Homosexuality and the Bible

bucke...@nospam.net

unread,

Jul 7, 2005, 8:38:15 AM7/7/05

to

Scripture is not the ally Christian homophobes think it is. By Bishop John
Shelby Spong
http://www.baptistwatch.org/content/biblegay.html

[excerpt]
It is difficult for people who are not part of the Christian Church to
understand the power its members attribute to the Bible. That attribution
appears to non-church goers to be so irrational and so excessive as to be
almost inconceivable. After all, they reason, the Bible is an ancient book
with its earliest narrative, the Yahwist document, being written around
1000 B.C.E. and its latest narrative, probably the 2nd Epistle of Peter,
being written somewhere around 135 C.E. There is no other piece of
literature written in that period of history which people today still treat
as a source of ultimate truth. A doctor or pharmacist practicing medicine
or dispensing drugs in our time based on either the writings of Aristotle
or the formulas of an ancient medicine man would be laughed at first, and
then if this activity were not stopped immediately, they would be accused
of malpractice, removed from their professions and even imprisoned. While
that harsh a treatment might not be the fate of a chemist, biologist,
architect or astronomer who acted on the basis of the knowledge available
in the time the Bible was written, such behavior would nonetheless be
considered ignorant at best, mentally ill at worst.

Yet as strange as it might seem, the Bible continues to be quoted by 21st
century Christians on a variety of issues as if this book somehow continues
to hold literal truth and unchanging principles within its tissue thin
pages. So deeply has this book been wrapped in the claims of divinely
inspired inerrancy, that it acts like a wild card in current ethical
debates.

No where is this more obvious than in the controversy over homosexuality
that rocks the Christian Churches of the world today. Inerrant claims for
biblical truth have been present in the official statements of the Vatican,
in the reports and resolutions adopted at the Lambeth Conference of the
Anglican Bishops of the world in 1998, and in the rhetoric and votes that
have marked almost all statewide, diocesan, synodical and national
gatherings of various Christian traditions including both mainline
protestant and fundamentalist churches. Again and again over the last
twenty five years negativity toward gay and lesbian behavior has been
justified by an appeal to something some Christians continue to call
"biblical morality," and to assert that there is something called "clear
biblical teaching. One wonders what those phrases mean.

"Clear biblical teaching" and "biblical morality" are not phrases of recent
origin. They have been used in the debates over the centuries on a wide
variety of issues. Yet when the smoke of battle over these ancient issues
has cleared, it has always been the Christians, bruised and battered, but
still clinging to their Bibles, who have been forced to slink away in
defeat. But no matter how many times the "clear biblical teaching" has been
shown to be dead wrong, the next new insight that challenges the patterns
of the past goes through the same hostile process. Religious people do not
seem to learn much from history. The Bible had to be proved wrong before
the divine right of kings could be pushed aside and the Magna Carta
accepted. It had to be defeated before Galileo's ideas about the non
centrality of this planet in the universe could usher in the world of
astronomy, and before Darwin's understanding of evolution could win the
day. The clear teaching of the Bible also had to be overcome before slavery
and segregation could be ended and before women could escape their second
class status. In a remarkably similar pattern today, a major impediment to
the quest for justice and the full acceptance for gay and lesbian people in
the life of this society is the Bible, which is quoted over and over again
to justify the homophobic prejudice that still so deeply infects our
culture.

Homophobia is a prejudice largely created and sustained by the scriptures
of the Judeo -Christian tradition. However, the Bible is destined to lose
this fight also and homophobia will join the parade of other human and
religious evils like racism, chauvinism, the condemnation of mentally ill
people, left-handed people and anti-semitism as one more dark cloud in
Christian history, a killing prejudice that endured far longer that it
should have because it was supported by "the inerrant word of God."

But how accurate is the claim that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a
sin? At best the record is ambivalent. There are seven biblical passages
that are regularly cited by fundamentalist Christians and their fellow
travelers to justify their condemnation of homosexuality. Three are in the
Old Testament and four are in the New Testament. However, three of the four
found in the New Testament are highly suspect and appear to refer to sexual
anomalies such as temple prostitution, pederasty or forced sexual activity
which are quite unrelated to homosexuality. So the biblical texts that
actually condemn homosexuality as we today understand it, are only four in
the entire Bible and none of them, interestingly enough, is found is the
Gospels. According to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus never said a word
about homosexuality. Given the all consuming nature of the current
ecclesiastical debates on this issue that fact comes as a shock. Jesus does
talk about those who are victims of prejudice like the Samaritans, and
those who are marginalized and rejected like the lepers, but he never says
a word about anyone's sexual orientation. Perhaps church leaders should
contemplate the possibility that they are, as one man once suggested,
"making much of that which cannot matter much to God."

*****************************************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]

For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join

NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/

Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/

***************************************************************

. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .

****************************************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.

This site is a member of the following web rings:

Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

American History WebRing--&--The History Ring

Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring

Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring

****************************************************************

Greywolf

unread,

Jul 7, 2005, 11:43:07 AM7/7/05

to

<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jh8qc1tk89uqup9qj...@4ax.com...

>>I fell in love many years ago with a girl who, as it turned out, was a
>>lesbian. She clearly liked me but it soon became apparent, not in *that*
>>way. I figured that given enough time, I could and would "mend" her ways.
>>After all, she *really* liked me. I was wrong. She wasn't even
>>*bi-sexual*. She was a one-hundred percent, pure-blooded lesbian.
Knowing I knew a bit about biblical matters, she asked me if the bible
actually condemns homosexuality. When I replied, "Yep," she was deeply hurt.
She felt awful. We remained together on-and-off for some five years without
*once* having sex. (To my mind, it proved we *truly* loved each other in
some weird sort of way.) Since then, I've often asked myself: "What are the
fundies going to say and do when the scientists finally come out and flatly
declare that homosexuals (like my friend) are *born* that way? That there's
no doubt about it. That the evidence is insurmountable.What, are they going
to say then? That the scientists don't know what their talking about
(again)? That God couldn't *possibly* condemn a segment of the population
for being *born* the way they were? You betcha they will! I would just ask
them this: "If God didn't *create* homosexuality, then where in the hell did
it come from?

Greywolf

fred

unread,

Jul 7, 2005, 2:46:40 PM7/7/05

to

bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
> Homosexuality and the Bible
>
> Scripture is not the ally Christian homophobes think it is. By Bishop John
> Shelby Spong
> http://www.baptistwatch.org/content/biblegay.html

Bishop Spong is a wolf in sheeps clothing (Matthew 7:15), a man who has
rejected Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior. If Bishop Spong
would take his Bible out of its cellophane he would find out what God
thinks about homosexuality.

Romans 1:25-27 explains that same-sex sexual relationships are a
consequence of idolatry. The bottom line about homosexuality,
therefore, is that it is a consequence of disobeying the 1ST
COMMANDMENT. And this does make sense when you consider that
homosexuality leads people into the trap of having more passion for
another human than they do for God, especially after God has forbidden
same-sex sexual relationships in the first place.

Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the
gospel is not about how God despises homosexuality. In fact, 1
Corinthians 6:9-11 shows that certain members of that church were
slaves to same-sex sexual relationships but had been cleansed in the
name of Jesus. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and
accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.

So there is no debate about what the Bible says about homosexuality.
The problem is that people like Bishop Sprong simply ignore the
Scriptures and make up their own gospel (Galatians 1:6-9).

Enderw

unread,

Jul 7, 2005, 3:19:44 PM7/7/05

to

Bishop Spong is just another gay spankmonkey. Bishop of the
Faggotiastical church.

Robibnikoff

unread,

Jul 7, 2005, 3:48:58 PM7/7/05

to

"Enderw" <vunde...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120763984.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Bishop Spong is just another gay spankmonkey. Bishop of the
> Faggotiastical church.

That's nice, deary - PLONK
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist

Gray Shockley

unread,

Jul 7, 2005, 3:50:19 PM7/7/05

to

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:43, Greywolf wrote:

> Knowing I knew a bit about biblical matters, she asked me if the bible
> actually condemns homosexuality.

I've heard this expressed as "God had these admonitions
(small number) about homosexuality and God has these
admonitions (larger number) about heterosexuality. So God
has to /really/ keep an eye on hets.

> When I replied, "Yep," she was deeply hurt.
> She felt awful. We remained together on-and-off for some five years without
> *once* having sex. (To my mind, it proved we *truly* loved each other in
> some weird sort of way.) Since then, I've often asked myself: "What are the
> fundies going to say and do when the scientists finally come out and flatly
> declare that homosexuals (like my friend) are *born* that way?

Hint: What did/do the fundies say about evolution?

> That there's
> no doubt about it. That the evidence is insurmountable.What, are they going
> to say then?

See ""Pastor"" Dave's invective.

> That the scientists don't know what their talking about
> (again)? That God couldn't *possibly* condemn a segment of the population
> for being *born* the way they were? You betcha they will!

Yup. One of the more amusing things about "fundamentalists"
is that some of them that don't mind the term applied to
them aren't.

I've known Pentecostalists (and other Holiness groups) and
Primitive Baptists - who are not "fundies" - not be
disturbed by the label and let it "slide" unless someone
really is curious about the denomination.

[Don't let John Ashcroft give the Pentecostals a bad name.
Whole bunches & bunches of them are good folk.]

> I would just ask them this: "If God didn't *create*
> homosexuality, then where in the hell did
> it come from?

Fundies and other wacks would - likely - say that your
choice of place is exactly & precisely correct.

>
> Greywolf

Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
President George W C Bush's business professor at
Harvard Business School, Professor Yoshi Tsurumi, recalls
our President as "not just as a terrible student but as
spoiled, loutish and a pathological liar".

Gregory Gadow

unread,

Jul 7, 2005, 3:56:13 PM7/7/05

to

Enderw wrote:

> Bishop Spong is just another gay spankmonkey. Bishop of the
> Faggotiastical church.

Once again, Christian "love" rears its ugly face.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful
to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in
disbelieving;
it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe. It is
impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that

mental lying has produced in society. When man has so far corrupted and
prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the
commission of every other crime." - Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"

Enderw

unread,

Jul 7, 2005, 4:23:13 PM7/7/05

to

Gregory Gadow wrote:
> Enderw wrote:
>
> > Bishop Spong is just another gay spankmonkey. Bishop of the
> > Faggotiastical church.
>
> Once again, Christian "love" rears its ugly face.

I don't believe in God. Nor am I a christian obviously. But these
people need to be properly labeled. That homobishop is not a
representative of anything Christian.

Cary Kittrell

unread,

Jul 7, 2005, 5:04:54 PM7/7/05

>passages like Romans 1:25-27 clearly indicate God's condemnation of homosexuality.

No. They clearly indicate the writer of Romans' homophobia.

The relationship of the Bible to what God actually feels is precisely
what "scumbags like Spong" are questioning.

fred

unread,

Jul 8, 2005, 2:37:04 AM7/8/05

to

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Romans 1:25-27 explains that same-sex sexual relationships are a
> >consequence of idolatry.
>
> Bible worship IS idolatry.

Although there is a major difference between simply referencing the
Scriptures and Bible worship, I basically agree.

