The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Who could give me some advice about being gay and being religious.

How about this for 'ill feeling' from the New Testament:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality" 1 Corinthians 6 9-10

or

"Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers,[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers--and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine" from 1 Timothy 1 9-10

or

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." From Jude 1:7

We still have endorsements of slavery, of course:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart." Ephisians 5-6

I could go on, things like divorce and so on...

MM

Homosexuality as perceived in the time the bible was written concerned Roman practices of taking young boys or slave men and using them as sexual slaves. That was the concept of homosexual acts. Try reading something other than your passion for hate and you may learn something.
 
I can equally teear apart each of your arguments. I realize you are on a mission but most of us in the other camp disagree with you and neither of us will end up being found to be correct.

Bottom line is the OP wants to know how to align homosexuality with Christianity so perhaps you missed the reading comprehension test we are all supposed to take when signing up. You have stated your opinion over and over and over and over until we all know what it is. Thanks for playing.
 
Those are not the four testaments. And it's questionnable to read 'homosexuality' as the word is from the 19th century AC.

PS : sodom and gomorrah have nothing to do with homosexuality but with breaching hospitality.
 
How about this for 'ill feeling' from the New Testament:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality" 1 Corinthians 6 9-10

or

"Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers,[For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnapers, liars, perjurers--and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine" from 1 Timothy 1 9-10

or

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." From Jude 1:7

We still have endorsements of slavery, of course:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart." Ephisians 5-6

I could go on, things like divorce and so on...

MM

Your interpretation of these selected phrases is indeed not what I (want to) believe.
You might find me stupid for picking and choosing what I want to believe.
I find you stupid for trying to tell me that I (as a Christian) am not entitled to do so.
I choose to live and read the bible by what Jesus said according to the 4 evangelists.
I choose to believe that Jesus' gospel can be seen as a founder of todays human right, which I believe to transcend all nations and people.
I choose to believe in "love thy neighbour". That's basically it.
If you tell me I can not have one (the above) without the other (being classified as a gay hater) that's your problem.
I'm telling you I can, I am, and many with me.
May I end with an Amen, just to piss you off ;) :p
 
Homosexuality as perceived in the time the bible was written concerned Roman practices of taking young boys or slave men and using them as sexual slaves. That was the concept of homosexual acts. Try reading something other than your passion for hate and you may learn something.

Er...well, can you provide different readings of those quotes? I am afraid my 1st Century AD Greek is not up to it, but the quotes in the King James Bible reads:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

So '...effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind'

I chose modern interpretations because they have a tendency to be a little more liberal. If you have any recommendations to further reading they would be appreciated.

Hate? That is a very strong word to use and if you believe that a critical analysis of religion is equivalent to hatred I would really question your sense of proportion.

But that is an frequent accusation I have had from believers who find themselves on the back foot. I think the expectation that religion needs exceptionally thick walls of respect in order to protect it from this sort of debate may be the root cause of it.

And, with these quotes we have neatly circled back to how and if Christianity is capable of living alongside Homosexuality without very large compromises being made on either side (such as celibacy or ignoring swathes of Biblical writings). If both New and Old Testament quotes are accurate reflections of Christianity then it is hard to see how. If they are not then what metric should people use for working out which quotes they should throw out and which they should abide by? And how do they know if they have got it right?

MM
 
Those are not the four testaments. And it's questionnable to read 'homosexuality' as the word is from the 19th century AC.

PS : sodom and gomorrah have nothing to do with homosexuality but with breaching hospitality.

So how would you explain the quote from Jude? I admit that my understanding was the same as yours, and I was happy to use that approach at gay hating God botherers. But, when one of them floored me with the statement from Jude I realised that in the intervening time between the writing of the two books the interpretation of that story may have changed, from one about hospitality in the Old Testament to an anti-gay one in the New Testament. I could not really square the contradiction in any other way save a mistake in translation, which does seem to be a continuing problem with the Bible: the Virgin Mary/the Young Girl Mary for example...

MM
 
1) Read the Bible (all of it, not just the nice fluffy bits)
2) Decide if you agree with what it says

Really doing that will leave one sad that society has to far to go to reach where the Bible wants us to be. We have a society that still runs on selfishness, force, greed, power, manipulation, deception, and the like, while the Bible advocates one that runs on love, peace, compassion, generosity, hospitality, openness, patience, kindness, mercy, faithfulness, and such.
 
@Jayden. The testaments also state that if a woman is not a virgin when she marries she should be put to death...I don't see Sarah Pallin looking worried by that one, so give yourself a break, eh? ..|
 
Which means that as a moral code it changes dependent on the changes in the Zeitgeist, which come from...where? That is the major problem that confronts all religions that place things down in books. Society moves on, the book stays the same. So apologists try to square the circle.

