Go to THE ECCLESIASTE
- Add a comment
- Go to HOMOSEXUALITY - myths and facts
Xeno
I read you loud and clear! Hope you're having a great day up there! It's nice and cool here for a change, except we have another storm raging in the Gulf, that may turn nasty before the weeks out!
posted by
telemachus
on October 17, 2005 at 1:16 PM
| link to this | reply
the thought of two men etc. -- that's what I mean.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 17, 2005 at 11:50 AM
| link to this | reply
ody 2
not quite had to point it out
just to emphasize my own aversion to even the thought of such.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 17, 2005 at 11:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Ar
looks like a post I'm going to have to work on in answer to your questions?
not to argue with anybody
just to point out some things.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 17, 2005 at 11:49 AM
| link to this | reply
ody
i see agreement
also
we've got to understand that guilt
is a human devised thing.
"Before the Law there was no sin."
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 17, 2005 at 11:48 AM
| link to this | reply
Natural things often occur freely
without the presence of guilt or inner stress. Even certain heterosexual relationships are not meant to be and are thus inflicted with strife. When two people are meant to be with one another the feeling is unquestionably natural and the blissful love between them overwhelms any concern for external approval. I do not wish to take an issue in this debate, other than to make this point that the actions of any human must meet with the approval of their inner being, else they will never, truly be comfortable with themselves. And also, I think that often this feeling of “uncomfort” is mistakenly associated with social persecution in this particular circumstance.
This was a very thought provoking post. It is interesting that you felt inclined to point out that you were heterosexual in your response.
posted by
telemachus
on October 17, 2005 at 9:12 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno, I've also heard that it is unnatural for men to mate for life, yet we
seem to value, promote, and legalize marriage. We teach that pologamy is illegal in this country. What do you think of the natural tendency for men to want to be with more than one woman? How far do we take this 'natural' and 'unnatural' definition? What if men and women begin coming forward and demanding the right to marry more than one mate?
posted by
Ariala
on October 17, 2005 at 9:03 AM
| link to this | reply
ody
i mentioned the parties in Corinth, other places.
at that time and place, homosexuality was not considered not in the natural order of things, -- it was considered unnatural at those parties not to engage in such.
outside of that place, yes, it was considered unnatural.
outside of that time, it has been considered unnatural.
this occured and continued from around 400 CE to around 1600 or 1700 CE, when it was accepted openly by people, but not all.
Although, as I have explained, it is part of nature, it has been considered unnatural in many circles.
many heterosexuals, including me, have a problem with accepting it as natural, with the idea of two males in particular engaging in such activity; however, more and more evidence tells us that, although it is not part of the mainstream, it is not unnatural as we suppose.
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 17, 2005 at 8:57 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno, regardless of compliance with any historical set of laws,
I think we need to consider carefully when our actions violate the natural order of things. I think that perhaps sometimes homosexuals mistake their inner uncertainty about what they are doing for social persecution and therefore harbor an unrealistic hope that social acceptance will purge them of these feelings of uncertainty. However, such feelings are going to occur anytime we violate the natural order of things. A perhaps overly simplistic example would be if one should wake up one morning and decide they enjoyed feeding on raw blood. They might insist that society accept their decision to feed upon blood and insist on being served blood in all their favorite restaurants. Who knows, there might even be a Supreme Court decision on the rights of people to publicly consume the food of their choice. Protests could occur involving public displays of blood consuming humans, making their point in feasting parades. But no amount of social acceptance is going to make them feel better about the blood oozing down their chin. Regardless of how much social acceptance they attain, they may never feel totally comfortable eating something in a manner their body was not designed to digest.
posted by
telemachus
on October 17, 2005 at 8:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno -
posted by
sannhet
on October 17, 2005 at 7:46 AM
| link to this | reply
And Not Only...
...was the Bible written by people, not God, but also...
1. It was written largely in anceient Hebrew, Aramaic and other ancient languages, and translated many, many times. it may have lost something there (especially as Hebrew is a languauge with symbolism way deeper than the words on the page)
2. It was heavily edited in a well-documented meeting of top clergy in around 400AD. Many books were cut as they didn't support the story that the Church wanted to portray. Rumour has it that one such book was by May Magdelene and another by John the Baptist, and that some appeared among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course, that can't be confirmed as long as the Vatican hold them under lock and key.
Good post!
D
PS There is evidence of homosexuality in the animal world, too. I recall seagulls being mentioned someplace in relation to this.
posted by
DamonLeigh
on October 17, 2005 at 7:31 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno--I admittedly have not read your entire post (will later when more
time)... However, based on your opening paragraph, I completely agree. People also forget that, while from God, the Bible was written by other PEOPLE with motives and beliefs of their own.
We should use the Bible as a guide, not a rule book to be read verbatim.
Back later...
posted by
Renigade
on October 17, 2005 at 7:09 AM
| link to this | reply