>
> Christ said that all of the law of the Old Testament could be summed
> up into two laws, and neither of those two laws says anything about
> homosexuality OR holy books.

Where have you been?

Where were you when it was pointed out that Romans 1:25-27 shows that
same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry? The
bottom line is that not only does this mean that homosexuality is a
consequence of disobeying the 1ST COMMANDMENT but consider that this
commandment is also a significant aspect of Jesus' teaching about the
greatest commandment which you just alluded to; Love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind
(Matthew 22:37). But you evidently haven't considered that
homosexuality leads people into the trap having more passion for
another person than they have for God, thus compromising their love for
God and disobeying the greatest commandment. And it's not that hard to
make the connection.

>
> >The bottom line about homosexuality,
> >therefore, is that it is a consequence of disobeying the 1ST
> >COMMANDMENT.
>
> That is utter nonsense, since there are many who disobey the 1st
> commandment who feel not the slightest attraction for the opposite
> gender, while there are people who are otherwise good Christians that
> are attracted ONLY by those of the same gender.

Your "logic" about those who disobey the 1st Commandment is based on
what the Bible calls worldy wisdom. Why don't you read Romans 1:25-27?
It indicates that homosexuality is a possible judgement of idolatry,
not that idolatry guarantees homosexuality. And while you're in the
Scriptures, read 1 Corinthians 1:18-19 to find out why you failed to
make the connection as to why homosexuality compromises the greatest
commandment. 2 Corinthians 4:4 will also help you to understand what
is probably the basic reason why you failed to make this connection.

Also, speaking of "good Christians," given that you're not a Christian
anyway, who are you to judge who is or isn't a good Christian?

>
> >And this does make sense when you consider that
> >homosexuality leads people into the trap of having more passion for
> >another human than they do for God,
>
> No more than heterosexuality does.

Again, who are you to judge? You are probably an atheist and judge
everything by your own reasoning, right? Consider Proverbs 28:26,
14:12, 3:5.

Again, Romans 1:25-27 indicates that homosexuality is one possible
judgment with respect to idolatry. And drowning in their own passions
isn't such surprising a judgement since homosexuals disobey the
greatest commandment by compromising their love for God.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Jul 8, 2005, 8:15:21 AM7/8/05

to

"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Christ said that all of the law of the Old Testament could be summed
>> up into two laws, and neither of those two laws says anything about
>> homosexuality OR holy books.
>
>Where have you been?
>
>Where were you when it was pointed out that Romans 1:25-27 shows that
>same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry?

Disagreeing with it. Romans is nothing more than the pontifications
of one homophobic man.

>But you evidently haven't considered that
>homosexuality leads people into the trap having more passion for
>another person than they have for God,

No more than heterosexuality does, so the logic fails based on
fallacious assumption.

>> That is utter nonsense, since there are many who disobey the 1st
>> commandment who feel not the slightest attraction for the opposite
>> gender, while there are people who are otherwise good Christians that
>> are attracted ONLY by those of the same gender.
>
>Your "logic" about those who disobey the 1st Commandment is based on
>what the Bible calls worldy wisdom.

I choose worldly wisdom over theological nonsense.

> Why don't you read Romans 1:25-27?

I have, many times. The author of Romans was not God, but a human
being.

> It indicates that homosexuality is a possible judgement of idolatry,

It is wrong.

>Also, speaking of "good Christians," given that you're not a Christian
>anyway,

I am indeed a Christian, having accepted Christ as my personal Savior.

I have NOT accepted the Bible as my personal Savior, but as a
human-written document loaded with parables and slanted history, with
some actual quotes from Jesus Christ and other notables.

>who are you to judge who is or isn't a good Christian?

I make no such judgements.

>> >And this does make sense when you consider that
>> >homosexuality leads people into the trap of having more passion for
>> >another human than they do for God,
>>
>> No more than heterosexuality does.
>
>Again, who are you to judge?

I am no more nor less competent to judge than you are.

>You are probably an atheist

No.

>and judge everything by your own reasoning, right?

If I make judgements, I indeed use my own reasoning. That is the only
kind of reasoning on which one CAN make judgements.

> Consider Proverbs 28:26, 14:12, 3:5.

If I were really the atheist you accused me of being, I would consider
a Biblical reference to be absolutely irrelevant. As it is, I merely
consider a Biblical reference to be mostly irrelevant, especially when
it comes from a fundie that makes different assumptions about the
nature of the book than I do.

>Again, Romans 1:25-27 indicates that homosexuality is one possible
>judgment with respect to idolatry.

Sexual orientation is a biological response that derives from our
genes, and by all research is in place long before we are of an age
sufficient to practice idolatry.

>And drowning in their own passions

No more than any other human being does.

>isn't such surprising a judgement since homosexuals disobey the
>greatest commandment by compromising their love for God.

Arrant nonsense. That is YOUR unqualified judgement, based on
ignorance.

thomas p

unread,

Jul 8, 2005, 12:24:53 PM7/8/05

to

On 7 Jul 2005 18:01:31 -0700, "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Gregory Gadow wrote:
>> Enderw wrote:
>>
>> > Bishop Spong is just another gay spankmonkey. Bishop of the
>> > Faggotiastical church.
>>
>> Once again, Christian "love" rears its ugly face.
>
>Regarding Christian "love," Jesus did not teach absolute hugs and
>kisses like some homosexuality advocates evidently want everybody to
>believe. For example, Jesus taught in Matthew 18:15-17 that Christians
>are not to tolerate unrepentant church members. In fact, not only does
>1 Corinthians 5 give the example of a sexual offender getting the boot
>but 1 Corinthians 5:12 clearly tells Christians not to associate with
>such people. Passages such as 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 and 1 Corinthians
>15:33 also warn Christians not to have anything to do with people of
>dubious character.
>
>It is important for homosexuals to consider that although the example
>of 1 Corinthians 5 was a case of incest, homosexuality (Leviticus
>18:22) is referenced in the Levitical list of sexual offences

It is important for Christian loonies to admit that they do not
observe all the regulations in Leviticus, and it is hypocritical and
stupid to use it to excuse their bigotry.

snip

Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

Gray Shockley

unread,

Jul 8, 2005, 1:52:25 PM7/8/05

to

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 16:04:54 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dak5dm$7vk$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):

Which is why God and Wives disapprove.

+ g

Gray Shockley

unread,

Jul 8, 2005, 1:55:40 PM7/8/05

to

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:49:43 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <dakf2n$qg9$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):

Check out a Bar-B-Q'ed spare rib from long pork sumtim'!

++ gray

Gray Shockley

unread,

Jul 9, 2005, 11:58:33 PM7/9/05

to

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 22:25:16 -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <u8src1tikd70un6cg...@4ax.com>):

> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Romans 1:25-27 explains that same-sex sexual relationships are a
>> consequence of idolatry.
>
> Bible worship IS idolatry.
>
> Christ said that all of the law of the Old Testament could be summed
> up into two laws, and neither of those two laws says anything about
> homosexuality OR holy books.
>

Yup, but ya gotta remember that modern religionists only
have /one/ law: "Never give a sucker an even break."

Gray Shockley
---------------------------------------
If someone knows the answer before
knowing the question, this has nothing
to do with rationality and everything
to do with religion.

Message has been deleted

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Jul 10, 2005, 11:24:53 PM7/10/05

to

ZionsFire <Zion...@att.net> wrote:

>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>
>>"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Romans 1:25-27 explains that same-sex sexual relationships are a
>>>consequence of idolatry.
>>
>>Bible worship IS idolatry.
>

>Then quit doing it.

I did.

>>Christ said that all of the law of the Old Testament could be summed
>>up into two laws, and neither of those two laws says anything about
>>homosexuality OR holy books.
>

>And you got that where.... from the Bible of course.

Yep. Your point?

>Surely you don't think Americans are going to sit idly by
>while you infer that you are the only one who knows what the Bible
>says

Not hardly.

>and everyone else who reads the bible is an idoliter?

Not in the least.

Just those who want to make shrines and plaques and other such things,
thus expressing their worship of the book instead of God.

fred

unread,

Jul 11, 2005, 1:20:23 AM7/11/05

to

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> Christ said that all of the law of the Old Testament could be summed
> >> up into two laws, and neither of those two laws says anything about
> >> homosexuality OR holy books.
> >
> >Where have you been?
> >
> >Where were you when it was pointed out that Romans 1:25-27 shows that
> >same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry?
>
> Disagreeing with it. Romans is nothing more than the pontifications
> of one homophobic man.

<ROTFL> How would you know what Romans is? You are a evidently a slave
to your undisciplined imagination.

>
> >But you evidently haven't considered that
> >homosexuality leads people into the trap having more passion for
> >another person than they have for God,
>
> No more than heterosexuality does, so the logic fails based on
> fallacious assumption.

That's nice. But we are talking about how Romans 1:25-27 condemns
homosexuality.

>
> >> That is utter nonsense, since there are many who disobey the 1st
> >> commandment who feel not the slightest attraction for the opposite
> >> gender, while there are people who are otherwise good Christians that
> >> are attracted ONLY by those of the same gender.
> >
> >Your "logic" about those who disobey the 1st Commandment is based on
> >what the Bible calls worldy wisdom.
>
> I choose worldly wisdom over theological nonsense.

You don't choose worldly wisdom per se. It chooses you. 1 Corinthians
1:18-19, 2 Corinthians 4:4

>
> > Why don't you read Romans 1:25-27?
>
> I have, many times. The author of Romans was not God, but a human
> being.

Again, thank you for your opinion about Romans.

>
> > It indicates that homosexuality is a possible judgement of idolatry,
>
> It is wrong.

Very opinionated today.

>
> >Also, speaking of "good Christians," given that you're not a Christian
> >anyway,
>
> I am indeed a Christian, having accepted Christ as my personal Savior.

So what is a Christian?

>
> I have NOT accepted the Bible as my personal Savior, but as a
> human-written document loaded with parables and slanted history, with
> some actual quotes from Jesus Christ and other notables.

Ok, another opinion.

>
> >who are you to judge who is or isn't a good Christian?
>
> I make no such judgements.

Then I must have misunderstood when you stated:

"That is utter nonsense, since there are many who disobey the 1st
commandment who feel not the slightest attraction for the opposite
gender, while there are people who are otherwise good Christians that
are attracted ONLY by those of the same gender."

>

> >> >And this does make sense when you consider that
> >> >homosexuality leads people into the trap of having more passion for
> >> >another human than they do for God,
> >>
> >> No more than heterosexuality does.

I'd rather discuss heterosexuality at a later time. For now, do you
mind if we continue addressing Romans 1:25-57 and how it condemns
homosexuality, or do you have problems with that?

> >
> >Again, who are you to judge?
>
> I am no more nor less competent to judge than you are.

The Scriptures essentially say the same thing so I agree. But we must
judge others by the power of Jesus' Holy Spirit and not by the world's
standards.

>
> >You are probably an atheist
>
> No.

But you really do think like an atheist.

>
> >and judge everything by your own reasoning, right?
>
> If I make judgements, I indeed use my own reasoning. That is the only
> kind of reasoning on which one CAN make judgements.

