancestral origins? and sin? or the NATURAL way that biology and sexuality is determined in the womb? I vote for the latter. Over millions of years of evolution, evolution dictates that the more kids a person has the less likely that the latter children will need to procreate. Blaming parents for the way DNA works is barbaric. I would rather live naturally in homosexuality than to deny it because some book wants me to blame the two wonderful parents I had. Consider if Jesus did have allot of brothers and sisters the probability of one of them being gay was quite high. Also, only in the last 100 years or so have people been living beyond age forty, and Jesus was about thirty and unmarried? People usually had their teeth rotted out by age 20...
It's also the choice of heterosexuals to fornicate and commit adultery, yet I don't see people who choose to commit those sins being branded, discriminated against or victimized, as are many gay people.
Makes you wonder why. . . . I have a theory. . . . part of it is the politicalization of homosexuality by gay activists. . . . . which was responded in kind by the evangelical community. . . . who have a history of politicizing issues.
Once it becomes political, those with a competing agenda, become an enemy to be vanquished. . . . not a field of harvest.
The Christian right is a political movement. . . . not a Christian movement. . . . it pushes an agenda and takes no prisoners.
The biblical response to any kind of sin is repentance and forgiveness. . . . and we are to love our enemies not brand them. . . . God's kingdom is not furthered by the ballot box.
Blame parents because you have a hangnail? Sometime parents are to blame for instance a parent who uses hard drugs or drinks alcohol during pregnancy but there are many diseases that are simply the luck of the draw when it comes to DNA. Also if it was based solely upon parents why is there statistically the more kids parents have the more likely a child will come out gay... And of most twins usually one is gay... Is this traced to ancestral origins? and sin? or the NATURAL way that biology and sexuality is determined in the womb? I vote for the latter. Over millions of years of evolution, evolution dictates that the more kids a person has the less likely that the latter children will need to procreate. Blaming parents for the way DNA works is barbaric. I would rather live naturally in homosexuality than to deny it because some book wants me to blame the two wonderful parents I had.
Intentionally or not, you seem to imply that their is something to "blame" for, as if being gay is a biological mistake, or a curse of some kind. And maybe for some people it is. But even though the thought of men having sex may be "detestable" to me, I don't believe their is anything inherently "wrong" with being gay or having gay sex.
First of all, neither the human race (more than 90% straight) nor any other vertebrate species is now, or would ever be in danger of becoming extinct due to some mass conversion to homosexuality on the part of its members.
Secondly, even though homosexuality may seem unnatural or disgusting to me, I defend homosexuals' rights to live peacefully without discrimination, reproof or condemnation by anyone who doesn't like their lifestyle.
Anyway, the propensity for homosexuality, as far as the data can tell, is probably at least 50% genetically-determined in most cases. And in the end, who cares? Most of us choose to have sex at various times with whoever we choose. In western civilization this is an assumed right. We don't expect intrusive questions from anyone about who we do what with.
Finally, to the extent that all of your genes come from your biological parents, then sure, we can all go ahead and "blame the parents" if we want to. Social behavior is determined both biologically and by learning. As a father of twin boys who were raised the same way, I can testify with certainly that personality is largely determined by genetic factors. Most people can agree to that, especially those with twins or multiple-siblings in the family.
Intentionally or not, you seem to imply that their is something to "blame" for, as if being gay is a biological mistake, or a curse of some kind. And maybe for some people it is. But even though the thought of men having sex may be "detestable" to me, I don't believe their is anything inherently "wrong" with being gay or having gay sex.
First of all, neither the human race (more than 90% straight) nor any other vertebrate species is now, or would ever be in danger of becoming extinct due to some mass conversion to homosexuality on the part of its members.
Secondly, even though homosexuality may seem unnatural or disgusting to me, I defend homosexuals' rights to live peacefully without discrimination, reproof or condemnation by anyone who doesn't like their lifestyle.
Anyway, the propensity for homosexuality, as far as the data can tell, is probably at least 50% genetically-determined in most cases. And in the end, who cares? Most of us choose to have sex at various times with whoever we choose. In western civilization this is an assumed right. We don't expect intrusive questions from anyone about who we do what with.
