Girlie-men

[shinchy]

I think it's easier to be pre-occupied with something if it's been turned into the thou shalt not*.

If that were truly the source of the problem, Shin, then the Pro-murder, Pro-bear-false-witness, Pro-adultry and Pro-rob-your-neighbor movement would be right up there with the pro-gay movement.

I think the pro-murder movement has already been effective: wars (including our more recent ones), the dropping of an A-bomb on Hiroshima, the American bombing of Dresden,The Inquisition, the murder of heretics (which Calvin himself was stangely guilty of, being a heretic himself in the eyes of the Catholic church, the death penalty,.

Bearing false witness - practiced by our government regardless of who's in office. Everyone else is prosecuted for perjury.

Rob your neighbor - routinely practiced by a lot of corporations (i.e. Enron).

Adultry - more common and more implicitly accepted than we'd like to admit.
So many people we supposedly respect have affairs and everyone seems to look the other way. And we don't have to look to far for an example, even if we all don't respect him now.

Everything above seems to have some unspoken, unofficial stamp of approval by the American public.

Sorry, gay rights is nothing compared to the above.

[outdeep]

I think it's easier to be pre-occupied with something if it's been turned into the thou shalt not*.

If that were truly the source of the problem, Shin, then the Pro-murder, Pro-bear-false-witness, Pro-adultry and Pro-rob-your-neighbor movement would be right up there with the pro-gay movement.

I think the pro-murder movement has already been effective: wars (including our more recent ones), the dropping of an A-bomb on Hiroshima, the American bombing of Dresden,The Inquisition, the murder of heretics (which Calvin himself was stangely guilty of, being a heretic himself in the eyes of the Catholic church, the death penalty,.

Bearing false witness - practiced by our government regardless of who's in office. Everyone else is prosecuted for perjury.

Rob your neighbor - routinely practiced by a lot of corporations (i.e. Enron).

Adultry - more common and more implicitly accepted than we'd like to admit.
So many people we supposedly respect have affairs and everyone seems to look the other way. And we don't have to look to far for an example, even if we all don't respect him now.

Everything above seems to have some unspoken, unofficial stamp of approval by the American public.

Sorry, gay rights is nothing compared to the above.

I understand that sin is prevelant thoughout society and it encompasses more than just the sin of homosexuality.

What I was getting at is this:  You made the point below that the homosexual preoccupation with sex was because the Bible forbids it.   What the point of my comment is is that the Bible's prohibition of sex outside of marriage does not cause the homosexual's preoccupation with sex any more than the Bible's prohibition of murder cause more murders.

All the law does is illuminate that behavior and attitudes as wrong.  It is not the "thou shalt not" that is the cause.  It is not the "thou shalt not" that is the problem.  It is the inclination of our hearts that rebell against the "thou shalt nots" that is at issue.

I'm off camping for the weekend.  See you Monday.

[delila]

I don't think homosexuality is a good or a bad thing. It does not qualify them for sainthood nor does it make them the devil. If it's consensual, it does not hurt anyone.

The results of all these studies show that ...  Homosexual men have dozens, hundreds, even in some cases thousands of sex partners.  The so-called "committed relationships" are shown to be largely a myth.

Thomas Maddux

I think this is funny.  The research I've read is similar.  Men, homosexual or not, are generally don't stick to one relationship. But what you are describing, is not unique to men who do men, but extends to men who do women too.  AS for Aids, like other std's, is generally spread by men to women and children too, from what I understand.
d

[David Mauldin]

Delila,

    You are right.  The studies done on Homosexual men that Tom is referring to focus on one type of Gay man.  The "typical" man!, Gay or Straight, who goes to bars and has one thing on his mind. (My friends in High School, my own brother- I could go on and tell you many stories that are forbidden on this B.B.) These studies neglect (as the Bible does also) the thousands of Gays who behave in a much more committed way.

[Mark C.]