Again, Christians should judge others by the power of the Holy Spirit
and not by the world's standards.

>
> > Consider Proverbs 28:26, 14:12, 3:5.
>
> If I were really the atheist you accused me of being, I would consider
> a Biblical reference to be absolutely irrelevant. As it is, I merely

You're definitely not an open-minded atheist.

> consider a Biblical reference to be mostly irrelevant, especially when
> it comes from a fundie that makes different assumptions about the
> nature of the book than I do.

After you figure out how to define what a Christian is, please define
what a fundie is. And please start by listing the fundamentals.

>
> >Again, Romans 1:25-27 indicates that homosexuality is one possible
> >judgment with respect to idolatry.
>
> Sexual orientation is a biological response that derives from our
> genes, and by all research is in place long before we are of an age
> sufficient to practice idolatry.

Scientists completed the gene map database only relatively recently and
projected it would be some time before they figured out how us humans
work. So you cannot be basing your assertions about genes and
homosexuality on scientific facts because scientists don't even know
these things yet.

>
> >And drowning in their own passions
>
> No more than any other human being does.

Sigh :^( You always sidestep the questions.

>
> >isn't such surprising a judgement since homosexuals disobey the
> >greatest commandment by compromising their love for God.
>
> Arrant nonsense. That is YOUR unqualified judgement, based on
> ignorance.

That's your problem! You are projecting yourself into me.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Jul 11, 2005, 3:09:24 AM7/11/05

to

"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> Disagreeing with it. Romans is nothing more than the pontifications
>> of one homophobic man.
>
><ROTFL> How would you know what Romans is?

I've read it. It was written by a man. That man expresses what we
now call homophobia. QED.

>> >But you evidently haven't considered that
>> >homosexuality leads people into the trap having more passion for
>> >another person than they have for God,
>>
>> No more than heterosexuality does, so the logic fails based on
>> fallacious assumption.
>
>That's nice. But we are talking about how Romans 1:25-27 condemns
>homosexuality.

Why should people who are not worshippers of Saul of Tarsus care what
Romans 1:25-27 condemns?

I know what Jesus commanded. He said to love the Lord God with all
thy might and to love thy neighbor as thyself. Neither permits one to
condemn homosexuality.

>> >> That is utter nonsense, since there are many who disobey the 1st
>> >> commandment who feel not the slightest attraction for the opposite
>> >> gender, while there are people who are otherwise good Christians that
>> >> are attracted ONLY by those of the same gender.
>> >
>> >Your "logic" about those who disobey the 1st Commandment is based on
>> >what the Bible calls worldy wisdom.
>>
>> I choose worldly wisdom over theological nonsense.
>
>You don't choose worldly wisdom per se. It chooses you. 1 Corinthians
>1:18-19, 2 Corinthians 4:4

Your unsubstantiated opinion as to what Bible verses mean is noted,
and then ignored.

>> > It indicates that homosexuality is a possible judgement of idolatry,
>>
>> It is wrong.
>
>Very opinionated today.

I am always opinionated.

>> >Also, speaking of "good Christians," given that you're not a Christian
>> >anyway,
>>
>> I am indeed a Christian, having accepted Christ as my personal Savior.
>
>So what is a Christian?

I gave one definition: someone who has accepted Christ as their
personal Savior

Thomas Jefferson gave another definition: someone who considers Christ
to have been the greatest of moral teachers, but not in any way a
deity.

There may be as many definitions of Christian as there are Christians.

>> >who are you to judge who is or isn't a good Christian?
>>
>> I make no such judgements.
>
>Then I must have misunderstood when you stated:
>
>"That is utter nonsense, since there are many who disobey the 1st
>commandment who feel not the slightest attraction for the opposite
>gender, while there are people who are otherwise good Christians that
>are attracted ONLY by those of the same gender."

Name one person that I judged to be a good Christian, or that I judged
to be a not-good Christian.

I leaving the judging to God. I am merely opinionated, as you noted.

>> >> >And this does make sense when you consider that
>> >> >homosexuality leads people into the trap of having more passion for
>> >> >another human than they do for God,
>> >>
>> >> No more than heterosexuality does.
>
>I'd rather discuss heterosexuality at a later time.

You make a claim about homosexuality for which there is no evidence,
and it is quite clearly equally applicable about heterosexuality, and
a bunch of emotional states having nothing to do with sexual
orientation. Why should any one merit special attention?

>For now, do you
>mind if we continue addressing Romans 1:25-57 and how it condemns
>homosexuality, or do you have problems with that?

Yes I do.

>> >Again, who are you to judge?
>>
>> I am no more nor less competent to judge than you are.
>
>The Scriptures essentially say the same thing so I agree. But we must
>judge others by the power of Jesus' Holy Spirit and not by the world's
>standards.

No. We must not judge others AT ALL. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Let ye who has not sinned cast the first stone. Etc.

>> >You are probably an atheist
>>
>> No.
>
>But you really do think like an atheist.

No. I think like a trained scientist.

>> >and judge everything by your own reasoning, right?
>>
>> If I make judgements, I indeed use my own reasoning. That is the only
>> kind of reasoning on which one CAN make judgements.
>
>Again, Christians should judge others by the power of the Holy Spirit
>and not by the world's standards.

Christians should not judge others AT ALL. They should love their
neighbors as themselves.

>> > Consider Proverbs 28:26, 14:12, 3:5.
>>
>> If I were really the atheist you accused me of being, I would consider
>> a Biblical reference to be absolutely irrelevant. As it is, I merely
>
>You're definitely not an open-minded atheist.

An atheist would be one who has rejected such sources, and therefore
would inherently not be open-minded about them.

An agnostic might be willing to be open-minded, but most agnostics I
know are equally unconvinced by the Bible, or they would not be
agnostics.

>> consider a Biblical reference to be mostly irrelevant, especially when
>> it comes from a fundie that makes different assumptions about the
>> nature of the book than I do.
>
>After you figure out how to define what a Christian is, please define
>what a fundie is. And please start by listing the fundamentals.

You can Google for them. The essential one for this discussion is one
who believes the Bible is literal truth handed down by the Almighty,
as opposed to a collection of excellent works by human beings
describing man's search for God, and containing numerous parables, as
well as various interpretations of what God would have us do, each of
which must be evaluated by a reader on their own merits (a believer of
course will likely include prayer in their evaluation process).

>> >Again, Romans 1:25-27 indicates that homosexuality is one possible
>> >judgment with respect to idolatry.
>>
>> Sexual orientation is a biological response that derives from our
>> genes, and by all research is in place long before we are of an age
>> sufficient to practice idolatry.
>
>Scientists completed the gene map database only relatively recently and
>projected it would be some time before they figured out how us humans
>work. So you cannot be basing your assertions about genes and
>homosexuality on scientific facts because scientists don't even know
>these things yet.

Scientists know a lot of things without being able to provide a
complete explanation for everything.

Scientists have not come up with a complete explanation for gravity
either, but they know that if you jump off a high cliff, you will
likely go towards the earth's center at an accelerating rate, with
probably fatal consequences.

>> >And drowning in their own passions
>>
>> No more than any other human being does.
>
>Sigh :^( You always sidestep the questions.

I reject your questions.

>> >isn't such surprising a judgement since homosexuals disobey the
>> >greatest commandment by compromising their love for God.
>>
>> Arrant nonsense. That is YOUR unqualified judgement, based on
>> ignorance.
>
>That's your problem! You are projecting yourself into me.

You have effectively agreed that this is appropriate. You have no
more qualifications to judge others than I do, as you admitted above:

>>> I am no more nor less competent to judge than you are.
>>
>>The Scriptures essentially say the same thing so I agree.

And I am not qualified to judge others. So since all of my judgements
are unqualified, and you have the same competency as I do, then you
are likewise not qualified.

More importantly, perhaps, no one except you gives a damn what your
judgement of them is.

fred

unread,

Jul 11, 2005, 5:03:27 AM7/11/05

to

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >> Disagreeing with it. Romans is nothing more than the pontifications
> >> of one homophobic man.
> >
> ><ROTFL> How would you know what Romans is?
>
> I've read it. It was written by a man. That man expresses what we
> now call homophobia. QED.

<ROTFL> It's your credibility.

>
> >> >But you evidently haven't considered that
> >> >homosexuality leads people into the trap having more passion for
> >> >another person than they have for God,
> >>
> >> No more than heterosexuality does, so the logic fails based on
> >> fallacious assumption.
> >
> >That's nice. But we are talking about how Romans 1:25-27 condemns
> >homosexuality.
>
> Why should people who are not worshippers of Saul of Tarsus care what
> Romans 1:25-27 condemns?

You have to have the faith that Romans 1:25-27 was inspired by Jesus'
Holy Spirit.

>
> I know what Jesus commanded. He said to love the Lord God with all
> thy might and to love thy neighbor as thyself. Neither permits one to
> condemn homosexuality.

Ah, the "hugs and kisses" Jesus created by your undisciplined
imagination. But not only did the Jesus of your faith teach in
Matthew 18:15-17 that it was permissible to kick unrepentant sinners
out of a congregation, but 1 Corinthians 5 actually gives us an example
of this, an incest offender getting the boot. And since both incest
(Leviticus 18:7-8) and homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) are included in
the levitical list of forbidden sexual acts (Leviticus 18:6-23) the 1
Corinthians 5 example could just as well have been the example of a
homosexual getting the boot.

>

> >> >> That is utter nonsense, since there are many who disobey the 1st
> >> >> commandment who feel not the slightest attraction for the opposite
> >> >> gender, while there are people who are otherwise good Christians that
> >> >> are attracted ONLY by those of the same gender.
> >> >
> >> >Your "logic" about those who disobey the 1st Commandment is based on
> >> >what the Bible calls worldy wisdom.
> >>
> >> I choose worldly wisdom over theological nonsense.
> >
> >You don't choose worldly wisdom per se. It chooses you. 1 Corinthians
> >1:18-19, 2 Corinthians 4:4
>
> Your unsubstantiated opinion as to what Bible verses mean is noted,
> and then ignored.

Please review Luke 12:11-12.

>
> >> > It indicates that homosexuality is a possible judgement of idolatry,
> >>
> >> It is wrong.
> >
> >Very opinionated today.
>
> I am always opinionated.

The adage that comes to mind with respect to your opinions is "garbage
in, garbage out".

>
> >> >Also, speaking of "good Christians," given that you're not a Christian
> >> >anyway,
> >>
> >> I am indeed a Christian, having accepted Christ as my personal Savior.
> >
> >So what is a Christian?
>
> I gave one definition: someone who has accepted Christ as their
> personal Savior
>
> Thomas Jefferson gave another definition: someone who considers Christ
> to have been the greatest of moral teachers, but not in any way a
> deity.
>
> There may be as many definitions of Christian as there are Christians.

Just as I thought. I think that you accepted Christ as your Savior
probably because your family and friends expected you to do it.