Finally, to the extent that all of your genes come from your biological parents, then sure, we can all go ahead and "blame the parents" if we want to. Social behavior is determined both biologically and by learning. As a father of twin boys who were raised the same way, I can testify with certainly that personality is largely determined by genetic factors. Most people can agree to that, especially those with twins or multiple-siblings in the family.
Are you saying you wouldn't sleep with Brad Pitt? Common... be honest. :) (just kidding)
So we aren't what we feed our minds upon? Believing does not equal receiving?
Does that mean my dad was gay too? (I doubt it)
I think the sin here is using superlatives to frame our reference regarding the diversity of people.
Makes you wonder why. . . . I have a theory. . . . part of it is the politicalization of homosexuality by gay activists. . . . . which was responded in kind by the evangelical community. . . . who have a history of politicizing issues.
Once it becomes political, those with a competing agenda, become an enemy to be vanquished. . . . not a field of harvest.
The Christian right is a political movement. . . . not a Christian movement. . . . it pushes an agenda and takes no prisoners.
The biblical response to any kind of sin is repentance and forgiveness. . . . and we are to love our enemies not brand them. . . . God's kingdom is not furthered by the ballot box.
Nice post Geisha.
Unfortunately God's kingdom is not always furthered by believing in the Bible either.
So then what actually is our rule of faith and practice... feelings?
I live by my feelings not by the written word of God.
What did the supposed apostles use to write the word but their feelings? Call it the revelation of Jesus Christ or simply call it self imposed judgment. Women obey their husbands? Does that sound loving? Men (male chauvinists) have carried this to such an extreme that many women are not permitted be educated or show their faces and they still in many countries walk ten paces behind a man because of this false word... A woman should have equal rights to speak her mind and do as she pleases and if the husband doesn't like it, well, he has a choice to simply find another love slave to lord over... A woman is to obey their husband then God, err, the "father"? This is simply another form of religiously controlled bondage. With "revelation" like this who needs the written word?
The truth shall make you free indeed? So, slaves obey your masters? This is not the word of God this is slyly and cunningly the word of despots, power greedy kings and rulers of this world. Shouldn't slaves also seek to be just as free as their masters? Isn't that THE TRUTH? This Bible fits like glove on a foot... I must in light of this resort to living by my feelings and try and forget much of what I have learned from this errant book.
Doesn't the Bible also say the word is written in our hearts? May all the plagues befall me spoken of in this book if I don't agree to the Bible's new testament form of BONDAGE? So we are free indeed BUT with a few catches. Husbands love your wives as if she was a man (Christ) and women be good "sons" of God... Somehow this all doesn't fit in my brain anymore...
It just doesn't FEEL right...
I dived right into "the word", I believed it and now I suffer from the recompense of that error which is meet.
I just had an incredibly tasty steamed Maine Lobster. yummmmmmmmmmmmm
If I ever have to choose between heaven and lobster --Im definitely going with the lobster
I'll even up the ante on the off topic reference - :offtopic:
if I had to choose between a burger at Hooters or a lobster cocktail at a gay bar.. . and we're talking strictly about food preferences and not preferred social settings - I'm going for the lobster cocktail.. .btw, not into Hooters anyway - more of a leg man myself.
Since this is the doctrinal forum I'll quote one of my favorite theologians, Rev. Jeff Foxworthy: "I'd like a beer and I'd like to see something naked.".. . uhm ok then, if I had to choose between having a beer at Hooters or a beer at a gay bar, maybe I would go to Hooters then.
Makes you wonder why. . . . I have a theory. . . . part of it is the politicalization of homosexuality by gay activists. . . . . which was responded in kind by the evangelical community. . . . who have a history of politicizing issues.
I think you're right but I think it goes even deeper. I think many individuals, cutting across all political persuasions and cultural groups, are revolted by and/or afraid of homosexuality. It's uncomfortable to have to explain to your kids why those two men are walking hand-in-hand, or why little Johnny in my class has "two daddies."
People just don't want to be presented with those situations.
Never underestimate the effects of fear and ignorance.
I live by my feelings not by the written word of God.
