Interesting Biblical Perspective on Homosexuality in the Bible.

[RJ Connors]

Just my inner ramblings for the day.

The religious right is always jumping up and down about how G-d is all against homosexuality and he's going to knock all of us dead because of it, and on and on and on. OK, whatever, these people, who constantly claim that a mere mortal cannot possible understand G-d, seem to know an awful lot about what he likes and dislikes. I wonder if they know whether or not G-d takes his coffee black or with creme and sugar.

But anyway, whenever I run into these kinds of people the first thing I ask is,"Well, what did Jesus have to say about homosexuality"? This is where I get blank stares or they start going into convulsions, because the answer is, if they actually do know something about their Bible, nothing. Jesus had zero, zip, zilch, nada, nil, to say about homosexuality.

I told one fundie a while back that I just didn't get why conservative Christians were so preoccupied with homosexual sex. (along with heterosexual sex which apparently they abhor that too unless it is for procreation), I told him that I really didn’t think about it too much but then again I'm not gay. It would seem also, based on scripture, Jesus didn't think about it too much either.

This is where they immediately resort to Leviticus and such in the Old Testament, or as I prefer to call it the Hebrew scriptures, or the Torah. I do that because I think that the phrase Old Testament has an ingrained cultural anti-Semitism in that, “your religion is old, outdated, meaningless, while ours, the New Testament, is the new and improved version”. Or as I like to refer to it, Bible 2.0

So they grab the Torah scriptures which they claim abhors homosexuality although several century’s worth of Rabbinical scholarship most often disagrees with that position. Isn't it interesting that when an O.T. cite of scripture works against the religious right they claim that we no longer follow the O.T. And if you are really dealing with an fundamentalist intellectual, (isn't that a contradiction in terms), they will say grace relieved us of the burden of following the O.T., hence we only have to do 10 of the 613 commandments, or 1.6% of them. Gives one a lot of free time I suppose.

But then, they turn around and if the O.T. supports their position, well then we are bound by Gawd to follow it. Kind of like you can tell weather or not they will claim a support for state rights, or federal rights, depending on which one will work out better for them.

So back to the main issue, lets suppose that the Torah Hebrew scripture does support the idea that homosexuality is an abomination to G-d. There are 6 passages they cite in this argument. One also finds that the Bible also has 6 passages that pertain to the absolute necessity of having accurate scales for use in commerce. To insure that you are dealing straight with you brother and not taking him for a ride.

Viewed in that context it would seem that the importance of homosexuality for G-d is right up there with the selling of produce. Which wouldn’t seem to me to be a front burner issue.

But then again, what do I know, I'm not as theologically well turned or astute as my fundamentalist brothers in the reading of the Biblios.

[TlalocW]

1. I just ask them if they eat shrimp or are wearing polyblend clothes

Those are also listed as abominations before God, and if they're a "good" fundy, then the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and there's no cherry-picking. I've yelled a fundamentalist down by strongly pointing out that because he's eaten shrimp, he's as much an abomination (since there's no scale of how bad an abomination each offense is) to God as a homosexual, and there was no way in hell that I - a straight, seafood hating, all cotton wearing man was going to listen to any Biblical interpretation from someone God says is - at least - as bad as a homosexual.

Of course, I don't really feel that way, but sarcasm and their own attitudes used to make religious nutcases' synapses pop and fizzle is no vice. :)

TlalocW

[Maat]

9. Hey ...

I am seafood-hating (much to my family's chagrin)!

:)

[TlalocW]

14. What was it like coming out to your family?

I was born and raised in Kansas and have spent the last 14 years in Oklahoma. I've only seen both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in the last 7 years of my life (I'm 36). I've never liked shrimp, but I can stomach tuna and like tilapia and salmon sometimes, have eaten calamari (didn't want to) and enjoy sushi every now and then. I refuse to eat crab or lobster since as Dave Barry noted in a column many years ago, they're essentially big bugs. He called a marine biologist and asked...

"So are lobsters just big cockroaches or what?"
"They're in the same phylum," she said.
Did you hear that? The same phylum.

