The Straight Christian Boy

[Phenix]

In any event, now that it's a proven fact that homosexuality is genetic, all other arguments are moot...here I stand I will not recant (to infuse a little Reformation humor into the conversation) and I'm Roman Catholic!!

 

[str8curious]

First of all, the NT (and I mean Paul here) condemns certain KINDS of homosexuality...were you to read the passage in I Cor. you refer to in the Greek, you'd find that Paul is condemning the practice of male temple prostitution and pederasty...Paul would be utterly confused and bewildered, nay would have no concept of being "gay" as we know it today...and forgive me if I'm being semantical, but this IS about Semantics (and, of course, faith as you rightly mention)...as for the passage you cite from I Tim. about "all scripture is profitable, etc," there was no NT Testament when this was written...it's the Hebrew scriptures that are being spoken of...moreover, to flip it back on Paul, we don't live under the Law as Christians...Jesus came to fulfill the Law (and turn it on its ear), but not to abolish it...now what do we do with that little theological paradox? How can the Law (i.e., the Torah) be fulfilled yet not abolished? Peace out,

:smile: They must indeed be taken IN CONTEXT, but from my perspective, when dealing with ancient Israel (esp. from a scriptural standpoint), the lines between moral, cultural, judicial, and customarial blur greatly...just an observation...the most important point you make is that these scriptural citations cannot be taken out of context...the question is: what relevance do they have in the early 21st century? peace out

In any event, now that it's a proven fact that homosexuality is genetic, all other arguments are moot...here I stand I will not recant (to infuse a little Reformation humor into the conversation) and I'm Roman Catholic!!

Phenix

I don't see how Paul made any distinctions in "homosexuality" in Corinthians. I read in a commentary that the word he used was "arsenokoites" which means "intermale copulation." In Cor. he specifically lists: the sexually immoral, drunkards, boy prostitutes and homosexuals separately.

There is also another passage in Romans too where he condemns both men lying with other men and women lying with other women. It is obvious the guy had a thing against homosexuality period. Moreover, Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew describes how a man and woman become one flesh, he never mentions or even hints about gay marriage which apparently was not the norm then.

I understand that the NT was not written when Paul said that all scripture is profitable, nevertheless, the OT was around and condemned homosexuality. You said that what relevence does scripture have in the 21 century? Then how is one to know what is and what is not relevant? Did not Jesus quote from texts that were written centuries before he took flesh? Obviously they must be relevant if He quoted from them and never commanded to write a new text. Why do you follow this bible/tradition based religion that obviously considers you a disorder?

When was homosexuality proven to be genetical? This is news to me. Last I remember, genes do not dictate human behavior. Any sources? Moreover, if homosexuality is genetical, then what about natural selection? Will not nature select the strongest genes in order for a species to survive? How can a species with orientations that cannot reproduce survive? It's all confusing I guess. :smile:

You say you are roman catholic, what do you think about your "church fathers/early christian writers?" :smile:

"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit homosexuality, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born."- Didache 2:2

"All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians." Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 2

"Those shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way." Augustine, Confessions 3:8:15

 

[chaz7491]

The United Church of Christ in 2005 at our Synod passed a resolution concerning same gender marriages. It has been controversial BUT it passed. Our denomination has a make up of liberals to conservatives. From narrow to wide interpretation of scriputres. BUT the resolution passed.

Our leadership has been moving us toward being Open and Accepting churches = meaning open and accepting of all backgrounds and orientations.

Some churches have chosen to leave the denominatiion but many new congregations who were formerly independent have chosen to join us because of our Open and Affirming stance. One of the Metropolitan churches in Dalls (I believe) has applied for standing with the UCC.

The national made some commercials that showed a gay couple, some handicapped people that were refused entrance to a church that did not believe in being accepting of non traditional people. The punch line was that it does not happen in the United Church of Christ. We welcome those who have been mistreated in the more conservative/fundamental churches.
Some of the major networks rejected the commercial as too "Controversial."

There are some --- the mainline denominations that are more open to GLBT people than many of the new mega churches. Some of us are trying to make a safe place for those we consider our brothers and sisters in faith no matter sexual orientation.

