Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

948Re: [Jesus-is-our-victory] Re: Is it ok to have sex with men if you don't have anal?

Expand Messages
  • jay orknay
    Mar 7, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Thom.  Thanks so m;uch for your stance on this.  I agree with you.  I have gone to the goy site and what I have seen would draw me back into unwholesomeness which I am struggling against.  Some of the photos were explicit.   Goys are wrong but they are still loved by God and by Christians with Gods love
      blessings and Gods love and protection

      I can't dissuade you.  I know that.  We would only end up arguing back and forth, refuring points and refining interpretations.  I hope for you that your involvement with g0ys will not lead you further away fromk what God intends for men.  I have been to the site, read the justifications, the historical references and the philosophies.  I just don't agree.
      Others can certainly do their own research:  http://www.g0ys. org/initialize. htm
      There is a great deal of information on the pages and in the links and it is clear that while bonding may certainly be a great motivation, sexual activity between the g0y men is common.  I remain convinced that g0y is just a way to help men better accept their homosexual orientation, and, in that sense, replaces dependency on God.
      God Bless,
      http://thom- signsofastruggle .blogspot. com/

      --- On Sat, 3/6/10, John Spooner. South Oz. <skunk16@bigpond. com> wrote:

      From: John Spooner. South Oz. <skunk16@bigpond. com>
      Subject: [Jesus-is-our- victory] Re: Is it ok to have sex with men if you don't have anal?
      To: Jesus-is-our- victory@yahoogro ups.com
      Date: Saturday, March 6, 2010, 9:15 AM

      Response from Patrick to Mr. Hunter.

      ------------ --------

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Thom Hunter
      To: Jesus-is-our- victory@yahoogro ups.com
      Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 3:48 AM
      Subject: Re: [Jesus-is-our- victory] Re: Is it ok to have sex with men if you don't have anal?

      John and Patrick,

      I actually go by Thom, not Mr. Hunter. I'm not sure why you used that, unless it is an effort to intimidate, which should not be necessary. We simply disagree on some points.

      {{{In the circle I travel, it's used as a matter of respect, especially when addressing strangers. When strangers have an opposing viewpoint, I simply believed respect was required. To me, an air of casualness with strangers in a serious discussion indicates a flippant disregard for the other party...no offense meant to you, as I never stated I required I be called anything specific. I only refer to my treatment of others. But...as you wish.}}}

      Regarding David and Jonathan, I believe that David had a love for Jonathan that exceeds sexuality and stands as an example of how two heterosexual men can love each other.

      {{{This is precisely the g0y philosophy. The g0y philosophy is not rooted in, nor does it have sex as its starting point in relations between men - nor is it a required component as an ultimate end as well. That is the gAy lifestyle. G0ys is about Friendship First, Brotherhood, Camaraderie, Masculine Respect and Trust. A high number of men that identify with g0ys are seeking to regain a connection with their male peers, just as you describe above, without a sexual component. I won't deny that there are homosexual g0ys as well. The great thing is that we are all looking for the above factors - and the 'sex' for that latter group - is likewise, far, far down the list, if it is even a factor at all. Homosexual men can have the SAME kind of love for each other, without SEX being a component.}} }

      {{{Men that try to apply a 'sex first' perspective to the g0y philosophy, rather than a Brotherhood perspective simply indicates how deeply rooted their thinking is (still) in the gAy lifestyle. The brainwashing used by proponents of the gAy lifestyle has an effect on anyone, not just homosexuals who support the gAy lifestyle.}} }

      {{{Many men that agree with the g0y philosophy of Brotherhood etc., very surprisingly happen to be heterosexual, married; many have families...but they have one vital component missing in their life. A close buddy, a male friend, counterparts in their lives that were often quite plentiful in their single life - or in their youth. Society has bred an atmosphere where women are allowed to have their 'girlfriends' , but men are supposed to leave their bonds of camaraderie behind when speaking their marriage vows and live a life of solitude (and sadly, a life where their every move is dominated by the will of their spouse). G0ys says "No More".}}}

      {{{It - g0y philosophy - really has very little to do with sex (between men) except when we speak against the shameful state of the gAy lifestyle. It is that lifestyle (behavior) which has damaged the very premise of Brotherhood and Male Friendships. Anything with the remote sense of 'closeness' is labeled gAy, cloaked in 'drag' or smeared with the stink of anal sex. G0ys say "No More".}}}

      Prior to Kinsey's research on sexuality, no serious theologian or psychologist had even considered the possibility it was homosexual.

      {{{So there we have it...bad science and bad theology - until they had their eyes opened to a literal interpretation. Rather than it be a bad thing, perhaps some people actually started reading the original Hebrew texts as they were written. Those serious theologians and psychologists are still serious scholars. In any case, their perspectives are not suddenly diminished, simply because some fundamentalist laymen disagree.}}}

      The interpretation Patrick embraces is culture-driven. I suggest he go to this link and he will find a great deal of information that aligns with my personal beliefs: http://www.pleaseco nvinceme. com/index/ Were_David_ and_Jonathan_ Homosexual_ Lovers

      {{{No, not ONCE did I say they were homosexual lovers. It is you that keeps attaching sexual behavior to what I am speaking of. It is you that keeps attaching the sexual component (Behavior) to what g0ys promote (the Brotherhood traits outlined previously above). Nor is my interpretation culture-driven. I reject gAy culture, which is what I believe, is your implication. I rejected gAy culture over 6 years ago, after discovering g0ys. The reasons I believe that David & Jonathan had an emotionally close (whether sexual or not) relationship is not because of present day (gAy) culture which is a fairly recent phenomenon, attempting to justify gay marriage or other shams. My belief goes back to what we know historically of ancient soldiers and male culture of their period in time, not our society's recent gAy mindset (which I reject soundly 100%).}}}

      Regarding King James? He may well have been gay.

