NationStates Jolt Archive

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, taht whosoever believeth in him shuld not perish, but have everlasting life."
- John 3:16

Since I was little, I have regarded God as I have Santa Claus - a fictional being made up by the masses in order to make life easier. I have always considered myself agnostic, believing that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a God, or other form of "higher being".

However, in the past month I have been.. "forced" to change my views. So many things have happened, far to many for them to be mere coincidences. God brought Jeffrey into my life, and while I have yet to figure out what his purpose for bringing us together, I know that I've never been happier when with him.

Being gay, my natural response was that there was no God, and that the Bible was a very, very long winded fairy tale. Outside of my that belief, I have always studied the texts.. coming to the conclusion that the scriptures referencing what is considered "homosexual behavior" in Leviticus, Corinthians, and Romans is taken out of context for its true meaning. I've always believed that the Bible was referring to Lust, and not the Love.

The night I came to this conclusion, I opened my Bible and the page it opened to was Proverbs 10:12, "Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins." I believe that the Bible condemns the lust between men, as men have a higher sexual drive than women and are more likely to attempt to please themselves. I do not believe that the Bible was referring to homosexuality as an orientation, because homosexuality as an orientation was not a concept back then, therefor it would be next to impossible to bring a concept from the now and put it in the "then", if you understand what I'm saying.

Do not attack me for my beliefs, even if you disagree. We may disagree on our interpretation of the Bible, but please don't bring your disagreements here. I just needed a place to.. "come out", so to speak.

Thanks.

Michael

"... but whosoever shall say, "Thou Fool," shall be in danger of hell fire." - Matthew 5:22

On the contrary, I fully support your right to express your views. Whilst I may not hold the same ones, I can still respect your choice to have them.

Also, I think you're exactly the sort of Christian we need to hear more from. One who has a level-headed approach to the scripture and enhances his life with it, not one who has blind faith in every single word.

i like you have studied the bible out of curiosity more than anything and while i find jesus god and the devil hard concepts to believe in i will remain open to the idea given the lack of proof either way anything is possible.However having said that in even my own casual reading of the bible i have found it contradicts itself in many areas and theres a quote fo literally anything.Don't get me wrong i'm not belittleing your revaltion or your quote to support it.My personal opinion is that nothing and noone has the right to tell someone else that who they love what they love or the way they love is wrong as long as it's consentual and does no harm.Noone will tell me to hate someone else or condemm them becuase thier different.

YOur a Christian. Good for you. I'm a Pagan. We all need something to believe in. But honestly because of RE, and the whole God made you thing they taught us in Grade 1, I haven't really paid much attention to the bible since. Mum and Dad made me. The same way I'm gonna make my kids.

On the contrary, I fully support your right to express your views. Whilst I may not hold the same ones, I can still respect your choice to have them.

Also, I think you're exactly the sort of Christian we need to hear more from. One who has a level-headed approach to the scripture and enhances his life with it, not one who has blind faith in every single word.

One of my strongest assets is the fact that I'm a "critical thinker", in that I think independantly and don't automatically accept what I read or hear. I also hold suspension of judgement, gathering any relevant and up-to-date information on all sides of an issue before taking a position. And I have a willingness to modify or abandon prior judgements/beliefs, which invovles evaluating any new evidence, even if/when it contradicts pre-existing beliefs/judgements.

Now, not trying to be boastful or anything, but I unfortunately don't know that many adults who can clearly say they possess those three qualities. It is those three qualities that has me working for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Infectious Diseases - HIV/AIDS Section; the Illinois Department of Public Health, and numerous county health departments throughout the state of Illinois.

I work with hundreds, thousands of adults - and only a handful truly possess those three qualities. Now, I'm 17 and I already possess those qualities (which is why I was so eagerly snapped up by the CDC and IDPH, because they needed someone who was younger who could tell them what the "youth" wanted, yet was also able to deal with the epidemiological suirveillance data and work with the Illinois Prevention Community Planning Group (which I also am on) to create the comprehensive HIV prevention plan for the entire state.

Ok, I feel like I'm bragging and that is not my intent. I'm just trying to 'compare'. I mean not to offend anyone.

You're in love. Stop wasting time on this forum and go give Jeff a kiss for me. I'm willing to distract God for you if you think you might get lustful. "Hey God, over here! I'm wearing cloth made of more than one type of thread! Hey God! I covert my neighbor's ass! Yo God! I'm suffering a witch to live!"

Remember. Practice safe sex. Lock the door first.

Well Doujin all I can say is that I dont think you are bragging, just highlighting your unique situation. I am a Hindu, so I dont kow too much about Christianity but from my general readings of it, it does at one point state, 'Above all else, to thine own Self be True'. U r closer to God than anyone else, and if Love is leading you walk your unique path, It will lead you to where God wants you to be. And if there are troubles on the path, accept that others are just being true to their own understanding of God, (if you can - pity their narrow view) and move on.

You're in love. Stop wasting time on this forum and go give Jeff a kiss for me. I'm willing to distract God for you if you think you might get lustful. "Hey God, over here! I'm wearing cloth made of more than one type of thread! Hey God! I covert my neighbor's ass! Yo God! I'm suffering a witch to live!"

Remember. Practice safe sex. Lock the door first.

We are taking things slow. We kiss, infrequently, and only when our emotions our running high (He has lost his mother, his grandmother, his grandfather - his father beat him and left him when he was a child, his mothers fiance left him when he didn't get much money from his wife-to-be's insurance after she died, the two guardians that were assigned him abandoned him, and now he's 17 living with his brother who is 18 - his brother is an avid pot smoker, lush, crackhead, and only the Lord knows what else.

How inspiring you are! I am a theist, but not a Christian, and I am of the belief that all paths lead to god if your heart is right. Only you can define what is right for you, and if you pursue your path with honesty and love, then how can that be wrong?

I'm so glad to see that you can interpret scripture in a way that speaks to your heart. I don't think that all scripture is literal, although some parts are, so it takes a critical and wise individual to distinguish between the two. I'll be interested to see how the fundamentalist minority in here respond to you, but remember that the more level-headed NSers will respect you.

YOur a Christian. Good for you. I'm a Pagan. We all need something to believe in. But honestly because of RE, and the whole God made you thing they taught us in Grade 1, I haven't really paid much attention to the bible since. Mum and Dad made me. The same way I'm gonna make my kids.

I disagree - belief of this kind is little more than a crutch. Have faityh not because you need it, but because you want it. Also....you're going to make your kids read the Bible?

How inspiring you are! I am a theist, but not a Christian, and I am of the belief that all paths lead to god if your heart is right. Only you can define what is right for you, and if you pursue your path with honesty and love, then how can that be wrong?

