Warren Throckmorton

Great--women are off the hook! We don't really have sexual struggles, anyway, and as long as we don't "exchange the natural use" like St. Paul says, and have relations which don't um, physically mimic the male-female, we're off the hook!

(Really, what is sex without penetration and some kind of active/passive relationship--since that binary relationship is at the root of everything...)

[/sarcasm]
 

Dr. Throckmorton,
I would like to link this post to my blog but I'd like to have permission from you before I do so.
Thanks so much.
grace
 

Not so fast ck!

You're still property afterall. You modern girls are so uppity. I blame education.

You are off the hook regards marrying a rapist if you get attacked in a field, but please do remember to yell out if it happens in a city otherwise it's the wedding feast and the exchange of goats and you're done. Have a nice married life!

I'm still not sure how a teaching that followed a question specifically about against heterosexual divorce relates to gay couples, but then again perhaps I don't care...

[/double sarcasm]

And why stop reading Matthew 19 at this point. Keep going. (And, sorry, I'm KJV kind of guy).

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

WHAT!!! No mention about homosexuality in that list???

Perhaps Jesus was a bit forgetful that day.

(And anyone want to email James Dobson and remind him about verses 21 to 24? The clocks ticking and times a-runnin-out.)

[/maybe now I'm not being sarcastic]
 

Guess my article is not so novel after all. At issue is whether Christianity teaches that the standards for sexual morality are Dr. Gagnon believes or as the man in this article.
 

I've never heard a convincing argument about the Bible condoning homosexual behavior. It seems pretty clear that the behavior (sex between two people of the same gender) is the sin, but a homosexual orientation in of itself is not.

It almost seems that a homosexual who chooses not to act on his deviant impulses is not in the wrong, whereas two heterosexual men who decide to have sex because of a shortage of women are the sinners.

Again, its the behavior kids.
 

grantdale- don't forget you're also s'posed to give away all your posessions, so I guess there's no more posts from Doc Throck after he gives away his computer.

"Blessed are the cheesemakers? What's so special about the cheesemakers?

Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally my dear, it refers to any sort of manufacturer of dairy products."

I seem to recall Jesus telling people to always turn the other cheek. I also seem to recall him opening a big 'ol can of whoop-ass on the money changers at the Temple. Is this a contradiction, or did Jesus perhaps not mean that everything he says needs to apply absolutely literally to every possible contingency that can ever be dreamed up?

Boo
 

Just to clarify where I am coming from...
1. I am not a Christian, so I don't care, in one sense, what Jesus said.
2. I do think that the sort of Christianity represented by the canon we read today was against homosexuality.
3. I believe that those views are wrong--not divinely inspired, but stemming from reasons such as those grantdale alluded to.
4. I have problems with the kind of picking/choosing of Jesus sayings -- like the beatitudes, etc. They do come with a complex background within Judaism, so we can't really take them out of the context of Jewish views about divine justice and eschatology, with regard to the land of Israel (and the entire world).

That being said, go ahead and debate about WWJD all you want... it's not going to impact my perspective!
 

Ck - Very reasonable, as usual. This issue is more of an internal one. If you do not affirm a worldview that cares about what Jesus taught, then this article is pretty much not for you. As you know, most people I work with hold that view so sorting out the meanings is important for them.
 

Dr. Throckmorton,
I suppose I would like to see people who do hold that Jesus' beliefs should impact their own beliefs & actions given more information about recent historical study.

While I do not agree with all historical Jesus studies, there is much to be gained from them--and my personal belief is that if more Christians were aware of the complexity of just what Christianity "is", they might be more willing to hold it loosely and be aware of how much of purported divine revelation and/or truths are the result of cultural presuppositions that are not Jewish or Christian.
 

Very interesting reseach for a Christian and a therapist like me. No doubt the scoffers will reject the statements of Jesus but for me they make a lot of sense, in light of the culture He lived in. The scoffers may not understand how much mercy this shows but people with diverse sexual appitites may have been stoned if they became known. Thus, His ethic was very advanced toward such persons.
 

Gary, I have no problem that Jesus' statements were "advanced" given the culture he lived in--my problem is how the ethics of the God-man would be influenced by culture to begin with, if he is transcendent...
 

Its kind of interesting; funny how we've got the slam-a-gay-athon on the conservative side of religion, and it seems like the same sort of diatribes the modern day conservative Muslims like to bring up.

I'll bring up this; for 1200 years, there was one church, the Catholic church; there were married priests, praticing homosexuals, and heck, even a register of same sex relationships and a blessing to go with it.

In the Muslim camp, for a good 600 years, there is not ONE recorded case of a homosexual being put to death, infact, there are documented rulers of around that time who flaunted their homosexual attractions quite openly, without any repoccusions.