      {{{I'd say he was homosexual. GAY is a relatively recent term and (once again) really is applied to behavior and refers to the gAy lifestyle... he may well have been a homosexual whom exhibited gAy behavior is more accurate, I believe. Semantics you say? Yes, most definitely. And it speaks VOLUMES as to vast difference between orientation and behavior!}}}

      There is certainly plenty of evidence he had extramarital affairs and his attitude was clearly "This is who I am. Get over it." However, God can use whomever He wishes to do whatever He pleases. The Bible is filled with stories of men with siginificant issues who were nonetheless used by God to accomplish His purposes. There are many Christians today who struggle with homosexuality. The fact that this problem exists in their lives does not make them unusable by God. One of the biggest issues I myself have faced is that when people found out I had struggled with homosexuality, they wanted to discount the good things I had done as a Christian. We all sin. King James had a desire to see the Gospel shared with all people. It does not take a perfect man to do the will of God.

      {{{But you so casually reject the efforts of g0ys to turn men away from the gAy lifestyle and attempt to equate us with gAys. We are not a subset of gAy, we are not 'part of' the gAy community, nor do we wish to draw the gAy community into our paradigm...we do not identify with their mannerisms, their politics, their behaviors, their fetishes, etc.}}}

      I thought I made it clear what I believe about behavior versus orientation.

      {{{You may have tried, but time and again, I got the impression that you equate behavior and orientation as synonymous, and interchange the two at will, especially when implying that you can successfully change a person's orientation. }}}

      Many people may never know what caused their orientation towards their own gender.

      {{{Intelligent design; God's Will; genetics; a natural state just like blond or brown hair; blue or green eyes; dark or light skin; just as we don't know what causes a person's orientation to the opposite gender. But I don't see you professing to be able to change any of those traits.}}}

      It does, at this point, seem to be beyond our understanding. However, behavior is another matter. We clearly have a choice there.

      {{{Yes. G0ys say the same thing. So perhaps you should focus on addressing behavior, and stop telling the public you are changing men's orientations. You are not.}}}

      {{{If you still believe that, then I challenge you...take a heterosexual man and explain to him how he can change HIS orientation, and then have him change it back again. Do this a 1/2 dozen times and you might have a gold mine there. Even then, how can either prove his orientation has changed at all, except by exhibiting behavior...which might still be a lie? If homosexuals can 'change' their orientation, then likewise heterosexuals can as well. We all know that there isn't a heterosexual alive that will agree with this, but they seem to think that ~homosexuals~ can change on a whim (if they really 'desire' to). The can certainly live a lie, and change their behavior...but orientation cannot be changed, no more than a zebra can change its stripes.}}}

      My reading of the Bible makes it clear to me that homosexual behavior -- not the orientation -- is the sin.

      {{{So we agree, to a degree. Where we disagree is in our literal interpretation of God's law. It seems that in the end, we both are opposed to the 'gAy lifestyle' (behavior).} }}

      And the Bible makes it clear that God is able to help us resist temptation. G0ys believe that having oral sex with another man is acceptable to God and is merely an extension of love for someone of the same sex. I do not believe that. Show me why you do?

      {{{Your statement about what g0ys believe is false. There is no statement by g0ys to that fact, because God does not address oral sex in any of his statements to man.}}}

      {{{I never said I did either. But that is not relevant...what is relevant is that we interpret the original Hebrew texts literally, as God is a God of Laws...and nothing beyond what he writes should be inferred. "Thou shalt not LIE with a man AS with a woman"...refers to penetrative sex, intending to mimic and make a mockery of procreative sex. There is no reference to oral sex; there are no references to lesbians; there are no references to many things. Likewise there are references to many things that our present society casually ignores. Many things related to diet, health, and so on...where is your indignation for the 'sinful' nature of man on these other issues?}}}

      I do believe the g0y movement is simply a way to offer an excuse . . . a man-made grace.

      {{{Man-made grace is a common trait with mortals. You give that to your followers as well; every time we pick up a recent copy of the Bible, it is man made...much of God's original intent is diluted and awash in man's interpretation and translation, which we believe is far and away from God's intent and original words.}}}

      {{{You have diluted the your interpretation intent of the g0y philosophy to simply be a decree giving blanket approval to meaningless sex, when that is 180 degrees from our core foundational beliefs. I doubt you truly really explored and studied it...and I suspect you based your views of g0ys on a few semi-graphic images of unclad men embracing one another and applied the 'gAy' label to that. As if heterosexual men could not express their emotional attachment for one another in that (sensual, but non-sexual) way. It is you that placed their penises in each others anuses and mouths. I doubt any of the ~~words~~ of our philosophy (Friendship, Brotherhood, Camaraderie, Non-Sexual Foundational Basis for Male Relationships) have even sunk in, even partially.}} }

      I think, Patrick, that you are being mislead.

      {{{No, but let's state for argument's sake that it is I that am misinterpreting g0y philosophy (I'm not), the honorable, non-sexual based traits that I promote are what I believe...personall y, so your characterization of me is misplaced.

      I also believe that homosexual is an orientation, and that 'gAy' is a lifestyle, awash in shameful, degrading, decadent and dangerous BEHAVIOR.

      I also believe that not all homosexuals are GAY (see previous definitions) .

      I also believe that there are homosexuals that do not put SEX as their primary concern, just as the same applies to heterosexuals, and that emotional bonds do not necessarily incorporate sexual expression as their primary component. Indeed, that component may never manifest itself.}}}

      {{{Patrick}} }

    • Show all 22 messages in this topic