The bible and homosexuality

Glad you asked.There are two types of slavery described even in the Law of Moses. One's for captured foreigners, and it is the ownership of another human being that you think of when you think of slavery. The other is the indentured service that a Hebrew could commit himself to. Both are referred to as slavery in ancient writings.So there are two things at work in Paul's references to slavery. One, that slavery was often something one commited himself/herself to, and it wasn't a whole lot different than our employer/employee relationships. Two, where the other type of slavery was happening, there wouldn't have been a whole heck of a lot Paul could do about it, besides what he does, which is to ask for a master to treat his slave kindly. I never said anything about women or girls being inferior. Right, it was a comment. My answer was that your question is irrelevant. Are we discussing Biblical inerrancy or something? I thought we were discussing Paul.But here's another comment. The Bible is silent on everything. It's an inanimate collection of various types of writings. We could discuss why the writer of Genesis or the culture that passed the Lot story along were silent on Lot's behavior, but I still wouldn't see where that was relevant, because Paul didn't write Genesis, lived a thousand years later, and was from a mixed Greek/Hebrew culture. No, I think he was supposed to be telling disciples of Christ how to live in a society that they could expect to be opposed to them. Because reforming society had nothing to do with his mission or message.

You're funny! I mean that kindly and thank you for a smile.
You see, I don't think it matters much what I think and therefore say. I was just given an outline as to what is natural, and am still struggling not to he perplexed. What comes across my desk daily says I should not be, for the obscenities are forced upon me via technology whether I like it or not. And here is the clincher....I call certain things obscene, to someone else they are perfectly natural.
I have said and will say again, homosexuality is to me what the Bible says it is, wrong. The explanations you ask for would take a time to put together and I do not have it. That at one point after creation, genetics were perfect, is fact to me. That at another point after creation, they became imperfect, is also fact to me. Did God make the imperfection? Again, time prohibits dealing with that question.
I trust this is sufficient and please don't come back and say 'no'. Accept the answer given for what there is to give.

wrong.....
There is smooth, cardiac, and skeletal. All different with there own purposes. The sphincter muscle (smooth) is used to close off and "naturaly" disallow anything from entering. And wether you can admit it or not having anal sex is allowing something to go into a place it wasn't made for. The entire intestine and colon acts as one big squeeze tube that messages the fecal matter into the rectum for evacuation. That the sole purpose. Like I said if you try to you can talk yourself into believing anything to be true. If you are into anal sex then nothing I say is going to turn you off of it. That wasn't my intent anyway. LAM had a topic and I stated my opinion. You disagree. Who really cares? Peace out. -ZThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 06-16-2004 10:41 PM

Zachariah, I don't think you know what's safe and what's not. Even though I have never had anal sex, I have attended a lecture held by a doctor (can't remember her name for the life of me) at my university and she specifically said that there is absolutely nothing unhealthy about anal sex as long as follow certain so-called safety protocols. By the way, refer to Message 145 for my response to the unhealthy issue, even though I fail to see what this has to do with the bible.

---

The Laminator

​

The reason that people "get into it" is because it is decadent, naughty, taboo. Not because it feels good. If it felt good most men would be running there ass off to get there next prostate check. Do they? HELL no! I have had one....one! Not real excited about the next. Besides, the nerves in the anus aren't pleasure receptors like in the male and female genitalia. You rock!!!! -z

brocolli, liver & onions or chili ice cream.Different strokes for different folk.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I can tell you this my little friend. The states keep handing out condoms like they're going out of style and allowing the kids to believe that they are full proof against STDS. Guess what they aren't. The papilloma virus is spreading like crazy and condoms DON'T stop it. I know this for a fact. Did you ever stop to think that your professor didn't tell you everything. Maybe just maybe she a big advocate of anal sex. Why would she then be negative against it? And guess what I had anal sex with a girl I dated and thought it was great. Does that make it right? No. It makes what I did wrong. But lust is a powerful thing and there's not much that can stop it. -Z

Interesting. Although I'm not sure that safety is really the issue. I think the question Rrhain and Z were arguing was whether it was 'natural'; specifically whether the anus was designed to admit entry of foreign objects.I think Z made a strong point that, by the definition of design/function of the anus, it isn't 'natural' although I saw Rrhain argued that everything a human being does is natural because man is part of nature.I think the back and forth here demonstrates that the argument whether anal sex is natural or not is moot: it depends on your definition of natural, and even if the function of the anus is to act primarily as a one-way opening, using it for something other than that doesn't mean it's unnatural.For example, I doubt too many people would argue the primary function of the human mouth is to provide oral sex, but lots of people use it for that purpose. Does that make oral sex 'unnatural,' and therefore, wrong?This message has been edited by custard, 06-16-2004 11:05 PM

Good point. You know I went to a doctor a while back because my ear was giving me some problems. You know what he asked me? If I used Q-tips to clean my ears. He said nothing smaller than your pinky finger should go into your ears but since they were such the right size for cleaning the ear and it felt soo good people use them not really knowing that they could be causing a problem. In my case my ear wasn't producing the "natural" wax in a sufficiant amount due to my over cleaning with the Q-tips. Everyone reading along getting the point I'm making. Just because it fits doesn't mean it's natural or right. Hell OJ Simpson should have been enough for everyone to get that point. "Don't force it into the glove OJ it just doesn't fit" (of coarse that got him out of the jam huh) Peace out brothers. -ZThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 06-16-2004 11:48 PMThis message has been edited by Zachariah, 06-16-2004 11:50 PM

To PecosGeorge: Spoken like a true fundamentalist, I applaud you!In that case I will simply state that your views, whether derived from the bible or otherwise, are prejudice and discriminatory, and therefore immoral in the eyes of the society. This is the reason why so many people in this forum (and in the world, in fact) oppose your perspective.Yours sincerely.*********************************************************************By the way, you should probably change: to *********************************************************************

---

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

truthlover writes:

quote:

---

...there wouldn't have been a whole heck of a lot Paul could do about it, besides what he does, which is to ask for a master to treat his slave kindly.