I'm so glad to see that you can interpret scripture in a way that speaks to your heart. I don't think that all scripture is literal, although some parts are, so it takes a critical and wise individual to distinguish between the two. I'll be interested to see how the fundamentalist minority in here respond to you, but remember that the more level-headed NSers will respect you.

As seen in the link in my signature (Homosexuality Explored) my arguments tend to cover as many aspects as possible, leaving little room for rebuttal.

We kiss, infrequently, and only when our emotions our running high
Sounds good. You can progress further when you're both comfortable. Maybe soon you can give each other a hand. I'm just afraid that you might deny yourselves a lot of pleasure because you might be worried about what your religous enity wants you to do. As long as you've taken precautions (condoms, blood tests, cootie vaccinations, etc.) and you both enjoy each others attentions, I don't think it's God's business.

Just as a word of wisdom, no matter how much you love someone, never let them talk you out of taking precautions. It's the only way to live these days. In the words of Ronald Regean, "Trust but verify."

Sounds good. You can progress further when you're both comfortable. Maybe soon you can give each other a hand. I'm just afraid that you might deny yourselves a lot of pleasure because you might be worried about what your religous enity wants you to do. As long as you've taken precautions (condoms, blood tests, cootie vaccinations, etc.) and you both enjoy each others attentions, I don't think it's God's business.

Just as a word of wisdom, no matter how much you love someone, never let them talk you out of taking precautions. It's the only way to live these days. In the words of Ronald Regean, "Trust but verify."

You miss the part where I am on a committee that develops HIV Prevention Education and Care Management programs for the entire state of Illinois(population approximately 12 million), also looking over the epi. suirveillance data and determing what populations have the most need for funds and service providers, etc etc.

Just because you're gay doesn't mean you can't be Christian. Most gays I know are Christian.

[QUOTE=Doujin]One of my strongest assets is the fact that I'm a "critical thinker", in that I think independantly and don't automatically accept what I read or hear. I also hold suspension of judgement, gathering any relevant and up-to-date information on all sides of an issue before taking a position. And I have a willingness to modify or abandon prior judgements/beliefs, which invovles evaluating any new evidence, even if/when it contradicts pre-existing beliefs/judgements.

But in a way what you're saying is that for those who adhere to the teachings of the Bible are not "critical thinkers" to accept things that they believe are the truth (scripture). Because you are interpreting an anarchic text in the light of contemporary social acceptances and your personal lifestyle you have interpreted something that fits in more with your way of life. I am not making a judgement on you but I suspect that such flexibility to religious tenets have made many disillusioned with what religion can offer to them or get very angry when people espouse different interpretations of what they accept as the truth.

Usually religious belief and modern social values do not mix well. I believe that you can have "faith" in what you believe but I'm unsure that you can interpret something and say it’s just as good when the pervious interpretations say it is not. But then it depends if you believe what a religious text tells you is the "truth", its pure faith. Believe what you want, it’s up to you, but that basically makes it no less right or wrong than the other in essence. For example the American Constitution concerning the right to bear firearms. To some it’s a right to others an antiquated right. But who is right?

You miss the part where I am on a committee that develops HIV Prevention Education and Care Management programs

Yeah, but you're 17. I'm talking about being in love for the first time. It doesn't matter how much you know, there is a danger of doing irrational things. Trust me. I think most teenagers these days know where babies come from, but there are still a lot of unplanned pregnancies amoung them. (Although this would, admittedly, be unlikely in your case.)

I disagree - belief of this kind is little more than a crutch. Have faityh not because you need it, but because you want it. Also....you're going to make your kids read the Bible?

No I'm not going to make my kids read the bible. They can find their own beliefs their own way. ANd I'll be there to help.

Anyone else think that 'to thine own self be true' was Shakespeare rather than the bible???

[QUOTE=Doujin]One of my strongest assets is the fact that I'm a "critical thinker", in that I think independantly and don't automatically accept what I read or hear. I also hold suspension of judgement, gathering any relevant and up-to-date information on all sides of an issue before taking a position. And I have a willingness to modify or abandon prior judgements/beliefs, which invovles evaluating any new evidence, even if/when it contradicts pre-existing beliefs/judgements.

But in a way what you're saying is that for those who adhere to the teachings of the Bible are not "critical thinkers" to accept things that they believe are the truth (scripture). Because you are interpreting an anarchic text in the light of contemporary social acceptances and your personal lifestyle you have interpreted something that fits in more with your way of life. I am not making a judgement on you but I suspect that such flexibility to religious tenets have made many disillusioned with what religion can offer to them or get very angry when people espouse different interpretations of what they accept as the truth.

Usually religious belief and modern social values do not mix well. I believe that you can have "faith" in what you believe but I'm unsure that you can interpret something and say it’s just as good when the pervious interpretations say it is not. But then it depends if you believe what a religious text tells you is the "truth", its pure faith. Believe what you want, it’s up to you, but that basically makes it no less right or wrong than the other in essence. For example the American Constitution concerning the right to bear firearms. To some it’s a right to others an antiquated right. But who is right?

Well, to put it better, I'm refusing to view an anarchic text in light of contemporary "modern" social views/"acceptances". As the idea of sexual orientation did not exist, one cannot say that there is something in the Bible against sexual orientation, because it is a modern concept.

Edit: I just found this, from the Associated Press.

"Bishop Griswold said that in biblical times there was no understanding that homosexuality was a natural orientation and not a choice. 'Discreet acts of homosexuality' were condemned in the Bible because they were acts of lust, instead of the "love, forgiveness, grace" of committed same-sex relationships, he said. "Homosexuality, as we understand it as an orientation, is not mentioned in the Bible," he said. "I think the confirmation of the bishop of New Hampshire is acknowleding what is already a reality in the lifeo f the church and the alrger society of which we are a part."

I would have to say that my belief corresponds with that of the Episcopal Church of America in relation to the passages that refer to the lustful acts of homosexuality.

:D It's good to hear from some other people how God has been moving in their lives! Christianity is meant to be an all-inclusive society, accepting everyone from any background. Sadly, some Christians cannot see this, which is why some people turn away from God, and some people just don't come to God in the first place.

I think that if you read the Bible then you should pray about it. God will tell you through prayer and scripture and many other things about how he wants you to live, and he doesn't want everyone to live in the same way - that'd be boring!

I have no idea where I'm going with this...

Anyone else think that 'to thine own self be true' was Shakespeare rather than the bible???

