is stroking with another guy bad??

[jonb]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jul 3 2004, 12:07 PM
Not a problem, Madame. I see your post for what it is: you lashed out as a reaction to the indignities suffered by your mother at the hands of a priest. You have every reason to be bitter about it. You also admitted that you should actually be angry at the priest rather than the Catholic Church as a whole. You are right, but allow me to go one step further: you should be angry with the bishop who allowed it to happen. On the one hand, some feel that these priests should be pitied because they're sick. They're right, of course, but we also must remember that they took a vow of chastity upon receiving Holy Orders. Their sacred vows are the hallmark of the priesthood. If they break those vows, they are not worthy of the collar. They're sick, true; but they still know right from wrong. They must be held accountable for their transgressions. If they have such a mental illness, help is available and they are morally obligated to seek it. If they do not, they are doing a serious disservice to the Church and her priesthood. I think they should be relieved of their vows and be mandated by the court to receive treatment. And bishops who want to hush up scandals simply by transferring such a priest to another diocese have a lot to answer for as well. These episodes tend to obscure the notion of what the Church is meant to be: a gathering place of people who share the same faith and who find solace among the community who pray with them. Your view is understandable. I hope mine is as well.

I personally am not mad at the priests any more than I am at any other pedophile (Some 99% of molestation cases are actually heterosexual.), but rather at the bishops for concealing it: Oftentimes, pedo priests were sent on missionary work. One such priest in Alaska actually said that the Eskimos were sexually "loose", so it was okay. (In a way, he was right: Eskimos were the original swingers. But that didn't mean they practiced pederasty.) A guy I know up in Barrow, Floyd Davidson, forwarded me an article about that priest. I posted it here a while ago.

 

[madame_zora]

Actually, people back in "Biblical times" probably had about the same percentage of homosexual people as we do now, and it was considered less of an issue than in is now. The transaltion of the Bible I have is the NIV, and there is no comment I can find from the mouth of Jesus on the subject at all. Paul, who was a self-professed celibate man, had a few comments, but they were his comments, not Jesus'. Paul did not like sex at all, so I am left wondering about the validity of his judgements. He spends much more time dicussing the benefits of celibacy than healthy relationships, even though many of the letters he wrote were in response to questions on marriage from the churches. In 1 Corinthians 9-10 he writes "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:Neither the seuxally immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom og God." I think the distinction between "homosexuals" and "Homosexual offenders" is clear. I do wonder why he only referred to male prositutes and not female!!

He goes on to write my favorite thing he ever said (Paul is not my favorite apostle),

"Everything is permissible for me"- but not everything is beneficial.
"Everything is permissible for me"- but I will not be mastered by anything.
1 Corinthians 12

And this sums up my thinking on the Bible as a whole. I think, for me, I am not capable of accepting the discrepancies I find in the texts. I realize there are many different authors giving views, but it messes with my head to the point of insanity.

As for which laws of the old Testament were to be followed and which ignored, there is conflicting info as well, but as far as I understand, although Jesus did not throw out the law, he overwrote it with the law of love, to love thy neighbor as yourself, so this became dominant. Also, no amount of following the law has any relevance at all if you don't confess Him as your savior, so the Jewish law instantly became passe.

Jesus spent a great deal of time talking about judgement, which we are strictly forbidden to do, and forgiveness, which we are required to do! While I enjoy immensely a passionate discussion, I do like to come to a conclusion where we are still in unity, even if that conclusion is to agree to disagree. Sometimes that is the best we can do. I hope we can all make greater efforts to allow for the opinions of others without sharing feelings of comdemnation, I don't think that benefits any of us, or the primary purpose of this forum.

 

[13788]

Tender: ...

 

[13788]

Tender: ...

 

[13788]

HornyVeteranSJ: I love how deep this group can be. That's all I can say for now, it's the 4th!!! Have a great day peoples!!!

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by LoveGirl@Jul 1 2004, 07:41 PM
*OFF TOPIC* Bill Clinton was the best president we've had in a long time. There was a 3-4 trillion dollar deficit when he came into office and by the end of his terms it was a 6 trillion dollar surplus. During Bush's term it has gone to a 6 trillion deficit.

Not quite true. There's a difference between the "deficit" and the national debt. The deficit refers only to spending more money than the government is taking in in a given year. The national debt is the cumulative sum of past deficits plus interest, minus past surpluses. The last few years of the Clinton administration had small surpluses, although they were bigger than anyone expected because of the tech boom.