Fast foward to 2005, and it seems that religious people would love to throw out 1200 years of history, claim it never existed and in a vain attempt, re-write what happened in the past to fit into their narrow minded view of morality.

Oh, and btw, St Paul isn't Jesus; he is St Paul; now, if you wish to follow St Pauls message, then call yourself a St Paulian and adopt a misogynist attitude that he had (along with a number of other personal issues that he had).
 

I thought the article was very informative and I've linked it to the bottom of an article I wrote myself entitled, Christianity and Homosexuals. It's rather ridiculous for so-called “religious homosexuals” to be searching the Bible for affirmation of their sexual proclivities when the One who became Jesus Christ said that He was “disgusted” by homosexual activity. Was Sodom destroyed because they didn’t pay their parking tickets?

I take issue with the above statement; where did Jesus ever state, word for word, that he was 'disgusted by homosexual activity'.

Secondly, you seem to have a rather pathetic attitude to sex and sexuality; why do you find it disgusting that my boyfriend and I love each other? the fact that you can't understand WHY we love each other, so instead of making a concerted effor tto understand, you instantly dismiss me and a large number of homosexuals as 'sexual deviates'.

Regarding those searching for 'justification in the scriptures' - I don't know about you, but I learned long ago that I'm not going to have my life held hostage to a set of beliefs; I'm not going to be a slave to either another man or a set of unsubstantiated beliefs that were created based on an agenda of ignorance, control and superstition.

As for why/how/when Sodom was destroyed is inconsequential as to whether homosexuals should be treated with dignity and given the right to access institutions, such as marriage, which the religious organisations claim that they have a monopoly over.

May I suggest Michael that you run down to your local Pharmacy and take a large dosage of 'get over it pills' - you maybe be misserable, depressing and have a limited scope as to what life is, but please don't pull others down to your same level.
 

ck:

:D

Regarding 'exchanging roles', how about those who like being the 'bitch' in the relationship [waves hand around in the air]

To take Pauls opinions on sex and sexuality is akin to believing GWB assessment on Iraqs weapons of mass distraction, sorry, destruction ;-)
 

Michael,

You really think you can reason with a "person" like Kaiwai?

He's willing to believe that Elvis is a really a UFO alien if it means having his way.
 

Obviously, there are some different presuppositions going on here. I can't speak for Kawai, but I would say that I do not belive Jesus was the YHWH of the Old Testament, and therefore, we must look at those documents, the gospels, and letters of Paul on their own merits.

Anonymous said "He's willing to believe that Elvis is a really a UFO alien if it means having his way" which is an unfair slam that someone like myself might want to take towards Christians... you're willing to believe that a Galilean peasant is a transcendent and noncorporeal deity if it means having your own way.

Can we play fair, please?
 

To Anonymous and Michael,

I must admit though, CK is by far the most reasonable individual here on this board, having read a lot of her posts. There are a lot of others that have basically made up their minds and are stuck.
 

Anonymous, I have studied for my Master's of Divinity at a PCA affiliated seminary. I did not complete it because of my disagreements (obvious) with the school.

So yes, I have done some in depth study. I can translate Koine Greek and OT Hebrew along with the best of any MDiv student, though I am not a scholar.

I also am a graduate philosophy student, and understand a little bit about hermeneutics. Just a bit.

I don't normally flaunt my credentials, because I am trying to engage people on their own terms and beliefs, not on the basis of scholarly study. However, the truth be told, I do have a legitimate background to be making these arguments (and arguments they are--I do not claim to be speaking ex cathedra).

And as "fair" goes, I won't deign to define it to everyone's satisfaction. However, I believe that the Christians who post here would wish to go by the general ethic that one should "do unto others" as you would have them do unto you.

In my opinion, that includes taking other people at their word, not misrepresenting their statements, interpreting their assertions in the best possible light, and not making character acts in place of substantive replies to arguments.

Just some thoughts from an uneducated homosexual who has made up her mind. Oh, and also attended Grove City College--which is just a backwater religious school in Western PA, I guess.
 

"not making character acts in place of substantive replies to arguments."

Sorry, that should be "character attacks" not "acts" and I believe my response should be directed towards Michael, not Anonymous (#1, as opposed to Anonymous #2?)
 

My personal opinion as a Christian is that there is nothing wrong with a homosexual orientation, but homosexual behavior itself is sin. At the same time, I'm not one to judge or point the finger. If someone wants behave homosexually, that is his thing, and its between him and God, and not any of my business.

That said, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that Jesus condones homosexual behavior, based on what I've read. I think the evidence seems to weigh in more on the side that he didn't approve of homosexual behavior.

