Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The bible and homosexuality
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 211 of 323 (114951)
06-14-2004 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Sleeping Dragon
06-14-2004 12:15 AM


To butt in here:
I believe the attraction in itself is not a sin, but a temptation to sin.
I would guess that the homosexual attraction is a combination of many factors. I know that there are thousands of homosexuals who became het after becoming a Christian and being epistemologically rehabilitated. I think these people have started a website with testimonials.
Edited to add: by the way SleepingDragon, I think you ought to be commended for being the most mannerly and least emotional of any member on this site.
This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-13-2004 11:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 06-14-2004 12:15 AM Sleeping Dragon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-14-2004 1:00 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 213 by crashfrog, posted 06-14-2004 1:37 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 214 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2004 2:37 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 215 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 06-14-2004 3:46 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 212 of 323 (114953)
06-14-2004 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hangdawg13
06-14-2004 12:52 AM


There are also thousands of homosexuals living in a state of self-loathing, repression, and fear due to growing up in a good Christian environment...
To someone who does not believe homosexuality is immoral, "epistemologically rehabilitation" sounds downright frightening, especially if a genetic basis for homosexuality exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-14-2004 12:52 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 213 of 323 (114958)
06-14-2004 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hangdawg13
06-14-2004 12:52 AM


I know that there are thousands of homosexuals who became het after becoming a Christian and being epistemologically rehabilitated.
No, there's actually not.
Oh, there's plenty of people who were convinced that all their problems would go away if they just bit the bullet and had sex with folks they weren't remotely attracted to, but as it turns out, not a one of them stopped being homosexual - i.e. stopped being sexually attracted to folks of the same sex.
And why would they? Why would we expect sexual orientation to be so fluid in most cases that you could just flip-flop? HD, tell us - what would it take to flip your sexual orientation? What would it take to get you to stop being attracted to women and start enjoying sex with men?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-14-2004 12:52 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 214 of 323 (114976)
06-14-2004 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hangdawg13
06-14-2004 12:52 AM


Hangdawg13 writes:
quote:
I know that there are thousands of homosexuals who became het after becoming a Christian and being epistemologically rehabilitated.
Incorrect.
There aren't any gay people who have turned straight.
Not one.
Oh, there are plenty of people who say they've converted, but when you actually sit them down and talk to them, ask them if they still feel attraction to people of the same sex, you find that those feelings haven't gone away. They've merely been suppressed.
Thus, they aren't straight. Straight people don't find people of the same sex sexually desirable with any regularity.
There's a reason that the various organizations who claim to provide "reparative therapy" don't keep track of their "graduates." They invariably find that it didn't take, they are still attracted to people of the same sex, and most of them go back to expressing their sexual desires.
They can't even keep their spokespeople from going back to their old ways. Exodus has had a horrible time trying to keep their success stories out of the media for going back to their gay ways. The foundersTHE FOUNDERS admitted to themselves that this "reparative therapy" was a crock, fell in love with each other, and left.
Then there's Paulk, who right after his cover story in such places as Newsweek was found in a gay bar hitting on other men. Forget the fact that he was still gay...he was married. What happened to his wedding vows?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-14-2004 12:52 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-15-2004 12:02 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 235 by custard, posted 06-15-2004 3:09 PM Rrhain has not replied

Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 323 (114985)
06-14-2004 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hangdawg13
06-14-2004 12:52 AM


To Hangdawg13:
I believe the attraction in itself is not a sin, but a temptation to sin.
I don't know if you realise this, but this is one hell of an important distinction to make, and I am very happy you hold this view.
I would guess that the homosexual attraction is a combination of many factors. I know that there are thousands of homosexuals who became het after becoming a Christian and being epistemologically rehabilitated. I think these people have started a website with testimonials.
Ouch. You don't want to go there. Consider: why don't we make heterosexuals under go epistemological rehabilitation to become homosexuals?
Edited to add: by the way SleepingDragon, I think you ought to be commended for being the most mannerly and least emotional of any member on this site.
Considering that I was warned by admin for being emotional and impolite on another thread a couple of weeks ago, I am in no position to comment on this. But thanks anyway.

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-14-2004 12:52 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 323 (115031)
06-14-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Hangdawg13
06-11-2004 11:29 PM


Besides the fact that I have become arrogant and am no longer viewing her honorably as a child of God, but an object for my sexual gratification.
Who said she has to be an object? Why can't she be another person that you find physically attractive, with whom you want to share an enjoyable experience?
I'm not suggesting wiping yourself on her knee, tossing five bucks on the bed and walking out the door or anything, here.

