I'm not sure what you're saying with your reference to (#5) the sins of the father.    Or are you referring to #6 showing loving kindness.  I'm also not clear about you saying you believe it's a "spiritual condition."  What exactly does that mean?

I agree with you that people who suffer from homosexual temptations are no different from anyone else who has developed habitual self destructive behaviors.  But there is a flaw in your reasoning.  First of all it denies human free will.  A person may have a inherent weakness for something ,but they don't have to become an addict.  For example how many potential alcoholics never developed a taste for the grape.  Organizations such as AA and NA stand as living proof that we don't have to live are life enslaved to weaknesses.  Second if God created something as bad why would he then condemn it.  That would be the God that atheist fear.  The True God will never cause evil.  Men and the devil distort God's creation into evil ,but God by His incarnation and self sacrifice gave man the choice of freedom from enslavement to evil.  The danger in our society is by accepting homosexuality as a norm is we now condemn people to it.  When hasn't there been a child with questions about there sexuality.  By saying it is healthy to do what ever you feel like with another consenting individual instead of guiding that child to healthy sexual expressions.  You just  labeled an individual and blinded him to the choice of healthy psychological development.  Now unto the acceptance of homosexuals in a Christian congregation; I will speak of what I know.  The Orthodox Christian Church is a hospital for the spiritually ill.  Through the participation in the God established grace filled sacraments we are gradually healed of what ever sinfulness that is killing us.  That includes all the sins that St. Paul listed.  But that calls for a person to want to be healed ,because God unlike the devil respects man's freedom of choice.  So one should go to Church with the humble attitude of getting to know who you really are and getting to know God as He is.  Not trying to conform God and His Church into what they think it should be.  That would be like the mental patients running the asylum.     

Nancy - All I'm tyring to show is that there are ramifications for sin up to four generations - and we can't understand all  that might entail.

   If so many gays claim to be born that way, then somehow it must have some truth to it. We are a three part being - body soul and spirit, and all three make the man.

 You can call it a generational curse - (a Christianese buzzword),....  but for some reason, some are inclined to be attracted to the same sex. 

   But the good news is no "generational curse" for gays - or alchoholcs for that matter (my grandfather died from accute alchoholism) .... has any power to resist the resurrection power of Jusus Christ. "If any man be in Christ he is a new creation"

  The list of sins in 1 Cor. are all choices. People say alchoholism is a disease but a disease like diabetes is not on that list of sins. So for every sin on that list there is a choice....... Jesus said "Whosoever."

The thing that bothers me here (talking about sins vested unto subsequent generations) is that you're quoting from the Old Testament and Jesus clearly stated that the old would fade away.   I hate to use the non believers example but in this case it's a decent one.  If you believe the sins are vested generationally, then you must believe you cannot eat shellfish or meats that have not been prepared by kosher standards.  You can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to live by.  You either believe in Christs new beginning, or you live by the law.

Nancy - God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle would by any means dissapear from the Law and the Prophets untill all was accomplished. God makes it clear - the new covenant vs. the old -  but why would you think that the spiritual principles laid out in the Law would ever change? 

   When I said about the 5 year old boy  - he had that way of talking, and that way about him that was unmistakable. He couldn't have learned that. I said he had "that spirit about him." I am hesitant to say that it is a "generational curse" even if it seems I am implying that. The truth is - I don't know.  ----- How would you explain why some are desirous of the same sex from as far back as they can remember?

P.S. Nancy  -- the quote from the ten commandments above (Ex. 20:4-6) coincides with Romans 1:22-27

I'm not one of those people who discount science in the name of religion.   I believe they co-exist.  At some point when a fetus is being formed the  biological decision is made as to whether the baby will be a boy or girl.  Up to that point, they are the same.  I don't know all the jargon about chromosomes but that's what determines the sex of the child.  I believe that somewhere in that process the gene, chromosome, atom, hormone, or whatever it's called, the fetus receives too little, too many and the child becomes either heterosexual or not.  I dunno, I'm talking about something I have no training in and all I can tell you is that it's biological and not spiritual.  You'll never convince me that God punished a baby for it's fathers sins by making that baby homosexual.

Obviously, even being Christians, you and I differ immensely as to the Word.  Yes, God was is and always will be but you keep ignoring the part about whether you live by the law or you live by grace.   If you expect people to take you seriously then you must make a decision as to whether you're going to follow ALL the laws of the Old Testament (or just the ones you believe in.) or the New Testament where venengence and hatred aren't prevelant.  Vesting unto generations is vengence.

By the way, Cornthians is believed to have been written by Paul and he also said it's better that you not marry, but if you were going to burn with lust, then by all means marry.  He also said that women should be silent.  Do you insist that your wife be silent?  The trouble with picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you choose to obey is that you're making up your own set of rules to follow.

