Does the Bible... [Archive] - Soulforce Community Forums

Tinkerbell047

02-05-2007, 07:07 PM

I have been trying to figure out my own soul searching from over the past few months. I feel like I can't sit by and watch people I know and love being discriminated against for who they love and are attracted to. So, after hours of Bible study I am left with a few questions, which I would like to ask you all. I would like to say that I'm not being discriminatory, or attempting to discourage anyone in any way, I'm just hoping to have some final answers found.

1) While the Bible does condemn lustful homosexual relationships (as it does lustful heterosexual relationships) can we really assume therefore, by lack of mention, that God sees committed gay relationships as okay?

2) Where does God call homosexuality an "abomination?" I have looked before and can't find that scripture. I've asked my father about it but he can't give me a scripture reference, he just says "it's in there! I've read it!"

3) How can we be sure that God affirms being gay or lesbian? I have found many instances of the men who wrote the Bible saying that same sex relationships are "sinful," but not one mention from God or Jesus, however, we know that the Bible was written by man from the inspiration of God.

I know that my personal feelings really don't matter in the scheme of things, and that faith is the cornerstone of Christianity, but those are really the three last things, and two of them seem to be redundant, that have been gnawing at my mind recently. I would love to just put them behind me and be able to just KNOW that God is with my gay and lesbian friends and family, but I can't seem to get past those last points. I feel almost hypocritical telling my friends "it's okay, everything will be okay in the end," when inside I'm not sure yet. I want to be.

I would love your opinions on this, and I thank you for your comments. I know it's going to take time and prayer before God makes his final plans clear to me, and I thank you all for your kindness. : )

-Tink

nmwolfboy

02-05-2007, 07:16 PM

Tink, you'll find some good info & references in the "Resources" section of this site. Here's a link (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian) to one that will get you started. :)

-scott

Tinkerbell047

02-06-2007, 09:09 PM

Thanks! That's a really insightful link.

beat0it

02-06-2007, 11:40 PM

I am quite grateful for this post. I have recently come out to a select few of my friends and still feel a need to be "in hiding" when it comes to my faith and the people in my life who are Christians. I know that if I were to come out to my Christian friends then I would become their "project"--they would want to constantly pray that God would help me come to the realization that im not gay and they would sort of look down on me. Not telling them makes me feel like a liar but at this moment, keeping from them something that is huge in my life, makes me feel safer--until I am more knowledgeable on what is really said in the Bible about homosexuality. I have days where I feel like I am "wrong" and that I shouldn't act upon the feelings I have--but in my heart--deep inside of me--I know I am not. God loves everyone--equally. It's just hard to always be aware of that. The link is a really good one--absolutely worth my time to read all of it. So, thank you Tink for your openness about what questions you want answered and thank you Scott for sharing the link.

:wave:
--Lindsey.

Emproph

02-07-2007, 09:36 AM

2) Where does God call homosexuality an "abomination?" I have looked before and can't find that scripture. I've asked my father about it but he can't give me a scripture reference, he just says "it's in there! I've read it!"

Apparently it all comes down to whose version of God’s unchangeable Word you trust most.

In regard to Leviticus 18:22, homosexuals can either be "detestable," as in the New International Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2018:22&version=31):
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Or we can be an "abomination," as in the King James Version (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2018:22;&version=9;):
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
~~
Fortunately though there’s a warning and/or testimony on the last page of the Bible so as to ensure that no one changes the Bible:

Revelations 22:18 NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2022:18-19;&version=31;):
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Revelations 22:18 KJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelations%2022:18-19;&version=9;):
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book

–There are plenty more versions to look up too. I’ve found BibleGateway.com (above links) to be a handy online resource for looking up Scriptures and comparing versions (and don’t forget to Google (http://www.google.com/)!).
~~
Tink, you'll find some good info & references in the "Resources" section of this site. Just for the record here’s the resources page: http://www.soulforce.org/article/5
~~
How can we be sure that God affirms being gay or lesbian?“Being” is out of ones control, so if you've come to that conclusion I think your concern applies more to:
can we really assume therefore, by lack of mention, that God sees committed gay relationships as okay? You mean does God see our Love as okay? The idea is that our love is not real, this is what "justifies" our religious persecution. However, the majority of religious condemnation we face is insincere on even a Biblical level.

Leviticus 20:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13;&version=9;) (KJV):
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

To truly be sincere would be to openly advocate for the death of homosexual persons, which would be to advocate for the death of Americans, and who wants to be THAT Christian?

Much easier to first redefine those Americans as 'less than' by redefining America itself – via constitutional "marriage" amendment.

If marriage were what they were truly trying to protect don’t you think they’d have started with divorce? Remember, Jesus did talk about remarriage and defined it as adultery (http://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jlc/stuff2.html) (with slight exception). Same sinfulness and consequences as for the "sin" of homosexuality, yet nary a peep about the Biblical immorality of that "sin" or concern for those "lost" souls.

My point is this, would this even be an issue for you if you had not been “told” or taught that homosexuality was somehow wrong? Or perhaps, to what extent do you feel that your views on this are, or have been influenced and shaped by others – without sufficient understanding as to why?

Gregory_de_Bois

02-07-2007, 03:53 PM

I accept all of the explanations for the verses, and I think they all make sense, Biblically and logically, but there is one verse(s) that really annoys me, Romans 1:26-31. They always pull this one, and I just feel so hated. Why would I be made Gay (can't change it, and go clinically insane if no relationship) if I will just go to Hell for it? What kind of a sadistic, diabolical god would do that? It doesn't seem at all consistent with the God of the Bible. Jesus does not seem like the man who does that. I would rather worship Jesus than the god of the American Church... Could someone please explain this verse to me?

Sharone

02-07-2007, 06:01 PM

Tinkerbell,
Thanks for your post. One of the things I discovered, after years and years of being told that homosexuality is evil, is that the Bible speaks against homosexual rape and sexual rituals for worship of other gods. It doesn't specifically even address homosexuality. In fact, the word homosexual wasn't even in the Bible. The original language and context is used time and again in inproper ways to skew the scripture to mean what someone already feels is right. We have to be so careful to not read into what we want. It's not easy!
Hope the resources link helped you.
God bless.
Sharone

Gilchrist Gawain

02-10-2007, 01:26 AM

What word does the Bible use instead of "homosexual"?

pnggrad79

02-10-2007, 08:27 AM

Paul uses a term he coined "arsenokoitai" which is a compound word he made up for male and bed. He used it in reference to temple prostitution at the temple of Diana in Ephesus or Corinth. He was speaking of heterosexual and homosexual prostitution in worship of a false god. Future translators didn't know how to translate this term so they put in "homosexual" and left it alone. The word didn't appear until the late 1800's. Hopefully, this helps. Any condemnation Paul levied against people was against temple prostitution and idol worship.

Steven E. Webster

02-10-2007, 04:16 PM

Friends,

You are right that the word "homosexual" was coined sometime in the 1800's (in German, I believe). The prefix "homo" is from the Greek "same" and the word "sexual" is a Latin word.

Bible translators did not use "homosexual" until 1946 when it was used first by the Revised Standard Version.

I'm of the opinion that no one really knows for sure what Paul meant by the words "arsenkoitai" and "malakoi." One would have to be able to read Paul's mind to know for sure. To translate these words as "homosexual" is just to apply our modern biases to an ancient text.

Steven Webster

Gregory_de_Bois

02-10-2007, 07:56 PM

I found the best explanation for the Corinthian and Timothy verses in a book called "The New Testament and Homosexuality" and I think the religious tolerance website (I don't know if it's .org or .com) best explain Romans.

Gilchrist Gawain

02-10-2007, 11:13 PM

scott snedeker

02-11-2007, 01:37 AM

Sounds like we are applying our modern biases to the interpretation of the historical event of the translation/interpretation of the Bible. Just like those silly Bible translators...how peculiar.

Of course we are! We come from a modern perspective. To look at these verses and evaluate them creates bias by its action. You sound as if you know of some other perspective. As of yet my consciousness has only existed in one place in the last 42 years and 8 months

The truth as we know it is within each of us. I have enough faith in my entitlement to live, love and let joy into my life to trust my emotions as a guide; a guide to determine whether something is good for me (intended for me from God) or spiritual poison.:whistleblower:

I used to be upset when I read them. Later merely annoyed. Now I see them as a test for me to see how strong my connection is to the unconditional love of my self and others.

These verses are mere words printed on paper. How you interpret them is your bias. I see them as a test of spiritual hygeine. How you react to them reflects an emotional sprirtual escrow within you. Consider it a spiritual barbell God put there for you to strength train so you can overcome self-loathing. The less negative you feel after reading them the stronger you are! :tup: :agree:

Gilchrist Gawain

02-11-2007, 10:56 AM

Religion of self. Sweet.

nmwolfboy

02-11-2007, 12:30 PM

Ok...so I just got two very different answers, both of which seem to be based primarily on opinion, rather than actual evidence.

Sounds like we are applying our modern biases to the interpretation of the historical event of the translation/interpretation of the Bible. Just like those silly Bible translators...how peculiar.