>
> >> >who are you to judge who is or isn't a good Christian?
> >>
> >> I make no such judgements.
> >
> >Then I must have misunderstood when you stated:
> >
> >"That is utter nonsense, since there are many who disobey the 1st
> >commandment who feel not the slightest attraction for the opposite
> >gender, while there are people who are otherwise good Christians that
> >are attracted ONLY by those of the same gender."
>
> Name one person that I judged to be a good Christian, or that I judged
> to be a not-good Christian.

You referred to homosexual "Christians" in general as good.

>
> I leaving the judging to God. I am merely opinionated, as you noted.

That's not Scriptural which doesn't surprise me. If we don't judge
people how can we obey Jesus' teaching of Matthew 18:15-17? Also note
that 1 Corinthians 5:12 indicates that Christians are actually expected
to judge anybody who even claims to be a Christian. 1 Corinthians
6:4-5 also emphasizes this. Again, Christians must judge others by the
power of Jesus' Holy Spirit but not by the world's standards.

>
> >> >> >And this does make sense when you consider that
> >> >> >homosexuality leads people into the trap of having more passion for
> >> >> >another human than they do for God,
> >> >>
> >> >> No more than heterosexuality does.
> >
> >I'd rather discuss heterosexuality at a later time.
>
> You make a claim about homosexuality for which there is no evidence,
> and it is quite clearly equally applicable about heterosexuality, and
> a bunch of emotional states having nothing to do with sexual
> orientation. Why should any one merit special attention?

The problem is that you are putting your faith into your undisciplined
imagination, not Jesus. This is why I question if you have ever
invited Jesus into your spiritual heart. Verses like Proverbs 14:12,
28:26 indicate that relying on your reasoning as opposed to your faith
leads to major trouble.

>
> >For now, do you
> >mind if we continue addressing Romans 1:25-57 and how it condemns
> >homosexuality, or do you have problems with that?
>
> Yes I do.

So you don't like what your basic reading skills tell you about this
passage?

>
> >> >Again, who are you to judge?
> >>
> >> I am no more nor less competent to judge than you are.
> >
> >The Scriptures essentially say the same thing so I agree. But we must
> >judge others by the power of Jesus' Holy Spirit and not by the world's
> >standards.
>
> No. We must not judge others AT ALL. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
> Let ye who has not sinned cast the first stone. Etc.

You are parroting Matthew 7:2. Did you ever get down to Matthew 7:5?

>
> >> >You are probably an atheist
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> >But you really do think like an atheist.
>
> No. I think like a trained scientist.

There's that undisciplined imagination again. Consider Romans 12:3.

>
> >> >and judge everything by your own reasoning, right?
> >>
> >> If I make judgements, I indeed use my own reasoning. That is the only
> >> kind of reasoning on which one CAN make judgements.
> >
> >Again, Christians should judge others by the power of the Holy Spirit
> >and not by the world's standards.
>
> Christians should not judge others AT ALL. They should love their
> neighbors as themselves.

This is totally contrary to what the Scriptures say about judging
others as indicated my Matthew 7:5, Matthew 18:15-17, Corinthians 5:12
and 1 Corinthians 6:4-5. Now I know where you're coming from. You're
full of the "traditions of men" (Mark 7:7) and not the Scriptures.

>
> >> > Consider Proverbs 28:26, 14:12, 3:5.
> >>
> >> If I were really the atheist you accused me of being, I would consider
> >> a Biblical reference to be absolutely irrelevant. As it is, I merely
> >
> >You're definitely not an open-minded atheist.
>
> An atheist would be one who has rejected such sources, and therefore
> would inherently not be open-minded about them.

What sources are you talking about now?

>
> An agnostic might be willing to be open-minded, but most agnostics I
> know are equally unconvinced by the Bible, or they would not be
> agnostics.

Jesus' Holy Spirit has to open your mind to the Scriptures. Consider
that Jesus even had to open the minds of his apostles to the Scriptures
as Luke 24:44-45 shows. But if you resist the guidance of the Holy
Spirit with respect to your understanding of the Scriptures than you
will be no better off than 1 Corinthians 1:18-19.

>
> >> consider a Biblical reference to be mostly irrelevant, especially when
> >> it comes from a fundie that makes different assumptions about the
> >> nature of the book than I do.
> >
> >After you figure out how to define what a Christian is, please define
> >what a fundie is. And please start by listing the fundamentals.
>
> You can Google for them. The essential one for this discussion is one

What do you mean I can Google for them? That's a copout reply. It
shows that simply not taking responsibility for what you're repeating.
I'm convinced that you are doing nothing more than parroting what
others have told you about the Bible and probably the street version of
the Bible at that - the "traditions of men".

> who believes the Bible is literal truth handed down by the Almighty,
> as opposed to a collection of excellent works by human beings
> describing man's search for God, and containing numerous parables, as
> well as various interpretations of what God would have us do, each of
> which must be evaluated by a reader on their own merits (a believer of
> course will likely include prayer in their evaluation process).

But given that Jesus had to open his apostles minds to the Scriptures
as Luke 24:44-45 indicates, then there are certainly parts of the Bible
that cannot be taken literally.

>
> >> >Again, Romans 1:25-27 indicates that homosexuality is one possible
> >> >judgment with respect to idolatry.
> >>
> >> Sexual orientation is a biological response that derives from our
> >> genes, and by all research is in place long before we are of an age
> >> sufficient to practice idolatry.
> >
> >Scientists completed the gene map database only relatively recently and
> >projected it would be some time before they figured out how us humans
> >work. So you cannot be basing your assertions about genes and
> >homosexuality on scientific facts because scientists don't even know
> >these things yet.
>
> Scientists know a lot of things without being able to provide a
> complete explanation for everything.

You're just strengthing the idea that you are satisfied that there must
somebody who can explain things that you are merely repeating. And
this faceless somebody in your undisciplined imagination is evidently
sufficient to establish what the truth is in your reality.

>
> Scientists have not come up with a complete explanation for gravity
> either, but they know that if you jump off a high cliff, you will
> likely go towards the earth's center at an accelerating rate, with
> probably fatal consequences.

And this confirms, for you anyway, the idea that a gene is responsible
for homosexuality, right?

>
> >> >And drowning in their own passions
> >>
> >> No more than any other human being does.
> >
> >Sigh :^( You always sidestep the questions.
>
> I reject your questions.

With respect to the way that I am careful to reference the Scriptures,
you are actually rejecting the Scriptures.

>
> >> >isn't such surprising a judgement since homosexuals disobey the
> >> >greatest commandment by compromising their love for God.
> >>
> >> Arrant nonsense. That is YOUR unqualified judgement, based on
> >> ignorance.
> >
> >That's your problem! You are projecting yourself into me.
>
> You have effectively agreed that this is appropriate. You have no
> more qualifications to judge others than I do, as you admitted above:
> >>> I am no more nor less competent to judge than you are.
> >>
> >>The Scriptures essentially say the same thing so I agree.
>
> And I am not qualified to judge others. So since all of my judgements
> are unqualified, and you have the same competency as I do, then you
> are likewise not qualified.
>
> More importantly, perhaps, no one except you gives a damn what your
> judgement of them is.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, homosexuals need to keep in mind that the

good news of the gospel is not about how God despises homosexuality.
In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 shows that certain members of that church

had formerly been slaves to same-sex sexual relationships but had been
cleansed in the name of Jesus. So they had evidently repented and

accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Jul 11, 2005, 12:14:34 PM7/11/05

to

"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> >> >But you evidently haven't considered that
>> >> >homosexuality leads people into the trap having more passion for
>> >> >another person than they have for God,
>> >>
>> >> No more than heterosexuality does, so the logic fails based on
>> >> fallacious assumption.
>> >
>> >That's nice. But we are talking about how Romans 1:25-27 condemns
>> >homosexuality.
>>
>> Why should people who are not worshippers of Saul of Tarsus care what
>> Romans 1:25-27 condemns?
>
>You have to have the faith that Romans 1:25-27 was inspired by Jesus'
>Holy Spirit.

I obviously don't have to. I believe otherwise.

>> I know what Jesus commanded. He said to love the Lord God with all
>> thy might and to love thy neighbor as thyself. Neither permits one to
>> condemn homosexuality.
>
>Ah, the "hugs and kisses" Jesus created by your undisciplined
>imagination.

I don't imagine "hugs and kisses".

>But not only did the Jesus of your faith teach in
>Matthew 18:15-17 that it was permissible to kick unrepentant sinners
>out of a congregation,

So what? A parent who loves his children punishes them for
misbehavior.

>but 1 Corinthians 5 actually gives us an example
>of this, an incest offender getting the boot. And since both incest
>(Leviticus 18:7-8) and homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22) are included in
>the levitical list of forbidden sexual acts (Leviticus 18:6-23) the 1
>Corinthians 5 example could just as well have been the example of a
>homosexual getting the boot.

It wasn't, so it is only your unsupported guesswork as to what "could
have been".

Hint: Christianity grew up in a Hellenized civilization, and one
feature of Hellenic civilization was that homosexual relations for
part of one's life were the norm, and indeed thought highly of. Paul
was raised Jewish and hence not in the mainstream culture, but Gentile
Christians would have seen nothing wrong with homosexuality - which
sheds a different light on your Romans verses (the different possible
motives for attacking a mainstream cultural practice vs attacking a
rare "perversion"), though that is besides the point. The Corinthians
were a Hellenic population. They would have looked quite differently
at homosexuality than they would have looked at incest.

>> >> > It indicates that homosexuality is a possible judgement of idolatry,
>> >>
>> >> It is wrong.
>> >
>> >Very opinionated today.
>>
>> I am always opinionated.
>
>The adage that comes to mind with respect to your opinions is "garbage
>in, garbage out".

So because you don't like my opinions about the Bible, when I read it,
I am reading garbage?

>> I gave one definition: someone who has accepted Christ as their
>> personal Savior
>>
>> Thomas Jefferson gave another definition: someone who considers Christ
>> to have been the greatest of moral teachers, but not in any way a
>> deity.
>>
>> There may be as many definitions of Christian as there are Christians.
>
>Just as I thought. I think that you accepted Christ as your Savior
>probably because your family and friends expected you to do it.

Actually not, since my parents raised me in no religion. I chose to
follow the Lord in college.

>> >> >who are you to judge who is or isn't a good Christian?
>> >>
>> >> I make no such judgements.
>> >
>> >Then I must have misunderstood when you stated:
>> >
>> >"That is utter nonsense, since there are many who disobey the 1st
>> >commandment who feel not the slightest attraction for the opposite
>> >gender, while there are people who are otherwise good Christians that
>> >are attracted ONLY by those of the same gender."
>>
>> Name one person that I judged to be a good Christian, or that I judged
>> to be a not-good Christian.
>
>You referred to homosexual "Christians" in general as good.

Nope.

I made a generalized statement that there exist "good Christians" who
are homosexual. This is not a judgement about any individual
Christian.

Incidentally, one of the largest denominations in America, the United
Church of Christ, recently decided by an 80% majority to support
homosexual marriage. They apparently agree with my perspective.

>> I leaving the judging to God. I am merely opinionated, as you noted.
>
>That's not Scriptural which doesn't surprise me. If we don't judge
>people how can we obey Jesus' teaching of Matthew 18:15-17?