Shakespeare --> Bible what the difference (To me - b4 anyone else jumps)?!! I did mention I wasnt a Chistian. :p

Yeah, but you're 17. I'm talking about being in love for the first time. It doesn't matter how much you know, there is a danger of doing irrational things. Trust me. I think most teenagers these days know where babies come from, but there are still a lot of unplanned pregnancies amoung them. (Although this would, admittedly, be unlikely in your case.)

Yes, but many teenagers do not know how to get a condom, what a condom is, how to use a condom, or anything outside of "abstinence".

My belief is that if a committed relationship chooses to no longer protection, then that is up to them. I only insist that they get tested at least 2-3 times and wait 6 months to a year before they do so, because it can take as long as 6 months for the HIV anti-bodies to appear in the blood stream.

I always also inform them of the dangers. I know of three clients who are HIV positive, but do not have a viral load at all. The virus is in the tissue, and not the blood stream at large - although, it can still get into the blood stream.

I have been in love, with my first boyfriend. We would be dating to this day, had he not moved to California. Part of me would leave whoever I was with, with the exception of Jeff, if he ever came back and wanted to court me. Me and him dated for several months before his family moved.

Anyone else think that 'to thine own self be true' was Shakespeare rather than the bible???

Yes, it's Shakespere and not the bible. But, if you are willing to tell me that the works of Shakespere are the divinely inspired word of God, then I'll have exactly the same amount of evidence that the bible is the divinely inspired word of God, i.e. people keep telling me it is.

[QUOTE=Tiocfaidh ar la]

Well, to put it better, I'm refusing to view an anarchic text in light of contemporary "modern" social views/"acceptances". As the idea of sexual orientation did not exist, one cannot say that there is something in the Bible against sexual orientation, because it is a modern concept.

I disagree. Sexual orientation is not a modern concept. The Bible makes reference to it, in the sense (I shall paraphrase) "man shall not lie down with his fellow man". And even before the Bible you have reference to sexual orientation in other cultures. For example in classical Greek society, and even some Roman references. Just because it is acceptable in Classical times and then not in Biblical times does not make a difference, societies change in their value systems. I just have trouble with those that say they adhere to the Bible but don't accept certain tenets of it. For example the number of Christians that have had sex before marriage. In today's society, who cares? But for most religious beliefs that’s considered a sin, but we still call ourselves Christian, (which is fine by me). I just find reinterpreting the Bible a pointless concept for modern social values. Just believe what you want.

Yes, but many teenagers do not know how to get a condom, what a condom is, how to use a condom, or anything outside of "abstinence".


You must be joking. I knew all that stuff by the time I was 11. What world are these kids growing up in?

Well Doujin, your a Christian AND a homosexual.
You may as well start anticipating recieving tons of shit for the rest of your life.
Not easy things to be, especially when coupled together.

The Bible, as you well know, speaks against homosexualty, and having such a faith and being who you are arent always going to be peacefully co-existant.
However, keep in mind that most christians who post here and rant at you for being gay, are most likely too small minded to get over "the creepy gay thing", and cannot believe that any God they worship probably doesnt care, as long as you live an honest life.

Ignore them.

Be who you are, always.

Remember:

People fear, what they do not understand.
Many straight people, cannot understand what is is to be gay, so at some level, they fear you.

Too many Christians are willing to allow themselves to be told what think, and cannot imagine you having both a faith, and an attraction to other men.

This is entirely a short coming on their half, and not a reflection of you.

Good luck.

Yes, but many teenagers do not know how to get a condom, what a condom is, how to use a condom, or anything outside of "abstinence".

Wow! That's like going to be the death of a lot of people. How on earth do you teach abstinance anyway? "Do not place your penis in a vagina! Or if you do that, whatever you do, don't thrust!"

Don't you have government sponsored advertising with lame slogans like, "If it isn't on, it isn't on." And a stupid songs like, "Roll it on Ron?" In Australia we even had puppets give shows on safe sex, and trust me, these puppets weren't the standard sort of muppet.

Do you have condoms on supermarket shelves?

[QUOTE=Doujin]

I disagree. Sexual orientation is not a modern concept. The Bible makes reference to it, in the sense (I shall paraphrase) "man shall not lie down with his fellow man". And even before the Bible you have reference to sexual orientation in other cultures. For example in classical Greek society, and even some Roman references. Just because it is acceptable in Classical times and then not in Biblical times does not make a difference, societies change in their value systems. I just have trouble with those that say they adhere to the Bible but don't accept certain tenets of it. For example the number of Christians that have had sex before marriage. In today's society, who cares? But for most religious beliefs that’s considered a sin, but we still call ourselves Christian, (which is fine by me). I just find reinterpreting the Bible a pointless concept for modern social values. Just believe what you want.

Tiocfaidh ar la:

You referred to classical greek and roman society as instances of sexual orientation. However, if you look at the history, it isn't that sexual orientation is the issue, the issue was men having sex with men to please themselves, again bringing us back to lust.

Since it is recognized by most historical scholars (Not talking about religious scholars) that sexual orientation was not a concept that was held in the past, then the passage of Leviticus that you brought forth must be referring to the act of men pleasing themselves with men out of lust. It is simply a very loose description of a sexual act.

In response to your remark earlier about me mentioning critical thinking, I do not advise adhering to the teachings of the Bible without looking at it in the proper contexts that they were written, which is where critical thinking comes into play.

LazyHippies:

I have 16-18 year old men and women asking me how they can get access to condoms, and how to properly use them. I am not kidding you, this is what happens when there is no proper education in the home setting, nor in the school setting. Abstinence only programs do not work.

BackwoodSquatches:

Thank you for wishing me luck and for some of your advice. It's appreciated.

Wow! That's like going to be the death of a lot of people. How on earth do you teach abstinance anyway? "Do not place your penis in a vagina! Or if you do that, whatever you do, don't thrust!"

Don't you have government sponsored advertising with lame slogans like, "If it isn't on, it isn't on." And a stupid songs like, "Roll it on Ron?" In Australia we even had puppets give shows on safe sex, and trust me, these puppets weren't the standard sort of muppet.

Do you have condoms on supermarket shelves?

We do, but mostly they are off in the health section near feminine products, or something of that nature. They can be tricky to find at times, and a lot of teenagers don't want to be caught dead buying condoms.

The only slogan we have is "Just say no", which is used not only in the "war on drugs" but also in "Sex Education", or rather the lack thereof. The government at large does not pay for anything related to sex education unless the program promotes abstinence, and possibly "safer sex practicse" as a distant, distant second/third.

We do, but mostly they are off in the health section near feminine products, or something of that nature. They can be tricky to find at times, and a lot of teenagers don't want to be caught dead buying condoms.