TlalocW

[Maat]

15. Well, I'm not gay; I'm a supporter of the GLBT community,

primarily through PFLAG (www.pflag.org - Parents, Family, Friends of Lesbians and Gays).

My dad was a closeted gay man, who drank like a fish for 50 years, and could never be honest with me about things.

I, you will laugh, was born in Newport Beach, Ca.; so, I should like seafood.

I hate it!

I would love to hear your story; was it difficult being raised in the Bible Belt?

[TlalocW]

16. No, I meant as a seafood-hater. :)

Gotcha!

I'm not gay either, but I enjoy openly mocking the Bible Belt people.

TlalocW

[Maat]

17. HeeHee.

You got me.

I'm one of those moms - well, a lot goes over my head.

My hubby REALLY enjoys poking fun at Bible Belt people - he has a bunch of relatives living in the Kansas/Oklahoma-border area (they moved back there going after a job).

:hi:

[closeupready]

39. So are cockroaches the next luxury food item?

:rofl:

[Yes We Did]

19. Yes! Those Shrimp Eating Polyblend-Clothe-Wearing Assholes are going to burn!

:rofl:

[bluedawg12]

2. Leviticus is often cited

and I read on a DU thread a few days ago that the proscription in Leviticus that is so often quoted was actually about slave owners not sleeping with slaves, a clear power imbalance, and not about free males sleeping with each other.

Has anyone heard that interpretation?

As far as same sex relationships, I don't believe lesbians are mentioned at all.

And no where does Jesus speak about homosexuality and seemed a tad more concerned about poverty. I believe that NT mentions Paul aka Saul, who brought with him the attitudes of that time and region in his epistles.

Interesting and do agree, about selective reading, 10% of laws is very selective.


This is about power, politics and money -- the rw needs a scapegoat to unify their base esp. now as they have no party platform and are in disarray.

[bluedawg12]

3. I found it - Leviticus was about domination

more than abomination:
.......

http://www.freeingthespirit.org/Homosexuality&Bible4.htm

First, we must realize that primitive people did not have a concept of homosexuality as it exists today. This was a patriarchal society, where men ruled and women were property.

Engaging in sex was not generally about love and tenderness. Sex was the means of procreation, of course, and it could also be about sharing mutual pleasure. But sex was also an able weapon of domination.

Victors after battles often forced themselves sexually on defeated foes to humiliate them.

Owners could force themselves sexually on their male slaves in acts of domination. For a free man to lie with another free man within the tribe or community was to dominate him–to reduce him to the status of a woman–it would dishonor him, so one wasn't to do so.

In keeping with the theme of idolatry with respect to verse 22, note the instruction above in verse three not to do what the people who live in Canaan do. Remember that the Hebrews were a nomadic people, while the Canaanites were agricultural. The Canaanite religion revolved around the fertility of the land, as well as of the people. The expression of that fertility in their religion involved going to the temple of the god or goddess and engaging in sexual activity with a (usually same sex) priest or priestess employed at the temple. So, verse 22 instructs the Hebrews not to lie with a man as a woman in a cultic sense , because it is toebah–it is abomination–it is idolatry.

In the same way, verse 23 instructs the people, and especially women, not to engage in sex with animals, because it was considered a form of idolatry. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia notes:

This anti-bestiality proscription may well have been formulated to distinguish the Israelites from the Canaanites, who are thought by some to have practiced a ritualistic copulation with beasts.
(Vol. 1, pp. 443)

In the KJV of Deuteronomy, 23:17 we find the following: There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. The wording in modern translations, such as the NIV however, reads very differently: No Israelite man or woman is to become a temple prostitute. What caused the wording to change? When did a sodomite (assumed by many churches to mean homosexual), become a temple–or cult–prostitute?

At the time the KJV was written, no one in those days had ever heard of cult prostitution. On the other hand the NIV, written after the discovery, demonstrates in the above verse just one of the changes made because of the findings in Ugarit.

