Leviticus And Homosexuality

[currentchristian]

Jella. I have found the gay people I can get on with best, as with every other minority group is the people who want to be accepted like everyone else as just another person. Anyone who wears their differences on their sleeve, ready to demand that they are accepted because of them, are even in fact somehow better because of them I don't get on with well.

 

It is better to simply live one's life, openly, uprightly and honestly -- whatever one's distinction.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Vigile del fu. The other forum, I won't mention it's name because I don't want certain people finding their way here, so we end up with talk of gay pride marches, an old queen (80) calling other male posters "lover", etc.

 

I and others were put into moderation for merely trying to discus homosexuality there to counter overwhelming gay propganda. Also for what I did here, posting the anti-gay verses in the bible which someone had actually asked for. You were not even allowed to talk about hell there!!! When I complained once, a religion host told me that even the absolute truth was not always acceptable there, and this was backed up by having respectable quotations from national newspapers (not tabloids) removed. What a dump!

 

I try not to be insulting, though I do run to sarcasm at times.

 

You said this was a forum for gay Christians, right? (I don't recall.) It might be that they simply wanted a place to isolate themselves from the anti-gay rhetoric that does exist. Still, I do see your point that freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone and censorship rarely, if ever, is a good thing.

 

Did the 80-year-old call himself "an old queen," or is that your descriptor?

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

currentchristian. I think from the way the bible mentions it, it was probably as prevalent in their societies as in any other society and this was an effort to try and control homosexuality to some degree. With the strict segregation of girls and women in such desert societies, and even today in muslim societies, I would think that would encourage homosexuality.

 

While some years ago, a Pakistani muslim made an indication of cutting off of hands for homosexuals when it came up in a conversation, it seemed to be very widespread in muslim Egypt, and I was propositioned several times (mainly by young men) there, as a lone man tourist.

 

Very interesting, your experiences in Egypt. It seems that the incidence of homosexual orientation is constant no matter the people, religions, or time periods involved. Someone on here said it was a "genetic distinction," and I like that definition very much. I think this is the case and happily we are moving toward a more egalitarian understanding of those who happen to have this distinction.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Vigile del fu. The other forum, I won't mention it's name because I don't want certain people finding their way here, so we end up with talk of gay pride marches, an old queen (80) calling other male posters "lover", etc.

 

I guess coming from a man of his age I would consider that endearing rather than a threat or a cause for discomfort. I'm not sure that overtly gay individuals wear anything on their sleaves, they are just being who they are. That it stands out is just due to their different nature, which is still uncommon throughout most of society. Hetero men and woman have identifying idiosycracies as well, it's just that most of us are so used to these that we expect them and thus don't notice.

 

You are right on. Pay attention one day to how many times heterosexuals make reference to their heterosexuality, by means of mentioning their husbands/wives, etc.

 

-CC

[Sexton Blake]

CurrentChristian.

 

1Corinthians:

 

6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

 

6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

 

Heaven is the carrot and hell the stick. Without both, there would be few if any christians.

 

Most saints had feet of clay if you check on them. I think it was St Kevin of Ireland who deliberately drowned a woman who upset him.

[Sexton Blake]

CurrentChristian. It was originally a christian forum but over a few years, anyone who said anything which could be construed as even remotely anti-gay was put into moderation (this while some christians were complaining about what even I thought were insults to god, Jesus and Mary and nothing was done).

 

He didn't call himself a queen but as homosexuality came more accepted on the forum, he became ever more homosexual and changed his posting personality somewhat and started whining.

[Sexton Blake]

The strange thing about homosexuality is it's survival despite it not being passed on in genes. You get characteristics from father and mother, whereas in theory, a gay man is not going to produce a child with a woman.

 

Possibly it is (for many) down to testosterone in the womb, some believe. A lot and you like women. A little and you like men. Regardless of whatever sex you are.

[currentchristian]

CurrentChristian.

 

1Corinthians:

 

6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

 

6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

Heaven is the carrot and hell the stick. Without both, there would be few if any christians.

 

Most saints had feet of clay if you check on them. I think it was St Kevin of Ireland who deliberately drowned a woman who upset him.

 

Hello kaneda. I know this KJV passage very, very well. I am neither "effeminate" nor an "abuser of [myself] with mankind," so there's no problem here.

