| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"josh" |
| Date: |
27 Mar 2007 05:13:11 PM |
| Object: |
Bible fudges response to gay sex activities! |
I have just been looking for information in the Bible about what gay men can
actually do with each other apart from actual penetrative sex. The nearest
I could get was in Romans with the following passage:
'For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women
exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the
men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion
for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their
own persons the due penalty for their error.'
Well, there is certainly no specific list of activities there: 'shameless
acts' could be interpreted very subjectively according to the personal bias
of the individual. Lawyers in a court would have a field day disentangling
the arguments. Suppose one man kissed another. How shameless is that?
Would the prosecution argue that it went on for more than one second so it
was clearly an act of passion? And what about hugging? 'Don't hug me for
too long, Albert, it might look shameless.'
So what about oral sex? It is not intercourse, so how is it defined? What
about a man watching two other men having oral sex? He has not committed a
shameless act *with* another man, merely seen it.
No mention of bondage at all, whether between men, women or men and women.
That must be OK then.
And no mention of pornography, so that's OK. Photography hadn't been
invented anyway, so any portrayals would be creative in nature rather than
real. Or are they graven images?!
In summary, the writer of the quoted passage has been very indecisive, as
though he is a repressed individual who cannot really deal with his
sexuality and envies those who can. He cannot bring himself to make a list
of the actual banned activities, of which I have mentioned only a few, but
instead goes for hopelessly vague words like 'unnatural' and 'shameless.'
He leaves the impression that gay activities are wrong, and thereby promotes
millennia of uncertainty.
Of course, gay men and women are likely to dismiss all this unspecific and
repressive jumble and achieve harmless happiness and enjoyment by behaving
as responsibly as they would in other areas of human interraction.
.
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible fudges response to gay sex activities! |
22 Jun 2007 11:05:30 AM |
|
|
"josh" <jillywoods@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk>
Re: Bible fudges response to gay sex activities!
I have just been looking for information in the Bible about what gay men can
actually do with each other apart from actual penetrative sex. The nearest
I could get was in Romans with the following passage:
'For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women
exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the
men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion
for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their
own persons the due penalty for their error.'
Well, there is certainly no specific list of activities there: 'shameless
acts' could be interpreted very subjectively according to the personal bias
of the individual. Lawyers in a court would have a field day disentangling
the arguments. Suppose one man kissed another. How shameless is that?
Would the prosecution argue that it went on for more than one second so it
was clearly an act of passion? And what about hugging? 'Don't hug me for
too long, Albert, it might look shameless.'
So what about oral sex? It is not intercourse, so how is it defined? What
about a man watching two other men having oral sex? He has not committed a
shameless act *with* another man, merely seen it.
No mention of bondage at all, whether between men, women or men and women.
That must be OK then.
And no mention of pornography, so that's OK. Photography hadn't been
invented anyway, so any portrayals would be creative in nature rather than
real. Or are they graven images?!
In summary, the writer of the quoted passage has been very indecisive, as
though he is a repressed individual who cannot really deal with his
sexuality and envies those who can. He cannot bring himself to make a list
of the actual banned activities, of which I have mentioned only a few, but
instead goes for hopelessly vague words like 'unnatural' and 'shameless.'
He leaves the impression that gay activities are wrong, and thereby promotes
millennia of uncertainty.
Of course, gay men and women are likely to dismiss all this unspecific and
repressive jumble and achieve harmless happiness and enjoyment by behaving
as responsibly as they would in other areas of human interraction.
Hello,
The Bible is very wise in its wording of things here. Since the Bible
did not list details of EVERY sexual perversion a person might engage
in, then the words used would include everything common people would
attribute to homosexual behavior. Thus much of what you listed above
would be part of Paul's "shameless acts", and genuine Christians would
make sure to stay clear of such things. (2 Ti 3:16)
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible fudges response to gay sex activities! |
22 Jun 2007 12:47:14 PM |
|
|
James wrote:
The Bible is very wise in its wording of things here.
Right. Keep it vague and any power-mad control freak can claim to know
what the intent of the authors was.
Since the Bible
did not list details of EVERY sexual perversion a person might engage
in,
Catholic priests could molest children with abandon, since they could
claim that kid-diddlin' is a sanctioned act... even a blessed one.
then the words used would include everything common people would
You really want to use "common people" as a reference point for what
defines perversion?
Keep an eye on your sheep, then.
attribute to homosexual behavior. Thus much of what you listed above
would be part of Paul's "shameless acts", and genuine Christians would
(As opposed to fake Christians, I suppose.)
make sure to stay clear of such things. (2 Ti 3:16)
Here's a site for you: http://www.libchrist.com.
Enjoy.