Hi Shin,

  I agree that your manner on the BB has been courteous and I am glad that you continue to talk with us here; especially since you understand that many defend Evangelical Christianity here, and the Biblical standards of morality that it embraces.

  The comments that I am about to make are not for the purposes of debate (and certainly not attack), but that they might be a blessing to you, and others for whom the Bible has become an enemy, instead of the friend that it should be.

  I am not a homosexual, but I have engaged in sinful behavior that the Bible also condemns.  There are many failings in my life and the Bible teaches that "I will reap what I sow."   Though I am saved by grace, grace without personal honesty is only a theology; not an experience.

  One thing that blocks the experience of grace in our lives is when we reject the Biblical standards of righteousness.  I say this, not trying to give you a lecture, but as an individual who has done this myself, and will probably fall prey to it again.

 The only difference between us may be that I continue to struggle against what the Bible defines as sin in my life, vs. just accepting the fact that my sin will always control me.  I believe that the Biblical moral standards are correct, even when I can't live up to them (though I have done a fair share of rationalism in the past when confronted with my sin, but I can't remain in that state for long as I just feel bad.)  

   It is true that there is a false religious message that makes parts of normal humanity into sinful activity (ie Assembly nonsense) but re. what is immoral the Bible is very clear.
I say this because I noticed you said that "homosexuality was neither good or bad" and while this makes us feel better when we do what God condemns, it hardens our conscience.  In such a state we get a distorted view of who God really is:  cruel, demanding, and vindictive.  We also will be very unhappy.

  God's desire to lead us into His righteousness is because He knows of the terrible consequences of sin in our lives.  In this sense you have chosen a path in some ways like George has.  There is a difference in that GG says he doesn't sin, but you reject the Biblical standards of morality altogether.  The end result is the same:  a very unfulfilled life apart from the experience of the love of God.

  God loves us so much He sent Jesus to die for all these sins for which we are guilty.  We don't help ourselves, or others, when we harden our conscience.  

  I imagine there is some kind of sexual relationship that you would deem immoral, such as child molestation (I'm not saying that homosexuality is the same thing).  There are those who for whatever reason have these kind of sexual urges.  In ancient Greece these kind of relationships were common (man with boy).  Should such an individual resist such inclinations?  Yes, for just because I have a sexual desire it just wouldn't be right to act on it.  

  Societal revulsion toward this in the past has acted as a means to help folks struggling with these kinds of things, but now there is a very successfull movement to throw off these "shakles."  So much so, child porn. is deemed "protected speech" by the Supreme Court!

  I'm sure you've thought about this before, but I hope that by God's grace you may find your way back to a good conscience and faith in Christ.

                                           God Bless,  Mark C.

[M2]

Dear Shin,

Most analogies are just that; one cannot make a 100% parallel application of the analogy to the issue/topic.  In using the substance abuse analogy, I only meant it to go so far as to say that the method of ensnarement is similar, and that the difficulty of getting free from it is similar.  I could use the same analogy for other topics as well.

The topic was/is homosexuality, hence the focus.  I do agree however that I find child abuse, and pornography, and wife abuse etc to be grievous sins as they do affect those around the offender.  That being said I am sure that there are some very nice gay individuals, some even nicer than some Christians we know.  It does not change homosexuality into a non-sin issue.  You mentioned that you "felt a lot of guilt" and you ended up, unfortunately, in another type of bondage ie the Geftakys Assembly in San Diego.  You know what I think of the Geftakys assembly system so I will not elaborate on that here, but for the most part, we are on the same page re. opinion on the assembly system.  However, your conscience did bother you, so what do you conclude from that?

Lord bless,
Marcia

PS Arthur, your governor, who called those democrats girlie-men, acted in Junior as a pregnant male with female pregnancy behaviour.  Interesting eh??
MM

[Oscar]

Delila,

    You are right.  The studies done on Homosexual men that Tom is referring to focus on one type of Gay man.  The "typical" man!, Gay or Straight, who goes to bars and has one thing on his mind. (My friends in High School, my own brother- I could go on and tell you many stories that are forbidden on this B.B.) These studies neglect (as the Bible does also) the thousands of Gays who behave in a much more committed way.