The only slogan we have is "Just say no", which is used not only in the "war on drugs" but also in "Sex Education", or rather the lack thereof. The government at large does not pay for anything related to sex education unless the program promotes abstinence, and possibly "safer sex practicse" as a distant, distant second/third.

Weird. I seem to remember being taught about contraception in school in the USA. Not just condoms either, even stuff people dont really use anymore like IUDs.

When my mum was participating in a Christian course near to where I live, they were split into groups and talked about a particular topic. Mum's group were talking about Homosexuality and Christianity. Back then, Mum completely opposed it, but then one of the guys in her group turned out to be gay. He's been called into Ministry by God, and to be single all his life, but God has different ideas for everyone.

and i should care why?

Weird. I seem to remember being taught about contraception in school in the USA. Not just condoms either, even stuff people dont really use anymore like IUDs.

There are schools that briefly touch the subject, but they manage to pay for those programs without reliance on federal or state moneys. Schools that have anything really come from local taxes/ordinances etc.

IUD's never really gained popularity, probably because it wasn't something that could be done at home - not many people want to go into a clinic to have something put in their uterus. Female condoms aren't used that often either, and they are a drain on my budget - they are much more expensive than your joe blow condom. Which, by the way, isn't approved by the FDA for anal sex use.

[QUOTE=Doujin][QUOTE=Tiocfaidh ar la]

Tiocfaidh ar la:

You referred to classical greek and roman society as instances of sexual orientation. However, if you look at the history, it isn't that sexual orientation is the issue, the issue was men having sex with men to please themselves, again bringing us back to lust.

Since it is recognized by most historical scholars (Not talking about religious scholars) that sexual orientation was not a concept that was held in the past, then the passage of Leviticus that you brought forth must be referring to the act of men pleasing themselves with men out of lust. It is simply a very loose description of a sexual act.

In response to your remark earlier about me mentioning critical thinking, I do not advise adhering to the teachings of the Bible without looking at it in the proper contexts that they were written, which is where critical thinking comes into play.

I agree with your first statement, but sexual orientation is still referred to, just not in a negative way as in the Bible (in the minds of some). But you're still reinterpreting the meaning of the Bible for modern social values and your own lifestyle choices, i.e. the sin of lust over love, which i think is pointless. I commend your critical thinking but I query its deployment in the pursuit of making your strict religious belief still acceptable in the eyes of other Christians. I don't care mind you but for some your reinterpretation is like saying day is night. To pursue critical thinking in religious belief is extremely difficult. Again, I believe, it comes down to faith.

There are schools that briefly touch the subject

No, not at all. It was all part of a rather comprehensive section of health class. It wasnt brief at all and covered everything from the rythm method to IUDs along with an idea of how effective they are for birth control and for stopping the spread of diseases. Heck, they even covered the difference between latex and lamb skin condoms. I have no idea where they got the money, but it was a public school.

[QUOTE=Tiocfaidh ar la]

Tiocfaidh ar la:

LazyHippies:

I have 16-18 year old men and women asking me how they can get access to condoms, and how to properly use them. I am not kidding you, this is what happens when there is no proper education in the home setting, nor in the school setting. Abstinence only programs do not work.

.

On a rather serious note, I have worked with prostitutes in Malaysia, and there seems to be a constant thing that they experience with some foreign clients do not think that they can get HIV/AIDS if they are on holiday. Or they sometimes request 'untried' pross for a chance to have sex without a condom. This is very dangerous, as there are simple surgeries to re-attach the hymen. So it is BEST to look out for No. 1, and only chance it without protection if you are a 100% certain. No matter where you are!

Hey there. Firstly, congratulations on your love, it is the most beautiful and precious thing on this earth and i wish you both all the best.
Jesus loves you, and there is little doubt in my mind that He will be happy for your joy and your love. You are harming no-one, and abiding by the Gospel. Good luck to you.
I too, have recently 'become' a Christian, and it is wonderful to hear from someone else who has also only recently begun their journey of Faith. All the best to you, and everyone else out there.

[QUOTE=Doujin][QUOTE=Tiocfaidh ar la]

Tiocfaidh ar la:

You referred to classical greek and roman society as instances of sexual orientation. However, if you look at the history, it isn't that sexual orientation is the issue, the issue was men having sex with men to please themselves, again bringing us back to lust.

Since it is recognized by most historical scholars (Not talking about religious scholars) that sexual orientation was not a concept that was held in the past, then the passage of Leviticus that you brought forth must be referring to the act of men pleasing themselves with men out of lust. It is simply a very loose description of a sexual act.

In response to your remark earlier about me mentioning critical thinking, I do not advise adhering to the teachings of the Bible without looking at it in the proper contexts that they were written, which is where critical thinking comes into play.

I agree with your first statement, but sexual orientation is still referred to, just not in a negative way as in the Bible (in the minds of some). But you're still reinterpreting the meaning of the Bible for modern social values and your own lifestyle choices, i.e. the sin of lust over love, which i think is pointless. I commend your critical thinking but I query its deployment in the pursuit of making your strict religious belief still acceptable in the eyes of other Christians. I don't care mind you but for some your reinterpretation is like saying day is night. To pursue critical thinking in religious belief is extremely difficult. Again, I believe, it comes down to faith.

Well, I must say I'm doing the opposite - since sexual orientation is "modern social values", by saying it isn't in the Bible I am not.. I lost myself. I havn't slept in a long time. Your comment about my interpretation goes for anyones interpretation of the texts. It matters not what other people believe, what matters is what I believe.

To pursue critical thinking in religious belief is difficult, yes, but it should be done. And many things, in the end, come down to faith.

[QUOTE=Doujin]

On a rather serious note, I have worked with prostitutes in Malaysia, and there seems to be a constant thing that they experience with some foreign clients do not think that they can get HIV/AIDS if they are on holiday. Or they sometimes request 'untried' pross for a chance to have sex without a condom. This is very dangerous, as there are simple surgeries to re-attach the hymen. So it is BEST to look out for No. 1, and only chance it without protection if you are a 100% certain. No matter where you are!

Well, in reality, you can never be 100% sure. It all comes down to faith, and trust of your partner to be committed to you.

No, not at all. It was all part of a rather comprehensive section of health class. It wasnt brief at all and covered everything from the rythm method to IUDs along with an idea of how effective they are for birth control and for stopping the spread of diseases. Heck, they even covered the difference between latex and lamb skin condoms. I have no idea where they got the money, but it was a public school.