What did the supposed apostles use to write the word but their feelings? Call it the revelation of Jesus Christ or simply call it self imposed judgment. Women obey their husbands? Does that sound loving? Men (male chauvinists) have carried this to such an extreme that many women are not permitted be educated or show their faces and they still in many countries walk ten paces behind a man because of this false word... A woman should have equal rights to speak her mind and do as she pleases and if the husband doesn't like it, well, he has a choice to simply find another love slave to lord over... A woman is to obey their husband then God, err, the "father"? This is simply another form of religiously controlled bondage. With "revelation" like this who needs the written word?
The truth shall make you free indeed? So, slaves obey your masters? This is not the word of God this is slyly and cunningly the word of despots, power greedy kings and rulers of this world. Shouldn't slaves also seek to be just as free as their masters? Isn't that THE TRUTH? This Bible fits like glove on a foot... I must in light of this resort to living by my feelings and try and forget much of what I have learned from this errant book.
Doesn't the Bible also say the word is written in our hearts? May all the plagues befall me spoken of in this book if I don't agree to the Bible's new testament form of BONDAGE? So we are free indeed BUT with a few catches. Husbands love your wives as if she was a man (Christ) and women be good "sons" of God... Somehow this all doesn't fit in my brain anymore...
It just doesn't FEEL right...
I dived right into "the word", I believed it and now I suffer from the recompense of that error which is meet.
Jesus was actually revolutionary in the way He interacted with women in that culture. . . they were counted among His disciples in a time when women were not allowed to study the scrolls. . . . . . He crossed ethnic, cultural, and gender boundaries with the Samaritan woman at the well. He had one of the most intense theological discussions recorded. . . . with her. He appeared first to women after the resurrection in a time when women were not considered reliable witnesses. . . and in His dying moments in pain and agony. . . saw to His mother's continued care.
I don't really think Paul is opposing the witness of Jesus' life with this admonition. Having been married to the same man. . . . longer than not. . . .I can attest to the dynamic which naturally occurs in most long term relationships. . . . that of one person emerging as more dominate in certain matters. It happens in same sex couples too. It happens in most partnerships. That is not to say. . . . dominate over the other person. . . . .
Couples can work it out however they like . . . conveying or relinquishing authority in whatever way works within the confines of an equal partnership. What happens when two dominate personalities are in relationship to each other? It doesn't work if there is not give and take.
Paul is just advising on a natural dynamic. . . . women. . . submit to your husbands authority. . . a husband and wife have to work out that authority within that equal partnership. . . the same natural dynamic pops up in same sex unions. One person will be submitting in some area or another. . . . we all do.
There is neither male nor female. . . bond nor free . . . but all are one. . . . in the Lord.
How people extrapolate from what is written doesn't render it any less true or relevant. . . . in many ways it illustrates many of scriptures points.
You mentioned living by feelings. . . . yeah amen . . . we are human. . . . I don't think the bible is a book telling you how you should feel, but more to explain and help us with the myriad of feelings we do have naturally. It is not a book of rules, or moral conduct as much as . . . . it is a book pointing to a person. . . in whom all these things fit together. . . . that is where it all makes sense. . . . in relationship to Christ.
Without Him. . . it is often used as a weapon to wound or divide. There is real freedom in Christ. . . deep, personal and liberating life.
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
There is no freedom in a book of rules and laws. . . . it just highlights our inability and the futility of it all. Look at a book. . . you get the book. . . look to the one it points to. . . you get some answers. :)
Jesus was actually revolutionary in the way He interacted with women in that culture. . . they were counted among His disciples in a time when women were not allowed to study the scrolls. . . . . . He crossed ethnic, cultural, and gender boundaries with the Samaritan woman at the well. He had one of the most intense theological discussions recorded. . . . with her. He appeared first to women after the resurrection in a time when women were not considered reliable witnesses. . . and in His dying moments in pain and agony. . . saw to His mother's continued care.
I don't really think Paul is opposing the witness of Jesus' life with this admonition. Having been married to the same man. . . . longer than not. . . .I can attest to the dynamic which naturally occurs in most long term relationships. . . . that of one person emerging as more dominate in certain matters. It happens in same sex couples too. It happens in most partnerships. That is not to say. . . . dominate over the other person. . . . .
Couples can work it out however they like . . . conveying or relinquishing authority in whatever way works within the confines of an equal partnership. What happens when two dominate personalities are in relationship to each other? It doesn't work if there is not give and take.
