Jump to content

Homosexuality & Christianity


BeachOfEden

Recommended Posts

g0ys believe it clearly states in the bible that same sex attractions are not wrong but specific acts which cause harm (the anus/rectum lining is very fragile) to a persons body is wrong.  Were told to treat our bodies as temples.

Absolutely, there are physical and psychological sexual practices that do harm, and have to be taken into account in any responsible Christian morality of sexuality. It's not just about "doing what you want as long as you're not hurting anybody else." As the temple of God, you don't have the right to harm yourself either. Even if we may disagree on whether anal sex is always harmful, we substantially agree in principle, which is the important thing.

 

Although someone mentioned sex with animals in previous post about it being completely safe.  Sorry Syphilis came from men having sex with sheep.  So animal sex/beastiality is rightly considered wrong.

Yes, but I don't think it's for this reason. Even if there were no health connections, I think one would surely have to continue to say that it's immoral on other grounds. Psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, the sacred bond of sex is a communion of equals. It's the same reason sex with children is immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I very much agree with you. Alot of peopel don't realize that the bible is actually a book of Law. God is described as the Lawgiver/Lawmaker and Judge. So I think the morality issue is important because by being morally correct... far difference from being Politically Correct there are stark differences in behavior both private and public within a person. I don't want the conversaion to be specifically about denouncing anal and all who practice it are evil, thats hardly fair to say.

 

I do consider the Bible a book of law which should be followed as best you can, obviously we all fall short which is why God reads our hearts intent. We are not judged by our good deeds and works alone.... were told that much.

 

I don't want anyone to think g0ys are anti-gay, were not in the least. There is alot more to the g0y site than just the dicussion of anal. Alot of exhaustive unbiased research went into creating the site. I say unbiased because it addresses issues for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

 

A point worth making... what if one day somoene came along and found text within the Bible that clearly without a shadow of a doubt condemned heterosexuals?

 

Forge the Adam and Eve argument "Go Forth be Fruitful and and Multiply" was not a command, it was a blesing from God which many mistake. But thats not my point. Just stop and think for as long as you can, what if being straight was actually an abomination HYPOTHETICALLY ... think of how you would feel. Lonely? Lied to? Angry? Wouldn't you question how this was possible? Wouldn't you wonder why would God play such a mean trick on you. Why would he make you suffer so badly from the beginning at birth til you die?

 

That's just a small measure of the day in the life of a same sex attracted person with a conscience. The whole argument of being a retardation or a mental disorder (a convient excuse the government made up and pressured doctors to go along with btw if anyone was wondering it was a total fabrication just as many studys today are government funded and total fabrications which say same sex attractions are unnatural and funny it's always hetrosexuals saying this) or even genetic defect for that matter are all FALSE.

 

Were told that when you are reborn thru Christ spiritually that there is neither male nor female... well if there's no male or female then theres no sexual orientation either...gee here Jesus specifically says he does not care what your gender is and with no gender you have no orientation. further, by being reborn spiritually you will naturally desire morality which is consistent with Biblical commands. Another interesting point is the Leviticus chapters. When Christ died on the Cross they became obsolete, hence why it's called Old Testament.

 

Did you know the original text when it speaks of a 144,000 it refers to men who have not know a woman? Specfically it says "defiled by" but I find that rather offensive and typical language for that time when women were considered property more or less. If we were to look at that more closely, what group of men does that sound like? GAY.

 

Did you know Jesus spoke of three different types of Eunuchs? Did you know that Eunuch actually used to mean a gay man? Many think it means a castrated man. but thats not true. Jesus says there are those that are BORN Eunuchs (gay men), those who chose to live as Eunuchs (Jesus, Paul were self proclaimed Enuchs) and those who were made to be Eunuchs (Castration) How many people knew this?

 

So g0ys are not anti-gay, I really wantto stress that. And I also think theres a huge difference in commenting on a loving couple who practices anal sex (I can agree to disagree on that subject lol) but let's be realistic, where the gay community is involved there is a huge amount of promiscuity. Does it not make sense to stop the activity which spreads disease, i.e., anal sex? More importantly, would it not be our moral responsibility to stop the idea that this is the ONLY way for two same sex inclined males to engage in sexual relations? This is really the most important because it's not true, ancient greeks knew this as well.

 

Did you know it was a fine punishable by death to engage in anal sex in ancient greece? Contrary to popular belief the greeks were not some huge homosexual society. Anal sex in those times was used for two reasons that was acceptable. Male Prostitution and to degrade a fallen enemy. What betetr way to make a male enemy submit than to de-masculinize him, i.e, anal sex further i.e., male rape.

 

So you see the gay community has taken age old customs and intergrated them into their society, claimed it's been an acceptable proactice when actually even in Biblical accounts it was used (King David's Army did it to fallen enemies) to de-masculinize men and or rape them. Typically only acceptable during times of war against enemy foes but now were lead to believe its a way to express love and compassion for another person? Again, it may seem like g0ys are judgemental but we don't believe we are. It's a VERY fine line admittedly and were definately not perfect but Jesus condemned several peopel and their acts and were told to emulate him. So we try and educate peopel in the truth of the matter vs. telling them it's ok and it's safe.

 

Whew. You know it's interesting you say "Psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, the sacred bond of sex is a communion of equals." The gay community breaks it down in the following way...

 

Top, Bottom, Verse.

Active, Submissive.

 

I don't see any equality in that. :ph34r:

 

 

 

 

Although someone mentioned sex with animals in previous post about it being completely safe. Sorry Syphilis came from men having sex with sheep. So animal sex/beastiality is rightly considered wrong.

Yes, but I don't think it's for this reason. Even if there were no health connections, I think one would surely have to continue to say that it's immoral on other grounds. Psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, the sacred bond of sex is a communion of equals. It's the same reason sex with children is immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the g0y site as a way of promoting a healthy sexual view, but I have to take exceptions on the theological grounds. The many quotes out of Leviticus are taken out of context, out of the huge chunk of quotes on menstruation, beards, what meat you can eat, fibers, etc etc. I would agree you may be right on the anal sex aspects in Leviticus. After all, it says nothign about lesbianism. (Of course, I don't think women were supposed to feel and think too much anyways).