Well, I can assure you, that your situation is a unique one - as we have trouble getting the local Health Department in the public schools where I live (central Illinois) to teach sex education. There was a bill that was introduced to the state legislature that would allow public schools to teach comprehensive sex education, but it all depended on individual schools applying for grants.

Well Doujin, your a Christian AND a homosexual.
You may as well start anticipating recieving tons of shit for the rest of your life.
Not easy things to be, especially when coupled together.

The Bible, as you well know, speaks against homosexualty, and having such a faith and being who you are arent always going to be peacefully co-existant.
However, keep in mind that most christians who post here and rant at you for being gay, are most likely too small minded to get over "the creepy gay thing", and cannot believe that any God they worship probably doesnt care, as long as you live an honest life.

Ignore them.

Be who you are, always.

Remember:

People fear, what they do not understand.
Many straight people, cannot understand what is is to be gay, so at some level, they fear you.

Too many Christians are willing to allow themselves to be told what think, and cannot imagine you having both a faith, and an attraction to other men.

This is entirely a short coming on their half, and not a reflection of you.

Good luck.

So is it acceptable to be a paedophile in that way of thinking? I know it’s against the law and morally repugnant but homosexuality is still illegal (in a way) for most Western military armed services and some societies and for many, unfortunately, it's still morally repugnant. If you have a consenting child of 11 and a consenting adult of 40 it’s still considered wrong, because as you say "we fear it". So thus, in maybe 30/40 years, paedophilia as we define it will be acceptable as societal values have changed to such an extent..

So is it acceptable to be a paedophile in that way of thinking? I know it’s against the law and morally repugnant but homosexuality is still illegal (in a way) for most Western military armed services and some societies and for many, unfortunately, it's still morally repugnant. If you have a consenting child of 11 and a consenting adult of 40 it’s still considered wrong, because as you say "we fear it". So thus, in maybe 30/40 years, paedophilia as we define it will be acceptable as societal values have changed to such an extent..

It all depends on the psychological development of the 11 year old. But that is a totally different topic.

Do not attack me for my beliefs, even if you disagree. We may disagree on our interpretation of the Bible, but please don't bring your disagreements here. I just needed a place to.. "come out", so to speak.


Just out of curiosity, why Christianity? I mean ... you opened up your Bible and it came up on Proverbs, right? That's part of the Kethuvim ... why not Judaism then?

Jews are a hell of a lot more gay friendly. :D

No matter, though, and don't get me wrong, I am glad for you, I'm just curious about the choice.

It's funny how people always focus on homosexuality, nobody seems to say anything about things that really matters like helping each others. We live in a very selfish society. I wish hell would exist as we all would be sent their for not understanding the real message.

It's funny how people always focus on homosexuality, nobody seems to say anything about things that really matters like helping each others. We live in a very selfish society. I wish hell would exist as we all would be sent their for not understanding the real message.

Its a misconception that christians are overly focused on homosexuality. Most churches wont mention homosexuality more than once a year if ever, and if they do its usually in passing. The rest of the year they are talking about all the more important things. Of course if the only time you ever read about churches is when you are reading information on homosexuality, I could see how you would come to that conclusion. A gay person could quite easily find a church that never mentions homosexuality and feel perfectly at home there. I wouldnt recommend holding hands with your partner as you walk in the front door, but its not like the straight couples are holding hands either.

Other than a few fringe groups, the only people focusing on homosexuality are in fact homosexuals.

Just out of curiosity, why Christianity? I mean ... you opened up your Bible and it came up on Proverbs, right? That's part of the Kethuvim ... why not Judaism then?

Jews are a hell of a lot more gay friendly. :D

No matter, though, and don't get me wrong, I am glad for you, I'm just curious about the choice.

I believe I have a friend who is Jewish. That's about as far as it goes, haha. Why Christianity? I'm not sure. To be honest, it just "felt right". I just got a vibe from it that I did not get from other religions.

Edit: The friend who is Jewish is also an ordained minister, and also gay. He is a minister for some church from California.

Its a misconception that christians are overly focused on homosexuality. Most churches wont mention homosexuality more than once a year if ever, and if they do its usually in passing. The rest of the year they are talking about all the more important things. Of course if the only time you ever read about churches is when you are reading information on homosexuality, I could see how you would come to that conclusion. A gay person could quite easily find a church that never mentions homosexuality and feel perfectly at home there. I wouldnt recommend holding hands with your partner as you walk in the front door, but its not like the straight couples are holding hands either.

Other than a few fringe groups, the only people focusing on homosexuality are in fact homosexuals.

I don't know about that. The area churches here incorporate something about homosexuality every Sunday/Wednesday, with the exception of the Unitarian Universalists

I believe I have a friend who is Jewish. That's about as far as it goes, haha. Why Christianity? I'm not sure. To be honest, it just "felt right". I just got a vibe from it that I did not get from other religions.

Well, that's cool. Kudos to you if it makes you happy. Nothin' wrong with a little Jesus in people's lives if it makes them a better, happier person.

So is it acceptable to be a paedophile in that way of thinking? I know it’s against the law and morally repugnant but homosexuality is still illegal (in a way) for most Western military armed services and some societies and for many, unfortunately, it's still morally repugnant. If you have a consenting child of 11 and a consenting adult of 40 it’s still considered wrong, because as you say "we fear it". So thus, in maybe 30/40 years, paedophilia as we define it will be acceptable as societal values have changed to such an extent..

Leave it to a Christian to compare an act of two consenting adults, to an act of depravity.

Who made your religion the ultimate expression of of what is, and what is not "morally repugnant"?

It is the height of arrogance to suggest that only your God is the final arbitrator on morality.

I pity you in your shallow mindedness, who cannot see past the dogma that you have been forced to swallow.
Who are these two hurting?
No one.

How does this personally affect you?

It doesnt.

So why should you care?

Hmm..maybe becuase you think that everyone should believe as you do?

It all depends on the psychological development of the 11 year old. But that is a totally different topic.

But doesn't it suggest to you societal values change (relatively) quickly in contemporary society. What is wrong or right today could be wrong or right tomorrow. Its very relative and fluid. Thus I don't see the point in reinterpretations of ancient texts that influence your judgements to how you think God or the rest of society will treat you. I'm glad it's what you believe, but I have problems using modern societal values to reinvent things that were, as you say, weren't meant at the time.

I don't know about that. The area churches here incorporate something about homosexuality every Sunday/Wednesday, with the exception of the Unitarian Universalists

I seriously doubt that is true. I live in the deep south (USA) and do not see that happening here, yet you want me to believe all of the area churches in Illinois do that? Uh uh. I think you are mistaken.

Leave it to a Christian to compare an act of two consenting adults, to an act of depravity.