The Bible Almanac copyrighted 1980 states:

Fertility religions such as Ugarit’s place great emphasis on reproduction in the land, in crops, and in the womb. This emphasis helps explain their stress on sexual unions. The Bible and the Canaanite texts at Ugarit use the words qadesh and qedesha, which mean "holy one"–the first masculine, the second feminine. At Ugarit these "holy ones" were homosexual priests and priestesses who acted as prostitutes. We find strong Hebrew reaction against this "cultic prostitution" in passages such as Leviticus 19:29, "Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a harlot," and Deuteronomy 23:17, "There shall be no whore (qedesha) of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite (qadesh) of the sons of Israel." (pp 146)

We have seen here in the modern translation of Deuteronomy 23:18, the condemnation was not a condemnation of homosexuality (sodomy), but of cultic prostitution...

.........

[Irishonly]

40. That's what I was taught

After Thanksgiving I have just about decided the world may be a better place without hateful Bible thumpers. They are scary.

[RJ Connors]

11. 10% of laws is very selective reading

Actually it's a lot less than 10%. G-d gave to the Hebrews 613 commandments that they must follow. Since the Christians parred it down to 10 commandments, the commandments I like to call the short list, when you divide 10 by 613 you get about 1.6% rounded.

As I mentioned to another poster you might enjoy A.J. Jacobs new book, A Year of Living Biblically. It is a great book and covers a lot of these topics plus a lot of others that is pretty humorous.

:toast:

[JDPriestly]

4. Actually, Jesus sort of did say something about homosexuals in my experience.

In Matthew, Chapter 19, Jesus responds to questions from the Pharisees about marriage and adultery. Jesus explains "Whosever shall put away his wife, except it be fore fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. That was Matthew 19:9.

In Matthew 9:10, the Bible says that "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry."

Matthew 9:11, "But hs said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."

And then, in Matthew 9:12, Jesus continues: "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

That was the St. James translation of the Bible. In the Standard Revised edition, that verse reads: "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

"eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb"? "eunuchs who have been so from birth,: Who would those be?

My interpretation is that when Jesus' disciples start talking about how maybe they shouldn't marry since they don't want to commit adultery, Jesus kind of teases them about, well, they could become "eunuchs." I have to interpret eunuchs so born from their mother's womb or from birth as either natural born homosexuals or people with poorly formed sexual organs.

Did you know that the first non-Jew to convert to Christianity was a eunuch. Read The Acts 8:26-40.

See also, Isaiah, Chapter 56, 3-5

The New Testament is positive toward eunuchs which, by Jesus' definition would, it seems to me, include homosexuals. Jesus discussed various categories of eunuchs and could have condemned one or more of those categories. He didn't. That speaks volumes to me.

[johnnypneumatic]

7. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

interesting quote, sounds like he is saying, hey, different strokes for different folks, it's all good. if you don't like it, don't do it.

[Jamastiene]

5. Those passages in the Old Testament are not even really

about being gay. What they refer to is domination and rape, not consensual sex.

The only thing Jesus upheld from the Old Testament was the 10 Commandments and His commandment; Do Unto Others. That's it.

The "religious" based argument against us is nothing more than hate mongers who never even open their Bibles. They are people who do the bidding of megalomaniac political operatives in the pulpits. Those people preaching hatred are not the real deal. Never did God say He hated his creations nor did Jesus ever hate anyone or instruct any of His followers to hate anyone.

The reason I bring that last sentence up is this:
Those who use Christianity (or any other religion) as a method to dominate, discriminate against, hate, and abuse other people need to question who their real master is, because it's not Jesus. He never said to hate. What he DID SAY was to love one another.

I wish I could find Rev Cheesehead when she has some time. She knows how to explain it way better than I do. She's great to talk to about the Bible and she is definitely a friend to the GLBT community. I adore her. Y'all probably would too. I just haven't seen her around in a while. I miss her.

[RJ Connors]

10. Oh, you're pretty on the mark for most of your cites

As you and some others have pointed out the O.T. references that the religious right uses in their attacks is really about domination and the humiliation of others. The idea of an alternative lifestyle, or even of love in the modern day romantic sense, was just not part of the culture.

