Christian Cure For Gays And Lesbians?

[PeaceBlondie]

The problem I have with the so-called Christian message about gay life is that it is a damned lie, repeated so often that both straights and gays honestly believe that the Bible condemns gay sex very strongly. I was a self-loathing queer until I actually read how the Bible says nothing about what we mean by gay sex. You could say that Jonathan and David had more gay sex than anybody else in the bible.

[jumnien]

Don't focus on the Bible for anti-homosexual passages. Plenty of Buddhist and Islamic folks think that homosexuality is an unwise choice. I'm not taking sides here, my father is presently homosexual, and that's cool. But to pretend that Christianity is singularly against homosexuality is just wrong.

[Xangsamhua]

The problem I have with the so-called Christian message about gay life is that it is a damned lie, repeated so often that both straights and gays honestly believe that the Bible condemns gay sex very strongly. I was a self-loathing queer until I actually read how the Bible says nothing about what we mean by gay sex. You could say that Jonathan and David had more gay sex than anybody else in the bible.

Yes, the David and Jonathan relationship has been suggested as a gay one. Bishop Spong argues a case for St Paul having been gay. I personally don't give two hoots what the Bible says about homosexuality. The biblical texts are texts of their time, heavily edited and often written several hundreds of years after the events, prophecies, wisdom sayings or whatever were said to have been situated. The 66% of Catholics who, according to the survey, do not regard homosexuality as immoral wouldn't go burrowing into the Bible for proof texts or obiter dicta. They would consult their consciences, their perception of Jesus' teaching about respect for people and their understanding of rights and freedoms. The other 34% probably reflect conservative social views generally or they may have read or heard something from a conservative Catholic leader. They probably wouldn't know what was in the Bible. Catholics are not big on the Bible. They regard it as a text used by the Church in liturgies and religious education, but not much of a personal tool.

[jumnien]

Here's a Buddhist perspective from His Holiness:

The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. At a press conference the day before the meeting, he said, "From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct."

[mikethevigoman]

Here's a Buddhist perspective from His Holiness:

The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. At a press conference the day before the meeting, he said, "From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct."

what does he know eh ?,.

[jumnien]

Here's a Buddhist perspective from His Holiness:

The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. At a press conference the day before the meeting, he said, "From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct."

what does he know eh ?,.

Historically, the clergy of all religions are very well versed in the intricacies of homosexual behavior!

[Smithson]

Historically, the clergy of all religions are very well versed in the intricacies of homosexual behavior!

Not to mention hypocrisy.

I would like to apologize to anyone who may have felt that I was being homophobic in my posts regarding biblical texts. The reason I quoted those texts was to show the basis for those Christian groups who preach hate and discrimination towards gays. My point was to show how the bible could be viewed as preaching hate.

[Smithson]

The biblical texts are texts of their time, heavily edited and often written several hundreds of years after the events, prophecies, wisdom sayings or whatever were said to have been situated.

So you're saying the bible is collection of stories, possibly not even true stories? This is new to me.

They would consult their consciences, their perception of Jesus' teaching about respect for people and their understanding of rights and freedoms.

But aren't all of Jesus teachings in the Bible? Is there another book I haven't heard of? Or are you saying it's been passed down word of mouth for 2,000 years

The other 34% probably reflect conservative social views generally or they may have read or heard something from a conservative Catholic leader.

Conservative Catholic leaders aren't hard to come by. They had one in Australia, George Pell, there wasn't too much love lost between him and the gay community in Sydney (excuse the pun).

[thaicurious]

obviously, the dalai lama has never had a good blow job.

as to this christian conversion network, do they hold support group meetings? sounds like a great place to pick up guys.

[popshirt]

The biblical texts are texts of their time, heavily edited and often written several hundreds of years after the events, prophecies, wisdom sayings or whatever were said to have been situated.

So you're saying the bible is collection of stories, possibly not even true stories? This is new to me.