As for my beliefs......A wise person once said to me  "If you're looking for a Christian, I'm your man.  If you're looking for a GOOD Christian, don't follow me."  I can relate to that.  But I know religion of convenience when I see it.

A little off topic Nancy ,but where does it say that a women should be silent in Church?  As far as Know St. Paul said in Corinthians that all things should take place in the Church in good order.  Meaning that those who have the gift of speaking in tongues which did exist at that time shouldn't disrupt the Liturgies by speaking out of turn. 

1 Cor. 14:34-35 is the passage about women keeping silent in church.

Nancy  -- If indeed it were biological, then where is the "cure" or alternative? That would be unjust.  --- But if it is a spiritual condition, then there is a "cure" or an alternative.  Salvation and the subsequent enpowerment of the Holy Spirit is the way.

Thanks Apollo.  Checking that in my Orthodox Study Bible which is the best English translation of the original Greek.  There is an explanation of that verse in the footnotes that I will quote here:

14:34-36 1 Cor:  An early tradition in the Church is that women shall keep silent and not talk during the Liturgy.  While they are permitted to prophesy (11:5) they are not allowed to simply converse (see also 1Tim 2:12).

This interpretation is further backed up with a quote from St. John Chrysostom who is one the great Theologians of the Christian Church:

"For if to them that have the gifts it is not permitted to speak inconsiderately, nor when they will, and this though they be moved by the Spirit; much less to those women who prate idly and to no purpose." 

Actually it is rude and disrespectful of anyone when standing in the presence of God in His Holy Church to disturb the service with idle conversations.

Dcs  There are a lot of things in life that are incurable and unjust.  There is no "cure" for being gay any more than there is a "cure" for being heterosexual.

RE speaking tongues.  It also says there's a limit of people who can speak in tongues at any given time and that there must be an interpertor.  How do you account for large numbers of congretations speaking in tongues at the same time?

While at one time ecstatic speaking in tongues other wise known as Corinthian Glossolalia was a actual gift of the Holy Spirit given to some in the Orthodox Church.  The reason for that was that in Greek paganism intoxication, whirling dances, orgies, and other means of producing ecstatic trances were common place.  The Christians did none of these ,but the Holy Spirit gifted some to speak ecstatically to make manifest the  power of God.  This need for that particular gift has appeared to have died out in the Church.  Modern Pentecostal sects which were invented in the early 1900's.  They having never knew that the original Christian Church never died out ,but has continued on as the Orthodox Church after the Roman Catholics separated themselves during the Great Schism; the Pentecostal sects attempted to recreate the Orthodox Church.  Having never been exposed to an actual Christian Liturgy were the Eucharist is the center of Christian life, they made speaking in tongues their one sacrament.  While we can never rule out that the Holy Spirit can make actual speaking in tongues most Christians would agree that the Pentecostal sects are just fooling themselves. 

I was about 12 ish when I went to Sunday School with a friend.  One time we decided to stay for church and when they began to moan, speak in tongues, cry and get on the floor, I freaked out.  Never went back to that church.  My background was a small interdenominational church in Fruitvale and my family's loosley Baptist upbringing so you can imagine the culture shock.

My grandmother re married to a Baptist preacher and played the piano in church.  She also smoked unfiltered Lucky Strikes and drank Coca Cola.  All my upbringing was pretty down to earth and not given to fantasy.  Unless of course, you agree with the non believers who say it's all fantasy.

I have a dear friend who about 25 years ago gave her life and heart over to Christ and put her homosexuality in the past.  She has stood firm on the Lord all this time.  Now, we are ALLLLL sinners, that's why it's only through Christ's grace that we ever have a chance.  I think so many people have lost the focus that you love the sinner and hate the sin.  None of us, no not one can ever be the person we should be without His grace.   I look at it this way, we all have a cross to bear and our call is to take up that cross and follow him.   Will we fall, probably, will he be there to catch us - absolutely - if we allow him to.

I pray for God's blessings on all of us and that we allow Him to give us the strength to continue on his precious path.

God Bless!

Wayfarer, characterizing homosexuals as people "suffering" from "temptations" and likening them to "self destructive" addicts with "inherent weakness" illustrates an ignorance all too common among Christians claiming biblical validation of their homophobia. 

This sort of nonsense is indeed the epitome of "flawed reasoning" 

Man and the "devil" working against god's will to embrace such "evil" sins?

The devil, indeed.

Perhaps it is the "devil" and not god who is behind the biblical absurdities on which this sort of idiotic homophobic judgment is based.