I would disagree that Jesus said we only have to follow the 10 commandants as he said, "I have come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Now he may have had is top ten favorites, kind of like Dave's top ten list, but within the political climate in which he existed to claim that the Hebrews only needed to follow 10 of the commandments would have got him executed much faster than he was ultimately able to do.

I don't know if you have seen the book, A Year of Living Biblically, by A.J. Jacobs, but if you get an opportunity to read it A.J. addresses many of these topics in a great and humorous way. It really is a great book.

:toast:

[Jamastiene]

12. Thank you. I love to read.

I love reading and this topic fascinates me. Believe it or not, I spent the first part of my life tortured by people who use the Bible as a weapon of hate and the last few years being healed with the help of those like the lady I mentioned here on DU.

When I was growing up, my mother sent me to a Christian school up until sixth grade. She kept me in that school until she heard about the racism they were teaching and the pedophilia that was starting to come out. She took me out then. I heard that school was finally integrated now, but as of 1982, it was not. There was a lot of bad stuff that happened to the children there.

The thing that messed me up, was that at home we went by the local Methodist church, which was more liberal and that school (the only one of its kind in this town at that time) was extremely opposite. So, at home, I got a loving rendition of Jesus and at school I got the hellfire and brimstone and racist and sexist stuff. It really messed me up for a long time.

I went through a period of time where I was beyond self destructive. It got really bad. I went under on more than one occasion when I didn't care if I lived or died. All I ever thought about at that time in my life was that in the early years of my childhood, this Jesus character was nice and kind and gentle. Then in my later childhood years, he was represented in such a way that reading the New Testament wasn't something I could even bring myself to do. I couldn't even stand to hear anything about Christianity at all.

It got pretty desperate one night and I emailed a preacher about 100 miles west of where I live. I really let him have it too. I had found the web site for his church, the MCC of Charlotte. I don't think he is there any more though. I haven't been able to find him in a long time. Back then though, his bio page and his sermons went on and one about how God loved gay people. He just seemed to be saying the opposite of what I was hearing in town since our local Methodist church got taken over by rabid right wingers. It was like I had nowhere I could go after that church went from love to hate. So, I let this poor guy have it. I told him God does hate us and that he was just going to go act like he liked us until we let our guard down, then he was going to hurt us.

It turned out that he was gay too. He actually had a degree in theology. He had studied a lot of the older versions of the Bible from a trained scholastic point of view. He actually knew some Hebrew and Greek too. He blew my mind. We ended up talking back and forth for the better part of a year through email. He believed in gay marriage and gay rights all the way and was gay himself. He said we needed to quit believing the ones who hate us. They are wrong. It's not about hate.

My damage was so bad, that the fact that I quit cussing him out was a major breakthrough. He put up with me for about 3 months before I quit cussing at him. At that point, I just started asking him questions. I kept my distance though. I was too hurt to go back to Christianity. To some degree, I still am. I do understand a lot more now.

I have kept my distance but I do to get it through my head that there are some Christians out there who aren't haters. It has taken me the better part of 5 years since that happened to get to a point where I can at least acknowledge that and read the New Testament and other literature related to Christianity. It is still an uphill battle with reminders like the things people are saying regarding Prop 8 and other gay rights issues. Every time another one of the anti-gay rights people spouts off some hate rhetoric, it sets me back again and takes some time to work back out of it.

Now, I consider myself an agnostic who is still interested in reading all I can from all angles when it comes to spirituality. Hate in the name of religion hurts a lot of us really to the point of breaking us. The hate needs to stop. It is too painful for most of us until we can reach a point where we have come into contact with nicer people who represent Christianity without the anti-gay rhetoric.

I really appreciate the book suggestion. I will try to find a copy I can afford and read it.

[RJ Connors]

34. That is a great story

And sorry it took so long for me to get back to you but when I first saw your message I could tell that you put some real time and thought into it so I didn't want to respond until I had time to give it the attention I thought it deserved.