Not peculiar at all. It's simply the continuance of a documented history of Biblical exegesis. The accepted translations of Biblical passages have varied throughout history, and it's not unusual to find that those differing translations had less to do with an accurate universal translation of original text than it did with the prevailing moral views of the times within which the particular interpretation was accepted.

Boswell outlined this phenomenon quite well in Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, with respect to one of the words St. Paul used:
"malakos" (basically, "soft"), is an extremely common Greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament with the meaning "sick" and in patristic writings with senses as varied as "liquid", "cowardly", "refined", "weak willed", "delicate", "gentle", and "debauched". In a specifically moral context it very frequently means "licentious", "loose", or "wanting in self-control". At a broad level, it might be translated as either "unrestrained" or "wanton", but to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay people is wholly gratuitous. The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically, and it often occurs in writings contemporary with the Pauline epistles in reference to heterosexual persons or activity.

What is more to the point, the unanimous tradition of the church through the Reformation, and of Catholicism until well into the twentieth century, has been that this word applied to masturbation. This was the interpretation not only of native Greek speakers in the early Middle Ages but of the very theologians who most contributed to the stigmatization of homosexuality. No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. {emphasis mine - s.} Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians.

Others in this thread have pointed out the words that starting in 1947 began to be translated as "homosexual". But there's another Biblical word that's been understood to refer to gay people: sodomite. According to the published etymology that i've found, prior to the Middle Ages the word just meant a person who had lived in the Old Testament city of Sodom. During the Middle Ages it began to be used to refer to people who were considered to be so wicked that they deserved the same fate as befell Sodom.

Biblical interpretation has always been influenced by the biases of the interpreters' times. It's well within Christian tradition for exegesis to take temporal context into account, both when looking at what the Biblical authors were saying in their own times, and when looking at what the Scriptures mean in our times.

Gilchrist Gawain

02-11-2007, 02:07 PM

Like I said, religion of self. We place significance not on what was meant by the words when they were inspired by God and written down by men, but what we want them to mean now.

andrewlittle

02-11-2007, 02:18 PM

What word does the Bible use instead of "homosexual"?

The use of the words "instead of" would require that the word "homosexual" was pre-existent - that it was the original word, and another was used instead of it. That is not the case. There were words used in both the Hebrew and Greek texts, and then "homosexual" was used instead of those words.

Ok...so I just got two very different answers, both of which seem to be based primarily on opinion, rather than actual evidence.

Sounds like we are applying our modern biases to the interpretation of the historical event of the translation/interpretation of the Bible. Just like those silly Bible translators...how peculiar.

Evidence? What evidence to you possess of which we are unaware? When we are examining writings from millenia ago, and the words either have different meanings than that used in subsequent translations or words that have meanings that are unknown, how do you come by this special "evidence" to which you allude.

Like I said, religion of self. We place significance not on what was meant by the words when they were inspired by God and written down by men, but what we want them to mean now.

So, Gilchrist, since there was no word used in the Bible instead of "homosexual", and the words that were translated as "homosexual" centuries later have meanings that we cannot know in this time and place, how would YOU suggest we do exegesis on the original Hebrew and Greek texts? What would be something other than "religion of self" as you see it?

Do you possess some special gnosis - some divine revelation - about what God or the men (now there's an interesting assumption) meant? Pray tell - how do we simple 21st century beings come to this divine knowledge?

Daniel

02-11-2007, 02:30 PM

Like I said, religion of self. We place significance not on what was meant by the words when they were inspired by God and written down by men, but what we want them to mean now.

Sorry to nit-pick here, but who is the we you are referring to exactly?

tpdncr4christ

02-11-2007, 03:00 PM

Like I said, religion of self. We place significance not on what was meant by the words when they were inspired by God and written down by men, but what we want them to mean now.

Two men read a book:

1.) The first man reads it and finds the story to be about love and passion and is so moved by the peice that he goes out into the world and preaches that we should love other's with all our hearts, no matter what happens in the end.

2.) The second reads it and believes the story to be about justice and law, and is so moved by the peice that he goes out into the world and preaches that we should honor the law (the will of our leaders, governments and parents), and fear it, else we will meet our just and terrible end.

Sounds like two very different stories doesn't it?

The story was Romeo and Juliet. The first man sees the ultimate love between Romeo and Juliet and is so moved by their death's that he preaches love. The second sees the justice that comes to two children who defy their parents and the law and is so moved by this display of justice that he goes out and preaches it.

The funny thing is, when Shakespeare wrote it, he intended it to be about Humanity. Not just love, not just justice, but humanity. Now, the two men interpreted the story to what they wanted it to mean, not what was meant by the words when they were written down by Shakespeare. Don't you think that maybe, God could do the same thing? Don't you think that's the beauty of the Bible? It can mean so many different things to so many different people and yet still say the same words it has said for the last two thousand years.

Perhaps it's not the words. Perhaps, dare I say it, it's what the words mean. You know, I think God is a little better than Shakespeare when it comes to writing... So I have a feeling if Shakespeare can weave a story that has multiple interpratations, than God certainly can.

scott snedeker

02-11-2007, 04:17 PM

Religion of self. Sweet.

Absolutely Correct! Now I think you are starting to get it!

This is my connection to self love and love of others unconditionally. The definition of my best connection to God within me. It is indeed very sweet! I can feel it! For me this is the first beginnings of my true spirituality as evidenced by the peace and joy I feel, and the absence of the fear, self loathing and self criticism of my most passionate intimate nature!

So why the sarcasm? Where is there a threat or illegitimacy in affirmation of entitlement to life, love, joy and equal privilege. Why not look inward toward the miraculous being you are with the legitimate assumption that all these and more are a given. It is a given because your inner being loves you! No outside justification is required or desired. Christ felt this in thieves, prostitutes, and enemies. I'm sure I can rely on the assumption that we "homos" are not his unique exclusion, and without risking eternal damnation.

"Go with the best feeling thought available to you and you will edge closer to the path intended for you by [God]" This is the basis of the teachings of Abraham and others! life is supossed to be fun!

Gilchrist Gawain

02-12-2007, 12:09 AM

So: Christianity is no longer based on the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but rather on how our personal inclinations guide us to interpret the Holy Words of God, on our very best feelings (be it revenge or be it love), and on having fun.

The book of Revelation says unpleasant things about any who would add to the Holy Bible. This is not limited to the words only, but also to the meaning that the words were originally intended to convey.

And try not to misconstrue my words either. Though they certainly aren't holy. They are, however, true, and spoken in love (love being motion and action, not emotion and feeling).

Pablo Rafael

02-12-2007, 06:57 AM

So: Christianity is no longer based on the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but rather on how our personal inclinations guide us to interpret the Holy Words of God, on our very best feelings (be it revenge or be it love), and on having fun.

Your logic is not holding up here. The choice you give is either believe in Christ or in personal interpretation. Christ and His redeeming love is center to our faith; that is a point I am firmly in agreement with you on. However interpretation is a different matter.

I believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God. However, it must be interpreted to be understood. It also must be translated since we no longer speak the ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek. We need to realize that we cannot totally understand God's Word; He is beyond comprehension. That is why we must continue to examine our beliefs with study into His Word. Who understands God's Word perfectly? No one.

Don't we all have personal interpretation? How else can we see things but from our own point of view? The thing that I have to guard against is assuming that my interpretation is correct and everyone else is wrong.

There are some Biblical doctrines that are very clear such as "We are saved by Grace through Faith in Christ Jesus." Others like the "descent into hell" are derived from a few (or a single, in that case) unclear passage.

The age old doctrine that the sun moved around the earth was firmly believed for centuries because "it was obvious". At the present time almost no one believes that the passages used to confirm the geocentric theory actually mean that. After Gallileo, the church began to question that stance and finally (and rightly so) abandoned it altogether.

Translation of terms does change over time. When I was younger, it was assumed that wives should always obey their husbands because the Bible said, "Wives obey your husbands." A closer look, however, shows us that the Bible never says that. It tells children to obey their parents and slaves to obey their masters, but with husbands and wives the term is now translated "submit to", a giving up of one's own desires, and it applies to husbands as well as wives. The King James translation was greatly influenced by 17th century understanding when it translated the term "be subject to". In the past as well as today the understanding of society changes how we translate Biblical terms.

Likewise the passages used to condemn loving, monogamous gay relationships are not clear. When we look at them with good Biblical interpretation methods, we realize that nowhere does the Bible speak against gay relationships; idolatry, yes; sexual explotation, yes; gay relationships, no.

The idea that the Bible speaks against homosexuality comes from the ingrained societal belief that "it is obvious". That is a case of formulating a belief and then going to the Bible to look for verification. What we need to do it to go to the Bible first and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. We need to see what the Bible says and allow the Holy Spirit to guide our thinking. I do not see that approach simply as believing what I want to believe, but as being open to new ways of thinking, and through humility allowing God to speak to me.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

Gilchrist Gawain

02-12-2007, 08:13 PM

scott snedeker

02-12-2007, 09:10 PM

So: Christianity is no longer based on the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but rather on how our personal inclinations guide us to interpret the Holy Words of God, on our very best feelings (be it revenge or be it love), and on having fun.