So some guys write about visitations by "angels" in burning bushes claiming they were told by them to sacrifice their children on bloody altars, and sell them into slavery and to commit other such horrific atrocities, are you so sure that if these people weren't hallucinating or out and out lying, that maybe they might have really been talking with devils?

Who made these guys the arbiters of morality, anyway?

Moral condemnation of homosexuality doesn't sound very godlike.

Perhaps your whole theory about the sinfulness of homosexuality is borne of the devil's own scripture and you're just really a tool of the very evil you warn against.

Lots of people have claimed to have conversations with god.

Serial killers like Son of Sam and others claim divine relationships, who decides whether or not they really heard from god or the devil?

Who decides which are authentic, anyway?

Is there a committee or panel somewhere, like Underwriters Laboratories or Good Housekeeping that's charged with authenticating claims of divine visitations and issues seals of approval of the plethora of various biblical contributors, saints and such claiming deistic connections?

Over the centuries has there been a divine editing process in place ensuring biblical authenticity, verification and corroboration of posited facts, etc? 

If not, why would an intelligent person take as gospel the word of some obscure, first century wacko writing that "god said" it was okay to sell your daughter to a brothel, slit your son's throat or that homosexuality is a sin.

During the past 21 centuries, we have had the opportunity to evolve intellectually with the discovery of new knowledge and information, yet some can't bring themselves to discard the archaic belief that the world is flat or that the bible might not necessarily be the word of god but the rantings and ravings of a collection of mortals merely claiming to have been visited by him.

Perhaps you might do better using some common sense and 21st century science in your evaluation of human sexual behavior rather than questionable biblical fiction.

Now, now, Saberhagen.  Buffoo's just suffering from the temptations of his self-destructive addiction to religious nonsense.  And he's not even got the excuse of being biologically impelled to.  Fortunately, many, many people have found the strength to put their religious indoctrination behind them. 

Wayfarer, I think you harbor fear of a world without the "security" of religion, and you seem to be projecting that fear on homosexuals. Why are you so afraid of them? What possible harm can they do to you if you're protected by your God? Give it up, dude. They're just people.

It always unnerves me that the people most convinced that without religion human beings would perpetrate pure evil, are themselves the most religious.  I guess we should all be grateful they found religion, as they seem to be the poor unfortunates who cannot control their base impulses.  Too bad they all assume others are as morally weak as they.

Random: "Now, now, Saberhagen.  Buffoo's just suffering from the temptations of his self-destructive addiction to religious nonsense."

Sorry, it's sometimes just so frustrating to hear such moralistic garbage that flies squarely in the face of all logic and intelligence.

I don't really have a problem with people embracing any manner of belief, despite it's glaring incongruity when juxtaposed with with modern knowledge.

But it's especially annoying when some of these misdirected religious extremists so superciliously deign to instruct others with this sort of pious moral indictment and sociological ignorance.

What's even worse is that some want to indoctrinate our children with this sort of dogmatic crap, teaching it in our public schools.

These guys would have made Jesse Helms proud.

Their own children are waking up to the nonsense.  There *IS* evolution in human thought. 

But I share your frustrations.  Not only do they flaunt their ignorance on such topics as homosexuality, many hide from a fair discussion which would expose their error where possible. 

Did anyone just hear a nightmarish, blood curdling scream?

That was me. I'd been working on a response to this blog for nearly three hours and I hit the wrong button on my computer and...

POOF

It was gone.

Let me collect myself. I'm definitely in on this discussion. I thank DSC for presenting the opportunity to talk about these issues. I have MUCH to say.

So let us ask what scientific proof do the anti-Christians base there opinion on?  And HB my sympathies.  I hate it when that happens. 

Husbandmaterial  -- I heard that scream - I hate it when that happens. It happened to me when I posted "The Titanic and Ark." So I just redid it and made it better.

   I am so looking forward to your responses.

For the life of me I couldn't figure our who this "HB" person was people kept referring to. Duh! It must be my advanced aged. "HM" or Ray, since I post my real name, seemed the logic thing. I gotta learn to think outside that particular box.

Setting aside the generous and kind spirit with which DSC began this discussion, I'll get to a point immediately that doesn't fly, then come back address the whole "5-year old flamer" think.

What I see that has no wings is this whole analogy DSC asserts that supposedly unites alcoholics and homosexuals. It just doesn't have any foundation.