Paul is just advising on a natural dynamic. . . . women. . . submit to your husbands authority. . . a husband and wife have to work out that authority within that equal partnership. . . the same natural dynamic pops up in same sex unions. One person will be submitting in some area or another. . . . we all do.
There is neither male nor female. . . bond nor free . . . but all are one. . . . in the Lord.
How people extrapolate from what is written doesn't render it any less true or relevant. . . . in many ways it illustrates many of scriptures points.
You mentioned living by feelings. . . . yeah amen . . . we are human. . . . I don't think the bible is a book telling you how you should feel, but more to explain and help us with the myriad of feelings we do have naturally. It is not a book of rules, or moral conduct as much as . . . . it is a book pointing to a person. . . in whom all these things fit together. . . . that is where it all makes sense. . . . in relationship to Christ.
Without Him. . . it is often used as a weapon to wound or divide. There is real freedom in Christ. . . deep, personal and liberating life.
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
There is no freedom in a book of rules and laws. . . . it just highlights our inability and the futility of it all. Look at a book. . . you get the book. . . look to the one it points to. . . you get some answers. :)
I understand and sense your heart in this matter Geisha. I also appreciate your attempt to shed light on these difficult passages to myself and the other readers here.
Things might be fine with me and "the word" had the word said what you said here... but it does not speak in terms of dominant and submissive but, husband and wife, it speaks in terms of male and female (Paul makes that rather clear) while in the the same breath the Bible says there is neither male nor female. Thus in its ambiguity and fuzzy logic, women to this day still remain captives to male chauvinistic societal perspectives in many countries including our own (USA). Our country which is the freest in the world still holds women to a different standard than men. Young promiscuous men are perceived as "sowing wild oats", how romantic (cynical), while promiscuous women are scorned and labeled with unspeakable degenerate titles.
Thus, by the same token, pedophile women get a slap on the wrist... and, attractive people are spared from punishment while unattractive people suffer the full measure of the law. (Though I digress, something for another topic...) I recall Dr Wierwille saying once that when a man is a homosexual God is displeased but when a woman becomes a lesbian "God spits". That is perhaps the worst thing I have ever heard uttered by a human being... It made me proclaim in my heart that "God is a lesbian" just to repair the damage DW did to my mind.
It seems suspicious that if the Bible had not offered men, at least, one female to lord over, men (who rarely think with their brains) may not have been attracted to the budding religion contained therein and would maybe have gone to Roman paganism instead.
As is, it seems more contrived rather than liberating. As is, it leaves a lopsided loophole in many ethical instances, a slippery sliding scale so that people are judged unevenly and thus many can rationalize inappropriate behavior based upon that self proclaimed "divinely inspired" perception.
Perhaps if you were to rewrite some of this "word of God" I might believe it. :)
And Jesus has been standing at the altar for 2000 years waiting for his "bride"...
"I recall Dr Wierwille saying once that when a man is a homosexual God is displeased but when a woman becomes a lesbian "God spits". That is perhaps the worst thing I have ever heard uttered by a human being... It made me proclaim in my heart that "God is a lesbian" just to repair the damage DW did to my mind."
Why would you give any credibility at all to that worthless piece of dung?
What is not much better than a witch hunt? And what makes you think most of us don't have gay people in our lives? Friends whom we love. . . . and speak to almost daily. Amazingly enough, you can be Christian and love a homosexual at the same time.
Dr WW,
You are right. . . there are male and female. . . but, that verse in which there is neither male nor female. . . is speaking of all being one . . . . in the Lord. It is in relationship to Christ.