Smithson, I think this is the problem with your position. Many Christians are aware that the bible is not The Magic Book of Truth For All Time, and does, in fact, contain "stories" handed down through the oral tradition of a nomadic people. If you believe the bible is "true" and argue for a literal interpretation of the entire canon contained therein (canon being that group of texts authorized for inclusion in the bible many years ago by a group of religious leaders), your position is the same as the fundamentalist taliban people who not only believe that, but they pick and choose what texts they will use to promote their agendas.

[Xangsamhua]

The biblical texts are texts of their time, heavily edited and often written several hundreds of years after the events, prophecies, wisdom sayings or whatever were said to have been situated.

So you're saying the bible is collection of stories, possibly not even true stories? This is new to me.

Yep. The Old Testament/Tanakh/Jewish Bible consists of creation and origin stories based on a Mesopotamian corpus, histories, heroic episodes, prophetic proclamations, poetry, philosophy, proverbs, etc, written and edited hundreds of years after the people and events were supposed to have occurred/lived. The New Testament is based on the orally transmitted and in some cases written records of some Christian communities in different parts of the empire (Rome? Alexandria? Antioch?). Narrations often differ substantially and two gospels (Matthew and Luke) contain infancy narratives, both quite different from each other, and two make no mention of them. Half of the New Testament consists of letters written by Paul or people writing in his name and they pay little attention to the events of Jesus' life. The Book of Revelation is a long dream sequence.

They would consult their consciences, their perception of Jesus' teaching about respect for people and their understanding of rights and freedoms.

But aren't all of Jesus teachings in the Bible? Is there another book I haven't heard of? Or are you saying it's been passed down word of mouth for 2,000 years

The New Testament books were collected by the early Christian communities and gained status to the extent that they were used in liturgies. They were more or less canonized into an almost agreed collection by about the end of the 2nd century (from memory) and 26 were ratified at the Council of Laodicea in 364. The 27th, Revelation, was approved in the following century. We don't really know which of Jesus' words ascribed to him are authentic. The Jesus Seminar suggested about 12 - 15 per cent. More conservative scholars scholars suggest more. We don't know whether Jesus taught anything that did not appear in the early texts.

The other 34% probably reflect conservative social views generally or they may have read or heard something from a conservative Catholic leader.

Conservative Catholic leaders aren't hard to come by. They had one in Australia, George Pell, there wasn't too much love lost between him and the gay community in Sydney (excuse the pun).

Most Catholic bishops are conservative; they were appointed during the pontificate of John Paul II or the incumbent Benedict XVI - both very conservative men. Cardinal Pell is a prominent example. He's not going to mellow now.

Edited July 2, 2008 by Xangsamhua

[Kido]

Christian don't believed in reborn, that the point I try to make.

If we understand and believed reborn we might get the answer of gay and lesbian.

The girl trapped in a man body and a man trapped in a lady body.

That was not a sickness to be gay or lesbian.

Toleance and understand make to world happier.

[cophen]

obviously, the dalai lama has never had a good blow job.

as to this christian conversion network, do they hold support group meetings? sounds like a great place to pick up guys.

[Smithson]

If you believe the bible is "true" and argue for a literal interpretation of the entire canon contained therein (canon being that group of texts authorized for inclusion in the bible many years ago by a group of religious leaders), your position is the same as the fundamentalist taliban people who not only believe that, but they pick and choose what texts they will use to promote their agendas.

If your trying to tell me the bible is BS, then you're preaching to the converted. My position is that the bible isn't true, just a collection of stories, about as relevant for guiding our lives as the Greek legends. We should throw it away and laugh at those who claim to be guided by it. The problem is that unproven myth is a more powerful than science and reason.

So please don't confuse me with fundamental religious groups of any brand. I am trying to explain how the bible is the source of their fundamentalism.

The problem is that these groups do exist and are very powerful in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and the US. Religion plays a key role in politics, just look at the US election.

[Scott]

I got a glance of myself naked the other day and that damned near cured me of being gay!

[Kaojai]

Incidentally, some of the campest things I've ever seen have been Christian services, prayer meetings, revivals, etc., etc. A lot of closet energy going on there.