 

Yes, parts of the Bible are highly legalistic, and Leviticus would be furthest up there, but I wouldn't run my life by it. I also feel that Jesus' message (as well as much of the prophets and so forth) were much more about love in action than law.

 

I think it's great for anyone to promote their own ideals and why. I think there are some other statements re: emotional connection that make a bit more sense to me. Yes, anal sex is dangerous but is it in a committed relationship?? I think the real problem that leads to disease and so on is promiscuity. You can talk about a body part all you want but it all goes back to how many partners you have.

 

I think that churches that accept homosexuality would only really accept it as part of a monogamous relationship (though unlike some churches wouldn't care more about promiscuity in gay than straight relationships or any other kind of sins). I think it's why they would bless a homosexual relationship. They aren't going to ask, well are you g0y or not. But do you have a deep loving, caring relationship with one person.

 

It's what I think as well.

 

BTW, re: most gays being atheists, I just don't think this is true. I think the population is not more or less religious than anyone else. Many of the newer members of our church (UCC) are gay. And they came in after the ad campaign that with the bouncer kicking out an (apparently) gay couple. I'm sure many gays have gone away from religion after being hurt by it. I'm sure some argue that they are atheists as self-defense.

 

 

--des

Edited by des
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I didn't mean to imply most gays were aitheists, I was refering more or less to gay guys who debunk theology as a tool to explain morality.

 

As Far as Levitecus goes, it's basically null and void by Jesus dying. So to use Leviticus for more than a just a teachng tool to explain that laws have been constantly given to peopel by God as a way to protect them is the basis for even using Leviticus scriptures.

 

More and more I'm seeing that promiscuity is the real cause/bane of disease and not the actual acts within a commited relationship. I've always said that unbiased logic always wins out (at least in my head) than biased logic or illogic. And currently I'm in a transition of some understandings. but isn't that the main point of these dicussions? To learn from each other so we can grow and grasp a better understanding.

 

As far as myself goes, I would not want to think I'd had been the cause of someone fallign away from learning about God. Not to mention the simple fact that it's written that anyone who causes another stumble in finding God will be held accountable in some pretty severe ways. I guess I won't be seeing Jerry Fallwell or Benny Zinn or Pat Robertson up in heaven... clearly anyone who spouts out the trash they do are far from godly.

 

Your right "I also feel that Jesus' message (as well as much of the prophets and so forth) were much more about love in action than law." That was indeed Jesus's message. Love works no ill.

 

-Mike

 

 

 

 

 

I saw the g0y site as a way of promoting a healthy sexual view, but I have to take exceptions on the theological grounds. The many quotes out of Leviticus are taken out of context, out of the huge chunk of quotes on menstruation, beards, what meat you can eat, fibers, etc etc. I would agree you may be right on the anal sex aspects in Leviticus. After all, it says nothign about lesbianism. (Of course, I don't think women were supposed to feel and think too much anyways).

 

Yes, parts of the Bible are highly legalistic, and Leviticus would be furthest up there, but I wouldn't run my life by it. I also feel that Jesus' message (as well as much of the prophets and so forth) were much more about love in action than law.

 

I think it's  great for anyone to promote their own ideals and why. I think there are some other statements re: emotional connection that make a bit more sense to me. Yes, anal sex is dangerous but is it in a committed relationship?? I think the real problem that leads to disease and so on is promiscuity. You can talk about a body part all you want but it all goes back to how many partners you have.

 

I think that churches that accept homosexuality would only really accept it as part of a monogamous relationship (though unlike some churches wouldn't care more about promiscuity in gay than straight relationships or any other kind of sins). I think it's why they would bless a homosexual relationship. They aren't going to ask, well are you g0y or not. But do you have a deep loving, caring relationship with one person.

 

It's what I think as well.

 

BTW, re: most gays being atheists, I just don't think this is true. I think the population is not more or less religious than anyone else. Many of the newer members of our church (UCC) are gay. And they came in after the ad campaign that with the bouncer kicking out an (apparently) gay couple. I'm sure many gays have gone away from religion after being hurt by it. I'm sure some argue that they are atheists as self-defense.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neutral, I've made the same observations about promiscuous "gay culture" (and really, the "alternative lifestyle" culture in general) and it's a good sanity check to see you confirming them. On the other hand, I can definitely understand why gay folks feel so outcast in our society, that they'd be willing to become a part of this culture for the strong sense of belonging. I have compassion for the many people who become mired in this way of life, not because they really like it, but because it's the only place they feel like they belong. Unfortunately, by and large, I think one is sort of expected to take on a permanent "role" or "mask" -- top, bottom, sub, etc. -- and in so doing lose the very self-identity they were hoping to find. I do think there can be a place for healthy role-playing in sex, for building knowledge and trust in the context of an equal, committed relationship; but I think it's very damaging when those roles overtake our true identity, and control becomes the primary medium of exchange.

 

Des, ideally churches wouldn't look too fondly on sexual activity outside of a committed relationship, but I'm guessing there's probably a lot of temptation for churches who are trying to be gay-friendly, to be a little lax on that requirement. But you're definitely right that, to be consistent, churches really have to treat promiscuity, infidelity, inequity, and "serial monogamy" (not divorce per se, but a lack of respect for the seriousness of the relationship bond) as being just as immoral for heterosexuals as homosexuals. It's a horrible double-standard. Let's worry about promiscuity, infidelity, and child abuse in homosexual and heterosexual families, and when those problems are resolved, then we'll get down to worrying about whether gays should marry or be allowed to raise children.