Who made your religion the ultimate expression of of what is, and what is not "morally repugnant"?

It is the height of arrogance to suggest that only your God is the final arbitrator on morality.

I pity you in your shallow mindedness, who cannot see past the dogma that you have been forced to swallow.
Who are these two hurting?
No one.

How does this personally affect you?

It doesnt.

So why should you care?

Hmm..maybe becuase you think that everyone should believe as you do?

So then paedophilia is acceptable to you?

I seriously doubt that is true. I live in the deep south (USA) and do not see that happening here, yet you want me to believe all of the area churches in Illinois do that? Uh uh. I think you are mistaken.

Area, as in where I live, as in my town. With the exception of the few Unitarian Universalist churches we have, they all pretty much do incorporate some anti-gay message in their service.

I think you grossly misunderstood what I said, I apologize.

Area, as in where I live, as in my town. With the exception of the few Unitarian Universalist churches we have, they all pretty much do incorporate some anti-gay message in their service.

I think you grossly misunderstood what I said, I apologize.

and you have attended all of them frequently enough to know that this happens every sunday and wednesday? I still find that hard to believe.

But doesn't it suggest to you societal values change (relatively) quickly in contemporary society. What is wrong or right today could be wrong or right tomorrow. Its very relative and fluid. Thus I don't see the point in reinterpretations of ancient texts that influence your judgements to how you think God or the rest of society will treat you. I'm glad it's what you believe, but I have problems using modern societal values to reinvent things that were, as you say, weren't meant at the time.

Paedophilia was rampant in ancient times, however.

So then paedophilia is acceptable to you?


Your attempts at trolling are painfully thin, as is your arguement.

Diddling childen is a morally wrong behaviour becuase children are not emotionally developed to mentally cope with sexual situations.
Thus, it can be traumatizing to them.

Homosexuality, is most often between two CONSENTING adults, and is an expression of love, even.

wanna try again?

and you have attended all of them frequently enough to know that this happens every sunday and wednesday? I still find that hard to believe.

No, I just happen to have a bi-monthly meeting with many leaders of the area churches about sexual education programs that we are going to be implementing. And there is roughly 40 churches, and I know multiple members of all of them, and I socialize with them frequently.

You may find it hard to believe, but that doesn't make it any less true. While I'm sure there may be a day or two where some churches forget to incorporate some message into their service, for the most part it is consistent from what I am told.

No, I just happen to have a bi-monthly meeting with many leaders of the area churches about sexual education programs that we are going to be implementing. And there is roughly 40 churches, and I know multiple members of all of them, and I socialize with them frequently.

You may find it hard to believe, but that doesn't make it any less true. While I'm sure there may be a day or two where some churches forget to incorporate some message into their service, for the most part it is consistent from what I am told.

You should probably consider the possibility that you are being lied to. Either that, or maybe that you need to move.

You should probably consider the possibility that you are being lied to. Either that, or maybe that you need to move.

I really don't care either way, and I'm 17 - I cannot move, yet. When I'm 18, I am moving as far away as I can in-state (About 4 hours south, Carbondale where I will attend Southern Illinois Univeristy @ Carbondale). My friend who I mentioned that is Jewish lives there, and has a nice $14/hr job lined up for me :)

Your attempts at trolling are painfully thin, as is your arguement.

Diddling childen is a morally wrong behaviour becuase children are not emotionally developed to mentally cope with sexual situations.
Thus, it can be traumatizing to them.

Homosexuality, is most often between two CONSENTING adults, and is an expression of love, even.

wanna try again?

But, if you read my original point, the two are consenting but society, at this point in time, judges it to be wrong, as they did homosexuality 40 years ago. I'm making a point that views change in modern society relatively quickly and that to use them to review and reinvent an ancient text is a bit misjudged. I'm not judging homosexuality as wrong, just your line of argument in saying that because people fear it and don't understand it their views are ultimately wrong. I don't fear paedophilia and I understand it (medically and emotionally) but does that make it right?

And why do you think I'm Christian? Surely as the original argument was that you can be Christian and gay, I could be gay for all you know.

I really don't care either way, and I'm 17 - I cannot move, yet. When I'm 18, I am moving as far away as I can in-state (About 4 hours south, Carbondale where I will attend Southern Illinois Univeristy @ Carbondale). My friend who I mentioned that is Jewish lives there, and has a nice $14/hr job lined up for me :)

Wow, $14/hr rocks for a college student. Too bad that working while going to school robs you of the full college experience.

Paedophilia was rampant in ancient times, however.

So thus we could use that as an argument it to legalise Paedophilia in today's society?

although im not religous and i reckon uv been smoken some funky stuff i respect ur decigens(sorry cant spell to well)wotever they may be and no matter how freaky they get

Wow, $14/hr rocks for a college student. Too bad that working while going to school robs you of the full college experience.

True, but it can also keep you from graduating with $50k in student loan debt. I remember that the guys/gals who were spending their own earned money used a helluva lot better judgement when spending it. Or maybe I'm just bitter about my own bad choices...

Is a divine force nescassary(can't spell) for two people to meet? I don't think so.

True, but it can also keep you from graduating with $50k in student loan debt. I remember that the guys/gals who were spending their own earned money used a helluva lot better judgement when spending it. Or maybe I'm just bitter about my own bad choices...

Well, I'm getting a new '04 or '05 car when I turn 18, that's certain - I am required to travel throughout the state far too often to not have a good car with good gas mileage. Since January/February, I've added about 10-15k miles to my mothers car.

Is a divine force nescassary(can't spell) for two people to meet? I don't think so.

I never said that. I said that there were far too many "coincidences", and the situations that Jeffrey and I have mesh so well. I'm exactly what he needed in his time of need, and he is what I needed. If it weren't for him, this post wouldn't exist right now.

*as if speaking to a child* Good for you. Now, go out and play.

No I'm not going to make my kids read the bible. They can find their own beliefs their own way. ANd I'll be there to help.

These misunderstandings can sometimes be amusing to observers. I misread your message the first time, too, and had to go back and reread it a couple of times before I understood that you were saying that your parents are responsible for bringing you into the world - not God - and that your kids would come into the world the same way you did. But the way you wrote it, it looked like you were saying that your parents made you read the bible and you were going to do the same to your kids.

These misunderstandings can sometimes be amusing to observers. I misread your message the first time, too, and had to go back and reread it a couple of times before I understood that you were saying that your parents are responsible for bringing you into the world - not God - and that your kids would come into the world the same way you did. But the way you wrote it, it looked like you were saying that your parents made you read the bible and you were going to do the same to your kids.