First, I am not a christian. So the first blue highlighted does not fit into my spiritual picture and I don't think it even comes from Christ. Christ's message: see unconditional love in everyone is the touchstone that rings true with my spirit.

Second, Are you maintaining that the latter highlighted are excluded? Torquemada would be pleased at this attitude of control of any independent thought.

The book of Revelation says unpleasant things about any who would add to the Holy Bible. This is not limited to the words only, but also to the meaning that the words were originally intended to convey.

Spirituality through fear? Didn't Christ say fear not? For me Fear is disconnection from God, spiritual poison, killer of love and of no value. Fear destroys self esteem leading to poor life decisions that stifle joy.

And try not to misconstrue my words either. Though they certainly aren't holy. They are, however, true, and spoken in love (love being motion and action, not emotion and feeling).

Lost me. You are the only person that I have ever heard to define love as empty of emotion or feeling. My heart aches for you. Love is a feeling indicating God's presence and pleasure in sharing your joy.

From within there is great love for you. Be kind to your soul. Don't be so hard on yourself. Allow yourself to feel the emotion of self love. Open your heart to receive love without fear. No violence will be done to it. It's true and holy and good. Then, when you allow in love, giving it away just happens naturally, creating even more self love as you do.

I just returned from my Reiki circle, so I'm back in strong connection with uncondtional love. Reiki is my most powerful connection to unconditional love. I will include you if you wish at the next circle. Or maybe try one yourself?

Return love with love and the world gets a little kinder

Sharone

02-12-2007, 09:41 PM

I think you protest too much. Smile. ALL Biblical interpretation over the centuries has been subjective. ALL of it! What you're saying is that there is only one interpretation and anyone who doesn't believe the interpretation that you believe is the only true interpretation, then they are wrong. I'm sorry, but that is just simply not the case. There are many scriptures that have been interpreted many ways over the years.
If a person comes from a certain experience in life, they're going to look at things differently than a person who has a totally different experience. It's human nature. I believe that Jesus Christ is God's Son. I believe He died for my sins. I believe that He never said a word about homosexuality, good or bad. The Bible happens to back up all of these beliefs. However, there are many folks who believe that other parts of the Bible condemn homosexuality. I do not. It's up for interpretation. Mine is going to differ from my Baptist minister father. That doesn't mean either of us is totally right. It just means we see things differently.
Okay, I'm done ranting. Smile.

tdogg

02-12-2007, 11:11 PM

My point is simply this: when the emphasis becomes the interpretation that we ourselves bring to the Scripture, rather than the Scripture that we are interpreting, then we are idolaters.

IMO (perhaps not worth too much to you but worth a lot to me):

To believe that the Bible (which version - a whole other set of complications) is to be taken literally as the inerrant total and absolute truthful word of God is idolatry. To use the scriptures, that I believe were inspired by God but translated over the centuries by men subject to constant and numerous errors (just read the Bible), as a guide to find Truth, Love and the Way is a more appropriate action. I do not believe that a scripture written by men (for the most part the words were penned by males) CENTURIES ago is necessarily an inerrant and perfect guide for my life today. And Gilchrist, my way has worked fairly well for me in my life, I have a wonderful relationship with God, and guess what? God is ok with how he created me and who he blessed me with in my relationship.

It toook me a while to understand why being gay and then being in a relationship with my partner seemed like the most natural, logical and loving thing I could be and do - but I understand and all I can say is amazing. Is God in my life - yes. Do I need to believe in the Bible literally and inerrantly - absolutely not. It's useful, reading it blesses me, not because I hold the tome to be perfect, holy and an idol, but because when I read it with prayer and meditation on what God would have it mean to me, it helps me keep on that straight and narrow path.

A lot of Christians on these forums have moved well past where you are at this point. And, I'm probably fairly accurate by saying that you likely don't read or follow the Bible as a completely accurate, inerrant literal guide for your life today. But I'm sure the words have blessed you, helped you and made your life a bit more joyful?

I failed to give you a proper hello - so hi and welcome to you Gilchrist Gawain - I wish you peace and love (the emotional kind) in your life journey, hope you get some of that from these forums and if you are searching, you will find kind and compassionate friends here. God bless.

Tdogg

tpdncr4christ

02-13-2007, 12:28 AM

And try not to misconstrue my words either. Though they certainly aren't holy. They are, however, true, and spoken in love (love being motion and action, not emotion and feeling).

Explain to me, what you really believe, because I want to make sure I know exactly what you believe, before I choose to agree or disagree with what you are saying... Deal? Deal. You believe ________________. (insert beliefs here; pertaining to the validity of the Bible and interpretation of it.) Then I can reply, without construing words. :D

keltic63

02-13-2007, 05:57 AM

Pablo:

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that in my brevity I have been unclear. Pardon me.

My point is simply this: when the emphasis becomes the interpretation that we ourselves bring to the Scripture, rather than the Scripture that we are interpreting, then we are idolaters.

and when the scripture/law becomes the emphasis rather than the overarching message of the Gospel, we also become idolaters.

andrewlittle:

When I say "what word does the Bible use instead of homosexual?" I mean nothing more complicated than "what word(s) in the Bible do we translate as meaning homosexual?". I can't talk about your other points (as much as I'd love to), because doing so would involve disagreeing with a great many people is such a way that would incur the wrath of the moderators. :rolleyes: Sorry.
andy has given us a great explanation of those words here, read it for yourself (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=15130&postcount=20)

I seem to have had a rash of lack of clarity, as people are misunderstanding me right and left.I'd say that we have a pretty good understanding of everything you're NOT saying.

Daniel

02-13-2007, 08:55 AM

A little background might be helpful here. As such, the word homosexual is a relatively recent phenomena in terms of human history. And while it has been often thought of as having its origin in the late 19th century, it's first use came a bit earlier than that.

The source, quoted here, is presented as background information for the stage play Gross Indecency: The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde, which I am stick kicking myself for not seeing when it produced here in NYC. It utilized the actual transcripts from the trial- showing what really happened- not what is thought to have happened- a very different thing.

http://www.drama.uwaterloo.ca/Gross%20Indecency/homosexuality_word.shtml

Gross Indecency: The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde
Etymology of Homosexuality

The word “homosexual” is a Greek and Latin hybrid. The first part of the word, homo, is often mistaken as the Latin derivative for “man,” but actually goes back to the Greek word for “same.” This also explains why the term can be used to represent the entire range of same-sex relations and affections, including lesbianism. Contrary to popular opinion, the word “homosexual” was coined not by psychiatrists or scientists but by a person who was fighting for homosexual rights. It was first seen in public print in 1869 when it appeared in two anonymous German pamphlets. The term was used in the pamphlet alongside “normalsexual.” These pamphlets were published as a method of fighting against the criminalization of homosexual sex in the newly formed federation of the northern German states. Journalists in the first part of the twentieth century readily adopted the term and made it available for use in everyday language while psychiatric circles continued to use the term “sexual inversion.

While the term “homosexual” was not created until the end of the nineteenth century, same-sex love has been practiced since the beginning of civilization. In ancient Greece and Rome the pairing of same sex partners during the act of lovemaking was not considered out of the ordinary. The disapproving connotations attached to homosexuality began to enter into the thought patterns of Roman society just prior to the emergence of Christianity. As Christianity flourished, the expression of sexuality for any reason other than procreation was considered very sinful, hence the initial persecution of homosexuals. In Justinian’s code from 529 AD, people who engaged in homosexual acts were executed, although anyone who repented was spared. Still, there is evidence of homophilic literature as late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and the persecution of homosexual sex didn’t become prevalent until the latter part of the twelfth century.

During the Middle Ages the term “sodomy” first came into use to describe homosexual love. It originated from Medieval Latin around 1180 as a designation for “crime against nature.” There were three methods by which this crime could be committed: first, by obtaining venereal pleasure with a member of the opposite sex, but “in the wrong manner;” second, by having sex with an individual of the same sex; and third, by having sex with an animal. The abstract noun sodomia (for the sin) originated from sodomita (for the sinner) which was first used with reference to an inhabitant of the city of Sodom. According to the Bible, Sodom was destroyed for the sexual depravity of its male population which had attempted to rape two angels. From Medieval Latin it passed into the languages of Western and Central Europe as the technical expression for a crime which was punishable by death until the second half of the eighteenth century. The terms “Sodomy” and “Sodomite” thus embrace more than just homosexual sex, although most of the prosecutions were for either male homosexuality or bestiality. During the last third of the nineteenth century, the term “Sodomy” usually denoted anal penetration, both homosexual and heterosexual. In England, specifically, it was considered a more sophisticated alternative to the term “bugger.” The term “buggery” had been used universally in English law since the early eighteenth-century to describe “criminally unnatural intercourse” under the same circumstances outlined for “Sodomy” above -- not including lesbian sex. Lesbianism was never criminalized in England. As Queen Victoria said, “women don’t do such things.”