Edited by FredP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while back, I read something that struck such a chord of truth that I've posted the article & excerpts many on various systems. It has to do with an innocent minset among guys -- guys who have not been poisoned with "gay male culture" & the ASSociated stigmas. What you are about to read is the collective experience of many guys. Since the widespread proliferation of mass-media, - fewer guys are

experiencing this paradigm because gay-stigmas have contaminated gentle male/male interactions with arse-play. However - there are still clusters of guys who can recall very similar experience to the following:

 

Wow. :ph34r:

 

This is quite an interesting point of view, and revelatory for me. Female/female interactions among girls is at least as common I would venture, and though not without its own furtiveness, not as stigmatized as it is, apparently, for boys.

 

I admire this article. I think it shows some really balanced, sound thinking. However, it doesn't adequately address the fact that there are men who choose to express sexual intimacy, as well as partnership, with members of the same sex only. "Gentle" male/male interactions would not satisfy the need for intimacy that penetration may indeed provide, and if we also hold to the rule of monogamy and committed relationships of depth and duration, may not be practical, however reasonable, in a long term, committed gay relationship. There is also, lurking in this article, a sense of penetration itself, even among heterosexuals, as being an act of power and therefore somewhat demeaning to the penetrated. This is not an uncommon attitude, even among heterosexuals, but I think its a warped one. I think it stems from a misunderstanding of the very real power in sexual energy (a power that I understand as being "seated" within the same centre as our basic spiritual energy vis a vis the chakra system.) and, indeed, all of our so-called primal instincts. These powers are no more inherently evil than they are good, but Love or the lack of it, that makes them so...

 

All in all though, I think the article makes excellent points. It is a fact that unbridled sexual license does have consequences. Even women who are promiscuous early in life are at greater risk of cervical cancers, miscarriages and even sterility, (not to even mention unwanted pregnancies) and these facts Speak.

 

 

Welcome to the group Neutral,

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also, lurking in this article, a sense of penetration itself, even among heterosexuals, as being an act of power and therefore somewhat demeaning to the penetrated. This is not an uncommon attitude, even among heterosexuals, but I think its a warped one. I think it stems from a misunderstanding of the very real power in sexual energy (a power that I understand as being "seated" within the same centre as our basic spiritual energy vis a vis the chakra system.) and, indeed, all of our so-called primal instincts. These powers are no more inherently evil than they are good, but Love or the lack of it, that makes them so...

Exactly. I think this was the idea behind some of the radical feminism of the 60's and 70's -- that all heterosexual sex is, by definition, rape. It's a rather unsettling conclusion, that the only way biological life can procreate is by organisms raping each other. Doubtless, many early humans wouldn't have had what we'd call today love and affection for one another; but it's anachronistic to blame our ancestors for not having the benefit of our biological, cultural, and spiritual evolution. Anyway, yes, sexual energy is enormously powerful, and can be very destructive if not protected by the shelter of Love. But in complete love and trust, the sharing of this energy, this power that destroys the boundary between Self and Other for just a moment, brings us about as close to God as one can be in this mode of existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your clarifications, Mike. I think what you are promoting is actually more a healthy lifestyle than so much the position. I know the emphasis is there but what you want is love in a sexual context. There's a lot to be said for that!! I am agnostic on what role position has to do with it, but am happy to hear your point of view. Oh yeah, and welcome to the group, Mike!!

 

Fred, your comments on the promiciousness of 'gay culture" has been alternative to feeling outcast are prob. dead on. I can't speak from any kind of experience. It gets to be role playing more than anything.

 

>Des, ideally churches wouldn't look too fondly on sexual activity outside of a committed relationship, but I'm guessing there's probably a lot of temptation for churches who are trying to be gay-friendly, to be a little lax on that requirement. But you're definitely right

 

Afaik, there is no "requirements" at all. (For heterosexuals either, as far as that goes). In fact, pretty much no church asks about the fidelty of their hetereosexual members, only about the sexual activity of their gay members. It sure is a double standard. But for my own church, which is UCC, all the people that have joined lately, that were gay, were part of loving monogamous relationships. In fact the thing that would strike one is that aside from being gay they are so normal and healthy (at least from out here :-)). This was true in the other UCC church i belong to in Chicago-- as far as I recall. And that was in the heart of "boy's town".

 

>that, to be consistent, churches really have to treat promiscuity, infidelity, inequity, and "serial monogamy" (not divorce per se, but a lack of respect for the seriousness of the relationship bond) as being just as immoral for heterosexuals as homosexuals. It's a horrible double-standard. Let's worry about promiscuity, infidelity, and child abuse in homosexual and heterosexual families, and when those problems are resolved, then

 

Well we don't get any sermons on it-- so far anyways. But the last pastor was canned due to having an affair with a member. That's pretty serious. The church is active in organizations that deal with poverty, child abuse and neglect and spousal abuse in a social action standpoint.

 

>we'll get down to worrying about whether gays should marry or be allowed to raise children.

 

I'm not worried about it at all. There are more things to worry about with child poverty, children having babies, etc. I think the Religious Right has used it as a wedge issue (and to cynically get people out to vote-- the whole thing on Bush's agenda prob. came from Rove) than anything.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not worried about it at all. There are more things to worry about with child poverty, children having babies, etc. I think the Religious Right has used it as a wedge issue (and to cynically get people out to vote-- the whole thing on Bush's agenda prob. came from Rove) than anything.

It is a wedge issue. As my midwife sister frequently points out, there have been almost twice as many abortions performed under Bush as there were under Clinton. So how is Bush the "pro-life" candidate exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not following...  did Bush personally perform these abortions?

He has aggressively fought to take resources away from Planned Parenthood, which -- despite much propaganda to the effect that it's nothing but a contraceptive- and abortion-advocacy organization -- is actually an invaluable counseling resource for many young girls and couples who would otherwise have abortions. So, when you make anti-abortion one of your top platform selling-points, and then take away resources from the most visible organization that's uniquely able to reduce their numbers, it makes me wonder whether the "issue" is more important than the reality.

 

But this is going off topic....