That refers specifically to an offense *against you*, and is a
response to the offense, and to the sinner's response to confrontation
about that offense, and is not a judgement of the sinner. Even then
the "punishment" is merely avoidance.

Christ taught elsewhere that we are to love our enemies and bless
those that curse us.

And if we do judge people, then we violate His other commandment that
we not do so.

Also note
>that 1 Corinthians 5:12 indicates that Christians are actually expected
>to judge anybody who even claims to be a Christian. 1 Corinthians
>6:4-5 also emphasizes this.

Corinthians was Paul's opinion. Paul was not present at the time when
Jesus taught his great moral lessons, and it shows. For all that he
was a great evangelist, Paul was not Jesus Christ. I do not elevate
his words to the level of Christ's. Why do you do so?

>> You make a claim about homosexuality for which there is no evidence,
>> and it is quite clearly equally applicable about heterosexuality, and
>> a bunch of emotional states having nothing to do with sexual
>> orientation. Why should any one merit special attention?
>
>The problem is that you are putting your faith into your undisciplined
>imagination, not Jesus. This is why I question if you have ever
>invited Jesus into your spiritual heart. Verses like Proverbs 14:12,
>28:26 indicate that relying on your reasoning as opposed to your faith
>leads to major trouble.

Your ability to cherry-pick Bible verses that you think supports your
position does not impress me.

>> >For now, do you
>> >mind if we continue addressing Romans 1:25-57 and how it condemns
>> >homosexuality, or do you have problems with that?
>>
>> Yes I do.
>
>So you don't like what your basic reading skills tell you about this
>passage?

My basic reading skills in reading a piece of opinion tell me to first
evaluate the author and his/her cultural perspective. Paul was
writing a letter, in the manner that a preacher nowadays writes a
sermon. He wasn't writing a holy book. Paul's sermons may have been
deemed more worthy of scrutiny than the work of an average preacher,
but he was still a preacher and not Jesus Christ.

>> >> >Again, who are you to judge?
>> >>
>> >> I am no more nor less competent to judge than you are.
>> >
>> >The Scriptures essentially say the same thing so I agree. But we must
>> >judge others by the power of Jesus' Holy Spirit and not by the world's
>> >standards.
>>
>> No. We must not judge others AT ALL. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
>> Let ye who has not sinned cast the first stone. Etc.
>
>You are parroting Matthew 7:2. Did you ever get down to Matthew 7:5?

Certainly, but since I don't know you, I have no basis for knowing
what sorts of hypocrisy you engage in while you are busily judging
others. I know my own sins, and that I am not fit to judge others.
You seem not to have learned that lesson.

>> >> >You are probably an atheist
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >But you really do think like an atheist.
>>
>> No. I think like a trained scientist.
>
>There's that undisciplined imagination again. Consider Romans 12:3.

Actually, he sounds like he is agreeing with me.

>> >> >and judge everything by your own reasoning, right?
>> >>
>> >> If I make judgements, I indeed use my own reasoning. That is the only
>> >> kind of reasoning on which one CAN make judgements.
>> >
>> >Again, Christians should judge others by the power of the Holy Spirit
>> >and not by the world's standards.
>>
>> Christians should not judge others AT ALL. They should love their
>> neighbors as themselves.
>
>This is totally contrary to what the Scriptures say about judging
>others as indicated my Matthew 7:5,

Get that log out of your eye before you judge others.

>Matthew 18:15-17,

Ostracize someone who sins against you and doesn't respond to multiple
attempts to gain his repentance. This is probably a lot milder than
what might have otherwise been done.

And note that the first step is to confront the person in private. I
note that because you seem to be judging me in public without any
private comment. Not that I have actually sinned against you (so
indeed Matthew does not apply).

> Corinthians 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 6:4-5.

Paul, and taken out of context to boot.

>Now I know where you're coming from. You're
>full of the "traditions of men" (Mark 7:7) and not the Scriptures.

Now you think you have mind-reading powers. The Bible condemns those
who dabble in the occult.

>> >> > Consider Proverbs 28:26, 14:12, 3:5.
>> >>
>> >> If I were really the atheist you accused me of being, I would consider
>> >> a Biblical reference to be absolutely irrelevant. As it is, I merely
>> >
>> >You're definitely not an open-minded atheist.
>>
>> An atheist would be one who has rejected such sources, and therefore
>> would inherently not be open-minded about them.
>
>What sources are you talking about now?

Such sources as the Bible and the interpretations such as those of
Luther and Calvin upon which modern Protestantism is based.

>> An agnostic might be willing to be open-minded, but most agnostics I
>> know are equally unconvinced by the Bible, or they would not be
>> agnostics.
>
>Jesus' Holy Spirit has to open your mind to the Scriptures.

If He has done so, then one is probably not an agnostic.

> Consider
>that Jesus even had to open the minds of his apostles to the Scriptures
>as Luke 24:44-45 shows.

Since most of them probably couldn't read the Scriptures, your
interpretation of that passage is questionable. The understanding
that He gave to them is what is presented in v.46-47.

>But if you resist the guidance of the Holy
>Spirit with respect to your understanding of the Scriptures than you
>will be no better off than 1 Corinthians 1:18-19.

The same could be said to you. Obviously, the Holy Spirit has guided
us in different directions.

>> >> consider a Biblical reference to be mostly irrelevant, especially when
>> >> it comes from a fundie that makes different assumptions about the
>> >> nature of the book than I do.
>> >
>> >After you figure out how to define what a Christian is, please define
>> >what a fundie is. And please start by listing the fundamentals.
>>
>> You can Google for them. The essential one for this discussion is one
>
>What do you mean I can Google for them? That's a copout reply. It
>shows that simply not taking responsibility for what you're repeating.

No. I am avoiding a debate that is irrelevant while focusing on the
one fundamentalist tenet that is relevant.

But since you insist
http://www.wfu.edu:/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyone.html
<The term was also used to describe "The Fundamentals," a collection of
< twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 by Milton and Lyman
< Steward. These two wealthy brothers were concerned with the moral and
< spiritual decline they believed was infecting Protestantism, and
< sought to restore the historic faith with a 12 volume call to arms
< that dealt with five subjects that latter became known as the five
< fundamentals of the faith: (1) Literal inerrancy of the autographs
< (the originals of each scriptural book); (2) the virgin birth and
< deity of Christ; (3) the substitutionary view of the atonement; (4)
< the bodily resurrection of Christ; (5) The imminent return of Christ.

>I'm convinced that you are doing nothing more than parroting what
>others have told you about the Bible

Actually, that sounds like what you are doing.

>and probably the street version of the Bible at that - the "traditions of men".

You have an odd view of what "traditions of men" the verses were
referring to.

>> who believes the Bible is literal truth handed down by the Almighty,
>> as opposed to a collection of excellent works by human beings
>> describing man's search for God, and containing numerous parables, as
>> well as various interpretations of what God would have us do, each of
>> which must be evaluated by a reader on their own merits (a believer of
>> course will likely include prayer in their evaluation process).
>
>But given that Jesus had to open his apostles minds to the Scriptures
>as Luke 24:44-45 indicates,

He opened their mind to a particular message of the Scriptures.

>then there are certainly parts of the Bible that cannot be taken literally.

That does not follow. You are presuming that the apostles were taking
the Bible literally before that verse, whereas I suspect that most of
the apostles had never read the Torah since they couldn't read, much
less the other books. And of course their concept of what was
Scripture was not yours.

>> >> >Again, Romans 1:25-27 indicates that homosexuality is one possible
>> >> >judgment with respect to idolatry.
>> >>
>> >> Sexual orientation is a biological response that derives from our
>> >> genes, and by all research is in place long before we are of an age
>> >> sufficient to practice idolatry.
>> >
>> >Scientists completed the gene map database only relatively recently and
>> >projected it would be some time before they figured out how us humans
>> >work. So you cannot be basing your assertions about genes and
>> >homosexuality on scientific facts because scientists don't even know
>> >these things yet.
>>
>> Scientists know a lot of things without being able to provide a
>> complete explanation for everything.
>
>You're just strengthing the idea that you are satisfied that there must
>somebody who can explain things that you are merely repeating.

Actually, I am satisfied that I don't need an explanation, to know
that the phenomenon of homosexuality is natural.

>> Scientists have not come up with a complete explanation for gravity
>> either, but they know that if you jump off a high cliff, you will
>> likely go towards the earth's center at an accelerating rate, with
>> probably fatal consequences.
>
>And this confirms, for you anyway, the idea that a gene is responsible
>for homosexuality, right?

Did I say that? Nope. I said (see above) "Sexual orientation is a

biological response that derives from our genes, and by all research
is in place long before we are of an age sufficient to practice
idolatry".

If you don't understand that statement, then I suggest that you need a
biology class more than another bout of scripture-reading.

>> >> >And drowning in their own passions
>> >>
>> >> No more than any other human being does.
>> >
>> >Sigh :^( You always sidestep the questions.
>>
>> I reject your questions.
>
>With respect to the way that I am careful to reference the Scriptures,
>you are actually rejecting the Scriptures.

You think too highly of your own pronouncements.

But of course I have said that I do not hold the writings of Paul to
be on the same level as the words of Christ, so if this means that I
am "rejecting the Scriptures", then so be it.

I contend that the Christian who rejects Christ's message to "love thy
neighbor as thyself" has rejected one of Christ's most basic
teachings.

Gray Shockley

unread,

Jul 11, 2005, 2:03:56 PM7/11/05

to

Lojbab replied to BrainDeadFred:

> You think too highly of your own pronouncements.
>
> But of course I have said that I do not hold the writings of Paul to
> be on the same level as the words of Christ, so if this means that I
> am "rejecting the Scriptures", then so be it.
>
> I contend that the Christian who rejects Christ's message to "love thy
> neighbor as thyself" has rejected one of Christ's most basic
> teachings.

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

[yawn]

I'm just amazed that entities such as BrainDeadFred are so obsessed with
homosexuality.

That topic is even more boring than talking about heterosexuality (unless
it's, of course, to talk about the chandelier that can be used in - oh, never
mind . . . ).

Ya think mebbe BrainDeadFred dislike homosexuals because one stole "his"
girlfriend?

Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Is sex a spectator sport?

fred

unread,

Jul 11, 2005, 2:14:22 PM7/11/05

to

Gray Shockley wrote:
> Lojbab replied to BrainDeadFred:
>
> > You think too highly of your own pronouncements.
> >
> > But of course I have said that I do not hold the writings of Paul to
> > be on the same level as the words of Christ, so if this means that I
> > am "rejecting the Scriptures", then so be it.
> >
> > I contend that the Christian who rejects Christ's message to "love thy
> > neighbor as thyself" has rejected one of Christ's most basic
> > teachings.
> ---------------------------------------
>
> [yawn]
>
> I'm just amazed that entities such as BrainDeadFred are so obsessed with
> homosexuality.

The issue is that homosexuality advocates deny their basic reading
skills with respect to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality.

Message has been deleted

man_in_...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jul 12, 2005, 3:01:01 AM7/12/05

to

fred wrote:
> > I'm just amazed that entities such as BrainDeadFred are so obsessed with
> > homosexuality.
>
> The issue is that homosexuality advocates deny their basic reading
> skills with respect to the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality.

