A story of intuition

by **manxkat** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:42 am

Floyd Smoots, why are you so interested in homosexuality? Why do you continue to claim to be non-judgemental while your postings reek of Fundamental Christian judgement? What is your intent? What are you trying to prove? Could it be that you've got a bad case of internalized homophobia? I've been gay all my life and have never needed to prove to myself that it's ok -- I just looked within and accepted how I was created. And, I discovered that I'm a beautiful person, even though the church said I wasn't. In this day and age, your arguments about the origins of homosexuality (linked to ritual abuse and pedophilia) have little credibility like they did decades ago. By attempting to typecast gay people as damaged goods, you do yourself and others a real disservice. And, your contention that there's some sort of Mainstream Media conspiracy to "out" almost every one of our children, is beyond absurd. You prejudge others through your Fundamentalist Christian lens and then you pass off your judgements as if you are speaking for God herself. In so doing, you give Christianity a bad name, and you isolate yourself from the larger world of open, loving, and caring people -- all of God's children.

by **Dreams End** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:00 am

Well, Floyd, you'll need to make up your mind which position you want to defend. Your first statements were that homosexuality was a "choice." Then you claim a "host of studies" that suggest it is inculcated in small children by nefarious adults. Nowhere does Jeff suggest that any of the activities he describe have anything to do with how people turn gay, so that is irrelevant. As to the "real reason" I am dismissive of your answers.... Homophobia kills. I explained that earlier. I'd be interested to see one...just one...peer reviewed article that demonstrates this link you claim. Here are some studies I found. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>From the results of our study, the Bell & Weinberg study, other studies, and the issues addressed in this discussion, it is predicted that the level of homophobia manifested in a particular country, or culture, may be directly linked to the extent of gay and bisexual male youth suicidality problems. Ross (1989) for example, studied homosexually oriented males in four countries (Sweden, Finland, Ireland, and Australia); the analysis of the data 'suggests that homosexual adolescents are likely to have more problems in the more antihomosexual countries, and they are also likely to have less accepting ideas about homosexuality than older homosexual men' (p. 313). The need for international studies of suicidal behaviour in youth (and adults) is therefore indicated, and similar studies are also required within countries where different cultural groups co-exist and manifest varying levels of homophobia.<hr></blockquote> From a study showing the much higher risk of suicide attempts in gay youth. Abuse as a factor is discussed also: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sexual abuse may be another part of the problem. Our study has revealed that sexual abuse (experiencing unwanted sexual acts before the age of 17 years) is a factor in suicidality problems (Bagley et al. 1994). A further analysis of the data on our sample of 750 Calgary males indicates however that child sexual abuse is not significantly related to the self-harm behaviors reported by sexually active homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual males, but is significant in the celibate groups who have the highest mean depression (CES-D) scores. Remafedi et al. (1991), on the basis of multivariate analysis, also did not find sexual abuse to be significantly implicated in the suicide attempts of sexually active gay and bisexual male youth when other factors were controlled. Our study also indicates that child sexual abuse may be a relatively insignificant factor in suicide attempts. The two suicide attempters in the celibate male group are homosexual males.<hr></blockquote> Both from here: <a href="http://www.youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/discuss2.htm">www.youth-suicide.com/gay...scuss2.htm</a> As for the media...just spend some time in a school. Count how many times "gay" or "faggot" is used as an insult. When I was a kid, we played a game called "smear the queer" in which one person has the ball and everyone else must tackle him. The scorn of a parent of a gay child is also profound, often leading to physical and emotional abuse. While I would be surprised to find any serious studies attempting to demonstrate a connection between gay content on television and homosexual orientation, I can tell you for sure that the negative attitudes of parents and peers is far more powerful. Maybe you can't remember back to your school days, but I sure do. Here's a summary of studies on the lack of any link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse: <a href="http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html">psychology.ucdavis.edu/ra...ation.html</a> There are tons of studies in this regard.