Edited by FredP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok this is a very good question,

 

C wrote:

 

"I admire this article. I think it shows some really balanced, sound thinking. However, it doesn't adequately address the fact that there are men who choose to express sexual intimacy, as well as partnership, with members of the same sex only. "Gentle" male/male interactions would not satisfy the need for intimacy that penetration may indeed provide,"

 

Ok as a women this is something I have always wanted to know. You know, guys, how you can't tell when women are using their PMS as an excuse for a foul mood or if they really can't help it? And you wonder this cause as a guy you never experinced PMS so you can't tell if they are lieing or not?

 

Well as a gal this is how I feel likewise with this pentration sex only issue with men. I am not a guy so i don't know..so guys, what if the truth with this penatrational sex thing? Is non-pentrational sex just as sastifiying and when guys say it aint is it all in there head? (sorry if that sounded dirty..) Like the deal with condoms?

 

G0y guys? What's your view on this?

 

 

"and if we also hold to the rule of monogamy and committed relationships of depth and duration, may not be practical, however reasonable, in a long term, committed gay relationship. There is also, lurking in this article, a sense of penetration itself, even among heterosexuals, as being an act of power and therefore somewhat demeaning to the penetrated."

 

Well, intrecourse sex may be the source of being fruitful and having kids..but...

 

#1. If you are straight women who likes men but does not want kids...intercourse-ONLY ideas on sex is a sure way to risk having them whether you want them or NOT...and this IS an issue with many religions..including my own JW background i came from..and Catholics and Mormons may also relate to this...

 

#2. If you are a gay men and you DO have this idea that pentrational sex is THEE only most satifiying sex..then yes, I concure with Mike, the G0y guy that then you will constantly being putting your life at risk for either AIDS or hep B or C and his FACTS medically verify this.

 

This is not an uncommon attitude, even among heterosexuals, but I think its a warped one. I think it stems from a misunderstanding of the very real power in sexual energy (a power that I understand as being "seated" within the same centre as our basic spiritual energy vis a vis the chakra system.) and, indeed, all of our so-called primal instincts. These powers are no more inherently evil than they are good, but Love or the lack of it, that makes them so...

 

All in all though, I think the article makes excellent points. It is a fact that unbridled sexual license does have consequences. Even women who are promiscuous early in life are at greater risk of cervical cancers, miscarriages and even sterility, (not to even mention unwanted pregnancies) and these facts Speak.

 

 

Welcome to the group Neutral,

 

lily

 

 

FredP Yesterday, 12:42 PM Post #57

 

 

 

 

 

Group: Members

Posts: 375

Joined: 22-March 05

From: Chicago Area, IL

Member No.: 322

 

 

 

QUOTE(cunninglily @ Sep 15 2005, 11:30 AM)

There is also, lurking in this article, a sense of penetration itself, even among heterosexuals, as being an act of power and therefore somewhat demeaning to the penetrated. This is not an uncommon attitude, even among heterosexuals, but I think its a warped one. I think it stems from a misunderstanding of the very real power in sexual energy (a power that I understand as being "seated" within the same centre as our basic spiritual energy vis a vis the chakra system.) and, indeed, all of our so-called primal instincts. These powers are no more inherently evil than they are good, but Love or the lack of it, that makes them so...

 

 

Exactly. I think this was the idea behind some of the radical feminism of the 60's and 70's -- that all heterosexual sex is, by definition, rape. It's a rather unsettling conclusion, that the only way biological life can procreate is by organisms raping each other. Doubtless, many early humans wouldn't have had what we'd call today love and affection for one another; but it's anachronistic to blame our ancestors for not having the benefit of our biological, cultural, and spiritual evolution. Anyway, yes, sexual energy is enormously powerful, and can be very destructive if not protected by the shelter of Love. But in complete love and trust, the sharing of this energy, this power that destroys the boundary between Self and Other for just a moment, brings us about as close to God as one can be in this mode of existence.

 

 

--------------------

 

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin

 

 

des Yesterday, 11:20 PM Post #58

 

 

 

 

 

Group: Members

Posts: 631

Joined: 8-January 05

From: New Mexico

Member No.: 273

 

 

 

Thanks for your clarifications, Mike. I think what you are promoting is actually more a healthy lifestyle than so much the position. I know the emphasis is there but what you want is love in a sexual context. There's a lot to be said for that!! I am agnostic on what role position has to do with it, but am happy to hear your point of view. Oh yeah, and welcome to the group, Mike!!

 

Fred, your comments on the promiciousness of 'gay culture" has been alternative to feeling outcast are prob. dead on. I can't speak from any kind of experience. It gets to be role playing more than anything.

 

>Des, ideally churches wouldn't look too fondly on sexual activity outside of a committed relationship, but I'm guessing there's probably a lot of temptation for churches who are trying to be gay-friendly, to be a little lax on that requirement. But you're definitely right

 

Afaik, there is no "requirements" at all. (For heterosexuals either, as far as that goes). In fact, pretty much no church asks about the fidelty of their hetereosexual members, only about the sexual activity of their gay members. It sure is a double standard. But for my own church, which is UCC, all the people that have joined lately, that were gay, were part of loving monogamous relationships. In fact the thing that would strike one is that aside from being gay they are so normal and healthy (at least from out here :-)). This was true in the other UCC church i belong to in Chicago-- as far as I recall. And that was in the heart of "boy's town".

 

>that, to be consistent, churches really have to treat promiscuity, infidelity, inequity, and "serial monogamy" (not divorce per se, but a lack of respect for the seriousness of the relationship bond) as being just as immoral for heterosexuals as homosexuals. It's a horrible double-standard. Let's worry about promiscuity, infidelity, and child abuse in homosexual and heterosexual families, and when those problems are resolved, then

 

Well we don't get any sermons on it-- so far anyways. But the last pastor was canned due to having an affair with a member. That's pretty serious. The church is active in organizations that deal with poverty, child abuse and neglect and spousal abuse in a social action standpoint.

 

>we'll get down to worrying about whether gays should marry or be allowed to raise children.