"Egos drone and pose alone, Like black balloons, all banged and blown
On a backwards river the infidels shiver in the stench of belief.
And tell my mama I'm a hundred years late; I'm over the rails and out of the race
The crippled psalms of an age that won't thaw are ringing in my ears"
-Beck

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-11-2004 11:29 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 323 (115078)
06-14-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Rrhain
06-12-2004 8:18 PM


Re: my reason LAM
The dance example is a joke. The tendens anf ligaments they work to stretch were made to work in those ways. Just because you can force somethiing into an opening doesn't mean that it was made for that. But you can always talk yourself into anything if you try hard enough. -Z

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Rrhain, posted 06-12-2004 8:18 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-14-2004 2:42 PM Zachariah has not replied
 Message 225 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2004 10:01 PM Zachariah has replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 218 of 323 (115090)
06-14-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by crashfrog
06-12-2004 6:36 PM


Fornication
is a sinful act. Unequivocally unqualified.
Whether or NOT gay people marry is of no concern to me.
God made no provision for Adam and Steve, or the bible would state so clearly and there would be no question, as there is not question regarding Adam and Eve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 6:36 PM crashfrog has not replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 219 of 323 (115092)
06-14-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Rrhain
06-12-2004 8:30 PM


scope
have you ever had your intestines scoped? The natural impulse of the sphincter muscle is to expel the object inserted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 06-12-2004 8:30 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2004 10:08 PM PecosGeorge has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 220 of 323 (115099)
06-14-2004 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Zachariah
06-14-2004 1:14 PM


Re: my reason LAM
The dance example is a joke. The tendens anf ligaments they work to stretch were made to work in those ways. Just because you can force somethiing into an opening doesn't mean that it was made for that.
I don't think the dance example is a joke - I don't believe that tendons/ligaments/muscle are made to do splits, or allow someone to bend their body in half, or dead lift several hundred pounds. Humans train them to be capable of that - just as someone can train their anal sphincter to relax (and enjoy!) having something placed in it...
Considering all of the 'unnatural' things people do with their bodies - wearing clothes, eating cooked/processed foods, staring at a computer screen for hours at time, etc.; it seems silly to say that in this one sexual context biology dictates proper use (and by extension morality).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Zachariah, posted 06-14-2004 1:14 PM Zachariah has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Chiroptera, posted 06-14-2004 3:01 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 323 (115101)
06-14-2004 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by pink sasquatch
06-14-2004 2:42 PM


Re: my reason LAM
quote:
Considering all of the 'unnatural' things people do with their bodies....
Including taking medication to cure/alleviate illness. And surgery. Medicine is a very unnatural practice that most fundamentalists seem not to have much problem with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by pink sasquatch, posted 06-14-2004 2:42 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 222 of 323 (115104)
06-14-2004 3:09 PM


Married by (not to) a homosexual.
My (heterosexual) marriage ceremony was performed by a homosexual man.
I find it an interesting societal contradiction that a homosexual can legally perform and bless a marriage but not legally be married himself. A homosexual (fornicator!) can be a judge, religious leader, boat captain - not to mention teacher/senator/doctor/etc...
If homosexuality represents such a danger to society, why let homosexuals take such jobs? Homosexuals can lead religions or perform brain surgery, but are not ethical or moral enough to be husbands or wives? Ridiculous...

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 223 of 323 (115174)
06-14-2004 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by berberry
06-10-2004 12:30 AM


Sorry, got busy again. Haven't been able to get back here in a while. I don't know what's been said between the post I'm responding to and this one.
Why the trepidation? Slavery and subordination of women are pretty big, immoral no-noes in my estimation. The fact that Paul promoted both is enough for me to conclude that his epistles are of no moral value whatsoever.
I'm sure they are in your estimation.
First, I don't believe that Paul "promoted" slavery. He did discuss it with no attempt to put an end to it. Slavery has been common in a number of societies where it bore no resemblance to the awful things that happened to blacks in the United States, and where it was little different than an employer/employee relationship in the U.S.
I live in a community of about 200 people. The women here live in what we believe is the same subordinate role Paul would have approved of. Any of the single ladies living here, and there's a dozen or so, could walk away today, and not one of them wants to. Probably the most typical comment from visitors to our village is how peaceful it is and how happy everyone is.
You're welcome to call a submissive role for women immoral. I don't agree with you, a significant percentage of America doesn't agree with you, and I don't think I see anything in mainstream western society that lends much authority to its views on the matter.
But then, I'm also sure I would define Paul's idea of a submissive or subordinate role for women much different than you would.
I asked why it is that the bible never condemns the cowardly actions of Lot in Genesis 19. Care to answer that?
I didn't see that this was relevant. I think you're drawing assumptions about my views on the Bible from my comments about Paul. The story of Lot is a very old story and comes from a society much different than the one I live in. I think what Lot did was awful.
I think I could find more than a very, very few people who would agree that slavery is immoral.
You're right, you could, and if we're talking about the American version of slavery, you'd find me among those. I'm not sure that I'd agree that the 19th century version of slavery in India was immoral, although the caste system that it was a part of I agree is awful.
Either way, that's one. You said many.
Perhaps I might also find at least a significant minority who would agree that women should be allowed to speak in the church.
Here's two, but this doesn't apply to the issue of immoral for two reasons. One, people who agree that women should be allowed to speak in church might very well not agree that a man who didn't allow that speaking 2,000 years ago, in that society, was necessary immoral for going along with his society's attitudes in that area. Two, and more significantly, it would be likely to be a minority who would agree that Paul didn't allow women to speak in church. He talks about women praying and prophesying in the same chapter. Female prophets are mentioned in the NT. Paul described Phoebe and Prisca as fellow workers, and Junia as being "of note among the apostles." It's awful hard to be certain what he was talking about in 1 Cor 14.
Perhaps I'm naive, but I have enough faith in mankind to feel safe in saying that almost all civilized people, at least here in the Western Hemisphere, have come to realize that slavery is immoral.
My complaint is not about your moral views. Obviously, we have a different opinion on the morality of practicing homosexuality, which would have been obvious, I think, even prior to this discussion. But on the subject of Paul, my complaint is your harsh judgmentalism of him. I think you have taken his words in the worst possible way, ignored his cultural context, and condemned him as immoral based on those judgments.
I would add that I think you're putting the slavery he spoke of in an American context, and I don't think that's accurate, either.
In the end, your conclusion that "The fact that Paul promoted both is enough for me to conclude that his epistles are of no moral value whatsoever," is, in my opinion, unjustified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by berberry, posted 06-10-2004 12:30 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by berberry, posted 06-15-2004 3:38 PM truthlover has replied