I got the impression that his parents made him learn the Bible, but that he was not going to do the same thing to his children. That's just what I picked up -shrug-

So thus we could use that as an argument it to legalise Paedophilia in today's society?

You were making it sound like paedophilia was going to be accepted over the next century, and that it wasn't in the past - well, it was in the past.

I said that there were far too many "coincidences",
Sorry to get all logical on you like this, but what evidence do you have that these coincidences have anything to do with God and are not a general property of the universe? It seems quite a leap of, um... "faith."

Go forth and be happy. I hope that I'm as lucky with Bryan as you have been :) Love is a beautiful and wonderful thing in all its forms that should be treasured. I'm an atheist, but I'm glad that you have found comfort in the Bible and in a wonderful guy.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, taht whosoever believeth in him shuld not perish, but have everlasting life."
- John 3:16

Since I was little, I have regarded God as I have Santa Claus - a fictional being made up by the masses in order to make life easier. I have always considered myself agnostic, believing that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a God, or other form of "higher being".

However, in the past month I have been.. "forced" to change my views. So many things have happened, far to many for them to be mere coincidences. God brought Jeffrey into my life, and while I have yet to figure out what his purpose for bringing us together, I know that I've never been happier when with him.

Being gay, my natural response was that there was no God, and that the Bible was a very, very long winded fairy tale. Outside of my that belief, I have always studied the texts.. coming to the conclusion that the scriptures referencing what is considered "homosexual behavior" in Leviticus, Corinthians, and Romans is taken out of context for its true meaning. I've always believed that the Bible was referring to Lust, and not the Love.

The night I came to this conclusion, I opened my Bible and the page it opened to was Proverbs 10:12, "Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins." I believe that the Bible condemns the lust between men, as men have a higher sexual drive than women and are more likely to attempt to please themselves. I do not believe that the Bible was referring to homosexuality as an orientation, because homosexuality as an orientation was not a concept back then, therefor it would be next to impossible to bring a concept from the now and put it in the "then", if you understand what I'm saying.

Do not attack me for my beliefs, even if you disagree. We may disagree on our interpretation of the Bible, but please don't bring your disagreements here. I just needed a place to.. "come out", so to speak.

Thanks.

Michael

"... but whosoever shall say, "Thou Fool," shall be in danger of hell fire." - Matthew 5:22

So that officially makes 3 gay christians.

(About 4 hours south, Carbondale where I will attend Southern Illinois Univeristy @ Carbondale).

people actually go there? intentionally?!

Sorry to get all logical on you like this, but what evidence do you have that these coincidences have anything to do with God and are not a general property of the universe? It seems quite a leap of, um... "faith."

The Universe is generally full of chaos. Unless it isn't, but it sounds nice saying it. I'm talking, there were hundreds of things that happened one after another after another after another and it all clicked perfectly, bringing me and Jeff together. All at a time when I was having issues with my beliefs, and then this wonderful boy comes into my life and helps me with my issues, and I in turn am helping him with his. It just all happened so fast, so perfectly..

Glinde Nessroe:

What do you mean, "3 gay Christians" ?

Free Soviets:

SIUC has a BEAUTIFUL campus, and an excellent music and psychology program. It was the first University in the state of Illinois to have an accredited psychology program period, and also the first to have be accredited to teach Clinical Psychology by the American Psychological Association.

And at one point in time (about 5 years ago, at the latest) it was the biggest party school in Illinois, and probably still is. Plus, in Carbondale, you don't get arrested if caught with marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia. Instead you get a ticket that's like $100-150 the first offense, and $300 on all subsequent offenses. And it doesn't go on your record. (That is because of the law school there.. can't have that on your record if you are going to be a lawyer..)

Pracus:

I hope you are as lucky as I am. Thank you! :o)~

You were making it sound like paedophilia was going to be accepted over the next century, and that it wasn't in the past - well, it was in the past.

That’s what I trying to point out to you. Just because it’s acceptable then and not now, with homosexuality the same except (in most Western societies), it is now acceptable social values have changed fundamentally. But what is to say that in 30/40 years paedophilia becomes acceptable in some form, (between two consenting people for example).

My point to you is that I don't think you can use modern societal values to reinvent an ancient text that in many interpretations, (except for yourself and some clerical teachers), is not that accepting of homosexuality. I cannot think you can reinterpret it to suit your acceptance of Christianity. For some the Old Testament's version of the creation of the world is accepted as literal truth. Would you accept that as the true interpretation, or an acceptable interpretation? I think you're asking people to accept night as day.

Be Christian and have your faith, I commend your critical thinking. But I query
using it to reinvent the Bible.

That’s what I trying to point out to you. Just because it’s acceptable then and not now, with homosexuality the same except (in most Western societies), it is now acceptable social values have changed fundamentally. But what is to say that in 30/40 years paedophilia becomes acceptable in some form, (between two consenting people for example).

My point to you is that I don't think you can use modern societal values to reinvent an ancient text that in many interpretations, (except for yourself and some clerical teachers), is not that accepting of homosexuality. I cannot think you can reinterpret it to suit your acceptance of Christianity. For some the Old Testament's version of the creation of the world is accepted as literal truth. Would you accept that as the true interpretation, or an acceptable interpretation? I think you're asking people to accept night as day.

Be Christian and have your faith, I commend your critical thinking. But I query
using it to reinvent the Bible.

I'm not asking people to accept anything. And once again, I'm not using modern societal values - what I am doing is refusing to use modern societal values. Putting aside the fact that homosexuality as a sexual orientation was not a concept back then, you also need to consider many of the surrounding texts.

I'm not asking people to accept anything. And once again, I'm not using modern societal values - what I am doing is refusing to use modern societal values. Putting aside the fact that homosexuality as a sexual orientation was not a concept back then, you also need to consider many of the surrounding texts.

From your original post, you seem to be, and I quote:

"coming to the conclusion that the scriptures referencing what is considered "homosexual behavior" in Leviticus, Corinthians, and Romans is taken out of context for its true meaning. I've always believed that the Bible was referring to Lust, and not the Love"

I don't see how you can say modern societal values, i.e. the acceptability of homosexuality, and your own sexual orientation is not influencing your interpretation or reinterpretation of the Bible. I know these values have changed/varied over the centuries but in the 20th century, in the Western world, homosexuality has only been really acceptable for a relatively short period of time. Your reading, as you indicated in your original post, of the Bible suggested to you that homosexuality was wrong, (to some Christians and non-Christians it still is), and that it was indicated as such by the many religious tenets that you have read. But YOU, (and a small number of others), have interpreted their meaning to be indicating lust not love. That’s your interpretation, influenced, I believe, by your own sexual orientation to make your Christian faith more acceptable.