 

[B_Christofferb]

I was raised Catholic, and I have circle jerked with other guys because it is damn fun, and I still consider myself straight. I mean honestly, it is hot to see all the jizz that ends up on whatever you jerk off on. Shit, I hate these "Jesus Freaks", that are so full of their own virtue that they think they are right and if you don't follow them you are condemned to hell.

 

[Freddie53]

there was a time when the ancient church taught that all sexuality was sinful, but God would forgive sex for the purpose of reproduction. That ia one reason qhy the Catholic Church is agaisnt birth control.

 

[B_Christofferb]

I am Catholic and I am for Birth Control - every woman should have a choice in my opinion.

 

[RogersPkBi]

so should drunkards not be christians either?

 

[dreamer20]

" Also, the Bible condemns homosexuality and never approves of it. That being said, how can you believe in such a book? :smile:

The bible also condemns adultery and incest, although Abraham married his sister and was complicit with her in a marriage and sex scam (which they did twice). In spite of Abram's misdeeds God ( according to scripture ) chose him to be the Hebrews' Patriarch. Moses was a child of incest, a fugitive of a crime of murder and was almost killed by God for not circumcising his sons. Although he was *hated by God (* which is the fundies definition of "an abomination"), he and his brother were directed to rule the Hebrews.

There are many other "Do as I say, not as I do" examples of hypocrisy in the Bible and several of the OT laws support immoral, unethical and unjust practices of the ancient Hebrews e.g. Seizing the possesions of, murdering or making slaves of people from other tribes. Killing prisoners of war. Killing men who sat on the bed of, or touched a menstruating woman. Killing those Hebrews who chose to be apostates or some other faith as their religion. Rape as a means by which a Hebrew man could gain a wife as the law prescribed. Putting anyone who worked on a Saturday(the Sabbath) to death. (Exodus 31:12-15). And a whole host of absurd laws, including the one that said those who engage in m2m sex should be put to death.


Jesus only asked that we love one another as his ultimate commandment and he did not discriminate against homosexuals.

Would Jesus discriminate?

Excerpt from the link:

[SIZE=-1]A classic example is provided in [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Matthew 8[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]. There, a Roman soldier asked Jesus to heal his "pais." This is a Greek term often used in ancient times to refer to a servant who was his master's same-sex partner. [/SIZE][SIZE=-2]K.J. Cover, Greek Homosexuality (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1978), p. 16. [/SIZE][SIZE=-1] When the soldier said, "Lord, my 'partner' is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress," Jesus was immediately compassionate and spoke no words of exclusion or condemnation. He simply said, "I will come and heal him."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]In the dialogue that followed, Jesus commended this Roman solider for having more faith than anyone he had ever met and assured him that he would sit down in the Kingdom of Heaven with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.By this miracle of healing, Jesus preserved this loving same-sex relationship...[/SIZE]

 

[Phenix]

Can't resist jumpin back into this one!!

"But it is the most serious violation of any scholarly canon to assume without inspection that what an ancient author (Paul, the Church Fathers, etc.) is opposed to is the same phenomenon as exists in our own time."

"In I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 the words usually thought to point to homosexuals are extremely ambiguous. One word, malakos, literally means "soft" and is no technical term for a homosexual. The second, arsenokoitai, obvously has sexual connotations. Since, however , the NT occurrences are the earliest appearances of the word, it is not easy to be sure what it means." ----Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (btw, Dr. Scroggs is professor of NT at Union Theological Seminary in NYC).

You might find his book interesting, as he argues neither for nor against homosexuality as we know it today. Rather, his focus is on understanding the biblical texts properly.

As for Jesus, of course he quoted from texts written thousands (yes thousands) of years prior to his life on earth: he was an observant Jew and would have been taught the Law, Prophets and Wisdom books from an early age. What do you think he was debating in the temple at 12? However, Jesus too would have condemned certain types of exploitative homosexuality because that's how Jews in the 1st century CE thought (and herein is the nugget that transcends time and space: exploitative sexuality is always wrong, no matter what [and believe me, I'm not preaching!!]).