MexicanHotChocolate
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 323 (115184)
06-14-2004 9:10 PM


The plain fact is that all of the references to homosexuality in the Bible are about men humilating and degrading other men by treating them like women as women were seen as being below even a donkey (see the 10th commandment). It was a common practice in Biblical times for a victorious general to humiliate the defeated general by raping him. The Bible never speaks against consentual acts of homosexual sex. In fact the Bible never even mentions consentual sex between people of the same sex except a vague passage about Jonathan and David some have interrupted that way.

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 225 of 323 (115197)
06-14-2004 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Zachariah
06-14-2004 1:14 PM


Re: my reason LAM
Zachariah responds to me:
quote:
The dance example is a joke. The tendens anf ligaments they work to stretch were made to work in those ways.
And what makes you think your anus isn't made to stretch and work in that way, too? It's a muscle just like any other. If you exercise it, it becomes stronger. By your logic, a bodybuilder shouldn't lift weights because by stressing and pulling on those muscles, they'll just get weaker and weaker until they can't be used anymore.
Just because you are incapable of doing the splits doesn't mean anybody else who can is some sort of unnatural freak of nature. What is different about the anal sphincter that unlike every other muscle in the body that becomes stronger with heavy use, it actually becomes weaker?
You do know that there are people who engage in fisting, yes? That's where you take your entire hand, usually much bigger than any penis, and insert it completely into the rectum of your sex partner. Some people are so adept at this that they can two hands.
And strangely, none of these people have a problem with "anal leakage." So if anal sex with something as big as your arm doesn't cause any problems, how could something as small as your penis be of any concern?
Take a deep breath, relax, and use plenty of lubricant.
quote:
Just because you can force somethiing into an opening doesn't mean that it was made for that.
Who said anything about "forcing"? Your mouth is an entry, fight? You're supposed to take food in through your mouth, right? Well, if I force food into your mouth, I'll break it. I can easily knock out your teeth, tear open the corners of your mouth, and cause other serious damage...possibly even kill you in the process.
But that doesn't mean that the mouth should never be used to take in food. It simply means you shouldn't force it.
What makes you think anal sex requires any forcing? If you're forcing it, you're doing it wrong.
Take a deep breath, relax, and use plenty of lubricant.
quote:
But you can always talk yourself into anything if you try hard enough.
It doesn't matter how much talking you do. If you don't want to do it, it will not be pleasant. And that applies to penis/vagina sex. That's why it's called "rape" and why rape kits can tell just by looking at the way the vagina bruises if the sex was consensual or not. When a woman tenses up and a man has to force his way inside, damage is done.
So why are you picking on anal sex when it's no different from vaginal sex? Take a deep breath, relax, and use plenty of lubricant. Vaginal sex is commonly painful for women when they first have intercourse precisely because they haven't learned how to control their vaginal muscles. They have to learn how to relax so that their partners don't have to force it.
How is that any different from anal sex?
Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean nobody else does. Perhaps instead of whining about how it's impossible, you should find a good teacher and learn how it is done.
I'm always astounded by those who claim that something "can't be done" or "isn't designed to do that" when simple observation shows that it is easily done and thus must necessarily be designed to do that. "You can't use a dime as a screwdriver! It was never designed to be one!" And yet, I find no difficulties in using a dime as a screwdriver in many cases. Who are these people who say that what happens right in front of their eyes is impossible?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Zachariah, posted 06-14-2004 1:14 PM Zachariah has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Zachariah, posted 06-16-2004 11:41 PM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024