"S"

With the wars being waged, people being killed and maimed, people starving, hopeless people hooked on drugs & booze, human slavery, abuse of citizens by their governments ... the list of wrongs taking place on earth and contrary to Christ's teaching seems endless ... what is the one thing the religious zealots all expend most of the energy on ? Who's having sex with whom.

The C of E is on the verge of splitting, not out of protest at all the inhumanity shown by men to their brethren, but because of sex.

The church, which should not be confused with the Christian Faith, is indeed in a mess and we should all pray for them and their unhealthy obsession with the sexual activites of their neighbors.

[Smithson]

The church, which should not be confused with the Christian Faith, is indeed in a mess and we should all pray for them and their unhealthy obsession with the sexual activites of their neighbors.

What is it with religiuos ppl and sex? Jealousy, a desire to deny others what they can't have themselves?

The amazing thing is that these ppl's opinions on sex are considered relevant. It's a bit like asking a vegetarian what's the best type of meat.

[kek]

<br />

The church, which should not be confused with the Christian Faith, is indeed in a mess and we should all pray for them and their unhealthy obsession with the sexual activites of their neighbors.

<br /><br />What is it with religiuos ppl and sex? Jealousy, a desire to deny others what they can't have themselves?<br /><br />The amazing thing is that these ppl's opinions on sex are considered relevant. It's a bit like asking a vegetarian what's the best type of meat.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Religion wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who think that other people's private lives are their business.

[himachal]

The Christian cure for gays?

Get rid of the Christians!

[peekint]

Don't focus on the Bible for anti-homosexual passages. Plenty of Buddhist and Islamic folks think that homosexuality is an unwise choice ...

Yes, I think we can put Islam on the "persecutes Gays" side of the fence. No doubt that hanging Gay teens in Iran and imprisonment of homosexuals in Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi are hints of that.

As for Buddhism, I think the wording you used is more appropriate: "...think that homosexuality is an unwise choice ... "

First, it's my impression of Buddhism that, although some Buddhists might think that homosexuality is an unwise choice, they would also be following very strict Buddhist doctrine by following that with "... but it's up to you ...". After all, Buddha taught that each must find his own path to enlightenment. He could only illuminate "a" way. The Christian perspective is quite different. The message is "it's up to you, but the penalty is eternal damnation and hellfire in the afterlife, preceded by persecution, physical harm, and ostracism in this one. God will see to the first, we'll see to the second."

Second, your keyword is choice.

When I was a teen, I was seriously involved with the Catholic Church. I wasn't on the path to priesthood, because I knew myself well enough that chastity was not in my future. I was however, quite serious about theology and thought of becoming a deacon. As it became clearer to me that loving women was also not in my future, I had a crisis of faith. I turned to my closest religious friend, who was a Jesuit monk.

I was a bit precocious, because I could already passably read both Latin and Greek at that age. Therefore, my friend gave me a Latin/Greek pony of the New Testament in which he had spent the weekend marking pages with paper clips. I was sure he had marked the passages condemning homosexuality, in case I had any doubts. He gave me the pony, His instructions were to read the passages and then come back and tell him what I thought they meant.

Much to my chagrin, they were indeed all the passages condemning homosexuality. But as I read them, the choice of words in both the Latin and Greek conveyed a very different "feeling" than the same passages in the English Bible. I was quite astounded. The message was quite clear. The sin of homosexuality was not in the homosexuality. The sin was in the CHOICE of homosexuality, the choice to GO AGAINST YOUR NATURE. And hence, the sin was the same if you were homosexual and "chose" heterosexuality. I was sure my interpretation must be wrong. Then as now, though, I was pigheaded and determined to argue the point with him.

When I returned to see him in the monastery the following Saturday, he smiled as I sat down. "I have a feeling you figured it out," he said. I replied that I had, but that he probably wasn't going to like it. I explained the whole idea to him. He patiently listened as I pointed out particular word choices and translations between the two. I even had found a couple of parallel translations in other locations to show how in the English Bible, the same ideas were translated quite differently when referring to homosexuality and when referring to less "significant" matters.