Memphis
 

Where in my post did I dismiss you as 'sexual deviates'. The one thing liberals and homosexuals are expert at is “assuming” what other people think and in their own minds making it a reality. You WANT to believe these things, so you do. With no “proof”, I might add.

Then why bring up the issue of Jesus finding Homosexuality disgusting if you disagreed with it; interesting how you made no effort to either justify that stance, correct that message in the bible or a the very least, put it into context.

You do what you want. I’m not here to run your life. I’m merely stating you don’t have a leg to stand when it comes to “justifying” your positions.

I don't need to justify a thing; I'm gay, I've got a boyfriend, and I'm love; if you've got a problem with that, then maybe you need to see Throckmorton to get that 'inner homophobia' sorted out before it manifests itself in other ways.

As far as you wanting the world to change to suit you, good luck. Americans and the Western world have accommodated the wishes of every fringe group for the last forty years and it’s destroyed the culture that was here before you were. Might I add, that God blessed the Western world above every other group of nations with wealth, peace, stability, and good sense before your ilk arrived on the scene and started “demanding” to have your own ways about things. I’ll make no apologies, compromises, or Gay/Straight Alliances with you or anyone else when it comes to God or civilization.!

Oh pulease, how pathetic; you seem to love the re-invention of history to serve your ilks manfesto; run along child and continue reading that Straussian book of yours; maybe you'll eventually realise that religion is the noble lie used to control the masse - be it in the form of a political dogma (communism) or in the form of an organised religion.

May I suggest you repent and put your clothes back on and start at least “acting” as though you have some sense!

Repent for what? the fact that I'm happy and in love? the fact that I don't feel the need to hide behind scriptures to justify the some what lacking arguments that you put forward?

Again, why don't you 'walk in my sandles' before casting assertions on how I live my life.

"Let the man without sin cast the first stone"

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

"Love your neighbour as you love yourself"

I'm sure there are many others I can pull out of my Giddians pocket bible, but I'll let you keep spreading your false message that Jesus was here to codemn homosexuals, women and all those who don't fit into your narrow minded agenda.
 

That said, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that Jesus condones homosexual behavior, based on what I've read. I think the evidence seems to weigh in more on the side that he didn't approve of homosexual behavior.

Or simply it was one of those things he didn't want to touch with a 40foot pole; like you said in the previous paragraph, its an issue between the individual and god; just as, for example, divorce is an issue between the individual and god; many people havd differing views on it; Catholics are completely against it, some conservative protestants are against it, unless there has been infidality whilst the more liberal are ok with divorce - no questions asked.

Lets go right out of the lim and assume that Jesus thought that the higher priority was getting individuals to be less selfish and help their fellow man, rather than going on and on about whether two members of the same sex, doing a bit of slap 'n tickle, is a bad thing.

I don't know about you, but I'd say a caring community is a higher priority than prying into the sex lives of a same sex couple.
 

maybe you'll eventually realise that religion is the noble lie used to control the masse - be it in the form of a political dogma (communism) or in the form of an organised religion.

With statements like this, you are doing nothing to help build desperately needed bridges of communication.

geeez...
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

ck - Grove City, PA. Where's that?
 

Yeah, it's some hick town with a bunch of no name pseudo profs :)

Funny, though, that no one replied to my post. I am thinking of taking a hiatus from this kind of dialogue since no one ever seems to a) change their mind or b) their attitude. I get the same stuff on XGW and Worldmag.

I've been able to get some good articles in print, though, with people like Beth Stroud and folks on the ex-gay side (I have a very big interview this Saturday which I will talk about when it goes to press). I used to think that blogging was a forum in which more dialogue could happen at a different level than print publications.

Now I'm wondering if it's just an excuse to treat people subhumanly if they don't agree with the same propositions that you do. It's not only Christians that have a strict creed outside of which they will persecute people.
 

One last comment...
on the subject of commenting...

Check out today's post by Philocrates, a UU blogger.

http://www.philocrites.com/archives/002289.html
 

ck - Let's make that link live since it is a good one: http://www.philocrites.com/archives/002289.html
 

It's not only Christians that have a strict creed outside of which they will persecute people.

Statements like these are why I think you are one of the most reasonable people here (perhaps on the internet?). I am impressed by your educational background. I take it you are a hardcore Wittgensteinian? Wonder what Wittgenstein himself would say about sexual orientation, or about the recent phenonmenon of sexual self labeling (i sense a headache coming on).

Memphis
 

Wonder what Wittgenstein himself would say about sexual orientation...

Well, he was involved in homosexual affairs, both anonymous and long term. Not sure if he identified as "gay" or not. It is a good question, though.

And Memphis, thanks for the vote of confidence. I appreciate it.
 

Interesting Warren, you deleted a post of mine that was not only on-topic but addressed the issue with subtlety like a sledge hammer; I'll address it with a bit of sugar this time:

With statements like this, you are doing nothing to help build desperately needed bridges of communication.