The national debt was over $4 trillion when Clinton took office and over $5 trillion when he left it. That is not a typo. There were deficits in most of Clinton's budgets and even the surpluses were smaller than the debt interest for those years. Interest on the national debt costs U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions each year, money that is basically flushed down the toilet.

The total national debt has not decreased since the late 1950s. It has increased every year since then.

 

[DadsAreUs]

The debt passed the 6 trillion mark 2 1/2 years ago.

This still doesn't change the fact that it is ok for two guys to share a wank and different interpretations of the Bible can be used to support any number of moral positions.

And Clinton was the best president since FDR.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 4 2004, 03:44 AM
Paul did not like sex at all, so I am left wondering about the validity of his judgements. He spends much more time dicussing the benefits of celibacy than healthy relationships, even though many of the letters he wrote were in response to questions on marriage from the churches.

Paul's thought was that Jesus' second coming was imminent. "Jesus is coming again, and he's coming tomorrow! Be packed and ready to go!" He thought that avoiding marriage and sexual complications was a better idea since the parousia was at hand. Well, two millenia later, the parousia hasn't come to pass. If St. Paul had his way, and everyone followed his adice, the human race would be long extinct.

Neither the seuxally immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom og God." I think the distinction between "homosexuals" and "Homosexual offenders" is clear. I do wonder why he only referred to male prositutes and not female!!

Bad translation. Arsenokoitoi means 'those who lie with men', not necesaarily prostitutes. It is a masculine noun, but when both sexes are indicated, the masculine form is used. It's like Spanish: When you want to say, "they are my friends," and you're talking about both male and female friends, you say, "son mis amigos". You use the masculine form, but both sexes are included. As for 'homosexual offenders' ... also bad. There was no word for 'homosexual' in the Greek of that period. The word that occurred in that passage was 'malakoi. In modern Greek, malakos is a slang term for fag. It literally means 'soft'. The New Testament, however, wasn't written in Modern Greek. In first century Hellenistic Greek, it probably meant 'those of easy virtue'. It is once again a case of a masculine noun covering both sexes. English Biblical translation is too imprecise.

 

[B_RoysToy]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jul 4 2004, 09:48 PM


. . . . Paul's thought was that Jesus' second coming was imminent. "Jesus is coming again, and he's coming tomorrow! Be packed and ready to go!" . . . .

Some believe that when referring to Jesus' second coming, Paul was considering a second coming as every time a person accepts Jesus as his aavior. Have you heard this interpretation before, DMW, and is it consistent with your belief?

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by Tender@Jul 4 2004, 03:13 PM
****Paul did not like sex at all, so I am left wondering about the validity of his judgements. He spends much more time dicussing the benefits of celibacy than healthy relationships, even though many of the letters he wrote were in response to questions on marriage from the churches.****

where do you find that Paul did not like sex? My understanding is that he chose not to marry because he was devoted to God, in a sense that he did not have the ability to care for a wife. He did not approve of sex outside of marriage, not sex itself. When he cautions on sex, he is bringing up the fact that there are responsibilities that go with it, and it sex is not a thing to take lightly, nor marriage.
If one feels they are not marriage material, and they are too busy in their spirituality to care for a spouse, he is saying it is OK not to marry, you should not feel pressure to marry.
he spends time discussing the benefits of celibacy because most people already see the obvious benefits of marriage, as most people marry. He was merely making a case for the other side, not downplaying marriage.

Tender

Tender, I got the idea that he does not approve of sex here:

1 Corinthians 7, 1-7
Now for the matters you wrote about. It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should ahve his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to the wife, and likewise that wife to her husband. In the same way, the husbands' body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except my mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self control. I say this as a concession, not a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; on has this gift, another has that.

Clearly he sees marriage and a secondary choice to celibacy! Clearly he states it is a concession. He goes so far to say it is a bandage for our poor self control, not a pretty picture, IMHO.

DMW, thanx for the translations- that is why I posted my version of the text so that those more learned than me could fill in the blanks. I have often found the letters of Paul to be judgemental and tend to give them less credence than the gospels. Through the use of parables, Jesus was able to put things in layman's term without resorting to the type of condescending tones sometimes used by Paul.

 

[DadsAreUs]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Jul 5 2004, 02:33 AM
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to the wife, and likewise that wife to her husband. In the same way, the husbands' body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except my mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self control.