--
655321
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible fudges response to gay sex activities! |
22 Jun 2007 12:09:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:05:30 -0400, James wrote:
Since the Bible
Is bronze age mythology, who cares?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheist Stooges" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible fudges response to gay sex activities! |
22 Jun 2007 03:38:59 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:XZadnagutpvbn-HbnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@giganews.com...
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:05:30 -0400, James wrote:
Since the Bible
Is bronze age mythology, who cares?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
You mean atheism right?
Of which you're not....snickers
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chas" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible fudges response to gay sex activities! |
27 Mar 2007 05:33:19 PM |
|
|
I am suprised you, Josh, gave so much information quoted directly from
the Bible witout bothering to inform us where it is in the Bible.
There is not much good that I can honestly say about the old
scriptures, but I have to say that the quote you gave does not sound
like the Bible. Where did it really come from?
If it sounds wrong because of being a modern translation, then what
part of the Bible it is in is quite important. If it is in the early
books of the Old Testament, then it is all for the purpose of
justifying the slaughter of the people who's lands the Jews were
conquering.
charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
On Mar 27, 3:13 pm, "josh" <jillywo...@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk>
wrote:
I have just been looking for information in the Bible about what gay men can
actually do with each other apart from actual penetrative sex. The nearest
I could get was in Romans with the following passage:
'For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women
exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the
men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion
for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their
own persons the due penalty for their error.'
Well, there is certainly no specific list of activities there: 'shameless
acts' could be interpreted very subjectively according to the personal bias
of the individual. Lawyers in a court would have a field day disentangling
the arguments. Suppose one man kissed another. How shameless is that?
Would the prosecution argue that it went on for more than one second so it
was clearly an act of passion? And what about hugging? 'Don't hug me for
too long, Albert, it might look shameless.'
So what about oral sex? It is not intercourse, so how is it defined? What
about a man watching two other men having oral sex? He has not committed a
shameless act *with* another man, merely seen it.
No mention of bondage at all, whether between men, women or men and women.
That must be OK then.
And no mention of pornography, so that's OK. Photography hadn't been
invented anyway, so any portrayals would be creative in nature rather than
real. Or are they graven images?!
In summary, the writer of the quoted passage has been very indecisive, as
though he is a repressed individual who cannot really deal with his
sexuality and envies those who can. He cannot bring himself to make a list
of the actual banned activities, of which I have mentioned only a few, but
instead goes for hopelessly vague words like 'unnatural' and 'shameless.'
He leaves the impression that gay activities are wrong, and thereby promotes
millennia of uncertainty.
Of course, gay men and women are likely to dismiss all this unspecific and
repressive jumble and achieve harmless happiness and enjoyment by behaving
as responsibly as they would in other areas of human interraction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "josh" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible fudges response to gay sex activities! |
28 Mar 2007 05:31:05 PM |
|
|
Hello Chas. Thanks for your response. The quote is from Romans 1 vv26 and
27., and the site I visited was http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm
where there was a useful summary of Bible sex references.
I must say that I am disappointed that there was not a larger response to my
purposely forthright posting. Perhaps the more religious contingent reading
these groups was struck dumb with shock and revilement. A little challenge
would have been good - they've let me get away with it far too easily!
Regards Josh
"Chas" <charlesbrough1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175034799.264817.128450@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I am suprised you, Josh, gave so much information quoted directly from
the Bible witout bothering to inform us where it is in the Bible.
There is not much good that I can honestly say about the old
scriptures, but I have to say that the quote you gave does not sound
like the Bible. Where did it really come from?
If it sounds wrong because of being a modern translation, then what
part of the Bible it is in is quite important. If it is in the early
books of the Old Testament, then it is all for the purpose of
justifying the slaughter of the people who's lands the Jews were
conquering.
charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
On Mar 27, 3:13 pm, "josh" <jillywo...@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk>
wrote:
I have just been looking for information in the Bible about what gay men
can
actually do with each other apart from actual penetrative sex. The
nearest
I could get was in Romans with the following passage:
'For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women
exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the
men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion
for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in
their
own persons the due penalty for their error.'
Well, there is certainly no specific list of activities there:
'shameless
acts' could be interpreted very subjectively according to the personal
bias
of the individual. Lawyers in a court would have a field day
disentangling
the arguments. Suppose one man kissed another. How shameless is that?
Would the prosecution argue that it went on for more than one second so
it
was clearly an act of passion? And what about hugging? 'Don't hug me
for
too long, Albert, it might look shameless.'
So what about oral sex? It is not intercourse, so how is it defined?
What
about a man watching two other men having oral sex? He has not committed
a
shameless act *with* another man, merely seen it.
No mention of bondage at all, whether between men, women or men and
women.