And for those so interested, here is a very good article on the matter in terms of current thinking on the 'social construction' of the word homosexual.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/thorp.html

I have been considering the thesis of Foucault and Halperin and others that homosexuality is a modern category and that the Greeks did not have it. It is true that they did not have the word. And it is true that there are differences over what kinds of homosexual activity are or are not approved and why. But the speech of Aristophanes in the Symposium seems strong evidence that a) it was reasonable to portray males' desire for males as psychically deep -- the notion of hermaphrodism of the soul would have made sense to the Greeks; b) whatever may or may not have been the case about universal initiation rite pederasty, there clearly was taken to be a class of males who had a life-long predilection for males, and moreover a further, less approved, class whose predilection did not respect the age asymmetry that is part of pederasty. Greek homosexuality seems very close to our own category in fundamental ways.

Of course, it may still be the case that homosexuality is a social construct: but if so it is striking that the Greeks and we have constructed it so similarly.

u-dog

02-13-2007, 09:07 AM

According to the Bible, Sodom was destroyed for the sexual depravity of its male population which had attempted to rape two angels.

Good article with the exception of the above quote which as has been said many times before ... is just plain wrong. I'll say it one more time just for the record: When the Bible reflects on the fate of Sodom, the sins of which it stands accused are injustice, not caring about the poor, and inhospitality.

Daniel

02-13-2007, 09:18 AM

Of course- you are entirely correct! my apologies for not amending the author's comments. Thank you for doing so. I rather doubt the author was concerned with matters biblical as much as historical. The church, in fact, has long operated on a regressive view of this scripture, which, I believe, is his/her overall point, and, as such, is the background for the setting of the play.

TigerXero

02-15-2007, 06:47 PM

I just realized a really easy way to remember when the word homosexual was printed in those German pamphlets in 1869!

TigerXero

02-15-2007, 07:07 PM

Was it okay for me to post something like that? I'm not really good with dates, so I thought that was an sly way to remember it.

Daniel

02-15-2007, 08:12 PM

Did you know that when presented with words or pictures, the brain will always go with the picture? I learned that from a friend who is a neurologist.

So, in this case, one should be visualizing the 18th century powdered wigs and.....

Doesn't bother me at all.

I love costume drama's.

Oh.....by the way...I live on 69th Street. :lol: :lol: :lol:

u-dog

02-15-2007, 08:13 PM

As an old person who can't remember ANYTHING I'm all for whatever works:lol:

andrewlittle

02-15-2007, 08:15 PM

...but I thought it was acceptable.
Of course, you will need to explain it to me. Why do you have those two particular numbers in bold type???? :confused: :confused: :confused:

:D :D :lol: :lol:

Of course, after Dave and Daniel replied, I'm picturing something that's going to take a lobotomy to fix.

scott snedeker

02-16-2007, 12:34 AM

Remember, Sex is completely disgusting! except in two situations: :x

Either between two physically perfect people.....or yourself.

It's best not to go there, because most insurances either won't cover lobotomy or the copay is murder!:lol: :lol: :lol:

tdogg

02-16-2007, 06:16 PM

Oh.....by the way...I live on 69th Street. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice, but...I live on BEDington Way!!! :D

That makes for all sorts of fun - not limited to numbers.....:eek:

(I tried to make it sound more interesting than '69th' but someone it doesn't... ;) )

TigerXero

02-16-2007, 06:39 PM

It's good to know I didn't offend anyone. Of course, I don't imagine I would have, but it's better to be safe than sorry I suppose.

Pablo Rafael

02-17-2007, 09:13 AM

keltic63

02-17-2007, 09:17 AM

I must say I am SHOCKED by this conversation!!!:eek:

First I read that Andy is letting his hair grow longer!... and now this!
What IS the world coming to!

The only thing worse would be to hear something really depraved and scandalous like that our own dear Dave, (AKA:u-dog) is wearing an earring now. ;)

Tu (shocked and stunned) Amigo, Pablo :D

I want to go on the record right here and right now, by saying that I have no intention of letting my hair grow, AT ALL!!!!!!

Thank you, and remember me in November 2008

although, the earring has been in place for many years.....

u-dog

02-17-2007, 05:16 PM

You Don"t Have Any Hair !!!!

BTW - no earrings. But I am thinking of having a nipple pierced. What do you think Pablo?

Pablo Rafael

02-17-2007, 05:37 PM

although, the earring has been in place for many years.....

No, no, it can't be! Tell me it's not true! :eek:

BTW - no earrings. But I am thinking of having a nipple pierced. What do you think Pablo?

(Insert horrified scream here!)
Oh... my heart, my heart!
I'm coming, Elizabeth! I'm coming.... :sick:

keltic63

02-17-2007, 07:28 PM

You Don"t Have Any Hair !!!!

Oh, I have plenty of hair, just not on my head ;)

andrewlittle

02-17-2007, 07:37 PM

...now I'm repulsed. Schedule another lobotomy, Jenna.

Of course, David with a nipple ring almost put me over the edge.

Someday, when you are the least bit prepared, I'll tell you about my tattoo. Now you see it. Now you don't. Alright, most of the time you don't. If it wasn't patently against the rules, I'd post pictures.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So, mi amigo Pablo, what freakish body secrets do you have? Please remember, of course, that this is a family forum.

Pablo Rafael

02-18-2007, 06:53 PM

So, mi amigo Pablo, what freakish body secrets do you have? Please remember, of course, that this is a family forum.

How dare you make such an insinuation! Again I am SHOCKED! (I'm quite easily shocked, by the way.)

There is nothing freakish about me at all. Indeed, someone with a handsome, muscular... (I haven't posted any pictures of myself have I? No? Good, I continue.) ...might I say, perfect physique would never do anything freakish. It would be like defacing a Greek statue.

Tu (perfectly handsome) Amigo, Pablo

scott snedeker

02-20-2007, 05:48 AM

woke up this morning and looked in the mirror and said:
Damn! I'm Purty! Modest too!:eek: :lol:

dsdrane

02-20-2007, 02:59 PM

OK, Pablo...make with the pictures...!

:whistleblower:

Tinkerbell047

03-05-2007, 07:11 PM

Wow... I didn't really expect a response like this one. Thanks everyone for your comments and explanations. I've felt for the past few months like I've been wading through thick mud, with my friends and half of my family trying to help me find my way and own beliefs on this issue and with my parents trying to hold me in their solid ground of conservative Christianity. It's been pulling me around like I have never thought possible. Your responses have really helped me find my footing in the world of GLBT issues (a phrase I didn't know until three or four months ago). So, thank you.

-Tink

BruceChris

03-05-2007, 08:54 PM

The Gay community is made up of a bunch of nice guys, who are completely goofy, totally nuts, and absolutely, completely and totally clinically insane! (And that's only the GOOD news...........

But we have a good time, and we don't hurt no one.

For a broader connection, there is still the rest of the internet, which we have yet to corrupt.

http://www.welcomingresources.org/ (Rebecca just had a baby girl)

Almost every resource here, if you check out ALL of the site

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ A survey site. Non-sectarian

http://www.christianlesbians.com/

http://godlovesfags.blogspot.com/

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/ An interesting point of view

Runnin outta sites, Bruce Chris

BruceChris

03-05-2007, 09:03 PM

335334

xxxxxxxxxxx

J.D.

03-08-2007, 07:11 PM

Interesting thoughts all around...I have a couple of questions/comments. In no way am I intending to be hostile or aggressive, but I am curious as to the general response of the community on theses issues.

Instead of looking at translations of the Bible, perhaps it would be better to investigate the actual Hebrew word and meaning. Translations are for better understanding, but Hebrew is Hebrew.
The Hebrew word, to'ebah, means plain and simply:
-detestable
-abhorring
-loathsome
-repulsive
Is there really an arguement as to the message any of those words is trying to get across? Perhaps I am just missing something?

"Emproph" also stated that being Gay is out of one's control, presumably meaning that is near to one being White or Black in a sense.
That is more than debateable. From my understanding (and I know I will catch a lot of flak for this on the weboard) you cannot recover from being a Hispanic. Nor can you recover from being an African-american. Nor an Oriental. There are however recovering homosexuals every day, changing there habits and choices on a frequent basis. How then can one consider being Gay equal to one's ethnic background?
Please feel free to explain this to me.

I am also troubled by the general thought process of "translating" the Bible through our modern concepts and ideas. We cannot, and should not, ever compromise the exact literacy of the Bible. By doing so, we abandon the very foundation of the Christian belief. Personal decision on when the Bible is literate and when it isn't is one of the most dangerous roads a Christian will ever embark on.
Once we accept the fact that parts of the Bible aren't literal (besides the obvious parts where Christ is telling a parable, for example), who's to say that any of it is? After all, you cannot build a house on a methaphorical foundation.
This applies to earlier conversations on homosexuality. There were many other issues that were not seen the same as they are today...possibly every sin in the book has changed in cultural viewpoints. That doesn't give anyone the right to compromise on any sin viewed wrong in the Bible at any point.