Which leads one to wonder why the Bible's authors
were so obsessed with homosexuality. And why they
were so obsessed with foreskins too. *yawn* Ask me
if I care.

fred

unread,

Jul 12, 2005, 4:35:47 PM7/12/05

to

You are unwittingly imposing your sense of good and evil - actually the
lack of it (1 Timoth 4:1-2) - on other people. But given that atheists
don't recognize authority higher than themselves, this is not
surprising.

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20

>
>
> -- cary

Cary Kittrell

unread,

Jul 12, 2005, 4:41:52 PM7/12/05

to

Or perhaps wittingly not imposing my sense of good and evil -- it's hard to see
"do it if you so desire" as much of an imposition, at least from their point
of view of the imposees.

> But given that atheists
> don't recognize authority higher than themselves, this is not
> surprising.

Yep. We're both doing the same thing; we just get our standards from
different sources. Mine comes primarily from my upbringing, and beyond
that, from my wiring. A well-developed sense of empathy is a pretty
decent moral tool. It tends to produce behavior quite in line with
Jesus' second great commandment.

-- cary

fred

unread,

Jul 12, 2005, 8:15:45 PM7/12/05

to

What an unthinking statement! This thread has been discussing that
homosexuality is a consequence of disobeying what Jesus taught was the
GREATEST commandment (Matthew 22:35-40) as evidenced by Romans 1:25-27.
And here you are bragging that your standards are in line with what
Jesus taught was the second greatest commandment. But there is simply
no rationale in patting yourself on the back for upholding the second
greatest commandment while you simultaneously encourage people to
disobey the GREATEST commandment (Romans 1:32).

>
>
> -- cary

Cary Kittrell

unread,

Jul 12, 2005, 8:39:03 PM7/12/05

to

And that most unconvincingly, so far...

> And here you are bragging that your standards are in line with what
> Jesus taught was the second greatest commandment.

True, I claim that my sense of empathy -- which is found to a greater
or lesser extent in all social animals, not just humans -- automatically
tends to incline me to behave in ways consistent with Jesus second
commandment. A commandment hardly unique to Jesus by the way:
versions of what can be called the Golden Rule are found in many many
non Judeo-Christian cultures. As I say, it's in the wiring, a part
of our evolutionary heritage as intensely social animals.

> But there is simply
> no rationale in patting yourself on the back for upholding the second
> greatest commandment while you simultaneously encourage people to
> disobey the GREATEST commandment (Romans 1:32).

Oh, I freely admit to seeing no reason to work on that first commandment.

But on the other hand, I must protest that I hardly go around trying
to encourage other people to break it, either. Part of my second-commandment-like
behavior is attempting, insofar as it does not violate that very tenent, to
keep my morals to myself and leave other peoples' morals alone.

-- cary

fred

unread,

Jul 13, 2005, 3:48:04 AM7/13/05

to

At least your intentions are good. However, where spiritual matters
are concerned, by condoning homosexuality you are not only helping to
spread around a deadly type of spiritual virus but you are in denial
that such a virus exists in the first place. In fact, you've probably
dulled your spiritual sensitivity because of your worldly values to the
point where your spiritual sensitivity is worthless (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20

It's late. Warts and all...

>
>
> -- cary

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Jul 13, 2005, 1:18:58 PM7/13/05

to

"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>At least your intentions are good. However, where spiritual matters
>are concerned, by condoning homosexuality you are not only helping to
>spread around a deadly type of spiritual virus but you are in denial
>that such a virus exists in the first place.

Provide evidence that there is such a thing as a "spiritual virus".
Is it made of spiritual DNA? Do we have to worry about spiritual
retroviruses as well?

Such nonsense!

fred

unread,

Jul 14, 2005, 1:48:52 AM7/14/05

to

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >At least your intentions are good. However, where spiritual matters
> >are concerned, by condoning homosexuality you are not only helping to
> >spread around a deadly type of spiritual virus but you are in denial
> >that such a virus exists in the first place.
>
> Provide evidence that there is such a thing as a "spiritual virus".
> Is it made of spiritual DNA? Do we have to worry about spiritual
> retroviruses as well?
>
> Such nonsense!

You're faith would normally connect you with what I'm talking about.

man_in_...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jul 14, 2005, 12:46:36 PM7/14/05

to

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >At least your intentions are good. However, where spiritual matters
> >are concerned, by condoning homosexuality you are not only helping to
> >spread around a deadly type of spiritual virus but you are in denial
> >that such a virus exists in the first place.
>
> Provide evidence that there is such a thing as a "spiritual virus".
> Is it made of spiritual DNA? Do we have to worry about spiritual
> retroviruses as well?
>
> Such nonsense!

Maybe he means the other kind of virus. You know,
a computer virus. Of course, fred's psyche's 500
lines of BASIC.

Cary Kittrell

unread,

Jul 14, 2005, 12:45:14 PM7/14/05

to

Correct. I don't see homosexuality as a moral issue. In fact
I do not see sex itself as a moral issue. It certainly is hedged
about with potential moral concerns, which means you must take care not
to cause harm to another person either emotionally or physically. But then
this is true of many other, non-sexual acts as well.

And of course unintended or inappropriate pregnancy is of paramount
moral imporatance -- this aspect being one in which homosexual sex
is safe from a moral danger that straights must deal with.

All that assumed, then sex itself, when people enter into it with adequate
knowledge, good will, and honesty -- then I see no moral dimension
to it whatever.

And that said, I then naturally regard plumbing as inconsequential.
Love is love -- and for that matter, lust is lust -- the rest is mere
mechanical engineering, and it amazes me that some people become
so worked up over that set of details.

> In fact, you've probably
> dulled your spiritual sensitivity because of your worldly values to the
> point where your spiritual sensitivity is worthless (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

Well, either that or else I've spent a some amount of effort subordinating
my visceral reactions and the beliefs with which I was first inculcated to my
subsequent life experiences and my more rational reflections.

-- cary

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Jul 15, 2005, 4:06:50 AM7/15/05

to

"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >At least your intentions are good. However, where spiritual matters
>> >are concerned, by condoning homosexuality you are not only helping to
>> >spread around a deadly type of spiritual virus but you are in denial
>> >that such a virus exists in the first place.
>>
>> Provide evidence that there is such a thing as a "spiritual virus".
>> Is it made of spiritual DNA? Do we have to worry about spiritual
>> retroviruses as well?
>>
>> Such nonsense!
>
>You're faith would normally connect you with what I'm talking about.

I am not faith.

And my faith does not connect me to nonsense.

Secret Squirrel

unread,

Jul 15, 2005, 12:34:08 PM7/15/05

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:db64qq$2o9$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:

> In article
> <1121240884....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> "fred" <cla...@gmail.com> writes:

>> At least your intentions are good. However, where
>> spiritual matters are concerned, by condoning
>> homosexuality you are not only helping to spread around a
>> deadly type of spiritual virus

Homosexuality a spiritual virus? Oh goodness, another
someone who has to go back to genetics 101.

>> but you are in denial that
>> such a virus exists in the first place.
>
> Correct. I don't see homosexuality as a moral issue. In
> fact I do not see sex itself as a moral issue. It
> certainly is hedged about with potential moral concerns,
> which means you must take care not to cause harm to another
> person either emotionally or physically. But then this is
> true of many other, non-sexual acts as well.
>
> And of course unintended or inappropriate pregnancy is of
> paramount moral imporatance -- this aspect being one in
> which homosexual sex is safe from a moral danger that
> straights must deal with.
>
> All that assumed, then sex itself, when people enter into
> it with adequate knowledge, good will, and honesty -- then
> I see no moral dimension to it whatever.
>
> And that said, I then naturally regard plumbing as
> inconsequential. Love is love -- and for that matter, lust
> is lust -- the rest is mere mechanical engineering, and it
> amazes me that some people become so worked up over that
> set of details.

A human after my own heart. I wish I had your gift for gab,
Cary, you've summed up exactly what I believe as well, for
all human sexual acts. There is an ethical dimension, to be
sure, but that has nothing to do with who/what/how many/
whatever.

>> In fact, you've probably
>> dulled your spiritual sensitivity because of your worldly
>> values to the point where your spiritual sensitivity is
>> worthless (1 Timothy 4:1-2).
>
> Well, either that or else I've spent a some amount of
> effort subordinating my visceral reactions and the beliefs
> with which I was first inculcated to my subsequent life
> experiences and my more rational reflections.

Even for me, the social programming was so strong that the
first time I saw two guys kiss in a movie, I shuddered. That
goes to show you that just because one has a strong visceral
reaction against something, it doesn't make that reaction
"natural".

The proof is, or course, is that people in other cultures
would think some of our sexual morality to be outrageous,
and have reactions just as visceral.

Secret Squirrel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQEVAwUBQtb8gT/rA6+b3AyhAQEH2wf/f+c9oqiepcQm7B7NFzflwM0WGyhXBq9u
KaNaZ9rvdk4wSIAvmG9uAWpwGlj8+NvMSRVmj4Ypmk6Ja7i9TEPY9fjy+nSQcsKl
7BqznrnvwKRya1fc01iCltvJsyM00JBb2pndD+Gwxc4ojE1lyrCO6cOhQu7xqwo4
6D5QiYzbtQ/mN6ABLdgyhKnDryxwtPeG365ZLaTJaceF+MhDl8/x/3CGQcaisQRK
+qxh/PGEfMjDIrmvttGVPxuRwppNtl0yt9MPGuJFUsrSc0jhIZyXOrHjmHUOPO1A
j/cPV5OQynVkyx16tkEANAYlee+YoubncZDkXzk5jXFMI8PtwbCtVw==
=WXpb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

man_in_...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jul 15, 2005, 2:22:33 PM7/15/05

to

Secret Squirrel wrote:
> >> At least your intentions are good. However, where
> >> spiritual matters are concerned, by condoning
> >> homosexuality you are not only helping to spread around a
> >> deadly type of spiritual virus
>
> Homosexuality a spiritual virus? Oh goodness, another
> someone who has to go back to genetics 101.

Well, there IS a virus which, in the West at least,
disproportionately affects homosexuals because the
first Westerner to contract said virus was a
homosexual.

It's not that complicated: Don't lie to your
partners, protect them from anything nasty (This
includes both STIs and pregnancy.), remember all
birthdays and anniversaries, and have fun with
them which includes things other than sex. And of
course never do anything one of you doesn't want
to. All pretty simple.

Focusing on sexual orientation, I'm straight, but
if I fell in love with a man, does that mean
something's "wrong" with me? Hell no! It just means
I wouldn't be discriminating against half the world
population anymore.

Which brings us to another thing: Right-wingers
like to argue that love between members of the same
sex isn't "really" love. I can see a lot involved
in determining whether or not a relationship will
work: Rapport, common interests, whether or not he
cheats, whether or not she's been diagnosed
borderline, but most of that makes the existence of
certain parts look trivial by comparison.