 

I'm not worried about it at all. There are more things to worry about with child poverty, children having babies, etc. I think the Religious Right has used it as a wedge issue (and to cynically get people out to vote-- the whole thing on Bush's agenda prob. came from Rove) than anything.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[it is a wedge issue.  As my midwife sister frequently points out, there have been almost twice as many abortions performed under Bush as there were under Clinton.  So how is Bush the "pro-life" candidate exactly?

 

 

You notice how the gay marriage issue disappeared almost immediately after Bush became reelected (or elected for the first time :-)). I'm not going off topic again on the abortion thing as I think Fred, you answered that very well.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll briefly continue the derailment...

 

Just take a quick look at the Planned Parenthood home page and tell me if the "propaganda" is really that far off base. There are plenty of other counseling centers out there that genuinely care for the woman and her unborn child (my wife works for one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I found that the very commandment intended for life..." - Paul

 

In his dissertations, Paul made it very clear that the Law was given for LIFE. In other words: God gave a commandment for a REASON and his reasons were to preserve life.

 

I.E: People tell their children not to play in the streets. You'd think that the reason for such a commendment would be obvious.

 

However, religion doesn't understand this principle. Religion isn't interested in reason - only rules. To religion, the child who plays in the street is "sinning" & the God of religion is likely to get into his car and run the child down for 'breaking the commandment'! Religion is too dumb to realize that the commandment was given -- not for the ego of the one making the decree ... but for the life of the one who obeys! Religion is too dumb to realize that the commandment not to play in the street was given -because the streets are inherently dangerous!

 

Likewise, the commandment given to Adam in Genesis was a warning that the tree in the Garden's middle had a deadly fruit. It was that simple. "If you eat, you'll die." The commandment wasn't given because God wanted to make a rule for the sake of having a rule. Religion doesn't understand this & uninformed lay-teachers (theology

by rumor) simplify the Genesis account to a level of stupidity until it sounds like this: "Adam & Eve ate the apple the snake gave them. This made God mad - so he dressed them up, cursed them, & threw them out of the Garden." And people actually believe that Genesis tells a story that bizarre!

 

The religion of the lazy, slothful & willfully ignorant preports that God is a grandstanding tyrant who makes rules at His whim & then punishes people who break them! The religion of the ignorant actually preports that God is the one who runs the child down who breaks his rule by playing in the street! The evil God of religion punishes people for eating apples! It isn't swayed by the FACT that nowhere in the account of Adam & Eve does the word "Apple" appear! It's bad enough when people who have never opened a Bible make such stupid assertions. However, it's INEXCUSABLE when people who have been going to "church' for years are ignorant of the specifics of the account! How can people share their "faith" when THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE! Jesus compared it to the blind leading the blind!

 

What does this have to do with Same Sex Attractions (SSA)? Bubba the Baptist knows John 3:16 and that God hates Hoe-moe-sex-shuals (& he's a bit foggy about John 3:16). Bubba the Baptist knows about the "Romans-road"; - And that Sodom was a city plumb-full of hoe-moe-sex- shuals (& He's a bit fuzzy about the sights along that Romans-road). And Bubba the Baptist knows that God made Adam & Eve (not Adam & Steve); - & that the snake tricked them into eating the apple!

Bubba don't know sh1t!

 

But the SBC is churning Bubba's out of their seminaries by the bushel- basket -as are almost every sect on the planet!

 

What Bubba hasn't told anybody is that when he was 13 - his cousin Billy-Bob showed him how to "mass-ture-bayt" & they gave each other a helping-hand over the next year until God punished Billy-Bob by drowning him in the creek & sending him 'straight to hell' for being an unrepentant closet sod-oh-mite. Yup. Bubba's got his theology honed to a sharp edge (along the proverbial handle...that is).

 

Bubba thinks God is a big, mean rule-making tyrant who drowns 14 year- olds for breaking 'the rules'. Every person in Bubba's church believes these things to various degrees & the entire Southern Baptist Convention teaches these things (albeit indirectly). Bubba may be an ignoramus ... but he's in a big crowd of them -- all "amen'n" themselves pats on their folly'd, religicated backs.

 

Bubba's Bishop is from Westboro & every Sunday he preaches hot & heavy on some topic that gradually comes back around to 'God hating Fags' & while full of red-faced rage he cites olde English passages about "man laying with mankind as he lieth with a women -- they have commited an ABOMINATION & shall surely be put to death....". And he throws in a few parallel words like "Sodomite" & "Catamite" & being "Vomited out of the land...PRAISE THE LAWD!"....

 

And Bubba nods, and applauds & hopes that nobody will ever know about him & Billy-Bob's secret meetings. Maybe if he talks about "SODOMITES" with enough venom in his voice - God will forgive him & look away when Bubba sees a boy he thinks is cute.

 

Then one day: g0ys.org becomes a shared link.

 

Suddenly, people are talking about things & seeing God in a new way. Someone suggests that God only makes rules to stop people from getting hurt, & AHEM: To stop them from hurting each other. And then they quote the Apostle Paul (page top). Then somebody else digs out the Bible study that proves by several textual analysis that under Moses-Law: there was only one lawful way to "lie with a woman" in a sexual sense and that Leviticus 20's prohibition was a specific commandment forbidding men from treating men as a woman -- meaning that men were forbidden to penetrate men.

 

The point fleshed out: You can't rape a defeated enemy; & you can't emasculate a slave in that fashion; nor can you penetrate a fellow Hebrew! And anyone who OPENLY VIOLATES that commandment is to be put to death; & anyone who kills an aggressor attempting to rape in this way (be the defandant that same enemy, slave or countryman) is justified in the eyes of the law! And what happens among groups that indulge in that EXACT PRACTICE? Disease - spread like wildfire; - thru

populations - like gangrene through the body (hence God's prohibition in the 1st place)!

 

God doesn't cause the disease (it's why He forbid the activity in the first place)! The command was intended for LIFE & people who willfully violate it have committed a capital crime because of the devastating nature of the diseases the activity spreads!

Imaging that: The Law makes sense & isn't some abstract rule for the

sake of God's ego!