Many times people have said that Leviticus and its laws are lost, and that they no longer need to be followed because of the first coming of Christ. What people continually pass over is that while the discipline is assuredly different (no one today is stoned for disobeying God) each case is still in disobedience to God's law. Just because the discipline is enforced in different ways does not consitute the avoidance of the rules and themes they layed down. This directly applies to homosexuality.

You know, I think God is a little better than Shakespeare when it comes to writing... So I have a feeling if Shakespeare can weave a story that has multiple interpratations, than God certainly can.
There is nothing up for interpretation when a mandate of God says that something is abhorring. As I am continuing through these reponses, I have definitely noticed a dishonest twist on not only the writer's personal beliefs, but on the very words of the Bible.
We must be honest! There is a difference between taking a new lesson out from a section in Phillipians, and completely changing the meaning of a directe command from God.

"Scott snedeker" said: "The definition of my best connection to God within me. It is indeed very sweet! I can feel it! For me this is the first beginnings of my true spirituality as evidenced by the peace and joy I feel, and the absence of the fear, self loathing and self criticism of my most passionate intimate nature!"
Another issue I am continually falling upon is that many people have suffered because of criticism for their homosexual lifestyle. I want to first begin this section by apologizing for my fellow Christians when they say some of the most hateful things I have ever heard. Just because I or they believe a certain lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean that we need to anger you more by hurling insults. That accomplishes nothing.
But you must understand the reason for the correct admonishment that many of you have recieved either through direct confrontation or teaching. The majority of Christians, and obviously the ones that confronted you, believe that what you are doing is wrong. There direct command from God then is compelling: to help you back onto the right road. We will tell you that you are doing something wrong if you are!
Now that needs to be done in love, and in a way that isn't a "more holier than thou" approach. But it is difficult, no matter what the subject of the confrontation...it could be anything from a lifestyle of dishonesty to a lifestyle of hatred. Homosexuality is viewed in the same way.

I understand this is a lot to take in, but I would like to hear back and understand the viewpoints you have come to follow. I appreciate your time.

-JD

andrewlittle

03-08-2007, 09:49 PM

Interesting thoughts all around...I have a couple of questions/comments. In no way am I intending to be hostile or aggressive, but I am curious as to the general response of the community on theses issues.

Thanks for joining the conversation. I would like to address some of what you have posted. If you don't mind, I'll break it into several parts - keeping it in line with your comments, however. I'll apologize ahead of time for my typing skills - I usually have to edit several times before I manage to correct all my typos, and I probably will not bother too much with that.

Instead of looking at translations of the Bible, perhaps it would be better to investigate the actual Hebrew word and meaning. Translations are for better understanding, but Hebrew is Hebrew.
The Hebrew word, to'ebah, means plain and simply:
-detestable
-abhorring
-loathsome
-repulsive
Is there really an arguement as to the message any of those words is trying to get across? Perhaps I am just missing something?

The traditional interpretation, that belonging to a wide range of theologians from biblical literalists to many in the liberal tradition, treats the passages you're referencing (Lev 18:22 and 20:13) as the last word of God on the subject of homosexuality. Same-sex relations are an abomination. Period – end of story!

The general argument against the traditional interpretation has been that they are included in sections on ritual cleanliness and prohibitions against idolatry and, since Christians no longer follow the bulk of these rules, they are not binding. These proscriptions are simply specific to particular actions included in pagan idol worship and no longer apply to contemporary society. There is a differing of opinions, but in regard to biblical passages that appear to be quite explicit in their condemnation.

One of the main difficulties I have with the second argument is that it is based on the definition of only one word that is commonly translated as ‘abomination’ (to'ebah) and its meaning in a culture long disappeared from view. So, no problem - abomination it is. My question is, "But what is an abomination?" What do the rest of the verses say?

18:22 v’et-zacar lo tishcab mish’c’bey ishar to’ebah he
20:13 v’iysh ashere yishcab et-zacar mish’c’bey ishar to’ebah asu sh’neyhem mot yumatu d'mehem bam

Of significance to me, especially if one is going to rely on the actual Hebrew wording is mish’c’bey ishar. The word mish’c’bey is a common plural construct form of the noun mishcav meaning ‘couches’ or ‘beds’. A construct noun denotes something that belongs to the next absolute noun (free-standing, more or less) and is usually translated using the preposition ‘of’. The word ishah is a common feminine singular absolute noun meaning ‘a woman’, and would be the noun to which mish’c’vey refers. The two words together, then translate as ‘beds of a woman’ or 'a woman' beds'.

The Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate agree and both used the same phrasing, appropriate to the respective grammars of course, to translate these words.

The Greek translated this as coiteyn gunaykos. The word gunaykos is a genitive feminine singular common noun. The genitive case denotes ‘belonging to’ or ‘of’ in the much the same way as the Hebrew construct noun. The word coiteyn (bring to mind coitus) means variously bed, place of marital relationship, place of insemination – in short, place where marital coitus occurs. Therefore, the two words together, coiteyn gunaykos, mean simply ‘a bed of a woman’.

The Latin Vulgate translated this phrase as coitu femineo. Far from the Latin being definitive, interpreting the meaning of coitu and femineo is critical. Coitu can be either a supine verbal form, similar to an infinitive, or a noun. The presence of femineo, an adjective which generally qualifies a noun, is of immense importance. The use of an adjective requires the presence of a noun. The most likely understanding would be that the noun that femineo modifies is coitu, which would lead to the translation ‘a woman’s meeting place’ or, logically, ‘a woman’s bed’.

The other option, treating coitu as a supine verb, would give the meaning we later find in English translations, but would also be grammatically incorrect. The adjective femineo is left without a noun to modify. The rough translation of the two words together into, "to have sexual intercourse like a woman" is very flawed, and inconsistent with the Hebrew and Greek, which were unequivocal.

The entirety of an accurate translation of 18:22, therefore, is:
You will not lie down with a male on a woman’s beds; it is an abomination.
And 20:13 is:
A man who lies down with a male on a woman’s beds – they have committed (done) an abomination. Both of them shall be put (executed) to death; their blood is upon themselves.

What, then, is an abomination? Since in both Hebrew and Greek, "woman" and "wife" are synonymous, the proscription is about a man lying with a man on a wife's bed - bed being held in Leviticus 15 to be virtually sacrosanct. There is a pattern that "spoiling the bed" is one of the ways adultery is described. These are proscriptions, but the action being prohibited is not the male-male sex, but rather the male-male sex occuring on the bed of a wife - it is about the common theme of adultery of a man already in relationship with a woman.

andrewlittle

03-08-2007, 10:11 PM

Jamie McDaniel

03-08-2007, 10:16 PM

In no way am I intending to be hostile or aggressive...

I believe you. But apparently you do want to discriminate against me. Unless I have read your post wrong.

...presumably meaning that [being LGBT] is near to one being White or Black in a sense. That is more than debateable.

Not by any self-respecting LGBT person. And not by the leaders of the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. Read their quotes (www.soulforce.org/article/766). (Or will their voices on LGBT equality today be as dismissed by conservatives as when they originally spoke out for African-American equality forty years ago?)

In fact, the only people who seem to take issue with the argument that the struggle for racial equality is very similar to the struggle for LGBT equality are the antigay forces.

There are however recovering homosexuals every day...

Your search for truth apparently ends at the bottom of the ex-gay ministries' brochure. I mean really, how can you seriously write such a thing. I will only accept that there are homosexuals who, because they have been told they are sick and sinful by people of influence in their lives, seek out such "ministries." There is no evidence of "recovering" from a homosexual sexual orientation in the vast majority of those who had involvement with ex-gay ministries or repartive therapy.

Personal decision on when the Bible is literate and when it isn't is one of the most dangerous roads a Christian will ever embark on.

No, what is dangerous to Christianity is a view of the Bible that doesn't allow for criticism and a "come, let us reason together" approach. A shrunken, hardened mass of fundamentalism calling itself "true" Christianity is a life-threatening cancer for the body of Christ.

God is far less concerned with human beings believing the "right" theological stuff than God's people are. You know what God desires, J.D. Do justice, love kindness, walk humbly with God. Do you really think Jesus will care if someone does those things yet thinks his mother probably wasn't a virgin?

The Pharisees had all the right things about YHWH on their lips and yet their hearts were far from God. They frustrated Jesus to no end. So much so that he proclaimed the "sinners" would enter the realm of God before they would. Well, the exclusive spirit of the Pharisees is very much alive 2000 years later.

andrewlittle

03-08-2007, 11:03 PM

... because, well, I'm a little tired. So, I'm picking a lighter topic next. A little less thinking is in order at this time of night, especially for an old man like myself.

"Scott snedeker" said: "The definition of my best connection to God within me. It is indeed very sweet! I can feel it! For me this is the first beginnings of my true spirituality as evidenced by the peace and joy I feel, and the absence of the fear, self loathing and self criticism of my most passionate intimate nature!"

I'm not exactly sure why you highlighted Scott's thread, and which point you meant it to emphasize, but there is something or which you may not be aware. Not all people on these boards are Christians. Besides the variety of Christianity represented, we also have Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Pagans, and a great many more - along with many who are trying to find a faith base because they have been ostracized by Christianity (mostly). In your subsequent words it becomes clear that you are cognizant of the damage done by some Christian churches, and do not adher to that kind of demonization. Kudos.