But I know what you mean about the hellfire, and brimstone types of church. I myself was subjected to a Southern Baptist church upbringing which is an environment that I believe if we really lived by the rule of law what they do to children in those places would be seen as psychological abuse of a minor. Which is of course in addition to the physical abuse that goes on in some of them. But by the same token I am not so political naive to think that will ever be the case, or at least not in my lifetime. Saying that I am reminded how Thomas Jefferson in some of his papers expressed his thought that within 50 years or so religion would die out in America. Well clearly, even with such an extraordinary intelligence as Jefferson possessed on that issue he was dead wrong.

You are correct that even though some churches at the national or the topmost ecclesiastical level can be gay tolerant, that doesn't always translate to the same opinion at the Congregational or Parish level as at that level local customs and regional attitudes come very much into to play.

After I left home as a teenager I probably didn't set foot, except for marriages and funerals, into a Christian church for 30 years. I have recently, in the last couple of years, attended with my family an Episcopalian church in my area. A big part of my reasoning for even taking a look at them was because of the ordination as a bishop of Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest, in New Hampshire. But I live in a very, very conservative county, in a very conservative state, although they went blue for Obama this year. But they are not real keen to gays here even though they are civil, in the Church, about it. (I mean this isn't the south I live in :-) ).

So I have decided that I should take it upon myself to help this people up to the understanding of the national level. While I am not gay myself like I tell these people I am not a fan of discrimination and persecution of a specific class of people who do not share the majority opinion. While many like to structure this argument, or more specifically propaganda, as a moral issue, it is at the governmental and legal level a civil rights issue. Same as what I lived through in the 60's. I am also very much a believer that if I don't support the rights of others, of which I may not be in their group, it none the less still puts my rights in potential jeopardy. (The old, but when they came for me there was no one left to defend me, argument)

Anyway, I think if you find it you will really enjoy A.J.'s book and I don't know about your local library but at mine if a book is on the N.Y Times bestseller's list, which A.J.'s is, they will purchase it. It would be neat to get some other people interested and maybe get up a discussion group on PalTalk or the like.

Well got to go, thanks for you post and remember, "Don't let the sonsofbitches get you down". :toast:

[Jamastiene]

37. I like that.

"Don't let the sonsofbitches get you down."

And you are so right about what a lot of hellfire and brimstone types do to children mentally and physically. Some of it happens here. I remember a case back in the 90s here in my hometown where someone used "spare the rod spoil the child" as a reason why they locked their kid in a doghouse on a night that was freezing cold. They did charge them with child abuse in that case, but what did that child have to go through that night and at other times the authorities did not know about? It had to be horrible for that child leading up to that night as well as that night.

Maybe, in time, with a lot of work, the majority will stop demonizing gay people. As of right now, it is an uphill battle, but it is worth the effort, imo.

:toast: to you too. :D

[laconicsax]

6. Anyone citing Leviticus should be sure they're also following the other rules.

-What to do if a non-anointed priest breaks a 'do not do this' rule: Lev 4:28-end (hint: it has to do with sacrificing a goat).
-What to do if anyone withholds testimony, touches someone or something 'unclean,' takes an oath, then realizes they did wrong: Lev 5:1-14 (hint: more animal sacrifice).
-What to do if anyone commits a trespass against God: Lev 5:15-end (if you guessed animal sacrifice, you're half right)
-How to properly sacrifice animals: Lev chapters 6-7
-Eats only animals with hooves that chew their cud, only seafood with fins and scales, locust, crickets, and grasshoppers. (Lev chapter 11)
-Remembers that women are unclean 1-2 weeks after giving birth depending on the sex of the child and makes sure she sacrifices a lamb, pigeon or turtledove afterwords (Lev chapter 12).
-How to diagnose leprosy and 'treat' the afflicted (Lev chapter 13-14)
-What to do in the case of a plague in the land of Canaan.
-Follow ALL the rules concerning genital discharge in chapter 15.
-Never see anyone naked (Lev 18-20)
-Keep the distinction between two men having sex (abhorrence) and bestiality (confusing).
-Don't let cattle interbreed, don't mix crops in one field, don't mix linen and wool (Lev 19:19)
-Only eat circumcised fruit (Lev 19:23-25)
-Don't drink the communion wine (Lev 19:26)
-Don't cut your hair or beard or get a tattoo (Lev 19:27-28)
-Proper conduct around Molech (Lev 20:1-5)
-What to do if you break the rules in chapters 18-20
-How to avoid and shun the handicapped (Lev 21:16-end)

Etc, etc.