David M.

Just how have you learned this?  Can you refer us to a link?

Quite frankly, I think you are talking through your hat!

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

I think this is funny.  The research I've read is similar.  Men, homosexual or not, are generally don't stick to one relationship. But what you are describing, is not unique to men who do men, but extends to men who do women too.  AS for Aids, like other std's, is generally spread by men to women and children too, from what I understand.
d

Delila,

I think you are mistaken.  I have encountered this idea in the past, and it always seems to be a generalization based on the observations of the speaker.

The only way to make accurate statements about men in general is to rely on research that has gathered data from large numbers of people.

Sociological research is not an exact science, but it is much more reliable than "all my friends say...".

When I was overseas in the USAF I had an opportunity to observe men in a very unnatural situation.  President Eisenhower, as a budget cutting measure, had decreed that the armed forces would no longer ship families overseas with the military personel.

So suddenly you had large numbers of married men, who had had, one assumes, regular access to sex, living away from their women for 18 months.

A military base is somewhat similar to a small town.  Everyone knows everyone else's business. This is especially true in a barracks situation.  You work, eat, sleep, play and even use the toilet facilities together.

Anyone who wanted sex could have it for the price of a taxi ride and a couple of dollars.  So, it was there for the taking.

My best estimate is that among unmarried men, (mostly in their 20's) about half availed themselves of the local prostitutes.  That means that about half did not.  The ones that did were mostly low ranking career enlisted men in their late 20's.  The ones that didn't were usually guys who had no intention of reinlisting.  

Among the married men, 80-90% did not "mess around".

I think that research has shown that most married men don't stray.  Some do, to be sure, but they are a minority.

Regarding AIDS, the vast majority of cases are found among homosexual men or intravenous drug users.  The women and children who become infected usually contract it from a "switch hitter" or a druggie.

Thomas Maddux

[Arthur]

PS Arthur, your governor, who called those democrats girlie-men, acted in Junior as a pregnant male with female pregnancy behaviour.  Interesting eh??
MM

Yeah, guess he's not afraid to get in touch with his feminine side.  Maybe those offended by a joke like "girlie men" have something to worry about.

Arthur

[shinchy]

Hi Marcia,
While I think guilt can be a useful emotion, I think it can be "educated" to the point of controlling us. Guilt seems to come natural for things such as lying, stealing, and doing things that harm other people. What people learn gets incorporporated into the guilt response as well. People affiliated with the Boston Church of Christ seem quite adept at programming guilt responses in their members. I was in a more mainstream evangelical church at the time but I think guilt got programmed there too on some level. Because of that, it's really hard for me to trust guilt, especially guilt that seems doctrinally related.

Shin

PS - Funny point about our governer. I'm not happy about everything about Schwartzenegger in office but at least he's got a sense of humor about himself, especially if he played a pregant male and in Total Recal, there is a scene where he is disguised as an old woman with a "high tech" mask.

[Oscar]

I do find the drug user or alcholic anology offensive. I know it works for some people as a way to humanize gay person, so I'll humor you on this. I know substance abusers can expend significant resources to support their usage, which can put their families, jobs, and friends in harms way. I'm not really harming anyone and I'm not the type of person who will do anything at any price to have sex. My life is actually quite boring in comparison. I just don't have time for a lot of that stuff and my time is better focused on reading, writing, art, my graduate studies, and getting a job after graduation.

I know there are a lot of destructos in the gay community. I can't talk for them. I know a lot who aren't and those people are among my friends.