 

Seriously, a couple of things about his word from Paul:

 

1. It says nothing about one's eternal destiny.

 

2. There is no mention of heaven or hell.

 

3. The passage continues by saying that everyone to whom he is writing likely was one or more of these less-than-positive things, but they had been "washed," "cleansed," "sanctified," etc. God's grace, in my view, will see us all through.

 

4. Paul is saying, and it seems wise to me, that we should be on guard to avoid negative behavior, such as stealing, lying, extortion, sexual immorality, etc. I have no problem with this exhortation.

 

5. Yes, some translations do use the word "homosexual" in this passage. "Homosexual" was coined in 1869 and will only be found in translations of the scripture that were completed in the 20th century. "Homosexual" is a very poor translations of what likely truly means "male prostitutes" and "abusers of boys." Neither activity is very positive or helpful or good. There is absolutely no understanding of or mention of constitutional homosexuality in the Bible. None.

 

Regarding saints with feet of clay. You are right! Look at St. Peter, for example. Talk about crumbling upon feet of clay. No one is immune to the viruses of hatred, violence, war, etc. No one. Therefore, we must -- all of us -- stay awake and be on guard.

 

Regarding heaven and hell. I have not believed in hell for two decades, so that "stick" has nothing to do with my faith. I have no expectation of the tradtional heavenly hope, so that "carrot" also has little meaning for me. My hope is that everyone will enjoy eternal life, the son who stays home plowing his father's fields and the son who runs off with his inheritance and squanders it on loose living. I fully hope that everyone is "there," wherever "there" is. I'm as close to a Universalist as one can get without being one. (Some -- very few I hope -- will be lost, I'm sad to say.)

 

My views here. Not trying to convince anyone else!

 

-CC

[roman]

The strange thing about homosexuality is it's survival despite it not being passed on in genes. You get characteristics from father and mother, whereas in theory, a gay man is not going to produce a child with a woman.

 

Possibly it is (for many) down to testosterone in the womb, some believe. A lot and you like women. A little and you like men. Regardless of whatever sex you are.

When you speak of the "survival" of homosexuality, you show that you do not understand homosexuality. Additionally, I am a gay man who has produced children with women. Lastly, your theory on testosterone in the womb is whack.

[currentchristian]

CurrentChristian. It was originally a christian forum but over a few years, anyone who said anything which could be construed as even remotely anti-gay was put into moderation (this while some christians were complaining about what even I thought were insults to god, Jesus and Mary and nothing was done).

 

He didn't call himself a queen but as homosexuality came more accepted on the forum, he became ever more homosexual and changed his posting personality somewhat and started whining.

 

 

Regarding paragraph one above: Unless someone gets really out of hand, such as posting anti-gay diatribe on every other post to every other topic in every other forum, I come down on the side of free speech.

 

Regarding paragraph two above:

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

The strange thing about homosexuality is it's survival despite it not being passed on in genes. You get characteristics from father and mother, whereas in theory, a gay man is not going to produce a child with a woman.

 

Possibly it is (for many) down to testosterone in the womb, some believe. A lot and you like women. A little and you like men. Regardless of whatever sex you are.

 

It is mysterious, but no more mysterious than why some (90-96%) are heterosexual. There's so much we just don't know about so much. Someone on here has as their signature something like, "The more I learn, the less I know." That's so very true.

 

My experience and those of most gays I have ever talked to is that sexual orientation is set very early on (in utero or early infancy) and there is little, if anything at all, one can do about it.

 

There quite likely is a genetic link, but this has not been established. My mother came form a very large family of 18 children (no, not Catholic, rural poor and they got poorer with each kid, but thank goodness they kept going as my mother is number 17). Of the six boys who survived to adulthood, 2 were (both deceased now) gay. One of my mother's sisters has a lesbian grandaughter. One of my mother's brothers has twin gay grandsons.

 

My father had one gay brother. My partner's twin brother also is gay. This might all be circumstantial, but there are "twin" studies that seem to indicate that the likelihood that the twin of a gay man is gay is about 50% -- much higher than in the general populatuion. But thinking of the hormonal theory, they were in the womb together.