[Creideiki]

13. The only New Testament Revision

to the laws in Leviticus involved proscriptions on what was eaten. It was the revelation Peter received that it's not what we take into our bodies that make us unclean, but what we do with our bodies.

[bluedawg12]

18. Leviticus seems to have been mis-translated

if the sites I linked here a correct.

Here they are ranting about homosexuality in 2008 and the cultural context was enslaved warriors after battle 3,000 years ago.

[laconicsax]

20. I prefer to use the JPS translation for the Old Testament.

How can you go wrong with a room full of rabbis and Biblical scholars debating the most accurate translation of the original Hebrew over a period of 30 years?

[bluedawg12]

23. What is the JPS?

Is the translation I mentioned correct?

[laconicsax]

25. JPS=Jewish Publication Society

"Correct" is very subjective and I don't consider myself qualified to make that assessment. I simply trust a translation by committee of the original text to possibly be closer to the original meaning.

Example: The JPS translation of Genesis 1:1 is "When God began to create heaven and earth" rather than "In the beginning God..." and that's the biggest difference I've seen between the JPS version and other English translations. The rest are mostly choosing one word over another and dropping the flowery KJV language for modern prose.

[bluedawg12]

26. Thank you.

>>Example: The JPS translation of Genesis 1:1 is "When God began to create heaven and earth" rather than "In the beginning God<<
BTW- that translation difference is critical to the debate on the Big Bang theory.

If God made earth when, then it could be argued something came before, if it was in the begining then nothing came before, no big bang. BUt, that's OT.

Thanks!

[RJ Connors]

35. You and me both.

The west still hasn't figured out, after all these years, how to read the Old Testament, or my preferred title, the Hebrew scriptures.

[laconicsax]

21. That and the pronouncement that the Mosaic Law no longer applied.

I always found it odd that a the New Testament mentions fairly often that the Jesus' death meant an end of the Mosaic Covenant, yet portions of said Law are cited as still binding by those who follow the New Testament.

[bluedawg12]

22. That's a great question

I never quite understood why the NT is not a stand alone book.

I assumed it was because early followers of Jesus were actually not gentile and they were a sect of Judaism and then when gentiles were recruited, the OT became sort of the historic preamble to the NT and also because of the prophesies regarding the messiah being from the house of David.

So, we have modern days Xtians reading the Torah in bad translation and then co-opting it for their own theology as a kind of hybrid?

BTW- this has done Jews no favors in terms of history,what was a matter of internal politics between Judea and Rome 1975 years ago has become the "passion" and that caused pogroms.

[bluedawg12]

8. St. Paul was never married and was not for marriage

he pretty much said, but if you can't take it and your blood boils then, well, maybe it is better to be married.


Here's some more:

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_marriage.htm

Various ceremonies and feasts accompanied the wedding day at different times in history, but the wedding was not performed, sanctioned or blessed by religious officials. As far as is known, there was no exchange of marriage vows, and our commonly used marriage vows do not come from the Bible. The marriage was neither a civil nor a religious matter, but numerous religious obligations came as a result.


Marriage was instituted by God as a lifelong commitment (Genesis 2:18-24, Matthew 19:3-61, 1 Timothy 4:1-5).

Levirate marriage was practiced in Old Testament times. If a man died leaving no male heir, his brother was required to marry his widow and produce children (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). This, and other forms of polygamy, were acceptable in Old Testament times, although only wealthy men could afford multiple wives. King Solomon was the most notable polygamist with his 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).

Institution of Marriage

Marriage was instituted by God as a lifelong commitment (Genesis 2:18-24, Matthew 19:3-61, 1 Timothy 4:1-5).