Jesus, while on earth treated women with equality. . . . not of roles so much. . . we all have different roles at times. . . . but, of value. :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
17
16
Popular Days
Jun 11
47
Jun 9
16
Dec 22
14
Jun 10
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 15 posts
rhino 17 posts
cman 17 posts
DrWearWord 16 posts
Popular Days
Jun 11 2008
47 posts
Jun 9 2008
16 posts
Dec 22 2009
14 posts
Jun 10 2008
11 posts
Popular Posts
rhino
No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of applicat
rhino
It is YOUR judgment that I have harassed and need to justify anything. And the fact that other people are involved is why I want to get be sure the record is set straight. To be more straight forwar
rhino
I respond when the lies and accusations are repeated. I generally have not responded when someone else chimes in with their support against those hateful close minded people, unless I am addressed by
geisha779
Soul Searcher,
It was not my argument. . . . it was from the website I linked to. . . I am not really qualified to judge the private consensual sex lives of others. . . nor would I want to . . . . doesn't really fall under my jurisdiction. :)
It isn't really a sin against me. . . if it is true that it is a sin against a holy God. . . . people will have to reckon that out between them and their maker.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I don't have any sons. At least not that I am aware of.
That is all. Carry on..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I just wonder.. did you happen to have some kind of experience.. looked at some kind of light.. everything kinda just melted away.. and you just happened to barely survive..
I had something like that happen..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi #
# Ham,
# brideofjc,
# nowayhozay
thanks
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Homosexuality is usally derived rom iniquity from the foreparents. But it is still the choise of the person to choose to sin in this manner, it is not inevitable that a person with this iniquity will absolutely sin. You're right, it is their choise to sin and doesn't belong to anyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Before puberty my sexuality involved simply lust in the midst of many unknowns. My sexuality did not change from that initial state. Once puberty set in my sexuality just evolved. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oh great! Blame the parents! ...
But seriously, ... where'd you get that garbage anyway? ... Yes, that's right. I called it garbage.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"when a woman has her menses, the blood is not fresh, but is already old, so to speak, which is why it is being discarded."
This is not consistent with our current knowledge of female physiology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
It's also the choice of heterosexuals to fornicate and commit adultery, yet I don't see people who choose to commit those sins being branded, discriminated against or victimized, as are many gay people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Speaking of abominations
I just had an incredibly tasty steamed Maine Lobster. yummmmmmmmmmmmm
If I ever have to choose between heaven and lobster --Im definitely going with the lobster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Pagan or not I think you have the right idea here.
And not the sex but the men with men not knowing who they are.
WORKING that which is unseemly. It's not natural.
No feminine qualities at all.
War is men with men, masculine and masculine.
Power, control, domination which is to be there.
But without the feminine nature we all have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I absolutely agree this time Garth. :) Blame parents because you have a hangnail? Sometime parents are to blame for instance a parent who uses hard drugs or drinks alcohol during pregnancy but there are many diseases that are simply the luck of the draw when it comes to DNA. Also if it was based solely upon parents why is there statistically the more kids parents have the more likely a child will come out gay... And of most twins usually one is gay... Is this traced to ancestral origins? and sin? or the NATURAL way that biology and sexuality is determined in the womb? I vote for the latter. Over millions of years of evolution, evolution dictates that the more kids a person has the less likely that the latter children will need to procreate. Blaming parents for the way DNA works is barbaric. I would rather live naturally in homosexuality than to deny it because some book wants me to blame the two wonderful parents I had. Consider if Jesus did have allot of brothers and sisters the probability of one of them being gay was quite high. Also, only in the last 100 years or so have people been living beyond age forty, and Jesus was about thirty and unmarried? People usually had their teeth rotted out by age 20...
Male bonding
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Makes you wonder why. . . . I have a theory. . . . part of it is the politicalization of homosexuality by gay activists. . . . . which was responded in kind by the evangelical community. . . . who have a history of politicizing issues.
Once it becomes political, those with a competing agenda, become an enemy to be vanquished. . . . not a field of harvest.
The Christian right is a political movement. . . . not a Christian movement. . . . it pushes an agenda and takes no prisoners.
The biblical response to any kind of sin is repentance and forgiveness. . . . and we are to love our enemies not brand them. . . . God's kingdom is not furthered by the ballot box.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Intentionally or not, you seem to imply that their is something to "blame" for, as if being gay is a biological mistake, or a curse of some kind. And maybe for some people it is. But even though the thought of men having sex may be "detestable" to me, I don't believe their is anything inherently "wrong" with being gay or having gay sex.
First of all, neither the human race (more than 90% straight) nor any other vertebrate species is now, or would ever be in danger of becoming extinct due to some mass conversion to homosexuality on the part of its members.