> >> In fact, you've probably
> >> dulled your spiritual sensitivity because of your worldly
> >> values to the point where your spiritual sensitivity is
> >> worthless (1 Timothy 4:1-2).
> >
> > Well, either that or else I've spent a some amount of
> > effort subordinating my visceral reactions and the beliefs
> > with which I was first inculcated to my subsequent life
> > experiences and my more rational reflections.
>
> Even for me, the social programming was so strong that the
> first time I saw two guys kiss in a movie, I shuddered. That
> goes to show you that just because one has a strong visceral
> reaction against something, it doesn't make that reaction
> "natural".
>
> The proof is, or course, is that people in other cultures
> would think some of our sexual morality to be outrageous,
> and have reactions just as visceral.

Too true. Sex soon after childbirth or while
menstruating is a common taboo. The current older
woman/younger man fad in Hollywood, naturally,
might not be so ideal in many if not most
polygynous societies.

And of course we don't even want to talk about
some of the shows on TV. I mean, Desperate
Housewives? Even the title sounds like adultery.
With a younger man. Which, not surprisingly, the
show's about. Although housewives aren't usually
this hot:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0519456/

And gardeners aren't usually this hot:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0582462/

Cary Kittrell

unread,

Jul 15, 2005, 8:25:56 PM7/15/05

to

I rather think that you do.

> Cary, you've summed up exactly what I believe as well, for
> all human sexual acts. There is an ethical dimension, to be
> sure, but that has nothing to do with who/what/how many/
> whatever.
>
> >> In fact, you've probably
> >> dulled your spiritual sensitivity because of your worldly
> >> values to the point where your spiritual sensitivity is
> >> worthless (1 Timothy 4:1-2).
> >
> > Well, either that or else I've spent a some amount of
> > effort subordinating my visceral reactions and the beliefs
> > with which I was first inculcated to my subsequent life
> > experiences and my more rational reflections.
>
> Even for me, the social programming was so strong that the
> first time I saw two guys kiss in a movie, I shuddered. That
> goes to show you that just because one has a strong visceral
> reaction against something, it doesn't make that reaction
> "natural".

Really? That's very interesting. I'm intrigued.

(was it the whoosis...Magnum PI and Kevin Kline kiss?)

Secret Squirrel

unread,

Jul 18, 2005, 12:42:23 PM7/18/05

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

man_in_...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1121451753.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Secret Squirrel wrote:

>> > Cary wrote:

Which is one of the reasons I think where our current
notions about sexual orientation is wrong; other cultures
and other times didn't tell you that you either had to be
a "one" or a "zero". An occasional romp through the other
pasture didn't label you as "one of THEM" for the rest of
your life. You were what you liked most of the time.

> Which brings us to another thing: Right-wingers
> like to argue that love between members of the same
> sex isn't "really" love. I can see a lot involved
> in determining whether or not a relationship will
> work: Rapport, common interests, whether or not he
> cheats, whether or not she's been diagnosed
> borderline, but most of that makes the existence of
> certain parts look trivial by comparison.

Of course; the old saw that "we love, you lust" I've heard
many a time before. Everyone draws their own dividing
line of what's really "pure and noble" love and what's not.
We hear it on asb-l too; which is really bizzare because
there you have people who probably *are* having sex with
those their beloved, telling people who in most cases are *not*,
that only *their* form of love is pure and noble and selfless,
whereas your attraction is just thrill-seeking lust.

It's women's newfound economic power, I tell ya. Now *they*
get the power to choose their boytoys on the basis of good
looks, just like men used to do.

I say more power to them. Besides, that means that guys are
now motivated not to let their bodies go to pot, which means
more eye candy!

Secret Squirrel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

unread,

Jul 18, 2005, 5:57:02 PM7/18/05

to

Secret Squirrel wrote:
> It was a TV movie made before that, about a kid who finds
> out that his divorced father is gay. I can't remember the
> name; the movie itself otherwise wasn't terribly memorable.
>
> Of course, now same-gender kissing is almost blase. Who'd
> have thunk it?

Yeah, now even straight characters are
getting in on the act. You know what they
say, "When in doubt, kiss Craig." LOL (And
it's funny because he looks like he's
enjoying it. And it's longer than his
kisses with his girlfriend. LOL)

man_in_...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jul 18, 2005, 6:41:10 PM7/18/05

to

Secret Squirrel wrote:
> > It's not that complicated: Don't lie to your
> > partners, protect them from anything nasty (This
> > includes both STIs and pregnancy.), remember all
> > birthdays and anniversaries, and have fun with
> > them which includes things other than sex. And of
> > course never do anything one of you doesn't want
> > to. All pretty simple.
> >
> > Focusing on sexual orientation, I'm straight, but
> > if I fell in love with a man, does that mean
> > something's "wrong" with me? Hell no! It just means
> > I wouldn't be discriminating against half the world
> > population anymore.
>
> Which is one of the reasons I think where our current
> notions about sexual orientation is wrong; other cultures
> and other times didn't tell you that you either had to be
> a "one" or a "zero". An occasional romp through the other
> pasture didn't label you as "one of THEM" for the rest of
> your life. You were what you liked most of the time.

And even then, cultural protocols mostly deal with
the relations themselves. I mean, the relationship
is, after all, a homosexual one, meaning it's a
sexual relationship involving members of the same
sex. And if the culture in question even recognizes
the existence of female sexuality independent of
men, that itself will have its own protocols.

Naturally, referring to a relationship as "bisexual"
is a misnomer. Once you start getting into
relationships which involve three or more people,
things get complicated. In addition to the genders
involved, there's also the "V or triangle" thing.
(That is to say, are the two people involved with
each other as well, or just with the third person?)
The V formation seems to be more common cross-
culturally, but the triangle one does occur.

> > Which brings us to another thing: Right-wingers
> > like to argue that love between members of the same
> > sex isn't "really" love. I can see a lot involved
> > in determining whether or not a relationship will
> > work: Rapport, common interests, whether or not he
> > cheats, whether or not she's been diagnosed
> > borderline, but most of that makes the existence of
> > certain parts look trivial by comparison.
>
> Of course; the old saw that "we love, you lust" I've heard
> many a time before. Everyone draws their own dividing
> line of what's really "pure and noble" love and what's not.
> We hear it on asb-l too; which is really bizzare because
> there you have people who probably *are* having sex with
> those their beloved, telling people who in most cases are *not*,
> that only *their* form of love is pure and noble and selfless,
> whereas your attraction is just thrill-seeking lust.

I think everyone's heard the "we love, you lust"
argument. But promiscuity's more a people thing than
a gay thing. More importantly, a person chooses to
be promiscuous, and it can be really nasty when they
are.

> > And of course we don't even want to talk about
> > some of the shows on TV. I mean, Desperate
> > Housewives? Even the title sounds like adultery.
> > With a younger man. Which, not surprisingly, the
> > show's about. Although housewives aren't usually
> > this hot:
> >
> > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0519456/
> >
> > And gardeners aren't usually this hot:
> >
> > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0582462/
>
> It's women's newfound economic power, I tell ya. Now *they*
> get the power to choose their boytoys on the basis of good
> looks, just like men used to do.
>
> I say more power to them. Besides, that means that guys are
> now motivated not to let their bodies go to pot, which means
> more eye candy!

Well, of course YOU get something out of it. The
good side to this is, in addition to actually
making the straight world competitive, it provides
yet another check against overpopulation. Older
women, younger men.

And of course when the time comes that "homosexual"
is only used to describe a relationship and not an
individual, it'll be all the more fun for everyone.

Secret Squirrel

unread,

Jul 19, 2005, 2:07:19 PM7/19/05

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1121705432.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
>
> Secret Squirrel wrote:

> <snipped for brevity>
>>
>> Which is one of the reasons I think where our current
>> notions about sexual orientation is wrong; other cultures
>> and other times didn't tell you that you either had to be
>> a "one" or a "zero". An occasional romp through the other
>> pasture didn't label you as "one of THEM" for the rest of
>> your life. You were what you liked most of the time.
>
> Please state the basis of your above assertion. In other
> words, have you actually researched the issue or are you
> making things up?

Oh, sure!

Azande boy-wives, Arab Berber man-boy marriages, Medieval
samurai man/boy lovers of Japan (and China as well), the
famed homosexual love of ancient Greece and Rome (the
Roman emperor Hadrian, anyone?) and of course Gilbert Herdt's
famous Sambia and the other 30 or so Eastern Highlands New
Guinea peoples. I'm citing this from Walter Williams' book
on Native American homosexuality.

In these arrangements, a boy or youth spent a period of his
life practicing homosexuality, sometimes in a formalized
arrangement with a man or older teen, who taught him skills
that he would need in adulthood or for a specialized career--
this all served a pedagodical purpose. When the boy came of
age, he then would take a female wife. (He may or may not
then take a boy himself as well, that aspect varied). These
arrangements provided teenaged boys a sexual release so that
they would not father children before they were economically
ready to do so, and the male-male emotional bonds that were
thereby formed frequently lasted a lifetime. You could call
on your (former?) male lover if you needed aid or assistance.
In some cultures, like Herdt's Sambia, such relationships
were even *mandatory*--*everyone* did it, there was no opting
out.

Then you have cultures that accept casual homosexuality. Gray
cited many Native American cultures; they're a good example of
that. While many Native American cultures *did* have the 'two-
spirit' intermediate gender role for men and women (i.e., if
you were a 'gay man' you could choose to dress as a woman and
marry a husband) they also accepted casual homosexual relations
between men and women. Given the fact that many Native American
cultures had strict postpartum taboos, any man who impregnated
a single wife many times was looked down upon as some sex-crazed
pervert, having sex with one's wife was not always an option,
plus there were those long absences on raids and hunting
expeditions. :-)

Funny thing from our modern perspective, in Native American
cultures those that were 'gay' (the two-spirit intermediate
gender role) could *not* have sex with each other, only with
nomimally heterosexual men. Having sex with another 'two-spirit'
person was like a form of incest.

And we've not even brought up the very obvious examples of
miltiary and prison situational homosexuality in this culture.

Gilbert Herdt asked Sambia men about their same-sex relations
as boys; they laughed and recollected them with the same
nostalgia that we associate with boyhood treehouses and baseball
games. But when he asked them "which do you prefer, sex with
men or sex with women?" they answered: "sex with women!".
This is consistent with what I've said, that we're probably
born with a sexual orientation, but that biology does not
restrict our activities. Nor do our activities in turn change
our orientation, even a boyhood spent giving guys blowjobs won't
turn you 'gay' if you're not already born that way, just like
gay people in this culture who tried to 'go straight' and get
married and have children found out that this didn't make them
straight.