Still, I wonder what he would have thought of two men committed in LOVE (which, the Johannine writer tells us God is) having sex? Obviously there's no way of knowing, but I rest my case on the fact that neither Paul nor Jesus knew anything of what homosexuality entails in the early 21st century. They were conditioned by the time they lived in, as we all are.

As far as a citation for homosexuality being genetic, I refer you to the recent work of Sanders, et.al. (emminent English scientists).

I applaud you for knowing your Scripture and Church Fathers (altho, Augustine is a pitiful example to shore up your point...talk about issues with sexuality...holy smokes!! It's primarily Augustine who's screwed up the Church (and I mean everyone) since the 5th century...again, he must be read in context, not ex cathedra...are you following? It's these same writers who made slavery "okay", subjugated women shamefully to men, etc. However, they can't be condemned for their viewpoints: it was ALL THEY KNEW. Dare I say we have a bit more knowledge today?

Yet I still call Jesus Christos and will fall on that sword if I have to...Jeus came to show humankind how to live fully, love wastefully and be all you can be. He gave his life for this belief.

What's the Gospel message in a nutshell? GOD LOVES YOU...What's the message in all the world's great religions (and I know, we're back to semantics again)? GOD (or whatever you want to call "it") loves you....we're all just pilgrims on different roads, bro; heading toward the same thing...

I hope you'll be released from the bondage of literalism, dogmatism and "the need to be right"...it doesn't serve you or your brothers and sisters in this group and is based in fear, not love, the only two emotions that amount to a hill o' beans...peace be with you,

Phenix

anymore takers?

 

[crescendo69]

church=control
belief=something you can't prove but accept

I don't let some controlling body tell me what to believe.
I have beliefs, but do not force them on anybody.
I used to fall for controlling religions, but try to avoid them now.
I don't consider the Unitarians to be Christian, as they are into celebrating the human spirit while tolerating other beliefs. That is probably the closest to my beliefs, although I have a job playing piano in a Presbyterian Church.
(I know it is a little hypocritical, but I need the money). That is the best I can do.

 

[str8curious]

Can't resist jumpin back into this one!!

"But it is the most serious violation of any scholarly canon to assume without inspection that what an ancient author (Paul, the Church Fathers, etc.) is opposed to is the same phenomenon as exists in our own time."

"In I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1:10 the words usually thought to point to homosexuals are extremely ambiguous. One word, malakos, literally means "soft" and is no technical term for a homosexual. The second, arsenokoitai, obvously has sexual connotations. Since, however , the NT occurrences are the earliest appearances of the word, it is not easy to be sure what it means." ----Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (btw, Dr. Scroggs is professor of NT at Union Theological Seminary in NYC).

You might find his book interesting, as he argues neither for nor against homosexuality as we know it today. Rather, his focus is on understanding the biblical texts properly.

As for Jesus, of course he quoted from texts written thousands (yes thousands) of years prior to his life on earth: he was an observant Jew and would have been taught the Law, Prophets and Wisdom books from an early age. What do you think he was debating in the temple at 12? However, Jesus too would have condemned certain types of exploitative homosexuality because that's how Jews in the 1st century CE thought (and herein is the nugget that transcends time and space: exploitative sexuality is always wrong, no matter what [and believe me, I'm not preaching!!]).

Still, I wonder what he would have thought of two men committed in LOVE (which, the Johannine writer tells us God is) having sex? Obviously there's no way of knowing, but I rest my case on the fact that neither Paul nor Jesus knew anything of what homosexuality entails in the early 21st century. They were conditioned by the time they lived in, as we all are.

As far as a citation for homosexuality being genetic, I refer you to the recent work of Sanders, et.al. (emminent English scientists).

I applaud you for knowing your Scripture and Church Fathers (altho, Augustine is a pitiful example to shore up your point...talk about issues with sexuality...holy smokes!! It's primarily Augustine who's screwed up the Church (and I mean everyone) since the 5th century...again, he must be read in context, not ex cathedra...are you following? It's these same writers who made slavery "okay", subjugated women shamefully to men, etc. However, they can't be condemned for their viewpoints: it was ALL THEY KNEW. Dare I say we have a bit more knowledge today?