---

Oh? I thought Paul was God's spokesman (that's what the fundies say, anyway). God couldn't think of anything to have Paul say? Like, for instance, "if you own slaves, free them!"? Was Paul so impotent that he couldn't speak out against something as horrible as slavery?And why is it that Paul chooses his words so poorly, especially if God's there to tell him what to say? Why does he say 'effeminacy' when he means 'cowardice', or 'slavery' when he means either 'indentured servitude' or 'the caste system in India'?

quote:

---

I never said anything about women or girls being inferior.

---

Then what was the point of saying that the single women in your small town don't want to move away?

quote:

---

My answer was that your question is irrelevant.

---

In message 118 upthread, you state: Therefore you brought up the idea that Paul meant 'cowardice' when he said 'effeminacy'. You said further that cowardice is considered a major sin and is condemned by scripture. My question is most certainly not irrelevant if you wish to assert that the bible condemns cowardice. Since you refuse to answer the question but instead call it irrelevant when it clearly isn't, I can only infer that you can't answer the question and wish to divert attention from it.

quote:

---

The Bible is silent on everything.

---

Then how can it possibly condemn homosexuality?

quote:

---

No, I think he was supposed to be telling disciples of Christ how to live in a society that they could expect to be opposed to them.

---

That's interesting. So he was only speaking to Christians? Then why is it that so many Christians want homosexuality condemned by law? Can't Christian men trust themselves around other men without needing the law to keep them in line?

quote:

---

...reforming society had nothing to do with his mission or message.

---

Then why did he speak out against homosexuality? If you are to be believed, he must have been pretty obsessed about it since he mentions it over and over.But if he didn't want society to change, why does he bother speaking out against anything?As an aside, I'd like to point out that although we are not discussing the specific subject topic, what we are discussing is still germane to it. I maintain that the bible never says one word against committed, monogomous homosexual relationships. However, many people don't agree and it is therefore quite relevant to establish that the bible is not a reliable moral guide and therefore anything it might say about homosexuality can be safely ignored. There is no way to do this without discussing other issues related to the bible.

Zachariah splutters:

quote:

---

The states keep handing out condoms like they're going out of style and allowing the kids to believe that they are full proof against STDS.

---

Next thing you know they'll be serving them at lunch, huh?Where are they teaching kids that condoms are "full proof" (I assume you meant 'foolproof') against STDs?

quote:

---

The papilloma virus is spreading like crazy and condoms DON'T stop it.

---

I should think you're referring to the form of HPV that affects female organs. That being the case, what does HPV have to do with the discussion at hand? We were talking about homosexuality and the bible. HPV is not even tangentially connected. The sexually transmitted form of HPV affects women, and since it is inconceivable that a woman would need a condom to have sex with another woman, what the hell does HPV have to do with anything?

quote:

---

And guess what I had anal sex with a girl I dated...

---

Do tell!

quote:

---

...and thought it was great. Does that make it right? No. It makes what I did wrong.

---

Meaning what? That things that are great are wrong?

quote:

---

But lust is a powerful thing and there's not much that can stop it.

---

Then stop trying.No, don't! I'm not sure why, but I rather like you. You're like desdemona-lite. In a bizarre sort of way, you're fun!

Same thought occurred to me when he made the analogy. HPV, generally, is a benign disease which, while unsightly on men, really has no negative affects. Yes there are some strains of HPV that have been linked to cervical cancer, but that is a small percentage of the thirty or so types of HPV out there. Even then, not all women who are exposed to HPV contract it. And not all who contract the strain of HPV that can cause cancer actually contract cervical cancer.
(HPV FAQ here: Attention Required! | Cloudflare)To say that HPV is a reason not to have sex (which you could still contract from your spouse anyway), is almost as ridiculous as saying we should stop shaking hands to prevent the spreading colds or molluscum (warts on your hands).Since the topic is homosexuality, HPV is even less germain to the argument that homosexual sex is 'wrong' because gay men can't develop cervical cancer; and I'm not sure how effectively lesbians could spread HPV - although that last thought makes me think I should do more {ahem} research on the subject.This message has been edited by custard, 06-17-2004 07:48 PM

I have anal sex with my heterosexual wife, and in a loving, respectful way - is that right or wrong? What about oral sex?

True. Yet my spouse reports having better, more intense orgasms during anal sex than during vaginal sex. The nerves in the anus are actually more sensitive than in the vagina, which is why anal sex can be painful if done improperly (and why it feels so good when done properly). See above comment. It feels good. And we are not into 'naughtiness' or 'taboos', especially after years of marriage and a couple hundred anal encounters, so to speak. (and if I thought my sex life was taboo I wouldn't be writing about it here, I can tell you that.) Ridiculous - like saying if you enjoy having your scrotum handled you will enjoy having an examination for testicular cancer; or if you enjoy having your breasts fondled you will enjoy a mammogram. One is cold and clinical and has nothing to do with sensuality - unless you have some sort of medical fetish.You don't have to enjoy anal sex. That doesn't mean that everyone else is incapable deriving pleasure from it...(Apologies to all if that was too much information - just tired of people stating as fact that anal sex is painful, unnatural, wrongly lustful, perverse, etc.)