In Old Testament times, everyone was expected to be married and have children (Proverbs 18:22, Jeremiah 29:6).

However, Jesus was unmarried and said remaining unmarried (celibacy) was a good choice for those who could accept that life and devote themselves to God (Matthew 19:10-12).

The apostle Paul was also unmarried. He said remaining unmarried was a good and holy alternative, but it is better to marry than to be tempted into immorality by passion (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).

Peter and many of the other apostles were married (Matthew 8:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5), so marriage is compatible with committed service to God.


....

Polygamy, single men never married after a certain age? * cough* and oh yeah, some married people too. Not a very traditional view of marriage in the olden days.

[JackBeck]

24. Interesting thing about the United States is that our elected officials

Take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the Bible or any other religious text.

That should be the end of the conversation right then and there.

[bluedawg12]

36. I don't even mind when they say

that their faith informs their life and decisions,when running for office.

I do mind when people justify public policy decisions based on their particular brand of theology .

[ShenandoahAspen]

27. I still consider myself Christian, and Baptist, but..

I'm considering leaving religion altogether. Especially after this proposition H8 bullshit. God, why are so many Christians narrow-minded? People like my mother, my brother, who I have to deal with on a daily basis would be crushed and furious if I came out to them -- I almost think they would disown me. I tried having a discussion about homosexuality being natural last year and they both kind of got angry with me. My best friend, who is quite a bit older than me and is like a second mother to me -- is a hard core Democrat but somewhat religious. I'm not sure what her views are on homosexuality. I am just really struggling right now. I was raised a Christian, and Baptist but their hate for anyone not STRAIGHT just has me in tears. I live in a very red part of North Carolina, and people here are so narrow-minded. I wish more people -- like my mother and brother -- followed Jesus' teachings more. Why aren't more CHRISTIANS like CHRIST? Sorry to be such a downer but this is something I am really struggling with right now. :scared:

[bluedawg12]

28. It seems like a tough situation

you are caught in. The best thing I can think of is to find someone you can talk to about this who is not judgmental.

Take care and be safe...

[ShenandoahAspen]

29. Thanks for the advice.

I have a therapist I see regularly -- I may bring up the subject with her. Starting in January I will be seeing her every two weeks. Only problem is, I don't see her again until then, and there's really no one around I can talk to. DU is the only thing keeping me sane right now... LOL.

[bluedawg12]

30. I think DU is the only thing

that keeps many of us sane! LOL

[auntsue]

32. gay is ok

I feel your pain.  It's so hard to be with a family that
openly rejects who you are and they don't even know it. I was
raised Catholic and when I realized I was gay it was a big
shock and I went through a lot of stuff trying to come to
terms with it.
I finally realized that I am a very moral person and I have a
conscience.  I know in my gut when something is wrong.  If a
clerk gives me too much change - I give it back.  I would
never hook up bootleg cable. I scraped a really nice car with
my old heap and waited for the owner to come out so I could
take care of it.  I give blood and platelets at the Red Cross.
 I visit sick people etc - all this to say I know wrong when I
see it.  
When I was with my former partner (I'm single for now) I
checked my gut feelings and It was RIGHT oh so very right.  I
am a child of GOD and GOD doesn't make junk.  God made me this
way so it must be the way god wants me to be.
Two things I take from the Bible 
 Matthew 7  "Why do you concern your self with the speck
in you neighbor's eye - do you not see the log in your own
eye."  Which i take to mean that people should tend to
their own business and not judge their neighbors.
he other is "love your neighbor as yourself" 
Stay strong sister - love yourself and look for like minded
women in your area - maybe your counselor will know of a
group.

[RJ Connors]

31. I almost think they would disown me.

If that's where their at, you might be better off if they did.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================
[center]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/grovelbot_01.jpg

This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is 
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from
our members 
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[link:www.democraticunderground.com/donate.html|http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/clickhere2donate.gif][/center]

[dmz]

38. Are you the RJ Connors who wrote about The Erasue of the Sentence

If so, I am thinking about going for a tenure-track position and want to study/champion/extend the work of Francis Christensen. Been asking around if this would be a problem.