 

The "gay gene" skipped my sister's kids' generation. All three are quite obviously heterosexual and in our open family if they were not they'd tell us. But I remind my sister that the likelihood that one of her three will have a gay/lesbian child is likely above the average incidence. Time will tell.

 

-CC

[LosingMyReligion]

The strange thing about homosexuality is it's survival despite it not being passed on in genes. You get characteristics from father and mother, whereas in theory, a gay man is not going to produce a child with a woman.

 

Possibly it is (for many) down to testosterone in the womb, some believe. A lot and you like women. A little and you like men. Regardless of whatever sex you are.

 

I think there is more to being gay than just Darwin's theory of sexual selection and survival of the species. That is one area I dissent with the great scientist on.

Homosexuality/bisexuality/lesbianism/and masturbation are far too prevelant in all facets of organic like to just be somekind of fluke that should, for all purposes, die out.

[Guest]

But this code was ratified for one small group of people living 3,500 years ago. Other than these two references in Leviticus, there is no more mention of homosexuality in the OT.

 

Yes, but then jesus comes along and says that these codes are for all time. The Hebrew law, according to jesus, is binding until "heaven and earth pass away".

 

The heavens and earth are still here, therefore, all OT laws are still binding to anyone wisheing to follow the bible.

 

Unless of course you enjoy picking cherries!

[Jella]

Jella. I have found the gay people I can get on with best, as with every other minority group is the people who want to be accepted like everyone else as just another person. Anyone who wears their differences on their sleeve, ready to demand that they are accepted because of them, are even in fact somehow better because of them I don't get on with well.

 

When I first came out, the thought of being on TV, as a spectator at a pride parade or celebration brought on much anxiety, and found the depiction of gays on the local news broadcast were no help. Old leather queens with their hairy buttcheeks visible, and drag queens in full daylight where not what I wanted folks to associate me with. Since then of course, I found they didn't show PFLAG, (parents and friend of gays) nor did they show the worship tents at the celebrations (not that I was ever there), or the familles of gay partners and their kids, but my point is they fed into the negative stereotypes. I have also found out the reason for the parade, and it had to do with the Stonewall protest in New York City. The over the top is a form of expression that says look we're here and we're not going away. They don't have a parade everyday, but they do preach the evils of homosexuality 365 days a year, at any given time you can hear this rubbish spouting on some TV channel.

 

I think Vigile covered the wears on our sleeves pretty good, so all I would add, is that I know poor guys whom are effeminate that are straight, and they have to deal with being called fag, or homo and that's gotta suck, not for being associated, but what it means to be associated with being gay.

 

You should have met the guys I worked with in my last position, white, hetro, conservative 30 an 40 something men, whom thought they shit gold bricks, so I'm familiar with guys who think their better. I have had many straight male friends, for the longest time they were the majority of my friends. I like being around men, all men, I guess in some hopes that if they liked me, then they could see that we are just as decent as anyone else. The problem with that, is that I'm not the poster boy for homosexual, and we come in a shapes, sizes, and flavors. By the way, I guess I'm what is consider 'butch' at least that's what they told me when I came out, but when I'm with my closest gay friends, we use, 'she', instead of 'he' and 'girl' and carry on like teenager girls. It's all in fun, and we have a gay ole time. I couldn't do that in a more public forum, but some guys can and do.

[currentchristian]

But this code was ratified for one small group of people living 3,500 years ago. Other than these two references in Leviticus, there is no more mention of homosexuality in the OT.

 

Yes, but then jesus comes along and says that these codes are for all time. The Hebrew law, according to jesus, is binding until "heaven and earth pass away".

 

The heavens and earth are still here, therefore, all OT laws are still binding to anyone wisheing to follow the bible.

 

Unless of course you enjoy picking cherries!

 

Cherry picking ... again! That has got to be the number one sin on this forum as it comes up over and over and over.

 

It is reported to us that Jesus proclaimed that the Law would not pass away, not one jot or tittle, until all was fulfilled. I take this to mean that his fulfilling the Law by his very life means the Law has passed away for those who seek relationship with God by means of the New Covenant.

 

Say I take a list to the grocery story: Thou shalt buy soup. Thou shalt buy peanut butter. Thou shalt not buy anything that has partially hydrogenated this or that (that command actually does comes from my partner!). That list will not pass away, not one jot or tittle, until I have successfully fulfilled it by placing each item in my cart and paying for each item. Once this is done, I throw the list away. It no longer has power over me. Maybe that's a mediocre analogy, but -- hey -- who's to say?