by **Floyd Smoots** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:22 am

Dang, marykmusic, I could be wrong, but I think your "self righteous finger" was pointed at me. Well, here's "where it goes from here". And, I promise you, it's not the Firepit. Really! I complain, right here and now,to you, and anyone else who makes unjustified assertions, that I have not, in any way, minimized brother "meekster's" honest thoughts or feelings expressed by him on this thread. Did you NOT notice, that for any and every "one" finger I pointed at him, I truthfully pointed the other nine back at myself? And, for God's sake, the rest of you, I don't want to hear ANY excrement here on this thread to the effect of, "heh-heh, he said the nine"---settle down, you Beavis-heads. I never even heard of the nine 'til I found Jeff's blog. Get over it. I AM neither homophilic, nor homophobic. I just choose to believe the words of the Holy Bible, over and above, the words of any other holy book, prophet, or pagan system that, in my stupid (university-conferred, hard-earned B.A) opinion, advocates ignoring the well written words of the handbook of humanity, A.K.A., "Life, the Universe, and Everything" Instead of disparaging Jesus, which, to too many R.I.ers, seems to come all too easily, why don't one of us, maybe even me, start a thread called "What Do YOU, Yes, YOU, Mr., Ms., or Mrs. Know-It-All, ACTUALLY Believe Happens To The Entity That You BELIEVE Yourself To Be, When You Physically DIE? I would actually be very interested in the answers, because, I already know, after years of reading, what the Catho-Musli-Bapti--Methodi-Mormo-Juda-Bhudda-Paga-Anima-Hind-Whatevers believe. Why don't the rest of you (and, a few of you already have) come out of your spiritual closets and tell the rest of us, not only what you believe is "behind the curtain", but, WHY you believe it. Let's face it, R.I.ers, this really is "Where the Rubber Meets the Road". We're all going to die someday, so share with us what you truly believe, but knowing the gang here, you'd better be prepared to defend it! Maranatha, Peeps

by **Dreams End** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:45 am

That might make an interesting topic for another thread. Let's not clutter this one. I posted as I did so maybe meekster would not feel unwelcome here. I didn't want him to think that condemnation of his orientation was universal on this board. But they are NOT the same, Floyd, "smoking" and "homosexuality". When one is called a "sinner" (I'd say an addict) for smoking, one is not likely to commit suicide over that fact. But negative attitudes towards gay teens and young adults has a definite relation to teen suicide. In addition, gay teens are more likely to be abused and assaulted that straight or closeted gay teens. And in an interesting fact in the above study, it is the CELIBATE gays who are MOST likely to attempt suicide. Sadly, we've lost the point of this thread, which was not meekster's sexuality, but his spiritual experience. It was a great post. If I were a moderator I'd put this other discussion elsewhere with a pointer to it in this thread.

by **meekster** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:08 am

Aack. I put one teeny tiny little word into my first post at RI, and it becomes a lightning rod. How strange, yet how typical. First to Floyd, Hey man, I love that you care enough to try and save me. There is no doubt that I need saving, but really, it is because of sins like coveting, lying, and timidity rather than which sex happens to turn me on. And, I totally appreciate that you even admit to a moment of sexual interest in the same gender. That is one of the key points about the prejudice against homosexuality that is never talked about: I believe that most people are in truth, rather bisexual. It is "normal" for people to be able to have sex with any gender, if the mood is right, or rather, if there were not so many social/moral taboos, and the mood is right. Straight people see homosexuals as "choosing" a lifestyle, because they see in themselves a small kernel of homosexuality, but they choose not to act upon it. And who WOULD choose homosexuality as a lifestyle, since it deprives you of much of what the rest of the world thinks is essential for happiness - a loving wife, children, a family. In the late 1800's, the word "homosexual" was first coined. It almost automatically created it's opposite: the "heterosexual", and most of humanity then comfortably situated itself within that label, even though the label is not very accurate. And yet, there are certain of us, who have no ability to even pretend to have a sexual attraction to the opposite sex. (I have stories about my dates with some very hot sorority girls that were beyond humiliating for both me and them). I am completely impotent when it comes to women - a eunuch! This is hard for heteros to believe, and I understand that. I think that if I were straight, I'd have a hard time believing it too. but sometimes you should just take somebody's word on it, without ever having the "misfortune" of experiencing it. Now, as far as what God's opinion is on my status as a "born eunuch", check out Acts 8:27-39, Isaiah 56:3-5, and Matthew 19:12.