Yet I still call Jesus Christos and will fall on that sword if I have to...Jeus came to show humankind how to live fully, love wastefully and be all you can be. He gave his life for this belief.

What's the Gospel message in a nutshell? GOD LOVES YOU...What's the message in all the world's great religions (and I know, we're back to semantics again)? GOD (or whatever you want to call "it") loves you....we're all just pilgrims on different roads, bro; heading toward the same thing...

I hope you'll be released from the bondage of literalism, dogmatism and "the need to be right"...it doesn't serve you or your brothers and sisters in this group and is based in fear, not love, the only two emotions that amount to a hill o' beans...peace be with you,

Phenix

anymore takers?

As I have said before, discussion is useless because people will say whatever. I am familiar with the text you quoted. Are you familiar with the book, "Beyond gay" by David Morrison? He was an gay activist who is now "str8" and married. He is now in the Church and advocates the correction of the disorder called "homosexuality."

My point is not that I am always right, I don't see where you get that idea. I am merely stating that why do you want to be in a religion that uses books and writers that preach these things? According to the Catholic Church, if you are not in good standing with the Church, then you are not Catholic. As the former cardinal of New York who was the best friends of gays smile said, "The Church is not a salad bar, you can't pick and choose what you want. Either take it all or go to another cafeteria." In other words, if you don't buy it all, get out of the store.

Someone here wrote that they jerk off with friends and believe in contraception, yet he calls himself Catholic. A bishop sees otherwise and can publicly refuse communion to such a self-proclaimed Catholic because communion symoblizes not only union with Christ, but union with the Church of Rome. Why be a hypocrite? I too was raised Catholic, but do not believe all things and refuse to call myself such a word. I am better than that. It just does not make any sense why someone would remain in an institution that speaks ill of them and their behavior.

As for Jesus, is He not "God" or the "son of God?" So how can He not know about the future? Did He not foretell his betrayal, yet he cannot know about the 21st or 30th centuries??? That does not make any sense. From my understanding, a Christian has to believe in the divinity of Christ in order to be a Christian. If they do not, then they are similar to mormons or jehovah's witnesses. That is not Catholicism. I read yesterday on the news how the archbishop of canterbury discussed about the split going on in his anglican church due to homosexuality. He urged the bishops to stick to the conservative side of his denomination. You say the Gospel's message is "God loves you" but the denominations you belove to would answer that why don't you love him back and do as he says? :smile: Is God supposed to change for us, or is it the other way around? Who knows. I can only comment on what is there already: 1) The Church believes that all divine truth is contained in the sacred deposit "Sacred Scripture" and "Sacred Tradition" and that 2) The Magesterium or teaching office of the Pope with bishops is the sole interpreter of them, and 3) If you deny either of them, you are not Catholic and are a dissident or heretic. You said you were catholic right? I am just reminding you what your church says and am wondering why you continue to lie to yourself. Is it your safety blanket? Do deep down in your heart do you know you are doing wrong and feel that by remaining Catholic you might be saved by indulgences and other nonsense like that? I'm curious to know. Maybe it's similar to women who remain in abusive relationships?

I am aware of scripture and the early fathers because I have questioned Catholic bishops and priests on the matter, and even protestant ones to hear their points of view just like I am questioning gays here now who call themselves catholic but do not do what their church asks of them and who apparently like being the scapegoat of men in dresses.. how ironic. :tongue: I used their answers to do my paper for sociology and psychology in college.

If you want to be the cesspool of this institution, then by all means do as you please, it is your life. But don't expect taxpayers and voters like me to plead for your people's cause of equal rights if you people can't defend yourselves against this institution and others like it. If I was gay I would not accept that treatment.

 

[Jackson56716]

I don't know how to break it to you.....so I am just going to say it. Your "straight" Christian friend is not that straight.