I've been there, done that with the ex-gay ministry. Sexual tension between people was often rampant but coyly danced around. They all talked about how they wanted sex so badly but yet they were in this position where it was not available. I became friends with one such person in the group, who took a shine to me, and a couple of years later, I lost my virginity to him (I was very young, during the times I was 18-21). I later learned from another friend that hooking up is not so unusual. I felt a lot of guilt over this, which led, not to "the bondage of homosexuality," but to another type of bongage - getting involved with the Assembly.

Shin,

This is where you went wrong.  Christianity is not about working off guilt!  It is about repentance of sin and seeking forgiveness from God, who offers it through the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I wanted to get my life right with God at the time and somehow, the idea of doing things for God made me feel forgiven. Tones of Saint Maybe by Anne Tyler*.

How different this is from real Christianity.

As I mentioned earlier, I kept my "struggle" to myself for the most part during my years "in fellowship." I never acted on them yet I felt like I needed it so badly.

"For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God."  (I Thess. 4:3-5)

Shin, millions of Christian men deal with sexual temptation , at its normal level, and do not act upon it.  This is the normal experience of godly men.  That is just the way it is.

After accepting that I was gay afterwards, sex just stopped being such a big deal. If I don't get laid, I'm not going to die.

So your solution was to surrender to your unnatural passions.  Now you feel better, as all addicts do while they indulge in their particular addiction.  But Shin, if you are a Christian, (which is, IMHO, in doubt), what you have done is to surrender to an unnatural enslavement.  I suspect that you merely "got religion" in the assembly, but have never experienced new birth.

Yet a lot of people in the ex-gay ministries felt that way.

I don't doubt this.  These perversions scar the soul and may never be completely gone.   I have seen many brothers from the Baby Boom generation struggle with sex addictions involving pornography. But there are plenty of folks who have recovered and have not fallen into these sins in years.

Thomas Maddux

[shinchy]

  It is true that there is a false religious message that makes parts of normal humanity into sinful activity (ie Assembly nonsense) but re. what is immoral the Bible is very clear.
I say this because I noticed you said that "homosexuality was neither good or bad" and while this makes us feel better when we do what God condemns, it hardens our conscience.  In such a state we get a distorted view of who God really is:  cruel, demanding, and vindictive.  We also will be very unhappy.

  God's desire to lead us into His righteousness is because He knows of the terrible consequences of sin in our lives.  In this sense you have chosen a path in some ways like George has.  There is a difference in that GG says he doesn't sin, but you reject the Biblical standards of morality altogether.  The end result is the same:  a very unfulfilled life apart from the experience of the love of God.

  God loves us so much He sent Jesus to die for all these sins for which we are guilty.  We don't help ourselves, or others, when we harden our conscience.  

  I imagine there is some kind of sexual relationship that you would deem immoral, such as child molestation (I'm not saying that homosexuality is the same thing).  There are those who for whatever reason have these kind of sexual urges.  In ancient Greece these kind of relationships were common (man with boy).  Should such an individual resist such inclinations?  Yes, for just because I have a sexual desire it just wouldn't be right to act on it.  

Hi Mark,
Thank you for the kind reply. I just made the point in my reply to Marcia about guilt being educated and I do think there was a lot of that in my life as a Christian. Maybe while I may have "rejected Biblical standards of morality," I don't think it's right to murder, steal, lie, or do something that harms someone else. I do think those things are immoral as I find child pornography and child molestation reprehensible. These things harm the children involved and there is no way they could even be considered consenting partners in those situations. So with the child molester, I find that someone would prey on someone weaker or with less power to be sick. It's a violation of the child's trust. That someone is preying on a weaker, non consenting partner is not really the issue with homosexuality.

I think I reject "Biblical standards of morality" because it is, as William Blake says, is something that "binds with briars my joys and desires."* I don't think "Biblical standards of morality" has really enabled compassion or anything else that is desirable of "Christian Behaviour." Speaking of Christian Behaviour, C.S. Lewis makes the comment that Christianity is the one religion that approves of the body. As much as I enjoy Lewis's work, especially his fiction, I don't agree with him. I'm not a Buddhist but the Eightfold path makes more sense to me as an ethical framework.