Secret Squirrel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQEVAwUBQtxCgT/rA6+b3AyhAQHd1ggAk0YNwcydtUG4dy4qEos/hUDlhUlRimvY
Pnlhf0KiXH47qz/NhDkEIv8jsVLqd53wIZfuczl/QQH731ebJZ0Hii2ulto6fRMV
MRrvCtis0R0wr73GtM3E8LfzVHfSvW85hSD3hsZj3YXRFzqbaHWc4Zasli4aZAYA
ZebdYsFectJXRqfwpc2HegSkNWSaGDr7N65BekbXchP72D3FTUVSjuZfNZtGzkAi
/ptcjEJvG3I5T3JXWeEFN6D2DqgTnF4EOOUy7pwzdM3OaXe5o6nT/PWN7yNNx/cX
fd+bJ8d67lAVmdrpEzR/3oyIASaDT31xf8pKgUNQ0jquPs6cda2X4w==
=Iskg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

man_in_...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jul 19, 2005, 5:48:27 PM7/19/05

to

Secret Squirrel wrote:
> Azande boy-wives, Arab Berber man-boy marriages, Medieval
> samurai man/boy lovers of Japan (and China as well), the
> famed homosexual love of ancient Greece and Rome (the
> Roman emperor Hadrian, anyone?) and of course Gilbert Herdt's
> famous Sambia and the other 30 or so Eastern Highlands New
> Guinea peoples. I'm citing this from Walter Williams' book
> on Native American homosexuality.
>
> In these arrangements, a boy or youth spent a period of his
> life practicing homosexuality, sometimes in a formalized
> arrangement with a man or older teen, who taught him skills
> that he would need in adulthood or for a specialized career--
> this all served a pedagodical purpose. When the boy came of
> age, he then would take a female wife. (He may or may not
> then take a boy himself as well, that aspect varied). These
> arrangements provided teenaged boys a sexual release so that
> they would not father children before they were economically
> ready to do so, and the male-male emotional bonds that were
> thereby formed frequently lasted a lifetime. You could call
> on your (former?) male lover if you needed aid or assistance.
> In some cultures, like Herdt's Sambia, such relationships
> were even *mandatory*--*everyone* did it, there was no opting
> out.

Um, your logical order is a little confusing. North
American Indians generally (and I only say "generally"
so nitpickers will shut the hell up) didn't have
intergenerational relationships. Notice I said North
American; the Mayans and Aztecs were, of course,
different.

> Then you have cultures that accept casual homosexuality. Gray
> cited many Native American cultures; they're a good example of
> that. While many Native American cultures *did* have the 'two-
> spirit' intermediate gender role for men and women (i.e., if
> you were a 'gay man' you could choose to dress as a woman and
> marry a husband) they also accepted casual homosexual relations
> between men and women. Given the fact that many Native American
> cultures had strict postpartum taboos, any man who impregnated
> a single wife many times was looked down upon as some sex-crazed
> pervert, having sex with one's wife was not always an option,
> plus there were those long absences on raids and hunting
> expeditions. :-)

Um, I should point out here that for plains tribes
at least, war was a time of abstinence.

> Funny thing from our modern perspective, in Native American
> cultures those that were 'gay' (the two-spirit intermediate
> gender role) could *not* have sex with each other, only with
> nomimally heterosexual men. Having sex with another 'two-spirit'
> person was like a form of incest.

Ooh, don't confuse Fred. Straight guys doing it too?
Next you'll tell him gay couples aren't always evil
parents. (I liked Penn & Teller's Family Values eppie.
This guy, Richard, claimed gay parents were bad
parents. Then they showed this lesbian couple and
their kids and said "Wait, didn't Dick say they should
be miserable? I guess these ladies haven't seen
Dick.")

Secret Squirrel

unread,

Jul 20, 2005, 1:38:24 PM7/20/05

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

man_in_...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1121809707....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Secret Squirrel wrote:

I'm sorry, MIB, for that confusion. Maybe this will be
clearer?

These three forms of homosexuality:

1) Elder/junior homosexuality (New Guinea, Melanesian, Greco-
Roman; Arab, Azande, etc);

2) 'Casual' homosexuality (among otherwise 'masculine' men
and 'feminine' women), like accepted that among many Native
American peoples;

3) Intermediate-gender forms, like the 'two-spirit' people;

all involved heterosexuals having homosexual sex, for at least
a period of their lives. Form #1 predominantly involved
heterosexual males, just by the fact that the practice was
far too widespread and encouraged to be accounted for by the
5 % or so of 'gay' people assumed to be in the population.
Form #2 involved people who by definition were heterosexual,
and in Form #3 the non-two spirit partner was heterosexual;
indeed, the two-spirit people couldn't have sex with each
other, only with 'masculine' heterosexual males.

That better? ;-)

>> Then you have cultures that accept casual homosexuality.
>> Gray cited many Native American cultures; they're a good
>> example of that. While many Native American cultures *did*
>> have the 'two- spirit' intermediate gender role for men
>> and women (i.e., if you were a 'gay man' you could choose
>> to dress as a woman and marry a husband) they also
>> accepted casual homosexual relations between men and
>> women. Given the fact that many Native American cultures
>> had strict postpartum taboos, any man who impregnated a
>> single wife many times was looked down upon as some
>> sex-crazed pervert, having sex with one's wife was not
>> always an option, plus there were those long absences on
>> raids and hunting expeditions. :-)
>
> Um, I should point out here that for plains tribes
> at least, war was a time of abstinence.

I've read this too as well for others. But was homosexuality
disallowed too? (It goes back to the Clintonesque
definiton of 'sex', no?). I've read that two-spirit people
sometimes accompanied war and hunting parties, though part
of the reason for their presence was their gifts as healers,
I'll admit.

>> Funny thing from our modern perspective, in Native
>> American cultures those that were 'gay' (the two-spirit
>> intermediate gender role) could *not* have sex with each
>> other, only with nomimally heterosexual men. Having sex
>> with another 'two-spirit' person was like a form of
>> incest.
>
> Ooh, don't confuse Fred. Straight guys doing it too?
> Next you'll tell him gay couples aren't always evil
> parents. (I liked Penn & Teller's Family Values eppie.
> This guy, Richard, claimed gay parents were bad
> parents. Then they showed this lesbian couple and
> their kids and said "Wait, didn't Dick say they should
> be miserable? I guess these ladies haven't seen
> Dick.")

LOL. Well, that was the point. I mean, if there are countless
examples of gay people 'trying to go straight' and marrying
and having kids, why do some have a problem in seeing that
yes, straight people can have gay sex too? We're not limited
to playing in our home court.

Secret Squirrel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQEVAwUBQt2UAT/rA6+b3AyhAQGV9wf/ZFEJS6VScq8vuqSSZp2eNuHBVGwZCmuh
OBiX0yY2AEda8vMDNxy3QGyeuSUQbusiytsgY7Dw18KBJLi9zIA/Ntwb4A51lDj3
PBfS59HJ4aWuxYEdceRaHjjtY4TJX8Bu4DvsSenWtqOh+zp/URKK6A3MwOKyshAr
tu9AKlRwjMXA3j9ZyW0Jp6RbkvIffRliOJGyFmR/MggHLdC3LUfmgl2vOcsmmidA
5nD9L8V72SIP4udKBTMsaQ9iYfbaC3ZmuqPkuWlMpm9GwhRVM4iUuosmIc39K3bD
1VhfHpLeorG1m6fBgWcCmTPPQj4QdpDWn8z2OstWkFxvsGMG4J7GuQ==
=zVhN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

man_in_...@yahoo.com

unread,

Jul 21, 2005, 1:25:15 AM7/21/05

to

Secret Squirrel wrote:
> > Um, your logical order is a little confusing. North
> > American Indians generally (and I only say "generally"
> > so nitpickers will shut the hell up) didn't have
> > intergenerational relationships. Notice I said North
> > American; the Mayans and Aztecs were, of course,
> > different.
>
> I'm sorry, MIB, for that confusion. Maybe this will be
> clearer?
>
> These three forms of homosexuality:
>
> 1) Elder/junior homosexuality (New Guinea, Melanesian, Greco-
> Roman; Arab, Azande, etc);

The exact ages varying. Melanesians generally had older
partners in their teens or early twenties with younger
partners in. Greeks preferred late 20s/early 30s with
18-20.

I've never heard of a female equivalent. Probably
because, with the exception of Melanesians, most of
the societies you mentioned are complex societies.

> 2) 'Casual' homosexuality (among otherwise 'masculine' men
> and 'feminine' women), like accepted that among many Native
> American peoples;

And in boarding schools. I think this is what Western
society will most accept, personally. Americans in
particular are very narcissistic and antisocial, so
it's doubtful anything will ever be a major social
institution. But at the same time, Americans tend to
be borderline, so it's no wonder there's the dichotomy
between "gay" and "straight".

> 3) Intermediate-gender forms, like the 'two-spirit' people;

Which, just like 2, is pretty common cross-culturally.

> all involved heterosexuals having homosexual sex, for at least
> a period of their lives. Form #1 predominantly involved
> heterosexual males, just by the fact that the practice was
> far too widespread and encouraged to be accounted for by the
> 5 % or so of 'gay' people assumed to be in the population.

That's actually pretty funny because male attraction
to minors will, by default, follow heterosexual
patterns.

> Form #2 involved people who by definition were heterosexual,

Or at least orientation's irrelevant, and therefore
more likely to be heterosexual.

> and in Form #3 the non-two spirit partner was heterosexual;
> indeed, the two-spirit people couldn't have sex with each
> other, only with 'masculine' heterosexual males.

Or with feminine heterosexual females. But we don't
need to use masculine in quotes; most cultures have
definitions of gender. (I say "most" because some
hyper-warlike New Guinea societies have removed
females entirely and ab^H^H adopt boys from their
neighbors.) Naturally, there's no need for
postmodernism in that case.

But despite this near-universality of gender,
cultures can have transgender, agender, and
hypergender individuals.

> That better? ;-)

Logical order is important, though. Especially when
dealing with basic anthropology when talking to
"family values" people.

> > Um, I should point out here that for plains tribes
> > at least, war was a time of abstinence.
>
> I've read this too as well for others. But was homosexuality
> disallowed too? (It goes back to the Clintonesque
> definiton of 'sex', no?). I've read that two-spirit people
> sometimes accompanied war and hunting parties, though part
> of the reason for their presence was their gifts as healers,
> I'll admit.

I guess it depends on where you're talking about.
It's more along the lines of the same thing as "no
sex before the big game", which in a way war is.
(Ella Cara Deloria even called it a tournament.)

> > Ooh, don't confuse Fred. Straight guys doing it too?
> > Next you'll tell him gay couples aren't always evil
> > parents. (I liked Penn & Teller's Family Values eppie.
> > This guy, Richard, claimed gay parents were bad
> > parents. Then they showed this lesbian couple and
> > their kids and said "Wait, didn't Dick say they should
> > be miserable? I guess these ladies haven't seen
> > Dick.")
>
> LOL. Well, that was the point. I mean, if there are countless
> examples of gay people 'trying to go straight' and marrying
> and having kids, why do some have a problem in seeing that
> yes, straight people can have gay sex too? We're not limited
> to playing in our home court.

True, and without the idea of lifelong sexual
partners or the condemnation of any and all forms
of homosexual behavior, there's really no reason
to label someone.

Gr...@andthehorseyourodeinon.net

unread,

Mar 31, 2009, 7:23:38 AM3/31/09

to

In a message from a long time back (and your long ago

One of the stranger ironies is that out of the zillion Jews and
bazillion Christians I've know, the Jews seem to obey the Two Great
Commandments while Christians seem to talk up the Big Ten.

Isn't irony ironic?

-- gray