by **meekster** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:09 am

Dreams End: thanks for the welcome. I really would rather talk about stuff like my premonition, but hey, if people want to focus on sexuality, that is really important too, maybe more important, and maybe just as spiritual. I appreciate the "ramble". The Christian faith is so amazingly bizarre and ridiculous that it defies belief. And oddly enough, that's why I'm interested, because if God was easy for me to understand, then I know I would be making him in my own image. to Col Quisp: Funny you should mention Gnosticism. I'm new to Christianity, but a fairly quick study. Gnosticism is a famous heresy of the early church. One of the beliefs of gnosticism is that this world is in the control of an evil god, and that the true good god, is a distant, well meaning, but otherwise involved elsewhere type of deity. The absolutely amazing thing is that almost all of organized Christianity follows this Gnostic heresy. To the Catholics and the fundies, God is a a monster who will judge a certain (large) percentage of humans as unworthy, and will then roast them in skin charing hell for... not a hundred years, not a thousand years, not a million years, but for ever and ever, amen!!! I think the rest of the world sees the obvious contradiction in calling such a god the god of "love", and looks no further. On the other hand, every "progressive" or liberal church I've been to in the last year considers god to be a distant figure who gives moral support, advice and some cheerleading, but in the end, it is really up to us humans - "the body of Christ" - to roll up our sleeves and actually get to work creating heaven on earth, because god sure as hell isn't going to do it for us. Both views are entirely Gnostic in character. The heresy has become dogma. To Nomo: These are the questions I love, because they make me think. "How on earth can it be possible for someone to die in someone's else place? What kind of salvation, or justice, is that? I think it's nothing but scapegoating. No one is responsible for my transgressions but me. When I do the crime, I should do the time." I think you understand it perfectly. Jesus is the scapegoat (aka the lamb) for our transgressions. We did the crime, but Jesus did the time. It's not justice, it's grace. It's forgiveness. How on earth... well, earth is not the whole story - even physicists are making statements about the nature of the universe now that sound more like Buddhist koans than "science".

by **GDN01** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:15 am

I'm not a fundamentalist, and don't really consider myself a Christian because I believe Jesus is fully human, and while he may be the son of God, we are all children of the ultimate source of Creation. But I've picked up a few bits of knowledge about the Bible, and especially about what the Bible has to say about homosexuality. First, Loyd, you say you choose to believe the words of the Holy Bible, but I will bet you don't believe them all. No one does, nor should they. Leviticus is the book of the Old Testament most people use to justify a condemnation of homosexuality. 20:13 states if man lies with man like he would a woman, it is an abomination and they should be put to death. But guess what else is an abomination? To have sex with a woman on her period. If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother, they should all three be put to death. It is sinful to cut any of your hair. It is sinful to charge interest on a loan. It is sinful to wear cloth of mixed threads - no more cotton/polyster blends for you! Cattle can't graze in the same field as other livestock. It is wrong to eat meat that still has blood in it. If a man cheats on his wife, or a wife cheats on her husband, both the man and his wife should be killed. If a priests daughter is a whore, she should be burnt at the stake. People who have flat noses won't be received in heaven - neither will the blind or handicapped. And make sure you don't eat lobster. The other passage used to point to the sin of homosexuality is the story of Sodom, but if you read any scholarship on this text, the sins of the Sodomites were the sins of greed and being inhospitable to travelers. And if you take the Bible literally, then it is okay with you for men to give their daughters to the townsmen, to "do with as they please." In other words - daughters can be raped by men as a gift from their father. Is this the word of God that you accept in the Holy Bible? And finally, Jesus freed everyone from the laws of the Old Testament. And what Jesus said one must do, to enter the kingdom of his Father, is to clothe the poor, visit those imprisoned, feed the hungry, and let the stranger come into your home, and look after the sick - and to do this for "the least of these". So you can choose to follow the teachings of Jesus, or you can live by the Old Testament - you can't do both. Which part of the Bible do you follow?