Scott, in particular, is Pagan, which means that it is really quite unfruitful to use Scott's post for discussing Christian perspectives - even though his posts contain a great deal of erudite material on homosexuality in general, and how his faith relates so concretely to the issues. Likewise, the things that I write about my faith journey may be unfruitful in a discussion about Paganism. I respect Scott as a friend and person of faith, despite not sharing the same basis of faith.

I am not taking you to task about this, just reminding you that this is quite a diverse group.

Another issue I am continually falling upon is that many people have suffered because of criticism for their homosexual lifestyle. I want to first begin this section by apologizing for my fellow Christians when they say some of the most hateful things I have ever heard. Just because I or they believe a certain lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean that we need to anger you more by hurling insults. That accomplishes nothing.
Nicely put - thank you.

But you must understand the reason for the correct admonishment that many of you have recieved either through direct confrontation or teaching. The majority of Christians, and obviously the ones that confronted you, believe that what you are doing is wrong. There direct command from God then is compelling: to help you back onto the right road. We will tell you that you are doing something wrong if you are!
Now that needs to be done in love, and in a way that isn't a "more holier than thou" approach. But it is difficult, no matter what the subject of the confrontation...it could be anything from a lifestyle of dishonesty to a lifestyle of hatred. Homosexuality is viewed in the same way.

The issues here are several. Bear with me, if you will - I am not trying to nit-pick, just to deal with each issue or assumption individually. Thanks (I hope) for your understanding.

"Correct" admonishment is a judgment call, as is the claim that "the majority of Christians believe that what you are doing is wrong."

Christianity isn't a one-size-fits-all religion. There are different traditions of Christanity _ I myself am from the Reformed tradition, but even that encompasses a wide range of theologies and beliefs. I am Presbyterian (USA) and would be relatively incompatible in some other Presbyterian denominations, not to mention some other churches in the Reformed tradition - some that are considerably more "conservative" (oh, I hate that as a descriptor - so many meanings) and others that are more "liberal" (ditto).

There are some central tenets that most, but not necessarily all, Christians share in common, and others that each denomination considers central but that others do not. Even within denominations, there is generally a fairly wide range of disagreement on some tenets of faith.

That being said, each of us must be authentic to, and consistent with, our faith. We each have our faith written on our hearts and must have integrity with our beliefs. If you consider homosexuality to be contradictory to your concept of God and the purposes God has for your life - then you must be authentic to that belief. If I do not believe that same thing in my life, then I must be authentic to my faith. The problem comes when someone tries to enforce one set of beliefs on another.

I do not believe homosexuality is a sin. You do (correct?)
I do not think that I should force you to be homosexual. Do you think that you should force me to be heterosexual?
I will not condemn you to hell (even if I could, which I can't) because you believe homosexuality is a sin. Would you condemn me to hell for my beliefs?

"Lifestyle" is another "bone of contention", if you will.
1. A lifestyle is a choice. Sexuality for the majority of people is not. At what point in your life did you chose to be straight?
2. A lifestyle is the compendium of choices that one makes. I can lead a lifestyle of being acquisitive or of simplicity. I can choose a lifestyle that is competitive, or conciliatory. There are many things that go into a lifestyle, and GLBT folks have as many different lifestyles as straight people. It would be impossible to tell them apart, unless one was privy to their private lives, or they publicly self-identified as one or the other. So, while GLBT folk have lifestyles, being GLBT is not "the lifestyle".
3. Lifestyle is a word applied, most commonly, by dominant culture. White, male, middle-class and above, somewhat educated, straight (and on and on) rarely consider themselves having "a lifestyle". I can choose to be poor, and that would be a lifestyle. But not everyone who is poor shares that "lifestyle" - some are relegated to it, and so the choice that accompanies "lifestyle" is absent. They are just poor.

I understand this is a lot to take in, but I would like to hear back and understand the viewpoints you have come to follow. I appreciate your time.

Enough for now. I would enjoy continuing the discussion - I promise I won't always dominate it. Thank you for engaging. I think you realize that we probably won't agree, but I think we can all be enriched by the interaction. So, for one, appreciate your time. Good night. Andy

tpdncr4christ

03-08-2007, 11:33 PM

scott snedeker

03-08-2007, 11:44 PM

I.
But you must understand the reason for the correct admonishment that many of you have recieved either through direct confrontation or teaching. The majority of Christians, and obviously the ones that confronted you, believe that what you are doing is wrong. There direct command from God then is compelling: to help you back onto the right road. We will tell you that you are doing something wrong if you are!

The abuse of piety may cause nausea in those who can recognize bovine scatology. It is a common tactic used to compensate for a personal sense of inadequacy. It is Indicative of a barrier to unconditional love and acceptance of self and others.

Now that needs to be done in love,
translated:

Now that needs to be Disguised as Love, so the victim swallows the spiritual poison of sanctimonious predation without becoming alarmed.

and in a way that isn't a "more holier than thou" approach.
[otherwise the intended victim may recognize the intent and not take the bait]

But it is difficult, no matter what the subject of the confrontation...it could be anything from a lifestyle of dishonesty to a lifestyle of hatred. Homosexuality is viewed in the same way.

This is the abuse of Bashing. observe carefully so you'll recognize it when you see it again.

I understand this is a lot to take in, but I would like to hear back and understand the viewpoints you have come to follow. I appreciate your time.

This is Disguising spiritual poison again but as concern. Recognize it by the sick feeling it provokes--None for me thankyou! Poisoners are not holy messengers

-JD

By the way this tactic of "christians" made Christ a monster to me as a young boy. It one day may become a civil offense

Daniel

03-09-2007, 01:15 AM

Interesting thoughts all around...I have a couple of questions/comments. In no way am I intending to be hostile or aggressive, but I am curious as to the general response of the community on theses issues.

"Emproph" also stated that being Gay is out of one's control, presumably meaning that is near to one being White or Black in a sense. That is more than debateable. From my understanding (and I know I will catch a lot of flak for this on the weboard) you cannot recover from being a Hispanic. Nor can you recover from being an African-american. Nor an Oriental. There are however recovering homosexuals every day, changing there habits and choices on a frequent basis. How then can one consider being Gay equal to one's ethnic background?

JD- thank you for prefacing your post with the statement above. Others have addressed more than a few points already, and I would like to add my voice to their with regard to your assertion that the matter of being gay is debatable.

As tpdncr has already noted, what ones calls oneself is a matter for that person to decide. Of course, if another person asserts that gay persons are simply damaged heterosexuals, we're talking about an entirely different matter- one which brings up all sorts of issues- none the least of which is how one arrives at such a conclusion.

Since you have used the word 'recover' three times, I am assuming that you view gay people in the same way that you view drug addicts and alcoholics, as if all one has to do to become straight is to go to rehab.

That's assuming a lot. The first of which is that gay people are simply damaged heterosexuals. I imagine you might think this because 1) you don't have much contact with gay people; 2) have 'feelings' for those of your gender and may be experiencing an acute case of cognitive dissonance because of your religious beliefs; 3) are straight and religiously conservative.

Anybody can change a habit, but being gay is a great deal more than a habit.

Is being straight a 'habit'?

Pablo Rafael

03-09-2007, 06:36 AM

We cannot, and should not, ever compromise the exact literacy of the Bible. By doing so, we abandon the very foundation of the Christian belief. Personal decision on when the Bible is literate (I assume you mean "literal" here?) and when it isn't is one of the most dangerous roads a Christian will ever embark on.
Once we accept the fact that parts of the Bible aren't literal (besides the obvious parts where Christ is telling a parable, for example), who's to say that any of it is? After all, you cannot build a house on a methaphorical foundation.
-JD

J.D.,

I see what you are saying and I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. However, when you say that we should accept the Bible literally, I have some reservations.

Generally when people say they take the Bible literally what they mean is they will take some passages literally and ignore others. If a person takes the Bible literally and believes that the laws written in the book of Leviticus still are applicable, then one has to take the all the prohibitions in Levitcus literally. It can't be a pick and choose. If male-male sex is prohibited so it wearing garments of mixed fabrics and eating lobster and shrimp. People who are so quick to condemn others using the Leviticus passage totally ignore the rest of the book. You can't use only one passage out of context. Why do literalists only quote one single verse from Leviticus?

The Bible must be interpreted to be understood. We must look at the context of each passage in the surrounding passages and in the Bible as a whole. We need to look at the historical context. We need to see all the Bible through the lens of grace shown to us by Christ's death for us.

Why is it that so many people who say they take the Bible literally don't believe in many things that the Bible says. Many literalists do not believe that when Jesus said "This is my body", "This is my blood" at the Lord's Supper , that he really meant that. Many people believe that children are not able to come to faith until they are old enough to understand the complexities of the Bible despite the fact that Jesus said "Let the little children come to me for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."People who take the Bible literally often believe that wives should obey their husbands despite the fact that the Bible never ever says that wives should "obey". If a person takes the Bible literally, how does one reconcile when Paul says "You are saved by grace through faith, not of works" and James says "a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone".