That must be OK then.
And no mention of pornography, so that's OK. Photography hadn't been
invented anyway, so any portrayals would be creative in nature rather
than
real. Or are they graven images?!
In summary, the writer of the quoted passage has been very indecisive, as
though he is a repressed individual who cannot really deal with his
sexuality and envies those who can. He cannot bring himself to make a
list
of the actual banned activities, of which I have mentioned only a few,
but
instead goes for hopelessly vague words like 'unnatural' and 'shameless.'
He leaves the impression that gay activities are wrong, and thereby
promotes
millennia of uncertainty.
Of course, gay men and women are likely to dismiss all this unspecific
and
repressive jumble and achieve harmless happiness and enjoyment by
behaving
as responsibly as they would in other areas of human interraction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cdumo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible fudges response to gay sex activities! |
28 Mar 2007 11:54:06 PM |
|
|
"josh" <jillywoods@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WdmdnVdnhqflcZfbnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
Hello Chas. Thanks for your response. The quote is from Romans 1 vv26
and 27., and the site I visited was
http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm where there was a useful
summary of Bible sex references.
I must say that I am disappointed that there was not a larger response to
my purposely forthright posting. Perhaps the more religious contingent
reading these groups was struck dumb with shock and revilement. A little
challenge would have been good - they've let me get away with it far too
easily!
Perhaps you should have read down to verse 32, fornication in Greek is
porneia, which is where the word porno comes from, and it means illicit sex,
homosexual, lesbian, sex with animals, child molesters, rape etc. hope this
helps you. God bless
.
|
|
|
| User: "josh" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible fudges response to gay sex activities! |
29 Mar 2007 11:46:16 AM |
|
|
Hello Cdumo. I have looked in the King James bible for the reference you
give but it does not mention fornication. I quote:
'Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful: 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they
which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have
pleasure in them that do them. '
Could you have another look and direct me to the chapter and verse that
talks about fornication. I assume from your post that 'fornication' was the
english translation of 'porneia' which seems from your details to mean any
sexual activity outside marriage. Even then there are some activities which
are borderline, such as male to male kissing!
I have just tried on the net to get a definition of porneia directly from
Greek sources rather than biblical sources, and failed. Has the word been
hi-jacked by the writers of the old testament? I wonder what the word
actually meant to the Greek man in the street in his homeland. I suspect it
might mean 'sexual activity which may be unapproved of '. But that's just
my guess, based on the impression that Greeks have a more relaxed view of
these things. Maybe that's why Paul blows a few fuses in his condemnation!
I understand that he may have been ugly: maybe he never had a girlfriend
and became bitter. His language does seem harsh and angry.
Thanks for your contribution
Josh
"Cdumo" <cdumont@telusolanet.net> wrote in message
news:ODHOh.23884$__3.3071@edtnps90...
"josh" <jillywoods@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WdmdnVdnhqflcZfbnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
Hello Chas. Thanks for your response. The quote is from Romans 1 vv26
and 27., and the site I visited was
http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.htm where there was a useful
summary of Bible sex references.
I must say that I am disappointed that there was not a larger response to
my purposely forthright posting. Perhaps the more religious contingent
reading these groups was struck dumb with shock and revilement. A little
challenge would have been good - they've let me get away with it far too
easily!
Perhaps you should have read down to verse 32, fornication in Greek is
porneia, which is where the word porno comes from, and it means illicit
sex, homosexual, lesbian, sex with animals, child molesters, rape etc.
hope this helps you. God bless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cdumo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bible fudges response to gay sex activities! |
29 Mar 2007 11:42:04 PM |
|
|
"josh" <jillywoods@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oYWdndgkoo-7cJbbnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
Hello Cdumo. I have looked in the King James bible for the reference you
give but it does not mention fornication. I quote:
'Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful: 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they
which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but
have pleasure in them that do them. '
Could you have another look and direct me to the chapter and verse that
talks about fornication. I assume from your post that 'fornication' was
the english translation of 'porneia' which seems from your details to mean
any sexual activity outside marriage. Even then there are some activities
which are borderline, such as male to male kissing!
I have just tried on the net to get a definition of porneia directly from
Greek sources rather than biblical sources, and failed. Has the word been
hi-jacked by the writers of the old testament? I wonder what the word
actually meant to the Greek man in the street in his homeland. I suspect
it might mean 'sexual activity which may be unapproved of '. But that's
just my guess, based on the impression that Greeks have a more relaxed
view of these things. Maybe that's why Paul blows a few fuses in his
condemnation! I understand that he may have been ugly: maybe he never had
a girlfriend and became bitter. His language does seem harsh and angry.
You will find it in Rom.1:29-32, fornication means porno.illicit sex.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