The problem with alleged words from God, are they open to interpretation? And how unambiguous does a statement have to be before it is taken to be something that cannot be reinterpreted. So can we re-interpret any of the ten commandments? Any aspect of Leviticus? If it is all open to interpretation then it becomes so elastic as to be meaningless. The challenge for any religious apologists is justifying where to draw the line.

And that is where wars begin. Not necessarily shooting and killing ones (but those as well) but wars of interpretation. How many Christian cults are there? How do they differ in their interpretations? Which one do you join and why? Once again, it comes down to either reading the bible, or just believing in the fluffy bits that accord with your prejudices, usually fed to you by someone else that salves your (non-Christian) beliefs about slavery being wrong, genocide being a bad idea and women being considered equal to men.

MM

Clearly you haven't read the Bible, or you'd realize that the book of Leviticus is merely of historical interest -- God said so in Acts.

The New Testament makes it clear that if you're reading it as a menu or shopping list, you're already wrong. That's the way you're reading it, because if you read it the way rabbi Paul the apostle demonstrated, you'll know it's about principles. God has always buried principles in the details, to -- so to speak -- separate the thoughtful and seeking from the robots and the self-justifying.

It was Christians who first fought against slavery, back in the second century already, because of the Bible -- because the principles make slavery unconscionable: the idea of owning the image of God is blasphemous, and as every human being is in the image of God, slavery is blasphemous. That's a very Christian idea that it took the rest of the world a while to catch up to, one that got buried for centuries while the unthinking and self-justifying took over. But then in the seventeenth century it gained traction again, finally leading to the end of slavery in Europe and a bit later in the U.S.

That same principle -- that each of us is made in the image of God -- augmented by the proclamation that God the Son died for everyone, tells us that the Catholic church holds the most reactionary position the Bible can tolerate: that gays have to be treated with respect and humanity, because when one persecutes the image of God, one risks persecuting the Image of God, risks the same cry that turned Saul of Tarsus into Paul the Apostle -- "Why do you persecute Me?" After all, Jesus died for everyone, and He plainly said that "as you have done to the least of these My brothers, you have done to Me"; all those for whom He died have to be counted His brothers -- leading to the strong suspicion that when someone runs around with a sign saying "God hates fags", he's actually saying, "God hates Jesus"... which probably doesn't come across too well in heaven.


JaydenLuke, Jesus made it very plain that it isn't about rules -- He broke them right and left, and when He gave an explanation it was always principle trumping rule. That shouldn't have been a surprise, since God through the Prophets said, "I hate all your feast days!" -- the very same feast days He commanded. A prophet today would tell the Christianists, the fundi-nazis, the same thing: "I hate and despise your Bible studies, your revivals, your crusades, says the Lord". He would point to Jesus, and say, "Be like Him."

That's how to be gay and religious: be like Him. And you won't find Him in all their rules and condemnations.
 
Those are not the four testaments. And it's questionnable to read 'homosexuality' as the word is from the 19th century AC.

PS : sodom and gomorrah have nothing to do with homosexuality but with breaching hospitality.

So, also, to clarify, we are ditching all the Old Testament, and virtually all of the New Testament except the four Gospels?

MM
 
Clearly you haven't read the Bible, or you'd realize that the book of Leviticus is merely of historical interest -- God said so in Acts.

The New Testament makes it clear that if you're reading it as a menu or shopping list, you're already wrong. That's the way you're reading it, because if you read it the way rabbi Paul the apostle demonstrated, you'll know it's about principles. God has always buried principles in the details, to -- so to speak -- separate the thoughtful and seeking from the robots and the self-justifying.

It was Christians who first fought against slavery, back in the second century already, because of the Bible -- because the principles make slavery unconscionable: the idea of owning the image of God is blasphemous, and as every human being is in the image of God, slavery is blasphemous. That's a very Christian idea that it took the rest of the world a while to catch up to, one that got buried for centuries while the unthinking and self-justifying took over. But then in the seventeenth century it gained traction again, finally leading to the end of slavery in Europe and a bit later in the U.S.

That same principle -- that each of us is made in the image of God -- augmented by the proclamation that God the Son died for everyone, tells us that the Catholic church holds the most reactionary position the Bible can tolerate: that gays have to be treated with respect and humanity, because when one persecutes the image of God, one risks persecuting the Image of God, risks the same cry that turned Saul of Tarsus into Paul the Apostle -- "Why do you persecute Me?" After all, Jesus died for everyone, and He plainly said that "as you have done to the least of these My brothers, you have done to Me"; all those for whom He died have to be counted His brothers -- leading to the strong suspicion that when someone runs around with a sign saying "God hates fags", he's actually saying, "God hates Jesus"... which probably doesn't come across too well in heaven.