Obviously we have to look at the Bible as whole whole and interpret it. We do not change it fit our own way of thinking, but I believe that it speaks to each person, culture and time in a different way. Paul's admonition for women to keep silent seems like a put-down to women, that they should be obedient to men. Looking at the Greco-Roman culture of the first century we realize that Paul was revolutionary by encouraging women even to be present in the church. He is not advocating opression of women but the inclusion of women in the church. To ignore the cultural context is to miss the meaning. When looking at the few passages that seem to speak about homosexuality, we see that none of them talk about loving same-sex relationships; they are all in the context of idolatry, abuse, rape, adultery. To ignore this fact is to twist the meaning of the passages and to ignore the Gospel message that God's grace is showered upon all people.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

u-dog

03-09-2007, 07:49 AM

"Emproph" also stated that being Gay is out of one's control, presumably meaning that is near to one being White or Black in a sense.
That is more than debateable. From my understanding (and I know I will catch a lot of flak for this on the weboard) you cannot recover from being a Hispanic. Nor can you recover from being an African-american. Nor an Oriental. There are however recovering homosexuals every day, changing there habits and choices on a frequent basis. How then can one consider being Gay equal to one's ethnic background?
Please feel free to explain this to me.

Hey JD,

Let me introduce myself. My name is Dave. I'm married (20+ years) with three grown children. I have never made love to or had sex with another man. I am also gay. I became aware of my same sex attraction at 11 or 12. I prayed and "repented" and begged and cajoled without ceasing for God to change me into something different than what I am. I did that for a decade and a half. Then I met my wife. We fell in love, went to bed together, it "worked" between us (at least better than I ever thought that it would) and we got married. We concieved children together. we have stumbled along together, growing in our love and admiration for each, over come the challenges of life together, raising fantastic Christian kids together, supporting each others careers.

However, our intimate life has been a huge burden and sourrce of enormous pain to her and to me. She knows the truth about me now and it hasn't changed her love for me or her friendship and we are exploring together what we are going to do for the future. Though I cant pretend to know what will happen... I imagine that we will stay together.

Through all of that, JD, the simple fact is that... I am still gay. "Gay" is not a lifestyle. "Gay" is not a sex act. "Gay" is not a choice. "Gay" is a fundamental aspect of WHO I AM. READ THIS CAREFULLY AND PONDER IT: God did not answer my prayers for change because God knew that if he had changed my sexual orientation that he would have obliterated who I am. I would NOT just be a straight version of Dave , I would be an entirely different person and Dave would have ceased to exist.

In the face of God's refusal to obliterate me, I began a life of self-obliteration. I pretended to be straight. I adopted a "straight lifestyle" I filtered and analized every word and gesture before I uttered it to make sure that it was what a straight person would say and think and do. I constructed a "straight Dave Robot" and lived my life vicariousy through it.

The cost of that self-obliteration has been chronic depression, suicidal ideation (my prayers changed from "Make me heterosexual" to "give me cancer lord") alienaton, lonliness, self loathing. Not only did I pay this price but my wife paid it also. The emotional pain is unimaginable.

Looking back over 40 years I can clearly see that my SIN was not in being homosexual, but in refusing to accept and embrace the life that God offered me. It could have been a fine and good life, but I was too frightened to deal with the realities that would have come with it (the hate, the misunderstanding, the condescension of good persons like yourself)

I'm not saying that God has not also blessed me in my sinful choices -- God is after all GOOD ... All the time. I have great kids and a loving life partner and I have had a satisfying career that would have been closed to me as a gay man. But God's grace doesn't change the fact that what I did was sinful.

My most fervent prayer is that THIS generation of GLBT young people don't have to make the choices I made. That they will be strong and brave and free to embrace who God made them to be. That they can find life partners to face the world with and that the world will celebrate and affirm their lives and loves just as it does for straight kids.

To use your analogy, an Hispanic person can put on boot polish and pretend to be African American or pancake makeup and pretend to be a white person... but he's still Hispanic underneath the costume. The same is true of Gay people. They can pretend (even to themselves at least for a while) that they are straight ... but they aren't.

Dave

J.D.

03-09-2007, 08:37 AM

Thank you all for your information, interesting points really.

I don't think it would be fair to you if I even attempted to try and answer your different viewpoints. In no way am I dissapointed, but the stress of a 12 to 1 (or whatever it is, I apologize) argument is something a high school student cannot handle at the moment.

I do appreciate your comments, as they have illuminated my knowledge of GLBT people in general. Some good points were made. I also appreciate your out-of-the-way attempts to be kind, considerate, and enlightening (most of you, anyways) instead of angry.

I don't wish to appear as ignoring you or avoiding you. Besides, debating and discussing homosexuality on a weboard designed by SoulForce is probably about as fruitless as it gets (again, that was not an attack on the forum, just a statement). Yes I disagree...no I don't have the time to answer you all :rolleyes:

Thanks again,
-JD

keltic63

03-09-2007, 08:42 AM

u-dog

03-09-2007, 08:57 AM

Hey JD,

You're right. We all have real lives and lots to do and I for one appreciate that you explained the fact that you didn't answer us all point for point. All I ask is that you read and reread what we wrote and think about it. Spend some time thinking about what YOUR life would be like if you had awakened one morning sometime in your early adolescence to discover that your attractions were not the same as the other boys (imagine living as a heterosexual in a society where everyone else was gay) Engage your compassion and empathy as thoroughly as you seem to engage your brain. Most important, get to know some GLBT people -- really to KNOW them -- not just to debate them.

God is good... all the time

Dave

tdogg

03-09-2007, 11:21 AM

Hey JD

I'm not going to put a lot of thought or heart into this post, only to say I'm a lesbian and I'm pretty happy about it and God is pretty happy about it and so is my love. I'm way past defending and debating and discussing why I should or should not be gay. I am, it's cool, no problems here.

A lot of people here put major thought, heart and soul into replies for you. Then you reply, you still disagree and you have no time, so bye. You come here, try to stir everyone up then leave. It's probably because the answers provided to you are too logical, make sense and leave very little room for argument. Nothing to grab onto and create a tirade, so you might as well go on to something else. I'm a little disappointed that you didn't bother to spend at least a portion of the time others spent on you.

That said, welcome to the forums JD. Sounds like you are in a crossroads, and if that's the case, you will definitely find caring, compassionate and understanding folks here who would love to talk with you. This is a great place, comprised of a very diverse group of people who will pour their hearts out to you. Please stick around and get to know everyone. I really think you would enjoy your time here. I wish you much luck and love in whatever you are trying to accomplish with yourself.

Come back sometime,

Tdogg

J.D.

03-09-2007, 12:33 PM

Just a quick FYI: I haven't left the board...

I have however been on several other threads reading and discussing, along with answering personal messages.

Does my not posting every hour consitute and abandonment of this forum? I would hardly think so. I do have a life to live, and while I will enjoy the occasional message here and the coversation there, I don't think it is wise to expect anyone, much less a high school senior, to spend every waking moment on this computer.

I was not looking for a discussion or debate, and I got exactly the responses that I was looking for...you were all very helpful indeed. I really don't have a significant interst in actually discussing or debating. I just wanted to see the many viewpoints on why you believe what you believe.

Sorry about any misunderstandings. I would appreciate if the general presumptions were a little less volatile in the future...so as to generate better conversation or all.

Thanks,
-JD

scott snedeker

03-09-2007, 05:20 PM

I just wanted to see the many viewpoints on why you believe what you believe.

Sorry about any misunderstandings. I would appreciate if the general presumptions were a little less volatile in the future...so as to generate better conversation or all.

Thanks,
-JD

You ARE open to explore new ideas.

This is where growth begins. Being so young, you have your whole life ahead of you and so much to discover!

I encourage you to open your mind and heart to understand the experience of gay people.

You Honor me with your curiosity because I can feel the love in your asking. So I will answer genuinely.

Imagine the time in your adolescence when you were discovering your sexual awareness. Now Imagine being told that your feelings of sexual attraction make you a worthless deviant because you feel them toward the same sex. So to survive you hide this secret and stifle the growth of your emerging identity and learn to hate yourself.

This I Fear is psychological child abuse at its worst.

Then imagine the miracle of courageously overcoming this self loathing
imposed by your past abuse. This epiphany restores your sense that you are a person deserving of happiness, equal worthiness and love. A hard fought internal struggle won by myself and many other gay people.

Acceptance and affirmation of your own NATURE is the foundation of Spirituality

Some say being gay is a choice. They are half right. You can choose to be
true to your nature and experience passion, romance and love, all essential
parts of a balanced normal life. Or you can falsely pretend to be attracted to the opposite sex and live an empty passionless lie.

There is no verse in the Bible that can leap off the page and harm anyone. The only harm comes from what some one might do to you in the name of their God.

Violence in spirit or material form is not God's will. If a verse causes you to feel fearful, negatively, or angry toward yourself or others, then you are just not ready at this time to understand it. Select another verse that makes you feel love toward yourself and others for this is God's message that you are ready to understand.