Unfortunately, the analogy to alcoholism doesn't work. For one thing, the act of having a drink is immoral only for alcoholics.  Moderate drinking is perfectly acceptable, according to the Church, for non alcoholics.  Analogizing to homosexuality, this would mean that sex between people of the same gender would be - in moderation - FINE for heterosexuals, but always out of bound for homosexuals; an argument that even the most nitpicking of theologians might regard as a little perverse. In some respects, the Church teaches the opposite of this, it argues that the culpability of homosexuals in sexual acts should be judged with prudence, and less harshly from that of heterosexuals engaging in wanton perversion. (At other times, The Church's pastors also suggest that homosexual acts can be more inherently dangerous for those predisposed to homosexual activity, for they are more likely to lead to a settled pattern of behavior than they do among "opportunistic homosexuals" [whatever that is] whose main temptations involve the opposite sex.)  For the most part, the Church eschews such nuanced arguments, arguing badly that the immorality of homosexual sex does not lie in its effect on the character of the particular homosexual, but in the fact that, like masturbations, extramarital sex, or premarital sex, homosexual sex is not open to the possibility of procreations in a divinely blessed marital bond.

The reason alcoholism doesn't work is a deep one that goes far, far deeper than the experience alcoholics have.  It is that alcoholism does not reach to the core of the human condition in the way that homosexuality, following the logic of the Christian argument, does.  If alcoholism is overcome, by a renunciation of alcoholic acts, it allows the human being to realize his or her full potential, a part of which, according to the Church, is the supreme act of self-giving in a life of matrimonial love.  but if homosexuality is overcome, by the renunciation of homosexual acts, the opposite is the truth: the human being is liberated into sacrifice and pain, barred from the act of union with another that the Church holds to be intrinsic to the notion of human flourishing in the vast majority of human lives.  Homosexuality is a structural condition which, even if allied to a renunciation of homosexual acts, disbars the human being from such a fully realized life.  The gay or lesbian person is disordered at a far deeper level than the alcoholic: the level of the human capacity to love and be loved by another human being, in a union based on fidelity and self-giving.

The homosexual person's dignity does not extend to being able to participate in some of the highest goods of human life - which is why, perhaps, the Church understands that those persons, even in the act of obedient self-renunciation, are called "to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever suffering and difficulties they experiences in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross."

This suggest another analogy: the sterile person. Here, too, the human person is structurally barred by an innate or incurable condition from the full realization of procreative union with another person.  One might expect, following the precise logic of the church's teaching on the essential nature of openness to procreation i n a marital relationship, that such people would be regarded in exactly the same light as homosexuals.  They would be asked to commit themselves to a life of complete celibacy and to offer up their pain toward a realization of Christ's sufferings on the cross.  But that, of course, is not the Church's position.  Marriages are available to sterile or older couples without the possibility of having children; and there is no prohibition on older couples, past child-bearing age, from having sexual relations.

After all, if there is nothing morally wrong, per se, with the homosexual condition, and nothing wrong with homosexual love and self-giving, then the sterile person is precisely the correct analogy.

With the sterile couple, it could perhaps be argued, miracles might happen.

But miracles, by definition, can happen to anyone. What the analogy to the barren suggests, of course, is that the injunction against homosexual union and commitment does not lie, at heart, in the arguments about openness to procreation, but in the fact that the Church still has not fully absorbed it own teaching about the dignity and worth of homosexual persons. It cannot yet see them as it sees sterile heterosexual people who, from the point of view of procreation, suffer from a clear, limiting condition, but who nevertheless have a potential for as complete a human fulfillment as their condition will allow. It cannot yet see them as truly made in the image of God.

 Excepted from Andrew Sullivan's "Virtually Normal - An Argument About Homosexuality"

I'm about to depart for dinner. I'll drink in moderation and hopefully I can continue this later in the evening.

H.M.  -- are you saying that there is nothing morally wrong, per se, with the homosexual condition?

   About the 5 year old "flamer" think. Probably a bad choice of words - however those were the very words offered by those who commented on this child. It was evident to all. Also in remembering back, I think the boy was more like 7or 8, but he was way to young to be having any sexuality. And I'm sure he wasn't at that point - but it was obvious which orientation he would be. 

H.M.  -- are you saying that there is nothing morally wrong, per se, with the homosexual condition?

I can't speak for *HIM*, but I would agree with that.   It is no more or less moral inherently than the heterosexual condition. 

What matters is how you treat others, not whom you sleep with.

For the record, Buffoo, I'm not anti Christian.

I am only anti supercilious, intolerant Christian or anti anyone else judging and unfairly and unreasonably discriminating against another decent human being regarless of race, religion, gender or sexual persuasion.

To the best of my, Jesus Christ taught neither bigotry nor intolerance of any other human, homosexual or otherwise.

Simply put, cloaking one's homophobia in the robes of religion is just plain wrong, at best.

Sin associated with homosexuality, if any, lies not with the homosexual but in the intolerance of the judge.