If I were simply an ex-Christian who's never been through the Assembly, I wouldn't even bother posting here or going through the BB.  I wouldn't be able to relate at all. Because there is a shared history, I enjoy talking to you people. I don't think I would ever return to Evangelicalism if I were to come back to some kind of Christian faith. So if that ever happens (such as if I joined the Unitarian or Episcopal Church), I hope I don't get blasted for my choice.

Thanks once again for your thoughts, Mark,

Shin

*William Blake. "The Garden of Love." The Songs of Innocence and Experience

[Oscar]

Shin,

In your reply to Mark, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.  Your ideas on morality are a perfect example of Romans 2:15, "...they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing ore else defending them"!

This is exactly what you are doing.  Moral condemnation of other's behavior, while excusing your own.

Either moral law objectively exists, or all moralities are equal.  You merely dislike child abusers, but their acts are not wrong...nothing is wrong...or, for that matter, right.

You know that is not true.

Thomas Maddux

[shinchy]

Shin,

In your reply to Mark, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.  Your ideas on morality are a perfect example of Romans 2:15, "...they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing ore else defending them"!

This is exactly what you are doing.  Moral condemnation of other's behavior, while excusing your own.

Either moral law objectively exists, or all moralities are equal.  You merely dislike child abusers, but their acts are not wrong...nothing is wrong...or, for that matter, right.

You know that is not true.

Thomas Maddux

Tom,
You're engaging me in that either/or logical fallacy and the way you're using it is very offensive. Here is an example of what's offending me: "You merely dislike child abusers, but their acts are not wrong...nothing is wrong...or, for that matter, right." Yes, I do seriously dislike child abusers and I find what they do to be horrible, damaging, and wrong. Also, while I was never a victim of child molestation, I did have a step-father who often beat and verbally abused me until I turned 16. And yes, I will condemn what he did as wrong even though I understand he grew up that way. And yes, I understand people do some pretty forked up things to other people because of what happened to them but my sympathy is more for the victims. So excuse me if I'm not objective concerning this example.

The esteemed Zen teacher Thich Nat Han, would point out the perpetrators or moral wrongs are victims as well. While I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that one, I respect this view because I understand it is a step in forgiving my enemies.

So I digressed. I think what Mark's point to me was that despite my rejection of morality as defined by the Bible, we agreed on some things were moral. I agreed on that but maintained my disagreement with the idea that homosexuality was immoral.


Shin

[M2]

Hi Marcia,
While I think guilt can be a useful emotion, I think it can be "educated" to the point of controlling us. Guilt seems to come natural for things such as lying, stealing, and doing things that harm other people. What people learn gets incorporporated into the guilt response as well. People affiliated with the Boston Church of Christ seem quite adept at programming guilt responses in their members. I was in a more mainstream evangelical church at the time but I think guilt got programmed there too on some level. Because of that, it's really hard for me to trust guilt, especially guilt that seems doctrinally related.

Shin

Yes, I agree with you in that guilt can be "educated" to the point of controlling us.  Sometimes we get the wrong 'education' and sometimes we are 'educated' correctly re. sin.  I use the analogy of the little Johnny who is out with his friends.  One of his friends starts throwing rocks at someone's basement windows and invites Johnny to do so.  Johnny knows it is wrong.  Johnny knows that his Dad is not around, but that it would grieve his Dad if he found out.  Johhny can choose not to throw the rocks because he loves his Dad and does not want to grieve him, or because he is afraid of how his Dad will react.  The action of throwing the rocks and destroying another's property is wrong in each scenario.

I know a family whose husband/father turned 'gay'.  After many appeals from his wife, he refuses to change his lifestyle.  That marriage is going to end up in a divorce and the young child will be left without a father.  It could have been a case of adultery with the same end result.  I find it all very sad.

Lord bless,
Marcia