This seems more like a suggesstion to maintain a healthy sex ife as part of maintaining a healthy marriage. Its the sort of advice that Dr. Ruth might give. The "as a concession not a command " line seems to just mean that he is not forcing anyone to have sex, but he thinks its a good idea.

Seems very pro-sex to me.

 

[jdoe86]

Everyone needs to step back for a minute. Tender, I love you, but your views on homosexuality are harsh. Jacking off with someone is NOT homosexual. I think it is more curiosity. Do you condem a group of 12 year old boys to eternal damnation because they are curious? Though christianity isn't the only religion that condems homosexuality, there are a lot of cultures that still accept it. I understand that the people here are voicing their views, but such a narrow view makes you seem like a prude and preacher. Here in California there is so much shit going on about same sex marriages... "marriage can only be between a man and a woman!" Who said? RELIGION! This is the year 2004 (or at least the last time I checked) We spend more time making sex bad than teaching our children tolerance. I better stop before I sound like some of these religious fanatics...

 

[tracksuitboy]

Originally posted by geo8x6@Jul 5 2004, 06:19 PM
Though christianity isn't the only religion that condems homosexuality, there are a lot of cultures that still accept it.

Just to be pedantic "christianity" itself doesn't condemn it; it's the people who pick and chose what to believe who condemn it to further their own agendas - as the above posts from certain people have proved. Otherwise, one agrees totally with your post Mr Geo.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Jul 4 2004, 01:48 PM
Paul's thought was that Jesus' second coming was imminent. "Jesus is coming again, and he's coming tomorrow! Be packed and ready to go!" He thought that avoiding marriage and sexual complications was a better idea since the parousia was at hand. Well, two millenia later, the parousia hasn't come to pass. If St. Paul had his way, and everyone followed his adice, the human race would be long extinct.

Or at least the Xians would. It's doubtful the religion would've survived 1500 years, and its adherents certainly wouldn't have as much of the diseases necessary to subdue Indians.

 

[madame_zora]

Mistergrasso, you proved MY point perfectly. Like many Christians we hear from, you took out only the part you wanted, not the whole idea, which began with Paul saying it's best to remain celibate, but since you're weak, go ahead and marry!

 

[13788]

Tender: ...

 

[EFH33]

I don't post often, but let me just give my .02 on this topic.

First off, stroking with another guy isn't bad. Being curious is something we all go through. Curiousity is human nature. Men are often curious as to how other men look, feel, and act. We are competitive by nature. If you have a good friend who you jerk off with because you just wondered what it was like, that is perfectly normal. If you are unsure of your sexuality and you're doing it to find yourself that is also fine. We are flooded with so much information in our lives from our parents, friends, and society that it can be confusing. As long as you're comfortable with it, who cares what everyone else thinks?

Now on this whole bible thing.... The Bible is the "inspired" word of God, however, how something inspires someone to write something is different from person to person. It is impossible for anyone to think the written version we have is the exact way things happened. However, it is probably a good guide. Before they were written, stories had been passed down by word of mouth, and anyone who has played the game telephone should know that by the time it gets to the last person the story changes. The God of the Old Testament is more harsh, whereas the God in the New Testament is more loving. I was raised a Roman Catholic and I have certain issues with the Church, but I do believe in God and I am a very spiritual person. I have been listening to Scripture and homily's at Church since I was a little boy, and my interpretation of those things is different from my parents, sisters, and the rest of the congregation. I am basically tryin to say that you should get out of the Bible what you put into it. Interpret it as you read it. Don't let anyone's opinion overrun your thought process.

The basic premise of life is to be the best possible person you can while you're here. That is what matters. The Bible is a historical book inspired by God, and should be treated as such.

 

[jdoe86]

I just watched a rerun of a "South Park" episode that brought this all to light. Kyle and Stans dads watched eachother jack off in the hot tub. Just because it happened doesn't mean you have to "freak out". You didn't go down on him or let him plow your butt... Just go on with life and watch out for those ATF agents who think you are some religious cult ala "Heavens Gate".

 

[ponybilt]

Originally posted by geo8x6@Jul 7 2004, 04:26 AM
I just watched a rerun of a "South Park" episode that brought this all to light. Kyle and Stans dads watched eachother jack off in the hot tub. Just because it happened doesn't mean you have to "freak out". You didn't go down on him or let him plow your butt... Just go on with life and watch out for those ATF agents who think you are some religious cult ala "Heavens Gate".

ROTFLMAO :lol:

Comedy Central and Fox sure do have some enlightening moments

 

[13788]

DC38: I saw the same SP episode, very funny.