by **slomo** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:35 pm

GDN01, you are correct about the absurdity of Leviticus. However, the New Testament also apparently condemns homosexuality: ----------------- Romans 1:21-27 ----------------- Because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due. ---------------------- Of course, this is Paul, who IMHO was an asshole. In my view (which is controversial) homosexuality, reified as a phenomenon and institutionalized as a valid alternative lifestyle, is a byproduct of empire. Men have always "burned with lust" for other men, and this is completely natural and nothing wrong with it in-and-of-itself. But a population that has sufficient excess resources to be able to support a large number of people seeking to marry persons of the same gender (which can occur only when community survival is taken for granted) probably has stolen those resources from some other subject population and is well advanced in its corruption. So, institutionalized homosexuality becomes a symptom of empire (certainly not its cause). In context, I think the Romans passage reflects this issue. To summarize: institutionalized homosexuality is not sinful in itself, but likely evidence of corruption on a much larger scale simply because of the economic structures required to support it. As such, Christians are barking up the wrong tree. Let's talk about the wholesale theft and murder that goes unexamined in our society (well-documented here at RI and other more mainstream sites) instead of endlessly flogging "sexual deviance". [Note that I came out as a gay guy in an earlier post, so this post should not be construed as criticism of any individual gay man or lesbian.]

by **Dreams End** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:12 pm

I think that the Pauline injunction against homosexuality is clear. As is his instruction that women should not speak out in church and that slaves should obey their masters. To me, this doesn't matter. I don't feel bound by Paul's rules...but if someone does feel bound by those rules, and is gay, there would be a conflict. But that would be the same with Christian slaves as well. I think you just have to decide where you draw the line in literalism. Fudamentalists want to claim a belief in complete literalism, but this doesn't work, especially when grabbing rules and regulations from the Old Testament. One interesting thing about Paul is that, when I was looking at a "red letter" Bible one time (words of Jesus in red) I believe Paul quoted Jesus maybe once...and it was a very short quote. This brings up some interesting issues. First, until fairly modern times, the method of argument was almost exclusively based on quoting of authorities from the past. It seems odd that Paul would not ever quote THE authority on the faith. While scholars suggest that the Gospels were not written down until several decades after the Jesus preached, it is assumed that there had to be an oral tradition, or the teachings would have been lost. So why didn't Paul have access to that tradition, or draw on it for his own preaching? Secondly, it suggests that Paul has created something of his own. I think this is true. I think Paul created something called Christianity. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader whether this religion is completely based on the teachings of Jesus or not. And meekster, check out Thomas Merton. A social activist Christian ("liberal") who writes deeply and profoundly about mystical experience and communion with the ineffable. He was Catholic...but this should not have you toss him....Catholicism is a HUGE institution and has many profoundly faithful people, of course. Nevermind the hierarchy. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Quotes from Merton: “Faith is a light of such supreme brilliance that it dazzles the mind and darkens all its visions of other realities, but in the end when we become used to the new light, we gain a new view of all reality transfigured and elevated in the light itself.” “The whole idea of compassion is based on a keen awareness of the interdependence of all these living beings, which are all part of one another, and all involved in one another.” “At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusion, a point of pure truth, a point or spark which belongs entirely to God, which is never at our disposal, from which God disposes of our lives, which is inaccessible to the fantasies of our own mind or the brutalities of our own will.” “I suppose what makes me most glad is that we all recognize each other in this metaphysical space of silence and happening, and get some sense, for a moment, that we are full of paradise without knowing it” <hr></blockquote>

by **GDN01** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:01 pm

Slomo, I was careful to distinguish the teachings of Jesus from the New Testament, because I agree with you that Paul has..."issues"... shall we say? Paul contradicts the teachings of Jesus many times. Paul was the one trying to institutionalize the message of Jesus and Jesus was anti-institution. He was against rules that separated people from one another, that distinguished the saved from the unsaved - especially the purity laws. He continually said the house of God was open to all - to ALL. I would rather be a Jesussian than a Paullesian. DE, right - Fundamentalists claim they accept the Bible as infallible - all of it. But how many have given up EVERYTHING they own to do the work of God on earth - for that is what Jesus called his followers to do. Not just give up what you don't really need, give it ALL up. Any takers on that commandment?