 

This means what it means & not one jot more. The legal principle of "not going beyond what is written" (I Cor 4:6) ALWAYS APPLIES. Inclusio Unius Exclusio Alterius: What is not included within the precise definition of a statute is presumed excluded intentionally. It's how LAW works.

 

CONCLUSION: Butt-phucking is a capital offense under Moses Law. Mutual masturbation, -isn't! In the eyes of Hebrew law: Adam & Steve (or David & Jonathan) can get naked with each other, exchange vows, sperma, property, oaths, execute estate transfers & adopt each other's family (And they did all these things). And if that isn't the full force of MARRIAGE, then how the HELL would you define it!? (Perhaps "Hetero-Sarkos"?...)

 

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: Very pleasant hast thou been unto me: Thy love to me was wonderful, Passing the love of women." - David in song about Jonathan (2 Samuel 1:26)

 

Guys loving other guys without ButtPhuck'n? You bet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll have to excuse the language of some of these posts, sometimes it's crude sounding but it loses it's meaning if you sugar coat it.

 

 

Great article that makes the g0ys point about gAy phucking up what

it's like to be a guy who loves guys - with gAy arse sex.

 

http://www.savethehumans.com/culturebashing/outbursts/

heterosexual_topics/index.shtml

 

If the link above breaks, cut 'n paste...

 

This guy rants on about not being into guys anatomy. He may very well

be one of the 38% of truly straight guys. He goes off for a while

talking about urinals, locker-rooms & not wanting to see guys anatomy.

Then he eloquently makes 0ur point:

 

"Although, it's not like I would know if you're gay, anyway. My gaydar

is pitiful, and it's not like a doctor is going to hang up, right

below his diploma from Harvard, a big picture of himself f***ing some

guy in the ass."

 

-- The guy's rant shifts from male anatomy to ... arse phucking all

suddenly with the topic of "gay". His rant continues & he unwittingly

makes our points as if he has ESP:

 

"This leads me to an issue that really needs some clarification:

heterosexual anal sex. Personally, I don't like it because it's very

gay. If you like having anal sex with a woman, you might as well ask

her to strap on a ###### and ride you like a f***ing bull. I know,

technically the ass belongs to a woman. But it's an ass for Christ's

sake! Men and women both have asses, and if you're f***ing a woman's

ass, all you're doing is research - in the most socially-acceptable

way possible - on what it would be like to be gay. If you close your

eyes while you're having anal sex with a woman, turning Evelyn into

Evander is only a fantasy away.

 

Heterosexual anal sex is just gay batting practice. Now, if you're

into that, fine. But it's time to step up to the plate. See, you like

ass. So stick with ass. Leave the women for us."

 

-- This guy is TYPICAL of the average Joe's perception of "gay" & the

connection with "ass". Why does he believe it so matter-of-factly?

It's because the ASSumption is broadcast loudly in the ANnUlS of

society; -- And the gAy-male community is doing the most vocal of the

TAIL-TELLING: Dirty Disease-Spreading Immoral Phucks. Any question as

to how g0ys feel about the Arse-plugg'n bunch?

 

We're making a difference. Arse-phuckerz hate us & so does the

Religious reicht! Jerry Falwell & Gay Pride: Together at last!

However ... for those of us who are SANE -- we understand that loving

our buds is a fulfillment of the highest command; - & luv'n on our

buds has nothing to do with playing in arses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I found that the very commandment intended for life..." - Paul

 

In his dissertations, Paul made it very clear that the Law was given for LIFE. In other words: God gave a commandment for a REASON and his reasons were to preserve life.

 

I.E: People tell their children not to play in the streets.  You'd think that the reason for such a commendment would be obvious.

 

However, religion doesn't understand this principle.  Religion isn't interested in reason - only rules.  To religion, the child who plays in the street is "sinning" & the God of religion is likely to get into his car and run the child down for 'breaking the commandment'!  Religion is too dumb to realize that the commandment was given -- not for the ego of the one making the decree ... but for the life of the one who obeys! Religion is too dumb to realize that the commandment not to play in the street was given -because the streets are inherently dangerous!

 

 

 

This is such an important point and one I've tried to make a time or two on this forum on other threads. The misunderstanding of Natural Law/Gods Law is the biggest cause of embarrassment and injustice in Christiandoom as a whole, and essentially gives the "Bubba's" among us license to hate and to kill in the name of Jesus. It's appalling.

 

Thanks again for speaking up Mike...

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I found this article and wasn't happy with the author's comments. I emailed him my comments, I add a few of mine here in bold text;

 

FIRST-PERSON: Sex as a civil right?

Sep 23, 2005

By Kelly Boggs

Baptist Press

 

McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)--I once viewed the description “pro-choice” as disingenuous. I don’t anymore.

 

Those who support abortion on demand do support choice. They want individuals to be able to choose to pursue any sexual behavior without restrictions or consequences -– especially the consequence of “unintended pregnancy.”

 

In the liberal worldview, sex is a civil right not to be infringed upon.

 

How else can you explain the liberal aversion to sex education programs that feature abstinence as the only absolute way to avoid pregnancy and/or sexually transmitted diseases?

 

According to The Washington Times, the ACLU Sept. 21 launched a campaign to persuade education officials in 18 states to reject federal government-affiliated abstinence-only sex education programs.

 

The ACLU complains the programs are too religious in nature, give out inaccurate information and discriminate against homosexuals. However, the real motivation for the ACLU’s crusade is “sex as a civil right.”

 

Teens should have the right to fornicate whenever they want and in whatever manner they choose. To dissuade them would be infringing on their civil right to sex.

 

“Sex as a civil right” has as its foundation Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that struck down the abortion restrictions in America.

 

The Roe decision grew out of the social upheaval of the 1960s that was characterized by a youth movement insistent upon experimenting with sex and drugs. The 60s generation soon discovered that free love had a price. Irresponsible promiscuous sex often resulted in “unintended” pregnancies.

 

While the seeds for Roe were planted in two earlier Supreme Court decisions (Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972), both having to do with the right to obtain contraceptives, the 1973 decision was the consummation of the “sex with no consequences movement.”