Interesting how every-time a gay couple/individuals wish to get the same rights as heterosexuals, be it in terms of protection in the workplace against harassment and discrimination, or their relationship recognised in terms of legislation, be it in de-facto partner status, civil union or same sex marriage; there is a persistent entourage of people - from all walks of life, no just Christians, who seize on that opportunity to vent their anger.

Lets take abortion, for example; I respect the 'pro-lifers' logic; the question of where does life actually begin and the whole idea of eugenics; but at the same time, they persistently make their message look like the rantings of lunatics because of fringe elements - the best case, that photo of the man who yelled out, 'get back into the kitchen where you belong!" <-- is that the sort of calibre of people you want representing your message.

Flip to the anti-same sex marriage movement (if there is such a one); if it is a rational movement, and there are rational arguments, why then do you allow your 'movement' get hijacked by the likes of those who scream, 'Adam and eve, not Adam and Steve' along with various other, flogged to death, clichés that the religious right like using (case in point would be Chick cartoons and their fascination that every gay person has a moustache and wear flares).
 

Little does kaiwai know, he is stepping up the plate with his own brand of "religion."

either agree with him or your stupid and evil, warren. That's rite, you have to agree with his take on relationships and love and all that. Also, you have to concede that your religion is wrong, and his is absolutely right.

please do it, and save us the eyestrain of having to read his long winded rants.

Warren,

I think you should a) convert to kaiwai-ism, or b) go hang yourself in your garage.

Moo Man

/sarcasm
 

1) I'm a libertarian not a liberal; what you do in your own life is of little concern of mine; if you like running around the house naked whilst screaming, "Jesus is my saviour" - again, I wouldn't have an issue.

I do take issue, however, when your ilk come into my life and start passing laws against me because you happen to suffer from the childish affliction called the 'eww yuck' syndrome; because you thing something is, 'eww yuck', you instantly slam it as immorial, disgusting and wish to stamp it out.

I find the idea of having sex with a female absolutely disgusting and yet you don't see me make a move to see out lawed, heterosexual marriages removed from the statutes and so on and so on.

2) Why do you studdenly take interest in my picture? the fact that I was reading an interesting article, the fact that I don't have a smile on my face 24/7 like some sort of Irish Setter?

I'm quite a happy person, I do however get bitter when people like you try to ram your morality down my throat; may I suggest that you store your religious dogma in a secure and private location, just as I don't parade my sexuality down the street.

3) As for the rest of you, its pathetic when people like you, need to justify your existance by converting everyone to your particular dogma; but then again, I guess thats the final step in your 'asking for god' programme; you first prayer, then when you don't receive it, you are convinced god is testing you, and when it becomes insanely long, you then come to the conclusion that you've got to convert everyone to your flavour of Christianity.
 

RE: Michael

Oh, and with all your bible bashing, I hope you're happy; a kid I know, whose parents are hard core Christians has attempted for his third time, to committ suicide, thanks to that 'Christian love' that you keep preaching.

Isn't it sad that parents put their dogma before the health and welfare of their children; but hey, we already knew that, when they put their religious convictions of fiction above the realities and those around them in the real world.
 

It was bound to happen.

Eventually, someone plays the suicide card. It happens on both sides: "gays are more suicidal because they are unhappy people" or "closeted gays and ex-ex-gays are suicidal because of you dim-witted, bigoted, self-righteous Christians."

Coming soon: The Nazi Card.
 

Warren, thank you for all you do for those who search for freedom of homosexuality. You are constanting being put down. Please do not give up-the world needs to hear your message. FYI: you may have already seen this website: www.myspace/freezach I happened to stumble upon it. It is really sad. This young man, Ben started the site back in June. Take a look at the sorry looking members. Then scroll down to "Forum Topic" then off to the right, "view all topics" These people are so sad, lost & confused. They have such evil and hate in them. It's none of my business what people do in the privacy of their homes (but please keep it in your home & dont feel the need to post pictures & write all about it) that doesnt mean I agree with them, but I do feel that organizations such as LIA, Focus on the Family/Love Won Out, People Can Change, "I do exist", etc. etc. have a right to get their message out to society without gay protesters making a scene everywhere they go. What are these protesters afaid of. If they don't want help, stay home. Other do want help & they have a right to get the help that is available to them. If gays want to live their life in "that way" go ahead, but don't drag others with them. These people on this "free zach" website actually go out of their way to cause trouble for no reason. These organizations don't hate "Gays" they are trying to offer help and hope to save these young people who question their feelings. There is another way and it is wrong to keep this information from them. If gays don't agree, fine. But they shouldn't stop others from learning more about what freedom from homosexuality is all about.