by **lilorphant** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:16 pm

I think it is likely Paul was a fake, perhaps even a plant by the Romans. He was a Roman centerian, then all of a sudden has this vision which totalychanges his outlook, yet the substance, what Jesus "really meant" has to go through him. No I am suspicious of Paul. As Christian, I must go to the source, Jesus' word, and that word supercedes everything else, even the old Testament. Jesus gave us a new covenant, Love one another, and treat each other as we would like to be treated. Period. Those who need additional guidelines can go back to the ten commandments, Try a few: do not take the Lords name in vain, (invoking Jesus's name to sell everything from coffee mugs to bric-a-brac) Honor the Sabbath, (and make sure you bring your business cards for Sunday services). Honor your mother and father-(but take their social security checks away, so they can be dependent upon you until they die, and kiss their golden years goodbye because they will have to watch the kids while you go and take up a second job to pay for the addition to the house). Do not kill-(just fry people once in while to show the country you mean business when it comes to crime, pull the plug on lifegiving medical care for the poor, don't feed kids born to poverty-wage earning families, make sure those who are most likely to have an abortion are more likely to by keeping them in ignorance, solitude, and marginalism). Do not bear false witness, (use fake memos). Do not steal, or covet your neighbors (oil) goods. Do not covet your neighbors (mail order brides, sex slaves, adopted girls for kiddie porn from Russia) wife. Do not commit adultery-(just screw your fellow Americans out of the liberties they inheirited from their forefathers for your own personal gain).

by **Dreams End** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:25 pm

Nice. Secretly, I have felt the same about Paul but don't usually say so out loud! Think of it, a growing movement and along comes Paul who eliminates all references to the Social Gospel and tells slaves to obey their masters and for everyone to just chill out because the end times would be here "before this generation passes." Don't even bother getting married...just no time.

by **slomo** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:48 pm

Interesting. I never thought about Paul being a Roman plant (I try to think about Paul as little as possible) but it makes sense. In general, I think Romanized Christianity was a political tool to neutralize opposition. Institutionalizing a toothless belief system that instructs slaves to obey their masters and promises a posthumous reward effectively centralizes control over a complete population. Roman Catholicism (tm) was the best available mind control technology at the time. Only in the 20th Century have there been major improvements involving advertizing and mass-market consumerism, combined with that peculiarly mind-destroying brand of Christian fundamentalism. Actually, it's a brilliant strategy, worthy of admiration were it not for the immense amount of suffering it causes.

by **scollon** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:58 pm

It is Paul who brings Christianity into line with the great spiritual teachings of history. What made Paul unacceptable to the modern mind namely 1) The denial of free will 2) Predestination 3) The acceptance of Grace as the only power in the universe which can help anyone has now arrived here again in the shape of Advaita Vedanta brought back from India by American and European hippies in the '60s and '70s and is now a masssive movement. The reasoning for the master/slave comment is exactly the same as Jesus' "turn the other cheek" and "render unto Caeser" namely, it isn't worth getting upset or fighting about anything that happens in this world.

by **scollon** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:04 pm

Paul also paints a very clear picture of Christ as the blood sacrifice as the atonement of the fall of Adam. Paul reasons that the fall was so complete that the body is totally evil. This means human beings are completely damned and helpless without the grace of God. This is of course symbolic of the spiritual redemption possible within each person. Not to be taken literally. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 12/24/05 12:06 pm

A story of intuition

Re: One Short Admission For Now

Re: So what IS 'right" and "wrong", really?

Re: So what IS 'right" and "wrong", really?

Re: So what IS 'right" and "wrong", really?

Re: So what IS 'right" and "wrong", really?

Re: intuition

Re: So what IS 'right" and "wrong", really?

Leviticus and Romans

Re: Leviticus and Romans

Re: Leviticus and Romans

re: Paul

Re: re: Paul

Coopted Christianity

Re: re: Paul

blood sacrifice

Who is online