 

-CC

[Lycorth]

Cherry picking ... again! That has got to be the number one sin on this forum as it comes up over and over and over.

 

And in all of Xianity, since each sect began because of it

[currentchristian]

Cherry picking ... again! That has got to be the number one sin on this forum as it comes up over and over and over.

 

And in all of Xianity, since each sect began because of it

 

But this -- for me -- is quite okay.

 

Take music. Why must everyone listen to classical or rap or pop or blues?

Take food. Why must everyone eat Chinese or Italian or McDonalds.

Take cars. Why...

Take homes. Why...

Take jobs. Why...

Take vacations. Why...

And on and on.

 

Why should religion be any different? Everyone has a mind/brain/spirit wired by their genes, experiences, culture, family, etc., so it seems very reasonable to me that everyone looks at things differently and what works for one does not work for another. I have yet to understand what is wrong with this?

 

-CC

[Guest]

I take this to mean that his fulfilling the Law by his very life means the Law has passed away for those who seek relationship with God by means of the New Covenant.

 

jesus said that the law will remain in effect untill the heavens and earth pass away. Nothing was said about his life (or death) being the catalyst for the abolition of Hebrew law. It would be in effect untill the end of time and human life on earth. Look out the window, do you see the sky? Do you see the ground? Are people walking by? Then the Hebrew law is still in effect.

 

You can call it whatever you want, but when you put your thoughts into the verse, and ignore what the text is saying; that is called cherry picking. I personally don't care what you profess to believe, just pointing out that your beliefs are contrary to what jesus said.

 

paul was the one who decided that the Hebrew law is not needed after jesus, once again preaching the exact opposite of what jesus said. I forget what book/chapter it is, but I believe it had something to do with attracting the Gentiles into the cult. No doubt he wasn't getting many takers untill he dropped the circumscision requirement. IIRC, wasn't this the main reason peter and the other apostles didn't like paul?

[Lycorth]

Why should religion be any different? Everyone has a mind/brain/spirit wired by their genes, experiences, culture, family, etc., so it seems very reasonable to me that everyone looks at things differently and what works for one does not work for another. I have yet to understand what is wrong with this?

 

There's nothing wrong with it - that's the issue. It's fine to do that, however, Xians teach that one must believe the whole of "Divine Revelation" (ie, the Babble) or else one is not a True Believer™.

 

All sects teach a certain body of doctrine. All sects have their "elders" or their "councils" or their "Magisteriums" or whatever. All sects cook up a set of teachings, based on the Babble, they feel are necessary. However, the presence of so many different sects emphasizing different parts of the Babble indicates one thing - they all cherry-pick different parts of it to emphasize, beat their flocks over the head with these bits, and then wonder why they lose followers when people read the Babble for themselves and see in it the teachings of other sects.

 

You need to cherry-pick the Babble to be a Xian - there's no other way to form a body of belief based on it. It's rife with contradictory passages and teachings which renders the entire text humanly impossible to wholly believe in.

 

But, there isn't a sect that will be honest about this practice and admit they cherry-pick parts of the Babble to emphasize and accept (or reject) because doing so implies that one is only a partial Xian, not a total Xian. No TV preacher or Vatican official wants to be thought of as only partially believing in the religion they are completely and exclusively identifying with.

 

It's the underlying hypocrisy of it all that critics of "cherry-picking" are trying to point out. It's not that the overall practice is wrong, but it's wrong for people to do it on one hand and bad-mouth the concept on the other.

 

I draw personal influence from many paths and religions. For example, LaVeyan Satanism. I believe in and accept a lot of what's written in the Satanic Bible. But not all of it. And I am wholly supportive of cherry-picking what I choose to believe. Therefore, I'd be a great hypocrite if I identified as a by-the-book LaVeyan Satanist, since I don't accept the entirety of the fundamental book of LaVeyan Satanism.

 

If Xians were just honest about cherry-picking from the Babble, it'd be a different story. But, on top of believing in and supporting monstrous doctrines, Xian leaders, to the least and the last (save in those rogue liberal sects) compound their insane religion with hypocrisy.