 

In the past three decades the “choice” movement has grown beyond “sex as a civil right” for heterosexuals. It now includes homosexuals, bisexuals and those who seek even more bizarre forms of sexual expression.

 

The “sex as a civil right” issue is no better illustrated than with the approach that is taken in combating the disease known as AIDS.

 

If AIDS were not primarily spread by sexual contact, it would be dealt with more aggressively. Instead of calling for abstinence among those most at risk, the medical community urges “safe sex,” which is the watchword for condom use.

 

When it comes to AIDS, safe sex is an illusion.

 

According to a summary report issued in 2000 by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services, “consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85 percent.”

 

Some will argue that encouraging a practice that is 85 percent effective is responsible. However, in the game of Russian roulette there is always an 83.4 percent chance of firing an empty chamber. Even though the odds of getting a bullet are relatively low, participation is not promoted because the stakes are simply too high.

 

The only explanation for refusing to urge abstinence among homosexuals infected with HIV/AIDS is that sex is viewed as a civil right. As a result, no restrictions are tolerated.

 

If you think that the “sex as a civil right” movement has reached its zenith by advocating for homosexual, bisexual and transgender behaviors, you are sadly mistaken.

 

Already in the academic community there are those who are seeking to legitimize pedophilia and bestiality.

 

In 2002, The University of Minnesota Press published “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex.” Author Judith Levine wrote that the Dutch age-of-consent law is a “good model” -- Dutch law permits consensual sex between an adult and a child beginning at age 12.

 

“Teens often seek out sex with older people, and they do so for understandable reasons,” Levine wrote. “An older person makes them feel sexy and grown-up, protected and special.”

 

It should be noted that Levine acknowledged having had a sexual relationship with an adult when she was a minor.

 

Peter Singer, professor at Princeton University, has long been a defender of bestiality. He views human-animal sex as a taboo that should crumble. Singer’s only concern in bestiality is that the animals involved should never be harmed.

 

I agree, it should crumble as a taboo, there is more than ample evidence that it's completely harmless depending on the intent and motives of the person involved- the extremes would be for; love/relationship, or strictly raw forced sex. There are no STD's as we see between people possibe- (AIDS, Herpes, VD, Ghonnoreah, etc etc, or unwanted pregnancies, potentials for abortion later)

 

 

 

God gave sex as a glorious gift to be enjoyed by a man and a woman within the commitment of marriage.

 

Marriage is a church and societal invention designed to extract taxes, fees and control real and personal property in the courts

 

 

To make it a crass choice or an unrestricted civil right is to distort and cheapen it.

 

When sex becomes a civil right, marriage and the family -– the building blocks of society -– are undermined.

 

The old slippery slope, sex IS a civil right, no one has the right to tell another they can't engage in sex. As far as marriage goes- 50% end in divorce, and it's not because of gays g0ys or sex

 

 

No civilization has ever survived the dissolution of the family. But to liberals, sexual choice trumps societal survival.

--30--

Kelly Boggs is pastor of the Portland-area Valley Baptist Church in McMinnville, Ore. His column appears each Friday in Baptist Press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are different reasons to oppose "abstinence only" sex education. As I drive to my city school (very low income, high % special ed), you know that a very high percentage are engaging in sexual activity, I also pass by all these signs that say "I'm worth waiting for". I'm sure the kids laugh at this stuff. Most kids are NOT influenced by abstinence only education. Some are. It is very hard to do a good job of it without introducing religious rationale, so I think a lot of it is a thinly veiled excuse to introduce religion. A lot of the info is very bad and untruthful. For example, they are allowed to tell the problems and flaws of condoms but not of the pros. This is a skewed campaign. If they could give both sides, it would be different perhaps. It turns out these programs don't really work. The kids who end up taking vows of abstinence usually do delay sexual activity-- that's the good news. It may not be very many but however many is good. But the bad news is that when the kids end up having sex, which they often do they are less likely to use condoms and other birth control.

I believe programs that would encourage abstinence and 'safer' sex would be a better alternative. I realize that you do somewhat give a mixed message, but it is a message that could save a life or at least a pregnancy.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are different reasons to oppose "abstinence only" sex education.  As I drive to my city school (very low income, high % special ed), you know that a very high percentage are engaging in sexual activity, I also pass by all these signs that say "I'm worth waiting for".

 

--des

 

 

Abstinence only is asinine, the cat is out of the bag now Des, there is now going back, heck, you have kids (and adults) having sex w/o condoms despite ALL the media attention etc etc focussing on their use to prevent HIV.

 

After awhile you just have to let the clueless deal with their own problems they created, they made their beds now they can lay in them. I get tired of reading all the cautions, warnings, public service announcements etc etc, if people don't know by NOW or don't care that having sex with other people is a death sentence if the other person is HIV positive and refuse to use condoms, then to heck with them- adios amigo! One has to stop wasting time trying to protect idiots from themselves.

 

I never heard back from that Kelly Boggs, maybe I should resend my email, maybe I left him speechless who knows.

 

Of course a high percentage of those teens are having sex, I remember starting when I was 9 and my friends were already active!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big problem with the abstinence only thing is how poorly it works (or doesn't work). Even the kids who make the pledges (which I feel are mostly religious and do belong outside of schools) are that the kids who make them-- and these are a motivated minority (not most of the kids at a large city HS)-- end up breaking them and are less educated than they should be. They are given misinformation or zero information about condoms breaking and so forth. They think that condoms offer almost no protection against pregnancy or STD (including AIDs). These programs are not allowed to say to what extent condoms work (as that would give them "mixed messages"). They end up less likely to practice, ok, safer sex.

 

 

Nine huh?? Well you were a precocious child. :-)

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About a year ago I took the required Health Education course for all CA teachers. The study they talked about showed this. There were two groups. One was taught abstinence only, the other was taught Abstinence plus Birth Control. When they followed the two groups they found they both started having sex at the same time but the AO group had higher rates of pregnancy and STD's. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they followed the two groups they found they both started having sex at the same time but the AO group had higher rates of pregnancy and STD's.  Go figure.