DCS, are you saying the homosexual must choose between sexuality and God?

Why can a homosexual not have both?

Is there a mutual exclusivity between God and homosexuality?

Husbandmaterial  -- I think the comparison to a sterile hetero couple is impertanant. The fact that Homosexuals can't procreate is only a side issue, I believe, and not the main reason why it is sinful in God's eyes. 

   The husband and wife relationship is our God given model for Christ and His bride- the church. I think this is why God has particularly strong language for the sin of homosexuality. 

HM forgive my laziness.  I habitually abbreviate all blog handles.  I am assuming that the Church and theology that you are quoting is Roman Catholic.  I must point out that Roman Catholics are hardly representative of all Christendom and are very far off the mark according to the Orthodox Church.  From the Orthodox perspective and I am no theologian the purpose of life is not necessarily reproduction.  But to grow in the knowledge and likeness of God.  That is why I use the analogy of alcoholism.  To first clarify a point.  I have never heard anyone in Orthodoxy try to grade sins.  A sin is a consensual thought or act that separates you from God.  I am fascinated by women ,but to even fantasize about having carnel relations with one outside the Sacrament of Marriage is a sin.  It is the same as fantasizing having relationships with men.  Those are thoughts that I must not accept and definitely not bring to fruition.  Now thoughts do pop into peoples heads ,but the key according to Orthodox experience is not to consent to anything.  You if you choose can explore Orthodox Christian Spiritual Warfare on your own.  Back to the alcoholism analogy.  Drinking is not a sin.  The Psalms even thank God for creating wine, but evil is taking something good a distorting it.  An alcoholic has a habitual behavior pattern to use something good like wine to self destructive ends.  The same with a sex-holic or womanizer or homosexual.  Sex is great if used in the context God created for.  It is a sin if taken out of that context.  So the point is that we are hear to grow in the knowledge and likeness of God.  Sin of any kind separates us from God.  You claim that by not having carnal relations with your partner that you would be denying yourself as a human being.  God says that by having carnal relations with your partner you are indeed destroying yourself as a human being and separating yourself from Him for all eternity.  God does not will the destruction of a sinner ,but that he be turned and saved.  That is were people like me come in.  I don't hate you or look down on you and I really have better things to do then concern myself with your private life.  But to be faithful to God I must warn you and do what my little bit is in bringing you back to God. 

And I'm not anti-Christian.  Some of my best friends, and so on.

I *AM* anti-Christianist, a category which happens to include Buffoo, the County Clerk, and too many others who seek to impose the letter of their dogma on others while completely ignoring its spirit. 

You guys want to pretend the bread changes to flesh, no problem.  Want to deny yourselves sexual acts because some sky buddy told some goatherder not to do it, fine.  Just don't expect others not to laugh.

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H L Mencken,

Saber who is judging who?  I am not judging; that is solely God's job.  I am just trying to pass along the message.  But you do have a good point.  Some can cloak hatred in pretenses of religion; some cloak it under the pretenses of being progressive. 

  I think this is why God has particularly strong language for the sin of homosexuality. 

Please list for us everything Jesus of Nazareth said about homosexuality.

Buffoo, you are assuming on the basis of pitifully little evidence that you understand god's opinion on the matter.  I think it's plainly obvious that you barely understand *YOUR OWN* opinion on the matter, but are pleased at how coincidentally an almighty being agrees with your personal prejudices.

saberhagen  --  "DCS, are you saying the homosexual must choose between sexuality and God?"   It's not about me, The Bible says this.

Random  -- The whole Bible is written by Jesus, the Word become flesh. It was His Holy Spirit that spoke through the Apostle Paul. To us Bible believing Christians, the whole Bible is "red letters".   

As I said before RF.  I have tried to have reasonable discussions ,but you seem to have this need to attack people.  Therefore, the delete and move on policy.  PS have you ever noticed that I don't delete people like HM and Saber who diagree with me and are way better debater's than you?  That blows your "I delete ,because I can't respond" theory.  As I said it is a matter of not letting waste my time;) 

No, dcs, the bible was written by human beings for human purposes.  There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

And Jesus of Nazareth said nothing regarding homosexuality.  That people who proclaim to follow him are so hung-up on this point, is one of the chief indicators of Christianism.

Random  -- dejavu  - we've been down this road too many times. 

Yes, Buffoo, you've lied about this issue countless times.  You delete because you cannot answer--your faith is weak and you lean on it like a broken crutch.

The plain fact of the matter is that there is no god who cares one way or another whom people sleep with.  And *I* only care (in as much as I do) how they treat one another. 