 

[biggerjohnson]

From my research and translations I found, the term "pias" has nothing to do with homosexuality.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Strong's Number: 3816[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Browse Lexicon[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Original Word[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Word Origin[/FONT]pai'�[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]perhaps from (3817)[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]TDNT Entry[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Pais[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]5:636,759[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Phonetic Spelling[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]paheece

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Noun [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Definition[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]

1. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
   [*]a child, boy or girl
   1. infants, children
   [*]servant, slave
   1. an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minister
   [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] King James Word Usage - Total: 24[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]servant 10, child 7, son (Christ) 2, son 1, manservant 1, maid 1, maiden 1, young man 1[/FONT]
There are one too many verses in the Bible speaking against homosexuality to say its ok.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."


I know this is a topic full of controversy but its not something I agree with. Its not that God hates anyone, he hates our sins and lifestyles. Hence the reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. To think that God will compromise his laws for some of us is absurd.

There were a few posts about "Christians rules changing". The word of God never changes despite what we as people do. People compromise his words to fit their lifestyle to make their faults and sins ok. God forbid.

 

[dakingfish]

A somewhat related comment: Is it just me or do other people find most of those mormon "Elders" to be hot? I saw a couple of them today and they were hot!!!

 

[jb_lax]

im a closeted gay catholic.. catholicism has always been such a big part of my life .. when i was young we had to go to church and as i got older i chose to. i also spent most of schooling at a catholic school. so obviously it impacts me a lot but it is also one of the reasons im closeted - even though many of the catholics i know wouldnt care, i still feel guilty for some reason.

its hard to sit in between.

 

[dreamer20]

From my research and translations I found, the term "pias" has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Excerpt form the link below:

"The Greek word that the Roman centurion uses in this passage to describe the sick man – pais – is the same word used in ancient Greek to refer to a same-gender partner."

Would Jesus Discriminate? - Jesus affirmed a gay couple

There are one too many verses in the Bible speaking against homosexuality to say its ok.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards, nor slanderers nor swindlers shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is abomination

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Note that the following quote is taken out the context of Romans 1 21-32:

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."


Its not that God hates anyone, he hates our sins and lifestyles. Hence the reason Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed. To think that God will compromise his laws for some of us is absurd.

There were a few posts about "Christian's rules changing". The word of God never changes despite what we as people do. People compromise his words to fit their lifestyle to make their faults and sins ok. God forbid.

According to your quote from Romans God has compromised himself biggerjohnson. The same God which supposedly hates the idea of men having sex with each other in Lev. 18:22 is said to have given same sex desires to them in your quote from Romans. If the idea of men being homosexuals was so repugnant to God he wouldn't have given them those desires. Yet in spite these sexual desires being "God given" Paul labelled them as "unnatural".

I already mentioned the many absurd laws in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy in my previous post:

http://www.lpsg.org/786135-post48.html

Do you really feel that the males in the Hate It?--Period thread


http://www.lpsg.org/relationships-discrimination-and-jealousy/48838-hate-it-period.html

should be put to death because of a law that once applied to the ancient Hebrews?

 

[davidjh7]

I grew up Mormon, and was active until I was about 18. THe mormon church condemns homosexuality very strongly to this day, even though the church leaders now acknowledge that homosexuality is not a choice--and that admission was a huge shock to me, that they would admit this. However, I believe it was Boyd K. Packer, even after this admission, stated that homosexuality was an abomination, and that it would have been better if that man had never been born. Which, considering the belief structure of the mormon church, is quite a statement--since only if you are born and live this life, can you ever have a chance of "advancing". BAsically, the church is saying GOd mad you a certain way, but considers you the worst thing that could exist. When I was 18, after much self destructive feelings and guilt, I finally determined I could be gay, or could be mormon---I couldn;t be a hypocrit. I tried my very best NOT to be gay. SInce I couldn;t not be gay, I had to stop being mormon--at least, I had to stop being an active member of the church. On another note, I consider myself a christian, because I believe Chirst had a good message, one that I try to follow and emulate. I fail often, but I do my best. I am not an active member of any organized religion any longer. I know that the message fo Christ exists in many other religious beliefs as well. I try to follow the message, and leave the debate of who has claim to the message, and is entitled to be the top dogs in God's eyes, to others to debate, and God to judge. I don't expect others to believe as I believe, or demand that they repsect my beliefs. They are my own. But I DO try to FOLLOW and LIVE my beliefs. Many talk alot, but are total hypocrits.