Secondly, even though homosexuality may seem unnatural or disgusting to me, I defend homosexuals' rights to live peacefully without discrimination, reproof or condemnation by anyone who doesn't like their lifestyle.
Anyway, the propensity for homosexuality, as far as the data can tell, is probably at least 50% genetically-determined in most cases. And in the end, who cares? Most of us choose to have sex at various times with whoever we choose. In western civilization this is an assumed right. We don't expect intrusive questions from anyone about who we do what with.
Finally, to the extent that all of your genes come from your biological parents, then sure, we can all go ahead and "blame the parents" if we want to. Social behavior is determined both biologically and by learning. As a father of twin boys who were raised the same way, I can testify with certainly that personality is largely determined by genetic factors. Most people can agree to that, especially those with twins or multiple-siblings in the family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Are you saying you wouldn't sleep with Brad Pitt? Common... be honest. :) (just kidding)
So we aren't what we feed our minds upon? Believing does not equal receiving?
Does that mean my dad was gay too? (I doubt it)
I think the sin here is using superlatives to frame our reference regarding the diversity of people.
Nice post Geisha.
Unfortunately God's kingdom is not always furthered by believing in the Bible either.
So then what actually is our rule of faith and practice... feelings?
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I live by my feelings not by the written word of God.
What did the supposed apostles use to write the word but their feelings? Call it the revelation of Jesus Christ or simply call it self imposed judgment. Women obey their husbands? Does that sound loving? Men (male chauvinists) have carried this to such an extreme that many women are not permitted be educated or show their faces and they still in many countries walk ten paces behind a man because of this false word... A woman should have equal rights to speak her mind and do as she pleases and if the husband doesn't like it, well, he has a choice to simply find another love slave to lord over... A woman is to obey their husband then God, err, the "father"? This is simply another form of religiously controlled bondage. With "revelation" like this who needs the written word?
The truth shall make you free indeed? So, slaves obey your masters? This is not the word of God this is slyly and cunningly the word of despots, power greedy kings and rulers of this world. Shouldn't slaves also seek to be just as free as their masters? Isn't that THE TRUTH? This Bible fits like glove on a foot... I must in light of this resort to living by my feelings and try and forget much of what I have learned from this errant book.
Doesn't the Bible also say the word is written in our hearts? May all the plagues befall me spoken of in this book if I don't agree to the Bible's new testament form of BONDAGE? So we are free indeed BUT with a few catches. Husbands love your wives as if she was a man (Christ) and women be good "sons" of God... Somehow this all doesn't fit in my brain anymore...
It just doesn't FEEL right...
I dived right into "the word", I believed it and now I suffer from the recompense of that error which is meet.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
if I had to choose between a burger at Hooters or a lobster cocktail at a gay bar.. . and we're talking strictly about food preferences and not preferred social settings - I'm going for the lobster cocktail.. .btw, not into Hooters anyway - more of a leg man myself.
Since this is the doctrinal forum I'll quote one of my favorite theologians, Rev. Jeff Foxworthy: "I'd like a beer and I'd like to see something naked.".. . uhm ok then, if I had to choose between having a beer at Hooters or a beer at a gay bar, maybe I would go to Hooters then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If anyone could put it in the correct perspective, I knew it would be you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
I think you're right but I think it goes even deeper. I think many individuals, cutting across all political persuasions and cultural groups, are revolted by and/or afraid of homosexuality. It's uncomfortable to have to explain to your kids why those two men are walking hand-in-hand, or why little Johnny in my class has "two daddies."
People just don't want to be presented with those situations.
Never underestimate the effects of fear and ignorance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Jesus was actually revolutionary in the way He interacted with women in that culture. . . they were counted among His disciples in a time when women were not allowed to study the scrolls. . . . . . He crossed ethnic, cultural, and gender boundaries with the Samaritan woman at the well. He had one of the most intense theological discussions recorded. . . . with her. He appeared first to women after the resurrection in a time when women were not considered reliable witnesses. . . and in His dying moments in pain and agony. . . saw to His mother's continued care.
I don't really think Paul is opposing the witness of Jesus' life with this admonition. Having been married to the same man. . . . longer than not. . . .I can attest to the dynamic which naturally occurs in most long term relationships. . . . that of one person emerging as more dominate in certain matters. It happens in same sex couples too. It happens in most partnerships. That is not to say. . . . dominate over the other person. . . . .