JaydenLuke, Jesus made it very plain that it isn't about rules -- He broke them right and left, and when He gave an explanation it was always principle trumping rule. That shouldn't have been a surprise, since God through the Prophets said, "I hate all your feast days!" -- the very same feast days He commanded. A prophet today would tell the Christianists, the fundi-nazis, the same thing: "I hate and despise your Bible studies, your revivals, your crusades, says the Lord". He would point to Jesus, and say, "Be like Him."

That's how to be gay and religious: be like Him. And you won't find Him in all their rules and condemnations.

It is always nice to meet someone who has the answer to that hoary old question 'what would Jesus do?' But, for your sake I hope you are right as the punishments for getting it wrong are quite eye-watering.

Slavery? Well, if you continue on with Ephesians 7 onwards it outlines how and why a slave should obey it's Master. There is no condemnation of slavery in the Bible. Of course, you can return to the claim that I should not be reading it literally but as principles buried in stories. I guess that is the only way liberal Christians can deal with it as there is so much in that book that is just plain unpleasant: point to the nice bits, ignore the unpleasant or difficult bits and when challenged as to how they decide which they choose retreat to the previously prepared position of claiming that it is all about love and the actual written words do not matter.

Could you provide me with the reference for the Paul passage? It sounds interesting and if that is the case it undermines every argument used by Fundamentalists...

MM
 
Dejavudoo

At the risk of veering dangerously off-topic, this is quite and interesting and seemingly well-researched article

http://epistle.us/hbarticles/neareast.html

MM

There's some stuff in there I didn't know -- good link. It reinforces the view that what Leviticus is forbidding is temple prostitution, not homosexual relationships. My one critique is that the writer is using the term "homosexual" in a sloppy way, sometimes meaning casual relationships and other times apparently committed ones.

One observation: if homosexuality -- in terms of being gay -- were such a detested thing, why aren't there condemnations of the Philistines for it in the midst of those wars?


At any rate, this strongly suggests that there really wasn't a problem in ancient Israel with gay relationships, which means there wasn't much of a problem with being gay and religious.
 
Well, the problem is there are numerous incidents in the Bible (contradictory of itself that it is) where God thwarts positive human development. Tower of Babel is a nice illustration.

Not really. The Babel account fits with a theme of ancient religious literature, where the gods or God decide humans are getting ahead of themselves -- what we might call gaining technology we're not morally or socially ready to handle -- so intervention is made to steer mankind away from danger.

One has to wonder if God really thinks we were ready for atomic weapons.....
 
But yes I can. Old Testament is full of advices for the Jews of that time. What doesn't apply anymore, doesn't apply anymore. Not that difficult to understand I guess.

EXCELLENT point!

The entire Mosaic Code is recognized even by Jews today as having been for that time, in that place, among a people closely related to each other.
 
Wow I didn't mean to start such a large argument, but thank you to the people who are willing to help and have offered their knowledge. I will reply to everyone who said they would like to talk to me soon. I work a lot so I don't have much time to come on here but once I get the chance (most likely in a couple days) I will respond. I will try to do it today but if not expect to hear from me Monday or Tuesday. thank you all again.
 
Lol...really...go have some fun!

Or, if you want to do something else, you could tell me about something 'Good' that could only be done by a religion.

MM

From a Christian perspective, that's not possible. Humans are made in the image of God, and so all are capable of good actions. Nowhere is it said that there are any good actions reserved for just God's people -- it's just that God's people are reminded that those are what they're supposed to do, and are enabled to do them more often.*




*success not guaranteed
 
There's some stuff in there I didn't know -- good link. It reinforces the view that what Leviticus is forbidding is temple prostitution, not homosexual relationships. My one critique is that the writer is using the term "homosexual" in a sloppy way, sometimes meaning casual relationships and other times apparently committed ones.

One observation: if homosexuality -- in terms of being gay -- were such a detested thing, why aren't there condemnations of the Philistines for it in the midst of those wars?


At any rate, this strongly suggests that there really wasn't a problem in ancient Israel with gay relationships, which means there wasn't much of a problem with being gay and religious.


Or, the laws we have passed down to us were written by the equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church...Thing is, there were also more than just Jews in Palestine after their return from Babylon as the Persian King's satellites. Part of the Persian Empire, the Achaemenids had no problem with male concubines at the very least, and there is no condemnation anywhere in Persian writings of 'the act'.

I have heard the Leviticus option that this is solely in relation to temple prostitutes. But that needs to be contextualised with all the other quotes that condemn male-male sexual relationships. It is a tough ask to explain all of them away in a similar vein. I think you can excuse his sloppiness as if he had not used that term it could have been very inaccessible.

MM
 
Being religious is silly. Religion is all about tradition and control. Have faith and find your own path if that's what suits you. Do go to a church that tells you you're going to hell.....

LOL

Being a Christian is about experiencing life more fully, about freedom and rejoicing in everything God made.

It's also, by Jesus' own example, about ignoring stupid rules that get in the way of being loving and compassionate.
 
Back
Top