Believe what you want, we're all praying to the same God (Gods, depending on what you believe), and we’ll all inherent sinners anyway but I'm still unsure you can extract such meanings out of the Bible.

From your original post, you seem to be, and I quote:

"coming to the conclusion that the scriptures referencing what is considered "homosexual behavior" in Leviticus, Corinthians, and Romans is taken out of context for its true meaning. I've always believed that the Bible was referring to Lust, and not the Love"

I don't see how you can say modern societal values, i.e. the acceptability of homosexuality, and your own sexual orientation is not influencing your interpretation or reinterpretation of the Bible. I know these values have changed/varied over the centuries but in the 20th century, in the Western world, homosexuality has only been really acceptable for a relatively short period of time. Your reading, as you indicated in your original post, of the Bible suggested to you that homosexuality was wrong, (to some Christians and non-Christians it still is), and that it was indicated as such by the many religious tenets that you have read. But YOU, (and a small number of others), have interpreted their meaning to be indicating lust not love. That’s your interpretation, influenced, I believe, by your own sexual orientation to make your Christian faith more acceptable.

Believe what you want, we're all praying to the same God (Gods, depending on what you believe), and we’ll all inherent sinners anyway but I'm still unsure you can extract such meanings out of the Bible.


Anymore than you can extract the meaning that its wrong? How do you know YOUR interpretation of the Bible isn't wrong?. You've said Doujin has interpreted it incorrectly, but he at least has given us the basis of his interpretation. All you've done is appeal to tradition and popularity--those aren't reasons. How do you know that you and the peopel throughout history aren't wrong? Doujin is mostly likely right when he says that people in Biblical times had no concept of homosexuality as being about love--but only about lust.

You say Doujin is interpreting the Bible to fit his particular world view--but isn't that what you are doing too? At the end of the day, much to the the dismay of all the worlds Bishops and Popes and Patriarchs and Presbyteries, religion is a personal thing. Its between the worshipper and God.

Anymore than you can extract the meaning that its wrong? How do you know YOUR interpretation of the Bible isn't wrong?. You've said Doujin has interpreted it incorrectly, but he at least has given us the basis of his interpretation. All you've done is appeal to tradition and popularity--those aren't reasons. How do you know that you and the peopel throughout history aren't wrong? Doujin is mostly likely right when he says that people in Biblical times had no concept of homosexuality as being about love--but only about lust.

You say Doujin is interpreting the Bible to fit his particular world view--but isn't that what you are doing too? At the end of the day, much to the the dismay of all the worlds Bishops and Popes and Patriarchs and Presbyteries, religion is a personal thing. Its between the worshipper and God.

But what worldview is that? I don't believe homosexuality is wrong. Anymore wrong than having sex before marriage or all those other things you're really not supposed to do according to the Bible.

My argument with him is trying to extract a meaning that isn't there. It's like saying Animal Farm by George Orwell was trying to convey the message that Communism was a good and righteous thing. We all know that’s not what he's suggesting.

Now with the Bible, as tenets within the text suggest and (I believe) Doujin has accepted but has interpreted in his own way, is not giving that message. It's not popularity or tradition I'm espousing but just simply reading the quite blatant passages that aren’t top of the pops when it comes to same sex coupling. And to say they had no concept of homosexuality, which only means having sex with the same sex, is a bit suspect when they have made moral judgements about it and written it down and taught this to their followers.

What the author of this thread is doing is making an interpretation, an interpretation that doesn't make sense to me. I don’t see how he can extract that message.

And if you read my other replies, or the end of my last one, I say what you've ended with, your worship and faith is between you and God.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, taht whosoever believeth in him shuld not perish, but have everlasting life."
- John 3:16

Since I was little, I have regarded God as I have Santa Claus - a fictional being made up by the masses in order to make life easier. I have always considered myself agnostic, believing that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a God, or other form of "higher being".

However, in the past month I have been.. "forced" to change my views. So many things have happened, far to many for them to be mere coincidences. God brought Jeffrey into my life, and while I have yet to figure out what his purpose for bringing us together, I know that I've never been happier when with him.

Being gay, my natural response was that there was no God, and that the Bible was a very, very long winded fairy tale. Outside of my that belief, I have always studied the texts.. coming to the conclusion that the scriptures referencing what is considered "homosexual behavior" in Leviticus, Corinthians, and Romans is taken out of context for its true meaning. I've always believed that the Bible was referring to Lust, and not the Love.

The night I came to this conclusion, I opened my Bible and the page it opened to was Proverbs 10:12, "Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins." I believe that the Bible condemns the lust between men, as men have a higher sexual drive than women and are more likely to attempt to please themselves. I do not believe that the Bible was referring to homosexuality as an orientation, because homosexuality as an orientation was not a concept back then, therefor it would be next to impossible to bring a concept from the now and put it in the "then", if you understand what I'm saying.

Do not attack me for my beliefs, even if you disagree. We may disagree on our interpretation of the Bible, but please don't bring your disagreements here. I just needed a place to.. "come out", so to speak.

Thanks.

Michael

"... but whosoever shall say, "Thou Fool," shall be in danger of hell fire." - Matthew 5:22
that's awesome. i just want to clarify one thing...u said that homosexuality as an orientation is not a sin, i agree. but what about homosexual actions? i'd be very interested to hear your views, but i cannot return to the thread, so plz telegram me.

From your original post, you seem to be, and I quote:

"coming to the conclusion that the scriptures referencing what is considered "homosexual behavior" in Leviticus, Corinthians, and Romans is taken out of context for its true meaning. I've always believed that the Bible was referring to Lust, and not the Love"

I don't see how you can say modern societal values, i.e. the acceptability of homosexuality, and your own sexual orientation is not influencing your interpretation or reinterpretation of the Bible. I know these values have changed/varied over the centuries but in the 20th century, in the Western world, homosexuality has only been really acceptable for a relatively short period of time. Your reading, as you indicated in your original post, of the Bible suggested to you that homosexuality was wrong, (to some Christians and non-Christians it still is), and that it was indicated as such by the many religious tenets that you have read. But YOU, (and a small number of others), have interpreted their meaning to be indicating lust not love. That’s your interpretation, influenced, I believe, by your own sexual orientation to make your Christian faith more acceptable.

Believe what you want, we're all praying to the same God (Gods, depending on what you believe), and we’ll all inherent sinners anyway but I'm still unsure you can extract such meanings out of the Bible.

It is hardly a small number of others, first off. Secondly, let's just agree to disagree - because frankly, you keep saying the same thing over and over and I end up doing the same.