Your prejudices lead you to impose your religious dogma on others.  I don't hold it in reverence and I don't *HAVE* to.  As you quote from the rulebook for Middle-Eastern goatherders, I quote from the book of Mencken:

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.

True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.
-- H L Mencken

DCS: "The husband and wife relationship is our God given model for Christ and His bride- the church. I think this is why God has particularly strong language for the sin of homosexuality."

God said homosexuality is a sin? Where and when?

You heard it yourself? You were there?

He talks to you?

Have you recorded it?

You have the video?

Or did someone else claim that God said so?

Was that person on crack?

Do you believe everyone who claims to have spoken with God?

How do you determine who REALLY heard from God between some claimant in the bible and say, Son of Sam who said he heard from God through his Dog and was told to kill a bunch of people?

Could people who managed to get their rants included in one of the many incarnations of the bible be lying about their divine encounters?

The bottom line of my point here, is you don't know jack about what God said or didn't say.

All you have is the hodgepodge of names of ancient people who allegedly SAID God talked to them.

When you have the photographic or videographic evidence of such an encounter wherein God bashes gays, please provide it forthwith or at least the link to it.

Meanwhile, there is not an iota of evidence of Godly visitations and no reason why an intelligent person should abandon all logic and sensibility to buy into such homophobic drivel.

 Every knee shall bow and every Tongue shall Confess JESUS CHIRST IS LORD

Then most people are spelling his name wrong.

It's funny how these blog conversations can go. As I stated earlier, I love homosexuals and respect them for the people that they are. If they decide they want to seek God or at least talk about it, I will always listen and not feel I must respond, especially with a "biblical" answer. If they have no interest in that , or even a resentment - I can understand that  -- live and let live.

 But here, the nature of the beast is to make you're point rather than make friends. We, I, can get drawn into conversations that are sureal. Having discussions with athiests using the bible as a reference. Hello!

  What a way to spend the 4th of July!  : )

DCS wrote: "About the 5 year old "flamer" think. Probably a bad choice of words"

Not at ALL!!!!!  It's an excellent point of departure for the entire discussion and I hope to demonstrate what I mean as this discussion continues. However, I made a boo-boo when I typed that sentence. I meant to say, "About the 5-year old flamer" THING (not think).

I'm a little hesitant to even begin that part of the discussion. I'd like to because it was something you mentioned in your original blog and it's waaaaaay important to this whole discussion. I have to look back right now and see what questions were posted about my first post.

dcs, please remember though that many of us will simply reject a "biblical" answer as irrelevant to civil marriage and civil rights issues.  But that's just because it is.

You don't expect to use the rulebook for a baseball game at a hockey match.  You don't expect an assembly manual for a barbecue to have much utility in putting together a computer.  And you shouldn't expect the rulebook for one particular brand of one particular strain of one particular religious outlook to have much application to a secular discussion.

DCS wrote: "H.M.  -- are you saying that there is nothing morally wrong, per se, with the homosexual condition?"

In the context of my post? Yes. That's the entire text of that discussion.  The point-of-view is the doctrine and language used by the worldwide Catholic Church and it is the only doctrine authorized by the leadership of the Vatican. Nothwithstanding Wayfarer's objection to Catholicism, the Catholic Church's published and preached position on homosexuals is that, at base, there is absolutely nothing negative about a homosexual who sacrifices himself to life-long celibacy. The specific desription of gays given by the Catholic Church is they are "homosexual persons" and they specifically acknowledge that "some people are constitutively homosexual". That means they acknowledge that homosexuals were BORN that way.

On the moral issue, here's my personal take on it. The few mentions of homosexuality in the bible have some historic problems to deal with.  First of all, there was no such word as "homosexual" until the mid-1800s. There's a reason for that. Ancient Hebrew, Latin and Greek has no such word, either.  The classification "homosexual" was coined by a German psycho-analyst in the latter half of the 19th century.  The word "homosexual" appeared in NO translation of the bible until the 1950s and that was in the United States in English versions of the King James Bible.

So the entire concept of "homosexual" was absent in the period when the unknown writers of the Old Testament wrote the books now included in that volume of scripture. 

It was absent because no one had yet conceived of the idea that there might be a kind of person who was exclusively attracted to persons of the same sex.  It was not until the Freudian revolution of the late 19th and early 20th century that the world heard of  and begin to grasp the concept of the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual".  "Heterosexual" actually pre-dated "homosexual" because that's the kind of person who was most apparent.

So, this is going to sound like I'm going off my rocker, but the thing that virtually no one seems to do is use the word - "Why" - in talking about homosexuality.

Allow me to pose a hypothetically context. Think to your teenage years when you had to go to your mother of father to get permission to do a certain thing, say, go to a place teens like to hang out.