In the end, he went to a drawer and pulled out a neatly typewritten thesis, several hundred pages long. His name and a rather long Latin title were on the front. Inside was an analysis of all the same passages. He had done it as a theology student. His insights were far more complete, and included references to the original Aramaic in which much of the old testament was written (which I couldn't read), but his conclusion was the same. He hadn't, he confessed, just marked up the pony for me. It was the one he used when he wrote the paper some 20 years earlier.

"God is not vicious," he said. "He made you. how could he punish you for who you are? Isn't he the all powerful, the almighty? He doesn't MAKE mistakes. The sin is in denying him by trying not to be what he made you, just as for me, it would be a sin for me to have not followed my calling. He made me to be a priest and a monk, and here I am. He made you to be who you are. If you know who you are, it will be a sin to deny Him by denying yourself."

Of course, most of the Catholic Church doesn't believe that way, and very very few of any of the popular preachers and theologians can read much more than simple English, let alone Latin, Greek and Aramaic. I couldn't stay with the Church and still be who God made me. The fault was not mine, the fault was with the Church. Since then, I've become closer to closer to God and farther and farther from any Church.

But I've always remembered his words. God doesn't MAKE mistakes...

[PeaceBlondie]

Tnanks, Peekint, for your story. Mine is similar in many ways. Once I understood enough Greek to read the Bible, I saw that it had been translated totally in error, against Baptist principles of theology and interpretation. Since the church had been wrong for 1,600 years, I reverted to original Christianity, which was not homophobic. Much as I reverted to pacifist Christianity. A wrong church is just plain wrong in the things it is wrong about, while it can remain true in other ways. Some branches of Protestantism are quite accepting of gays, but the Catholic church (and most fundamentalists) are dead wrong.

[cathyy]

)-->

One thing I'm curious though...

On the advertisement, it shows a very short strips in which a few Christians standing and held their hands with the palm facing the head of the "Devil/Gays/Lesbians" whom sat on a chair looking like as though possesed.

What were they doing?

Exorcising?

That's called "laying on of the hands" and it's supposed to help heal people. No, really, it is.

I'm mostly a Christian, I'm not gay (why am I even reading this forum???) and I am totally in agreement that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. I've read it several times and it's pretty clear. The whole homophobia thing is a fundamentalist evangelical thing; they have taken bits of the Bible and twisted the meaning to justify their bigotry. They say the Bible condemns it based on certain verses, and those verses are always taken out of context. It's the same thing with abortion; the Bible has no problem with that, either.

There is some good research about homophobia, showing that is is very directly related to repressed homosexuality. They took two groups of men, one homophobes and the other heterosexual non-homophobes. They put a device on them to measure penile diameter. Then they showed them gay porn. Guess which group showed measurable sexual arousal? Hint: it wasn't the non-homophobes. This explains why all the gay sex scandals are homophobic politicians and pastors; the non-homophobes just have scandals about their heterosexual affairs.

[Jimjim]

The Dalai Lama said Buddhism does not endorse homosexuality. Basically I think he was saying there nothing written about it in Buddhist scriptures.

As for Christians, I think it could be understood why they would think the Bible condemned homosexuality. A majority of Christians don't take the time to read about translation issues from the original scripts.

[Freddie_fly]

For the benefit of those who are reading this thread and who feel a little confused, let me elucidate...........

the ads, the programme, the lifestyle are from US Christian groups, not from anywhere else in the world.

Its rather sad to see how influential various sects of Christianity have become in the United States, mainly because of one fact.

registered religious organizations in the US are tax exempt, so they have lots of money ..(kindly provided by the suckers who believe them)

to proselytize overseas. Personally I would just ignore them, they subscribe to the Christan view of the old testament rather than to the views of Jesus.

read the bible, for every line they can throw at you, you can find one to throw back..thats the beauty of it, and its inherent failing.

regards

Freddie