Couples can work it out however they like . . . conveying or relinquishing authority in whatever way works within the confines of an equal partnership. What happens when two dominate personalities are in relationship to each other? It doesn't work if there is not give and take.
Paul is just advising on a natural dynamic. . . . women. . . submit to your husbands authority. . . a husband and wife have to work out that authority within that equal partnership. . . the same natural dynamic pops up in same sex unions. One person will be submitting in some area or another. . . . we all do.
There is neither male nor female. . . bond nor free . . . but all are one. . . . in the Lord.
How people extrapolate from what is written doesn't render it any less true or relevant. . . . in many ways it illustrates many of scriptures points.
You mentioned living by feelings. . . . yeah amen . . . we are human. . . . I don't think the bible is a book telling you how you should feel, but more to explain and help us with the myriad of feelings we do have naturally. It is not a book of rules, or moral conduct as much as . . . . it is a book pointing to a person. . . in whom all these things fit together. . . . that is where it all makes sense. . . . in relationship to Christ.
Without Him. . . it is often used as a weapon to wound or divide. There is real freedom in Christ. . . deep, personal and liberating life.
For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,"made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
There is no freedom in a book of rules and laws. . . . it just highlights our inability and the futility of it all. Look at a book. . . you get the book. . . look to the one it points to. . . you get some answers. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I understand and sense your heart in this matter Geisha. I also appreciate your attempt to shed light on these difficult passages to myself and the other readers here.
Things might be fine with me and "the word" had the word said what you said here... but it does not speak in terms of dominant and submissive but, husband and wife, it speaks in terms of male and female (Paul makes that rather clear) while in the the same breath the Bible says there is neither male nor female. Thus in its ambiguity and fuzzy logic, women to this day still remain captives to male chauvinistic societal perspectives in many countries including our own (USA). Our country which is the freest in the world still holds women to a different standard than men. Young promiscuous men are perceived as "sowing wild oats", how romantic (cynical), while promiscuous women are scorned and labeled with unspeakable degenerate titles.
Thus, by the same token, pedophile women get a slap on the wrist... and, attractive people are spared from punishment while unattractive people suffer the full measure of the law. (Though I digress, something for another topic...) I recall Dr Wierwille saying once that when a man is a homosexual God is displeased but when a woman becomes a lesbian "God spits". That is perhaps the worst thing I have ever heard uttered by a human being... It made me proclaim in my heart that "God is a lesbian" just to repair the damage DW did to my mind.
It seems suspicious that if the Bible had not offered men, at least, one female to lord over, men (who rarely think with their brains) may not have been attracted to the budding religion contained therein and would maybe have gone to Roman paganism instead.
As is, it seems more contrived rather than liberating. As is, it leaves a lopsided loophole in many ethical instances, a slippery sliding scale so that people are judged unevenly and thus many can rationalize inappropriate behavior based upon that self proclaimed "divinely inspired" perception.
Perhaps if you were to rewrite some of this "word of God" I might believe it. :)
And Jesus has been standing at the altar for 2000 years waiting for his "bride"...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"I recall Dr Wierwille saying once that when a man is a homosexual God is displeased but when a woman becomes a lesbian "God spits". That is perhaps the worst thing I have ever heard uttered by a human being... It made me proclaim in my heart that "God is a lesbian" just to repair the damage DW did to my mind."
Why would you give any credibility at all to that worthless piece of dung?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
This is not much better then a witch hunt.
The lack of understanding of the way we are made leads to misunderstanding.
Why not talk to a 'homosexual' person, you might be surprised.
Feminine and masculine is part of every person.
Bringing them out in the open is scary to some.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
What is not much better than a witch hunt? And what makes you think most of us don't have gay people in our lives? Friends whom we love. . . . and speak to almost daily. Amazingly enough, you can be Christian and love a homosexual at the same time.
Dr WW,
You are right. . . there are male and female. . . but, that verse in which there is neither male nor female. . . is speaking of all being one . . . . in the Lord. It is in relationship to Christ.
Jesus, while on earth treated women with equality. . . . not of roles so much. . . we all have different roles at times. . . . but, of value. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.