I believe God wishes me to love one another man so that he can share in our joy!

Do you think this view might make the world a kinder place?

Tinkerbell047

03-09-2007, 07:36 PM

I understand JD's point, even though I don't agree with it. When my older brother came out to my parents 7 years ago, when he was 16, they were angered. They threatened to send him to boot camp, and ex-gay, and everything else under the sun that could "fix" their son. They were embarrassed, they were concerned, but most of all they were wrong.

The main difference, though, JD, is that my parents were honestly worried about their son. They had a reason that their beliefs backed up for reacting the way that they did. Unfortunately for my brother, they only way to "fix" the problem was to convince my mom and dad that after much prayer and meditation God had "healed" him. He was "fixed." However, about a year ago my Aunt told my parents he is still gay.

Six months after this my mom told me, and I will quote her, "if you turn out to be a dirty lesbian or a bisexual I will never speak to you again. You will not live in my home. I refuse to be a failure as a mother, and I refuse to allow this plague on my family to continue." On some level, I think she meant well. I know she didn't know about me, because I had told no one then. My parents view my brother's homosexuality, and my bisexuality as a sickness, a plague, an epidemic that is sweeping the nation. In her mind when she tells us that we need help, that we are wrong, even a nicely as she does (with the exception of that one conversation) what she refuses to see is that her words are hurting people. She sees the GLBT community as a number, not as people.

JD, remember, that you are speaking to real people with real emotion. God bless you,

-Tink

Zerbie

03-09-2007, 08:00 PM

my mom told me, and I will quote her, "if you turn out to be a dirty lesbian or a bisexual I will never speak to you again. You will not live in my home. I refuse to be a failure as a mother, and I refuse to allow this plague on my family to continue." On some level, I think she meant well. I know she didn't know about me, because I had told no one then. My parents view my brother's homosexuality, and my bisexuality as a sickness, a plague, an epidemic that is sweeping the nation. In her mind when she tells us that we need help, that we are wrong, even a nicely as she does (with the exception of that one conversation) what she refuses to see is that her words are hurting people. She sees the GLBT community as a number, not as people.

-Tink

Omigosh Tink! I had no idea you were in such an environment!! No wonder you have felt scared!

(((((((((( Tink )))))))))))

It's heartbreaking when a parent speaks like that. I'm so sorry. I pray that with time you will be able to relate freely and comfortable with your mother, and indeed your entire family. Sounds like your mom is being very very reactive right now, with emotions all fired up. Someday, perhaps a few years down the road, she will be in a more receptive place, I hope. I wish your family the best.

:love: :love: :love: :love: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray:

Tinkerbell047

03-09-2007, 08:12 PM

^_^ Thanks, Zerbie. It has been hard, and my realizations about myself in the past few months and acceptance in the past couple weeks has not made it easy.

Thank you for your prayers. It really does mean a lot.

-Tink

WillySF

03-10-2007, 11:24 AM

There is a lot of soul-searching, scholarship and intelligent discussion here. However, at times I believe the Bible is really given far too much weight. Mind you, these are my opinions. For the record, I am a lapsed and rather agnostic Episcopalian. So right there, many other christians will utterly discount what I have to say. Nonetheless, might I stir the conversation away from scripture & religion momenatrily?

There is no religion or holy book that has all the answers. Language cannot grasp the really big ideas, let alone fully describe beyond a shadow of a doubt the smaller ones. The authors of holy books all had their agendas, they lived in different times and those books have been translated over and over again. In the case of the teachings and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, his followers did not even think to start writing things down until the folks that personally knew Jesus were dead or dying. The apostle Mark did not likely compose the gospel attributed to him, for example, and that is the oldest gospel thought to have been written around 60 AD. We don't even possess the original, and we only have fragments of copies. And then the christian church was really more like a bunch of diverse sects for over three centuries until Emporer Constatine decided to make it the state religion. The early bishops then decided which books to leave in and which to leave out. So we should really take what the Bible says with a grain of salt. Even the most conservative Jews do not take the scripture literally.

All that said, your walk with God is an interior journey. You and you alone can find God. Truthfully, we all have God right inside our hearts. It is not as though he is absent at times! It is our spiritual journey. People, prophets, priests and scripture can be of use to our personal discovery, but ultimately we have to live our lives the best we see fit. So ask God, do that soul-searching and walk with God as best you can. Remember we are imperfect creatures. As a father or mother would never scold an infant for falling down as he learns to walk, neither does God condemn us for our mistakes. As a matter of fact, how would we learn anything if we never made mistakes? No one has a right to judge another. It is our journey, and no one can make it for us.

tdogg

03-10-2007, 12:22 PM

I'm with you on this one WillySF. Those who treat the Bible as an actual holy idol to worship and hold as 100% truth are bound to fail in their efforts to live it literally. I do believe the Bible is inspired - not literall accurate. It's an excellent tool to use as a guide for our lives, but it cannot be used without common sense and prayer. School textbooks are revised periodically to incorporate changes, updates and new history, insights and information. These are used to instruct, teach and guide our young ones. Why then wouldn't we want to really use some thought in interpreting the bible to see what it means to us today.

Our live journey, spiritualism, eternal destination, salvation - those are all very intimate issues that, in my opinion, is between the individual and that person's God/diety - whoever that might be. It is not for any other human to decide or intervene. Not to say, if a person is living a self-destructive life, that we shouldn't step in with assistance. More that, moral judgments, salvation issues, eternity - those are between the human and divine.

Those that spend a lot of time and effort worrying about how everyone else is living, whether they are 'saved', whether they are living spotless holy lives - well, i say they are wasting a lot of time and energy they could be putting into their own life journey.

WillySF

03-10-2007, 01:07 PM

Beautifully put Tdogg, I couldn't say it any better. I especially like the last paragraph of your post. Jesus said something similar, "Why do you fret over the speck in your brother's eye when you have a board in your own?". My paraphrasing (I've laways laughed at the visual – I'm sure literalists have a problem with it – how can a board fit in one's eye?). But wait, metaphor in the word of God? How dare God be creative in his use of language!

Tinkerbell047

03-10-2007, 02:07 PM

I agree so some extent with WillySF and tdogg.

A person's spiritual journey and walk with God must be personal and based on their convictions and beliefs or it is not really THEIR walk with God. If we always base our beliefs on "because my pastor said so!" and never actually seek the answers for ourselves, we are right back with Martin Luther! He posted a list of greivences with the Catholic Church and was excommunicated for it. He said that the church not teaching the Word of God in the language of the people, German, was cause for corruption. AND HE WAS RIGHT. The priests were putting things into their teachings that never existed to exploit those who could not read or understand Latin. This was wrong, and you know what? The Church changed its ways.

That said, we can never find the truths for ourselves if we only believe what others tell us. We can never know God's truth if we don't seek it. If we dare to be different, if we seek to really know God then we can have no fault with Him and He with us.

My father, a pastor, says all the time that the Bible is a textbook and that studying it will help us to find the answers. I emphasize the word help. May father, though closed minded, strongly believes that he knows God's plan. Does he? I don't think so. But I can't fault him. I love my father, and I know that no matter what happens he will love me. He wakes up an hour before everyone else in the mornings to study, meditate, and pray for God to show him the path that he should take. He seeks God, and above all, he has faith and trust in His power. He never relys on only what the Bible says, he reads and prays and studies to find the truth behind the words.

We cannot presume to know God's Grand Plan, or to fully know and understand God, because we never will. We can try, and that is what being human and being Christian is about.

-Tink

WillySF

03-10-2007, 02:33 PM

Tinkerbell,

Great screen name by the way! I can see you are well on your way along your spiritual journey. You can probably thank your father for having prepared you and demonstrating (at least in his way) how you can keep a dialogue ongoing with the Divine. Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened unto you.

Martin Luther was a godly man, even though some would say a heretic. Goodness knows, we're all heretics to some extent! Yet his main gripe with the Church was not entirely a biblical one. No doubt the Church has adopted some pretty crazy dogma – it is after all a neo-pagan institution. The Roman Catholic Church is right to interpret scripture though. If scripture remains unchanged, undiscussed and stagnant it will eventually become meaningless. The Church also knew that if scripture was easily accessible to everyone (most people were not literate back then anyhow) there would be a multitude of interpretations, a lack of cohesiveness and plenty of heresies. They were right, just look at the number of protestant denominations! Remember that the church is also a political institution which is constantly striving to maintain power. And not just the RCC, although they are the big powerhouse as far as religious institutions are concerned.

Scripture is just one way God speaks to us. Actually there are only two ways God speaks to us; there is the internal dialogue and then there are other people. Other people occasionally write things down that others deem to be of divine inspiration, but in my mind simply observing the lives of others as well as one's own will tell you loads about God. God did not stop creating or being directly involved in his creation at some point – it is an ongoing process. Neither has God stopped talking to us. There are plenty of books besides the Bible that can help us in a multitude of ways – and many of them are much better written! A good rule of thumb in life is to remain skeptical in a healthy way. Always reexamine your assumptions. Test them. Doubt them. That's what my signature says in Latin – de omnibus dubitandum – doubt everything.