Boy:  "Mom, can I go the Candy Kitchen and meet my friends?"

Mom:  "I don't ever want you going to that place again! Do you hear me? Never!"

Boy:  "But Mom, why can't I go? What's wrong with going there?"

Mom:  "Because I SAID SO! Now just obey me blindly and shut up!"

It's something of that scenario that gays sense from this discussion of what constitutes that good-ole biblical stand-by wrapped up in one word:

A b o m i n a t i o n

Why, for example, does Levitical text refer to a man lying with a man an "abomination"?

Well, believe it or not, there is plenty of actual, hard science to explain virtually EVERY reason people regard ANYTHING as an abomination. I came across the research several years ago in some scientific periodical; probably Science News, which is a weekly summary of the papers that have been submitted to the various big-name peer-reviewed science periodicals.

To know what "abomination" means is a simple task. Look in the dictionary.  The most commonly used synonym for abomination is "disgust".

Now we're into familiar territory.  People have lots of quirky "tastes" and the average person doesn't have a great many things that they regard as "disgusting".  But the ancient Israelites had an entire list of things that they regarded as so disgusting, several of them, in the collective opinion of the Jewish community, merited the death penalty.  The Jews also distinguished between "kinds" of abominations and classed some under the heading, "ritual impurities".  

Interesting.  A man lying with a man was regarded as an abomination (icky) and it fell under "ritual impurities". This area is a little vague to me. I'm not well versed in the ins and outs of which "abomination" fell into which category so I tend to be confused by it all. But what we're certain of is that Jews believed "man lying with man" was one of the ickest things a person could do. Others were things like having relations with one's wife (and, presumably, one's concubine) when she was having her on her period. Wearing cloth of mixed fabrics was horribly icky. And so on and so on.

The whole mixed fabrics thing makes sense to me. I hate polyester.

And to be honest, when at age 30 I finally met and did what homosexuals do, leading up to the big moment I was pretty filled with anxiety about it; not because of Leviticus, but because I just spent about 20 years NOT doing it, and the anxiety was really about reflecting on all the gut-busting hell I'd gone through NOT doing it, then approaching the big moment wondering if, when I DO do it, will I even like it?  I didn't know the answer. But this newly hatched science that examines the "disgust" reaction in individuals could have told me a little.

All those years leading up to that day, I didn't have in my mind, "I gotta have sex. Gimme sex. Lots of sex, Sex, Sex Sex!"  What went on in my head was "I'll never be loved by anyone. I'll never have anyone. I'll always be alone. Nobody wants me."  

It's the kind of thing suicide is made of; the irrepressible sense that you are utterly and completely ALONE in the world. As a child I knew that boy-girl was the BIG thing. And here's the way the homosexual mind works in that situation. I didn't think it once: I thought It hundreds of times how nice it would be to be a girl and get to pick the MAN you wanted to marry. And yes, there is a strident vein of unadulterated lust intermingled in that line of thinking, especially when you're a teenager and beyond.  But unbridled lust never struck me as a worthy goal. Lust was hit and miss and, as I eventually understood, a part of virtually every boy's growing up experience. Guys talk about sex, getting laid, E N D L E S S LY in their teen and young adult years. Gay guys, for the most part, don't get the chance to indulge in that kind of conversation because so many of us don't know any other gay people during that time and the only people we have to listen to are straight kids who, you can't deny it, talk about sex 24 hours a day; boys mostly, but girls to some extent (at least in my generation of females). Seems the girls of today are far more articulate about sex. My generation had a great deal of modesty about the subject. Boys talked about it and girls talked about it, but it was almost unheard of for boys and girls to talk about sex in mixed company.

The "disgust reaction" is innate in Every Human Being. Some, but not all reactions are universal, throughout every society. Disgust with homosexuality is not universal. More likely, disgust for foods, odors, insanitary conditions and the like are universally considered disgusting.

We not only know that the disgust reaction is innate, it can also be measured and depending on how you answer, your reason for having a sense of disgust about a particular thing can be described to you.  One of the most fun and funniest things you can do is complete the Disgust assessment to see how you score and on what areas your sense of disgust gets really edgy.

It's veeeery serious science and it's implications on the ancient Jews, as well as modern societies and religious groups is a valid now as it was 6,000 years ago.  Remember:  "disgust" is a BEHAVIOR.  I like to remind people of that, especially when one of the most common criticisms of homosexuals goes something like, "Well, homosexuality is a behavior which means you can choose to behave that way, so that proves gay "choose" to be homosexual." So, following that obviously flawed logic, if you are disgusted about eating boiled okra, your disgust is a behavior and that means you can choose not be disgusted, so that proves you "choose" to be disgusted by boiled okra.