 

 

The abstinence group probably came to realize what a crock this was, but there's no way to tell, here, by us anyway but statistically that's interesting.

Yes Des, nine, and that was quite a long time ago that I had single digit birthdays!

 

 

I was reading an article on HIV and noticed the name of a church in it whose quotes sounded good, so I did a search and found their web site and they welcome "ALL", I think the pastor was mentioned as being openly gay but don't quote me, I might have it mixed up with another church in the long article. The church is Episcopal and in Miamia area, here is what they say on their site however,

 

http://www.ststcg.org/pastor.html

 

What we believe to be particularly special about St. Stephen’s is the way we strive to live out Jesus’ commandment to love others as he first loved us: unconditionally and without judgment. You see, here at St. Stephen’s there truly are no outcasts. All are welcomed here, no matter their age or race or gender. All are welcomed no matter their economic circumstance, sexual orientation, marital status, or ethnic background. Our pews are filled with old and young, rich and poor (and in between), black and white, gay and straight, Anglo and Latino.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Weekly Standard (and other major newspapers)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Check.asp?id...le=5985&r=pgwjh

 

Shorter version;

 

 

The debate in Washington state about bestiality is actually a fight over human exceptionalism.

by Wesley J. Smith

 

A WASHINGTON MAN died recently from internal injuries he sustained while having sex with a horse. After his body was dropped off at a hospital, police discovered that out-of-towners had rented a rural farm and then made local animals available for use in bestiality. Yes, video taping was involved.

 

However, police discovered that there is no law against bestiality in Washington.

 

Enter Republican state Senator Pam Roach, who announced plans to introduce legislation in the next legislative session to make it a felony in Washington to commit bestiality.

 

Roach told me she is receiving cooperation from the Democratic leaders of the legislature, but to her surprise, the proposed bill has stirred some controversy. The most prominent voice so far against outlawing bestiality is the Seattle Post Intelligencer's liberal columnist, Robert L. Jamieson Jr. In a July 23 column, Jamieson ridiculed Roach's proposal, writing that practices such as masturbation, oral sex, and gay sex were once considered wrong, too, and so why worry now about human/animal copulation if the animal isn't injured? "Human sex with animals remains a towering taboo, booty and the beast. But as Princeton University philosopher Peter Singer, the father of the animal rights movement, has put it, 'Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty.'"

 

As to Roach's argument that having sex with animals is wrong because they can't consent to sex, Jamieson noted that animals also don't consent to "being ground into all-beef patties," and accused Roach of "taking animal love to extremes," for seeking to outlaw bestiality.

 

BOTH JAMIESON AND ROACH (and a very mild Post Intelligencer editorial supporting Roach) miss the true nub of what makes this repugnant issue so important. Bestiality is so very wrong not only because using animals sexually is abusive, but because such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe--a concept known as "human exceptionalism."

 

And this brings us back to Peter Singer, the world's most famous bioethicist and philosopher, who clearly does understand that the crucial moral issue of our time is whether human life has intrinsic value simply--merely--because it is human. Indeed, Singer is an avowed enemy of human exceptionalism.

 

Thus, it is no surprise that when he was asked in 2000 to review a book extolling bestiality for an online pornography magazine, he leaped at the chance to bestow his approval. In "Heavy Petting" Singer, in often vulgar language, asserted that since both humans and animals copulate and both have the same sex organs, the continuing "taboo" against bestiality merely reflects "our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals."

 

In support of his thesis that this distinction is irrational, Singer writes of attending a conference and speaking to a woman who had been sexually assaulted by an orangutan while visiting an animal rehabilitation center. When she called out for help, the operator of the facility, a woman named Birute Galdikas, told the distraught woman not to worry because orangutans are not well endowed. (The animal lost interest before completing the assault.)

 

This lack of concern deeply impressed Singer. "Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offense to our status and dignity as human beings." In other words, bestiality is fine, for those who are attracted to that sort of thing, because it merely constitutes two animals rubbing body parts.

 

IT ISN'T JUST PETER SINGER. There is apparently a deep and growing yearning across an alarmingly wide swath of public advocacy to destroy the wall of moral distinction that separates animals and humans. In the bioethics movement, for example, to assert that humans have special value is denigrated as "speciesism," that is, discrimination against animals. This concept is taught in most of our major colleges and universities. Similarly, the animal liberation movement claims that it is the ability to feel pain, rather than humanhood, which bestows equal moral value. "We are all animals," a PETA advocacy slogan asserts, by which they are not merely stating a biological fact but espousing an explicit moral equality between man and beasts. Thus, since both cows and humans can feel pain, PETA claims cattle ranching to be as evil as human slavery. The London Zoo has actually put a herd of humans on display to "demonstrate the basic nature of man as an animal and examine the impact that Homo sapiens have on the rest of the animal kingdom."

 

We even see this theme popping up in the ongoing controversy over high school science curricula. Thus, Verlyn Klinkenborg, a member of the New York Times editorial board, savaged critics of materialistic Darwinism in part on philosophical grounds, because (he believes) they seek "to preserve the myth that there is a separate, divine creation for humans," that separates us from animals. "But there is a destructive hubris, a fearful arrogance to this myth," Klinkenborg writes. "It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here."

 

MOST PEOPLE take human exceptionalism for granted. They can no longer afford to do so. The great philosophical question of the 21st Century is going to be whether we will knock humans off the pedestal of moral exceptionalism and instead define ourselves as just another animal in the forest. The stakes of the coming debate couldn't be more important: It is our exalted moral status that both bestows special rights upon us and imposes unique and solemn moral responsibilities--including the human duty not to abuse animals.

 

Nothing would more graphically demonstrate our unexceptionalism than countenancing human/animal sex. Thus, when Roach's legislation passes, the law's preamble should explicitly state that one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind's inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth.

 

Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture. His current book is Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World.

Link 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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service