I would just challenge those persons to experiment on themselves. Starting, say, right now; Don't ever behave in a heterosexual way.  I didn't say that you then must behave in a homosexual way, did I? I only said, don't be heterosexual.  

Now, do that for, say, 30 years. Yes. That's right. That's how long I didn't act on my homosexuality. Go ahead. It's EEEEASY. You'll love it. The bible says chastity and celibacy is a virtue that will give you that coveted free pass to heaven. So, get busy. Uh, pray a lot. That's what I did. It helped. Be sure to pray to God several times a day to help you achieve this goal. I did. Keep your eyes, ears and heart atuned to heaven because you'll want God's guidance. I did.  Let me know what God says to you. I waited for just ONE small breeze to blow as a sign, a leaf to fall from a tree, a bolt lightning, a cloud, an angel, an apparition, anything.  It didn't come.

So, what makes homosexuality an abomination? I don't know why it's that way for the ancient Jews and for modern day Christians. The bible doesn't get into detail (well, unless you ask Wayfarer) on the subject. There's no glossary in the bible where you can look it up to see WHY "man lying with man is an abomination."  It's just like Mom says when you want to go to the Candy Kitchen. You're not allowed to and she doesn't have to tell you the reason.

The history of Christianity and Isreal isn't restricted to the bible. There's a whole lot more known about both religions and people in history books then in religious texts.  There are many, many perfectly plausible explanations as to why homosexuality was regarded with such contempt by the people of ancient Israel and Rome. The explanations are, in my view, superior to any biblical text for one simple reason: they actually provide an answer to the "why" that seems all-important, an explanation that may have existed in biblical times but in our time, is extinct.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. Some people just have a disgust reaction to it and the reason may very well be because Jews and Christians have taught their children to react that way.  The disgust scale analysis pretty much confirms that. Social groups are responsible for many of the cultural aversion we experience. I don't have to accept that. Nor do you.

That's they short answer, DCS.

Since I've already written extensively on kids like the 5-year old flamer in one of my blogs, I'm not going begin to do that again here if this tread is dead. It's too much work to write that stuff and then have NOBODY comment on it, which is exactly what happened in other comments. So, I'll let my previous post jell awhile and see if anyone wants to continue.

Ray  -- It's interesting what you say, or the Catholic Church says, (I didn't know you were Catholic) about being homosexual but not acting on it.  I've noticed that the NIV translation uses the term "homosexual offenders" in 1 Cor. 6:9 - as opposed to simply homosexuals.  This would be akin to drunkards vs. alchoholics. The difference of simply having a condition -  and having it and acting on it. Very interesting. 

   But you said something that I must disagree with. You said that the Bible says that chastity and celibacy are virtues that get you that coveted free pass to heaven. It never says that. The Catholic Church may say that, but not the Bible. 

   It does say (forgive me for preaching but ....) that one must be born again. It's not about what we do or don't do, it's about what He did....  and believing it with all of our heart .....that gets us the free pass to heaven.

   Allow me to use the alchoholic analogy again. I have a friend, a good friend that lives in Fresno  - and he believes that Jesus rose from the dead. Romans 10:9 tells us that is a condition for salvation - so far so good. But it also says to confess Him as Lord. In other words, to make him the Lord of your life.

   Now he is an alchoholic, a "beeraholic", (one of his justifications) and he looks at 1 Cor. 6:9 and says that he has been "justified", even though he still gets drunk all the time. Jesus isn't the Lord of his life, beer is. I have doubts as to whether he is born again.

   When that truly happens there should be a change in your innermost man and your wants and desires are going to change. Sometimes immediatly, sometimes a process, but there should be a change.

   I know of some gays that have been completely "delivered" (Christianese) from homosexual desires and have even married. (the opposite sex)   Others that have become so enamored with the Lord that they have become asexual.  But , I believe, and the Bible supports, that one way or another the homosexual behavior must stop.

   But..... unless a man be born again we are just talking religious rules and  its futile - chasing the wind. In my opinion, (and many Christians) most Catholics are not born again. That's why the silly man made rule of chastity for salvation.

   I always say, for protestants as well  -- don't go to hell sittin' in church. Thats a shame. If for this life only you live, then you might as well do whatever your heart desires - and it probably won't  be church, if you're not born again. Unless of course you're simply "religious", in which case I reiterate, don't go to hell sittin in church. 

   I'm sorry for being so blunt about this, but I do care about you , and I wan't to be able to sleep tonight.

   But if you are, and will continue to be, satisfied and happy with your sexuality and spirituality, then I accept that,(I hate it but I accept it) and we can agree to disagree and be good blog friends.

   Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. 

You said that